can someone provide a better synopsis. like what does the FL do? from the pics it looks like she is a doctor and also a detective/agent. and what about other siblings?
it is really nice to see the characters discussing the inherited resentment and sense of guilt even though the victimhood and sin aren't. most dramas just show that one of the leads gets in some accident and the other forgives them. a concious effort to acknowledge and deal w/ second degree hate is a nice refresher.
ep 8 revelation was justified. ML had plenty of oppurtunity to tell the FL about his connection to dohan. firstly,…
what has the world come to where lawyers don't feel the need to present their case. in ep 9 starting, ML could have easily told the FL that he believed his father was acting in an uncorrupt manner at that time and he only came to know about the corruption afterwards. whereupon he practically severed ties w/ his father.
ep 8 revelation was justified. ML had plenty of oppurtunity to tell the FL about his connection to dohan.
firstly, once he decided to have a future w/ the FL, he should have told her the secret. but to him, his own ideal plan was so important that it disregarded what the FL felt.
secondly, he must have known that if she learned about it from someplace else, she would feel betrayed.
i just started watching this. the 1st episode was so predictable and generic that it hurt me to watch. i have…
i watched some of the following episodes. the ML's backstory is really good. i can understand his motivations and emotions very very clearly. however i don't understand wth was 1st episode doing disservice to it.
i just started watching this. the 1st episode was so predictable and generic that it hurt me to watch. i have several issues: 1. the FL. even if she is eccentric, there is no need to behave in such a way that she can be indicted w/ contempt of court. the 1st scene was so unnecessary. the could have worn the conventional clothes and have her coat with badge on while in court. she could also have spoken w/o interrupting and/or obstructing her opposition lawyer. it was not that she wouldn't be given a chance to speak. also , why does she talk in a patronizing tone to the people present in the court. and cuuting off the judge was just rubbish. that is not how courts work. even if the FL is quirky, the court surely isn't.
judging by the rest of the episode, she isn't much obsessed w/ fashionable clothes etc. so her comment that does she "have to dress modest too?" makes no sense (though the outfit was OK imo, i didn't understand what was the problem). there is another kdrama called prosecutor princess. there the FL is obsessed w/ fashionable clothes and thus it makes sense for her to wear miniskirt in court. but i don't understand why is the FL here taking on obstacles she needn't, and in the process also endangering her success in the case.
2. her law cafe thing is not viable, though most probably the show will make it so. people in need of serious legal advice will discard it on face value. the working class people who may not be able to to go to law firms will not seek help from a (again on face value) bourgeois establishment of a cafe when there are other people in the world with proper law clinics taking pro-bono cases. the only way her law cafe can work is if it is a proper cafe. in that case people can come and take advice for juvenile matters. prima facie, no one will be willing to bet anything of consequence by listening to some legal advice obtained for a price of coffee.
3. i don't know the ML's story, but from all the kdrama I have watched, the 1st episode is foreshadowing a backstory where he was secretly a white knight for the FL while she thought otherwise. its a repeated trope in kdramas and i hate it.
4. the use of breaking of the 4th wall , or more appropriately the documentary style, in this drama is despicable. it is very lazy to use it to give exposition and explanation (less lazy, but still). this is a minor point as it is obviously very difficult to set up the drama w/o there being some out of the place scenes.
instead of the villainess turning crazy inside the prison, i would have liked her arc to have ended with her hanging and she being terribly afraid at the eleventh hour -- wishing with all her heart and sincerity for forgiveness, only to be denied it. that would convey a powerful message that even though forgiveness is virtuos, there is a time limit to ask for it.
and i don't get how in all family dramas, the villains turn mental in the end. most prisoners are not crazy nor do they turn crazy in prison. why isn't it possible for writers to show that the villain committed terrible deeds and repent for them in jail without showing that they turn crazy. this is just a blow on the face of the concept of repentance. why can't there be a villain who sees the faults in their way and comes to apologize and repent for it?
first I thought the drama was made for tv. afterwards i found out that it is a netflix show. that explains all the emptiness. i have only seen 3 episodes and it is as far as i am going to go. the drama, imo, has tried, very visibly and uncomfortably so, to be meaningful and "deep". the desperation to be not considered a common drama is visible from the 1st eisode 1st scene. the oblong aspect ratio, the narration, the take on children's stories, all from the get go.
the children's tales part was what most appalled me. if you are to have a reality check on a fairy tale, please do so for comedic purpose, as no one derives their morals or life lessons from them. no one has ever suggested to any girl -- live like cinderella. the storeis don't deserve scrutiny imo, for not showcasing smart life choices.
the potrayal of a psychiatrist as a magic-man who can analyse anyone is ridiculous.
