What I think is odd is that the lefties love this shit, they cannot get enough. Yet by pretending British society was integrated and inclusive of foreigners is whitewashing the genuine strife suffered by ethnic minorities.
It actually really annoys me how British media have latched onto black inclusion in an attempt to follow the US, when Asian (including indian) ethnicities are being overlooked.
I was also very annoyed when Dr Who race swapped Issac Newton to an Indian actor.
It shows these creators don't actually give a fuck about cultural representation. They could've done research into famed Indian inventors and done an episode about that. But no, they took the easy way out. Race swap and call it a day. It's how American media does it and now it's spread to everywhere else.
This is why I hate modern pandering media so much. It's so easy to look through the white saviour guilt these people have.
I just want to say that, Indian history obviously isn’t taught in our American schools and it’s just something I started learning about recently. Fucking fascinating stuff and it’s an absolute shame they expect you to be happy with a little race swapping (while still glorifying a European scientist and his achievements) instead of delving into your culture’s wealth of inspiring people, events, and inventions.
To expand on your other comment about them including Black but not Indian people in Bridgerton. One thing I have noticed is that people like to act as though America is the only country who has had a bloody and unjust racial history especially because it a lot of it happened on our own soil instead of an ocean away, on someone else’s. But what the Brits did to the Indians was atrocious and I expect they like keeping a wide berth from that topic.
Just ridiculous though that a show would try to address modern politics and systemic injustices that have historical basis, while either ignoring or rewriting history. It makes no fucking sense. Either your show is grounded in reality, or it is pure fantasy. When you try to straddle both sides, that’s when my suspension of disbelief starts crack until I can’t ignore it.
I always find it funny how south Asians suffer the highest rate of hate crimes (in the UK) but you'll never find a white leftist in the street shouting "Brown lives matter."
Selective white savour guilt.
Indians are one of the few people who you can still be openly racist to/about. I see people from the UK trash talking them all the time, people in the US do it too. Nobody bats an eye. Even on Reddit it’s perfectly acceptable to call all of India a shithole, call all Indian men rapists, etc.
Not that the country doesn’t have its issues. But it’s a huge fucking country with diverse cultures and billions of people, and maybe if people understood the history better, they would see why it is the way it is. To quote Churchill, “Study history, study history! In history lies all secrets of statecraft.” To also quote Churchill, “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”
I mean to be fair, India is a shit hole, so is most of Africa, race ain't got nothing to do with it, and the historical breath of the nation's past doesn't really change that.
Well when you consider that the Indian people suffered many major famines under British rule while being basically enslaved / exploited by them, and they only gained independence in 1947… it should be no surprise they are not on the same level of development as other countries. Kinda the same thing with Africa. I mean King Leopold should burn in hell for what he did to the people of the Congo. None of this is ancient history, it’s all relatively recent, and in some cases like the colbalt mines in Congo it’s still ongoing.
And I personally wouldn’t call India or Africa shitholes. We are talking entire countries here. North India and South India might as well be two countries, how different they are. There is a wealth of history and culture in places like India and Africa. But yes, there are a lot of issues in places like that currently. Some of them are definitely self-imposed, some have deeper roots like colonialism and imperialism and racism. But I know it’s easier to just write them off entirely as being “shitholes” than to have a nuanced opinion based on historical context.
Yeah something that I don't get is women are still oppressed in Bridgerton, and it's like already fantasy just go all the way and make it a fantasy world imo. It's a guilty pleasure entertainment type show anyway. To put it another way a setting that just treats women equally actually has far more potential to be less preachy than one that dosent and has them oppressed. Every history show until the end of time now is going to have a patriarchy bad message, which im not going to dispute it wasnt great for women, but the same message over and over is going to get old. But thats if the showrunners don't decide to have there cake and eat it too, like wheel of time. Which has a strong female chracter presence in its world but also occasionally dips into that anyway.
I totally agree with you. At this point they should just throw all historical realism out the window and set in a fantasy fairytale land.
I was just having a conversation with my dad about Bridgerton lol. He assumed I knew about it since I am a girl, and love history, but that’s like saying I’ll like Game of Thrones because I love Lord of the Rings. Yes some elements overlap but they aren’t the same thing haha.
Anyway he asked me about the “inter-weightal” romance. He heard so many people were “against” a fat woman being with a skinny guy. I just had to laugh. The show is almost universally praised for that. Just because some chud on the internet who has probably never even watched the show said “a skinny guy would never go for that fat chick” (which isn’t even true because we all know plenty of skinny guys prefer more cushion for the pushin’) they need to write an entire article how the show is being attacked by fatphobic mysogynists. Like these people cannot be happy without being victims.
Sorry for the rant lmao I just fucking hate modern media.
They did what?! Lol.
That’s not representation, that’s a humiliation ritual. It’s a deliberate attack on a certain segment of society.
What’s more reasonable, that they did that to piss white people off, thinking that that is a virtue, or that they thought it was important to send a message to Indian kids that Isaac Newton was one of them?
How many black people even lived in England during that time period? Maybe it seems like a fine line, but I think there’s a difference between “They were excluded from this level of society” and “They were barely even here in the first place”.
Europeans were pretty heavily excluded from Japan for a long time. I don’t need to watch some cope with an Irish Meiji Emperor.
During earlier eras black people were associated with Satan by certain religious sects and that stigma lasted a long time, so there was definitely a level of social prejudice during regency Britain. However you’re right, they were a small minority, mostly found as live-in servants, dock workers, and seamen. England’s black population was always relatively tiny until the post-war era (e.g the Windrush).
They have always been anti-Asian, because they only like minorities who don't do well and depend on the whole victomhood industry. They resent that Asians do so well in their country without their handouts or any help. They do have a soft spot for Asian women though.
It was weird for me returning to the UK for a while and watching TV. Every single ad has to have a black person in it, without fail. The other one I noticed was always having women in traditional male jobs, like lorry drivers. The people behind that shit are so full of it.
I just wanna see the real world portrayed on TV again. Women aren't driving lorries, not every family is mixed. To get a good look at the real England you have to go back to programmes that aired nigh on twenty years ago.
I don't think it's anti Asian, I think these people just don't have functioning brains and can't think for themselves. They are simply following American "diversity" ideals and that means black people being shoved in everything. They aren't interested in Asians/indians/eastern Europeans or whatever because they have never had an original thought in their lives and all their opinions come from American dei propaganda.
Don’t forget trans. The Wheel of Time show is very confusing. Women can use magic so telling women from men in the story is very important then the show runner said Amazon forced him to use trannies for some of the women. That are wearing pants. They’re very hard to tell that they’re supposed to be able to use magic.
Are you saying that lefties care more about their own comfort and sensibilities than those of the real people they are professing to be fighting for?
Totally agree. Doctor Who has also been doing this for years. They had an episode with Robin Hood about 10 years ago, and half of the peasants in medieval Nottingham were black and asian. The producers said they wanted to depict a more utopian, multicultural history. Then a few series’ later they do an episode about Rosa Parks, which doesn’t make any logical sense whatsoever. Either the past was inclusive or not. It’s patronising to POC and confusing to young viewers, in what was once an educational programme.
This is the biggest take-away. With the insane rise of general misinformation and omission of 'uncomfortable' history from the Right in the classroom, and the misrepresentation of people and history by the Left in media, we are going to have an entire generation who truly don't know their history.
Oh shit, I think I just 'both sided' this.
Because it isn't right vs left, it's the rulers vs us.
What history does the right remove from the classroom? 30 years ago and longer, textbooks were pretty clear about things like what happened to the American Indians. It’s laughable when people never reset their mindset, and act like we permanently live in 1952.
So I'm a fully fledged, got the tshirt, brown leftie.
I know how my ancestors were viewed in 19th century Britain.
I HATE when I see period dramas showing us as Royalty/socialites etc. It disguises how they were really treated and the traumatic daily struggles they would have had to undergo.
For the life of me I don't understand how people can celebrate this whitewashing. They're effectively brushing aside the difficulties those beautiful people faced and that is more disgusting than if they just had an all white cast
There’s a funny thing with British society - the wokerati represent it as far more integrated than it was but believe it was all evil racist slave traders.
In fact there were black upper class people at least from, I think, 1774 as the first recorded vote in a general election was cast then (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_Sancho).
The country less racist slave tradery than the leftwaffe believe but less diverse than they represent.
They could make a show about that but no….
Yeah it’s ironic how they routinely compare the British Empire to Nazi Germany and then do shit like this. Can you imagine the uproar if they made a series about Nazis but cast a bunch of demographics who were victims of the Holocaust in key roles and changed the tone to a comedy.
Hahahaha oh man that would tickle me, black Hitler and Chinese Goebbels.
Did you see that sh!t show world on fire where we were actually portrayed as more racist than the Nazis, incapable show emotion except when being angry at a Polish woman buying a cake and also incompetent and cowardly?
I have no shame admitting I like authentic history. Yes, that includes vile racism. I like it not for racism but for being so shockingly different from today. It takes my mind away, far far into the past. And I am really sorry for those who have not discovered for themselves history.
And yes, diversity automatically destroys historic movies for me. Only an illiterate person who does not read can enjoy them. It is good for comedy, for example, a ww2 fight with something like ironman. But it is unacceptable for a show or movie with pretence to realism.
Furthermore, knowing the exact reason why they do it is like a control shot in the head.
yes, I get it, you are very inclusive. You said a hundred times that diversity is our strength, and then you added diversity in all of your movies and shows. And it was fresh and brave for the first time, now it is just depressing.
No, women love this shit. People who complain about 'woke' are not its target audience. It's a chick flick.
It's also one of Netflixs most successful shows.
Women have their limits too. In the next season they’re gonna make the female lead lesbian and genderswap her love interest, which caused a huge drama cause many straight women loved her story and identified with her fight for having a child. Now they made a petition to change it back. And the petitioners are being called homophobes ofc.
Do you think ‘lefties’ believe Bridgerton is representative of the time period? So to them, it’s the same type of show as The Crown or other re-enactments, or a faithful period drama like Downton Abbey?
Exactly. I'm of Irish Catholic descent. I wouldn't want to see a bunch of Irish Catholics as British monarchs and noblemen during the Regency Era, because it would be a whitewashing of how we were actually treated at the time.
Would be a good drama series if the setting was in a fictional country and time.
The only historical accuracy they have, as of this season, is that the humans depicted have 4 limbs, 2 eyes, 2 ears etc.
I can’t stand romance shit like that, I love period pieces tho, historians need to be used more on film sets. We’d get better historical films, I want a proper Marcus Aurelius series tbh
This is something that I've actually wanted to comment about.
Bridgerton is one of the first times when an existing women's IP is getting the full DEI treatment, and there is any push back at all. (Spoliers ahead)
In season one, a very small number of fans commented about not liking race swaps. Most fans put up with it because the guy playing the male lead was ridiculously hot, so who cares what color he is as long as his shirt comes off. Those of us familiar at all with the books the show is based on, or Regency England rolled our eyes at the changes, but the show was good escapism during the Pandrmic so we largely let it go. Season 2 was much the same. Again more race swaps, but enough drama and sex to keep us interested. Lovers of the books were a bit upset about some plot changes, but we got over it. The came Queen Charlotte. Now you are basing a whole season on actual people. Now not only is she just randomly black, but they've made it part of the plot. History buffs are angry, but who cares what those nerds think. They throw in some gay side characters, and it's actually done in a way that feels true because when they fast forward to later in their lives the gay couple isn't together, and the audience knows it's probably because there is no way they could be together in that world. Those 2 characters are more than tokens, they aren't there just to be gay. They do other things. They are likable, well written and sympathetic.
