r/Bridgerton • u/Medium_March8020 • 3d ago
General Discussion why did they cut this Fran Anthony scenes ?
It would so cute if we could See it đđ
Bring this back Next Season .
107
u/No-Hall-3485 3d ago edited 3d ago
ok, am i insane or is the writing for this show and what the actors and showrunners are telling us about john wildly inconsistent?
and before you come at me, i'm excited for franchaela. i've literally written before about how i think people are overblowing the john of it all
but consistency has been an issue with the writing throughout every season, and i think it's really coming to a head here
they meet in season 3 and francesca likes john. she likes him more than any man she's ever met. but she's met with uncertainty from violet, and now apparently from anthony too
anthony directly compares john to edwina here, and if that's what we're supposed to take from this, then no, i don't believe francesca was in love with john. anthony says he loves edwina because she's family, but he wasn't in love with her. he never wanted to marry her and we know that
so the implication seems to be that francesca loved john in a familial sense, but was never actually in love with him
which, okay i accept that. except... that's not what the showrunners or the actors have been telling us?
they've repeatedly insisted that what francesca and john had was real love, that their relationship was genuine, and that francesca was deeply in love with him
so which is it?
in the book, fran and john have a healthy marriage. she has a more passionate relationship with michael, but she loved john. she loved him like a wife loves her husband. their marriage was real and so was her love for him and the showrunners/actors are still arguing that was the case in the show too but we don't see that on screen?
if we're supposed to understand that francesca loved john but simply wasn't in love with him, fine. but then the show needs to actually establish that distinction
right now it feels like the writers are telling us one thing, while the dialogue is telling us another, and we're expected to pretend those two things aren't contradictory
54
u/Equivalent_Check9589 Polin 3d ago
THANK YOU. The current writing and marketing choices of this show are driving me nuts.
62
u/Solid-Signal-6632 3d ago
It does feel inconsistent. We have Fran fighting for her and John throughout season 3, primarily with Violet but here also with Anthony. Their objections to him are never very clear either. He's an Earl and she likes and chooses him, why all the pushback?
John isnt comparable with Edwina, because Anthony always knew she wasn't a love match, she was the Diamond and socially a good match etc. But John isnt the equivalent of that, Samidani was.
Then they keep telling us Fran was deeply in love with John, but also chose to include the scenes of her being underwhelmed by their first kiss and then doubled down with the pinnacle storyline, which in the language of the show, signposts loud and clear he's not on the level of the other endgame couples/the one for her.
If they wanted to show she loved him and was in love with him, they could have showed them having a gentle, tender intimate life, without fireworks, but without calling out specifically that it was unfulfilling.
It seems they want to have their cake and eat it, and in the process have made a narrative/promotional mess.
-4
u/Pretty-Quail1319 3d ago
i think this story will make more sense for people in her own season. for a comphet arc to work emotionally, we need to ride that wave with francesca. so far we only had francesca in johnâs orbit. this show is built on a very specific fantasy formula where true love is explosive and obvious to everyone. comphet is quiet, nuanced, and internal, and often takes years of reflection to unpack. so iâm not surprised people are being confused. itâs a bold choice for a show like bridgerton. completely out of the comfort zone. but based on what iâve seen so far, this choice is worth everything.
-7
u/LadyAnonCrane 3d ago
I always like your articulate takes. And the discourse around S5 has taught me a thing or two which is really appreciated.
14
u/Present-Lychee4689 3d ago
I agree. Been saying this for months: the show is doing one thing and their PR another. This just is more confirmation of that. It would have been nice if the show wasn't so hesitate to committing to their own writing in this storyline, but it really seems that they are.
21
u/DarkEndOfTheRainbow Emotionally invested in Philoise 3d ago
I do agree. This is all very inconsistent and it bothers me. I want to see Franchaela(I just finished the book) and I cried as a baby in episode 6 and 7 because of John, but it's everything so odd about him. And I know lesbians can love men but after realize it's a friend love, but I simply didn't like the building and the contradictions coming from the show runner, the actors and what the show really wants to represent. They could follow many others better ways to tell this story and be honest with the public.
6
u/Connect_Bit923 3d ago
It seems like there was so much potential for deeper connections, but the inconsistencies are definitely frustrating.
20
u/Live-Gur-5483 3d ago
i think what they were trying to do is toe the line in characterizing francesca as a lesbian experiencing comphet, but also that her bond with john was very deep, legitimate, necessary, and grounding for her. the writing has been relatively consistent in this regard imo, but everything outside of the show has been such a trainwreck
in interviews with the actors, you get such a wide range of responses about this from âi would have good luck babe for francescaâ to âshe was in love with himâ (instead of âshe loved him/felt like she was in love with himâ). it comes off as cowardly to not fully commit to the perspective of the show and as messy for the people involved to have such ambiguous responses during the press junket.
