Bridgerton: new Netflix series

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I have a love-hate relationship with this show. The storyline is fun but I got really confused during the first 15 mins because I did not expect it to be in an alternte reality. When I saw the costumes in the beginning, I thought, oh ok, it’s Jane austen era, but then, as the story goes, I realize it’s not your typical period piece. The only casting that I liked is the duke and the opera singer. The queen is horrible and I wonder if she was added there to poke fun at the idea of royalty. Dapne is so plain, it wiyld not be an issue if she was not depicted as someone who’s supposed to be gorgeous, ditto with Marina.


I loved the queen. She was hilarious. Marina was pretty and her hair was beautiful.


DP. I loved the queen too. She played the role deliciously and pitch perfectly.

Disagree on Marina. Her hair may be beautiful, but she lacked charm from get go.


Do you have to be charming in order to be pretty?


DP. Yes.


Well that sucks since that means most of the people on DCUM and in the world aren’t charming.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Marina was the only miscast character in my opinion. I loved that she was savvy and experienced but the actress was wrong.


I think Marina was totally miscast. She is pretty but not gorgeous they way I would expect. I also think Daphne was not attractive enough to land the Duke. She looked like a tween. It was off putting. I also didn’t realize she was the actress in Younger who has a kid with Josh. She looked prettier in that show but she is not cute enough to land the Duke and Josh. They are both so hot.


I agree with this. I think they had to add dialogue when the sisters are meeting her for the first time and gasp. I didn't understand their reaction until Penelope says Marina is pretty. I'd be happy to look like Marina, but she wasn't so breathtaking to override her lack of standing and get all those suitors.

I didn't like Daphne at all. The Duke was incredible.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Marina was the only miscast character in my opinion. I loved that she was savvy and experienced but the actress was wrong.


I think Marina was totally miscast. She is pretty but not gorgeous they way I would expect. I also think Daphne was not attractive enough to land the Duke. She looked like a tween. It was off putting. I also didn’t realize she was the actress in Younger who has a kid with Josh. She looked prettier in that show but she is not cute enough to land the Duke and Josh. They are both so hot.


I agree with this. I think they had to add dialogue when the sisters are meeting her for the first time and gasp. I didn't understand their reaction until Penelope says Marina is pretty. I'd be happy to look like Marina, but she wasn't so breathtaking to override her lack of standing and get all those suitors.

I didn't like Daphne at all. The Duke was incredible.


Compared to the sisters and Daphne, she was much prettier.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It’s perfectly fine to say you don’t like the show. It is questionable to say you don’t like it because people of color as the royalty and nobility is historically inaccurate since everyone now knows that it was not meant to be historically accurate. It’s like saying you dislike Star Trek because it didn’t realistically portray space flight.


I like watching historical productions for their accuracy. Because I'm a history geek. For me, the pleasure is bringing the past alive in an accurate way.

I know Bridgerton isn't historically accurate and isn't intended to be accurate (and the color blind casting is part of it), so that's why I'm not going to watch it. Just like I wouldn't watch a show about the Zulus or the Chinese court that had colorblind casting, because it wouldn't be a serious attempt at a historical production, just fantasy. And I'm not into fantasy.

That is fine, by the way. There's a place for fantasy and a place for historical accuracy. But I wouldn't judge people for not liking Bridgerton because it isn't historically accurate.


So this means you don’t watch any fantasy? Star Trek? Game of Thrones? Star Wars?


God, you’re annoying.
DP


You are reply to two different people who think that you are being ridiculous.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I have a love-hate relationship with this show. The storyline is fun but I got really confused during the first 15 mins because I did not expect it to be in an alternte reality. When I saw the costumes in the beginning, I thought, oh ok, it’s Jane austen era, but then, as the story goes, I realize it’s not your typical period piece. The only casting that I liked is the duke and the opera singer. The queen is horrible and I wonder if she was added there to poke fun at the idea of royalty. Dapne is so plain, it wiyld not be an issue if she was not depicted as someone who’s supposed to be gorgeous, ditto with Marina.


I loved the queen. She was hilarious. Marina was pretty and her hair was beautiful.


DP. I loved the queen too. She played the role deliciously and pitch perfectly.

