IM YourOnlyOne

Yep! A synopsis is meant to entice people, not to act as a spoiler or a mini-wiki.

There was a show I wanted to watch but after I read MDL's spoiler summary "synopsis", I didn't watch. 😂😂😂 What's there to watch, the MDL "synopsis" already summarized the show. LMAO.

E762: YeEun has many detractors or anti-fans, so I'm worried E762 might be used against her.

As a GenXennial (1982), and as someone who grew up in the Philippines where we have the same level of social expectations, respect, politeness, as Koreans, I'd like to say that YeEun was not rude when she:

1. showed firmness about not turning on the lights
2. refused gifts she didn't want and won't use

I said I'm GenXennial because we grew up in a conservative era (GenX) and graduated in a liberated era (GenZ). This is important because we've been exposed to two opposites.

For the conservatives in us (GenX'ers), sure, what YeEun did might be rude and inconsiderate, but for the liberated (GenZ'ers) it is not.

As a GenXennial, I'm telling you that what YeEun did is very logical and acceptable. Her generation is different. The world that shaped their thinking is a world filled with uncertainty and rising cost of living. Thus, it is logical to only accept gifts you are actually going to use.

She was not being rude. Not at all. In fact, she was being considerate. The giver might have use for it, so it's best they keep it than to accept it and let it gather dust or give it to someone else. They understand the value of money and how hard it is to earn.

Lastly, and equally important, as the Master of the House, it is within her rights to say what guests can and cannot do. In fact, let's not be hypocrites, even in the era of GenX and Baby Boomers, they exert their authority as the Master of the House. So, do not think YeEun was rude when she's just exercising that same authority.

And, if you missed it, she has a valid reason. She pictured how she will first present to the world her life's dream. She worked hard for it so obviously she wants to present it the best way that she can, on her own terms.

"No, don't turn on the lights yet, the tiur isn't over."

I deeply appreciate how YeEun was firm.

Imagine her saying: This is my house. This is the first time I'm showing it publicly. I worked hard for this. "I declined offers for a tour because I want Running Man to be the first." (She actually said that last one.) So, let me do it my way.

Was she rude? Was she inconsiderate to the staff and cameramen?

NOT AT ALL.

She wanted it to be perfect. It's going to be a memory for her. It's going down in history for everyone to watch for however long the episode will last in records.

So, if any detractors, haters, anti-fans, is planning on using this episode to attack YeEun, don't. As a GenXennial, I understand and completely support her decisions. She is Master of the House and it was the first time she's showing her hard work publicly. Her home, her rules, her terms.

She was even worried people will attack her, good thing for her, the eldest among them supported her and defended her.

While I'm a nobody, as a GenXennial, I want to throw my weight and support for YeEun who people might have misunderstood and misjudged.

YeEun, good job. I salute your firmness. 🫡

(And yes, we should normalise rejecting gifts instead of being fakes.)

E762: Congrats YeEun! Your home really looks like a model home. You did great working on it by yourself, you surely know what you like.

There was no scene. But she committed suicide somewhere.

During the mass rally, there were two TV reporters, a guy and a woman, they looked very familiar. Anyone know who or have guesses?

The actor for the trash journalist, is it just me or he's playing the same role frequently?

Haha. It's also getting tiring. The trope is overused in Kdrama.

It's like the "FL trips and ML catches her" and "save the FL from an incoming vehicle" tropes, overtly used. I'm actually glad they're moving away from that. 😅😅

I hope the trash journalist trope ends in 2025. They are good writers, they can think of better ways other than that same old trope. 😁

True. He's very honest for being a trash journalist.

(Also, isn't the actor frequently playing the same role?)

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.

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 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.

8 stars!

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.

😅😅😁😁

True that, the English production trailers are a summary spoiler. 🤣🤣🤣

E03.

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.

To add, they have no other choices.

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.

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.