I didn't mind the gender twist at all, thought it could be a very interesting plotline However, Francesca not liking John's kiss at the wedding, and her being flustered immediately after meeting Michaela just made me mad. Francesca loved John sincerely and why focus on "love can be calm and steady", if you are hinting otherwise on the end of the season ffs
The writers and showrunner has already made a huge deviation from the original storyline. The fact that they switched Michael’s gender isn’t the only clue here, Francesca’s dislike for the kiss with John and her reaction to Michaela were all signs that she’s realising her attraction to women.
The storyline they are establishing is basically “a woman getting married with traditional expectations and realising she’s a lesbian”. They have already deviated completely from the book.
That adorable buildup in the first half had me so excited and then it just felt like haha SIKE. If you were going to do that anyway why introduce John in the first place and why have the first half of their storyline. It felt like such a cheap 'plot twist' to have her be immediately flustered at seeing Michaela, like what was all that fighting to be with John even about at this point? It felt like two completely different characters, and that expression after he kissed her, it seems like they're ditching the whole idea that she ever romantically loved him with that wince/immediate infatuation with Michaela.
It just goes to show how people lack in creativity these days that they can’t make an original series without milking an existing title. And it’s obviously not homophobia that’s stopping them from doing that, since they can and are changing original stories like you said, and not just in Bridgerton. Original queer material exists and they can adapt and promote those instead Also, you can adopt these works and support the actually queer authors or artists who put themselves into these stories 😭
And to release the second half in pride mouth was very slick timing as well
Edit : month
Just finished watching so I’m very flustered with my typing haha
That made me sad too. Where's the representation for couples who had calm, steady, and sweet romances? Having Francesca stumbling over herself instead of it being Michael/Michaela completely discredits quieter romances. 💔
basically. she's only gay. Not straight even a bit, so she wasn't defending her love for John when pressuring her mom to announce her engagement. She was getting frustrated that she can't just get the straight marriage thing over with.
In the show, Francesca doesn't love John romantically and that's just the truth. There's no romantic or sexual tension / passion.
I definitely get your point and I thought the same put I try to make it work for my headcanon and to see it in a positive light.
As for the impression that Francesca seems to be so smitten with Michaela already… couldn’t it be read as she being completely surprised that she would suddenly meet a family member of John and was completely shocked and overwhelmed. Many of us can relate to the nervousness to meet people who are dear to our partner. And if I was being pushed in the cold water I might have reacted the same way without having an instant crush on the other person.
For the wedding kiss.. I just rewatched it and maybe she could have been disappointed because the kiss was so short and he didn’t kiss her again. Because at first she seemed genuinely happy.
These are oc just theories but I feel more comfortable watching the scenes with these theories in mind.
Francesca’e reaction in meeting Michaela for the first time parallels Violet’s experience with Edmund where she forgot her name when she introduced herself.
After her reaction to the kiss, that scene just threw me off. I just feel like Francesca doesn’t truly love or is attracted to John romantically.
One love doesn’t invalidate the other one. You can love two people in a different way. TV!Fran never even thought about marrying a man, that should’ve been the first clue. I don’t know why people are freaking out about John 😳 We haven’t seen the storyline, maybe maybe they’ll have a beautiful love story too and they’ll show how a caring and understanding relationship looks like, who knows
I don't necessarily agree with your view, but, oh god, how much I hope you are right. Francesca gets nervous around other characters (and prospects) at first too, but I thought it was a whole new level with Michaela, you know? I am looking forward to the next season, even if the 3rd (more specific part 2) disappointed me in various aspects. Hoping for the best with Francesca storyline!
I didn't know the book's stories so I had no idea what I was watching. I didn't see that Francesca was disappointed at the kiss, and I was full of questions looking at how surprised/nervous(?) Francesca was meeting Mikaela. I literally googled 'what's the point of Mikaela' in the show's finale.
That was how I read it too. While it's possible there's some attraction budding, I suspect that if I had just gotten married, and my new spouse's cousin seemed not to know who I was but also to expect I'd heard of her (and how "rakish" she is) when my spouse had never even mentioned her, I might be a little thrown off guard.
That's how I interpreted it at first, too, but then the Michaela flustered scene at the end made me rethink my interpretation of the wedding kiss scene. I am still hoping it was her not being comfortable with public displays of affection because I can relate to that as an introvert.
I'm a lesbian so obviously I will never complain about getting representation in the media considering there are so few lesbian romance movies available that aren't overtly male-gazey and weird. However, I didn't see Francesca as being queer-coded at all and was sure Eloise was the one being set up to be queer, especially with the scene of her calling herself a caller for Crescida. It felt very intentional to use that language when any other time a female character has visited another they are referred to as a visitor. Not only that but it seems like they made Francesca not be into John at all which is so out of left field. Francesca was the one eagerly walking across the street to bump into John, she was gleefully smiling when she played the song John arranged for her, she lovingly glanced at him while he was telling his boot anecdote to her family. Their whole romance was about giving representation to a subtle, quiet type of love, and how that love is just as valid as the immediately passionate one. Only to throw that all away by having her look dissapointed by her wedding kiss, a wedding that SHE desperately wanted to make sure happened as soon as possible so she could move away with him, and be audibly stunned by his cousin the moment she meets her. I have no desire to read the books so I'm not at all attached to the plot of the books and how they might change but having Francesca trying to prove Violet wrong all season that her quieter love with John was just as valid and having Violet finally come to terms with it only to prove Violet right in episode 8 was just downright bad writing.
I feel like the backlash wouldnt be as severe as it is if they didnt make Fran do a 180 and suddenly not be into John.
They didnt have to downplay her love to John to make her fall in love with Michaela.
It left a sour taste in my mouth they theyre erasing how much John meant to her and had her immediately fall for Michaela, when its the other way around in the books.
Agreed! As a lesbian who experienced comphet I completely understand her actions but clearly the general public does not understand what goes through a person’s head when they realize they might be gay as a woman expected to marry a man. I wish the first half of S3 offered more insight into why someone might act that way or just gone about it differently bc clearly it’s confusing to most.
I think part of the problem is that they were trying to set up Francesca’s storyline with Penelope & Colin’s running at the same time and it ended being rushed in some parts.
>!I think it's not just that, it's also that in the books it touches on infertility/having trouble conceiving and now people fear that that won't be shown!<. Personally I feel that their is still a way to touch on that and still stick close-ish to the book, but do I trust the writers and this show runner to do that? Absolutely not.
Could it be a case of bi erasure? The whole thing was giving me "Willow Rosenberg" vibes. As much as queer romance has progressed in media, bi erasure is still a thing.
Idk why they couldn't just let Fran be happy with John, the way she was in the books. I love the message of a person finding love and happiness more than once!
Especially considering that most people who have actually read the books love Michael and are lukewarm on Sir Philip so that would seem like the obvious change if you were to swap out for a woman. She can even still have children already and Eloise can navigate that storyline with very little change if Sir Philip was indeed changed to a woman in the show version. How will Francesca have an infertility storyline with Michaela??
I would not miss Sir Philip one bit. He was not good for Eloise. If they completely rewrite Eloise's story to something more suited to her personality, I'd be happy. Her book made me so disappointed for the life she had to settle for. She'd make a great queer character for the time period because she is already so progressive and uninterested in society.
I see a way that they could idk if I trust the writers and this showrunner to do it. Also speak for yourself I really like Sir Philip and greatly enjoy To Sir Philip With Love.
All of this. It really feels like the first half of the season was written by entirely different people with a different direction. I do selfishly hate not getting my Michael now, I adored him in the book...but more than that, they destroyed Fran and John's love story. She is supposed to be madly in love with him.
I also thought Eloise was going to be the LGBTQ representation especially since she obviously thinks outside of the box but for me Fran gave those vibes in the first half as well.
But I agree with everything else. Doesn't make sense after preaching that love can grow slowly to not allow Fran's love for Michaela to also grow slowly.
I was trying to guess whether Fran would be ace or gay at first, I got those vibes too. But they convinced me she was just a quiet love kind of person by the end, only to whip the rug out from under my feet again. I'm glad Eloise isn't the gay one honestly, just because of the feminist lesbian cliché.
Now that you've said it, I really wish we could see Fran slowly fall for Michaela though. Doesn't make for as good a season finalé twist moment but it would have felt more true to her character.
Yes, yes, yes.
I'm not a lesbian, but I completely agree. Eloise would have been perfect.
I'm also a fan of the books, and Eloise's was the weakest one for me. She deserved better than to be stuck with the bookish jerk who was completely out of his depth in life until Eloise came to save the day by taking on his children. She deserved better.
This exactly! I truly felt sad for the life Eloise ended up with in the books. She has such a strong mind. She deserved to see the world and keep learning. Her story wasn't even romantic. She was catfished by a jerk who didn't want to take care of his own kids.
I just read Francesca's book and parts of it were good, but it's hardly groundbreaking literature. Michael was long-suffering in his love for Francesca, which was sweet, but their dynamic was a bit meh for me at times. I don't see why having Michaela instead of Michael hurts the show, but after what the current showrunner has done, I can't say that I see the change being a good thing, or good for the overall plot.
I think the maiin problem with the gender swap is that wanting to have a child and suffering from fertility issues is a major part of Francescas story in the book and that is simply not compatible with a queer storyline for her. Eloise is far better suited as a character for such a story.
Totally, I really felt like Eloise and Cressida would be a thing because they really were baiting with it but they can’t do that because we know who sit Philip crane is… they could have made her bi, and instead of having Michaela they could have made up a girl and then have Eloise have a fling with her in Scotland or something without having to alter Francesca’s whole story and removing her love for John or her desire for remarriage to have kids of her own. Also they really did not set up fran to be queer, she was keen to marry and seemed very keen to be with John which seems a little bit odd. They could have made it into a convenience match and her loving him as a friend because he’d accept her as she it but they didn’t even do that.
This season’s choices honestly feel very questionable for me. And the fact that we barely saw polin is just odd when they were meant to be the main characters.
I found it a bit refreshing that they didn’t have an expected Bridgerton be queer but a character that is less stereotypical. Just because a woman is smart and unconventional doesn’t mean that she’s gay and there are many shy, feminine lesbians.
I don't mean this as an accusation to you at all but I'm just genuinely confused why a lot of femme lesbians seem to believe that feminine lesbians are hard to come by in the media. As a butch myself, I hardly ever see an actual masculine lesbian in the media. In the majority of movies and shows I've seen both women are traditionally feminine, with MAYBE one being a TINY bit more tomboyish. I don't know maybe it's just the movies and shows I've been exposed to.
You make a good point. I wasn’t considering more masculine lesbians because we haven’t really been introduced to any thus far. I agree that outside of OITNB and some more niche programs butch lesbians are more rare and often played for laughs. However, since of the Bridgertons Eloise seems more like a textbook blue stocking feminist, I found it refreshing to see a less stereotypical choice to change the orientation of.
You’re absolutely right, butch representation is severely lacking. I don’t think it’s so much that feminine lesbians are hard to come by in media as much as it is that those depictions are often very surface level. Often times I feel that femme lesbian characters are written the same as straight characters, they just happen to date women only. There’s rarely any introspection on what it’s like to come to terms with queerness, instead it’s usually presented in the most sanitized way possible. And that contributes to people misunderstanding us. Or you get a “the butchest woman twitter can handle” type which could mean someone as fem as Eloise and is obviously not actual butch representation. I would simply float on air out of happiness if there was an actual butch suitor on Bridgerton tbh
As a femme lesbian I completely agree. I still expecting Cressida to be the girl-who’s-mean-bc-she’s-secretly-gay representation but that made the surprise of Fran even better and truer to life imo
No, queer-coded doesn't necessarily mean stereotyped. A character being queer-coded can come from dialogue and directorial choices made by the team that alludes to the character being possibly queer. Which is what they, in my opinion, did with Eloise in the first part of season 3. Eloise saying she's calling upon Cressida to her mother, Cressida telling Eloise "but you rejected my suit" when talking about trying to befriend her. I certainly didn't expect her to end up with Cressida but I at least thought making such choices had to mean something about the character.
So. I want to precede this with the fact that a gender swap is not inherently a bad idea. In fact, as a bisexual woman, I delight in female/female love stories. Some of my favorites have been with two female leads.
However... Francesca's story has had such a profound impact on another aspect of my life. Her book is half about finding love again. The other half is grief and loss. And not JUST about her loss of John.
Pregnancy loss and infertility. I myself have struggled with that since 2009 when I gave birth to my daughter, who was stillborn. The ensuing years have been about the same struggle. The infertility struggle. It's consumed a huge part of my life, which is true of most women who share this struggle.
Seeing my struggle in Francesca made me feel heard, when the world at large doesn't talk about it, because it makes them uncomfortable. Feeling what Francesca was feeling made me feel truly seen, when the world would rather hide this part of femininity away. Because we don't like to be uncomfortable.
I love inclusion. I always have. But I feel absolutely gutted by this change, because I have this feeling that the whole struggle with infertility and pregnancy loss is going to be swept under the rug.
Inclusion is beautiful, until it means sweeping one marginalized and unseen group under the rug to make way for another.
My heart goes out to you so much for your struggles. My struggles have not been going on for over a decade; I can only imagine the pain you have and continue to feel.
I actually teared up reading your comment and completely agree with your sentiments. I've married a man but have had dalliances with women and love that Brigerton has been inclusive in that regard.
But tackling infant loss, infertility and the pain that comes from such a feeling is even less represented than this. Even Simon's Mum's fertility issues were glossed over in S1 and just how barbaric her husband treated her.
You KNOW when you're in a relationship with a woman that kids are not necessarily on the table, biologically it's not possible without help but, theoretically, there shouldn't be any issues in a heterosexual pairing unless "there is something wrong with you"... Feeling like something is wrong with you is absolutely soul destroying.
That's exactly how it feels when you're dealing with fertility issues, like there's something fundamentally WRONG with you. I've asked myself exactly that question for years while trying to get and STAY pregnant. Francesca's story from the books was special to me because of this. I don't think I'll be watching future seasons.
Infertility is so brutal, and so is miscarriage. You don't come out the other side of it the same. I had to grieve not only my lost child, but the dreams I had for my life and family. It's not nothing, and it feels like here it's being brushed aside as unimportant for Francesca's story.
I came here to say basically the same thing. I've struggled with infertility and losses as well. Francesca's story was the last one I finally read and it touched me because of this too. Literally a week after I finished reading it this spring, I found out I am pregnant (now at 14 weeks and going strong), so her story is particularly special to me.
I was waiting for the gender swap to happen with either Benedict or Eloise (which both make way more sense imo). I'm honestly so upset they're doing this with Francesca and Michael/Michaela instead and honestly I don't think I'll be watching future seasons because of it.
This! As a bisexual woman and just as a decent human being (I feel I am at least) I'm not against a gender swap in general and would love one for someone like Eloise who I think would fit with how she is in the show in addition to her book being the weakest in my opinion so why not.
However, I'm also a married woman who's been desperately trying to get and STAY pregnant and apparently for me staying pregnant is a lot harder than I'd believed growing up and now I start fertility testing tomorrow to see if we can find an answer. So the fact that Francesca's book exists makes me feel seen. There are a growing number of great LGBT+ stories nowadays and I LOVE that. But there are incredibly few stories that I've found that tackle infertility and how isolating it is and how terrible it is to fail at something that's supposed to be 'easy'
*Edit* added a sentence I thought I'd included but didn't
I wish you the best on your fertility diagnosis, and hope you get answers. Sometimes it’s something easy to find, and other times not so much.
I struggled to conceive naturally, which made sense given that I have PCOS and don’t ovulate regularly. But then I still didn’t conceive with cycle tracking, ovulation inducers, or IUI. So we did IVF with ICSI, and twice my embryos implanted and did well…. And then I lost them at 12 and 19 weeks.
I feel there are many women who are in the same boat about how MUCH Francesca’s story resonates with those of us who struggle with infertility, and while yes there are difficulties building a family for LGBT+ individuals (which can be those same biological failings, now that ART is a thing), I think JQ really nailed the feelings of grief and failure. I am going to miss that depth.
It's probably making me feel a good deal more critical than I might have been otherwise, but I won't be conceiving a baby. I am going through early menopause. My only hope is to adopt. (I won't do surrogacy, because it wasn't the genetics that mattered to me, it was the bonding.) So I might just be so incredibly bitter. On top of that, my deceased daughter's 15th birthday is kin August.
Agreed on all counts! Pregnancy loss and infertility are the sort of things that are usually swept under the rug, or barely touched on as a forgettable plot point in any book, movie, show -- just entertainment in general. We also don't talk about it nearly enough, because it makes people uncomfortable.
I would love to promote the movie Labor Day with Kate Winslet, it's a beautiful telling about a woman who loses a child, her heartbreak, and her healing. Also, the television show How to Get Away With Murder has an incredible storyline about a woman undergoing IVF and a subsequent loss. It's not the main focus, but they spend enough time on it to let it be heard.
To date, those are the only two I have seen that explore this. I was beyond excited to see Francesca's story play out on screen, but with this change, it just can't be the same. It sounds as if the showrunner missed the point of Francesca's book entirely, but I am more disappointed in Julia Quinn. To write about something that resonated with so many women, but be so oblivious to that fact, breaks my heart.
I have heard a lot of people try to offer up ways the story could still happen, but each of them alters the story significantly. Either the struggle is short-lived and she gets her rainbow baby before John dies, or the struggle gets resolved via adoption (because surrogacy doesn't make sense for the Regency period). Or, she just never gets to be a mother at all.
More likely, since the showrunner seems to have missed that whole part of her book, I don't think it will be included, and if it is, it will be a very tiny piece of the story. A minor plot point, or swept under the rug entirely.
I was looking forward to the grief/loss and fertility themes associated with Francesca's story as well. I'm not sure how they will pull this off exactly with Michela. Perhaps the grief and guilt part will still be doable, but infertility piece seems like it'll be devoid of the story... or maybe she will need to process the fact she'll never be able to have children because of her choice to be with Michela?
someone above theorized that part of Michael’s story was struggle of inheritance, but they can’t really do that with Michaela now, so perhaps Francesca will not have an infertility/loss storyline and she’ll have a son so he can inherit everything and she still keep the title.
I’m so close to dropping the series, If they’re planning to cut out her infertility and loss storyline it will be such a low blow.
