So these companies should know better to do their due diligence before dropping a famous spokesperson. Now they…
I don't really understand why you're so concerned about Dominoes and similar companies taking down a few ads. Ads are created for the purpose of increasing a company's revenue, not for the purpose of promoting the spokesperson. If an ad is going to have a negative impact on a company's revenue rather than a positive impact, they should have every right to take it down. That's just logical.
I agree that, in terms of public opinion, people are too quick to rush to judgement. I'm sure some actors unfairly lose out on roles and opportunities / have their careers and private lives negatively affected by claims that aren't true. The fault there lies with the people who rush to judgement.
I'm also sure that plenty of people in the entertainment industry have behaved horribly in the past in a way that doesn't match their public image. Some of them have likely taken opportunities away from others unfairly, or used their privilege to get away with abusing others. And I'm sure some of those celebrities are among the ones that have legions of fans committed to defending them against every allegation. And yet most of the time the public won't ever know the truth about how a public figure truly behaves in private and whether negative claims about them are true or not.
IMO the best thing we can do is to avoid putting celebrities on a pedestal. Enjoy the content they create, and when unsubstantiated allegations are made, try to withhold judgement one way or the other. When a public figure acts egregiously (e.g., publicly says or does something racist / sexually harasses someone / etc.) or negative allegations are substantiated, and the celebrity doesn't make a sincere apology or try to better themselves, I don't see any problem with people losing all interest in consuming that person's content.
So these companies should know better to do their due diligence before dropping a famous spokesperson. Now they…
"The companies that broke his contract based on vague allegations and rumors will have to compensate him."
I'm telling you that taking down ads that featured KSH is almost certainly not a violation of the contract between KSH and the companies with which he has spokesmanship deals.
And these allegations are not criminal allegations. A court will not weigh in on whether the alleged events occurred unless there is a defamation / slander suit. Even if they were criminal allegations, the companies still would not be obligated to wait for a final verdict before being allowed to take down their ads. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a rule that only the law has to follow (an individual is not supposed to be locked up until they have been determined to be guilty of an offence after a fair trial - but of course this is not really followed as most countries operate under a cash bail system where accused people are incarcerated before and during their trials). For everyone else, you simply want to avoid saying that someone has committed a crime until it has been determined by a court of law that they have done so, as you would be exposing yourself to liability under a slander suit.
Other than that, it's simply a principle that we should generally follow that doesn't carry legal weight. By the same token, as a matter of principle no one should dismiss allegations as fake simply because the accused is a celebrity. Of course we should all wait and withhold judgement where an accusation is made and the facts have not been determined. Unfortunately the court of public opinion often doesn't work like that. Many people will rush to judgement. And companies can take down ads in response if they choose to. Like I said, there is almost certainly nothing in their contracts that would prevent them from doing so. The main contractual issue would be around whether they need to make any outstanding payments to KSH, whether they can get any money that they paid him back, and whether KSH will owe them damages.
A separate issue would be instances where KSH has entered into a contract to take on new engagements (new ads, dramas, movies, etc.) where the production company has cancelled the contract due to the allegations. Whether cancellations of that type are a breach of contract will depend on whether the contracts have termination clauses that relate to these types of circumstances. I suspect that most acting contracts would include that type of clause, in which case the cancellation would not be a breach and KSH would not have grounds for a law suit.
So these companies should know better to do their due diligence before dropping a famous spokesperson. Now they…
You're misunderstanding how these contracts work. Ads benefit the company, not the spokesperson, and having to take an ad down due to allegations against a spokesperson would be viewed as damages caused to the company (even if taking down the ads also has the effect of harming the spokesperson by appearing to validate the accusations). The company has no obligation to keep an ad up in order to protect the spokesperson's reputation. And if the allegations are substantiated, the company can sue the spokesperson directly for causing damages.
If the allegations are determined to be false, the company may be pressured to apologize to the spokesperson, but it is extremely unlikely that the contract between the company and the spokesperson would allow the spokesperson to sue the company for damages because they took ads down quickly while an investigation was being conducted.
The spokesperson might be able to sue the company if the company withholds payment to the spokesperson because of the allegations, depending on how the contract is framed.
There were some really great moments in this drama and overall I enjoyed it, but I'll be honest I was also a little disappointed by it. Part of that was my own fault for going into it with high expectations.
I normally try to have low or no expectations when I start a drama to avoid disappointment, and this was a good reminder to really try to stick to that approach.
Can someone explain how she lost her cancer and how no one found it weird. I thought that was doomed to die, with…
TDK's penalty for not fulfilling her side of the contract (completing her wish for the world to be doomed before her destined-death day) was that the person she loves most would die in her place - i.e. the person she loves most dies but she lives. When she fails to complete the wish by her destined death day, the penalty is invoked, meaning that MM dies in her place and TDK's cancer is cured.
MM explains the penalty / death transfer in episode 2 and confirms it in episode 3 when he tells TDK that she should be happy about the penalty because it means she would get to live.
