Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Matrix ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

Thoughts surrounding Bridgerton (Patreon)

Published:
2024-07-13 21:54:56
Imported:
2024-12

Content

Hey guys! The new poll is going well with 2 front runners at the moment which is exciting, I just wanted to discuss some things I've been seeing in the comments surrounding the current front-runner.

I have not heard much about Bridgerton over the years except that it is simply a period piece focused on romance, however I have read the comments under the poll and seen some potential issues with the show that I might not feel comfortable doing.

The issue I have is that it's hard to do my own research without being spoiled for the plot 😭 I have watched a recommended video done by Khadija Mbowe (while skipping bits that felt too spoilery but I have heard some minor details) however she ended the video saying she did overall enjoy the show and hoped they do better in S2. However issue right now is I can't seem to find anything about S2 or S3 when it came to those big issues, so if anyone has any insight into the show and if things get better I would really appreciate you commenting down below and letting me know!!

(P.s. pls keep things civil below, I want all opinions of the show to get a good idea, so don't get down on eachother as I won't tolerate any of that)

Comments

Hali

I think the main issue people discuss with regards to s1 is one pivotal scene towards the end of the season that I can’t really discuss without spoiling it. The biggest problem with that scene is that the show doesn’t present the act as problematic but instead brushes over it without any acknowledgement. It’s not dissimilar to TVD for example where a lot of problematic things are done by certain characters but the gravity of those actions are never communicated by the show. However, this action from s1 is not repeated in s2 or 3 nor in Queen Charlotte. It’s just one person’s opinion but I think some of the comments under the poll greatly exaggerated the problematic aspects of the show due to not liking the show, because they’re not any worse than most teen shows tbh. In fact, this show is better in some aspects. It’s like if someone told you not to watch TVD because it’s problematic 😂

Isis Rose

What are the things you're worried about? Some characters do make problematic choices in S1, but it's handled reasonably well. S2 is pretty good, S3 is fabulous, and so is the Queen Charlotte prequel. I understand that the books are pretty bog-standard regency romance fodder, but Shonda Rhimes takes a lot of liberties (in a good way; mostly by adding a hefty dose of both racial diversity and queerness) in the show. I'm on my second watch-through and really enjoying it. There are some pretty real sex scenes and a fair amount of nudity in all seasons, admittedly, so if that's something you avoid it would be tricky.

Harry Allen
>>143555905

I've seen talk of a few problematic moments in regards to SA, race issues and queer-baiting (main things I have seen). It's just been hard to understand fully without diving into spoilers as to how far all of these go. I've dealt with my fair share of queer baiting so as long it's not every episode, I don't 'mind' seeing that. Just wanna make sure there no MAJOR issues that I should know about.

Harry Allen
>>143555891

Okay thank you for the explanation of that scene as that was a big thing I wasn't sure about when looking at stuff without getting fully spoiled!

Hali

Also would like to add that Khadija’s video was made for S1 after which the show put in some effort to address some of the complaints that arose. Obviously Bridgerton is never going to be the show to watch for a dissection of class and racial issues and the patriarchy in regency era, after all it’s a period drama romance. It’s addressed at a very surface level.

Harry Allen
>>143556798

This is what I mainly wanted to know about as she seemed relatively positive about the show at the end, just had some major gripes that was needing to be addressed. Just couldn't find any info about this past S1 which was frustrating 😭

Scorched Witch

I will say this about the show. Season 2 was probably my favorite. I overall really did enjoy it. The main issue is one scene from Season 1, which I know others have mentioned already. However I personally did not find it so central and problematic that it stopped me from continuing to watch the show. This is just my two cents, but in the end, we support whatever you decide to do with regards to choosing the next show.

Elizabeth Gates

I read some of the comments earlier, and I think some of them -- like the references to queerbaiting -- were said by people who watched S1 and then dipped. The diversity doesn't feel like tokenism to me when they very much build the reason for the diversity into their alternative universe history in Queen Charlotte. There is one particular issue with S1 that I understand people's ick with, but I find no personal problem with S2 or S3.

Facebitch

The show is really just for fun, you kind of just have to put yourself in their mindset for some of it. My opinion of the scene in question is this: Yes, by today's standards it would be considered highly problematic, but these women were kept SO in the dark about their own bodies, we simply cannot relate or even fathom what that would drive them to do.

