Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My apologies if this was already discussed but how did they explain Simon (the Duke, Daphne's husband from season 1) to be absent from his good friends wedding? Genuinely curious if I missed it.

They really didn’t.

True, and I think it’s for the best. Any time an actor leaves between seasons and the story over-explains the absence it’s just distracting and draws more attention to the absence.

He wasn’t missed by me. The Duke may be physically more attractive than Anthony, but Jonathan Bailey’s acting is superior. He gave more than this role required and sold his character’s yearning for Kate.

I totally agree! I was impressed with how much he put into the role. The Duke was completely unconvincing -zero chemistry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My apologies if this was already discussed but how did they explain Simon (the Duke, Daphne's husband from season 1) to be absent from his good friends wedding? Genuinely curious if I missed it.

They really didn’t.

True, and I think it’s for the best. Any time an actor leaves between seasons and the story over-explains the absence it’s just distracting and draws more attention to the absence.

He wasn’t missed by me. The Duke may be physically more attractive than Anthony, but Jonathan Bailey’s acting is superior. He gave more than this role required and sold his character’s yearning for Kate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My apologies if this was already discussed but how did they explain Simon (the Duke, Daphne's husband from season 1) to be absent from his good friends wedding? Genuinely curious if I missed it.

They really didn’t.

True, and I think it’s for the best. Any time an actor leaves between seasons and the story over-explains the absence it’s just distracting and draws more attention to the absence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How come Benedict completely ignored Madam Delacroix this season? Last season he was developing a friendship with her, hooking up with her and having threesomes at a party with her. What happened to that storyline? Why does she have a phony French accent?

He tries in the first (second?) episode and she dismisses him. She’s still using her fake accent except around Penelope it seems.

I thought we’d get more of Madame Delacroix. Disappointed. The Sharma sisters were a snooze fest for me. The only thing keeping me going this season were Eloise and Penelope and Eloise and Theo. And Portia Featherington. And Benedict.

Anonymous wrote:My apologies if this was already discussed but how did they explain Simon (the Duke, Daphne's husband from season 1) to be absent from his good friends wedding? Genuinely curious if I missed it.

They really didn’t.

Anonymous wrote:How come Benedict completely ignored Madam Delacroix this season? Last season he was developing a friendship with her, hooking up with her and having threesomes at a party with her. What happened to that storyline? Why does she have a phony French accent?

He tries in the first (second?) episode and she dismisses him. She’s still using her fake accent except around Penelope it seems.

My apologies if this was already discussed but how did they explain Simon (the Duke, Daphne's husband from season 1) to be absent from his good friends wedding? Genuinely curious if I missed it.

How come Benedict completely ignored Madam Delacroix this season? Last season he was developing a friendship with her, hooking up with her and having threesomes at a party with her. What happened to that storyline? Why does she have a phony French accent?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! I kind of thought the ravanels had lots of terrible MMC (like didn’t one of them kidnap somebody and then in a later book the victim was just supposed tj make nice?), but this sounds so bad. I’m going to drag away from the books, thank you.

The Ravenels definitely have some jerk alphas but I wonder if you are thinking here of the Wallflower series, where Sebastian kidnaps and almost rapes Lillian and then later marries her friend and everyone makes totally nice. I am an Xer and grew up with rapey romance novels from the 80s and that still turned my stomach, so so gross. That character was irredeemable and I don't know what the author was thinking.

chill.. it's fantasy. I'm also a gen-xer.

I love K.J. Jackson's series. I think those books would make for better tv. It's fast paced and gritty. No fluff.

I also love Sarah Maclean's books.

I guess I prefer a bit grittier books. I find Tessa Dare's books too fluffy. I know.. to each her own.

I'm a millennial. I think that romance novels have in a great direction, well away from the rapey stuff in times of yore. It's like consent, protection, and kindness are sexy these days!

The authors mentioned above don't right rapey-novels. I read Shirley Busbee novels waaay back, and those are rapey.

