Adnana

"Truly there waysn't really any reason that she had to be a highschool student..."

From "Plus Nine Boys" description: There is a common Korean belief that anything plus nine (gu in Korean) is always "cursed" and brings about more hardship than usual, including the ninth year of every decade in one's life.

"Goblin", too, explicitly references this belief.
Thus, the h was supposed to die when she was 9 (and her mom did die), and during the greater part of the drama, she's 19 also by design--an age when she is again at risk of having death catch up with her. She survives her 19th year because the Goblin sacrifices himself for her, but after the time-skip, when she's 29, she still ends up dying.

I agree with everything you said about Gu Man's C-drama adaptations, and would add a personal qualifier, that imo the changes made from novel to adaptation in the case of "My Sunshine" ("Silent Separation") only fleshed out the story more while still keeping its original spirit, which was to be expected as Gu Man herself took screenwriting duties. The overall plot development didn't deviate from the novel in any important juncture; there was a bit of extra drama with the H's "sister" and a lot of extra drama with the h's "ex" (the latter being the one major deviation from the novel, actually), but this was done on popular request lol, as the book fans used to jokingly complain that the OM gave up on h too easily in the novel, so the author changed it in the drama. But nothing was changed about the OTP's relationship itself--and this was not the case with "Boss & Me", unfortunately, as it made some deviations that were presumably meant to spice up the OTP's relationship but really only succeeded in souring it up, imo. So I was really hoping this Thai adaptation would't go that route, too.

I wasn't keen on wasting more time debating someone with questionable reading comprehension skills--you obviously either didn't read the simple words I wrote, or were unable to understand them--but the claims in your reply are so monumentally "ignorant" and "prejudicial" that it would be a pity to let other users reading this be misled, which is why I'm posting this final comment.

RE: awards
you: "just because a movie has won an award, it is (not) automatically rated 'better' than one that has not"
Are you arguing with yourself? I never said anything the likes. I literally just said that "The Avengers" got no awards for story/script, which was more in response to your ridiculous claim that, just because "The Avengers" had a huge box office, this would in any way equal that it has high quality storytelling. News flash for you: mass appeal does not equal quality; it just means that many people may enjoy watching. People may also enjoy watching crap. Commercial success does not equal quality either. People may go watch because of hype/peer pressure/curiosity/... and not necessarily like what they see. Even if they like it, see above.
It was never my intention to imply there are no high quality movies that go unrewarded. And it was incorrect to imply that "The Avengers", just because it didn't get any awards for its story/script, has an average, not-wonderful story--though that is true in this particular case. But neither should you act so dismissive of "important" awards, as if they're not heavily promoted in the media, so every average Joe knows of them and hears about the movies that win, and as if these awards aren't craved by the filmmakers themselves who want them for the cachet and publicity they bring.
you: "It doesn't equate to quality at the end of the day."
It does, actually. Not just any dumb movie gets to campaign for a prestigious award. A tough selection happens, and movies that come out winners are *not* of low quality. They may not all be the average Joe's cup of tea, but they are *not* without merit. Which, I repeat before you jump the shark again, also doesn't mean that *not* getting an award equates to low quality. It just means that, to get an award, a movie absolutely needs quality, but it also needs promotion, connections, money, and luck.