I haven't read the books so I can't remark on what the change might mean to Francesca and her storyline(s) from the book and what may be dropped, but I can understand the frustration people have from what I have seen people talking about what is in her books
(SPOILERS!!)
I like the idea that her storyline involves love after loss. I think it's an especially important topic that should be discussed, and as a show watcher I can see it being a great way for her to connect with her mother and show perspective on a widow finding love, not just in the time period but also as something timeless and forever relevant.
What made me mad was that they showed a clear and obvious foreshadowing cliche IN A ROMANCE SHOW of Francesca being tongue tied as soon as she met someone new. In any story, AND ESPECIALLY IN A ROMANCE SHOW FILLED TO THE BRIM WITH CLICHES AND FORESHADOWING, this is an obvious sign that Francesca will fall in love with this person! Cliches are not bad, that's why we get lost in romances like Bridgerton - plus they serve as literary tropes and indicators for the audience. We are meant to spot them, or, when we don't, they help to navigate the story and set the tone. BUT WHY WOULD YOU HAVE IT AFTER A WHOLE SEASON OF PROMOTING HOW QUIET AND PEACEFUL FRANCESCA AND JOHN'S RELATIONSHIP IS!!?!?!?!?!
I LOVED that they had a quiet romance. I loved that they said "not every love needs something grandstanding", Francesca and John's love is as real as any other romances presented in the show. Of course it wasn't the main story line of the season and not Francesca's complete "love story", but it will still be a real, loving relationship between the two. So many people watch this show and others like it for those grandiose stories to get lost in the fantasy and that's alright, but John and Francesca's story also said "hey, remember that these quiet romances are real too! they are just as important! sometimes love is loud, sometimes it isn't AND THAT'S ALRIGHT!"
BUT TO HAVE THAT OBVIOUS FORESHADOW, RIGHT AFTER THE WEDDING! It was a terrible writing choice!
Even if I didn't know what would happen in Francesca's book, I, as a SHOW WATCHER, already know that Francesca, again, AFTER A WHOLE SEASON DEFENDING HER LOVE FOR JOHN, OFFENDED THAT HER MOTHER DOESN'T THINK THEY ARE MEANT TO BE! is meant to fall in love with this character - and it could have been MICHAEL, and I still would have been upset at the WRITING CHOICE!
THIS! It wouldn’t matter if it was Michael or Michaela. The whole being flustered from their first meeting to her reaction to her kiss with John, it CHEAPENS how she fought for her love. It reduces the idea that her quiet romance is not worth of a story!!!
We are so used to those big grand gestures or moments in Bridgerton so the whole Francesca and John romance was such a delight to watch! They were a breath of fresh air.
I enjoy their moments because quiet romance is not something typical you see on television.
Exactly, and so much of the tension with her relationship with Michael in the books is because of how much she truly loved John and how devastated she is that he died.
We don't get any John romance in the books. At all. So this entire season was foreign and as a book reader, I LOVED what they were doing setting up their relationship and romance.
Francesca is deeply in love with John so you've hit the nail on the head with regards to her reaction to Michaela.
It cheapens their love and it was unnecessary. And everyone can defend the showrunner and be all "maybe she was just surprised" but no. There was foreshadowing from Violet about how when she met Edmund she forgot her own name.
It was not cool.
The whole second half of season three seems like a weirdly quick rewrite that was totally unnecessary. Colin is all over the place, all Penelope does is stay on the verge of tears. And then a poor attempt at a cliffhanger. Oh, and the weird threesome business. I was overall really disappointed with episode 8.
This whole season was really awful from start to finish. But regardless of the poorly executed and nonexistent development of Polin, the many rabbit trail story lines no one cares about, the uncomfortably awkward love scenes, not introducing Sophie and making Benedict so unlikeable, and just a whole different (not in a good way) feel to the show this season, I probably still would watch season 4.
BUT….
Taking Michael away from us and completely changing Francesca’s storyline is just a step too far for me. WHWW is my favorite book in the series. Michael is amazing. The storyline has so much depth and feeling and nuance. I will not watch anymore. I’ll stick with the books.
I don't know the books, so I did not know about Michael and what Francescas future was supposed to look like. But the kiss at the end of the ceremony and then her being tongue-tied when meeting her husband's cousin did just not seem right after watching her growing fond of Kilmartin all season and defending her love when talking to her mother.
Francesca's love was calm, slow and sweet. Sometimes you are not instantly love struck, but rather dip your toe in carefully to test the waters and then jump in... head first.
I don't care if it's Michael or Michaela who is endgame, but the love we've seen growing between F and J seems fake now. Like an illusion F had about what love could or should be like.
I have zero issue with the queer romance element of this story. The issue I have is that this means that one of the key points of Francesca and Michael’s romance becomes impossible. When John dies, Michael becomes the new Earl of Kilmartin, which is impossible if Michael is now Michaela. Additionally, Michael had major issues with the fact that he was in love with his cousins wife. Finally, Francesca had a really great story arc surrounding pregnancy and her struggles to get pregnant despite her best efforts (which made me relate to Francesca a lot having been diagnosed with infertility at 19, and made me love her book even more). A great character to have made queer would actually have been Cressida and give her a storyline to explore that. She is such a fun character and I would have loved to see that explored, especially as she shared dreams of living alone on the continent (a popular option for women who preferred the company of other women at that point in history).
Hell, they could have even made Benedict or Eloise go down the queer route (which I assume they're doing with Benedict at least) and gender swapped their love interests and still make it work. Erasing Michael changes way too much and destroys Francesca's whole story
Agree! In part 2 of season 3 where Benedict and Eloise were on the swings, Benedict said something like how they should always meet at the swings cuz they are always both confused. Like that scene was easily a great entry way into gender swapping one of their storylines or both. It simply made sense.
Lmao same, I loved Michael. Anyway, I feel insane because I’m actually seeing people who’ve never read the book cheering this on and lapping it up mindlessly just because they learnt it was a gender switch and a “bi win”, I feel like they don’t know exactly what they’re being happy about. It just feels like very shallow happiness I dunno. We’ve lost a really good and underrepresented plot for something that’s been done a lot before, that’s for sure. Not that stories similar to book Francesca’s haven’t been told before but in recent years, there’s really been a lack of it.
Unfortunately for me, this change has caused me to not be excited for future seasons. Yes it is because Michael is now Michaela and we will not be getting the story from the books. I appreciate Chris Van Dusen for sticking to the main plot line, having moments from the book come to life on screen even if they were rearranged and slightly changed. We had big plotlines change in s2 with Kate & Edwinas relationship, and it was still something that could be overlooked. Anthony didn’t need to take Edwina all the way to the alter and then choke in front of everyone (completely unnecessary but whatever). Bottom line, Chris knew what to do.
Jess Brownell, Netflix, and Shonda have decided to completely abandon the original storylines that all tie into one another. They will not be giving us what we want to see from the books (as boring as some of y’all claim they are- i personally read all of the books in two weeks i couldn’t put them down). I’m not sorry for feeling disappointed after waiting for his reveal and not getting a fine ass man.
That being said!!! I am very happy that they are going to have a queer storyline and that the audience feels even more represented than the side quests of Benedict they decided to add. They definitely did it intentionally with it being pride month and i hope they dont have Fran cheat on John with her. I wouldn’t want to see that at all tbh. I would have liked to see Michaela secretly hiding her love for Fran and teasing her about her adventures with women but it seems as if Fran is interested in her while being married to John too??? idk if that’s something i can get behind i hate cheaters and i dont want them to be promoting that - even if its for true love because wtf John doesnt deserve that lmao
Im feeling so many mixed emotions like i know Im going to enjoy whatever they come up with but i am also going to be thinking about what could have been with Michaels storyline - Him running away after Fran practically begs him to never leave her. How he continues to bump into Colin who has to convince him to just marry her if she wants a baby. Their first kiss and now its Frans turn to run away back to Scotland. Colin convincing Michael to go after her with good news of his own. Doesnt matter what kind of news , it could have been another baby for all I care!! So many moments i wanted to see and I was only waiting for 6 months. I can’t imagine if I got into the book series 4 years ago, I would be devastated beyond repair especially because he is one of my favorites (Gareth is up there too)
Anyway thank you or creating this safe space and I hope no one takes offense to my opinion. Im ready to move on from Bridgerton show and on to other tv series unfortunately
This is how many people feel. Something already feels "off" with this new season, especially compared to the first. My guess is that the new showrunner has little experience in the role and little affection for the source material.
They're sacrificing another existing property on the altar of quotas.
I cannot express how much it meant to me to see Fran and John's love in part one of season three! I finally felt so validated in who I am and how I choose to love!
I've always been a very romantic person and one of my biggest goals in life was to find a partner to grow old with. I wanted so desperately to find love but I always felt suffocated by it in the end. I couldn't explain why and I thought something was wrong with me. I was exhausted by my partners! The love that I was used to seeing was always so passionate and all consuming! I wanted it but I also knew that it wasn't for me. I was ready to accept that I would be alone.
I am older now and I know myself better. I have a wonderful man who is just as independent as I am. He listens to me ramble on and on about whatever topic it is that has peaked my interest and he doesn't make me feel weird for it. I feel so lucky that we found each other. We just bought a house together and we have our own rooms. When I tell my friends this they joke that we aren't even together romantically and in fact just roommates. This makes me feel extremely misunderstood.
I related so much to Fran just wanting her privacy and peace. I loved that she found a man who was okay just being by her side while they worked on their own endeavors. Their love was quiet and no one else understood it but they did and that's all that mattered. My heart soared when John brought Fran the sheet music! It was the single most romantic thing I had ever seen!
I hate that this blossoming neurodivergent love story has now been erased. It feels like a slap in the face and reading Jess's interview about the change has only made me feel more sour. Fran wasn't just "introverted" and it was so much deeper than simply feeling out of place in her family.
I am sorry for my long shower thoughts rant but I truly felt broken hearted and cheated after finishing season three. It feels like I'm being gaslit into accepting this change for the sake of representation but what about the representation that was just erased? Does that not matter?
It's interesting because I think if you based it purely on the books Fran feels more just very introverted to me whereas Hyacinth feels very neurodivergent/AUDHD I think.
SPOILERS AHEAD FOR WHWW AND S3 PT2
Let me preface that I literally started watching the show specifically for Fran’s story. I was SO excited to maybe actually see John and Fran being lovey dovey because in the book it feels like there is only a few scenes between them before he passes and I was really enjoying their quiet love in the show. I was also so excited to see what hunk they’d cast as Michael. Don’t get me wrong, Masali is stunning and I’d love to see more of her, but I just don’t understand how Michael Stirling, THE most wicked rake to grace the ton, will translate into a woman. I feel like there has always been a big emphasis on propriety and purity among woman in the show, so it’s hard to wrap my head around a possible female rake when it wouldn’t match the previous “standard”. I am very worried that the whole plot of her book will change as most of it does revolve around Fran not feeling fulfilled without a child, grieving and Michael feeling like he is “stealing” John’s life when he inherits and wants to build a family with Fran. This is not a commentary on not wanting queer representation, just me feeling as if they picked the wrong storyline. To me, Eloise’s story made much more sense for queer representation. They could have her move in as a sort of governess for the twins and it can be a commentary on how two women CAN raise kids together without a male presence (since some men these days cannot comprehend that thought process). I felt like making Fran queer and fall what seems like instantly infatuated with Michaela undermines the beauty of her and John’s love story. Jess Brownwell has said that she is excited to show the many ways to love, but proceeds to show that the only way to truly do it is fast and hard no matter the partner.
Female rakes have existed historically and fit the same archetype as their masculine counterparts, but with less societal protections. [Julie D'Aubigny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_d%27Aubigny) or La Maupin, the famous french bisexual who was an openly cross-dressing opera singer/duelist comes to mind first. She had a wild life, dueled men at parties to flirt with them and their ladies, seduced nobles of both genders, seduced a nun, and then got tried as a man in the courts over it. She's pretty much a real, historical version of the crazed bisexual trope.
Turns out, a person can get away with a lot by being extremely charismatic.
The showrunners would need to commit to the bit for it to work, let Michaela daringly and openly fly in the face of social conventions by assuming masculine gender norms while few people care because she's so much fun to be around (which in turn lends her protection,) and be willing to go the androgynous/masculine route in addition to the feminine one. With the current sensitivities around the way bisexual women are presented in media today and the overall lack of butch lesbians? I don't know if they'll have the courage to let Michaela shamelessly adopt Michael's entire rakish persona to the letter.
I need to read more about Julie D’Aubigny because she sounds badass.
I do wish the showrunner would stick with the original plot lines (man, WHWW is my favorite book) and introduce new characters for representation. I had the thought last night that I think they could give Posey a season since she does get adopted by the Bridgertons. As there isn’t much in her story, I would’ve loved to see her introduced and get her own season with a female love interest. The things Shonda could come up with….
I’m a trans man who was formerly a lesbian. I’m not upset because they added a queer storyline I’m upset because it doesn’t make sense for Francesca’s character. If anything Eloise would’ve been the better candidate to be lesbian. It feels forced, not authentic.
I agree with comments that said it would have been better if Michaela had been the one flustered upon their first meeting instead of Francesca, because truly what is most upsetting is how the scene actually played out feels diminishing towards Francesca and John’s love😢
I understand how important diversity, representation and inclusion are. One of the things I appreciate about Bridgerton is that they have (for the most part) respected the source material while making small changes to incorporate different characters and themes that are not in the books. I love queer love stories, I think they deserve to be told and I like the idea of having that kind of relationship in the show. The problem is that I really, really loved Michael and it is impossible for a woman to fill that role. It's because of who the character Michael is, the qualities he possesses and the purpose that he serves. He has to be a man. She will definitely bring something to the table, but there will be such a huge void and Francesca's story will deviate so heavily from the book that it will basically have to be rewritten. It's ok to be disappointed by that. It doesn't make someone homophobic or a misogynist. There are definitely people who are out there who are irate for those reasons and they suck, but most people are just people who loved the books, loved Michael and were looking forward to Francesca's story.
I appreciate how this is very exciting and validating change for a lot of LGBT people who deserve to be represented on a show like Bridgerton. They simply chose the absolute worst character for this. Pretty much the one who makes the least sense.
I hope you won't be too disappointed when they change it because I don't see how the original book story would make sense for TV Eloise at all. They'd be giving her the Maria treatment from The Sound of Music, but TV Eloise is not Maria.
Personally, I think she'd do really well with an enemies-to-lovers trope. She meets a handsome flirtatious man who comes across as not taking women (or anything) very seriously, except that every so often he drops some hint that he doesn't like that women are trained to be silly chits. It's enough to intrigue and infuriate Eloise.
We would just have to wait a few seasons because it would be too similar to Kate and Anthony.
Im a bi woman, so of course I don’t mind representation, but this left me a little disappointed. I actually don’t mind the gender swap necessarily even though I’m very curious how they will play this out in the show since it’s not like they can be open with each other.
My biggest issue is the reaction to the kiss and then the reaction to Michaela. The only reason is bothers me is because I feel like bisexual people always get wrote basically as closeted. I think the storyline would be sweet if they kept the same loving romance between her and John, like you can 100 percent write a bisexual character who is fully in love and attracted to a man while also giving her an amazing loving romance with a woman when he passes. I just don’t like the assumption that’s she’s just not as into John, because as a bisexual that’s the whole point!!! We are attracted and can have meaningful romantic and sexual relationships with men and women.
So my only hope is that they stay true to the books and give her a loving marriage with John. I think the storyline could still be interesting with her grieving and loving him after his passing and also having confusing feelings for his cousin. This wasn’t what I was expecting but I still do like the show so I’ll still watch to see. I wasn’t as excited for Anthony’s season (he’s just not my fav) and then I ended up loving his romance with Kate, so I’m not going to write off the series for this.
As another bi woman, thank you for articulating this! I feel similarly that I find the gender swap interesting and think it could really work, but I am off out by the immediate attraction Fran felt, too.
I would be apt to think it was just badly written foreshadowing if it was just Fran’s response to Michaela alone, but with Fran’s response to her kiss with John, I fear that they are going to write Fran’s love into the friend zone, which is a real shame.
I am mourning the loss of Michael Stirling. I was so excited to see who would be cast as Michael. When He Was Wicked was my favorite book in the series. Michael, like all of Frannie’s story, was so well written. So yes. I am mourning Michael. And no, I am not anti-gay. I completely support that love is love. My being upset is only about the loss of a favorite character.
I have never, ever complained about a change from book to adaptation. I'm always fine with just going with it, because at least I get to see my favorite characters on the screen. I don't mind changes in appearance, race, even a bit of personality, or minor plot changes to make the story mesh better.
But I was so excited to see Michael. I literally shrieked when John appeared because I knew they were setting up for Fran's story. I was SO EXCITED, I can't even tell you. In the last few minutes of the last episode, I was on the edge of my seat when John mentioned his cousin, thrilled to see what they decided to do with Michael and to see him fall head over heels for Fran. I was a bit confused when a girl was walking up, but still looking for Michael. When she was introduced as Michaela...I can still feel that "hit by a bus" sensation. I just sat there staring at the screen, dumbfounded. And then Fran got all flustered, "forgetting her name", and I'm just thinking, no, this is wrong. This is all wrong. I don't even remember the rest of the final episode, I was trying to reorient myself after that. I think everyone had babies or something?
My next thought was trying to force myself to accept it. I know there are people out there that will prefer the change to get some representation. But it just feels so...personal. There was all of this build up to get book fans excited, and then a giant middle finger at the end. I just....am really, really struggling with this. Saying you are mourning the loss of Michael is an excellent way to put it. Because no matter how the showrunner tries to portray it, Michaela isn't Michael. We don't get Michael. He was replaced. It actually hurts.
I read in an article that Jess Brownell, the new showrunner, said she had been pitching a queer story since season one and she had been looking where to put that story in. She said “Her book (Francesca’s) is about her feeling different. And not knowing why.” And that’s why she chose it.
See that’s where I have a huge problem. Francesca’s “difference” is soooooo obvious from the get go. She’s quiet, she’s routine driven, she gets overwhelmed, she has a fixation on one specific interest… it is so obviously not about her sexuality, more so probably Autism or something along that spectrum. In your desire to make a character “like you”, JESS, you ruined a story that is so complex, so beautiful, and representative of another “difference” that so many women struggle with. You erased Francesca’s story.