Again, to each her own, but I don't find wimpy men in my romance novels exciting. I read those novels for an escape, as fantasy. Some of the men in those books would be awful partners IRL, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! I kind of thought the ravanels had lots of terrible MMC (like didn’t one of them kidnap somebody and then in a later book the victim was just supposed tj make nice?), but this sounds so bad. I’m going to drag away from the books, thank you.

The Ravenels definitely have some jerk alphas but I wonder if you are thinking here of the Wallflower series, where Sebastian kidnaps and almost rapes Lillian and then later marries her friend and everyone makes totally nice. I am an Xer and grew up with rapey romance novels from the 80s and that still turned my stomach, so so gross. That character was irredeemable and I don't know what the author was thinking.

chill.. it's fantasy. I'm also a gen-xer.

I love K.J. Jackson's series. I think those books would make for better tv. It's fast paced and gritty. No fluff.

I also love Sarah Maclean's books.

I guess I prefer a bit grittier books. I find Tessa Dare's books too fluffy. I know.. to each her own.

I'm a millennial. I think that romance novels have in a great direction, well away from the rapey stuff in times of yore. It's like consent, protection, and kindness are sexy these days!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! I kind of thought the ravanels had lots of terrible MMC (like didn’t one of them kidnap somebody and then in a later book the victim was just supposed tj make nice?), but this sounds so bad. I’m going to drag away from the books, thank you.

The Ravenels definitely have some jerk alphas but I wonder if you are thinking here of the Wallflower series, where Sebastian kidnaps and almost rapes Lillian and then later marries her friend and everyone makes totally nice. I am an Xer and grew up with rapey romance novels from the 80s and that still turned my stomach, so so gross. That character was irredeemable and I don't know what the author was thinking.

Okay yes thank you! I don't know how we're expected as readers who have grown to love and care for the victim to just kind of push that out of our heads in the next book and get all giddy for the guy. And her (I forget the victim's name, sorry) tolerance for the situation was some kind of sign of maturity, ugh.

But do you remember the book with his son? I really liked that one and I'd kind of like to re-read it.

But back to Bridgerton: one nice thing about books getting adapted is that lots of things fly in writing that don't on screen. Sometimes I'm totally fine with problematic things, but, like, with Outlander, I sure didn't mind the way they toned up the consent. I understand they did something similar in Bridgerton season 1? I'm happy they made the men better in the screen adaptation and I'm just going to enjoy the show as fun entertainment that I don't have to think too hard about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! I kind of thought the ravanels had lots of terrible MMC (like didn’t one of them kidnap somebody and then in a later book the victim was just supposed tj make nice?), but this sounds so bad. I’m going to drag away from the books, thank you.

The Ravenels definitely have some jerk alphas but I wonder if you are thinking here of the Wallflower series, where Sebastian kidnaps and almost rapes Lillian and then later marries her friend and everyone makes totally nice. I am an Xer and grew up with rapey romance novels from the 80s and that still turned my stomach, so so gross. That character was irredeemable and I don't know what the author was thinking.

chill.. it's fantasy. I'm also a gen-xer.

I love K.J. Jackson's series. I think those books would make for better tv. It's fast paced and gritty. No fluff.

I also love Sarah Maclean's books.

I guess I prefer a bit grittier books. I find Tessa Dare's books too fluffy. I know.. to each her own.

Anonymous wrote:Wow! I kind of thought the ravanels had lots of terrible MMC (like didn’t one of them kidnap somebody and then in a later book the victim was just supposed tj make nice?), but this sounds so bad. I’m going to drag away from the books, thank you.

The Ravenels definitely have some jerk alphas but I wonder if you are thinking here of the Wallflower series, where Sebastian kidnaps and almost rapes Lillian and then later marries her friend and everyone makes totally nice. I am an Xer and grew up with rapey romance novels from the 80s and that still turned my stomach, so so gross. That character was irredeemable and I don't know what the author was thinking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're going to change Benedict's book. It's just Cinderella.

But the actor is hilarious and I look forward to his season.

