bideshi

Why? Because the show called for a rich, powerful rival to Gu Won, a character who's worldly enough to want to marry Sa Rang, a non-Muslim, at first sight, a character who's wild/immature enough to do some of those comedic scenes. You can argue the merits of how successful the comedy was and how believable the storyline was--to me, they were only moderately successful at best--but I don't think it makes sense to argue "They shouldn't have shown such a character because drinking is against Islam and showing a Muslim man drinking is racist." There's a word for only showing the positive side of another culture: propaganda. You might be happy watching propaganda. I am not--whether it's about Arabs/Muslims or Koreans.

Look, it's fine to protest if an insult has been thrown against your culture/nation/religion; an example might be if a character in King the Land had said "Man, I hate traveling to Saudi Arabia for business; all the men there smell like camels." It's also fine to protest if some inaccuracy has been stated; an example would be if a character said "Islam teaches that Muslims can eat pork and drink alcohol." But honestly ask yourself: is the Arab prince's portrayal an insult or an inaccuracy of that sort? Does it warrant the charges of racism and outraged demands for an apology? Again, it's your right to complain and get angry and demand an apology. But know this: that having a hair trigger for getting offended, demanding an apology, making charges of racism and being defensive about your race/culture/religion means that others will not take you seriously (like the boy who cried wolf), that others will come away with a negative impression of your race/religion as being full of irrational people who lack a sense of proportion, who aren't smart enough to know what is and isn't an insult, who are unaware because of blind loyalty to the State/Religion. I'd save the outrage for truly outrageous things--not a 10-second clip from a comedy. In fact, I'd save the outrage for the injustices/mistakes of your own country's leaders that lead to people suffering.

It's ridiculous to say "they have a lot of stereotypes"--not because Koreans don't have stereotypes, but because you seem to be denying the reality that every nationality/race--including yours--has stereotypes about others.

Really enjoying this. The fish out of water parts are done well, not overly dramatically or comedically. But mainly, I think I like it because of the focus on realistic dialogue. I can see why the lack of progress or action might make the show seem slow, but I wouldn't trade it for the many scenes of people actually expressing their thoughts well. They all talk (out loud or to themselves) like real people instead of caricatures just being used as plot devices. For me, realistic characters and good dialogue are absolutely necessary for the best dramas.

I understand why some Muslims would object to Samir's behavior, why it's wrong in Islamic law/culture. What I'm saying is that it's OK to portray such behavior because every religion has people who--even though they know the consequences of their actions--still go ahead and do what's forbidden. Every religion forbids certain actions and calls them sin, and every religion has followers who still sin. It doesn't insult me as a Christian to see Christian characters commit sins on TV; in fact, it'd be hypocritical of any Christian to claim that he doesn't sin. So instead of complaining to the TV station "Your show had a pastor who was committing adultery. You're insulting Christianity. Don't you know that it's against Christianity to commit adultery?" what'd be more constructive is to examine my own heart and to guard myself against any actions that would displease God and dishonor His name. Honestly, I think God is more offended by my sin than by a TV character's sin, and the world would probably be a better place if all of us examined our actions as closely as we're examining two episodes of a K-drama.

BTW, I live in a predominantly Muslim country. In my time here, I've known very, very devout Muslims who would never drink or dishonor women and have been very kind to me, as well as Muslims who only pay lip service to their religion by lying and engaging in corruption, which to me are far worse than drinking.

What do you mean "we don't allow it"? Are you saying that in Muslim countries there's never a Muslim character doing anything immoral? Are you saying that freedom of expression/speech doesn't apply when it comes to Islam--even by those living in non-Islamic countries? I can understand how it'd be insulting to Muslims if a character in King the Land said "Islam allows the eating of pork and drinking of alcohol." However, that's very different than portraying the character of a clearly non-religious Arab prince. It's fine and your right to care about the reputation of your religion/country/race, but that doesn't give you the right to shut down free expression or to control the narrative. What does internet research have anything to do with this? An internet search could have shown many stories of the excesses and non-Islamic behavior of wealthy Arabs. What you want is for people to only google things you want--"OK Google, tell me what a proper Muslim man does and doesn't do"--and write a comedy based on that. Even though perhaps that's what's shown on state-sponsored Muslim TV programs--are there any immoral behavior done by Muslims on Muslim TV programs?--you can't expect everyone else to limit themselves in that way.

That's a reasonable criticism of Samir's character--far better than just screaming "That's racist!" So I appreciate that--though I'd argue that it creates a background story of an immature prodigal son that fits his impulsive pursuit of Sa Rang (interesting that no one has talked about how asking to marry a non-Muslim might have also broken Islamic law).

