|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2021 13:09:08 GMT
Can we just all agree that, it being 2021 and all, we stop complaining that people who aren't white are appearing in mainstream TV and theatre shows, and that it is perfectly possible to use one's imagination? Bloody hell. Agreed! Sorry, just noticed a typo in my earlier post, which should refer to injustice being remedied. Why anyone is complaining about people who aren't white being cast in a TV show is beyond me, and really rather alarming. |
|
|
|
Post by nick on Jan 4, 2021 14:31:04 GMT
Can we just all agree that, it being 2021 and all, we stop complaining that people who aren't white are appearing in mainstream TV and theatre shows, and that it is perfectly possible to use one's imagination? Bloody hell. Agreed! Sorry, just noticed a typo in my earlier post, which should refer to injustice being remedied. Why anyone is complaining about people who aren't white being cast in a TV show is beyond me, and really rather alarming. While i 100% agree about casting, I think people are complaining about the need for an explanation in the script. It came over as clunky and, in my opinion, unnecessary. |
|
2,014 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Jan 4, 2021 14:34:09 GMT
Sounds AWFUL! I'm staying well away!
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 4, 2021 14:57:36 GMT
Agreed! Sorry, just noticed a typo in my earlier post, which should refer to injustice being remedied. Why anyone is complaining about people who aren't white being cast in a TV show is beyond me, and really rather alarming. While i 100% agree about casting, I think people are complaining about the need for an explanation in the script. It came over as clunky and, in my opinion, unnecessary. It would have better to do it in episode 1 as part of the set up rather than waiting until episode 4 where it felt rather tacked on. It is perfectly fine to set a drama in an alternate version of history. This week sees the return of A Discovery of Witches... I don't believe we have vampires and witches strolling the streets but in an alternative timeline such things can made to seem believable (up to a point) One of the strengths of the Bridgerton casting was that it helped clarify some family structures which doesn't always happen with some cross casting. |
|
|
|
Post by nick on Jan 4, 2021 17:25:45 GMT
While i 100% agree about casting, I think people are complaining about the need for an explanation in the script. It came over as clunky and, in my opinion, unnecessary. It would have better to do it in episode 1 as part of the set up rather than waiting until episode 4 where it felt rather tacked on. It is perfectly fine to set a drama in an alternate version of history. This week sees the return of A Discovery of Witches... I don't believe we have vampires and witches strolling the streets but in an alternative timeline such things can made to seem believable (up to a point) One of the strengths of the Bridgerton casting was that it helped clarify some family structures which doesn't always happen with some cross casting. Absolutely. I was all settled in with colour blind casting when, bam, it’s not - there’s a reason for the casting. Clumsy and not needed (by me at least). I’ve found the families quite easy to keep in my mind so haven’t really noticed if they’re colour coded. Except the excessive use of yellow clothes for the Featheringtons!!!! I’m loving the series. I’m comparing it to the Great which I also loved. This seems peopled by characters from the era while the Great has modern characters set in the past. I’m happy to watch both but am admiring the skill to script it - the conversation about sex between the Duke and Daphne before they get engaged has me laughing out loud, slightly shocked but believing it could be a genuine conversation of the time - very impressive. |
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Jan 4, 2021 18:53:32 GMT
I think I missed what the reason for the casting was, can someone explain?
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 4, 2021 19:06:07 GMT
Essentially George marrying a Queen of Colour opened up English high society to all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2021 19:29:54 GMT
Agreed! Sorry, just noticed a typo in my earlier post, which should refer to injustice being remedied. Why anyone is complaining about people who aren't white being cast in a TV show is beyond me, and really rather alarming. While i 100% agree about casting, I think people are complaining about the need for an explanation in the script. It came over as clunky and, in my opinion, unnecessary. Ah I see. I haven't got round to watching it yet but was interested in reading this thread and bits and pieces about the show to decide if I'll bother. Not sure I will now! |
|
|
|
Post by nick on Jan 4, 2021 21:03:04 GMT
While i 100% agree about casting, I think people are complaining about the need for an explanation in the script. It came over as clunky and, in my opinion, unnecessary. Ah I see. I haven't got round to watching it yet but was interested in reading this thread and bits and pieces about the show to decide if I'll bother. Not sure I will now! It’s not Jane Austen that’s for sure. The plotting and pacing is modern and they deal with subjects that would not have arisen in contemporary literature (sex, feminism, plight of unmarried mothers etc). On the other hand, for me, it is still evocative of those period dramas. The language feels right. As does the acting style. The costumes and filming is sumptuous. It is a very interesting take. It’s well made and good to look at. It might not be everybody’s cup of tea but it is definitely a success in what it is trying to achieve. |
|
1,483 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Jan 4, 2021 21:37:15 GMT
Regé-Jean Page is all that is tempting me to watch this show!
