strawyuu

This, this, this. Even in non-romance, istg half the time you see a woman in the main cast it's only because she's a love interest. And when there are more women, often times showrunners opt to portray "toxic femininity" instead of sisterhood. There's so much media focusing on an intense bond between two guys- why not two gals? At least the writing of female leads is improving, I think ^^

Yeahhh, definitely agreed.

I didn't want to be too harsh in my review, because I do appreciate that they decided to try to give old viewers a new experience...

But as you say, the tension between the two mains leads is what drives SFH, and I found that sorrowfully lacking here :(. Was definitely disappointed.

And it's not even because it's adapting content from the Webtoon either, because that tension was present there too!

I should have known something was up from the moment they removed the rainbow stairs lmao. (/j)

i watched it on "the roku channel" ^^

Eui Gyeom is honestly really, really well written.

first half was great... second half was incredibly poorly written. TT

Thank you so much for this thoughtful response, and apologies for the late reply! I'll definitely check out the Webtoon when I have the time ^^!

I've still not yet watched season 2! I might though, as it irks me to leave shows unfinished haha. Definitely agreed with pretty much everything you're saying, although I personally didn't cover those points in my review in order to avoid stirring up too much controversy, but yeah totally.

I've studied the South Korean economy a bit and a lot of their shows are funded through government initiatives allocating money to Hallyu and thanks to things like the Culture, Sports and Tourism Minister (MCST). As such the government plays at the very least a minimal role in television production, like it does with censorship (ex: with the Juvenile Protection Act in 1997, and with Naver censoring knives). Thus, although I'm not fully aware of the inner-workings of the industry, and how shows get green-lit for production, I wouldn't be surprised if the government plays a part in promoting "anti-suicide" shows.

I won't speak too much on the Korean perception of suicide itself since I myself am not Korean, however from what research I've done, they still do seem to hold an outdated and stigmatized view of mental health, neurodiversity, and suicide. Given shows often mirror current cultural perceptions, it's not all that surprising to me to see the stigma Death's Game is promoting.

I also don't want to particularly debate the religious part of it given I myself am not religious, however I will say I am not fond of the statement that suicide is a sin- which is the view the show clearly takes given the main character is literally shown Hell after killing himself.

All this to say, yup, to me this doesn't seem like particularly effective suicide-prevention. I'll have to check out Soul though! I'd heard of it but not gotten around to watching it, thanks for the rec!

Yeah I wouldn't say it's necessarily a waste of time- imo your enjoyment will depend on what you're looking for in a show? I watched this with a friend and they liked it because it satisfied their expectations. Since you didn't state your assumptions I'll just reply the following:
--> if you wanna see something fantasy/fast-paced/action-driven with a hint of emotion then that's what to me the first part of the show is.

--> if you wanna see something more character-and-relationship-focused that delves into psychology/mental health, underlines real social commentary and honestly explores the consequences of suicide (overall shows like D.P. , Move to Heaven), you aren't really the target audience.

I went in with the expectation that it would at the very least be a healthy mix of both, but found the second thing - the thing I wanted - very absent from the series. I can't speak on the second part of the show.

1.
Okay wow- that is an interesting point of view (Not being sarcastic by the way!). We absolutely find ourselves in a situation of “agree to disagree” here, but again, I find your view very intriguing. Food for thought.

Do you think there is an objective truth in ethics/philosophy, just one we can’t prove/agree up, as you said? Because I find art, ethics, philosophy and the like are usually grouped together under the label of “subjective”. (Gosh this conversation has strewn far away from its origins lol)

Also, as a side-note, I’m not sure I see how rating and subjectivity clash with one another. It’s not like we’re rating on a universal, agreed upon scale. People rate often rate based off their own personal criteria, or even just a feeling. Isn’t rating just an expression of that subjectivity? One person rates a show 10 because they like it, 2 because they don’t like it. Maybe I’m misunderstanding but to me (personal) ratings and subjectivity go hand in hand.


2. 
I suppose substance is a bit of a vague word, especially in this context. To me, substance is sort of the meat of the story. You have your grand overarching themes, main plot points, character archetypes- all things that can easily be written and summarized on paper. Substance in film, in my mind, consists of all the scenes/symbolism..etc filmmakers utilize to illustrate these themes/points. 