I’m sure there will be plenty of whining about changing the source material like it’s sacred literature or something. Even the charming parts where Benedict thinks he’s doing her a favor by asking her to be his mistress and getting pissed when she refuses.

I saw the first season before I read the book and thought the book was WAY better. I hardly think it's "sacred literature" but yeah, I do generally hate when producers take a book and say "we're making it into a movie!" and then randomly change up 90% of it just because they feel like it. It does usually make the movie/show worse and it sure did here. Reminds me of when people on recipe sites are like "oh I didn't like this ingredient and didn't have these three other ones so I subbed two for something totally different and left the other two out altogether and this recipe sucked, zero stars." Either stick with the source material within reason or just say you're doing your own thing and let it stand on its own two feet.

How in the heck can the book be a decent TV show when there’s NOTHING else going on besides the main character story. There’s nothing to build a show around. I read the first book too. I read the first four books in fact, and they made such an impression on me I promptly forgot almost every detail until reminded later. They’re not good. Bridgerton was selected to be an TV adaptation because the books themselves are hugely modern even though they claim to be set in the 1800s. The showrunners are doing a far better job with making this series feel fresh than the books do.

Totally agree here. Remember when Anthony kicks Kate in the stomach in the book? Threatens to strangle her? The team behind the show salvaged his character into something way more appealing.

Benedict's book is about him blackmailing, harassing, and using coercion on a "maid" to make her mistress because he can't actually marry someone so lowly despite being attracted to her. I love Benedict on the show and can't wait to see how they write his story.

Honestly, I couldn't believe it when Netflix announced they wanted to adapt this series. The Hathaways, Ravenels, Trewloves, or Cynsters would have been much better series. If you think the Bridgerton books are good, check some of those out. Not saying the heroes are perfect, but they aren't nearly as loathsome.

I’d like to put in a good word for Tessa Dare’s male leads too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're going to change Benedict's book. It's just Cinderella.

But the actor is hilarious and I look forward to his season.

I’m sure there will be plenty of whining about changing the source material like it’s sacred literature or something. Even the charming parts where Benedict thinks he’s doing her a favor by asking her to be his mistress and getting pissed when she refuses.

I saw the first season before I read the book and thought the book was WAY better. I hardly think it's "sacred literature" but yeah, I do generally hate when producers take a book and say "we're making it into a movie!" and then randomly change up 90% of it just because they feel like it. It does usually make the movie/show worse and it sure did here. Reminds me of when people on recipe sites are like "oh I didn't like this ingredient and didn't have these three other ones so I subbed two for something totally different and left the other two out altogether and this recipe sucked, zero stars." Either stick with the source material within reason or just say you're doing your own thing and let it stand on its own two feet.

How in the heck can the book be a decent TV show when there’s NOTHING else going on besides the main character story. There’s nothing to build a show around. I read the first book too. I read the first four books in fact, and they made such an impression on me I promptly forgot almost every detail until reminded later. They’re not good. Bridgerton was selected to be an TV adaptation because the books themselves are hugely modern even though they claim to be set in the 1800s. The showrunners are doing a far better job with making this series feel fresh than the books do.

Totally agree here. Remember when Anthony kicks Kate in the stomach in the book? Threatens to strangle her? The team behind the show salvaged his character into something way more appealing.

Benedict's book is about him blackmailing, harassing, and using coercion on a "maid" to make her mistress because he can't actually marry someone so lowly despite being attracted to her. I love Benedict on the show and can't wait to see how they write his story.

Honestly, I couldn't believe it when Netflix announced they wanted to adapt this series. The Hathaways, Ravenels, Trewloves, or Cynsters would have been much better series. If you think the Bridgerton books are good, check some of those out. Not saying the heroes are perfect, but they aren't nearly as loathsome.

Wow! I kind of thought the ravanels had lots of terrible MMC (like didn’t one of them kidnap somebody and then in a later book the victim was just supposed tj make nice?), but this sounds so bad. I’m going to drag away from the books, thank you.