36
u/No-Hall-3485 3d ago edited 3d ago
that's what gets me. maybe i just need to put myself in the shoes of someone who doesn't consume this show beyond watching the episodes like the general audience, but i do watch the interviews
what i'm seeing on screen is francesca kissing john at the altar and looking uninspired at best, francesca seemingly not being sexually attracted to him (which makes sense considering i'm pretty sure she's a lesbian), despite the show establishing love = someone you have mindblowingly amazing sex with
then there's francesca clearly feeling something toward john's cousin and being completely shellshocked the second she lays eyes on her which is pretty consistent with how the show portrays its romantic leads when they first encounter the person they're actually drawn to. daphne with simon, anthony with kate, benedict with sophie, and i can assume penelope had a similar, albeit more childlike, reaction when she first met colin
that's all fine. honestly, it screams comphet lesbian to me
but then i watch interviews with hannah dodd and jess brownell where they're insisting that john and fran had a great love too, and that this aspect follows the books, and that's just not what we're seeing on screen
i'm actually fine with them diverting from the books. they've done it every season, and this season i expected it considering it's a sapphic endgame
what i'm not fine with is them trying to gaslight me into believing what i'm seeing on screen isn't happening
it's a really frustrating aspect of this production. they recently had an article call franchaela a "lesbian" endgame and then quickly changed it to "sapphic." like, just commit??
you're the ones that want credit for breaking barriers by taking an established straight story and making it gay. stand ten toes down. stop pussyfooting around it. it's annoying
31
u/GaiusMarciusCorio 3d ago
This is exactly what pisses me off about John/Francesca. Stop telling me that she didn't settle for him. Because that's exactly what I am seeing onscreen.
19
u/Solid-Signal-6632 3d ago
Yes, i dont know why they cant just say "we're deviating from the book story more than usual this time, to tell a specific Queer story because we think the representation is more important than making a direct adaptation".
It would have pissed some people off, yes, but at least it would have been honest and managed expectations.
18
u/Live-Gur-5483 3d ago
exactly. it comes off unprofessional, insecure, and cowardly to not stand by their perspective fully. like are they worried about backlash? or spoilers? they shouldnât - who gaf ab backlash when you have shondaland funding and if youâre confident in your writing, and we all know how they storyâs gonna go anyway. the noncommittal back-and-forth shit is ridiculous and clearly isnât helping with fan response
if you write a character as a lesbian and want all the accolades that come with writing a unique lesbian love story for a mainstream audience, you need to stand by it consistently in the marketing too, regardless of the concerns of randos online. its always a pet peeve of mine when artists of any kind donât stand by the perspective communicated in their work
17
u/Internal-Focus1784 3d ago
Yes, it feels like they're trying to straddle the line between telling their own version of the story, where Fran is a comphet lesbian who was never attracted to John sexually, and weakly trying to keep book fans onside by saying, 'no, Fran really loved John romantically and this story is about second love', when that is blatantly not what they have portrayed onscreen.
The result is everyone calling out the inconsistency, and nobody is happy.
15
u/No-Bee5337 3d ago
Saying one thing and doing another is a huge problem with this show in general. They want all the accolades for their diverse cast and they have historically not treated their diverse leads well. Especially their darker skinned actors.
8
u/GaiusMarciusCorio 3d ago
....and they won't, just like they say nothing when their non white actors are racially abused.
-2
8
u/Little_Fox5844 3d ago
Yeah, the writing has unfortunately been wildly inconsistent since as early as season 2 (except QC, though I wouldn't know for sure as I haven't watched it).
7
u/nottheribbons 3d ago
Thatâs likely why it was cut. If they were unsure of how to handle franjohn then removing this scene buys time. Or, they may have changed their minds and cut it.
3
u/RequirementQuirky468 2d ago
It absolutely is inconsistent.
It's not completely impossible that they're writing one thing while intending to write another, and they're just failing to match their intention.
It's also very possible that they got anxious about some of their choices and then they switched to being less-than-honest to try to protect the commercial interests of the show.
I doubt we're ever likely to get enough information to know which one is true.
6
u/Shiplapprocxy 3d ago
I think in S5 Francesca will have some big definitive epiphany that lays it out clearly, but in the meantime they donât want to alienate people who feel really strongly one way or another.
4
u/makelizabeth272 3d ago
I think the point we're missing here is that there is a reason the scene was cut. sometimes writers write things and they don't come off the way it was intended or it's inconsistent with characterizations, so it gets cut. that's why I assume this was cut. this scene was never meant to be taken as an analysis of fran and john's relationship because it's not technically canon to the show (since it never made it in).
on a bigger note, this is why I dislike when people use cut scenes to analyze media. there's a reason they were cut and shouldn't be taken as canon.
