A K-drama that tries to please two audiences... and failed both.
THE IDENTITY PROBLEMNice to Not Meet You achieved something rare: completely dividing its audience not through controversy, but by trying to be two different things at the same time.
On one side, viewers born before 2000 found a nostalgic embrace - childish but "adorable" male protagonist, exaggerated physical comedy, chaste romance, conflicts that resolve magically. It's My Name is Kim Sam-soon (2005) with a 2025 budget.
On the other, the generation of The Glory and Squid Game expected what the synopsis promised: adult satire about the entertainment industry, mature protagonists, romance with real depth.
The result? A technically impeccable series that delivers nostalgic sitcom when half the audience expected sophisticated contemporary drama. And this dissonance explains its median score and reviews ranging from "adorable" to "frustrating waste of talent."
This is why the protagonists most likely have age differences.
PART 1: WHEN THE PERFECT MACHINE CHOOSES THE WRONG PROJECT
1.1 Studio Dragon empire in crisis
Studio Dragon isn't just a production company - it's the factory of excellence that redefined K-dramas. When you watch Crash Landing on You, The Glory, or Queen of Tears (24.9% audience record), you're seeing their signature: high-fidelity cinematography, sophisticated sound design, meticulous art direction.
But 2025 revealed a critical problem: revenue fell 30.3% in the first quarter after failures like When The Stars Gossip (50 billion won wasted). Nice to Not Meet You followed the pattern: premium cast, inflated budget, sky-high expectations... and disappointment.
What both reveal: technical capability doesn't compensate for lack of creative curation. Studio Dragon can do anything technically, but they're making mistakes in choosing what to do.
1.1 Kim Ga-ram: The wrong director for the wrong project
Kim Ga-ram became a respected name with Nevertheless (2021) - 10 episodes of pure raw intimacy. Her trademark? Close-ups of hands almost touching loaded with tension, micro-expressions captured in silences, chemistry so natural she confessed to "getting confused whether it was improvisation or script."
Her declared philosophy: "I want to convey the desperation and bitterness of romance that actually happens in real life, not fantasy." She's a master at capturing intimate vulnerability.
Now imagine this director cast for: physical comedy with characters running around, protagonist throwing childish tantrums, slapstick-based humor. It's like hiring a zen minimalist chef to do all-you-can-eat barbecue - technically capable, but completely outside their genius.
1.2 The promise that became something else
The synopsis sold: "National actor versus combative journalist in battle of egos in the world of celebrities." This promises cynical exploration of the entertainment industry - social satire, commentary on fan culture, the psychological price of fame.
What was delivered? Romantic comedy where entertainment is just aesthetic backdrop. The characters could work in any corporate office without changing the essence of the story.
This dissonance between promise (intelligent satire) and delivery (generic sitcom) is the original sin. Everything after - casting, direction, tone - suffers from this fundamental indecision.
PART 2: CHARACTERS ON PAPER VS. CHARACTERS ON SCREEN
2.1 The protagonist who never grows
On paper, Lee Jung-jae's character is fascinating: actor who achieved fame, became reclusive, was rediscovered by accident. Now wants to be taken seriously, not for money, but for external validation. Psychologically rich - artist who lost touch with his creative roots.
In practice? He acts like a spoiled teenager for 12-14 of 16 episodes. When contradicted, he screams. When he wants attention, he creates exaggerated drama. Without real narrative justification for this immaturity - he simply acts this way because sitcom requires "childish but cute" male protagonist.
The promised arc never completes organically. We don't see real internal transformation, just change because episode 15 demands it.
2.2 The contradictory protagonist
Lim Ji-yeon's character should be an unstoppable force: award-winning investigative journalist, unjustly banned, forced to cover entertainment. Combative, focused on justice, doesn't bow easily.
But: the script reveals she's his "secret fan." A tough journalist who exposes corruption... is a fangirl who collects photos? This contradicts her complete psychological profile and undermines the power dynamic. Instead of two equals colliding (generating respect that turns to love), we have imbalance where she secretly admires him from the start.
2.3 The dynamic that doesn't work
On paper: emotional man versus analytical woman = heated but intelligent debates, attraction through mutual respect, growth where he learns depth and she learns flexibility.