Seeing the first episode talk about soy sauce, I'm getting some serious "One Well-Raised Daughter (잘 키운…
when the chairman interviews FL, he asks what is soy sauce to you and the FL replies that its life. it was so funny that i thought that the actors must have also laughed.
Frankly, this is frustrating to watch at some points, and nice in a few other parts. What is especially frustrating…
FL was too docile towards the chairman. she stood up to everyone who created problems for her at some point. but not the chairman. i don't get why that concession was needed to be made.
I can believe that he trusted the doctor & nurse that his son was dead. however, i don't get why he didn't look for ML's mother. most probably, he didn't have sex with his father's secretary for about 6 months (given that he was in love with someone else and also that the society was more conservative at that time) after he learnt of his child's death. 6 months was enough for him to find his lover isn't it? he was not some poor or powerless chap.
then, in the drama's timeline, he is acting like a king in plainclothes who goes into the bazaar to understand his people at grassroot level. but the fucker is the most unaware of what is going on in his company. his factories have been showing a botched production cost and he needs his unexperienced recently-turned businessman son, who by the way has had no experience in this field, to point it out to him.
to him, he says, SFL is his daughter. however, he has been absent from his home and has created daddy issues for the SFL.
he equates his personal relationships with his work. when he finds out about the ML being his son, he doesn't immediately tell him. instead, he grooms him as his successor. he equated being his son to being his company's heir. even when approving SML and SFL's marriage, he uses SML's capacity as a businessman to measure him up.
the chairman is always the last one to catch up to things. he then blames the others and pronounces the judgement. but he doesn't think if its his place to do so. well, OK, the SML didn't tell the family about FL. however, the chairman doesn't have the right to make them divorce. as SFL's father, he can suggest so. and its not his place to force them apart when SFL is ready to accept it.
it was also not his place to ask ML to marry dr. yoon. doesn't he get that the ML grew up fatherless because of the chairman's foolishness and naivette? he doesn't even know the first thing about his past relationship. how does he feel he has the right to pair them up?
and the thing about him disapproving of the FL: the FL's mother's misdeeds may have been part of the reason that the ML and chairman were seperated, however, its because of the FL that they have reunited. and moreover, the FL is not blamable. in fact, the chairman is more to blame as he was a full grown adult who couldn't take care of his family.
the writer has conviniently made the characters do whatever the plot needed them to.
successfully defrauding people requires the ability to control one's emotions, act, plan, bypass laws and be deceptive. However, ML assaults the SML in the office building in front of the elevator when the photographer turns hostile. I don't understand how he can make such an obvious mistake for someone experienced in circumnavigating the law.
the chairman is supposed to be a successful, experienced and proficient businessman. surely one would think that he understands various motivations people have and what actions they can take. he must know no one brings in a hostile witness. he must also understand what conflict of interest is. its was so foolish and naive of him to entrust the DNA test for finding his son to his SIL. and it wasn't even the case that he had known SML for years or that they were particularly close. I can accept the fact that his younger self was fooled by his wife but him being fooled so easily is something I cannot accept.
the SFL and FL participated in open recipe contest, and both their dishes were good and they tied in the public votes. but in front of SML and his mother, SFL claims that she doesn't know her way around the kitchen. WTH...
firstly, once he decided to have a future w/ the FL, he should have told her the secret. but to him, his own ideal plan was so important that it disregarded what the FL felt.
secondly, he must have known that if she learned about it from someplace else, she would feel betrayed.
1. the FL. even if she is eccentric, there is no need to behave in such a way that she can be indicted w/ contempt of court. the 1st scene was so unnecessary. the could have worn the conventional clothes and have her coat with badge on while in court. she could also have spoken w/o interrupting and/or obstructing her opposition lawyer. it was not that she wouldn't be given a chance to speak. also , why does she talk in a patronizing tone to the people present in the court. and cuuting off the judge was just rubbish. that is not how courts work. even if the FL is quirky, the court surely isn't.
judging by the rest of the episode, she isn't much obsessed w/ fashionable clothes etc. so her comment that does she "have to dress modest too?" makes no sense (though the outfit was OK imo, i didn't understand what was the problem). there is another kdrama called prosecutor princess. there the FL is obsessed w/ fashionable clothes and thus it makes sense for her to wear miniskirt in court. but i don't understand why is the FL here taking on obstacles she needn't, and in the process also endangering her success in the case.