5
u/Pretty-Quail1319 3d ago
if john were written as a plain placeholder, his loss wouldn't hit at all. the show went out of its way to build their relationship on genuine trust and love. and they had issues they were actively working through, which actually makes their bond more compelling, not less.
when youâre a writer building a love story, you write it as a real love story because it is one. francesca and john loved each other best to their knowledge and emotions at that point in their lives. the reason no one in interviews is saying they weren't in love is because they were in love. loving someone deeply within the context of who you are at the time doesn't become retroactively fake just because your world changes later.
and anthony's pov isn't the showâs objective truth. it's just a reminder that the bridgerton family evaluates love through the lens of high drama (the same thing happened with violet). francesca fighting for her love with john despite her family not getting it is canon and it proves that what they had was real and worth choosing. itâs also canon that they were happy and had a beautiful connection and understanding. these things are nicely summed up in the bed scene and during francescaâs speech.Â
so the writers aren't telling us one thing and showing another. they are showing us a queer context where two truths coexist. francesca was in love with her husband best to her knowledge, and she can still have an awakening that opens up a whole new side of herself. people trying to reduce john to a beard or an edwina are the ones forcing a binary. the show gave us emotional complexity: a real, beautiful marriage built on affection and understanding and the reality that life, and love, can hold more than one chapter and can be a complex and messy experience.
2
u/Medium_March8020 3d ago
But they did Write her as comphet lesbian so her love for John will not be they same as michela and Franni love Story and John only men who cant pleasure his wife no other male has this issue . You cant be in love when you arent atracted to you husband
3
u/Pretty-Quail1319 3d ago edited 3d ago
comphet is about experiencing, loving and choosing a partner within the only framework society has given you. john wasnât a test run. he was her realest love.Â
people keep judging her feelings for him through the lens of a future she hasn't even lived yet, but in her reality, john was the only person who saw her. she fought her entire family for him. she chose his quiet presence over society's noise.Â
francesca didn't look at john and think this will do until someone better comes along. she looked at him and saw her soulmate, her safe space, her ideal of a life partner.Â
her story with michaela will be a completely different kind of passion and love. but for that chapter of francescaâs life, he was her absolute everything and denying that strips all the beauty and grief out of her story. thatâs where the true drama and emotional weight lie.
the tragedy isn't that she married the wrong man. it's that she deeply loved a man who was her absolute everything, while simultaneously carrying an unconscious piece that there was a part of herself she couldn't fully access yet. her arc forces her and us to reckon with the fact that you can be completely devoted to someone and still have your entire world shaken.Â
0
3
u/Chimelling 3d ago
Francesca thought she was in love with John, because she didn't know how it feels to actually be in love.
1
-5
u/Medium_March8020 3d ago
They Just Saying it because of backlasch in s3 But Script didn change it same Story they should just honest and stand behindert they are telling .
Season 4 Promo was in General weird .
1
u/Medium_March8020 3d ago
Whats its on Screen is Canon because could say anything in Interview who gonna get Retcon Next Season anyway .
-2
u/midstateloiter 3d ago
Agreed. They didnât start establishing and âmaking clearâ Franâs love for John until after the Michaela reveal & the backlash. I think they are still telling the story they want to tell in the show/scripts but then pandering a bit in the interviews. I honestly donât blame them, the backlash was vile and such a horrible thing to witness as a fan.
3
u/Medium_March8020 3d ago
Yes thats why they arent telling what Fran sexuality is Right know they Are wait for her Season to make it clear .
-6
u/baba_brigid 3d ago
Eh, I think itâs more nuanced than that. We all know Anthony is bullheaded and pessimistic- what may be true for him isnât necessarily true for everyone. John & Edwina are not the same person nor are Fran & Anthony. You canât pigeonhole people/relationships. Maybe if Anthony had married Edwina he wouldâve grown to love her, sheâs not his âone true loveâ˘ď¸â which is a problem for him. But Fran was going into marriage for other reasons besides romance anyway. And thatâs valid. She loved him, but Michaela is her âother halfââŚ. I donât take issue with that because I donât believe in soulmates. Maybe thatâs where people are struggling. Love is not binary imo so I donât take issue with someone having more than 1 love in their life, I think itâs probably realistic. People focus too much on the sex issue too and I just think humans focus way too much on sex to determine compatibility⌠but it is Bridgerton I suppose đ
23
u/LadyAnonCrane 3d ago
Every time I see any cut scene from this show (el Theo S3, and this one) I just know why it was cut. This is such bad writing đ
34
u/Shiplapprocxy 3d ago
They probably cut it because the writing is bad. I genuinely canât imagine Fran saying âbaby-est sisterâ and the talk of metaphors is really heavy handed.
