Bridgerton: new Netflix series

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did Daphne and the Duke (Simon) not meet earlier? He was Anthony's friend from school and doesn't seem like he lives that far away. All of a sudden the guy is in London for an entire summer?

I'm sure they'll find a way to work it in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did Daphne and the Duke (Simon) not meet earlier? He was Anthony's friend from school and doesn't seem like he lives that far away. All of a sudden the guy is in London for an entire summer?

I'm sure they'll find a way to work it in.

The Duke hated his father and stayed away until his father died. He came back to settle affairs.

[Anonymous]

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.

Too far on the spoilers!

[Anonymous]

What a waste, so much opportunity to only fall victim of male tropes and female savior themes. We’ve gone from sad damsel in distress cliches to tragic male figures with Daddy issues needing the ruthless, stop at nothing to get her man, manipulative lust conquers all cliches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a waste, so much opportunity to only fall victim of male tropes and female savior themes. We’ve gone from sad damsel in distress cliches to tragic male figures with Daddy issues needing the ruthless, stop at nothing to get her man, manipulative lust conquers all cliches.

The book was written by a woman for a female audience and the show was produced by a woman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a waste, so much opportunity to only fall victim of male tropes and female savior themes. We’ve gone from sad damsel in distress cliches to tragic male figures with Daddy issues needing the ruthless, stop at nothing to get her man, manipulative lust conquers all cliches.

The book was written by a woman for a female audience and the show was produced by a woman

Nevertheless, it’s banal and I stopped watching. The series will have no historical value and will disappear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a waste, so much opportunity to only fall victim of male tropes and female savior themes. We’ve gone from sad damsel in distress cliches to tragic male figures with Daddy issues needing the ruthless, stop at nothing to get her man, manipulative lust conquers all cliches.

The book was written by a woman for a female audience and the show was produced by a woman

Yes I am well aware of the fact that it’s based on a novel
and is executive produced and created by women, that doesn’t make it any less problematic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a waste, so much opportunity to only fall victim of male tropes and female savior themes. We’ve gone from sad damsel in distress cliches to tragic male figures with Daddy issues needing the ruthless, stop at nothing to get her man, manipulative lust conquers all cliches.

The book was written by a woman for a female audience and the show was produced by a woman

Nevertheless, it’s banal and I stopped watching. The series will have no historical value and will disappear.

It’ll last because it’s good mindless fun

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a waste, so much opportunity to only fall victim of male tropes and female savior themes. We’ve gone from sad damsel in distress cliches to tragic male figures with Daddy issues needing the ruthless, stop at nothing to get her man, manipulative lust conquers all cliches.

The book was written by a woman for a female audience and the show was produced by a woman

Yes I am well aware of the fact that it’s based on a novel
and is executive produced and created by women, that doesn’t make it any less problematic.

You probably hear this a lot, you’re exhausting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a waste, so much opportunity to only fall victim of male tropes and female savior themes. We’ve gone from sad damsel in distress cliches to tragic male figures with Daddy issues needing the ruthless, stop at nothing to get her man, manipulative lust conquers all cliches.

The book was written by a woman for a female audience and the show was produced by a woman

Nevertheless, it’s banal and I stopped watching. The series will have no historical value and will disappear.

It’ll last because it’s good mindless fun

Can’t wait for season 2!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a waste, so much opportunity to only fall victim of male tropes and female savior themes. We’ve gone from sad damsel in distress cliches to tragic male figures with Daddy issues needing the ruthless, stop at nothing to get her man, manipulative lust conquers all cliches.

The book was written by a woman for a female audience and the show was produced by a woman

Yes I am well aware of the fact that it’s based on a novel
and is executive produced and created by women, that doesn’t make it any less problematic.

You probably hear this a lot, you’re exhausting.

And your comment makes as much sense as the final episode.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a waste, so much opportunity to only fall victim of male tropes and female savior themes. We’ve gone from sad damsel in distress cliches to tragic male figures with Daddy issues needing the ruthless, stop at nothing to get her man, manipulative lust conquers all cliches.

The book was written by a woman for a female audience and the show was produced by a woman

Nevertheless, it’s banal and I stopped watching. The series will have no historical value and will disappear.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is not meant to be actual history, but an alternate history. There was a few lines here or there that explained why there were black aristocrats. In sum, that a conscious decision was made when Charlotte married George III to have a society with racial equality and black men were entitled to foster that.

I thought that was badly done. It just seemed like a quick 2 minute add on. We all know that a royal marryinga mixed race girl does not lead to instant equality! Plus the timing didnt seem to work with the duke’s dad.
I liked it more when it was just an alternate reality in which skin color just didn’t matter in the way that hair color doesn’t matter. (Although here, as everywhere, the gingers still get the short stick.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no such thing at “gratuitous sex” with the Duke of Hastings. Shut your mouth. I rewatched episode 6 for the second.

This!

I can’t stop rewatching those scenes.

I can’t believe someone watched it with their teen. I was a huge girl hard-on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a question (spoilers included):

When Daphne and Simon moved into their London home and were ‘on the outs,’ why did he go down on her on the staircase if he was going to dump her immediately afterward?
What was the point of this?

Ratings.

Exactly. They clearly know their audience. 🤑

They know this audience. I had no problem with it.

Yes. But I thought it made sense within the characters, such as they were. He still burned for her but didn’t want to have PIV sex because of the pregnancy thing. You all have never known a guy who was like that if no condoms at the ready?