Not here for any "BL" content, but nonetheless rather surprised that a contemporary Thai series with a message about social and sexual diversity almost entirely ignores the m/m dimension. Perhaps it's a corrective to the world of some (very charming and entertaining) Thai BL series where all the males fall in love with other guys and appear to be at least potentially gay/bi. Here is something which seeks to show us some sort of present-day Thai social/sexual reality - yet this is a reality where gay/bi males seem to be more or less absent, non-existent. Interestingly, lesbian characters (Nim, Mollie) and trans and non binary characters and their stories are much more visible and prominent here, whilst the male same-sex dimension is barely glimpsed. I have never been to Thailand, I imagine there are many realities, many worlds - as everywhere. No doubt the real engineering faculties are not hotbeds of homosexual passion, no ... but there must be a few gay and bi men dotted around here and there in society in 2023? Possibly the "real reality" lies somewhere in between the BL and Warp Effect visions.
Nice to see Boat again. I wished he was given the main role in a series, although I'm not sure that this special…
Agreed. Great to see Boat back on the screen. What was the Check Out special? I shall do some research! Boat is ... somewhat mesmerising. Wherever he chooses to show his beautiful face, I'm glad to follow. To support his career as an actor! And in fact I do mean that quite seriously.
Outstandingly beautiful man. Mesmerising to look at. And the camera loves him. And I myself loved his performance in the role of Porsche. Impressed too that he has chosen the not easy life of being an independent, freelance actor - not owned by any studio or production company. Best of luck, Nattawin!
There was only a one week break. There was no episode on January first, but there was an episode on this past…
I did! That's exactly what happened. I thought it was 3 or 4 weeks now since the last episode. My mind has been drifting ... Thank you for clearing up my confusion and alerting me to what I've missed!
This break is too much. I'm beginning to forget who the characters are and what's been happening. New Year's Day was the 1st of January. Two weeks' observance of this not so major occasion takes us all the way to mid-January. Maybe the production team have read the comments here and drafted some improvements in order to re-shoot scenes and follow viewers' wise observations - approximately 5,496 such observations - see below. There's been time enough, heaven only knows. What's the name of this series? Who are these boys?
Do not try to follow this link. (There is more than one space in the link, if you do try.}. When you get there, you are forced to join a site called buymeacoffee. Then you are required to submit a picture of yourself and create a profile. That's where I gave up.
I have yet to watch this and now ... I'm puzzled - totally. marzz (above) "lives for the fact" that there is no gay romance here at all. But I thought there was. Other people writing comments here use words like "relationship", "sizzling", "couple", "chemistry" etc. Are they referring to straight couples? I don't get it. Does this series include any representation of a male/male relationship - or not?
I've had my share of breakups, including one where I go home in the evening, all of his stuff is gone, I look…
What a nightmare you went through. The shock! Just gone. And he didn't reappear 3 years later, I gather. Well, I'm sorry you went through that. It sounds so ... brutal. I hope you subsequently encountered men who would never treat you that way. There are ways to break up that are cruel - and ways that get the job done & enable both partners to become ex-partners.
I don't know if anyone will agree with this but I felt like the ending implied that everything was a dream on…
It's an interesting idea. An action we see in the first scene is repeated in the final scene and one impression that could be created is that everything which followed the initial scene is supposed to be understood as a dream, a fantasy.
That is your interpretation, and I am honestly not trying to challenge it. I fully understand how you arrived at your conclusions. However, looking at the same scenes, I arrived at a totally different understanding of what's going on, and I wanted to offer an account of it.
I feel that what we see means the opposite - it's absolutely not a dream, not a fantasy. It was all real. The final scene is not a continuation of what we saw at the beginning, which it would have to be - i.e. in order to confirm the initial scene as reality, and mark out all that follows as fantasy.
But ... it's different. It's not the same. In the initial scene, one leaps on the other's back and they tumble into the fountain. In the final scene, one leaps on the other - and they continue on their way. No tumbling into the fountain. Why the difference? Well, falling in the pool is childish, rambunctious play that goes too far; and in the final scene Yuma has learned to cherish his beloved, and so maybe he engages in silly antics like jumping on Sakura's back - but that's where it stops - now there's no falling in the fountain. He has just seen Sakura hurt by a stranger. He's not going to let that happen again. Things are different now, at the end of the series: they're a little older, growing in maturity, moving away from horseplay etc - and they're in love, actively caring for each other's welfare.
As for the strange character who knocks people down, I took that just as it was played. He's a real person. Not a dream figure. He knocks Yoshimura down - Sakura most certainly does not dream that. And then he knocks Sakura down, giving Yuma an opportunity to realise how intensely he cherishes Sakura. Just as Norio was frantic about Yoshimura's safety, Yuma instantly understands what it is like to be wild with distress and anxiety about the well-being of the person he loves.
They are literally teenagers, there's no need for an exaggerated kiss between kids.
Here in Britain, people in their teens may vote, hold public office, drive cars, sign contracts, get married and even ... have homosexual relationships. Indeed enter into same-sex marriages. Yes, teenagers who are exactly the same age as the two characters in this series. And, at least here, older teenagers do not like to be dismissed as "kids". I myself also do not see them as kids.
