I hear you on the backlash being partly because of the demographics at play here. However, a lot of it comes down to the writing on the show, which wasn't great in s3. In the books, John most exists as a memory, so we don't care about him other than as someone both Michael and Francesca cared about. In the show, however, we watched 7 episodes of Francesca and John falling in love, we were told that quiet love is just as valid as loud love....only to be told in the final episode that oh yeah, actually Francesca doesn't love John at all, and actually is going to love this random person who shows up at the end. So the rug was pulled out from under us. Another problem that arises from the writing in episode 8 is that in the books, Francesca didn't love Michael while John was alive, so there were no feelings of infidelity while they were married. Whereas in the show, they made Francesca attracted to her on the spot, implicating that there's going to be at least the temptation of infidelity while John is alive. Which is a common stereotype among bi people.
So you believe the problem is that the show SHOWED us what happened instead of telling us. That is a strange thing to be upset about is it not? Because the story of Fran and John plays out no differently in the books. Francesca tells the story of how they fell in love and she says it was not passionate but they fit like puzzle pieces and they could be themselves with one another. In the show that remains true. In the book Francesca and Michael meet before the wedding but Francesca says that Michael was always handsome, shockingly so. So my question is why is reading this more valid than seeing it? We watch it play out the same way it is described and yet seeing it kills the validity of the relationship for everyone. We all acknowledge beautiful people and react to them differently but there doesn't have to be anything salacious behind it. And in truth most people only think it is salacious because they already know that eventually they fall in love.
@@letarivera203 showing us first for 7 episodes that john and francesca's love is genuine, just different love, and then turning things around and saying actually it wasn't valid at all, is wasting the audience's time. If they wanted to write this storyline better, they would've sewn the seeds of their misaligned feelings earlier. Now it was just pulled out of nowhere in the last episode.
@@letarivera203 JB cannot even bring herself to call John and Fran a love story. In a statement she called it "companionship". Then there was the point of Violet saying she forgot her name when meeting Edmund. And she stuttered as well when meeting Lady Danbury's brother. Within the context of the show the stuttering and forgetting your name IS significant even if you didn't read the books.
Actually, infidelity is still a non factor, if you consider the fact in that time, people still didnt even believe lesbians existed. Two girls living together was just considered the very best of friends, with absolutely no possible sexual desires for one another, because women just didnt possess those desires. Yet, ironically enough, it wasnt long, if it hadnt already been invented (sorry dont know the complete history of the vibrator lol), vibrators were being used on wives for being too wound up because of lack of "sexual" release lol. Its strange to me to see it portrayed because realistically, no one wouldve even thought twice about it, just that the two girls are really close friends...
Its honestly a strange form of sexism when women were already denied having their own thoughts and feelings, yet got a free pass from being accused of being homosexual simply because they didnt believe women could.
I love that you brought up the thing about people offering up Eloise as an "alternative" to Francesca and the obvious reasoning for it, because I cannot see any reason why people keep saying that Eloise "makes so much more sense" other than them having a set stereotype of what a queer woman is supposed to look and act like, and Francesca's traditional femininity not fitting that stereotype while Eloise does. For that reason alone, I love that they made this choice because it's clearly needed. Another rather uncomfortable thing I see people keep doing is offering up alternatives to Michael for who they should've genderswapped based on which male Bridgerton leads they personally find less interesting, appealing or hot than Michael. It comes off a bit like becoming the black lesbian female lead is some sort of "punishment" for not being interesting or attractive enough, or like the black lesbian female lead is only worthy of being a genderswapped version of what they themselves concider a throwaway character.
I personally think Eloise AND Penelope would make a great example of what it was like for lesbians in that time. No one batted an eye, two girls who were close were just seen as very good friends...exactly the same way. It has nothing to do with Eloise not being the perfecy feminine figure, because Penelope is extremely feminine. They just make the best example, and Eloise in particular more so because of how shes adamant agaisnt marriage. Not that women didnt want to make their own way, and not be property, but the whole idea absolutely sickens her, like the thought of being tied to a man sickens her. Nothing wrong with that.