Disagree on Marina. Her hair may be beautiful, but she lacked charm from get go.


Do you have to be charming in order to be pretty?


It made no sense that Marina would have the number of suitors that she had. She had a pretty face, but her attitude was always sullen and flat. Women of that class would have been expected to be polite, to be able to make conversation, to be charming. Plus, she was not from an important or high-ranking family, and we saw no indication that she came from a lot of money or had a big dowry. She would have a few suitors because she was pretty, but she would not have been so sought after without rank, money, or social grace.


This is fantasy. You can't apply real Regency standards and attitudes to it. The show writers and producers aren't going for an accurate production, but playful romance fiction.

Read Austen if you want something more real.


That's what I mean about inconsistency, though. They insisted on some Regency realism -- otherwise, the entire Daphne-Simon forced marriage plot makes no sense -- but then they just chuck that whenever they need for the plot to work. We are shown how one girl's suitor abandons her after learning that she has no dowry. We are shown that people care a lot about wealth and social standing and family lineage. And then suddenly it all goes out the window for Marina? And even in a fantasy world, why would a sullen, middle-class commoner have throngs of aristocratic suitors?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It’s perfectly fine to say you don’t like the show. It is questionable to say you don’t like it because people of color as the royalty and nobility is historically inaccurate since everyone now knows that it was not meant to be historically accurate. It’s like saying you dislike Star Trek because it didn’t realistically portray space flight.


That did not bother me after I realized it was meant to be an alternate reality, my issue is more on the casting, notbthat they all need no be white, but at least match what they are supposed to be portraying. I find it so ridiculous when everyone thought Marina and Daphe were exceptionally beautiful. They are besutiful but not exceptionally beautiful as they seem to be portraying.


Kind of like a very very dull version of GOT? The plot was so obvious ...
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I have a love-hate relationship with this show. The storyline is fun but I got really confused during the first 15 mins because I did not expect it to be in an alternte reality. When I saw the costumes in the beginning, I thought, oh ok, it’s Jane austen era, but then, as the story goes, I realize it’s not your typical period piece. The only casting that I liked is the duke and the opera singer. The queen is horrible and I wonder if she was added there to poke fun at the idea of royalty. Dapne is so plain, it wiyld not be an issue if she was not depicted as someone who’s supposed to be gorgeous, ditto with Marina.


I loved the queen. She was hilarious. Marina was pretty and her hair was beautiful.


DP. I loved the queen too. She played the role deliciously and pitch perfectly.

Disagree on Marina. Her hair may be beautiful, but she lacked charm from get go.


Do you have to be charming in order to be pretty?


It made no sense that Marina would have the number of suitors that she had. She had a pretty face, but her attitude was always sullen and flat. Women of that class would have been expected to be polite, to be able to make conversation, to be charming. Plus, she was not from an important or high-ranking family, and we saw no indication that she came from a lot of money or had a big dowry. She would have a few suitors because she was pretty, but she would not have been so sought after without rank, money, or social grace.


This is fantasy. You can't apply real Regency standards and attitudes to it. The show writers and producers aren't going for an accurate production, but playful romance fiction.

Read Austen if you want something more real.


That's what I mean about inconsistency, though. They insisted on some Regency realism -- otherwise, the entire Daphne-Simon forced marriage plot makes no sense -- but then they just chuck that whenever they need for the plot to work. We are shown how one girl's suitor abandons her after learning that she has no dowry. We are shown that people care a lot about wealth and social standing and family lineage. And then suddenly it all goes out the window for Marina? And even in a fantasy world, why would a sullen, middle-class commoner have throngs of aristocratic suitors?


That’s the point of an alternative reality. You can pick what you want to PLAY WITH and discard the rest. It’s why you can get Shakespeare set in 1930s Germany.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I have a love-hate relationship with this show. The storyline is fun but I got really confused during the first 15 mins because I did not expect it to be in an alternte reality. When I saw the costumes in the beginning, I thought, oh ok, it’s Jane austen era, but then, as the story goes, I realize it’s not your typical period piece. The only casting that I liked is the duke and the opera singer. The queen is horrible and I wonder if she was added there to poke fun at the idea of royalty. Dapne is so plain, it wiyld not be an issue if she was not depicted as someone who’s supposed to be gorgeous, ditto with Marina.


