|
|
Post by justinate on Nov 4, 2020 20:51:08 GMT -5
This Christmas Day, there's a new Regency-period drama from Shonda Rhimes, and the teaser trailer shows a brief gay moment - not sure how substantive it will be. Out actor Jonathan Bailey is one of the leads, and the show itself is narrated by Dame Julie Andrews.
|
|
dmagiclight
Full Member
OPEN YOUR MIND AND ANY THING IS CAN HAPPEN
Posts: 1,659
|
Post by dmagiclight on Nov 5, 2020 14:43:48 GMT -5
It shows promise
|
|
|
|
Post by kevvoi on Dec 23, 2020 17:30:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by daleeryohm on Dec 24, 2020 15:34:29 GMT -5
Didn't know Jonathan Bailey was gay. Thought he was cute since first seeing him in Broadchurch.
Too bad he isn't playing gay here, since I can't find it in me to feel drawn to anyone or anything going on in that trailer.
|
|
|
|
Post by justinate on Dec 25, 2020 6:50:04 GMT -5
Sadly this turned into a great, big bust in terms of gay content. This isn't the Christmas treat you might've hoped for. You don't get much more than what you saw in the trailer, and it doesn't involve any of the regular cast. I guess someone in the editing suite had the decency to realize how misleading the first teaser was and that's why they omitted the gay clinch from the second trailer.
My advice? Give your viewership to Tiny Pretty Things instead. If you must watch any episode of Bridgerton, make it episode 6 - at least the hunky duke gets naked frequently in that one. (Even on that front, TPT is better.)
|
|
|
|
Post by jjose712 on Dec 26, 2020 7:26:42 GMT -5
It's the second time that i go to wikipedia to search for an openly gay actor and in the spanish version the actor is "dating" her female costar
|
|
|
|
Post by kevvoi on Dec 26, 2020 7:46:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by justinate on Dec 27, 2020 5:25:39 GMT -5
I'm going to call BS on that explanation as to why "toleration" was chosen as the LGBTQ+ storyline and, worse, assigned to a peripheral character unrelated to the main families.
Yes, I get that British society in the early 1800s was not accepting of homosexuality. Certainly same-sex couples could not live and love openly. But this is the same show which has taken great liberties with historicity when it comes to the representation of Black Britons in Regency society. We have a visibly Black Queen - while it's been speculated that Queen Charlotte had some distant African ancestry, it was certainly not something that was common knowledge, much less celebrated, least of all by the queen herself, who it must be remembered was dismayed when her sons married women of a lower social rank. At a time when the transatlantic slave trade was booming, a Black man is depicted as Britain's most eligible bachelor, the highest peer of the realm - all without comment. No one has to preach tolerance of racial diversity, or interracial marriage.
So amidst this fictional backdrop, if you tell me that the only storyline you can give an LGBTQ+ person is how they are to be "tolerated" by high society, and that too with a supporting character from the main family being the "tolerant" one rather than the LGBTQ+ person being tolerated, I think it deserves a massive eye-roll. It may be ahistorical but perfectly on-theme for Bridgerton to have, for instance, Jonathan Bailey's character of Lord Bridgerton be torn between his male true love and a more conventional bride who can help him father an heir to his title.
Do better, Show. It's not that you have a dearth of male characters who could plausibly be queer. If you can make the male lead Black, you can certainly do some gender-swapping of one of the Bridgerton brothers' love interests to be male, too.