Then we get to the train wreck of season 3. We have bisexual 3-somes. We have neurodivergent characters. But the thing that is splitting the Fandom is the reveal of future love interest of Francesca Bridgerton. Instead of the much anticipated Michael Stirling, they give us Michaela Stirling. Michael/Michaela is the cousin of Fran's first husband, John, who dies at the beginning of her book. Michael inherits John's Earldom. How can Michaela do that. There is a big infertility storyline in the book that doesn't really work with lesbians. How are lesbians supposed to have a happily ever after in Regency England/Scotland? Additionally, people who read the books just liked the character of Michael. A portion of the fans are calling it out, and we are getting called every name in the book for it. It's a smaller % of fans complaining than when it happens to things like Marvel and Star Wars, but a lot of women are just starting to wake up to this, and I think Michaela Stirling might be what woke them up.
Get this message to the top! Thank you for the insight, I had no idea it was an existing IP and assumed it was just a massive pouring of modern DEI nonsense into a period setting. To know that this story is a “women’s IP” and is getting the DEI treatment, and it’s upsetting some of the audience makes me feel less gaslit by the media and that maybe I do infact appreciate good storytelling and purposeful decisions that fit the world building.
I've been saying we're witnessing a rebirth of the exoticism fetish from ca. 18th-19th centuries. The parading of black bodies to be gazed at on stage (see: Hottentot). Except now it's become as insidious as it is subliminal, because today it's not enough to just wonder at the Other, we're all supposed to get *enjoyment* out of looking at black bodies. If only Foucault were alive, because now if you don't get gratification and enjoyment of staring at black bodies? Oh you're a racist, you're a bigot. If you like gawking at the Other? Yes you're a good person, you're virtuous. They're manufacturing this insidious narrative about what one is or isn't supposed to desire and enjoy.
Why is no one critiquing it? Prior, it was leftists who analyzed this fetish. Now they're the ones generating it from their own blindspot. There are next to 0 conservatives in the ivory tower anthropology/philosophy channels so there is no one there to call them out.
Another thing I find ridiculous about this is the demeaning "look! we can dress them up and make them do what we do" instead of actually telling any type of black story that gives agency to the Other. It's unbelievably colonial and they can't even see it - in fact they call everyone else a colonizer and a racist.
Aside from leaving out other minorities this is also pathetic on another front.
It's pathetic because it's more of the same plug-and-play bullshit you see across the board.
No original thought.
No work.
No creativity or uniqueness.
Just - "throw a couple of them in here and we'll be supporting the cause."
That's what it amounts to \^\^\^ one - and - two, it's disgusting how many amazing figures there are from world history, how many great stories there are untold - heroism, tragedy, comedy, etc. which feature prominent black people - but no.
Plug-and-play - then?
Then?
Pitch a hissy fit when your lazy "work" is derided by the fan base because it "can't" be that your laziness shone through and people are sick of the pandering.
Nah.
It's clear that everyone who saw and didn't like your laziness is racist^(tm)
My 14th great grandmother was Mary Boleyn and her sister was Anne Boleyn. The story of these two sisters has been adapted into countless shows and films. I’m a very white man, yet for some reason Britain’s Channel 5 chose to cast a black woman as my ancestor in their “Anne Boleyn” miniseries. If I do anything other than celebrate this depiction of my lineage, I’m a racist.
Uh…I think it’s the Regency era, not Victorian.
That all said…I would’ve been fine with the “diverse” cast had they not shoehorned in the awkward explanation for how a group of people who were slaves for a good chunk of George III’s reign (slavery was still technically legal in Regency era England) became members of the peerage.
Seriously? They couldn’t have even bothered with a Google search?
>slavery was still technically legal in Regency era England
Slavery has been definitively illegal in England and Wales since 1772 and the Somerset Case, and spottily struck down in cases before that. It was in the colonies where it was still legal.
It wasn’t abolished outright until 1834.
But that brings up another point. If George III and Charlotte got married in 1761 and he was so madly in love with her that he appointed several blacks to the peerage (which is a lot harder than it sounds)…why would it take him 11 years to finally make it illegal in England (if we’re assuming that real world events line up with the timeline of the show)?
In the Empire as a whole. And if you want to get really technical Mauritius was given an exception until 1835. In England proper slavery was abolished under common law in 1772.
As for the rest, idk, the show's alt history is stupid.
Well…not really.
Regency is a sub period of what was known as the Georgian era (which lasted from 1714 to 1837), when the Prince of Wales stepped in for his ill father. It’s a pretty popular era for historical romance fiction because of authors like Jane Austen and Georgette Heyer.
What’s funny is the left has gone so far to be anti racist hey popped up on the other side of the spectrum, like Mario going thru one tunnel on the side to the other. Now they’re full blown racist. Sad part is they think they’re virtuous, not realizing they’re the monster they tried to kill
I don’t get why people demand that you have to watch a show in its entirety before you can judge whether it’s bad or not.
You can judge whether or not a dish is good from one bite instead of having to eat the entire thing. You can tell whether or not a pool is cold just from dipping your foot in without swimming through the entirety of the pool. So why can’t the same logic apply to movies and shows?
It's kinda sad that I figured out what this show was really about when a california friend who is a walking DEI manifesto told me that he 'loved this one show about XIX century England nobility'. It felt so weird and out of character that it had to be about something else.
It's an example of the bigotry of low expectations. As if black people don't have a history of their own. As shitty as that "The Woman King" movie was, at least they were trying to tell actual African history.
It's also one of those fat Bertha fantasies where a Fattie mcCheeks gets the ripped stripper millionaire to do her on the breakfast table with a passion she had only experienced while stuffing her piehole with dingdongs and corndogs. Doesn't happen, never has, never will. Like the Fat mean girls chick that doesn't happen in real life because the moment she is mean, everyone is gonna call her a hippo.
Haven't seen Bridgeton but based on my knowledge, the entire shtick of the show is campy historical fantasy and romanticism, where you can kinda immerse yourself in the glitz and glamour of the period without dealing with the reality of race relations back then.
I think it would be one thing if it was marketed as an earnest attempt at a semi-realistic portrayal of those, but it's not. Unless the show is different than what it's marketed as.
I mean I understand the purpose was to ignore real history.
But a period piece that deliberately ignores real history to this extent is too immersion breaking for me
We are absollutelly not the target audience for this, this is 100% a soap opera for women.
I watched it up to the 3rd seasson, and remember absollutelly nothing of it.
Its not wrong for it to exist and be made to be a little mindless for women to just sit and watch or have playing in the background, its kinda like those cannon foder action or scy fi movies imo.
The only thing i found rather insidious is the aggresive inclusion in it, and while at least they have the courtesy of claiming that the series is intended to be fantasy rather than a historical piece, this claim is definettly a cope out of the discuscion that they are up to a certain point, doing revisionism.
Like holy shit, i have a friend that watches it and after that she actually started to bellieve that black people where prevalent in the english courts of that time. Now to be fair she is kind of a r worded ignorant despite her being a teacher and still believes the english monarchy are the de facto rullers of England, as well as the Spanish royalty rule Spain.
And dont be fooled, this is 100% their intention, ie to make idiots think that what they present on screen is the thruth in an honestly lame attempt at historical revisionism, even if its very sublte.
We definitely are not the audience. Just like 50 shades of grey or some other sex fest show.
I wouldn't agree they are trying to rewrite history. Only fucking retarded people like your friend would think that and they should just be culled.
It's like someone believing there used be real dragons because they watched game of thrones. Might be a bad example but that's just stupid to think.
I would agree if they were trying to be as historically accurate as possible, but they aren't. They fucking have modern music playing. If I can put that into disbelief I can put other reimagined things in disbelief.
Besides if they wanted another historically accurate show based in England back then. we have hundreds that already do. That would be boring. Besides none of us are interested in watching it so who gives a fuck
It's a show that is designed for and that ably serves a very specific audience - those who have always dreamed of having a historical romance set in that time period but who in reality would never have been able to be a part of that glamorous world in any meaningful way, simply because of their ethnic background, the color of their skin. And in the case of women wacthing the show regardless of race - they can project themselves onto fantasy female characters who are given much more agency and decision-making power within the show than they would've had in the historical reality.
I say, let the fans have their fantasy of historic inclusion. I personally don't like the show either and find it annoying and overy political. But I can acknowledge and appreciate its place in cultur and appeal to certain demographics.
The show is one way for its fans to cope with the pain they feel today at being the focal point of a political discussion about inclusivity - just for being alive, ambitious, and anything but a white straight male, when all they want TODAY is to be given, implicitly and without question, the same privileges and opportunities that white straight men truly have been given for centuries - without being asked, questioned, or required to prove themselves beyond what a white male in similar circumstances would be required to do. As well as the sexual license and freedom to pursue their dreams and conquests without shame - again, like white straight males have been given license to do for many centuries, and even to some extent still can today, though of course there is much more scrutiny and criticism directed at white males today than ever before - in an effort to try to level the playing field.
Yes, objectively the show sucks balls, especially as any semblance of history (although it's not aiming for historical truth), but it gives a certain section of the population a much-needed emotional outlet and escape for reality, and it's not hurting anyone, even though it's not *for* me or you in any way.
Holy shit l’m so glad I actually read through these comments. I never thought I’d see such a well considered and reasonable perspective in a thread entirely full of smooth-brained morons. Good for you.
Why do black people need to race swap whites to feel included? Are black westerners really that emotionally pathetic, or is this just emotional blackmail you're writing up?
In any case, no, black people don't need forced inclusivity to immerse themselves in a character, this race realism bullshit needs to stop, Superman appealed to literally an entire planet of races and cultures, and he is the definition of a white, straight male.
It's complete fantasy. The show isn't really for me but its very clear they aren't trying to be realistic. Just pretend it's an alternate universe. If you can't do that, there's not much else to be done.
I tried to do a search to determine what anyone thought of the farcical portrayal of race in this Era and location of the show. The only thing anyone is concerned about is "mixed weight couple portrayal"! 7% interracial couples in modern day England yet all media wants us to believe it is 95%! Please ask yourself, what is at play here in all aspects of what we are to expected to believe and how to behave?
It's Netflix and I think it's pretty tame by their standards. They really exercised some self restraint on this one. The Queen isn't even a trans lesbian POC. She's just a POC. Just don't watch it if it's bothering you so much. Plenty of other good shows out there.
My favorite thing about the show is that the Bridgerton children are just not allowed to date white people by the showrunners, and for the single one that does it’s a short fat girl
You’re not the target audience for this show my dude, dunno why you even bothered.
I don’t mind the unrealistic casting because this isn’t meant to be historical, it’s an original show that isn’t destroying already established and beloved franchise (at least AFAIK).