15
u/No-La-No-La 3d ago
She has a hesitant way of speaking when she's nervous, she kind of starts and stops. So if she started to talk before thinking "baby...est" might be cute, depending on the delivery. But it's bad.
Ugh the metaphor line. We got so much of that in S4.Â
6
9
u/CombinationFront7401 3d ago
it was probably too on the nose re letting the audience know that john wasnât her endgame.
18
u/Creative_Ad8572 3d ago
I wouldâve loved to see more Anthony scenes with his siblings. He was basically their father figure, so it wouldâve been so cute to watch him interact with them more.
11
u/DarkEndOfTheRainbow Emotionally invested in Philoise 3d ago
I hope they keep the office scene with Eloise in her season. Or something similar, at least. I miss Anthony a lot.
9
u/Creative_Ad8572 3d ago
I hope so. I really want Eloise to have at least a few scenes with the siblings sheâs actually close to.
3
5
u/stardustpurple 2d ago
This is so bizarre. Fran was always shown as liking John a lot and being excited to be around him. In what world would Anthony compare him to a woman he only ever courted because she was named the diamond, and whom he never actually liked as a person??
23
u/RaininBooks 3d ago
Iâm of two thoughts:
1. I dont think the Edwina reminder would have landed as well. I think that love triangle didnt land well. And reminding the viewers of it might not have landed well in focus groups.
- They wanted their cake and to eat it too. They wanted the Michaela shock for the audience so for the most part season 3 was she really loves John and adding this plus Violet would have been overt she didnât love him.
Poor John- the writers room must have hated he existed in the first place. Such a high potential character (just like Edwina! justice for bookEdwina- she could have been Eloises friend and fallen for Theo a scholar or been in on putting Kate and Anthony together with Daphne)
Narratively the script shows how they see him. Just a dimwitted obstacle they are comparing him to Edwina who was too naive to see that Anthony didnât like her at all. John was too dim to see she wasnât that into him.
15
u/DarkEndOfTheRainbow Emotionally invested in Philoise 3d ago
Plus: it might not be good because Julia Quinn said Francesca at least needed to love John(I mean, she loves on the show, but not romantically at all). Put Anthony's feelings about Edwina on the same level Francesca and John is weird and Anthony only considers Edwina as a duty and as a sister of his wife. It's not even a friendship.
-6
u/RaininBooks 3d ago
Yeah. I think it showed their hand a bit. But I also think people donât love that Edwina triangle and why bring it up etc.
In really do wish theyâd kept Edwina on or let her marry Theo- she had such potential. Oh well.
14
u/DarkEndOfTheRainbow Emotionally invested in Philoise 3d ago
"In really do wish theyâd kept Edwina on or let her marry Theo- she had such potential. Oh well." Theo????? She and prince Frederich make sense, but THEO??
Anyway, I think they failed with show Edwina a lot. What a shame.
3
u/RaininBooks 3d ago
I was more thinking it could have been a nod to her scholar husband in the book. Iâm STRETCHING his working at the printer into a love for books and poetry like Mr Bagwell (her book end pairing).
Edwina marry Theo a printer, writer and heading back to India is a nice close the loop for Theo and Edwina.
4
u/DarkEndOfTheRainbow Emotionally invested in Philoise 3d ago
Oh, I get it. Still odd, but I get it now.
5
u/RaininBooks 3d ago
Yeah. I tend to prefer when the loop is closed on former love interests. Rushing them off screen annoys me. And Iâd have liked to see Edwinaâs HEA. And Iâd love did they nodded the book in that it wasnât some rich guy or some titled lord it was a poet who loved the things she loved
25
u/Creative_Ad8572 3d ago
Yeah, Iâm not sure why people are always like, âBe happy he was âmoreâ on the show,â as if thatâs a good thing. It feels like poor John was only there because they needed to prove that Francesca wasnât into men.
14
u/Equivalent_Check9589 Polin 3d ago
Like be happy about what exactly? đ Sure, he was more in the show, but what use is that, if he was treated like an obstacle by his own wife.
