Bridgerton: new Netflix series

[Anonymous]

What I liked were how well done the sex/smut scenes were, very hot and usually I am completely uninterested in what is supposed to be a sexy sex scene. The female director makes a huge difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d watch all 9 seasons.

Yep. The fancy pps calling this trashy TV obviously haven't seen trashy TV.

I’m a PP who called it trashy. I’m a fan of trashy Real Housewives shows, so I know all about trash. I had high hopes that maybe this would be somewhat Jane Austen-ish, but I couldn’t have been further from the mark. The writing is horrible and the sets are so Disney-like as to be cringeworthy. Even my 16 year old daughter was disgusted and disappointed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love the diversity of the cast, too!

I read that Julian Fellows (Downton, Belgravia) defends only casting white people. This shows that a diverse cast in a period piece works!

It totally works. It’s a little odd at first to put race aside especially in this historical context, but it doesn’t take long and then it’s fantastic to see a mix.

I don't really understand the forcing of a diverse cast into non diverse rolls. People would be shouting to burn the network down if Roots was re shot with a diverse cast. This just seems like exceptional jumping on an issue and timing. And at the end of the day, fluff. Which is fine.

What do you mean “non-diverse roles?” Its pure fiction. The roles are whatever the creatives decide they are. Unlike Roots which is specifically about Black people.

And don’t tell me it’s historical fiction because it’s Regency. There was no queen during the Regency period and Katy Perry melodies didn’t exist then. Black people being Dukes is no less out of keeping with a Regency drama.

Queen Charlotte was a real person, wife to the mad king and mother of the prince regent. The real life queen was of course white. I loved the Bridgerton casting and that it shows race blind casting works fine. It does not in any way harm this story to have her played by a black woman. In the same way, it would be fine for Mr Darcy to be played by a black actor in Pride and Prejudice. The "inaccuracy" is not a problem for the story.

There are stories specifically about race where doing that doesn't work. But I would argue that for most stories, even "serious" ones, it works fine. Also, there were plenty of black people in England at the time, they were mostly impoverished but they were there and it's not weird to see them in period drama.

There were not plenty of black people in Regency Britain. That is what we call historical revisionism to satisfy woke modern ideologies. Just to use as a reference point, in the 1940 census (living memory) there were only 40,000 non whites recorded in the entire UK out of a population of 40+ million.

You did have a very, very small number of people of African heritage who had been brought to Britain in individual capacity, as household servants. But it doesn't lend legitimacy to passing off British aristocrats as Africans or Asians. Having a black Mr. Darcy would be incredibly unrealistic and undermine the entire story because it would be as silly as casting a white actor to play an African chieftain.

Bridgeton is silly tv and will be forgotten so it's no big deal, but future efforts at colorblind casting in more serious historical productions will be more problematic without seeming silly (which certainly includes Austen's books for the reason that the person's non white origin fundamentally changes the character and how the world reacted to that character that cannot be glossed over).

Per Wikipedia, it was about 1% of the London population at the time we're talking about, and there were a handful of famous black authors and political thinkers, largely connected with the abolition movement that predated the regency.

Even if there were zero black people in England, though, I completely disagree with you that having a black actor play a British aristocrat is a problem. The actor is not the character: the character of Ms. Bennet does not react differently to Mr. Darcy because he is played by a black man.

We all know Wiki is a very reliable and viable source used by professional historians.

There certainly were a handful of blacks in Britain, but Britain of the Regency era was also a place where many if not most people went years without seeing any people or color.

Having a black character play the role of a Regency Duke is a problem depending on the context. A cheesy non historically accurate production? Sure, we know it's fake. A serious production? Yes, it's a problem. Because the Regency society would have treated a black person very differently. It would not be accurate. Just as it is not accurate to have a white actor, however talented, play an African chieftain. It cannot be separated from the character and his history.

You could plausibly create a story with a biracial figure, someone who was the illegitimate offspring of a wealthy plantation owner and brought back to Britain as the heir to the wealth. There were a few women in the 18th and early 19th century who were in this position, and they did marry well, into the gentry, as money always triumphed, even in class riddled Britain.

Wikipedia actually is a really reliable source.

Also how do you feel about Hamilton casting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I liked were how well done the sex/smut scenes were, very hot and usually I am completely uninterested in what is supposed to be a sexy sex scene. The female director makes a huge difference.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its explained more in the books. Her mom had her debut when she was really young and immature, and dressed them in the same color all the time so people could tell them apart.

I was getting a bi vibe from Benedict

Is Benedict the second brother? I kept mixing up him and the first brother. If yes, I also got the same vibes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d watch all 9 seasons.

Yep. The fancy pps calling this trashy TV obviously haven't seen trashy TV.

I’m a PP who called it trashy. I’m a fan of trashy Real Housewives shows, so I know all about trash. I had high hopes that maybe this would be somewhat Jane Austen-ish, but I couldn’t have been further from the mark. The writing is horrible and the sets are so Disney-like as to be cringeworthy. Even my 16 year old daughter was disgusted and disappointed.