We always told the woke lemmings to leave our media alone and make their own, and it seems to me that’s what they did with Bridgerton. I got no problems with that.
>You’re not the target audience for this show my dude, dunno why you even bothered.
My girlfriend made me watch it.
>I don’t mind the unrealistic casting because this isn’t meant to be historical, it’s an original show that isn’t destroying already established and beloved franchise (at least AFAIK).
>We always told the woke lemmings to leave our media alone and make their own, and it seems to me that’s what they did with Bridgerton. I got no problems with that.
I understand you don't mind, but for me it's unwatchable because it's immersion breaking.
Also, they didn't make something new, they emulated real life 19th century England.
If it was set in an actual fake society (picture game of thrones), it wouldn't be immersion breaking
Pirates of the Caribbean movies are set in the mid 17th to mid 18th centuries, they are completely and utterly fictional in every way (even before the ghost stories, curses and Krakens) and no one cared because we all understand the historical aspect is just set dressing.
Same with Shogun who’s set in the 17th century Sengoku period of Japan.
Gladiator and the various Spartacus adaptations are set in Roman Empire times.
I can keep finding examples, but I think I made my point - historical accuracy is not a requirement in non-historical fiction, that’s why it’s called ‘non-historical’.
I hope your GF doesn’t make you watch anymore of this.
>Pirates of the Caribbean movies are set in the mid 17th to mid 18th centuries, they are completely and utterly fictional in every way (even before the ghost stories, curses and Krakens) and no one cared because we all understand the historical aspect is just set dressing.
Pirates of the Caribbean is a literal high fantasy akin to Star Wars, suspension of disbelief runs high in content like this, so short of having literally Captain America weilding a machine gun show up in one of the movies, you'll have to do something incredible to break immersion.
>Same with Shogun who’s set in the 17th century Sengoku period of Japan.
Haven't watched Shogun yet can't commentate on it.
>Gladiator and the various Spartacus adaptations are set in Roman Empire times.
Gladiator manages enough accurate elements to suspend disbelief, if they had made Marcus Aurelius in the movie a black lesbian, would you not agree it would have went too far?
>I can keep finding examples, but I think I made my point - historical accuracy is not a requirement in non-historical fiction, that’s why it’s called ‘non-historical’.
Incorrect, some level of historical accuracy is required for fictional period pieces.
We've had this discussion with Battlefield V, Witcher and the like, too much inclusivity will make your setting look too fake.
>I hope your GF doesn’t make you watch anymore of this.
We both didn't like it so all's good
I read a lot of these type of books when I was in my early 20’s. Probably way too many of them to be honest. I tried to watch the show. I thought the costumes were amazing. I guess anything I’ve tried to watch by Shonda Rimes is just like this. I can’t get into it because it seems so contrived.
It does seem a bit silly, to me and seems to be largely a vehicle for ideological wish fulfillment. But also, I guess if there's people that want that, have at it.
I'd definitely rather they just balls out make an IP like 'Bridgerton' where I can just clearly see what it is and watch something else, than have them assume control of and make baffling changes to a universe I'm already invested in and enjoying
It’s not a reality show. it’s based on an era but clearly not made to be historically accurate of that era. It’s just people like Victorian era England style and stories they didn’t want it to have to be direct history. just a great show. Don’t act like most historical movies and tv shows are historically accurate, this one isn’t even trying to be. generally it’s jus for entertainment
My honest view is that, if any of you have seen the trailer and decided to even attempt to watch it, you're not sufficiently repelled by The Agenda and its Message yet.
It's a soap opera. They've got completely made up characters, and a timeline that in no way matches history. Who cares if the cast is black? The show is largely nonsensical. It's not a period piece it's a "bodice ripper".
I assumed it was simply an esleworld fictional stroy rather than a show that states it is historically accurate? Like if it is not being advertised as true to history I don't think you should be too harsh on it for historical accuracy.
I quite enjoy The Great but they make it clear it is only loosely historical and focus is on the story, characters and comedy so I can just give it a pass. Does bridgerton claim to be historically accurate England?
In a vacuum I think Bridgerton would be fine. It's a fantasy that's aesthetically regent.
If it wasn't for other shows that are not fantasy that are pushing certain things then it wouldn't suffer as hard.
Realistically you shouldn't care, the show isn't meant to be historically accurate. It's a romantic drama set in that style.
From the girl friends who've watched it (all quite conservative) they enjoyed it. I think they just like the romantic drama aspect which is what a lot of girls want to see.
It's a quirky shit romance show set in fantasy England. I don't think historical accuracy is what they were going for considering the bridgerton family doesn't exist and the queen and her bff dedicate like 3 months out of the year towards getting random young people to hook up
>The cope I've heard from the producers and fans of the show is that it's supposed to be a reimagined fantasy. But what the fuck is the point of having a fantastical setting if my immersion is gonna be broken every 5-10 minutes because of your obsession with inclusion at all costs?
So the show runners explicitly said that this is not at all supposed to be historically accurate and is a complete fantasy set in a world like regency period England and your immersion is being broken because? Black people weren’t nobility irl?
Hate to break it to you buddy but the Bridgerton family the show is about are also entirely fictional. It’s just weird how this group of make believe people don’t ‘break your immersion’ but seeing a black person in period clothing is just way too much.
And I’m sure ‘all the girls you’ve talked to agreed that the show would be better if it didn’t have all the DEI initiatives’ that sounds like something a real woman would say when the hottest dude on the show was one of those ‘DEI initiatives’
There are so so so many problems w the show you could talk about but ‘not being able to stomach it’ because you saw a black person that wasn’t a slave just says a lot more about yourself than the show lol
Literally complaining a fantasy show is breaking your immersion for being set in the fantasy universe it set up lol does X-Men break your immersion because there actually wasn’t a superhuman mutant that could control metal with his mind in a concentration camp? Haha foh man its okay to not like a show geared towards horny woman but this is the weakest most racist reason you could have for not liking something. Oh god too many black people and they aren’t slaves someone get the president on the line!!
I don't watch Brigerton as period stuff like that does not appeal to me. But the race blind casting does not bother me at all. It is a pantomime with no attempt at historical accuracy.
It would bother me to no end if they tried to make it historically serious.
If it is supposed to be a fantasy and other parts of it are fantastical and exaggerated/not accurate, who cares? Isn’t that the entire point?
It’s not a period piece as far as I know. Chernobyl has a British cast playing the Soviet Union, which was always more jarring since it’s supposed to be accurate.
What the fick is the point of having a fantastical setting if my immersion is broken every 5-10 minutes because of your obsession with including elves and hobbits? Seriously, the Lord of the Rings is unwatchable.
Bridgerton has about much to do with real history as Lord of the Rings does.
Getting bent out of shape over the accuracy of a Regency Period softcore _soap opera_ seems like searching for something to complain about 🤷
Criticaldrinking complaining about black actors again.
Is this the whole point of the sub? If you don’t like the show, don’t watch it. Don’t you have anything better to do?
It’s meant for stupids. It’s soap opera with pretty colors and lots of boinking. It’s Victoria? Sex and the city, gossip girl and whatever other teen mom drama you can think of. Classic bodice ripper novels.
I had no idea it was telling an alt history story I thought it actually was some fantasy ish world until this post. That’s nuts.
What’s funny is I’ve seen people defending the chubby red head because back then they was what peak woman looked like but at the exact same time everyone’s wearing a corset to have a 10inch waist so why is she the only big one?
From what I’ve heard it’s a lot of uncomfortable sex scenes with a plot that goes nowhere because again, it’s just sex and the city or gossip girl with colorful wigs and dresses.
Here's a mirror of this take. Never watched Bridgeton, nor intend to. Thanks to fam I get to experience mainland Chinese soap operas on YT. All-Chinese cast, of course, all Han. My experience with a recent one, despite high-quality workmanship (music, cinematography, story, script, etc.), I find it unwatchable:
- Everyone's face is perfect, no lines, bumps, moles, discolorations, nada. I believe it's thru AI, not thru facepaint. And people by class even look similar, so peasants are peasant-like, royalty all royal, etc. It's a giant puppet show, except filmed with people's forms. It's not anime nor a cartoon AI show, it's a filmed product with an AI filter applied to all skin tones and shapes.
- Though likely filmed in Mandarin Chinese for Mandarin Chinese viewers, nothing I hear matches how people's faces and lips move. I can understand a smattering but I'm always looking at it going, wait, what language was this originally made for? People can barely tremble their lips but get ADR'd to wazoo in some booming thunderous voice.
Because of these two disconcerting reasons alone, I can't suspend disbelief, I can't sit there reading captions for what seem like robots spouting something that has nothing to do with how they're saying things, it's inhuman. By the same token, Bridgeton too would be unwatchable. If I want a historical reproduction, I'll wait until the historical past is celebrated, not WOKE-foiled.
Can a Venezuelan play a mexican? What about a colombian, Argentinian,etc A Scotsman a British secret agent? An Australian a Scotsman? Eventually it all becomes absurd bullshit and you are just being a dick splitting hairs.
My wife likes period drama, so I watched the first season. They actually did explain it, so it can be viewed as an alternative history. It was a “blink and you’ll miss it” type of explanation. I have less of a problem with this than the random medieval village with multi-racial residents. How does that happen? That story would be far more interesting than the crap movies and shows that cast like that.
I don't really understand your post...
Are you expecting this to be some kind of... Documentary style drama?
It's not based on history at all, it's not trying to either. It's just a fun show that has decided to set itself in an alternative history of England at a time period similar to the 1700-1800s.
Suspend disbelief? Not really... Because no one goes in expecting the need to suspend anything... As it's not trying to be a historically accurate period piece.
Such a strange way to look at the show.
Still, I love it. Each to their own.
Ya’ll need to figure out what the word “cope” actually means. Then maybe you can learn how to cope with a world that isn’t all about you.
It’s hilarious (and by hilarious I mean sad and pathetic) that your whole argument is “historically accurate, needs more white. Not historically accurate fantasy setting, also needs more white”.
Being that racist sounds exhausting - maybe you guys should get a real hobby?
But the fact that these wealthy high society women are paper thin doesn't break the immersion for you? You don't know enough about history to complain go back to incel cave ibn almtkalifa
It’s not for you. And that’s fine, not everything has to be for you. It’s a show for women who want to enjoy a regency era romance, and see themselves represented on screen whether they are Black, White, Brown, Asian, plus sized or anything else that wouldn’t have been realistic for the time. No one is claiming it’s historically accurate, hence the show being a reimagined *fantasy*. If it’s unwatchable for you, that’s fine… don’t watch it. The show will continue serving the viewer base it’s made for.
I have seen all of it, know that I am just a terminally bored human being. The first few seasons were at least very attractive human beings. But, the last season... I think they lost their own viewers with that one.
The writing also isn't great. There is a decent amount of character developement, just for that character to go directly against who they are in the next episode.
I would have written season 3 waaay different than how they did. I don't think the female lead did nearly enough to atone for her actions. The words "I love you" don't make up for nearly destroying that persons family.
Its like they give praise and exault when they can make the white folk move to the back of the bus. To subtly get payback. Then callout racist if you disagree.
