Edren

"I want to create content". How much of this began because people started to view art and storytelling as nothing more than a production process, an industrial arm of a civilization rather than a cultural one. The term "create content" diminished the practice of any kind of artistry to something that was the equivalent of widget production down at the factory. For how many decades has film and drama production been viewed by its bankrollers as a simple machine process? In both China and the west. Look at how they measure success: x number of views for y number of dollars. That's literally all that matters to "content creators". If you can operate the machine at a lower cost, of course you will. If that's all that art has become, a factory production, we shouldn't be surprised when the factories become entirely mechanized.

This is incredibly disappointing but entirely expected.

There is a similar English-language movie, though it's much, much darker and deals with the subject society-wide rather than in an individual case. It's called The Tall Man. It's a little too pointed and a little too opinionated, but it is nevertheless an interesting and compelling watch.

I understand completely.

I almost laughed. I was expecting some modern philosopher but of course it's the Bible, that's so much better. The simplest and most complex of all books. All of this has happened before and is spoken about at length in that book. Of course. I can remember a few instances from the Old Testament especially when this kind of thing was in full swing. It happened again and again and the prophets came with their warnings and were driven away or killed. (It is possibly the single most maligned book in all history, as well...)
It is unusual (and fortunate) to find people who are willing to have sane, civil conversations about these matters. Perhaps we should exchange emails or something like that. I would offer my social media information, but I have no socials.

I was just talking about this with a friend the other day. I do believe that of course to some degree art mirrors some aspects of society, but civilization is downstream from art. It influences and shapes it. I don't know how many lies I believed were true because movies told me so throughout my childhood. If anything the current times are proof of art's influence on society. In Hollywood at least a lot of the moral perversion was camouflaged in the past with fairly good writing. When the writing declined so sharply that the perversion could no longer be hidden, people were put off by it and so Hollywood began to decline sharply. And so now it can no longer be used to further these bizarre fringe behaviors. That (and money, to a lesser degree) explains why the streaming giants are investing so heavily in Asian media as the thing that the west is starting to consume in large quantities.
I'm curious about the book you're reading.

I was also driven away by western media. Recently I've been trying to watch older things I liked a long time ago and I've found that it's there in almost everything. I had been gradually desensitized to it.
I've found that the "Hollywood" or entertainment industry of any country tends to be ground zero for a lot of extreme perversion and degeneracy. Asia fared better in that regard, as you said, because their citizens kept them in check. But these streaming sites are throwing money and prestige (and an international audience) at these productions now. Angering their own citizens seems less likely to stop them.

It's incredibly heartening to hear that I'm not the only one who can't stomach -- and will never accept -- this kind of degeneracy. I'm sure you're right about bestiality, too. Western media is overflowing with this. Asian media used to be more or less reliable in this area. But ever since the big streaming companies starting bankrolling productions more and more of this type of thing has been made. This movie was pretty much the last Asian media I watched that was made by Netflix/Hulu/Disney/etc. It's disgusting and concerning and I'm tired of it. Thank you for your comment. It gives me hope.

I am referring to the past timeline, the flashbacks, which were at least half the drama, if not more. Their liking each other became a romance that grew and grew throughout those years. Her quiet fixation on his disappearance was hinged on this past romance. It was integral to her character. Their will-they-or-won't-they was a major dominant aspect of the flashbacks. That timeline was fifty percent story and fifty percent the romance between the two of them. It seemed to be, in the past, the greater part of her character. I thought there was more to her in the present but it also seemed to be a major aspect of how the writers defined her. I'm not even saying that was a bad thing. But her storyline was defined and largely driven by the fact that she had been in love with him. Romance was a massive part of her story and therefore the entire story. There's nothing wrong with any of that. It's definitely a good drama. But it doesn't belong on non-romance lists.

Listen, I get it. People love it, I respect that. I liked it too. But it is most emphatically NOT a non-romance drama. That's all I'm really saying.

Listen, I don't want to start an argument about this. It's such an absurd thing to argue about. My whole point was that the article was featured across MDL. If I was reading the reviews for a completely unrelated drama on a different page (which is what I was doing), this article, it's headline, and the spoiler in the subtitle was still visible on the sidebar. My eyes automatically read it when I looked at that part of the screen. I didn't know there was a spoiler to avoid. I did not seek articles about this movie. I saw the spoiler while I was looking at something else entirely. That's my issue. If you simply must put a spoiler in the article, don't make it part of the unavoidable subtitle that everyone will see whether they're "looking for answers" or not. I'm not an idiot. I don't read articles or interviews about movies I haven't seen yet because I prefer to avoid spoilers.

Quite excited for this film. And then-- not just the article, but the title and its subtitle spoiled the whole story. There's no way to not see the spoiler... without, I guess, not visiting the entire site? The article even frequently appears in the sidebars. And it was published before the film's official release. Is there not an editor overseeing monumentally unprofessional mistakes like this?