In practice: The reviews devastate: "They never interact properly," "Chemistry works better as enemies than lovers," "Childish behavior dominates."
The fundamental problem: opposite characters need to respect each other to generate romance. When one acts like a spoiled child for 14 episodes, there's no basis for real admiration.
PART 3: THE STRUCTURE THAT WALKS IN CIRCLES
3.1 All episodes with zero progression
Studio Dragon has a formula for 16 episodes that normally works: Act I (1-4) establishes world, Act II (5-12) develops with midpoint twist in episode 8, Act III (13-16) delivers climax.
Nice to Not Meet You theoretically follows this. In practice, it's following a perfect recipe with wrong ingredients.
The Missing Episode 8: Structurally, episode 8 should be the most important moment - revelation that changes everything, where we see the relationship in a completely different way, where stakes double. Here? Nothing changes fundamentally. The series "floats" without a backbone.
Delayed Progression: What should happen in episode 8 only happens in episode 12. The romantic progression is 4 episodes late, leaving Act III without time to resolve anything significantly.
3.2 Narrative Circularity
Recurring critiques: "The story keeps stopping," "Little progress," "They waste two episodes."
Episodes 5-8: "Fight → almost understand → fight again"
Episodes 9-12: "He tries to approach → she retreats → he tries again"
No layers being added. It's the same pattern on loop. Compare with Hometown Cha-Cha-Cha where each episode adds a real layer: distrust → respect → friendship → attraction → love. Linear progression that advances.
3.3 The filler problem
The script has content for 10-12 episodes, but was inflated to 16 with:
- Unnecessary flashbacks (showing scenes from 2 episodes ago)
- Irrelevant subplots (secondary characters with excessive time)
- The same dynamic repeated dozens of times
30-40% of screen time is spent on content that doesn't serve the main arc. And without deadline or temporal urgency, the script procrastinates development because "it has 16 episodes to fill."
PART 4: PERFECT TECHNIQUE SERVING THE WRONG STORY
4.1 Dialogue and tonal schizophrenia
Screenwriter Jung Yeo-rang is a specialist in light family dramas. Nice to Not Meet You requires sharp industry dialogue and intelligent romantic banter - outside her zone.
Result: functional dialogue that moves plot, but without real depth. When protagonists fight, it's generic: "You're annoying" / "You too." There's no insight, no revelation of conflicting values.
Worse: devastating tonal inconsistency. The series changes tone every 15 minutes - slapstick comedy → serious drama → sweet romance → back to comedy. The audience doesn't know how to feel because the series doesn't know what it wants to be.
The comedy depends on physicality (slapstick, people falling) instead of verbal wit. When a series does this, it usually means the screenwriter doesn't trust their ability to write intelligent humor. And putting Lee Jung-jae (intimidating presence from Squid Game) making faces is a waste of real dramatic talent.
4.2 Beautiful visuals but soulless
Visually: impeccable. Color palette uses intelligent contrast (entertainment = warm tones, journalism = cold tones). Polished set design, smooth cinematography.
But: execution is too clean. There's no emotional texture, no visual risks. Everything looks like an advertising campaign - beautiful to look at, empty to feel. Compare with Nevertheless (same director) which had intentional grain, deep shadows, close-ups overflowing with tension.
4.3 Sound Design: The only clear victory
Varied OST (rock, pop, indie) well curated. Spatial and immersive sound design (chaotic newsroom vs. silent apartment). Studio Dragon delivers technical quality.
Problem: no track becomes memorable beyond context. Crash Landing on You had songs that became cultural phenomena. Here, they're pleasant but forgettable.
4.4 Actor direction: Talent limited by choices
Lee Jung-jae: Reviews say "he can't act vulnerability." But this is false about his abilities. In Squid Game he delivered layers of desperation, shame, determination. The problem? He's being directed for slapstick comedy, not his forte.
Lim Ji-yeon: Is carrying the series. Understands the assignment and delivers consistently. In The Glory she played a sociopath; here she plays nerd perfectly. But even she is limited when dialogue doesn't offer real depth.
FINAL DIAGNOSIS
1. Casting Dissonance: Kim Ga-ram (micro-focused intimacy) directing slapstick comedy with large cast = fundamental creative casting error.
2. Script Without Courage: Family drama screenwriter writing industry satire = lack of real depth about the world it portrays.
