Netflix "Bridgerton": Jane Austen with candy colors and colorblind casting

It's Shonda so of course gays will love it. Question is will she gaywash existing characters or invent new gay characters that will end up being pushed to the side?

Jesse Williams Who?!

Can't believe the article neglected to mention Julie Andrews is in the cast. (As is DL THEATRE GOSSIP fave, the adorable Jonathan Bailey.)

Dame Julie is only narrating according to IMDB.

Polly Walker is the only name I recognized. Judging by the women’s costumes, it’s the same art direction as Coppola’s Marie Antoinette or more likely, Reign.

I'm vexed, muffukkahs!

So campy and colorful! What fun.

Except for Polly Walker and Julie Andrews I don't recognize any of them.

That guy is fucking gorgeous.

I'll bet Austen would have liked to enjoy some of the cash she's generated.

I think colorblind casting means you don’t consider the race when casting. If you decide before casting that you want to hire an actor of a certain race for a character then it wouldn’t be colorblind.

[quote] I'll bet Austen would have liked to enjoy some of the cash she's generated.

She wouldn’t have had the lobbying power of Disney to extend copyright forever.

Am I the only Jane Austen fan (sincerely) who thinks we need to give the broad a rest for a decade or two?

She's been adapted endlessly, and then some, with very mixed results. I loved CLUELESS, the 90s PRIDE AND PREJUDICE (BBC) and MANSFIELD PARK, and a few others, but most of the rest have just been forgettable. It's great if it's getting more people reading Jane, but enough already.

There are so many other wonderful authors and books to dramatize.

Uggh. So I just read the Deadline story....

And this project has NOTHING to do with Jane Austen. Nothing at all.

Well done, OP.

It is stealth Austen though. It has the lovely Jonny Bailey!

Looks like a lot of campy fun, plus the girl from Derry Girls is in it!

[quote] The gays will love it.

It's Shonda Rhimes, which means the DL gays will stand on their hind legs and HISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS with bitterness about some fat black fish until their eyes bug out.

It's apparently based on books by Julia Quinn.

Is there a mention of Bridgerton in Austen somewhere?

I plan to watch the shit outta this one.

Clip

Final Trailer

I find colour blind casting for these upper class dramas offensive. They soften the image of this lot, who wouldn't even acknowledge anyone of a lower class as human, by making them appear inclusive.

It just means its set in a fantasy world, just as much as if it had dragons. Like the Merlin series with the black Guinevere (though that did have dragons as well).

JHC I need new glasses......I thought this thread title said "Brigadoon."

"A black lead will never fly"

I feel the same way, R22. The same people who want us to acknowledge systemic racism throughout history are also pushing for color blind casting in period pieces that just creates a false impression of a past open mindedness that never existed. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I made a similar point on the 'black actress to play Anne Boleyn' thread. So Henry VIII is a farsighted multiculturalist and not a brutal monster after all!

I have a feeling a lot of the colour blind casting that is currently going will not age well, I expect within 5 years there will be a push back.

It lacks British prestige, like British national treasures who guest star on Midsomer Murders or Murder in Paradise.

I know Jonathan Bailey's character is straight in the books but hopefully they'll change that for the show.

I tried to watch the first episode of Sanditon again yesterday and only made it to 45 minutes. So bad, bad dialog, bad casting. It’s harder than it looks.

A British period drama, based on a book series created by an American, that is being produced by an African American and the showrunner is an American, with colourblind casting... oh this is going to be painful.

Sanditon had Theo James' naked ass. However, it was a suicide mission with the showrunners thinking they can come up with an ending for an unfinished novel after the Game of Thrones showrunners were ripped to shreds for their attempt. The Austen fans would never stand for something like that and badmouthed the show from the start, so it could never get any traction or favorable word-of-mouth.

[quote] It's Shonda so of course gays will love it.

I don't know a single gay that likes that kind of stuff. Its funny how some of you are a walking stereotype.

If you watch a lot of British productions on Netflix, Britbox, Acorn or other streaming services, you'll recognize faces.

Kathryn Drysdale was Meghan Markle on The Windsors. Pippa Heywood was in Bodyguard. Harriet Cains was in Marcella. Nicola Coughlan was in Harlots. Ben Miller was on Sticks and Stones. Golda Rosheuvel was on Silent Witness and Luther..

All these shows are recommended although some are very violent and one involving bullying is painful to sit through.

Reviews are good.

So fat chicks and black men vying for marriage in ye olde England?

There are some historians believing that Queen Charlotte was biracial and the show deliberately goes with that possibility. So it's more of a conscious than blind casting.

There are no actual specialised18th-century historians who believe Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz was biracial. The idea is ludicrous.

Interesting that Jonathan Bailey wiped and then later deleted his Twitter account as soon as he landed this gig. Did he have some old career destroyed tweets he was worried about people digging up and exposing?

Not that I remember, R40. He wasn't a prolific poster anyway. Maybe he was just rationalising his social media. A number of people have dropped Twitter but kept Instagram going, for example.

Jonny still instagrams. Mmmm...Jonny.

"A pleasingly OTT exercise in glossy, glorious escapism, Bridgerton is a jolt of joy and romance at the end of a year that, for most of us, has been sorely lacking in both."

Netflix has given us two gifts for the holiday season. The first is Shondaland’s scripted debut for the streamer, “Bridgerton,” a sexy, joyous, colorful update of the classic will-they-or-won’t-they Regency-era courting tale.

The second gift is imagining the hilarious mortification of cross-generational families across America sitting together and watching the show over the winter break, only to uncomfortably witness why, exactly, the show earns its TV-MA rating.

Did Netflix give poor Shonda free passes to Disneyland to entice her to make this?

There better be a lot of gay sex and nudity

Rege- Jean Page is gorgeous. I'll be watching. :)

Cultural appropriation.

Wow

[Quote] I feel the same way, [R22]. The same people who want us to acknowledge systemic racism throughout history are also pushing for color blind casting in period pieces that just creates a false impression of a past open mindedness that never existed. It makes no sense whatsoever.

The solution is to cast every acting role with black actors. YTs can be extras (excuse me, "background artists").

Thank you gay DP!

R22 My thinking exactly. It's especially offensive when you consider that much of that obscene upper class wealth in England was due to slavery on the distant plantations of the aristocracy. But why confront that ugly truth about how black people were treated during the Regency when we can pretend they were enjoying the fruits of their own labor (somehow)? This is whitewashing on a grand scale and it feels utterly fake.

It is rewriting history.

[quote]The same people who want us to acknowledge systemic racism throughout history are also pushing for color blind casting in period pieces that just creates a false impression of a past open mindedness that never existed. try

It's so false that it is insulting. I would be more comfortable seeing a period piece that was more true to reality, addressing racism that really existed in history and I am a non-white person. And Ann Boelyn was black? Be real, they would've ostracized her first.

Nice eye candy. Of course the only real gay content is a closet case who isn't even a main character.

OP, telling someone they will love "Bridgerton" because they love Jane Austen is like telling someone they will love carob because they love the finest Belgian chocolates.

[quote]The same people who want us to acknowledge systemic racism throughout history are also pushing for color blind casting in period

I don't know why people like you can't figure out that the difference is that this is a fucking fairy tale. It's no different than Snow White or Rapunzel. People aren't pushing for color blind casting in legitimate period pieces about things that actually happened where they are trying to be historically accurate.

People can wrap their minds around Luke Skywalker being the most special boy in the whole universe who manages to best his father Darth Vader a "looooong time ago" or watch a science fiction show that takes place on another planet where everyone has a British accent and not question it, but put a black person on a show based around an event that also never took place in the past and you get, "They would not be there at this point in history!" Yeah, also none of the Bridgertons existed. I'm also pretty sure that they didn't dance around to an instrumental version of "Thank U Next" by Ariana Grande at a ball either.

Save your ire for shows where they're actually attempting to be accurate like sane people.

As for the show's episodes:

The outfits are beautiful. It's a solid story.

Jonathan Bailey and Rege-Jean Page are hot. It has surprisingly sexy moments here and there.

Sometimes an episode seems like an eternity but overall I can't find anything to hate about it but I don't love it.

It's not like "The Great" which I enjoyed a lot then again it's not going for the funny/edgy/revenge story feel. It's sweet.

R57 Do you honestly think people would accept white casting in "Porgy and Bess" or "Raisin in the Sun" or a white Othello?

R57 I also am enjoying The Great, which has wit and sympathetic characters and surprises. Bridgerton does not.

r58, it's not the same thing. Taking an iconic character like Othello and making him white (even though he was always played by white actors for centuries) is not the same thing as a period drama with both black and white characters

These are based on a series of books, so I'm not sure why you all think this is Shonda forcing colorblind casting on us. Link to the books

"I have a feeling a lot of the colour blind casting that is currently going will not age well, I expect within 5 years there will be a push back."

Only from Trumpsters

Jonathan Bailey is the gay character in this?

There's a gay character?

Nope. R62 The gay character is Henry Granville played by Julian Ovenden

Jonathan Bailey the actor is gay in real life.

Jonathan Bailey is gorgeous

The flip side to R51

"This is whitewashing on a grand scale and it feels utterly fake."

If you want gritty realism you're looking in the wrong place.

Any homosex?

Only about 6 episodes in R69 and there's only a brief glimpse in episode 5 and it's what was in the initial reveal trailer

Maybe I’ll get drunk and watch this tomorrow. Thanks for the male nudity, Shonda!

r38 is correct. The producers have specifically said this is an alternate reality England, and it's color conscious casting, not color blind.

"Van Dusen’s idea was to base the show in an alternative history in which Queen Charlotte’s mixed race heritage was not only well-established but was transformative for Black people and other people of color in England.

“It made me wonder what that could have looked like,” he said. “Could she have used her power to elevate other people of color in society? Could she have given them titles and lands and dukedoms?”

When Netflix began releasing news about “Bridgerton” and its cast, many referred to the approach as colorblind casting, which was irksome to the creators. “That would imply that color and race were never considered,” Van Dusen said, “when color and race are part of the show.”

Though it is not explained until the middle of the season, the character of Queen Charlotte — who is brought to life with towering coiffures, pet Pomeranians and a hunger for gossip — provides the explanation for the diverse gentry. It was she who bestowed nobility upon the Duke of Hastings’ predecessors, positioning him to inherit a dukedom."

Curious why they never use a black actress or an Asian man in color conscious casting of romantic interests? Black man + white woman is so common both on screen and real life, you don't get woke points for doing yet again. In fact I remember Denzel Washington saying that this was the reason he refused to have a romantic storyline with Julia Roberts in Pelican Brief and that was a wholeass 30 years ago.

[quote]Black man + white woman is so common both on screen and real life, you don't get woke points for doing yet again.

Shonda Rhimes wrote "Scandal," dear, which was an entire series that revolved around a white man with a black woman. Her other major relationship was the same thing.

She oversaw "How to Get Away With Murder" which featured an Asian man + a White man, a Black Woman + a White Woman, A White Man + a Black Woman etc.

Whatever you're trying to say here doesn't work when it comes to Shonda Rhimes.

jesus, people need to lighten the fuck up-- this is not a documentary, it's a trashy romance novel why should this guy have to spend his whole career playing slaves and Ethiopian tribesmen? Go ahead and cast Porgy and Bess with white characters, if that's what you want to see on stage. but it turns into crap, because the significance of the plot relies on the race of the characters. that does not seem to be the case with this thing.

the black woman/white man pairing is the more common of the two. white dudes dont like it when they see their women paired with the blacks

^^^ to be fair, that possessiveness probably cuts both ways (black men as well) but due to various factors, the white man/black-native woman pairing is still the more common

r75, I agree that people need to lighten up. Right-wingers will bitch about "woke" people being too serious and not having a sense of humor....but then they freak out over a Shonda show

Why do Hollywood Liberals keep shoving this down our throats? I am the last person to be racist. But can't I complain about obvious historical inaccuracies without being labeled by the coastal elites? I want to relax in my cozy knits with a mug of spiked Irish coffee and snuggle with hubbie and watch a romantic period romance without modern, out of place, agendas in my face. The English upper class are so classy and sophisticated. I'm sorry, but they aren't black, now or then.

Cancelling my Netflix, pronto.

is R78 satire?

"and watch a romantic period romance without modern, out of place, agendas in my face" then you'd best not watch any romantic period romances shot by a Hollywood studio, or any other studio, for that matter. those romances that you're thinking are accurate are filled with anachronisms. Joe Wright's Pride and Prejudice? utterly absurd if you vet it for historical accuracy. nearly every frame had something wrong. still not a bad movie.

do what you want, i dont care, I haven't watched it myself, but let's not pretend this has anything to do with historical accuracy

I think the whole casting controversy is overshadowing the real problem with the series. It's boring. Even with all the extraneous sex scenes, it's dull and unimaginative with very little tension or humor. If you like this genre, try either of the last two versions of Pride and Prejudice or Mansfield Park with Frances O'Connor. They were all brilliant by comparison.

R26, Welcome to the world of the fringe left. Goddam sickening.

can't argue with that, R80. I dont think I could sit through this thing. but the lead is fine looking

this only creates a false impression of history and open-mindedness if you're dumb enough to think this TV movie is supposed to depict history

[quote]I think the whole casting controversy is overshadowing the real problem with the series.

There isn't really much of a "controversy" outside of Datalounge because ... you know ...

Also movies and shows have been doing this for actual decades now. Those of us who grew up with it, do not care.

R84 Not true. Out of curiosity I checked LSA, a site for black women, to see what they thought over there about the concept, and they weren't all loving it. An interesting discussion about the casting and Shonda in general was underway. I only skimmed it. At least one person said the casting felt "off".

I think it feels off because it’s American race relations imposed on a British context. I think these race conscious reimagining of Regency/Victorian Britain would work a lot better if they were Indian/White rather than Black/White.