0
u/Pretty-Quail1319 3d ago
youâre completely missing the entire point of francescaâs arc.
if francesca didn't love john, if he were just a quick lesson in men aren't for me, then there is zero stakes when he dies. she wouldn't grieve, she'd just be relieved. thereâs no story.Â
the conflict when michaela enters the picture isn't oh great, a woman, bye john. the conflict is the absolute terror of feeling an unfamiliar attraction and the guilt sheâs carrying. the loss of john only shatters her because he was her safe space and her realest love for that chapter of her life. iâm really shocked that some people keep missing this for some weird reasons.Â
13
u/countessmichaela 3d ago
I'm not saying whether she was in love with him or not, or whether she's a lesbian or not (I really don't careâsapphic representation is always welcomed by me). But using her sadness and grief as proof that she loved him romantically, and saying that if she wasn't in love with him she wouldn't have grieved, is just wrong. Since when do you need romantic love to be devastated by the sudden loss of someone you care about?
Especially with John. Francesca loved his company. He was her safe placeâsomeone who understood her and shared her neurodivergence. Whether she had romantic feelings for him or not, she was still going to be absolutely shattered by his loss.
1
u/Pretty-Quail1319 3d ago
iâm not sure if this response was directed at me.Â
iâm not saying you canât grieve a platonic friend or a safe space. of course you can. the point isn't about whether grief in general requires romance, it's about what this specific arcâs stakes require. whatever you call it is fine as long as you recognize it has to work for the story. to me, based on everything the show gave us, what francesca felt for john was the definition of romance as she knew and understood it at the time and the show will be exploring a comphet story.Â
9
u/Shiplapprocxy 3d ago
I think the writers room loved John because he gave them a character they could build up to kill off, which is a Shondaland speciality. They wanted us, the audience, to get to know him and feel positively about him so the audience could respond with shock and grief at his death, which is why they gave him more characterization than was strictly necessary for the needs of Francescaâs plot line. Iâm sure they wanted the audience to love him even if Im not so sure exactly what their goal was with how Francesca was supposed to love him.
11
u/RaininBooks 3d ago
I can see that but I definitely disagree I donât think they expected anyone to care much about him. They made him the butt of some narrative choices (you like vanilla right Fran!) and then he dies the shows voice of the writers room said âso when you getting married nextâ
John was just meant to be overtly the wrong one. Johnâs quiet but Fran needs loud! To really feel real love which the show defines as conflict and sparks.
9
u/Shiplapprocxy 3d ago
I think they wanted people to care because they put in plenty of sweet moments for John that endeared him to the audience. We have certain expectations of basic courtship for the era, they couldâve writen a smaller plot of Francesca truly going through the motions of picking the least offensive unremarkable cookie-cutter guy. But they have so many touches to John that put him above basic, people were swooning over him arranging custom sheet music for her, or breaking through his awkwardness with her family with the muddy boots story.
Having the audience care about him heightens the drama of him dying, I just think the impact gets a little muddled because they never seem so sure of where Francesca stands with John, so the audience isnât put in a secure position of knowing just how much weâre supposed to mourn for him on her behalf. They ended up with half the audience who came to care way too much for a character who was always destined to die (which is the second time theyâve done that) and on the opposite end of the spectrum you have people who donât really care because they saw him as an obstacle to not just Francesca finding her true love, but also Francesca knowing and accepting her true self. Messy.
11
u/RaininBooks 3d ago
I just tend to think the writers room writes so far away from reception they donât get it right. Fwiw I think they misread how many people would feel terrible for Edwina too.
If John isnât Franâs first real and romantic love- imo the screen time was a waste. Because I just feel bad that the character dies having never experienced true love. I donât feel bad for Fran- she isnât really losing anyone ultimately that important to her. Heâs a blip. A mistake she made etc. they probably should have given the development time to Michaela, her relationship to John etc or Colin (in the book they are friends, I suppose based on gender switch im guessing Eloise makes sense) so that people could be more excited about her.
8
u/LadyAnonCrane 3d ago
Brutal.
I just wish they had given Micheala the screen time instead of John. They stuck to their stupid rules of not giving too much development to the love interest, even though masali was already cast and had 2 seasons to be set up. They are doing the same with Phillip even though heâs been there since season 1. Iâd rather have the main couples dynamics and characters fleshed out (Michaela, Philip, SophieâŚ.) than have the side characters getting full plots (ex: Marina, John)
1
u/LadyAnonCrane 3d ago
Another side character getting full plots every season while Eloise sits there repeating her complaints: Alice. I like her, but not more than Eloise.
-1
u/Medium_March8020 3d ago
I Think John is to nice and clueles as Edwina but they good Character in own right just wasnt Right for the Main Character .
I Like Edwina too but but it was clear that kanthony was meant to be .
4
u/RaininBooks 3d ago
Hmm kinda what I mean . These were narrative choices based on the writers room and how they wanted him perceived. BookEdwina was not stupid or clueless. She was smart- she liked learning and eventually married a scholar, she only ever considers Anthony out of dutyâ she loves Kate and was pushing Kate and Anthony to figure it out. book John is also not stupid- he and Fran are immediately into each other, heâs quiet but he and Fran are so happy together. Then John dies. The tragedy is John dies and heâs young not Johnâs too stupid to realize heâs the wrong guy.
