However, the release was postponed for almost three years after actor Kwak Do-won was charged with drunk driving in 2022.
The production company and the platform responded by editing his screen time and changing promotional materials.
This case has reopened a public debate about industry ethics and the boundaries of creative work.
Why the release was delayed three years: The shadow of the Kwak Do-won case
What happened
Production schedules changed after the scandal broke.Tving reviewed the release timing while adjusting Kwak Do-won's screen time and promotional materials.
On September 25, 2022, Kwak Do-won was arrested for driving under the influence in Jeju Island. His blood alcohol concentration was measured at 0.158%.
Although the incident occurred after principal photography finished, it had immediate ripple effects on decision-making at both the studio and the streaming platform.
The Tving original Villains, originally expected in 2023, was ultimately set for release on December 18, 2025.
During the delay, Kwak's name and image were removed from main posters and other promotional spots as part of editing decisions.
Why this is sensitive
The public reacts quickly.Drunk driving is widely seen not as a private mistake but as a crime that endangers others.
Moreover, when an actor who played a figure of authority on screen is found guilty of dangerous conduct in real life, audiences perceive a dissonance that raises trust issues.
Therefore producers and platforms must weigh image management and social responsibility.
At the same time, editing an already finished work raises questions about artistic integrity and freedom of expression.
How the production reached its decisions
Every choice carried costs.The production team concluded that, beyond legal consequences, social reaction required a reassessment of edits and the timing of release.
On set and in planning meetings, teams discussed a range of options.
Choices included full removal of the actor, cutting screen time, reshoots, or altering promotional campaigns.
In practice, reshoots were expensive and slow, and trimming scenes risked narrative gaps.
So the platform settled on a compromise: delay the release and make targeted edits rather than rewrite the entire show.
Arguments for the decision: responsibility and empathy
Social responsibility comes first.Supporters emphasize the seriousness of drunk driving.
Separate from legal penalties, public figures are expected to meet higher ethical standards.
From that view, adjusting screen time or postponing release demonstrates that producers and platforms are taking responsibility.
Some say this approach can raise sector-wide ethical standards and reassure audiences.
Respecting victims' feelings and public sentiment is not mere showmanship.
Because the offense is directly related to public safety, reducing an offender's exposure can be an expression of empathy and care.
From this perspective, swift action by broadcasters and streamers can be the first step toward restoring trust.
Arguments against the decision: separating art from personal conduct
Protect the work's integrity.Critics say artistic completeness should not be sacrificed.
Opponents argue that an actor's private misconduct should be treated separately from the artistic value of a finished project.
Removing or heavily trimming a completed performance can create narrative gaps and damage the work's quality.
In Villains, Kwak played a corrupt detective whose role was central to the plot; cutting him risks undermining the story's structure.
They also point out that extra punishment beyond the courts may be excessive if legal penalties are already served.
Fans and viewers' expectations matter too.
Audiences who anticipated the original performances—including the actor's craft—may feel shortchanged if edits blunt the intended experience.
Opponents propose alternatives, such as a contextual note before the show, advisory text, or post-release statements, rather than heavy edits.
Seeing the dispute more broadly
Both sides make valid points.The issue combines competing values rather than a simple yes-or-no choice.
On one hand, there is public safety and respect for victims. On the other, there is artistic integrity and the protection of creative rights.
There is no single correct solution. Instead, tailored responses that consider the facts and context are usually required.
Legal and institutional implications
The industry needs clearer rules.This case highlights the need for industry self-regulation and clearer institutional guidelines.
At present, there are few clear laws that limit an actor's appearance in a finished work after misconduct.
That leaves internal platform policies and voluntary industry codes as the main tools for response.
But self-regulation alone can produce inconsistent outcomes between companies and cases.
Therefore many observers call for standardized guidelines, transparent procedures, and safeguards for victims.
There is also a workforce question: how to balance accountability with a path to rehabilitation.
If a single error ends careers without support for recovery, the industry risks creating punitive cycles rather than constructive change.
Training, rehabilitation programs, and clear re-entry policies could help reconcile ethics and career stability.
Online reaction and international comparisons
Responses are divided.On social media and forums the debate was immediate.
Some users praised the platform's decisive stance, saying it demonstrated ethical leadership.
Others warned that heavy-handed edits could ruin the show and set a precedent for censoring art.
These patterns echo past controversies in the entertainment industry worldwide.
Internationally, platforms handle similar scandals in different ways.
Some markets quickly remove or replace the offending figure, while others add viewer advisories or let audiences decide.
These variations reflect cultural and legal differences in how societies weigh public morality against creative freedom.
Policy suggestions and practical recommendations
Start a formal dialogue.The industry should publish clear, transparent procedures and strengthen prevention and rehabilitation programs.
First, production companies and platforms should make internal procedures public so audiences understand how decisions are made.
Second, ethical training and rehabilitation programs for cast and crew should be institutionalized to allow for professional recovery where appropriate.
Third, giving viewers clearer choices—such as content warnings or optional explanatory notes—can balance responsibility with freedom of expression.
Finally, industry leaders, regulators, and civil society should convene to build shared standards.
A collective approach can move the business away from ad hoc responses and toward sustainable policies.
Conclusion: What should remain?
Balance matters most.This episode exposed a deep tension between ethical responsibility and creative freedom.
Delaying release and editing content may be understandable steps to respect victims and public sentiment.
However, those actions should not automatically override the artistic integrity of a work.
Producers and platforms must develop consistent procedures, transparent decision-making, and paths for rehabilitation so that ethics and artistry are addressed together.
In short: acknowledge the social harm, protect the integrity of creative works, and build institutional fixes such as education and re-entry programs.
Which side do you find more persuasive in this debate?