Man I just do not understand how somebody could like real housewives but say they were disgusted by Bridgerton.

Also wasn’t it awkward watching those sex scenes with your 16-year old daughter??? Mine is only 11 so I’m not sure how I will feel in five years but I just can’t imagine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the people saying she was plain, she wasn't. She was average. That was the issue, perfectly average and perfectly ok but nothing to make her stand out. I will continue watching future seasons. Kate, Antony's heroine is my favorite of the series, so even if they just make it to Season 2 I'll be happy. . I'll grit my teeth and get through Colin/Penelope and Eloise/Sir Phillip.

But there were comments about her beauty. I could’ve dealt with her look more if they had done something better with her hair.

Well when they dressed her hair up she looked really pretty! Also her face kind of reminded me of Renaissance paintings. It may have been the standard for beauty at one point.

+1
That was the only thing I think they got right - Daphne’s looks. She’s very delicate and ethereal looking. By the standards of the day, she was radiant and beautiful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d watch all 9 seasons.

Yep. The fancy pps calling this trashy TV obviously haven't seen trashy TV.

I’m a PP who called it trashy. I’m a fan of trashy Real Housewives shows, so I know all about trash. I had high hopes that maybe this would be somewhat Jane Austen-ish, but I couldn’t have been further from the mark. The writing is horrible and the sets are so Disney-like as to be cringeworthy. Even my 16 year old daughter was disgusted and disappointed.

Man I just do not understand how somebody could like real housewives but say they were disgusted by Bridgerton.

Also wasn’t it awkward watching those sex scenes with your 16-year old daughter??? Mine is only 11 so I’m not sure how I will feel in five years but I just can’t imagine.

PP here. I guess because RH is unapologetically trashy - it’s not trying to be anything it’s not. Bridgerton was very much pretending to be an elegant, (semi) historical romance, when in reality, it was just a Disney-ish vehicle for poor writing and gratuitous sex scenes. Which we didn’t know about, btw, until we watched it. My daughter is fine with tasteful sex scenes, but this was way over the top - for both of us. We only watched the first episode before crying uncle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simon is smokin hot.

Yes he is!

I cannot accept Daphne’s bangs or her werewolf looking brother.

Same. I want Daphne to fill out her dress and have better hair.

LOL. The facial hair and pompadour killed me. And Daphne seriously had no shoulders. None. She really needed some puffy sleeved dresses.

[Anonymous]

I think the brothers are much more likable in the books. Book 2 was my favorite so hoping there is a season 2. Also liked Hyacinth’s story with Lady Danbury in the 7th book.
While I like Lady B she is funnier in the books- more like the Dowager Duchess in DA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the people saying she was plain, she wasn't. She was average. That was the issue, perfectly average and perfectly ok but nothing to make her stand out. I will continue watching future seasons. Kate, Antony's heroine is my favorite of the series, so even if they just make it to Season 2 I'll be happy. . I'll grit my teeth and get through Colin/Penelope and Eloise/Sir Phillip.

But there were comments about her beauty. I could’ve dealt with her look more if they had done something better with her hair.

Well when they dressed her hair up she looked really pretty! Also her face kind of reminded me of Renaissance paintings. It may have been the standard for beauty at one point.

+1
That was the only thing I think they got right - Daphne’s looks. She’s very delicate and ethereal looking. By the standards of the day, she was radiant and beautiful.

I guess I didn’t get that. She looked homely and bland to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My biggest issue was how Penelope sussed out all of the salacious gossip as a sheltered teen girl and wrote it up with innuendos, but somehow had no clue how babies were made.

Yes, this!! Are we supposed to think Penelope was playing naive with Eloise? Or is it just a hole in the writing? Because there’s no way that a girl who didn’t know how women get pregnant wrote all those mature innuendos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simon is smokin hot.

Yes he is!

I cannot accept Daphne’s bangs or her werewolf looking brother.

I am shaking with laughter!
I like the show. It’s pretty, sugary junk. Nobody is learning about Regency England, but we are enjoying a hot Duke, some good sex scenes, and a fun, light ride.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a hard time with period pieces that ignore race issues of the past. So why are the costumes accurate but literally everything else that they culturally display is total fiction. Why not just make it happen today? Looks very dumb.

It’s stylized. Not meant to be exactly historically accurate.

+1

I guess pp watches Grey's Anatomy for an accurate portrayal of American medicine. Or Scandal for an accurate portrayal of American politics. Or any of dozens of King Arthur movies/ tv series as accurate portrayals of 5-6th century Britain.


In Bridgerton, Regency England functions as an interesting setting to tell a romance story. And another pp pointed out, as an romance novel turned tv series (a genre which conventionally appealed to women), it's being held to a higher standard when its no more historically inaccurate, formulaic, and full of unrealistic plot devices than other comparable works.

[Anonymous]

Every time they zoom in onto Daphne’s eyes, she looks like a child who just had a candy taken away. I assume she is supposed to look innocent and naive, but the actres can’t pull it off.