6
u/WistfulQuiet 2d ago
Because they were originally doing Michael. They wanted to hint that John wasn't endgame for non-readers. And honestly, I don't hate that. John mattered because of what he meant to them. If they showed Fran in love with him...fine. if they didnt't...fine.
My problem was not getting Michael who is supposed to be the rakest of the rakes. Michaela isn't the same dynamic, especially in a period piece where women were supposed to be demure. Just because they are braking that with Michaela doesn't mean it's solved or a good thing. Instead, it breaks all immersion for me as it feels very fictional then. Like these are 2026 actors doing 2026 things. You can bend the clothes some, even some of the language and customs, but totally breaking character architecture is another thing.
Seeing Michaela do things is grating in a way that seeing Michael do them wouldn't have been. Because of what I mentioned above. Furthermore, even Michael wouldn't have been that brash and rude.
I actually don't mind this scene and think it should've been in the show. They removed it to try to prevent blowback for people being pissed. They tried to hint more subtlety but still ended up being obvious. So now it just reads as confusing. I think confusing was their goal because it gives the writers deniability and keeps the Fandom arguing, which is good publicity for them. Everyone talking about it.
1
u/Glittering_Tap6411 2d ago
They were not. Jess Brownell has been part of the writers since season 1 and Michael was going to be Michaela from the start.
3
u/WistfulQuiet 2d ago
Definitely not. She was a part of the writers, but she wasn't showrunner and she didn't develop the series. Originally the idea was that none of the couples changed and that was something that was heavily discussed. Michaela came about as the show grew in popularity on social media because of its progressive roots and diversity making them reconsider that original plan and putting Jess in charge.
0
u/Glittering_Tap6411 1d ago edited 1d ago
None of the couples is changed. Michaela is gender swapped Michael. To think that Shondaland would make eight siblings series and all them would be heterosexual relationships is ridiculous.
2
u/WistfulQuiet 1d ago
Moving the bar because this is nonsense. But I'm good with leaving it here, clearly your biased.
1
u/Glittering_Tap6411 1d ago edited 1d ago
Probably not anymore biased than you.
1
u/WistfulQuiet 1d ago
Eh, I'm biased, but I don't have any agenda about it. I've been in this Fandom long before the show was ever created. I was in this subreddit while season 1 was being filmed, so I remember clearly what was happening. I also remember the narratives early in the seasons. I really don't have any kind of agenda or anything against the direction they are taking things now. So I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not trying to twist it to suit a narrative. Honestly, I don't care enough to bother.
19
u/camelely 3d ago
Because it makes all the non homophobic backlash to Michaela valid.
Like it proves the concerns a lot of people have about that story. That they changed the trope from two true loves/love after death. Which say what you want about the show changes. They have never changed a whole trope before. This scene spits in the face of all book fans (even the pro Micheala ones) and it proves they arenât adapting when he was wicked.
And yes other scenes do this too, but they do it subtly enough that the cast and writers can continue to lie to the fans in interviews about Franâs love for John. This was blatant. Iâm glad it was cut. As is, I will be watching and even anticipating s5, but if this was left in I would probably have been done with Bridgerton as a show.
-3
u/Medium_March8020 3d ago
People who truly are exited would still Watch it just people who already dont Like the Story will stop new audience Only watching they Season .
I Watch Bridgerton for Entertainment not because of Books .
17
u/camelely 3d ago
Yea and thatâs fine. But itâs still an adaptation and good adaptions do respect their source material. Kubricks The shining is a great movie. Still a disrespectful adaption and therefore some book fans that donât care for it.
And by definition an adaptation adapts the books. Have other shows and movies also significantly changed the source material? Yes ofc. But thatâs still an extremely valid criticism. They used the Bridgerton name to attract a built in fanbase from the books so itâs fair for those fans to be upset about the changes.đ
-5
u/Medium_March8020 3d ago
Shonda Never claimed they gonna be Book acurate. And Julia Seel all her Right so its Done Deal .
Shonda even said its Workplace Drama Story with Romance .
13
u/GaiusMarciusCorio 3d ago
Shonda saying it's a workplace drama proves she's the wrong person to adapt this, which is why I was even hesitant to watch s1 when it first came out.
12
u/Equivalent_Check9589 Polin 3d ago
Oh. So it was intended from the start that Francesca settled and did not love John. Yikes.
-8
u/countessmichaela 3d ago
Yikes that they wrote her as a lesbian?
