This is a lot of fun, something I didn't know I needed... although it makes about as much sense as I anticipated.
After six episodes, I still can't grasp the importance of why they need to track down this "Michael" or this stolen information, I don't even know what it is and the bad guys just seem to be passing it around to each other like some kind of hot potato, it makes no sense.
And sure, they're bad and violent and lack morals, but what sets them apart from all the other criminals that makes the NIS take interest? What do they even do? What is their purpose?
But it's made up for with the characters. I like them, I want to watch what they do regardless!
As someone who studied psychology, I can definitely say that MBTI is not scientific at all. Please don't buy into…
Yes, but it is fun to explore, particularly with fictional characters. Because characters often fall into certain "types." People, on the other hand, are far more complicated. Like always, I take these things with a grain of salt. Psuedo-science is fascinating, but that doesn't mean I need to take it to heart. And unlike those theories that imply skull shapes signify intelligence, I don't feel like MBTI puts some people down. Most of it is positive.
What an excellent article! I had a lot of fun reading it.I found it interesting that the only character example…
Potential INFP-type:
Han Ji Min from One Spring Night. I'm saying this, primarily, from gut feeling: every one of her actions are something that I would do if I'd been raised her culture/family environment. Sure she can come off as mean, but she is not vindictive; she simply has a way of saying the truths harshly. I'd also place her more on the introvert side of the scale, as she does not seem to enjoy hanging out in large groups.
She tries to see the good in people in things, often giving them several chances (seen mostly with her starting boyfriend and father), she seeks harmony first and foremost (seen with the main story conflict), she is open-minded and flexible (for the most part), she is hard-working, she is hard on herself, and most importantly, she always ultimately follows her heart. And even though I didn't see her doing much creating, she is a librarian (my dream job!). She can be a cold person with a prickly exterior, but she is fully capable of being carefree when she's in a comfortable environment. The only thing that may make her less this personality type is her practicality, for even though she follows her heart, she really does have the ability to see the depths of things, but then again, she'll do truly impractical things to ensure that she achieves what she needs (Like refusing to eat until she gets sent to a school where her dad isn't the principle). So yes, I believe that Han Ji Min could very well be INFP as well, and a very different example to the one that you used above.
And like me, she never regrets the life-impacting decisions she makes from the gut, ultimately after much pondering and waying up the options. She is always certain.
What an excellent article! I had a lot of fun reading it. I found it interesting that the only character example you had for my personality type (INFP) was someone who I actively disliked and ultimately dropped the drama because of.
I find this test fascinating, and a fun thing to do when I'm bored. I've taken it five times in the past six years and every time I got mediator (INFP-T, specifically) I find it remarkable how the results are so.... consistent. Despite being in different stages of life, with slightly different and changing mindsets, the percentages for Introverted, Intuitive, Feeling, Prospecting were different, but they were still there.
Though.... your description of this personality type doesn't really ring true with me. It's not so much seeing the good in people as it is feeling the need/desire to, despite seeing some unpleasant, ugly things that I know are more true. And it's not so much seeing the beauty in life's tragedies as it is needing to focus on the positive over the negative, because the negative is simply too crushing.
I'm also a planner. I can't comprehend going on a trip without planning every detail, I'll get a panic attack about it if I don't.... although I'd usually leave the planning until the last minute, and once I'm there, I'll most definitely deviate from the plan after all (hahaha). I'm a planner, but not an organised one... after all, plans are only useful if you remember and follow them.
My natural state is also most definitely "hermit mode". i.e. forgetting that there are others out there to share stuff/imagination/passion/joy/good things with.
I think one of the reasons your explanation/example feels weird is because, not only is San Ma Roo happy in his own little bubble, he is assertive and confident and utterly, obliviously shameless about it. I too might imagine doing something outrageously curious to see what happens, but I won't actually do it; the cost and subsequent embarrassment is. Just. Not. Worth it.
That said, creating and freely using the imagination, now, that is strength of this personalty type that I don't believe was sufficiently covered.
I think there's probably a lot of INFP types in dramas, and some better examples, although I can't name many off the top of my head. See the spoiler comment for one (potentially).
Oh yes. I watch a lot of Korean crime/detective/thriller shows, and there are some actors who I've seen play such…
Tunnel: This is a great example, because there are two villians. And for the first half of the show, you'll probably only think that there is just one villian. The actor for the first is one who I am so familiar with, have seen play an antagonist so many times, that I recognised him from his voice after just one sentence. It shows you that he is evil, it does not try to fool you. But as the episodes go on, you realise that there's something off and it turns out the true mastermind is the guy who was doing the autopsies all along. A far less unassuming character, and for me, a far less recognisable actor. And best of all, once enough hints are dropped, the story essentially discards the first villain and makes no attempt whatsoever to disguise what we already know. Nonetheless, the revelation actually took me by surprise. It was SO REFRESHING, after seeing so many Kdramas that just go in circles because they think their heavy-handed foreshadowing is subtle, when it's painfully blatant. I liked the way this was done and handled. By using a well-known actor who is typecast to disguise the real mystery, as well as other things, such as compelling characters and all that.
