This was the series where the actor Lee Ji Han was supposed to appear. Lee Ji Han was the reported actor who passed away due to the "Seoul Halloween crowd rush".
Lee Ji Han was replaced by Lee Jung Joon, for the character of the FL's ex-boyfriend.
It was reported that Lee Ji Han he already finished filming his scenes in later September.
Since he was not credited here in kisskh, and in other sites, I assume the Kokdu producers decided not to use his scenes, and re-filmed everything when Lee Jung Joon came on board.
Ji Hyeon is still alive. There were so many clues.
1. She's attached to an object. While all the other dead people can roam freely.
For me, it meant that she can not exist as a freely roaming spirit. Normally, her range should be within a few meters away from her body, but for some reason, her phone became her anchor point.
2. Dead people immediately show up as a spirit. If they have an āunfinished businessā, they can force themselves to stay. Otherwise, they move on immediately.
Ji Hyeon did not until her mobile phone was turned-on.
3. She doesn't have any memories at all when she first appeared (when her phone was first turned-on).
I was immediately suspicious about this. This was the strongest point for me that she is still alive. All other spirits have memories, mostly complete memories, maybe a few with partial, but still have memories. But Ji Hyeon? Not a single memory.
4. Even though they confessed their love to each other, she stayed and did not move on.
That practically sealed it. Her body is still alive. She can only move on if her body dies.
5. That mysterious underworld scene they never showed again, so far (as of episode 8).
She was the only spirit who can stay there for days. The one and only spirit she saw appeared there, and happened to be someone she knew, can not hear her and also immediately moved on.
When that friend of hers moved on, her tower also collapsed. Yet, when Ji Hyeon returned to Earth, her tower remained.
The tower more likely represents a spirit's connection to the land of the living. So, if they no longer have an unfinished business, the spirit can move on, and the tower collapses.
5. OOC (Out-of-character) or technical reason: She has to be alive!
Otherwise, what's the point of making her and Yeong Min develop feelings for each other?
Kim Min Seok (as Do Kyu Jin) is listed as āMaināā¦
ā¦ yet his role and screen time is what is called in the West as a āregular guestā.
A āregular guestā is someone who acts in a role wherein they are important to the plot, but is not a support nor a main character which does not warrant a screen time as other characters. They may appear in every episode, but their screen time, even dialogues, are pretty much less than support characters. Sometimes they don't even appear in an episode, or only to show their face and/or say a one-liner.
So, they are practically a guest, but regular. Hahaha.
Hae Soo's trust had a giant crack effectively chiseled into it by someone who could even make a little brother…
Great explanation, much appreciated!
And good point, 10 years to a 30-year reporter is a huge difference, and also depending on which reports they covered, as you mentioned, like frontlines.
What are you talking about? Every main actor in this drama is married to a non-celebrity, divorced (Chae Jung…
> I made myself clear before , no need to keep reminding me of things I already know. My point of view is clear for anyone who still has his mind and hasnāt been brainwashed. This will be the last time I reply to anyone regarding this topic. Itās finished
You kept on claiming that you are just stating an opinion, or basic instinct/nature, but you also kept on shutting people down and that yours is the only way.
So, which one is it really? You can not claim you just want to āargueā or ādiscussā if you are shutting down other people just because they did not agree with you.
Are you here to preach or to socialise?
If you are here to socialise, then by all means. However, be informed that shutting people down just because they don't agree with you, is making you look insane. You have to make up your mind.
If you are here to preach, well, you can do that also, it is up to the administration of kisskh if they will allow or ban preaching. But, of course, expect people to reply and disagree with you.
HEY, don't get me wrong. I do have my own beliefs, and I don't agree with some, half, or more of the things I see/watch/read here and there.
If my EQUAL partner in life (a.k.a. wife/spouse) is an actor, and she had a kissing scene in a project after we got married, I will bring it up with her.
In fact, I will bring it up even before we get married, because the right thing to do is to set expectations. If she accepts it, good. If not, then it is something we can both ponder on, because that might become a big issue later if we get married.
We can even meet halfway and make it all work, and meeting halfway is my preferred approach because that IS how relationships work. You are EQUALS. Give and take.
It is not compromising. Compromising is going against your beliefs or principles, usually only for the benefit of one party. Meeting halfway means you both found an acceptable solution, or workaround, where both parties are satisfied, and it doesn't trample on each other's beliefs and principles.
Anyway, going back. I will not preach that it is immoral, and then shut down people who disagree with me with statements such as, and I quote, āI say it isnāt , thatās itā.
