Living Tribunal

This drama did so many things right and felt really different in a good way. Ningyan’s family—his aunt, uncle, and basically everyone—was portrayed as kind and supportive, which isn’t something we usually see. Even the Grand Princess and Crown Prince were shown as genuine, caring siblings to Lin An, unlike in most dramas where they’re often depicted as villains. The Grand Princess stood out even more by helping Lin An multiple times.

What I found really interesting was how the FL was written—she’s immature and not exactly kind-hearted, which is pretty rare. Plus, there’s no typical SML chasing after the FL. Instead, the ML had more female companions, which made this drama feel so different from the usual ones.

Thanks 🙏

What is the schedule for the next days guys?

Does anyone know how to find the songs of this drama? I want to keep them in my playlist.

Thanks

I will binge after it finishes airing

Thanks. I can watch it for that only 😅

How is the romance here guys? Any good kissing scenes yet?

@LivingTribunal29

Just started ep-1 and Mai You Ge is annoying as heck.

Oh that is shown in ep-12. I'm still in ep-10 that's why I asked. Thanks for letting me know

Yeah, exactly. His actions like the kidnapping and helping Sa Eon can still be excused to some extent, but killing Hee Joo, who didn’t even do anything wrong, is just outright evil. Drugging her and keeping her in the same place where he called Sa Eon (the killer), fully knowing how dangerous it could be for her, was reckless and cruel. And yet, the leads forgave him so easily—it feels completely unjustified.

Didn't Do Jae become quite dumb in episode 10? He was such a strong and intelligent character when dealing with the fake Paik Sa Eon, but despite knowing that his partner is the real Sa Eon he wanted to take revenge on, he didn't prepare much for it. I didn't even feel any sympathy for him at all. Also, how did he even manage to find the real Paik Sa Eon?

Yeah but even there he was portrayed more as a stupid guy in a fun way. Even if that isn't the case, he still has to do more diverse roles as he is a good actor I feel.

Isn't Im Chul Soo getting typecast in the same roles, like in Vincenzo, Alchemy of Souls, and now this one? He played the same foolish characters who can't read the room at all, which I find quite nonsensical. He should try different roles at least.

Ah, so now it’s 'not worth your time,' but you’ve spent all this time trying to prove your point. How convenient. If you think my thoughts are 'nonsensical,' maybe it’s just your inability to grasp them. But no worries, it’s not surprising considering you’re too busy claiming victory without actually understanding the argument. Better use of your time, huh? Sounds like a great excuse to avoid the fact that you can't come up with a solid counterargument. But hey, if skimming through my 'embarrassing' essays is too much for you, feel free to just admit defeat and move on. I won’t hold it against you, no need to try and save face now.Best of luck with whatever it is you’re wasting your time on.

Thank you for your apology, I appreciate it. I agree that this is an exchange of opinions, and both of us are entitled to have our own perspectives. I didn’t resort to insults until @perszepersze called me pathetic just for having a different opinion. After that, I tried to keep things light-hearted without going as low as some others, but if anyone found it insulting, I apologize sincerely.

I understand your point about the logic being more grounded in real life, and while I may not agree with it entirely, I respect your viewpoint. The writers might have created the dynamic with certain intentions, but I still feel there were aspects that didn’t align with my own expectations or preferences. That being said, I’m not trying to prove anyone wrong, just expressing my take on things.

In the end, I agree that we're all here to exchange thoughts, not to fight. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts, and I respect that we can have differing opinions while still keeping it civil. Thanks for engaging in this discussion!

Oh, so now we’re only focusing on the crime part of the drama and ignoring the romance aspect, which, surprise surprise, is actually part of the genre? You seriously want me to believe that a crime drama automatically means we should expect bad romance dynamics? What kind of logic is that? The romance is clearly a major part of the story, and you're trying to play the "it's just a crime drama" card like it excuses the lazy writing? Nice try.

Let’s talk about this SFL issue you’ve conveniently ignored. Why can’t they create a balanced dynamic for the ML with an SFL, like they did with the SML and FL? The SML barely had scenes in the original novel, yet somehow, they found a way to shove in those unnecessary moments with the FL just to create tension. But when it comes to the ML? Oh no, that’s apparently off-limits. Is this just a case of lazy writing or are we really just making excuses here?

And just for the record, I never said the FL “crossed the line” with the SML or encouraged him. I'm calling out the writers, not the FL's actions. But hey, don’t let that detail ruin your attempt to twist my words again. As I clearly stated earlier: “These writers seem to be the real villains here, hiding behind the banner of feminism while creating such biased dynamics. They portray SFLs as scheming and evil in the ML-FL dynamic, with minimal moments of jealousy from the FL. Meanwhile, SMLs are always attractive, decent, or portrayed as ideal human beings for the FL, with plenty of jealousy scenes from the ML.” I guess subtlety is lost on you. Maybe a few drama analysis classes wouldn’t hurt—my treat!
"Done here and not trying to win any argument." A classic move when there’s nothing left to argue. It’s almost comical how quickly you bow out once it’s clear you can’t keep up. I’m sure you’ll feel better avoiding the embarrassment of trying to counter logic.