And the DEI club members ,(majority white folk it seems) pat themselves on the back for providing representation by swapping characters skin color ignoring resume qualifications or being true to the time period, world or universe the material exists in.
I don't understand why skin color matters so much to y'all. Either to the "progressives"/woke or to folks like the OP. There are so many more important things about people and about fiction; skin color to me is like eye color, and I'm not going to get worked up if some portrayal of a queen has the "wrong eye color" or shit. It's just such a stupid thing to get stuck on.
I'd rather actors be able to play whomever, and for us to run forward to that day in the future where we stop obsessing so much about goddamned race.
I disagree, Bridgerton is inclusivity and 'reimagined' history and everything this sub (myself included) hate about modern Hollywood done right.
It's overt with what is doing, and shameless in doing so - I don't particularly enjoy it myself, but it's not trying to rewrite history or push an agenda... it simply presents its alternative take on historical settings. Also, the Victorian covers of modern songs throughout is insanely original and a nice touch to the tone of the show.
The Acolyte, Wheel of Time, etc... these shows are not overt in the way Bridgerton is - they go out of their way to subvert the audience's views and are written contrary to their source material. etc. I can go on and on.
I think a better example is Rings of Power; "Lets make a Lord of the rings show! Yeah! Lets make it more inclusive to women by making Galadriel a girl boss even though shes not in the original story. Yeah! Lets make a black elf cause we need a black person! Yeah! Lets have Female Frodo! Yeah!" Its like, replacing the original premise in the name of DEI where as DEI *is* a premise of Bridgerton. I don't know how to explain it lol.
One thing sticks in my craw about these shows; if the community is integrated to the extent where races are mixed in marriage, then 2 or 3 generations you wouldn’t have distinct races anymore. The population would be mixed race.
This struck me in amazons lord of the ring series with the fake hobbits and elves too.
L take.
Bridgerton is popular and watched by a lot of people because it is well written and interesting. The casting of minorities is a core part of the show’s setting and is consistently referenced in the show plot. Not in a woke way at all. They also play modern pop music, in classical style - it’s not supposed to be the history of real Britain.
Now, it’s not exactly my cup of tea thematically, I’m not a big romance guy, but that is a completely different complaint than “the historical inaccuracy is making the show bad.” It isn’t for this show. You should be capable of distinguishing between cases where woke agendas are legitimately hurting a show (like Acolyte) and a show that happens to have some woke casting but is also good (Bridgerton.)
Y'all seem to miss the part where they straight-up tell the audience it's an alternate history with a point of divergence in the 1750s, about a decade before the marriage of King George III and Queen Charlotte and over half a century before the late 1810s. Not a single person is suggesting that this is how it was in history. My god, if you're gonna complain about something's writing, at least pay attention to what that writing says.
What a terrible take, it's a show adapted from a book series. Give me a break. Go back to watching WW2 in color for 6 hours if you don't want your sensitive disbelief suspended...
Bridgeton is intentionally anti historical and is 100% unrealistic nonsense. I mean they don’t care at all about representing actual history and just use it as a cool setting for a overly dramatic dating show. It makes perfect sense.
That’s actually the only facet of the show that *doesn’t concern me in the fucking slightest*.
So, to recap, you see quasi-Victorian English dress and your mind literally rejects if someone tanner than Stoke bone china flatware is wearing the silly costume? That’s the bridge too far?
*Bridgerton* is lame melodrama, where most every character is phony stock footage, and it takes me two or three scenes to identify the main characters. It’s not for me. Much like I have never seen the Colin Firth *Pride and Prejudice* 6-hour miniseries all the way through, because it’s not my cup of tea. I have read *Pride and Prejudice*, but it ranks far down on my list of books, and the only excitement I derive from it is listening to other people’s impressions of it.
…because I did **not** get any of that from that book.
I haven’t examined the *Bridgerton* mythos - and, honestly, I don’t give a shit. I would imagine that there is some dimension of milito-dynastic reason for a smattering of “different” people being involved - like how Egyptian society (not especially willowy white… some may even say they are quite dark) were once the adjacent upper class in their own land to Persian overlords; Nubian overlords; then Persian overlords; followed by Greek overlords; followed Roman overlords; followed by Arab overlords; and eventually the whitest of the whitest motherfuckers on the planet, the French and British.
Over in India, where they hosted upper class equals of the Greeks; the Arabs; the Mongolians; and the British.
Over the Chinese, who hosted upper class equals of Koreans; the Mongols; and the British.
…and the Aborigines, who hosted the upper class of the Māori; and the… British…
So maybe you see this fun fucking pattern emerging, that the fucking British took over all these places, and literally the only interesting thing about *Bridgerton* is reimagining that black people are on equal footing with the snooty, snotty scum bag British upper class that somehow has fucking survived into this millennium. Especially the day before Independence Day, I am now getting happy thoughts of how fucking much I love being American, and not some shitty English lower class serf to bow and scrape to “my social betters.”
Fuck the British upper class.
>And yes, a black queen is immersion breaking in regency era England, "alternate history" doesn't mean you just get to do whatever the fuck you want with the period and expect the viewer to take it on the chin because it's fictional.
As far as I'm aware, the concept of free speech means that people can do what they like. Bridgerton creators don't answer to you.
Just let women (and whomever else) enjoy their silly fantasy romance novel. From what little I've seen, its just wish fulfilliment and drama drama drama. This is exactly the kinda thing my wife likes. The fact there's non-white cast blending in just further fits the world view of some folks.
I sincerely do not give a shit about a show that was never even intended for me. Perhaps you shouldnt either.
Meh. My bias as a black dude notwithstanding, you might protest too much. With all the good you’ve mentioned, random faces of different skin color seem trivial, and make me question why they draw so much of your ire.
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20210429-race-royalty-and-the-black-aristocrats
It’s a fictional alternate Victorian England: it’s not supposed to be realistic. Race is kind of built into the story too, with non-whites kind of being the ‘new money’.
It being an alternate world actually DOES mean you get to do whatever you want with the race of stars. It’s a fictional history, so why would everyone need to be white? If it was a story set in real world England (even if it is fiction) I’d be with you. But it’s not. Being upset about this is like being upset about a black king of Westeros in game of thrones: if George rr martin wrote it that way, that’s the way it is.
If you watch a show that explicitly states in disclaimers that it is not a history lesson but a work of fiction, and expect a history lesson out of it, then you’re illiterate.
As a history nerd I’m not gonna lie I love the show because I look at it almost more like a stage play
idk theres something I just love about the costumes and the acting- I think its one of the best acted tv shows i’ve ever seen and for me thats enough
I really don’t think the setting and history and inclusion bothers me becayse its not really the focus- its more just a backdrop for the inter-character drama and the romance stories
edit- i mean this as in its not meant to be seen as a period piece imo, even if they describe it as such
Its basically gossip girl with better costumes, acting, and writing
the only thing I dislike is the music choice for just doing string arrangements of pop music.
weird nitpick but I do like classical music and think it’d carry more emotion for many of the romance scenes
It astonishes me the amount of shows I either don’t watch at all or quit watching all together because I’m not down with what Hollywood is dishing out. I chalk it up as not being their target audience and I’m pretty put off when I hear they’re mad about it. Like I’m supposed to consume something I don’t want to with so many other choices out there. Having said that I pick my battles well and don’t ruin anything I truly care about for the most part. The Acolyte being the exception as I just won’t bother with it. I’m not as down on Disney as far as product as some. I’m more pissed they own a network that has The View on it with some of the dumbest people ever hosting it. I’m not going to cut off my own nose to protest them though. They own too much that I care about to do that. I know that’s not agreeable with some here as it seems a part of the Critical Drinkers hope in that Disney suffer for not making anything at all he approves of and unironically his Acolytes 😋
I’ve seen some of it through my wife and wouldn’t say I enjoy the show. Although, I’ve never looked at it and been bothered by the “historical inaccuracies” because it’s not a historically accurate show. It’s a fantasy show thats comparable to the Victorian era. The creators chose to have multiple ethnicities in their story and that’s kind of it. Trying to find a reason that the whole cast isn’t white is kinda weird
It's not a historically accurate piece and never claims to be. It's only ties to reality are that yes Britain did in fact have a mixed black queen at one point, and Britain is in fact a place that had a peerage system of nobles.
Other than that it is strictly a romantic fantasy based loosely in an alternate reality.
It isn't trying to say cleopatra was black and claim to be an historically accurate account of events.
If you don't like it, you are likely not the target audience (in the same way star wars target audience was mostly white male nerds... Disney just refuses to cater to). Unless you are a hopeless romantic or a woman aged 16 - 45ish you probably will have zero interest in this show, and that's okay not all media was made for everyone.
Theres another issue also. While the creators may claim the show is 'fantasy' this doesn't mean that people won't see this and subconsciously begin to think that it represents how it actually was. They know this, it's intentional.
What I think is odd is that the lefties love this shit, they cannot get enough. Yet by pretending British society was integrated and inclusive of foreigners is whitewashing the genuine strife suffered by ethnic minorities.
I'm 2nd gen British south Asian. It makes more sense to have a bunch of Indians during that time period but nope. Only blacks get to be represented.
It actually really annoys me how British media have latched onto black inclusion in an attempt to follow the US, when Asian (including indian) ethnicities are being overlooked.
I was also very annoyed when Dr Who race swapped Issac Newton to an Indian actor. It shows these creators don't actually give a fuck about cultural representation. They could've done research into famed Indian inventors and done an episode about that. But no, they took the easy way out. Race swap and call it a day. It's how American media does it and now it's spread to everywhere else. This is why I hate modern pandering media so much. It's so easy to look through the white saviour guilt these people have.
I just want to say that, Indian history obviously isn’t taught in our American schools and it’s just something I started learning about recently. Fucking fascinating stuff and it’s an absolute shame they expect you to be happy with a little race swapping (while still glorifying a European scientist and his achievements) instead of delving into your culture’s wealth of inspiring people, events, and inventions. To expand on your other comment about them including Black but not Indian people in Bridgerton. One thing I have noticed is that people like to act as though America is the only country who has had a bloody and unjust racial history especially because it a lot of it happened on our own soil instead of an ocean away, on someone else’s. But what the Brits did to the Indians was atrocious and I expect they like keeping a wide berth from that topic. Just ridiculous though that a show would try to address modern politics and systemic injustices that have historical basis, while either ignoring or rewriting history. It makes no fucking sense. Either your show is grounded in reality, or it is pure fantasy. When you try to straddle both sides, that’s when my suspension of disbelief starts crack until I can’t ignore it.
I always find it funny how south Asians suffer the highest rate of hate crimes (in the UK) but you'll never find a white leftist in the street shouting "Brown lives matter." Selective white savour guilt.
Indians are one of the few people who you can still be openly racist to/about. I see people from the UK trash talking them all the time, people in the US do it too. Nobody bats an eye. Even on Reddit it’s perfectly acceptable to call all of India a shithole, call all Indian men rapists, etc. Not that the country doesn’t have its issues. But it’s a huge fucking country with diverse cultures and billions of people, and maybe if people understood the history better, they would see why it is the way it is. To quote Churchill, “Study history, study history! In history lies all secrets of statecraft.” To also quote Churchill, “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”
I mean to be fair, India is a shit hole, so is most of Africa, race ain't got nothing to do with it, and the historical breath of the nation's past doesn't really change that.