@@Rhaenarys The way I see it, rather than men themselves Eloise's problem is the marriage mart system. The system that treats women like products up for sale and that makes it their sole purpose to be on display on balls on society events while desperately trying to catch a husband. I have no issue imagine her falling in love in another environment. Like when she developed her crush on Theo is S2.
Michaela is in the show for (so far) maybe 20 seconds. That humans are mad at her storyline already is just WILD to me. Their story hasn't happened yet! We don't know anything about where it is going other, presumably, that Fran is going to have a same sex HEA. Good for her? The only *possible* complaint I could have is if I bought into the idea that Fran doesn't actually love John (based on an interpretation of their first kiss which I don't share). Since I don't buy into that, I can't imagine having an issue with Michaela given the 20 seconds of her we've gotten.
I also want to add- physical love and emotional love are very different (and I think heterosexual stories rarely cover this topic). Fran feeling a physical spark does NOT diminish the emotional love she has for John and exploring this love is going to make this story even more beautiful and I do think the show taking liberties in the world building they've done I am excited to see how queer rights and gender rights progress in the show. But finally a discussion about the change that discusses this adequately and not just hating to hate!
I think one reason wlw ships are unpopular is because female audiences at large (even straight women) suffer from comphet brain rot. Like the only way to be seen as valuable in this society if you're a woman is to be desired by a man, that's the only thing that validates your existence. They're addicted to the fantasy of being "picked". I think a lot of queer women can understand this, the difference is we have to actually confront it at a certain point. Great video, definitely like the only good take I've seen on this.
I only just got on the Bridgerton train, I had no idea Rege and Simone had backlashes as well, not surprising considering Rege never made a return to the show, despite they’re the reasons how popular the 1st and 2nd seasons are… I so badly wanted to give the show’s fandom benefit of the doubt and believe they just really love the books a lot instead of quickly assuming homophobia and racism, but judging from their track record it mostly and sadly seems to be the latter case. I sincerely hope the show keeps Michaela since it isn’t everyday we get a silly period sapphic romance with two traditionally feminine women. One harmless genderbend isn’t going to topple a whole narrative and certainly isn’t worth a hissy fit of them harassing the writers and actresses
I agree with you. I think Michaela is gorgeous and I love the idea of her and Francesca as a couple. Since I haven't read the books I don't feel betrayed or robbed of something I expected to turn out a certain way. If the Bridgerton show is all about diversity - this is the way to go! I am looking forward to it.
Francesca actually can easily have house with Michella and no one would actually have a big problem. There may be some gossip but it would be okey since we would have widowed woman and spinster cousin being a companion…. Something actually quite normal as far as I know. Men could not have house with another man because that would be big scandal but two women? It could be actually worked in some form or other. But how it plays so far it’s heartbreaking to those who loved the book since it shows how Francesca falls in love first with a woman a same way as her mother described love. It seems like she doesn’t have quiet love at all. In the book Michael falls in love on spot with her just before she married his brother like cousin. They live together like a family because they are close and he have to act like he is not basically head over heels in love with Francesca. And then John dies in his sleep just lies that, Francesca is pregnant, losing a baby and Michael run away from his overwhelming feelings to India! That is completely different story than what we could get with Francesca am in love with Michaela. I’m not pissed because I’m not getting another sexy male (I’m bi) I’m pissed that I’m getting basically cheating triangle instead of feelings under friendship due to lo l loyalty towards his cousin. And also he was in his shoes after he inherited his title and felt bad for also loving his beloved wife…