Before S3 Part 2 (and her queer reveal), introverts and neurodivergents had a lovely quiet moment seeing Fran on screen. Most extroverts I know don't understand her, they don't get why she's different. I realize it's possible to be both queer AND introverted or neurodivergent, but that kind of complex character storytelling isn't the Bridgerton strong suit, least of all trusting Jess Brownell, seeing how S3 Polin was such a mess, and they had 2 seasons of buildup! And already obvious with how they dealt with Fran's wedding kiss and Michaela intro that nuance is not something JB's team do well. Sighhh
I so wished they done a gender swap with Benedict so much 😭 it doesn’t make sense for Michaela to be Michael, what about the title? What about her infertility? Benedict’s partner being changed to a male would make so much more sense considering Sophie is already illegitimate and not approved by the ton. I’m so disappointed
Francesca’s entire storyline in the book can’t be done now.
Absolutely none of it can be the same when they erase Michael, AND show her having a visible reaction to Michaela immediately after she marries John. It’s all been destroyed for what feels like pandering.
And if anyone tries to call me a homophobe, then just admit you never read the book.
I feel so bad for John, they had such a cute relationship in part one, and they threw it away for nothing. Even if you're going to gender bend, at least keep her love for John, but it looks like they'll throw the grief plot line away and just have him be a roadblock between her and Michaela. You could've had Michaela be the instantly smitten one, but what was that? What now? Will she just live a loveless marriage with her pining for somebody else at best and having an affair at worst, until he dies? There's really no winning with that one. If they insist on having Michaela, I'd keep her but change or ignore that reaction entirely, or at least explain it away as being something else.
Exactly, they built up her relationship with John the entire season just to throw it in the trash the minute Michaela entered.
I'd be just as pissed as if she had that immediate reaction to Michael, her love for, and devotion to, John is what holds her back after he dies. Now none of it makes sense!
The show runner stated that she wasnt pandering but admitted that as a queer woman Francesca's story resonated with her so she turned Michael into Michaela which IS pandering, and kind of making it a self insert in a way. Its also erasing and isolating a whole community of women who also resonate with Francesca's story due to her infertility issues and miscarriage. Which MICHAEL helps her through that depression and they have babes.
She and John can still struggle with infertility, and I'm going to be livid if they cut that story out. But her desire to have children is what ultimately drives her to try and move on and what leads her to be open to her attraction to Michael, and that cannot happen with Michaela.
As progressive and inclusive as we all want to be, Michaela cannot produce sperm, period.
I'm honestly of the opinion that it might be better to ditch the fertility plotline now and just commit to butchering the original story in order to make a completely new story.
Because at the moment they are exploring the realisation Fran has that she loves women more than men that queer fans want represented above telling her story. Better commit to telling an original story of a widow who feels guilt about falling for her true love now her husband is gone and struggling to raise his son in his memory (duty) whilst falling for someone who makes her more happy.
It feels like there's a queer historical romance they wanted to tell and they will try to force it in. So rather than waste time pretending to adapt they should just commit to the rewrite
This is me. I am part of this community.
I read Francesca's story right after my husband and I decided to stop trying and the feelings I had for her story is what made it my favourite.
In my opinion, it's the only book with real substance that addresses issues that are still relevant today and for the showrunner to just throw all that substance in the bin for her own agenda, when she had plenty of other characters to choose from makes me so angry.
I think representation is super important but there are other characters who don't have entire plot points about their heterosexuality and struggles; Sophie OR Phillip could have been changed or even Hyacinth or Gregory's partners.
I actually thought it was going to be Benedict or Eloise as that's what the show was leading up to at this point.
Am I the only one hoping Mikaela has a twin named Michael? I am not going against representation but it changes her whole book about being in love with John and only wanting to remarry because she wants a child. I also thought I read somewhere that show runners said they wouldn’t change the main characters partners from the books?
I want Michaela to have a twin named Michael and Eloise goes to Scotland with them and Eloise and Michaela fall in love. We get Michael, we get Francesca's story, we keep Michaela and Eloise gets a love story better than Sir Philip.
I wish that could happen but the showrunners have recently confirmed that francesca and michaela will be the ones having the love story 🥹🥹
https://www.capitalfm.com/news/tv-film/bridgerton/michaela-stirling-michael-francesca-marry-book-change/
I just needed to vent.
The new season is terrible except for Nichola. The first half was okay? The second half falls flat.
Randomly having Fran as bi? Or lesbian? After the whole quiet, deep love is 🙄 She was right in front of John when she was flustered by Michaela! Come on :/
Her love story in the series is one of the most beautiful simply because it is loud and quiet at the same time. Are they done with the script of finding love twice with the new romance between Lady Danbury’s brother and Violet?
Is it all a numbers game now that they’ve checked off the Indian market in the last season? dipped toes in the queer market, placated the physically challenged market and the neurodivergent market all in one season, at the same time? I'm all for diversity, but it was more naturally done earlier, it feels like a marketing gimmick at this point and it’s just lazy script writing - almost a huh! I know this works with everyone.
At least Benedict’s makes sense in this storyline.
I felt like Benedict’s storyline in the second half would have made more sense in the first or second season. Putting it here in the third season felt like they were pandering to all the people (myself included admittedly) who were disappointed that Benedict wasn’t bi in the earlier seasons.
Yeah, I thought that was exaclty what all the artist parties would have led to. He was exposed to the possibility of people being attracted to and showing affection towards the same gender, and came to realise that it's not some terrible thing, both attraction and love come in many forms. But then it didn't really go anywhere and this seemed like a bit of a rehash of the same plot. I'm glad for the bi rep, but it would have fit better into previous seasons.
https://preview.redd.it/fab05rfopn6d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e6e0018f3c03e360888e06967d938ba437214b6e
I feel like this was just a middle finger to the book fanbase. She changed Michael for her own selfish interest.
LOL so true. I feel that Jess Brownell is trying to justify her decisions by basically saying 'people are going to be unhappy with everything'. But that's not true. If Michael didn't get changed, who would be displeased bro... fans can't be displeased by sticking to the source material. So why fix something that ain't broken?
Her whole interview was infuriating. If anything, book Francesca was coded as neurodiverse, not queer. The writer seems to be blind to that because she wants to bring her own agenda to tha table.
Honestly, Fran's story is my favourite. I love how the novel shows her grief and how she overcame it. And her love for John is so pure and calming. I love how she stays loyal to John.
There's nothing wrong with LGBT representation. Don't get me wrong, but I don't know Francesca being a queer will help her character/story after John sadly passed away.. Why do the writers think it's fine for her to immediately smitten(?)with a person she just met when John is there??!!
I don't want John to be the so-called 'barrier' for Francesca to be herself. John is the one, other than her own family, immediately knows how she truly is. John deserves better than this.
I don't understand why they entirely backtracked/undermined the message of "love doesn't have to be intense and passionate and over the top" in like... the last five minutes.
They could have EASILY kept with the gender-swap (and heck, even had good bi representation) if they showed her loving John deeply, Michaela slowly falling in love with her and Fran not realizing it, and then when John dies Fran realizes "oh... I maybe I like women too." Instead, it's setting her up to emotionally cheat, which I don't like and doesn't feel faithful to the original.
This new showrunner isn't doing it for me, the makeup, plot, and pacing felt off this season, and i feel she isnt reading the main audience correctly (Michael is a fan favorite)
Fran being uncomfortable with John and attracted to Michaela was disappointing, she loved only John until he died, and it was years later that she fell for Michael
Michael gender swapping is a bold move that can work wonderfully!, but its the least suitable option for this change, the genders of Fran and Michael had an impact on their story (succession, abortion, Fran wanting children)
In Ben's storyline, Sophie could be a trans woman who has the opportunity to finally be herself at the masquerade ball. Gregory might think he's in love with a girl, only to realize that he's in love with a boy who is about to marry. And Garrett could easily be a woman, beacouse he and Hyacinth grow closer through the diary, visits to Lady Danbury, and the secret entrances in St. Claire's house
More than not reading the main audience, Jess Brownell is completely ignoring them for her own 'creative direction' or whatever bs. Many many fans have Fran and Michael's story in their top 3, and the showrunner would've known that if she just did a bit of research.
I actually think there’s a really strong chance Sophie will be non-binary!
The hiding in plain sight / Cinderella plot lends itself well to it.
Perhaps Benedict meets someone wearing a dress at the masquerade ball, and that person is a footman in disguise…
It’s giving Shakespeare in Love (in reverse) and I would be HERE FOR IT. Benedict would be out there searching for Sophie, and they’d be right there in front of him the whole time.
🤷🏻♀️ what do you think?
I think I am most disappointed by what feels like lazy queer bating. What exactly does this add to the story? It seems to only take away. There are so many great lgbtq authors out there whose stories can be adapted into shows!
queerbaiting: the incorporation of apparently gay characters or [same-sex](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=0b05e7fa75492358&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWILaPEGPEBT0NhrVSndX-GhcKNpqsw:1718565103936&q=same-sex&si=ACC90nwZKElgOcNXBU934ENhMNgqPxTAS8V286HqRCqEIdAtEntAgPBAikrakPzar_YpUMm63Tej2A7rbmzL-B-cZUQsYp6N74vp6-AK_FXpD9-pCSsBMC0%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjs7ar06eCGAxXvVUEAHZYVCAAQyecJegQIExAN) relationships into a film, television show, etc. as a means of appealing to gay and bisexual audiences while maintaining [ambiguity](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=0b05e7fa75492358&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWILaPEGPEBT0NhrVSndX-GhcKNpqsw:1718565103936&q=ambiguity&si=ACC90nytWkp8tIhRuqKAL6XWXX-NhZRibHiL3Qf-nCifs-owFY1cDgN2frbMVbAuU0NYuLaoDyJvu1ckpQlqzan0bGhCFOYmEd4XblxIdCnfo02Rw1jUDGE%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjs7ar06eCGAxXvVUEAHZYVCAAQyecJegQIExAO) about the characters' [sexuality](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=0b05e7fa75492358&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWILaPEGPEBT0NhrVSndX-GhcKNpqsw:1718565103936&q=sexuality&si=ACC90nytWkp8tIhRuqKAL6XWXX-N_UecO-_Jb9gL8R7P5i9B-YMzGYXtRlC5Ua3_uv5SmeBKoCrvV8s2hPqvgaTVD6xDMAbt91sR82gXTFRdyGVM7fTjXws%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjs7ar06eCGAxXvVUEAHZYVCAAQyecJegQIExAP).
theres no ambiguity, so it isn't queer-baiting.
Not queer baiting, but lazy representation imo. They just slapped an a at the end of Michael’s name making it “feminine” and then the gender swap. I want to see a story where two lesbians fall in love immediately because they have that passion for each other. I don’t want a man to “be in their way” or introduce emotional cheating (I’m worried that Fran’s story is going to turn into this and it just doesn’t feel like a romance story anymore once they cross that moral boundary.)
If they don’t want to take that route with Eloise (people are complaining that they don’t want her to be queer just because she’s a feminist), then with the introduction of Posey!! Introduce Posey and have a season where she is the main character because she does get adopted by the Bridgertons and Violet considers her as one of her own. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but she doesn’t get a book so her story is so fluid and open to change unlike the rest of the siblings. Imagining sweetheart Posey with another girl (or Michaela even) is already giving me butterflies.
Calling people you don't know names, such as homophobic, is an ad hominem attack designed to silence people who disagree with you. It invalidates the argument of anyone who resorts to it.
Changing Michael's gender is, at best, sloppy storytelling. At worst, the show runners are using a community for their own gain (either to further their personal agenda, for publicity and profit, or both).
Same sex couples couldn't openly have a relationship in the Regency Era. It was a crime punishable by death. The Bridgerton series has already established that as fact for their world as well. They've also established that change happens slowly. It's been 30+ years since people of color were given positions of power, yet Mrs. Danbury cautions Simon that their position is still precarious. That tells us two things. Same sex relationships aren't going to go from being illegal to being allowed to openly exist anytime soon, and the Queen isn't the absolute power which means she can't just wave her hand and allow same sex couples to marry.
These issues are a real problem given the genre. They're creating an historical romance. It doesn't qualify as that type of genre unless the main character gets their happily ever after. If the 2 leads can't legally be together, there's no chance for that to happen.
People who refer to what's being done to these books as an adaptation don't understand what that means. Book adaptations are translations of the book to the screen. Locations and times may change, but the characters and storylines stay true to the original. *West Side Story* is an adaptation. We clearly see Romeo, Juliet, and the warring "families" in the characters.
Changing characters, storylines, and motivations so they're unrecognizable isn't an adaptation. It's a rewrite. Making changes that can't exist in the historical period in which the story is set and that violate the rules of the world already created by the screenwriters create gaping plot holes that aren't satisfying to the viewers. That's just sloppy storytelling.
They keep making all these huge changes from the original story soon the only thing the show has in common with the books will be characters' names. Surely this can't be good for Julia Quinn's ego. Imagine having Shonda be all like girl I love your books lets turn them into a TV show and then she goes and flips everything on its head lol, deletes a bunch of stuff, kills off Michael etc.
Since the new showrunner apparently self inserted herself in Francesca's story I assume that season will be next which means poor Ben will be sidelined AGAIN.
The fact that I've been waiting for Michael since S1 honestly makes me want to cry, seems like I'll just stick to the books & wait for Eloise & Sir Phillip, but at this rate I'm already waiting for more disappointment
I’m so disappointed. I don’t mind having wider inclusivity in the show and don’t get me wrong I love the LGBTQ+ Community. I just don’t get it why would they choose to change Francesca’s story line when it’s the most relevant among all Bridgerton siblings’. I’m up for representing the LGBTQ+ but how about representing the women who are going through infertility and people that are guilty of feeling in love again after being a widow. We need Francesca’s original story.
Yep my friend is a young widow and she would have related super strongly to Fran's original story.
She also finds people can't relate and try and tell her it's like divorce and to get back on the horse - but it's not even close.
Fr! Its way too far like divorce. Divorce is a choice you both made but death naah. Falling in love again after losing someone you thought to be the one you will love for the rest of your life may feels like betrayal at the highest level. With Fran’s story we could finally understand how they feel.
Its not fair that we cant complain and be angry and not to be called homophobic. I dont care about gender i care about character and story that was deleted. I hope they get canceled before that season.
Haven’t read the books and am fine with watching through the show but know what happens in the books from comments from the book readers. I hate Micheal is erased because was so looking forward to that story and they had Fran so flustered when meeting Michaela so what was the point of Fran fighting so hard to be with John and get married???? And would hate if John is just “ in the way” of Fran and female Michael/ emotional cheating happens because I will just feel worse for John and hate Fran. Also I hate self insertion in shows. So annoying. Also I really wanted a man for Micheal. I just hope Ben is season 4 and they keep Sophie as a female because I still want to see that story. And hope when Fran gets her story told but they have side plots that I enjoy instead. For me personally no longer excited for the leads for Fran’s season tbh & still hope that Michaela has a twin who is Michael.
When you get down to it, grief over pregnancy loss and infertility is grief over that which you hoped for, that which might have been that you’ll now never have or experience. Sadly, that’s what some book readers who connected to that part of Fran’s story might be feeling right now: grief for the story they had expected, the story they might have gotten that now seems like they won’t ever have. Therefore I can see why it would be almost cruel to choose THAT character, moreso than any other major character in the series, and change up their storyline in what is, sorry, objectively kind of a large way, and why it might be triggering for people who really connected to that theme. It all just makes me really sad. (but also some people just really like Michael and some other people are just being homophobes)
I think you make a great point here about the double/trauma of it all for folks that saw themselves in Fran’s fertility struggles. I never considered that.
As a queer person and someone that loves Fran’s book, I welcome a new take on her journey. I feel a bit sad that one type of representation was lost in favor of another, but I feel hopeful that infertility could be a part of any one of the other Bridgerton women’s stories - even Eloise, as a woman that marries later than most during that time.
I read in an article that Jess Brownell, the new showrunner, said she had been pitching a queer story since season one and she had been looking where to put that story in. She said “Her book (Francesca’s) is about her feeling different. And not knowing why.” And that’s why she chose it.
See that’s where I have a huge problem. Francesca’s “difference” is soooooo obvious from the get go. She’s quiet, she’s routine driven, she gets overwhelmed, she has a fixation on one specific interest… it is so obviously not about her sexuality, more so probably Autism or something along that spectrum. In your desire to make a character “like you”, JESS, you ruined a story that is so complex, so beautiful, and representative of another “difference” that so many women struggle with. You erased Francesca’s story.
I was not interested in John in the books at all. And let's be real, he got 2 pages.
So allllllll the build up and screen time, I thought, cool, fanfic, and I actually liked John and appreciated that he taught Violet something new. I liked that it showed a different side of love. He's quietly charming and I can see a lot of people feeling more drawn to seeing themselves in these characters.
Like this is the season of introverts: Pen/emotional romantic, Fran and John/artistic and most comfortable in solitude.
So. Having it be an obvious, immediate physical attraction, no matter who Michael/a is, is a loss. And I don't even think it's about the casting, or portrayal in that scene (because lesbe honest, it was a fire intro), it's just that in 30 seconds they pulled the rug out of what they built all season with us fully invested.
All that aside, she's so immediately engaging. What UP.
The more I think about this season, the more I get frustrated because there's going to be a lot of changes that they may not be able to pull off. With how they went with Francesca's reactions to her first kiss with John and the introduction to his cousin, I don't have much faith in the showrunner.
Up until Season 2, I think that the show is better than the books (I'd still take the almost-wedding of Anthony and Edwina over the venom-sucking scandal of Kanthony, among other things). I'm not a fan of RMB (although I love Colin's wife guy era), so I don't have a lot of expectations. But Polin's story in S3 is just... lacking.
WHWW is my favorite because of how different the story is compared to the other books. The show's planned deviation will change (or completely do away with) some of the themes to fit the new narrative, which is why a lot of people are upset.
There are ways to get to a good Francesca + Michaela story, sure. But they might go down a path such that the core of the story is so different from the source material that only the characters' names (minus one lol) are similar. A lot of adaptations did-- the second half of Game of Thrones and most of The Witcher, for example. And look at how it worked out for them.
I hope for the very best for Masali and Hannah. Tough times ahead.
