asdfsein — 19 years ago(September 24, 2006 03:17 PM)

sorry if im repeating something that has already been mentioned, but kim is the most popular name in south korea. approximately 22% of the population is named kim. to say that these people are married because of this is tantamount to picking out all the male and female kims in a large apartment building and assuming they are married based on this. the smith analogy concerning america was a good example. the fact that korean wives do not take their husbands' last names lends even less credence to this theory. we put this all together and what do we get? the fact that they are both named kim neither proves nor disproves their marriage, so basically you are just pairing up two random people, linked only by the facts that they share a common geographical heritage and a common workplace. all things considered, i would say those two facts are irrelevant in this instance. on yet an even more basic level, this question would not even need to be asked or discussed if anyone paid any attention to the biography section here on imdb, which states "Although she shares the name of Kim with her "Lost" (2004) co-star and on-screen husband, Daniel Dae Kim, they are neither related nor married." Another option would have been to look at the biography of the other actor in question, daniel dae kim, which mentions nothing about him being married to his co-star and on-screen wife in reality. while this does not definitively prove or disprove anything in and of itself, i would be willing to bet a large sum of money that if the on-screen married couple were also a real-life married couple it would not only be widely known but in his biography or at least in the trivia. the magic eigh ball of common sense saysall signs point to no.
the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didnt exist