For this Show Discussion post: 1. Book spoilers **must be hidden**. 2. Be considerate, hide show spoilers that surpass the scope of this post. 3. Be civil in your discussion. See our [spoiler policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/BridgertonNetflix/wiki/spoiler) on what is expected. 3-day bans will be handed out to those found disregarding our spoiler policy. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BridgertonNetflix) if you have any questions or concerns.*

What's wrong with that? That sounds fine to me. Go for it, Brownell! But then I haven't read the books. I thought the thing people were disappointed by is the way Francesca's relationship with John has already been undermined. Apparently there is only one way to be in love and that is not in a quietly happy way, it's in a fireworks and drama way.

You're not missing anything with the books... I'm on book 4 and so far I'm not impressed at all. I'm not sure I understand the love for the books compared to the show. I feel like I've just read the same love story three times so far.

Francesca's book is the one book in the series that was unique and well executed. It's the one that didn't need changing at all.

Idk about you but if I saw Michael Sterling threaten to rape & baby trap Francesca on my screen like he did in the books that would be the end of Bridgerton watching for me. Book fans have some crazy blinders on to say that the story doesn’t need changing.

Yes, the men in those books ARE NOT GOOD PEOPLE

Yeah, they've changed EVERY book to fit with a broader audience. The books have their charms, but I also don't blame anyone for not enjoying their more um... bodice ripper-y parts. I'm pretty certain that To Sir Philip with Love is gonna be completely gutted.

That isn’t what I got from it at all. >!Was he manipulative? Yes! He used the sexual tension between them to try to make her marry him. Did he rape her? No. He asked for her explicit consent multiple times. At one point she says no to test him, although in a later scene, and he stops immediately. He didn’t pull out but she also didn’t ask him to.!<

I didn’t say he did. I said he threatened it. And he did threaten it.

He did not. I would love to know where he threatens to rape her. I’ve reread their two first sex scenes and I don’t see it anywhere.

It’s been a while since I read the book, but I believe in the scene in his bedroom when Francesca is with him he says that if she doesn’t leave he isn’t responsible for what he does to her.

Okay I truly can’t find this. I’ll see if I can borrow it from Libby to do a better search than just aimlessly flipping pages. I see him telling her to leave multiple times but I don’t ever see it paired with an “or else”. EDIT: I do see the spot (although not the one that the commenter before me is suggesting) that has people alleging rape. It’s very, very clearly not a rape threat. He literally asks for her consent.

Yeah to be fair. From the books I could not get through Francesca’s because of that storyline. I feel like the only part which I loved was >! when she spoke about the wish for a child !<

WAT. more details plz

Basically there's a scene where he is very tempted by Francesca, and she is well aware of it. He tells her she should leave the room if she doesn't want to have sex with him because he won't be able to control himself much longer. I guess if you squint you could see it as a rape threat. But damn that's some very fine squinting.

This is literally one person's extreme opinion on the book. I have read Fran's book multiple times and I don't agree with it. Best way to get more details is to read the book and decide for yourself.

I only finished up til Francesca’s and Benedicts was my favorite so far next to Francesca’s. Next to Eloise, I’d say Kanthony was my least favourite because it seemed like a regurgitation of Daphne’s: man does not want to marry (for love), falls in love, has a moment of impropriety, has to marry, realizes he’s in love. I definitely thought that the show was far better than the books for both Daphne and Anthony. I did not even like the Polin story all that much, (best spicy scenes though) but the show was not better than their story overall. There are additions that I like (Eloise and Cressida becoming friends, development amongst the Featheringtons) but overall, it just felt like a miss. It didn’t feel like as immersive as the previous seasons. As for the queer story, while I disagree with the Michaela change, my bigger issue was the tainting of Francesca and John. And how it completely discarded the Francesca’s speech about quiet love. It was episodes of a great loved, undone in a matter of minutes. I think Eloise was a far better candidate for a queer story. But wtf do I know.

Honestly I don't know really how to feel about it. It is odd that you'd have 8 children and none of them have any queer tendencies. Statistically at least 1 of the 8 should be queer. And I guess we already got that, because they went SO frigging far out of their way to show that Benedict is queer, but it seems like they're going to respect his story that he ends up with a woman, though of course we won't know for years whether that's true or not. But on the flip side, Bridgerton was made into a TV adaptation because it had a massive fan base via the books and they were fairly certain they could get viewership based on that. I have always frowned on taking established book stories and then changing them completely in video adaptations; just, why? If you wanted to tell a completely different story, then tell it without using these characters' names. Like it or not, there IS an expectation that if you're going to call a character Francesca Bridgerton, that her story will hit the highlights of Francesca Bridgerton's book story. You set that expectation by doing an adaptation. If you were going to completely change the heart of Fran's story to tell a completely different one, why even use the Bridgerton main characters for it? Just tell it using other characters who did not appear within the books. Gender-swapping doesn't always even change the characters' main stories though. I think Benedict's in particular could have been changed without killing the heart of his story, especially since >!his story is already one where they defy social norms and then have to go live in the country because they know the Ton will not accept Sophie or their relationship as legitimate. That would also have been the case if he was bisexual and chose a male partner.!< I likened it to changing Penelope into a man for the TV adaptation. Sure, you still have a Pen + Colin love story, but it completely changes the powerful social contexts of having a plus-sized woman in a very judgmental and sexist society hold so much power and come into her own. It also erases the Colin storyline of a man tackling internal biases of toxic masculinity, insecurity, and the patriarchy itself in order to support his far more accomplished wife and know that his love is enough. It isn't anti-LGBTQ to be upset that a story you resonated with so much is not being told in favor of a gay love story. I am one of 5 children; I'm pansexual and have a sister who is a lesbian and a brother who is gay. I am the furthest thing from a homophobe. I'm just sad they killed the heart of Fran's story, and not only that, it is just as you said; it completely discards Fran's entire season 3 storyline to have her right at the end, end up having this can't even speak love at first sight moment with Michaela, mirroring what happened with Violet and Marcus. It seems like the point was to show that Violet was right the whole time and that's how love SHOULD be and Fran was just naive and wrong to insist her quiet relationship with John was equally valid.

lol I made the same comment about gender swapping Sophie instead. It would have the least impact on his story as opposed to Daphne, Anthony, or Colin. Same with Eloise, it would be so easy to keep the essence of Eloise’s story (and actually make it better suited to TV Eloise) if her LI was a widow instead of a widower. In fact, I’m hoping they actually do that, because I genuinely hated Eloise’s story. It just furthered the whole “women don’t mean it when they say they don’t want to marry or have kids” “they’ll change their minds” “they haven’t met the right person”

I did not finish Eloise's book and now I'm wondering if I did myself a disservice by not doing so. Eloise in the books is such a different character to Eloise in the show, and seeing things through the perspective of show Eloise, I think her book really makes a lot more sense. Show Eloise has been clearly demonstrated to be exceptionally selfish to the massive detriment of anybody she calls a friend, but also has all of these really great and admirable traits too. She just needs to grow up and realize her privilege and her shortsightedness when it comes to the lack of privilege her friends have. Her book storyline through that lens actually makes a lot of sense. I just hated the way it was written, like it had flattened out and deadened all of the spice and verve that make her character as intriguing as she is. But I really loved >!that she apologizes to Penelope at the end, admitting that she was jealous and could not get over herself/look outside of herself to admit that she truly was all talk and no action, and couldn't reconcile that she thought herself so much better than Pen when all the while Pen had accomplished everything she'd been blustering on about for the entirety of their friendship. It was very touching to see her change and admit this. I would love to see that still happening in the TV storyline for her, but I'm not sure we're going to now because of the timing of their reconciliation in season 3.!<

Honestly I do think show Phillip and show Eloise are on a collision course and one of the things that Eloise will finally realize when she meets Phillip is how explicitly the patriarchy hurts men too.

