He knew she was the killer of her father and still turned a blind eye. He supported her and let an innnocent go…
> He knew she was the killer of her father and still turned a blind eye.
The one who delivered the killing blow was him, JunSeo. He knew she did not kill her father, he knew it was him who delivered the killing blow.
He lied about it during his twisted exposé. He told half-truths that conveniently made his version the only truth.
To the end, she still hasn't murdered any one. It would've been her father, but her father was stubborn he kept fighting to stay alive, until JunSeo delivered the killing blow.
Accomplice, sure, since the second blow was her. But the 3rd blow was what killed her father even according to forensics, which was done by JunSeo, but no one knew about it other than him. The FL was out cold when he delivered the killing blow.
😉
> At least now he is in hell where he wanted to be.
She is definitely not a saint, and definitely without fault. But if you consider the other psychotics like: 1. The ML: coward, selfish, liar, bastard 2. The husband: possessive and obsessive, the worst combination of psychological illnesses 3. The agency CEO.
The FL pales in comparison. All of them did things for their own gratifications and ambitions. She did all her deeds for survival. They all want to shackle and control her. She only acted against them after they drove her into a corner.
She's aware of what she's doing and she hates it. But it is the only way she knows to survive. Meanwhile, those people I mentioned above can survive on their own without making her life miserable, yet they did it anyway.
So, if we make an objective comparison of all the psychotic characters, she is hands down the "lesser evil", and her actions are far more understandable than those who tried to shackle and control her.
can someone help me understand what exactly dohyuk wanted ahjin to do? like did he want her to be docile and helpless?…
He's possessive and obsessive, two psychological ailments often ignored today.
Back in the 20th century, partners who are possessive and/or obsessive were shunned by society and told to get psychiatric help. It was also a major cause for divorce or annulment. Usually it is men/husbands who are like that because of the way men were taught in a purely patriarchal system, but wome/wives can be one too (and it is far scarier based on such past cases, their husband mentally broke down and is afraid of all women, sometimms cries a lot too).
That is the character of the FL's husband. A person with a psychological issue. A person who is possessive as well as obsessed. A wife is nothing but a possession for him, and he is also obsessed.
Partners like that are very dangerous. It can break a person mentally. Which is what happened to his first(?) wife. And it only shows once you're married.
There was nothing else to it other than that, a husband who is possessive and obsessive. The most dangerous combination of psychological illnesses.
The ML was an arse.1. He was the one who gave the killing blow to her father and he never revealed that. That…
---
3. He has the audacity to tell her he wated for der in the hopes she would change, has he forgotten how he accused her of killing the grandma only to later discover he was epicly and stupidly wrong? What did he do? Absolutely nothing.
4. She needed help from her obsessed and possessive husband but he chose to distance himself because "I don't want to disturb the life she had chosen". Well, that's what he did in the end, he disturbed her life by exposing half-truths, no, telling his own truths and lies ignoring the real truths.
5. The one who was truly psychotic here was the ML. It was very clear.
6. He never did anything anyway. He just watched since they were kids. He was a coward. And when his cowardness is being exposed, he blames everyone around him. He twist stories that will make him appear as the angel.
If anything, he's far worse than the FL and her husband combined.
Finale episode's title: Yun JunSeo, the selfish bastard
The ML was an arse.
1. He was the one who gave the killing blow to her father and he never revealed that. That killing blow was filled with pure anger and hatred, with 10000% intention to kill beyond killing.
2. He was the one who wanted to die, and he dragged her into it.
-- Ok, fine. Maybe what he wanted was they hide far away, but his car was compromised by her husband.
Point#1: After all, how come there was someone secretly filming the site of the accident and didn't even help? That was not a normal reaction when a person witnessed an accident: "Ooh, let me film this, someone escaped a car crash. Ooh, it's the psychotic actress, this is a scoop". But it took a few days, perhaps weeks, before the "scoop"? LOL, no. If it was a regular person, they'll show it to the rescuers or sell it to a news station ASAP, because you don't know who else got a scoop.
That phone video record was from her husband's goons.
Point #2: The other angle where she finally reached the top road, was not from a CCTV. The angle was too high for a CCTV.
Also, the investigators and media wouldn't close it as her having died somewhere if there was indeed a CCTV showing she's far from dying. They closed the case becaus they can't find any clue. Missing for days, perhaps weeks, the conclusion is often to declare the person dead.
