Proxy

While I do agree that KES is overrated compared to other writers, I would just caution you in your analysis of the Korean writers since you may be attempting to inadvertently remove a Korean aspect of filmmaking.

Although I cannot speak about J-dramas/movies within recent years (since I have diverted my attention towards K-dramas/movies since 2008), I think what distinguished Korean films from Western and Japanese films was how the Korean filmmakers very frequently focused on human relations in their films. I figure, Korean filmmakers are a master of this because the Koreans have a culture of "nunchi." In other words, not only do their screenplays tend to be more character-driven, as you have noted for LWJ, but they really hone their focus on the relations of the different characters and allow the viewers to organically acquire information about them as if one would in a regular dialogue or situation in your daily-to-day life -- sometimes this information is earned tacitly, sometimes it is earned subtly. They do not just tell you the information via the plot or dialogue and have the actors respond to it; they show you an aspect (usually a concept like "friendship," "vengeance" or "love") and often have the viewers form their own knowledge about it through the various interactions and interpolations. For example, compared to the original Japanese drama, Mother, against the Korean remake, there is a stark difference in their presentations despite the films using the same plot. I would argue the Korean remake was better executed because of how the filmmakers showcased the interrelation of the child, and her mom, the teacher, and the teacher's mother, which thereby explored the different roles/relations in the concept of "motherhood," by its more slow, yet emotional process; rather than, having the plot/characters simply tell you what is happening, and having the the actors respond to the stimuli through their acting, and having the viewers form their knowledge about the characters or a scenario by a logical process of what they directly see or hear (if there is an omniscient narrator) like the original.

This sort of phenomenological approach to film will have its pros and cons. While it can allow for users to organically acquire information, it can also lead to misinterpretations and misunderstandings if the viewers do not catch the subtleties (like in real-life). It is a superior technique (imo) for first time viewings because, if done properly, it powerfully allows viewers to immerse themselves within the film, as it mimics reality. It can also be more personal as the screenplay makes it easier for the viewers to engage in subtextual analysis. But, it can be inferior in the rewatchability factor, and may seem slow, if the overall plot is not compelling -- and typically, I would say, rom-coms lack in the plot department, no offense. This is because a large part of the immersive experience is analyzing and learning new information about something, but if you have already formed some knowledge about the experience, it may seem banal unless you gain something additionally new or there is something worthy to be a spectacle (i.e. a striking plotline). Additionally, the screenplays can become redundant, whose protagonists and villains can be very obvious by having certain values or qualities in an almost melodramatic fashion, so that viewers can intuitively discern the proper action (or at least a proper justifications for the action if it is improper) from the improper.

As a result, I would caution you to hold your judgment of appraising a film or series by your rewatching of it without considering your first time experience. Especially, given it is what I think is a one of the main features that distinguishes a Korean screenplay's success from the run-of-the-mill Western, or even Japanese screenplays (which I would argue really only differs from its Western counterpart in its aesthetics and customs), and why I think there is and has been a wide attraction to the typical Korean screenplay despite the behemoth of Hollywood existing -- because the screenplay offers something INTRINSICALLY novel as well.

With that said, I still do agree that KES seems to overdo it and her shows also seem to be very formulaic. Hence, why I still think she is overrated.

