I am BAFFLED by how bad season 3 was!! All they had to do was give us a season dedicated to Polin, but no they changed fashion, the characters, and even the timeline... Bridgerton is no longer about passion, tension, or love... and if this is the quality we'll be receiving for future seasons, then I'm good!!! At this point, they need to bring back the original showrunner and the original staff cause nothing can beat the WRITING AND ACTING OF THE QUEEN CHARLOTTE SERIES 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
iI'm okay with season 3. The bar was set very high season 1 and then season 2. Season 3 it seemed like they were trying too hard-too hard to follow up with 1 and 2 and too hard to lean into "messaging" and "signalling" Still, if you ignore just how fabulous the books and first two seasons were and take season 3 as it's own, not really connected 8 show run, it was good. The problem is that it seems they are putting Messaging above connection
@@InternetrandoExactly. The studio decided to create an adaptation because they knew it would come with a built in fan base to boost popularity- which it did. They should keep up their side of the bargain by delivering the story with fidelity. I don't mean it need to be an exact retelling - that's not possible and, frankly unnecessary. But it feels like a real slap in the face when they completely disregard Fran's personality , aspirations, and emotions so the show runner can project herself on screen. If that's what she wants to do, write an original story!
I am mixed with Jess Bromwell. Her direction is why season 3 is so disjointed from other seasons. Were there many moments I loved even with some changes? Yes, but part 2 got me so bitter at the missed potential. The first show runner did care more about the books, but Jess doesn’t or she goes back and forth whether she does or not. She says Francesca’s book is her favorite, but Quinn had to fight to have John shown and if Jess loves this book so much, why did she give Francesca the love at first sight reaction and not Michaela. Michaela should have had that.
@@pmclaughlin4111and they did not need to. We did see it, but that’s the thing, we Saw it. The writing in season 3 did more tell v. Show. I did not feel the messaging was shoved down our throats like Part 2 of season 3 did.
I have some concerns about Michaela's character introduction. It diminishes the love story between John and Francesca. She truly loved John and was devastated when he died. It was Michael who fell for her at first sight, not the other way around, so now she looks like a cheating wife. I'm also not happy with changing her infertility story. Francesca's desire to be a mother is a core part of her character. Removing this arc takes away what makes Francesca who she is. Eloise story was the perfect fit for a queer story it would have looked natural not forced.
Sadly, for you, Sir Phillip was introduced in the first series, so that's Eloise's love interest, right there. I mean, they could have invented someone completely different for her, but they've laid the groundwork already. It would have been interesting for them to take someone already established as possibly leaning that way, like Madame Delacoix, and flesh out her life, give her more than just her job, especially as she's a working woman and it would be easier for her to operate in society without anyone twigging that she has a girlfriend. Francesca, on the other hand, as a wealth widow in society with a lot of eyes on her, looking to have children after her husband's death, that has scandal written all over it and I just don't see her and Michaela being able to openly love each other in this setting. People usually lap up the secret sneaking around that happens in Bridgerton, but they love when things come to light and the couple get their happy ending with everything sew up. I just don't see this being sewn up happily, which, you know, if you are going to do a love story between two women as the main stars, it has to end happily because I believe the LGBTQ+ community already have enough love stories where the ending is too bittersweet. It feels like this has all been done to appeal to the sensibilities of the show's showrunner, rather than being the kind of inclusiveness-done-properly that people would like to see. And, with that all said, there's not really much that can be done to change things now that they are in full swing, so book readers, enjoy Michael in the books (they can't take that away from you), and people watching the show, enjoy Michaela and Fran (and John's) love story. Hopefully, it will be a good story and all of this will have been for naught.
@@RagachagelSir Phillip is my least favorite hero from the series (it's actually my least favorite of all the books). They could easily ignore his brief appearance in season 1 to change if Eloise's story. I always felt bad she ended up as basically a glorified nanny. Show Eloise is so delightful it feels like that ending would be absolutely crushing for her. I do appreciate the reminder that the books still exist. I think many fans are so emotionally invested that we forget that the two are separate. But it is disappointing to think we won't get to see the dashing Michael on screen.
How about they leave the book stories alone and give us the queer story everyone wants which is Reynolds and Brimsley. That would make everyone happy. It would keep the book fans happy because they books they love so much are now on screen with the story lines intack and we get a queer love story taking center stage. If they listen to the fans or not on this subject I think will determine the future of Brdigerton as a whole.
@@roguered706sir Philip is the least attractive person. I would have been happy with Eloise falling for Marina, after she goes to help her after her husband unalives himself. That's not too much of a change to the book.
So I have an issue with people chucking up the outrage of the fandom to homophobia and racism. Its insulting to us. We are attached to books and the characters. These aren't minor changes and francesca's story was our favourite.
Exactly! It drives me crazy that I've seen people on RU-vid and reddit say "Oh people are just being homophobic and/or racist" when that's missing the point. They literally messed with the most popular book in the series that people like the most. I adored how "When He was Wicked" was more mature and well-written than most of the other books. The books really do improve over the course of the series and #6 was the best :)
Omg !!! I agree with you. Not only that but why did the feathering have to have a male heir, they just can’t change what ever they want to suit what they want.
Exactly! It needs to make sense for the universe they inhabit. They could have introduced a Bridger ton cousin or something and added a compelling storyline. Instead they are marginalizing the story of loss and grief ( of John, of infertility, of rearranging a life ) It
it just felt odd and forced - with the way Benedict, Eloise or even Cressida are shown in the TV adaptation it would’ve made more sense to add a queer story that way which i’m sure would’ve been more enjoyable to watch
Yeah I agree. I would have liked a slower burn for Benedict, but his bi storyline was the first time I was interested in his plot. These writers need to be stopped though, they really tried to pack everything into part 2.
I’d have liked if they did with Benedict. While I like Sophie, I really don’t like Benedict in that book, so I really wouldn’t mind them changing his story up.
I’d have liked if they did with Benedict. While I like Sophie, I really don’t like Benedict in that book, so I really wouldn’t mind them changing his story up.
well, Micheala story poses a big issue in terms of inheritence, coz she will not inherit the title when John passes. (They are passed only to the closest MALE relative), so Fran will be heartbroken AND broke. They defnitely cannot marry, and they definitely cant have children. So if they are keeping MIcheala, its going to be a complety different story, the book might as well not exist.
