KevinToronto

Fair points, and I appreciate the reply.

I completely agree that the pressure for women "not to age" is extreme and very harmful. Sadly, this is not merely a problem in Korea; it is a worldwide problem.

I cringed with the text message/phone call scene. Who responds to a stranger asking "Is this X's phone" with "No, it is Y's phone"?

According to your profile, you have been here since 2018; have you watched Backstreet Rookie? If so, did you complain that the 29-year-old male lead character and 22-year-old female lead character were played by the 33-year-old Ji Chang-wook and the 20-year-old Kim Yoo-jung, respectively?

Or is your problem merely the fact that 38-year-old Shin Hyun-been is playing the female lead? You wrote "Hard to romance with an actress you'd otherwise call "ajumma" on the street." Would you agree with "Hard to romance with an actor you'd otherwise call "Ahjussi" on the street."?

Sadly, this has been an unending complaint about this series. And, as you correctly point out, if the role was reversed, there would be no complaint. Earlier on here, I identified three very famous U.S. actors who have partners at least 30 years younger than them and about whom there is no criticism. The person I was responding to then resorted to calling me stupid.

My apologies for assuming that everyone would know what Whack-a-Mole is. And thanks to Ivy and Oomphlala for clearing things up for me.

I just blocked an account that was created on August 29th. However, I think we will be playing a game of Whack-a-Mole, as that is the third account I have blocked already.

And, we were thinking it was the White Truck of Doom that ended his swimming career. 😊

The reality is that clichés "exist" because they work and many people want/expect to see them. So long as a drama is well written and well acted, then who cares?

In this case, the writers have omitted the early stage romance clichés (except in flash backs), which is different and something I am enjoying. Many kdramas that use this story theme (rich and poor leads who end up together despite their differences) focus a lot of time and effort on the start of the romance. Here, the focus is on the consequences of the break-up and eventual happy ending (presumably).

Kudos to the creative team for finding a different perspective.

Personally, I like the fact that the story starts with the couple already 18 months into their romance. The reveal and angst of discovering the male lead is a rich chaebol has been played out already. Instead, we start with the female lead being pragmatic and taking the money, because she "knows" that reality will eventually kick in and the couple will split.

Clearly, the writers looked at the traditional rich male and poor female scenario and wondered how to rearrange things a little. There are another 8 episodes and I am hoping that it continues to be this enjoyable.

Err, the vast majority of us are not morally black and white; we live somewhere in the grey zone.

I missed the point where Seok Ryu blackmailed someone, could you give me a rough point in what we have seen so far, so that I can re-watch it? Thanks.

As for the hitting, yes, it can seem excessive and over the top. However, the bulk of it is against Seung Hyo and this is visual allegory to show the deep and long-standing relationship between the two, which will be shown to be love.

The opening scenes of the first episode show the reason behind Seok Ryu's mother's reaction. It stems from high school friends trying to "out-do" each other in how successful they have been, either directly or through their children. During the hike, a lot of the talk was about the upcoming wedding (including handing out the very fancy invitations) in the U.S. and the fact that the future son-in-law is a (very successful) international lawyer. The embarrassment (humiliation) of having it cancelled just one month out is going to cause problems.

As for why Seok Ryu did not openly explain why she did what she did, the answer is simple: Shame. The high school letter to herself shows that her focus and self-worth was based on how others saw her, not how she saw herself. As someone whose partner of 7 years cheated with a married co-worker (yes, the ultimate in cliches, but...), I can assure you that shame and not wanting to show vulnerability make it very, very difficult to openly divulge and discuss the situation, even to family. The belief that you (the victim) is the one at fault is not easy to overcome, I know from personal experience.

This morning, I came across this review of the first two episodes on Drama Beans (https://www.dramabeans.com/2024/08/cinderella-at-2am-episodes-1-2/). It is a quite positive review, ending with
"...if it maintains its current balance of romance and comedy while using character development to drive the plot, then I think Cinderella at 2AM has the potential to surprise us all."

This section caught my attention:
"...why did he accompany her to the movies when he hates dark cramped spaces, and why did he eat spicy food if he doesn’t enjoy it? Because, he responds, he wanted to like the things she liked, and gradually her likes and dislikes became his own. Yoon-seo, in return, expresses her disappointment that he never gave her the same opportunity to learn and appreciate his interests, like opera, with him because he prioritized her preferences over his own."

How many of us have been a relationship where you focus on your partner at the expense of building a true partnership because you are too scared of losing what you have? I know I have.

It is definitely not the King's English, but it is very noticeable when I say colour instead of color. 🤣

My thoughts exactly. That is why I speculated that the Chris character was her "ex" last weekend.

While reading through some of the older comments, I came across one talking about a desire not to have a love triangle when the ex finally makes an appearance. I am in the "No to any love triangle crap" camp.

However, a weird thought crossed my mind (people can speculate about what the thought says about my "mind"). I thought I would write it down to see what others think.

Would it be a good or bad plot line if the ex turns out to be the son of the sleazy vice-minister colleague who seemed to creep out Seung Hyo's mother?

It would have been even better if she had a crab claw.

As I noted in my other post, I was born and raised in London. I left the U.K. before my 25th birthday and I have never been back except for visits to see family. I have lived in Hong Kong and Canada for longer than the nearly 25 years in the U.K. (I will not say how long because a man never divulges his age😉).

Yet, while getting a coffee at the office last week, someone from a different department asked whether I was from Britain!

Mind you, I am surprised that someone has difficulty in pronouncing "DramaLifeForever". 😄

Completely agree. I was born and raised in London, and heard the arrogance, conceit, and contempt that some had towards people who were speaking English as their second, third, or fourth language.

For me, this is a Korean production using Korean actors for, first and foremost, for a Korean audience. That many of us around the world can enjoy this programme and many others should be celebrated, not demeaned.

I would have to disagree somewhat. It is highly likely that Seok Ryu knew she was doing much more of the work. However, given her personality (refer back to the letter to herself from High School), would she have perceived it as being used? Or did she believe that she was the best person there and thus had to do the extra work, in order to be a good team member. I have met work colleagues who have exhibited those tendencies, and even more who were quite happy to ride on the coattails of the hard worker (and then take the credit).

The comment about whether to quit or not is valid. However, we do not know the timing of Seok Ryu overhearing herself being denigrated by her colleagues and her discovering that her finance is cheating on her. The impression from the only flash back so far suggests that she went looking for him to discuss what she heard and get support. Instead, she discovered yet more betrayal. Individually, she might have overcome the issues. However, the two issues combined might have been too much.

I could be wrong but I thought that, during the flash back, Chris told the other team members the reason why, but it was not spoken out loud for the audience. Clearly, whatever the reason, it was not a positive (e.g., year-long study sabbatical) and it was used against her afterwards.