The best way I can possibly illustrate this is with the following example: you have a Powerpoint slideshow, each slide has a couple bullet points. To me, substance is not the bullet points themselves, but what you, the speaker, are actually presenting orally to the audience. 

And to me the series feels stale- lacking in substance. The bullet points, grand ideas and themes proposed by the show are very intriguing, but I find they were not expounded upon/developped. 

The show, through showcasing the different, difficult lives of the characters, tries to purposely tug at the viewer’s heartstrings in a very visible, in-your-face way. I think it tries to speedrun the different lives, squeezing all the pathos out of the characters’ unfortunate situations in order to assure their deaths will have some sort of emotional impact on the viewer. To me, Death’s Game hits all the right bullet points (ex: bullying; abuse) but doesn’t dig any deeper than that. And I find that to be a huge waste of potential.

I say this because I’d actually been looking forward to this show for quite a while, I found it had a very creative concept. In fact, I had been holding off on reading the Webtoon once I heard it would be receiving an adaptation. I suppose I was sold something different than what I was expecting. As I said previously, I felt I was watching more of an action flick than anything. I thought the show would be a lot more psychological, character, and relationship-focused, which it started to be near the end of part one with the main character and his girlfriend but I genuinely couldn’t take it seriously (too cliche, felt copy-pasted). 

So yes, in a way, when I say the show lacks substance I do mean that it lacks depth. Once more though, it is perfectly valid to have a different view on the substance in this show. Perhaps it fulfills your criteria in a way it doesn’t mine, or maybe you find it hits the right emotional beats where I feel it doesn’t. On top of that our definitions of substance differ in such a way that debating show’s substance or lack thereof doesn’t have much meaning.

3.
I’m going to be honest, despite having watched all the Harry Potter movies and read some of the books, I have little to no recollection of them- likely because I was exposed to the franchise at a very young age. I do recall really liking the series, particularly because of how immersive and thought-out the world was. I have a great appreciation for authors who show an immense amount of care for the world they are constructing- when they go so far as to add little details that don’t mean all that much in the end (it’s an effort I like to make in my own personal writing). When the author/filmmaker knows the structure and functioning/inner-workings of the world they have created, I find it exponentially easier to lose myself in their work. I’m definitely in agreement with you about HP being exemplary in terms of worldbuilding.

5.
Ah I see, yeah we definitely weren’t interpreting “living” in the same sense. I meant it very literally as in a state of being alive/dead.

6.
Depression is definitely a spectrum and sometimes part of what characterizes the illness is not wanting to get better. Of course, experiences may vary. But depression itself can impede on our agency, I find. Because it is literally affecting the chemicals in our brains. And healing can take time, and sometimes necessitates medication.

Now, let’s take into account the fact the show is taking place in Korean society where mental health is still very stigmatized. It’s clear the main character wasn’t receiving treatment, and probably wasn’t even aware he had the condition (unless I’m misremembering).

Not being able to identify part of the source of his grief- his own brain- likely lead him to further fall into self-blame. Coupled with his inferiority complex (ex: towards his girlfriend), in his mind, his suicide was probably beneficial to others- and not a selfish decision at all. I find it difficult to blame him for that.

As for the subject of human potential, as you said, our value systems don’t align. I’ve never even really personally considered the idea of “human’s divine potential”- it’s an interesting idea.

7.
Despite not being a huge fan of part 1, I do definitely plan to watch part 2 at some point precisely because I want to see if the main character undergoes further character development. He definitely has room for lots of it.

I actually am in agreement to a certain degree with the statement that “love can justify life’s suffering”. Again, personally I didn’t find that to be a message that was strongly conveyed. Had I felt it was, I actually think I’d like the show more. Although it's possible it was very present and somehow flew over my head.

——————
Apologies I wasn’t able to hit on all of your points! I’d be glad to continue this conversation, although my replies may be a bit more delayed as I’m about to go into a very busy period (I hope this isn’t of much inconvenience!).

Again, thank you for your reply.

