Every episode my heart sinks a little more. Every frame, I am reminded that it is a true story. So many victims,…
I still think its Gihwan. I think he wants to be Gibeom because everyone wants him, that is why every frame cuts to hint at Gibeom when the victims talk about the perpetrator. I think it might be inferiority complex. I think Gibeom doesn’t have any motive to kill unless he is purely a perverted psychopath.
i have a sneaking suspicion since first ep that its the other brother, Gihwan. I feel like he has some inferiority complex that all the other girls are swooning over Gibeom.
Idk when JackDean ship sank for me and when ArnoldDean ship sailed from my shore. Omg why does Dean have such good chemistry with everyone. Why do I kinda want Dean to end up with Arnold. I feel bad for Tua tho 😭
From the ep 7 preview i am guessing ep 8 conflict will be Dean and Jack fighting because someone sneaked a pic of Arnold and Dean being physically close. Jack is pissing me off. He keeps using the play as an excuse to be unprofessional when Dean is trying his best to be in the play and make the play popular. He really cannot separate his personal feelings from work. Dean said he will change for better, i think Jack also needs to change and get a grip.
Hear me out….. Why is the chemistry between Arnold and Dean kinda…. I understand why Tua and Jack were jealous. Dean literally has chemistry with everyone lol. Also Tua is such a sweetheart and a good friend 🥺
I didn’t think anyone would piss me off more than Boston, but Raffy sure is competitive.
I cannot decide which one is more intelligent, the rat in my house or Han Seol ah in her stalker/ex’s house. Why would you turn your phone off and not give a heads up to anyone that you are diving head first into a trap. When you know damn well he is a stalker who might also be responsible for multiple murders? Unless you wanna frame him for all this and get away with self defence at the end….
Y'all, I think Kbeauty is actually an incel male, he has multiple accounts too
I read your comment replying to my thread. I cannot reply there because I blocked them too. They were insulting everyone who didn’t agree with them without providing any valid explanation. They replied “blocking is so lame” under my review. You can’t have a real conversation with someone who just wants to attack/ “win”, not understand. They were insulting everyone who agreed with me, so I blocked them so that they couldn’t see the threat itself.
If you’re engaging to genuinely understand and discuss, you’ll notice that most of what you’re arguing against…
Your emotional reaction is absolutely valid. Disliking characters, feeling disconnected, or being frustrated by affair plots is a matter of taste. No one is obligated to feel invested in morally messy protagonists. But personal disengagement and critical evaluation are not the same thing and that distinction matters.
Saying “I didn’t connect with them” is a preference. Saying the narrative fails because you didn’t connect is a judgement. Those are different claims. One describes your experience. The other evaluates the work itself. When people blur those two, they stop analysing the story and start measuring it against their comfort level.
And to be clear, I already said cheating is wrong. I felt the rage about the betrayal too. The character is not meant to be right. She is written to be flawed, compromised, and ethically messy. That is intentional. The affair is not the core message of the story, it’s one part of a character who is not morally clean.
The central focus is the scale and brutality of systemic violence. That is what the narrative keeps returning to. That is what gives everything else weight. And I addressed all of this in my review.
You don’t have to root for anyone. You don’t have to enjoy ambiguity. You don’t have to like morally compromised characters. But a story refusing to provide emotional satisfaction is not automatically poor execution, sometimes it’s the point. Discomfort isn’t always a flaw. Sometimes it’s the intended effect of the narrative design.
So yes, your disappointment is real. Your taste is valid. But a viewer feeling emotionally unsatisfied does not invalidate the thematic structure of the story. It just means the story wasn’t built to meet the kind of engagement you personally prefer.
Focusing only on cheating is reductive because it shrinks a multi layered narrative into a single moral incident and ignores what the story is structurally built to examine. Cheating is part of the character’s behaviour. Systemic violence, trauma, power, and survival are part of the story’s framework. When viewers treat the personal betrayal as the defining issue, they replace the narrative’s central question with a simpler moral judgement. That changes what the story is about.
When discussion fixates only on cheating, it flattens vastly different forms of harm into the same conversational weight. That doesn’t mean cheating isn’t wrong. It means it isn’t the whole story. Focusing only on cheating distorts moral proportion and shifts attention away from broader patterns of violence the story is highlighting.