RE: ghosts
you: " 'stupidly turns a person into a ghost from a bite' s totally off tangent"
Off tangent? Are you for real? Or maybe have the memory of a goldfish? I literally just mentioned ghosts because you did. you: "Just like there's no explanation how ghosts can be invisible, that doesn't suddenly make a ghost movie become ridiculous, cheap or unwatchable."
You brought up ghosts, so I said that ghosts in a new fantasy creation, being a familiar creature and not newly invented, should behave like ghosts are known to behave.
you: "Btw, there's no 'classically accepted definition of a ghost' lol."
Dude, you ever heard of a dictionary? Apparently you haven't, so lemme rock your world by telling you it's a book with the classical definitions of terms. For "ghost", that would be "the disembodied spirit of a dead person, supposed to haunt the living as a pale or shadowy vision". Ergo why I said it would be stupid for a new fantasy writer to write about ghosts, which should be ethereal beings, behave like vampires, i.e. be able to bite people and thereby turn them into ghosts.
It was an analogy, dude. If you don't know what that is, look it up. An analogy for how if you're going to create fiction around viruses, virus being a known entity with a scientific definition, your virus should have the properties of a virus and not of a bacterium, by being able to survive outside the host i.e. inside a pill for a long time. I said, again and again, that imo good fantasy bends or changes the rules, but it doesn't break the rules in a way that makes the writer appear dumb and science-illiterate. Are these words too complex for you to understand?
you: "even train to Busan, a critically acclaimed zombie movie ... does not properly explain the origin of the zombies"
Dude, I literally said that approach was ok. me: "Zombies don't exist in reality, but a good paranormal show will offer an intriguing and acceptable premise for the possibility of their existence. (Or just not explain anything at all, and leave it to the imagination of the viewer, like "The Walking Dead" did.)" "Train to Busan" mentions a chemical leak at a biotech plant and stops there. That's perfectly fine--it keeps things vague instead of shooting itself in the foot by giving details which would invalidate instead of consolidate the premise.
Is this point that complex for you to understand? It means, the show creator can a) choose not to explain or to just hint how zombies came about. Or b) choose to explain it, and make it plausible, or c) choose to explain it and make it completely implausible in the details, thus showing the limits of their IQ/knowledge. K'? "Happiness" choose option c). Doesn't mean it's not a super entertaining show. It just means the scriptwriter knows zilch about how viruses allegedly work.

Re:The Avengers. Yep, the highest grossing movie of all time. Not the winner of any important industry awards for story or script. Because, you see, commercial success does not necessarily equal high quality of content. On the contrary, the larger the audience you wish to entertain, the lower the lowest common denominator gets pushed... oftentimes straight down into the realm of toilet humor.
So my logic stands as stated. It does not imply The Avengers was unwatchable (I had great fun with it, with my expectations properly adjusted); it implies it's a commercial fluff piece that rates about a fast food meal on the "well-written fantasy" scale. On the same scale, say, The Lord of the Rings rates a Michelin-starred gourmet dinner.

"If it can be explained using real life scientific explanation then it's not longer called a fantasy."
Good fantasy doesn't require a real-life scientific basis, but it does require coherent, cohesive and thus convincing worldbuilding. It can and does make stuff up, but it won't contradict universally known scientific principles in a way that shows it wasn't done on purpose but out of ignorance.
Also, most importantly in this case, "Happiness" isn't proper fantasy. It has a real-world setting that you first recognize as familiar, to which the fantastic elements are added. This requires an even greater respect for the rules that are known to apply in this world than if you had made up your own alternate world/planet with 2 moons and one single continent where zombie (non-)life thrived, and set the action there.
Ghosts? Fine. But since they're ghosts, stick to the classically accepted definition thereof. So they might have some psychic powers, but don't stupidly say they can turn flesh-and-blood people into ghosts by biting them in their ethereal state. Don't say that vampires aren't bothered by the sun and only glitter like diamonds when exposed to it... Oh wait.
Peace out.

I don't think it's necessary to resort to name-calling. Yes, it's a fantasy show, or rather a paranormal one since it's in a familiar real-world setting, but good fantasy still builds upon a framework of rules that the fantasy creator has to define and then respect in order to allow for an intelligent viewer/reader's continued suspension of disbelief.
Zombies don't exist in reality, but a good paranormal show will offer an intriguing and acceptable premise for the possibility of their existence. (Or just not explain anything at all, and leave it to the imagination of the viewer, like "The Walking Dead" did.) If you, the creator/writer, chose to offer an explanation but were only able to give an implausible one, you are just showing your limits and cheapening your work.
And that is what I think was bothering our friend gudboy_foo83 . He would have respected this paranormal show a lot more if their explanation for their central premise would not have been such an obviously science-illiterate* one.
*(According to what science currently claims; of course, what science itself claims about viruses has its own question marks.)