A lot of British upper class actually did intermarry with Indians, e.g.2nd Earl of Liverpool who was Prime Minister in the early 19th century had an Indian grandparent so could actually claim to be biracial by modern standards. Unlike Queen Charlotte who, even if the stories are true, only had 1 black ancestor over 300 years before she was born.

R85, sounds like strong black women dont like to see their men with whitey

Well, I wrote that "I want to relax in my cozy knits with a mug of spiked Irish coffee and snuggle with hubbie" and "The English upper class are so classy and sophisticated". I even went as far as signing it Dee Plorable, r79. If that's not a sign my post is tongue in cheek, I can't help you.

The lack of gay characters, gay storylines, and gay sex scenes is disappointing. Shonda, give the gays what they want - full frontal shots of nude Jonathan Bailey engaging in the hardcore homosex. Pronto.

You couldn't pay me enough to watch this crap.

Is it truly color blind casting or is it the usual American idea of "diversity" which includes only black people?

Don't worry r88, r79 is an obvious Aspie.

Loving this show. Pleasant distraction.

The same people who get "offended" by "colorblind casting" are the ones who say that it's okay if a straight plays gay or if Angelina Jolie plays another race "because it's called ACTING."

It never goes both ways with those folks.

It also does not escape my attention that a lot of the complaints about this are talking about "[bold] colour[/bold] blind casting," suggesting many of these complaints come from our rightwing UK racists.

[quote]I checked LSA, a site for black women, to see what they thought over there about the concept, and they weren't all loving it

Unfortunately, the racist UK folks I mentioned in r94 have said they are also posting at LSA and L-Chat so it's no longer easy to tell what's a legitimate comment on those sites, and what's coming from trolls hoping you'll assume they're part of a community they actually AREN'T members of.

Uh, R94. Brits aren't the only people who spell "color" as "colour". In fact the entire English speaking world spells it with a "u". And what's to say that whoever spells it as "colour" isn't a foreign born person living in the US now?

Stop being so fucking close-minded. You're a disgrace to gays (if you even are one).

R94, truly color blind casting is not the same thing as deciding on advance to write a show and cast black actors in roles traditionally cast with white actors. Bridgerton is non-traditionally cast, not a color blind cast.

R97 Agreed. I haven't watched the show yet (I plan to) but just checked the cast list on IMDB. Sure enough, there are no Asians and no Hispanics in the entire series which pats itself on the back for its "color blind casting". Just whites, blacks and a handful of Indians.

[quote]Stop being so fucking close-minded.

Rich.

I watched up until they get married (well, I was working with the TV on) and they go off to his castle. I can’t watch anymore. It is not very good. I would like to see the gay characters getting it on but I don’t have the patience. The duke is exquisite and the gay brother is sexy....

r98, the show never patted itself on the back for colorblind casting, when they've specifically said it was not colorblind casting (and explained why the black and Indian actors have those roles). Do try to keep up.

For those whining about black man-white woman pairings, there's also a black woman in a major role who spends the whole show trying to find a husband, and all of her potential mates are white men (and she ends up with a white man).

r100, you're right to bail now. The brother who seemed at first like he might be gay ends up with a woman. The gay characters turn out to be only there to show how hard the gays have to fight to be with the ones they love, so the straight guy should fight for the woman he wants to be with, etc. etc.

R101 The show itself may not have but the makers of the show certainly have been.

For the person who couldn't get through Sanditon... the first episode of Sanditon is a bunch of Jane Austen characters in search of a plot. It gets better once it gives up on being Jane Austen and just accepts that it's a Regency version of Melrose Place. Forget the plot and watch for Theo James.

The silliest of this historical drama 'colorblind casting' is engaged in by the BBC. They first tried shoving a few token blacks in dramas as servants. It was just demeaning. And with the intense care expended to get sets and costumes historically accurate, it makes no sense. The BBC has become so sensitive about it, it's virtually ceased making historical dramas for the simple reason it can't justify spending large slabs of its budget on white-only casts. It's a sad situation.

What's next: colorblind casting in slave dramas? Let's see how that flies.

The color-blind, inclusive casting is the least of this shitfest's problems. Totally goes off the rails after the couple gets married. A lot of hetero humping I'd prefer not to see. The word "craptastic" kept coming to mind. It reminded me why I studiously avoid anything by Shonda Rhimes. This is a huge waste of money and talent.

Casting should be done with respect to the time period. There are so many vehicles and opportunities for diversity in film. I do make an exception for live theater, which requires much more of actors, unlike film, which relies heavily on so many visual aspects. Ugh with this stunt casting. Dev Patel in the "radical retelling" of David Copperfield. No thanks.

r102, Bullshit. The makers of the show have said point blank it's not colorblind casting. The link was posted at r72. So, no, they're not patting themselves on the back for something they've firmly declared they weren't doing.

If you want to say they were patting themselves on the back for color conscious casting, fine. But colorblind casting and color conscious casting are not the same thing. It's no one's fault but yours that you don't know the difference.

[quote] It's no one's fault but yours that you don't know the difference.

Oh, how scathing, Blanche.

R107 They can say that a million times and it doesn't mean they're not lying. What the fuck do you expect them to say? "Yeah, we're pandering to the woke! Ka-ching!" Grow up.

r109 thinks it's bad to pander to "woke" people but cool to pander to KKK Trumpsters like himself

"They first tried shoving a few token blacks in dramas as servants."

OMG, they cast a few black people! How dare they shove this in my face!!!!! When I watch a costume drama I only want to see white people! Black people burn my retinas!!!

Black people? What's next? Gays?

"I haven't watched the show yet (I plan to) but just checked the cast list on IMDB. Sure enough, there are no Asians and no Hispanics in the entire series which pats itself on the back for its "color blind casting". Just whites, blacks and a handful of Indians."

There was an Asian actress in Mary Queen of Scots and right-wing DLers bitched about that, too

So there are gay characters?

Shonda won't do a gay storyline unless she is forced to, look at how she treated TR Knight, who funnily enough has returned to Greys but only after Shonda left.

r115 is just looking for something to complain about. She has lots of gay characters on her shows, and no one "forced" her to. This is another example of how DL Republicans want to pretend that "woke" people are the enemy rather than their fellow GOP clowns

Not using Jonathan Bailey for what he was meant for, hot gay sex, is a crime. And really, face it, Shonda hasn’t been good in well over a decade.

There are two R114, but they are very minor. You see them kiss in one scene and then in another, their situation is explained to another character.

[quote]an alternative history in which Queen Charlotte’s mixed race heritage was not only well-established but was transformative for Black people

This got me curious but I'm not finding any real arguments for Queen Charlotte's being part black. Apparently it comes from one of her portraits looking like she has black features to some people. I'm also seeing a claim that she was part black because a half-millennium before she was born (1200s) some of her Portuguese ancestors were of Iberian Muslim heritage, but presumably that could be said of any European aristocrat with Spanish/Portuguese aristocrats in their background (and it's also a ridiculously small amount of her ancestry).

R116 Then what took her so long to introduce a full time gay man to the greys cast? Oh that's right, it was after she left that they introduced one. Her treatment of TR after he came out and the time it took to deal with Isaiah spoke volumes, and even now she does the bare minimum.

For everyone complaining about the lack of gay characters/sex scenes. This story takes place in 1813 and revolves around the rituals of pairing eligible young ladies off with an appropriate suitor, so obviously that is where the bulk of the storylines are going to focus. I doubt there was much visible gay life happening in 1813 England. Not every show needs a gay character or storyline simply to have a gay character.

There is one scene when the gay character explains his situation to another character and says something along the lines of "you don't need to worry about being in a room full of people and not being able to look at the person you love without first making sure no one else is looking at either of you." I think it was a nice nod to what a gay person probably went through during that time period, without making it a major part of the story just to do so.

This show is escapist fluff. Turn your brain off for 8 hours, enjoy some beautiful costuming, some ridiculous plotlines and some hot man flesh on display. Shakespeare it is not.

Also, did anyone else think they were hinting that Eloise might be struggling whether or not she likes girls?

"Then what took her so long to introduce a full time gay man to the greys cast?"

Most shows have zero gay characters, you're just looking for any excuse to bash a black woman

Hopefully Shonda's next Netflix show will be better with gays

R122 🙄. Whatever

Ah so its okay for the escapist show to have black and mixed race characters of upper class but we should just ignore a lack of gay and lesbian characters. Race trumps sexuality, understood.

For all the Marys! bitching about the lack of gay characters in a show set in 1813 (and skewering the female black show runner in the same breath), I have a suggestion. Cancel your Netflix subscription and take your money to Prime Video to the Dekko and Here TV channels. Both are nothing but 100% non-stop gay programming, most of it so painfully bad you want to shoot yourself while watching, but hey gay characters galore!

R126 You are an idiot who is missing the point completely. According to Shondas beliefs it's okay for an escapist show based in upper class England during the 19th century, that features black characters in positions of influence and power but none that are LGB.

Uh, there ARE gay characters

But according to the Klan brigade here:

It's "woke" (and therefore evil) to bitch about the lack of non-white characters in shows, but fine to bitch about a lack of gay representation

If this show is fantasy in which the queen is part black and black people are fully accepted in upperclass British society, why couldn't they have extended the fantasy to making gay relationships fully acceptable, too? (instead of punishable by death, which they were in England at that time.)

Because not every show needs a gay character or storyline. I’m sorry your poor self esteem is so tied up in seeing a gay character in a shitty Netflix show that you’ve been in a tailspin about it all morning. Seek help.

I saw whining on Twitter about “ableism” in the show but I don’t know what the exact issue is.

R130 and not every show needs black characters and yet here we are.

R131 I think it means that none of the characters are disabled. Because unless you tick all the boxes, you are cancelled.

I’m happy to watch a froth costume drama set in a world where ultra conservative regency views on gender and class shape the plot, but the cast looks like a Benetton ad and we just ignore British colonialism - but the scene where Lady Danvers urges the Duke of Hastings to get married and take his rightful place in society as Black people like them were finally able to be at its pinnacle because the Queen was Black made no sense in such a universe, especially as the Duke of Hastings refusal to marry was due to his father being such a horrible, ancient-bloodline obsessed coot.

I also felt like the last few episodes got way too spermy. I like straight people as much as the next guy, but I don’t really want to watch costume dramas where aristos refusing to jizz inside their wives is a major plot point.

[quote] Then what took her so long to introduce a full time gay man to the greys cast?

I never thought it was an obligatory job for a TV showrunner to instill a political agenda to their commercial products. Many do, but I don't think they should be expected to do so. Shonda Rhimes has furthered an agenda in terms of women's rights and racial equality. Why would anyone feel entitled to demand more? I am just glad she took on these two topics. She doesn't need to carry all torches.

I also like that Shondaland is not adverse to cheap gratuitous nudity to lure people into watching her shows, and then slam the racial equality hammer over peoples head. Shonda is a smart cookie.

First, let's make something clear: Chris Van Dusen is the showrunner of Bridgerton. Shonda produces it. Chris doesn't seem to concerned about the gay elements but he's also straight. He really thinks he did something by having that painter be gay.

[quote]For everyone complaining about the lack of gay characters/sex scenes. This story takes place in 1813 and revolves around the rituals of pairing eligible young ladies off with an appropriate suitor, so obviously that is where the bulk of the storylines are going to focus.

To be fair the show is based on a series of books and there are no gay Bridgerton children in the books. The books focus on each of their lives and loves and blah.

They did have the opportunity to make one of them gay or at least bisexual with that whole thing with the painter and Benedict but they didn't. I also thought Eloise was going to come out as a lesbian which didn't happen. It still could.

However, the book that focuses on the youngest male of the bunch, does have a gay character in it who plays an important role. If everyone was okay with it I could see them changing that plot around to make Colin Bridgerton gay. That could easily work.

[quote] Am I the only Jane Austen fan (sincerely)

[quote]I loved CLUELESS, the 90s PRIDE AND PREJUDICE (BBC)

How can one profess to be a sincere fan of Jane Austen and love the trashy 90s BBC Pride and Prejudice? The “jazzing up” of the story and the cartoon characters completely change the tone of the story.

I suffered through it until the crowning insult — Darcy and Elizabeth KISS in an open carriage! In Georgian England, that would have been seen little different from her pulling his erection out of his trousers and stroking him to climax in front of her aghast family.

The 1980 BBC production is a faithful adaptation and anchors the story in early 19th century England — not 1990s Los Angeles.

I can't watch a period piece when it's not true or authentic to the time period. Diversity is more believable when you make a show set in the current time period or a fantasy or science fiction story, not period pieces. If it is an alternative reality, maybe add a narrative to it so the viewer know that it is. It just feels uncomfortable watching this when I know that history tells a different story and blatant racism was taken for granted back then. And I'm not a Trumper or Far right political person, I just want to see movies or a series that is more akin to the truth. But if it's a fantasy, it should have elements of fantasy to it which this does not.

The best historical drama with a non-white person was Belle, set in the same time period and based on a true story. The most important thing was the racial issue was addressed in the movie.

I am torn about it. Generally, if the story is good I can get past a distraction. Adding afro-americans to a cast of a Regency piece is certainly a distractions as it is a severe departure of conventions. Only if I cannot get into the story, distractions bother me more. The skin color here didn't bother me, but occasionally I was wondering if a white person would have played a scene differently. Is 'wondering' this still a remnant of racism? Could be. But when I was wondering that last night, the answer was always no. I think casting was spot on and direction was fine. I mean, how could you not cast Adjoa Andoh for the role of Lady Danbury?

The question remains though why historic worlds are repurposed with fantasy elements when they could have just written something contemporary. Same goes for Ryan Murphy's Hollywood.

I suppose in the end this is just a worthy experiment. Time will tell if this and other shows to come can break casting conventions or not.

I am watching it now. I have no idea what it is about. The Duke of Hastings is very sexy; that's all I know.

Love it! Nothin' like Negroes bein' uppity.