You actually hit the nail on the head as far as the issue with this genderbend. It feels gimmicky, and there is not depth to the stories like in the other three bridgerton romances. The show is changing so many things that the ton doesn’t resemble the ton anymore. Penelope was running about the city late at night with no companion with wealthy fabrics into the poorest neighborhoods. None of this stuff is practical. None of it would ever happen in that time period. Just like the inheritance thing with Michaela. Season 3 felt cheap and gimmicky from the makeup to the dialogue…Polin was my favorite book. And pen one of my fav tv characters. They mucked it up so badly.
@@Khiarika1yes! I agree wholeheartedly. A person can only suspend belief so much. Pen would have been attacked in those streets, and I’m sure that the coachman or footman would have informed her mother of her going out at night to those back alley places. The costumes were horrible. Especially Cressida’s, way over the top, almost campy. Penelope’s transformation was beautiful, but the other costumes were just outlandish. Even Portia’s satin dresses with 1960’s prints of big flowers was so out of place. The changes to the tone and society’s behavior in regency England makes the show bold escapism, a sugary treat, too be sure, not to be taken seriously.
Michael should be Michael. It’s integral to Frannie’s story. John is her soul mate and Michael is her true love. I was so behind a Cressida and Eloise romance. Such a bad choice, Shondaland.
i honestly loved the idea of a quiet love like francesca and john's was still as valid and beautiful as all the other love stories we've had till now. The talk francesca had with her mom made me feel so seen, and her mom even apologised for doubting her relationship with john. To have all of that just thrown away in a second with francesca's reaction to michela just felt like a slap to the face. And not because she a woman (because i HAVE been itching for a lesbian couple in brigerton) but because it was the show basically saying "the ONLY valid love story is loud, drammatic and passionate". Really ruined that whole storyline for me
The show runner said she doesn’t believe in a hierarchy of relationships. But then she does this. Putting the quiet love down to the bottom tier of relationships. Very inconsistent messaging. You can’t fix a problem in an interview. It’s giving “I didn’t think people would take my work at face value and now people are mad at me so I am floundering and saying words to make it better. And throwing in accusations that my critics are homophobic.” If you don’t want your viewers to say you cheapened the relationship and put quiet love at the bottom tier, then don’t show us a beautiful quiet love relationship and undermine it immediately. Then act surprised your choices puts quiet love in the bottom tier. She can’t have it both ways. You have to show genuinely that there is no hierarchy of relationships and not just say it in an interview. You can’t fix something in an interview. The work is out there already. We all saw it. And when we get to Francesca and Micheala, I want it to be beautiful too. But can we trust her to do that when she did this?
I’m not really concerned about the gender bending…What I didn’t like was disrespecting John and Fran‘s love/marriage. They were in love and happy. To imply Fran falling in love at first sight with someone else after they just got married is a No Go for me.
This isn't about a black lesbian, it's not about racism. No one cares about the skin color of the main characters, because the actors play brilliantly. The point is that women in the Brigerton era didn't have it easy. An open relationship with a woman had no chance of success and no sense at all. Many threads in the book regarding Michael's character are related to the fact that he is a man. A story about a second chance about the incomparable healing power of love has been transformed into a story about searching for identity and discovering one's sexuality. What is done briefly is only to put hot lesbian scenes on the screen.
Plus Michael struggles so much with inheriting his cousin's title and fortune while also coveting his wife. It's a major part of his character. Michaela cannot be the heir (in the Netflix show this is already shown as cannon with the Featheringtons) so unless the queen is going to pull a deus ex machina to fix everything at the last minute, these two ladies are going to be out of luck and out of a home.
I was actually confused when people came and said that the actress will now face racism because she's black and I was like 🤔🤨 we know that Michael (without the -a) is a paternal cousin of John and whoever read the books knows that their fathers were twins. So since John was cast as a black man, obviously Michael also would be black, or at least mixed. The skin colour of Michael is my least concern in this case, lol.
Hmm. I do think that's what this is about. I shudder (with dread) thinking about Benedict's three ways. i didn't find them interesting when he was with women, and they are not fun to watch with a second man involved. I don't know who finds this "hot." Now the showrunner is delulu chomping at the bit to have Francesca and Michaela together. So Francesca is not going to be thinking about Michaela on her honeymoon?
I'm sad that people have to call fans of the books like me hurtful words just because I want the adaptation to be as close to the books as possible. It feels like the major media and it's online advocates always resort to name calling when fans don't agree with their changes. Just please write original stories and leave our beloved franchises alone. I'm hoping Bridgerton show fixes the harm they did to Benedict and Francesca. But I'm not holding my breath.
So firstly Michaela cannot inherit the estate. Sure Fran could birth Johns son but then that erases the fertility story and end frans drive to remarry. Secondly, Michaela cannot be a rake. She cannot travel abroad as an unmarried woman. She cannot join the army. She said in her scene that whatever ‘sordid tales’ John had told them the truth was ‘much worse’ well… no. Sorry love but if a woman behaved badly they’d be excommunicated from their family and society as a whole. There is no story. They cannot dance. There is no scandle with 2 women being alone in a room together. There is no motivational drive for the plot. Regency stories are captivating and wonderful but the woke stuff was hidden and secret. Sure Benedict might get away with being gay living on an estate but franny has such a special story. It’s about lost love, grief, infertility. Then John has imposter syndrome where he loved his cousin and he inherits everything from him, including johns shoes! He was in love with franny and ran away. The book has been thrown into the fire. There is nothing really from the books I can see making it into the series. Why can’t they just have gone and adapted a lgbtq book? Surely that’s more relevant than changing a regency book that allows us pride and prejudice lovers to have something more from that era to love. Not to mention they’ve made Benedict bi and hinted at Elouise being a lesbian too for years! So no straight romance until… Gregory? 😩
Women are able to inherit Scottish titles, so she could inherit the earldom. Other than that, however, yeah it mucks around with the story, no end Also, if you read the story of Ann Lister, she did travel abroad, she was definitely a rakehell, and she got away with living with her 'wife' on her family estate quite openly
Having read the books, long before the tv adaption, I’ve found the stretching and bending of plots and beloved characters in the show to be very disappointing. I loved Queen Charlotte, it was well done. And Anthony and Kate’s story was ok, best of the three as far as an adaption. I’m not liking where they are taking Benedict’s storyline at all. In the book, he is a noble hero, and Sophie is like Cinderella, he rescues her. In the show, yuck, he’s just a floppy cad.