You, meanwhile, insist that these two characters are kids and that kids everywhere need to be protected from scenes of boys kissing. OK, fine. We hear you. You are free to express that view - obviously. Some people warmly agree with you. Others, like SnowRegret, do not. I likewise do not share your views. How about just ... tolerating that?
By the way, I know you specialise in defending values of innocence, purity, protecting children, etc - you make that clear enough. But what do these expressions you use here like "grow tf" and "stfu" mean? I imagine these must be very refined, innocent, pure expressions of discreet old-fashioned courtesy! They look like acronyms ... But what do they stand for? What do they mean?
They are literally teenagers, there's no need for an exaggerated kiss between kids.
Yes, and it appears to be you. You can campaign against homosexuality in what you call children's programming, insisting that we shouldn't be allowed to see boys kissing. We're all used to that: countless people wage their continuing crusades against "gay evil" as a threat to innocence and purity. But you undermine your case by using crude abuse (online! against a total stranger!) Being nasty is an even greater assault on innocence and purity.
They are literally teenagers, there's no need for an exaggerated kiss between kids.
I'm intrigued by the violence of your response to @SnowRegret: "what the hell", "grow up" etc. You feel strongly about having no same-sex romantic intimacy in a show accessible to children, but you feel it's fine to dismiss an unknown person online with this abusive language. I admit: I wouldn't be bothered by two teenage boys kissing. (SnowRegret didn't demand that they "sleep with each other", as you claim.) But I wouldn't dream of launching into some stranger on a website with "what the hell did you really expect" and then telling him or her "grow up".
They are literally teenagers, there's no need for an exaggerated kiss between kids.
My word, you are so right. Here there are even people telling us seriously that a human love story is so much more sweet, lovely, charming etc because there isn't even a kiss. It truly is approaching prudery, outright puritanism.
I think in this story we don’t need a make out scene they are young beuatiful freinds love this kind of bl pure…
Hmmmm. Not sure I understand the opposition here. People who express physical love are fully capable of being pure and beautiful, and their stories can likewise be heartfelt. If there is no (as you call it) 'make out scene' of any kind in a romantic story, it feels as though physical intimacy is being left out because it's seen as unclean, ugly or not heartfelt. Moreover, as SnowRegret says, it seems both like a cop-out and pretty unrealistic.
I care too. How on earth can one not care? (1) Very few gay actors are out. They face a struggle. They deserve my solidarity. (2) Straight actors talk endlessly about their girlfriends, wives etc, and receive huge public approval for all of their affairs, liaisons, romances. Gay actors stay silent and hide. (3) If an actor is gay and says so, then obviously his perspectives playing a gay BL character will be different from those of a straight actor. We never hear about these perspectives. But we hear tons about straight actors' insights. (4) We do not live in a world where "it's all the same". In Thailand, same-sex marriage isn't even legal. A gay actor cannot marry his partner. How could a gay actor in a same-sex love story not be affected by something as simple as that? Yep. I care.
That is your interpretation, and I am honestly not trying to challenge it. I fully understand how you arrived at your conclusions. However, looking at the same scenes, I arrived at a totally different understanding of what's going on, and I wanted to offer an account of it.
I feel that what we see means the opposite - it's absolutely not a dream, not a fantasy. It was all real. The final scene is not a continuation of what we saw at the beginning, which it would have to be - i.e. in order to confirm the initial scene as reality, and mark out all that follows as fantasy.
But ... it's different. It's not the same. In the initial scene, one leaps on the other's back and they tumble into the fountain. In the final scene, one leaps on the other - and they continue on their way. No tumbling into the fountain. Why the difference? Well, falling in the pool is childish, rambunctious play that goes too far; and in the final scene Yuma has learned to cherish his beloved, and so maybe he engages in silly antics like jumping on Sakura's back - but that's where it stops - now there's no falling in the fountain. He has just seen Sakura hurt by a stranger. He's not going to let that happen again. Things are different now, at the end of the series: they're a little older, growing in maturity, moving away from horseplay etc - and they're in love, actively caring for each other's welfare.
As for the strange character who knocks people down, I took that just as it was played. He's a real person. Not a dream figure. He knocks Yoshimura down - Sakura most certainly does not dream that. And then he knocks Sakura down, giving Yuma an opportunity to realise how intensely he cherishes Sakura. Just as Norio was frantic about Yoshimura's safety, Yuma instantly understands what it is like to be wild with distress and anxiety about the well-being of the person he loves.
You, meanwhile, insist that these two characters are kids and that kids everywhere need to be protected from scenes of boys kissing. OK, fine. We hear you. You are free to express that view - obviously. Some people warmly agree with you. Others, like SnowRegret, do not. I likewise do not share your views. How about just ... tolerating that?
By the way, I know you specialise in defending values of innocence, purity, protecting children, etc - you make that clear enough. But what do these expressions you use here like "grow tf" and "stfu" mean? I imagine these must be very refined, innocent, pure expressions of discreet old-fashioned courtesy! They look like acronyms ... But what do they stand for? What do they mean?
Yep. I care.