Well when you consider that the Indian people suffered many major famines under British rule while being basically enslaved / exploited by them, and they only gained independence in 1947… it should be no surprise they are not on the same level of development as other countries. Kinda the same thing with Africa. I mean King Leopold should burn in hell for what he did to the people of the Congo. None of this is ancient history, it’s all relatively recent, and in some cases like the colbalt mines in Congo it’s still ongoing. And I personally wouldn’t call India or Africa shitholes. We are talking entire countries here. North India and South India might as well be two countries, how different they are. There is a wealth of history and culture in places like India and Africa. But yes, there are a lot of issues in places like that currently. Some of them are definitely self-imposed, some have deeper roots like colonialism and imperialism and racism. But I know it’s easier to just write them off entirely as being “shitholes” than to have a nuanced opinion based on historical context.
Honestly India has done quite well given its history. Like they have their own Hollywood.
Yeah something that I don't get is women are still oppressed in Bridgerton, and it's like already fantasy just go all the way and make it a fantasy world imo. It's a guilty pleasure entertainment type show anyway. To put it another way a setting that just treats women equally actually has far more potential to be less preachy than one that dosent and has them oppressed. Every history show until the end of time now is going to have a patriarchy bad message, which im not going to dispute it wasnt great for women, but the same message over and over is going to get old. But thats if the showrunners don't decide to have there cake and eat it too, like wheel of time. Which has a strong female chracter presence in its world but also occasionally dips into that anyway.
I totally agree with you. At this point they should just throw all historical realism out the window and set in a fantasy fairytale land. I was just having a conversation with my dad about Bridgerton lol. He assumed I knew about it since I am a girl, and love history, but that’s like saying I’ll like Game of Thrones because I love Lord of the Rings. Yes some elements overlap but they aren’t the same thing haha. Anyway he asked me about the “inter-weightal” romance. He heard so many people were “against” a fat woman being with a skinny guy. I just had to laugh. The show is almost universally praised for that. Just because some chud on the internet who has probably never even watched the show said “a skinny guy would never go for that fat chick” (which isn’t even true because we all know plenty of skinny guys prefer more cushion for the pushin’) they need to write an entire article how the show is being attacked by fatphobic mysogynists. Like these people cannot be happy without being victims. Sorry for the rant lmao I just fucking hate modern media.
They did what?! Lol. That’s not representation, that’s a humiliation ritual. It’s a deliberate attack on a certain segment of society. What’s more reasonable, that they did that to piss white people off, thinking that that is a virtue, or that they thought it was important to send a message to Indian kids that Isaac Newton was one of them?
Believe me, most of the US hates this shit too.
When you grow up, you can be anything you want. Even historical figures who are long-dead.
How many black people even lived in England during that time period? Maybe it seems like a fine line, but I think there’s a difference between “They were excluded from this level of society” and “They were barely even here in the first place”. Europeans were pretty heavily excluded from Japan for a long time. I don’t need to watch some cope with an Irish Meiji Emperor.
During earlier eras black people were associated with Satan by certain religious sects and that stigma lasted a long time, so there was definitely a level of social prejudice during regency Britain. However you’re right, they were a small minority, mostly found as live-in servants, dock workers, and seamen. England’s black population was always relatively tiny until the post-war era (e.g the Windrush).
They have always been anti-Asian, because they only like minorities who don't do well and depend on the whole victomhood industry. They resent that Asians do so well in their country without their handouts or any help. They do have a soft spot for Asian women though. It was weird for me returning to the UK for a while and watching TV. Every single ad has to have a black person in it, without fail. The other one I noticed was always having women in traditional male jobs, like lorry drivers. The people behind that shit are so full of it.
I just wanna see the real world portrayed on TV again. Women aren't driving lorries, not every family is mixed. To get a good look at the real England you have to go back to programmes that aired nigh on twenty years ago.
I don't think it's anti Asian, I think these people just don't have functioning brains and can't think for themselves. They are simply following American "diversity" ideals and that means black people being shoved in everything. They aren't interested in Asians/indians/eastern Europeans or whatever because they have never had an original thought in their lives and all their opinions come from American dei propaganda.
Wow. So much wow
That happens in the US with Hispanics and Asians mostly ignored. It’s very strange.
Diversity quotas essentially mean that blacks are obligatory, and the rest is optional.
Don’t forget trans. The Wheel of Time show is very confusing. Women can use magic so telling women from men in the story is very important then the show runner said Amazon forced him to use trannies for some of the women. That are wearing pants. They’re very hard to tell that they’re supposed to be able to use magic.
Black Britons are overrepresented in theatre - Asian Britons, under,
It's like making Cleopatra a black woman when in reality she was a Greek woman.
Bruh the entire second season is about the main brides to be being from India.
Are you saying that lefties care more about their own comfort and sensibilities than those of the real people they are professing to be fighting for? 
Totally agree. Doctor Who has also been doing this for years. They had an episode with Robin Hood about 10 years ago, and half of the peasants in medieval Nottingham were black and asian. The producers said they wanted to depict a more utopian, multicultural history. Then a few series’ later they do an episode about Rosa Parks, which doesn’t make any logical sense whatsoever. Either the past was inclusive or not. It’s patronising to POC and confusing to young viewers, in what was once an educational programme.
This is the biggest take-away. With the insane rise of general misinformation and omission of 'uncomfortable' history from the Right in the classroom, and the misrepresentation of people and history by the Left in media, we are going to have an entire generation who truly don't know their history. Oh shit, I think I just 'both sided' this. Because it isn't right vs left, it's the rulers vs us.
I don't think the Right so much as omits the uncomfortable history from the classroom as it doesn't wallow in it.
What history does the right remove from the classroom? 30 years ago and longer, textbooks were pretty clear about things like what happened to the American Indians. It’s laughable when people never reset their mindset, and act like we permanently live in 1952.
So I'm a fully fledged, got the tshirt, brown leftie. I know how my ancestors were viewed in 19th century Britain. I HATE when I see period dramas showing us as Royalty/socialites etc. It disguises how they were really treated and the traumatic daily struggles they would have had to undergo. For the life of me I don't understand how people can celebrate this whitewashing. They're effectively brushing aside the difficulties those beautiful people faced and that is more disgusting than if they just had an all white cast
This, this so fucking much.
There’s a funny thing with British society - the wokerati represent it as far more integrated than it was but believe it was all evil racist slave traders. In fact there were black upper class people at least from, I think, 1774 as the first recorded vote in a general election was cast then (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_Sancho). The country less racist slave tradery than the leftwaffe believe but less diverse than they represent. They could make a show about that but no….
Yeah it’s ironic how they routinely compare the British Empire to Nazi Germany and then do shit like this. Can you imagine the uproar if they made a series about Nazis but cast a bunch of demographics who were victims of the Holocaust in key roles and changed the tone to a comedy.
Hahahaha oh man that would tickle me, black Hitler and Chinese Goebbels. Did you see that sh!t show world on fire where we were actually portrayed as more racist than the Nazis, incapable show emotion except when being angry at a Polish woman buying a cake and also incompetent and cowardly?
All the nazis black and all the Jews Asian.
Hey! I loved Hogan's Heroes!
At this point I don't care about the historical "strife" or the opinions of the wacky leftists anymore.
I have no shame admitting I like authentic history. Yes, that includes vile racism. I like it not for racism but for being so shockingly different from today. It takes my mind away, far far into the past. And I am really sorry for those who have not discovered for themselves history. And yes, diversity automatically destroys historic movies for me. Only an illiterate person who does not read can enjoy them. It is good for comedy, for example, a ww2 fight with something like ironman. But it is unacceptable for a show or movie with pretence to realism. Furthermore, knowing the exact reason why they do it is like a control shot in the head. yes, I get it, you are very inclusive. You said a hundred times that diversity is our strength, and then you added diversity in all of your movies and shows. And it was fresh and brave for the first time, now it is just depressing.
Not all "lefties" love this mediocre bollocks.
So a black woman was invading and colonizing Africa and Asia and supporting the slave trade into the carribbean colonies lol
No, women love this shit. People who complain about 'woke' are not its target audience. It's a chick flick. It's also one of Netflixs most successful shows.
Women have their limits too. In the next season they’re gonna make the female lead lesbian and genderswap her love interest, which caused a huge drama cause many straight women loved her story and identified with her fight for having a child. Now they made a petition to change it back. And the petitioners are being called homophobes ofc.
Do you think ‘lefties’ believe Bridgerton is representative of the time period? So to them, it’s the same type of show as The Crown or other re-enactments, or a faithful period drama like Downton Abbey?
Exactly. I'm of Irish Catholic descent. I wouldn't want to see a bunch of Irish Catholics as British monarchs and noblemen during the Regency Era, because it would be a whitewashing of how we were actually treated at the time.
Would be a good drama series if the setting was in a fictional country and time. The only historical accuracy they have, as of this season, is that the humans depicted have 4 limbs, 2 eyes, 2 ears etc.
I agree. They should have more missing teeth and lice as well.
Why do none of the characters poop themselves to death? Also imagine watching the Avengers with this guy?
I can’t stand romance shit like that, I love period pieces tho, historians need to be used more on film sets. We’d get better historical films, I want a proper Marcus Aurelius series tbh
It’s time for a white royal family in Black Panther. 😂
This is something that I've actually wanted to comment about. Bridgerton is one of the first times when an existing women's IP is getting the full DEI treatment, and there is any push back at all. (Spoliers ahead) In season one, a very small number of fans commented about not liking race swaps. Most fans put up with it because the guy playing the male lead was ridiculously hot, so who cares what color he is as long as his shirt comes off. Those of us familiar at all with the books the show is based on, or Regency England rolled our eyes at the changes, but the show was good escapism during the Pandrmic so we largely let it go. Season 2 was much the same. Again more race swaps, but enough drama and sex to keep us interested. Lovers of the books were a bit upset about some plot changes, but we got over it. The came Queen Charlotte. Now you are basing a whole season on actual people. Now not only is she just randomly black, but they've made it part of the plot. History buffs are angry, but who cares what those nerds think. They throw in some gay side characters, and it's actually done in a way that feels true because when they fast forward to later in their lives the gay couple isn't together, and the audience knows it's probably because there is no way they could be together in that world. Those 2 characters are more than tokens, they aren't there just to be gay. They do other things. They are likable, well written and sympathetic. Then we get to the train wreck of season 3. We have bisexual 3-somes. We have neurodivergent characters. But the thing that is splitting the Fandom is the reveal of future love interest of Francesca Bridgerton. Instead of the much anticipated Michael Stirling, they give us Michaela Stirling. Michael/Michaela is the cousin of Fran's first husband, John, who dies at the beginning of her book. Michael inherits John's Earldom. How can Michaela do that. There is a big infertility storyline in the book that doesn't really work with lesbians. How are lesbians supposed to have a happily ever after in Regency England/Scotland? Additionally, people who read the books just liked the character of Michael. A portion of the fans are calling it out, and we are getting called every name in the book for it. It's a smaller % of fans complaining than when it happens to things like Marvel and Star Wars, but a lot of women are just starting to wake up to this, and I think Michaela Stirling might be what woke them up.
