i hope this doesn't need to be said, but this is not a space to be hateful towards the actor playing Michaela or to dismiss the need for queer, especially sapphic, stories and Black queer representation in media! critiquing the choices of the adaptation can and should be separate from treating the actors like the real people they are and recognizing the nuances of consuming media in a ~society~. let's keep it demure and mindful
My favorite genre of videos is people ACTUALLY reading WHWW and all realizing that hey, Michael WAS actually good and worth keeping, and this actually IS one of if not the best book and ship, and maybe fans ARE right in feeling disappointed lol Attacking innocent actors, being racist and homophobic is never EVER okay, but those who do it are a different contingent and normal fans like us shouldn't be forcefully lumped with them because we ACTUALLY HAVE A POINT lmao and the automatic backlash and accusations against us are ridiculous and unfair.
I mean, to your point, and I think your comment is brilliant (and this book is my second favorite and Michael was by far one of the better male leads) but to add onto your comment no one has explained why the change is inherently bad for the character for his traits. Quite frankly I'd argue even some of his more negative qualities (and why all the leads in the books have it) may actually be absolved with the gender change and their overall story can be made more impactful as well. I adored Michael in the book, but the change in itself isn't bad as we have yet to see it though from that 5 minute scene alone I know it will deliver (and quite frankly Michaela embodied Michael to a tea and it was far more interesting than the typical "rake").
@@funkycrawler619 I think the change's bad for his character because Michael can't be Michael and have the same story if he's not a man. Just like Anthony and Antonia wouldn't be the same, or Daphne and male counterpart wouldn't be the same, just like how these changes would affect not only their own characters, but those of their siblings - Antonia would completely change Benedict's story and upbringing as well, just like Whistledown wouldn't exist if Penelope weren't a woman. Men and women aren't interchangeable in Bridgerton's world, they are shaped by their different upbringing, lifestyle, attitude, education - everything. And Michael needs to be a rake and the most notorious of them all, he needs to have an imposter syndrome about John and inheriting everything from him, he needs to be able to make Francesca pregnant for their story to take place as it is, he needs to have that masculinity that makes him him. Without any of that he's simply not Michael and their story simply can't be the same. And I'm actually sure that Michaela by herself CAN be a compelling character with great story and I would have loved to see that in a separate plot that doesn't erase my favorite one, but she simply won't be able to be Michael and that's who we wanted - out of all male leads, he was the one that didn't require change, if it ain't broke don't fix it. And even in the last part of your comment when you said "it was far more interesting than the typical "rake"" you can also see that it's not Michael anymore and that in your subjective opinion you may find the non-Michael more interesting.
@@tinatinkvirkvelia1317 Men and women can be interchangeable in the Bridgerton world because again, it is THERE world. They have already bent the rules allowing Pen to continue writing publicly so to say they can't progress women and queer rights more is absurd. 1) Women can be rakes. Is it much more looked down upon, yes but there are women rakes in the show world and they can fully continue that. Quite frankly not every male lead needs to be a rake. 2) To say Michael needs to get Fran pregnant is quite concerning as a necessity for the story since he did not really care for kids that much AND Francesca herself came to realize she can live a full life without kids. A miracle baby at the end is one thing but it is not how their story went or has to go either. 3) Book Michael still exists. You still have your favourite character. Michaela will be a wonderful character on her own and bring new light to an already powerful story that JQ herself has said she is looking forward to see.
@@funkycrawler619 No. Men and women are not interchangeable in this world. They are shaped by their very different experiences and upbringings based on their gender and it's been made very loud and clear in every season. If they need to change the whole universe and characters to make the change work, then they're not the same characters anymore, as simple as that. Michael requires all of what I said to remain Michael. If you think there's no 'need' for him to remain as himself and keep his essential characteristics, that is your personal subjective preference, us Michael fans disagree. And yes, of course book Michael will always be there, that's exactly what the new showrunner told fans when trying to gaslight them, but it won't change the fact that show Michael won't exist and that his fans will be the only ones who won't get to see their favorite on screen.
@@tinatinkvirkvelia1317 You know what. Fine i digress. You still have the book character but whatever. I will be happy for Michaela cause she is a welcomed changed and already a great character from what was shown. Keep true to your character but I will welcome the change since apparently your nearsightedness is keeping you from accepting change.
