bayanoh

I don't understand why so many people are so pissed at the ending. It wasn't the best drama overall, but it was not bad and the ending was not bad either.

The dazed look is what is overexaggerated. LOL
She seems to over act every expression she makes and they are a few. Just rewatch the scene when she meets the new lawyer at the office. It was okay in the old days because everyone was acting the same way so you don't notice that they are all making weird faces no one makes in real life, but it is out of place now considering everyone else isn't doing it the way she is doing it.

I think Han Hye Jin's acting is stuck in the '00s and the early '10s. I believe overexaggerated facial expressions aren't a thing anymore. I haven't seen those in a while and I don't miss them at all.

I don't know either, even after they explained it, I didn't get it. It seemed like a big overreaction to me, and I thought it was rude to publicly throw away a fan's flowers. It wasn't like he was hitting on her or something. I didn't get the anonymity thing either. It's not like she can just decide on her own to not be famous anymore and expect her fans to stop treating her like a famous person without her publicly announcing her retirement.

No, she doesn't deserve respect because she is old, she deserve respect because she is the reason they exist in this world. LOL
I don't think you deserve respect "just" because you are old, but being respectful towards the elderly should be a given unless they do something that calls for taking away the respect they got, but still even if they did, you should always take the high road when possible. As I'm getting older too, I realize that we are in someway getting more disabled by the second, and I wouldn't be encouraging hitting someone disabled or in this case fragile even if they started it, the same way I wouldn't encourage an adult hitting a child or a man hitting a woman who is physically weaker, even if they hit first, as long as they have the option to just leave the situation, which they did in this instance, they could've just walked away, so it seemed like it is done not to protect the granddaughter from the grandma but to take revenge on the grandma for hitting the granddaughter which I find iffy and makes me uncomfortable.

Let's say we have different ideologies and leave it at that, because in my book a small crime isn't equal to a huge crime but is still a crime. The same goes for things that are immoral but not considered a crime. Because if I believed otherwise, I could steal a dollar a day and end up with 30k dollars and argue that I'm not a criminal because the amount I stole from each person each day is just too small to count.

It is illegal in many countries and it is immoral in the others. I don't think there is any country outside of Europe where adultery is not at least frowned upon. There is no point of being married if you can just have sex with anyone even when you are married. Why is it considered a commitment then when it's okay to not be committed without the other party's consent. If it's not a crime, it doesn't mean it is moral. One could argue that what the husband did isn't a crime either. The only instant as far as we know when he physically abused her was after he discovered that she cheated on him, and that was during the process of divorce. You, yourself said that writing comments in a post-it notes could be overlooked by the court. So, if we are only going to fault someone for committing a crime that is punishable by the law then we shouldn't fault the husband either, but it just doesn't make sense that he gets a pass just because the court said so, does it?

It's because we both agree that his wrong is much worse than hers, so why bother discuss it? My first comment was about them not being equally wrong. I didn't say that they are equally wrong at any point in the conversation. Most adulterers cheat because they are neglected. Why bother make it a crime then? Everyone has an excuse for cheating, even "my partner is boring" is an excuse someone would make. Also, at no point did I say her fault was unforgivable. In fact, I literally said "It's not an unforgivable mistake for a character though". I just believe being poor doesn't excuse stealing.

I don't think you understand my point. I'm not saying she should've left because she was abused, I'm saying she should've considered the option of leaving before having an affair, especially since having an affair would only make things worse for her and her child, at least by trying to get a divorce first, she has a chance to be out of that relationship. I understand the issue about not being able to leave an abusive relationship. I know that it is hard to leave someone since "they didn't mean it" or "because I deserve to be treated this way" or "because I just need to fix myself so that I don't trigger the person I love", but having an affair is a whole different thing on its own. You can't excuse it because someone is abused or neglected. The abuser is very wrong and should be punished, but the adulterer is also wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

Did she try though? Maybe it would've worked out, who knows? She was allowed to, she just didn't even try. If it were me, I would take that gamble in a heartbeat, especially for my child, because if I don't, we would be stuck forever in a house with an abuser. Tell me how an affair would solve anything. If anything it only made the abuser more aggressive and gave him an opportunity to act like a victim.

