as an avid webtoon reader of this series im sorry to say that im disappointed. they didn't include section chief…
I think its more because He is not a main character, and at that point the storyline is more about Min Ji finally reuniting with her dad. And putting Chief Nam story as it was in webtoon will divert the storyline. That's why they setup his background in another way, in previous episode we got to see his skills too.
So let me get this straight, Kang Guk Cheol and his crew can't even win against Gang Chan's right-hand man, and They are confident that they can do something when the 3 Middle Aged Ahjussi with glasses show up. What a genius guy Kang Guk Cheol is....
for me it's exactly the opposite... the big NO was the kdramas, too much useless comedy
The moment someone turns taste into contempt and ideology into identity, the argument is already over.
“I hope this is enough to explain why C-dramas satisfy me the most” well it isn’t. What it explains is your personal comfort and your hostility toward a country, not an analysis of storytelling.
Preference is not criticism. Discomfort is not failure. And personal ideology is not analysis.
If this is about taste, call it taste. Don’t present it as critique and analysis.
for me it's exactly the opposite... the big NO was the kdramas, too much useless comedy
That’s not criticism, that’s insecurity with a loud voice. And who the hell told you to like Korea? (And if I did quote the exact part) Try responding to something I actually said. You keep parkouring from comedy to happy endings to weakness to realism to censorship to entire countries anything except the point. PARKOUR, PARKOUR. If this is your idea of argument, it explains why you confuse noise with thought. And I am still expecting where the useless comedy is rather than just saying "useless comedy" than actually telling where it is. Because the whole argument is about that....
for me it's exactly the opposite... the big NO was the kdramas, too much useless comedy
You’re not debating, you’re parkouring between opinions. Every time one collapses, you sprint to the next: comedy, happy endings, weakness, realism, censorship, even countries. Anything except actually answering the point. You confuse rigidity with depth, discomfort with failure, and moral posturing with intelligence. Calling preferences “strength” is just how people avoid thinking. And the fact that you genuinely believe art becomes superior the moment it’s supervised, restricted, and approved from above doesn’t make you profound, it makes you obedient. If needing authority to feel enlightened helps you cope, cling to it. you’re defending your comfort while pretending it’s intellect. https://media1.tenor.com/m/r7Ps2PvOigMAAAAd/michael-scott.gif
The premise was so good, so the characters. It was such a letdown still the actress did terrific job
https://www.popsci.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/touching_grass.jpg?quality=85
Once Again PARKOUR, PARKOUR.
“I hope this is enough to explain why C-dramas satisfy me the most” well it isn’t. What it explains is your personal comfort and your hostility toward a country, not an analysis of storytelling.
Preference is not criticism. Discomfort is not failure. And personal ideology is not analysis.
If this is about taste, call it taste. Don’t present it as critique and analysis.
And I am still expecting where the useless comedy is rather than just saying "useless comedy" than actually telling where it is. Because the whole argument is about that....
https://media1.tenor.com/m/r7Ps2PvOigMAAAAd/michael-scott.gif