@@kikidevine694 Interesting. Thank you for sharing that. If the showrunners had been completely honest about their agenda, they would have just scrapped the whole John and Francesca roman all together. Spare us the quiet love. Francesca should have been more like Eloise and not be so gung ho about wanting to be part of the debutant ball. Yes, she did play her piano forte, but she didn't complain about being a debutant and finding a match. People are talking about compulsory heterosexuality. But I think this is just making this so much more complicated than necessary. Yes, I had read someone else discuss the different rules in Scotland. But that would come into play only if Francesca does not have a surviving child with John. (She doesn't in the book. But she does with Michael). And then no one ever raises the question about whether Michaela would want to have children. Anyway it soulds like this other story you mentioned has different character arcs and narrative plots that work for the sapphic romance. Here, I don't think the showrunners have really thought it through. They are changing everything we know about Francesca. Maybe that's exactly what the showrunners want. But they went about it a sneaky way and then gaslight us when we call them out.
@@kikidevine694 Not a good arguement bcuz if michaela will inherit she still needs to be married and conceive an heir. The title will pass down to the nearest male heir if she cant have a child ( we are talking about line of succession here, and thats a regency rule). About anne lister you mentioned not a good arguement too bcuz its very different from francesca's book plotline. Anne lister is a queer rake in her time bcuz she doesnt have the same motivation as michael that needed to be told. She is like colin who can allow to be herself and travel without the pressure of responsibilities, unlike michael he has a responibility to inherit a title, get married and have an heir. So no its never the same.
What you said at the end, about reading these books set in Regency England being big part about wanting to read about strong male heroes, is exactly the issue I have with the massive changes in the show. The Bridgerton books have a certain target group - heterosexual women who want to read about strong masculine men who fall in love with beautiful young women, set in the prude Regency England with its strict courting rules, but add some spice to it. So why does the show need to be catering to so many target groups that weren't catered to in the first place? That's why I'm against Benedict or Eloise being queer, as many want them to be. Especially not Frannie. Bridgerton is not a queer story and it doesn't have to be a forced queer story just for the sake of it. If a queer storyline fits into a story, okay, but here it simply doesn't fit (also, we have a gay character in Gregory's story, we could've added that character sooner and have a canonical queer story without genderbending Michael and Benedict having threesomes and all that stuff). I would hate watching an adaptation in which they made the queer characters straight. I loved Fran's book and I'm really disappointed with what they seem to be doing to her story. All in all, season 3 was a massive let down imo, they also butchered Polin.
Well put. I think that's why a lot of people were not happy about season 3 either. They felt Colin was more of a sidepiece to Penelope than an actual character himself. So I do wonder how many will tune out when there is no male lead whatsoever, considering the target audience has a large proportion of straight women. Bridgertons' initial success on TV was largely due to who hot the Duke was after all. Michaela can never play the role of sexy male lead no matter how pretty she is.
Well said, I agree. And there are gay regency romances that are published in recent years, if they want to go that route, why not adapt one for screen from those. Lots of well written ones out there. And, as you mentioned, the original Bridgerton stories written by Julia Quinn were written for women who enjoy heterosexual regency romance genre, so why totally rip the original work up and makes such drastic changes when they could have taken some fabulous gay romance material and made a series from that? Merry Farmer has a wonderful series that features both heterosexual and gay lovers, Tales from The Grand Tour is the series name, it’s set in Victorian era, not regency, but still a great find. I guess what bothers me the most is having read and loved the books, seeing beloved characters and storylines altered so drastically is a huge disappointment. The gender bend completely changes Francesca and MICHAEL’s story arc, from motivations and basic plot lines. It’s ruined Bridgerton show for me.
Michaela is a no. LOVE Masali, especially as a fellow South African. Its so unfortunate that they inserted her into a position where she will receive hate from some people from the fandom. Thats so unfair. Michael had to remain Michael, in any race or shape, he just had to be male for the core story to remain the same
I didn't know she was South African, that's so cool. Yeah I feel for her because even the reasonable fans are quite unhappy with her casting. She'd be such a charming character in the Bridgerton universe as anyone else!
Agree, masali is so beautiful and i was hoping her to be sophie. And here we are it makes me so sad she was put into a position that is prone to backlash.
Watch Brett Cooper's video on this on you will see that the Screenwritter herself mentioned explicitly that Francesca-John-Michaela will have an OPEN RELATIONSHIP. Do you have any idea how twisted that sounds? Especially with John and Michaela being cousins? Sorry but Season 3 ruined the entire franchise, especially how Julia Quinn supported all of this.
That’s genuinely disgusting. This sort of fringe and frankly gross lifestyle is being promoted as normal in American entertainment and people have been losing interest in American pop culture and its messaging. It’s all going downhill.
@@Hebiscus998 I think they want to force the all fornication propaganda on us. This is orgy , is not normal , they want so much to normalize despicable urges of some individuals and raise the flag that is ok, I just skipped the all Benedict orgies; it was disrespectful to his character and Julia Quinn's books
@Internetrando And you've been wonderful with it. It is just really disappointing that morals and values need to be sacrificed in Hollywood's pursuit of "inclusivity." Hollywood has a warped idea and notion of what it truly means to have human connections and relationships. ☹️
I hate it! The infertility story line from Francesca was sooo good. And giving awareness to women having a problem to become a mother is important too! With Benedict and Eloise being written how they are why not making one of them having a gay/lesbian relationship. Besides the whole season Francesca defended herself and her way of love, that there is not always the need for drama and the big big emotions and so on. Now she just seems insincere because she was so speechless when she fell in love at first sight with Michaela..
Yeah, as a writer, I’d want my characters portrayed they way they are in the books, that doesn’t make it homophobia nor racist either. Especially, for the readers that are true fans before the tv adaptation came out. That’s like having. White Malcom X, no one would appreciate it.
Part of me are wondering if the showrunners are using the accusations of homophobia and racism within the fandom to hide behind at best or as a marketing tool at worst. The genderswap makes little sense in terms of this type of story outside wanting to insert the story she wants and screw the Bridgerton world as alreay set. But also saying that the reveal.of Michaela the way they did makes no sense outside controvesty and tiktok clicks. It is like the publicity over the genderswap has already guaranteed the team the marketing they want.