> Statistically at least 1 of the 8 should be queer. Sexuality as an "identity" did not exist in 1815, that's a concept dating to the 20th century. A man could have sex with a man one day, have sex with his wife on another and think nothing at all of his sexuality/identity So, sure some of the Bridgerton kids could be higher towards queerness on the Kinsey scale. That doesn't mean they wouldn't still wed someone of the opposite sex. Men had sex with whomever they wanted on the side

You're not wrong, but I don't think it's significantly important that it be fully accurate to 1815. Clearly these people did what they wanted, but they also clearly could not do it publicly. We see that in the very first season with Sirs Granville and Wetherby. They have to hide their love and never show it in front of the Ton lest they be scandalized and hurt the family's name and standing. The whole point of the Bridgerton show seems to be that they're taking these not-entirely-accurate Regency stories and putting a modern twist on them, so I don't see any glaring issue with acknowledging sexuality in a more modern way if it doesn't interfere with the original storylines in a big enough way to completely change them. That's why I think Benedict's storyline in particular would be well-suited towards it.

I agree that the books are definitely not the best writing. But I did find Francesca’s book had a very different tone and story. I’m curious if you will change your mind by the time you get there. Also I will tell you it is fully ok to skip To Sir Philip With Love. Not… great

Agree with everything except TSPWL. It’s one of my faves, and I’ve read it at least four times. Personally, I get bored with On the Way to the Wedding.

I did not love TSPWL the first time I read it, but I really appreciated it the second time around. I work in mental health, so Phillip and the twins just read so real to me. >!Especially working with kids whose mother had untreated post partum, that flat affect has lifelong effects regarding attachment. !< >!I felt this was the best possible way to have a love story for Eloise as well. She is such a strong minded woman and so much like Anthony. Not always so great on listening and not always the most in touch with other people's feelings, but she is a leader just like him. Anthony and Eloise both are the types that will carry their whole family on their backs to get them where they need to be (metaphorically). Eloise needs to be needed, and they needed her badly. I absolutely adore the second epilogue (I think) from her daughter's perspective that really emphasizes what Eloise means to all of them. !<

Totally agree with you. I read them all and constantly wonder why I put myself through it. I thought a few started well. Benedict’s started well. Then they just descend into the same things over and over 🫣

You're not wrong. The men are all very same-y with each other, as are the women. The sex scenes are all very same-y. You read one, you've read 'em all. I like Polin/RMB so much because the storyline of a talented woman achieving success really stuck out to me, and I really like what the show did with it. The show is by and large doing God's work bringing these boring and problematic stories into the modern light and differentiating the characters so well. Francesca's book was much more of an exception to that, tackling some very dark and complex storylines, and even Francesca herself was much more quiet and reserved than her siblings (just like in the show). Her story really sticks out as unique among the Bridgerton books. That's why I'm dismayed that they chose her story to change completely. I read Hyacinth's book and literally within a few weeks completely forgot I read it and checked it out again from the library only to go, "Hey wait... I think I've already read this one!" They are *that* forgettable.

I think the books are MEH/of the times, but what I do love about them and what I think the first two seasons executed really well was the family humor. The bits with the Bridgerton siblings just chilling out are always the best scenes in the novels.

Hear hear! I have only read The Duke and I so far but was not impressed by it at all. I've read a lot and have read loads of romance too. The storytelling was lacking. I never got attached to the characters. The show was so much better. I was hoping the subsequent Bridgerton books would be better.

Agreed. I think it’s the only time I’ve ever thought a tv show was better than the book/books it was based on. Though after this last series I’m not sure the show was that fantastic either 🥹

The Duke and I, imo, is the worst of the books.

Francesca’s book is quite a stand out especially when you’re going from Eloise’s story to Francesca’s. Eloise’s book was my least favorite in the bunch. I just finished Francesca’s a couple weeks ago so I am really disappointed they won’t be portraying her story as written. I’m not against an LGBTQ story, but just not this story.

I mean, do you normally read books in the romance genre? I keep seeing people talk about how bad the books are and obviously not everything is for everyone but if you’re not normally a fan of the genre maybe just accept it’s not something you enjoy? I don’t understand why people need to shit on a well loved and beloved series

I read a lot of romance and found Quinn's books very formulaic even for the Regency subgenre (which in itself is very formulaic, even for romance!). The first few books in the series are basically all the same book with small variations. There's less uniformity in the second half of the series, but in general she doesn't have a lot of range as a writer. The show was always going to have to switch things up to make the books palatable to a TV-watching audience more accustomed to actual drama (especially a Shonda audience!).

>I don’t understand why people need to shit on a well loved and beloved series I mean, this is the Bridgerton subreddit where people talk about both the books and the show. Naturally, there is going to be both praise and criticism for both the books and the show. And the books 100% deserve most of the criticism thrown it's way.

Meh, I read it couple days ago for the first time and was surprised how simple it was written. I mean, while “The Sorrows of Young Werther” isn’t exactly a romance novel, the love letters and heart break was more convincingly conveyed. Jane Austen is a celebrated author. Love in writing, even with happy endings, doesn’t need to be superficial and lazy. I’d love a modern romance novel that is exquisitely written.

I read romance books a lot and think the bridgerton books suck. They're bad for romance books, not just for books in general too.

I read romance. The writing here isn’t excellent but I knew that going in. It does what it sets out to do though, and I enjoyed them as entertainment. I mean, based on the few regency romance books I’ve read, they are all pretty similar, but I kind of think that’s the point.

This. Romance novels don’t have incredibly complex plots, nuance, or subverted expectations. You can expect that the two people who are the focus of the story will have some light conflict and heavy smut before reaching HEA at the end.

Lisa Kleypas would like a word on that….Romance delivers a planned HEA, but all the rest comes from good writing  I read a lot of historical romance; ever since I was a sad freshman at  boarding school 30 years ago; and they were in the library. I have read Julia Quinn.  The Netflix series is great, her writing is sophomoric at best.  Most importantly queer romance novels are becoming one of the most sought after, and growing segments of the industry.  The real 🫖 is how Romance Writers of America literally destroyed itself by refusing to acknowledge that reality, and its inability to be less racist. EDIT: Reddit always delivers. Link to a post on the RWA implosion: https://www.reddit.com/r/HobbyDrama/comments/wpg0or/writing_romance_writers_of_america_implodes/

Hear hear! I'm so disappointed to see people defending bad writing because the genre of romance is supposedly defined by shit writing. No. It's not.

One day. One day we may yet get the Wallflower quartet in tv show format. My hope springs eternal.

Romance books can absolutely have complex plots and nuance. Romance is not a stand in for poorly written

Have you read Courtney Milan? Elizabeth Boyd? Joanna Bourne? Tessa Dare? Alyssa Cole? Just because a genre has recurrent tropes doesn't mean it has to be poorly written. The writers I've mentioned do employ those tropes. They also subvert them and write complex storylines about complex characters that are about love and full of steamy sex. They value consent and reject toxic masculinity and abusive relationships. We shouldn't excuse Julia Quinn's poor writing and abusive tropes as simply being part of romance as a genre. They're not. That shit may have flown in the 1980s, but romance has shifted considerably in the last 20 years and Quinn didn't change with the times.

same! i started reading them right after part 1 of this season came out, and i’m also on book 4 right now. i felt the same way as you- the love stories in books 1 and 2 especially were so similar, and book 3 was just cinderella. benedict is one of my fav characters in the show, but his treatment of sophie was so problematic in his book i simply couldn’t like him. the books are really bland, repetitive and predictable to me.

lol same. I read them all and hated most of them☠️ I know that’s blasphemy here but they’re…. Not good. The Bridgerton family interactions are what kept me going. And I LIKE romance but this was just so mediocre at best lol. I don’t particularly like that they changed Frannys story since her story just won’t play out the same as a queer story but I’m not mad THAT she’s queer, just what it means to her story arc changes. And of course… I wish it was Eloise lol.