I fully admit my review was condescending but that condescension was targeted towards the show (as you stated yourself) and not a particular individual, which in my mind makes all the difference. But regardless, you've shown there clearly wasn't any genuine ill-intent behind your comment.

Apologies for a once more very long message. Also not proof-read so I hope it's coherent enough.

to your point 2) :
I think my view largely clashes with yours due to your following statement: "No, it's not a matter of personal preference and watching experience. Storytelling is not subjective." But to me, storytelling is absolutely subjective, at least our appraisal of it is. Storytelling is a form of art, and just like any form of art, of course there are certain objective measures used to evaluate it, say plot consistency.

However, there are an equal, if not superior amount of subjective factors that come into one's evaluation of storytelling. In the same way people will look for different things in stories, different people appreciate will appreciate different ways of telling a story. There is no one right and one wrong.

Telling me that I can't take into account logical coherence into the effectiveness of the show's storytelling is like claiming that I can't take into account a painter's style in my evaluation of their painting just because it can't be objectified. One can like or dislike an art style in the same way one can like or dislike certain non-objective elements of storytelling.

Also I am in complete agreement that the show's lack of logic doesn't affect its substance but, and I hope this doesn't come off as rude, I find this show's substance to be sincerely lacking in the first place. Just my opinion. Additionally in my case the lack of logic did absolutely break my "illusion" of the story. Of course this isn't the case for everyone. Again a subjective element.

(I hope me quoting you does not come off as rude, I am just doing it for clarity's sake.) In response to your question : "In your own example, how do you know death can manipulate it's appearance and illusion of time to suit one soul at a time? ", the issue is that I don't! I'd like to know that but I don't and I was wondering about it while I was watching. An explanation to me would have added a layer of believability and helped retain my immersion.

to your point 3) :
This is one more a matter of opinion. You said it yourself: "Doesn't have to be logical, to be good." If you may state that my review lacks maturity, I hope you won't mind me saying that you are having trouble recalling that "good" itself is subjective. You are stating an opinion as fact.

You can enjoy shows without that layer of believability while I have a harder time doing so. There is no point arguing about this because we aren't going to suddenly change how we enjoy shows lol.

Maybe I tend to- consciously or not- avoid shows that I know will lack this consistency and thus have a different experience than you on the topic of logic in k-dramas. In my experience, it's 50-50 on whether it's present or not. But again that just may be the shows I'm watching. I won't- and should've have based myself off of empirical evidence.

to your point 4):
I explicitly chose to abstain from bringing religion into this debate as I am not religious myself. I am aware that it is considered a sin in certain religions. I disagree with the idea but I am not going to get into a religious debate about it.

I'm currently in a philosophy class, so I am exposed to the subject regularly. I don't see how living for yourself is a gateway to narcissism. And let's be clear: when I said "living for yourself" (which I didn't explicit state for that matter, I just said don't live for others and your desire to live should come from yourself), I don't mean in all aspects of life. I mean the literal sense of living: keeping yourself alive for other's sake, to not cause them sadness or harm. There is nothing narcissistic about that.

To me it is unhealthy to depend on others in order to not kill yourself because say a person is only alive because of friend X. This person is firstly putting friend X in a difficult position if they are aware of the fact said person is living for their sake as they will feel responsible for keeping them alive which is unhealthy for them. Additionally if friend X suddenly hates the person then they've lost their only reason for living. My view is sort of stoic and since this is philosophy it is again up for debate. Of course you could argue that it's better to live for someone else than to not live at all. That's a valid point of view as well.

Also it's fine to acknowledge that the main character was selfish but it should be noted that he was equally suffering from depression. It is not an excuse but an explanation, and it's something the show really doesn't address and another thing that grates me. However when I say selfish I won't say he was selfish in taking his own life. In my mind one is never selfish for taking their own life except in very particular scenarios. Sure it is upsetting for the family and the people around him. But there needs to be some decisions in life that you can make for yourself, for your own sake.