Thank you!!! I’m so tired of feeling that my thoughts about the Michael/Mikaela thing will paint me as homophobic that I’m ready to abandon Bridgerton altogether. In both book and screen form!!! The show runners have introduced new characters (characters not in the books) before. Why not introduce new LGBTQ characters and give them their own, beautiful story? Why mess with one of the most dramatic, impactful narratives in the franchise? AND destroy John and Francesca’s story while they do it? No. Just no.
You wrote: "Why mess with one of the most dramatic, impactful narratives in the franchise? AND destroy John and Francesca's story while they do it?" That's the answer to your question. The fact that Francesca represents the ideal feminine is just the icing on the cake. The Bridgerton series was conceived as a hetero normative romance. Regency romances are particular subgenre that focuses on the male gaze and invites hetero sexual women to fantasize. For reasons best known to herself, the showrunner is hellbent on using a wrecking ball to destroy the heteronormative perspective. I don't know if she is doing this on purpose or whether she is guided by her subconscious. Either way her actions speak volumes.
If they do not bring Michael back or they continue destroying Benedict's character I AM NOT GOING TO EVER WATCH BRIDGERTON. Simple as that, they can go sell the series to their forced agency
The toxic corners are always going to be toxic, unfortunately. But it's a bit oversimplified to reduce all criticism to homophobia and racism. Most negative reactions I saw were about Francesca's reaction to Michaela and how it cancels the whole quiet love story with John. They created such a lovely story between Francesca and John only to say nevermind all that, it was all a fluke.
I agree and echo your thoughts on the matter. The books managed to dance a somewhat fine line between anachronistic and faithful style when it came to the actions and speech of the characters, which the show has followed and expanded upon in the first two seasons, but this season I felt it was coming apart at the seams, and it started with the visual aesthetic (like the costumes and hair styles) and extended to actual plotlines that I was not surprised when I learned that the showrunner was different for this season. The reason I'm pointing this out is that when I heard _her_ reaction to the backlash (The new Showerunner's - Jess Bronwell) regarding the genderswap of Michael, she said that being a queer person herself, she greatly related to Franchesca, which is why she decided to turn her story into a queer one. Which pisses me off, because now my favorite story from the books got robbed from me because it was apparently so good it even appealed to a queer person. Way to overachieve Quinn.. And no, I am not homophobic because I don't like _this_ pairing, I am mad because so much of what I loved about the story revolved around Franchesca truly and wholeheartedly being in love with John, and him with her in return, so it annoyed me and made no sense to me that they would change that in such a way that alludes to her not being fully in love with him, because she is actually gay. It literally would have made sense to change _any_ other character's gender other than Michael's!
I really liked your nuanced take on things! Personally, as someone who only watched the show, I dislike that they spent a whole season pretending that "quiet" love was just as valid as the loud kind only to then completey renege on that. They kind of wasted our time. Unrelated, I really like your impressive collection of beverages in the background ;)
It would have been better if they had given the queer story line to a side character like Cressida it would’ve made more sense and they would’ve had free range to do with it everything they wanted, since even in the books she has nothing to do pass Penelope’s book. Gender band is annoying but I do not mind it too much so long as the gender is not a big component of their use and place in the story. This one was the biggest mistake they’ve ever made.
My thoughts exactly. Keep the poignancy of Francesca's story. Give visibility to the story of infertility. Explore young widow hood. And stay within the broad outlines.
I agree it was a bad timing 🥲 Francesca is supposed to be entirely devoted to John, if they go with this route it’ll be very different from the books and I’m kinda worried since I liked so much the original plot 🤭 For Eloise I’m torn. One one hand, I think that’s a clever idea - with the personnality they gave her in the show it would make sense that she starts writing to someone and taking interest when she’s finally in a context where no one force her to find someone. BUT how will she find peace in the countryside in her arc if she’s already at peace in the countryside ? Will they rewrite her entire arc to make her meet someone there ? And also it makes me all the more confused at the genderbending thing as Eloise was the character that was the most hinted as being attracted to women in the first place. At this point I’m just worried that they’ll ship Eloise and Michaela together and create a rival story between the sisters 😬
Also I thought they hinted Benedict was the next season ? At the end of this season he promise to Heloise that he’ll be at the maskerade ball. Just after he ended things with the widow by saying he doesn’t want something serious. To me it sounded like they wanted to set up next season - by announcing the masquerade ball where he unexpectedly fall in love. Or do they plan to wrap up Francesca story in the meantime ? That would be crazy in the timeline - do they really want to give John and Francesca a 2 months length married life ? Wtf
I really don’t care what comes after but I liked Fran‘s and John‘s quiet romance so much and I think that there was a super weird tonal shift between 3/1 and 3/2. They could’ve gone for the „queer woman doesn’t realize she is queer and performs heterosexuality because it’s all she’s ever known“ but the way it was shot and acted in Part 1 very much did not look like that. I think there are two separate issues going on here- people who don’t like the gender switch for whatever reason, and people who felt seen by the portrayal of a quieter, less dramatic but deep and peaceful connection and feel like the change to have Francesca suddenly feel uncomfortable and immediately fall for Michaela (cause she reacts exactly as Violet describes „true love“) is disrespectful and invalidating to that story. Part 2 did a poor job over all- either it should’ve just laid the seed and JUST introduced Michaela without disrupting FxJ, or they should’ve been clearer about what is going on with Fran- is she bisexual? Is she a lesbian? Right now it’s left halfway and the fans of FxJ‘s story feel discredited- but I personally would’ve still felt that way if it had been Micheal and Fran had reacted like that. There’s something comforting about getting a second big love and different stories do something for different people. So I get it that people wanting/needing that storyline are disappointed they won’t get what they were looking for. I understand the general sentiment, but I do not think wanting Eloise to be queer instead is „adhering“ to stereotypes, it’s more that the way Eloise has been written and acted so far looks 100% like a queer story already, whereas Fran looked VERY much in love with John in Part 1
100% So well said. From what I gather from reading different comments, the rationale for the Francesca's reaction is that meeting Michaela was her realization that she experienced compulsory heterosexuality. I'm sorry. This gaslighting. I agree with what you said. Most people bought the quiet love. This whole compulsory heterosexuality thing is not persuasive at least not to me. But I have spoken to or exchanged thoughts with others who said Francesca's reaction was completely consistent with compet and that they detected little signs that indicated she was queer. Go figure.