In other words, it was not a CCTV footage, it was a drone.
Who could commission a drone? Her psychotic husband.
Point #3: Her psychotic husband said on the phone, "Don't stop the broadcast". Then the broadcast was about the phone footage of the FL standing on a rock + the drone footage.
He knew. He gave the two footages hoping the public will demand to reopen the accident, continue searching for her, and frame her as having killed the ML. Thus, ensuring the FL can never show her face again in the public.
If I understood it correctly, there are many PDs in Korean variety shows but only one main PD. It's like having multiple directors but only one is actually credited and the rest are assistants or secondary.
So the hierarchy is: the main PD (or show director) is the one who aligns everyone. The main PD make the final decisions. Then the main director ensures all other directors/PDs share the same goals, visions, and style for the project. Then the main can leave trust them to do their jobs without supervision.
“humans can only truly be happy when they make others happy. The way for humans to fully achieve happiness is…
You just proved my point, confusing forgiveness with something else, in your case, confusing it with "indifference" and "NO".
Also,
> Forgiveness sounds so much better and people are often tempted to say they forgive, because that is the way society applauds you
You know that's a lie. Society shaped the world to revolve around NOT forgiving anyone. To confuse forgiveness with something else like "indifference". That's why we're discussing about it in the first place. If forgiveness is the default of society, we wouldn't even discuss what forgiveness really is about and who it is actually for.
Using your example, you can forgive and be indifferent. You can forgive and say "NO". You can forgive and cut them off from your life.
Forgiveness is about the person who was wronged, NOT about the person who did you wrong. What you're calling a process begins with forgiveness, yourself. It is all about you, the person who was wronged, never about the person who did you wrong.
Now, whichever step of that process forgiveness is at, it depends on each person, but it will always be crucial to finish process. Without forgiveness, the process can never be completed, that is why many people are stuck in the process. They are refusing to forgive because society is telling them not to, because society made them believe that forgiveness is "letting the wrong/crime/person go unpunish and forgotten". But again, forgiveness is about the person who was wronged, you, yourself, and no one else.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the person who did you wrong, or the law. - You can forgive and the person still faces the law. Society is telling us, "if you forgive, there is no case". Society is anti-forgiveness not pro-forgiveness. - You can forgive and cut them off from your life. Society is telling us that you should never forgive. In the end, the person is haunted by that experience even if they're on the other side of the world. Again, society is anti-forgiveness and not pro-forgiveness.
Forgiveness is about you, yourself, it was never about the deed or the person who wronged you. It is a mandatory part of that process you are talking about, so you can heal and recover from that bad experience. It is actually the only sure way to cut-off someone from your life, otherwise, it will always linger deep in your heart and mind, trying to remind you of it whenever it feels it. Forgiveness is you breaking free from that bondage, it is never about whoever it was who offended you.
YunSu looked like her character in The Tyrant, adorable chubby. Then 6 months later, she's regular built, as if there was literally a 6-month time gap in filming. The wonders of Korean styling, make-up, and diet.
It is an Asian thing to forgive, especially in cultures where family and clans are very important like in the…
Ahh! The ML's forgiveness.
Yep, it's the same. But in this case, there's more to it: respect for the elders are ingrained in us. The only one's that really breaks it is r@p3 and murder, to mention two. For those type of cases, no one can really fault the victim if they tortured and killed the suspect, elder or not.
But in the ML's case and the Pyo father, it still falls under forgiveness and respect to our elders.
I know, there are cases where it really s*cks. It's like, how do you explain it,
"Hey, whatever is between you and my father, let's just end it here and call it quits. I understand where you're coming from, I won't sue, I'll take this issue to my grave, and hope you'll do the same."
"What if I continue going after you?"
"Well, that's your call. Pity me for hoping we can end this peacefully. But I won't back down next time."
Something like that.
Usually it ends up like this:
"Fine. Let's end this feud here and go our separate ways."
*shakes hand*
"And if we come across each other, however we act in this industry, it has nothing to do with the past."
"Romantic" is a very broad word and in reality is rarely has to do with romance the way people today understand…
The other photos were of course them just being silly and funny, and slipping in taking ordinary pictures, no romantic theme or anything.
Them throwing food to the tuna was romantic, but the photos were not taken well.
SeChan holding the mackarels could've been romantic, but the shot was just not right, the backdrop wasn't right either, and those were obviously dead mackarels.