"stays inside a pill for so many hours...really?"
Well, if the v can float so many hours in the air until you happen by to inhale it straight into your lungs, or if it can stick so many hours on a countertop until you brush it with your hand, then swallow it when you touch your face--then surely it can stay cozy inside a pill for an even bigger amount of time. If you believe the former, why not believe the latter, too? Both are as likely.

Well, if you accept that viruses can stay in the air and on surfaces for an untold amount of time even though they allegedly can't survive outside of the host cells they are supposed to infect/take over/replicate in, then you can also accept that viruses can be encapsulated in some pill, like cryogenically suspended or whatever, using some tech or other. Not that big of a logic jump, really. :)

Your ability to pick and choose single elements of my argument, pull them out of context and twist them to suit your interpretation, as well as your propensity to put words in my mouth that I never wrote, or just make assumptions out of thin air, fascinate me. Really.
1. "you think you are enlightened"
I never claimed to believe myself personally enlightened. I said I see our current times as "an era of globalization and (one hopes) increased enlightenment"--you know, as opposed to two hundred years ago, when Africans were still being torn from their land as a matter of course to be sold like cattle at the slave market, or even one hundred years ago, when there were still no laws protecting (prepubescent) children against sexual offenses etc. Or I'm sorry, do you think people have since outlawed such practices because humanity has grown *less* enlightened in time?
2. "[you think] your moral standard is the most progressive, and the best result of the human civilization advancement"
"you have the moral superiority to define what is right or wrong"
I get now that you're proficient at twisting my words, but where did you see me say that I believe my personal "moral standard" to be "the most progressive," or that I claim "the moral superiority to define what is right or wrong"? All I said was I believe that, concurrent with the passage of time and humanity's evolution (towards a hopefully more enlightened worldview), there was a process of triage, adaptation and ultimately consolidation of different cultures' values and right/wrong concepts, resulting into a now near-universally valid moral framework. A basic framework, with basic stuff like do not kill, or plunder, or torture, which represents a common denominator for most cultures--and without polemic, subjective stuff like how many people one can marry at the same time, or what color is the prettiest.
Furthermore, I believe that the worthy elements of such a near-universally agreed-upon basic moral framework are reflected in international laws--which themselves were formulated and agreed upon by consensus in international committees--and that those laws trump cultural and moral relativism. What is your issue with this belief of mine, as I've stated it here in simple words that I ask you to please not twist again into something different? Do you actually believe that in the case of a contradiction between cultural peculiarity and international law, the cultural peculiarity has to take precedence?
And for the record, the moral standard I consider "the best result of the human civilization advancement" is not some half-baked, biased and subjective moral standard of mine, personally, like you seemed to imply. It is, as I see it, is the near-universally agreed upon moral system I mentioned above, i.e. for what's right and wrong. By extension, humanity's--as represented by delegates from the vast majority of this world's countries--best effort at defining, by consensus, a near-universal very basic framework for what should be a person's unassailable rights (and by extension a person's punishable crimes).
3. "you want all human from all countries to adopt the moral standards and laws you see as the most progressive and the best for humanity"
Do I want that? When, where, how?? And how come I wasn't aware? I truly didn't know, but thanks for informing me. (For the record, in case the thick irony here is liable to be twisted into something else, again: I don't want what was stated in the quote above.)
4. "and there are no international laws oblige all countries to follow that that document, it is simply not a treaty."
I never said the content of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was legally binding; I know it is not, in itself. (Though it is generally agreed to be the foundation of international human rights law.) I mentioned it merely as, what I believe, the best known reflection of--parts of these are literally from my previous post--the closest humanity as a whole has come (yet) to a consensus for a (near-)absolute moral framework, regardless of culture. The fact that the UDHR has served as inspiration for a huge number of legally binding international human rights treaties is proof of that.
Okay, let's put it another way: the UDHR is a set of individual rights and not even legally binding in itself--a set of rights and freedoms, for goodness' sake, not some draconian system of crimes and punishments enforced under threat of cruel and unusual punishment unto death. To which of the human rights stated in those 30 articles do you object? The freedom from torture? The freedom from unfair detainment? Surely not the freedom of thought and conscience?