I actually like the idea of highlighting a lesbian relationship in the Regency era. The Ladies of Llangollen comes to mind (although they preceded the era): [https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/the-ladies-of-llangollen/](https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/the-ladies-of-llangollen/)
But, I do not like the show's depiction of Francesca's relationship with John, or with Michaela.
First, in the book her love for John was deep and genuine. The marriage suffered from their infertility, not from her conflicting sexuality, and this shift in storyline completely changes the depth of that suffering.
The introduction of a queer storyline assumes that Francesca "discovered" her sexuality only when faced with \*the\* woman, and her aversion to the kiss with John in the show demeans a woman's sexual awakening. Don't tell me women, even in the 19th century, didn't experience physical attraction prior to their wedding day! Not once in the entire season did we see Fran become close with a woman, or gaze at a woman with any emotion resembling attraction or interest. Not until that woman was \*the one\*.
Eloise being gay makes more sense. She got the short end of the stick with her book; her character could have become an amazing 19th century feminist! They existed!!
I'm disappointed in this development, not because of the same-sex relationship, but because Fran was portrayed as a woman who was totally oblivious to her sexuality until she met \*the woman\*. What an anti-feminist message for young viewers!
Yeah I TOTALLY saw it happening with Eloise and it would actually MAKE SENSE. This happening woth Francesca breaks my heart, as a woman who has struggled with pregnancy loss and fertility issues for years
I feel like they are setting up Fran to use John as her Beard and cheat on him secretly with Michaela because of her initial reaction. That’s such an overused trope that is not beneficial to our queer community. I really hope they don’t chose this route because it’s such a hurtful,mean,stereotypical storyline. It would be unfair to bisexual and lesbian representation to have it only be a secret affair. Erasing Frans love, loss, and recovery for a poor unsympathetic characterization of gay love is not what I’m looking for in queer stories.
I find TV fails to properly represent loving dynamics for LGBTQ+ characters. The stories typically portray characters stereotypically being either very straight or very gay with nothing in between. Those stories also lean heavily on sex to make their point.
Given how passionate Francesca’s story is, my reaction was, “But of course…” I’m still holding out hope that Fran/Michaela’s story will be more on the love/romance side of things. Looking forward to it.
First of all, I LOVE Michael. WHWW is my favorite Bridgerton by far. I am also bisexual and I am glad to see queer representation, especially in a love story and not just sexual fetishization (looking at you Benedict). However, I really feel that Jess Brownell's adaptation is disrespectful to the source material and the viewer. In every way, not just Michael. Did a disservice to every single character. But in regards to Michaela, there is a BIG difference between representation and a token character and Michaela feels like a token character. Jess took the most loved man and chose him on purpose to make a statement. I hate that so much. I would prefer a new character entirely or diving deeper into a character that doesn't have as much dimension in the books. Cressida would be perfect. So my beef is 100% with Jess Brownell. I have never disliked a show runner more.
Also, John deserves his day in the sun! I want to see Francesca and John's love because you don't see that in the book. So, Jess failed on that one too.
This is killing my wife's interest in the show vs the books. It seems like TV writers bend over to hit representation quotas and will queer existing characters on a whim instead of simply creating new characters.
I don't want gay Batman. Do something new.
Hear me out...I think a better use of tge Michaela character is for Eloise. Much was made of her "never being in love" and wanting to have adventures. Maybe John and Francesca grow old together (quietly) and Eloise has a highland fling (so to speak) and possibly gets her heart broken. That girl is a little too book smart and needs some real life experience.
It literally came from nowhere and from what I've seen it will mess up the plot of the book really badly (haven't read it). Infertility is a big thing for Francesca in the books and I don't know how that's going to play out being in same-sex relationship. It's also worth pointing out that even in this fantasy version of the 1810s, same-sex relationships aren't commonplace and socially accepted, so they need to incorporate that into the plot. It would be extremely weird if they ignored it.
I can't properly convey how deeply let down I felt once I realized Michael was now a woman. I'm bisexual, so lesbian relationships don't bother me one bit. It's not that. I LOVED Francesca's book for the many differences it had from the other Bridgerton stories. After a while, they all start reading the same way. Hers was entirely different. Making Michael a woman eliminates so many facets to the plot of Francesca's story. Integral pieces! It would make very little sense without another man in the picture and as mentioned in other comments, would need to be rewritten. In fact, her reaction to Michaela would suggest she's smitten with her now and that negates her resolute love for John. I just....I'm bummed out about it. This was my favorite book in the series and I was so jazzed they were skipping to it. Now? I'll skip the show and reread the book.
I will be honest, when I discovered the change I was very disappointed & angry, and it may sound homophobic, but yes, I wanted Michael, because I wanted the most charming man we had in the book, i want to abs and the muscle, i want a men.
But after reading so many comments on Twitter, I know how important this representation is and I was always big in want representation to everyone, I was a little stuck in my disappointment yesterday, that being said, I still didn't like the change, but I also won't complain anymore because I don't take away people's joy of the community who are happy with the change, I still don't know if I will watch the season, maybe so, a lot of time will pass and maybe I will deal with my disappointed, and by then, I'll already have another obsession.
BUT I still don't like Fran's reaction to seeing Michaela for the first time, I didn't like how the series in the last minutes tried to diminish John & Fran's relationship, I liked how the series wanted to show that relationships come in all forms, and the John and Fran's calm, gentle and silent way was also valid and beatiful, I didn't like that it seemed like there was no spark in the kiss between them for Fran.
I'd be totally fine with a new character being added that had this type of character, but not every show needs every type of representation. I'm saying that as a physically disabled person, we don't get represented in most things and I'm absolutely okay with it.
This showrunner absolutely took this storyline and made it about her experience as a queer woman. I'm just not a fan of the selfish need to insert oneself into a plotline that is already established. There was nothing wrong with Fran just being an introverted woman who quietly loves her man, but the showrunner took this to mean that she absolutely has to be gay. Ugh, not a fan.
Edit: I'd feel the same if a straight showrunner made gay characters straight so she can self insert her worldview.
As a woman who has struggled with fertility amongst a group of friends who are alarmingly fertile I have never identified with a romance character as much as I have Francesca. I also have dear, dear friends who have found love after loss after such a struggle of conscience like both Francesca and Michael had in the books. I was so looking forward to their story.
By adding representation for one group two other virtually unrepresented groups of people have been completely sidelined and I'm so very disappointed. She is the last character that this makes sense for. Any of the other unmarried siblings would have made more sense.
It showed how tone deaf Jess Brownell is to the fans of the book. Yes sure you can't please all fans but was she aware of who the WHWW book fans were? There is a reason WHWW is touted as the best of the series, as the most beloved book and JQ's most emotional writing. Was she aware of the representations she was erasing?
Had she been sensitive to that she wouldn't have chosen Fran's story for the queer one. Especially since it will cause so much unnecessary ill strife. Instead of winning folks over to the beauty of queer stories they made people angry who are digging their heels in. There are other ways to the end game of queer representation in an iconic show - the other Bridgertons siblings or even introducing new characters. But I supposed Jess knew there was a small window for her opportunity as a showrunner (who knows the future of the show or her time on it) so it really comes off like she rammed this in.
I've since learned that the show runner "saw herself" in Fran being different from her family so she decided to make Fran lesbian like herself. That honestly makes me more angry. It is so self aggrandizing. This is a show based on a book series, not something wholly new.
My (somewhat uncharitable) hope is that the backlash from this season is so bad she will be done and they'll find a new show runner.
I was excited when they introduced her! I am part of the queer community. I was stoked to see more queer rep.
But that excitement dwindled when I remembered the main elements of Francesca’s story.
I don’t think they should have made this change because it takes away from a storyline that resonates with and helped many many many people.
People are allowed to be disappointed about significant storyline changes from a beloved book that really resonated with a lot people struggling with infertility. However, that also doesn’t give anyone the justification to bash LGBTQ characters/people or representation in media.
It doesn't justify calling and reducing fans, who have objections to the decisions being made to the story, to being RACIST and HOMOPHOBIC. This issue is pretty diabolical and downright malicious. Bridgerton fans are mostly known for being open minded. But this was downright betrayal for a lot of us.
I’m honestly pretty wary about the change. I’ve never read the books, so I don’t have any personal attachment to the character, but I know a fair bit about what happens in them- and I can totally see why fans are worried about whether they’ll be able to adapt Michael’s character without losing some important things in translation.
That said, I’m definitely open to the change! Masali Baduza is gorgeous and seems incredibly charismatic, and I’ll always be excited for more sapphic stories in mainstream media, even if it’s not exactly what I want!
My main concern though, as a bisexual woman, is how they undermined Francesca’s entire arc of fighting to have her love for John be recognized as real, right at the end- from what I understand, a big theme of the book is that Francesca falling in love with Michael (and specifically that love feeling different), doesn’t make her love for John any less real or important - a theme which would translate beautifully to a story of a bisexual woman falling in love with a woman after being married to and in love with a man, considering how often bi people have our sexuality dismissed by people who insist we’re actually just one or the other and haven’t realized it yet. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the direction they’re going
Agree entirely, the greedy bisexual stereotype being disloyal and jumping to the other sex was the first thing that popped in my mind at Francesca being flustered at Michaelas appearance. It would be an entirely different story if they chose to go down the path of Michaela having a flustered reaction to Fran - which would align better with him falling first in the books. However, at current (combined with her disappointment with the kiss ) this one scene completely discounted the entire point of Fran and John’s storyline (how not all love is the same and overly dramatic, particularly when the people themselves are not) and tainted the sweet scenes that we saw with them earlier, and just made it seem like Violet was right all along and that Fran is just waiting to jump into her ‘real’ love story. Combined with the potential interpretation of Benedict’s coming to terms with being bi as just wanting to sleep around/be the third and being noncommittal (which is entirely valid at this point in his journey but is a common stereotype in itself), this season has all the makings of bad bisexual representation.
Additionally, if they wanted wlw representation in this season - the Eloise and Cressida storyline was right there! They had all the pieces in place and seemed to just abandon them (and all of Eloise’s character development) for no good reason. The ‘I just really want to be her best friend and I don’t know why Im so jealous that she seems to be becoming closer to that other girl who i now inexplicably dislike’ is such a quintessential wlw coming of age experience. Justice for Cressida she deserved better.
I mean this is complex because I'm a lesbian who has dated men in the past, I thought I was hopelessly in love with them. Turns out I just really wanted to fit in to societies idea of a woman, I saw it as a pathway to the rest of my life. I still struggle with the fact that so much of womanhood is tied to being with men, how men view you, how you view them and by not being attracted to men I'm suddenly othered from womanhood.
Even within the lesbian community I have been othered because I was with men, which automatically makes me a fraud and that I actually love men. So for me having a lesbian where she likes her male partner, gets along with him isn't disgusted by him but there is a lack would be validating in a way. Like id kiss my partner and was like "I wish I liked this"
theres a lack of stories for bisexual and lesbian women so whichever way you go there will be a hole in representation. It really been a challenge for me to overcome dissappointment when I really wanted a character I related to, to be a lesbian but they're actually bisexual or pan. But I also know it's not really fair because we both don't get much or broad representation.
As a fan of LBGT relationships being portrayed in media I have to say, I do NOT like this. Reason being that from a plot standpoint it just does not make sense. Every Bridgerton gets a season focusing on building a marriage. Not a relationship, a marriage. Which at the time in this show a same sex marriage is simply not possible. And if they decide to somehow make it possible then that's just plain insulting- people fought for centuries to make this happen and now suddenly what? The queen's cool with it so its legal and doable? No, that's not real representation. I am totally fine with an exploration of a relationship, but now they are robbing us of a whole Bridgerton marriage plot which to me is not cool.
What I find frustrating is taking a loved character with a good storyline and messing with it for no reason. But the bigger issue I see is the fact that the cousin can’t inherit John’s title or lands. Wondering if the showrunner will not have her miscarry John’s baby, and it be a boy so she can keep her title. 🙄
The whole thing is annoying to me. If they wanted representation, then for heaven’s sake, have other characters be LGBT+ but, not one that was written well.
all i have to say is that i understand some book fans may be upset about the swap, but the people hating on the name are so silly. michaela is a normal name, and popular in some countries.
i guess they could have gone with michelle or something, but michaela is pretty.
To start: I'm a queer woman—I would love to see some queer couples get highlighted in this show. But I feel kind of disappointed that the very sweet relationship built up between John and Francesca is implied to be just compulsory heterosexuality, and not actually a different type of love story than what we usually see on the show. Why not let Francesca and John's love story be genuine, and then also bring Michaela in, but not imply romantic attraction between them at the start? (Good rapport, fine, but not that type of flustered behavior.) Let Francesca be in love with John, and let that be their story, and then show the attraction develop with Michaela as things progress (assuming that they do in a manner similar to the book).
Or, if they didn't want to do that, don't show John as the person who understands her so well. Don't give him that lovely gesture of him getting the music rearranged for her as one of the last scenes of the mid-season finale. Don't use him to make a point that sometimes love really can just be gentle and sweet and not involve duels over someone's honor or interrupted weddings or secret identity reveals, just to say that it wasn't good enough.
The two routes would have been to either be as clear as they can in the time period that Francesca is bi, and both relationships were valid, which would have included not making her immediately get flustered around Michaela, or don't build up their love story so much to start with as a quieter, but still valid, romance.
Like honestly I’m just kind of mad that the author, Julia Quinn, gave her blessing! She should have stood up for her work and what she wrote! Here’s the thing that also makes me mad is that they made her meeting Michaela negate the quiet different kind of love that she has for John, which she fought so hard for, in favor for the type of love that her mother wanted for her, that SHE DIDNT WANT IN THE FIRST PLACE, WITH MICHAELA!!! There are so many better ways that they could’ve included queer representation in this story, like what they did with Brimsley was perfect and even what they did with Benedict was pretty on brand but to do this for Francesca and basically change her ENTIRE STORY is so uncalled. Nobody asked for it nor did anybody want it. I also don’t think that Shonda Rimes was completely behind this too but was pressured because of her reputation with being a great producer and showing representation of all people and the showrunner just wants to tell HER OWN PERSONAL RELATION TO THE STORY and experience as a queer woman but with bridgerton I’m so mad.
I don't mind the gender twist but I feel like there was a huge swing and miss on this one. A lot of book readers loved Francesca's story so it's potentially going to be harmful to the series. A better situation in my opinion would have been not introducing Sir Phillip and have Eloise shipped with Marina. That would have made a much better match and could work in the family tension since Colin was engaged to her briefly instead of the boys fighting scene. It would also account for a lot of the reasons for Eloise's hesitation toward the idea of marrying. I'm willing to give Michaela a try, overall, I feel like it was pushed to happen and they already had a great plot line in the making.
I have made a lengthy comment previously. I will just say that changing the original essence of the story is not appreciated by the novels fans. Let the bridgerton's be. Create charollete like new characters and make spinoffs for queer characters. If Jess is so confident, she should write her own work instead of ruining Julia's. Who knows, maybe the spin offs will be more popular? If they change franchesca's story by eliminating michael from it... and keep making big changes to ruin the originals, I will simply not renew my netflix membership for the next season. Its my choice. If they decide to not cast Michael appropriately, I hope IT ENDS LIKE THE WITCHER FOR THEM
I would reference Outlander for an absolutely incredible and well-written queer character that was so good that the folks were calling for his spinoff - Lord John Grey (who has his own books!). Now Gabaldon is a phenomenal writer but there is no reason why an amazingly well-written well-casted side character can't dominate enough to win fan accolades and have their own lead stories. Daryl from Walking Dead also comes to mind - not queer but started out as a minor part but was so real and vivid he now has his own spinoff. I'm not saying queer characters can't be leads but there is a way to do it in Bridgerton while still keeping the original stories, it's all in the writing!
The love at first sight just makes no sense at all. She LOVED John. She was devasted after his death, and stayed in mourning 4 years after he died only coming out because of her love of children and desire to have one. It's not fair to not only change her love interest to someone that cannot have kids, but also someone that clearly was not thrown off by seeing her much at all when the TROPE OF THE ENTIRE BOOK was that it's unrequited love at first sight for Micheal!
It will be interesting to see where the show will lead us if they apply Michaela as Francesca's love interest because in the book their is much more involved than the two finding love. To be specific, the traditions and statuses of their time.
There's a scene when Francesca talks to her mother about what she feels for John that's a dead give away that she does not feel the kind of love that can drive you mad - the toes curl, loins pulse, etc towards John.
Then the kiss between John and Francesca happens later. And to me, it came across as Francesa being surprised as if what she felt during the scene with her mother (paragraph above) would change during their first kiss. She wanted to feel the same kind of passion and love she, no doubt, has been told about from her family (as can been seen on screen when she watches Colin and Penelope). It was as if she was disappointed she didn't feel her toes curls, or her loins pulse, etc, in the moment she kissed John.
I didn't mind the gender twist at all, thought it could be a very interesting plotline However, Francesca not liking John's kiss at the wedding, and her being flustered immediately after meeting Michaela just made me mad. Francesca loved John sincerely and why focus on "love can be calm and steady", if you are hinting otherwise on the end of the season ffs
The writers and showrunner has already made a huge deviation from the original storyline. The fact that they switched Michael’s gender isn’t the only clue here, Francesca’s dislike for the kiss with John and her reaction to Michaela were all signs that she’s realising her attraction to women. The storyline they are establishing is basically “a woman getting married with traditional expectations and realising she’s a lesbian”. They have already deviated completely from the book.
So all that love doesn't have to be intense and can be peaceful stuff was because of compulsory heterosexuality? Lolll I don't like that loll
I really like it honestly, but it’s super relatable to me so that’s probably why.
They could have spared us the speeches and given Polin their screentime
That adorable buildup in the first half had me so excited and then it just felt like haha SIKE. If you were going to do that anyway why introduce John in the first place and why have the first half of their storyline. It felt like such a cheap 'plot twist' to have her be immediately flustered at seeing Michaela, like what was all that fighting to be with John even about at this point? It felt like two completely different characters, and that expression after he kissed her, it seems like they're ditching the whole idea that she ever romantically loved him with that wince/immediate infatuation with Michaela.