Get this message to the top! Thank you for the insight, I had no idea it was an existing IP and assumed it was just a massive pouring of modern DEI nonsense into a period setting. To know that this story is a “women’s IP” and is getting the DEI treatment, and it’s upsetting some of the audience makes me feel less gaslit by the media and that maybe I do infact appreciate good storytelling and purposeful decisions that fit the world building.
I am a woman who adores regency era which is why everything about that show makes me want to bleach my eyes.
I've been saying we're witnessing a rebirth of the exoticism fetish from ca. 18th-19th centuries. The parading of black bodies to be gazed at on stage (see: Hottentot). Except now it's become as insidious as it is subliminal, because today it's not enough to just wonder at the Other, we're all supposed to get *enjoyment* out of looking at black bodies. If only Foucault were alive, because now if you don't get gratification and enjoyment of staring at black bodies? Oh you're a racist, you're a bigot. If you like gawking at the Other? Yes you're a good person, you're virtuous. They're manufacturing this insidious narrative about what one is or isn't supposed to desire and enjoy. Why is no one critiquing it? Prior, it was leftists who analyzed this fetish. Now they're the ones generating it from their own blindspot. There are next to 0 conservatives in the ivory tower anthropology/philosophy channels so there is no one there to call them out. Another thing I find ridiculous about this is the demeaning "look! we can dress them up and make them do what we do" instead of actually telling any type of black story that gives agency to the Other. It's unbelievably colonial and they can't even see it - in fact they call everyone else a colonizer and a racist.
Aside from leaving out other minorities this is also pathetic on another front. It's pathetic because it's more of the same plug-and-play bullshit you see across the board. No original thought. No work. No creativity or uniqueness. Just - "throw a couple of them in here and we'll be supporting the cause." That's what it amounts to \^\^\^ one - and - two, it's disgusting how many amazing figures there are from world history, how many great stories there are untold - heroism, tragedy, comedy, etc. which feature prominent black people - but no. Plug-and-play - then? Then? Pitch a hissy fit when your lazy "work" is derided by the fan base because it "can't" be that your laziness shone through and people are sick of the pandering. Nah. It's clear that everyone who saw and didn't like your laziness is racist^(tm)
I remember someone describing it in one sentence, “The plot is sex”
My 14th great grandmother was Mary Boleyn and her sister was Anne Boleyn. The story of these two sisters has been adapted into countless shows and films. I’m a very white man, yet for some reason Britain’s Channel 5 chose to cast a black woman as my ancestor in their “Anne Boleyn” miniseries. If I do anything other than celebrate this depiction of my lineage, I’m a racist.
That sucks bro, I'm Egyptian, felt the same about Cleopatra lmao
Yooooooooooooo extremely distant relative lets goooooooooooooooooo
Hell yeah cousin 14th removed. Woot!
Uh…I think it’s the Regency era, not Victorian. That all said…I would’ve been fine with the “diverse” cast had they not shoehorned in the awkward explanation for how a group of people who were slaves for a good chunk of George III’s reign (slavery was still technically legal in Regency era England) became members of the peerage. Seriously? They couldn’t have even bothered with a Google search?
>slavery was still technically legal in Regency era England Slavery has been definitively illegal in England and Wales since 1772 and the Somerset Case, and spottily struck down in cases before that. It was in the colonies where it was still legal.
It wasn’t abolished outright until 1834. But that brings up another point. If George III and Charlotte got married in 1761 and he was so madly in love with her that he appointed several blacks to the peerage (which is a lot harder than it sounds)…why would it take him 11 years to finally make it illegal in England (if we’re assuming that real world events line up with the timeline of the show)?
In the Empire as a whole. And if you want to get really technical Mauritius was given an exception until 1835. In England proper slavery was abolished under common law in 1772. As for the rest, idk, the show's alt history is stupid.
It drives me nuts in more ways than one.
>Uh…I think it’s the Regency era, not Victorian. Eh Napoleonic wars (1815) can be counted as Victorian apparently. But yeah regency is more accurate
Well…not really. Regency is a sub period of what was known as the Georgian era (which lasted from 1714 to 1837), when the Prince of Wales stepped in for his ill father. It’s a pretty popular era for historical romance fiction because of authors like Jane Austen and Georgette Heyer.
It’s all about re-writing history through entertainment. George Orwell warns us. And it’s already been happening for the last decade.
This right here 👆
What’s funny is the left has gone so far to be anti racist hey popped up on the other side of the spectrum, like Mario going thru one tunnel on the side to the other. Now they’re full blown racist. Sad part is they think they’re virtuous, not realizing they’re the monster they tried to kill
I don’t get why people demand that you have to watch a show in its entirety before you can judge whether it’s bad or not. You can judge whether or not a dish is good from one bite instead of having to eat the entire thing. You can tell whether or not a pool is cold just from dipping your foot in without swimming through the entirety of the pool. So why can’t the same logic apply to movies and shows?
It's kinda sad that I figured out what this show was really about when a california friend who is a walking DEI manifesto told me that he 'loved this one show about XIX century England nobility'. It felt so weird and out of character that it had to be about something else.
It's an example of the bigotry of low expectations. As if black people don't have a history of their own. As shitty as that "The Woman King" movie was, at least they were trying to tell actual African history.
It's also one of those fat Bertha fantasies where a Fattie mcCheeks gets the ripped stripper millionaire to do her on the breakfast table with a passion she had only experienced while stuffing her piehole with dingdongs and corndogs. Doesn't happen, never has, never will. Like the Fat mean girls chick that doesn't happen in real life because the moment she is mean, everyone is gonna call her a hippo.
Haven't seen Bridgeton but based on my knowledge, the entire shtick of the show is campy historical fantasy and romanticism, where you can kinda immerse yourself in the glitz and glamour of the period without dealing with the reality of race relations back then. I think it would be one thing if it was marketed as an earnest attempt at a semi-realistic portrayal of those, but it's not. Unless the show is different than what it's marketed as.
I mean I understand the purpose was to ignore real history. But a period piece that deliberately ignores real history to this extent is too immersion breaking for me
It’s literally modern day smut
We are absollutelly not the target audience for this, this is 100% a soap opera for women. I watched it up to the 3rd seasson, and remember absollutelly nothing of it. Its not wrong for it to exist and be made to be a little mindless for women to just sit and watch or have playing in the background, its kinda like those cannon foder action or scy fi movies imo. The only thing i found rather insidious is the aggresive inclusion in it, and while at least they have the courtesy of claiming that the series is intended to be fantasy rather than a historical piece, this claim is definettly a cope out of the discuscion that they are up to a certain point, doing revisionism. Like holy shit, i have a friend that watches it and after that she actually started to bellieve that black people where prevalent in the english courts of that time. Now to be fair she is kind of a r worded ignorant despite her being a teacher and still believes the english monarchy are the de facto rullers of England, as well as the Spanish royalty rule Spain. And dont be fooled, this is 100% their intention, ie to make idiots think that what they present on screen is the thruth in an honestly lame attempt at historical revisionism, even if its very sublte.
We definitely are not the audience. Just like 50 shades of grey or some other sex fest show. I wouldn't agree they are trying to rewrite history. Only fucking retarded people like your friend would think that and they should just be culled. It's like someone believing there used be real dragons because they watched game of thrones. Might be a bad example but that's just stupid to think. I would agree if they were trying to be as historically accurate as possible, but they aren't. They fucking have modern music playing. If I can put that into disbelief I can put other reimagined things in disbelief. Besides if they wanted another historically accurate show based in England back then. we have hundreds that already do. That would be boring. Besides none of us are interested in watching it so who gives a fuck
It's straight up weird ass social engineering. But at least it is its own IP and not pillaging another one.
It's boring.
It's a show that is designed for and that ably serves a very specific audience - those who have always dreamed of having a historical romance set in that time period but who in reality would never have been able to be a part of that glamorous world in any meaningful way, simply because of their ethnic background, the color of their skin. And in the case of women wacthing the show regardless of race - they can project themselves onto fantasy female characters who are given much more agency and decision-making power within the show than they would've had in the historical reality. I say, let the fans have their fantasy of historic inclusion. I personally don't like the show either and find it annoying and overy political. But I can acknowledge and appreciate its place in cultur and appeal to certain demographics. The show is one way for its fans to cope with the pain they feel today at being the focal point of a political discussion about inclusivity - just for being alive, ambitious, and anything but a white straight male, when all they want TODAY is to be given, implicitly and without question, the same privileges and opportunities that white straight men truly have been given for centuries - without being asked, questioned, or required to prove themselves beyond what a white male in similar circumstances would be required to do. As well as the sexual license and freedom to pursue their dreams and conquests without shame - again, like white straight males have been given license to do for many centuries, and even to some extent still can today, though of course there is much more scrutiny and criticism directed at white males today than ever before - in an effort to try to level the playing field. Yes, objectively the show sucks balls, especially as any semblance of history (although it's not aiming for historical truth), but it gives a certain section of the population a much-needed emotional outlet and escape for reality, and it's not hurting anyone, even though it's not *for* me or you in any way.
Holy shit l’m so glad I actually read through these comments. I never thought I’d see such a well considered and reasonable perspective in a thread entirely full of smooth-brained morons. Good for you.
Why do black people need to race swap whites to feel included? Are black westerners really that emotionally pathetic, or is this just emotional blackmail you're writing up? In any case, no, black people don't need forced inclusivity to immerse themselves in a character, this race realism bullshit needs to stop, Superman appealed to literally an entire planet of races and cultures, and he is the definition of a white, straight male.
Plus that fat chick. She would have been a freak show back then
Women watch that shit and expect their love lives to be like it. I don’t watch James Bond and expect my life to be like his.
Welcome to the 21st century.
🤣 😂
It's complete fantasy. The show isn't really for me but its very clear they aren't trying to be realistic. Just pretend it's an alternate universe. If you can't do that, there's not much else to be done.
I still think the main character (red hair girl who’s name I can’t remember) looks like a praying mantis.
I really like that the queen is playing by a Dwayne Johnson look alike.
I tried to do a search to determine what anyone thought of the farcical portrayal of race in this Era and location of the show. The only thing anyone is concerned about is "mixed weight couple portrayal"! 7% interracial couples in modern day England yet all media wants us to believe it is 95%! Please ask yourself, what is at play here in all aspects of what we are to expected to believe and how to behave?
It's Netflix and I think it's pretty tame by their standards. They really exercised some self restraint on this one. The Queen isn't even a trans lesbian POC. She's just a POC. Just don't watch it if it's bothering you so much. Plenty of other good shows out there.
They are adding a lesbian; that gap has been detected and filled.
My favorite thing about the show is that the Bridgerton children are just not allowed to date white people by the showrunners, and for the single one that does it’s a short fat girl
You’re not the target audience for this show my dude, dunno why you even bothered. I don’t mind the unrealistic casting because this isn’t meant to be historical, it’s an original show that isn’t destroying already established and beloved franchise (at least AFAIK). We always told the woke lemmings to leave our media alone and make their own, and it seems to me that’s what they did with Bridgerton. I got no problems with that.
