Stuffed Cat

I see we now have three voters who think the USA is part of China. Or does having Chinese ancestory qualify someone to be on this list? I'm pretty sure I have quite a bit of nordic DNA ... that doesn't make me a viking.

Yeah, it has always kinda baffled me why people who can't read would bother trying to use the internet.

Maybe I'll start a new voting list then, once the idiots have managed to make it meaningless, change the title to: "Mediocre Actors Who Are Only On This List Because I'm A Moron".

LOL at 'dead fish kiss'. I seem to recall it being demonstrated in quite a few of the Kdramas I've watched, so was beginning to think it was meant to be realistic, and just one of the many cultural differences between East and West.

Hmmm. I've had relationships like that.

Awwwww! (I found the ending quite sweet, actually. OK, a little cheesy, but sweet nonetheless.)

BTW, Song Joong Ki should really be here but, from the point of view of this list, he's cursed with being way too good-looking. I would have added him, then persuaded myself of the righteousness of his inclusion .... but as I'm the arbiter of such decisions, that seemed a little unfair. However, if someone else decides to add him .... :-))

Hmmm. Made in 2014? I'm guessing GagaOOLala was still a kind of fledgling experiment then, so budgets must have been extremely tight. It shows!

BTW: "Extreme Sexual Content" tag? Seriously??? Some of the people who add / vote for these things REALLY need to get out more.

I could probably write quite a long list of where this drama was slightly 'off' for me. Not exactly wrong, but in ways that kept reminding me it was a just a show, not something to immerse myself in. I won't though because, well, it was just such FUN right from the start. I thoroughly enjoyed every single episode, to such an extent that I've just had a couple of VERY late nights, suffering from 'Just One More Episode' syndrome.

I also think this show has been a kind of 'turning point' for me. I started by talking about things being slightly 'off'. Western costume dramas don't, generally, throw in modern-sounding language and idioms, gestures, etc. Actors don't respond to situations and dialogue in an exaggerated comic-book manner more appropriate to pantomime than celluloid. (Yeah, I'm showing my age!) This kind of thing happens in a lot of Kdramas. And once you realise that this is a deliberate style rather than there being something amiss, and it's done well as it was here, it can be extremely funny.

I have a very long watch list, which keeps getting longer not shorter, so I'm quite harsh when deciding whether something should be added to my REwatch list. This show definitely goes on it.

Why not do what I do? Wait until a show has finished airing completely before starting to watch it. At least then you can watch it at your own pace, rather than endure weekly cliffhangers, etc. Of course, with more and more Kdramas jumping on the "hey, let's have a cliffhanger / open / suggestive ending to the current season and hold out the prospect of another one" bandwagon, that sometimes puts you two or three years behind everyone else. :-(

Yeah, naive or gullible, but I was trying fairly hard not to be totally rude. That's why I changed "maybe I could sell you" into "I've been instructed to sell". :-)

My 'selective truth' comment was in answer to "How can truth be misleading", not in respect of the headline.

"... of all time" isn't exaggeration, it's the truth. It is, however, completely unnecessary, and misleading by implication, which is the point I and others were making.

'The bridge' thing probably varies from country to country. Here in the UK there are documented cases of fraudsters selling Tower Bridge in London to people. In the US, that's been done at least once with the 'Hollywood' sign. Most likely, in Sydney someone has 'bought' the Opera House, and I'd wager that if every piece of rock sold as being part of the Great Wall of China actually was, there would be a ditch there rather than a wall!

And if they want to marry a man, that's legal here in the UK too. :-)

How can truth be misleading? It's extremely easy to mislead while only telling the truth. You just carefully pick the truths you use to steer people in the direction you want them to go. It's called 'selective truth' and it's why courts, in the UK at least, make people swear to tell the WHOLE truth, not just 'the truth'.

I haven't yet watched this drama, nor taken much notice of any articles about it on here (until this ludicrous headline). To me, "... of all time" suggested it was a long running drama (multi-season, most likely) with previously high ratings that on its last episode had achieved significantly greater success. It actually ran for just eight weeks, with an overall viewing percentage of just 4.4%. Its last episode gained 5.7%, so just 1.3% above average (or about 30% above its overall average, if you want to be dramatic). So, yes, it was the truth, but yes, the phrasing of the headline WAS misleading, for me at least.

[PS: If you REALLY don't believe truth can be misleading, I have a bridge I've been instructed to sell.]

LOL ... maths was never my strong point. I just looked at the number of episodes, rather than trying to calculate the weeks!

And, once again, the vote description references "favorite", not "best".

Think I'm looking forward to this. (Kinda hoping that life will start to imitate art, too.)

Sorry, but that is SUCH a pretentious and hyperbolic title for this piece. "...Its Highest Rating OF ALL TIME"? This series aired for sixteen weeks. I've had parties that lasted longer!

Yet again, a list that more resembles a beauty pageant than a true reflection of talent. Maybe it's the demographic of the voters here, but no-one in the list looks to be older than their mid-forties. What about all the 'character' actors who have been demonstrating their mastery of the art for many years? For those who want a vote based on skill not looks, I've set up my own list: "ACTUAL Best Actor on MDL". Feel free to stop by and cast a vote or two.

I don't think anyone here IS suggesting it should be any different. We're suggesting that ALL this type of reporting is inane. I'd probably exclude royalty or other instances of inherited succession to positions of power, as that actually IS relevant to the people affected by it ... but I see no need for it to be reported to anyone outside the affected group. e.g. If Prince William has a baby .... OK, that WOULD be news! ... if Prince William's wife has a baby, why do people in South Georgia need to know that?

'In the public interest' and 'Of interest to the public' are two very different things.

Ha ha! "Great minds think alike". I kinda expected that too, the minute it was revealed Geu-ru was adopted. [Mind you, they also say "Fools seldom differ". :-) ]