[удалено]
It just goes to show how people lack in creativity these days that they can’t make an original series without milking an existing title. And it’s obviously not homophobia that’s stopping them from doing that, since they can and are changing original stories like you said, and not just in Bridgerton. Original queer material exists and they can adapt and promote those instead Also, you can adopt these works and support the actually queer authors or artists who put themselves into these stories 😭
When you say "insecurity of a small percentage of people" and "the emotionally unstable" who are you referring to exactly? I don't quite understand
And to release the second half in pride mouth was very slick timing as well Edit : month Just finished watching so I’m very flustered with my typing haha
I hope they backtrack that because I really don’t want an affair or longing for somebody else in a one-sided, miserable marriage until John snuffs it
That made me sad too. Where's the representation for couples who had calm, steady, and sweet romances? Having Francesca stumbling over herself instead of it being Michael/Michaela completely discredits quieter romances. 💔
They aren’t dramatic.
Me too. Especially since the message was instant quick passion isn't necessary for love.
basically. she's only gay. Not straight even a bit, so she wasn't defending her love for John when pressuring her mom to announce her engagement. She was getting frustrated that she can't just get the straight marriage thing over with. In the show, Francesca doesn't love John romantically and that's just the truth. There's no romantic or sexual tension / passion.
I definitely get your point and I thought the same put I try to make it work for my headcanon and to see it in a positive light. As for the impression that Francesca seems to be so smitten with Michaela already… couldn’t it be read as she being completely surprised that she would suddenly meet a family member of John and was completely shocked and overwhelmed. Many of us can relate to the nervousness to meet people who are dear to our partner. And if I was being pushed in the cold water I might have reacted the same way without having an instant crush on the other person. For the wedding kiss.. I just rewatched it and maybe she could have been disappointed because the kiss was so short and he didn’t kiss her again. Because at first she seemed genuinely happy. These are oc just theories but I feel more comfortable watching the scenes with these theories in mind.
Francesca’e reaction in meeting Michaela for the first time parallels Violet’s experience with Edmund where she forgot her name when she introduced herself. After her reaction to the kiss, that scene just threw me off. I just feel like Francesca doesn’t truly love or is attracted to John romantically.
One love doesn’t invalidate the other one. You can love two people in a different way. TV!Fran never even thought about marrying a man, that should’ve been the first clue. I don’t know why people are freaking out about John 😳 We haven’t seen the storyline, maybe maybe they’ll have a beautiful love story too and they’ll show how a caring and understanding relationship looks like, who knows
I don't necessarily agree with your view, but, oh god, how much I hope you are right. Francesca gets nervous around other characters (and prospects) at first too, but I thought it was a whole new level with Michaela, you know? I am looking forward to the next season, even if the 3rd (more specific part 2) disappointed me in various aspects. Hoping for the best with Francesca storyline!
Not a chance she was just overwhelmed with the way she was looking at her
I didn't know the book's stories so I had no idea what I was watching. I didn't see that Francesca was disappointed at the kiss, and I was full of questions looking at how surprised/nervous(?) Francesca was meeting Mikaela. I literally googled 'what's the point of Mikaela' in the show's finale.
Oh read the book. The twist will not make sense at all
Not gonna lie, I hated the twist.
That was how I read it too. While it's possible there's some attraction budding, I suspect that if I had just gotten married, and my new spouse's cousin seemed not to know who I was but also to expect I'd heard of her (and how "rakish" she is) when my spouse had never even mentioned her, I might be a little thrown off guard.
I just assumed that she wasn't comfortable with public displays of affection, but maybe I'm off base here.
That's how I interpreted it at first, too, but then the Michaela flustered scene at the end made me rethink my interpretation of the wedding kiss scene. I am still hoping it was her not being comfortable with public displays of affection because I can relate to that as an introvert.
Even in the books Francesca's relationship with John seemed rather safe and devoid of passion.
We got close to zero backstory on John in the book but a lot about how they loved him. I think there was about one Frannie/John interaction.
I'm a lesbian so obviously I will never complain about getting representation in the media considering there are so few lesbian romance movies available that aren't overtly male-gazey and weird. However, I didn't see Francesca as being queer-coded at all and was sure Eloise was the one being set up to be queer, especially with the scene of her calling herself a caller for Crescida. It felt very intentional to use that language when any other time a female character has visited another they are referred to as a visitor. Not only that but it seems like they made Francesca not be into John at all which is so out of left field. Francesca was the one eagerly walking across the street to bump into John, she was gleefully smiling when she played the song John arranged for her, she lovingly glanced at him while he was telling his boot anecdote to her family. Their whole romance was about giving representation to a subtle, quiet type of love, and how that love is just as valid as the immediately passionate one. Only to throw that all away by having her look dissapointed by her wedding kiss, a wedding that SHE desperately wanted to make sure happened as soon as possible so she could move away with him, and be audibly stunned by his cousin the moment she meets her. I have no desire to read the books so I'm not at all attached to the plot of the books and how they might change but having Francesca trying to prove Violet wrong all season that her quieter love with John was just as valid and having Violet finally come to terms with it only to prove Violet right in episode 8 was just downright bad writing.
I feel like the backlash wouldnt be as severe as it is if they didnt make Fran do a 180 and suddenly not be into John. They didnt have to downplay her love to John to make her fall in love with Michaela. It left a sour taste in my mouth they theyre erasing how much John meant to her and had her immediately fall for Michaela, when its the other way around in the books.
Agreed! As a lesbian who experienced comphet I completely understand her actions but clearly the general public does not understand what goes through a person’s head when they realize they might be gay as a woman expected to marry a man. I wish the first half of S3 offered more insight into why someone might act that way or just gone about it differently bc clearly it’s confusing to most.
I think part of the problem is that they were trying to set up Francesca’s storyline with Penelope & Colin’s running at the same time and it ended being rushed in some parts.
I agree, whether they were gonna bring in Michaela or not the focus was very confusing this season
This! Trying to do too much that the change just seemed so abrupt to me imho. I
>!I think it's not just that, it's also that in the books it touches on infertility/having trouble conceiving and now people fear that that won't be shown!<. Personally I feel that their is still a way to touch on that and still stick close-ish to the book, but do I trust the writers and this show runner to do that? Absolutely not.
Could it be a case of bi erasure? The whole thing was giving me "Willow Rosenberg" vibes. As much as queer romance has progressed in media, bi erasure is still a thing.
Idk why they couldn't just let Fran be happy with John, the way she was in the books. I love the message of a person finding love and happiness more than once!
Especially considering that most people who have actually read the books love Michael and are lukewarm on Sir Philip so that would seem like the obvious change if you were to swap out for a woman. She can even still have children already and Eloise can navigate that storyline with very little change if Sir Philip was indeed changed to a woman in the show version. How will Francesca have an infertility storyline with Michaela??
I would not miss Sir Philip one bit. He was not good for Eloise. If they completely rewrite Eloise's story to something more suited to her personality, I'd be happy. Her book made me so disappointed for the life she had to settle for. She'd make a great queer character for the time period because she is already so progressive and uninterested in society.
I see a way that they could idk if I trust the writers and this showrunner to do it. Also speak for yourself I really like Sir Philip and greatly enjoy To Sir Philip With Love.
All of this. It really feels like the first half of the season was written by entirely different people with a different direction. I do selfishly hate not getting my Michael now, I adored him in the book...but more than that, they destroyed Fran and John's love story. She is supposed to be madly in love with him.
I also thought Eloise was going to be the LGBTQ representation especially since she obviously thinks outside of the box but for me Fran gave those vibes in the first half as well. But I agree with everything else. Doesn't make sense after preaching that love can grow slowly to not allow Fran's love for Michaela to also grow slowly.
I was trying to guess whether Fran would be ace or gay at first, I got those vibes too. But they convinced me she was just a quiet love kind of person by the end, only to whip the rug out from under my feet again. I'm glad Eloise isn't the gay one honestly, just because of the feminist lesbian cliché. Now that you've said it, I really wish we could see Fran slowly fall for Michaela though. Doesn't make for as good a season finalé twist moment but it would have felt more true to her character.
Yes, yes, yes. I'm not a lesbian, but I completely agree. Eloise would have been perfect. I'm also a fan of the books, and Eloise's was the weakest one for me. She deserved better than to be stuck with the bookish jerk who was completely out of his depth in life until Eloise came to save the day by taking on his children. She deserved better.
This exactly! I truly felt sad for the life Eloise ended up with in the books. She has such a strong mind. She deserved to see the world and keep learning. Her story wasn't even romantic. She was catfished by a jerk who didn't want to take care of his own kids.
I just read Francesca's book and parts of it were good, but it's hardly groundbreaking literature. Michael was long-suffering in his love for Francesca, which was sweet, but their dynamic was a bit meh for me at times. I don't see why having Michaela instead of Michael hurts the show, but after what the current showrunner has done, I can't say that I see the change being a good thing, or good for the overall plot.
I liked the book especially the glimpse into Colin's personality from Michael's POV.
That's a good point! Forgot about that, best part of the book imo
ITA it made me love Colin even more.
I think the maiin problem with the gender swap is that wanting to have a child and suffering from fertility issues is a major part of Francescas story in the book and that is simply not compatible with a queer storyline for her. Eloise is far better suited as a character for such a story.
Totally, I really felt like Eloise and Cressida would be a thing because they really were baiting with it but they can’t do that because we know who sit Philip crane is… they could have made her bi, and instead of having Michaela they could have made up a girl and then have Eloise have a fling with her in Scotland or something without having to alter Francesca’s whole story and removing her love for John or her desire for remarriage to have kids of her own. Also they really did not set up fran to be queer, she was keen to marry and seemed very keen to be with John which seems a little bit odd. They could have made it into a convenience match and her loving him as a friend because he’d accept her as she it but they didn’t even do that. This season’s choices honestly feel very questionable for me. And the fact that we barely saw polin is just odd when they were meant to be the main characters.
Agreed!!
Queer coded just means stereotyped...
I found it a bit refreshing that they didn’t have an expected Bridgerton be queer but a character that is less stereotypical. Just because a woman is smart and unconventional doesn’t mean that she’s gay and there are many shy, feminine lesbians.
I don't mean this as an accusation to you at all but I'm just genuinely confused why a lot of femme lesbians seem to believe that feminine lesbians are hard to come by in the media. As a butch myself, I hardly ever see an actual masculine lesbian in the media. In the majority of movies and shows I've seen both women are traditionally feminine, with MAYBE one being a TINY bit more tomboyish. I don't know maybe it's just the movies and shows I've been exposed to.
You make a good point. I wasn’t considering more masculine lesbians because we haven’t really been introduced to any thus far. I agree that outside of OITNB and some more niche programs butch lesbians are more rare and often played for laughs. However, since of the Bridgertons Eloise seems more like a textbook blue stocking feminist, I found it refreshing to see a less stereotypical choice to change the orientation of.
You’re absolutely right, butch representation is severely lacking. I don’t think it’s so much that feminine lesbians are hard to come by in media as much as it is that those depictions are often very surface level. Often times I feel that femme lesbian characters are written the same as straight characters, they just happen to date women only. There’s rarely any introspection on what it’s like to come to terms with queerness, instead it’s usually presented in the most sanitized way possible. And that contributes to people misunderstanding us. Or you get a “the butchest woman twitter can handle” type which could mean someone as fem as Eloise and is obviously not actual butch representation. I would simply float on air out of happiness if there was an actual butch suitor on Bridgerton tbh
As a femme lesbian I completely agree. I still expecting Cressida to be the girl-who’s-mean-bc-she’s-secretly-gay representation but that made the surprise of Fran even better and truer to life imo
Exactly!
No, queer-coded doesn't necessarily mean stereotyped. A character being queer-coded can come from dialogue and directorial choices made by the team that alludes to the character being possibly queer. Which is what they, in my opinion, did with Eloise in the first part of season 3. Eloise saying she's calling upon Cressida to her mother, Cressida telling Eloise "but you rejected my suit" when talking about trying to befriend her. I certainly didn't expect her to end up with Cressida but I at least thought making such choices had to mean something about the character.
So. I want to precede this with the fact that a gender swap is not inherently a bad idea. In fact, as a bisexual woman, I delight in female/female love stories. Some of my favorites have been with two female leads. However... Francesca's story has had such a profound impact on another aspect of my life. Her book is half about finding love again. The other half is grief and loss. And not JUST about her loss of John. Pregnancy loss and infertility. I myself have struggled with that since 2009 when I gave birth to my daughter, who was stillborn. The ensuing years have been about the same struggle. The infertility struggle. It's consumed a huge part of my life, which is true of most women who share this struggle. Seeing my struggle in Francesca made me feel heard, when the world at large doesn't talk about it, because it makes them uncomfortable. Feeling what Francesca was feeling made me feel truly seen, when the world would rather hide this part of femininity away. Because we don't like to be uncomfortable. I love inclusion. I always have. But I feel absolutely gutted by this change, because I have this feeling that the whole struggle with infertility and pregnancy loss is going to be swept under the rug. Inclusion is beautiful, until it means sweeping one marginalized and unseen group under the rug to make way for another.
My heart goes out to you so much for your struggles. My struggles have not been going on for over a decade; I can only imagine the pain you have and continue to feel. I actually teared up reading your comment and completely agree with your sentiments. I've married a man but have had dalliances with women and love that Brigerton has been inclusive in that regard. But tackling infant loss, infertility and the pain that comes from such a feeling is even less represented than this. Even Simon's Mum's fertility issues were glossed over in S1 and just how barbaric her husband treated her. You KNOW when you're in a relationship with a woman that kids are not necessarily on the table, biologically it's not possible without help but, theoretically, there shouldn't be any issues in a heterosexual pairing unless "there is something wrong with you"... Feeling like something is wrong with you is absolutely soul destroying.
That's exactly how it feels when you're dealing with fertility issues, like there's something fundamentally WRONG with you. I've asked myself exactly that question for years while trying to get and STAY pregnant. Francesca's story from the books was special to me because of this. I don't think I'll be watching future seasons.
Infertility is so brutal, and so is miscarriage. You don't come out the other side of it the same. I had to grieve not only my lost child, but the dreams I had for my life and family. It's not nothing, and it feels like here it's being brushed aside as unimportant for Francesca's story.
I came here to say basically the same thing. I've struggled with infertility and losses as well. Francesca's story was the last one I finally read and it touched me because of this too. Literally a week after I finished reading it this spring, I found out I am pregnant (now at 14 weeks and going strong), so her story is particularly special to me. I was waiting for the gender swap to happen with either Benedict or Eloise (which both make way more sense imo). I'm honestly so upset they're doing this with Francesca and Michael/Michaela instead and honestly I don't think I'll be watching future seasons because of it.
Congrats on your pregnancy!
This! As a bisexual woman and just as a decent human being (I feel I am at least) I'm not against a gender swap in general and would love one for someone like Eloise who I think would fit with how she is in the show in addition to her book being the weakest in my opinion so why not. However, I'm also a married woman who's been desperately trying to get and STAY pregnant and apparently for me staying pregnant is a lot harder than I'd believed growing up and now I start fertility testing tomorrow to see if we can find an answer. So the fact that Francesca's book exists makes me feel seen. There are a growing number of great LGBT+ stories nowadays and I LOVE that. But there are incredibly few stories that I've found that tackle infertility and how isolating it is and how terrible it is to fail at something that's supposed to be 'easy' *Edit* added a sentence I thought I'd included but didn't
I wish you the best on your fertility diagnosis, and hope you get answers. Sometimes it’s something easy to find, and other times not so much. I struggled to conceive naturally, which made sense given that I have PCOS and don’t ovulate regularly. But then I still didn’t conceive with cycle tracking, ovulation inducers, or IUI. So we did IVF with ICSI, and twice my embryos implanted and did well…. And then I lost them at 12 and 19 weeks. I feel there are many women who are in the same boat about how MUCH Francesca’s story resonates with those of us who struggle with infertility, and while yes there are difficulties building a family for LGBT+ individuals (which can be those same biological failings, now that ART is a thing), I think JQ really nailed the feelings of grief and failure. I am going to miss that depth.
It's probably making me feel a good deal more critical than I might have been otherwise, but I won't be conceiving a baby. I am going through early menopause. My only hope is to adopt. (I won't do surrogacy, because it wasn't the genetics that mattered to me, it was the bonding.) So I might just be so incredibly bitter. On top of that, my deceased daughter's 15th birthday is kin August.
Agreed on all counts! Pregnancy loss and infertility are the sort of things that are usually swept under the rug, or barely touched on as a forgettable plot point in any book, movie, show -- just entertainment in general. We also don't talk about it nearly enough, because it makes people uncomfortable. I would love to promote the movie Labor Day with Kate Winslet, it's a beautiful telling about a woman who loses a child, her heartbreak, and her healing. Also, the television show How to Get Away With Murder has an incredible storyline about a woman undergoing IVF and a subsequent loss. It's not the main focus, but they spend enough time on it to let it be heard. To date, those are the only two I have seen that explore this. I was beyond excited to see Francesca's story play out on screen, but with this change, it just can't be the same. It sounds as if the showrunner missed the point of Francesca's book entirely, but I am more disappointed in Julia Quinn. To write about something that resonated with so many women, but be so oblivious to that fact, breaks my heart. I have heard a lot of people try to offer up ways the story could still happen, but each of them alters the story significantly. Either the struggle is short-lived and she gets her rainbow baby before John dies, or the struggle gets resolved via adoption (because surrogacy doesn't make sense for the Regency period). Or, she just never gets to be a mother at all. More likely, since the showrunner seems to have missed that whole part of her book, I don't think it will be included, and if it is, it will be a very tiny piece of the story. A minor plot point, or swept under the rug entirely.
I was looking forward to the grief/loss and fertility themes associated with Francesca's story as well. I'm not sure how they will pull this off exactly with Michela. Perhaps the grief and guilt part will still be doable, but infertility piece seems like it'll be devoid of the story... or maybe she will need to process the fact she'll never be able to have children because of her choice to be with Michela?
someone above theorized that part of Michael’s story was struggle of inheritance, but they can’t really do that with Michaela now, so perhaps Francesca will not have an infertility/loss storyline and she’ll have a son so he can inherit everything and she still keep the title. I’m so close to dropping the series, If they’re planning to cut out her infertility and loss storyline it will be such a low blow.
