Ok let's get one thing straight here there is a fine line between 'based off a true story' and historical fiction.…
That's entirely my point though. This historical fiction, where does the fiction stop and the non-fiction begin? With your logic, a writer can just plug plot holes with the moniker historical fiction. Its like writers can push a certain ideology in their image into viewers. And since we don't know what is accurate and what is not, historical fictions can serve as propoganda pieces? If you are basing it on 1987 should we assume that women are being oppressed at this moment in SK history, or do we say no, in this world they are not? Do you see what I mean?
That's my point. For me, I do extra research on the actual history, then I do further research. But most viewers? Probably not. If Snowdrop keep using accurate events like the democratic elections or 1988 Olympics, people will just get their history lesson from Snowdrop. But if they were to say install a hyper fictionalized plot device like time travel, people can more easily ignore it.
Plot holes are meant to be folled by viewer creativity?
With that logic all kdrama are super smartly written and have zero plot holes. And If I find plot holes I am just not creative enough? That can't be right.
I am reminded of this older Korean movie. It's an interesting watch if you can still find it.
It's called Going by the Book.
It's basically a man who was doing as he is told, which in this case is robbing a bank. He is later being made into a fall guy and abandoned by his higher ups. The cops are portrayed as incompetent and they are unable to capture him.
Although the hostages despises the man, they eventually have a change of heart. The hostages eventually pity the man and help him escape.
I wonder if Snowdrop will follow this plot of having the hostages help soo ho and his team.
I didn't know that Kim Hye Yoon is younger Jisoo until I read her interview calling Jisoo an Unnie. She said that…
It's really an interesting dynamic Koreans have for honorifics in South Korea. Never thought 2 years difference or even 1 year difference would get such honorable deference.
Jung hae in makes more sense as he is almost 10 years older.
Yes, many dramas have many plot holes, but they are still good. It is the reason why people wish some dramas have…
Actually, a lot of great movies are built on simply being NK and SK. Up until now, NK defectors are treated as second class citizen, and are given a hard time to assimilate by SK's. It's tragic to imagine that Korea was divided not even 100 years ago. And yet there is a lifetime of mistrust between the two sides. So yes, I believe just being from two different Koreas would have been enough of a conflict. The whole ANSP angle feels quite weak if you don't do enough research on the topic.
I understand that the plot, characters and events are fictional. But should we then consider the political, and legal backdrop of those things fictional as well? Should we consider the events that are off the screen fictional as well? Like, where are the lines drawn? In the show the 1988 Olympics are still happening. So is the controversy surrounding that canon? Or do we ignore it? That's what I am pointing out. When you pick and choose what you want to be fiction, viewers become confused on what is real. FYI the 1988 Olympics are non-fiction and Seoul actually did hold the 1988 Olympics.
I can see why though the writer/director wanted to create the image of the ANSP for the purpose of creating not just one wrong side, but rather two wrong side. But if they wanted to fictionalized more of the history, they should not make certain things accurate, as it gets confusing in what point should we stop thinking it's fiction and consider the message the writer/director is making?
Interestingly enough 1987 has more significance in Korean history than simply being the December Elections, Which is actually real and not fiction. It is also the year that radical feminism started to sprout. Especially with so much criticism levied against South Korea's double standard, I feel an all women dorm would have been the perfect backdrop to showcase this important fact. but instead, it's scene after scene of toxic masculinity, and female hysteria.
Someone in the comment section, brought up a good point. Does the SOLE female officer have to be hysterical and emotional?
First off, with regards to Kingsman. It's based on an comic book/graphic novel series. And it's overly fictionalized. Unless you believe that the tailor you go to is actually a secret agent whose umbrella turns into a super spy gun.
The thing is you can write fiction on actual events, as long as you over fictionalized it. And I don't think anyone bats an eye really. If your fiction includes crazy things like, WW1 was caused by an alien, or that Hitler was really an alien (like in Men in Black), those are seen as comedy or even satire. But when your fiction is not only plausible, but assumed? Then it gets too close to the truth, and the lines between truth and fictions become blurred.
Second off, western media has always really not cared about historical inaccuracies. Take for example, America The Motion Picture, it literally butchered the history of the founding fathers, but yet no one cared. Same thing goes for Inglorious Bastards by Quentin Tarantino.
There is a certain style, color, and plot that makes it clear the work is pure fiction.
Thanks for letting me know about Kings Man. The first two films were fun to watch, didn't know they made a third one. I was a bit surprised they were able to make something as mundane as tailors, interesting :)
If Snowdrop is meant to be PURE fiction, why do they use names of actual organizations and detail accounts of those organization that actually happened in real life?
Doesn't that make the plot confusing as to what is real and what is not?
Couldn't the argument be made the actions of the ANSP being mentioned like the torture of innocents or framing are also fiction and didn't happen for real?
