just finished watching Trigger, and while I think it was a solid drama overall, I couldn’t help but feel a bit…
The thing is, this is Netflix's anti-gun rhetoric targetted towards the US primarily.
It isn't really a fictional story where there's depth and all character development and all that. This was simply means to send a strong anti-gun message to US citizens.
For example, they depicted school shootings.
The US is infamous for school shootings. In Trigger, they depicted school shootings as nothing more than "because they're bullied" + "easy access to guns".
They want to argue that if the victims of bullying don't have easy access to guns, there won't be school shootings. (And the victims will continually get bullied, think about it.)
Is that a sound logic? Not at all.
There are many countries with gun ownership and gun control laws, like the Philippines, and yet extremely—almost zero—school shootings. Clearly, access to guns is not the _primary_ factor, it's the
- bullying (in the case of Trigger's depiction), it could be - psychological (which the US is always biasly reporting about), it could be - family and neighbourhood environment (which no one wants to talk about because that means they fail as a society and as a people), it could very well be - religion, or lack thereof, or, - cultural
There is school bullying in other countries too, again like here in the Philippines, and yet we don't have school shootings.
But you'll see that in Trigger, Netflix wants to seed a strong message that school shootings are happening because guns are easy to access. Heck, they completly ignored the school bullying issue! They never addressed it! The kids were arrested and forgotten.
And that's what the show is about. It was never meant to have any story. It's just a platform to push Netflix's biased anti-gun stance.
I agree that whole typical anti gun PSA rhetoric really frustrated me even though I really like it for the most…
Oh, and before some subjective person tells me "Don't watch it", I rated the show 8 iut of 10. This isn't about the show or your favourite actors, it's about the SUBJECT MATTER and MESSAGE of the story: it's Netflix's way of appealing to anti-gun supporters.
I agree that whole typical anti gun PSA rhetoric really frustrated me even though I really like it for the most…
I totally agree with Starflakes.
Yes, the target audience was Koreans but the fact that this was by Netflix, with very obvious and undeniable US elements, is a strong hint that they're actually intentionally targetting the US audiences.
Which leads us to what the earlier replies discussed: this is plain and simple a very biased gun ownership and gun control rhetoric.
There are a lot of factors involved in why a human being suddenly murders another, especially in what Trigger repeatedly depicted: mass shootings.
Sure, they touched on the psychological aspect, but they did not emphasized it at all. Just look at the comments here on MDL and in SocMed, practically no one mentioned that except for people who can objectively look at a show and are beyond drooling for their favourite actors.
In fact, and I daresay, it is not easy to understand the US gun violence unless you compare it to a country like the Philippines where there are laws governing gun ownership and there is strict gun control systems in place. YET, mass shootings are extremely rare.
Sure, we had a couple but those were often perpetrated by political families, not be regular people as is common in the US and as depicted in Trigger repeatedly.
Trigger also implied that school violence was due to school bullying. And the reason why South Korea doesn't have school shootings is because they have an anti-gun ownership law.
That a H.S./B.S. assumption. The Philippines, and other countries with gun ownership laws, don't have school shootings.
So,
- why are there school shootings in the US? - why are there no school shootings in South Korea?
No one knows because the so-called "experts" are not willing to seriously tackle these questions objectively. Is ot cultural? It is religious? Maybe it is psychological? Sociological? Stress? Peer/media/drama influence? Family environment?
No one will be able to answer it objectively until someone seriously studies it objectively.
We cannot ignore countries like the Philippines when it comes to gun control and gun violence debate.
How about the UK? The UK has the strictest anti-gun laws in the entire world. Their police are not allowed to carry guns unless they get permission from way up high the food chain.
And YET! They have issues about illegal guns, and the underground market is a thorn on their side.
Trigger is clearly Netflix's attempt to push an extreme anti-gun rhetoric mainly targetted towards the US.
There are so many factors involved why the gun violence in the US is "hell" level. You cannot just sum it up to "because guns".
Tools are neither good or evil. It is how humanity use the tools they were given that makes it good or evil.
The summay comes directly from a Korean source. It wasn't written by MDL user.
No. The source is in Korean not English. It was translated by a _user_ who didn't adapt it for English audiences where a synopsis means no spoiler and only a teaser.
