The author vehemently criticizes the creative direction of Bridgerton season 3 under the new showrunner, Jess Brownell, expressing a strong preference for the previous seasons’ showrunner, Chris Van Dusen, and the overall vision of Shonda Rhimes. The central argument revolves around the perceived decline in writing quality, character development, and pacing, with Brownell’s self-proclaimed praise for the season being deemed incongruous with its actual merit. The author contends that valid criticism shouldn’t be dismissed as toxicity, emphasizing that acknowledging flaws in artistic work is essential for growth and improvement. The author further argues against the notion that inclusivity excuses poor writing, asserting that marginalized communities deserve nuanced and well-developed representation, not mere tokenistic inclusion. The critique extends to Brownell’s handling of specific characters and storylines, particularly Colin and Penelope’s romance, which is deemed simplistic and lacking in depth.
The author draws a comparison to the television series Glee, praising its handling of complex themes like LGBTQ+ representation, teenage pregnancy, and social inequality. Glee’s success in portraying diverse characters with humanity and depth, even under challenging circumstances like the death of a lead actor, is contrasted with Bridgerton’s perceived shortcomings. The author laments what they see as the flattening of characters in Bridgerton, reducing them to simplistic tropes rather than multifaceted individuals. This is exemplified by the changes made to characters like Kate, who has become less fiery, and Penelope, whose portrayal as a conservative woman navigating societal expectations is deemed inconsistent with her continued role as Lady Whistledown. The author suggests that Brownell’s understanding of social dynamics lacks nuance, evidenced by her portrayal of “women supporting women” through betrayal and foolishness, rather than genuine solidarity.
The author criticizes the gender-swap of the character Michael to Michaela, arguing that it served no narrative purpose and felt forced. They question Francesca’s sudden realization of her lesbian identity upon Michaela’s arrival, contrasting it with Glee’s more organic and nuanced portrayal of Santana and Brittany’s relationship. This reinforces the author’s argument that inclusivity should not be a superficial checkbox but rather a commitment to authentic and well-developed representation. The critique extends to the portrayal of Benedict, whose storyline revolves primarily around sexual encounters rather than exploring his artistic pursuits, which the author finds disappointing. The core of the author’s discontent stems from the deviation from the source material, Julia Quinn’s novels, and the belief that Brownell’s writing pales in comparison to Quinn’s. The author advocates for sticking closer to the books, suggesting that Brownell should simply adapt Quinn’s stories rather than attempting to inject her own creative interpretations, which are perceived as detrimental to the show’s quality.
The author’s strongest plea is for prioritizing Eloise’s story in the upcoming season. They express concern about the aging of the actors, Claudia Jessie and Chris Fulton, who portray Eloise and Phillip respectively, arguing that further delays would make their portrayal of the characters less believable. This urgency underscores the author’s deep appreciation for Eloise’s character and their investment in seeing her story unfold faithfully. There’s a clear admiration for Claudia Jessie’s performance, praising her ability to imbue Eloise with depth and emotion despite the perceived weaknesses of the script. The author goes so far as to suggest that Jessie leave the show if Eloise’s story isn’t prioritized, highlighting their belief in Jessie’s talent and the injustice of wasting it on a poorly written storyline.
The author draws parallels to other successful productions like Game of Thrones and Hunger Games, questioning the two-year production timeframe for Bridgerton season 3, especially given its perceived mediocrity. This raises concerns about the efficiency and effectiveness of the production process under the current showrunner. The author acknowledges the talent of the actors and casting director, further isolating the writing and showrunner as the primary sources of their dissatisfaction. This reinforces the argument that the show’s potential is being hampered by poor creative leadership. The ultimate hope expressed is for Shonda Rhimes to intervene, either by replacing or closely supervising Jess Brownell, in order to salvage the show’s quality and ensure that Eloise’s story receives the attention and care it deserves. The author’s passionate plea reflects a deep investment in the show’s success and a desire to see its potential fully realized.
The author’s critique centers around the perceived decline in writing quality under the new showrunner, particularly concerning character development and plot progression. They argue for a return to the source material and a greater emphasis on nuanced storytelling, specifically urging for Eloise’s story to be prioritized. The author’s passionate advocacy for Claudia Jessie and her portrayal of Eloise highlights their deep investment in the character and their frustration with the perceived mishandling of her storyline. The critique ultimately calls for a course correction in the show’s creative direction to ensure that it lives up to its potential and the talent of its cast. The comparison to other successful productions further underscores the author’s belief that Bridgerton’s current production timeline and creative choices are hindering its quality. The plea for Shonda Rhimes’s intervention represents a final hope for restoring the show to its former glory.