Not saying she is right or that what she did is justified, but I thought her violence could've been handled better. I believe people should show kindness to people who are younger than them, and respect to those who are older. There should be mutual respect between all as in "you are a human being so you should be treated as such", but expecting respect from the people who birthed you as someone of equal status is a bit too much and this is what I would disagree on.

That makes sense. LOL

Just wanted to make sure it didn't go over my head. XD
Taxi Driver has plenty of people following it since season 1, so it's bound to start with a very high rating. It's like if people were allowed to vote for a new Harry Potter sequel before its release. It will have a high rating even if no one has read it yet, because people will think "I loved the previous so the next must be amazing too".

I don't hate her for cheating, I just don't think anything can justify it. If it was an emotional affair, it's understandable, but beyond that she should've been able to control herself. I think once it turned physical, it didn't matter if she had a reason or not, she was at fault, unless she wasn't allowed to divorce him, but the option for divorce for her was always there, so I can't feel bad for her. It's not an unforgivable mistake for a character though. Her husband's is far worse.

I agree. I sympathize with the kid. Having an abusive partner is not an excuse for an affair. She should've divorced him first. But she is still better than her husband, even when she is at fault too. Showing your kid their mother having sex is far beyond inexcusable. He should be executed for it.

Not really into domestic violence especially against the elderly. I also don't expect respect from my ancestors, they are the ones who should be respected, not me. Maybe because of my eastern upbringing, but I always thought this way. I think they should've packed up their bags and moved out without their father, kept the money the mother gains from working to find a place and let the father take care of his debt himself. Hitting hateful grandma back was not the answer, she was doing them a favor by letting her useless son and his family move into her place after all.

Not at all in my opinion. I thought it would be bad because the topics covered is overdone, but they made it in a way that triggers your emotions plus there is comedy. It's just that it's been only two episodes, so no one knows what to rate it for now, and most people don't rate it until they finish it. Also, I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not but 8.2 is not bad at all.

It's just fate/luck. If it is an accident it's an accident. No one is to blame, it could've happened even if the parents were there. I take my nephews, nieces and my friends' kids for a drive to a store or a restaurant all the time, I would never do that if I thought I am to blame if something bad happens to them, I care about them as much as if they were my kids, and it would kill me if something bad happened to them, especially if I could've helped it, but let the children live, you can't be locking them up at home afraid something bad can happen to them. It is no difference if something bad happens to them if they were with their parents or with someone else. My favorite childhood memories are of my uncle taking me to the store to buy me candies, and another taking me to the beach to play. I wouldn't want to prevent my kids to have that just because I'm afraid something could happen to them if I'm not there. Now they are both dead but the memories is still alive, and seeing how people nowadays don't allow their children to go anywhere without them, I'm grateful to my parents that they weren't as strict. In the old days in my country, women were usually restricted by their family to go out without a man because it was dangerous for them to go outside alone, and it is true, the world is full of danger, and women and children are the most vulnerable to it, but would you like to live in a world with limited danger if it was no fun? Wouldn't it be better if a parent thought "At least they lived a fun life" if something bad would've happened to their children than saying "I even prevented them from having fun so how did this happen?".

And about what happened in the drama, my understanding is that they met outside the school so they sat in a nearby restaurant to talk. There is something in between of course that was edited out, because they cut back to them and we see that the kid knew he was his mother's attorney. I imagine that the attorney called the kid's mother to prove to him that it was okay to go with him and his assistant.

I know. That was the second part of my comment. The first part is about other people who said it wasn't a comedy at all (which dissuaded me from starting this drama when I was looking for a historical comedy). I'm not saying it is a black comedy, I didn't see that way, but I'm saying it can be interpreted that way, so I understand that someone would see it as such. If you thought the writers did this knowing it is absurd to make you laugh then it is a black comedy to you. It doesn't matter what the writers intended it to be, it matters how it reached you. You are the audience so you are the judge after all.

Define wrong though. Taking an underaged kid for a meal is not wrong on its own if one of their parents know that you are taking them so that they don't worry about them. Having bad intentions doing so, or hurting them is wrong. Can't an adult treat a neglected child for a meal these days?