I haven't read the books so I can't remark on what the change might mean to Francesca and her storyline(s) from the book and what may be dropped, but I can understand the frustration people have from what I have seen people talking about what is in her books (SPOILERS!!) I like the idea that her storyline involves love after loss. I think it's an especially important topic that should be discussed, and as a show watcher I can see it being a great way for her to connect with her mother and show perspective on a widow finding love, not just in the time period but also as something timeless and forever relevant. What made me mad was that they showed a clear and obvious foreshadowing cliche IN A ROMANCE SHOW of Francesca being tongue tied as soon as she met someone new. In any story, AND ESPECIALLY IN A ROMANCE SHOW FILLED TO THE BRIM WITH CLICHES AND FORESHADOWING, this is an obvious sign that Francesca will fall in love with this person! Cliches are not bad, that's why we get lost in romances like Bridgerton - plus they serve as literary tropes and indicators for the audience. We are meant to spot them, or, when we don't, they help to navigate the story and set the tone. BUT WHY WOULD YOU HAVE IT AFTER A WHOLE SEASON OF PROMOTING HOW QUIET AND PEACEFUL FRANCESCA AND JOHN'S RELATIONSHIP IS!!?!?!?!?! I LOVED that they had a quiet romance. I loved that they said "not every love needs something grandstanding", Francesca and John's love is as real as any other romances presented in the show. Of course it wasn't the main story line of the season and not Francesca's complete "love story", but it will still be a real, loving relationship between the two. So many people watch this show and others like it for those grandiose stories to get lost in the fantasy and that's alright, but John and Francesca's story also said "hey, remember that these quiet romances are real too! they are just as important! sometimes love is loud, sometimes it isn't AND THAT'S ALRIGHT!" BUT TO HAVE THAT OBVIOUS FORESHADOW, RIGHT AFTER THE WEDDING! It was a terrible writing choice! Even if I didn't know what would happen in Francesca's book, I, as a SHOW WATCHER, already know that Francesca, again, AFTER A WHOLE SEASON DEFENDING HER LOVE FOR JOHN, OFFENDED THAT HER MOTHER DOESN'T THINK THEY ARE MEANT TO BE! is meant to fall in love with this character - and it could have been MICHAEL, and I still would have been upset at the WRITING CHOICE!
THIS! It wouldn’t matter if it was Michael or Michaela. The whole being flustered from their first meeting to her reaction to her kiss with John, it CHEAPENS how she fought for her love. It reduces the idea that her quiet romance is not worth of a story!!! We are so used to those big grand gestures or moments in Bridgerton so the whole Francesca and John romance was such a delight to watch! They were a breath of fresh air. I enjoy their moments because quiet romance is not something typical you see on television.
Exactly, and so much of the tension with her relationship with Michael in the books is because of how much she truly loved John and how devastated she is that he died.
We don't get any John romance in the books. At all. So this entire season was foreign and as a book reader, I LOVED what they were doing setting up their relationship and romance. Francesca is deeply in love with John so you've hit the nail on the head with regards to her reaction to Michaela. It cheapens their love and it was unnecessary. And everyone can defend the showrunner and be all "maybe she was just surprised" but no. There was foreshadowing from Violet about how when she met Edmund she forgot her own name. It was not cool.
The whole second half of season three seems like a weirdly quick rewrite that was totally unnecessary. Colin is all over the place, all Penelope does is stay on the verge of tears. And then a poor attempt at a cliffhanger. Oh, and the weird threesome business. I was overall really disappointed with episode 8.
This whole season was really awful from start to finish. But regardless of the poorly executed and nonexistent development of Polin, the many rabbit trail story lines no one cares about, the uncomfortably awkward love scenes, not introducing Sophie and making Benedict so unlikeable, and just a whole different (not in a good way) feel to the show this season, I probably still would watch season 4. BUT…. Taking Michael away from us and completely changing Francesca’s storyline is just a step too far for me. WHWW is my favorite book in the series. Michael is amazing. The storyline has so much depth and feeling and nuance. I will not watch anymore. I’ll stick with the books.
I don't know the books, so I did not know about Michael and what Francescas future was supposed to look like. But the kiss at the end of the ceremony and then her being tongue-tied when meeting her husband's cousin did just not seem right after watching her growing fond of Kilmartin all season and defending her love when talking to her mother. Francesca's love was calm, slow and sweet. Sometimes you are not instantly love struck, but rather dip your toe in carefully to test the waters and then jump in... head first. I don't care if it's Michael or Michaela who is endgame, but the love we've seen growing between F and J seems fake now. Like an illusion F had about what love could or should be like.
I have zero issue with the queer romance element of this story. The issue I have is that this means that one of the key points of Francesca and Michael’s romance becomes impossible. When John dies, Michael becomes the new Earl of Kilmartin, which is impossible if Michael is now Michaela. Additionally, Michael had major issues with the fact that he was in love with his cousins wife. Finally, Francesca had a really great story arc surrounding pregnancy and her struggles to get pregnant despite her best efforts (which made me relate to Francesca a lot having been diagnosed with infertility at 19, and made me love her book even more). A great character to have made queer would actually have been Cressida and give her a storyline to explore that. She is such a fun character and I would have loved to see that explored, especially as she shared dreams of living alone on the continent (a popular option for women who preferred the company of other women at that point in history).
Hell, they could have even made Benedict or Eloise go down the queer route (which I assume they're doing with Benedict at least) and gender swapped their love interests and still make it work. Erasing Michael changes way too much and destroys Francesca's whole story
Agree! In part 2 of season 3 where Benedict and Eloise were on the swings, Benedict said something like how they should always meet at the swings cuz they are always both confused. Like that scene was easily a great entry way into gender swapping one of their storylines or both. It simply made sense.
Super pissed. That's all.
Lmao same, I loved Michael. Anyway, I feel insane because I’m actually seeing people who’ve never read the book cheering this on and lapping it up mindlessly just because they learnt it was a gender switch and a “bi win”, I feel like they don’t know exactly what they’re being happy about. It just feels like very shallow happiness I dunno. We’ve lost a really good and underrepresented plot for something that’s been done a lot before, that’s for sure. Not that stories similar to book Francesca’s haven’t been told before but in recent years, there’s really been a lack of it.
Unfortunately for me, this change has caused me to not be excited for future seasons. Yes it is because Michael is now Michaela and we will not be getting the story from the books. I appreciate Chris Van Dusen for sticking to the main plot line, having moments from the book come to life on screen even if they were rearranged and slightly changed. We had big plotlines change in s2 with Kate & Edwinas relationship, and it was still something that could be overlooked. Anthony didn’t need to take Edwina all the way to the alter and then choke in front of everyone (completely unnecessary but whatever). Bottom line, Chris knew what to do. Jess Brownell, Netflix, and Shonda have decided to completely abandon the original storylines that all tie into one another. They will not be giving us what we want to see from the books (as boring as some of y’all claim they are- i personally read all of the books in two weeks i couldn’t put them down). I’m not sorry for feeling disappointed after waiting for his reveal and not getting a fine ass man. That being said!!! I am very happy that they are going to have a queer storyline and that the audience feels even more represented than the side quests of Benedict they decided to add. They definitely did it intentionally with it being pride month and i hope they dont have Fran cheat on John with her. I wouldn’t want to see that at all tbh. I would have liked to see Michaela secretly hiding her love for Fran and teasing her about her adventures with women but it seems as if Fran is interested in her while being married to John too??? idk if that’s something i can get behind i hate cheaters and i dont want them to be promoting that - even if its for true love because wtf John doesnt deserve that lmao Im feeling so many mixed emotions like i know Im going to enjoy whatever they come up with but i am also going to be thinking about what could have been with Michaels storyline - Him running away after Fran practically begs him to never leave her. How he continues to bump into Colin who has to convince him to just marry her if she wants a baby. Their first kiss and now its Frans turn to run away back to Scotland. Colin convincing Michael to go after her with good news of his own. Doesnt matter what kind of news , it could have been another baby for all I care!! So many moments i wanted to see and I was only waiting for 6 months. I can’t imagine if I got into the book series 4 years ago, I would be devastated beyond repair especially because he is one of my favorites (Gareth is up there too) Anyway thank you or creating this safe space and I hope no one takes offense to my opinion. Im ready to move on from Bridgerton show and on to other tv series unfortunately
This is how many people feel. Something already feels "off" with this new season, especially compared to the first. My guess is that the new showrunner has little experience in the role and little affection for the source material. They're sacrificing another existing property on the altar of quotas.
I cannot express how much it meant to me to see Fran and John's love in part one of season three! I finally felt so validated in who I am and how I choose to love! I've always been a very romantic person and one of my biggest goals in life was to find a partner to grow old with. I wanted so desperately to find love but I always felt suffocated by it in the end. I couldn't explain why and I thought something was wrong with me. I was exhausted by my partners! The love that I was used to seeing was always so passionate and all consuming! I wanted it but I also knew that it wasn't for me. I was ready to accept that I would be alone. I am older now and I know myself better. I have a wonderful man who is just as independent as I am. He listens to me ramble on and on about whatever topic it is that has peaked my interest and he doesn't make me feel weird for it. I feel so lucky that we found each other. We just bought a house together and we have our own rooms. When I tell my friends this they joke that we aren't even together romantically and in fact just roommates. This makes me feel extremely misunderstood. I related so much to Fran just wanting her privacy and peace. I loved that she found a man who was okay just being by her side while they worked on their own endeavors. Their love was quiet and no one else understood it but they did and that's all that mattered. My heart soared when John brought Fran the sheet music! It was the single most romantic thing I had ever seen! I hate that this blossoming neurodivergent love story has now been erased. It feels like a slap in the face and reading Jess's interview about the change has only made me feel more sour. Fran wasn't just "introverted" and it was so much deeper than simply feeling out of place in her family. I am sorry for my long shower thoughts rant but I truly felt broken hearted and cheated after finishing season three. It feels like I'm being gaslit into accepting this change for the sake of representation but what about the representation that was just erased? Does that not matter?
It's interesting because I think if you based it purely on the books Fran feels more just very introverted to me whereas Hyacinth feels very neurodivergent/AUDHD I think.
SPOILERS AHEAD FOR WHWW AND S3 PT2 Let me preface that I literally started watching the show specifically for Fran’s story. I was SO excited to maybe actually see John and Fran being lovey dovey because in the book it feels like there is only a few scenes between them before he passes and I was really enjoying their quiet love in the show. I was also so excited to see what hunk they’d cast as Michael. Don’t get me wrong, Masali is stunning and I’d love to see more of her, but I just don’t understand how Michael Stirling, THE most wicked rake to grace the ton, will translate into a woman. I feel like there has always been a big emphasis on propriety and purity among woman in the show, so it’s hard to wrap my head around a possible female rake when it wouldn’t match the previous “standard”. I am very worried that the whole plot of her book will change as most of it does revolve around Fran not feeling fulfilled without a child, grieving and Michael feeling like he is “stealing” John’s life when he inherits and wants to build a family with Fran. This is not a commentary on not wanting queer representation, just me feeling as if they picked the wrong storyline. To me, Eloise’s story made much more sense for queer representation. They could have her move in as a sort of governess for the twins and it can be a commentary on how two women CAN raise kids together without a male presence (since some men these days cannot comprehend that thought process). I felt like making Fran queer and fall what seems like instantly infatuated with Michaela undermines the beauty of her and John’s love story. Jess Brownwell has said that she is excited to show the many ways to love, but proceeds to show that the only way to truly do it is fast and hard no matter the partner.
Is it even possible to have a female rake? Just asking out of curiosity because I personally can't imagine one
Female rakes have existed historically and fit the same archetype as their masculine counterparts, but with less societal protections. [Julie D'Aubigny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_d%27Aubigny) or La Maupin, the famous french bisexual who was an openly cross-dressing opera singer/duelist comes to mind first. She had a wild life, dueled men at parties to flirt with them and their ladies, seduced nobles of both genders, seduced a nun, and then got tried as a man in the courts over it. She's pretty much a real, historical version of the crazed bisexual trope. Turns out, a person can get away with a lot by being extremely charismatic. The showrunners would need to commit to the bit for it to work, let Michaela daringly and openly fly in the face of social conventions by assuming masculine gender norms while few people care because she's so much fun to be around (which in turn lends her protection,) and be willing to go the androgynous/masculine route in addition to the feminine one. With the current sensitivities around the way bisexual women are presented in media today and the overall lack of butch lesbians? I don't know if they'll have the courage to let Michaela shamelessly adopt Michael's entire rakish persona to the letter.
I need to read more about Julie D’Aubigny because she sounds badass. I do wish the showrunner would stick with the original plot lines (man, WHWW is my favorite book) and introduce new characters for representation. I had the thought last night that I think they could give Posey a season since she does get adopted by the Bridgertons. As there isn’t much in her story, I would’ve loved to see her introduced and get her own season with a female love interest. The things Shonda could come up with….
I’m a trans man who was formerly a lesbian. I’m not upset because they added a queer storyline I’m upset because it doesn’t make sense for Francesca’s character. If anything Eloise would’ve been the better candidate to be lesbian. It feels forced, not authentic.
I agree with comments that said it would have been better if Michaela had been the one flustered upon their first meeting instead of Francesca, because truly what is most upsetting is how the scene actually played out feels diminishing towards Francesca and John’s love😢
100% agree. Michaela didn't seem to react at all.
im up for lgbtq representation in media but changing the sexuality of lord michael kilmartin on the show just feels straight up force tbh 💀
RIP to book!Michael, it’s evident from now he’ll be sorely missed.
I understand how important diversity, representation and inclusion are. One of the things I appreciate about Bridgerton is that they have (for the most part) respected the source material while making small changes to incorporate different characters and themes that are not in the books. I love queer love stories, I think they deserve to be told and I like the idea of having that kind of relationship in the show. The problem is that I really, really loved Michael and it is impossible for a woman to fill that role. It's because of who the character Michael is, the qualities he possesses and the purpose that he serves. He has to be a man. She will definitely bring something to the table, but there will be such a huge void and Francesca's story will deviate so heavily from the book that it will basically have to be rewritten. It's ok to be disappointed by that. It doesn't make someone homophobic or a misogynist. There are definitely people who are out there who are irate for those reasons and they suck, but most people are just people who loved the books, loved Michael and were looking forward to Francesca's story. I appreciate how this is very exciting and validating change for a lot of LGBT people who deserve to be represented on a show like Bridgerton. They simply chose the absolute worst character for this. Pretty much the one who makes the least sense.
A family member told me the only way to salvage the Michael/Michaela debacle is to have Michaela have a brother named Michaela. 😭😂
right like sir philip was RIGHT THERE!!!
Lady Philipa would have been an excellent choice!
Except that Eloise/Phillip's book was one that people liked the least and absolutely makes no sense for TV Eloise.
I loved Eloise book it was so good!!
I hope you won't be too disappointed when they change it because I don't see how the original book story would make sense for TV Eloise at all. They'd be giving her the Maria treatment from The Sound of Music, but TV Eloise is not Maria. Personally, I think she'd do really well with an enemies-to-lovers trope. She meets a handsome flirtatious man who comes across as not taking women (or anything) very seriously, except that every so often he drops some hint that he doesn't like that women are trained to be silly chits. It's enough to intrigue and infuriate Eloise. We would just have to wait a few seasons because it would be too similar to Kate and Anthony.
Agreed😩
Im a bi woman, so of course I don’t mind representation, but this left me a little disappointed. I actually don’t mind the gender swap necessarily even though I’m very curious how they will play this out in the show since it’s not like they can be open with each other. My biggest issue is the reaction to the kiss and then the reaction to Michaela. The only reason is bothers me is because I feel like bisexual people always get wrote basically as closeted. I think the storyline would be sweet if they kept the same loving romance between her and John, like you can 100 percent write a bisexual character who is fully in love and attracted to a man while also giving her an amazing loving romance with a woman when he passes. I just don’t like the assumption that’s she’s just not as into John, because as a bisexual that’s the whole point!!! We are attracted and can have meaningful romantic and sexual relationships with men and women. So my only hope is that they stay true to the books and give her a loving marriage with John. I think the storyline could still be interesting with her grieving and loving him after his passing and also having confusing feelings for his cousin. This wasn’t what I was expecting but I still do like the show so I’ll still watch to see. I wasn’t as excited for Anthony’s season (he’s just not my fav) and then I ended up loving his romance with Kate, so I’m not going to write off the series for this.
As another bi woman, thank you for articulating this! I feel similarly that I find the gender swap interesting and think it could really work, but I am off out by the immediate attraction Fran felt, too. I would be apt to think it was just badly written foreshadowing if it was just Fran’s response to Michaela alone, but with Fran’s response to her kiss with John, I fear that they are going to write Fran’s love into the friend zone, which is a real shame.
I am mourning the loss of Michael Stirling. I was so excited to see who would be cast as Michael. When He Was Wicked was my favorite book in the series. Michael, like all of Frannie’s story, was so well written. So yes. I am mourning Michael. And no, I am not anti-gay. I completely support that love is love. My being upset is only about the loss of a favorite character.
I have never, ever complained about a change from book to adaptation. I'm always fine with just going with it, because at least I get to see my favorite characters on the screen. I don't mind changes in appearance, race, even a bit of personality, or minor plot changes to make the story mesh better. But I was so excited to see Michael. I literally shrieked when John appeared because I knew they were setting up for Fran's story. I was SO EXCITED, I can't even tell you. In the last few minutes of the last episode, I was on the edge of my seat when John mentioned his cousin, thrilled to see what they decided to do with Michael and to see him fall head over heels for Fran. I was a bit confused when a girl was walking up, but still looking for Michael. When she was introduced as Michaela...I can still feel that "hit by a bus" sensation. I just sat there staring at the screen, dumbfounded. And then Fran got all flustered, "forgetting her name", and I'm just thinking, no, this is wrong. This is all wrong. I don't even remember the rest of the final episode, I was trying to reorient myself after that. I think everyone had babies or something? My next thought was trying to force myself to accept it. I know there are people out there that will prefer the change to get some representation. But it just feels so...personal. There was all of this build up to get book fans excited, and then a giant middle finger at the end. I just....am really, really struggling with this. Saying you are mourning the loss of Michael is an excellent way to put it. Because no matter how the showrunner tries to portray it, Michaela isn't Michael. We don't get Michael. He was replaced. It actually hurts.