You responded under someone who called my review a “word salad” where they didn’t address a single point…
Character explanation: This argument assumes that people who experience pressure, confusion, or emotional destabilisation always behave logically and protect themselves. That’s simply not how human psychology works. People return to situations that hurt or confuse them all the time for closure, denial, familiarity, or because they’re trying to regain control. Going back does not magically erase ambiguity. It often proves the opposite: that the situation was never emotionally resolved in the first place.
You’re also treating self preservation like proof of emotional stability. It isn’t. People who feel threatened socially, professionally, and psychologically often go straight into damage control. Hiding, lying, and managing fallout are survival behaviours. They don’t prove someone was fine. They prove someone was trying to stop their life from collapsing. Control on the outside does not equal clarity on the inside.
More importantly, you’re collapsing separate moral questions into one. Yes, she made deliberate, unethical choices afterward. That makes her responsible for those choices. But later wrongdoing does not retroactively define the psychological nature of the earlier encounter. Human behaviour isn’t one clean moral timeline where everything neatly explains everything else.
And the biggest flaw is that you’re demanding that a psychologically messy situation produce morally tidy behaviour. Real people are inconsistent. They can be competent professionals and personally self destructive. They can fight injustice publicly while making terrible private decisions. That’s not narrative failure, that’s realism. This is a character explanation not a defence.
You’re not actually disproving ambiguity or complexity. You’re rejecting it because it doesn’t fit a simple model of how people “should” behave. But human beings especially damaged, conflicted, emotionally entangled ones, rarely behave in ways that make moral interpretation comfortable or convenient.
Again as I have mentioned in my review she is a complex character, cheating is unacceptable but she will face consequences. The story is not celebrating her cheating. It is a plot device. The main plot however is not cheating, it is systematic violence.
If the intention was truly to frame her as someone caught in coercion or blurred consent, then the drama completely…
You responded under someone who called my review a “word salad” where they didn’t address a single point I made or engage with any of the substance. That wasn’t the only comment they made. They were leaving the worst empty remarks even in comment section, even to others. So what exactly was I supposed to do… thank them for contributing nothing? I replied with the same energy I received. You’re comfortable defending someone without even having the full context, but you feel qualified to write an intense character analysis of my personality based on a single comment? That says far more about you than it does about me. I’ve been replying to all your disagreements respectfully because you challenged my review without mocking or insulting me. So I responded in the same tone. That situation was different. When you don’t know the full context, it’s better not to make such extreme assumptions.
Pointing out that confidence doesn’t require theatrics would land better if your entire reply wasn’t… theatrical. You didn’t dismantle anything they said, you just psychoanalysed my tone and called that an argument. Critiquing delivery is not the same as addressing substance. If the ideas were actually weak, they could’ve challenged them directly, but they did not. But it still led you to write a character review about my personality.
Also, calling something “ego” every time someone speaks with conviction isn’t insight, it’s avoidance. Disagreement isn’t intimidation. And someone being certain of their interpretation doesn’t mean they think everyone else is intellectually inferior. That’s a projection you inserted, not a claim I made.
As for the “dramatic exit” lecture, let’s be real. You’re not defending respectful discourse. You’re irritated that the conversation didn’t orbit around your approval. If brevity is your standard for sincerity, then maybe try applying it to your own moral grandstanding.
You say people can disagree without belittling others. True. They can also disagree without tone policing, armchair psychology, or pretending that analysing rhetoric is the same thing as refuting an argument.
You want politeness. I want precision. Those are not the same thing. If confidence makes you uneasy, that’s your reaction to manage, not my argument to shrink.
Next time, they should address the ideas. Everything else is just performance dressed up as composure.
1
1
Jack is pissing me off. He keeps using the play as an excuse to be unprofessional when Dean is trying his best to be in the play and make the play popular. He really cannot separate his personal feelings from work. Dean said he will change for better, i think Jack also needs to change and get a grip.
I understand why Tua and Jack were jealous. Dean literally has chemistry with everyone lol. Also Tua is such a sweetheart and a good friend 🥺
I didn’t think anyone would piss me off more than Boston, but Raffy sure is competitive.
Rn my bet is on the rat.
No one is obligated to feel invested in morally messy protagonists. But personal disengagement and critical evaluation are not the same thing and that distinction matters.
Saying “I didn’t connect with them” is a preference. Saying the narrative fails because you didn’t connect is a judgement. Those are different claims. One describes your experience. The other evaluates the work itself. When people blur those two, they stop analysing the story and start measuring it against their comfort level.