I recently had a conversation with someone regarding a plot point, and it made me reflect on how certain plot holes, could be trivialized into two columns. Either it's satire, so it's not a plot hole, or it's fiction, and thus also not a plot hole.
But wouldn't that mean that most Kdrama have no plot holes then?
News 
I manifest both their happy endings.
The key mission of the show is to show how incompetent the ANSP is. And I think their achieved that.
Also a secondary mission is to see how much they can torpedo the romance and still have a romance in the end, that's believable.
Even if he/she just made that observation, people may jump anyway.
People just be like that.
Ppl are highly sensitive probably because it's a death?
Don't worry too much about it 😉
That's my point. For me, I do extra research on the actual history, then I do further research. But most viewers? Probably not. If Snowdrop keep using accurate events like the democratic elections or 1988 Olympics, people will just get their history lesson from Snowdrop. But if they were to say install a hyper fictionalized plot device like time travel, people can more easily ignore it.
Plot holes are meant to be folled by viewer creativity?
With that logic all kdrama are super smartly written and have zero plot holes. And If I find plot holes I am just not creative enough? That can't be right.
But it is interesting to see passion from both sides. Both are good Kpop groups and I enjoy their songs.
Yes I enjoy learning about other culture.
I just recently find out BTS and blackpink have a fandom war.
Interesting stuff to read.
It's called Going by the Book.
It's basically a man who was doing as he is told, which in this case is robbing a bank. He is later being made into a fall guy and abandoned by his higher ups. The cops are portrayed as incompetent and they are unable to capture him.
Although the hostages despises the man, they eventually have a change of heart. The hostages eventually pity the man and help him escape.
I wonder if Snowdrop will follow this plot of having the hostages help soo ho and his team.
By EP. 12, we will see scenes where the hostages will help soo ho and crew escape.
Jung hae in makes more sense as he is almost 10 years older.
I am just saying, symbolically, Soo Ho and Young Ro both pointed the guns at each other as an act of self-preservation.
So symbolically, people saying Soo Ho should not have pointed the gun at her, should agree that Young Ro shouldn't have as well.
Soo Ho only pointed the gun at her to save himself, just like she did to him.
But now, symbolically, they are on even ground. The exact reasoning they both had are different, but the intent is the same.
I'm glad they finally fed them after two days last episode. I kept wondering about that.
I understand that the plot, characters and events are fictional. But should we then consider the political, and legal backdrop of those things fictional as well? Should we consider the events that are off the screen fictional as well? Like, where are the lines drawn? In the show the 1988 Olympics are still happening. So is the controversy surrounding that canon? Or do we ignore it? That's what I am pointing out. When you pick and choose what you want to be fiction, viewers become confused on what is real. FYI the 1988 Olympics are non-fiction and Seoul actually did hold the 1988 Olympics.
I can see why though the writer/director wanted to create the image of the ANSP for the purpose of creating not just one wrong side, but rather two wrong side. But if they wanted to fictionalized more of the history, they should not make certain things accurate, as it gets confusing in what point should we stop thinking it's fiction and consider the message the writer/director is making?
Interestingly enough 1987 has more significance in Korean history than simply being the December Elections, Which is actually real and not fiction. It is also the year that radical feminism started to sprout. Especially with so much criticism levied against South Korea's double standard, I feel an all women dorm would have been the perfect backdrop to showcase this important fact. but instead, it's scene after scene of toxic masculinity, and female hysteria.
Someone in the comment section, brought up a good point. Does the SOLE female officer have to be hysterical and emotional?
First off, with regards to Kingsman. It's based on an comic book/graphic novel series. And it's overly fictionalized. Unless you believe that the tailor you go to is actually a secret agent whose umbrella turns into a super spy gun.
The thing is you can write fiction on actual events, as long as you over fictionalized it. And I don't think anyone bats an eye really. If your fiction includes crazy things like, WW1 was caused by an alien, or that Hitler was really an alien (like in Men in Black), those are seen as comedy or even satire. But when your fiction is not only plausible, but assumed? Then it gets too close to the truth, and the lines between truth and fictions become blurred.
Second off, western media has always really not cared about historical inaccuracies. Take for example, America The Motion Picture, it literally butchered the history of the founding fathers, but yet no one cared. Same thing goes for Inglorious Bastards by Quentin Tarantino.
There is a certain style, color, and plot that makes it clear the work is pure fiction.
Thanks for letting me know about Kings Man. The first two films were fun to watch, didn't know they made a third one. I was a bit surprised they were able to make something as mundane as tailors, interesting :)
Doesn't that make the plot confusing as to what is real and what is not?
Couldn't the argument be made the actions of the ANSP being mentioned like the torture of innocents or framing are also fiction and didn't happen for real?
I recently had a conversation with someone regarding a plot point, and it made me reflect on how certain plot holes, could be trivialized into two columns. Either it's satire, so it's not a plot hole, or it's fiction, and thus also not a plot hole.
But wouldn't that mean that most Kdrama have no plot holes then?