Listen, I was actually really enjoying this until Terminator Barbie showed up. One of the most absurd left field character developments I've ever seen. Even her costumes were ridiculous. Like, really? Here, have some trauma and it will turn you into murder cyborg Anna Wintour. I actually didn't hate the idea they were going for there. But man alive, the execution... Tried to power through but I felt like a cast of flesh and blood humans were struggling to continue pretending that the cardboard robot in their midst was a real, sympathetic person. Waste of a good story and an otherwise competent cast.

I believe Signal shouldn't be on this list. I watched it looking for a non-romantic storyline and found it to be almost completely dominated by a very prominent romance. Kairos is superior, in my opinion.

I'm very much looking forward to watching this. Curious, is it intended to be a remake of the American film "The Towering Inferno" or is it just coincidentally similar in premise?

I cannot agree with you more about the depiction of love. Your phrase is "impure shows." I was getting so burned out on shows from the west that were less and less content and more and more graphic simulated porn. My switch to Korean and Chinese entertainment has been so refreshing in that regard. But more than that, I feel like I see a lot more mutual respect. I saw a Korean show in which the two finally confessed their love and kissed and I fully expected them to fall into bed after that. But instead, he let her sleep on the bed while he slept on the floor like it was the obvious thing to do. I hated, abhorred all romance before. Now, with the far more pleasant, character-focused, charming depictions I see from the east, I actually enjoy romance sometimes.

I understand what you mean when you like some parts of a show enough to make the parts you dislike not really matter that much. I get that. I'm like that with acting and CGI and cinematography. That stuff isn't nearly as important to me as the story. And story is only slightly more important to me than characters. As someone who likes and seeks out romance, you won't be annoyed by the things that makes something unwatchable to me. That's why it's good if lots of different kinds of people review something.

I will say this: I saw Who Rules the World and was blown away by how close that romance was to being a real human interaction. Something I really liked about it was that neither changed for the other or because of the other. Whether good or bad. Even though both of them changed a lot. They were very much each others' support and partner. But, for example, when he experienced massive changes that altered who he was, she was there to support and accept him, as she always had been before. They both created an environment for the other in which they were comfortable enough to be who they were, or become who they were going to become, without feeling like they had to hide or mask anything. And this freedom allowed growth in a different way.

You're not the first person I've encountered who said that they liked romances in part because of the unrealistic aspects. I understand that to some extent. Though I would challenge you to find a romance that IS realistically depicted. I've seen a couple in which only the circumstances were outlandish, not the romance itself. And they were full of charm and tenderness and beauty as well. But in a different way, because they were true to how humans are and were therefore possible in the world. And I think that's good for people to see, too.

I have to say that I really appreciate that you're not trying to start a scuffle here. I've seen a lot of ugly fights in the comments of reviews...

And I did acknowledge to myself when I dropped it that things would probably improve later on. As you already understand, it's the poor pacing that bothered me. Couple that with the fact that I don't actively enjoy "romance storylines" per se, and this drama isn't for me. The main reason I chose to leave a review was for other people like me who seek out dramas that heavily favor storytelling over satisfying romance storylines. I understand that the vast majority of drama watchers on MDL are the latter, so I felt that my dissenting opinion ought to be recorded.

