They're named the same in Thai (and traditionally both translated as orange), so it's not actually an error. It's…
It is quite revealing that your primary response to a critique of professional standards is to suggest that I "go make something myself". That is the defensive reflex of someone who equates "watching" a show with "understanding" the labor that goes into it.
You admit that this show lacks attention to detail, mentioning dates and the periodic table, and you use that as an excuse for their sloppy production design. Your argument is essentially that because the production is already failing in other departments, we should just lower our expectations and accept more of the same. That is a race to the bottom, not a defense of art.
As an audio producer and a communicator, I don’t just watch; I analyze. My work is built on precision. If you are comfortable consuming media that treats its audience as if they won't notice glaring inconsistencies, that is your choice. However, do not confuse my demand for quality with a lack of "normality". What is truly abnormal is the modern tendency to celebrate laziness in media and attack anyone who expects a project to actually respect its own premise.
I’ll continue to hold the industry to the high standard it deserves, and perhaps, if more fans did the same, the shows you settle for would actually be worth the time you spend watching them.
there's a bit cultural reference here..thai ppl call all types of oranges as "Som" which simply translates…
It is fascinating how you confuse "professional standards" with "Western elitism". Consistency in visual storytelling and narrative branding is a universal requirement for quality media.
To clarify a few things: My partner is not just a native Thai, but a working model and actor in the industry, which provides me with direct insight into the reality of these productions. I am well-versed in the standards that production companies operate under globally. By implying that Thai productions should be held to "different" or "lower" standards because they are from Thailand, you are the one being patronizing and disrespectful to the skill and talent of the Thai crew.
Furthermore, do not dare call me "Western". I am profoundly critical of the Western world and its arbitrary rules. My life and work are dedicated to the Southeast Asian aesthetic and industry. Ironically, your desperate attempt to label me suggests you are likely the one operating from a Western-centric framework, as you clearly fail to respect the professional capacity of the Thai industry to achieve perfection.
I am an audio producer and hold a degree in communications. When a professional offers a critique, it is not an attack; it is constructive technical feedback intended to elevate the output for the next project. When I say I am a fan, I mean it, and it is precisely because I am a fan that I refuse to settle for sloppy production design. My comments are directed at professionals and crew members who understand that craftsmanship matters. If you are satisfied with mediocrity, that is your prerogative, but do not pretend that demanding excellence is an act of hate. It is an act of investment in the future of the media we love.
As I stated, this is not an attempt to start an argument. You mention "research", yet you seem to have only researched the dictionary definition of "som" while ignoring the actual industry standards of production design. A production's failure to match its visual elements (mandarin trees) with its script and title (Oranges) is not a linguistic quirk; it is a lack of professional attention to detail.
I am a fan who wants to see Thai media succeed and reach an international standard. If you think that settling for visual inaccuracies is "doing the research", then we simply have different standards for what "professional" means. I suggest you look into the difference between common nomenclature and technical accuracy in media production before suggesting I need to do more research.
As I stated, this is not an attempt to start an argument. Quite the opposite, I am a huge supporter of Thai media and I deeply desire to see these productions elevate their quality so they can reach the international market properly. I am not a hater; I am a fan who wants to offer constructive feedback using my knowledge of botany and production standards. This is clearly a failure in production design, not a translation issue, and it is a detail that deserves much more professional attention if they want to be taken seriously on a global scale.
That is exactly the type of comment I would expect from someone who has run out of arguments.
"It’s never that serious" is the standard refuge for those who prefer the comfort of being wrong over the effort of being precise. If you want to accept mediocrity and call it "not that serious", that is your choice. But do not expect others to lower their standards just because you are uncomfortable with the reality that, yes, details actually do matter. When you stop caring about accuracy, you stop caring about truth. I have no interest in engaging with someone who is comfortable living in such a state of willful ignorance.
there's a bit cultural reference here..thai ppl call all types of oranges as "Som" which simply translates…
It is fascinating that you bring up language, as I am well-versed in the nuances of Thai and its regional counterparts. I am perfectly aware that som (ส้ม) functions as an umbrella term for citrus in Thai, just as som khiaw waan (ส้มเขียวหวาน) specifically refers to mandarins, or som aor (ส้มโอ) refers to pomelos.
However, citing a linguistic convenience does not excuse a failure of visual and narrative intelligence. The series is titled When Oranges Fall, an English-language title. In the English language, "orange" and "mandarin" are distinct, non-interchangeable terms. When the production team explicitly uses that English title and the promotional imagery depicts oranges, yet the actual foliage and fruit on screen are mandarins, the production is fundamentally inaccurate.
Using a "general term" from a different language as a shield for poor production design is an intellectual fallacy. It is perfectly possible to be a native speaker of Thai and still recognize when a production is being lazy or incompetent. Defending a project’s visual inconsistencies by arguing about how we order fruit at a market is a weak defense. It fails to address the fact that the project itself set the standard, and then failed to meet it. If you honestly believe that an umbrella term justifies such sloppy attention to detail, you’re simply arguing for mediocrity.