I'm not going to lie the main point I got from the show was suicide = bad so don't do it which is definitely partially it given suicide rates in Korea and the fact the show is government funded. It is also a possibility that I was blinded by my dislike for the show which could have caused me to miss another message, but to me the message you mentioned really didn't stick out. Again I can't bring part two into this as I have not watched it. Perhaps this message is more visible in that part.

to your point 5):
Okay so maybe it would be wrong to straight up say the show is "trying" to be deep but in my eyes it definitely tried to tackle deep topics in a way it wasn't prepared to. I don't see the point of showing the different lives from the POV of the main character because he genuinely doesn't seem to gain much from it. He doesn't add anything to it, his thoughts are never providing insight into his current psyche. The show chooses to concentrate on flashy action (chase scenes, fights) and the dramatics rather than the more human sides of the problem. Had there been a balance of the two I would have enjoyed to show more. One example of a show that I find did this amazingly was D.P.

Thank you for reading o7.

thanks for the reply, it's always interesting to read other opinions. i’m partitioning my response up for readability. apologies for the length.

1. my comment about the show's lack of “philosophy" was not in response to not the show itself but rather to commenters who were saying it was- which as you stated it is not.

2. I will say i'm definitely not finding logical fallacies for the sake of it, i think writers can and should make the effort to do proper world-building. lack of logic is often an excuse for lazy writing. i find when a show follows a string of logic, even if it's its own logic, the show becomes much more immersive as i'm not constantly raising my eyebrows in confusion. maybe this is a personal experience, but my review is also a personal opinion. all reviews are.

generalizing all kdramas to not having logic or realism is a bit odd. kdramas are not a genre, they are just shows coming from korea. i’ve seen a number of realistic and logical kdramas. i don’t see why i should expect things “not to make sense”. to be clear, I’m not speaking in terms of the fantastical nature of this show. i’m saying it would have been intriguing- say- if Death had multiple versions of herself- that she was just a projection- or perhaps even that she could be multiple places at once. thus the issue of her having all this spare time to spend with one person out of the masses dying every day would make sense. fundamentally your criticism of this part of my review is based on a difference of opinion in what we want from shows, so it’s a bit strange to criticize me for it.

4. on the topic of depression- i understand that some people must live for others in order to keep living. however, i don’t appreciate being told that I should- that it’s an imperative- that i’m selfish for not wanting to. and the show does absolutely frame this decision as selfish, there’s no argument there (at least in the first part, I can’t speak for the second). the mc is punished for having killed himself. punished. like he has sinned.

what i said in my review was that living for others was no way to live at all- not that you shouldn’t do it. the problem is that living for others is at its core unhealthy.

5. I don’t think it’s incorrect to call this show faux-deep- it tackles numerous social issues by scratching their surfaces- utilizing them as “dramatic” elements rather than properly tackling them for what they are (re: the baby death; the hit-and-run daughter’s father). it’s pretty much pure shock value meant to elicit some brief emotion in order to maintain the audience’s entertainment. it also uses these themes to make itself look a lot more “deep”/meaningful than it actually is. in fact, it kind of does that with suicide too. like delving more into the main character’s depression could have been interesting v.s. just using it as basically a plot device. it's a bit like when you hear someone using a lot of big words for the purpose of using big words (for example, in academic writing), rather than utilizing them to convey meaning. it sounds like they're saying something but that something's substance is nul.

all in all i don’t think anything i said warrants my review being called “faux-deep” nor does it make any sense to call it as such. as i said previously, a review is an opinion and i mean i’m not sure opinions can be qualified as “deep” or not. it’s fine to disagree with my opinion! however i don’t appreciate the condescension.

? liking romance or the lack thereof isn't really a generational thing. and it certainly has nothing to do with being "woke" lol.

in shows like these it's typically actually gonna be straight people complaining about the lack of romance, since it's featuring straight romance.

i always find it funny when people use the word "woke" because you're essentially calling yourself the opposite, meaning "asleep", or rather "in the dark". in fact, there's a literal era named after the whole idea of being awakened: the Enlightenment era, which was a huge intellectual movement.

but sure, keep laughing at people nowadays for being more accepting of differences in identity.

sincerely,
an avid hater of romance

im also reading on daily pass albeit a bit inconsistently, i think im only up to like chapter 15-ish? i could be completely wrong but it doesn't really feel like to me that he's killing in the name of justice, but rather that he might enjoy killing and is using the name of justice to excuse it. so possibly

Ah, glad to see someone of the same opinion! I'm in complete agreement with you! I feel like extreme violence and gore is (not always, but) often used to detract from the writer's lack of skill in other areas. Speaking as someone who consumes an inordinate amount of (psychological) thrillers, I find it so rare that shows achieve the balance between good writing and sensational violence.