I’m interested in how they are going to adapt this book to the show, since Francesca spends most of the book away from her family and it’s going to be a queer romance now. I know that Michaela can inherit the Earldom because Scottish noble titles could be passed down to women if there were no male heirs after the early 1700s, so they can keep Michael’s conflict of replacing John. I’m also interested in how they will handle the infertility plot-line. I hope that Francesca discovers that she can be satisfied without children or decides to adopt with Michaela. I just really want them to have regency era covers of Chappell Roan, Renee Rapp, and maybe even some more obscure queer musicians (like Chrissy Chlapecka).
Francesca can just have children with John and go through the infertility issues with him. I am just hoping that Frannie has a baby in her storyline. I would hate for her to be the only Bridgerton without a child or two.
there was such a major creep factor to me with this book. micheal's pinning honesty gross like six years to hold an unrequited crush is ridiculous then add on the fact in their sex scenes there is so much reference to fran's and his cousin's sex life. and how he practically holding that she could be carrying his child over her to force her into marriage. i do agree that implying francesa isn't romantically interested in john is a weird choice, but honestly i think it could be saved if they show john and her as a platonic love story because a lot of shows don't show men and women being friends.
One thing I think is interesting, is as a queer man reading the books and then seeing Michaela, is that a LOT of people are not use to queer stories or lives. I interpreted the first meeting as moreso a queer awakening, but I do NOT think it diminishes John at all (also I do think Michaela fell HARD in their first meeting because she had to confirm Fran was before flirting with her because she assumed Eloise was his wife). There is a big difference between emotional love and physical love and often times heterosexual love stories do not explore this. Her emotional love for John is strong (she fought the queen for him) but the physical love did not translate instantly but they have a whole other season to explore that (Francesca is the only Bridgerton so far to follow the rules and not kiss her spouse prior to marriage and maybe she would've realized the physical spark is not there). I think we need to be more open to exploration, but so far, there story has beautifully explored several topics and I can see it being better.
I love this. Fans should be kind to these actors or actresses who's only doing their job, they dont have any creative control in the writing from the start. My only problem (especially the writers showrunner) with the change is i feel like, francesca is not the best choice to carry the sapphic storyline knowing how her book plotlines went. Its very clear her whole story arc (besides infertility and grief of john storyline) circulates around wanting a baby, thats why she went to marriage mart to find a husband. That's why i find it hard to see how are they gonna work around her story. I strongly feel it will be a completely whole different story.
I agree it’ll be a completely different story. I think they can still explore her wanting a baby but it’ll be very different bc it’s such a big driver of her actions in the book
Right, it's her number one motivation in her book. Based on julia quinn talking to jess brownell the showrunner she fought for only 4 chapters of the book. So i guess the rest will be erased entirely in the show.
I guess it could add even more confusion and conflict to poor Francesca; because she WANTS this new relationship, but is torn because of her feelings of guilt following John’s death, and also feeling doubts about wanting Michaela because she wants children of her own and feels she would have to sacrifice that if she chooses to be with her… I don’t know. I’ve got no horse in this race. It was just a thought of where they might be going with the plot…
Those who support the changes seem to have forgotten that the stories were written as Regency romances. I'm disappointed in the extreme with what Netflix/Shondaland has done to these stories which were set in 1880s London but now reside in 21st century Hollywood.
Do you plan to read Gregory and Hyacinth’s books as well or were you thinking of focusing on the older siblings and then maybe getting back to them if it’s confirmed that their stories will be adapted? Also, the character of Sophie for S4 was cast recently!
someone told me Gregory’s story was good, so I might read it! At this rate I might as well… 😂 very excited for an East Asian Sophie, she’s so stunning! just hoping they don’t do her wrong and that Benedict treats our girl right in the show 🤨
yeah, it’s the only one of the books I’ve read so far that I would have liked to see adapted faithfully to the screen. meanwhile I’m hoping they’ll rewrite the heck out of Benedict’s story lol
I liked some moments of the book but really disliked the entrapment into marriage and Michael saying he would make her pregnant so she would have to marry her. It feels insensitive to her fertility storyline and flipped my view of Michael as a good character.
i hope this doesn't need to be said, but this is not a space to be hateful towards the actor playing Michaela or to dismiss the need for queer, especially sapphic, stories and Black queer representation in media! critiquing the choices of the adaptation can and should be separate from treating the actors like the real people they are and recognizing the nuances of consuming media in a ~society~. let's keep it demure and mindful
My favorite genre of videos is people ACTUALLY reading WHWW and all realizing that hey, Michael WAS actually good and worth keeping, and this actually IS one of if not the best book and ship, and maybe fans ARE right in feeling disappointed lol
Attacking innocent actors, being racist and homophobic is never EVER okay, but those who do it are a different contingent and normal fans like us shouldn't be forcefully lumped with them because we ACTUALLY HAVE A POINT lmao and the automatic backlash and accusations against us are ridiculous and unfair.