As usual, we have the trash reporter trope again. 🤣 Oh wait, too harsh. A journalist who films and create a story based on it lacking real context, and then hiding behind, "Our job as journalists is to tell the truth to the public".
First 2 cases of mass shootings were exactly the same formula. 🤦🏽
1. ML arrives 2. ML tells them he'll distract the shooter while they escape 3. ML runs around instead of taking advantage of the suspect's reload downtime 4. The survivors are seen 5. A survivor is shot
For real? Let's forget everything else except №3, the suspects are slow in reloading, he was a special force, he moves fast, and in both cases he was near the suspect when they were reloading. What did the ML do? Ran around.
He could've tackled the suspect already.
Okay, fine, maybe the second suspect had training. But the kid? He should've tackled the kid when he was reloading.
The first two mass shooting cases felt like I was watching a B-rated indie film where they intentionally made an experienced character act out-of-character just so the have a plot and more action scenes. In this show, since it is about guns, the main character is forbidden in tackling the suspects. LMAO! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I hope I won't see that silly formula repeated again from E04 onwards. The 10 stars is now a 9. Hopefully it stays there, we'll see.
Didn’t read it yet but what’s with this long synopsis?
It's a new tradition in MDL. Spoiler summary as synopsis. 🤣🤣🤣 There's a growing number of these recently, it's annoying. I had to fix a few, but I don't have time to fix every single one of them.
(Yes, it's from the official website in Korean. That's their culture. In English speaking nations, a synopsis is to entice a potential new audience, not asking them to read Chapter 1, or some spoiler summary of the show, or lines of character profiles. 🤣)
Also, what's with recent inflex of SUMMARY + SPOILER MDL synopsis? That's not a synopsis, that's a spoiler summary, and more and more shows have that format.
The more I think about it, the more it becomes deeper.Let's push this analysis/interpretation further:If the 2FL…
Another take is this.
The 2FL was Pandora.
The 1FL is the box.
The 2FL opened the box and let loose the ability to see the S-Line. Now humanity has to live with it. Just how humanity learned to live with sickness, diseases, and death because the original Pandora let loose the curses.
And just like how there is Hope in the box in the Pandora's Box mythology, there is Hope in S-Line—the 1FL who miraculously lived.
Okay, allow me explain the "cult" scene.As the 2FL said, "I am only a mouthpiece". It hints that…
The more I think about it, the more it becomes deeper.
Let's push this analysis/interpretation further:
If the 2FL is the avatar/g-d/manifestation of humanity's desire to see who slept with whom.
The 1FL is the representation of humanity's "good" side and is fighting that g-d.
Ancient mythologies are filled with mortals vs gods. In S-Line, we have the 1FL fighting for the "good" side of humanity. While the 2FL is humanity's desire for revenge, accusations, and murder.
Unfortunately, the 2FL won the first round. Which is often the case, the gods win the first round. Humanity is pushed back. New rules and laws imposed on humanity.
Remember the 1 year time jump? As the 1FL narrated, it was chaotic. It took the world a year to settle down. What's the best way to do it? New rules and new laws.
First round: the 2FL, the goddess/manifestation of humanity's desire to see who slept with whom so they can exact revenge, murder, accusations, blackmail, wins.
But the 1FL lived. Which could mean there is still hope.
And there is hope. The 2FL might have achieved goddess status (since turning into a spirit) but humanity hasn't broken down to chaos and anarchy.
The 1FL survived and so does humanity's inherent desire to do "good". Humanity learned live with it and decided to return to ther daily routine.
No doubt, scientists are finding ways to "turn-off" the S-Line.
And they'll need the 1FL.
It's a modern take on mortal vs gods. Or, good vs evil.
In Koreae drama perhaps, maybe even in Korean literature. But I've seen the concept in English-language literature…
Yes, and they should keep challenging their social norms.
I mean, acting is acting, and fiction is fiction.
Back in the early eras in many cultures, women where not allowed to act. Female characters were played by men, and male actors learnt to loosen themselves to pass as a female character (otherwise, it looks comedic for a serious plot). Men will even kiss!
But, for some weird reason, we've forgotten that. So many rules when it's acting and fiction.
So, yeah, shows like this are a welcome. Break those taboos at least on-screen and in literature.