I'm tempted to watch this for WRC, but I can't really tell what his role is in this drama. Can someone give me a sense of his character's role without major spoilers?
Kang Sae Byeok was my favourite character and I realized today that some of my favourite parts of this drama reminded me a bit of My Mister / Lee Ji Ahn. I would've loved a Lee Ji Ahn style ending for her, but I guess that wouldn't fit the overall tone of this drama.
This drama is difficult to rate because enjoyment and re-watchability are usually the two biggest factors for my ratings. This drama was not enjoyable to watch and I don't think I'll ever re-watch it. It was painful and like the opposite of self-care. But that's mostly due to the subject matter, which inherently shouldn't be enjoyable to watch. The acting was excellent, and the stories presented are important and moving. Overall, worth watching but definitely not comfortable to watch.
It looks like only the first six minutes of episodes 6 - 22 are available to non-VIPs right now. The rest of those episodes are only available to VIPs?
Here's the thing. I found one third of this drama to be really uncomfortable / bad and one third to be filler / boring. But then the remaining third is so incredibly warm and sweet with such good chemistry. I've come back and re-watched those parts many, many times.
It's a shame about the other parts. If the writers had made a few different choices, the leads clearly had the potential to make an incredible drama.
The reason why the FL don’t make any outstanding contribution is due to her age. In the novel she enter the…
I'm planning to have a look at viewers' comments after it finishes airing to decide whether to watch it or not. Are you watching it now? Does the FL have more opportunities to use her talents?
The reason why the FL don’t make any outstanding contribution is due to her age. In the novel she enter the…
I'm afraid I don't agree. I'm not saying I think a real life 7 - 17 year old who doesn't make a contribution to single-handedly save her country is lame. I'm saying this character, who is supposed to be the main character of the whole (fictional) drama, was smart, observant, well-read, and surrounded by talented people who could teach her additional skills, but the narrative rarely capitalizes on that to give her opportunities to be useful and I found that to be disappointing.
Two of the ML's other female disciples began fighting on the battlefield with him when they were the FL's age. In the end, the Princess chooses to enter into a political marriage in order to prevent war with the neighbouring kingdom. The story clearly shows that women in that time and place (and fictional setting) that were the FL's age or younger or of the same status or higher could make meaningful contributions to the nation.
The FL herself has an impromptu debate with a dozen young scholars and "wins", which demonstrates that all her reading hasn't gone to waste. But all that knowledge is rarely put to use.
One of her best moments, IMO, was when she suggested to the foreign Emperor that she would provide half the books in her dowry as a gift to make up for their incursion into his territory. I would've liked to see more moments like that, and it made sense for someone her age and with her status to do it.
After the young Emperor's death, the FL's lie shows that she is intelligent and able to make sharp political calculations on her feet, but she is quickly cut off and never given more opportunities like that one. They could've done so much more with that. It was one of her best moments and I was really disappointed that it was cut so short.
When the FL takes her soldiers to aid a besieged city, she arrives and goes to inspect the city's defences... and then doesn't do anything. It was odd that the narrative made it seem like she was going to provide some helpful insight and then not follow up on that. At that point she had lived with soldiers and read nearly the entire contents of a general's personal library. I don't think it would be totally crazy to give her a narrative arc where she was able to provide some help beyond agreeing to let other people (the soldiers escorting her) help fight to defend the city.
They also could've done more with the FL teaching the child Emperor, discussing plans or principles with the ML, or even just have her find out information that other characters wouldn't be in a position to find out because she's left behind when everyone else goes to battle. The fact that she noticed all the monks at the temple were fake was a sign that she could be perceptive. It's not difficult to think of ways where the writers could've put those same skills to use in a slightly different and more helpful context.
Regarding your comment about the FL's memory, the drama includes many scenes that cover events where the FL wasn't even present. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to include more scenes where the FL was being helpful, especially if the same scenes involved her bonding with other characters or moving the plot forward.
Sorry this has turned into sleep deprived rambling. The TL;DR point is that I felt like we got a few glimpses of the FL's potential but the narrative didn't capitalize on it and I thought that was disappointing.
3 
1 
1 
No spoilers. Just visuals.
(2) Splash Splash LOVE
(3) Secret Life of my Secretary
Honourable mention:
(4) Cheese in the Trap - FL / SML
Gotta find the prettiest umbrella list so I can vote for the red umbrella from Misty there.
I agree that, in terms of public opinion, people are too quick to rush to judgement. I'm sure some actors unfairly lose out on roles and opportunities / have their careers and private lives negatively affected by claims that aren't true. The fault there lies with the people who rush to judgement.
I'm also sure that plenty of people in the entertainment industry have behaved horribly in the past in a way that doesn't match their public image. Some of them have likely taken opportunities away from others unfairly, or used their privilege to get away with abusing others. And I'm sure some of those celebrities are among the ones that have legions of fans committed to defending them against every allegation. And yet most of the time the public won't ever know the truth about how a public figure truly behaves in private and whether negative claims about them are true or not.
