Vincenzo Cassano

I appreciate that you're actually discussing the show rather than just calling me a troll or hater. I agree that some stories are built around slow payoffs, and I understand the argument that certain setups only become rewarding later on.

Where I'd disagree is the attention-span explanation. If you look at my completed watch list, you'll find plenty of slow-burn dramas, including some with significantly more episodes than this one, that I've rated very highly, many of them 9s and 10s. So I don't think the issue is that I lack the patience for slower storytelling. In fact, if you'd looked at that watch list first, would the attention-span conclusion really be the first place you'd go? My viewing history seems to point much more toward this particular drama not clicking with me than any inability to engage with slower-paced stories.

For me, the issue wasn't that the show was subtle or quiet, it was that I simply wasn't finding those elements compelling enough to keep watching. I also think it's possible to recognize subtle acting, character work, and foreshadowing and still not find them particularly engaging. Appreciating those things and being entertained by them aren't necessarily the same thing.

That said, I do agree that different viewers focus on different aspects of storytelling, and that may simply be where our experiences of the show diverge.

You’re not responding to anything I said. You’re just dismissing it as “trolling” because it doesn’t align with your view and because you don’t want to read a longer reply.

Replying properly to points someone makes isn’t “having too much time.” It’s just called engaging in a discussion. If the expectation is that every response has to be short enough to avoid reading it properly, then that says more about the willingness to engage than it does about the comment itself.

Labelling it a troll opinion and refusing to engage doesn’t really say anything about my comment. It just avoids the conversation entirely.

The funny thing is that fans of slow-paced shows always seem to assume that anyone who finds them boring wasn't paying attention. Have you considered that I did pay attention and simply wasn't impressed by what I saw?

Subtle foreshadowing, quiet moments, and slow character development aren't automatically good just because they're subtle, quiet, or slow. They still have to be engaging. You clearly found depth and richness in those scenes. I found them dull. That's not a failure to pay attention, it's a difference in opinion.

At least you actually explained what you liked about the drama, which is more than some of the other replies have done. I just don't agree that noticing those elements automatically makes the show interesting.

"Tell me you didn't watch the drama without telling me." I watched enough of it to form an opinion on it. That's literally how people decide whether to continue a show or drop it.

"Maybe it's too much for you." There's that argument again. Anyone who dislikes the show must not understand it. Have you considered the possibility that I understood it perfectly well and still found it boring?

"Hater and jealous troll." Jealous of what exactly? A television drama? That doesn't even make sense.

What's interesting is that instead of explaining why the show is good, you've spent your entire comment making assumptions about me. Apparently, in your mind, anyone who dislikes the drama either didn't watch it, didn't understand it, is a hater, or is a troll. The possibility that someone genuinely watched it and simply didn't enjoy it never seems to occur to you. I criticised a show. You criticised a stranger. One of those is a discussion about entertainment. The other is just personal attacks.

Let's go through your comment.

"Incompetent commentator" - A commentator gives an opinion. You disagreeing with my opinion doesn't make me incompetent. That's not an argument, it's just an insult.

"Shallow viewer" - You know absolutely nothing about me or how many dramas I've watched. Calling someone shallow because they found a show boring is a pretty shallow judgment in itself.

"Hater bot" - Right, because apparently anyone who dislikes a show must be a bot. It couldn't possibly be that different people have different tastes.

"Mean, shallow individual" - I criticised a fictional TV show and a fictional character. You responded by attacking a real person. If we're talking about mean behaviour, take a look at your own comment.

"I would be ashamed..." - No, I wouldn't be ashamed of expressing an honest opinion about a drama. What would be embarrassing is getting this worked up because someone on the internet didn't like the same show as me.

"Go diss some other show on some other forum" - This is a discussion page for the drama. Discussion includes criticism, not just praise. If only positive opinions are allowed, then it's not a discussion forum, it's a fan club.

"You're spoiling the adult mood here" - An adult mood would be discussing the show itself. Throwing personal insults at strangers because they dislike a TV series is the opposite of mature behaviour.

You enjoy the show. I don't. That's normal. What's not normal is turning a disagreement about entertainment into a personal attack on someone's character.

The fact that someone doesn't enjoy a show doesn't automatically mean they aren't smart enough to understand it. That's a pretty weak way to dismiss criticism. Also, the "no one's forcing you" comment is odd considering I literally said I'm dropping the show immediately. That's exactly what people do when they don't enjoy something. You're free to love the drama. I'm free to think it's slow and boring. That's how opinions work.

This show is so slow and boring. Nothing's happening. I'm dropping this immediately. I came here for Bailu because I usually like her shows, and she's really beautiful, but her beauty can't save this show. It's just so boring. One of the most boring shows I've ever watched. And what makes it worse is an incompetent, crippled ML. Why would i want to watch a ML stuck in his chair for most of the show.