And while we're at it: Britain has a substantial Asian population - in fact, more than double the size of the Black community - yet we don't see a single Asian face on the regular cast?
|
|
dmagiclight
Full Member
OPEN YOUR MIND AND ANY THING IS CAN HAPPEN
Posts: 1,659
|
Post by dmagiclight on Dec 29, 2020 12:49:20 GMT -5
I was not Impressed if there is A season two I will skip it
|
|
|
|
Post by justinate on Mar 29, 2022 8:23:30 GMT -5
|
|
carld2
Full Member
Posts: 2,108
|
Post by carld2 on Mar 29, 2022 10:16:39 GMT -5
I haven't followed Bridgerton that closely, but unless they are queerbaiting, which I hate, this is the exact type of program I would not expect any queer content from, even with Shonda involved. It feels very designed to appeal to a certain audience who might enjoy a Harvey Fierstein uncle in Mrs. Doubtfire, but not a prominent gay storyline in their escapist romance novel. I have a lot of issues with Netflix queer content anyway. I wish there was some type of channel still around just for this type of content - what Here, or whatever it was called, could have been, instead of just having stuff like Dante's Cove which was fine for what it was but also veered on being a half-step above porn you can get on the Internet very easily. |
|
|
|
Post by justinate on Mar 29, 2022 11:32:16 GMT -5
I haven't followed Bridgerton that closely, but unless they are queerbaiting, which I hate, this is the exact type of program I would not expect any queer content from, even with Shonda involved. It feels very designed to appeal to a certain audience who might enjoy a Harvey Fierstein uncle in Mrs. Doubtfire, but not a prominent gay storyline in their escapist romance novel. I have a lot of issues with Netflix queer content anyway. I wish there was some type of channel still around just for this type of content - what Here, or whatever it was called, could have been, instead of just having stuff like Dante's Cove which was fine for what it was but also veered on being a half-step above porn you can get on the Internet very easily. I've not watched the second season (except for the, er, interesting parts) and never read any of the books, but I understand the show has deviated significantly from the latter. I guess at least they stepped back from queerbaiting this time around - perhaps not out of choice but because zero gay content means no opportunity to publicize it prominently in the trailer again. But when they are willing to make POC part of the social fabric with absolutely NO ONE even batting an eye at a Black queen or a viscount marrying a girl from India - then why must the gay community still be taboo? Instead of tweaking the story to convert the viscount's love interest from Kate to Kathani, why not Kyle or Kassim? Or, having set up an opening for the second son Benedict to explore his sexuality in season 1, why not have him find romance among the male artists? That would've gone a long way towards making up for the season 1 queerbaiting. And overall, just a badly missed opportunity. (If the show follows the books, none of the EIGHT Bridgerton siblings are queer, and the only gay supporting character appears in the final volume.) |
|
carld2
Full Member
Posts: 2,108
|
Post by carld2 on Mar 30, 2022 19:45:43 GMT -5
I haven't followed Bridgerton that closely, but unless they are queerbaiting, which I hate, this is the exact type of program I would not expect any queer content from, even with Shonda involved. It feels very designed to appeal to a certain audience who might enjoy a Harvey Fierstein uncle in Mrs. Doubtfire, but not a prominent gay storyline in their escapist romance novel. I have a lot of issues with Netflix queer content anyway. I wish there was some type of channel still around just for this type of content - what Here, or whatever it was called, could have been, instead of just having stuff like Dante's Cove which was fine for what it was but also veered on being a half-step above porn you can get on the Internet very easily. I've not watched the second season (except for the, er, interesting parts) and never read any of the books, but I understand the show has deviated significantly from the latter. I guess at least they stepped back from queerbaiting this time around - perhaps not out of choice but because zero gay content means no opportunity to publicize it prominently in the trailer again. But when they are willing to make POC part of the social fabric with absolutely NO ONE even batting an eye at a Black queen or a viscount marrying a girl from India - then why must the gay community still be taboo? Instead of tweaking the story to convert the viscount's love interest from Kate to Kathani, why not Kyle or Kassim? Or, having set up an opening for the second son Benedict to explore his sexuality in season 1, why not have him find romance among the male artists? That would've gone a long way towards making up for the season 1 queerbaiting. And overall, just a badly missed opportunity. (If the show follows the books, none of the EIGHT Bridgerton siblings are queer, and the only gay supporting character appears in the final volume.) Here's a recent interview with the showrunner, which, sadly, goes back to queerbaiting. I wish these producers would just be fucking honest. tvline.com/2022/03/27/bridgerton-benedict-gay-or-straight-season-2/ |