It’s also colourism (I say as a light skinned Black person.) Let’s be honest, a lot of straight White women don’t like the idea woman that looks like Ashley could be seen as the great love of an Anthony Bridgerton’s life (hence the backlash). Obviously they like the idea of seeing themselves with some like Rege (because fetishism is also a thing) but a woman of colour being the love interest to some racist brains feels like a “loss” to their warped minds. Similarly, since they’re identifying with Francesca, her desire for or attraction to a dark- skinned Black woman is unsettling. Yes, due to homophobia, but also a lot of people have this idea of dark skinned women as “less desirable” romantically. 2) Are mongonous people this insecure 👀? Finding some else physically attractive doesn’t automatically mean you’re going to have an affair, or that you don’t love the person you’re with? Like you expect your partners to never find anyone else hot EVER AGAIN? 😂 That’s insane, and immature. The fact she is physically attracted to Michaela doesn’t mean she’s 1) not in love with a person she just married? Or that she will 2) cheat on her husband with his cousin! She thinks just thinks she’s hot (which, she’s stunning), that’s all. People finding each other physically attractive doesn’t automatically mean infidelity or lack of love/care for a long term partner. Also, she could fall in love with both of them? That doesn’t mean she “never really loved John.” People can fall in love more than once. Sorry, this just reads as immature to me. Like she can’t think girls are pretty because she’s married? It’s not like she made out with her 😂
OMG, FINALLY someone adressing this weird, winny responses to Michaella. There were so much talk about it from such a short scene in the season's finale that I was honestly surprised by this sifude bigotry. I mean, if we're gonna talk about changes...half the show is already different from the books! All the alleged "race neutrality" towards the cast is already something new that the author itself refuses to put into her more recent novels! Loved your take on the subject and the reflections that it incites.
They could have a house together. The Ladies of Llangollen had a house together, and I'm sure they aren't the only ones. In fact, it would be fairly easy for two women to share a house together. The thing is, I don't want her to have a platonic love for John (which doesn't mean I don't want her to have a romantic love with Michaela, but I would prefer it were after he is gone). It was delightful to see another type of romance (probably the type of romance most real people experience and seldom shown); if she were bi and had two great loves but Michaela is gay, that's fine. A couple of things they did in that last episode are worrying that way, but I still have hope. Michaela can inherit the title, which I keep seeing people saying she can't. I think (and I've said several times elsewhere) is that choosing to be with Michaela despite the fact that they can't have children together would be really powerful, and I'd like to see that. I am overall looking forward to this storyline. I also know that some people do want John to not be one of two great loves for Francesca but for her "real" or "romantic" love to be Michaela. I do think this is not going to be a story where they can't be together at the end. They will be together at the end. And, although _Bridgerton_ is not very historical, this would be actually accurate to things that have happened. Anyway, we'll see how it goes.
Ive never read the books, not sure i want to tbh. But to me I just wish they could represent being a lesbian in that time more accurately. Its funny its a strange form of sexism that actually benefited women for once, as in that time, still, people didnt believe women could have real sexual desires, therefore, couldnt possibly be considered having desires for another woman. No...they were just really good friends! Like Penelope and Eloise. I honestly expected to see it from them more because they actually depict a proper lesbian couple from that time. A lot better than Francesca. I know the show is far from historically accurate, but that would be nice to see.
125% Straight females can’t seem to wrap it but it’s like even tho we cannot relate??? I love the show and romantic relationships even tho I love women. Soo. I love that they chose Francesca bc she’s honestly the most realistic lol. Most girls I’ve been with are very feminine like her. But I get the book debate but again like you said they had zero issues with Simon.
I agree also as someone who read the books the amount of people that think Michael was charming is alarming. He is not without charm there is just a large portion of the book where he is stuck on trapping her in marriage with very questionable tactics and it scares me how many people claim they desperately what to see that on screen since she out right tells him no multiple times. Also thank you for pointing out the Eloise thing because I have been saying the same thing stereotype. That being said I do think they missed an opportunity with her and Cresida that could've been very entertaining and her guy is the worst so I desperately want better for her than the books. But here is a good question why does there have to be a limit on queer characters Eloise, Benedict or Francesca? Why can they not all be queer?? Is there a limit for how many queer siblings there can be in one family I don't know about?