I thought so. Just checking. If there's no feelings by episode 15, I'll probably drop it.

Slow burn or fast-paced romance?

That makes sense now. I didn't realise modern FL is 30. That's why i was confused when she was upset on her appearance. Because she looked the same to me. I didn't think her disappointment had anything to do with age. I thought it was something else like makeup. They didn't explain that very well.

Ah ok, i didn't know that. I'm only on the first episode. I didn't notice Seori is 30.

Her character is supposed to be 20, but the actress is 35. While some actors can pass for younger than their age, she clearly looks closer to 35 than 20. Why didn’t they just cast a younger actress who actually fits the role?

It ended.

Nice little drama. Kept me engaged. I liked it.

Romance?

I think this is exactly where we fundamentally disagree. You keep presenting your interpretation as though it's the obvious conclusion, but what I see is a framework that explains every possible outcome in the same way. If women dislike these tropes, it's patriarchy. If women enjoy these tropes, it's internalized misogyny. If women actively seek them out and make them commercially successful, it's still patriarchy. At that point, the conclusion seems predetermined regardless of the evidence.

You say I'm being naive for pointing out that these stories are overwhelmingly consumed by women, but I would argue it's equally naive to assume that millions of women cannot genuinely enjoy certain romance fantasies without it being explained away as conditioning, oppression, or false consciousness. At some point, women have to be given credit for their own choices rather than having those choices continually reinterpreted as evidence of conditioning whenever they don’t fit a particular framework. Are you suggesting that women’s preferences only count as "real choices" when they match your interpretation, and otherwise should be understood as conditioning?

I agree that culture influences media. What I reject is the leap from "culture influences media" to "therefore these stories are primarily tools for keeping women in check." That's an assertion, not a proven fact.

What I've noticed throughout this discussion is that the tropes that favour male characters are constantly highlighted, while the tropes that favour female characters are largely ignored. The female lead is often the emotional centre of the story, the object of desire, the one pursued by multiple romantic interests, and the person around whom the entire narrative revolves. Those elements seem to disappear from the analysis because they don't fit the conclusion.

So no, I don't accept that these stories can simply be reduced to patriarchy, misogyny, or oppression. That's one interpretation among many, and presenting it as the definitive explanation is precisely where I think the argument falls apart.

I think we've drifted a long way from the original point. The discussion started with the claim that these dramas are misogynistic because the male lead is often rich, powerful, competent, or in a higher-status position than the female lead. But what keeps getting ignored is that these same dramas are often heavily centered around the female lead. She's usually the emotional focus of the story, the character multiple men are interested in, the one being pursued, desired, protected, and treated as uniquely special.

If we're going to analyse tropes, then we should analyse all of them, not just the ones that support a particular conclusion. Focusing only on the male lead's status while ignoring the female lead's narrative advantages feels like looking at half the picture.

You keep interpreting these stories through a patriarchal/misogyny framework, but that framework doesn't explain why so many of the same stories are clearly designed around female wish-fulfilment and are overwhelmingly consumed by female audiences. If these tropes are so oppressive to women, why are women the primary audience keeping them popular?

I have no problem with wanting more variety in romance stories. What I disagree with is taking a selective reading of a few tropes and then treating that as proof that the genre itself is misogynistic. That's a conclusion, not an objective fact.

Not much to say about this one, really. It's a very simple show with very little drama. Quick and easy to watch. It's not great, but it's not bad either, just okay. My biggest issue is that the male lead is a complete simp. The female lead breaks up with him because she doesn't trust him, and then when she comes running back, he immediately takes her back. Like, mate, grow some balls. At least make her put in some effort to win you back. After all, you were the one doing all the pursuing in the first place.

I think you’re treating a theoretical interpretation as if it’s a universal fact.

Hierarchy in romance narratives is not automatically “patriarchal construction” or misogyny. That’s one framework, but it’s not the only way to understand storytelling. In fiction, contrast between characters (status, personality, emotional openness, experience, etc.) is a basic narrative device used to create tension and development — it isn’t inherently a reflection of real-world gender oppression.

Real-life attraction studies about similarity also don’t settle this, because fiction is not constrained to mirror real-world partner choice. People routinely engage with exaggerated, symbolic, or fantasy-based narratives that don’t reflect their personal preferences in real life.

So I don’t agree with the conclusion that writers using these structures are therefore misogynistic, naive, or lazy. That’s a very broad and assumptive claim about intent applied across an entire genre.

It’s fair to want more variety in romance storytelling, but it’s not accurate to reduce these long-standing narrative conventions to a single ideological explanation.

YouTube.