3. Cast as Marketing: Lee Jung-jae cast because Squid Game made him a star, not because he was right for comedic role = waste of dramatic talent.
4. 16-Episode Syndrome: Contract requires 16, script has content for 10-12 = frustrating filler.
5. Tonal Schizophrenia: Tries to be slapstick comedy + serious drama + sweet romance + satire = masters none.
Nice to Not Meet You didn't fail from lack of talent - it failed from lack of courageous decisions:
- Didn't have courage to be pure comedy
- Didn't have courage to be acid satire
- Didn't have courage to make 10 episodes instead of 16
- Didn't have courage to cast a comedic actor
- Didn't have courage to give real intimacy to the couple
Result: 16 episodes trying not to offend anyone, satisfying no one.
WATCH IF:
- Born before 2000 and want nostalgia for classic sitcoms
- Want television comfort food without emotional commitment
- Are unconditional fan of the cast
- Prefer chaste romance without physical intimacy
- Like physical comedy more than intelligent dialogue
AVOID IF:
- Expect mature romance with real development
- Want intelligent satire about entertainment
- Have little patience for stagnation
- Need mature protagonists
- Hate filler and wasted time
- Grew up with The Glory, Queen of Tears, Squid Game
Although the series is classified as a "romantic comedy," it can actually be understood more as a satire of how the Korean film industry operates behind the scenes.
SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVES
Mature romance: Queen of Tears (2024), Crash Landing on You (2019-2020)
Well-made sitcom: Hometown Cha-Cha-Cha (2021)
Kim Ga-ram at her best: Nevertheless (2021)
Lee Jung-jae at his best: Squid Game (2021)
Industry drama (done right): Start-Up (2020)
Nice to Not Meet You isn't a bad series - it's a series out of time and without identity. If released in 2010, it would be cute. In 2025, after Squid Game and The Glory elevated K-dramas to cinematic art, it feels like expensive regression.
It's beautiful to watch. Pleasant to hear. Empty to feel.
The legacy won't be quality or lack thereof, but a lesson about creative courage. In a world where global audiences are ready for bold K-dramas, choosing the safety of generic sitcom is the riskiest choice.
Because in the end, no one remembers the middle ground. No one quotes mediocre dialogue. No one passionately recommends "okay, I guess."
Nice to Not Meet You, with its millions spent and wasted talent, will be remembered only as "the one that could have been special... if it had chosen to be something real."
A SENTENCE THAT SUMMARIZES THE PROGRAM
Although the series is classified as a romantic comedy, it is actually a satire of how the South Korean television industry operates behind the scenes.
Was this review helpful to you?
Taxi Driver: When revenge becomes repetition
A franchise struggling with its own successTaxi Driver (모범택시) had everything going for it: a compelling premise, strong source material from an acclaimed webtoon, and a first season that captured lightning in a bottle. But as the series progressed through three seasons, it revealed a fundamental problem that plagues many episodic thrillers — the inability to balance case-of-the-week storytelling with meaningful overarching narrative. What started as a masterclass in tension and character development devolved into a frustrating cycle of repetitive revenge plots, only to partially recover in its third season.
SEASON ONE: WHEN EVERYTHING CLICKED
The first season remains the undisputed highlight of the franchise, and for good reason. It understood that revenge stories need emotional stakes to resonate. Jin-hyuk, Hae-young, Pil-gyu, and the mysterious Moon Dong-eok weren’t just a vigilante squad — they were damaged souls bound by trauma, each with clear motivations for joining the “Model Taxi” operation.
What made Season 1 exceptional was its narrative cohesion. While each episode featured a distinct case (sexual harassment, school bullying, police corruption), these stories were carefully woven into a larger tapestry. The cases built upon each other, revealing more about our protagonists while exploring urgent social issues that resonated with audiences across Asia. The pacing was deliberate but never dragged, with each revelation earning its emotional weight.
The technical execution matched the writing. Cold cinematography and saturated colors created an oppressive atmosphere that mirrored the characters’ psychological states. The editing maintained tension without feeling rushed, and the performances conveyed genuine pain and rage beneath the surface of calculated revenge.
SEASON TWO: THE FATAL FLAW OF EPISODIC STRUCTURE
And then everything fell apart.
