oppa_

thank you.

I get your point about fiction, but I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss the criticism just by saying “it’s fictional.”

Even in fiction, stories don’t exist in a vacuum—they draw from real-world ideas, histories, and possibilities. And honestly, it’s not like authoritarian systems are some impossible fantasy. Right next to South Korea, you have North Korea—a real-world example of a rigid, top-down system that still exists today. So the idea that a modern society could slide toward something similar isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds.

And if we look at recent events, even stable democracies can face moments of instability. The situation involving Yoon Suk Yeol and the declaration of martial law in 2024 shows that power can be pushed in more authoritarian directions, even if only briefly and ultimately resisted. That alone proves these themes aren’t purely hypothetical—they’re grounded in reality.

So the issue isn’t that the show is fictional. It’s what kind of ideas that fiction chooses to explore or normalize. Fiction can absolutely imagine alternate systems—but it can also romanticize or critique them. That’s where the debate comes from.

I’m not saying the show definitely supports those ideas—but calling out the possibility isn’t a “failure to separate fiction from reality.” It’s just engaging with what the story might be implying beneath the surface.

I get your point about fiction, but I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss the criticism just by saying “it’s fictional.”

Even in fiction, stories don’t exist in a vacuum—they draw from real-world ideas, histories, and possibilities. And honestly, it’s not like authoritarian systems are some impossible fantasy. Right next to South Korea, you have North Korea—a real-world example of a rigid, top-down system that still exists today. So the idea that a modern society could slide toward something similar isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds.

And if we look at recent events, even stable democracies can face moments of instability. The situation involving Yoon Suk Yeol and the declaration of martial law in 2024 shows that power can be pushed in more authoritarian directions, even if only briefly and ultimately resisted. That alone proves these themes aren’t purely hypothetical—they’re grounded in reality.

So the issue isn’t that the show is fictional. It’s what kind of ideas that fiction chooses to explore or normalize. Fiction can absolutely imagine alternate systems—but it can also romanticize or critique them. That’s where the debate comes from.

I’m not saying the show definitely supports those ideas—but calling out the possibility isn’t a “failure to separate fiction from reality.” It’s just engaging with what the story might be implying beneath the surface.

Because, as I’ve already mentioned on my profile, I’ll repeat it again—every view and opinion in my review is completely my own.

I only use AI to restructure my writing into grammatically correct and more easily understandable English, so it’s clearer for all readers. That’s it.

I get what you’re saying—and yeah, I’m open to changing my view depending on how the story actually unfolds.

If, like you said, the FL genuinely wants to challenge the system, then I’m willing to wait and see where it goes. But based on the first two episodes, it doesn’t come across that way to me. Right now, it feels less like she’s trying to dismantle an elitist structure and more like she’s trying to enter that exclusive circle through marriage.

She’s not really opposing the system itself—she’s not rejecting it or fighting against it in any visible way. Instead, she’s choosing to marry into it for the title and position. So at this point, I don’t see how that aligns with actually challenging monarchy or the discrimination that comes with it.

But yeah, let’s revisit this in a few weeks—if the show proves that it’s truly critiquing that system rather than reinforcing it, I’m more than happy to reconsider.

Using AI takes more effort than just typing a direct reply here. I have to write my entire response, feed it to the AI, ask it to frame it in proper English, and then copy-paste it back. I don't see you putting any more effort into your direct reply than I am putting into this process. Calling me lazy is just a failed defense or a random attempt to make yourself feel better.
As for the environment, AI, Google Translate, and even this website contribute to the same issues. People who preach about saving the planet while running their AC at full power are truly the "greatest" humans.
You call yourself a critical person but limit yourself to a minimum rating of 3/10? That isn't being critical; it’s just showing pity to these dramas. Giving a 1/10 is a sign of respect for the medium—it's honest. Don’t pity them with a 3. If the creators knew they were putting in all that effort just to receive a 3/10 from you, they should have consulted with me first.

You’re mixing two different things: showing history as it was, and transplanting older value systems into a modern or modern-adjacent setting.
Historical dramas exist precisely because they are rooted in a specific time period where those structures actually existed. When you watch something set in the Joseon era or feudal Europe, the hierarchy, class systems, even things like arranged marriages or concubinage are part of the historical context—not being presented as a model for today.
The criticism usually comes in when a story frames itself like a modern world (or borrows modern aesthetics and sensibilities) but still normalizes or romanticizes systems like birth-based privilege or absolute monarchy without clear distance or critique. That’s not “showing history,” that’s creative worldbuilding choices—and people can disagree on how it’s framed.
And no, this doesn’t mean “you can’t show uncomfortable things.” You absolutely can. The question is whether the narrative treats them as neutral aesthetics, romantic ideals, or actually engages with what those systems mean.

You’re missing a basic point — a review is, by definition, my perspective. I never asked you or anyone else to agree with it or follow it.
If you think a show is great, that’s your opinion. If I think it has problems in how it frames culture, morality, or power, that’s mine. Neither cancels the other.
As for Shogun, I don’t rate something highly just because it has high production value or polished dialogue. I judge it based on what it chooses to portray and how it frames those choices. To me, some of those portrayals feel inconsistent and selectively justified — especially when similar actions are treated differently depending on who is doing them.
You’re free to see depth or greatness in it. I’m free to question it.
And yes — my ratings are extreme sometimes because I rate based on impact, not averages. If something strongly works for me, it gets a high score. If it strongly doesn’t, it gets a low one.
If you feel you’ve said enough, that’s fine. No need to continue this further.