But if he'd been shown to go on a wild shopping spree, then the same people would have complained that showing an Arab prince spending money lavishly would have been a negative stereotype. My observation is that if you're looking to be offended, there's no limit to what you'll find offensive.

Now I'm confused. All this time I thought the complaint was exactly that they portrayed the prince to be drinking and touching women in a bar because either 1) it's a bad stereotype or 2) it's false. But now you're saying that it's just always wrong to show any foreign culture in a negative light. So that means that any TV show that portrays another culture must show only the positive sides of that culture? I suppose that's one way to make TV shows, but I wouldn't watch such shows becaues it'd be more like state-sponsored ropaganda than an interesting/realistic/dramatic work of creativity and freedom.

I'm going to have to plead ignorance on the Joseon Exorcist controversy, because I didn't see it, nor did I read anything about it. But I probably would have been against those calling for cancelling the show because I am in principle against cancel culture. So I don't know if King the Land was far more harmful to Muslim/Arab culture than Joseon Exorcist was harmful to Korean culture, but I can't at all understand how the portrayal of the prince was harmful to Muslim culture. In general, I think culture is far more resistant to harm than many people think, that Muslim culture will certainly survive King the Land quite unscathed. If not, then Muslim/Arab culture must be far weaker than I'd thought. I don't think that making Muslim/Arab culture into a weak victim that can be destroyed by two episodes of a Korean comedy is the look you're going for.

One more thing: I would bet that most casual viewers would not have thought that the Arab prince was a stereotype. They might have simply thought of him as a one-off goofy character to play a bumbling rival to Gu Won's affections for Sa Rang. After all, Gu Won's rival would have to be at least as rich and accomplished as he is. But it's interesting to me that all those complaining about the show are calling him a stereotype, including you. Why is that? Why does such a stereotype exist in your mind? Is it simply because non-Muslims have created the stereotype of a drinking womanizer out of thin air? Are you only aware of such a stereotype only from western/Korean portrayals of Muslim/Arab men? Or do you know it from experience in Arab/Muslim culture?

Overreact much? "Now the only idea koreans will have of a muslim man is someone who goes to bar and drinks with women." That's a ridiculous statement and destroys your credibility as a reasonable thoughtful person. 1) Koreans had ideas about Muslims before watching King the Land; apparently you think that Koreans are ignorant and that they get all their knowledge about the world through Kdramas. 2) The portrayal of the prince started in a bar, but he became a more interesting character than just a party animal: he had learned Korean for love, he had a certain (childish impulsive) charm and he was gracious enough to take Sa Rang's rejection well. So don't worry: I'd say that Koreans got to see a Muslim man who is more than just a party animal. In fact, I bet that they'd forgotten that side of him and instead remember him as an immature man who falls in love too easily--and maybe has a fetish for Korean women. :-)

And if you're at all familiar with K-dramas, you'd know that regularly there are much much worse portrayals of spoiled, rich sons (and daughters) of powerful Korean families--not just spoiled, but often manipulative, immoral and even psychopathic in their desire to keep or exercise their power. So in contrast, I think the prince came off quite well.

@BNA (who seems to have deleted her comments) Very ironic of you to tell someone else to "try to understand others a bit more" when you're the one who prejudges all White people to be more privileged than any person of color. How can you begin to understand someone when you've prejudged their experience without knowing anything about them besides their skin color?

@BNA (who seems to have deleted her comments) That's just a ridiculous generalization about white people--a far more racist, prejudiced statement than anything in King the Land. You presume to know the experience of a White person just by their skin color before knowing anything about that individual. How can you hope to understand, much less befriend, someone outside of your tribal bubble with that kind of a mindset? Truly astounding!

A chief complaint has been that there should have been more research done so that there could have been a more accurate represenation. But perhaps the partying Arab prince IS the result of such research? :-)

And this should be emphasized again and again: the show was not saying that all Muslim men act like this--just as they're not saying that all Muslim men have access to such wealth and privilege. You'd have to be an idiot to think that and get offended. So any argument that starts with that as the premise is flawed. Everyone knows that not all Arab/Muslims are like that, just as we all know that there are such partying, spoiled men in every nation/religion. Can't we agree on that and try to have some thicker skin and remember that this is just a comedy, not a documentary on the Saudi Royal family?

These corporate apologies are as meaningless as the demands for apologies are ridiculous. It's a TV show!! If there are misrepresentations or errors of a factual nature, point them out and we can all learn something. But what's the point of asking for an apology that's going to be written by some PR firm? Even more, I assume that those demanding an apology about King the Land are sure that Arab TV shows never have any cultural miscues or misrepresentations, or if there are mistakes, I assume that they have become righteously indignant about them and have demanded apologies from Arab TV stations, too. If not, then this is all just virtue signalling, xenophobic hypocrisy.

