John Master

Well. That story just sort of petered out in the end. But closure on most character beats--even the class project.. So they got right that crucial objective of any finale.

Ok, then. Next!

Is this different from "It wasn't great, but I didnt hate it" as a summary?

Take that PR speech by Pie. Move it to Ep 2. Imagine if that YS retroactive cover story (we asked our stable of writers to collaborate on gender-bending issues) had been the premise of the entire series. They could have retained all the weird scenes that didnt connect to "real world", but the real world might have been both coherent and ffered social commentary.

I did not forget that point. No reasonable person could infer my opinion about actors from that post because I never intended to compare the actors. Identifying superior actors was not relevant to breaking down how each series is structured. Just as the constraints imposed on the makers of Addicted (Thailand) by their misguided choice to hire an underage actor does not address the fact the OP believes Kidnap's on-screen couple provides a couple with better chemistry.

Comparing actors would be relevant in a discussion of elements that might make a viewer prefer one series to another. So this latest comment repeats the logical fallacy from the first one. In both statements, you attempt to diminish another point of view with an example the first party was not considering. Also, in both cases, the substantive content you highlight possesses merit. (That is to say both "underage actor limits onscreen options" and "War Yin are better actors" represents a defensible position.) Just not to refute the original point.

Your comment breaks the fourth wall to highlight a real world issue about actors. The original post reacts to the story put on screen by each series. You're not wrong. But your observation does not directly refute the original point, which only references visible plot points.

Comparing Kidnap and Jack & Joker: different approaches to the central romance

Both Kidnap and Jack & Joker blend a BL romance with a black market, criminal underworld crime caper. However, the creative team structures the romantic story quite differently in each series. In one, the romance is proactive; in the other, reactive. I think the result (about halfway thru each) is that Kidnap has a lighter, sweeter romance (more feels) and J&J has a more complex, action-driven story (more thrills). Neither approach is superior to the other. Either approach can succeed; either can fail. That bit depends on how well writers / director / actors execute the strategy chosen. And, of course, a viewer may prefer one style of story to the other. But that preference reflects their individual taste, not the superiority of one approach over the other.

Proactive: Q and Min have full agency in the growth of their romance. That dynamic of falling in love, of getting into one another, develops almost independently of what unfolds in the crime caper. In fact, the crime story largely advances when Min and Q are separated. The moments shared at home matter most. That's not to say Q and Min are immune from the other subplot. Those events do buffet them into new directions (potentially with the same force Hurricane Milton buffeted the roof of poor Tropicana Field the other night). But the relationship of Q and Min is not primarily driven by those events but by their own decisions. As a blended romance-crime story, the separation is not total, but it is notable.

Reactive: Meanwhile, Jack and Joker have less control over their interpersonal moments. Events originating in the crime story force each to take action. Those events thrust them together repeatedly, so that their personal relationship (unlike Min's and Q's) advances with each new permutation in the crime story. The moments spent together in furtherance of some skullduggery matter most. Their nascent personal bond develops out of their "professional" activities. Home, for them , does not exist yet. (Exception: The episode where Joker spends time with Jack's grandmother is closer to the Kidnap approach.) Those forced interactions are deepening the pull between them whereas Min and Q are (mostly) choosing to spend their time together voluntarily. If Kidnap is a romance-crime blend, Jack & Joker is a crime-romance blend.

For most of us, the imagined nuance between crime-romance versus romance-crime will not matter in the end. What we really desire (in whatever order) is for each series to deliver a compelling romance without degenerating into either an easy or hokey ending to the crime plot, or stale clichés, tropes, and formulas in romance or crime stories. The boundary in each series between proactive versus reactive development is also fluid, so that in any given episode, one approach may outweigh the other. So far, both have been better than average. (Knocks wood superstitiously.) Here's hoping the second half of both series fulfills the promise of the first half.

If an episode hops onto a treadmill, will any forward progress ensue? Or does the walking motion disguise the fact the story is stagnant? In any event, Kidnap has two stories: the romance. The crime story. In ep 6, one story walked on the treadmill. The other, moved ahead into a new space.

Well said. And perhaps the phrase "so bad, it's good" applies here as well.

This series comes across like a BL sketch show. No actual story. Just a bunch of scenes designed to appeal to fans of the genre. And like any sketch show, the formula yields mixed results. Some scenes land. Some miss. Some leave viewers scratching their head and asking "What was that supposed to be?" I keep tuning in though. They must be doing something right.

"...all that confetti has been swept into a nice little pile."

At first blush, I think you meant this as a kind of compliment. Suggesting the writers managed to pull things together that had seemed "scattered." After all, confetti in the air signifies fun and celebration and exuberance. Once on the ground, however, the moment of joy has passed, and those colorful bits of shredded paper are really just incipient trash waiting to be....um....swept into a nice little pile. For disposal. So, wait--this series is a pile of garbage?

Thus, on second blush, that line reads as a most backhanded compliment. Which, to be fair, is kind of in keeping with the tone of the whole comment. It's basically saying, "this series is an indefensible piece of slop, but, golly, I am having a great time anyway--no apologies for that!"

Now that I think about, even Netflix "original" k-dramas do not get released all at once. Unlike most other Netflix originals. (Watch all of Heartstoppers S3 in one sitting if you wish!) That schedule mimics the broadcast schedule in Korea. But most K-BLs stream. No broadcast. So, why not all at once?

Is there a business case (on YouTube) for dribbling out a solitary 10 min episode once per week for seven weeks versus releasing all seven episodes in one day (Netflix style, all at once)?

Point taken. Well played.

In my first reading, I thought "they" referred to writers setting the scene rather than the characters acting it out,

I have no doubt Ohm enjoyed those Euro cakes. Looking at his physique, it is clear the only time he permits himself a junk food cheat is when he is actually on camera. Gotta enjoy those empty calories when the opportunity knocks.

Me? I bought the big red Christmas tin of Costco Euro Cookies in SEPTEMBER. The first one, i mean. More, sure to follow.

Respect to a director who gets Ohm shirtless and yet skips the opportunity for the camera to linger on that stunning torso. Indicates character and story more important than cheesecake shots just for the sake of cheesecake.

Or is Ohm better described as beefcake?

Maintaining facade of a real kidnapping is kind of irrelevant since Dad knows where son is and thinks he is safer with Min than at home.

The Distraction: the eye sees three posts. The brain assumes multiple commenters. Reading happens. The brain must reconcile a faulty expectation against actual reality. The process of revision diverts attention from processing the substance of those posts, which was the original point of reading them. The comment bespeaks the momentary (and trifling) confusion created in my own brain.

What you perceive as some kind of attack or criticism is nothing more than a description of how I encountered your comments. Personally, I would have used the edit button to add belated thoughts. You adopted a different strategy. The phrase "how you had that whole conversation with yourself" owes more to that difference in style (edit original versus tack on) than to any sense one way is better than the other. Frankly, I found the trio of comments rather charming. Which is both why I replied and liked them. So far, I might add, the only reader to have clicked the heart for your words today.

Edit: someone else came along subsequently. Hearts for both of us!

I think I agree with every questionable, bemusing thing you called out. If I sound uncertain, it's because I am thoroughly distracted by how you had that whole conversation with yourself.

That flourish stood out to me. Out of nowhere, it was.

Kuhn Shy Serial Slayer: the Series.

Yeah. I'd watch that one.