There is a right place, and a right time, to open up sensitive things. And, unfortunately, this is not it.
????? They are actors, the kisses they give are technical, they are all for work!! That's part of acting, it's…
> I am not trying to shame or force anybody , I was just arguing about is it right or wrong morally , they say itās okay , I say it isnāt , thatās it
It is your own personal belief. But remember, what you find immoral, may not be for others. And, what you find morally sound, may be immoral for others.
????? They are actors, the kisses they give are technical, they are all for work!! That's part of acting, it's…
It's hard to imagine if you are trying to push your own beliefs and culture on other people.
You have to learn not to do that. It is their culture, it is their belief, and they have the freedom to decide how far they are willing to take their roles.
Also, who said there will be kissing?
And if there will be kissing, who's to say it wasn't deepfaked? Jang Na Ra is a bit conservative, like most Koreans to this day.
Did you see a photo somewhere that they kiss? Because, quite honestly, I have no idea why you are assuming that a married fictional couple will have kissing scenes.
But she is married now right !! Oh my god it will be awkward for me to see the romance and the kisses between…
1. They are actors.
2. It is up to them how far they are willing to take their roles.
3. Just because their characters are married, does it mean there will be kisses, etc. No.
You can play a married couple without doing any touching, or kissing, or showing flesh, or whatever.
In fact, it has been done before, for example, in Sex & The City. One couple there never did any kissing, because the guy stood his ground that his lips is only for his wife. In the end, his character and his fictional wife, ended up being one of the best couples in Sex & The City.
So, yeah, it is possible, and it is up to the actors how far they are willing to take their roles.
I'm thinking Jang Na Ra's character is a secret agent for the NIS, and her husband happened to be an assassin. And one day, their paths crossed, and they're on the opposite sides of the law. Yet, they have to survive for their family.
There's another live-action, can't remember of a TV series or a film, with a similar plot. The married couple are on the opposite sides, and then their paths crossed.
In that story, their paths did not cross unintentionally, the government boss of the spouse, and the criminal boss who kept hiring the other spouse, they both knew their secret identities, and intentionally made their paths crossed.
It's not Mr. and Mrs. Smith, since that one, they're both hired assassins, though similar plot.
Just speculation. I'm more excited to see how they are going to add their Korean touch in a plot that is clicheĢ.
So they're married but there's no romance in the genre š¤
āRomanceā as a genre has little to do with, well, sexual/love romance, or romantic relationships. It's actually about an adventure, or saving a person.
That in mind, this show, being about family, hence the title, doesn't fall under the said genre. And, even if we assume sexual/love romance, or romantic relationships, the show's synopsis is about a husband who is an assassin, and a wife struggling for their family. It'll probably fall more into action, secret agent, and yeah, family drama.
Huhu, 12 only. This year is when 12 episodes have become the new standard in Korean TV series. We'll more likely see less and less of 16-episode dramas.
Anyway, good thing about 12-episode shows, it's packed. And if the cast is someone like Jang Na Ra, definitely and no doubt packed. Can't wiat!
Looks like Part 2 will have amazing effects. The lead actors said that they actually finished filming Parts 1 and 2 because they shot both at the same time. If it's taking this long to release Part 2, then it means it's going to have superb effects. (And probably some adjustments and retakesā¦ who knows.)
Hae Soo's trust had a giant crack effectively chiseled into it by someone who could even make a little brother…
> Just like docs can't operate on family
In Korea, I guess. There were/are doctors who can.
> and cops can't work on cases involving family
I guess in Korea again, by the operative word "can't". In other countries, there's no stopping them from working on cases involving a family member. It is either up to them not to, or because the public has gone dismissive, so they were ordered to stay away from it.
> a reporter is going to be horribly unobjective when trying to investigate something this traumatic and emotional.
Maybe the newbies. I've seen reporters who stayed objective and kept reporting even though it involved their loved ones.
I guess it's safer to say that Hae Soo is not a seasoned reporter. Or, her grudge is so deep, it trumps all logic and objectivity.
> Having normal, wholly fallible characters is harder to do from a writing perspective than having ones who are ideal/near-perfect.
If so, my question then, why did they opt for the harder way when it is easier to write a realistic character? Also, no one said a character has to be ideal or near-perfect, having a realistic character is itself is bringing in the flaws of a human being.
The issue I find is, they established the characters a certain way, then suddenly they are out-of-character. Hae Soo was established as a seasoned reporter, she's even an anchor, that means she's above reproach and can be depended on to make the right decisions.