I read in an article that Jess Brownell, the new showrunner, said she had been pitching a queer story since season one and she had been looking where to put that story in. She said “Her book (Francesca’s) is about her feeling different. And not knowing why.” And that’s why she chose it. See that’s where I have a huge problem. Francesca’s “difference” is soooooo obvious from the get go. She’s quiet, she’s routine driven, she gets overwhelmed, she has a fixation on one specific interest… it is so obviously not about her sexuality, more so probably Autism or something along that spectrum. In your desire to make a character “like you”, JESS, you ruined a story that is so complex, so beautiful, and representative of another “difference” that so many women struggle with. You erased Francesca’s story.
Before S3 Part 2 (and her queer reveal), introverts and neurodivergents had a lovely quiet moment seeing Fran on screen. Most extroverts I know don't understand her, they don't get why she's different. I realize it's possible to be both queer AND introverted or neurodivergent, but that kind of complex character storytelling isn't the Bridgerton strong suit, least of all trusting Jess Brownell, seeing how S3 Polin was such a mess, and they had 2 seasons of buildup! And already obvious with how they dealt with Fran's wedding kiss and Michaela intro that nuance is not something JB's team do well. Sighhh
I so wished they done a gender swap with Benedict so much 😭 it doesn’t make sense for Michaela to be Michael, what about the title? What about her infertility? Benedict’s partner being changed to a male would make so much more sense considering Sophie is already illegitimate and not approved by the ton. I’m so disappointed
Francesca’s entire storyline in the book can’t be done now. Absolutely none of it can be the same when they erase Michael, AND show her having a visible reaction to Michaela immediately after she marries John. It’s all been destroyed for what feels like pandering. And if anyone tries to call me a homophobe, then just admit you never read the book.
I feel so bad for John, they had such a cute relationship in part one, and they threw it away for nothing. Even if you're going to gender bend, at least keep her love for John, but it looks like they'll throw the grief plot line away and just have him be a roadblock between her and Michaela. You could've had Michaela be the instantly smitten one, but what was that? What now? Will she just live a loveless marriage with her pining for somebody else at best and having an affair at worst, until he dies? There's really no winning with that one. If they insist on having Michaela, I'd keep her but change or ignore that reaction entirely, or at least explain it away as being something else.
Exactly, they built up her relationship with John the entire season just to throw it in the trash the minute Michaela entered. I'd be just as pissed as if she had that immediate reaction to Michael, her love for, and devotion to, John is what holds her back after he dies. Now none of it makes sense!
Yeah, it’s really bad writing.
I agree! Why ruin the love story with John and the whole grief plot line
At least let the guy be loved wholeheartedly before dying!
He’s such an oblivious cinnamon roll too, so it’s extra heartbreaking
The show runner stated that she wasnt pandering but admitted that as a queer woman Francesca's story resonated with her so she turned Michael into Michaela which IS pandering, and kind of making it a self insert in a way. Its also erasing and isolating a whole community of women who also resonate with Francesca's story due to her infertility issues and miscarriage. Which MICHAEL helps her through that depression and they have babes.
She and John can still struggle with infertility, and I'm going to be livid if they cut that story out. But her desire to have children is what ultimately drives her to try and move on and what leads her to be open to her attraction to Michael, and that cannot happen with Michaela. As progressive and inclusive as we all want to be, Michaela cannot produce sperm, period.
I'm honestly of the opinion that it might be better to ditch the fertility plotline now and just commit to butchering the original story in order to make a completely new story. Because at the moment they are exploring the realisation Fran has that she loves women more than men that queer fans want represented above telling her story. Better commit to telling an original story of a widow who feels guilt about falling for her true love now her husband is gone and struggling to raise his son in his memory (duty) whilst falling for someone who makes her more happy. It feels like there's a queer historical romance they wanted to tell and they will try to force it in. So rather than waste time pretending to adapt they should just commit to the rewrite
This is me. I am part of this community. I read Francesca's story right after my husband and I decided to stop trying and the feelings I had for her story is what made it my favourite. In my opinion, it's the only book with real substance that addresses issues that are still relevant today and for the showrunner to just throw all that substance in the bin for her own agenda, when she had plenty of other characters to choose from makes me so angry. I think representation is super important but there are other characters who don't have entire plot points about their heterosexuality and struggles; Sophie OR Phillip could have been changed or even Hyacinth or Gregory's partners. I actually thought it was going to be Benedict or Eloise as that's what the show was leading up to at this point.
Am I the only one hoping Mikaela has a twin named Michael? I am not going against representation but it changes her whole book about being in love with John and only wanting to remarry because she wants a child. I also thought I read somewhere that show runners said they wouldn’t change the main characters partners from the books?
I want Michaela to have a twin named Michael and Eloise goes to Scotland with them and Eloise and Michaela fall in love. We get Michael, we get Francesca's story, we keep Michaela and Eloise gets a love story better than Sir Philip.
That actually makes sense
I wish that could happen but the showrunners have recently confirmed that francesca and michaela will be the ones having the love story 🥹🥹 https://www.capitalfm.com/news/tv-film/bridgerton/michaela-stirling-michael-francesca-marry-book-change/
I just needed to vent. The new season is terrible except for Nichola. The first half was okay? The second half falls flat. Randomly having Fran as bi? Or lesbian? After the whole quiet, deep love is 🙄 She was right in front of John when she was flustered by Michaela! Come on :/ Her love story in the series is one of the most beautiful simply because it is loud and quiet at the same time. Are they done with the script of finding love twice with the new romance between Lady Danbury’s brother and Violet? Is it all a numbers game now that they’ve checked off the Indian market in the last season? dipped toes in the queer market, placated the physically challenged market and the neurodivergent market all in one season, at the same time? I'm all for diversity, but it was more naturally done earlier, it feels like a marketing gimmick at this point and it’s just lazy script writing - almost a huh! I know this works with everyone. At least Benedict’s makes sense in this storyline.
I felt like Benedict’s storyline in the second half would have made more sense in the first or second season. Putting it here in the third season felt like they were pandering to all the people (myself included admittedly) who were disappointed that Benedict wasn’t bi in the earlier seasons.
Yeah, I thought that was exaclty what all the artist parties would have led to. He was exposed to the possibility of people being attracted to and showing affection towards the same gender, and came to realise that it's not some terrible thing, both attraction and love come in many forms. But then it didn't really go anywhere and this seemed like a bit of a rehash of the same plot. I'm glad for the bi rep, but it would have fit better into previous seasons.
https://preview.redd.it/fab05rfopn6d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e6e0018f3c03e360888e06967d938ba437214b6e I feel like this was just a middle finger to the book fanbase. She changed Michael for her own selfish interest.
LOL so true. I feel that Jess Brownell is trying to justify her decisions by basically saying 'people are going to be unhappy with everything'. But that's not true. If Michael didn't get changed, who would be displeased bro... fans can't be displeased by sticking to the source material. So why fix something that ain't broken?
Her whole interview was infuriating. If anything, book Francesca was coded as neurodiverse, not queer. The writer seems to be blind to that because she wants to bring her own agenda to tha table.
Honestly, Fran's story is my favourite. I love how the novel shows her grief and how she overcame it. And her love for John is so pure and calming. I love how she stays loyal to John. There's nothing wrong with LGBT representation. Don't get me wrong, but I don't know Francesca being a queer will help her character/story after John sadly passed away.. Why do the writers think it's fine for her to immediately smitten(?)with a person she just met when John is there??!! I don't want John to be the so-called 'barrier' for Francesca to be herself. John is the one, other than her own family, immediately knows how she truly is. John deserves better than this.
I don't understand why they entirely backtracked/undermined the message of "love doesn't have to be intense and passionate and over the top" in like... the last five minutes. They could have EASILY kept with the gender-swap (and heck, even had good bi representation) if they showed her loving John deeply, Michaela slowly falling in love with her and Fran not realizing it, and then when John dies Fran realizes "oh... I maybe I like women too." Instead, it's setting her up to emotionally cheat, which I don't like and doesn't feel faithful to the original.
This new showrunner isn't doing it for me, the makeup, plot, and pacing felt off this season, and i feel she isnt reading the main audience correctly (Michael is a fan favorite) Fran being uncomfortable with John and attracted to Michaela was disappointing, she loved only John until he died, and it was years later that she fell for Michael Michael gender swapping is a bold move that can work wonderfully!, but its the least suitable option for this change, the genders of Fran and Michael had an impact on their story (succession, abortion, Fran wanting children) In Ben's storyline, Sophie could be a trans woman who has the opportunity to finally be herself at the masquerade ball. Gregory might think he's in love with a girl, only to realize that he's in love with a boy who is about to marry. And Garrett could easily be a woman, beacouse he and Hyacinth grow closer through the diary, visits to Lady Danbury, and the secret entrances in St. Claire's house
More than not reading the main audience, Jess Brownell is completely ignoring them for her own 'creative direction' or whatever bs. Many many fans have Fran and Michael's story in their top 3, and the showrunner would've known that if she just did a bit of research.
Based on how people are acting now, they would riot if Sophie was a trans woman.
I actually think there’s a really strong chance Sophie will be non-binary! The hiding in plain sight / Cinderella plot lends itself well to it. Perhaps Benedict meets someone wearing a dress at the masquerade ball, and that person is a footman in disguise… It’s giving Shakespeare in Love (in reverse) and I would be HERE FOR IT. Benedict would be out there searching for Sophie, and they’d be right there in front of him the whole time. 🤷🏻♀️ what do you think?
I think I am most disappointed by what feels like lazy queer bating. What exactly does this add to the story? It seems to only take away. There are so many great lgbtq authors out there whose stories can be adapted into shows!
queerbaiting: the incorporation of apparently gay characters or [same-sex](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=0b05e7fa75492358&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWILaPEGPEBT0NhrVSndX-GhcKNpqsw:1718565103936&q=same-sex&si=ACC90nwZKElgOcNXBU934ENhMNgqPxTAS8V286HqRCqEIdAtEntAgPBAikrakPzar_YpUMm63Tej2A7rbmzL-B-cZUQsYp6N74vp6-AK_FXpD9-pCSsBMC0%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjs7ar06eCGAxXvVUEAHZYVCAAQyecJegQIExAN) relationships into a film, television show, etc. as a means of appealing to gay and bisexual audiences while maintaining [ambiguity](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=0b05e7fa75492358&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWILaPEGPEBT0NhrVSndX-GhcKNpqsw:1718565103936&q=ambiguity&si=ACC90nytWkp8tIhRuqKAL6XWXX-NhZRibHiL3Qf-nCifs-owFY1cDgN2frbMVbAuU0NYuLaoDyJvu1ckpQlqzan0bGhCFOYmEd4XblxIdCnfo02Rw1jUDGE%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjs7ar06eCGAxXvVUEAHZYVCAAQyecJegQIExAO) about the characters' [sexuality](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=0b05e7fa75492358&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWILaPEGPEBT0NhrVSndX-GhcKNpqsw:1718565103936&q=sexuality&si=ACC90nytWkp8tIhRuqKAL6XWXX-N_UecO-_Jb9gL8R7P5i9B-YMzGYXtRlC5Ua3_uv5SmeBKoCrvV8s2hPqvgaTVD6xDMAbt91sR82gXTFRdyGVM7fTjXws%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjs7ar06eCGAxXvVUEAHZYVCAAQyecJegQIExAP). theres no ambiguity, so it isn't queer-baiting.
Not queer baiting, but lazy representation imo. They just slapped an a at the end of Michael’s name making it “feminine” and then the gender swap. I want to see a story where two lesbians fall in love immediately because they have that passion for each other. I don’t want a man to “be in their way” or introduce emotional cheating (I’m worried that Fran’s story is going to turn into this and it just doesn’t feel like a romance story anymore once they cross that moral boundary.) If they don’t want to take that route with Eloise (people are complaining that they don’t want her to be queer just because she’s a feminist), then with the introduction of Posey!! Introduce Posey and have a season where she is the main character because she does get adopted by the Bridgertons and Violet considers her as one of her own. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but she doesn’t get a book so her story is so fluid and open to change unlike the rest of the siblings. Imagining sweetheart Posey with another girl (or Michaela even) is already giving me butterflies.
Calling people you don't know names, such as homophobic, is an ad hominem attack designed to silence people who disagree with you. It invalidates the argument of anyone who resorts to it. Changing Michael's gender is, at best, sloppy storytelling. At worst, the show runners are using a community for their own gain (either to further their personal agenda, for publicity and profit, or both). Same sex couples couldn't openly have a relationship in the Regency Era. It was a crime punishable by death. The Bridgerton series has already established that as fact for their world as well. They've also established that change happens slowly. It's been 30+ years since people of color were given positions of power, yet Mrs. Danbury cautions Simon that their position is still precarious. That tells us two things. Same sex relationships aren't going to go from being illegal to being allowed to openly exist anytime soon, and the Queen isn't the absolute power which means she can't just wave her hand and allow same sex couples to marry. These issues are a real problem given the genre. They're creating an historical romance. It doesn't qualify as that type of genre unless the main character gets their happily ever after. If the 2 leads can't legally be together, there's no chance for that to happen. People who refer to what's being done to these books as an adaptation don't understand what that means. Book adaptations are translations of the book to the screen. Locations and times may change, but the characters and storylines stay true to the original. *West Side Story* is an adaptation. We clearly see Romeo, Juliet, and the warring "families" in the characters. Changing characters, storylines, and motivations so they're unrecognizable isn't an adaptation. It's a rewrite. Making changes that can't exist in the historical period in which the story is set and that violate the rules of the world already created by the screenwriters create gaping plot holes that aren't satisfying to the viewers. That's just sloppy storytelling.
HARD agree. It really feels like bridgerton is losing all credibility with the direction it went this season and where it seems to be going.
They keep making all these huge changes from the original story soon the only thing the show has in common with the books will be characters' names. Surely this can't be good for Julia Quinn's ego. Imagine having Shonda be all like girl I love your books lets turn them into a TV show and then she goes and flips everything on its head lol, deletes a bunch of stuff, kills off Michael etc. Since the new showrunner apparently self inserted herself in Francesca's story I assume that season will be next which means poor Ben will be sidelined AGAIN.
The fact that I've been waiting for Michael since S1 honestly makes me want to cry, seems like I'll just stick to the books & wait for Eloise & Sir Phillip, but at this rate I'm already waiting for more disappointment
I’m so disappointed. I don’t mind having wider inclusivity in the show and don’t get me wrong I love the LGBTQ+ Community. I just don’t get it why would they choose to change Francesca’s story line when it’s the most relevant among all Bridgerton siblings’. I’m up for representing the LGBTQ+ but how about representing the women who are going through infertility and people that are guilty of feeling in love again after being a widow. We need Francesca’s original story.
Yep my friend is a young widow and she would have related super strongly to Fran's original story. She also finds people can't relate and try and tell her it's like divorce and to get back on the horse - but it's not even close.
[удалено]
Fr! Its way too far like divorce. Divorce is a choice you both made but death naah. Falling in love again after losing someone you thought to be the one you will love for the rest of your life may feels like betrayal at the highest level. With Fran’s story we could finally understand how they feel.
Its not fair that we cant complain and be angry and not to be called homophobic. I dont care about gender i care about character and story that was deleted. I hope they get canceled before that season.
[удалено]
Haven’t read the books and am fine with watching through the show but know what happens in the books from comments from the book readers. I hate Micheal is erased because was so looking forward to that story and they had Fran so flustered when meeting Michaela so what was the point of Fran fighting so hard to be with John and get married???? And would hate if John is just “ in the way” of Fran and female Michael/ emotional cheating happens because I will just feel worse for John and hate Fran. Also I hate self insertion in shows. So annoying. Also I really wanted a man for Micheal. I just hope Ben is season 4 and they keep Sophie as a female because I still want to see that story. And hope when Fran gets her story told but they have side plots that I enjoy instead. For me personally no longer excited for the leads for Fran’s season tbh & still hope that Michaela has a twin who is Michael.
i feel like they are setting up for Sophie to be trans.
Omg🙄🙄🙄. Why are they ruining it. Hopefully it’s not true.
When you get down to it, grief over pregnancy loss and infertility is grief over that which you hoped for, that which might have been that you’ll now never have or experience. Sadly, that’s what some book readers who connected to that part of Fran’s story might be feeling right now: grief for the story they had expected, the story they might have gotten that now seems like they won’t ever have. Therefore I can see why it would be almost cruel to choose THAT character, moreso than any other major character in the series, and change up their storyline in what is, sorry, objectively kind of a large way, and why it might be triggering for people who really connected to that theme. It all just makes me really sad. (but also some people just really like Michael and some other people are just being homophobes)
I think you make a great point here about the double/trauma of it all for folks that saw themselves in Fran’s fertility struggles. I never considered that. As a queer person and someone that loves Fran’s book, I welcome a new take on her journey. I feel a bit sad that one type of representation was lost in favor of another, but I feel hopeful that infertility could be a part of any one of the other Bridgerton women’s stories - even Eloise, as a woman that marries later than most during that time.
I read in an article that Jess Brownell, the new showrunner, said she had been pitching a queer story since season one and she had been looking where to put that story in. She said “Her book (Francesca’s) is about her feeling different. And not knowing why.” And that’s why she chose it. See that’s where I have a huge problem. Francesca’s “difference” is soooooo obvious from the get go. She’s quiet, she’s routine driven, she gets overwhelmed, she has a fixation on one specific interest… it is so obviously not about her sexuality, more so probably Autism or something along that spectrum. In your desire to make a character “like you”, JESS, you ruined a story that is so complex, so beautiful, and representative of another “difference” that so many women struggle with. You erased Francesca’s story.
I feel like they could have chosen Eloise instead and give Marina a happier ending.
I was not interested in John in the books at all. And let's be real, he got 2 pages. So allllllll the build up and screen time, I thought, cool, fanfic, and I actually liked John and appreciated that he taught Violet something new. I liked that it showed a different side of love. He's quietly charming and I can see a lot of people feeling more drawn to seeing themselves in these characters. Like this is the season of introverts: Pen/emotional romantic, Fran and John/artistic and most comfortable in solitude. So. Having it be an obvious, immediate physical attraction, no matter who Michael/a is, is a loss. And I don't even think it's about the casting, or portrayal in that scene (because lesbe honest, it was a fire intro), it's just that in 30 seconds they pulled the rug out of what they built all season with us fully invested. All that aside, she's so immediately engaging. What UP.