I thought he did pretty good actually! Usually when gender swap/bend happens, the guy has to do too much to convey…
I agree. But there were actions where he tried the woman-like cuteness overload but he was stiff, which, to borrow your word, "cringe".
He's an actor, so there's no doubt he can actually do it. But he has to loosen up. I've seen men who can do girly movements and all that, and it isn't "cringe" or funny. The commoe thing is always loosening up.
Think of it this way. If a woman acts like a man, they go stiff, solid, and moves like a macho gang member.
Just reverse it. For men, loosen up. Be soft. Fluid. Make those joints and muscles bend and shake.
He's doing great for the most part, except those seper girly actions/movements, that's where he becomes stiff. I'm suspecting he is too conscious or people are teasing him (which usually makes a straight man stiffen).
1 
It isn't really a fictional story where there's depth and all character development and all that. This was simply means to send a strong anti-gun message to US citizens.
For example, they depicted school shootings.
The US is infamous for school shootings. In Trigger, they depicted school shootings as nothing more than "because they're bullied" + "easy access to guns".
They want to argue that if the victims of bullying don't have easy access to guns, there won't be school shootings. (And the victims will continually get bullied, think about it.)
Is that a sound logic? Not at all.
There are many countries with gun ownership and gun control laws, like the Philippines, and yet extremely—almost zero—school shootings. Clearly, access to guns is not the _primary_ factor, it's the
- bullying (in the case of Trigger's depiction), it could be
- psychological (which the US is always biasly reporting about), it could be
- family and neighbourhood environment (which no one wants to talk about because that means they fail as a society and as a people), it could very well be
- religion, or lack thereof, or,
- cultural
There is school bullying in other countries too, again like here in the Philippines, and yet we don't have school shootings.
But you'll see that in Trigger, Netflix wants to seed a strong message that school shootings are happening because guns are easy to access. Heck, they completly ignored the school bullying issue! They never addressed it! The kids were arrested and forgotten.
And that's what the show is about. It was never meant to have any story. It's just a platform to push Netflix's biased anti-gun stance.
Yes, the target audience was Koreans but the fact that this was by Netflix, with very obvious and undeniable US elements, is a strong hint that they're actually intentionally targetting the US audiences.
Which leads us to what the earlier replies discussed: this is plain and simple a very biased gun ownership and gun control rhetoric.
There are a lot of factors involved in why a human being suddenly murders another, especially in what Trigger repeatedly depicted: mass shootings.
Sure, they touched on the psychological aspect, but they did not emphasized it at all. Just look at the comments here on MDL and in SocMed, practically no one mentioned that except for people who can objectively look at a show and are beyond drooling for their favourite actors.
In fact, and I daresay, it is not easy to understand the US gun violence unless you compare it to a country like the Philippines where there are laws governing gun ownership and there is strict gun control systems in place. YET, mass shootings are extremely rare.
Sure, we had a couple but those were often perpetrated by political families, not be regular people as is common in the US and as depicted in Trigger repeatedly.
Trigger also implied that school violence was due to school bullying. And the reason why South Korea doesn't have school shootings is because they have an anti-gun ownership law.
That a H.S./B.S. assumption. The Philippines, and other countries with gun ownership laws, don't have school shootings.
So,
- why are there school shootings in the US?
- why are there no school shootings in South Korea?
No one knows because the so-called "experts" are not willing to seriously tackle these questions objectively. Is ot cultural? It is religious? Maybe it is psychological? Sociological? Stress? Peer/media/drama influence? Family environment?
No one will be able to answer it objectively until someone seriously studies it objectively.
We cannot ignore countries like the Philippines when it comes to gun control and gun violence debate.
How about the UK? The UK has the strictest anti-gun laws in the entire world. Their police are not allowed to carry guns unless they get permission from way up high the food chain.
And YET! They have issues about illegal guns, and the underground market is a thorn on their side.
Trigger is clearly Netflix's attempt to push an extreme anti-gun rhetoric mainly targetted towards the US.
There are so many factors involved why the gun violence in the US is "hell" level. You cannot just sum it up to "because guns".
Tools are neither good or evil. It is how humanity use the tools they were given that makes it good or evil.