What's so disappointing to me is I actually think this show had potential, and could have been something really beautiful had it wanted to be.

Just because he's caring doesn't make him good, and while he may not be fully "bad", he is still bad and certainly has many qualities of a walking red flag.

1) Wdym he doesn't stalk her? He literally monitors her through her personal assistant, with her only realizing this episode. On top of this, in the beginning episodes, he consistently followed her around, appeared AND took over her workplace despite her clearly stating she didn't want him around. This is literally, without room for debate, the definition of stalking.

2) How is this possibly not crossing the line? Not to be rude, but does your line even exist? Touching someone without their consent (especially if they are uncomfortable with it/you) may not always be sexual harassment but it is harassment and a breach of boundaries.

3) He has also caused so so much unneeded trouble for the fl.
- Case 1: having her witness her husband cheating in person when he could have just sent her a picture/video
- Case 2: having the drug-addict guy he hired kidnapped and locked up which led to him taking it out on se eum. this could have all been avoided if he operated through legal means.

4) Does he truly respect her? Really? Personally, if I respected and loved someone I would respect what they love, their passions, their work. He does not. He trashes her acceptance into a music institute to keep her from leaving, and treats her like a possession. As the saying goes, "if you love someone, let them go". But he refuses to let her go, despite her wanting to. Then he starts the fire alarm at the orchestra, disrupting her work for no reason.

It's true that he's the only one who's currently showing her some form of support but that doesn't erase the rest of his harmful behavior.

You can show care for someone at times but also be abusive/awful to them. It's scary how people think the two are mutually exclusive. I hope your views on relationships such as these are in relation to fiction specifically, and not to real life ^^.

True! still I find it hard to believe they'll mash the rest of the webtoon into 8 eps- but it's not impossible!

Just finished re-watching and man I have to state that this series is worth watching just for the lighting alone!! Every scene is so screenshot-able. The director also clearly cares a lot about color symbolism. Not gonna comment on anything else bcz then I would end up typing up paragraphs but for anyone into thrillers, this show is for you!

Considering the 1st season (around 11 chapters) was 8 episodes, and the Weak Hero webtoon is 267 chapters (completed), proportionally it would take them like 194 eps @ that pace XD. So highly doubtful.

Unless- big unless- they decide to cut a load of content. Which is possible, bcz assuming all the actors/characters are up on the mdl page, characters from the webtoon like Teddy are missing. Teddy was a character given a whole arc in the webtoon, & was one of the main cast. So there's a slight chance they do try to end the story here, but that would be very surprising. Given the series' success, it would be in the showrunner's best interest to make several seasons to maximize profits.

Apologies for the long answer lol. Tldr: probably not.

this is so real

1) he threw away her acceptance letter to get into a music college/university (he doesn't care about her dreams/aspirations)
2) he keep showing up/forcing his way into her life despite her not wanting him to do so (as clearly shown by the fact she pretends not to know him), literally buying the place she works at, cancelling her performance (something she worked very hard on).
3) he literally treats her like a possession & is actively threatening her. I don't know how much more explicit the show can get about this 2 episodes in.

Caging someone, preventing them from doing what they want, and having them submit to your authority is not love it's abuse. Sure everyone has a different way of "loving" but some ways are morally correct and others are not. According to that logic it's fine if I hit someone I love because it's my way of loving them/because I love them.

The closest thing this is to love is some immensely warped form of it. The literal only justification for him not being toxic you gave was that he said "don't look" when her husband was cheating on her. Ok? He does one semi-decent thing and that eliminates everything else apparently? She wouldn't have even been there in the first place had she not had to have held the concert outside due to his incessant meddling.

I wouldn't be surprised if they got together given the direction this show seems to be heading (you must be overjoyed) but that doesn't mean it is or will be a healthy relationship in any way, shape, or form.