1:15 Julia’s Quinn statement sounds pandery and fake and I have no respect for her but I don’t have to like her to enjoy her fantastic writing. Also a point on the meltdown that happened when Duke Simon was announced to be black. I personally didn’t like how they explained why there was a black duke and no racism in England.. that was so dumb and unconvincing.. the actor who played Simon was pretty but wasn’t a good actor and didn’t sell the aloof duke part, which also bothered me. Why do we have to yassify period dramas and adjust them to our modern sensibilities? If I wanted that I wouldn’t watch the period drama?!! And I hate that my opinion on this is reduced to racism and slurs? Can people use their independent thinking and engage with the arguments instead of calling people racists and homophobes? I think a lot of people who toned their feelings down about the changes is because of the backlash they face when expressing these opinions and they have to explain themselves how they’re not racists or homophobes but I will say it with my whole chest. Bridgerton is such a dumb show with cheap entertainment value. All the sex scenes made it into a porno. They can adapt all the lesbian and gay literature they want into shows and movies and they do. But these stories are of heterosexual people for people who enjoy heterosexual relationships, so why do you have to change it and shove lesbians down my throat?! I’m not into that, and Francesca and Michael were probably my favorite storyline in the series so I’m deeply pissed off about this change. Also, all the race diversity annoys me because I enjoy history. I love watching historical shows and movies of ALL cultures. I would be pissed of any culture’s history was bastardized like this. There was diversity in history, and movies like Belle beautifully brought that to us, the story of a biracial English noblewoman. Even though she was noble her race was still an issue. It was a beautiful story with challenges and it was told beautifully and it made sense and was consistent with what we know about human nature and societies. If they wanted to make a period drama with all this diversity, then steam punk genre exists. Just don’t sell me regency era and then completely change everything that makes it regency. I’ve been hate watching the show for 3 seasons (I still enjoyed Jonathan’s obsessed boy performance in season 2, despite hating everything about this show), but I’ve reached my limit. I’m done. This comment is already an essay but you know what’s also disrespectful?!! Black people have white people names but Kate Sheffield is Kathani Sharma.. why?!
@@Hebiscus998 Her statement irked me a bit as well because it was a lot of nice words to basically say: “Michaela is happening, so deal with it.” I’m surprised that after seeing what they did to Colin and Pen S3, she still trusts them to tell her stories. Oh well. At least we still have the books.
@@Internetrandotrue we still have the books. But statements like that are deeply disrespectful to longtime fans of her books. People like me who were loyal readers and bought everything she wrote. Any book adaptation should be a gift to the original book readers. Our feelings about the books shouldn’t be dismissed like that, for what?! Money?! A wider audience and whatever is trendy that moment?! If they didn’t want to make Bridgerton as it was originally conceived then why make it at all?! Make a series inspired by it and be as creative as you want do whatever you want with it. Her books were literally adapted into a tv show because of people like me who read her books. Producers thought it was worth making it into a tv show because people like me read the books and loved them. Now we are made to feel bad because we are upset about the changes and are sidelined for people who want spicy period dramas. Maybe you can get this from my words but I am genuinely upset over this whole thing. I am even more upset at myself for letting a tv show get me so riled up.
I absolutely agree with you on your first point regarding JQuinn - except that part about her fantastic writing. I just started Book 1 of the Bridgerton series. I dunno... As to the reference to "The Great Experiment" as a rationale for why there are/is Black aristocracy in Bridgerton, I understand why people dislike drawing attention to the fact of multiracial cast in a period drama. It may very well have been "dumb and unconvincing for you." I do think, however, that it works for the world building of Shondaland's Bridgerton. I love the idea that representatives of Britain's colonial empire would make it into the aristocracy, because it's true. Members of the aristocracy did have children with colonized people, and some of them would get introduced into society. Not in large numbers, but a few made it through. I just wish they were more consistent about sticking to the premise for the worldbuilding. Additionally, there were Black members of the European aristocracy long before slavery started, in medieval times and the Renaissance. Even ancient Rome had Black/African citizens. For the new generation of Black people watching Bridgerton, it's an opportunity for people to ask questions, debate and research. I love it. But I totally understand those who just want or don't mind a colorblind cast and don't want to think about it. Both approaches are fine. You wrote: "Why do we have to yassify period dramas and adjust them to our modern sensibilities? If I wanted that I wouldn’t watch the period drama?!!" I don't know what "yassify" means, but I tend to agree with you. I think Shonda Rhimes represents a different take on period dramas. She and others like her opened a door that I think can no longer be closed. On the other hand the original regency era historical dramas are valid. I don't want them to go away at all. There is plenty of room at the entertainment table to seat all kinds of genres to satisfy the taste of an ever increasing and diverse audience. But we have come full circle, haven't we? When JK Rowling negotiated the film rights to Harry Potter, she was fiercely protective of her work. Film directors were put on notice that nothing would be changed without her approval. They went on a tear to find someone who could precisely represent the characters in the book. Prospective directors and produces balked at how strictly controlled the adaptation would be. But each of these 8 Harry Potter films netted almost 1 Billion dollars. Julia Quinn wrote the Bridgerton series over 20 years ago. She is now worth $10 millions with over half of that worth coming from the Netflix Shondaland Bridgerton series. Apparently, she just more or less handed over the keys to her Bridgerton series and said: "Have at it!" She secured her bag. If anybody knew how upset the book fans would get over the erasure of Michael Sterling, it would be the author herself. Her response was: "I trust the showrunners. You should trust them too." So that's it. The showrunners are going to do what they are going to do. It will not matter how many petitions are sent to Netflix or threats of boycotts etc. Personally, I do not trust the showrunners, even without having read the books. But I will read the Bridgerton books and then move on. I am confident there will be a new generation of writers and directors who will offer good drama worthy of attention. Whether it's Bridgerton or something else, I hope you find pleasure in whatever film series you are watching.
@Hebiscus998 you wrote exactly what I've been thinking since season 1 and especially in season 3. I'm watching period dramas because I enjoy being placed into that period. And it doesn't have anything to do with racism. I've watched a lot of Indian movies set in the Mughal Empire and I would be disappointed if the people were super diverse (except for the natural diversity in India, I'm talking about today's New York stxle diversity). It wouldn't make any sense. Why are they adapting a book series and only keep the absolute minimum of it? Why adapting it in the first place? Do they really like the source material or did they just buy the name to guarantee many views?