@@lja530 There is no statistic to measure the question I asked. There are however case studies. Rarely do families with 4 or more children, that have a child who identifies as queer, only have 1 child identify as queer. This is where the "Gay Gene" phenomenon comes from. To be clear scientists determined there is no "Gay Gene" it was just what people called it when trying to find out if being queer was genetic.
Your vid actually made me more concerned about the Francesca/Michaela relationship... The romance genre is supposed to be a fantasy where people fall in love and live happily ever after and the show has been increasing the drama with each season at the expense of its romances. I don't want to see that happen with Francesca and Michaela. Hopefully the writers will find a way to make it a true happily ever after - maybe let John live and make him ace or give him a queer romance of his own. But I def don't watch Bridgerton for the drama!
This makes me so angry. heterosexual women have had show after show for them with male leads and I've watched those shows and supported those couples for the fandom and the story and drama of it all but the moment a queer woman or worse a queer woman of color appears then they can't support it just because they aren't attracted to the character?? just as I haven't been attracted to any man in the show but I still watch it. It's total BS.
My thoughts exactly. Audiences complain that the backlash is mostly due to bad writing etc., but the backlash towards Michaela in particular was so EXTREME. So many other aspects of the show have been changed / written badly, but none have garnered as much negative reaction as Michaela.
It’s because they have taken a beloved character (Michael) and written him out of his own story. Sure, make a historical lesbian romance with a black lead, but don’t call it Bridgerton.
ive seen people say it unprofessional for the author to change something so drastically. wild take. as if movies based on books have always been 100% accurate
![Michaela Stirling and the Curse of Adaptation [CC]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Nzb5OMcQijM/mqdefault.jpg)
I hear you on the backlash being partly because of the demographics at play here. However, a lot of it comes down to the writing on the show, which wasn't great in s3. In the books, John most exists as a memory, so we don't care about him other than as someone both Michael and Francesca cared about. In the show, however, we watched 7 episodes of Francesca and John falling in love, we were told that quiet love is just as valid as loud love....only to be told in the final episode that oh yeah, actually Francesca doesn't love John at all, and actually is going to love this random person who shows up at the end. So the rug was pulled out from under us. Another problem that arises from the writing in episode 8 is that in the books, Francesca didn't love Michael while John was alive, so there were no feelings of infidelity while they were married. Whereas in the show, they made Francesca attracted to her on the spot, implicating that there's going to be at least the temptation of infidelity while John is alive. Which is a common stereotype among bi people.
So you believe the problem is that the show SHOWED us what happened instead of telling us. That is a strange thing to be upset about is it not? Because the story of Fran and John plays out no differently in the books. Francesca tells the story of how they fell in love and she says it was not passionate but they fit like puzzle pieces and they could be themselves with one another. In the show that remains true. In the book Francesca and Michael meet before the wedding but Francesca says that Michael was always handsome, shockingly so. So my question is why is reading this more valid than seeing it? We watch it play out the same way it is described and yet seeing it kills the validity of the relationship for everyone. We all acknowledge beautiful people and react to them differently but there doesn't have to be anything salacious behind it. And in truth most people only think it is salacious because they already know that eventually they fall in love.
@@letarivera203 showing us first for 7 episodes that john and francesca's love is genuine, just different love, and then turning things around and saying actually it wasn't valid at all, is wasting the audience's time. If they wanted to write this storyline better, they would've sewn the seeds of their misaligned feelings earlier. Now it was just pulled out of nowhere in the last episode.
@@letarivera203 JB cannot even bring herself to call John and Fran a love story. In a statement she called it "companionship". Then there was the point of Violet saying she forgot her name when meeting Edmund. And she stuttered as well when meeting Lady Danbury's brother. Within the context of the show the stuttering and forgetting your name IS significant even if you didn't read the books.