My Duke

R136 That's one doughy shapeless ass. Yuck.

But was it rape rape?

And Judy Andrews doesn't even show up right?

Most efforts like this always have that "Emperor's New Clothes" aroma clinging to them.

And as for historical accuracy: all right, this is a Regency bodice ripper of a "reimagined" England so no one has to pay attention to what the real Regency England was like, except that the costumes are all Regency England so that Regency England must have actually existed and the writers and producers are just pretending to reimagine it in only one thing: black nobility amongst the Regency set.

And also as far as historical accuracy goes, as people keep bringing it up: we had a 47 year old Nigerian actress playing the historically white French princess married off to Henry VI as a teenager; and now we have a black actress playing Anne Boleyn - another white historical figure.

It's like having Cate Blanchett play Harriet Tubman or Michelle Obama or Rosa Parks, and Brad Pitt play Nelson Mandela.

So the truth is, historical accuracy isn't high up on the list of priorities these days, either, even when the historical accuracy isn't merely a matter of costume or who was really here in whatever class, but literally erasing the historical reality of figures of major importance to the country's history. If Catherine of Aragon had borne Henry VIII a couple of healthy sons, Henry might not have defied the Church and the split from Rome in Britain might never have occurred.

The problem is the underlying message: they don't have compelling enough stories of their own to tell, so they have to borrow the history of others - some would say, if those who oppressed them.

Black actors should stop dressing up in the costumes, histories, and stories of White people.

You don't need to be the embodiment of something in reality to "play" it. But there does have to be some sort of verisimilitude. George Chakiris wasn't a Latino when he played Bernardo in "West Side Story". He was the son of Greek immigrants and grew up in the mid-West. He played Riff, the Anglo gang leader, in the London West End production, and then got cast as Riff's opposite number in the 1961 film.

And Chakiris kicked ASS in the role, and got an Oscar for it. You know why? Because HE LOOKED RIGHT for the part. No one would ever have known he wasn't a Latino.

Everyone else gets sent up to audition for a part because s/he looks "right" for it.

The black actress playing Anne Boleyn doesn't remotely look right for the part for very good reasons, just as Sophie Okonedo didn't look right for Margaret of Anjou. They got the parts, anyway. Okonedo looked like 30 year old Tom Sturridge's mother, not his headstrong young wife.

They look silly in the costumes. Bodice ripper or "reimagined" England or not, the black actors in these parts look like they are not so much acting as masquerading. With historical characters, the aroma of hankering after being someone they never were and can't be.

It's not a good look, really.

Anne was White, Margaret was White, there were no Black Regency aristocrats.

And Queen Charlotte wasn't "Black".

R147 brevity is your friend. I didn't even begin to read your essay. -0/10

Jesus Christ, Stormfront is here on DL.

Were you bitches this worked up when Whoopi and Victor Garber had an Asian son in Brandy's Cinderella?

It's a bodice ripper and the sex scenes are hot. The Duke could ravage me anytime. Although he is kind of an idiot, wanting to flush his happiness down the toilet because he made a vow to spite his daddy.

And of course, what should be most important to DL, an out gay actor is playing the second male lead in a major television show. Or would you prefer he be stuck in a Rob Williams movie?

Incomprehensible R149.

This series is objectionable in so many ways apart from the casting. Horrible scoring, static story line with phony-seeming complications (He made a vow and he can't break it!), a voiceover worthy of "Desperate Housewives" and too many scenes of the leading lady having orgasms.

Netflix commissions poorly written, virtue signalling trash like this and yet cancelled Glow; a well written, funny show about female empowerment that had a very diverse cast, and not the fake diversity of just black and white actors.

Glow was a casualty of COVID.

I love that in the show they play the Waltz No. 2 by Shostakovich who wasn't even born before the Regency period was dead. Link: I assume all the pretty women in the audience are the cello soloist's girl friends and exes: Link

That's very astute, r154. I thought the same when they played Maroon 5 and Arana Grande. I checked Wikipedia, and it seems they weren't alive back then either.

Who is that big cock Hauser guy?

The lead guy is fine as fuck.

R153 That is bullshit. Netflix spends billions on their shows, everyone knows they have the money to put the production on pause and bring it back next summer but they'd rather spend money on the egos of Rhimes, the Obama's or Meghan and Harry, what a great bunch of content creators they are.

R147, why would you think they look silly? this is purely subjective. they don't look any sillier than anyone else. the lead, anyhow, looks perfectly fine to me. people need to calm the fuck down.

and R149, the outrage here is coming from both the left and the right. it's not Stormfront.

That Vox rape piece is penned by the inimitable Aja Romano. I trust their taste on everything.

[quote]Black actors should stop dressing up in the costumes, histories, and stories of White people.

A certain kind of white people love seeing it. They love reducing blacks to minstrels.

R147

This was billed as being a progressive take on the traditional regency period drama so the racial diversity in the cast fits perfectly with that. It's not ridiculous though to ask why can't such progressive revisionism include substantive gay characters as well?

This is basically that failed drama "Still Starcrossed" rehashed. Geez, Shonda, as if getting canned once is not enough.

[quote] there were no Black Regency aristocrats.

There were direct African-descent European TOP aristocrats in the period that came just before the Regency Period.

Not only were those African-descent figures full-blown aristos (with estates and their own indentured servants) - some of them were also top Navy Admirals, commanding entire Fleets.

Though of course Netflix isn't going to touch the stories of those black Admirals with a ten-foot pole. Because (1) most of those black aristocrats were African-Russkie. And (2) who needs fascinating [italic]actual[/italic] stories of African-European crème-de-la-crème nobility & military masterminds in charge of European armies - when you can just copy & paste the old, tired Hollywood formula and 'play-pretend' that Margaret of Anjou was 'Nigerian'.

I'm on episode four and I love it. Love Nicola Coughlan as Penelope (she's also my guess for being Gossip Girl, uh, Lady Whistledown) and Adjoa Andoh as fierce Lady Danbury. So many hot guys. Love Jonathan Bailey, Luke Newton, and Regé-Jean Page. And I also love Polly Walker as comic relief villain.

For me it's fun and sexy escapist entertainment.

I don't get it. So much time and effort was put into making this show, only for the producers to cast one of the plainest, uncharismatic actresses alive as the lead.

R167 That's the point, she's non-threatening to female viewers.

I'm a woman and I didn't see how the lead was all that beautiful.

My partner and I saw the trailer, and he turned to me and said "Well, now they're just making shit up!"

I guess real power in TV is being able to make things like this, and Ryan Murphy's career.

[quote]My partner and I saw the trailer, and he turned to me and said "Well, now they're just making shit up!"

Which is kind of the point of designating it as "fiction".

Aren't there more than enough accurate period movies? Aren't there enough movie adaptations of Jane Austen novels?

Some comments are quite hilarious with their "the sky is falling!" outrage that there is something else available. You don't like it? Don't watch it. It's not like the trailer, or Shonda herself, mislead you into thinking you get something proper, accurate, and traditional.

I don't know how I got there but Claudia Jessie makes me think I am listening to a young Zoe Wanamaker. The voice, diction. Not sure if that's deliberate for this role or just a coincidence.

YAAAAAWWWWNNNNNNN

Look it was trash, inaccurate and I lapped up every second. It is basically Gossip Girl meets Pride and Prejudice.

The dancing was wrong , the music was wrong ,but I loved it . The men were hot.

The only issue I have with fantasy history is that so many people don’t know the real history and by mentioning real events and situations and attention to detail and then the next second throwing it out the window becomes slightly confusing.

By mentioning the Peninsular War on 1813 , you are giving a very clear historical time period. But then to totally ignore the fact that Britain was about to abolish Slavery, that Britain’s war with Napoleon had gone on for nearly 20 years at this stage. But then to choose to focus on other things is abit weird..

But on the other hand I loved that crappy program.

I think Historical accuracy matters more in things like Anne Boleyn where she is person who was thought by many to be a witch , who manipulated the King. By making her Black , the focus the becomes was she hated because of her race and that is just bullshit.

R162 - They do have reading comprehension classes, you know.

R166 gets it.

It’s escapist trash with pretty costumes and a parade of pretty flesh. The world is imploding around us, I’m not going to lose any sleep over the lack of a gay character in a tv show.

Penelope was my favorite character.

Linked article contains SPOILERS including the identity of Lady Whistledown, so don’t click if you haven’t finished the show yet.

Then there's Sir Henry Granville (Julien Ovenden), a man who befriends Benedict Bridgerton (Luke Thompson) and introduces him to an underworld of artists and orgies. Granville is also a closeted gay man, who has a wife for a beard. Behind closed doors at the sex parties he throws are the only time that he and his lover can be together. In the Regency era, homosexuality was considered illegal and was punishable by death.

Van Dusen said that he wanted Benedict's friendship with Henry to reflect "tolerance in an intolerant time." He added, "Underneath the beauty and the glamour and the decadence of this this gorgeous escapist world, we do have a running modern commentary about how in the last 200 years, everything has changed, but nothing has changed."

Wait, they reveal the identity in the first season? Gossip Girl, the TV show, kept it a secret until the very end of its run (and I believe the identity was never revealed in the books the TV show was based on).

Yes, last scene of the last episode reveals who Lady Whistleblow is. Showrunner’s reasoning below. NO spoilers.

It's a bold move to reveal her true face so early, even if the show's characters are still unaware. Much like the snarky and omniscient blogger who narrated "Gossip Girl," Lady Whistledown's identity is a delicious mystery in Quinn's novels and only revealed halfway through the eight-book series (one volume dedicated to the love story for each Bridgerton sibling). Why do it now?

Although the TV series has already tipped its hand about Whistledown, Van Dusen defends the move, hoping that this sets up more intrigue (and seasons) to come.

"It was time after spending a season watching Eloise on Whistledown's trail," he said. "I think that it sets up a really interesting storyline for a hopeful second season. In success, I would love the show to continue and I would love to be able to explore stories and romances for all the Bridgerton siblings. There are eight books, so that's no secret."

Just keep showing John Bailey's ass.

I agree, I think revealing Whistledown so early is a big mistake. Part of the drama is wondering what and how she knows.

Just keep the duke naked.

All this nonsense about diverse casting when a glaring and much more offensive mistake goes unremarked.

Wisteria just doesn't stay in bloom for that long.

Maybe they revealed her because they didn't think they'd get a second season.

I loved Adjoa Andoh’s Lady Danbury and Polly Walker’s Lady Featherington. Even if she was the ostensible villain of the series, I found myself increasingly on Lady Featherington’s side when it came to Miss Thompson.

I'll go back and read the rest of the thread once I've finished the series, but last night my friend and I watched the first two episodes, and oh my god, this is bad! In a hilarious way, like we are totally going to binge the whole thing. But it's not good at all. Look, I'm not that well versed in this era, but even I knew from the beginning how wrong the show was about things. I've seen costume historians talk about this before - corsets were not a thing at this time, plus corsets when they were worn in the past were designed to be a lot more comfortable than shown here. The language is really clunky and doesn't sound consistent. The thing is, if they had done a good job of this, if they were deconstructing Austen style romances from this period, then it could've been interesting. But it's so badly done. We were laughing at it the whole way through.

And Julie Andrews has been in the US for so long, her British narration sounds extremely laboured, and she is just prattling on and on over scenes and I really can't concentrate on what she's saying.

But yeah, we're absolutely going to watch the whole thing; for the cheap, trashy nonsense it is.

To sum up, it's like an American idea of what a particular part of the British past was like, with them patting themselves on the back for how they deal with issues that they've misunderstood in the first place.

After I watched the first episode, I thought it was a spoof about the courting rituals of upper crust England. It wasn't until I started reading this thread that I realized it was something the author meant to be serious.

[quote] Maybe they revealed her because they didn't think they'd get a second season.

The going rate for Netflix shows is three seasons. Given it's produced by Shonda Rhimes those three seasons should be guaranteed at least.

Love the show, but I agree with the poster, or posters, who believe it was a mistake to reveal the identity of Mrs. Whistledown this early. But then the show pushed the plot into a corner by narrowing it way, way down when Whistledown shared a secret only one single household knew.

I wonder how long it took Dame Julie to record her lines.

Kristen Bell said that when she was Gossip Girl, she'd go into the studio once a month in her pajamas. Easiest paycheck in the world.

Eh, I agree but servants chatter and Lady Whistledown has ways. I'll miss the mystery.

[quote]The going rate for Netflix shows is three seasons. Given it's produced by Shonda Rhimes those three seasons should be guaranteed at least.

She's taking her time fulfilling her contract unlike some creators also known as Ryan Murphy. They gave the absolutely terrible The Politician two seasons. If the views are good and the reviews continue to be good I can see them getting 4 Ozark, maybe even longer once they lose The Crown.

It's #2 on Netflix behind the new George Clooney film. So it's the most viewed series. I'm sure it will slide into #1 after enough people have seen that. (I mean the movie is 1:30 minutes so of course more people are watching it and finishing it. I don't think it will be Queen's Gambit level but it will continue to do well.

[quote]Love the show, but I agree with the poster, or posters, who believe it was a mistake to reveal the identity of Mrs. Whistledown this early

I agree but I think going forward it will be about the chase. Eloise is not going to stop trying to find out who she is and Mrs. Whistledown will have to be careful to avoid being caught.

I wonder if Season 2 will explain HOW Lady Whistledown operates. How does she get her stuff printed and her delivery boy paid without being caught? It's not as though she has an anonymous Paypal

There were Black nuns in Nazi Austria, too!

Besides the male eye candy, Nicola Coughlan was easily the best thing about the younger cast - and for all the discussion the multi-racial casting is generating, you know the twenty years ago they would have cast someone like Emma Corrin as Penelope and put her in glasses and a less glamorous wig.

R195 I could 100% see that. "She's so plain!"

R106 "Dev Patel in the "radical retelling" of David Copperfield."

