lop

I understand that. I wasn't debating whether the criticisms against Sheeran are valid or invalid. I brought it up to show the hypocrisy and double standards foreigners have for Koreans, especially when they come from a place of moral superiority.

Her great grandfather sold himself to Japan to become a doctor, as a doctor saved the Korean prime minister who worked for Japan, someone Korean resistance fighters tried to assassinate, and as a result became one of the first few owners of Western hospitals in Korea. Afterwards, he preached to Koreans and Japanese people how amazing Japan is. His children (Ha Young's grandparents and granduncles) became hospital owners, land tycoons, and businessmen. You are incredibly dumb if you think I am saying "directly profited off" is the same as indirectly profiting off what your grandfather randomly did for the average person. Please actually learn some Korean history if you want to make criticisms. It's like if I made criticisms or commentaries about the Israel-Palestine War without knowing any of its history....

I did not say Ha Young or Ed Sheeran was related to Israel. The connection is the fact that it is normal for people to try to cancel celebrities for what they symbolically represent through their issues. The irony here is the fact that Ha Young's issue is personally and deeply related to Korean history, yet you people claim Koreans are in the wrong. But here you are defending the cancellation of Sheeran when he isn't even personally related to Israel or Palestine. It's so obnoxious and illogical.

You edited your comment. Regardless, look to see the comment right above yours.

That's not really a double standard if you understand the geopolitics. War in Palestine is very contentious. Even America is allying with Israel. War in Ukraine is NOT contentious in the West. Ukraine acts as a buffer between Europe and Russia. Unless you'd think a Brit or European would prefer Russia over its own country, why would they endorse Russia? So, if by "Sheeran not talking about politics" you mean not talking about any political subject matter, then you're right but that would also entail Sheeran doesn't speak up about many uncontested political comments like "women should be able to vote and not be harassed," which is probably not what he meant. What he probably meant is he doesn't talk about politics that are highly debatable within the space he is performing.

Ha Young's family directly profited off her "family issue that happened almost a century ago." Whereas the war in Palestine isn't even related to Sheeran whether it's happening right now or not. It's not like you are getting upset if celebrities do not wish to speak about the war in Sudan (where casualties are 5x worse than Palestine). So spare me the crocodile tears and faux outrage.

People don't "hate" her for the faults of her ancestor. Most didn't even know who she was. She was a decent actress trying to make herself stand out. In doing so, people found out about her wealthy family, and then later on that her roots come from traitors (which allowed the family to build their wealth). Now, she became a symbol for the descendants of traitors who benefited in society, because in Korea, it had a unique history where traitors were left more advantaged than the resistance fighters due to a lack of punishment for the traitors.

Here is the Western equivalent. Just the other day, people tried to cancel Ed Sheeran because he refused to speak up about Palestine. It would be a ridiculous argument to accuse those people of claiming Ed Sheeran is responsible for Israel's involvement. It's so ridiculous that people don't even have to talk about this, yet for some reason, when it comes to Korean matters, we must not only entertain these sorts of arguments, but these are ones that spread! However, Sheeran did become a symbol for the status quo that sided with wealthy Jewish people/Jewish sympathizers over their own values. You don't have to accept this narrative, but this argument is surely more complex and worth considering than Sheeran is at fault for what Israel is doing.

I think Hollywood has the same problem, except Hollywood has a century of brand recognition to do whatever and not get penalized. Hallyu doesn't.

It works for me. Try googling the headline "agency packaging raises concerns..." and it should pop up.

Also, I did some further digging and apparently this is a real issue in Korea.

The reason we keep getting the same faces despite an asterisk on their talent is due to "agent packaging."
Korean industry is shooting itself in the foot right now.

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/entertainment/shows-dramas/20260413/agency-packaging-raises-concerns-over-fair-competition-in-k-drama-industry

He's definitely one of the actors that the industry wants to constantly push for some reason.

I don't like his acting because he gets stiff sometimes or has a problem of indicating. He's not the worst actor, but he's not very good either imo. Sometimes it's bad to the point it kills the immersion.

Apparently he cheated on his girlfriend at the time/wife with a Japanese actress. Apparently, this same actress was the mistress of another Japanese actor who was married. Whole story is a shitshow.

Not a fan of ABH's acting. Will pass.