First, I think dramas with sports as its subplot, often found in slice-of-life dramas (e.g., Move to Heaven and Prison Playbook) are exceptionally great. However, I think pure Sports dramas are not prospective because it is often a limited concept compared to other genres.
Action genres and sports drama overlap in the factors that engage the viewers. I.e., there is spirt of exhilaration from overcoming, a competitive drive between the participants, and acknowledgement in the seriousness about the practice found in both action and sports. However, because action genres usually raise the stakes by having the participants risk their lives or risk getting badly injured, they accentuate the experience more than sports dramas can. Equivalently, portrayal of sports over a drawn medium (e.g. anime and manga) seem to be effective precisely because the artists can exaggerate certain features beyond realism in their drawings to give the illusion of the sport being more exhilarating, action packed, or serious than it really is.
*If you are a fan of live-action remakes of animes/manga in J-dramas/movies, you can ignore what comes following here.* Thus, in order for directors to at least even the playing field in sports dramas against conventional action series, they must incorporate SFX similar to the drawn medium. However, often times, these dramas do not have the proper resources to use good SFX and it just ends up looking shoddy, unrealistic, and fails what it intended to do, which was to trick the viewers of vicariously getting into the same mindset of the participant -- not to just be a spectator. Yet, that is what the drama becomes when it is not backed by a large production company like Netflix. Of course, you can do without the SFX, and I have seen this working in movies, which have a smaller limited timeframe than drama series. But, I do not know how long a series can survive of dragging out the same concept of engaging in the same sport over and over. It would be like convincing people who never watched baseball to, all of a sudden, enjoy watching baseball; it is difficult, if not, almost impossible to do.
Then, let us suppose we leap over the SFX price wall where a hypothetical Netflix backing provides us with enough budget. But, at that point, if you were a director, why would you choose to remake Haikyuu (a volleyball anime) and forfeit the phenomenal world building opportunities to create shows like Kingdom, Mr. Sunshine, or Alice in Borderland using the same budget? It just seems like the project is not worth doing because every time you theoretically compare a great, pure sports drama side by side to another genre, the sports drama just looks lukewarm and dull. Not that it is impossible in the distant future, but I can see why many Hollywood/Hallyu drama directors avert away from the idea.

As much of an exciting news this is, I just want to warn you not to get your hopes up. Hollywood has a long and consistent history of disappointing fans when it comes to showcasing Asian (especially foreign) male actors with a small handful of outliers here and there.

In order to point out "stylistic differences," I do not think you need to go into much spoilers (and if you plan to, you can use spoiler tags). I will use general examples, to argue otherwise: Traditionally, K-dramas are often character-driven and tailored towards showcasing the interrelationship of the characters, where the plot and details of story act as the backdrop. Western dramas, on the other hand, typically have an inverse approach -- where the progression of the plot and its details are the main focal points while the different interrelationships and concerns of the characters function as the backdrop of the story with a handful of exceptions. Consider, for example, the American movie, Twilight. Viewers would assume the romantic love interests would be the main spectacle, but the romance only acted as a part of the story and becomes a backdrop of the film by its end. In contrast, consider a Korean thriller movie, like I Saw the Devil. Viewers would assume the film would be more plot-driven, but it becomes a reflective movie that focuses more on the relationships between the characters and the different character dynamics until the very end.
With CLOY and Vincenzo, the emphasis of the plot and its details are really only in the introductory episodes (common among world-building K-dramas), yet we see these plot-focused details dissolving over the next few episodes until the focus of the show becomes wholly concentrated on the relationships of the characters. The details of the plot in the later episodes, then, primarily act to challenge or displace the crafted bonds. Furthermore, the depiction of these relationships remain faithful to Korean ideals and its cultural beliefs. As a result, CLOY and Vincenzo both carry on being traditionally Korean dramas.
I will stand by my original opinion that only presenting a Korean-Italian character preferring wine over soju is not really convincing of how there is a "blurring of differences between Korean dramas and US-style dramas."

My criticism for your post was that although it is an opinion piece, you have presented it as if it were a "presentation of immutable fact[s]." That is, you use the sort of language used by journalists or other descriptive-approach writers, e.g., consider this passage written by you, "The only constant in this universe is change. Some changes can be good, some changes can be bad. Improved (though still bad) working conditions in modern Korean dramas are definitely good. The blurring of differences between Korean dramas and US-style dramas may not be so good, depending on one's personal point of view." I do not have a problem that you prefer J-dramas or even if you would have written that you hated K-dramas. My problem is that your opinions become vague via this style of writing and I am having trouble identifying what your thoughts are because you never go in depth about them.
I wrote J-dramas having a wider genre is not convincing because there can be at least two scenarios: 1) (uncommon) you may simply prefer a genre that is available within J-dramas that is not so widely available within K-dramas (e.g. Death Games). Your infatuation with the genre, itself, then determines your preference over one country's film production over another. Readers can also understand that if you are an avid fan of Death Games (or some nuanced genre), you may prefer J-dramas. 2) (common) Suppose country X has a wider genre, but the quality of the film sucks. And, suppose country Y limits itself to 3 specific genres, yet the quality of the films is immaculate. Genre, here, alone will not determine your preference. Instead, you will need to go further into detail about difference in the qualities (what I was hoping you would do) and why you prefer the style of one country over the other.
With the last paragraph of my previous comment, I was trying to encourage you to share your own thoughts by answering those questions. For me, as an international viewer, I did not find the localized appeal in J-dramas appealing. So, why do YOU, as another fellow international viewer, find it appealing or do you find something else about J-Dramas appealing instead? Again, you did not go much detail about the quality of J-dramas or even K-dramas, so if the complaint is that you did not have too much writing space, many of the historical details in your post could have been omitted for your own thoughts.