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jan 4, 2021 21:39:17 GMT
He is very easy on the eye. As is Mr Bailey.
|
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 4, 2021 22:10:45 GMT
Ah I see. I haven't got round to watching it yet but was interested in reading this thread and bits and pieces about the show to decide if I'll bother. Not sure I will now! It’s not Jane Austen that’s for sure. The plotting and pacing is modern and they deal with subjects that would not have arisen in contemporary literature (sex, feminism, plight of unmarried mothers etc). What do you think was going on in Austen novels, when young women ran off with handsome soldiers who then had to be forced to marry them?! Obviously most of the raunchy stuff happens ‘off-stage’, but her readers certainly knew what was going on! |
|
|
|
Post by nick on Jan 5, 2021 7:17:59 GMT
It’s not Jane Austen that’s for sure. The plotting and pacing is modern and they deal with subjects that would not have arisen in contemporary literature (sex, feminism, plight of unmarried mothers etc). What do you think was going on in Austen novels, when young women ran off with handsome soldiers who then had to be forced to marry them?! Obviously most of the raunchy stuff happens ‘off-stage’, but her readers certainly knew what was going on! Oh absolutely but posters above have mentioned that they are put off by it being put front and centre instead of hinted at. The joy of Austen is looking beneath the writing to what she’s really talking about. And that is lost. |
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 5, 2021 8:35:15 GMT
It’s not the subject matter that has changed, though, merely the explicitness with which it is depicted.
|
|
|
|
Post by nick on Jan 5, 2021 8:56:28 GMT
It’s not the subject matter that has changed, though, merely the explicitness with which it is depicted. I did word myself poorly. And I can see why the explicitness might put people off the series. |
|
2,699 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by viserys on Jan 7, 2021 5:48:50 GMT
Since it was me... yes, I can't stand explicit sex scenes nor explicit drawn-out violence, because both are so pointless and fake and serve nothing to further the plot. Explicit sex in historical TV shows have ruined so many good shows in recent years - funny enough, they all took a turn for the better when they cut down on the pointless sex and nudity and focused on telling an actual story, Game of Thrones, Versailles, Black Sails, to name a few. Those that never cared for any kind of historial accuracy to only tell some raunchy fantasy version like The Tudors I simply couldn't watch. As for Bridgerton, I might have accepted the sex scenes if the rest of the main story hadn't been so insultingly stupid and banal with absolutely no suprise. {Spoiler - click to view}
From the moment Dishy Duke and Blandikins met in the first episode and she went "I hate you" and he went "I'll never marry!" I knew they would get married, but the "road" there was utterly unconvincing and stupid. And while I kept hoping for some twist, noo, he insisted "I'll never have kids" and she went hysterical about it, then by the end of the first season we saw her pop a kid because of course. I don't mind shows that are a bit of frilly nonsense like Downton Abbey, but I mind shows that insult my intelligence with this kind of writing. The explicit sex was just the icing on the cake. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 7, 2021 23:35:52 GMT
Thanks for the spoiler viserys. I always check spoilers. You have saved me the bother of watching. I’m delighted.
|
|
736 posts
|
Post by dippy on Jan 8, 2021 12:09:23 GMT
Completely agree with lynette there, thanks viserys definitely no need to watch this. |
|
19,773 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 29, 2022 17:01:40 GMT
It’s back! Season 2 on Netflix.
It’s all there, gorgeous frocks, huge wigs, fields swathed in daffodils and beautiful women galloping through misty woods in a hooded cloak, pursued by Johnny Bailey who gets his bum out in E01.
No reason to watch then… 🙂
|
|
8,152 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Mar 29, 2022 17:05:31 GMT
I'm 2 episodes in. Costumes are glorious, this must have cost a fortune to make.
All great fun and a bonus JB bum in the first episode.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2022 17:16:08 GMT
I'm 4 episodes in and while it is still as much nonsense as the first series and the plots are arguably even more ludicrous, I think the new characters are better. Overall I'm enjoying it just as much as I ended up enjoying the first series  |
|
|
|
Post by marob on Mar 29, 2022 18:03:55 GMT
I ended up watching all of it over the weekend. I’ve always liked Jonathan Bailey, but I was really impressed by his performance (as well as his other assets,) and the chemistry he had with Simone Ashley. Hopefully this opens a door for gay actors playing similar ‘leading man’ roles. Would like to see him in something with a bit more to it than the comedic roles he usually ends up in. Just as long as he doesn’t bugger off to Hollywood like the other chap…
Nice to see the success Golda Rosheuvel’s having, it wasn’t so long ago she was part of the Everyman’s doomed rep company.
I also love how Adjoa Ando steals every scene she’s in swaggering about with that walking stick of hers.
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Mar 29, 2022 21:27:42 GMT
This is just marvellous isn’t it? I thought it would take a while to top the last ep of ‘The Gilded Age’, but episode 4 and, to an extent, 5 of this second series are just ravishing. Rationing ourselves to one a day.
|
|
19,773 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 30, 2022 18:42:52 GMT
I thought the whole thing was absolutely marvellous, pure escapism of the highest quality.
|
|
8,152 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Mar 30, 2022 19:13:17 GMT
Little theatre reference I've just noticed.
Episode 5 has a short bit filmed inside Wiltons Music Hall.
|
|