Ah, so now we're getting into word games, huh? You just had to bring up that one line I said, which, by the way, was about a general observation of SMLs across multiple dramas, not just this one. But clearly, your understanding of context is as strong as your grasp of English, so let me break it down for you:

When I said, "SMLs are always attractive, decent, or portrayed as ideal human beings for the FL," I was referring to a pattern across various dramas. I’m talking about the collective group of SMLs in general. But since your reading comprehension is clearly lacking, let me spell it out for you—I did not say this applies only to THIS drama's SML. It’s like you read the first line and decided to make up the rest of the paragraph on your own.

You, of course, ignored the context and jumped straight to your conclusion, which is exactly why you didn’t get what I was saying in the first place. My bad, maybe next time I should be more specific so people like you don't misinterpret it into a one-drama critique. The SML in this drama started off fitting that pattern, which is why I called it out—it's not that complicated.

So, maybe instead of "quoting" me out of context, you should take a moment to actually understand the point I’m making. You just proved my entire point with your inability to grasp it.

Ah, now we’re getting somewhere! Let’s break this down one point at a time, shall we?

1) FL’s Interaction with the 2ML:
When did I ever say it was FL’s fault for being chummy with the SML? Please point out where I blamed her. Oh, right, I didn’t. What I actually said was that the writer created this imbalance in their interactions, pushing unnecessary tension between the FL and SML while ignoring any depth between the FL and the ML. Yet somehow, you’ve twisted this into me accusing the FL of something she didn’t do. Isn’t it nice when people twist words to fit their narrative?

And regarding your point about FL being free to choose her friends—it’s a cute defense, but the issue isn’t whether she can be friends with the SML (she can). The problem is how the narrative force-feeds us moments of closeness between them, while ML gets no such equivalent moments with the SFL. But please, continue pretending the writer isn’t guilty of doing exactly that.

2) Regarding ML having a creepy behaviours: Even I pointed out the same if you would’ve actually seen my comments. Here’s the quote for your reference from my previous response in the below comments: "And yes, the ML was tailing her—don’t sugarcoat it as ‘protection.’ Following her around to the point of changing the light bulb on her street, when she never even told him where she lived? Creepy. That’s not how you earn trust; that’s how you make people uncomfortable.

Calling him spineless has nothing to do with him doing his duty as a policeman. It’s about how he accepted two breakups without a fight, never seriously questioning her reasons, and yet kept pining after her like a lost puppy. Moving in next door after being rejected, under the guise of protecting her? Desperate, not noble. And where was this so-called protective policeman when FL was carrying out her illegal investigation into the death matter? Conveniently silent, I suppose." But I guess if you look at everything through rose-colored glasses, it’s hard to see the glaring issues, right?

3) Regarding your comment "His behavior is that of a creepy stalker, making him one of the most useless MLs I've encountered in fiction."

Didn’t I already say this in my original post? "This drama has the most simp-like ML I’ve ever seen in my entire drama-watching journey. Come on, bro, at least try to be a man and stop following the FL around like a dog wagging its tail. The writers turned him into a completely spineless character whose every thought revolves around the FL." You’re twisting my words and jumping to conclusions when that was never even my point. My whole argument is about the imbalance created by the writer in their relationship. I’ve been pointing out the flaws of the writing, not blaming the FL or turning it into some weird feminist discussion.

If you’d actually paid attention to what I said instead of trying to counter points that aren’t even there, you'd see that my focus was on the writer’s handling of the relationship between the ML and FL. It was an unbalanced portrayal, especially considering how the writer shaped the ML into a character who just exists around the FL, completely sidelining his own growth or development.

4) Regarding you pointing out that I called FL a feminist: I never once mentioned anything about the FL being a feminist or anything like that, so I’m not sure where you pulled that from. All I’ve been doing is pointing out the flaws in the ML’s character and the imbalance the writer created. If you had been paying attention to what I actually said instead of twisting my words, you'd realize I wasn’t blaming FL for anything—just pointing out how the dynamic between the ML and FL was handled poorly.

Now, about your statement on my complaints being "meaningful only if they were still in a relationship": What exactly are you trying to say there? Are you implying that because they’re no longer together, the ML’s behavior is excused? If you think FL should be free from any responsibility for her actions in the relationship, well, that’s an interesting perspective. But according to your logic, since they end up together at the end, shouldn't FL also be held accountable for how things went down between them? You can’t just erase her part in the story because they ended up together. Just because the writer decided to wrap things up neatly doesn’t mean all the flaws in their actions should be ignored.

And by the way, you might want to check your English next time. It’s not exactly making your argument clearer, especially with lines like “All your complaints and frustration would be absolutely meaningful if they are still in a relationship, then at that point no one can save the FL from criticism.” Maybe focus on getting the logic right before attacking my views, because your argument is just falling apart. But hey, I guess it’s easier to just criticize someone else's point when you’re not even trying to understand the issues being raised.

And just to clarify for anyone who might be confused: I’m not bashing the FL for having flaws. I’m bashing the writing for forcing us to ignore any possible positive development in the relationship dynamics. But hey, thanks for the discussion—it’s certainly been a ride. My whole post was about the writer's inconsistency but these guys just twisted the whole argument around the flaws of FL and ML.