I did decide to reply to your comment because I wanted to expand on our difference of opinion about love changing people. I think I'm not misunderstanding you when you say you're in a longtime relationship. I am too. I've also watched a lot of my friends and family enter into and out of relationships, healthy and unhealthy, and I also study psychology and human behavior as well as professionally study storytelling and character development. Love, as I said, accentuates who we already are. Being in love with someone while we experience personal growth or maturity CAN have an effect on that growth and maturity. (I speak from experience as I was 19 when I married my husband of fifteen years and we've both changed a lot in those 15 years.) However, a person who is selfish will behave selfishly in love. It will probably make it worse. A person who is self-deprecating will make themselves inferior to their loved-one because they think that's love. Being in love or being loved won't change those traits in and of itself. It probably won't even provide the right environment for doing so. Human interaction always effects growth and development. But being "in love" is not the only kind of human interaction. And being in love is simply an individual's emotional state regarding another person. Whether or not they develop has little to do with love. Becoming more patient and tolerant and understanding don't really have anything to do with being in love. And if they do, those developments can't be trusted entirely as love has a way of artificially changing things. Rather, those kinds of developments have much more to do with human relationships. And, more importantly, with an individual's overall attitude toward other individuals which stems from their personality, psychology, and views. I'm not sure I'm explaining this well. Choosing to understand someone because you love them is tricky territory. One should develop to the point that they chose to understand people, and then that understanding could lead to love. Starting from love in real life is a recipe for a failed relationship. As you said, we must work on ourselves first. But we can't choose to change ourselves because of love. And we can't hope that our love will change the person we're in love with. Never in recorded history has it gone like that. As for the side characters, again, only feeling acceptance and understanding from a romantic partner is extremely sad. And if we're talking about how things ought to be depicted, showing people only finding acceptance and understanding from a romantic partner is very unhealthy. It suggests that anyone we feel understood by or accepted by is a potential romantic partner, or desires to be a romantic partner. Or, on the other side, we have no real reason to attempt to understand or tolerate people we aren't interested in romantically (I know that's not what you're saying; but my problem is that this kind of unbalanced depiction has deep problems if you follow it through to the end). And if a person isn't seeking love for whatever reason, it implies that acceptance and understanding aren't available to them. Yes, friendship is another kind of love, absolutely. But that's not what's depicted. In fact the overblown importance of romantic love as a kind of balm for hardship has actually been shown to negatively impact a person's ability to maintain a healthy friendship. (Please don't ask me to find that study, it was millions of research sessions ago.) I concede that she did start to understand him and THEN she started to fall in love with him, yes. But this made no differences, at that time, to her character. Her attitude toward him didn't change who she was. It was brought on by subtle development in who HE was. And it only accentuated her pre-existing character traits. As I said, she was already a pretty decent person early on. Her growth needed to be, oddly enough, away from her usual kindness and broad acceptance. In my opinion, she needed to become more balanced. Like the guy in Flower of Evil who couldn't develop until he allowed himself to get angry about being treated unfairly. Her naivete, it seemed to me, was most often maintained by the writers to continue the existence of the love triangle. In reality, if she had come to understand him enough to fall in love with him, it should have upset her, intellectually if nothing else, that the guy she was previously worshipping, was so adamant in his unilateral condemnation of the Demon Lord. I'm assuming something along these lines eventually happens, but in what I saw it should have already many times over. The fact that she treated the demon lord fairly and kindly was completely in keeping with her character. But contrary to a great deal of her other behavior.

This all goes back to my not being the target audience for romance. I have a big intellectual and ideological problem with "love playing a big part in how they approach hardships."

That's all I'm saying. And again, I respect our difference in opinion. And enjoyed the opportunity to have a disagreement with you about this. I'm one of those people who enjoys disagreements because, among other reasons, they help me understand my own opinions better. It's also very interesting to see an opposing view.

Thanks for the respectful argument, I hope you have a lovely weekend!

I don't want to start an argument. I can tell from your username that you're a fan of this and I respect that. I want to clarify a few things:

First, according to viki, I stopped at episode 20 of 36. I saw the storyline with the father, etc.

I have no problem with her character in the beginning. I didn't dislike her or find her annoying. I understood that she was sheltered. The fact that she needed to grow was excellent. I prefer characters to start in a much worse state than they develop into. I had no problem with her character in the beginning. None whatsoever. I thought it was a perfect starting point. My issue was this: as she progressed she always reverted back to that initial state. It felt like she was immune to learning. Every time the events on screen seemed to indicate that she would experience development, she simply bounced back to her initial state in the next scene. It was unnecessarily frustrating. And more than once this depiction suggested that she had no growth required, but that he alone needed to change. Sure she gradually came to understand him and help him, but that's plot development, not character development. And, truthfully, spoke more to HIS character development than hers. And she was always a fairly decent person, if a little childishly self-absorbed. Even if she made massive, gigantic changes in the last 16 episodes, that means that the pacing is very poor. Between episode 1 and episode 19 she made zero development beyond thinking she might be in love with him. So maybe you're right, maybe she does ultimately develop well, but it shouldn't happen all at once. Even if it's a good story, it's poorly told.

I don't think any drama should force you to "bear with it until the end." You can't tell a story badly and then hope to make up for it with two or three great final episodes. I prefer long dramas, I prefer long stories. Good pacing is hard to accomplish. But it's important because otherwise a good story is unwatchable.

And I didn't hate either of them in the beginning. I understood them both and could see that growth was indeed necessary. In the beginning, she already struck me as someone who would sacrifice herself for her people, but that didn't make her any less naive, childish or self-absorbed. Which is what I mean when I say I liked her. She had tremendous potential right out of the gate. And I really liked him in the beginning. I could already tell in the first few episodes that he was not a villain, not even an anti-hero. And that he deeply cared for his people, insofar as he was able. I predicted the situation with the father very early on. I hated a lot of the writing choices that forced them along paths that cheapened their excellent characters. How good they could've been (especially her) made this even more frustrating.

And love is not something that changes people for the better. Love barely ever even changes people. It could, possibly, jolt you into giving something a second thought, but love can't accurately be depicted as able to change someone, but rather to heighten their pre-existing traits. Thus, growth OUTSIDE love is necessary. And then that growth opens the possibility for love or enhances the traits that make love a possibility. To say that falling in love with someone is itself character development is not actually true. That's plot development.

And it shouldn't matter if the stupid evil leads are male or female and it shouldn't matter if men or women help or don't help each other. It should only matter if the story is told well. And this one isn't.