You’re mixing up two different things. Yes, writers can create any world they want—that’s not the issue. The issue is how that world is framed and what it tries to normalize or romanticize.
Calling it “dishonest” isn’t about denying creative freedom. It’s about pointing out that the show borrows the aesthetic of a modern democracy, while quietly pushing a system rooted in birth-based hierarchy as something desirable. That contrast is exactly what I’m criticizing.
And about the AI part—people really need to stop acting like using AI automatically invalidates an opinion. It’s just a tool. Some people use it to phrase their thoughts better, some don’t. The opinion is still mine.
If you think it’s a stretch to form a strong opinion from one episode, that’s fair—but dismissing it as “no sane person would” isn’t an argument, it’s just gatekeeping how others engage with media.

You're assuming I use AI to "look smarter," but that's not the case. I use it to express my thoughts more clearly, not to change my opinions.

Whether someone uses AI or not is a personal choice. Not using it doesn't make your opinion more valid, and using it doesn't make mine less valid.

There’s also no contradiction here. I’m criticizing a fictional story based on its writing and presentation, which is normal when discussing fiction. AI, on the other hand, is just a real-world tool used to communicate more clearly. The two aren’t comparable.

If you prefer not to use AI, that’s completely fine. But assuming intent or looking down on others for using it doesn’t really add anything to the discussion.

My review only covered the basic Concept of Drama.

I never personally asked you to take my reviews seriously in the first place. If you choose to dismiss everything just because you have a personal bias against certain dramas, that’s entirely your decision—I have no issue with that.

You’re free to see my reviews however you want, even as a joke. I’m not here seeking your validation.

Also, I’m not a native English speaker, so I use AI tools to help me frame my thoughts better. But those tools don’t create opinions on their own—the opinions in my reviews are still mine.

If you interpret that as “hate,” that’s your perspective, not my intent.

OMG , I don't know that
I thought this is Real documentry.

well yes i also find all that cringe, and the fact that they are still showing royalty in joseon-style costumes and drama-like sets — like they completely forgot this is supposed to be 21st century and a modern world where a monarchy somehow still exists.

for example, look at japan — the emperor wears suits, behaves like a modern symbolic figure, not someone walking around in old samurai-era clothing. here they didn’t even try to modernize the monarchy. like suddenly guns are allowed for royals? pointing a gun at your assistant is literally attempted murder or at least a serious criminal threat. what is that supposed to imply — that royals can just get away with anything?

and that whole dynamic is weird too — a rich chaebol requesting to meet an unemployed prince? who may or may not even become king? it just doesn’t make sense in a modern power structure.

best example of a modern monarchy would be queen elizabeth II — symbolic, controlled, and within a legal framework. this show doesn’t even try to do that.

and yeah, the butterfly effect is the biggest issue. if south korea still had a monarchy, it likely wouldn’t have become the constitutional democratic society it is today. which also means companies like samsung, lg, hyundai probably wouldn’t have had the same opportunities to grow into global tech leaders (AMOLED, semiconductors, etc.).

and if history changes that much, then even the whole north-south division and US-backed development might not exist in the same way. so it’s not a small change — it’s a completely different timeline.

that’s why it feels off. instead of a believable alternate reality, it just feels like they pasted monarchy on modern korea without thinking it through.

baek ho knows her ?
or just whatever jang mi told him ?

Honestly, I’m actually happy with Baeky’s dad’s end result. Whatever is happening to that family feels deserved to me.

His lawyer wife isn’t some innocent victim — she literally defended her own murderous husband and blamed the victim (Jang Mi’s father). That alone tells you what kind of person she is.

Her husband cheating on her? Not surprising. Her own son hiding that truth just to justify his father? Even worse. That shows how little respect either of them have for her. At this point, they don’t treat her like a mother at all — more like someone who just exists to serve them.

She raised two sons, and neither of them truly cares about her. That’s the real outcome here.

It’s honestly just karma coming back around. Sad? Maybe. But I still feel like she brought a lot of this on herself.

she will wake up in ep no 119

Yeah honestly, the “chairman will magically fix everything” angle doesn’t even hold up if you think about it for two seconds. This is South Korea we’re talking about — even the Samsung chairman couldn’t bail himself out for over a year. And here we’ve got this shaky, coward-looking old man who practically wets himself whenever his daughter-in-law raises her voice… what exactly is he supposed to do? Pull strings? With what authority? 😭

If Hwayoung gets out purely because of him, that’s not clever writing — that’s just plot convenience.
But man, the real “lame-ass writing” is that chef arc. Like come on — a passionate, established chef just drops his entire career overnight and suddenly becomes a corporate director at his biological mom’s company? That’s not character development, that’s a shortcut. Since when does “cooking qualify someone to sit in a boardroom and make executive decisions? 😅

That kind of jump only works if they earn it — show the transition, the struggle, the learning curve. Otherwise it just feels like nepotism dressed up as destiny.

chairman is dirt poor he can't afford to have guard around

was it logical for a chef to left his kitchen and become a director?
dude was doing MBA and cooking together?