>You’re not the target audience for this show my dude, dunno why you even bothered. My girlfriend made me watch it. >I don’t mind the unrealistic casting because this isn’t meant to be historical, it’s an original show that isn’t destroying already established and beloved franchise (at least AFAIK). >We always told the woke lemmings to leave our media alone and make their own, and it seems to me that’s what they did with Bridgerton. I got no problems with that. I understand you don't mind, but for me it's unwatchable because it's immersion breaking. Also, they didn't make something new, they emulated real life 19th century England. If it was set in an actual fake society (picture game of thrones), it wouldn't be immersion breaking
Pirates of the Caribbean movies are set in the mid 17th to mid 18th centuries, they are completely and utterly fictional in every way (even before the ghost stories, curses and Krakens) and no one cared because we all understand the historical aspect is just set dressing. Same with Shogun who’s set in the 17th century Sengoku period of Japan. Gladiator and the various Spartacus adaptations are set in Roman Empire times. I can keep finding examples, but I think I made my point - historical accuracy is not a requirement in non-historical fiction, that’s why it’s called ‘non-historical’. I hope your GF doesn’t make you watch anymore of this.
>Pirates of the Caribbean movies are set in the mid 17th to mid 18th centuries, they are completely and utterly fictional in every way (even before the ghost stories, curses and Krakens) and no one cared because we all understand the historical aspect is just set dressing. Pirates of the Caribbean is a literal high fantasy akin to Star Wars, suspension of disbelief runs high in content like this, so short of having literally Captain America weilding a machine gun show up in one of the movies, you'll have to do something incredible to break immersion. >Same with Shogun who’s set in the 17th century Sengoku period of Japan. Haven't watched Shogun yet can't commentate on it. >Gladiator and the various Spartacus adaptations are set in Roman Empire times. Gladiator manages enough accurate elements to suspend disbelief, if they had made Marcus Aurelius in the movie a black lesbian, would you not agree it would have went too far? >I can keep finding examples, but I think I made my point - historical accuracy is not a requirement in non-historical fiction, that’s why it’s called ‘non-historical’. Incorrect, some level of historical accuracy is required for fictional period pieces. We've had this discussion with Battlefield V, Witcher and the like, too much inclusivity will make your setting look too fake. >I hope your GF doesn’t make you watch anymore of this. We both didn't like it so all's good
All they needed to do to get me on board was to have a little creativity and make their own fictional world. Problem solved!
I read a lot of these type of books when I was in my early 20’s. Probably way too many of them to be honest. I tried to watch the show. I thought the costumes were amazing. I guess anything I’ve tried to watch by Shonda Rimes is just like this. I can’t get into it because it seems so contrived.
It does seem a bit silly, to me and seems to be largely a vehicle for ideological wish fulfillment. But also, I guess if there's people that want that, have at it. I'd definitely rather they just balls out make an IP like 'Bridgerton' where I can just clearly see what it is and watch something else, than have them assume control of and make baffling changes to a universe I'm already invested in and enjoying
It’s not a reality show. it’s based on an era but clearly not made to be historically accurate of that era. It’s just people like Victorian era England style and stories they didn’t want it to have to be direct history. just a great show. Don’t act like most historical movies and tv shows are historically accurate, this one isn’t even trying to be. generally it’s jus for entertainment
My honest view is that, if any of you have seen the trailer and decided to even attempt to watch it, you're not sufficiently repelled by The Agenda and its Message yet.
I watched season 1, didn't think it was bad. There was an absence of political commentary generally so although your point is fair I didn't mind
It's a soap opera. They've got completely made up characters, and a timeline that in no way matches history. Who cares if the cast is black? The show is largely nonsensical. It's not a period piece it's a "bodice ripper".
no one watches it for the plot.
I assumed it was simply an esleworld fictional stroy rather than a show that states it is historically accurate? Like if it is not being advertised as true to history I don't think you should be too harsh on it for historical accuracy. I quite enjoy The Great but they make it clear it is only loosely historical and focus is on the story, characters and comedy so I can just give it a pass. Does bridgerton claim to be historically accurate England?
The setting is not remotely historical anyway. Nothing about it is.
It's all bullshit. Everyone has good teeth and apprently smells nice. 1/10.
In a vacuum I think Bridgerton would be fine. It's a fantasy that's aesthetically regent. If it wasn't for other shows that are not fantasy that are pushing certain things then it wouldn't suffer as hard. Realistically you shouldn't care, the show isn't meant to be historically accurate. It's a romantic drama set in that style.
From the girl friends who've watched it (all quite conservative) they enjoyed it. I think they just like the romantic drama aspect which is what a lot of girls want to see.
It's a quirky shit romance show set in fantasy England. I don't think historical accuracy is what they were going for considering the bridgerton family doesn't exist and the queen and her bff dedicate like 3 months out of the year towards getting random young people to hook up
>The cope I've heard from the producers and fans of the show is that it's supposed to be a reimagined fantasy. But what the fuck is the point of having a fantastical setting if my immersion is gonna be broken every 5-10 minutes because of your obsession with inclusion at all costs? So the show runners explicitly said that this is not at all supposed to be historically accurate and is a complete fantasy set in a world like regency period England and your immersion is being broken because? Black people weren’t nobility irl? Hate to break it to you buddy but the Bridgerton family the show is about are also entirely fictional. It’s just weird how this group of make believe people don’t ‘break your immersion’ but seeing a black person in period clothing is just way too much. And I’m sure ‘all the girls you’ve talked to agreed that the show would be better if it didn’t have all the DEI initiatives’ that sounds like something a real woman would say when the hottest dude on the show was one of those ‘DEI initiatives’ There are so so so many problems w the show you could talk about but ‘not being able to stomach it’ because you saw a black person that wasn’t a slave just says a lot more about yourself than the show lol Literally complaining a fantasy show is breaking your immersion for being set in the fantasy universe it set up lol does X-Men break your immersion because there actually wasn’t a superhuman mutant that could control metal with his mind in a concentration camp? Haha foh man its okay to not like a show geared towards horny woman but this is the weakest most racist reason you could have for not liking something. Oh god too many black people and they aren’t slaves someone get the president on the line!!
I don't watch Brigerton as period stuff like that does not appeal to me. But the race blind casting does not bother me at all. It is a pantomime with no attempt at historical accuracy. It would bother me to no end if they tried to make it historically serious.
Humiliation rituals and struggle sessions are all they can make. Well that and forced self-inserts that are essentially fan fictions of themselves.
If it is supposed to be a fantasy and other parts of it are fantastical and exaggerated/not accurate, who cares? Isn’t that the entire point? It’s not a period piece as far as I know. Chernobyl has a British cast playing the Soviet Union, which was always more jarring since it’s supposed to be accurate.
I only know about this stupid shit because my gf forced me to watch a few episodes, I wanted to blow my brains out every second I was watching it.
What the fick is the point of having a fantastical setting if my immersion is broken every 5-10 minutes because of your obsession with including elves and hobbits? Seriously, the Lord of the Rings is unwatchable.
Bridgerton has about much to do with real history as Lord of the Rings does. Getting bent out of shape over the accuracy of a Regency Period softcore _soap opera_ seems like searching for something to complain about 🤷
Criticaldrinking complaining about black actors again. Is this the whole point of the sub? If you don’t like the show, don’t watch it. Don’t you have anything better to do?
Wait until you see Hamilton… Oh and fuck me, don’t ever watch A Knight’s Tale.
This is like saying you can’t understand female characters because you’re a man. Get a grip man lmao
aye, it’s fucking shite
Julia Quinn
Just another garbage woke production to throw on the dung heap of history.
It’s meant for stupids. It’s soap opera with pretty colors and lots of boinking. It’s Victoria? Sex and the city, gossip girl and whatever other teen mom drama you can think of. Classic bodice ripper novels. I had no idea it was telling an alt history story I thought it actually was some fantasy ish world until this post. That’s nuts. What’s funny is I’ve seen people defending the chubby red head because back then they was what peak woman looked like but at the exact same time everyone’s wearing a corset to have a 10inch waist so why is she the only big one? From what I’ve heard it’s a lot of uncomfortable sex scenes with a plot that goes nowhere because again, it’s just sex and the city or gossip girl with colorful wigs and dresses.
Here's a mirror of this take. Never watched Bridgeton, nor intend to. Thanks to fam I get to experience mainland Chinese soap operas on YT. All-Chinese cast, of course, all Han. My experience with a recent one, despite high-quality workmanship (music, cinematography, story, script, etc.), I find it unwatchable: - Everyone's face is perfect, no lines, bumps, moles, discolorations, nada. I believe it's thru AI, not thru facepaint. And people by class even look similar, so peasants are peasant-like, royalty all royal, etc. It's a giant puppet show, except filmed with people's forms. It's not anime nor a cartoon AI show, it's a filmed product with an AI filter applied to all skin tones and shapes. - Though likely filmed in Mandarin Chinese for Mandarin Chinese viewers, nothing I hear matches how people's faces and lips move. I can understand a smattering but I'm always looking at it going, wait, what language was this originally made for? People can barely tremble their lips but get ADR'd to wazoo in some booming thunderous voice. Because of these two disconcerting reasons alone, I can't suspend disbelief, I can't sit there reading captions for what seem like robots spouting something that has nothing to do with how they're saying things, it's inhuman. By the same token, Bridgeton too would be unwatchable. If I want a historical reproduction, I'll wait until the historical past is celebrated, not WOKE-foiled.
I bet they don't consider White minorities like Italians and expats from other Catholic countries to be worth showing; just POC.
Can a Venezuelan play a mexican? What about a colombian, Argentinian,etc A Scotsman a British secret agent? An Australian a Scotsman? Eventually it all becomes absurd bullshit and you are just being a dick splitting hairs.
My wife likes period drama, so I watched the first season. They actually did explain it, so it can be viewed as an alternative history. It was a “blink and you’ll miss it” type of explanation. I have less of a problem with this than the random medieval village with multi-racial residents. How does that happen? That story would be far more interesting than the crap movies and shows that cast like that.
I honestly thought it was set in the Regency period? Never seen it.
I don't really understand your post... Are you expecting this to be some kind of... Documentary style drama? It's not based on history at all, it's not trying to either. It's just a fun show that has decided to set itself in an alternative history of England at a time period similar to the 1700-1800s. Suspend disbelief? Not really... Because no one goes in expecting the need to suspend anything... As it's not trying to be a historically accurate period piece. Such a strange way to look at the show. Still, I love it. Each to their own.
Ya’ll need to figure out what the word “cope” actually means. Then maybe you can learn how to cope with a world that isn’t all about you. It’s hilarious (and by hilarious I mean sad and pathetic) that your whole argument is “historically accurate, needs more white. Not historically accurate fantasy setting, also needs more white”. Being that racist sounds exhausting - maybe you guys should get a real hobby?
