Bridgerton: new Netflix series

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What are you talking about? First of all settle down morality police, it’s a tv show. Second of all of course his offense is greater. But she willingly married a man that she believed could not have children. So she then is “entitled “ to children by him? How exactly does that work?

[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.

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

Typo. Marina. She appears in a later book but her storyline is not the same as it is in the series.

[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.

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

Typo. Marina. She appears in a later book but her storyline is not the same as it is in the series.

pp, I looked it up because I didn't remember her- she's basically a throw away to set up another story so I forgot her.

[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.

Regarding the bolded, so true! When Marina first appears and the sisters all gasp, I was like, what happened? What did I miss?! And then I realized that Marina was supposed to be a great beauty? Hmm. That was extremely anti-climactic.

I actually did like Daphne. I thought she was an excellent actress. She was not supposed to be overly beautiful, which she wasn’t, but she was very pretty by the standards of the day. And also, she didn’t have many suitors before her arrangement with Simon, so I don’t think she was auto be portrayed as a great beauty in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was kind of boring, and nothing compared to Downton. Anyone agree? Just finished last night.

Completely agree. It was so trashy and cringey.

[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.

She did indeed marry him thinking he was unable to have children. He lied to her. She very much wanted children and he claimed he was “unable” to have them. When she realized he had LIED to her, she was (rightfully) furious and did what she was entitled to do - as a wife at that time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was kind of boring, and nothing compared to Downton. Anyone agree? Just finished last night.

Completely agree. It was so trashy and cringey.

Thought it was fun - and a bit trashy and cringey. Enjoyed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1,000
Exactly this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What are you talking about? First of all settle down morality police, it’s a tv show. Second of all of course his offense is greater. But she willingly married a man that she believed could not have children. So she then is “entitled “ to children by him? How exactly does that work?

OMG, are you really this dense?
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What are you talking about? First of all settle down morality police, it’s a tv show. Second of all of course his offense is greater. But she willingly married a man that she believed could not have children. So she then is “entitled “ to children by him? How exactly does that work?

Don't tell me to settle down after YOU raised the issue. Yes, it's a tv show. But I recommend that if you don't like being questioned, you not post about it. His offense is greater, as you agree. That was my point and it is the right one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh my lord people are allowed to dislike the show for reasons you don’t agree with. Move on!!!! (New poster!)

[Anonymous]

I think the 'rape' scene is interesting. I think it was a violation by like, modern day standards. But it is wrong to attribute modern day standards to the world that the show inhabits.

Daphne didn't know what sex was like a month before the incident. To act like she can fully understand the ramifications of something she literally wasn't even entirely sure was the correct process is ludicrous.

I think his not explaining the whole thing to her was really bad. He knows she doesn't understand about sex, and believes he can mislead her about what she's engaging in. I don't think the can't/won't thing is that big of a deal, but the pulling out, having her wonder about it and not explaining it is really bad. Neither gave the other full autonomy,.

That said, she was going to marry him no matter what, so the 'marry under false pretenses' thing is also kind of BS.

IMO both were dishonest lovers. And their relationship almost ended over the fallout of their discovering their respective dishonesty and I think that is 'somewhat' realistic.

They got past it when both understood the other's perspective. Personally I feel like she should have had more contrition in show for what she did, but honestly neither really apologized, they just agreed to move past it.

[Anonymous]

She had him eating out of the palm of her hand. She’s not done yet either. After kids I’m sure she’s got more she will be dreaming up.

[Anonymous]

There are SO many pages here I can't go through them all. Why was Penelope Miss Whistledown? Why would she reveal the secret about Marina being pregnant? Because she didn't want Colin to marry her? It wreaked havoc for her family? Will Marina marry George's brother?

I found the Duke to be a total asshole. I hate that she liked him. He was incredibly unkind to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are SO many pages here I can't go through them all. Why was Penelope Miss Whistledown? Why would she reveal the secret about Marina being pregnant? Because she didn't want Colin to marry her? It wreaked havoc for her family? Will Marina marry George's brother?

google the plot of Colin's book