Yes, the UDHR has received its fair share of criticism--as all things do in this world. One can mention any topic, no matter how innocuous-seeming, and Google can instantly spit out dozens of studies and essays in favor or against it. Not to mention a topic with as wide an impact and exposure as the UDHR. One of the biggest criticism seems to come from the Islamic point of view, in regards to the UDHR's alleged Western bias. Yet on the flip side of the coin, there are countries (with at least a majority Muslim population) like Turkey and Pakistan that had no issue signing the Declaration, there is Lebanese philosopher and diplomat Charles Malik who acknowledged its significance, there are Muslim diplomats like Iraq's Bedia Afnan who went on to to become involved in the drafting of other United Nations human rights treaties. At least that's what Wikipedia says.
And speaking of criticism: the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (the Islamic response to the UDHR) has also been criticized--for example, because of the restrictions it imposes, based on Islamic Sharia law, on nearly every human right. But that's not even my point. My point is: I had mentioned the UDHR as an example of a (near-)universal moral framework, because you had claimed that something like this didn't exist, that moral values and right/wrong concepts are fake and meaningless because they differ from culture to culture. And I wanted to point out it does exist: that a common core of values has been developed through evolution, that core is now being shared by most cultures, and this is absolutely neither fake nor meaningless. I reiterate: I'm not saying that shared moral core is equivalent to the UDHR. I'm saying that UDHR is one form/expression of it, probably the best we have at the moment. Not "best" as in "superior" in an absolute moral sense, but "best" by virtue of the fact that it was able to emerge as the leading, most influential and most widely (even if not universally) acknowledged human rights document, representing the greatest part of humanity. And among the minority of its detractors, the probably foremost one (the Islamic countries) created a similar document (CDHRI) that indirectly acknowledges UDHR's significance by mentioning a corresponding (if not identical) set of human rights, albeit with limits applied on them. And personally, I appreciate the UDHR because it is a set of freedoms--it only gives to people, doesn't take or impose or limit with restrictions; because it is not legally binding (it's a set of principles, not laws--a moral guideline not a stick to directly beat people with); because it is basic in defining what are universal human rights, not trying to interfere or dictate to people in the minutiae of their lives and cultures.
5. "you are assuming that polygamy or polygyny to be precise, are automically bad and all women involved are always end up in suffering"
"why you feel the need to stop their way of life [polygyny]? there are some ethnic groups that practice polyandry do you want to stop them too?"
Once again, you go putting words in my mouth that I never said. Did you have nothing to reply to what I actually wrote, no logical arguments to contradict my actual statement with, so you had to resort to conjuring these imagined statements in order to have something to attack me with? Or are your reading comprehension skills just that bad?
I clearly, obviously, literally wrote "regarding cultural practices ... like plural marriage--well, to each their own." If it's not illegal, and like you said (see, I try to respond to what you actually said, not to what it's later convenient for me to say that you said), if the people involved "are adult, sane and consensual"--I couldn't care less what they choose to do, to or with each other. And I most certainly wouldn't care enough to "feel the need to stop their way of life" or "interfere with other people life." That's literally all entailed in what I said: "to each their own." Also, I didn't assume that polygyny is "automatically bad"--were you offended by the historically-set Chinese novels I mentioned I had read? Sorry, not my fault they were written by Chinese authors who would actually know their own country's culture and history, and who now live in an age where they are (relatively) free to depict said culture and history as they understand it, with all the negative aspects that entails. And not my fault that the wife and concubines scheming and even killing each other and their respective offspring due to their conflicts of interest is an almost universally-seen scenario in these aforementioned historical C-novels.
Or were you offended I said that, no matter how much you personally wished it, the harem route was not, in fact, possible in "Ever Night" because of of the way the character personalities had been established (among other reasons)? Sorry again, but it's just a fact that Sang Sang left Ning Que when she thought he would be with another girl--she wasn't the type of girl who'd accept sharing the man she loved with other women.
I never once made any absolute statements condemning polygyny, much less express a need to stop others' way of life. I merely expressed a strong skepticism that polygyny can work as well for all the women involved as it does for the men involved in such a system. Am I not allowed that much? Or to say that I hate double standards, and that I am only likely to believe that the men and women involved in a plural marriage system (whether polyginy or polyandry) do it willingly and happily if the system guarantees (through its laws/highest forum of authority) equal treatment of both genders in this respect. That is, if a man is legally allowed to have multiple wives (and a woman multiple husbands), then a woman should also be allowed to have multiple husbands (and a man multiple wives) were they to want it--and not have it called a sin and even be killed for it. What's good for the gander ought to be good for the goose.