Season 2’s biggest mistake wasn’t just being worse than Season 1 — it was fundamentally misunderstanding what made the series work. The shift to a purely episodic structure, with standalone cases that rarely connected to a larger narrative, transformed Taxi Driver from a character-driven thriller into a procedural revenge-of-the-week show.
The pacing problem: Without an overarching storyline to maintain momentum, the season felt interminably slow. Each episode followed the same formula: victim appears, team investigates, elaborate revenge scheme unfolds, justice is served. Rinse and repeat.
The character regression: The episodic format didn’t just hurt the plot — it eviscerated character development. Our protagonists became mere functionaries, executing missions without personal stakes or emotional growth. The replacement of the female lead only exacerbated this problem, destroying the group chemistry that had been so carefully cultivated. These were no longer people; they were plot devices in expensive suits.
The disconnect: Perhaps most damning were reports suggesting the season was split between different writing teams, with the first half noticeably superior to the second. This wasn’t just visible in quality — it created a structural incoherence that left viewers confused about what the season was even trying to accomplish. Without cases connecting to a bigger picture, each episode existed in isolation, making the entire season feel pointless.
The fan reaction was brutal and justified. Comments across forums consistently noted the “monotonous” nature of the season, the “predictable twists,” and an overall sense that the show was “riding on the coattails” of Season 1’s success without understanding why it succeeded. The sentiment that dominated discussions was simple: this felt like work to watch.
The silver lining: While the main arc became generic and unfocused, this structural shift had an unexpected benefit. Freed from the constraints of a tightly interconnected overarching narrative, the writers could craft more elaborate and self-contained mission subplots. Some individual cases emerged as genuinely iconic, with deeper character work for the victims and more creative revenge schemes than the main storyline would have allowed. These standout episodes demonstrated that when the show leaned into its episodic nature with ambition rather than falling into formula, it could still deliver compelling television. For some viewers, these memorable standalone stories partially compensated for the loss of narrative cohesion.
SEASON THREE: AMBITIOUS EXPANSION, STRUCTURAL REGRESSION
Season 3 attempts redemption through scope expansion — cross-border human trafficking provides thematic weight and international settings. But the fundamental structural problems from Season 2 not only persist, they worsen in critical ways.
The overarching narrative problem: Despite the trafficking theme supposedly connecting cases, the season lacks a central antagonist or escalating conflict. Season 1's strength was its villain whose presence permeated every episode, creating cumulative tension. Season 3 returns to isolated, self-contained cases that resolve within 1-2 episodes. There's no narrative throughline, no building stakes, no climactic confrontation to anticipate. It's episodic storytelling masquerading as serialized drama.
Ensemble utilization collapses entirely. The protagonist becomes a solo operative while supporting characters are relegated to expository dialogue and reaction shots. The team dynamics that defined Season 1 — the sense of damaged individuals finding purpose together — evaporate. Scenes that should showcase collaborative problem-solving instead feature one character doing everything while others watch. For an ensemble show, it's a betrayal of the format.
Character development flatlines. Across 16 episodes, no character experiences meaningful growth, faces internal conflict, or evolves beyond their Season 2 endpoints. They execute missions with mechanical efficiency but zero emotional arc. For a show built on trauma and justice, the refusal to explore how repeated exposure to violence affects these vigilantes is a missed opportunity that borders on negligence.
Pacing remains wildly inconsistent. The season lurches between tonal extremes — gritty crime thriller one moment, lighthearted banter the next — without the narrative confidence to commit to either. Certain arcs drag interminably while others feel rushed. The finale, in particular, lacks the cathartic weight a 48-episode series deserves, resolving with a whimper rather than a statement.
The "international scope" is largely cosmetic. Location shooting adds production value but not narrative complexity. The show gestures at the systemic nature of human trafficking but treats it as set dressing for the same revenge formula. Complex geopolitical issues become backdrops for individual vengeance rather than catalysts for deeper exploration.
Technical execution remains solid: Cinematography maintains atmospheric quality, Lee Je-hoon delivers committed performances across multiple personas, and guest antagonists bring intensity to their limited screen time. Production design convincingly creates varied international settings.