I think that Simon not experiencing racism makes sense because the Queen herself was also black. It was addressed in Queen Charlotte how her becoming Queen changed the system (she received alot of racist comments in the beginning). That's why they were accepting of black people because who would dare disrespect the Queen. Even if it is indirectly. Plus it had been a while since black people became apart of the court so it just became the norm. Therefore, now it doesn't confuse me anymore because there is a valid explanation.
Fran’s story literally depends on a heterosexual relationship. Her struggle with infertility and moving on is moving to readers. Her story is relatable to many women who have lost their husbands or struggle having children. Changing the story for “diversity” cheapens the story and the characters. Michaela should have been a different character. Perhaps a friend to Fran, not a gender swapped version of Michael.
I m not at all homophobic n racist but I really DID NOT like the gender change because as someone who has read the book, it just takes away the essence of the book. I m all for representation and could have okay with Michael being of any ethnicity but they just ruined the whole plot. Michael Stirling is such a suave charming man ….the way he seduces…damn man! The book was all about pining about the woman u can’t have while falling hopelessly in love with her at first sight. The delimma n moral absurdity of loving ur brother’s wife, the chemistry, the slow burn…the passion between a MAN and WOMAN.
Well said and well thought out. I agree with your assessment. Michael in the book is so much more appealing for me. If people haven’t read the book it wouldn’t matter, but when you have, you create those images and expectations for the show.
Most people have not read the book, but a sizeable number of people around the world cried foul when they watched Francesca's reaction Michaela. A lot of people bought the "quiet love" message and then had whiplash in episode 8. A lot of people were angry and confused and frustrated. Again, there were fans who didn't necessarily read the book. For the record, a lot people are getting fed up with Benedict even though the showrunners insist people love his fluidity.
I thought Francesca’s book was going to be boring but I was pleasantly surprised and enjoyed reading it. Now, I don’t know what’s going to happen to the tv show.
I’m not homophobic and I mean this in the most respectful way but what if the LGBTQIA+ community had a same sex couple who they love and the show runner made that couple straight out of no where?? How would they feel? Stop trying to make everything homophobic. The actress playing Michaela is beautiful but I wanted Francesca and Michael.
I think the writers thought gender swapping was the same as color blind casting. The romance has to completely change from the book, since Michaela can't behave how a male character could. PLUS Michaela should have falling in love first. Maybe if this was a modern story the gender swap might have worked.
I agree with you, although I have to add in my case I had a hard time with Francesca. I just couldn't get her character. The fact that Michael is John's best friend and secretly in love with Francesca is the core of their story. Francesca is unaware of Michael's feelings and is madly in love with John. So, when Michael and Francesca's story begins you are really for them getting together. Enter Michaela. Well, if they keep going that way. Francesca will be broke, she will have to depend on Anthony for her upkeep and to find a husband for her because Michaela as a woman, cannot inherit anything. This is 1810, not 2024. And if they don't keep Michaela, I guess there would be a completely new character introduced. This series is not Bridgerton.
I think more people need to say this. This is not Bridgerton. At best it's a parody. But there are thousands upon thousands who are enjoying the ride. I don't get it at all, but i accept that there many people who love all these twists and turns that deviate from the original books. The author herself said to "trust the showrunners." I think she's blinded by fame and the money. I loved you comment. I agree with you.
I loved seasons 1 and 2 of the TV Show... but Season 3 felt so off for me. I actually had problems FINISHING the season! I have a few issues. one, it wasn't their time. WTH happened to Benedict? It should have been his t urn with Sophia but its like they are just tossing him into the sidelines as an afterthought. (let's not get into the issues I have with his storyline in the show).. Francesca's storyline just felt wrong. I liked her SL with her first husband but... meh. I am so looking forward to his with MICHAEL. Im not a purist of book vs screen but there are certain things that I feel should be kept in order to keep the idea of the written story whole. The writers, the whole thing is just wrong. It felt wrong to me. An open lesbian relationship in that era wasn't well accepted. The writers, directors, etc. .. just got this wrong.. It's not necessarily a make or break for me but it defiantly puts a point to not watching the other seasons. It left a bad taste in my mouth so to speak. I probably won't be watching Season 4 on opening day as I have been.
I really appreciated your commentary. It was fresh, succinct and reasonable. I don't watch much Netflix so I completely missed these sapphic romances that you mentioned. It helps me understand why there are strong proponents for a sapphic/queer Bridgerton romance. I do find it interesting that you did not bring up race, in this case as it pertains to the actress Masali Baduza. This is perhaps not a big deal for white audiences. I don't know. But there is a contingent of Black viewers coming from the States who are are fed up with the stereotyping of Black women and their sexuality. So far in the Shondaland Bridgerton universe, we have Lady Danbury and her abusive marriage to a Black man that is set up for ridicule and comic relief/horror. (Black people and dysfunctional relationships/Black woman as victim). The same Lady Danbury has an illicit affair with a married man during her mourning period (Black woman has no morals). Lady Danbury is the prime nurturer to all except her own family. (Mammy). I like the character of Queen Charlotte and Lady Danbury. I'm just not a fan of the optics/tropes of Lady Danbury's character. It would have been nice to see Masali Baduza fussed over in preparation for her debutant ball. Oh, how many Black women would have died to see dark complexioned Black woman in satin and lace and beautiful colors and a fresh face. We never see that. Look at the reactions Black women have to seeing young Queen Charlotte sporting her natural hair topped with a crown on her wedding day and then at the coronation. I still get chills thinking about it. Instead, they give us Queer Black Michaela, the object of desire of a white person. Haven't we seen this over and over again? Sigh. I am just now starting the Bridgerton books. I can't honestly say I am invested in whether the book version of the Francesca storyline makes it to the screen. That said, what triggered my rage was the reaction shot of Francesca to her much awaited wedding kiss followed by her cupid's bow reaction to Michaela. Commenters have explained that Francesca's reaction was a representation of Compulsory Hetereosexuality (Comphet), the moment when someone thought they were "straight" and realize they were not." My problem is why sabotage the Francesca John story? If Francesca is going to have this sapphic love story, then introduce it later. For me the showrunners are disrespecting the first relationship when they didn't need to. If the situation were reversed and Michaela and Francesca had a relationship and then a man caused Francesca to react the way she did in Episode 8, people would scream with indignation and rightly so. I'm not going to lie. Of course I would prefer to see a Francesca and Michael storyline. I have heard so much about it. But if the showrunners reassured me they could handle the complexities and nuances of genderswapped love story, I would get over the genderswap. But their track record is not looking good right now, and I don't think I watch Season 4 -- and just because of this Francesca storyline. As an aspiring writer this issue also concerns me because I am realizing just how extensively the showrunners depart from the source material. It's one thing if you have a book to film adaptation that closely follows the book and then later re-adaptions explore the concept further. In this case they went from the book, followed it closely in Season 1 and mostly Season 2 and the jumped the shark in Season 3 and presumably more going forward. Bridgerton Book series is rooted in white heteronormity. I don't understand why the showrunners didn't just create new characters/storylines to suit their purpose and service the fandom. I really think it's problematic to take a beloved character or characters and radically change them. It just seems inevitable that the essence of the character will be destroyed. If you scan most comments the majority of people sense or aware that Eloise is/was coded as queer. I have seen this written everywhere and in every language. So the showrunners set it up and the audience registers Eloise is or has the potential to be queer. But a lot of people have a problem with Francesca. I say it's because the showrunners sent mixed signals and did a bait and switch. That's not cool. It comes off as fake and pandering.