Yet, poof, all of that gone the next episode. It was as if she never learned anything for being a reporter. Did she earn an anchor spot because she's wealthy and well-connected?
> neither is going to be rational for a while. None of us would be, either, no matter our job skills.
A very strong statement to make. ^_^ But, I've seen people proving otherwise, even worked with one. It was only later that I found out why, because that person was a cop, they left the force because of low pay, but retained their objectivity and rationality. (I learned from that person a lot, too.)
So, again, going back, some characters were already established to be this and that person, and then in the next episode, they're a totally different character. It was like they are Hyde and Jekyll.
Look at the men in the story, they're consistent with their established characters. I wasn't even surprised who actually killed the monkey, because it's consistent with the character's personality.
As you've explained, I guess we can sum it up to, her grudge being so deep, it overrides all her rationality and objectivity. Probably the only way to reconcile the sudden 180 about her character.
1 
This was the series where the actor Lee Ji Han was supposed to appear. Lee Ji Han was the reported actor who passed away due to the "Seoul Halloween crowd rush".
Lee Ji Han was replaced by Lee Jung Joon, for the character of the FL's ex-boyfriend.
It was reported that Lee Ji Han he already finished filming his scenes in later September.
Since he was not credited here in kisskh, and in other sites, I assume the Kokdu producers decided not to use his scenes, and re-filmed everything when Lee Jung Joon came on board.
RIP
1. She's attached to an object. While all the other dead people can roam freely.
For me, it meant that she can not exist as a freely roaming spirit. Normally, her range should be within a few meters away from her body, but for some reason, her phone became her anchor point.
2. Dead people immediately show up as a spirit. If they have an āunfinished businessā, they can force themselves to stay. Otherwise, they move on immediately.
Ji Hyeon did not until her mobile phone was turned-on.
3. She doesn't have any memories at all when she first appeared (when her phone was first turned-on).
I was immediately suspicious about this. This was the strongest point for me that she is still alive. All other spirits have memories, mostly complete memories, maybe a few with partial, but still have memories. But Ji Hyeon? Not a single memory.
4. Even though they confessed their love to each other, she stayed and did not move on.
That practically sealed it. Her body is still alive. She can only move on if her body dies.
5. That mysterious underworld scene they never showed again, so far (as of episode 8).
She was the only spirit who can stay there for days. The one and only spirit she saw appeared there, and happened to be someone she knew, can not hear her and also immediately moved on.
When that friend of hers moved on, her tower also collapsed. Yet, when Ji Hyeon returned to Earth, her tower remained.
The tower more likely represents a spirit's connection to the land of the living. So, if they no longer have an unfinished business, the spirit can move on, and the tower collapses.
5. OOC (Out-of-character) or technical reason: She has to be alive!
Otherwise, what's the point of making her and Yeong Min develop feelings for each other?
HAHAHAHAHA
A āregular guestā is someone who acts in a role wherein they are important to the plot, but is not a support nor a main character which does not warrant a screen time as other characters. They may appear in every episode, but their screen time, even dialogues, are pretty much less than support characters. Sometimes they don't even appear in an episode, or only to show their face and/or say a one-liner.
So, they are practically a guest, but regular. Hahaha.
And good point, 10 years to a 30-year reporter is a huge difference, and also depending on which reports they covered, as you mentioned, like frontlines.
Oh. I just saw that after re-reading.
I guess I shouldn't expect any reply. If you do reply, then I guess, well ā¦
You kept on claiming that you are just stating an opinion, or basic instinct/nature, but you also kept on shutting people down and that yours is the only way.
So, which one is it really? You can not claim you just want to āargueā or ādiscussā if you are shutting down other people just because they did not agree with you.
Are you here to preach or to socialise?
If you are here to socialise, then by all means. However, be informed that shutting people down just because they don't agree with you, is making you look insane. You have to make up your mind.
If you are here to preach, well, you can do that also, it is up to the administration of kisskh if they will allow or ban preaching. But, of course, expect people to reply and disagree with you.
HEY, don't get me wrong. I do have my own beliefs, and I don't agree with some, half, or more of the things I see/watch/read here and there.
If my EQUAL partner in life (a.k.a. wife/spouse) is an actor, and she had a kissing scene in a project after we got married, I will bring it up with her.
In fact, I will bring it up even before we get married, because the right thing to do is to set expectations. If she accepts it, good. If not, then it is something we can both ponder on, because that might become a big issue later if we get married.