Jessi

Depends what it is you'd be uncomfortable with. Bridgerton is based on romance novels, so, expect the occasional (sometimes very) explicit scene. It's set in a fictional 1813 London where racial inequality has pretty much altogether disappeared - but everything else you'd see in an 1813 period piece is there (sexual inequality, gender inequality, and class inequality come immediately to mind). But, it also deals with extremely heavily emotional subjects like losing a parent, unreasonable expectations from others, and, of course, the simultaneous complexity and simplicity of romance and marriage, specifically. If you remember it's a romance novel (ie: super overdramatic at times) then I think you'd be OK? And, bonus, the costume design, sets, and music are absolutely superb.

Jessi
>>143555891

Agreed, they really should have addressed it further rather than rely on the audience to automatically understand. But, it doesn't ruin the show for me.

Hali
>>143558106

yep. it’s like when people say they queer baited the audience simply because it wasn’t paid off in s1

Kristal Whalen
>>143555905

The "sa" scene is a nuance situation that happens when you look at it with a modern lens. It was not okay! And I don't excuse the character for it but there certain things you have to be aware of like the characters knowledge and other situations. it's not terribly graphic but it is uncomfortable. AGAIN IM NOT SAYING ITS OKAY!! Also I wouldn't say there's any queer baiting, somethings take time to develop especially when you're in the first season. I hope you give it a chance. I have watched the show several times but because of the situation mentioned above and other tropes the 1st is not my favorite season.

mortis.carnis🍉
>>143555891

Yeah, from what I heard s1 had the most problematic moments but s2 & s3 get better..? Also, heard that the books were 100x worse than the show in terms of racism, SA etc. and just being problematic or just the books were very “products of their time” and that the show at least does it better. But the books and the show both has their share of bad writing.

Patpet

TVD is not problematic because the things they do are clearly fictional, an nbelong to a genro that is called thriller/horror, ...why don't we cancell horror movie because they are controversial?🙄 In any case the fictional story is use to describe reality, using fiction with the purpose of analysing in depth the human condition and has a reason for it that doesn't stem in higly controvarsial purpose, like rewriting history and cancelling the parts that a very minority audience can't hadle for twisted reasons. Brigertn is only done specificaly by cancel cuture people championing cultural appropriation and the "inclusivity" at all cost, with bad casting, bad writing, bad storitelling, pushing the skin colour problems Americans have down your throut to people that never even consider it to be an issue, forcing to watch a count that is a black actor brushing off under the rug history of how most of Regency period aristocracy families build their money from. Putting black people to play British Aristocracy it's just inappriopriate and is so odd watching it that the fact that the actor and some other aristocrat are black just looks so odd and out of place, like making Martin Luther King being play by a chinise actor, it's not color blind casting is just stupid casting, that kills the story you are supposed to watch, because all you see is a chinese actor playing Martin Luter King. Or knowing the standards of beauty of that era, that are so specific, and so well known because of the tons extrenelly popular letterature traslated into films and television series, standards so well known and chose on porpuse to ignore, to fit our time sensibility, it is just as bad and as silly, it's cancelling culture and rewriting it to please some, and I underline SOME, American audiences. Nobody else in the world people would ever dream to do that, or would think to insert themself by force into others culture where they do not belong at all, it's silly, incorrect, inappropriate, and a part from that, I personally, wouldn't put a reactor in the position to be criticised because of that. Now, every countries as a past that for nowdays standard is controversial, but it's HISTORY, it the place where we go and LEARN. I do not approve rewriting books, and canceling the past, to accomodate an extremist minority, that feels a mixture of jelowsy and hatred towars a nation that has a great past. Bridgeton is just bad, it's inappropriate, it's a pretend fiction that is just as bad as that Cleopatra "documetary" because belong to the same concept of cancel culture, but more snicky, less obvious. I repeat, do you like some fiction that is shallow, historically out of wack, and out of contest, even if it is in a specific contest, with real non fictional character, and pretent to ignore the contest and reality? Great watch it in the privacy of your house, do not impose it on others. I am Italian I couldn't watch a fictional ancient roman television series where the actors were speaking with a very heavy Australian accent, because I couldn't stop laughing, but I am sure that Autralians appreciate it a lot, or watching Cleopatra documentary without feeling deply offended because the history of all the countries in the Mediterranean sea are very intertwined and Cleopatra story is very much part of Roman history , that I know like my pockets because is part of my culture. So what I am saying perhaps for people that are not so aware of the history and culture of a certain country it could be enjoable, but, I personally, wouldn't want Harry, that knows the history of his own country, to be put in a position to find out publicaly, not privately, if Brigerton is something he would enjoy or not and I find shocking that some people, didn't think about it and when made aware of, still, can care less.