|
|
|
Post by justinate on Mar 31, 2022 4:19:21 GMT -5
Here's a recent interview with the showrunner, which, sadly, goes back to queerbaiting. I wish these producers would just be fucking honest. Yeah, it sounds like the most we'd have gotten in season 3 is more of Benedict being tolerant towards closeted gay artists at the Royal Academy, because let's face it - there is no way that's a cis-het institution. We might not even get that, because Chris Van Dusen, the openly queer showrunner, won't be returning for season 3. It's possible, of course, that his departure could herald a new era in gay representation, by a showrunner who has the courage to make Benedict bi, but after the season 1 queerbaiting (which was probably the marketing department, more than it was Chris), the show has given us no reason to get our hopes up. (Why is it that gay showrunners are less likely to feature proper gay representation on their shows?) If you think that interview was bad, you should read this one about how Chris believes that season 2 is inspired by the queer cruising experience. I wonder where it was that Chris went cruising for gay men because I've never heard it remotely compare to the marriage mart of Regency-era England, where men were looking for virtuous brides to bear healthy children and elevate their noble family name. qvoicenews.com/2022/03/29/bridgerton-creator-chris-van-dusen-says-queer-cruising-influences-series/ |
|
carld2
Full Member
Posts: 2,108
|
Post by carld2 on Mar 31, 2022 17:30:54 GMT -5
Here's a recent interview with the showrunner, which, sadly, goes back to queerbaiting. I wish these producers would just be fucking honest. Yeah, it sounds like the most we'd have gotten in season 3 is more of Benedict being tolerant towards closeted gay artists at the Royal Academy, because let's face it - there is no way that's a cis-het institution. We might not even get that, because Chris Van Dusen, the openly queer showrunner, won't be returning for season 3. It's possible, of course, that his departure could herald a new era in gay representation, by a showrunner who has the courage to make Benedict bi, but after the season 1 queerbaiting (which was probably the marketing department, more than it was Chris), the show has given us no reason to get our hopes up. (Why is it that gay showrunners are less likely to feature proper gay representation on their shows?) If you think that interview was bad, you should read this one about how Chris believes that season 2 is inspired by the queer cruising experience. I wonder where it was that Chris went cruising for gay men because I've never heard it remotely compare to the marriage mart of Regency-era England, where men were looking for virtuous brides to bear healthy children and elevate their noble family name. qvoicenews.com/2022/03/29/bridgerton-creator-chris-van-dusen-says-queer-cruising-influences-series/That makes zero sense. How would pre-planned matches at lavish galas match up to looking for cock and ass on a hookup app? That screams knowing he was speaking to a gay publication and straining for content. Seeing him claim that queer people on the show are a "priority" just makes me cringe. No they aren't! And that's fine if you just say it! I'd certainly like to see queer men, and from what I have seen since looking more into it, the material with Henry Granville wasn't that bad, but it was also very short and mostly about how a straight character reacted. That he looks up to Greg Berlanti, who has a long history of poor and invisible queer content on most of his shows, speaks volumes. I am already seeing some sites, like Mashable, insist "boring Benedict" should be pushed aside and that they should make Eloise queer and have her as the star of the new season. I wouldn't be that shocked if this happens, since, as you have said before, having women in queer lead roles is now more commonplace/trendy. The one positive I will say is that I am glad he did go along with casting Jonathan Bailey in spite of Bailey being an out gay actor. He seems to have gotten almost universal praise for his work, even as many fault the writing choices. I don't know if I will ever forget Ramin Setoodeh (now a bigwig at Variety, running puff pieces on Meghan McCain) attacking openly gay actors in Newsweek, insisting they could never play straight characters. |