The first photo (SeChan with shades) could've been romantic as well if they shot it horizontally and zoomed out. It was a vertical shot so the nature ended up being an extra feature. Add to that, it was zoomed in to SeChan which clearly made the subject being about him, not the entirety of the photo. That was why the reaction of the voters said it wasn't romantic.
JongKook paeparing a fire can be romantic too. Two ways I can think of: - horizontal shot, close-up but not zoomed in, while the fire is burning bright and he was fanning it, with his face focused on the work at hand
- another is, the background should be visible, and only him and the fire is in the photo, which shows his dedication to a very important job of preparing the fire. Maybe a dark silhouette of people far in the background too, giving the impression that he's alone, on a solo trip
q: for ep 779the translation was that they had to take a romantic picture, but that seemed wrong because they…
"Romantic" is a very broad word and in reality is rarely has to do with romance the way people today understand it. Even the genre "Romance" is similar in that it actually rarely means "romantic love".
In this instance, the mission is to take a romantic photo of their vacation. The translation is correct. The photo must show the beauty of the place and give an aura of bliss and peace. Of being one with nature.
It can also be about friendships. Or combine both.
This is why the photo of them hugging each other while viewing the scenery was voted as romantic.
- First, it perfectly captured the beauty of the place. The scenery. Nature.
- Second, it immortalized the bond of the members. Of how they will always be together no matter what life throws at them.
- And finally, third, the caption "We're not alone" sent the message that no matter how big the world is, no matter if your family and friends are not available when you need them, there is always someone for you and around you (symbolized by the shot of their backs, meaning "random person").
Each item I explained is romantic. But if you combine them all, it perfectly captures and sends a romantic message. Hence, that photo overwhelmingly received votes. It was overwhelmingly romantic.
It was a great story, amazing cast, great 90's details, but why do all South Korean dramas always end with the…
It is an Asian thing to forgive, especially in cultures where family and clans are very important like in the Philippines, Japan, Korea, and China.
But at the same time, it doesn't mean you can get away from the law. The part that you've forgotten to mention: the father forgave his son but did not excuse him from paying for his crimes.
There is a limit to Asian forgiveness, even with family and clan members. To this day, there are still families and clans who still disown their own children. They'll protect them from the law, because it will affect the family and/or clan name, but they'll be disowned.
And disownment in Asian context is a huge thing. You will face blockage everywhere. It's like signing an NDA. No relatives with associate and talk to you and at the same time, they're all working to keep you from entering the same market and industry as them. That's what an Asian disownment really is.
In addition, not related to being Asian, people are often confuse about forgiveness. As I've always explained: 1. Forgiveness is for the benefit of the person who was wronged, not for the person who did you wrong. It is the only way that you can move on and be at peace.
Let's use your example, the father. He forgave his son not for the benefit of his son but for his own benefit. It was not exactly his son he was forgiving, it was himself. Remembered what he said? "It was my fault." Basically, he was saying, "You grew up that way because I failed."
He was actually forgiving himself, if not, he'll slowly go down in self-blaming, then self-pity, and then bitterness (at himself), and then depression, and ultimately death.
Forgiveness is about the person who was wronged. To free them from the burden. It is not about the person who did you wrong.
2. Forgiving is personal, not a get out of jail free card.
People always refuse to forgive because they have this incorrect notion that the person who did them wrong won't face the rule of law. That is entirely and absolutely false.
You can forgive but the person who did you wrong still has to face the national law. And again, forgiving is for the person who was wronged.
That is exactly what happened with the father, again, using the example you cited. You only looked at "forgiveness" but did not understand what forgiveness really is and how his son was still imprisoned.
Combine that with Asian forgiveness, and now you have a complete picture of why it is common in shows. The son actually got a lesser punishment, his father could've disowned him there and then, but he did not (when we disown someone, we literally say it to their face). He was still hopeful his son will change and finally listen to him.
That's what being an Asian is, in particular Pacific-Asian. And that's what forgiveness is really about.
I love historical shows, especially during crises like the Asian Financial Crisis because I lived through it and we're affected by it. Yet, this one failed to impress me. That's a telling sign they executed it poorly.
The story was there, the premise was good, the backdrop was perfect. I appreciated the many easter eggs they dropped here and there, which many likely didn't notice. So, there's also a nostalgic effect that most viewers no doubt missed. But again, I wasn't impressed with half of it. They started strong and then dropped fast. If you know the nagging feeling that something is missing but you can't put your finger on it, this is a prime example.