I agree with your assessment about the stereotyping of black women and their sexuality. And it wasn't just that - but for a show that supposedly is so into diversity, it seems odd that: 1. Season 1: the only black/bi-racial debutante is Marina and she is the one who is pregnant out of wedlock. All the other non-minority debutantes are pure as the driven snow. 2. The representation for the black families is also suspect in Season 1 as Simon's father is a monster, then we see in Queen Charlotte that Lord Danbury isn't the easiest person to live with not to mention beyond insensitive, and somewhat abusive (as you mentioned). 3. The Mondrich family is respectable until we see Will Mondrich compromise his integrity for money in Season 1. 4. Then in Season 2: Lady Mary (a person of color and Indian descent) is only given a title and first name whereas all the other ladies of the ton are given title of Lady and a proper last name, as if Lady Mary didn't have one. 5. In Season 3: We see the Mondrich family ascend to be members of the ton, not just working class, only to be berated for not conforming. Too many stereotypes to mention - as if the only reason people of color were included in the show to begin with was to ensure that the show drove home the bad stereotypes already out there about people of color instead of truly being inclusive.
@@ladyj8555 Yup! I forgot light complexioned and compromised Marina was included as a debutant. I am sure they must have at least one Black person on the staff somewhere in addition to Shonda. Ala, they all must be suffering from a bad case of internalized racism AND unconscious bias. I just look forward when a new generation of creatives will come forward and introduce a more balance view race, diversity and inclusion, cause right now, this is not working for me. It's shameful.
From the hints I've seen in the background and in Queen Charlotte, I think the Smythe-Smiths and the Kenworthys will be fully black families. Who knows if they'll get their own spin offs like in the books. But perhaps that's something to look forward to.
Since the Netflix introduced the change of sex in character, of Michael, I'm not too happy about the change and I wasn't really happy with the John character either but since the Michael character change I now wish that John doesn't die at all because they have changed too much already.
I so agree with all that you say. Exactly how I feel about the book and what we saw Season 3. Michael Stirling is my FAVORITE Bridgerton spouse. I'm grieving as if they murdered Michael. And honestly I was predicting Eloise as the "lesbian" love story heroine.
Michael being Michaela is lovely. Both actresses are lovely and I look forward to seeing their season. Having said that, I was saddened by Fran being ... disappointed or upset on her wedding day, by her kiss no less. They were such a great love story and I feel like the writers were laughing at us for supporting Fran and John's quiet romance and wanting them to be happy together. They didn't need to do that 😕
@@hazardsigns Had I not read the book and fallen in love with Michael and Fran, I might have also liked them because you’re right, Michaela is lovely and Fran is such a doll. I am curious to see how it will play out. That wedding kiss moment was indeed such a let down though. Feels like the writers definitely don’t know or care about these characters from the books that much and are just kinda doing their own thing.
In the show I felt like Fran never loved John and was more marrying him to get it over with. It bugged me because I loved there story in the book and it broke my heart in the book when he died. I feel like show John cared for Fran but she didn’t feel the same. She seemed to think well he’s nice and we have some stuff in common. It was more like well I’ll be able to play the piano and that will be that. I don’t care about the gender bending, what I care about is how Fran seemed to suddenly be struck by insta love. I’m not a fan of cheating in my romance novels or movies and I will not be okay if they physically or emotionally cheat. With how they handled that meeting I sadly feel it will be a cheating story which I’m just not okay with. John is a good guy he doesn’t deserve that and I won’t be able to get behind a love story that has cheating.
I do not like how this new show runner has completely changed the arch of the books. This is and should be a regency set story with that flavor continuing throughout the storyline. I’m not against homosexuality in a story but this is not the time nor place. So many changes occurred during season 3 such as sexual orientation and so many new character stories crammed into what was supposed to be Colin and Penelope’s story. I think the author Julia Quinn should have objected, unless they are paying her big bucks to go along with all of these changes. Sad.
You didn't see her instagram post last month where she said we should all "trust the showrunner?" Since Bridgerton was released her net worth has increased from $5 million to $10million in less than 5 years.
They should have made eloise bi/les instead of francesca. I love sir phillip, but eloise being lgbt makes more sense than francesca just because of francesca’s story. And if we were going to waste so much time wih the mondrich storyline, we could have just deleted that and have a secondary character be the queer one instead
Yes, I don't care about Michael/a being female or black, but the two moments you mention in the final episode don't bode well. I do like Eloise and Francesca being able to be together because we don't get much of the Bridgerton sisters together on the show.
I have read the books and loved them all ,enjoyed season one and two but just hated three far too many storylines going on and changing the basic story and it look like they will also wreck four !
Ironically, When he was Wicked is the only Bridgerton book I’ve read. I picked it up on whim not knowing it was part of a series. So of course I find myself a little selfishly thinking “of COURSE the one book I’ve read is the one they’re changing up completely” 😅 but tbh I found the book on its own so forgettable that I gave it away years ago (which is rare for me) so I shouldn’t be that bothered by it. It might be interesting what they do on the show, but it will be completely different from the source, obviously. I don’t really have a dog in this race now.
