Now let's discuss the concept of lesser evil for a second. You see in most Kdrama where there is a clear antagonist,…
Very interesting points. As you mentioned, the writer seems to have had big ambitions of portraying ambiguous characters with questionable morals and then setting up the viewer to decide who is the one they will root for. However, I think for these narratives to work, the characters require a certain amount of charisma that unfortunately, the mostly bleak and moody acting of everyone does not deliver on. So now the writer is slowly revealing that maybe the situation is not as grey as we initially thought and certain characters are definitely better than the others.
You should watch it. I decided out of spite...Like is it so bad? Is there actually something problematic? People…
Yes, the show shot itself in the foot by placing the show in the 80s. It doesn't really add anything to the show other than opening painful wounds and bringing up controversy. The main plot is political fallacy, romeo and juliet romance, and fatal ambition. They could set this any time between 1954 to present day. It would be the same.
Who's the civilian? Or do you mean hypothetically?
If you think about it, it's very clear that Sooho doesn't really intend to harm anyone in the process of this hostage situation because most of what he does seem to be for show, rather than as a real threat. I will give credit for that. But I really think the writer is in over her head. I guess it'll take the whole show to properly judge the work but so far I just don't know where she's going with all this and it's already halfway through the show. It still feels like set up but we should have some direction by now, right?
Who's the civilian? Or do you mean hypothetically?
Oh seriously! I think it'sthe direction. I think they realized shoving a gun in a 20yo's face is super messed up so they tried to fix that by showing how she is not afraidat all!!! Which makes no sense. And yes, the other hostages don't really seem to grasp the severity of the situation most times except for when someone is going to pass out. And those bombs are so pointless when people can easily jump over them all the time?! Like what's the logic there?
Who's the civilian? Or do you mean hypothetically?
Exactly! During the last episode there was a shift in how sooho is shown and it comes across as if the writer felt like the grey scaling of his character might be tipping him too far into villainous so he was suddenly defanged a little. It'll probably work on most viewers if they're not trying look too hard into things but for me the writing is very shaky so far. Good at creating tension but the intention behind it all is very sloppy.
Who's the civilian? Or do you mean hypothetically?
I really like your comments. They are very well-thought out and you raise really good points. I think so far the show has failed to define its ethical dichotomy. That hostage ansp agent is constantly shown through the lens of a hero. It might show the political leaders are bumbling, self-serving fools but the only characters shown to be ruthless are the northerners which is not a surprise but it does undermine the male lead and just problematizes the show further because at the end of the day it's a showdown between two villains and so far the fictitious villains are more villainous than the real life villains still fresh in the public's mind. I don't understand how the writer could’ve missed the implications of her work while writing it.
6 
25 
1 
1 
1 
1 
3 
1 
2 
2 
As you mentioned, the writer seems to have had big ambitions of portraying ambiguous characters with questionable morals and then setting up the viewer to decide who is the one they will root for. However, I think for these narratives to work, the characters require a certain amount of charisma that unfortunately, the mostly bleak and moody acting of everyone does not deliver on.
So now the writer is slowly revealing that maybe the situation is not as grey as we initially thought and certain characters are definitely better than the others.
The main plot is political fallacy, romeo and juliet romance, and fatal ambition. They could set this any time between 1954 to present day. It would be the same.
But I really think the writer is in over her head. I guess it'll take the whole show to properly judge the work but so far I just don't know where she's going with all this and it's already halfway through the show. It still feels like set up but we should have some direction by now, right?
And yes, the other hostages don't really seem to grasp the severity of the situation most times except for when someone is going to pass out.
And those bombs are so pointless when people can easily jump over them all the time?! Like what's the logic there?
I think so far the show has failed to define its ethical dichotomy.
That hostage ansp agent is constantly shown through the lens of a hero. It might show the political leaders are bumbling, self-serving fools but the only characters shown to be ruthless are the northerners which is not a surprise but it does undermine the male lead and just problematizes the show further because at the end of the day it's a showdown between two villains and so far the fictitious villains are more villainous than the real life villains still fresh in the public's mind.
I don't understand how the writer could’ve missed the implications of her work while writing it.