I'm afraid that you're probably right. What's ironic is that these over-the-top defenders of Arab/Muslim values are probably doing more to harm their image than King the Land. It's not a good look when all you're doing is screaming "Our royal family never does anything wrong. Any negative portrayal is racist." It just seems like emotional irrationalism.

Truly, I don't think you need to worry that any reasonable person watching these episodes will think that all Arabs, all Muslims, are like Amir, or that the show is intentionally trying to insult Arabs/Muslims. I think it's clear that this is not an allegory where Amir represents the Arab/Muslim. Does it perhaps play with a stereotype of the fabulously rich, powerful Arab royal family--some of who have been involved in scandals? Yes, but that's what comedies do--just as Gu Won has some stereotypes of the rich chaebol heir.

I have no idea how Korean TV has represented Arabs in the past (or how often). Is it always negative? Is it always in one-dimensional characters? Does it never touch on the truth in any way? If so, I'd agree that it'd be good for Korean TV to have more nuanced, interesting Arab characters in the future. (And it wouldn't be hard to have someone more interesting than Amir.) But keep in mind that by definition, such characters would have both negative and positive sides, they'd be conflicted about morals and face difficult ethical decisions, perhaps even involving religion. And for the show to be any good, you can't predetermine that those Arab characters will never do anything that is forbidden in the Quran, or say that any Arab character that goes against the Quaran is an insult to Islam. That'd make for very boring television.

He's shown like a clown because his role is to be a clown: an irresponsible, immature spoiled young man who does and says ridiculous things for comedic effect. What doesn't make sense is why such a clown would be sent to take care of a matter of national security. The insult isn't that he's a clown, but that the Saudi(?) government had nobody more qualified to deal with the purchase of fighter aircrafts. And perhaps what's most ridiculous is the idea that Korea is in the business of selling fighter jets to anyone in the Middle East. But hey, in a comedy, we have to accept these kinds of ridiculous scenarios, instead of getting all bent out of shape for no reasonable reason.

Serious question: is it insulting a whole culture to show one cartoonish immoral person from that culture? Do you seriously think that the point of Amir's character is to say that all Arab men, much less the royal family, are womanizing party animals? Or is it possible to see Amir as an outlier, as a cautionary tale, as a black sheep who has perhaps lost his sense of (Arab/Muslim) morals--recognizable to every viewer as an example of what can happen to a young man who has all the power and money in the world? Is it ever OK for a TV show to portray any negative aspect of any culture? And do you not see that in King the Land the show portrays negative aspects of Korean culture, shows how the Korean chaebol system is flawed and has immoral people running it? If you're not seeing the comedic jabs at Korean culture in the show, then it's hard for me to take your perspective/offense seriously. The show was neither perfect at the beginning nor is it racist trash now. Let's be more discerning and thoughtful in our responses.

Let's remember the genre. This is a comedy, not a documentary or even a serious drama. I'm not saying that the portrayal was done well--it wasn't. It was a bit cringey, unsophisticated, and most importantly, not funny. Not being funny is the mistake, but I don't think it should be off limits to use another country's royal family for a bit of light comedy. The drama is poking fun at the Korean service industry, at the arrogance and petty competitiveness of the powerful Korean families who run luxury hotels and malls (and everything else). The portrayal of Amir was in the same vein: they wanted to show a spoiled, rich, powerful person who can flirt with Sa Rang and put Gu Won in uncomfortable situations, not making fun of his religion. I don't think they needed to make him an Arab or a prince; any powerful, rich person could have been used. However, I think the writers wanted it to be a surprise, an interesting twist, that this person could speak Korean, and so they used someone with an "exotic"/unusual background.
So while I can understand why an Arab person might not have liked the inaccuracies in Amir's portrayal, I think the reaction is a bit overblown. I don't think the purpose of TV shows is to portray any country/culture/industry in a positive light. And given that there are so many dramas about the corruption and injustice in just about every facet of Korean society, I don't think we can accuse the Korean TV industry of somehow only giving unflattering portrayals of other countries/cultures.

She is probably my second most hated type of character: the self-centered spoiled person who has not one bit of empathy/sympathy. And somehow it's worse when she cares so much about a dog. And somehow it's even worse than that when the dog is so ugly. I could have a little bit of sympathy for her if she loved a golden lab, but to me her dog is more like a woman's accessory than a real dog.

My most hated type of character is the lying, conniver who is willing to hurt anyone and everyone to get what they want. For some reason, lying to get what you want is the epitome of immorality, and so it bothers me even more than a thug that beats up people for not paying their loan on time.