I don't trust the showrunner to make good decisions that will protect Masali Baduza and i dislike that the black woman is being cast as the person who is causing the white woman to be tempted to cheat on her husband
The books are better. They changed a lot in the tv show they should just have created an entirely new story. Sad that the author has allowed this changes. Money talks most likely. I lost interest in the book series because of this.
I also dont have an issue with the gender bend, but also the visual on the show of Francesca's feelings... it feels way more like she's just found a friend in John and has no romantic feelings for him.
I almost didn't watch that season because I wasn't interested in Queen Charlotte's backstory, but I ended up being my favourite as well. It stayed with me for such a long time afterwards.
I have no problem with mixed race . I do have a problem with Michael becoming a woman . As John dies the earldom will goes " THE OTHER FAMILY !!" If Michaela being a woman it dosent work. And I won't be watching Bridgerton again and stick with the book. Sidenote I thought the ending of book 4 was better than season 3 ending .😊
I hate the change. It makes no sense. I do not think I will be there for season 4 or 5. I just don't care for gay story lines. I'm not gay: I'm an older woman who loves the paring of a strong male and female.. I do say, live and let live. I think we all have a gay friend or relative who we love.. Thats not what this is about. I'm not homophobic.
I've imagined they'll turn Michaela into a trans woman to ensure all groups are covered. After turning Benedict into a debauched git and changing Francesca's story - I'm done with watching the series. I replayed my audio books to recover as they're infinitely better than the woke, paint-by-numbers, shite being supplied by Shondaland and Netflix. Delusion reigns if they believe that book fans will accept these changes. Julia Quinn is wong to suggest we trust them to get it right when they've failed with every series since the first which, in my view, improved on the book.
Was kind of excited bc I was hoping they’d keep Micheas personality essence- since it would be cool to have a female lead with that kind of aura, otherwise idc ❤❤
The trouble is, Michael's personality and character history are not possible for a woman in that era. A woman cannot be a rake and be allowed in society. Michaela can be delightful and the actress is beautiful, but very, very little of what makes Michael himself in the books can survive the gender swap.
I really dont get why its a problem that michaela is going to have a white love intrest. Mixed couples are a thing. I get people who are scared for fictional mixed couples because they are worried that the person of color in the relationship is going to be reduced to nothing other than a love intrest while the white character is going to get most of the fouces, because that unfortunatly what often happens with colored characters, but you dont know yet if its going to be the case with Franckaela, there isnt something inherantly wrong with mixed couple. Maybe people are upset because every main couple in bridgerton has the coupacity to be either mixed or fully white, but thats just the limitations of the format- every main couple is composed out of a Bridgerton sibling and an extarnal love intrest, and since the Bridgerton themselves are white, every main couple is going to consist of at least one white person. But i think people should have understood the premis after 3 seasons, if you just dont vibe with the premis thats a matter of taste, but you shouldnt be suprised or disaponted that that one of the leads is yet another Bridgerton. There are planty of things that can be consided problemtic in the show, and more so in the source material, but the mixed couples are really not one of those things imo
It’s not her race, it’s her gender that poses a huge problem to the story and completely alters it, have you read any of the comments or are you just assuming this has to be all about race like a lot of other idiots
I think that if they want to mix it up, they should have Eloise be the romantic interest of Michaela. They are spoiling true love stories. Why? Do we have to have a lesbian, gay, every nationalionality, three partner sex, the handicapped, it begins to look ridiculous. They miss the love story and connection with the characters. A little salt and spice is good, but drowning the production makes it un palatable.
@sharonwilliams6563 And if Netflix didn't like the books they shouldn't have adapted it- they should just write new material. They based it on the books to rope in fans and get them emotionally invested, and then are shocked when fans are upset that they completely change the story. Why are you even commenting if that's all you have to say? Did you just come here to sneer at and feel superior to the fans?
I hate that the actress playing Michaela got backlash for being rumored as Bendetict’s love interest. She can’t catch a break. But I was also mixed with Michaela. I really want the trio friendship first. We need to see why Michaela loves John separate from Eloise and we need to see the amazing love story of Francesca and John, even in marriage. Before Francesca’s season, this is what needs to play out first in gradual scenes so it doesn’t take over the next couple’s storyline until Francesca’s season. I also feel she was introduced too early. Let Francesca have the honeymoon before John writes to Michaela to have her visit. Also, Michaela should have fell at first sight not Francesca. And this scene diminished what was set up with Francesca and John. She constantly tried proving to her mother not all marriages are like hers just to contradict that and fall for someone like her mom did. It was frustrating and felt disrespectful. I feel this ten second scene already took away the heart of the story by switching up who fell first and when Michaela was introduced. But the actress does share some qualities to Michael. She seems charming. Like Michael being handsome, she seems very pretty. We can do without the rake thing. It is tired at this point in the book series. And she seems composed which Michael can be. And I am hoping we saw that first glimpse of the close bond she and John have. Quinn says she doesn’t care about the gender bending, just that the heart of her books are there. Since they lost in part 2 with Polin, I hope she continues fighting for her other stories.
Nothing like loving a character,, just to have them manipulated for the sake of what is popular at the times. Seems like even gay people can't have fantasies of book characters either. It has to be forced upon them. It is boring and tired at this point.
I’m so done. This season sucked. Why? Cuz they won’t stop shoving LGBTQ stories down everyone’s throats. I can tolerate some, I know it’s unavoidable in modern tv, but stop changing stories people love when it doesn’t even make any sense, stop adding it just to add it 😡
no because it was in the book dam it all, they freaking changed everything, they also made a Francesca a superficial woman that doesn't love her husband just for what? lesbianism because the creator wanted to insert herself in Fran?! Give back the original characters we do not need forcing your propaganda on our troth
@@kissofarose100gender was really important at that time, Micheal being a man allowed him to inherit John’s estate after passing, so yeah changing the gender in a historic time will allow you to change many many things in the story. If they wanted a gay couple they already had Benedict and Eloise, why change something that was already good?
You do be living in a very simple world. Sticking to your views, not listening to anybody and not considering anything outside of them. But though undesirable it's also a really stupid way to view the world around. And it's especially ridiculous as a comment beneath the video where someone eloquently and with kindness explained what exactly was bothering them in this particular situation. Just label something without any thought or consideration - is it the best you can do?
Lets be honest, yes it would. Not only do you fundamentally change the canon but you destroy the universe within which the characters inhabit. If it was a guy, they would have to deal with the consequences of the Buggery Act of 1533....which has already been alluded to in season 2.