Charles Dickens' sad and sensitive saga dumbed-down into a slapstick comedy in blackface.

[quote]Nicola Coughlan was easily the best thing about the younger cast

I've only seen the first two episodes as I mentioned above, but I agree, I think she's the best thing about the younger cast too (I quite like Eloise as well so far), and I have a lot of fondness for her of course due to Derry Girls. (Did anyone else notice that the creepy Lord Nigel guy was also in Derry Girls as Ciaran?).

What I thought was interesting was in the first episode I think it was, Nicola Coughlan's character's sisters make some disparaging comment about her weight, but after reading a couple of Austen's not that long ago, it strikes me that she has what was considered a very desirable figure for Georgian times, so I doubt they really would've been mocking her for it.

Except the writer wouldn't have the slightest clue what a desirable Georgian figure was like, so that can't have been the intention, R198.

Oh yes, R199, that was my point, perhaps I put it badly. But it was another thing that made me realise that very little research was done on this series at all. And I am not exactly an expert, but I could see so many things that looked wrong.

Personally, I think if you have a great plot, great dialogue, interesting themes and great actors, then historical accuracy can be waived somewhat and the thing can still be enjoyable (see The Favourite). Or if you know what you are doing when you are creating something that changes history. In those cases, because I love the movie or series, I love learning about the inaccuracies and it doesn't take away from my enjoyment. But if you have a boring, not very interesting plot, weird dialogue, boring themes and only a handful of good actors, plus no consistency in the world you have created, then I find it more annoying and laughable.

Has anyone read the books? My friend who I watched the first two eps with last night just wrote to me saying she had read a number of reviews by fans of the book who were really disappointed in the series, saying the books had better charactisation and deeper themes.

This infected fakery needs to have a solemn introduction at the commencement telling the airheads in the audience that it is all fake nonsense.

[quote] I wonder how long it took Dame Julie to record her lines.

I'm sorry to say that Julie has reached the pits of her profession. She has spent half a century in La-La Land and it has infected her thinking.

[quote] This infected fakery needs to have a solemn introduction at the commencement telling the airheads in the audience that it is all fake nonsense.

I do not understand what that means.

It means that r201 does not understand the concepts of "fiction" and "teevee".

Thank you R57. I am reading through the beginning of this thread and the outrage or whatever is it people are expressing about the casting is odd. R58 you really don't understand why one of these things is not like the other? Really?

Now finished the first six episodes and taking a little break. It really doesn't seem to have a complete handle on what the show wants to be, which is a problem. I'm still laughing at it, but after the last episode in particular, I'm also hard. There's a lot of Regency cum flying about and a lot of desperation to get that cum. Also, that scene earlier on with the Duke and Daphne where he is telling her to play with herself at night is SO ludicrous... but he really sells the sexiness of it. I was both thinking: "is this scene really happening?" and also fattening up with how sexy he was. In fact, a guy who can get that across on screen in a scene like that is worth ten actual sex scenes, as far as I'm concerned. Thought it was really hot how it then came up again later on their wedding night too. And I'm someone who generally gets bored during sex scenes and wishes there was less of them in dramas as they tend to slow down the story.

In all seriousness, there are characters I am quite enjoying now, like Eloise, Penelope, Lady Danbury and Polly Walker does a good job as Lady Featherington. It's just so cheap and not well done at the same time. All the hot young male characters spend their time smirking too, which isn't as attractive as I think we're meant to think. They come off like arrogant assholes, maybe Colin comes across better.

I really thought early on they were flagging that either Eloise, her brother, or both of them would be gay. But the brother isn't (he's just a total Regency-era ally it seems), and I still haven't worked out Eloise yet. She may actually be my favourite character, just because she's all: "this is all shit, I wanna do something else" and the actress plays it really well.

R206 I love Eloise and the scene where the Duke explains masturbation...holy shit that was hot.

It really was R207. And then later on: "Did you play with yourself after we spoke about it?" Hot. I'm an expert in masturbation, but I'd totally fake naivety to get him to explain it to me haha.

Now that I've watched the entire first episode, I realize the casting doesn't matter at all because the whole series is a Disney World version of Regency England, not remotely real. I think that's why it feels so boring to me. Low stakes. Nothing really matters in fantasy land. The would-be rapist guy is not actually threatening at all. He's a Disney villain. This seems like it's written for a fifth grade audience (except for the sex). The series is not at all comparable to The Queen's Gambit, which was excellent. The high ratings are a sad indication for the future of entertainment on streaming services. A low bar has been set.

R209 not every show is deep. Some of it is fluff. Bridgerton is fluff.

[quote]This seems like it's written for a fifth grade audience (except for the sex). The series is not at all comparable to The Queen's Gambit, which was excellent. The high ratings are a sad indication for the future of entertainment on streaming services. A low bar has been set.

I hate to think you're right, but... I think you're right. More and more of the new stuff I am coming across now is actually really badly written and produced, and comes across like they are shows aimed at tweens, with strong sex scenes added. It makes me sad to think that because of the success of cheap, badly written shows that we'll end up with more and more of it. I want more Chernobyls for example, rather than more Emily in Paris' (and to note, I did enjoy that for what it was, but I don't want that to become the norm). There are miniseries out there that can really astound you with attention to detail, I for one love a really well put together historical drama. I'd hate to see that disappear. They are expensive however, and it's all about money at the end of the day.

R208 SAME

"Your Grace, please explain in vivid detail what you mean"

Aye, R210, but fluff can still be really well written and produced.

R211 there is an absurd amount of content being made. Hard-hitting dramas are not going away.

R212, "I'm a kinaesthetic learner, your Grace. It would be very helpful if you showed me exactly what you mean, I learn best that way."

[quote]The series is not at all comparable to The Queen's Gambit, which was excellent. The high ratings are a sad indication for the future of entertainment on streaming services. A low bar has been set.

The reason why "The Queen's Gambit" did well is the same reason why this is doing well.

People create movies that are a product of what people want to see based upon the times they live in. They're our fantasy world. They're our escape.

There are people who WANT not too thoughtful stories with happy endings thanks to COVID, this horrible Presidency and the economy. So the Queens Gambit was a cute story, that wasn't too heavy, that had a happy ending. This show is a romance series that is not too deep where there's a bit of excitement but otherwise there's no a plague on the horizon killing everyone or a war to fight in the background where we know several characters will die.

People will still create serious dramas, comedies and reality tv shows (which I hate.) It's just that right now and I think in the near future, people will want stories where they don't have to think too much, it never gets too "real" and they get to see a happy ending.

Second that, r217. I am loving fluff right now, and this was good fluff. I'm also loving All Creatures Great and Small. That show is good fluff too. And that show may be historically more accurate than this one. But it doesn't matter because they're both fiction, both tell e gaging stories and both are focusing on what viewers want and block out what viewers don't want to see right now. When misery is everywhere, then TV doesn't need to hit me even harder. Man, I am about to close out on four years of Trump and one year of a pandemic. Leave me some dreamy fiction.

I totally agree about the need and value of mere fluff in our entertainment. At the same time I just don't personally think Bridgerton is that good at doing that. I don't hate it, and I will finish watching it, but well done fluff is much better, in my opinion. I can only speak for myself, but I'm not criticising Bridgerton because it's not deep, it's because it's not that good, and I imagine some other posters are on the same wavelength. But anyone who enjoys it, more power to you! There's no right and wrong when it comes to what we enjoy in our entertainment.

However, All Creatures Great and Small - god I haven't seen that in yonks, you've inspired me to get that out again. Now that was a good show!

I thought Shonda Rhimes was a pop star.

I think we more or less agree R219. I enjoyed it, but I'm not likely to rewatch and I'd never buy it on Blu-ray or anything. It was...enough. The best thing about it is the eye candy.

Spoilers ahead.

The Thomson gal's storyline was so awkward at the end. She thought she got rid of the child and went all high almighty and refused the proposal of her baby daddy's brother only to be seen to enter his carriage and leave London moments later, because she's still with child. That poor child will be a mess and the mother is so making the child's life a living hell for ruining hers. The child will be pretty much another "Duke of Hastings".

I had to LOL when the Philippa Featherington got her sneezing suitor.

It's interesting that all three older Bridgerton brothers had storylines where they fall for women way below their station. A bit of an overkill if you think about it.

And Freddy Stroma was the very definition of Disney's Prince Charming with not a bad, sinister bone in his body.

R222 I was pissed they had Freddie on and never got him naked

r223, Love Freddy in UnReal. He gave the Lifetime show the right amount of sex appeal.

I think the main problem with some critical comments is that not every release is supposed to fit their standard and is begging to be watched by them. It comes down to if you don't like the trailer, the reviews, people associated with the project (say, James Corden) and / or press releases it's not for you.

But then how do you make people aware of your disapproval? Which, apparently, is the main goal.

In the end critics can be dismissed that much easier for sharing their disapproval for something that wasn't intended for them and their standards in the first place.

Finished the show tonight. Aww, he came in her in the end. That was sweet, though mostly I was jealous, because I wouldn't mind him cumming in me.

My thoughts haven't really changed too much, Eloise still definitely my favourite character, I knew from the beginning the identity of the Lady Gossip, and the brothers are very hot and I would let them nut in me too, but the actors do really need to learn that acting is more than simply smirking.

I watched the first episode, then dragged my cursor across the bottom line / minute counter (what is that bar called?) until I saw Jonny was in a scene, watched it, then moved on to his next scene. It took maybe an hour to finish episodes 2-8.

Jonny is just so darned beautiful.

[quote] the actors do really need to learn that acting is more than simply smirking.

Why, because the script’s so good?

Yes, R217, but Bridgerton is set in the Napoleonic period, which is referenced. So there is supposed to be one of Europe's longest and most convulsive wars going on and half the young male characters ought to be off in the Peninsula War with Wellington getting their legs shot off.

[quote] So there is supposed to be one of Europe's longest and most convulsive wars going on and half the young male characters ought to be off in the Peninsula War with

You're ignoring the point: they referenced it but they're [bold]not[/bold] showing it or using the reference for anything other than to let you know that THEY know it's happening because this is a [italic]romance story.[/italic] They could have put that in there more vividly, they could have taken you there, they could have made it a more integral part of the story, they could have killed characters off that were on screen but sent away and then everyone would have to cry and mourn ... but that's not what this show is trying to present.

There is a difference between going for historical accuracy and using historical facts as a mere plot device.

Apology for going off topic here about All Creatures Great and Small: R219, go and watch the original from the 70s. They remade it this year, showing on PBS. The remake is very good too and just as charming as the original. (There is a thread here on DL about it too.) I love both versions.

The remake of All Creatures Great and Small is glorious British countryside landscape "porn".

Well, R230, they could just have set it after 1816, instead of trying to have their cake and eat it.

Uh, the point was that an off character recently died in this war. The war was a plot device on top of another plot device (a baby daddy not being with his pregnant girlfriend).

I can't wait for the love story based in New York on 9/11 where the terrorists are played by white guys, the heroes are played by black guys and the love interests are played by white women. But it will be fiction and so that's okay.

Yes r236. It will be okay.

Stop watching if you don't like it. I watched it, and found that I don't like it, so I don't watch.

I didn't read the novels the show is based on. Is the first novel as loose with history as the show, or did the show those liberties on its own?

Personally, I don't mind the "inaccuracies" at all. I needed to get into the show (like any other TV show), and it took me about until episode 4 to fully immerse myself into the story. Once I was following and "getting with it", I couldn't care a rat's ass if there were actors in it who "should not" be there, or if the historic background was right or not.

Watching Bridgerton felt like watching Keeping Up With the Kardashian from 19th century so nope for me. But that's just me.

"UHHHHHHHHHHHH" - like a flippin 14 year old ....

It's not a war movie, it's a romance show.

No one is watching this expecting guns and fighting.

What the hell is wrong with you?

The issue is people say don’t worry about Historical flaws but then start quoting them as legitimate History and then we judge people based on those inaccuracies. Did Marie Antoinette say “let them eat cake ?” Does it matter ? Well yes actually because it shows her callousness to the French People, except she most likely never said it and it was most likely propaganda used to discredit the monarchy.

Does it matter if we make Queen Charlotte black ? No not at all until people start believing it and then make claims based on that.

We only have to listen to people discuss” Braveheart” to see how much it fuelled the need for Scottish Independence, except most of the film was complete bullshit. Most of what we think of Scotland was made up by Sir Walter Scott and Queen Victoria.

It doesn’t matter until it does. The 1619 Project being the most recent case in point. Was America really founded in sin in 1619 or 1776?

Look I loved the fantasy of this and I loved the Regency romance of it all. Loved it, delicious crap . But then I love history and fantasy and romance. How many people will actually think Queen Charlotte was Black? Does it matter? Not particularly until it does.

You Queens who are bitching about color-blind casting, just STFU....

There actually were a lot of POC or mixed race and around that time, and if there weren't, who cares? Get a fucking life and have some empathy for the black actors who want to work.

The Duke of Hastings is gorgeous, BTW.

All the people complaining about virtue-signaling watched the first season in one night.

R243 Oh shut the fuck up and get back to your BLM riot. You have no idea what you are even talking about.

It's the holiday season. It's a great show to watch if you just want to enjoy some fluff while celebrating the holidays. It delivered on that, I don't think it was meant to be taken seriously. I looked at the characters as characters, not at their skin color or sexual orientation. If we're going to complain about representation, how about we invite the Jews and the Romany and the Native cultures and the Basques to talk about their representation in the show. If you want to open up a can of worms it should be an equal-opportunity can of worms. Or just lighten up and realize you are not the only people in the world who are marginalized. Enjoy the friggin' show for what it is.

[quote]There actually were a lot of POC or mixed race and around that time, and if there weren't, who cares? Get a fucking life and have some empathy for the black actors who want to work.

Funny how people like you care when it's the other way around though. If it's a case of a white person getting a role that rightfully should have gone to a person of color, all hell breaks loose. Black people get more roles in movies than their share of the population entitles them to, by the way. It's probably the same for tv.

