But Bridgerton is based off a book series and, while there are some changes, generally follows the story and characterizations of the first book. So not sure how it’s her formula.
Really good point.
I can’t speak directly to how much the Quinn series was changed, manipulated, embellished, or re-imagined for the Netflix series, but …
- This article seems to give some visibility into that:
- I’m not sure that I’m implying that something has to be dramatically massaged to fit into the Shonda Rhimes formula. In other words, some stories might need to be re-imagined to come out of her studio, and some might be 90+% fits just as they are.
But the article I linked to implies – at least to me – that there is some rather classic Shonda Rhimes sauce applied to Bridgerton.
Wouldn’t you say ?
I think I heard they did not come to terms w/ the lead actor. So we’ll need plenty of shots of some new guy’s butt! Can only imagine the casting call…
He’s not really the ‘lead’ in the 2nd book (even book focuses on a different person). So it’s probably going to be fairly easy to just… not have him in the show much.
My wife has read the entire Bridgerton book series.
If they follow those stories, the Duke’s character would become a glorified background cameo, speaking a handful of lines in one scene of one episode per season.
To make anything more of the character, they’d have to invent new narrative threads for him which don’t exist in the books. That’s something they’ve already been doing — the Marina story is lifted from a later book and greatly embellished, and the boxer character is invented entirely. But it probably wouldn’t work for the Duke, because his story is now complete. He’s resolved his emotional conflict and settled into his happy life. Inventing new conflicts for him would grate against this satisfying conclusion.
So it’s probably okay that he’s gone. It serves the larger series, even if the audience is disappointed they don’t get to continue enjoying the incandescent smokeshow in future seasons.