@Jagad mustofa
Oh, I got your point; I just politely disagreed with it, especially with how you chose to express it before, saying that people's concepts of what's moral, right and wrong "are just artificial, superficial and fake values created by human" and "ultimately meaningless". (Btw, that's quite an absolute statement for someone claiming to hate absolutism.)
I disagree with you because:
1. A society's values are never meaningless. Inside that society, they stand at its very core. Outside, they are the most essential factor deciding that society's chances of longterm survival. Societal practices and values throughout history that did not, in fact, survive and/or gain widespread acceptance were ipso facto proven not fit for this world.
2. People's concept of what's moral, right and wrong may have started out as an artificial (i.e. man-made; please don't add pejorative connotations to the word) construct, but over the course of history, as people and cultures interacted, there was a process of sorting and consolidation until the present, when in this era of globalization and (one hopes) increased enlightenment, the consensus reached by humanity as a whole through the trials of time and debate does constitute a (near-)absolute moral framework, regardless of culture, 'kay? Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not rape etc. There's the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--notice the word "universal." The values which were worthy of it were already raised to the status of international law, and no one is entitled to use peculiarities of their culture to justify breaking those laws. Cultural and moral relativism are all fine and dandy--but within clearly stated limits. I have no problem calling old cultural values and practices, which have been outlawed and/or abhorred by more enlightened generations, such as cannibalism and slavery and human sacrifice etc., barbaric and wrong. I mean, surely they *cannot* be right--by *any* (half-way normal) moral standard. Moreover, many of these barbaric practices were practiced by the oppressor class on a victim class--because they could, because they had the power and it brought them benefits, while individually, many must have known in their hearts it was wrong. Like with slavery and rape cultures etc.
Or sorry, in the spirit of tolerance and supporting any other culture's values and beliefs, am I supposed to accept even acts like those I described above? Unlawful acts, moreover ones against which one's very nature, so long as one is human and not animal, ought to rebel--regardless of the culture one was raised in?
3. Different than the case mentioned at 2, regarding cultural practices that lie in the moral grey area (accepted by some, rejected by others) but not condemned by an universal law (i.e., there was no consensus reached regarding whether it's right or wrong)--like plural marriage--well, to each their own. I will say this, however: with such practices, consider who is the beneficiary, who the losing party. Like, in a polygamy system, I'm sure the man is very happy enjoying his many wives, all of whom are focused on satisfying him. But are the women as happy, having to share their man and the household's limited resources? Human nature is, after all, selfish. I'm actually a huge fan of novels set in Ancient China, and I'm constantly fascinated reading the various cruel and inventive ways, with or without showing blood, the women in a man's harem (the principal wife and the concubines) would find to destroy each other and each other's progeny (especially boys, who had the right of inheritance). All while putting on a great show of peace, and while feigning no jealousy (because a woman being jealous=having no virtue, and jealousy was one of the seven sins for which a woman could be divorced by her husband). And all while in this same culture, if a woman were found to take a second man(lover) herself, she would be killed for it.
All in all, I personally just don't like double standards. If it has to be, it at least ought to be polyamory instead of polygamy.
4. I love reading and watching historical pieces, and I certainly expect them to be as historically accurate as possible. So of course, practices like slavery which we today regard as barbaric and like men keeping harems, which many are offended by today, were undoubtedly a part of life in bygone times, and their portrayal is to be expected in historical pieces. It's foolish to deny history, even if parts of it make us uncomfortable. However, I'm not a judge sworn to judge everything fairly, but an subjective individual, and I can't (and don't want) to stop myself from appraising subjectively what I watch and see. If it's not straight-up a documentary or true history piece, if it's a historically-set fiction piece and it goes too hardcore on portraying historically accurate but unpleasant facts of life--well, surely I have the right to my subjective reaction, and for said subjective reaction to be negative? And moreover, the content makers of these pieces have to keep that in mind, and they have to present their content in a way that sticks to historical accuracy as far as possible but doesn't offend modern viewers' sensibilities. We want a sufficiently well-researched historical setting to make it believable, to give us a verosimile facsimile of olden times, but heroes who are more enlightened than their time, so that we can sympathize and even identify with them. It's a thin line to walk and a bit like having your cake and eating it too, but that's how it is, fair or not. Sticking to absolute historical accuracy would be just not worth it for the content makers if it meant turning off 90% of their modern audience.
Not to mention that, I repeat, in this case, Ever Night is not even a historical piece. You might find it a bit discordant if they use all major elements except one of the historical period they're drawing inspiration from, but it's their freedom to do so and not sufficient cause to break suspension of belief. Moreover, there likely exist harems in Ever Night's universe. The hero just chooses, as is his freedom, even in a plural marriage world, to have one woman only because he only needs Sang Sang (and the producers need the majority of viewers to not hate him, were he to do otherwise), and the emperor's harem, which would indeed have existed, might not have been shown because it's just not relevant to the plot. They have a complex enough plot already for their limited screentime, right? Not to mention, the producers have the right to focus their lens on those aspects of the world they want to show. They aren't sworn to be exhaustive in their portrayal, they haven't sworn to be 100% historically accurate (even if they were portraying a real historical era). Who can't accept that should simply not watch.
p.s. Also, I get the impression you keep pushing for the harem idea just because *you* fancy it, and *you* believe it would resolve all issues, while completely disregarding the actual story and characters as they have been established. Even if Ning Que wanted a harem, were he to try it, he would absolutely not get Sang Sang as a part of it. That's clear because when SS believes that NQ loves another, she unhesitatingly breaks off their relationship and leaves him. This is not a girl who'd accept a plural marriage, ergo a harem is not possible in the context of this story, ergo why do you keep pushing for it unilaterally, against all reason and sense?