But craft cannot compensate for structural failure. Season 3 had the opportunity to learn from Season 2's mistakes — the monotony of disconnected cases, the loss of ensemble chemistry, the absence of narrative momentum. Instead, it doubles down on episodic structure while abandoning the character work that could have justified it.
The season isn't without individual strong moments, but they exist in isolation, disconnected from any larger purpose. It's competent television that forgot why the series mattered in the first place.
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM: CAN REVENGE BE SERIALIZED?
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Taxi Driver reveals the inherent limitation of revenge-based episodic television. Revenge stories are most powerful when they’re personal, specific, and build to catharsis. Once you turn revenge into a business model — a service provided week after week — it loses emotional weight. The more cases you resolve, the more the vigilante justice becomes routine rather than cathartic.
Season 1 worked because it felt like the origin story, with each case revealing something new about our broken heroes. Season 2 failed because it treated revenge as content production. Season 3 improves by raising the stakes and scope, but can’t fully escape the episodic trap.
THE CREATIVE TEAM SHIFT EXPLAINS MUCH
Season 1 thrived under director Park Joon-Woo's vision, with writer Oh Sang-Ho crafting the first ten episodes before Lee Ji-Hyun took over for the finale arc. Season 2 brought in director Lee Dan while retaining Oh Sang-Ho, and Season 3 promoted assistant director Kang Bo-Seung to the helm — someone who was present from the beginning but lacked the senior directorial experience to course-correct structural problems. While maintaining the same writer (Oh Sang-Ho) across all three seasons should theoretically provide continuity, the reality is that Korean drama production operates under punishing schedules where writers often juggle multiple projects simultaneously. The consistency of vision that made Season 1's first half exceptional fragmented across subsequent seasons, with directorial changes compounding the loss of narrative cohesion. When your director is learning on the job and your writer is stretched thin, even competent execution can't compensate for the absence of the creative leadership that defined the series' strongest moments.
WHAT THE SERIES GETS RIGHT
- Social relevance: Tackles harassment, human trafficking, and corruption with genuine seriousness
- Technical excellence: Strong cinematography, convincing production design, and solid editing throughout
- Performances: Lead actors bring intensity to potentially repetitive roles. Guest stars add surprising depth.
- Ambition: Season 3's international expansion shows creative drive despite flawed execution
WHAT HOLDS IT BACK
- Structural repetition: Case-of-the-week format grows stale quickly. Formula becomes transparent.
- Pacing problems: Season 2 lacks overarching momentum. Season 3 lurches between draggy and rushed.
- Predictability: Once you recognize the pattern, emotional stakes disappear
- Character stagnation: Episodic resets prevent meaningful growth. Ensemble becomes static archetypes.
- Compounding issues: Problems aren't isolated—they worsen across seasons. Series can't escape format limitations.
THE VERDICT: A PROMISING START, A FRUSTRATING MIDDLE, A PARTIAL RECOVERY
Taxi Driver is a cautionary tale about the challenges of extending a successful concept. Season 1 is genuinely excellent — a must-watch for fans of Korean thrillers. Season 2 is optional at best, skippable at worst, losing the dark edge and emotional stakes in favor of lighter tone and formulaic storytelling. Season 3 earns back some goodwill by returning to grittier territory with stronger villains and higher stakes, but it trades Season 2's problems for new ones — sacrificing team dynamics and character growth in the process. It never quite recaptures the magic that made Season 1 work.
For new viewers: Watch Season 1. If you love it and crave more, Season 3 offers improvement over Season 2 but remains flawed. You won't miss much skipping Season 2.
For returning fans: Season 3 is worth your time if you're invested in the characters, but temper your expectations. This is a recovery in tone and intensity, not in storytelling cohesion or character development.
---
Recommended for: Fans of Korean thrillers willing to accept uneven quality; viewers interested in socially conscious revenge narratives; anyone who can tolerate repetitive structure for strong individual moments.
Not recommended for: Those seeking tightly plotted serialized narratives; viewers with low tolerance for episodic repetition; anyone expecting every season to match the first.
Where to watch: Available on international streaming platforms with subtitles.
Warning: Contains graphic violence, sensitive themes (harassment, human trafficking, trauma), and strong language. Also contains repetitive plot structures that may test your patience.
EDIT: Updated analysis after watching the latest episodes.
Was this review helpful to you?