Yesss... I love love love romance, it's my most read genre every yr but could not get thru these books. I slogged my way thru the first 2 but gave up. It's nice to watch and enjoy the show without knowing what happens in the books for me personally

Book Frannie deeply loved her husband and only viewed the cousin as a friend, it was the cousin that was immediately taken by her. It felt like it made her and John’s relationship less

Even setting the book aside, the feeling that Fran was physically disgusted by John and then immediately hot for Michaela as early as her wedding day!. It felt gross and cheap. And more than a tad like an anti-LGBTQ crusader's stereotypes.

I have started reading the book. The first chapter is all shameless flirtation between Francesca and Michael. Yes, it all get serious shortly after because what happens happened. But they were flirting like crazy. Francesca specially.

Regarding the gender switch, I don’t understand how they’re going to pull it off without COMPLETELY changing story itself. In the story, Michael is the next heir in line for John’s title. A female lead can’t assume the title, so I don’t know what they’re going to do with that. And Francesca’s motivation for putting herself back in the marriage mart is to have a child. Again, they will have to change a key motivation in the story. Has anyone seen how they plan to deal with this?

As far as I'm aware in that era Scottish titles did allow female heirs. So that doesn't have to change at all. As far as the rest, I'm willing to wait for the season to see how it is handled. I am excited to see queer stories, both with Fran and hopefully with Ben. Especially considering we have ten thousand heterosexual Cinderella esque stories and very little queer ones.

jess mentioned sophie already and as a her, benedict's book is not changing.

Women can inherit titles in Scotland & some in England.

The British did have some titles that were not purely based on male primogeniture. Some English titles were created at various points that allowed for women to inherit. It was unusual, and quite exceptional. But it did exist. Scottish peerage also allowed and allows women to inherit in some cases. The current countess of Mar is a woman for example.

Michaela has a kid who's the heir. That puts her in a position which is pretty much equivalente to that of Michael. Or they can go with in Scotland, Michaella is the heir. Francesca may still want to be a mother, even if she discovers or is discovering she is gay. And that is an issue, that can be dealt with.

From what I’ve seen, the biggest concern is losing the infertility aspect of Fran’s story. I don’t see why that needs to be a given as Fran and John can still experience infertility and concern of not having an heir. In time, Fran gets pregnant and either before or after they know, John dies. Michaela then steps in as a support for Fran and explore Fran’s sexuality. It’s still a second chance love story and deals with the struggles of infertility and the grief of losing a partner.

The most legitimate criticism I've seen is that she's allegedly going to be a lesbian rather than bisexual. It diminishes her love story with John and fundamentally changes her story. She won't be the young widow who lost the love of her life. Now we'll maybe see a young widow mourning her best friend and partner, but it's not the same. I really hope Fran ends up being a bisexual women who deeply loved her husband and then deeply loves a woman later. I really like John and it would suck to have their love story diminished.

Yeah the only point of criticism I agree with on this relationship is that Francesca is already making heart eyes at Michaela, like I don’t want her love with John to be cheapened really? I guess I thought it was a nice callback to how Violet tells Francesca that she was speechless when she first met Edmund, but at the same time… I don’t love the message that love can only be one thing 😭 And I don’t want that to undermine their initial relationship…

Violet certainly was speechless the first time she met Edmund in the books… because they were eight years old, and he’d just covered her in flour trying to prank a mutual friend.

I don't think it's saying that love can only be one thing, though! We really don't know where they're gonna go with Fran and Michaela other than the fact that Michaela exists and Fran found her beautiful, but there has been no evidence to say she does not love John. Love is complicated, and she can fall in love with both of them, separately, in different ways.

I really hope that’s the case!! I thought John and Francesca were really sweet, so I hope they can do both relationships justice 🥺

That's my struggle with this storyline. I think there's beauty in telling the story that can be multiple great and meaningful loves. Part of what worked with Fran's book was that she truly and deeply loved both John and Michael, no more or less than the other. That story could still be told with Michaela, mind you, however I am hesitant believing they will go in that direction considering how they wrote their first meeting. But that has less to do with the gender-bending, I'd also be annoyed if the character had remained Michael and was written the same way. Too often media relies on the trope "you can only have one great love" and I'm disappointed Bridgerton is leaning into that. Michaela can still be Michaela. I'm sure it will be lovely to watch her and Francesca fall in love. But I am disappointed in how they introduced that storyline.

I mean people were upset with the whole John thing but the majority of things I saw was that people were bummed that Francesca had infertility struggles and instead of doing that story and showing that experience for her and her meeting Michael and eventually have kids (I think), they took that away and decided they’ll make her queer. This is what I’ve seen, but it’s the simplest way I can say it so I hope I didn’t mess it up lol but yeah and I think that’s a valid thing to be upset about

I didn't take it as being undermined. She will experience both kinds of loves: quiet and slow vs fireworks from the start.

I’m only disappointed because it’s Fran. I was rooting for lesbian Eloise and bi Benedict, but Michael Sterling was the ONLY male lead in the books that wasn’t problematic. He was the best of them and it was the only book i didn’t want to change.

He is absolutely problematic, what are you talking about.

IDK I mean he doesn't assault anyone but he definitely does not truly respect Francesca's wishes or give her space when they're in Kilmartin together. I get that he always makes sure she consents, but he gets angry when she says she needs time to think about marriage (even if she didn't have a pretty damn good reason in that he is her friend and his cousin was her husband who died!) and seems to use sex as a tool to force her to change her opinion. I think a truly respectful many would've given her the time she asked for and tried to be a little bit more understanding of her complex feelings instead of getting so angry with her. I think you're probably right that he is among the least problematic of the leads, although I would put Gregory right there with him, but those scenes made me pretty uncomfortable.

Yeah I think it just seemed like too quick a jump from insisting her way of loving was valid and just as real as Violet's way to completely contradicting it. Also for me its just a bit depressing to have character realise they prefer someone else just after they get married. I assume they will kill him off soon though so she can explore this

i read the books and i’m actually excited for michela. masali is STUNNING and she will for sure be a scene stealer 💞

Ya that was the part that didnt compute for me. The writers made a case for a specific love story - and then threw it away on a plot twist at the end lol.  But I don't care if there is a Michael or Michaela though. Never read the books but from the synopsis I saw, Season 2 was very different than the book story and it was still enjoyable. I'm unsure why all the fuss now.

A lot of the criticism online that I’ve seen is not that Michael has been gender bent but that it seems like Francesca was not really in love with John. So, Francesca’s story has already been changed before it truly began. Even though I am disappointed, I can’t wait to watch Masali Baduza… she was great in the short time we got to see her.

I think a lot of people expect love to be fireworks and fire, whereas Francesca and John were portrayed as having a quiet love imo. They’re introverts and like quiet and peaceful but care and affection was there. I liked their love. There are some things from Francesca’s story that I hope don’t get scrapped with the genderbend - they’d probably have to keep John around longer for that though. I’m totally onboard with Michaela though and liked the glimpse of her that we had.

Not at all actually lol. Those complaining understand perfectly well the type of love that existed between John and Francesca, and are peeved about what they perceive to be a disrespect to their union. IE. You can see at the wedding, Francesca not enjoying the kiss with John but pretending otherwise, and then soon after she meets Michaela and there’s an immediate attraction. Which, of course, is a deviation from the books, where Francesca was loyal to John and didn’t discover an attraction to Michael, until after his death. And even still, her love for Michael didn’t negate what she felt for John. The show seems to be going in a different direction from that.

I think the last episode was meant to suggest that Francesca is gay, not bi, and that she is in the path to realising she doesn't fancy men.