[quote]It is rewriting history.

Totally outrageous, there should be laws against such travesties

[quote]This infected fakery needs to have a solemn introduction at the commencement telling the airheads in the audience that it is all fake nonsense.

could not agree more

R247

Laughable. You'll get plenty of homophobia your way because.....Karma.

So casting should be according to "their share of the population"? You should work for Hitler as a eugenics specialist.

People complain about a show not being "historically accurate" FFS. Most of our history is incredibly racist, sexist and wrong. We should want to create a better world not care about whether something is historically accurate.

Dear r242, why-oh-why do try to protect the stupid when they deliberately want to be stupid by believing clearly fictional entertainment? Such idiots like Deplorables have already moved on from fiction and fully embraced Q-Anon conspiracy theories.

The stupid does what the stupid can do best: Be stupid. You know what they do to the likes of you r242? They call you a party pooper, Debbie Downer, a poser. Because they are addicted to the stupidity and the tomfoolery and you are trying to get in the way of that by demanding accuracy,

People complain about a show not being "historically accurate" FFS. Most of our history is incredibly racist, sexist and wrong. We should want to create a better world not care about whether something is historically accurate.

—Anon r 250

Possibly , but then you know what life is about the Past , the Present and Future. You can dismiss our ancestors as racists barbarians, but not only did they gave birth to this new world, they also gave us the freedom we enjoy now. The reason you think the way you do is because you have also bought into the fiction of our age, that only we are pure. Only we are good.

Your world view as the fictional world of Bridgerton, as charming as it is.

Have we really come to this where fictional drama has to add banners in their program to remind viewers that they watch fiction and not a documentary? Is that really some posters arguing in favor of? Or is it just a sad attempt to cancel progressive entertainment (Please, think of the stupid!)?

[quote]How many people will actually think Queen Charlotte was Black? Does it matter? Not particularly until it does.

Racking my brain to imagine any instance in which this could possibly matter.

[quote]How many people will actually think Queen Charlotte was Black?

I can not worry about this right now as I am still filled with concern about the eventual fate of the companions of Mary, Queen of Scots, including the brothel-running lady-in-waiting, the S&M prince suitor from Portugal, and the bastard son of Diane de Poitiers and Henry II who always has to fight the pagan werewolves.

If I'm not mistaken, we have a gay man playing a convincing straight romantic lead. And we all know Hollywood will not allow that. Maybe the world is the fantasy.

Who is worse? Shonda or Ryan Murphy? I hate them both and their complexes.

R257 I'd say Murphy is worse, Shonda at least seems aware of the types of shows she makes but Murphy thinks he is making legitimate art and that he is an auteur.

I've already seen articles on 'Was Queen Charlotte black?' piggy-backing on this historical nonsense. Apparently Fake News is ok when it's 'good' Fake News.

R259 The extreme left are as bad as the extreme right, both deny science, history and real news.

Wondering when some of the gay-themed Regency novels will come to the screen. The Cat Sebastian novels for example have inter-racial relationships, hard-core sex, and happy endings. Certain to have DL heads exploding.

P.S. Like Bridgerton, they're ALL fantasy.

Bailey has a weird chest hair pattern...otherwise very hot.

[quote] I've already seen articles on 'Was Queen Charlotte black?' piggy-backing on this historical nonsense. Apparently Fake News is ok when it's 'good' Fake News.

It even made WaPo this past week. The source to the rumor is one man, Mario De Valdes y Cocom. De Valdes isn’t even an historian. His theory is based off the idea that one of Alfonzo III’s bastards, who was possibly black, was Charlotte’s ancestor. That’s it. Someone centuries back in the bloodline was the source of Charlotte’s supposed “blackness”.

[quote]So casting should be according to "their share of the population"?

Clearly so, R250. Otherwise no one can rightly say that black people or other people of color are "underrepresented", which, as it turns out, black people aren't. You're the one one who implied black actors aren't getting enough roles. As usual, the only kind of diversity black people care about is one that benefits black people.

By the way, since you don't care about historical accuracy, I'm sure you would be okay with white people playing African tribe members or even African American entertainers. Who cares, right?

Watched an episode. Boring as fuck.

Shipping #Peneloise

Look it is fun and I loved it. What frustrates me is that there is such a lack of knowledge of History and a willingness to play with it that worries me because I can see how it can be politicised to fit the narrative of our time,. This is fine ,if you understand what actually happened ,but can have profound implications if you don’t.

We have just had Christmas, yet most of what we think of as Christmas comes from Washington Irving and Charles Dickens “ A Christmas Carol”

Our idea of the Terror in France during the French Revolution comes almost directly from Dickens “ The Tale of Two Cities”

The BBC History program just released a podcast about Bridgerton and the Historian was gushing how great it was to be on the set of it consulting about the manners of the time and while she acknowledged that the world created was fiction, she also stressed how more complex the world was then .

If we were taught History without an agenda it would be one thing, but we are in a period where we have a very Left wing view of History being foisted on Generations and the added element of Fantasy. To say there are no consequences to that is absurd. There are and there will be.

This series is fun and I loved it , but I can also see the Politics coming through. Some critics are already saying this should be the way all Historical drama is dealt with. That is what scares me.

R266 Ew what the actual fuck is that on the right?!

Everyone freaking about this needs to unclench. It's fantasy. I'm loving it. To me it's like Austen but with more sex or as my sister said "one of those Regency bodice ripper novels come to life". It's fun and has some HAWT as fuck men in great clothes.

I'm only half way through the first episode, I'm not feeling it. Costumes and colors seem cheap and off. I guess I prefer a more accurate historical drama, I'm not into the fantasy.

Lady Danbury’s wig was terrible, but that was the only thing that stuck out to me.

The costumes are indeed cheap and ugly. I know they’re meant to look more whimsical than historically accurate but the materials and trim are way too shiny and plastic looking.

Whatever tiny problems I may have had with Bridgerton, just show me how he licks it again, and all is forgiven.

I heard he gets raped in the latest episode.

What method do they use?

The first “rape” happens when Daphne realizes that Simon is pulling out as a contraceptive, so she rides him to prevent him from pulling out. He struggles at first, then gives in. She miscarries later tho.

But then, at the end after their blowup, he breeds her properly and produces a son.

[quote] She miscarries later tho.

That was a miscarriage? I just thought she got her period (in the theater), which was her confirmation that she didn't conceive.

R258 agreed. Plus at least Shonda's shows make narrative sense, and follow plot lines all the way through. Murphy loses interest in his show and goes completely off the rails around episode 5 every single time.

Yeah you’re probably right, R276.

If the historical accuracy fanatics watched Reign on CW, they'd have a seizure before the first commercial break. That show beat accuracy like an ugly stepchild.

I didn't hate this. It wasn't intended as historical fiction, so I didn't watch it as such.

As long as the fictional world the author (or show) creates is internally consistent, I can live with whatever choices the modern author made.

Now, recasting Pride and Prejudice in this manner would be utterly unacceptable.

Will the character continuously make impassioned speeches like they do in all of her other crap?

Rhimes didn't write it, so no.

Well, in a way yes. There were some well measured speeches where some female characters dressed down their respective male counterparts with women-empowered halo speeches. I can recall three so far - from Daphne, Miss Thompson and Sienna, the opera singer.

[quote]As long as the fictional world the author (or show) creates is internally consistent, I can live with whatever choices the modern author made.

I completely agree with this, and it is the secret to any good story. Keep it consistent within the world you've created and you can do anything. My issue with Bridgerton was exactly related to this. It didn't feel internally consistent to me.

Eloise for the win, though. I hope that actress gets a lot more work, she's great.

“You have no idea what it is to be a woman, what it feels like to have one’s entire life reduced to a single moment. This is all I have been raised for. This is all I am, I have no other value. -Daphne, In Bridgerton.

Cut back to narration:

OK, umm, I disagree! Black men understand EXACTLY what that feels like, unless they live in Bridgerton!

Want proof? OK. Watch the video below. This dude relates to Daphne. 💯!

Man, a black man, made to feel just like a wealthy, privileged, white woman in a ball in a palace or French Chateu!

Man oh man!!! That’s gotta be better than getting tickets to Disneyland from your boss, man. For realz.

Only in ShondaLand. Not Disneyland. Ask Mickey, he’ll tell ya. Just like he told Miss Shonda!

Poor Amhaud never made it to Bridgerton on jos next day off.

But neither did George Floyd. But now, we got black men relating to white chicks and not getting lynched or harrassed, as they do it!

Progress!!!!

R286 Please, fuck off and overdose on crack.

Bridgerton stars reveal what's next in season 2

In case no one has mentioned this, color blind casting does not exist, and claiming that it does is denying people of color and people of no color their colors and identity.

This isn’t colorblind casting. This is called cast the blacks, as many as we can get away with and whitewash the duck out of the rest, and let’s see how it flies” casting.

And yeah, I enjoy fantasy and fun, but I’ve have been living in the fantasy world of a bunch of looney ass white folks for the past four years. They tell me I don’t have to wear a mask and they believe the election was most probably stolen.

I’m sick of fantasy shit that endangers my life. I am watching this and I am sure I ain’t the only one who thought that black boy would be dead as fuck if they had CoVid in this Bridgerton place. We’d have no blacks to cast if we had to cast in a world with covid. As a matter of fact. We have no blacks now, in MANY places, because of CoViD.

Putting blacks people in settings of privilege like this is just bullshit right now. Should have kept it all white. I’m sorry. But white people are NOT the friends of blacks.

They do not care if we die and they don’t care if Shonda gets her Disneyland tickets , even if she’s “made it in Hollywood”, as she knows.

I hope she is donating a LOT OF RESOURCES in order to educate white kids and black kids about REAL AFRICAN HISTORY in relation to this era represented in Bridgerton, in the union, Europe, the west indies, and central to South America.

And it all started in the Ivory Coast, AFRICA.

Ain’t no nlack man dancing with white chicks in Bridgerton, back then or now.

So no, no one is colorblind except Netflix and all of the wankers in HE who get paid to jizz all over this shit in a time in our American history that everyone is DESPERATE TO REWRITE AS REVISIONIST HISTORY GOES, SO THAT EVERYONE FORGETS WHAT HAPPENED HERE. That’s what shows like this are made for. For propaganda and good warm and fuzzy feelings, until next election, aka next time.

Hollywood is the most powerful place in the world, because it controls what you think and who you think you are when you think it.

They rewrite history with things we all love, like GWTW, and this trashy show. But they also launch shit like that one little film by DW Griffith, back in the silent film era. They showed Hitler how to become a movie star before he became Hitler, and they literally hired Donald Trump to pretend he was a rich and powerful, competent leader of enterprise on NBC, which led to this.

They can make anything that is pure sewage shit look like gold, and make no mistake, they know EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO, and why.

If we forget the truth, they stay rich. It’s that simple. And they will deny Shonda her E-passes, but they will make her a very wealthy black woman if she keeps on pushing that Sambo narrative that white people just can’t get enough of. As long as she gets her money, and they get more of her money by making her rich.

But the minute Shonda wants tickets to Disneyland, she is forced to remember who she works for.

This woman ain’t colorblind, and neither are the banks, which is why this show would NEVER BE CAST WITH AN ALL BLACK CAST. BECAUSE COLORBLIDNESS DOES NOT EXIST AT THE BANK, AT ABC, IN SHONDALAND, WASHINGTON DC, OR HOLLYWOOD.

So disappointed that she decided to put this through at this particular moment in time. But I know how deals and contracts work, so I get it. But please. Stop pushing this colorblind bullshit. It is so offensive when black men are filmed being murdered on Facebook livestream by a white cop, and NOTHING CHANGED AS A RESULT AND BIDEN CANNOT DO SHIT ABOUT IT, NO MARTER WHAT HE SAYS, IF MORONS LIKE MANY OF YOU HERE ESPOUSE THE COLORBLIND NARRATIVE.

Stop acting like we’re all gonna be ok. We are not gonna be OK and shows like Bridgerton are proof that the fantasy narrative is preferable than the truth, black men are non existent in a world like that depicted in Bridgerton. Because they’re not considered to be men or even human.

R289 Are you The Vixen?

It’s really boring with no substance.

R289

Are you Lady Whistledown?

[quote]I’m sorry. But white people are NOT the friends of blacks.

Bullshit.

From what I read about the Bridgerton novels, each of them deals with one specific Bridgerton offspring. So each child has its own novel where the others only play supporting roles. Can't wait for the focus on Eloise. And I'm also curious about the second son who is still somewhat an enigma to me. Maybe he is bi like Lord Byron. But based on this season he could swing either way.

It’s good for turning off your mind and looking at beautiful half naked men for 8 hours or so. That’s essentially it. It’s pure escapist saccharin crap. I’m not sure why it’s provoking such a strong visceral response about its “historical inaccuracies.”

Okay, I guess I kind of know.

It was nice seeing there was a friendship between Eloise and Benedict, I always enjoy seeing sibling friendships on TV, and most of the rest of the brood were fighting the majority of the time or didn't have a relationship that could be on equal terms.

I got a bit confused, there was a fourth sister who was away somewhere? Or was she already married and out of the house until the last episode where she came to visit?

People complain about 'historic inaccuracies' all the time. I remember that vividly when Downton Abbey started. If you want to complain you'll always find something. Who would have thought that fiction may not reflect real life.

I am seeing it this way: Shondaland is trying to get diverse casts into period dramas where PoC do not play the typical stereotypes for once. She is trying something new, trying to break habits. And she is probably anticipating pushback. And since she wants to change very firm expectations from viewers she is sweetening the pot with the most accessible story and format. I'm not blaming her for trying.

I thought the second oldest Brigerton son looked like he was older than his older brother.

But it was good casting, otherwise, as the three of them did look like brothers.

I guessed the reveal about fattie very soon into the series.