A mandarin is a type of orange. This is like saying Fuji apples are not really apples like Red Delicious.
It is truly fascinating how confidently one can propagate such inaccuracies. Your comparison to apples is fundamentally flawed because it ignores the actual taxonomy of the Citrus genus.
Fuji and Red Delicious apples are both Malus domestica; they are the exact same species, separated only by cultivation. That is not the case here. Citrus reticulata (the mandarin) is one of the three primary, ancestral "true" citrus species. The sweet orange (Citrus × sinensis), conversely, is a complex, interspecific hybrid: a progeny of the mandarin and the pummelo (Citrus maxima).
To claim a mandarin is a type of orange is a complete inversion of reality. Phylogenetically speaking, the orange is the hybrid descendant, not the other way around. Suggesting that they are just varieties of one another is like suggesting a child is a "variety" of their own parent.
I suggest reviewing the foundational phylogenetics of the Rutaceae family before attempting to equate distinct ancestral species with their hybrid descendants again. It is quite tiresome to engage with arguments predicated on such glaring botanical illiteracy.
As a producer, I have to address the glaring narrative dissonance in "When Oranges Fall". When a series anchors its entire identity, like its title, promotional art, and core metaphor, on the symbolism of an "orange", the visual execution on screen must align with that premise.
The blatant substitution of mandarins for oranges during consumption scenes is not a "minor detail"; it is an unforced error that shatters immersion. I understand the logistical ease of using "zipper-skin" fruits for actors on set, but a professional production team should prioritize narrative consistency over on-set convenience. If the fruit was too difficult to manage, the solution was never to swap the species; it was to pivot to a broader, more accurate term like "Citrus", or to adjust the filming method to respect the visual anchor of the story.
By knowingly presenting a mandarin while calling it an orange, the production team implicitly suggests that the audience is too inattentive to notice the difference, or worse, that they simply don’t care about their own world-building. This level of negligence is particularly disappointing given the high standards set by other GMMTV productions that meticulously curate every detail. Consistency is the foundation of quality storytelling; when you treat your main symbol as a disposable, interchangeable prop, you diminish the value of your entire project. Please treat your audience's intelligence and your own craft with the respect they deserve.
I didn't realise until after I finished the whole show that there is a bonus scene between each episode on Youtube,…
You saved my life with this links! I was about to die after chapter 8, and thought ''the f**** chinese goverment did it again'' 🤬. But after seeing the 'hint' parts, it's a lovely happy ending!!! 😍. Thank youuu! 🥰
The main couple has the worst chemistry I have ever seen. It was a complete fake in-your-face from the beginning until the last chapter. Progress clearly CAN NOT act in any BL series.
The worst BL film I have ever seen coming from Taiwan. Such a big disappointment at the pathetic end. It let me down so much especially when it comes from a Country that I love so much. Shane and Jonathan should have ended up together. Of course they not only felt physical attraction to each other, but also they loved each other the most. From the first scenes, we know that Jonathan is deeply in love with Shane. Later, closer to the last scenes, we learn that this last one feels the same for him. It is indisputable that Shane only wants Jonathan to take care of him in all situations, and that he needs him right by his side at all moments. It took them too long to reach the moment that they expressed their feelings at a higher level, the scene where they end up doing love at Jonathan's house is pure love. Carrie is the only problem in this story. She tried with Jonathan first, and after being rejected by him and also knowing that he was in love with his best friend, she went for Shane on purpose. It's despicable how she pretended to be Jonathan's friend while she was playing with his man. Her character disgusts me.
You admit that this show lacks attention to detail, mentioning dates and the periodic table, and you use that as an excuse for their sloppy production design. Your argument is essentially that because the production is already failing in other departments, we should just lower our expectations and accept more of the same. That is a race to the bottom, not a defense of art.
As an audio producer and a communicator, I don’t just watch; I analyze. My work is built on precision. If you are comfortable consuming media that treats its audience as if they won't notice glaring inconsistencies, that is your choice. However, do not confuse my demand for quality with a lack of "normality". What is truly abnormal is the modern tendency to celebrate laziness in media and attack anyone who expects a project to actually respect its own premise.
I’ll continue to hold the industry to the high standard it deserves, and perhaps, if more fans did the same, the shows you settle for would actually be worth the time you spend watching them.
To clarify a few things: My partner is not just a native Thai, but a working model and actor in the industry, which provides me with direct insight into the reality of these productions. I am well-versed in the standards that production companies operate under globally. By implying that Thai productions should be held to "different" or "lower" standards because they are from Thailand, you are the one being patronizing and disrespectful to the skill and talent of the Thai crew.
Furthermore, do not dare call me "Western". I am profoundly critical of the Western world and its arbitrary rules. My life and work are dedicated to the Southeast Asian aesthetic and industry. Ironically, your desperate attempt to label me suggests you are likely the one operating from a Western-centric framework, as you clearly fail to respect the professional capacity of the Thai industry to achieve perfection.