I loved the queen. She was hilarious. Marina was pretty and her hair was beautiful.


DP. I loved the queen too. She played the role deliciously and pitch perfectly.

Disagree on Marina. Her hair may be beautiful, but she lacked charm from get go.


I wonder with Marian if her lack of warmth foreshadows her future from the books. I loved the Queen and Lady Danbury. I can't wait until Lady D's involvement in the series portrayal of Book 4, so I'm hoping for renewal.

I like the "unrealistic" alternative reality.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I have a love-hate relationship with this show. The storyline is fun but I got really confused during the first 15 mins because I did not expect it to be in an alternte reality. When I saw the costumes in the beginning, I thought, oh ok, it’s Jane austen era, but then, as the story goes, I realize it’s not your typical period piece. The only casting that I liked is the duke and the opera singer. The queen is horrible and I wonder if she was added there to poke fun at the idea of royalty. Dapne is so plain, it wiyld not be an issue if she was not depicted as someone who’s supposed to be gorgeous, ditto with Marina.


I loved the queen. She was hilarious. Marina was pretty and her hair was beautiful.


DP. I loved the queen too. She played the role deliciously and pitch perfectly.

Disagree on Marina. Her hair may be beautiful, but she lacked charm from get go.


Do you have to be charming in order to be pretty?


It made no sense that Marina would have the number of suitors that she had. She had a pretty face, but her attitude was always sullen and flat. Women of that class would have been expected to be polite, to be able to make conversation, to be charming. Plus, she was not from an important or high-ranking family, and we saw no indication that she came from a lot of money or had a big dowry. She would have a few suitors because she was pretty, but she would not have been so sought after without rank, money, or social grace.


This is fantasy. You can't apply real Regency standards and attitudes to it. The show writers and producers aren't going for an accurate production, but playful romance fiction.

Read Austen if you want something more real.


That's what I mean about inconsistency, though. They insisted on some Regency realism -- otherwise, the entire Daphne-Simon forced marriage plot makes no sense -- but then they just chuck that whenever they need for the plot to work. We are shown how one girl's suitor abandons her after learning that she has no dowry. We are shown that people care a lot about wealth and social standing and family lineage. And then suddenly it all goes out the window for Marina? And even in a fantasy world, why would a sullen, middle-class commoner have throngs of aristocratic suitors?


That’s the point of an alternative reality. You can pick what you want to PLAY WITH and discard the rest. It’s why you can get Shakespeare set in 1930s Germany.


Like I said, I enjoy alternative history and fantasy. I just expect some *internal* consistency. If you choose to depict a society with strict rules and conventions, in which those rules and conventions have serious consequences for the characters, and then just ignore the rules and conventions when you feel like it, I'm going to think you're lazy and sloppy.
Anonymous
I thought it was kind of boring, and nothing compared to Downton. Anyone agree? Just finished last night.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Another point about Daphne and Simon and the infamous scene - at this point in history, marriage was very much a “contract.” Children were expected. Simon did indeed misrepresent himself when he told Daphne he “couldn’t” have children. When she finally figured out that he simply *wasn’t* going to have children, she realized that it was his DUTY to do so, and that as his wife, she deserved children. In that context, I found it perfectly understandable that she did what she did. Of course, nowadays, that’s considered tricking/trapping the man, etc. But at the time, she was fully entitled to children by her husband.


I don't think it was rape per se, but this premise doesn't hold. She married him with the knowledge that he was unable to have children. Whether that ended up being true or not, she accepted it and chose him anyway. So she wasn't 'entitled' to children he was presumably unable to have. And accepted that by marrying him.
Anonymous
interestingly some of these actors are MUCH better looking in real life.

Phoebe Dynevor, Daphne


Ruby Barker, Marina


Claudia Jessie, Eloise
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I have a love-hate relationship with this show. The storyline is fun but I got really confused during the first 15 mins because I did not expect it to be in an alternte reality. When I saw the costumes in the beginning, I thought, oh ok, it’s Jane austen era, but then, as the story goes, I realize it’s not your typical period piece. The only casting that I liked is the duke and the opera singer. The queen is horrible and I wonder if she was added there to poke fun at the idea of royalty. Dapne is so plain, it wiyld not be an issue if she was not depicted as someone who’s supposed to be gorgeous, ditto with Marina.