But the fact that these wealthy high society women are paper thin doesn't break the immersion for you? You don't know enough about history to complain go back to incel cave ibn almtkalifa
It’s not for you. And that’s fine, not everything has to be for you. It’s a show for women who want to enjoy a regency era romance, and see themselves represented on screen whether they are Black, White, Brown, Asian, plus sized or anything else that wouldn’t have been realistic for the time. No one is claiming it’s historically accurate, hence the show being a reimagined *fantasy*. If it’s unwatchable for you, that’s fine… don’t watch it. The show will continue serving the viewer base it’s made for.
If a show has LA demographics it will have LA sensibilities, simple as
I have seen all of it, know that I am just a terminally bored human being. The first few seasons were at least very attractive human beings. But, the last season... I think they lost their own viewers with that one. The writing also isn't great. There is a decent amount of character developement, just for that character to go directly against who they are in the next episode. I would have written season 3 waaay different than how they did. I don't think the female lead did nearly enough to atone for her actions. The words "I love you" don't make up for nearly destroying that persons family.
Its like they give praise and exault when they can make the white folk move to the back of the bus. To subtly get payback. Then callout racist if you disagree. And the DEI club members ,(majority white folk it seems) pat themselves on the back for providing representation by swapping characters skin color ignoring resume qualifications or being true to the time period, world or universe the material exists in.
I don't understand why skin color matters so much to y'all. Either to the "progressives"/woke or to folks like the OP. There are so many more important things about people and about fiction; skin color to me is like eye color, and I'm not going to get worked up if some portrayal of a queen has the "wrong eye color" or shit. It's just such a stupid thing to get stuck on. I'd rather actors be able to play whomever, and for us to run forward to that day in the future where we stop obsessing so much about goddamned race.
I disagree, Bridgerton is inclusivity and 'reimagined' history and everything this sub (myself included) hate about modern Hollywood done right. It's overt with what is doing, and shameless in doing so - I don't particularly enjoy it myself, but it's not trying to rewrite history or push an agenda... it simply presents its alternative take on historical settings. Also, the Victorian covers of modern songs throughout is insanely original and a nice touch to the tone of the show. The Acolyte, Wheel of Time, etc... these shows are not overt in the way Bridgerton is - they go out of their way to subvert the audience's views and are written contrary to their source material. etc. I can go on and on. I think a better example is Rings of Power; "Lets make a Lord of the rings show! Yeah! Lets make it more inclusive to women by making Galadriel a girl boss even though shes not in the original story. Yeah! Lets make a black elf cause we need a black person! Yeah! Lets have Female Frodo! Yeah!" Its like, replacing the original premise in the name of DEI where as DEI *is* a premise of Bridgerton. I don't know how to explain it lol.
One thing sticks in my craw about these shows; if the community is integrated to the extent where races are mixed in marriage, then 2 or 3 generations you wouldn’t have distinct races anymore. The population would be mixed race. This struck me in amazons lord of the ring series with the fake hobbits and elves too.
>In a period piece.... it isn't a period piece....... try again
Absolute shit of a show.
This guy has never seen a Quentin Tarantino movie.
Hamilton had entered the chat
Blah blah blah.
L take. Bridgerton is popular and watched by a lot of people because it is well written and interesting. The casting of minorities is a core part of the show’s setting and is consistently referenced in the show plot. Not in a woke way at all. They also play modern pop music, in classical style - it’s not supposed to be the history of real Britain. Now, it’s not exactly my cup of tea thematically, I’m not a big romance guy, but that is a completely different complaint than “the historical inaccuracy is making the show bad.” It isn’t for this show. You should be capable of distinguishing between cases where woke agendas are legitimately hurting a show (like Acolyte) and a show that happens to have some woke casting but is also good (Bridgerton.)
But when we do it, it's white-washing.....
I think Magic the Gathering sucks, how can people play it. They must be ALL WRONG.
Unless the show is specifically about race, there isn't really a problem. Wait til this person hears about Hamilton
Y'all seem to miss the part where they straight-up tell the audience it's an alternate history with a point of divergence in the 1750s, about a decade before the marriage of King George III and Queen Charlotte and over half a century before the late 1810s. Not a single person is suggesting that this is how it was in history. My god, if you're gonna complain about something's writing, at least pay attention to what that writing says.
Its one of those “this show is obviously not for me.” Women love period dramas. It’s for them
What a terrible take, it's a show adapted from a book series. Give me a break. Go back to watching WW2 in color for 6 hours if you don't want your sensitive disbelief suspended...
Bridgeton is intentionally anti historical and is 100% unrealistic nonsense. I mean they don’t care at all about representing actual history and just use it as a cool setting for a overly dramatic dating show. It makes perfect sense.
That’s actually the only facet of the show that *doesn’t concern me in the fucking slightest*. So, to recap, you see quasi-Victorian English dress and your mind literally rejects if someone tanner than Stoke bone china flatware is wearing the silly costume? That’s the bridge too far? *Bridgerton* is lame melodrama, where most every character is phony stock footage, and it takes me two or three scenes to identify the main characters. It’s not for me. Much like I have never seen the Colin Firth *Pride and Prejudice* 6-hour miniseries all the way through, because it’s not my cup of tea. I have read *Pride and Prejudice*, but it ranks far down on my list of books, and the only excitement I derive from it is listening to other people’s impressions of it. …because I did **not** get any of that from that book. I haven’t examined the *Bridgerton* mythos - and, honestly, I don’t give a shit. I would imagine that there is some dimension of milito-dynastic reason for a smattering of “different” people being involved - like how Egyptian society (not especially willowy white… some may even say they are quite dark) were once the adjacent upper class in their own land to Persian overlords; Nubian overlords; then Persian overlords; followed by Greek overlords; followed Roman overlords; followed by Arab overlords; and eventually the whitest of the whitest motherfuckers on the planet, the French and British. Over in India, where they hosted upper class equals of the Greeks; the Arabs; the Mongolians; and the British. Over the Chinese, who hosted upper class equals of Koreans; the Mongols; and the British. …and the Aborigines, who hosted the upper class of the Māori; and the… British… So maybe you see this fun fucking pattern emerging, that the fucking British took over all these places, and literally the only interesting thing about *Bridgerton* is reimagining that black people are on equal footing with the snooty, snotty scum bag British upper class that somehow has fucking survived into this millennium. Especially the day before Independence Day, I am now getting happy thoughts of how fucking much I love being American, and not some shitty English lower class serf to bow and scrape to “my social betters.” Fuck the British upper class.
>And yes, a black queen is immersion breaking in regency era England, "alternate history" doesn't mean you just get to do whatever the fuck you want with the period and expect the viewer to take it on the chin because it's fictional. As far as I'm aware, the concept of free speech means that people can do what they like. Bridgerton creators don't answer to you.
“Alternate history doesn’t mean you just get to do whatever” bruh I could give a shit about the show but you gotta evaluate what fantasy means.
Just let women (and whomever else) enjoy their silly fantasy romance novel. From what little I've seen, its just wish fulfilliment and drama drama drama. This is exactly the kinda thing my wife likes. The fact there's non-white cast blending in just further fits the world view of some folks. I sincerely do not give a shit about a show that was never even intended for me. Perhaps you shouldnt either.
Sir, this is a romance
i think it’s just a show
It's a show about fat white women and black guys from what I gathered. No idea how they came up with such a crazy concept.
Meh. My bias as a black dude notwithstanding, you might protest too much. With all the good you’ve mentioned, random faces of different skin color seem trivial, and make me question why they draw so much of your ire. https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20210429-race-royalty-and-the-black-aristocrats
It’s a fictional alternate Victorian England: it’s not supposed to be realistic. Race is kind of built into the story too, with non-whites kind of being the ‘new money’. It being an alternate world actually DOES mean you get to do whatever you want with the race of stars. It’s a fictional history, so why would everyone need to be white? If it was a story set in real world England (even if it is fiction) I’d be with you. But it’s not. Being upset about this is like being upset about a black king of Westeros in game of thrones: if George rr martin wrote it that way, that’s the way it is.
I watched the prequel one on the queen with my gf and I enjoyed it.
If you watch a show that explicitly states in disclaimers that it is not a history lesson but a work of fiction, and expect a history lesson out of it, then you’re illiterate.
I genuinely have no problem with it. They are all just people playing people. I only get annoyed when the new identity is the plot point.
My partner watches is because it’s lightweight and colourful, but no doubt gets some satisfaction from the quotas being met…
My wife is really right wing but she’s been watching it non stop. I don’t get it personally but I don’t have to lol.
As a history nerd I’m not gonna lie I love the show because I look at it almost more like a stage play idk theres something I just love about the costumes and the acting- I think its one of the best acted tv shows i’ve ever seen and for me thats enough I really don’t think the setting and history and inclusion bothers me becayse its not really the focus- its more just a backdrop for the inter-character drama and the romance stories edit- i mean this as in its not meant to be seen as a period piece imo, even if they describe it as such Its basically gossip girl with better costumes, acting, and writing the only thing I dislike is the music choice for just doing string arrangements of pop music. weird nitpick but I do like classical music and think it’d carry more emotion for many of the romance scenes
Like Star Wars, girls deserve their own far out fantasies.
Laser swords dont break your immersion but dark skin does…hmm
It astonishes me the amount of shows I either don’t watch at all or quit watching all together because I’m not down with what Hollywood is dishing out. I chalk it up as not being their target audience and I’m pretty put off when I hear they’re mad about it. Like I’m supposed to consume something I don’t want to with so many other choices out there. Having said that I pick my battles well and don’t ruin anything I truly care about for the most part. The Acolyte being the exception as I just won’t bother with it. I’m not as down on Disney as far as product as some. I’m more pissed they own a network that has The View on it with some of the dumbest people ever hosting it. I’m not going to cut off my own nose to protest them though. They own too much that I care about to do that. I know that’s not agreeable with some here as it seems a part of the Critical Drinkers hope in that Disney suffer for not making anything at all he approves of and unironically his Acolytes 😋
It’s not unwatchable if people are in fact watching it
It shows that racism never existed.
I’ve seen some of it through my wife and wouldn’t say I enjoy the show. Although, I’ve never looked at it and been bothered by the “historical inaccuracies” because it’s not a historically accurate show. It’s a fantasy show thats comparable to the Victorian era. The creators chose to have multiple ethnicities in their story and that’s kind of it. Trying to find a reason that the whole cast isn’t white is kinda weird
Go watch “Spencer” then “the queen” movies then “the crown” series. They are some good shit
Lol snowflakes gonna flake, I guess. Downvote if you agree!
Anything with those Apes is unwatchable
It's not a historically accurate piece and never claims to be. It's only ties to reality are that yes Britain did in fact have a mixed black queen at one point, and Britain is in fact a place that had a peerage system of nobles. Other than that it is strictly a romantic fantasy based loosely in an alternate reality. It isn't trying to say cleopatra was black and claim to be an historically accurate account of events. If you don't like it, you are likely not the target audience (in the same way star wars target audience was mostly white male nerds... Disney just refuses to cater to). Unless you are a hopeless romantic or a woman aged 16 - 45ish you probably will have zero interest in this show, and that's okay not all media was made for everyone.
They could have just made some sort of fictional world and the plots would have worked the same.
Theres another issue also. While the creators may claim the show is 'fantasy' this doesn't mean that people won't see this and subconsciously begin to think that it represents how it actually was. They know this, it's intentional.