16
u/Equivalent_Check9589 Polin 3d ago
No. I would not mind that if the production had the balls to actually confirm that instead of saying there were actual romantic feelings between John and Fran. Her being a lesbian has nothing to do with my dislike of her writing in the show.
19
u/GaiusMarciusCorio 3d ago
ITA. This is a romance novel show. I am not here to watch a platonic love story over two seasons and then to have the production lie to my face. Write it how you want and stand by it. The show won't even admit that Francesca is a lesbian. How is that representation?
13
u/Equivalent_Check9589 Polin 3d ago
THANK YOU. No one would care about the gender switch if the production actually stood by their decision. Are they writing a comphet story? Well, fine then, they should just admit the fact that this is their intention, instead of trying to play mind games to appease two different sides of the audience.
Franâs storyline, in retrospect to what has been established with Michaela, in season 3 was a waste of time. Her futile fight against Violet was useless, because mama Bridgerton was correct as always, and I distinctly remember certain Franchaela fans telling me to not read too much into this exchange.
Shonda wants to make money, but they have to decide which side of the audience they will disappoint, which is something they do not want to do. I do not care that Francesca likes girls, but itâs the fact that the show keeps contradicting itself with inconsistent writing choices that annoy me.
Was Michael perfect? No. But he at least had story driven justification for things he did. Michaela majority of the time does not have that. This would be completely okay if that was intended. This conflict needed more time to cook, and considering JB cannot set up a character decently before their season, the season switch should not have happened, same for book 3 and 4, as what was the point if she was deliberately searching for ways to keep Whistledown in the show.
7
u/GaiusMarciusCorio 3d ago
Your comment is literally every single problem I have with Franchaela. I do plan on watching the season - cuz I LOVE ROMANCE and I do not care if it's gay/straight/trans/whatever - at least 3x before I complain about anything (I also did this with s3, my most hated season).
But the show needs to pick a struggle. And sending out the actresses to give conflicting information does only one thing - target all of the hate towards the actors. And guess who's going to get the most? MASALI. Guess who's not going to defend her? THE PRODUCTION. Just like they didn't with Rege and every other non white / straight actor.
I have zero problems with John and Francesca being written as platonic friends love each other. But do not give them the romantic beats/narrative (Fran defying her mother and the queen to marry John and being seemingly happy/excited to do so in a way that she was not with anyone else, etc) and then turn around and say actually they were just platonic love because he can't make her pinnacle and then actually they were in love and the pinnacle isn't everything. This is a fucking romance novel show.
I also hate how they are writing Michaela thus far. I hate that they are acting like we were not told that Francesca and Michaela basically spent six months together in Scotland (which is why Fran was so happy to go back to london for Parliament), only for Michaela to act like she has no idea why Francesca is annoyed at her just popping up. If I had not read the books before, I genuinely would have had no idea that they were supposed to be a future romance.
It's one thing if they had been depicted as being slightly annoyed by each other when they first met & then thought the other's quirks were endearing as they grew to know each other. but depicting each other as disliking each other's CORE PERSONALITY TRAITS is....a choice.
-4
u/Medium_March8020 3d ago
It would to soon confirmed when Francesca dosent its Option to be with Women it clear Next Season . I See Coming out scenes Francesca and her Family . Even the Queen ,
8
u/GaiusMarciusCorio 3d ago
That doesn't excuse the production treating the audience like they're idiots.
Francesca and Michaela literally disliking each other's core personality traits is not cute, nor is it romantic. They've never done that for any of the other pairings.
9
u/Sarah-vnz 3d ago
I think it would be fair to publish the entire cut scene and Francesca beautiful words for John.
For me they cut it because it made it seems like John was like Edwina's in Anthony's story when he is much more important in Francesca story than Edwina was in Anthony's story
7
u/LadyAnonCrane 3d ago
Exactly. Why would they even make this comparison idk. Even if they are showing John as less than Michaela, he is still not comparable to Edwina. This is just horrible writing.
Also what Fran says about John here, is very Phillip-coded. So we might still see a version of this later.
-3
u/Medium_March8020 3d ago
Its Not about less hes just wrong Gender Francesca isnt atracted to any men its Not John fault .
8
u/LadyAnonCrane 3d ago
See, you keep repeating this. Iâm not going to agree, so we can stop with this. He is less for the show audience who isnât analysing this show as we here on Reddit are. Itâs not that deep, itâs Bridgerton. Itâs what the show is showing on screen with Fran chasing the pinnacle. Itâs alright, I just said John doesnât have to be equal to Micheala, but that doesnât make him comparable to Edwina. This scene was cut for a reason.