If a writer and/or director with experience in this type of genre.and premise is given the same script, they'll know how to maintain that strong start. They'll be able to execute it properly. To identify the right ingredients and the process in mixing them.
But maybe, just maybe, the target audienceof this show are the late Gen Zs and the Gen Alphas. They are the generation who never experienced the Asian Financial Crisis (and the dot com bubble for that matter). The generations who have no memories of that time.
Maybe, just maybe, those "missing ingredients" or execution I'm referring to were intentionally left out because the younger generation hates it. Which of course means it wouldn't sit well with many, if not all, of the generations who lived through it.
Which again brings us back to my earlier statement, another writer and/or director would have found ways to make it appeal for all generations, instead of a select few.
1 
Off-topic: What's the difference between a TV drama and Web drama?
I'm not aware there is now a difference between the two other than the medium/platform used.
The one who delivered the killing blow was him, JunSeo. He knew she did not kill her father, he knew it was him who delivered the killing blow.
He lied about it during his twisted exposé. He told half-truths that conveniently made his version the only truth.
To the end, she still hasn't murdered any one. It would've been her father, but her father was stubborn he kept fighting to stay alive, until JunSeo delivered the killing blow.
Accomplice, sure, since the second blow was her. But the 3rd blow was what killed her father even according to forensics, which was done by JunSeo, but no one knew about it other than him. The FL was out cold when he delivered the killing blow.
😉
> At least now he is in hell where he wanted to be.
Yes!
She is definitely not a saint, and definitely without fault. But if you consider the other psychotics like:
1. The ML: coward, selfish, liar, bastard
2. The husband: possessive and obsessive, the worst combination of psychological illnesses
3. The agency CEO.
The FL pales in comparison. All of them did things for their own gratifications and ambitions. She did all her deeds for survival. They all want to shackle and control her. She only acted against them after they drove her into a corner.
She's aware of what she's doing and she hates it. But it is the only way she knows to survive. Meanwhile, those people I mentioned above can survive on their own without making her life miserable, yet they did it anyway.
So, if we make an objective comparison of all the psychotic characters, she is hands down the "lesser evil", and her actions are far more understandable than those who tried to shackle and control her.
Back in the 20th century, partners who are possessive and/or obsessive were shunned by society and told to get psychiatric help. It was also a major cause for divorce or annulment. Usually it is men/husbands who are like that because of the way men were taught in a purely patriarchal system, but wome/wives can be one too (and it is far scarier based on such past cases, their husband mentally broke down and is afraid of all women, sometimms cries a lot too).
That is the character of the FL's husband. A person with a psychological issue. A person who is possessive as well as obsessed. A wife is nothing but a possession for him, and he is also obsessed.
Partners like that are very dangerous. It can break a person mentally. Which is what happened to his first(?) wife. And it only shows once you're married.
There was nothing else to it other than that, a husband who is possessive and obsessive. The most dangerous combination of psychological illnesses.
3. He has the audacity to tell her he wated for der in the hopes she would change, has he forgotten how he accused her of killing the grandma only to later discover he was epicly and stupidly wrong? What did he do? Absolutely nothing.
4. She needed help from her obsessed and possessive husband but he chose to distance himself because "I don't want to disturb the life she had chosen". Well, that's what he did in the end, he disturbed her life by exposing half-truths, no, telling his own truths and lies ignoring the real truths.
5. The one who was truly psychotic here was the ML. It was very clear.
6. He never did anything anyway. He just watched since they were kids. He was a coward. And when his cowardness is being exposed, he blames everyone around him. He twist stories that will make him appear as the angel.
If anything, he's far worse than the FL and her husband combined.
1. He was the one who gave the killing blow to her father and he never revealed that. That killing blow was filled with pure anger and hatred, with 10000% intention to kill beyond killing.
2. He was the one who wanted to die, and he dragged her into it.
-- Ok, fine. Maybe what he wanted was they hide far away, but his car was compromised by her husband.
Point#1: After all, how come there was someone secretly filming the site of the accident and didn't even help? That was not a normal reaction when a person witnessed an accident: "Ooh, let me film this, someone escaped a car crash. Ooh, it's the psychotic actress, this is a scoop". But it took a few days, perhaps weeks, before the "scoop"? LOL, no. If it was a regular person, they'll show it to the rescuers or sell it to a news station ASAP, because you don't know who else got a scoop.
