Nightmareblue

no :)

You are making it too obvious that you are a troll creating lots of fake rumors that only hate accounts would try to circulate. I wasted my time answering you.

You think cats are evil?? What even is that

I’m not putting words in your mouth. I’m responding to what your comment leads to. Even if you mean this show only, saying a character is “there to look pretty and simp” is still a very reductive way of reading him. That’s what I was reacting to. A character can be quieter, more restrained, or emotionally contained without being decorative or empty, and writing him off that way ignores what he actually does in the story.When you say fans tend to see him like that, repeating the framing still feeds it. Maybe that’s not your intention, but it’s how those narratives keep circulating. Especially when the character isn’t loud or constantly falling apart, people start acting like there’s nothing there, and that’s a pattern I’m tired of seeing. Im not denying your comment about Kant. But even Kant still gets flattened by a lot of viewers despite how layered he was, and that same shallow reading is exactly why characters like Tiger or Sand get dismissed so easily. If the struggle isn’t screamed, it’s treated like it doesn’t exist.That’s also why I don’t agree with the idea that he’s treated as a lesser talent. Yes, some people say genuinely ridiculous things like “coattail riding” (whatever that means) but that’s a loud minority projecting their own hierarchies, not a reflection of the fandom or the work itself. Both actors are supported, both are respected, and turning it into a ranking game misses the point. For me, this really comes down to how people define depth. Visible emotional intensity isn’t the same thing as narrative importance or acting skill. Anchor characters aren’t lesser characters, and subtlety isn’t absence and I’m fine with disagreement. But let’s at least be clear that this is about interpretation, not about one of us inventing arguments out of thin air.

You all are so gullible

I think a lot of this comes from a very narrow idea of what character depth looks like. Some of you seem to think a character only has value if they are the one constantly breaking down or carrying every visible conflict. That’s just not how stories work. Anchor characters are essential. A story cannot move forward on conflict alone. And this whole idea that First is always “just there to protect Khaotung’s character” is honestly nonsense. None of his characters are built on that purpose alone. Protection is not a personality trait. It comes with love, guilt, fear, and attachment. Reducing it to his “only function” just means you are not reading the character beyond the surface. Kant is the clearest example of this. He had inner conflict, moral struggle, selfishness, fear, and desire. Yet people (people like you) simplified him into a “traitor love interest” because that is the easiest box to put him in. That is not a flaw in the writing or the acting. That is a choice made by the audience. If you flatten a character enough, of course he will look shallow. The same thing applies to Sand. Sand and Ray needed each other equally. Sand’s caregiving comes from his belief that he is never enough for anyone in his life. Not for himself, not for his mother, not for his cheating ex. That insecurity is what drives his actions. He is also responsible for one of the most important turning points in the story. If he were just a love interest, he would not seek revenge in such a calculated and personal way. And no, he did not exist only to protect Ray no matter what. He did not. Because he is his own character. He is literally the only one who gets an opening centered entirely on his own life and loneliness, and people still have the audacity to call him “just a love interest”.
Sand and Ray work because Sand needs to take care of someone and Ray needs someone to care for and love him. But Sand alone stands as a character with contradictions, agency, and growth. Saying all of First’s roles are the same only tells me you struggle with subtlety.
If you need a character to scream and cry on screen to understand that he is struggling, you should probably read and watch more things outside one genre. Different acting styles exist, and subtle acting is not the absence of depth.
Love does not make a character secondary. And comparing acting styles like one is objectively superior is not critique.
Also, this fandom does not function in the way some of you are claiming. This idea that Khaotung is more loved while First is somehow overlooked is simply false. Both are loved, both are supported, and both have very strong solo and shared fanbases. Don’t create false narratives out of air.

Damn Bella I wish this comment had a skip button so that I wouldn’t lose this much brain cells reading it! Maybe if you actually watched instead of “skrolling” you might have been able to understand why we liked it 🥴