Actually, infidelity is still a non factor, if you consider the fact in that time, people still didnt even believe lesbians existed. Two girls living together was just considered the very best of friends, with absolutely no possible sexual desires for one another, because women just didnt possess those desires. Yet, ironically enough, it wasnt long, if it hadnt already been invented (sorry dont know the complete history of the vibrator lol), vibrators were being used on wives for being too wound up because of lack of "sexual" release lol.
Its strange to me to see it portrayed because realistically, no one wouldve even thought twice about it, just that the two girls are really close friends...
Its honestly a strange form of sexism when women were already denied having their own thoughts and feelings, yet got a free pass from being accused of being homosexual simply because they didnt believe women could.
I love that you brought up the thing about people offering up Eloise as an "alternative" to Francesca and the obvious reasoning for it, because I cannot see any reason why people keep saying that Eloise "makes so much more sense" other than them having a set stereotype of what a queer woman is supposed to look and act like, and Francesca's traditional femininity not fitting that stereotype while Eloise does. For that reason alone, I love that they made this choice because it's clearly needed.
Another rather uncomfortable thing I see people keep doing is offering up alternatives to Michael for who they should've genderswapped based on which male Bridgerton leads they personally find less interesting, appealing or hot than Michael. It comes off a bit like becoming the black lesbian female lead is some sort of "punishment" for not being interesting or attractive enough, or like the black lesbian female lead is only worthy of being a genderswapped version of what they themselves concider a throwaway character.
I personally think Eloise AND Penelope would make a great example of what it was like for lesbians in that time. No one batted an eye, two girls who were close were just seen as very good friends...exactly the same way. It has nothing to do with Eloise not being the perfecy feminine figure, because Penelope is extremely feminine. They just make the best example, and Eloise in particular more so because of how shes adamant agaisnt marriage. Not that women didnt want to make their own way, and not be property, but the whole idea absolutely sickens her, like the thought of being tied to a man sickens her.
Nothing wrong with that.
@@Rhaenarys The way I see it, rather than men themselves Eloise's problem is the marriage mart system. The system that treats women like products up for sale and that makes it their sole purpose to be on display on balls on society events while desperately trying to catch a husband. I have no issue imagine her falling in love in another environment. Like when she developed her crush on Theo is S2.
Michaela is in the show for (so far) maybe 20 seconds. That humans are mad at her storyline already is just WILD to me. Their story hasn't happened yet! We don't know anything about where it is going other, presumably, that Fran is going to have a same sex HEA. Good for her?
The only *possible* complaint I could have is if I bought into the idea that Fran doesn't actually love John (based on an interpretation of their first kiss which I don't share). Since I don't buy into that, I can't imagine having an issue with Michaela given the 20 seconds of her we've gotten.
@@marshmello3455 absolutely agree! like give the girl a chance 😩
I also want to add- physical love and emotional love are very different (and I think heterosexual stories rarely cover this topic). Fran feeling a physical spark does NOT diminish the emotional love she has for John and exploring this love is going to make this story even more beautiful and I do think the show taking liberties in the world building they've done I am excited to see how queer rights and gender rights progress in the show. But finally a discussion about the change that discusses this adequately and not just hating to hate!
well said! the backlash towards michaela is short sighted and extreme. these people don’t understand the complexity and range of human emotion
I think one reason wlw ships are unpopular is because female audiences at large (even straight women) suffer from comphet brain rot. Like the only way to be seen as valuable in this society if you're a woman is to be desired by a man, that's the only thing that validates your existence. They're addicted to the fantasy of being "picked". I think a lot of queer women can understand this, the difference is we have to actually confront it at a certain point. Great video, definitely like the only good take I've seen on this.
I only just got on the Bridgerton train, I had no idea Rege and Simone had backlashes as well, not surprising considering Rege never made a return to the show, despite they’re the reasons how popular the 1st and 2nd seasons are…
I so badly wanted to give the show’s fandom benefit of the doubt and believe they just really love the books a lot instead of quickly assuming homophobia and racism, but judging from their track record it mostly and sadly seems to be the latter case.