For the most part, I enjoyed your overview, but I had two criticism: 1) Your assertion that K-dramas are becoming more "international" and 2) your lack of J-drama content.
Regarding 1): Like what does this mean? The only direct example I can find from you is a really weak one that Vincenzo, who is depicted as an ethnic Korean mafioso, born and raised in in Italy, drinks wine instead of soju. You also make very weak commentaries on this international point despite it being one of your main topics. In other words, you hide behind the mouthpiece of others, e.g. "Similar attitudes were also expressed about Vincenzo, that it was a Korean drama that felt more like a Western drama," making it even more difficult to clearly grasp what you are trying to argue for, or if you are making an argument at all. I think such passive language is appropriate for journalism or if you are trying to study a general consensus, but not if you are writing an opinion piece. You should not be afraid to share your own opinion or at least contribute to the point you want to get across.
What I am getting from you is that Korean dramas are becoming internationally receptive/sensitive, but more tacitly implied that they are starting to mimic Western shows, especially when you begin your post by stating that you prefer J-dramas, noting there were some changes b/w Innocent Man and Vincenzo, and passively opining at the end that turning Korean dramas into Western dramas "may not be so good."
Therefore, if your claim is the former -- that K-dramas are becoming internationally receptive -- I agree with you, but I would argue it has been like this since the early 2000s, and it is not new. The only difference is that, now, there are more international fans becoming exposed to these dramas due to Korea's more recent influences. If you are claiming dramas, like Crash Landing on You and Vincenzo, are in the latter category -- that they are mimicking Western dramas -- then I would formally disagree and argue you are mistaking the former for the latter. I think CLOY and Vincenzo were internationally receptive in the sense that both the main characters were ignorant of Korean culture. In CLOY, both the protagonists did not have an understanding of the 'other' Korea; while in Vincenzo, the protagonist did not have an understanding of S. Korea. These attributes made it easy for the shows to have "explanatory powers" of Korea for international fans to follow along. However, I did not see any stylistic differences in CLOY and Vincenzo compared to older K-Dramas, where people can convincingly argue these dramas have lost their Korean spirit and have been perverted by the darn, tantalizing Western dramas! The only difference I do see between the newer and older K-dramas is better production quality. You point out that for Vincenzo, "the style and delivery of the content are very different" without delineating what those differences are. Although I am skeptical, I am open to having my mind change if you could point out those stylistic differences.

Regarding 2): I also wish you would have included more on the positives of J-dramas or why you prefer J-dramas over K-dramas. I have only watched a few J-dramas several years ago, but I was really turned off by the exaggerated, theatrical acting styles or the inside humor (that were not also self-evident like making fun of the different dialects in different prefectures). Is this what you mean by Japan remains insular and local? Is it just the humor? Have some aspects changed? If not, what attracted you to this "local appeal?"
I just thought for a post where you started off strong and passionately -- with a hilarious photo of K-dramas trailing behind J-dramas and you stating you preferred J-dramas after a pretty significant sample size of K-drama viewings -- you have ended meekly, writing more about K-dramas, and not any convincing reasons why you prefer J-dramas (e.g. you have stated J-dramas had a wider genre and J-dramas were rated higher in your MAL score despite the significant disparities in sample size possibly contributing).