That phone video record was from her husband's goons.
Point #2: The other angle where she finally reached the top road, was not from a CCTV. The angle was too high for a CCTV.
Also, the investigators and media wouldn't close it as her having died somewhere if there was indeed a CCTV showing she's far from dying. They closed the case becaus they can't find any clue. Missing for days, perhaps weeks, the conclusion is often to declare the person dead.
In other words, it was not a CCTV footage, it was a drone.
Who could commission a drone? Her psychotic husband.
Point #3: Her psychotic husband said on the phone, "Don't stop the broadcast". Then the broadcast was about the phone footage of the FL standing on a rock + the drone footage.
He knew. He gave the two footages hoping the public will demand to reopen the accident, continue searching for her, and frame her as having killed the ML. Thus, ensuring the FL can never show her face again in the public.
It will also staoke his ego, "I won".
---
So the hierarchy is: the main PD (or show director) is the one who aligns everyone. The main PD make the final decisions. Then the main director ensures all other directors/PDs share the same goals, visions, and style for the project. Then the main can leave trust them to do their jobs without supervision.
Also,
> Forgiveness sounds so much better and people are often tempted to say they forgive, because that is the way society applauds you
You know that's a lie. Society shaped the world to revolve around NOT forgiving anyone. To confuse forgiveness with something else like "indifference". That's why we're discussing about it in the first place. If forgiveness is the default of society, we wouldn't even discuss what forgiveness really is about and who it is actually for.
Using your example, you can forgive and be indifferent. You can forgive and say "NO". You can forgive and cut them off from your life.
Forgiveness is about the person who was wronged, NOT about the person who did you wrong. What you're calling a process begins with forgiveness, yourself. It is all about you, the person who was wronged, never about the person who did you wrong.
Now, whichever step of that process forgiveness is at, it depends on each person, but it will always be crucial to finish process. Without forgiveness, the process can never be completed, that is why many people are stuck in the process. They are refusing to forgive because society is telling them not to, because society made them believe that forgiveness is "letting the wrong/crime/person go unpunish and forgotten". But again, forgiveness is about the person who was wronged, you, yourself, and no one else.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the person who did you wrong, or the law.
- You can forgive and the person still faces the law. Society is telling us, "if you forgive, there is no case". Society is anti-forgiveness not pro-forgiveness.
- You can forgive and cut them off from your life. Society is telling us that you should never forgive. In the end, the person is haunted by that experience even if they're on the other side of the world. Again, society is anti-forgiveness and not pro-forgiveness.
Forgiveness is about you, yourself, it was never about the deed or the person who wronged you. It is a mandatory part of that process you are talking about, so you can heal and recover from that bad experience. It is actually the only sure way to cut-off someone from your life, otherwise, it will always linger deep in your heart and mind, trying to remind you of it whenever it feels it. Forgiveness is you breaking free from that bondage, it is never about whoever it was who offended you.
Yep, it's the same. But in this case, there's more to it: respect for the elders are ingrained in us. The only one's that really breaks it is r@p3 and murder, to mention two. For those type of cases, no one can really fault the victim if they tortured and killed the suspect, elder or not.
But in the ML's case and the Pyo father, it still falls under forgiveness and respect to our elders.
I know, there are cases where it really s*cks. It's like, how do you explain it,
"Hey, whatever is between you and my father, let's just end it here and call it quits. I understand where you're coming from, I won't sue, I'll take this issue to my grave, and hope you'll do the same."
"What if I continue going after you?"
"Well, that's your call. Pity me for hoping we can end this peacefully. But I won't back down next time."
Something like that.
Usually it ends up like this:
"Fine. Let's end this feud here and go our separate ways."
*shakes hand*
"And if we come across each other, however we act in this industry, it has nothing to do with the past."
"Agreed."
I'm no professional photographer but I do love taking photos. ☺️ (Sold a few, too!)
Professional photographers are way out of my league. They're the ones you usually see displayed in photography exhibits. I can only dream that.
Them throwing food to the tuna was romantic, but the photos were not taken well.
SeChan holding the mackarels could've been romantic, but the shot was just not right, the backdrop wasn't right either, and those were obviously dead mackarels.
The first photo (SeChan with shades) could've been romantic as well if they shot it horizontally and zoomed out. It was a vertical shot so the nature ended up being an extra feature. Add to that, it was zoomed in to SeChan which clearly made the subject being about him, not the entirety of the photo. That was why the reaction of the voters said it wasn't romantic.