I mean, to your point, and I think your comment is brilliant (and this book is my second favorite and Michael was by far one of the better male leads) but to add onto your comment no one has explained why the change is inherently bad for the character for his traits. Quite frankly I'd argue even some of his more negative qualities (and why all the leads in the books have it) may actually be absolved with the gender change and their overall story can be made more impactful as well. I adored Michael in the book, but the change in itself isn't bad as we have yet to see it though from that 5 minute scene alone I know it will deliver (and quite frankly Michaela embodied Michael to a tea and it was far more interesting than the typical "rake").
@@funkycrawler619 I think the change's bad for his character because Michael can't be Michael and have the same story if he's not a man. Just like Anthony and Antonia wouldn't be the same, or Daphne and male counterpart wouldn't be the same, just like how these changes would affect not only their own characters, but those of their siblings - Antonia would completely change Benedict's story and upbringing as well, just like Whistledown wouldn't exist if Penelope weren't a woman. Men and women aren't interchangeable in Bridgerton's world, they are shaped by their different upbringing, lifestyle, attitude, education - everything. And Michael needs to be a rake and the most notorious of them all, he needs to have an imposter syndrome about John and inheriting everything from him, he needs to be able to make Francesca pregnant for their story to take place as it is, he needs to have that masculinity that makes him him. Without any of that he's simply not Michael and their story simply can't be the same. And I'm actually sure that Michaela by herself CAN be a compelling character with great story and I would have loved to see that in a separate plot that doesn't erase my favorite one, but she simply won't be able to be Michael and that's who we wanted - out of all male leads, he was the one that didn't require change, if it ain't broke don't fix it. And even in the last part of your comment when you said "it was far more interesting than the typical "rake"" you can also see that it's not Michael anymore and that in your subjective opinion you may find the non-Michael more interesting.
@@tinatinkvirkvelia1317 Men and women can be interchangeable in the Bridgerton world because again, it is THERE world. They have already bent the rules allowing Pen to continue writing publicly so to say they can't progress women and queer rights more is absurd. 1) Women can be rakes. Is it much more looked down upon, yes but there are women rakes in the show world and they can fully continue that. Quite frankly not every male lead needs to be a rake. 2) To say Michael needs to get Fran pregnant is quite concerning as a necessity for the story since he did not really care for kids that much AND Francesca herself came to realize she can live a full life without kids. A miracle baby at the end is one thing but it is not how their story went or has to go either. 3) Book Michael still exists. You still have your favourite character. Michaela will be a wonderful character on her own and bring new light to an already powerful story that JQ herself has said she is looking forward to see.
@@funkycrawler619 No. Men and women are not interchangeable in this world. They are shaped by their very different experiences and upbringings based on their gender and it's been made very loud and clear in every season. If they need to change the whole universe and characters to make the change work, then they're not the same characters anymore, as simple as that. Michael requires all of what I said to remain Michael. If you think there's no 'need' for him to remain as himself and keep his essential characteristics, that is your personal subjective preference, us Michael fans disagree. And yes, of course book Michael will always be there, that's exactly what the new showrunner told fans when trying to gaslight them, but it won't change the fact that show Michael won't exist and that his fans will be the only ones who won't get to see their favorite on screen.
@@tinatinkvirkvelia1317 You know what. Fine i digress. You still have the book character but whatever. I will be happy for Michaela cause she is a welcomed changed and already a great character from what was shown. Keep true to your character but I will welcome the change since apparently your nearsightedness is keeping you from accepting change.
I’m interested in how they are going to adapt this book to the show, since Francesca spends most of the book away from her family and it’s going to be a queer romance now. I know that Michaela can inherit the Earldom because Scottish noble titles could be passed down to women if there were no male heirs after the early 1700s, so they can keep Michael’s conflict of replacing John. I’m also interested in how they will handle the infertility plot-line. I hope that Francesca discovers that she can be satisfied without children or decides to adopt with Michaela. I just really want them to have regency era covers of Chappell Roan, Renee Rapp, and maybe even some more obscure queer musicians (like Chrissy Chlapecka).
they HAVE to do a classical cover of a chappell roan song!! and agree would love to see them cover lesser known queer musicians too!