IMO the best thing we can do is to avoid putting celebrities on a pedestal. Enjoy the content they create, and when unsubstantiated allegations are made, try to withhold judgement one way or the other. When a public figure acts egregiously (e.g., publicly says or does something racist / sexually harasses someone / etc.) or negative allegations are substantiated, and the celebrity doesn't make a sincere apology or try to better themselves, I don't see any problem with people losing all interest in consuming that person's content.
I'm telling you that taking down ads that featured KSH is almost certainly not a violation of the contract between KSH and the companies with which he has spokesmanship deals.
And these allegations are not criminal allegations. A court will not weigh in on whether the alleged events occurred unless there is a defamation / slander suit. Even if they were criminal allegations, the companies still would not be obligated to wait for a final verdict before being allowed to take down their ads. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a rule that only the law has to follow (an individual is not supposed to be locked up until they have been determined to be guilty of an offence after a fair trial - but of course this is not really followed as most countries operate under a cash bail system where accused people are incarcerated before and during their trials). For everyone else, you simply want to avoid saying that someone has committed a crime until it has been determined by a court of law that they have done so, as you would be exposing yourself to liability under a slander suit.
Other than that, it's simply a principle that we should generally follow that doesn't carry legal weight. By the same token, as a matter of principle no one should dismiss allegations as fake simply because the accused is a celebrity. Of course we should all wait and withhold judgement where an accusation is made and the facts have not been determined. Unfortunately the court of public opinion often doesn't work like that. Many people will rush to judgement. And companies can take down ads in response if they choose to. Like I said, there is almost certainly nothing in their contracts that would prevent them from doing so. The main contractual issue would be around whether they need to make any outstanding payments to KSH, whether they can get any money that they paid him back, and whether KSH will owe them damages.
A separate issue would be instances where KSH has entered into a contract to take on new engagements (new ads, dramas, movies, etc.) where the production company has cancelled the contract due to the allegations. Whether cancellations of that type are a breach of contract will depend on whether the contracts have termination clauses that relate to these types of circumstances. I suspect that most acting contracts would include that type of clause, in which case the cancellation would not be a breach and KSH would not have grounds for a law suit.
If the allegations are determined to be false, the company may be pressured to apologize to the spokesperson, but it is extremely unlikely that the contract between the company and the spokesperson would allow the spokesperson to sue the company for damages because they took ads down quickly while an investigation was being conducted.
The spokesperson might be able to sue the company if the company withholds payment to the spokesperson because of the allegations, depending on how the contract is framed.
I normally try to have low or no expectations when I start a drama to avoid disappointment, and this was a good reminder to really try to stick to that approach.
MM explains the penalty / death transfer in episode 2 and confirms it in episode 3 when he tells TDK that she should be happy about the penalty because it means she would get to live.
It's a shame about the other parts. If the writers had made a few different choices, the leads clearly had the potential to make an incredible drama.
Two of the ML's other female disciples began fighting on the battlefield with him when they were the FL's age. In the end, the Princess chooses to enter into a political marriage in order to prevent war with the neighbouring kingdom. The story clearly shows that women in that time and place (and fictional setting) that were the FL's age or younger or of the same status or higher could make meaningful contributions to the nation.
The FL herself has an impromptu debate with a dozen young scholars and "wins", which demonstrates that all her reading hasn't gone to waste. But all that knowledge is rarely put to use.
One of her best moments, IMO, was when she suggested to the foreign Emperor that she would provide half the books in her dowry as a gift to make up for their incursion into his territory. I would've liked to see more moments like that, and it made sense for someone her age and with her status to do it.
After the young Emperor's death, the FL's lie shows that she is intelligent and able to make sharp political calculations on her feet, but she is quickly cut off and never given more opportunities like that one. They could've done so much more with that. It was one of her best moments and I was really disappointed that it was cut so short.
When the FL takes her soldiers to aid a besieged city, she arrives and goes to inspect the city's defences... and then doesn't do anything. It was odd that the narrative made it seem like she was going to provide some helpful insight and then not follow up on that. At that point she had lived with soldiers and read nearly the entire contents of a general's personal library. I don't think it would be totally crazy to give her a narrative arc where she was able to provide some help beyond agreeing to let other people (the soldiers escorting her) help fight to defend the city.
They also could've done more with the FL teaching the child Emperor, discussing plans or principles with the ML, or even just have her find out information that other characters wouldn't be in a position to find out because she's left behind when everyone else goes to battle. The fact that she noticed all the monks at the temple were fake was a sign that she could be perceptive. It's not difficult to think of ways where the writers could've put those same skills to use in a slightly different and more helpful context.
Regarding your comment about the FL's memory, the drama includes many scenes that cover events where the FL wasn't even present. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to include more scenes where the FL was being helpful, especially if the same scenes involved her bonding with other characters or moving the plot forward.
Sorry this has turned into sleep deprived rambling. The TL;DR point is that I felt like we got a few glimpses of the FL's potential but the narrative didn't capitalize on it and I thought that was disappointing.