We can even meet halfway and make it all work, and meeting halfway is my preferred approach because that IS how relationships work. You are EQUALS. Give and take.
It is not compromising. Compromising is going against your beliefs or principles, usually only for the benefit of one party. Meeting halfway means you both found an acceptable solution, or workaround, where both parties are satisfied, and it doesn't trample on each other's beliefs and principles.
Anyway, going back. I will not preach that it is immoral, and then shut down people who disagree with me with statements such as, and I quote, āI say it isnāt , thatās itā.
There is a right place, and a right time, to open up sensitive things. And, unfortunately, this is not it.
It is your own personal belief. But remember, what you find immoral, may not be for others. And, what you find morally sound, may be immoral for others.
That's how it is to live here on planet Earth.
You have to learn not to do that. It is their culture, it is their belief, and they have the freedom to decide how far they are willing to take their roles.
Also, who said there will be kissing?
And if there will be kissing, who's to say it wasn't deepfaked? Jang Na Ra is a bit conservative, like most Koreans to this day.
Did you see a photo somewhere that they kiss? Because, quite honestly, I have no idea why you are assuming that a married fictional couple will have kissing scenes.
2. It is up to them how far they are willing to take their roles.
3. Just because their characters are married, does it mean there will be kisses, etc. No.
You can play a married couple without doing any touching, or kissing, or showing flesh, or whatever.
In fact, it has been done before, for example, in Sex & The City. One couple there never did any kissing, because the guy stood his ground that his lips is only for his wife. In the end, his character and his fictional wife, ended up being one of the best couples in Sex & The City.
So, yeah, it is possible, and it is up to the actors how far they are willing to take their roles.
There's another live-action, can't remember of a TV series or a film, with a similar plot. The married couple are on the opposite sides, and then their paths crossed.
In that story, their paths did not cross unintentionally, the government boss of the spouse, and the criminal boss who kept hiring the other spouse, they both knew their secret identities, and intentionally made their paths crossed.
It's not Mr. and Mrs. Smith, since that one, they're both hired assassins, though similar plot.
Just speculation. I'm more excited to see how they are going to add their Korean touch in a plot that is clicheĢ.
That in mind, this show, being about family, hence the title, doesn't fall under the said genre. And, even if we assume sexual/love romance, or romantic relationships, the show's synopsis is about a husband who is an assassin, and a wife struggling for their family. It'll probably fall more into action, secret agent, and yeah, family drama.
^_^
Anyway, good thing about 12-episode shows, it's packed. And if the cast is someone like Jang Na Ra, definitely and no doubt packed. Can't wiat!
In Korea, I guess. There were/are doctors who can.
> and cops can't work on cases involving family
I guess in Korea again, by the operative word "can't". In other countries, there's no stopping them from working on cases involving a family member. It is either up to them not to, or because the public has gone dismissive, so they were ordered to stay away from it.
> a reporter is going to be horribly unobjective when trying to investigate something this traumatic and emotional.
Maybe the newbies. I've seen reporters who stayed objective and kept reporting even though it involved their loved ones.
I guess it's safer to say that Hae Soo is not a seasoned reporter. Or, her grudge is so deep, it trumps all logic and objectivity.
> Having normal, wholly fallible characters is harder to do from a writing perspective than having ones who are ideal/near-perfect.
If so, my question then, why did they opt for the harder way when it is easier to write a realistic character? Also, no one said a character has to be ideal or near-perfect, having a realistic character is itself is bringing in the flaws of a human being.
The issue I find is, they established the characters a certain way, then suddenly they are out-of-character. Hae Soo was established as a seasoned reporter, she's even an anchor, that means she's above reproach and can be depended on to make the right decisions.
Yet, poof, all of that gone the next episode. It was as if she never learned anything for being a reporter. Did she earn an anchor spot because she's wealthy and well-connected?
> neither is going to be rational for a while. None of us would be, either, no matter our job skills.
A very strong statement to make. ^_^ But, I've seen people proving otherwise, even worked with one. It was only later that I found out why, because that person was a cop, they left the force because of low pay, but retained their objectivity and rationality. (I learned from that person a lot, too.)
So, again, going back, some characters were already established to be this and that person, and then in the next episode, they're a totally different character. It was like they are Hyde and Jekyll.
Look at the men in the story, they're consistent with their established characters. I wasn't even surprised who actually killed the monkey, because it's consistent with the character's personality.
As you've explained, I guess we can sum it up to, her grudge being so deep, it overrides all her rationality and objectivity. Probably the only way to reconcile the sudden 180 about her character.
^_^