|
|
|
Post by justinate on Apr 2, 2022 10:17:35 GMT -5
More criticism about the lack of queer content. While the writer makes a mistake in the opening line (the show is set in the 1810s, not 1820s - by which time Queen Charlotte was dead), he rightly calls out the show's refusal to explore any queerness whatsoever in season 2 despite making great strides in improving racial diversity which, historically, was less accurate than the (admittedly covert) existence of LGBTQ+ people in Regency Britain. www.gaytimes.co.uk/originals/netflixs-bridgerton-is-high-camp-but-wheres-the-queerness/I would like to think all this criticism might prompt the new showrunner to give serious thought to incorporating an LGBTQ+ arc for Benedict next season, but if the backlash against the queerbaiting in season 1 had no positive impact, then I doubt this will either. |
|
|
|
Post by kevvoi on Apr 7, 2022 7:58:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by justinate on May 4, 2023 17:23:49 GMT -5
The spin-off limited series Queen Charlotte includes a gay subplot of the Queen's Man Brimsley, who also appears in the main show as an older man, in a very minor capacity. In the prequel spin-off, his younger self is played by Sam Clemmett, and he enjoys a gay romance including sex scenes. It is still only a supporting storyline. netflixlife.com/2023/05/04/brimsley-reynolds-end-together-queen-charlotte/ |
|
|
|
Post by kellerbrady on May 6, 2023 17:45:38 GMT -5
Don't bother. Straight scenes almost pornographic, but gay characters get almost nothing. Also they have no plot of their own.
|
|
|
|
Post by justinate on May 8, 2023 6:23:33 GMT -5
Don't bother. Straight scenes almost pornographic, but gay characters get almost nothing. Also they have no plot of their own. Maybe I've become used to getting screwed over on gay representation (particularly by Bridgerton and Shondaland in general, who've been failing at quality gay rep since we lost Connor & Oliver on HTGAWM), because I went in expecting zilch from this and wound up pleasantly surprised by what we got. Yes the gay couple were only supporting characters but given the show's title I didn't expect them to turn one of the leads, the King and Queen, suddenly queer. The Dowager Princess of Wales and Ladies Danbury and Bridgerton are the only other significant supporting characters, arguably more so than the monarchs' valets, so perhaps they could've penciled in a lesbian affair for one of them but as far as gay male representation went, this was it. I also didn't mind the sex scenes we got - both actors got naked, including in the throes of passion (I was thrilled to see Albus Potter's butt after all this time) and it felt commensurate to the time we spent on them personally. Let's be real: if they spent more of their limited airtime boinking, there'd be some LGBTQ+ fans/allies joining rightwingers in complaining that there was nothing to the gay couple beyond sex. IMO, this spin-off was constrained by the low number of episodes granted to it. There was simply too much going on for a 6-episode season, and the decision to lose one of those episodes to a rerun of previous scenes from a different character's perspective meant they effectively had only five to work with. They needed at least a couple more episodes to do justice to all the stories they had running. But what I really disliked was the ending. I don't know if they're going to take it up in the next season of the main show, but it was bad enough that the gays remain the sole persecuted minority in this universe, without denying Brimsley even a closeted happily ever after. Are they testing the waters to see if more meaningful queer representation can be achieved on the main show? I do however suspect that, if they do go there, it won't be Benedict Bridgerton as so many are hoping, but one of the sisters. Anyway, here's an interview with the actors who played the gay couple. www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a43695487/queen-charlotte-reynolds-brimsley-gay/And here's a critique of the representation: www.digitalspy.com/tv/a43751598/queen-charlotte-gay-sex-brimsley-reynolds/ |
|
|
|
Post by kevvoi on May 9, 2023 5:19:14 GMT -5
|
|
carld2
Full Member
Posts: 2,108
|
Post by carld2 on May 11, 2023 23:25:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by merboy on May 16, 2023 12:08:39 GMT -5
Queen Charlotte was a weak show in my book or at least was very very slow moving. Instead of 6 episodes I feel it had to be like 2. The gay storyline was also...kind of boring.
|
|