The younger brother looks like a bricklayer.

R298 So agree. But want all three brothers to have an anal non period appropriate orgy.

Is Regé-Jean Page straight?

In all honesty, he probably is R301

Though in my mind he's fucking Jonathan Bailey

Page's ass isn't all that, which makes me think he's straight.

R303 I'd eat it

I'm looking forward to a season that centers around Eloise which, I assume, also features her relationship with Penelope Featherington.

BTW, what is up with the younger son going on an extensive trip? Is the book about him about his travels?

[quote]BTW, what is up with the younger son going on an extensive trip? Is the book about him about his travels?

My understanding is that when he returns from his trip he has perspective and he sees a certain person differently and she sees him differently (or in an even better more realistic light) as well.

(It's kind of hilarious how different this picture is than the actors on the show.)

If the show goes in order of the books, next season is Anthony (Jonathan Bailey) and then Benedict (Luke Thompson) and after that Colin (Luke Newton.)

Anyone else hate fat Penelope?

Those who read the books, did the first season cover only the first book?

Watched this with my partner the last few nights. It requires a high level of suspended disbelief, once you've got that its silly but entertaining trash. Great costumes, amazing beautiful houses, especially the interiors, that was the highlight for me. Dont go in expecting accuracy or realism, and its an amusing bit of escapism. Fun to watch once, I wont bother to watch it again, and as somebody upthread posted, it likely wont age well at all. Which doesnt really matter as its inconsequential fluff

If I'd bothered to find out this was based on a book series and then gone and looked them up and seen that they were covered as shown in R306, I don't think I would've been confused at all by what I was seeing on the show. That cover explains SO much.

[quote]That cover explains SO much.

Yes, we now know that abs and excellent nipple placement were as important in Regency England as they are today.

This is a great thread for curating my BLOCK LIST. lol

I love the blasian queen! I think thus show is the bomb. I love the cast because they have chemistry and I also love how worked up the klan grannies are getting over it.

What a bunch of petty arguing over casting. The only thing that matters is that the guy playing the Duke is suuuuuuuper hot.

Isn't this cultural appropriation?

Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.

Very few people care, either way. So get over it.

[quote]That cover explains SO much.

Not that I'm defending them, but the covers don't actually explain much since they are the publisher's doing, not the author's.

The fact that the novels are marketed as romances like Harlequin or other traditional romance novels is a function of the publisher's marketing strategy. Notice, they rarely adapt pure novels that are purely "romance" novels, so these fall into a grey area for genre that the marketing folks made a call on.

Notice the names of the rest of the novels in the series that are heavy riffs on other notable titles and play with the themes of those works: The Duke and I, The Viscount Who Loved Me, An Offer from a Gentlemen.

It's not literary fiction by any means and will certainly not even become beloved classics. They're light popcorn fare.

[quote]Not that I'm defending them, but the covers don't actually explain much since they are the publisher's doing, not the author's.

You're right for the one above, at least initially she didn't have input on the covers.

For the last few she did have input on the covers (she has talked about this) as well as her prequel series, and I imagine she will going forward as no doubt her publisher is pleased that her book series is now a successful streaming series.

One thing people might notice is how they changed when, I presume, she started having input.

A lot of the later covers (that there only seem to be a couple of versions of) only feature the character from that novel and not in the typical romance novel poses. This is one of them and they all sort of look like this.

Very interesting about the covers; thanks R317 and R318!

Of course now new editions are using photos from the show

Bridgerton was written by Julia Quinn.

[quote]BTW, what is up with the younger son going on an extensive trip?

Without luggage. He left on a horse -- without even a handbag.

I'm curious about that from an historic perspective. The Napoleonic wars were going on at the time, how enjoyable would a trip around the Continent be then?

The show is well acted but boring as fuck. Not camp at all and made for straight women.

So Shondra created a make-believe Regency England that was such a utopia it had no Regency England racism.

But still had real Regency England homophobia.

That's really fucked up.

Yeah, that is kinda weird. Didn't think about that.

Yeah, I thought that too. It's one of the inconsistencies in this world which work against the show.

Also I thought it took me out of the story to have on the one hand the women fretting about the lack of choices in their lives and how they are being held to the standards of the time, and at the same time backchatting the queen, flirting openly with men at the dances, and acting as feisty as they did. I think this is what a lot of people are getting at when they criticise the show; it's that the ground work is so shaky in constructing the rules of this alternative universe.

R320 every adapted novel does that

Chazza was definitely a black woman, just look at her ebony skin.

Chazza was definitely a black woman, just look at her ebony skin.” R330

The irony is the that we are discussing this” she may have been Black “as though it had a chance to be true. She was the fucking Queen of England . More than a few people would have noticed if she was Black. Fucking thousands would have, besides the fact that we are discussing something where she received this DNA 500 years before she was born. If she was Black so are The Queen and Prince Charles. But hey.

There is also the small point that Queen Charlotte was nearly 70 when these books take place and not 49 which is what the actress who plays her is.

I love this show and I get the fantasy elements of it , but I think we are living in an age when revisionist History is everywhere. We are living in a world where statues of Abraham Lincoln and Gandhi have been defaced as rascist. What worries me is we tamper with everything that doesn’t fit our narrative of today and say it doesn’t matter because it is all fantasy.

It is all fantasy but out knowledge of the past is so shallow we start saying oh well it could have happened? Really ? Think it through. You have Black people living as Aristocrats and what the Slave Trade is over? In England it was ,by 1807 after being pushed for more than 20 years , but the wealth was still coming in . They could not stop Slavery in America . So the cotton and silks these people wear are produced by their brothers and sisters in slave owing America and they say nothing?

I suppose we live off the near slave labour of Chinese people making iPhones etc so we say nothing , so it shouldn’t be a problem but still.

The Queen resembles Wanda Sykes, if she were dipped in the wrong color make-up.

R303

I disagree with you about Rege-Jean's arse. Mighty fine, plump and juicy.

R325

Yes, interesting creation by black producer Shonda of a color-blind regency where white gays are persecuted nonetheless.

Maybe she's trying to make a point. A valid one, given the amount of racism one sees on Datalounge. (Or denying that racism exists, which is pretty much the same thing.)

The fact that white gay males often get away with being non-supportive of the black community by wearing their white privilege.

There's no such thing as freedom until everyone is free.

[quote]It wasn't intended as historical fiction, so I didn't watch it as such.

It wasn't? What was it then?

r216 One other thing you need to know about Regé-Jean Page -- based on one of the photos there, he must be shaving his chest for "Bridgerton."

Oh--and why on earth would "Regé" be pronounced like REGGAE? What's the point of the accent mark? It should be ruh-ZHAY, if anything.

[quote]However, the book that focuses on the youngest male of the bunch, does have a gay character in it who plays an important role. If everyone was okay with it I could see them changing that plot around to make Colin Bridgerton gay.

Colin is not the youngest male.

[quote]I also like that Shondaland is not adverse to cheap gratuitous nudity to lure people into watching her shows, and then slam the racial equality hammer over peoples head.

The word you were looking for is AVERSE, not adverse.

Yes, you're right. I meant 'averse' . Thank you!

“There's no such thing as freedom until everyone is free.R334”

So I guess that means we need to wait for freedom for Women in the Middle East and all the the Chinese in Concentration camps? .... Oh you mean the West , got it.

Where was the fourth Bridgerton sister during the series? She turns up at the end briefly. Did they say she had been at some kind of conservatorium of music or similar? I may have drifted off when they explained that.

I'm glad we're discussing the historic accuracy and current relevancy of this show. This is really important to me and the only reason why I watch Bridgerton.

Has Simon come inside Daphne yet and why doesn't he want kids? Just because of how his father treated him?

R342, well, here I go again, off to rub another one out.

I thought it was strange they threw in the line about how people were separated but now the Queen is Black and so ended racism. Maybe they meant that there were Black aristocrats but they did not interact with White society.

I expected there were going to make the second brother gay. When I think about having a lead who swears never to marry or have children, a sister who wishes to live a fulfilled life without men, and an overall theme of 'love conquers all' it was a missed opportunity not adding a gay character except in a very small role. On a side note: I disagree that the brother saying he did not see anything showed "tolerance in intolerant society", he could have easily meant "I'll keep your secret but we can't be friends anymore."

The character being Lady Whistledown ruined her for me. It made the newsletter ugly and vindictive. But it's my fault for seeing it as aloof anarchy.

When it comes to casting I would not have minded if they went full Brandy Cinderella and had Black and White parents with an Asian child- skin color does not matter in this world.

r343 has apparently not watched all the episodes.

[quote] The show is well acted but boring as fuck. Not camp at all and made for straight women. —Just Sayin

That kinda goes without saying. Its based upon a series of romance novels.

Interesting but not surprising that even a romance novel fictional depiction of racial equality produces white outrage. What

Found this article about all the locations used in this series. The houses were the best part so this is interesting

I loved it. Decided to watch it cause everyone was teaching about it. Was not expecting to like it but I ended up binge watching (well partially binge watching it over two days). Wonderful plot and great acting. The racial thing just goes to show that in SOME historical fiction settings, with a good plot and great acting, race truly doesn't matter (Queen Charlotte was partially really black, though)

You know the Black ancestor Charlotte supposedly had was alive 400 years before Charlotte was born. To put that into perspective I have 3% Jewish blood from my Great great great grandfather who lived 200 years ago. Charlotte’s had another 200 years to go on top of that and a zillion German ancestors. How Black are we fucking talking ?

To put this in perspective for you today, if this was you , and this was your ancestors , it would be an ancestor of yours before Jamestown was colonised or about the time of the Spanish Armada in 1588 . That one ancestor among the hundreds of White ones made you Black in 2021? Really ?

If Sunny Hostin from The View is ok with it, then so am I. It matters what she will say as she always has an opinion about race. As long as she doesn't use the word "despicable" over and over in her commentary, I will be fine watching this series.

The centuries-earlier 'Black' ancestor is only a 'possible' anyway. The whole idea is ludicrous.

R351 and r353 you can call it any which way you like, those black African features come through, even in portraits of the Queen. You just know her features were even more pronounced in person because the artists most likely tried to downplay and whitewash them as much as they could. Of course her contemporaries would not categorize her as beautiful, but she surely had the Mad King drooling for other reasons on at least 15 occasions.

The series is supposedly set in 1813, but there's no mention of the War of 1812, which was still going on. Was it not a big deal in Britain? Also, in real life, the Queen was almost 70 at that time, but her character seems much younger.

Oh for chrissake: It's fiction! As in: NOT REAL! How often do we have to go through this?

There is Partial Fiction (like reality TV or the entire Bible) and Complete Fiction (like Alice in Wonderland or Star Wars) and a lot in between. But bottom line is: NOT REAL!

Why is everybody up in arms about this, but nobody questions the veracity and historic accuracy of crap like the Sound of Music? Even actual Jane Austen novels did not face this type of scrutiny.

Doesn't everyone here realise, if you filled all positions of power with black people, peace will reign. I mean it always works well... right?

R355 they do mention the war. One character returns from the war and that then involves one of the major characters.

I don't object to the series as an alt-reality fantasy (I mean, it might as well have dragons; it's like Susannah Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, except shit). I object to the 'Queen Charlotte was really black, though' bollocks put out around it by pseudo-historians and their deluded followers.

[quote]Why is everybody up in arms about this, but nobody questions the veracity and historic accuracy of crap like the Sound of Music?

I think you know why.

is the lead gay? I went to check out his insta and also the guy who play's the eldest brother...pings.

R361 Did you even read through this thread? Jonathan Bailey is gay, though his character isn't.

who is the gossip writer?

[quote][R355] they do mention the war. One character returns from the war and that then involves one of the major characters.

Not the War of 1812. He was fighting in Spain, presumably in the Napoleonic Wars.

Drag queens react to Bridgerton

Thanks for the correction R364, he was fighting in Spain.

Queen Elizabeth and Andrew and Edward have very full lips which have come down to them from Queen Charlotte.

yes, i remember reading this series in grade school. I don't remember it quite like that the major plot lines are there.

“ crap like the Sound of Music? Even actual Jane Austen novels did not face this type of scrutiny.“

R356

I think the issue to me is no one actually believes Julie Andrews was actually singing the “ Hills are alive “ in Salzburg in 1938.

I have read several articles that suggest there is something to the Queen Charlotte being Black. If this was followed by a million saying this is bull I would say fine, but it doesn’t.

It seems we live in a society where everything is malleable, everything could have maybe happened. People say possibly she was Black. Again I state, she was the Queen of England, seen by thousands of people and a few think she had irregular features? Are you fucking kidding me ?

In 1990s most people would have laughed it off , but. now we live in a world where everything is relative. If you don’t like it then you must be. Bigot .That is where we are now .

Love the series but really? Btw Jane Austen was criticised.

Just started watching and initially hated the inaccuracies of it all but having read these comments I'm going to stick with it. I accept now it's just a glossy colourful romp of a fairy story vaguely based on a period of English history. The men are hot, the frocks are lovely. What's not to like? Yes I would have liked a few more gay characters. For someone earlier who said not much gay going on in Georgian England. Quite wrong, there was a lot of it going on even if it was illegal. So much so the po faced hypocritical Victorians had to do something about it with a shameful act of parliament and enshrining the example of a Royal family and family values as the only way to live. The presentation frocks are also wrong. A bit of frock nonsense DLr's love. Queen Charlotte insisted court dress follow the older styles of hoop skirts and panniers. Exactly how Charlotte is dressed in the show. They were astronomically expensive and people resented having to buy two dresses, one for presentation, one for the ball that they could never wear again. It wasn't until George IV relaxed the rules and women could wear dresses like current fashionable evening gowns that we get the high waisted (Jane Austen) gowns we see on the show at court. A rough idea of what being presented could cost. There is an account of two gowns for presentation costing 200 guinea's. That's about £16000, 21,000 dollars. Then add in the accessories. A lady's maid was paid aprox 20 guineas a year.