Save Me 2: This is another example. The main antagonist is an actor who I have seen several times play a genuine good guy. He was the mentor, totally benign. And it would've fooled me if I didn't know the premise. Here we see a refreshing take: an actor who I feel has been type-cast, and then reverted this for maximum dramatic effect. Far better than the first Save Me, whose man antagonist was an actor I'd seen before many times as a villian.
The show, again, does not try to fool the viewer. And seeing both sides of the mask is far, far more chilling than a dramatic reveal ever would have been.
Stranger: Another great example would be Stranger. With villian, behind villian behind villian. Who aren't all working together, but represent the multifaceted nature of the mystery. As well as having one of the "villians" really be the very society that the characters live in, like the corruption that comes with power, and not, you know, a person. But many articles have been written about it and you used it in your examples, so I don't feel the need to go in depth.
Watcher: A drama that failed with this was Watcher. Same director as Stranger, it was interesting to compare. They cast a character who was type-cast as a villian as the villian, and even though the writing suspected him and then moved on only to eventually return, it was anticlimactic, because me, as a viewer, never felt sufficiently fooled. Because the simple fact was this: they never introduced a character who was more likely to be the villian and therefore, because I've never seen the antagonist turn out to be random-never-before-seen, it must have been this guy. There was no other option.
Some of the side revelations were surprises, but ultimately, the drama felt more like a method for commentary (on society, corruption, ect) than it did a satisfactory mystery. It was open ended, which was fine, because life continues, but yeah, very much a classic example of a Korean detective mystery. Albeit one done very, very well regardless. --
I also agree with your assessment of Jdramas and Kdramas and their differences. It's interesting to put them in words. Thanks for the great article. Villains always make the show: a bad, dumb villain can ruin everything.
Also Jdramas generally do episodic mysteries far, far better. In my opinion. Kdramas like Missing Noir M suffer from being far too dramatic/implausible in just 1 episode to feel suspenseful, and they lack that Jdrama quality of making the absurd feel normal.
Oh yes. I watch a lot of Korean crime/detective/thriller shows, and there are some actors who I've seen play such convincing villains that they are, inevitably, typecast. The antagonist (at least, the visible antagonist) is almost always some I recognise immediately... and that really makes the mystery feel anticlimactic and frustrating, watching the main character go in circles when I guessed the evil almost immediately, several episodes ago.
My favourite "mysteries" (because they're technically not such a guess-who mystery) are ones where the story makes it known who the antagonist is early on. Even if the characters don't know as much, at least the writing/casting is not taking the viewers for fools.
Two villain casting/portrayals that I feel are particularly noteworthy are these: I will add a spoiler comment for Tunnel and Save Me 2. As well as some spoilers as I go on to talk about Stranger and Watcher.
Wait,,,,, can we get a “Bastard” adaptation too???I actually haven’t read this webtoon, I didn’t even…
omg yes!! that would be. Brilliant. Bastard is one of my favourite webtoons and it would make the perfect thriller drama. Also, I only read the first 20 or so chapters of this back when it was very new, but it was pretty good. I recommend trying it. .. and I should catch up before this airs too.
(korean) historicals usually get draggy yes :c you can try watching shorter ones, like splash splash love for…
Thanks for your recommendations. I think one of the problems is that I just, don't enjoy time travel. It's not that I dislike the concept, it's that the whole fish-out-of-water scenario scares me. Someone who doesn't know how to behave right, who accidentally makes things worse and where a whole lot of time is devoted to their learning process... I get second hand embarrassment very very easily.
I think about historical dramas is that they're usually either comedy or tragedy. I automatically gravitate to the serious tone in a tragedy, but they are inevitably, tragic, and it's just not fun when all the warning signals are there, but the character makes the decision that makes them dead. Particularly when I can see a less-stupid move that would not end in tragedy... because most tragedy feels cheap, like it's the writer's goal to just wring out as much emotion from the viewer as possible. Sometimes tragic endings are okay, even good, if the story has already accomplished its goal and the inevitable death is /meaningful/ .. but it usually opens up more questions that it answers, and that is not okay.