I sincerely hope the show keeps Michaela since it isn’t everyday we get a silly period sapphic romance with two traditionally feminine women. One harmless genderbend isn’t going to topple a whole narrative and certainly isn’t worth a hissy fit of them harassing the writers and actresses
I agree with you. I think Michaela is gorgeous and I love the idea of her and Francesca as a couple. Since I haven't read the books I don't feel betrayed or robbed of something I expected to turn out a certain way. If the Bridgerton show is all about diversity - this is the way to go! I am looking forward to it.
She should've been revealed to be Sophie.
Francesca actually can easily have house with Michella and no one would actually have a big problem. There may be some gossip but it would be okey since we would have widowed woman and spinster cousin being a companion…. Something actually quite normal as far as I know. Men could not have house with another man because that would be big scandal but two women? It could be actually worked in some form or other. But how it plays so far it’s heartbreaking to those who loved the book since it shows how Francesca falls in love first with a woman a same way as her mother described love. It seems like she doesn’t have quiet love at all. In the book Michael falls in love on spot with her just before she married his brother like cousin. They live together like a family because they are close and he have to act like he is not basically head over heels in love with Francesca. And then John dies in his sleep just lies that, Francesca is pregnant, losing a baby and Michael run away from his overwhelming feelings to India! That is completely different story than what we could get with Francesca am in love with Michaela. I’m not pissed because I’m not getting another sexy male (I’m bi) I’m pissed that I’m getting basically cheating triangle instead of feelings under friendship due to lo l loyalty towards his cousin. And also he was in his shoes after he inherited his title and felt bad for also loving his beloved wife…
It’s also colourism (I say as a light skinned Black person.) Let’s be honest, a lot of straight White women don’t like the idea woman that looks like Ashley could be seen as the great love of an Anthony Bridgerton’s life (hence the backlash). Obviously they like the idea of seeing themselves with some like Rege (because fetishism is also a thing) but a woman of colour being the love interest to some racist brains feels like a “loss” to their warped minds. Similarly, since they’re identifying with Francesca, her desire for or attraction to a dark- skinned Black woman is unsettling. Yes, due to homophobia, but also a lot of people have this idea of dark skinned women as “less desirable” romantically.
2) Are mongonous people this insecure 👀? Finding some else physically attractive doesn’t automatically mean you’re going to have an affair, or that you don’t love the person you’re with? Like you expect your partners to never find anyone else hot EVER AGAIN? 😂 That’s insane, and immature. The fact she is physically attracted to Michaela doesn’t mean she’s 1) not in love with a person she just married? Or that she will 2) cheat on her husband with his cousin! She thinks just thinks she’s hot (which, she’s stunning), that’s all. People finding each other physically attractive doesn’t automatically mean infidelity or lack of love/care for a long term partner. Also, she could fall in love with both of them? That doesn’t mean she “never really loved John.” People can fall in love more than once. Sorry, this just reads as immature to me. Like she can’t think girls are pretty because she’s married? It’s not like she made out with her 😂
OMG, FINALLY someone adressing this weird, winny responses to Michaella. There were so much talk about it from such a short scene in the season's finale that I was honestly surprised by this sifude bigotry. I mean, if we're gonna talk about changes...half the show is already different from the books! All the alleged "race neutrality" towards the cast is already something new that the author itself refuses to put into her more recent novels! Loved your take on the subject and the reflections that it incites.
They could have a house together. The Ladies of Llangollen had a house together, and I'm sure they aren't the only ones. In fact, it would be fairly easy for two women to share a house together.