I loved the queen. She was hilarious. Marina was pretty and her hair was beautiful.


DP. I loved the queen too. She played the role deliciously and pitch perfectly.

Disagree on Marina. Her hair may be beautiful, but she lacked charm from get go.


Do you have to be charming in order to be pretty?


It made no sense that Marina would have the number of suitors that she had. She had a pretty face, but her attitude was always sullen and flat. Women of that class would have been expected to be polite, to be able to make conversation, to be charming. Plus, she was not from an important or high-ranking family, and we saw no indication that she came from a lot of money or had a big dowry. She would have a few suitors because she was pretty, but she would not have been so sought after without rank, money, or social grace.


This is fantasy. You can't apply real Regency standards and attitudes to it. The show writers and producers aren't going for an accurate production, but playful romance fiction.

Read Austen if you want something more real.


That's what I mean about inconsistency, though. They insisted on some Regency realism -- otherwise, the entire Daphne-Simon forced marriage plot makes no sense -- but then they just chuck that whenever they need for the plot to work. We are shown how one girl's suitor abandons her after learning that she has no dowry. We are shown that people care a lot about wealth and social standing and family lineage. And then suddenly it all goes out the window for Marina? And even in a fantasy world, why would a sullen, middle-class commoner have throngs of aristocratic suitors?


That’s the point of an alternative reality. You can pick what you want to PLAY WITH and discard the rest. It’s why you can get Shakespeare set in 1930s Germany.


Like I said, I enjoy alternative history and fantasy. I just expect some *internal* consistency. If you choose to depict a society with strict rules and conventions, in which those rules and conventions have serious consequences for the characters, and then just ignore the rules and conventions when you feel like it, I'm going to think you're lazy and sloppy.


Then, even Shakespeare himself was lazy and sloppy.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I have a love-hate relationship with this show. The storyline is fun but I got really confused during the first 15 mins because I did not expect it to be in an alternte reality. When I saw the costumes in the beginning, I thought, oh ok, it’s Jane austen era, but then, as the story goes, I realize it’s not your typical period piece. The only casting that I liked is the duke and the opera singer. The queen is horrible and I wonder if she was added there to poke fun at the idea of royalty. Dapne is so plain, it wiyld not be an issue if she was not depicted as someone who’s supposed to be gorgeous, ditto with Marina.


I loved the queen. She was hilarious. Marina was pretty and her hair was beautiful.


DP. I loved the queen too. She played the role deliciously and pitch perfectly.

Disagree on Marina. Her hair may be beautiful, but she lacked charm from get go.


I wonder with Marian if her lack of warmth foreshadows her future from the books. I loved the Queen and Lady Danbury. I can't wait until Lady D's involvement in the series portrayal of Book 4, so I'm hoping for renewal.

I like the "unrealistic" alternative reality.


Marian isn't in the books
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Another point about Daphne and Simon and the infamous scene - at this point in history, marriage was very much a “contract.” Children were expected. Simon did indeed misrepresent himself when he told Daphne he “couldn’t” have children. When she finally figured out that he simply *wasn’t* going to have children, she realized that it was his DUTY to do so, and that as his wife, she deserved children. In that context, I found it perfectly understandable that she did what she did. Of course, nowadays, that’s considered tricking/trapping the man, etc. But at the time, she was fully entitled to children by her husband.


I don't think it was rape per se, but this premise doesn't hold. She married him with the knowledge that he was unable to have children. Whether that ended up being true or not, she accepted it and chose him anyway. So she wasn't 'entitled' to children he was presumably unable to have. And accepted that by marrying him.



Um, no. Whether that ended up being true or not?? That's otherwise known as a lie, and a significant one. He also took advantage of her ignorance and kept on with the lie. She may not have chosen him otherwise (though the "scandal" makes that more of a question. I find it interesting that you're more bothered by her taking advantage of him and not the other way. His offense is far greater, imo.
post reply Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture
Message Quick Reply
Go to: