MovieChat Forums > whoanelly > Replies
whoanelly's Replies
Not even close to Renaissance or medieval eras.
Renaissance: 15th-16th centuries
Medieval: 5th-15th centuries
Bridgerton is set in 1813, early 19th century, usually referred to as the Regency period (1811-1820).
I’m rewatching it too; it’s been a few years and this is one of my favorites. Love the opening credits, love the music, the superb performances, beautiful costumes, and and excellent pacing. I just wish they had spent a few pounds on superior lighting and cameras.
In the bonus feature of Susan Hampshire’s interview she reports that the actors hated the dialogue and deliberately made fun of it in their performances. Apparently these scenes weren’t reshot and made it into the final cut.
I am guessing the lines about John Churchill’s spurs were among those the actors disapproved. (Cringey indeed, lol). 🤣 But I think Neville’s acting was straight up serious in their delivery. There are other scenes in which he does appear to be goofing off. I’ll try to remember to make note of them.
Ditto.
Idk, were the books funny?
Are you saying I am not a true Austen devotee? Why do you get to decide that?
P.S. I started the thread to call out the posters trolling here about woke programming and sjw. Why would you assume I was referring to you?
lol and you called Me a troll.
Or you’re just grumpy
You just proved that you’re trolling. Constant ugly comments and attacks all the time on the old IMDB boards For
Pride & Prejudice 2005
Emma 1996 (Meridian Television, Kate Beckinsale)
Emma 2009
Northanger Abbey 2007
Persuasion 2007
Mansfield Park 2007
Outlander
The Tudors
Rome
and especially Downton Abbey (ugh, the Mary vs Edith debates!)
Nope. You were. Yes, I suggested you were making an ass of yourself. Now go back and figure out how I came to that conclusion.
Who made those rules?
Wow. Vicious much? (Woke troll?)
I am not trying hard to convince anyone that this is a great show. If you believe that then you’re reading things into my posts that are not there, but you want to believe they are.
I don’t need to convince myself of anything because I know I had a good time watching it. I didn’t expect Austen-quality storytelling. I don’t read regency romances and so hadn’t read the source material so no reason to be disappointed with the changes. There’s lots that’s cringeworthy in this series, but I don’t care. It’s not like I need it to be something elevated that it’s not.
Just enjoying some lightweight entertainment after months of all-too-serious Real Life.
Yes, I made this thread to call out the trolls who like to stir things up on boards for shows and films they never intended to watch. Perhaps I should have just stuck with rolling my eyes and ignoring them.
Some people like to discuss things respectfully online.
Other people like to condescend, belittle, attack, make supposedly clever remarks at someone else’s expense, and spend enormous amounts of time trying to detract from another's’ enjoyment. To me, that is troll behavior.
I read that in multiple sources back in the 90s.
Condescending much?
The historically accurate period drama is a thing of the past. I accepted this over a decade ago. I don’t think it’s as much about attracting millennials (and younger) as many people believe, although I am sure that is part of it. I just think that producers and show runners like making programming like this.
Think about Elizabeth Taylor’s hair and makeup in Cleopatra, and The Taming of the Shrew. Definitely not historically accurate, but very “in” at the time it was filmed. I noticed some “current” hair effects in the 2007 Mansfield Park, with the stringy fringe/bangs dangling down like Keira Knightley’s wedding hairstyle in Love Actually.
P&P95 had the ugliest wigs! They looked so unnatural, especially at the partition. Miss Bingley and Lizzy’s were the worst!
They’re calling it “heightened reality”
<blockquote>According to production designer Will Hughes-Jones, the show takes place in a "heightened reality," where everything is a bit more beautiful, more glimmering, more lovely than real life really is—then, or now. "We're not a historical show. We're storytellers. We want to be historically accurate, but if it's not accurate to the storyline, then we reassess," Hughes-Jones said at a press event.
https://www.oprahmag.com/entertainment/a34993826/bridgerton-filming-locations/
</blockquote>
Well, I guess we’re supposed to believe that she had access to the gossip of the ton because her family was part of it. Plus she was out and attending all the balls and events with her two sisters who were also out. Plus her mother openly gossiped and whinged about the ton at home. Plus she talked with Eloise about a lot of things.
I guess Simon had to come to the Conclusion that his revenge on his father was only hurting himself. That’s the problem with romance novels— plot points are too lightweight. And the main plot point of a romance novel = some obstruction keeping the lovers apart is overcome so they can be together after all.
I would probably watch Belgravia again but I don’t subscribe to epix anymore and there’s really nothing else I want to watch on that service.
The book was okay—not great. Very lightweight and predictable and definitely had all of the Julian Fellowes hallmarks. I recommend listening to the book for Juliet Stevenson’s superb vocal performance. I don’t think I would have finished it if I had been reading it. Lots of bonking in Belgravia too, but mostly off stage, and everyone was covered up.
Ahh, thanks for clearing that up. I could have googled it but I was being lazy lol
🙂
she already showed up Branagh with her oscar/gg/bafta for Howard’s End (And noms for Remains of the Day), which is frequently suggested as the main reason their relationship went kaput.
Yes, I remember it. Iirc written by Rod McKuen, or maybe translated by him (or am I confusing it with another McKuen project?).
I find that song and Rod McKuen a bit too saccharine. Sorry! 🙃
Edit
Just remembered the McKuen translation project Was “If We Only Have Love” by Jacques Brel (can’t believe I remembered that). Also too saccharine for me. Oh, well.