Maribel Humble

If you have any hesitation toward any show, then follow your heart. I have always regretted when I didn't listen to it.

mortis.carnis🍉

Sorry Unrelated, but I noticed you used she/her and Khadija goes by they/them btw

Nyssa Rawther 🍉

I can't really advise you on this other than to say I TRIED watching Bridgerton last year. I think I managed two episodes of the first season. It wasn't my vibe. It was very different than the only other period drama I'd ever watched (Downton) and was quite sexual at times. I don't remember literally anything that I watched of it but I'd JUST finished watching Heartstopper season 2 for the hundredth time and it was too jarring for me from wholesome to Bridgerton 😅😅 I will give it another shot and watch along with you here since it seems to have won the poll, though, entirely for Nicola Coughlan (who stands on business like almost no one else in Hollywood).

Michael D
>>143555905

Yeah I agree there is no queer baiting in the show. There are a handful of characters that present traits often correlated to queer characters, mostly when compared within common queer stereotypes, but there is no foul play in either the acting or the writing. This isn't Merthur or Destiel

Michael D
>>143564479

Mate. (non gender specificly) Why are you so upset over the prospect of others enjoying a show you clearly didn't care to watch?? 1) Calling out the diversity of casting, the actors themselves, and the writing/setting as all being too "inclusive and woke" is not really the nuanced critique you think it is. Besides all the actors being from the UK/Europe and having genuine accents. Have you heard them converse in interviews? 2) It's not meant to be a historical nonfiction. It is a romantic fiction set in a fictional retelling of history. It's not the first of its kind, nor will it be the last. If you want historical nonfiction, then go watch BBC history or the Discovery channel. Not even Mary and George is an accurate retelling. It's also a fictional romantic drama. 3) You go on to talk about how reactors are going to get criticized for watching it... Or that the rest of the world hates the show for its depiction of the 18th century. Then explain how it is one of netflix's most watched shows around the world. We can agree that if Harry, or any other reactor, really wants to see if they will like it... Can watch the pilot on their own time to see if the vibes fit. But if you havnt noticed, Harry doesn't like to do that because he wants his first watch reactions to be genuine. Let's not continue to take this moment to stay on your soap box just to spew opinionated hatred around like it's fact. You can dislike something without resorting to insulting the art and those who enjoy it.

Patpet
>>143564479

No MATE, I watch it, I don't give my jugement on someothing I haven't watch first, I don't presume like you do, about something I am not informed on. Stupid casting is not according to countries, is accoring inacuracy and inappropriateness. Inaccuracy is not letteral, inaccuracy here is use with a specific purpose. Introduction of the Count.....he was away, where? In the colonies looking after his interests in some plantation? How did the Count made is money? That is how stupid casting is stupid, by casting a black actor to play a Count. Where any non white people in the Aristocracy. NO, because Aristocracy is passed down from generation to generation of the same family. So, perhaps to you, doesn't look ridiculous and pushed, forced and utterly silly, to people that knows history it does, and detract from the story, that probably mayby is one of the reason why , since there is very little to the story to make it a show to remember, inclusivity used as clickbait. Why Regency? Why England? It could have been a completed invented country and a completed invented era, but is clickbait that is why, is "Regency and London". And by the way where is the actor playing the count? Oh the actor left after the first season....shall we talk about actors changing for the same role? Netflix is not the beacon of culture, MATE, nor in his transparency, I know I worked with them, the positions of show they put in, lokks to you that don't know, as the most watched, but is instead just about, what they want to push according to how much money they spend on it. NOT the reality of how popular really things are. In any case, there is a demand for everything that is British/ Jane Austing type of thing, so on that wave this was created to capture that American audience, and make the drean that they could be included in the dream, playing on the ignorance of history, manipulating an audience that can be easely manipulated into believing to all the silyness, like Queen Charlotte being black, like Cleopatra, 😂 sure...pushing a spefic political agenda of culture appropriation with the pretence of being a completelly fictional story...and not doing it. Sorry but the only hatfull comment is yours, assuming thing in a very rude passive aggressive manners., that will earn you a blocking. there is no point of talking to semoene that is persumptious and rude, I state facts, and concerns tat obviously don't sit well with some people. but facts are facts, so deal with it. And to conclude, let me laugh....ART??? What art? Bridgerton is art now? Seriously?? That says it all....

Isis Rose
>>143555905

I was really, really worried about the queerbaiting for the first few seasons, but I think it’s a fine semi-spoiler to say that they do ultimately follow through more than I had anticipated.

Maribel Humble
>>143564479

After discovering what they did to the movie Sound of Freedom, I canceled my Netflix subscription. It is appalling how the Sound of Freedom was criticized, but they have no problem promoting a show about tween young girls “coming of age.”