Francesca can just have children with John and go through the infertility issues with him. I am just hoping that Frannie has a baby in her storyline. I would hate for her to be the only Bridgerton without a child or two.
@catherineannechiang Hyacinth's book is great!!
there was such a major creep factor to me with this book. micheal's pinning honesty gross like six years to hold an unrequited crush is ridiculous then add on the fact in their sex scenes there is so much reference to fran's and his cousin's sex life. and how he practically holding that she could be carrying his child over her to force her into marriage. i do agree that implying francesa isn't romantically interested in john is a weird choice, but honestly i think it could be saved if they show john and her as a platonic love story because a lot of shows don't show men and women being friends.
One thing I think is interesting, is as a queer man reading the books and then seeing Michaela, is that a LOT of people are not use to queer stories or lives. I interpreted the first meeting as moreso a queer awakening, but I do NOT think it diminishes John at all (also I do think Michaela fell HARD in their first meeting because she had to confirm Fran was before flirting with her because she assumed Eloise was his wife). There is a big difference between emotional love and physical love and often times heterosexual love stories do not explore this. Her emotional love for John is strong (she fought the queen for him) but the physical love did not translate instantly but they have a whole other season to explore that (Francesca is the only Bridgerton so far to follow the rules and not kiss her spouse prior to marriage and maybe she would've realized the physical spark is not there). I think we need to be more open to exploration, but so far, there story has beautifully explored several topics and I can see it being better.
I love this. Fans should be kind to these actors or actresses who's only doing their job, they dont have any creative control in the writing from the start. My only problem (especially the writers showrunner) with the change is i feel like, francesca is not the best choice to carry the sapphic storyline knowing how her book plotlines went. Its very clear her whole story arc (besides infertility and grief of john storyline) circulates around wanting a baby, thats why she went to marriage mart to find a husband. That's why i find it hard to see how are they gonna work around her story. I strongly feel it will be a completely whole different story.
I agree it’ll be a completely different story. I think they can still explore her wanting a baby but it’ll be very different bc it’s such a big driver of her actions in the book
Right, it's her number one motivation in her book. Based on julia quinn talking to jess brownell the showrunner she fought for only 4 chapters of the book. So i guess the rest will be erased entirely in the show.
I guess it could add even more confusion and conflict to poor Francesca; because she WANTS this new relationship, but is torn because of her feelings of guilt following John’s death, and also feeling doubts about wanting Michaela because she wants children of her own and feels she would have to sacrifice that if she chooses to be with her… I don’t know. I’ve got no horse in this race. It was just a thought of where they might be going with the plot…
Those who support the changes seem to have forgotten that the stories were written as Regency romances.
I'm disappointed in the extreme with what Netflix/Shondaland has done to these stories which were set in 1880s London but now reside in 21st century Hollywood.
Do you plan to read Gregory and Hyacinth’s books as well or were you thinking of focusing on the older siblings and then maybe getting back to them if it’s confirmed that their stories will be adapted?
Also, the character of Sophie for S4 was cast recently!
someone told me Gregory’s story was good, so I might read it! At this rate I might as well… 😂
very excited for an East Asian Sophie, she’s so stunning! just hoping they don’t do her wrong and that Benedict treats our girl right in the show 🤨
Bro I read there’s a few months ago back to back and they were SOOO good😭
Okay fine I’ll start the Bridgerton books 😂
this one was the only one I'd recommend (so far) 😂
My only issue is that they chose to replace the best example of a good man and partner :) and istead we have pp like collin and benedict :)
yeah, it’s the only one of the books I’ve read so far that I would have liked to see adapted faithfully to the screen. meanwhile I’m hoping they’ll rewrite the heck out of Benedict’s story lol
@@catherineannechiang truly, on the flipside, i hope they dont turn michaela into a toxic partner
And Phillip!!!!! He’s literally the worst and yet he gets to exist in the show
@@Jaszy. LMFAO
Well Gregory isn’t bad at all in his book (from what I can remember). EXTREMELY downbad but I can’t remember him doing anything significantly awful.
I wonder if the show will remove the infertility arch by having John and Francesca have a child.
I liked some moments of the book but really disliked the entrapment into marriage and Michael saying he would make her pregnant so she would have to marry her. It feels insensitive to her fertility storyline and flipped my view of Michael as a good character.
yeah it’s a theme in these books that the men are completely insensitive to the inner world of the heroines and their struggles 🥲