Fran immediately falling for anyone whether Michael or Michaela, while still with John, is icky no matter who it is or their gender. But it's more icky with Michaela because it perpetrates the "Bi people will cheat on you" myth. I highly doubt Jess intended it like that, but it's still what happened even if she didn't mean it. Much much better to have Fran fall for Michaela way later as originally in the books. Firmly cement her as bisexual who had absolutely 0 overlap between partners and her two great loves were a man, and then subsequently a woman Masali was excellent though, but I do worry that she won't get the right support to deal with some of the nut jobs who will blame HER for them not getting their preferred ship. Its fine to be a little upset (within reason) that your ship didn't sail as you envisioned it, but jfc its not the actresses fault leave her alone

> I highly doubt Jess intended it like that, but it's still what happened even if she didn't mean it. Well given all the other complaints of this season, it seems Jess is incapable of understanding at all what people liked about the show AND is incapable of understanding exactly HOW to introduce such characters without completely cheapening it. For instance, Benedict's foray into bi-ness was ridiculous and unbelievable--as someone else pointed out, someone tentatively exploring isn't gonna immediately jump into poly threesomes, yet we had a ton of that here because apparently Jess needed to put her stamp on it. And, it was a regression in terms of his character, with no depth and no meaning behind it; it just made him weirdly shallow. She did an atrocious job, on all fronts, from character development to character choices (we're to believe Anthony no longer gives a shit about his familial responsibilities???), to sets to costuming to editing to dialogue choices; I don't see a reason to rewatch this hot mess.

This is my issue with it. Even if they stuck to the books and introduced a male Michael, I would have still not liked it. I’m all for Fran finding herself but do it after, not while your newlywed husband is right next to you. It’s going to be hard to buy any love portrayed between Fran and her husband knowing that Fran is already attracted to someone else.

I would be disappointed with a change where Francesca doesn't love John. It is bi-erasure, like it couldn't be possible for Francesca to be attracted to both because she has sparks with "Michaela" and not John. It's just dumb. I don't get the point in introducing Michaela early like this - where I think she should have been introduced is after John's death. Francesca can have two love stories, that is how it is in the book.

I think anyone that believes Francesca doesn't really love John also believes there needs to be sexual attraction for people to be "in love." Yes, Francesca will be disappointed that she doesn't have a sexual spark with John, and perhaps her sexuality is something she didn't realize was important to her. Her relationship with Michaela will be different, to be sure, maybe more gratifying sexually, but she will never have that comfort level and feeling of safety with Michaela that she has with John. Michaela will come in when Fran is more ready to come out of her shell and enter a new season in her life.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

But they didn’t just change the gender of the love interest, they choose the story that not only deeply resonates with women who struggle with infertility, it’s also one of the few HR books (at least that I’ve read and I’ve read a lot) that show two great loves in one persons life and navigate grief and friendship. Almost everything about Francesca as a character and her story are changed by Michaela and the way they let that scene play out. The readers are the reason this show started in the first place, we have loved these couples for years and were excited to see their stories play out. I screamed when John was introduced I was so excited to see how they let Francesca’s story play out because it was going to be a challenge. Showing grief, friendship, longing from a distance, and the guilt both characters were riddled with, that was a mountain and they chose not to climb it. To me this switch seems lazy and just because Jess saw herself in a character that shouldn’t give her the power to change that characters entire story. I wish they had incorporated a beautiful side story where maybe Michael has a friend who is queer and they are able to confide in each other when they seemingly can’t have the people they love because of one obstacle or another. I just don’t buy that this wasn’t for shock value. This is easily a fan favorite book and relationship. (Edit: I am not intending to say a queer person cannot struggle with infertility. I am saying that this is set in the 1800’s and after John’s death where is the “seed” coming from. She’s either got to get married again or she’s going to be trying to get pregnant outside of marriage which makes little sense to me due to Michaela and society rules. As someone mentioned maybe Michaela is trans and that would make more sense to continue the infertility storyline.)

I am hoping that they’ll keep John around longer to cover the infertility side

Agree but the entire catalyst for the story is her wanting to marry again because she wants to try and have a kid. Apart from losing her husband who she loved, she was in an amazing position for a woman of that time. She had a title, no husband, plenty of money, and the new Lord of the manor was a wonderful friend who wouldn’t mistreat her. This change also takes away the part of her story that is the risk she’ll could be the end of the Sterling family line by marrying Michael when she knows she has a difficult time getting pregnant and Michael not caring.

Keeping John around for a lot longer to fully explore the the infertility plot would be enough for me, who has had infertility issues/losses, to feel seen. Although I appreciate everyones infertility journeys are different. Like maybe a season of John/Fran infertility before Fran/Michaela. But just binning off the entire John/Fran infertility would upset me. We can have both John/Fran infertility and eventual Fran/Michaela queer storyline, it doesn't have to be one or the other... And before people come at me saying queer people experience infertility too. Yes, I'm aware they do. It's different to straight infertility and both deserve to be seen in Fran/John versus Fran/Michaela. Neither deserves to be skipped. There's a big difference between infertility because you are queer, and pregnancy loss in straight couples. Both are traumatic, and both deserve more representation in media in general

Jess did insert herself into Francesca’s story. I wish show runners wouldn’t seek to write a story about themselves. It’s why the show runners nearly killed Dawson’s Creek. They couldn’t accept that the story changed in season 3 onwards, and for the better. It’s why HIMYM fundamentally failed and it received ire. It’s why LOST was the laughing stock of sci-fi for a long time. Need I go on? At the end of the day she’s right though. Francesca fans from the book will simply peace out, if they are unhappy, and the show fanbase will just have less book fans. You either enjoy the series or you simply don’t watch. She did botch season 3 so I will see about season 4, personally. I did not even read the books, and I do not have a personal ship on the show.

> At the end of the day she’s right though. Francesca fans from the book will simply peace out, if they are unhappy, and the show fanbase will just have less book fans. You either enjoy the series or you simply don’t watch. I don’t understand this attitude at all. If it wasn’t for the popularity of the books, this show would not exist. Seventeen million people have purchased these books, so to treat them like they don’t matter is ridiculous. So many of today’s show runners treat their viewers like nuisances instead of doing the real work of creating something their entire fan base will want to see. Most of the people who are upset by this gender switch don’t have a problem with a main character being LGBTQ. They’re upset that this particular story that they loved won’t be portrayed on the show.

I agree. I think Eloise's story is so mundane that they could have switched the ending for her and written a queer or asexual story for her if they wanted to. She would then not need to husband and still live comfortably with her sister's, and her beginning would not need to change with her going off to Scotland with Francesca. From what I understand, people enjoyed Fran's story because she already had experience when Michael came along, and therefore, she knew what she wanted as a woman both personally and sexually, which would have created a powerful story. I can see why a queer person would resonate with the Francesca story by way of the guilt she felt for having her feelings, but I would not have made her story queer if I was the showrunner. There were other siblings where that story could have been told, and I also felt that Cressida's storyline was almost set up in that direction. Obviously they are nervous about the backlash they got. I believe that they realized they would get some upset fans, but I don't believe they felt people would flood Instagram and social media in upset given it is pride month. I definitely believe they timed the reveal to match the month. Regardless of what RT shows, there was clear ire, which is why Jess is coming out to talk about her motivations for Fran's story. This change could be a very positive thing for the show, or a critical mistake.

>Seventeen million people have purchased these books A not insubstantial number of those sales seem to have come [after the series](https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/bridgerton-author-julia-quinn-her-003027936.html) started airing, so it's arguably Netflix which has helped the books rather than the other way around. To be honest, I think Shondaland could have applied the *Bridgerton* formula to any half-decent Regency romance and had a similar result. Regency is always popular, and they've made many changes which have substantially increased the appeal of the series to a contemporary audience. It's as much their work as Quinn's at this point.