As usual, we have the trash reporter trope again. 🤣 Oh wait, too harsh. A journalist who films and create a story based on it lacking real context, and then hiding behind, "Our job as journalists is to tell the truth to the public".
1. ML arrives
2. ML tells them he'll distract the shooter while they escape
3. ML runs around instead of taking advantage of the suspect's reload downtime
4. The survivors are seen
5. A survivor is shot
For real? Let's forget everything else except №3, the suspects are slow in reloading, he was a special force, he moves fast, and in both cases he was near the suspect when they were reloading. What did the ML do? Ran around.
He could've tackled the suspect already.
Okay, fine, maybe the second suspect had training. But the kid? He should've tackled the kid when he was reloading.
The first two mass shooting cases felt like I was watching a B-rated indie film where they intentionally made an experienced character act out-of-character just so the have a plot and more action scenes. In this show, since it is about guns, the main character is forbidden in tackling the suspects. LMAO! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I hope I won't see that silly formula repeated again from E04 onwards. The 10 stars is now a 9. Hopefully it stays there, we'll see.
If they choose a "good" monarch, Koreans will cancel them for making major changes. But it's a "bad" monarch, Koreans don't say a thing.
Since the show is changing a lot, more likely making a lot of comedic and dramatic changes, the safest choice is to change a "bad" monarch.
(Yes, it's from the official website in Korean. That's their culture. In English speaking nations, a synopsis is to entice a potential new audience, not asking them to read Chapter 1, or some spoiler summary of the show, or lines of character profiles. 🤣)
The 2FL was Pandora.
The 1FL is the box.
The 2FL opened the box and let loose the ability to see the S-Line. Now humanity has to live with it. Just how humanity learned to live with sickness, diseases, and death because the original Pandora let loose the curses.
And just like how there is Hope in the box in the Pandora's Box mythology, there is Hope in S-Line—the 1FL who miraculously lived.
Let's push this analysis/interpretation further:
If the 2FL is the avatar/g-d/manifestation of humanity's desire to see who slept with whom.
The 1FL is the representation of humanity's "good" side and is fighting that g-d.
Ancient mythologies are filled with mortals vs gods. In S-Line, we have the 1FL fighting for the "good" side of humanity. While the 2FL is humanity's desire for revenge, accusations, and murder.
Unfortunately, the 2FL won the first round. Which is often the case, the gods win the first round. Humanity is pushed back. New rules and laws imposed on humanity.
Remember the 1 year time jump? As the 1FL narrated, it was chaotic. It took the world a year to settle down. What's the best way to do it? New rules and new laws.
First round: the 2FL, the goddess/manifestation of humanity's desire to see who slept with whom so they can exact revenge, murder, accusations, blackmail, wins.
But the 1FL lived. Which could mean there is still hope.
And there is hope. The 2FL might have achieved goddess status (since turning into a spirit) but humanity hasn't broken down to chaos and anarchy.
The 1FL survived and so does humanity's inherent desire to do "good". Humanity learned live with it and decided to return to ther daily routine.
No doubt, scientists are finding ways to "turn-off" the S-Line.
And they'll need the 1FL.
It's a modern take on mortal vs gods. Or, good vs evil.
(Of course, it's only based on the live-action adaptation. I have no idea about the original work.)
I mean, acting is acting, and fiction is fiction.
Back in the early eras in many cultures, women where not allowed to act. Female characters were played by men, and male actors learnt to loosen themselves to pass as a female character (otherwise, it looks comedic for a serious plot). Men will even kiss!
But, for some weird reason, we've forgotten that. So many rules when it's acting and fiction.
So, yeah, shows like this are a welcome. Break those taboos at least on-screen and in literature.
He's an actor, so there's no doubt he can actually do it. But he has to loosen up. I've seen men who can do girly movements and all that, and it isn't "cringe" or funny. The commoe thing is always loosening up.
Think of it this way. If a woman acts like a man, they go stiff, solid, and moves like a macho gang member.
Just reverse it. For men, loosen up. Be soft. Fluid. Make those joints and muscles bend and shake.
He's doing great for the most part, except those seper girly actions/movements, that's where he becomes stiff. I'm suspecting he is too conscious or people are teasing him (which usually makes a straight man stiffen).
It's a room for improvement in his acting.
😁🖖🏽