@Jagad mustofa
"what human define as moral, good, bad, right and wrong actually are just artificial, superficial and fake values created by human. In fact, they differs from culture to culture and era to era and ultimately meaningless."
Fake and meaningless, huh? Cute.
Dude, those values you call fake and superficial are the core of any culture/civilization and, in the inevitable clash with outside cultures--scenario enacted and re-enacted repeatedly over the course of history--they play not a small role in determining whether that culture/civilization has what it takes to survive, whether it needs to adapt and change in order to do survive, or if it will crash and burn, with or without a whimper. Heard about Darwin's theory of evolution? Natural selection? As life evolves, mutations which benefit survival are the ones preserved and carried over into the next iteration. Undesirable or not useful traits are gradually phased out. That's biology, and yeah, it gets a bit more complicated in the context of civilization/social constructs--because humans are no mere instinctual beings only seeking survival, but thinking, feeling ones who also (generally) strive for order out of chaos, and beauty etc.--but you get the drift. Bygone eras are bygone. Past cultures vanished or changed for a reason. As humanity evolved, undesirable--barbaric--practices like slavery and sati and, yes, polygamy, were outlawed and snuffed out in (most of) the civilized world for a good reason. The fact that these practices have gone/are going (for the most part) extinct is in itself sufficient proof of their undesirability in the context of the larger population.
So do stop throwing the standards of ANCIENT China into our faces while selfishly campaigning for polygamy in Ever Night; that time and those norms are gone and over with. This show is inspired by that time, but "inspired" means that the producers have the right to pick and choose which cultural elements they want to keep and which they do not, so let's respect their freedom, 'kay? Especially since this show isn't being broadcast in Ancient China for people of that mindset, but in present times, for modern people, most of whom are offended by the concept of polygamy or who at least don't want it shoved down their throats without warning in a mainstream series.
p.s. Polygamy has been outlawed in the US since 1862, I think. And the official stance of the Mormon Church is for monogamy, and they are actively excommunicating members found to practice polygamy. So yeah, I think it's pretty clear that if there are still "mormon fundamentalist families" that practice polygamy, what they're doing is indeed very wrong--in the eyes of the law, the country, their own church.