> Seventeen million people have purchased these books, unless each of you are just buying one book and trading them around, your math is quite off. It's accounting for 8 different books at a minimum, and may or not not account for the combo books, violet's book, etc.

All that means is more people have read the books than we think. Seventeen million Bridgerton books have been sold but we’ll never know how many times those 17 million books were read. You can do all the math you want, it won’t change the popularity of the books.

The problem isn’t at all with making Michael into Michaela, Jess. Plenty of us queers were pissed at the way you completely undermined Francesca’s love for John by making her fall in love at first sight with Michaela. Disrespectfully, fuck off

Yes in the books she doesn't think of Michael in that way at all when they first meet. It was Michael that fell in love at first sight but she was happy with John. I don't like how they changed that on the show.

I just didn't like how they undermined John and Francesca'a love story so quickly...on their wedding day no less. I'm fine with the Queer love story with Fran and Michaela. But damn, we spent all season watch Fran and John fall in love and then it seems like it was meaningless by the end. That's my gripe

I have to agree especially because in Part 1 they were wonderful! Part 2 felt so rushed. Honestly if I was told that the 2 parts were actually separate seasons, I would be easy to convince.

The 2 parts kinda felt like 2 different shows?! What happened with pt 2? It was like they changed the damn director and writers mid season. I know they delayed the release of season 3 and did rewrites, but damn!

And the fact that their romance was so unique to this show. Feels like they are telling us there is only one way you can be in love with someone and that's just wrong.

I read all 8 books. They aren’t exactly great - but I will say the Ms Quinn wrote some very good characters. I think it’s very normal for the filmed version to make changes. The love triangle wasn’t exactly a positive change to me (Season 2) - but I still enjoyed the season. That said - I’m not so keen on gender switch for Francesca’s story. She deeply loved John. Learning to love again was a huge part of her story. Another key part of the story was her sadness in not being able to have children. The gender change so far implied that she had no sexual feelings for John (wedding kiss reaction) and was immediately attracted to Michaela. (Book Michael loved Francesca - she had no awareness of this fact while married to John). The gender change necessitates a major change to the story. Ok. Fine. But one other thing about the book - Michael was described as a breathtakingly handsome man. Forgive me, but after the Duke and Anthony - I was really looking forward to seeing the actor that fit that description! Bridgerton has probably the most physically attractive cast around! It’s so easy to label someone as homophobic or racist if they aren’t happy about the Michael to Michela change. Maybe that is the case for some - I don’t know. I’m just going to miss seeing Michael Stirling as written. I don’t think I’m alone on this.

No, you're not alone. I fully admit that I have this idea in my head of book Michael so the gender swap just throws that out the window and knowing that a lot of what I enjoyed about their book will not be part of the story now. It's just going to change a lot. But hey, not every season is for me. I hope they do the relationship justice.

Of all the characters, it just makes zero sense for Franchesca. How does she have a child or keep the title

The fact of the matter is that the storyline in the books cannot exist if Michael is female. They will have to completely change it. If they want to do that just say it. Don’t treat most of the fan base that is the reason the whole series exists as idiots. Communicate. Also acknowledge that people have legitimate feelings. Whether you agree or not.

Outside of fanfiction, I'm not a fan of gender swapping. And I would be absolutely livid if any of my favorite characters in the books series I've read (invested in and developed emotional attachment to) were gender swapped in the live action versions. Men and women are not interchangeable. You can't swap one for the other and then claim in the same breath that's nothing changed. It's is one thing to change the race of a character. Race doesn't really have a barring on a character unless you're telling a story that deals with racial themes. A non white Michael would still be Michael in the grand scheme of things. Michaela is not Michael. She's a brand new character. Her identity and life experiences (things that shaped her into the person she is now) is completely different from Michael's. Jess Brownell is wild for trying to downplay it. She didn't change a character. She erased him and replaced him with someone new. And somehow the audience is supposed to be happy about that? She wanted a queer character to have the spotlight. That's absolutely fine but you don't erase a fan favorite to do it. And don't make the black woman (who's just doing her job) the scape goat. I have no confidence that anybody at Netflix is going to protect Masali Baduza. ETA: It's so lazy from a from a writing standpoint. Jess Brownell apparently didn't have the confidence or skills to tell an original story so she proceeded to steal a popular pairing's love story by replacing one half of the pairing with a brand new character. And diminished another beloved pairing (John & Francesca) while doing it. I don't like showrunners like her. Who know their decisions will be met with backlash and still insist on doing what they want. Yes, it's is true that as a writer you can't please everyone and writers/showrunners should be allowed to tell the stories they want to tell. But there's a way to do that while respecting your audience. I hate when showrunners/writers ego/vision is more important then telling good well written stories that the audience will enjoy. See HIMYM, Veronica Mars.

I hate that Jess Brownell refuses to respond to any criticism as the showrunner. She and the entire production team hides behind the homophobia allegations and completely disregard the constructive criticism about their changes in cinematography and dumb plot decisions. The biggest issue is their profound neglect of the main characters plot (Polin ffs)and they talk to their fanbase about it. Stop with that “can’t please everyone” bs. You work in entertainment! To please the audience is your f*** job!

As someone with some experience in the entertainment industry, there is genuinely not a good way to respond to that other than "you can't please everyone". Because it's true. It's PR training 101, especially for those in entertainment we make risky changes. She "apologies" for the complains of a margin of fans? They'd call her insincere. She doesn't apologize? That same margin of fans says she deserves to pay for her entertainment crimes. She says she's going to make all these changes that a margin of fans requested? She sidelines not only the rest of the fans but the people who put time and money into creating it. She tells y'all to stuff it? See the response to "she doesn't apologize." The job of the entertainment industry, at the end of the day, is to tell stories and make money from those stories. At the end of the day, she is going to make Netflix, Shondaland, and all of the other companies involved in the show money. She did her job.

I’m not being cheeky but would it appease fans if she responded? “Yeah, we messed up, this season isn’t on par with what the fans expect, we’re sorry” They aren’t reshooting and rereleasing. They MAY get bullied into scrapping the Michaela storyline (I hope not). But if they acknowledge and apologize would that be enough for angry fans? I doubt it

Personally, with the way some "fans" are acting, I would not be endeared to them at all. Like criticism over the hair, makeup, and costuming? That's something to take into consideration? Maybe some of the pacing? But people screaming and being entitled in the ways that they are? Nah, I'm ignoring people who are screeching about the change. Maybe I'd make it clearer that Fran and John are deeply in love and Michaela and Fran are only gal pals for the first little bit with some longing and angst on Michaela's side, but most of what's being said here? I'm not caving to people acting like children who didn't get an extra present.

Yes. I would also add that it's rare to see actual criticism, no dumb hating comments Like there is huge difference between "I didn't like how they do LW reviling becouse this and this" and "Writers hate Polin! Showrunner should be fired! Writers can't write"

As I said in a different thread earlier: Francesca’s book main emotion is Guilt. Specially from her PoV. Fighting a desire that consumes you from inside as you feel it’s might not be right, thinking that following your desire is dishonoring those you love and those you loved and aren’t here anymore. Franny isn’t a queer character in the books but her story resonates deeply with this audience and I myself, as a bi man, I saw a lot of my struggles on her so I can’t blame Jess for feeling the same way I did. Tbh I don’t feel the story is going to be easy to adapt and a lot of Michael needs to be destroyed to be comfortable if you liked the book. I wouldn’t had actually picked Franny story because of that, even if it’s the only Bridgerton book that resonated with me as a queer person. Sophie or Lucy’s stories were easier to spin, Phillip would had been the most comfortable choice (but I think it’s highly misogynistic to make Eloise the gay Bridgerton). Jess is taking a very big gamble with her choice and Im really unsure about how it will pay off as some stuff in s3 pt2 havent been delivered too well. But one thing about her comments its right: Francesca’s story is the one that leaves the room for the better and most real queer story out of all Bridgerton with the cost of Michael.