R369 I'm not sure exactly what you're saying about Queen Charlotte: are you saying that a few contemporary accounts of her "irregular features" doesn't mean she was part black? First of all, as Queen she would generally be cut off from the view of the public most of the time; perhaps once a year appearance way out of view to the commoner, even less so since her husband was tucked away due to his illness. Second of all, why don't you do a few Google image searches of Queen Charlotte and look at her undeniable negroid features? And I don't think any of her contemporaries claimed she was African; it was a few historians who traced it back generations through her Portuguese line. I am aware of her contemporaries claiming she wasn't particularly "beautiful" which might have been a subtle way of putting it but some of her portraits, which I am sure were whitewashed to a certain point, would portray her as a woman of colour today, such as an octoroon in the least. Genetics is funny, in that, strong African genes can be generations old but could pop up every so often, not necessarily in facial features but perhaps with curlier hair or tanner skin than usual.

I'm giving up on this after two episodes ... overall too boring, and the two leads barely have any chemistry. They're supposed to be "fake dating" in the beginning but there's no believable tension there that it could eventually become something real.

It's really garbage. It's insulting to watch and just stupid. As a gay man, I'm offended by the idea that I would want to watch something designed to appeal to 16 years girls.

For heaven's sake, R371 - even if (a big if) there was an African ancestor s/he was 400 years earlier, a huge numbers of generations. Plus, her features are not obviously 'negroid' to use your term. You are subjectively interpreting a handful of the scores and probably hundreds of the representations of the queen from throughout her long life that exist in multiple forms of media (painting, sculptures, medals, prints, porcelain, even needlework). And she was not shut away apart from once a year. For decades she was an out and about, very active consort. The Georgian monarchs were actually far more accessible than modern royals in most ways, especially when travelling. They walked in public parks, went on holidays to spas and beauty sports, visited friends by coach or on horseback and anyone respectably dressed had a good chance of getting an audience if they wanted one.

I think a lot of people are reading a little much into what's basically an adaptation of a glorified Mills & Boon novel.

the female lead is boring and bland...

the male lead is very hot. I watched the "boring" series for him, and other men on the show.

R373 MAAAAARY!!!

Roxane Gay's friend and co-host, Tressie McMillan Cottom has written an article about her love for Bridgerton. She makes a number of curious generalisations about the way white people think.

We may need to have a dedicated thread about Medium. They have articles with peculiar topics finding social relevant pain points in the most mundane aspects of life. It's like 'All toilet paper is white. What does it say about our society?'

I like the soundtrack better than the show. For a change, the show has a few good looking people. Most UK productions have such ugly cast!

I recently read that all the costumes were made to ordered NEW. hundreds were hired to make them. Usually these productions rent.

A lot of uglies too.

[quote]I recently read that all the costumes were made to ordered NEW.

For the principals.

[quote]For the background wardrobe, the team had to create their own costume house with clothing from companies from around the world, including Angel Costume Company in England, Peris Costume Company in Spain, Tirelli Costumi in Italy, and even some manufacturers in New York. They used this stock to dress the background characters, secondary players, and, if needed, quick-changes for principals.

R379 - no, I agree! I haven't read a lot of medium articles, but there are some really strange "takes" among those I have seen. I would read a thread on that.

[quote]It's like 'All toilet paper is white. What does it say about our society?'

This is [italic]exactly[/italic] what it's like! Haha!

[quote]I recently read that all the costumes were made to ordered NEW. hundreds were hired to make them

And they still look terrible!

The lead guy is very beautiful. Almost too beautiful for the rest of the cast. A star in the making.

Have we already given Shondaland credit for casting an openly gay man for a (very sexual) straight character? I know it's happening more and more lately, but in prime time for a character whose main storyline is about being in love with a woman - I guess that's still remarkable.

Maybe it's because I'm not that familiar with the era, but I'd never heard the word "ton" before (other than when it means 2,000 pounds)

""Bridgerton" Costumes Are A Historical Mess, But They Kinda Work".

‘Bridgerton’ spoon stirs fans into a sexy Instagram frenzy

Lusty lovers of “Bridgerton” are catapulting the Duke of Hastings’ spoon into lickety-split social media superstardom.

Critically acclaimed as the hottest working inanimate object in show business, the tea-stirrer’s sultry rendezvous with the Duke has set digital tongues wagging.

“I fantasize about being the Duke’s spoon,” a not-so-tongue tied Twitter user said. “Normal People gave us Connell’s chain necklace, then @bridgerton said hold my beer, and gave us the Duke and that silver spoon,” another online spoon-swooner said.

Now, the lucky utensil — hailed as the breakout star of the hit Netflix period drama — has its own Instagram account.

Parroting the cyber craze sparked last year by Connell Waldron’s chain in the BBC adaptation of “Normal People,” the “Bridgerton” spoon stole the show when the Duke, actor Regé-Jean Page, 31, seductively licked it clean during tea with his soon-to-be sweetheart Daphne Bridgerton, played by actress Phoebe Dynevor, 25.

With fans of the sexy scene foaming at the mouth, journalist Billie Bhatia launched @TheDukesSpoon Instagram profile in risqué reverence to the tantalizing totem.

Bhatia, the master-curator behind the @ConnellsChain account which boasts a staggering 178,000 followers, describes @TheDukesSpoon page as: “A space dedicated not only to tempting cutlery, but charming cravats (preferably loosened), sculpted abdomens and the raised eyebrow to end all raised eyebrows.”

Amassing nearly 4,000 followers in less than four days, @TheDukesSpoon’s studly snaps are prompting wannabe objects of the Duke’s affection leaving comments such as: “[This is the] first time I’ve ever been jealous of a spoon,” and “I hope I come back as a spoon in my second life.”

A word of caution my tongue-thirsty friends: Before you go sneak-sliding in @TheDukesSpoon’s DMs just remember, Lady Whistledown is always watching.

I found the plot of the two main characters fairly boring as it's a formulaic bodice ripper plot down to the screwing all over the estate all day and every day after marriage until they have some ridiculous falling out. The other characters are far more interesting. I like Penelope Featherington and interested if they will leave her fat or replace her with a thinner actress once her errant love interest returns. That's how the book probably has it. He comes back and she's thin and gorgeous.

I am digging the soundtrack...Strange (feat. Hillary Smith).

I've already seen it but my friend was watching it and I watched an episode with her and this song just stuck in my head. I'm gonna have to buy the soundtrack.

[386] the word to was used to describe the upper class in Georgian and Regency England. The expression was Le bon ton reduced to ton by those part of it, and in the know. You couldn't buy your way in or be classed as one just by being aristocratic. Similar to the chic set of the 30's. Wallis Simpson thought the then Elizabeth Bowes Lyon too frumpy to be part of the fashionable and chic set. Elizabeth had the last laugh when she became Queen.

For F*cks' sake r391. Settle your tits.

Just logged onto Netflix and discovered that the show is still #1 most watched thing in the US.

When the figures are out it's going to be a massive hit.

Ryan Murphy could *never.*

R391 Thanks for that info. I really had no idea. So does "Bon Ton" when used as the name for a fancy store have the same origin?

R296 Francesca is younger than Eloise (the names are in alphabetical order by age) so decidedly not married. It was explained that she was off in Bath with an Aunt. I am assuming the Aunt is a spinster or widow with health issues and needed a companion on her trip to take the waters.

Why wear a corset under a dress that makes you look like you ate pregnant anyway?

I absolutely read Eloise as gay and in love with Penelope.

I have no idea what happens with Eloise in the books, but if I were the show runner, I'd have Benedict convince Anthony to marry Eloise to Lord Weatherby (poor Ms. Cowper, disappointed again) and have a season of Eloise tipping the velvet with Mrs Granville..

This was trashy! And SO dull. Just about every character was stuck in a dramatic loop where they just kept playing the same scene over and over. And the primary plot point being all about the male ejaculate. Good gawd.

It really ran out of steam by episode 5 - and episodes were never ending. Plus I knew who the Washdown lady was by Episode 3 - and WHAT’S Julie Andrews got to do with it if she’s Pen? So strange.

Wow, r396 is stinking up the room with negativity AND spoiling it for those who haven't finished it yet. Well done.

It really does run out of steam by episode 5 though. The latter half of the season is a real slog. It could have done with 7 or 8 episodes. Needs more gay/bi troubled second brother next season.

What do we know about Luke Thompson, the second born Bridgerton? Of the adult children he was barely visible, and the gay story line didn't really lead to anything.

I'm watching this, and it's like they asked a group of fifteen-year-old American girls about the anthropological details of Regency England.

I practically fell over in SHOCK when they showed young unmarried women wearing tiaras to debutante balls.

And let's not even even get into Lady Danbury beckoning Daphne at the opera to come over (and unaccompanied!) to meet Queen Charlotte... on the orchestra level! Never in her life would ANY British queen (even today) deign to be be seen on the orchestra level of a theater.

[quote]I know: MARY!!

If you know it, presumably you could stop being it.

For Mary at r400:

[quote] Fiction generally is a narrative form, in any medium, consisting of people, events, or places that are imaginary—in other words, not based strictly on history or fact.

Yes R403. And apparently that goes triple for a “panty wetter” like this.

Let’s not pretend Bridgerton is some great work of fiction. It’s all right for people to discern that this is not in anyway faithful to the period - despite its efforts to claim a place next to Jane Austen and/or Merchant Ivory. If they’d nailed the period in any way, they wouldn’t have that hideous narration all the time or even the inclusion of the society paper, because everything we’d need to know would be present in both their carriage and behaviour. The characters and plot would be fiction, which the authenticity of the period and behaviour would inform. Disney-fying Jane Austen into a sort of soft porn Cinemax feature may be diverting for a bit but it’s hardly edifying literature. We’re allowed to discuss that without a need for your childish contribution.

Oh well done to you R397 for stupidly thinking that a 400 post thread about a show wouldn’t contain spoilers. Duh. (And can the bleeding obvious actually be a spoiler?)

Maybe you should watch a show first before reading lengthy discussions of it. Ya think? You’ve only yourself to blame.

Odd that r403 refers to his own post as a "childish contribution".

[quote] If you know it, presumably you could stop being it.—Gentle suggestion.

Why would I ever want to stop being one? You must be a homophobe. Fuck off and die.

I just figured out that blocking posters still works. And the gaps don't seem to interrupt the reading flow. :-)

No one's watching this show for the anthropological accuracy, genius.

Bridgerton was renewed for Season 2.

It will focus on Jonathan Bailey's "Anthony" character.

The show was viewed in 63 million households in the first 4 weeks which is 1 million more than "Queens Gambit" which was viewed in 62 million households and was the most viewed show on Netflix in 2020.

Bridgerton was also the fifth largest Netflix original series launch of all time.

I see the appeal to fraus, but Jesus it was boring.

More straight sex scenes for Jonathan it looks like.

Makes for a change, r411.

"More"?! R411 how is it even possible?! It'll turn into porn?

They explained at some point that this was an alternate timeline, basically. My almost 13 yo daughter had to be sent from the room a lot, but she was addicted to the show and the **mystery**. She also noticed that the one daughter went missing but I didn't know what the heck she was talking about. That part is strange.

I don't like Anthony, he's too mean. He was a giant jerkoff throughout the whole season.

Yes, it's a show for straight chicks or fraus, but my husband liked the episodes he saw because of all the sex. I like the costumes and all that jazz. The amazing visual-ness of it.

Daphne did not have a miscarraige (how do ya spell?). That was a very accurate period. (Didn't someone on this board once ask what a period looks like? There you go.) Even I screamed.

Netflix is reportedly in a fight against porn websites over the illegal circulation of sex scenes ripped from the streaming service’s popular romance drama “Bridgerton,” which is on course to reach 63 million households in the four weeks following its December 25 premiere. Page Six reports that “pirated sex scenes from the period piece have racked up hundreds of thousands of views on adult video-streaming platforms, leaving Netflix execs struggling to yank the unauthorized shared footage.” Netflix has reportedly issued warnings about “the misuse of their intellectual property,” which has gotten some clips removed but not all.

“’Bridgerton’s’ sex scenes appearing alongside some of the most obscene material the web has to offer has sparked horror and anger,” an insider told U.K. publication The Sun, adding cast member Phoebe Dynevor is upset with the circulation of the sex scenes. “Raunchy set pieces have contributed to the buzz but it is a prestige drama based on best-selling novels. To peddle scenes as pure smut is beyond the pale.”

The source added, “It’s been particularly distressing for Phoebe and Regé-Jean, two young actors who signed on for the role of a lifetime and did not consent to being exploited in this way.”

I get the intellectual property aspect. But being 'upset' because the scenes they filmed so that they can be watched are indeed being watched is a bit rich. Do we really believe that Page is upset and distressed about this?

His body is merely ok. She has no body. Galt everywhere... The bro who got naked in episode 1 has the best body

No actor on a TV series or in a film that shoots a sex scene these days has any license to be surprised when it's distributed on the internet. They all know it's coming as soon as they shoot it. That being said I doubt they are really that stressed.

[quote] They all know it's coming as soon as they shoot it.

Stop your puns right there. Lol

[quote]No actor on a TV series or in a film that shoots a sex scene these days has any license to be surprised when it's distributed on the internet.

Yeah, but it's copyright infringement, not porn that is the underlying issue.

I mean, I suppose you could argue that jerking off is a "fair use" exception.

Regé-Jean Looks like half the guys you’d meet in NYC’s seedy West Village bars back in the 90’s. For a black guy he has a flat ass like a Muppet.

R421, no worries, I'll gladly take him off your hands.

Anyone sad enough to think Bridgerton is porn is a naive fuck. You barely even see Phoebe's breasts let alone any dick.

Not too keen on AntHOny being the focus of Season 2. I thought it would be Elouise.

Each kid got their own book in the series. She'll get her turn.