Lol, your review is so funny--especially this line "the only thing better than the old one was that the new green scarf looked better than the recycled plastic bag Ou Chen had wrapped around his wrist." And I gotta say, as a fan of the old version who was quite looking forward to this new one as well, if the quality of the green scarf was the only thing you found worth complementing in the new version... ouch.
Anyway, if the leads' acting and mutual chemistry is that bad, it seems like watching this would be a waste of time. I'll likely be skipping this now.
p.s.: I'm curious though--could you please spoil me around what episode do (adults) Xia Mo and Ou Chen get together in this version? Thanks. (One thing I would have wanted more of in the old version was more Xia Mo/Ou Chen screentime after they got married. I was an Ou Chen shipper and found it frustrating that the story was so skewed in favor of Luo Xi; his romantic relationship with Xia Mo occupied a far greater part of the drama.)

@Blossom Lin
I think many people who liked "Love O2O" also like "A Love So Beautiful." I didn't, really--I mean, it was fine but nothing memorable, and the romance didn't become a focus except in the last quarter of the drama or so; the main focus was friendship--but you can still try it.
I loved "Love O2O" but I generally tend towards more melo fare. Umm, "Silent Separation" is really good; it's more somber in tone than "Love O2O", but except for the h/H separating after college for 7yrs (though they never stop loving each other), they are always together and never separate again. Once they work out their issues after reuniting, they're an indestructible unit. The ending is very fluffy.

@steph101
Thank you for replying. I'm so excited now to watch this drama. I don't mind melodrama as long as the ending is happy (I prefer a clear-cut HEA, but as long as there isn't an explicit non-HEA, then I can try to put a positive spin on whatever is shown on screen. :) Like in "Scholar Who Walks The Night"--did it make sense that the H would go back to the h safe and sound in the end? Not really. But who cares about things making sense, lol? Oh, and their end dialogue was just a voiceover--like something the h would imagine? No matter, the OTP was too busy kissing. See? Positive spin.) So yeah, I suppose "Legend of Yunxi's" ending leaves sufficient room for positive interpretation, so it's fine.
My pet peeves are just the h/H acting too-stupid-to-live, betraying and misunderstanding each other, and spending loong stretches of time apart. If they trust each other and work together to surmount their problems, and if the couple chemistry is right, I can overlook almost any other issue. A bit of jealousy can even be cute... A HEA is of course really important to me, and is the reason why I can put with almost any amount if melodrama prior to it--on the theory that after the bitter comes the sweet, and it makes the sweet more well-earned; I generally find that serious dramas are more memorable for me than 100% fluffy romcoms.

Thank you for the spoilers. Can you please give a few more? I need to know if the OTP relationship in "Legend of Yunxi" makes it worth watching this drama. I hate misunderstandings, betrayals, cheating, and long breakups between the h/H, so if a romance drama is built on those elements, I'd rather skip it to spare myself the frustration. Thanks.