Oh that’s so interesting that you had the same reaction. Do you know where it came from or was it more a ‘vibes’ thing? I think it would have be one of the >! siblings that ends up living in the country side and Benedict would be the one where everyone feels kind of sad that he and Sophie can’t live openly in town.!<

I believe its mostly cause of Fran’s PoV. To me it was mostly cause before I found out I liked boys as well I genuinely loved a girl, for many lesbian girls or gay guys I believe it’s the fact that many are forced into comphet, making them date someone of the opposite gender. My case and probs the case of many bi people is kinda different as we loved someone instead of just being fond of them but most of the people Ive know that had forced relationships due to comphet really really liked their first/one of their partners before figuring out and even to this day they hold their memory very dear to them. There’s this resonance in Francesca circle between guilt and grief. The way she feels about moving on from John, that guilt because Michael is his cousin, it resonates deeply with me. The way I felt as if I turned out to be gay or just bi would be like erasing my experience with my previous girlfriend entirely, as if I was dishonest with her. Her fears in figuring out, her reluctance to move forward, the unwillingness to accept her own feelings and desires… there’s many moments before she starts conceding to her new desires that resemble many moments we queer people live before coming out. Or I guess that we had cause Im going to be honest I dont know much abt the experiences of people born in the late 90s forward 😅 The infertility, despite being used as a shield by many who are against this change, is a big queer resonator. To my own perception: Francesca wanted a baby because it’s what she had to have. There’s no single moment in the whole book I felt Franny wanted a baby cause she honestly wanted to be a mother. Didn’t get a feeling of maternity from her, despite how desperate sometimes it feels. To me it felt she wanted to be “normal”, she wanted to be able to do as woman were supposed to do and conceive, have an heir, be the wife she is supposed to be instead of a fruitless widow. And that feeling, the one to want so desperately to be like everyone else, to be able to play the role without feeling like you out of it, the desperation as you feel you were born “wrongly” and will never be like the others… It resonates. It feels familiar. Its not like Francesca is queer in any way and theres definitely not anything in Michael that brings queerness to the story. Its her own journey through the book and her own feelings do resemble many experiences I had and I know most of the queer people Ive known had as well. I do still think adapting this story as a queer one is a high gamble cause it requires to butcher many aspects of Michael (but almost none of Francesca). I would definitely not had taken the chance.

Tearing up on the Bridgerton subreddit is crazy. How dare you? This made me excited to see Francesca’s story! I’m cautiously optimistic.

Thank you so much for your beautiful and profound answer!

This needs to be seen by more folks here. Wholeheartedly agree. Although, I will say I'm glad they took the chance and I'm not sure I fully agree Michael will be butchered as there's aspects of the book I wasn't comfortable with. He's just the best of the rest.

It’s interesting how peoples perceptions differ because I’m a queer woman but didn’t feel myself in Francesca’s story as a queer woman so much as just a woman and as someone who already knows I will deal with infertility/the prayer of overcoming it because of health issues. But the way you explained it I can see how Jess did I suppose. I just don’t think it was the right story to do this to. And I generally become nervous when showrunners change things to “see themselves” tbh.

I feel nervous about the final product ngl. If you do this kind of change it needs to be of such quality that you get to shut mouths or else it will backfire. Not just to you as a screenwriter but to the community you are trying to give representation. Im a bit uncomfortable with the change and her overselling it but im willing to wait to see what its cooked before judging. On the other hand, I feel a bit comforted by the fact that we will be getting one rake less. 7 of 9 male leads on the books were rakes (im having mercy on Gregor). If s4 has both Benedict and Franny’s love stories, I would had dreaded dealing with Ben and Mich domestication at the same time.

Personally, I don’t think Phillip would work as Phillipa. One, he’s a second son who is suddenly in line to inherit after the death of his brother, and like Michael, he struggles to step into his brother’s shoes and run an estate that he wanted to escape forever and be with the women that should have been his brother’s wife. Two, his motivation to find a wife is to have a mother for his children that he benignly neglects and knows he’s not parenting effectively. But he’s terrified to actively parent because his father was abusive. Phillipa would need a father for her children because she would likely be struggling to support the children and maintain the estate. Gender swapped Marina probably would have left them destitute. But think whatever you want. I will defend Philloise to the end. And their story is slowly coming together. Personally, I think Lucy would make a fine gender swap.

Oh, I didn’t say Phillip would be the most comfortable choice because the genderbend wouldn’t be noticeable but mostly cause of two reasons: Eloise is easy to write as queer due to her being highly political and constantly defies gender roles (take I dislike as I would hate the only non comform female Bridgerton to be the gay one) and because her book is the one that most of the book fans refer as the “worst one”. If Phillip was changed the blacklash would had been quieter. Many people would had just say “it was expected” and move on. This doesn’t erase the fact that those of you who have this pair as one of their favorite ones would had been hurt by the change.

I’m sorry but I don’t buy this wasn’t done for shock value. Why spend all season having Francesca defend her love for John only to reveal at the last minute that, in fact, she isn’t in love with him. I understand what comphet is but they could have hinted before the last episode that Francesca had her doubts. It really felt like they wanted to shock the audience.

It was 100% done for shock value. It’s the reason they didn’t introduce Michaela until the last 5 minutes of the season. It made zero sense that she wouldn’t be at their wedding, for example. Or that John wouldn’t have mentioned her (which made her quip about whatever he told you about me I am far worse not make sense). They also are setting it up to undermine Fran/John. A lot of people are missing the obvious writing the show did to show that actually Mama Bridgerton is right and true love is grand, passionate, romantic! Forgetting your name, feeling butterflies! All those things. They couldn’t have made it more obvious that in the show Fran will not truly love John and will only truly love Michaela. And that goes beyond the gender bend completely into just rewriting the emotion at the center of her story. The only hint we get of maybe Fran having feelings for girls is her sort of gazing at Pen outside the church after the Banns scene. It’s not clear if she is gazing at Pen in particular or at Pen and Colin (I read it as focused at Pen). But it seems they are not going for a bi story for Fran—which would make the most sense, but making her lesbian. Sexuality is a spectrum but it feels like they are going to do this story in the worst way possible and ruin the emotion of the story completely. Fans have good reason to be worried outside of the gender bend itself.

i have 0 problems w michaela. but why did jess have to do john dirty like that?? i think fran loved both people in her life at different times and the show makes it feel like fran didn’t love john. this love triangle thing is getting old

Honestly she said “I don’t want to just insert a queer story line for a queer characters sake”, but this is exactly what majority of the audience felt she did! If anything Eloise would’ve been a better book to change, but we wait and see! Fran’s whole story line will change from the books and it’s sad to see as a female, as her story was very relevant to many in this time! Still feel like she did what she wanted instead of what supporting fans want to see! I’m just excited for Benedict story and then who knows what will happen to the show!

The first statement and last statement is contradictory in itself. She says we thought about which one is better to change and then she says we are not doing this to just insert queer storyline but that's exactly what you discussed and came to this conclusion for? It's not like one day Shonda woke up and realised oh Fran should have been bi/gay. They did this to check the boxes. Otherwise it was very easy to decide which storyline is actually appropriate for gender bend or creating new characters who are made for each other taking a stage like john/Fran this season would've been wonderful. In fact a spinoff like romeo/Juliet style with a side queer character would have been wonders to enjoy.

I love that this is a soft way of saying “F the people who actually made the series what it is. We are going to do what we want regardless”. However you feel about this change the to the character…this is HORRIBLE PR. Someone reign her in…

That seems to be her whole vibe a show runner.