Jonathan Bailey is a cutie. And out and proud. More of him is fine by me.

[quote]Each kid got their own book in the series. She'll get her turn.

If the seasons are going in book order (which it seems like it is) then it's:

Daphne, Anthony, Benedict, Colin, Elouise, Francesca, Hyacinth then Gregory for a total of 8 books.

I can see them combining some of them together since I doubt Netflix is going to give any show 8 seasons. Really, after giving Jonathan Bailey a spotlight season they could go into doubles which would be 5 seasons, a somewhat reasonable number for Netflix even if they're getting down to 4 seasons tops.

Benedict is the possibly gay/bi brother so of course Netflix isn't going to give him a whole season to himself. Eloise is very popular so I could see Benedict and Eloise being doubled up, then Colin and Francesca, then the youngest 2.

R357

No, we are not saying that.

We are saying that historically black people have been denied positions of power by systemic racism, and that it is NICE to see them FINALLY getting some opportunity.

You racists are stupid as well as racist. Always need shit spelled out for you.

[quote] I don't like Anthony, he's too mean. He was a giant jerkoff throughout the whole season.

Agreed. I didn't like the series anyway, so it's doubtful I would've stayed around for season 2 regardless, but definitely won't be watching an entire series from his perspective.

The only way I think I would watch another season is if it were about Eloise - basically she should run away and live her best bohemian life somewhere. A story about a woman trying to make it on her own in those times could be very interesting. Best bro friend Benedict could pop by every so often to receive some hot butt sex from Eloise's many gay friends in her new life.

[quote]it is NICE to see them FINALLY getting some opportunity

It's just a pity it has to be in such a shit show.

[quote] I don't like Anthony, he's too mean.

It's not just that. It's also that he was terribly ineffective in whatever he was doing. His mother and others had to set him straight repeatedly, telling him what he needed to do. Then he did, and failed.

He will soften up next season whilst remaining magnificently hard.

The powers of a good woman and all that.

R431 He learned from his mistakes and got better tho

Bridgerton surpasses The Witcher as Netflix's most watched series

The problem with color bling casting is there will be numerous people who will believe that is the way things were in that time period. Thats why you hear younger people dismissing things like the World Wars, the Holocaust, etc. Its also why people are clueless to reality.

The representation of Colour is already coming under fire from many people as only showing light coloured people as good or in speaking roles and bad Bad characters , notably the father of the Duke as darker. They also claim there is not enough South Asian casting , Asian representation and even Latino or Lantinx representation.

This is a difficult one. Because the Shows writer’s are saying that they wanted to make Race a thing and not just make it Colour blind casting. In which case there are quite a few points that can be made.

The Asian characters tend to be just padding. I don’t think the criticism of lack of Latino representation is warranted really. I imagine most of the casting of this series happened in Britain which I don’t believe has a substantial Latino population.

I agree the Duke’s character is the most evil character in the series and clearly he is portrayed by as a villain. But the books don’t have this race thing in them at all and the Duke’s father is particularly evil in the books.

The problem with hearing people discuss Race and differences of Colour is it makes you feel as though this would have been the German Nazis jerk off fodder. They were all about how different gradients of Race would influence the pure German society. Who would have thought in 2021 we would be discussing it as though it was a good thing how Black you are.

Who on earth would cast colored people for obvious white roles? It makes no sense. And nobody will want to see that type of casting. This is doomed.

[quote]Bridgerton surpasses The Witcher as Netflix's most watched series

Eat it, Ryan Murphy!

[quote]German Nazis jerk off

Pics please.

I'm watching now. I don't want to read any spoilers. I'm just wondering if this show has any gay characters.

R440 There is one minor gay character, a friend of Anthony Bridgerton, Lord Haselby? Has a brief same sex love scene in one episode, and a conversation about why he gotta stay closeted in another. Thats about it

This show sucks ass. I had to watch straight characters fucking for two whole episodes. The show doesn't mind casting black people in traditionally white roles yet doesn't have the balls to make any of the main characters gay. I don't give a shit that a minor and I mean MINOR character is gay. Fuck this shit. I cannot believe I watched the entire first season. I guess out of boredom. They actually made the painter out of the Bridgerton brothers, the artist, STRAIGHT! LOOOOL. And not only straight they made him a whore. Another LOL.

[Quote]Best bro friend Benedict could pop by every so often to receive some hot butt sex from Eloise's many gay friends in her new life.

Benedict is NOT GAY. They made that abundantly clear. Instead of making him gay, which would have made sense, considering he is a painter and an artist, they made him a straight whore. Truly dropped the ball on that one. They don't mind diversity as long as it's black, can't have any of the main characters as gay, that's a total no-no! And no, I don't count a minor character being gay. It was a cop-out. They can make the main characters black, yet not a single one gay. It's fucking covardice.

[Quote]Benedict is the possibly gay/bi brother so of course Netflix isn't going to give him a whole season to himself.

I swear half of the posters on this thread did not actually watch the show. Benedict is not gay or even bi. They made him a straight whore instead. They teased him being bi/gay only for him to come out as a nympho instead. All that talk about being bold and couragous was about him hooking up with women, not men. Hence the threesome with those two women at the party and him hooking up with the seemstress. All women. No men to be seen. It won't happen. The show established that he enjoys sex with women, even though he's an artist and painter (lol!) Apparently this show can only have one gay character. It's fine as long it's a minor one that nobody cares about. They didn't have the balls to make one of the major characters gay.

R1 Looks like you were wrong. None of the major characters are gay. Just lots and lots of straight sex. As if munching on pussy was even a thing at that time! Lol. This show is a complete joke.

R429 Apparently "diversity" for this show means black, not gay. Diversity is fine as long as no major character is gay. Fuck this shit.

[Quote]Have we already given Shondaland credit for casting an openly gay man for a (very sexual) straight character? I know it's happening more and more lately, but in prime time for a character whose main storyline is about being in love with a woman - I guess that's still remarkable.

No because this shitty show doesn't have any GAY CHARACTERS. I don't count that minor one nobody cares about. One of the brothers should have been gay. Total cop-out. Again, diversity just means race. Not sexuality. At least according to Shondaland.

[Quote]Isn't this cultural appropriation?

Yes it is. Apparently cultural appropriation is only an issue if it's black. Not white.

R447, everything is not about sexuality. That’s life man

[Quote]Needs more gay/bi troubled second brother next season.

Then you'll have to wait forever because Benedict is straight. Sorry, but if you think they will make him bi or gay you will be very disappointed. They had plenty of chances to do so, even teased about it. Only to make his "coming out" as a straight whore who enjoys sex.

Ok we get it. Benedict is straight.

R447 Fuck off frau. I'm allowed to be pissed at the fact that they didn't make Benedict gay when they had every opportunity to do so and it actually would have made sense. This is a GAY forum, remember? It would have made for wonderful representation. This show is all about diversity, but only when it comes to skin color, not sexuality.

[Quote]There better be a lot of gay sex and nudity

There's not.

Ryan Murphy must be beside himself that Shonda now has the most-watched series in Netflix history, while his shows have all underperformed, if not outright bombed. Netflix must be regretting that $200 million deal they made with him. So many less expensive creators are vastly outperforming him on Netflix.

Is Benedict gay/bi in the books?

Why would they make a painter and an artist straight? Stupidest decision ever.

I'm late to the party - I just finished the 1st episode. I thought that faking storyline has been done a million times and we already how it always ended. Reminds me of a Golden Girls episode. I decided it's not my cup of tea and just googled how it all ended. My 2 guesses turned out to be right.

No r455. Straight as an arrow.

Currently reading book 7 (Hyacinth). So far no gay characters.

Quite a bit of cunt eating, however.

Um, R443? I know. I was talking of the show as I would've been more interested in seeing it. If you had just taken a couple of breaths and read what I said again, you wouldn't have gotten so stressed. I worry for your blood pressure.

[quote]Ryan Murphy must be beside himself that Shonda now has the most-watched series in Netflix history, while his shows have all underperformed, if not outright bombed.

Seriously! He put out series after series, and a couple of adaptations while Shonda took her time. Then as soon as she released something (ignoring pressure from everyone to get something out because she wanted to "get it just right") it not only got better reviews overall than anything he has done for them but it also quickly became [bold]the most watched series[/bold] in the [bold]history[/bold] of Netflix.

She deserved a better deal and he deserved a more modest one.

As for gay characters, there isn't one until book 8 that actually has something to do. I have a feeling Shonda Rhimes (who isn't writing or acting as showrunner) will get Chris Van Dusen to either create a prominent gay character or explore one of the characters we have's own sexuality. However, whatever they do, they won't change the books more than they have. Benedict will still end up with who he will as will all of the other characters as not to upset book people who watch the show. That doesn't mean they can't explore before then.

I totally agree with you r460, but was totally amazed by how much was in the first season that was not in the book.

This is definitely one of those times when the series is a vast improvement over the books.

I am still amused how inaccurate skin color sends people into a tizzy, but the corset, the fabric/color choices. the foods served, the modern music, the collars and fit, the financials, the social behavior, and all the other inaccuracies are just accepted.

It is not fidelity to the period that anyone really cares about. That is just the excuse.

Don't forget the wisteria r462.

They accidentally used a modern song in the show. Did anyone notice this? How could they not catch this?

R464, it was deliberate. lots of modern songs in the series

' As if munching on pussy was even a thing at that time!'

True. They only bathed twice a year and never shaved so it wasn't going to ever happen unless they wanted to poison themselves.

In the books Penelope slims down hugely before the Bridgerton boy falls for her but it wouldn't be politically correct for that to happen now.

The women are so ugly in this. them men are ok...just barely

r467 Also, the actress is a chubby lesbian on "Derry Girls." Although I guess she doesn't have to be fat.

[quote] I totally agree with you [R460], but was totally amazed by how much was in the first season that was not in the book.

I'm thinking maybe they added some things from the other books for two reason: (1) to fill out eight episodes, and (2) to give some closure and more details in case the series got cancelled after the first series.

Buy the stuff added to season one wasn't in the other books r470. Invented from whole cloth.

HOT little video of La Rege

Oooohhh... love that video.

R466, pussy-eating had clearly arrived by the 17th century, so I assume it was an ongoing thing a century later. How do we know that? There are punning references to it in, for example, John Donne ("If ever I sucked on country pleasures . . ."). That's also the point of Hamlet's line to Ophelia, "Did you think I mean country matters?", which he delivers as his head lies in Ophelia's lap.

Those lines are about fucking not eating. Shakespearean hoes bathed twice a year at most.

All kinds of oral sex have gone on since mammals grew tongues and irresistible genitalia.

Are you ready for Season II of Bridgerton?

My manager and I spent yesterday in tears laughing at how terrible this show is. I love a good full body workout from laughing, so I guess it was worth watching it for that?

Why did you watch the show in the first place, r478?

He told you, R479 He loves a good full body workout.

You kinda should watch something before passing judgment on it, don't you think, R479?

Yes, I agree, r479. Not sure why you bring this up though. My question wasn't so much about the judgment. I am more curious to know what lured you in to start watching it. And what did the show do right to keep you as a viewer all the way to the end even though you really didn't like it. So the show must have had at least some rewarding qualities for you. If it didn't, I cannot see why you would have watched the entire show. So... what was it that made you watch the entire show?

Sorry, ^ this was obviously for r478, r481.

There is nothing "powerful" about the casting of Bridgerton. They specifically chose Black people (mostly light-skinned for that matter lol) for a handful of roles within the main cast. Everyone else (East Asians, South Asians, West Asians, Latinos, etc) was relegated to being a glorified prop. This is not "revolutionary" - it's simply a safe, committee-approved exercise in corporate pandering.

Just more porno-fueled, soap opera-tier garbage from Shondawasteland.

I have tried for a second time to watch this garbage. It is bad on every level. It looks and plays like a low level Disney production with sex. How this is even remotely popular is beyond me.

^ Not sure you can read my post down here from your high horse, but I guess what you really want to say is: I cannot connect with the show on any level. That would be fair, plausible and different than claiming you are not watching it for lack of quality. There is so much junk out there that people watch anyway because there is something within the junk that still appeals to viewers. And I have a hard time believing that you exclusively stick to quality TV and avoid all 'low quality' shows.

I gave up judging any form of art by 'quality'. If I reject a show it's usually because it doesn't have much that appeals to me, be it the look, the acting, writing etc. But if I like enough of any of that I watch it anyway be it high quality or not. If I stuck to shows that I like and also meet high critics' standards I would probably just watch TV for one hour a week.

R486 You sound like someone who likes to hear themselves talk.

Hahaha R487! I was thinking that too.

R443

I consider racism to be a greater burden to bear than homophobia, though of course, both are very difficult to deal with.

Black people endure micro aggressions many times a day which lowers the immune response. If you're white and gay, you can walk down the street and hide it. And you don't get harassed by the police and shot and killed.

It's hair splitting, I know, and I apologize in advance.

The fact that in 2021 we discuss micro aggressions while in China millions are sent to concentration camps and all over the world women are being treated as second class citizens and that in 10 countries the Death penalty still applies to gays, shows how fucked up and privileged the West is in 2021.

💯 R490

R490, if anything it shows me how far we got. Privileged? Sure why not. But fucked up?

In which counry is it illegal to be black R489? Nowhere.

Totally clueless aren't you r493?

This is trash. I can’t believe it got SAG nominations. And for the worst actor in it.

R490

*Yawn* Thanks for the what-aboutism.

Black people have poorer health than white people because of racism, and a lot of that is because of real or perceived insults/micro-aggressions that they receive on a daily basis. Due to increased levels of cortisol and stress, they are more vulnerable to a host of illnesses and diseases including early death which has an effect on their families and accumulated wealth over a lifetime.

Is that too first-world for you? Just because we live in America doesn't mean we have no problems.

Renewed for four seasons!

Looks like the Queen Charlotte spinoff is happening!