WHAT was that choice at the end? Of Ju Yeon's 4 options, at least 2 had some semblance of sincerity and green-flag...-ish moments. Only one had proven sincerity over time. And she picked Definitely Not Them. The show was hardly riveting all the way through, but it could have been a fun re-watch. However, I'm too irritated by her final choice to look in its direction again. No. Go away. Make better life choices, little sister.
it was interesting at first when Juyeon and Seheon has sparks but it faded in the middle of the show like.. where's…
100% agreed! Business empire heir or insta-girl influencer would have been better—both had better chemistry and green-ish flags (as green as you can get in this scenario). Se Heon has no green—the red pennant is wishy-washy-waving all over the place.
ZLS is still not completely recovered. All the photos and videos we are seeing now are from last year. In an interview…
Yes, the side effects from her illness include struggles with memory, and that hasn't yet gone away (per her ongoing reality show, Be Myself). Until that gets better, she won't be able to memorize scripts for filming. :/
What decisions regarding JX did HT exactly take without consulting her?The ONLY thing was getting XC shares back…
Haha, I hope I'm not that mind-controlled by the dubious characters. 😅 (My ancestors would be ashamed of me...)
HT made some decisions, and did leave her out of enough that from her side - with her not knowing as much information as we, the audience, do - it looks very bad. I stand by the opinion that he should have brought her in much sooner, as this still seems like a breach of trust.
I'm not saying that JX is perfect - she *should* have asked a few more questions before going off entirely - but in her mind, she might not be able to trust him to tell the truth, either. So while I don't agree entirely with how she handled it, I do understand. And I don't feel that she's the vile harridan many are painting her to be.
What decisions regarding JX did HT exactly take without consulting her?The ONLY thing was getting XC shares back…
You are correct - majority shareholders have that right, and it would be ridiculous to assume otherwise. I think there are 2 sticking points for me:
1) In the beginning, he led her to believe that she and the other co-founders would remain as the majority shareholders to have a controlling interest (and thus a deciding voice), and then acted otherwise - this belief was the reason that she agreed to his investment in the first place. Many things changed, and so he ended up collecting the biggest share of the company after a series of situational decisions, BUT he still failed to communicate that the original terms of the deal were changing or ask for her input on those changes.
2) Per my original point, he failed to respect her as a partner. As a cold business decision, it makes sense and is within the bounds of reason. However, it's still toeing the "technically..." line for a business partner - *technically*, he wasn't wrong, but it feels sketchy not to bring his business partner into the conversation that deliberately goes back on what he said he'd do, as if he's trying to hide something, He did not violate the letter of the law, but perhaps violated the spirit of it to an extent. The bigger part of this disrespect is that they are *also* romantic partners, and that implies a deeper level of trust and inclusion in his life, but here he has explicitly gone around her to block her out. (Perhaps if you had co-founded Nvidia and were dating the CEO, you might expect to at least have opinions on the company, if not deciding votes?) Again, HT violated no laws, but as an example of a good romantic partner, he failed to uphold the expectation of trust and respect that come implied with a (healthy) partnership.
What decisions regarding JX did HT exactly take without consulting her?The ONLY thing was getting XC shares back…
From the beginning, he had used the acquisition of her company and his subsequent prioritization of Star Tech as a distraction to keep his sister and other competitors focused on that instead of the other company (H--- something) that he was secretly in charge of. His investment was a little bit for helping her, but it had another purpose all along. He had made plans and had many conversations about potential future directions of the company without her or the other founders. If she had been included from the beginning, this would have been a lot of nothing, But finding out afterwards - *especially* not knowing that the proposal for the merger was only an idea at the time and not a certainty - looked very, very bad.
And the getting back of shares thing only cemented this - she tried to step out from his (from her perspective) somewhat all-encompassing influence, and the minute she tried to do that, he went around her - AGAIN - and used the move to gain even more control over her company (and by extension, her).
His solo actions caused her to question if anything - anything at all - that he had ever done to help her was actually because he liked her...or if it was ALL a strategic business move. (I would have been having the same doubts, tbh - from her side, it could look very cold but also very controlling.)
News 
HT made some decisions, and did leave her out of enough that from her side - with her not knowing as much information as we, the audience, do - it looks very bad. I stand by the opinion that he should have brought her in much sooner, as this still seems like a breach of trust.
I'm not saying that JX is perfect - she *should* have asked a few more questions before going off entirely - but in her mind, she might not be able to trust him to tell the truth, either. So while I don't agree entirely with how she handled it, I do understand. And I don't feel that she's the vile harridan many are painting her to be.
1) In the beginning, he led her to believe that she and the other co-founders would remain as the majority shareholders to have a controlling interest (and thus a deciding voice), and then acted otherwise - this belief was the reason that she agreed to his investment in the first place. Many things changed, and so he ended up collecting the biggest share of the company after a series of situational decisions, BUT he still failed to communicate that the original terms of the deal were changing or ask for her input on those changes.
2) Per my original point, he failed to respect her as a partner. As a cold business decision, it makes sense and is within the bounds of reason. However, it's still toeing the "technically..." line for a business partner - *technically*, he wasn't wrong, but it feels sketchy not to bring his business partner into the conversation that deliberately goes back on what he said he'd do, as if he's trying to hide something, He did not violate the letter of the law, but perhaps violated the spirit of it to an extent. The bigger part of this disrespect is that they are *also* romantic partners, and that implies a deeper level of trust and inclusion in his life, but here he has explicitly gone around her to block her out. (Perhaps if you had co-founded Nvidia and were dating the CEO, you might expect to at least have opinions on the company, if not deciding votes?) Again, HT violated no laws, but as an example of a good romantic partner, he failed to uphold the expectation of trust and respect that come implied with a (healthy) partnership.
And the getting back of shares thing only cemented this - she tried to step out from his (from her perspective) somewhat all-encompassing influence, and the minute she tried to do that, he went around her - AGAIN - and used the move to gain even more control over her company (and by extension, her).
His solo actions caused her to question if anything - anything at all - that he had ever done to help her was actually because he liked her...or if it was ALL a strategic business move. (I would have been having the same doubts, tbh - from her side, it could look very cold but also very controlling.)