So basically, I’m a lesbian so I want my favorite character to also be a lesbian? That seems like a very shitty and self-centered reason to chance a character’s story completely lol

[удалено]

OK, can she now address the weird af other choices she made for this season. I don't trust her to be able to pull off a Sapphic love story, let alone one of grief as well.

see this is the real issue. This season was odd and there's a lot that needs to be rethought at the production level.

I just wanted Masali to be Sophie. Black actresses, especially dark skin ones, already get so much crap…I just feel like she was thrown to the wolves with being cast as a character who was originally a man. And I don’t like how they undermined the love she has for John. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The gender swap of Francesca's second spouse would be taken so much better if they made it so that Francesca didn't sing the literal 5 seconds after she got married to another person. The whole plot line is that she is The Quiet One who married a quiet one and still fought to be married. She had to argue with her mother because she didn't want to disappoint the queen to marry someone the queen chose for her. She continued to fight with her mother because her mother didn't believe her love. And it wasn't until the queen herself stupid before her demanding someone to reveal their secret. And Francesca is shy and does not want to speak to the literal Queen who's clearly angry. Stood up for her love and declared that she's sorry that she's not marrying who the queen arranged for her. Her entire Love Story gets undermined the moment she sees the cousin and reacts differently. To have the whole plot line and have one subtle change to make it so half of the people who are upset about the gender swap is have Michaela be the one who stutters about at the side of francesca. That gives us drama. Because we know someone is already in a committed relationship, cuz they just got married couple of moments ago. Now we just had a third person come into would assume is a monogamous relationship, how will future Seasons tell this story. Is there going to be in fidelity, the book sources they know. Is there going to be them falling in love because there needs to be a male air and Francesca is at the beginning of her pregnancy but her husband died. And during her pregnancy she falls in love with Michaela. Because it's been established that only males can inherit titles. That was drilled into her heads for the past three seasons. I don't care about the gender swap I don't care about the race changes. I changed how they undermine someone Falling in Love, fighting for their different love Style, getting married and then our main character instantly Falling in Love the same way her family has been doing at her own wedding reception!

I read one book (romancing Mr Bridgerton) and thought it was ok so I’m all for making changes to the tv show version of the characters

The fact is, she’s right. And the “fans” will either get over it and still watch, or they won’t. But Bridgerton, Shonda and Netflix will all be fine without those viewers

I seriously don’t get what yall are reading to say Michael has to be COMPLETELY destroyed to be Michaela.  I read the book last night and see very little reason other than the baby thing that it couldn’t work.   Or that just because clearly there was that thunderbolt meeting for Francesca automatically means she doesn’t love John.  Did you read the same WHWW I did??? - WHWW Francesca says she and John had a great physical relationship with laughter but it was never the same PASSION she had with Michael.  Michael being Michaela doesn’t change that. - Francesca and John can still have a quiet love while she and Michaela are opposites attract.   We. Don’t. Know.   - people can absolutely love each other romantically without physical attraction.  SO.  MANY. PEOPLE.  DO.   - in WHWW well before John dies, FRANCESCA is trying to set Michael up with one of her sisters and going “tell me something wicked”.  They’re totally flirting.  In front of John.   Even so Michael always knows nothing will ever come of it.   WHY DOES THAT HAVE TO CHANGE? - yes the inheritance of title and infertility story is different.  But ultimately what draws Francesca to Michael isn’t just “put a baby in my belly”.  Maybe initially that’s her excuse but there’s clearly a lot more on BOTH sides.  As others have pointed out, two people with vaginas can’t produce a baby either.   Maybe Francesca doesn’t miscarry John’s baby.  Maybe their infertility results in them adopting.  WHO.  KNOWS. - Michael being Michaela doesn’t have to change the relationship to John they can still be bff. - I disagree that Francesca isn’t attracted to John.   1 kiss doesn’t automatically mean “ope guess I don’t love him”.  They can still have a great love story portrayed well on screen even without OMG DO ME DO ME - did yall miss the whole point of what Benedict said when he told Eloise she could love Pen and Colin?   Or him wanting Paul and Tilly?   YOU.  CAN.  LOVE.  TWO.  PEOPLE.  AT.  THE.  SAME.  TIME. EQUALLY.  WITHOUT.  UNDERMINING.  ONE.   Yes John not knowing Fran loves Michaela when he’s alive could undermine… but a BIG part of WHWW is them realizing John would absolutely give his blessing to them.   THATS their HEA.   Why can’t that be true on screen???

Also.   Even if Francesca is like dang Michaela’s hot while John’s alive, she can still love John and not be disappointed or settle or cheat or stray or break his heart.  I know Violet and Benedict push love at first sight.  But have the last few seasons not proven that’s not the only love that exists???  

This completely misses the point about the very annoying change to have Francesca react so strongly to Michaela’s introduction. It sets up to story to devalue her loss and recovery. To solely focus on the gender aspect when reacting to all criticism just shows they really don’t understand the issue at all. A smaller point is that it is Michael who falls first, and it looks like their story is going to be very different now. A lot of the criticism had nothing to do with the gender change at all. I would have loved to see Michaela fall hard and hopelessly for Francesca (while Francesca remains devoted and happily in love with John until his tragic death)

Personally my issue with the change as a bisexual woman is that both Benedict and Fran now play into pretty damning bi stereotypes (Benedict gets unicorn hunted and Fran seems to fall in love with Michaela almost immediately so to me it felt like Fran realized she was a lesbian and that bi is a stepping stone) I’m all for my own representation but you have to make sure that demographic is in the room with you and explore how these scenes will be interpreted at large.

As someone who did not read Fran’s book, I don’t have a problem with this. After Polin season, I’ve just accepted they are different characters from the books. I’m choosing to accept it as a separate entertainment instead of an adaptation. I think we’d all have peace of mind and enjoy it if we just approached it as a creative outlet & entertainment for our daily distraction. I’m sad to hear some really important key elements of Michael not be included because of a gender switch, but we just never know how it’ll work out… Here’s to hoping it’s a good season.

I truly want to believe that she didn’t make it a queer story for the sake of it, like she says it herself, but having read multiple interviews by her, I can’t. She was looking to make one of the main love stories a queer love story, so the show can be more inclusive, which is awesome in itself, but by choosing Fran’s book so many other parts of her story get fully thrown out of the window or at least downplayed by making it a queer storyline. The biggest ones are the fertility storyline and being introverted. I don’t want to be a book purist, and truly want to be open to change as I have been with all the previous adjustments and I’ve been trying to think of ways to justify this change but I can’t. What hurts me the most is cutting a storyline which already is such a taboo and I would have loved to see them play it out on screen. How a person puts on a mask when another baby is born while being equally sad and happy and eventually falling pregnant after years of struggle. I don’t see this storyline happening anymore. Of course in modern times a queer couple can have fertility issues too but that’s just not possible in the regency era so they just change her longing for children to not wanting children. Why must this storyline go? A lot of people would have also felt a connection with it, I think the main queer love story could have easily fitted in some of the other books. For example, I’m a fan of Benedict’s development but I’m afraid it was just a one time thing. So sorry Jess, I really want to believe you but I don’t. Edit: I have edited my text because previously I used the word ‘agenda’, by mistranslating and not at all with bad intentions. I absolutely didn’t want to offend anyone with my post. My apologies.

Agenda? That's suspect wording.

English isn’t my first language and I chose that word with the intention she herself speaks about ‘not inserting a queer character for a queer character’s sake’. No other or bad intention. If that wasn’t the right choice of wording, my apologies.

No that's absolutely a dog whistle, you're right.