I am an audio producer and hold a degree in communications. When a professional offers a critique, it is not an attack; it is constructive technical feedback intended to elevate the output for the next project. When I say I am a fan, I mean it, and it is precisely because I am a fan that I refuse to settle for sloppy production design. My comments are directed at professionals and crew members who understand that craftsmanship matters. If you are satisfied with mediocrity, that is your prerogative, but do not pretend that demanding excellence is an act of hate. It is an act of investment in the future of the media we love.
As I stated, this is not an attempt to start an argument. You mention "research", yet you seem to have only researched the dictionary definition of "som" while ignoring the actual industry standards of production design. A production's failure to match its visual elements (mandarin trees) with its script and title (Oranges) is not a linguistic quirk; it is a lack of professional attention to detail.
I am a fan who wants to see Thai media succeed and reach an international standard. If you think that settling for visual inaccuracies is "doing the research", then we simply have different standards for what "professional" means. I suggest you look into the difference between common nomenclature and technical accuracy in media production before suggesting I need to do more research.
As I stated, this is not an attempt to start an argument. Quite the opposite, I am a huge supporter of Thai media and I deeply desire to see these productions elevate their quality so they can reach the international market properly. I am not a hater; I am a fan who wants to offer constructive feedback using my knowledge of botany and production standards. This is clearly a failure in production design, not a translation issue, and it is a detail that deserves much more professional attention if they want to be taken seriously on a global scale.
"It’s never that serious" is the standard refuge for those who prefer the comfort of being wrong over the effort of being precise. If you want to accept mediocrity and call it "not that serious", that is your choice. But do not expect others to lower their standards just because you are uncomfortable with the reality that, yes, details actually do matter. When you stop caring about accuracy, you stop caring about truth. I have no interest in engaging with someone who is comfortable living in such a state of willful ignorance.
However, citing a linguistic convenience does not excuse a failure of visual and narrative intelligence. The series is titled When Oranges Fall, an English-language title. In the English language, "orange" and "mandarin" are distinct, non-interchangeable terms. When the production team explicitly uses that English title and the promotional imagery depicts oranges, yet the actual foliage and fruit on screen are mandarins, the production is fundamentally inaccurate.
Using a "general term" from a different language as a shield for poor production design is an intellectual fallacy. It is perfectly possible to be a native speaker of Thai and still recognize when a production is being lazy or incompetent. Defending a project’s visual inconsistencies by arguing about how we order fruit at a market is a weak defense. It fails to address the fact that the project itself set the standard, and then failed to meet it. If you honestly believe that an umbrella term justifies such sloppy attention to detail, you’re simply arguing for mediocrity.
Fuji and Red Delicious apples are both Malus domestica; they are the exact same species, separated only by cultivation. That is not the case here. Citrus reticulata (the mandarin) is one of the three primary, ancestral "true" citrus species. The sweet orange (Citrus × sinensis), conversely, is a complex, interspecific hybrid: a progeny of the mandarin and the pummelo (Citrus maxima).
To claim a mandarin is a type of orange is a complete inversion of reality. Phylogenetically speaking, the orange is the hybrid descendant, not the other way around. Suggesting that they are just varieties of one another is like suggesting a child is a "variety" of their own parent.
I suggest reviewing the foundational phylogenetics of the Rutaceae family before attempting to equate distinct ancestral species with their hybrid descendants again. It is quite tiresome to engage with arguments predicated on such glaring botanical illiteracy.
The blatant substitution of mandarins for oranges during consumption scenes is not a "minor detail"; it is an unforced error that shatters immersion. I understand the logistical ease of using "zipper-skin" fruits for actors on set, but a professional production team should prioritize narrative consistency over on-set convenience. If the fruit was too difficult to manage, the solution was never to swap the species; it was to pivot to a broader, more accurate term like "Citrus", or to adjust the filming method to respect the visual anchor of the story.
By knowingly presenting a mandarin while calling it an orange, the production team implicitly suggests that the audience is too inattentive to notice the difference, or worse, that they simply don’t care about their own world-building. This level of negligence is particularly disappointing given the high standards set by other GMMTV productions that meticulously curate every detail. Consistency is the foundation of quality storytelling; when you treat your main symbol as a disposable, interchangeable prop, you diminish the value of your entire project. Please treat your audience's intelligence and your own craft with the respect they deserve.
It was a complete fake in-your-face from the beginning until the last chapter.
Progress clearly CAN NOT act in any BL series.
Shane and Jonathan should have ended up together. Of course they not only felt physical attraction to each other, but also they loved each other the most.
From the first scenes, we know that Jonathan is deeply in love with Shane. Later, closer to the last scenes, we learn that this last one feels the same for him.
It is indisputable that Shane only wants Jonathan to take care of him in all situations, and that he needs him right by his side at all moments. It took them too long to reach the moment that they expressed their feelings at a higher level, the scene where they end up doing love at Jonathan's house is pure love.
Carrie is the only problem in this story. She tried with Jonathan first, and after being rejected by him and also knowing that he was in love with his best friend, she went for Shane on purpose.
It's despicable how she pretended to be Jonathan's friend while she was playing with his man. Her character disgusts me.