This is the case with Cdramas... as for Kdramas, I'm usually scared off by the female lead before I even get that far. Because let's face it, in about 7/10 historical Kdramas that I have seen, the female lead felt like a side character, an excuse for a very uninteresting love plot, and that was it. Examples: Six Flying Dragons, My Country: The New Age, Haechi (okay, not so bad character, but awful actress), ect. It's particularly bad in dramas set in the Joseon era, because women had no power, and romance and politics are not a fun combination, don't get me wrong, I love politics, but not when the conflict is driven by romance. And then dramas that have a female protagonist, like Queen Seon Duk are just too /long/. Not that I have an issue with length if it's worthwhile, but a lot of scenes felt like they were there for the purpose of making it even /longer/.
Sorry if my response was too long, I could say more, but I really don't want to come off as ranting. Because I do like the historical genre, or the idea of it.
I've always liked the idea of historical dramas, and I start every one thinking I'll enjoy it, but I never ever manage to finish them! Even if I love the characters, the story always winds up too convoluted - and too long - to feel worth it.
A bit too straight-forward for my taste. Too much action (there was going to be action, of course) but there's no subtlety whatsoever. I was interested because of cast and revenge themes, but it looks like it's not for me.
And sure, they're bad and violent and lack morals, but what sets them apart from all the other criminals that makes the NIS take interest? What do they even do? What is their purpose?
But it's made up for with the characters. I like them, I want to watch what they do regardless!
Like always, I take these things with a grain of salt. Psuedo-science is fascinating, but that doesn't mean I need to take it to heart. And unlike those theories that imply skull shapes signify intelligence, I don't feel like MBTI puts some people down. Most of it is positive.
Han Ji Min from One Spring Night. I'm saying this, primarily, from gut feeling: every one of her actions are something that I would do if I'd been raised her culture/family environment. Sure she can come off as mean, but she is not vindictive; she simply has a way of saying the truths harshly. I'd also place her more on the introvert side of the scale, as she does not seem to enjoy hanging out in large groups.
She tries to see the good in people in things, often giving them several chances (seen mostly with her starting boyfriend and father), she seeks harmony first and foremost (seen with the main story conflict), she is open-minded and flexible (for the most part), she is hard-working, she is hard on herself, and most importantly, she always ultimately follows her heart. And even though I didn't see her doing much creating, she is a librarian (my dream job!). She can be a cold person with a prickly exterior, but she is fully capable of being carefree when she's in a comfortable environment. The only thing that may make her less this personality type is her practicality, for even though she follows her heart, she really does have the ability to see the depths of things, but then again, she'll do truly impractical things to ensure that she achieves what she needs (Like refusing to eat until she gets sent to a school where her dad isn't the principle). So yes, I believe that Han Ji Min could very well be INFP as well, and a very different example to the one that you used above.
And like me, she never regrets the life-impacting decisions she makes from the gut, ultimately after much pondering and waying up the options. She is always certain.
I found it interesting that the only character example you had for my personality type (INFP) was someone who I actively disliked and ultimately dropped the drama because of.
I find this test fascinating, and a fun thing to do when I'm bored. I've taken it five times in the past six years and every time I got mediator (INFP-T, specifically) I find it remarkable how the results are so.... consistent. Despite being in different stages of life, with slightly different and changing mindsets, the percentages for Introverted, Intuitive, Feeling, Prospecting were different, but they were still there.
Though.... your description of this personality type doesn't really ring true with me. It's not so much seeing the good in people as it is feeling the need/desire to, despite seeing some unpleasant, ugly things that I know are more true. And it's not so much seeing the beauty in life's tragedies as it is needing to focus on the positive over the negative, because the negative is simply too crushing.
I'm also a planner. I can't comprehend going on a trip without planning every detail, I'll get a panic attack about it if I don't.... although I'd usually leave the planning until the last minute, and once I'm there, I'll most definitely deviate from the plan after all (hahaha). I'm a planner, but not an organised one... after all, plans are only useful if you remember and follow them.
My natural state is also most definitely "hermit mode". i.e. forgetting that there are others out there to share stuff/imagination/passion/joy/good things with.
I think one of the reasons your explanation/example feels weird is because, not only is San Ma Roo happy in his own little bubble, he is assertive and confident and utterly, obliviously shameless about it. I too might imagine doing something outrageously curious to see what happens, but I won't actually do it; the cost and subsequent embarrassment is. Just. Not. Worth it.
That said, creating and freely using the imagination, now, that is strength of this personalty type that I don't believe was sufficiently covered.
I think there's probably a lot of INFP types in dramas, and some better examples, although I can't name many off the top of my head. See the spoiler comment for one (potentially).
Oh, except the concept of close friendships, those are alien.