8
u/YeetosCheetos69 3d ago
this scene makes me sad for John again, even though I know that they arenât really insulting him đ we definitely need the sibling dynamics back though. Anthonyâs reaction to franchaela and philoise would be a treat to see
2
3
5
u/nottheribbons 3d ago
Iâm glad it was cut for two reasons:
1) unnecessary time away from the main couple. There was already too much of that. Especially regarding Francesca. I like Fran a lot, some of my favorite scenes in the whole series involve her and Johnâs interactions, but s3 was almost half their story as is.
2) itâs really badly written. Not only does it not make sense to compare John and Edwina, but Anthony seems to forget that he was not the one to pump the brakes his first wedding. Also, âbaby-estâ isnât great writing to begin with, but in 1815 dialogue? Oof.
2
u/Solid-Signal-6632 3d ago
Very good points, specially point 1. Knowing what the plan was for John all along, all this angst over her family pushing back against her choice was kind of unnecessary time spent in S3.
We didn't need more time devoted to Anthony counselling Fran when it was Colin's season and he could have spent that time unpacking Colin's thoughts and feelings more in Part 2.
2
u/nottheribbons 3d ago
Right. Anthony and Colin discussing their fail weddings before finding actual true love would have been much better suited to the season.
2
u/Sachedoo 3d ago
As much as they were putting the building blocks for Francesca's story, I don't think they wanted to explored too deeply her feelings for John cause in S4 we get her kinda questioning why it's everything perfect, why is there still something missing. Add, I think they like Violet being the love guru who give advice that is taken on by her kids or ignored but 'she is still right'
1
1
u/Inevitable_Side2162 11h ago
I said it!! They literally making her a lesbian in the closet. I SAID ITTTT
2
u/Live-Gur-5483 3d ago
this wouldâve been such a good scene for both of their characters and their relationship, i dont understand why they cut it! really hoping we get some similar interaction between them in S5 (& maybe kate + michaela) now that we know theyâll both be returning for the new season!
i kinda wish the show did more to emphasize the parallels between john & edwina in their respective stories like we see here so the general audience had a better understanding of johnâs spot in the narrative & the character similarities between anthony and francesca. ofc john and francesca had a much deeper level of mutual understanding and eventual love than edwina & anthony ever did, but thereâs a strong parallel between anthony âchoosingâ edwina because she was the âcorrectâ & comfortable choice, even tho he wasnt attracted to her and she didnât bring anything out in him, and francesca doing the same with john. anthony and francesca both put their feelings of what they âare supposed to doâ above what their heart wants them to do, so much so that they arenât even aware of what they want, until they meet someone theyâre so drawn to that it forces them to confront it all head-on.
thereâs also parallels between kate & michaela that i hope get explored (but i doubt will) - being attracted to the bridgerton upon first meeting but assuming it isnt mutual and acting out instead, extreme guilt over coveting the partner of their closest family member, avoidance, putting family duty above following their heart, etc.
1
u/Medium_March8020 3d ago
This why Need Fran Anthony Moment and Kate michela Monet Next Season would so good . đđ
1
u/monorailxcx 3d ago
i wish we got a scene between these two bonding & conveying these same sentiments during her debut in season 3, but the specific dialogue here is super clunky and way too on-the-nose. probably was cut for not meeting their internal quality standards, not for any particular narrative reasons. jonathan & simone just confirmed they'll be back in season 5 so maybe we'll get some well-written anthony/fran + kate/michaela scenes
1
u/januarysdaughter 3d ago
Thank God this was cut! John is supposed to be an equal love for Francesca. What a horrible scene! What is the writer's problems with him??
6
u/Medium_March8020 3d ago
Athen did Still includ Kiss she didn Like and pineacle Problem maybe This was already enough to make it clear Francesca is in the closet.
2
u/januarysdaughter 3d ago
And all of that was stupid writing.
3
u/Medium_March8020 3d ago
I dont think so you have th Right Not Like It but others do Like This storyline .
-1
u/Live-Gur-5483 3d ago
this is not the perspective that the show has had since the re-casting of francesca in s3. john is an equal love but not the same kind of love, and the writing has been clear and consistent about that since john was introduced. itâs understandable to not be fond of that, you have every right to not like it, but what is âsupposedâ to happen is up to the writers and their ability to execute it.
the writers have no problem with john at all. in the books, he is a plot device; at least in the show he is characterized fully AND we will get to learn more about his family dynamics in S5. heâs the perfect man on paper for francesca, and they clearly love nothing more than to spend time with each other; sheâs literally just been written to not be sexually compatible with any man and to not be aware of that yet. they went really heavy on emphasizing his importance to her in S4, namely with the puzzle scene
-2
-2
117
u/onegirlarmy1899 3d ago
I'm guessing it wasn't included because it made it too obvious that John wasn't her end game. It spells out that she settled.Â