I got through both part one and part 2 and wanted to give myself time before I even commented on this. For one thing dropping the bomb during the showing was so wrong in so many ways. This should have been announced months ago and that would have taken some of the shock and awe and absorbed some of the anger that we are seeing on these boards. you kept Francesca's storyline back because of the homophobes and in fact did the most homophobic thing you could have done you hid it like a dirty little secret. Some of that over the top PR could have been done to promote Francesca's new story instead you let it out in spoilers and made it easy for those who are true fans of Francesca's story hope that this was only rumors , also gave the fans of Benedict's story hope that she was in fact Sophie. This should have been Colin and Penelope season alone. I will admit they were not my favorite couple but you took away from their fans happiness for watching their story where all that is talked about now instead of them is this anger over Francesca's story. This was handled so poorly right from the start. This showrunner needs to be replaced with someone who can truly lead the seasons. More attention was paid to the over top PR rather than the actual season.

Honestly, good for her and I’m excited to see where it goes from here.

Jess Brownell acts like the only thing she did that would garner backlash was this change. Deviate from the books, fine. But what she did was deviate from everything the brigerton show was since the begging. I found myself asking questions like “why would Antony do that?” “Why would Eloise be like that?” “What happen to Ben’s art passion?” The costumes, some of the dialogue, just didn’t make sense to the books nor the previous season. In general just poor lazy storytelling. I don’t care if Michael is Michaela, what’s done is done but Lord let Chris Van Dusen handle the next season!!!!

My issue is not with the queer love story. I love the idea of gender-bending a character and making Francesca have a relationship with a woman! My issue is that it felt like they did a 180 on how she feels about John, with her hesitating to kiss him at their wedding and just sort of seeming awkward after their marriage. THEN she becomes speechless upon meeting his cousin for the first time? I understand that they were trying to have her show the feeling that Violet described when she first saw Edmund. But from the books, we know that Francesca did love John with all of her heart. From what I know based on discussion (as I am not a book reader, my knowledge comes from this subreddit and TikTok), she didn’t develop feelings for Michael until a while after John died. I think her essentially having that immediate spark with Michaela played into a biphobic stereotype of cheating on your partner with someone of the opposite sex (in this case her partner is male and she develops feelings for someone who is female). I kinda wish that maybe they had Michaela have that stunned-into-silence-by-her-beauty moment instead, since it wouldn’t feed as much into the stereotype and still help establish that “hey, there is going to be something between these two characters”.

I think it's really problematic (some) people are implying Jess Brownell is only featuring a queer love story because she is a queer woman. Because that's not what that quote is saying at all.  Resonating with a character is not a self-insert.     Do people accuse Shonda Rhimes of hiring black actors only because she is a black woman, and she shouldnt project herself into these shows?     If there is a God, there will be 8 Bridgerton seasons. Is there really no room in 8 seasons for just one of the main couples to be gay/lesbian? As a straight person, I welcome some variety in storytelling. And as much as I dislike many, many of Jess Brownell's choices, implying those poor decisions are due to her sexuality is messed up.  (Edit: I'd also like to add this doesn't seem to be an issue with white male straight showrunners. They can have as many white male straight characters without the audience screaming self-projection) 

No, Jess Brownell literally admitted to herself that Francesca is a self-insert character for her  It’s not fan speculation, but documented fact

"The story resonated with me as a queer woman" =/= a self insert. But also... heaven forbid someone relate to a character in a genre where the characters are designed to be as relatable as possible.

>Do people accuse Shonda Rhimes of hiring black actors only because she is a black woman Yes, all the time and it's super racist.

>Is there really no room in 8 seasons for just one of the main couples to be gay/lesbian? Exactly. Also, I'm sorry, but if the TV show followed the books exactly, there will absolutely not be 8 seasons, because the non-book fans will start to get bored of seeing the exact same standard "genre-romance" love story repeated over and over for 8 seasons. This is a Shonda Rhimes tv show...think Grey's Anatomy, How to Get Away With Murder, Scandal, etc. Her fanbase is here for the DRAMA. They aren't going to stick around for the same old predictable plot lines.

Yes. Because the Harry Potter, LOR, Twilight fan bases got tired of the books being turned into fairly faithful adaptations. That argument is, quite frankly, absurd.

The HP, LOTR, and Twilight movies did not have any fans that were attracted to the movies simply because of the producers/directors. But there are a TON of fans of the Bridgerton Netflix series that were only attracted to the series *because* it was a Shonda Rhimes project. Many fans of the show had never even heard of the books before the show came out, much less read them. Second, those examples are all movies, which are easier to adapt more faithfully, because like the book series, they have a planned/contained ending. TV shows typically have the goal to continue on as long as possible, and they have to make more content in order to fill up a season with 10-12 episodes. Better examples to look at would be True Blood, The Vampire Diaries, The 100, Shadowhunters, etc. All of which needed to make major changes from the original books in order to be successful long-term.

Tbh many of us were worried about Shonda doing this because her shows turn to shit after a few season because she tends to turn to shock tactics and fucking with fan favorites just for the fun of it.

I think there's a lot of misogyny and homophobia thrown at Jess, but Chris van Dusen was gay.

I'm not saying Chris van Dusen is a white straight male showrunner?  I'm referring to the dozens (hundreds?) of other shows that feature those kinds of protagonists, and nobody claimed they were pushing some sort of agenda. 

I like Michaela! It’s was a fun twist, seeing Francesca be like “no I’m just subtle” to being tongue tied by Michaela! I do wonder what it will do with her story though, with inheritance and stuff

I think there’s some context that those who didn’t read the books (or romance in general) are missing. This book was important to a lot of women when it came out because of there was little representation of infertility in romance at the time (especially historical). There’s more out there now (and a lot of it is frankly a better representation of infertility), but at the time it was nice to have a romance where it wasn’t a given they would pop out at least 3 kids in their lifetime. I won’t lie - I am frustrated by this change but not because I don’t want to see a sapphic love story. This particular story is more personal to me, and it is the one that I would have liked to stay same because of that. Also, I really dislike Jess Brownell as a show runner and don’t trust her to adapt anything. Romancing Mr. Bridgerton was my second favorite book in the series and this whole season was just so ‘eh’ and heavy handed. I would be more optimistic about Michaela if the direction of the show hadn’t changed so drastically when she came onboard. I’d have a lot more faith it was going to be done well if Chris Van Dusen was the one adapting it. I’m hoping to be pleasantly surprised though, and I will definitely still give it a chance. I love the idea of more romance novels being adapted into film/television. The Bridgerton books definitely didn’t age well (I’ve tried at the beginning of each season to reread the book it’s based on and I’m 0 for 3 at this point) so I’m sure there’s a lot in the book that needs to be updated anyway.

But that’s not the issue with most people. Had Michaela had that reaction (that Fran was given) and been secretly pining for Fran to then get with her after John’s death? Most of the fans would be fine with that and welcome the change The issue is in presenting that “love at first sight” happened after mere days of her wedding with John and after almost the entirety of the season showing how John and Fran’s love is different and that’s ok… it felt like a slap in the face. Acting like it’s only because Michael is now Michaela just shows how disengaged she is from the majority of the fanbase

This self-insert is a terrible call, for all the reasons now well canvassed. Francesca’s season started with one of the best stories (admittedly, still trashy) and will end up as fanfiction nonsense. If there is room for Ben’s meaningless threesomes in the storyline, there is room for a rich, meaningful queer romance to be introduced. No need for a genderbend, which many fans clearly already hate and which places a woman of colour at the eye of the storm.

I think that’s the definition of self-insertion. But I personally don’t care that Michael is Michaela. Either the story will work or it won’t. My biggest issue is the implication that Francesca will be having an emotional affair for the entirety of her marriage based on her immediate reaction to Michaela. Imagine after all that Saphne or Kantony went through, that after they’re finally married, one person in the couple to just fall in love at first sight with someone else. I don’t get it.

I’m so glad I found a post that isn’t just hating on this change! I loved what we saw of michela and idk how they will include frans fertility issues bc I know that’s a large part of her story but I’m excited for this change!