This is a great example, because there are two villians. And for the first half of the show, you'll probably only think that there is just one villian. The actor for the first is one who I am so familiar with, have seen play an antagonist so many times, that I recognised him from his voice after just one sentence. It shows you that he is evil, it does not try to fool you. But as the episodes go on, you realise that there's something off and it turns out the true mastermind is the guy who was doing the autopsies all along. A far less unassuming character, and for me, a far less recognisable actor. And best of all, once enough hints are dropped, the story essentially discards the first villain and makes no attempt whatsoever to disguise what we already know. Nonetheless, the revelation actually took me by surprise. It was SO REFRESHING, after seeing so many Kdramas that just go in circles because they think their heavy-handed foreshadowing is subtle, when it's painfully blatant. I liked the way this was done and handled. By using a well-known actor who is typecast to disguise the real mystery, as well as other things, such as compelling characters and all that.
Save Me 2:
This is another example. The main antagonist is an actor who I have seen several times play a genuine good guy. He was the mentor, totally benign. And it would've fooled me if I didn't know the premise. Here we see a refreshing take: an actor who I feel has been type-cast, and then reverted this for maximum dramatic effect. Far better than the first Save Me, whose man antagonist was an actor I'd seen before many times as a villian.
The show, again, does not try to fool the viewer. And seeing both sides of the mask is far, far more chilling than a dramatic reveal ever would have been.
Stranger:
Another great example would be Stranger. With villian, behind villian behind villian. Who aren't all working together, but represent the multifaceted nature of the mystery. As well as having one of the "villians" really be the very society that the characters live in, like the corruption that comes with power, and not, you know, a person. But many articles have been written about it and you used it in your examples, so I don't feel the need to go in depth.
Watcher:
A drama that failed with this was Watcher. Same director as Stranger, it was interesting to compare. They cast a character who was type-cast as a villian as the villian, and even though the writing suspected him and then moved on only to eventually return, it was anticlimactic, because me, as a viewer, never felt sufficiently fooled. Because the simple fact was this: they never introduced a character who was more likely to be the villian and therefore, because I've never seen the antagonist turn out to be random-never-before-seen, it must have been this guy. There was no other option.
Some of the side revelations were surprises, but ultimately, the drama felt more like a method for commentary (on society, corruption, ect) than it did a satisfactory mystery. It was open ended, which was fine, because life continues, but yeah, very much a classic example of a Korean detective mystery. Albeit one done very, very well regardless.
--
I also agree with your assessment of Jdramas and Kdramas and their differences. It's interesting to put them in words. Thanks for the great article. Villains always make the show: a bad, dumb villain can ruin everything.
Also Jdramas generally do episodic mysteries far, far better. In my opinion. Kdramas like Missing Noir M suffer from being far too dramatic/implausible in just 1 episode to feel suspenseful, and they lack that Jdrama quality of making the absurd feel normal.
My favourite "mysteries" (because they're technically not such a guess-who mystery) are ones where the story makes it known who the antagonist is early on. Even if the characters don't know as much, at least the writing/casting is not taking the viewers for fools.
Two villain casting/portrayals that I feel are particularly noteworthy are these:
I will add a spoiler comment for Tunnel and Save Me 2. As well as some spoilers as I go on to talk about Stranger and Watcher.
Also, I only read the first 20 or so chapters of this back when it was very new, but it was pretty good. I recommend trying it. .. and I should catch up before this airs too.
I think about historical dramas is that they're usually either comedy or tragedy. I automatically gravitate to the serious tone in a tragedy, but they are inevitably, tragic, and it's just not fun when all the warning signals are there, but the character makes the decision that makes them dead. Particularly when I can see a less-stupid move that would not end in tragedy... because most tragedy feels cheap, like it's the writer's goal to just wring out as much emotion from the viewer as possible. Sometimes tragic endings are okay, even good, if the story has already accomplished its goal and the inevitable death is /meaningful/ .. but it usually opens up more questions that it answers, and that is not okay.
This is the case with Cdramas... as for Kdramas, I'm usually scared off by the female lead before I even get that far. Because let's face it, in about 7/10 historical Kdramas that I have seen, the female lead felt like a side character, an excuse for a very uninteresting love plot, and that was it. Examples: Six Flying Dragons, My Country: The New Age, Haechi (okay, not so bad character, but awful actress), ect. It's particularly bad in dramas set in the Joseon era, because women had no power, and romance and politics are not a fun combination, don't get me wrong, I love politics, but not when the conflict is driven by romance. And then dramas that have a female protagonist, like Queen Seon Duk are just too /long/. Not that I have an issue with length if it's worthwhile, but a lot of scenes felt like they were there for the purpose of making it even /longer/.
Sorry if my response was too long, I could say more, but I really don't want to come off as ranting. Because I do like the historical genre, or the idea of it.