Hunger Games is not Battle Royale. You weebs need to settle down. Before Battle Royale, we had the The Running Man, which inspired Kaiji and Battle Royale.

Hunger Games is gladiator style death games, in other words, Roman/Greek gladiator games were the inspiration, not fucking Battle Royale. In fact Hunger Games has a bunch of Greek and Roman allusions. So, the author derived a bunch of Anicent Greek/Roman allusions, but had to steal the basic gladiator concept from some campy Japanese movie? Come on.

Yeah, that's what I mean. It really depends on the producers to fix their previous mistakes.

It really depends on whether the PD changes the game state.

Season 1 was more balanced than Season 2, but even then, Season 1 still had issues with balancing (elimination wasn't based off skills).

If Season 3 suffers from the same game balancing problems as the previous seasons, then even Jang Dong Min will get eliminated.

That is not how it went.

First, Orbit played the game phenomenally. In a social political game, if you are trying to take advantage of other players and increase your chances of winning, you don't play like Hyungyu of Season 2 or even Dong Jae and Joon Bin of Season 1, where other players can just easily tell what you're scheming. You would actually play like Orbit (although he messed up by sparing Yeon Woo instead of his original alliance).

Second, Orbit didn't isolate Dong Jae. Dong Jae did that to himself. Dong Jae misplayed the early game by playing selfishly and gaining any advantage he can for any reason. Sure, he ends up putting himself ahead of the other players, but the trade-off is losing their trust. Then afterwards, the minority team loses Guillaume making their winning chances lower. Don't forget it was Dong Jae's plan to have a very small group of the smartest players against the majority from the beginning. It's the exact same plan as Orbit and his group, but the difference is, Orbit was open to having other players think they were part of Orbit's "team" and splitting the rewards in anticipation of the long game, whereas Dong Jae was more obvious about his plan of "underdogs" "outplaying" the "majority."

Finally, examine Ep 6 carefully (Dong Jae's elimination). Dong Jae tried to use Joon Bin's plan as well. He told Ha Seok Jin that Yeon Woo may have betrayed the team. If Ha Seok Jin trusted Dong Jae, what do you think would have happened? The same situation would have occured with Yeon Woo as the loser. However, HSJ is more careful about believing Dong Jae because the minority alliance is already in a really bad state, so betraying the majority thoughtlessly will only lead to the majority becoming more enraged in future games. While Dong Jae is constantly interacting with HSJ/SW, this understandably leads to Yoo Min getting nervous and betraying her teammates. And the only reason why Hye Sung, the other teammate, trusted Dong Jae is because she had him swear on his religion...

All in all, Orbit played ideally because he chose relationships over mere Piece advantage. This literally led to the PD changing the entire game state for Season 2, ruining the season/making it impossible for prisoners to win.

Very disappointed with the semifinals game.

Even if there were some strategy involved, luck was a huge component of the game. Even if the participants couldn't have a elimination match for who knows why, they should not have chosen a game like this to weed out the finalists. The closer we get to the finals, the more skill-oriented the games should be for the winner of Bloody Game to be more "deserved."

Yeah, I stopped. Lots of weirdos here!

In relation to the shows or as film and tv entertainers. They don't just drop news on Straykid's Kpop projects or issues because they were part of a variety show.

Why are you pasting the definition of what an "actor" is when I said that's not the argument? I grant you the most lenient definition of "actor." There is still an implicit standard for what constitutes as film and entertainment news.

Let's just suppose Gordon Ramsey was a corpse in GoT. Let's grant he's an "actor." Will a site like IMDB then use his status as an "actor" to share news to its users about some controversy dealing with his restaurants? Like one of his restaurants loses a Michelin star or it was involved in some food poisoning incident? Obviously not unless that piece of news bridges onto a TV show of his or something. So the point is not about what constitutes an actor and as long as you're an "actor" anything goes. The point is there is still a standard for which reasonable people can gauge whether the news is relatable or not to film and entertainment news. A K pop star who was on a HBO show and on variety shows doesn't meet the standard for which we hear random news about the K-pop artist, at least for most people.

Alright, now how many random news articles, in which does not relate to acting whatsoever, have you read about these types of "actors" from a platform that even somewhat considers itself as a professional distributor or database for film and entertainment news...? That's the argument, not how loosely can we define "actor?"

Yes, thanks for the heads up, but that was going to be my final response to them.