2. her law cafe thing is not viable, though most probably the show will make it so. people in need of serious legal advice will discard it on face value. the working class people who may not be able to to go to law firms will not seek help from a (again on face value) bourgeois establishment of a cafe when there are other people in the world with proper law clinics taking pro-bono cases.
the only way her law cafe can work is if it is a proper cafe. in that case people can come and take advice for juvenile matters. prima facie, no one will be willing to bet anything of consequence by listening to some legal advice obtained for a price of coffee.
3. i don't know the ML's story, but from all the kdrama I have watched, the 1st episode is foreshadowing a backstory where he was secretly a white knight for the FL while she thought otherwise. its a repeated trope in kdramas and i hate it.
4. the use of breaking of the 4th wall , or more appropriately the documentary style, in this drama is despicable. it is very lazy to use it to give exposition and explanation (less lazy, but still). this is a minor point as it is obviously very difficult to set up the drama w/o there being some out of the place scenes.
and i don't get how in all family dramas, the villains turn mental in the end. most prisoners are not crazy nor do they turn crazy in prison. why isn't it possible for writers to show that the villain committed terrible deeds and repent for them in jail without showing that they turn crazy. this is just a blow on the face of the concept of repentance. why can't there be a villain who sees the faults in their way and comes to apologize and repent for it?
the desperation to be not considered a common drama is visible from the 1st eisode 1st scene. the oblong aspect ratio, the narration, the take on children's stories, all from the get go.
the children's tales part was what most appalled me. if you are to have a reality check on a fairy tale, please do so for comedic purpose, as no one derives their morals or life lessons from them. no one has ever suggested to any girl -- live like cinderella. the storeis don't deserve scrutiny imo, for not showcasing smart life choices.
the potrayal of a psychiatrist as a magic-man who can analyse anyone is ridiculous.
most probably, he didn't have sex with his father's secretary for about 6 months (given that he was in love with someone else and also that the society was more conservative at that time) after he learnt of his child's death. 6 months was enough for him to find his lover isn't it? he was not some poor or powerless chap.
then, in the drama's timeline, he is acting like a king in plainclothes who goes into the bazaar to understand his people at grassroot level. but the fucker is the most unaware of what is going on in his company. his factories have been showing a botched production cost and he needs his unexperienced recently-turned businessman son, who by the way has had no experience in this field, to point it out to him.
to him, he says, SFL is his daughter. however, he has been absent from his home and has created daddy issues for the SFL.
he equates his personal relationships with his work. when he finds out about the ML being his son, he doesn't immediately tell him. instead, he grooms him as his successor. he equated being his son to being his company's heir. even when approving SML and SFL's marriage, he uses SML's capacity as a businessman to measure him up.
the chairman is always the last one to catch up to things. he then blames the others and pronounces the judgement. but he doesn't think if its his place to do so. well, OK, the SML didn't tell the family about FL. however, the chairman doesn't have the right to make them divorce. as SFL's father, he can suggest so. and its not his place to force them apart when SFL is ready to accept it.
it was also not his place to ask ML to marry dr. yoon. doesn't he get that the ML grew up fatherless because of the chairman's foolishness and naivette? he doesn't even know the first thing about his past relationship. how does he feel he has the right to pair them up?
and the thing about him disapproving of the FL: the FL's mother's misdeeds may have been part of the reason that the ML and chairman were seperated, however, its because of the FL that they have reunited. and moreover, the FL is not blamable. in fact, the chairman is more to blame as he was a full grown adult who couldn't take care of his family.
successfully defrauding people requires the ability to control one's emotions, act, plan, bypass laws and be deceptive. However, ML assaults the SML in the office building in front of the elevator when the photographer turns hostile. I don't understand how he can make such an obvious mistake for someone experienced in circumnavigating the law.
the chairman is supposed to be a successful, experienced and proficient businessman. surely one would think that he understands various motivations people have and what actions they can take. he must know no one brings in a hostile witness. he must also understand what conflict of interest is. its was so foolish and naive of him to entrust the DNA test for finding his son to his SIL. and it wasn't even the case that he had known SML for years or that they were particularly close. I can accept the fact that his younger self was fooled by his wife but him being fooled so easily is something I cannot accept.
the SFL and FL participated in open recipe contest, and both their dishes were good and they tied in the public votes. but in front of SML and his mother, SFL claims that she doesn't know her way around the kitchen. WTH...
and also, is there a love triangle?