The thing is, I don't want her to have a platonic love for John (which doesn't mean I don't want her to have a romantic love with Michaela, but I would prefer it were after he is gone). It was delightful to see another type of romance (probably the type of romance most real people experience and seldom shown); if she were bi and had two great loves but Michaela is gay, that's fine. A couple of things they did in that last episode are worrying that way, but I still have hope. Michaela can inherit the title, which I keep seeing people saying she can't. I think (and I've said several times elsewhere) is that choosing to be with Michaela despite the fact that they can't have children together would be really powerful, and I'd like to see that. I am overall looking forward to this storyline. I also know that some people do want John to not be one of two great loves for Francesca but for her "real" or "romantic" love to be Michaela.
I do think this is not going to be a story where they can't be together at the end. They will be together at the end. And, although _Bridgerton_ is not very historical, this would be actually accurate to things that have happened.
Anyway, we'll see how it goes.
Ive never read the books, not sure i want to tbh. But to me I just wish they could represent being a lesbian in that time more accurately. Its funny its a strange form of sexism that actually benefited women for once, as in that time, still, people didnt believe women could have real sexual desires, therefore, couldnt possibly be considered having desires for another woman. No...they were just really good friends! Like Penelope and Eloise. I honestly expected to see it from them more because they actually depict a proper lesbian couple from that time. A lot better than Francesca.
I know the show is far from historically accurate, but that would be nice to see.
You ATE this up
125% Straight females can’t seem to wrap it but it’s like even tho we cannot relate??? I love the show and romantic relationships even tho I love women. Soo. I love that they chose Francesca bc she’s honestly the most realistic lol. Most girls I’ve been with are very feminine like her. But I get the book debate but again like you said they had zero issues with Simon.
I agree also as someone who read the books the amount of people that think Michael was charming is alarming. He is not without charm there is just a large portion of the book where he is stuck on trapping her in marriage with very questionable tactics and it scares me how many people claim they desperately what to see that on screen since she out right tells him no multiple times. Also thank you for pointing out the Eloise thing because I have been saying the same thing stereotype. That being said I do think they missed an opportunity with her and Cresida that could've been very entertaining and her guy is the worst so I desperately want better for her than the books. But here is a good question why does there have to be a limit on queer characters Eloise, Benedict or Francesca? Why can they not all be queer?? Is there a limit for how many queer siblings there can be in one family I don't know about?
@@lja530 There is no statistic to measure the question I asked. There are however case studies. Rarely do families with 4 or more children, that have a child who identifies as queer, only have 1 child identify as queer. This is where the "Gay Gene" phenomenon comes from. To be clear scientists determined there is no "Gay Gene" it was just what people called it when trying to find out if being queer was genetic.
Your vid actually made me more concerned about the Francesca/Michaela relationship... The romance genre is supposed to be a fantasy where people fall in love and live happily ever after and the show has been increasing the drama with each season at the expense of its romances. I don't want to see that happen with Francesca and Michaela. Hopefully the writers will find a way to make it a true happily ever after - maybe let John live and make him ace or give him a queer romance of his own. But I def don't watch Bridgerton for the drama!
This makes me so angry. heterosexual women have had show after show for them with male leads and I've watched those shows and supported those couples for the fandom and the story and drama of it all but the moment a queer woman or worse a queer woman of color appears then they can't support it just because they aren't attracted to the character?? just as I haven't been attracted to any man in the show but I still watch it. It's total BS.
My thoughts exactly. Audiences complain that the backlash is mostly due to bad writing etc., but the backlash towards Michaela in particular was so EXTREME. So many other aspects of the show have been changed / written badly, but none have garnered as much negative reaction as Michaela.
It’s because they have taken a beloved character (Michael) and written him out of his own story. Sure, make a historical lesbian romance with a black lead, but don’t call it Bridgerton.
This is the video ❤
Trust, men as interests...thats the issue and preference for whte
lol it hurts me I love Michaela already and I hope she doesn’t let the audience get to her ❤(my irl name is Michaela ❤❤❤😊)
ive seen people say it unprofessional for the author to change something so drastically. wild take. as if movies based on books have always been 100% accurate