And to be clear, I already said cheating is wrong. I felt the rage about the betrayal too. The character is not meant to be right. She is written to be flawed, compromised, and ethically messy. That is intentional. The affair is not the core message of the story, it’s one part of a character who is not morally clean.
The central focus is the scale and brutality of systemic violence. That is what the narrative keeps returning to. That is what gives everything else weight. And I addressed all of this in my review.
You don’t have to root for anyone. You don’t have to enjoy ambiguity. You don’t have to like morally compromised characters. But a story refusing to provide emotional satisfaction is not automatically poor execution, sometimes it’s the point. Discomfort isn’t always a flaw. Sometimes it’s the intended effect of the narrative design.
So yes, your disappointment is real. Your taste is valid. But a viewer feeling emotionally unsatisfied does not invalidate the thematic structure of the story. It just means the story wasn’t built to meet the kind of engagement you personally prefer.
Focusing only on cheating is reductive because it shrinks a multi layered narrative into a single moral incident and ignores what the story is structurally built to examine. Cheating is part of the character’s behaviour. Systemic violence, trauma, power, and survival are part of the story’s framework. When viewers treat the personal betrayal as the defining issue, they replace the narrative’s central question with a simpler moral judgement. That changes what the story is about.
When discussion fixates only on cheating, it flattens vastly different forms of harm into the same conversational weight. That doesn’t mean cheating isn’t wrong. It means it isn’t the whole story. Focusing only on cheating distorts moral proportion and shifts attention away from broader patterns of violence the story is highlighting.
This argument assumes that people who experience pressure, confusion, or emotional destabilisation always behave logically and protect themselves. That’s simply not how human psychology works. People return to situations that hurt or confuse them all the time for closure, denial, familiarity, or because they’re trying to regain control. Going back does not magically erase ambiguity. It often proves the opposite: that the situation was never emotionally resolved in the first place.
You’re also treating self preservation like proof of emotional stability. It isn’t. People who feel threatened socially, professionally, and psychologically often go straight into damage control. Hiding, lying, and managing fallout are survival behaviours. They don’t prove someone was fine. They prove someone was trying to stop their life from collapsing. Control on the outside does not equal clarity on the inside.
More importantly, you’re collapsing separate moral questions into one. Yes, she made deliberate, unethical choices afterward. That makes her responsible for those choices. But later wrongdoing does not retroactively define the psychological nature of the earlier encounter. Human behaviour isn’t one clean moral timeline where everything neatly explains everything else.
And the biggest flaw is that you’re demanding that a psychologically messy situation produce morally tidy behaviour. Real people are inconsistent. They can be competent professionals and personally self destructive. They can fight injustice publicly while making terrible private decisions. That’s not narrative failure, that’s realism. This is a character explanation not a defence.
You’re not actually disproving ambiguity or complexity. You’re rejecting it because it doesn’t fit a simple model of how people “should” behave. But human beings especially damaged, conflicted, emotionally entangled ones, rarely behave in ways that make moral interpretation comfortable or convenient.
Again as I have mentioned in my review she is a complex character, cheating is unacceptable but she will face consequences. The story is not celebrating her cheating. It is a plot device. The main plot however is not cheating, it is systematic violence.
Pointing out that confidence doesn’t require theatrics would land better if your entire reply wasn’t… theatrical. You didn’t dismantle anything they said, you just psychoanalysed my tone and called that an argument. Critiquing delivery is not the same as addressing substance. If the ideas were actually weak, they could’ve challenged them directly, but they did not. But it still led you to write a character review about my personality.
Also, calling something “ego” every time someone speaks with conviction isn’t insight, it’s avoidance. Disagreement isn’t intimidation. And someone being certain of their interpretation doesn’t mean they think everyone else is intellectually inferior.
That’s a projection you inserted, not a claim I made.
As for the “dramatic exit” lecture, let’s be real. You’re not defending respectful discourse. You’re irritated that the conversation didn’t orbit around your approval. If brevity is your standard for sincerity, then maybe try applying it to your own moral grandstanding.
You say people can disagree without belittling others. True. They can also disagree without tone policing, armchair psychology, or pretending that analysing rhetoric is the same thing as refuting an argument.
You want politeness. I want precision. Those are not the same thing. If confidence makes you uneasy, that’s your reaction to manage, not my argument to shrink.
Next time, they should address the ideas. Everything else is just performance dressed up as composure.