JongKook paeparing a fire can be romantic too. Two ways I can think of:
- horizontal shot, close-up but not zoomed in, while the fire is burning bright and he was fanning it, with his face focused on the work at hand
- another is, the background should be visible, and only him and the fire is in the photo, which shows his dedication to a very important job of preparing the fire. Maybe a dark silhouette of people far in the background too, giving the impression that he's alone, on a solo trip
In this instance, the mission is to take a romantic photo of their vacation. The translation is correct. The photo must show the beauty of the place and give an aura of bliss and peace. Of being one with nature.
It can also be about friendships. Or combine both.
This is why the photo of them hugging each other while viewing the scenery was voted as romantic.
- First, it perfectly captured the beauty of the place. The scenery. Nature.
- Second, it immortalized the bond of the members. Of how they will always be together no matter what life throws at them.
- And finally, third, the caption "We're not alone" sent the message that no matter how big the world is, no matter if your family and friends are not available when you need them, there is always someone for you and around you (symbolized by the shot of their backs, meaning "random person").
Each item I explained is romantic. But if you combine them all, it perfectly captures and sends a romantic message. Hence, that photo overwhelmingly received votes. It was overwhelmingly romantic.
But at the same time, it doesn't mean you can get away from the law. The part that you've forgotten to mention: the father forgave his son but did not excuse him from paying for his crimes.
There is a limit to Asian forgiveness, even with family and clan members. To this day, there are still families and clans who still disown their own children. They'll protect them from the law, because it will affect the family and/or clan name, but they'll be disowned.
And disownment in Asian context is a huge thing. You will face blockage everywhere. It's like signing an NDA. No relatives with associate and talk to you and at the same time, they're all working to keep you from entering the same market and industry as them. That's what an Asian disownment really is.
In addition, not related to being Asian, people are often confuse about forgiveness. As I've always explained:
1. Forgiveness is for the benefit of the person who was wronged, not for the person who did you wrong. It is the only way that you can move on and be at peace.
Let's use your example, the father. He forgave his son not for the benefit of his son but for his own benefit. It was not exactly his son he was forgiving, it was himself. Remembered what he said? "It was my fault." Basically, he was saying, "You grew up that way because I failed."
He was actually forgiving himself, if not, he'll slowly go down in self-blaming, then self-pity, and then bitterness (at himself), and then depression, and ultimately death.
Forgiveness is about the person who was wronged. To free them from the burden. It is not about the person who did you wrong.
2. Forgiving is personal, not a get out of jail free card.
People always refuse to forgive because they have this incorrect notion that the person who did them wrong won't face the rule of law. That is entirely and absolutely false.
You can forgive but the person who did you wrong still has to face the national law. And again, forgiving is for the person who was wronged.
That is exactly what happened with the father, again, using the example you cited. You only looked at "forgiveness" but did not understand what forgiveness really is and how his son was still imprisoned.
Combine that with Asian forgiveness, and now you have a complete picture of why it is common in shows. The son actually got a lesser punishment, his father could've disowned him there and then, but he did not (when we disown someone, we literally say it to their face). He was still hopeful his son will change and finally listen to him.
That's what being an Asian is, in particular Pacific-Asian. And that's what forgiveness is really about.
The story was there, the premise was good, the backdrop was perfect. I appreciated the many easter eggs they dropped here and there, which many likely didn't notice. So, there's also a nostalgic effect that most viewers no doubt missed. But again, I wasn't impressed with half of it. They started strong and then dropped fast. If you know the nagging feeling that something is missing but you can't put your finger on it, this is a prime example.
If a writer and/or director with experience in this type of genre.and premise is given the same script, they'll know how to maintain that strong start. They'll be able to execute it properly. To identify the right ingredients and the process in mixing them.
But maybe, just maybe, the target audienceof this show are the late Gen Zs and the Gen Alphas. They are the generation who never experienced the Asian Financial Crisis (and the dot com bubble for that matter). The generations who have no memories of that time.
Maybe, just maybe, those "missing ingredients" or execution I'm referring to were intentionally left out because the younger generation hates it. Which of course means it wouldn't sit well with many, if not all, of the generations who lived through it.
Which again brings us back to my earlier statement, another writer and/or director would have found ways to make it appeal for all generations, instead of a select few.