How the female lead change in *In Blossom* took me back to Alchemy Of Souls
The cdrama In Blossom recently got a lot of backlash after the female lead had a magical face swap in episode 3 and an excellent actress (Zheng He Hui Zi) was replaced by a mediocre one (Ju Jing Yi), tanking the chemistry with the male lead (Liu Xue Yi).
My immediate reaction to this disappointing change was to feel annoyed at the producers who chose to cast a popular idol turned actor as the female lead despite her limited acting range.
However, most fan conversation I've read focuses almost exclusively on Ju Jing Yi’s lackluster efforts in preserving character continuity.
Viewers correctly point out that her performance was so different from the first actress' that the female lead became a totally different person.
And this narrow focus brought me back to the experience of fan conversations around Alchemy of Souls Part 2.
The problem in that show was not of poor acting. Both actresses portraying the female lead were stellar performers.
However, when Go Yoon-jung stepped into Naksu's shoes after Jung So-min, she was neither portraying JSM's version of the female lead nor was she portraying her own version established in the first episode of Alchemy of Souls Part 1.
She was a whole new, THIRD character. Which made the male lead’s journey of recognising his “dead” love behind a new face a bit of a farce.
She was nothing like his first love. This was a different person.
Her amnesia was apparently the reason she could no longer think her way out of a paper bag yet she could perfectly quote lines from her previous life so the male lead could feel that frisson of familiarity.
So, Naksu 2.0 couldn’t be as cunning because she has amnesia and her brain isn't trained to think like an assassin any more, but at the same time, she thinks the same way as Naksu 1.0 because her soul is the same.
It's nice how we store memories of past quotes in our soul instead of our brains.
But getting back to fan conversations — it was clear to viewers that the problem with AOS2 was all in the writing, so while many rued the exit of Jung so-min after Part 1, no one was disparaging Go Yoon-jung’s performance. She was a charming female lead in her own way .
In the cdrama, In Blossom though, the problem was mostly in the performance. The writing was consistent throughout the series. So, on the surface it makes sense to blame the second actor for not pulling her weight and focusing far too much on her own looks.
But this leaves a bad taste in the mouth for me. I don't think it's right to go after the actor whose skills have been suddenly cast into doubt, while the producers, who thought viewers would be fine with any popular idol taking over regardless of suitability to the role, are allowed to go scott free.
As an aside tell me if it isn't eerie how similar the posters of the two dramas with the changed versions of their female leads are:
So, this whole situation made me wonder why was it easier for viewers to openly talk about the issues with In Blossom completely changing the female lead's personality, while any discussion of AOS2 doing the same thing brought on a barrage of defenses and accusations of hating Go Yoon-jung.
There are clearly viewers who liked In Blossom despite the change. Perhaps they were fans of Ju Jing Yi or they just weren't hung up on the character continuity that much.
A section of the audience enjoying a show uncritically doesn't nullify the ruined experience of another section who feel disappointed.
And fan spaces are supposed to be open to critical analysis of what worked and didn't work for us in a drama while also holding the production accountable for bad decisions.
Yet it seems to me that the only conversation that can happen without friction in fandoms now are ones where the majority is dissatisfied by the same thing in a show and it’s usually an actor.
It's so much easier to hate on one performer instead of having the complicated conversation about why the production thought this was an acceptable casting choice. What about our consumer behaviour convinced them that it wouldn't matter?
To my mind AOS2 was a low effort cash grab by the writers and the production company, unnecessarily extending the show by 10 more episodes and creating less compelling storylines to pad the hours.
They got away with it because of the popularity of Part 1, the chemistry of the actors, and the correct guess that audiences just wanted fluffy romance now - the more the better.
But trying to have this discussion immediately invites defensive fans who try to explain to me why I'm wrong about the lack of story continuity in Part 2 and how the story made sense philosophically, and that really, I'm just wrong.
*
And so that's been something I've been thinking about in the last week. What about you? Any thoughts on consumer habits in fandoms swirling around in your mind?
Until the next rant strikes! Goodbye. 💚