I might be biased after watching the 2010 TW version (I haven't watched this new one yet because I'm waiting for subs), but in the frame of the story, I was satisfied that Ou Chen got the girl in the end. Yeah, he was possessive as heck and way obsessed, but he went all out to fight for the only girl he could ever love, and it wasn't undeserved that Luo Xi lost her (given his lack of trust). And it's not like Luo Xi was a poor innocent lamb mowed down by big bad wolf Ou Chen either--Luo Xi was also manipulative as heck, was underhanded in the past when he tried to get between Xia Mo and Ou Chen who were in a relationship, and used low tactics in the present when he tried to blackmail Xia Mo with his life to keep her with him. So yeah, no sympathy for either him or Ou Chen, no matter who would have lost the girl in the end; neither of them played fair... and that's okay, I guess... in fiction. Even more importantly--it was always going to be Xia Mo's choice, what man she wanted to be with, and she chose Ou Chen. That's all that really matters. Yes, one could argue that he blackmailed her as well, but all in all, he put a deal on the table (which also entailed him paying a big price), and Xia Mo accepted. It was a fair transaction.
Still, I'm really curious about the character chemistry in this new version. Maybe I'll ship Xia Mo with Luo Xi this time, against all odds? :)

Argh, "you don't always get a second chance." Can you please clarify this part--does it refer to the OTP? Is there no happy ending? And is the romance in this drama good or more like beset with misunderstandings and separations? (I hate that kind) I would really appreciate some spoilers. :)

"Princess Agents," the novel, has a happy ending, I think. "Legend of Minglan" definitely does; it all depends on whether the drama will faithfully adapt this, however. In the novel's last chapter, h/H have both survived their separate and shared trials, they have 2 baby sons, and the whole family is about to leave the capital as the H has been assigned to guard some border area, where the h particularly won't be so constrained anymore by the rules of behavior for a noble lady, and the H will teach her how to ride a horse, for example. They love each other very much.
So yeah, the novel ends on a very happy note. There are also a couple of epilogues that show that the h/H remained in love and utterly devoted to each other throughout their lives. They also had a couple more sons, who all led meaningful lives.

Wow, I hate that trope sooo much. Why can't they have both? It's fiction, for goodness' sake; shouldn't it allow for perfect wish fulfillment?
I mean, giving up everything for love is supposed to be romantic or something? Such bs. In reality, it just lays down the roots for future regret and even the destruction of love. And in fiction... sorry, but I want my heroes to defeat all opponents and cross all barriers. If the hero/male lead isn't strong/capable/shrewd enough to be able to defend both his power and his love, then he's not much of a hero at all.

I don't know in what measure the Minglan screenwriter(s) changed the original storyline for the drama, but if they (hopefully) stuck to the source material, then Minglan should be quite different from Wei Yang and the likes (i.e. the rebirth/revenge genre). For one, Minglan isn't a hated daughter; as a concubine-born daughter, moreover one whose mother died, she starts out disregarded but soon earns herself a pretty good position within her family, through her cheerful personality and good, lovable nature. And of course, her smarts (which she, however, doesn't use to strike vicious blows at other people, like in a straightforward revenge tale a la Jinxiu Weiyang). Anyway, Minglan is cherished by her grandmother, builds a good relationship with her legitimate siblings (especially her eldest sister and eldest brother) and even the concubine-born ones with the exception of Molan. Her father loves her as much as he is capable (that is, his self-interest still comes first, but he wouldn't sell Minglan as a concubine or anything like that), and the legitimate mother is petty but not really virulent, moreover not smart enough to be Minglan's match. So yeah... the basic family setup in Minglan isn't like a pit of snakes or den of tigers, so I'm actually hoping for a warmhearted Bildungsroman-type of story development. (The actual do-or-die dwelling fights happen only after Minglan marries, and not so much, if at all, before. I just really really wish they don't veer too far away from the source material!)

Can you give me some spoilers about how this other woman could get 2 people who supposedly love and trust each other to break up? And stay separated for... years, I assume? This drama sounded interesting (I adore "Love O2O") and as long as the OTP stays strong, I can endure almost any craziness/drama around them, but if the OTP itself is that weak and quick to fall apart, I can't watch this.