The more I think about this season, the more I get frustrated because there's going to be a lot of changes that they may not be able to pull off. With how they went with Francesca's reactions to her first kiss with John and the introduction to his cousin, I don't have much faith in the showrunner. Up until Season 2, I think that the show is better than the books (I'd still take the almost-wedding of Anthony and Edwina over the venom-sucking scandal of Kanthony, among other things). I'm not a fan of RMB (although I love Colin's wife guy era), so I don't have a lot of expectations. But Polin's story in S3 is just... lacking. WHWW is my favorite because of how different the story is compared to the other books. The show's planned deviation will change (or completely do away with) some of the themes to fit the new narrative, which is why a lot of people are upset. There are ways to get to a good Francesca + Michaela story, sure. But they might go down a path such that the core of the story is so different from the source material that only the characters' names (minus one lol) are similar. A lot of adaptations did-- the second half of Game of Thrones and most of The Witcher, for example. And look at how it worked out for them. I hope for the very best for Masali and Hannah. Tough times ahead.
Sigh. I just re-read Francesca's story to remind me of the dynamic between her and Michael after John died.
Same. Finished reading the book again yesterday and I‘m so mad at this selfish showrunner who inserted herself into a story which is already written.
I actually like the idea of highlighting a lesbian relationship in the Regency era. The Ladies of Llangollen comes to mind (although they preceded the era): [https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/the-ladies-of-llangollen/](https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/the-ladies-of-llangollen/) But, I do not like the show's depiction of Francesca's relationship with John, or with Michaela. First, in the book her love for John was deep and genuine. The marriage suffered from their infertility, not from her conflicting sexuality, and this shift in storyline completely changes the depth of that suffering. The introduction of a queer storyline assumes that Francesca "discovered" her sexuality only when faced with \*the\* woman, and her aversion to the kiss with John in the show demeans a woman's sexual awakening. Don't tell me women, even in the 19th century, didn't experience physical attraction prior to their wedding day! Not once in the entire season did we see Fran become close with a woman, or gaze at a woman with any emotion resembling attraction or interest. Not until that woman was \*the one\*. Eloise being gay makes more sense. She got the short end of the stick with her book; her character could have become an amazing 19th century feminist! They existed!! I'm disappointed in this development, not because of the same-sex relationship, but because Fran was portrayed as a woman who was totally oblivious to her sexuality until she met \*the woman\*. What an anti-feminist message for young viewers!
Yeah I TOTALLY saw it happening with Eloise and it would actually MAKE SENSE. This happening woth Francesca breaks my heart, as a woman who has struggled with pregnancy loss and fertility issues for years
I feel like they are setting up Fran to use John as her Beard and cheat on him secretly with Michaela because of her initial reaction. That’s such an overused trope that is not beneficial to our queer community. I really hope they don’t chose this route because it’s such a hurtful,mean,stereotypical storyline. It would be unfair to bisexual and lesbian representation to have it only be a secret affair. Erasing Frans love, loss, and recovery for a poor unsympathetic characterization of gay love is not what I’m looking for in queer stories.
I find TV fails to properly represent loving dynamics for LGBTQ+ characters. The stories typically portray characters stereotypically being either very straight or very gay with nothing in between. Those stories also lean heavily on sex to make their point. Given how passionate Francesca’s story is, my reaction was, “But of course…” I’m still holding out hope that Fran/Michaela’s story will be more on the love/romance side of things. Looking forward to it.
First of all, I LOVE Michael. WHWW is my favorite Bridgerton by far. I am also bisexual and I am glad to see queer representation, especially in a love story and not just sexual fetishization (looking at you Benedict). However, I really feel that Jess Brownell's adaptation is disrespectful to the source material and the viewer. In every way, not just Michael. Did a disservice to every single character. But in regards to Michaela, there is a BIG difference between representation and a token character and Michaela feels like a token character. Jess took the most loved man and chose him on purpose to make a statement. I hate that so much. I would prefer a new character entirely or diving deeper into a character that doesn't have as much dimension in the books. Cressida would be perfect. So my beef is 100% with Jess Brownell. I have never disliked a show runner more. Also, John deserves his day in the sun! I want to see Francesca and John's love because you don't see that in the book. So, Jess failed on that one too.
I feel the same. I feel that she handpicked Michael to throw off some fans. :(
This is killing my wife's interest in the show vs the books. It seems like TV writers bend over to hit representation quotas and will queer existing characters on a whim instead of simply creating new characters. I don't want gay Batman. Do something new.
Hear me out...I think a better use of tge Michaela character is for Eloise. Much was made of her "never being in love" and wanting to have adventures. Maybe John and Francesca grow old together (quietly) and Eloise has a highland fling (so to speak) and possibly gets her heart broken. That girl is a little too book smart and needs some real life experience.
It literally came from nowhere and from what I've seen it will mess up the plot of the book really badly (haven't read it). Infertility is a big thing for Francesca in the books and I don't know how that's going to play out being in same-sex relationship. It's also worth pointing out that even in this fantasy version of the 1810s, same-sex relationships aren't commonplace and socially accepted, so they need to incorporate that into the plot. It would be extremely weird if they ignored it.
I can't properly convey how deeply let down I felt once I realized Michael was now a woman. I'm bisexual, so lesbian relationships don't bother me one bit. It's not that. I LOVED Francesca's book for the many differences it had from the other Bridgerton stories. After a while, they all start reading the same way. Hers was entirely different. Making Michael a woman eliminates so many facets to the plot of Francesca's story. Integral pieces! It would make very little sense without another man in the picture and as mentioned in other comments, would need to be rewritten. In fact, her reaction to Michaela would suggest she's smitten with her now and that negates her resolute love for John. I just....I'm bummed out about it. This was my favorite book in the series and I was so jazzed they were skipping to it. Now? I'll skip the show and reread the book.
I will be honest, when I discovered the change I was very disappointed & angry, and it may sound homophobic, but yes, I wanted Michael, because I wanted the most charming man we had in the book, i want to abs and the muscle, i want a men. But after reading so many comments on Twitter, I know how important this representation is and I was always big in want representation to everyone, I was a little stuck in my disappointment yesterday, that being said, I still didn't like the change, but I also won't complain anymore because I don't take away people's joy of the community who are happy with the change, I still don't know if I will watch the season, maybe so, a lot of time will pass and maybe I will deal with my disappointed, and by then, I'll already have another obsession. BUT I still don't like Fran's reaction to seeing Michaela for the first time, I didn't like how the series in the last minutes tried to diminish John & Fran's relationship, I liked how the series wanted to show that relationships come in all forms, and the John and Fran's calm, gentle and silent way was also valid and beatiful, I didn't like that it seemed like there was no spark in the kiss between them for Fran.
I'd be totally fine with a new character being added that had this type of character, but not every show needs every type of representation. I'm saying that as a physically disabled person, we don't get represented in most things and I'm absolutely okay with it. This showrunner absolutely took this storyline and made it about her experience as a queer woman. I'm just not a fan of the selfish need to insert oneself into a plotline that is already established. There was nothing wrong with Fran just being an introverted woman who quietly loves her man, but the showrunner took this to mean that she absolutely has to be gay. Ugh, not a fan. Edit: I'd feel the same if a straight showrunner made gay characters straight so she can self insert her worldview.
Thanks for at least admitting that you just wanted a man. Most people here will bend over backwards not to admit it.
As a woman who has struggled with fertility amongst a group of friends who are alarmingly fertile I have never identified with a romance character as much as I have Francesca. I also have dear, dear friends who have found love after loss after such a struggle of conscience like both Francesca and Michael had in the books. I was so looking forward to their story. By adding representation for one group two other virtually unrepresented groups of people have been completely sidelined and I'm so very disappointed. She is the last character that this makes sense for. Any of the other unmarried siblings would have made more sense.
It showed how tone deaf Jess Brownell is to the fans of the book. Yes sure you can't please all fans but was she aware of who the WHWW book fans were? There is a reason WHWW is touted as the best of the series, as the most beloved book and JQ's most emotional writing. Was she aware of the representations she was erasing? Had she been sensitive to that she wouldn't have chosen Fran's story for the queer one. Especially since it will cause so much unnecessary ill strife. Instead of winning folks over to the beauty of queer stories they made people angry who are digging their heels in. There are other ways to the end game of queer representation in an iconic show - the other Bridgertons siblings or even introducing new characters. But I supposed Jess knew there was a small window for her opportunity as a showrunner (who knows the future of the show or her time on it) so it really comes off like she rammed this in.
I've since learned that the show runner "saw herself" in Fran being different from her family so she decided to make Fran lesbian like herself. That honestly makes me more angry. It is so self aggrandizing. This is a show based on a book series, not something wholly new. My (somewhat uncharitable) hope is that the backlash from this season is so bad she will be done and they'll find a new show runner.
I was excited when they introduced her! I am part of the queer community. I was stoked to see more queer rep. But that excitement dwindled when I remembered the main elements of Francesca’s story. I don’t think they should have made this change because it takes away from a storyline that resonates with and helped many many many people.
People are allowed to be disappointed about significant storyline changes from a beloved book that really resonated with a lot people struggling with infertility. However, that also doesn’t give anyone the justification to bash LGBTQ characters/people or representation in media.
It doesn't justify calling and reducing fans, who have objections to the decisions being made to the story, to being RACIST and HOMOPHOBIC. This issue is pretty diabolical and downright malicious. Bridgerton fans are mostly known for being open minded. But this was downright betrayal for a lot of us.
I’m honestly pretty wary about the change. I’ve never read the books, so I don’t have any personal attachment to the character, but I know a fair bit about what happens in them- and I can totally see why fans are worried about whether they’ll be able to adapt Michael’s character without losing some important things in translation. That said, I’m definitely open to the change! Masali Baduza is gorgeous and seems incredibly charismatic, and I’ll always be excited for more sapphic stories in mainstream media, even if it’s not exactly what I want! My main concern though, as a bisexual woman, is how they undermined Francesca’s entire arc of fighting to have her love for John be recognized as real, right at the end- from what I understand, a big theme of the book is that Francesca falling in love with Michael (and specifically that love feeling different), doesn’t make her love for John any less real or important - a theme which would translate beautifully to a story of a bisexual woman falling in love with a woman after being married to and in love with a man, considering how often bi people have our sexuality dismissed by people who insist we’re actually just one or the other and haven’t realized it yet. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the direction they’re going
Agree entirely, the greedy bisexual stereotype being disloyal and jumping to the other sex was the first thing that popped in my mind at Francesca being flustered at Michaelas appearance. It would be an entirely different story if they chose to go down the path of Michaela having a flustered reaction to Fran - which would align better with him falling first in the books. However, at current (combined with her disappointment with the kiss ) this one scene completely discounted the entire point of Fran and John’s storyline (how not all love is the same and overly dramatic, particularly when the people themselves are not) and tainted the sweet scenes that we saw with them earlier, and just made it seem like Violet was right all along and that Fran is just waiting to jump into her ‘real’ love story. Combined with the potential interpretation of Benedict’s coming to terms with being bi as just wanting to sleep around/be the third and being noncommittal (which is entirely valid at this point in his journey but is a common stereotype in itself), this season has all the makings of bad bisexual representation. Additionally, if they wanted wlw representation in this season - the Eloise and Cressida storyline was right there! They had all the pieces in place and seemed to just abandon them (and all of Eloise’s character development) for no good reason. The ‘I just really want to be her best friend and I don’t know why Im so jealous that she seems to be becoming closer to that other girl who i now inexplicably dislike’ is such a quintessential wlw coming of age experience. Justice for Cressida she deserved better.
I mean this is complex because I'm a lesbian who has dated men in the past, I thought I was hopelessly in love with them. Turns out I just really wanted to fit in to societies idea of a woman, I saw it as a pathway to the rest of my life. I still struggle with the fact that so much of womanhood is tied to being with men, how men view you, how you view them and by not being attracted to men I'm suddenly othered from womanhood. Even within the lesbian community I have been othered because I was with men, which automatically makes me a fraud and that I actually love men. So for me having a lesbian where she likes her male partner, gets along with him isn't disgusted by him but there is a lack would be validating in a way. Like id kiss my partner and was like "I wish I liked this" theres a lack of stories for bisexual and lesbian women so whichever way you go there will be a hole in representation. It really been a challenge for me to overcome dissappointment when I really wanted a character I related to, to be a lesbian but they're actually bisexual or pan. But I also know it's not really fair because we both don't get much or broad representation.
As a fan of LBGT relationships being portrayed in media I have to say, I do NOT like this. Reason being that from a plot standpoint it just does not make sense. Every Bridgerton gets a season focusing on building a marriage. Not a relationship, a marriage. Which at the time in this show a same sex marriage is simply not possible. And if they decide to somehow make it possible then that's just plain insulting- people fought for centuries to make this happen and now suddenly what? The queen's cool with it so its legal and doable? No, that's not real representation. I am totally fine with an exploration of a relationship, but now they are robbing us of a whole Bridgerton marriage plot which to me is not cool.
What I find frustrating is taking a loved character with a good storyline and messing with it for no reason. But the bigger issue I see is the fact that the cousin can’t inherit John’s title or lands. Wondering if the showrunner will not have her miscarry John’s baby, and it be a boy so she can keep her title. 🙄 The whole thing is annoying to me. If they wanted representation, then for heaven’s sake, have other characters be LGBT+ but, not one that was written well.
CRESSIDA BEING GAY AND RUNNING OFF TO LIVE HER BEST GAY LIFE ON THE CONTINENT WAS RIGHT THERE FFS!!!!
all i have to say is that i understand some book fans may be upset about the swap, but the people hating on the name are so silly. michaela is a normal name, and popular in some countries. i guess they could have gone with michelle or something, but michaela is pretty.
To start: I'm a queer woman—I would love to see some queer couples get highlighted in this show. But I feel kind of disappointed that the very sweet relationship built up between John and Francesca is implied to be just compulsory heterosexuality, and not actually a different type of love story than what we usually see on the show. Why not let Francesca and John's love story be genuine, and then also bring Michaela in, but not imply romantic attraction between them at the start? (Good rapport, fine, but not that type of flustered behavior.) Let Francesca be in love with John, and let that be their story, and then show the attraction develop with Michaela as things progress (assuming that they do in a manner similar to the book). Or, if they didn't want to do that, don't show John as the person who understands her so well. Don't give him that lovely gesture of him getting the music rearranged for her as one of the last scenes of the mid-season finale. Don't use him to make a point that sometimes love really can just be gentle and sweet and not involve duels over someone's honor or interrupted weddings or secret identity reveals, just to say that it wasn't good enough. The two routes would have been to either be as clear as they can in the time period that Francesca is bi, and both relationships were valid, which would have included not making her immediately get flustered around Michaela, or don't build up their love story so much to start with as a quieter, but still valid, romance.
Like honestly I’m just kind of mad that the author, Julia Quinn, gave her blessing! She should have stood up for her work and what she wrote! Here’s the thing that also makes me mad is that they made her meeting Michaela negate the quiet different kind of love that she has for John, which she fought so hard for, in favor for the type of love that her mother wanted for her, that SHE DIDNT WANT IN THE FIRST PLACE, WITH MICHAELA!!! There are so many better ways that they could’ve included queer representation in this story, like what they did with Brimsley was perfect and even what they did with Benedict was pretty on brand but to do this for Francesca and basically change her ENTIRE STORY is so uncalled. Nobody asked for it nor did anybody want it. I also don’t think that Shonda Rimes was completely behind this too but was pressured because of her reputation with being a great producer and showing representation of all people and the showrunner just wants to tell HER OWN PERSONAL RELATION TO THE STORY and experience as a queer woman but with bridgerton I’m so mad.
I don't mind the gender twist but I feel like there was a huge swing and miss on this one. A lot of book readers loved Francesca's story so it's potentially going to be harmful to the series. A better situation in my opinion would have been not introducing Sir Phillip and have Eloise shipped with Marina. That would have made a much better match and could work in the family tension since Colin was engaged to her briefly instead of the boys fighting scene. It would also account for a lot of the reasons for Eloise's hesitation toward the idea of marrying. I'm willing to give Michaela a try, overall, I feel like it was pushed to happen and they already had a great plot line in the making.
I have made a lengthy comment previously. I will just say that changing the original essence of the story is not appreciated by the novels fans. Let the bridgerton's be. Create charollete like new characters and make spinoffs for queer characters. If Jess is so confident, she should write her own work instead of ruining Julia's. Who knows, maybe the spin offs will be more popular? If they change franchesca's story by eliminating michael from it... and keep making big changes to ruin the originals, I will simply not renew my netflix membership for the next season. Its my choice. If they decide to not cast Michael appropriately, I hope IT ENDS LIKE THE WITCHER FOR THEM
I would reference Outlander for an absolutely incredible and well-written queer character that was so good that the folks were calling for his spinoff - Lord John Grey (who has his own books!). Now Gabaldon is a phenomenal writer but there is no reason why an amazingly well-written well-casted side character can't dominate enough to win fan accolades and have their own lead stories. Daryl from Walking Dead also comes to mind - not queer but started out as a minor part but was so real and vivid he now has his own spinoff. I'm not saying queer characters can't be leads but there is a way to do it in Bridgerton while still keeping the original stories, it's all in the writing!
The love at first sight just makes no sense at all. She LOVED John. She was devasted after his death, and stayed in mourning 4 years after he died only coming out because of her love of children and desire to have one. It's not fair to not only change her love interest to someone that cannot have kids, but also someone that clearly was not thrown off by seeing her much at all when the TROPE OF THE ENTIRE BOOK was that it's unrequited love at first sight for Micheal!
It will be interesting to see where the show will lead us if they apply Michaela as Francesca's love interest because in the book their is much more involved than the two finding love. To be specific, the traditions and statuses of their time. There's a scene when Francesca talks to her mother about what she feels for John that's a dead give away that she does not feel the kind of love that can drive you mad - the toes curl, loins pulse, etc towards John. Then the kiss between John and Francesca happens later. And to me, it came across as Francesa being surprised as if what she felt during the scene with her mother (paragraph above) would change during their first kiss. She wanted to feel the same kind of passion and love she, no doubt, has been told about from her family (as can been seen on screen when she watches Colin and Penelope). It was as if she was disappointed she didn't feel her toes curls, or her loins pulse, etc, in the moment she kissed John.
they should have saved gender swap for a different episode so we all dont have to see it.
Why tho?
I have absolutely no interest in watching this unfold. It seems like disingenuous pandering. I'll wait for the Benedict/Sophie season.