Small Talk: Talk of the Ton

[bijoux]

I'm doing it on my phone. First click the GIF to enlarge it, then hold your finger on the GIF for a few seconds. There should appear a pop up of sorts with different options, one of them being 'open image in new tab'. Click that and copy the link of that tab and paste it into your message here.

[SonofaBiscuit]

47 minutes ago, bijoux said:

I'm doing it on my phone. First click the GIF to enlarge it, then hold your finger on the GIF for a few seconds. There should appear a pop up of sorts with different options, one of them being 'open image in new tab'. Click that and copy the link of that tab and paste it into your message here.

Thank you!! My phone is making me do this in a convoluted sort of way (open in Tumblr app, click on GIF I want, hold finger on GIF and open in Safari browser (no option given at this point to open in a new tab), THEN when the Tumblr page opens in Safari, hold finger again on said GIF, where I am given the option of opening in a new tab, and copy and paste the link). But it worked! So thank you for taking the time to explain, I appreciate it!

[eleanorofaquitaine]

Another series that I think is tailor-made for a streaming series is Lauren Willig's Pink Carnation books, which are a reinterpretation of The Scarlet Pimpernel.  Those books are a good combination of romance and adventure (at least the several I read were - I don't think I finished the series).

[marina to]

I would love to see Amanda Quick/JAK's Burning Cove series adapted. Great settings, interesting characters, suspense.

[chaifan]

On 4/8/2022 at 5:51 PM, eleanorofaquitaine said:

I have to say, I agree with that article that I am surprised that we haven't seen more romance-based series in development. I agree with the author that sexism is part of the reason why because there is a huge audience for this stuff and one would think they would like producers, etc, would like to make money.

 

This may be an unpopular opinion, but here goes... I think one of the main reasons for not seeing more existing romance novel/series being picked up for TV is money.  Yes, there is a market, but it's being catered to by things like the Hallmark Channel, Netflix, etc., who can churn out a gazillion romance-novelesque movies every year.  They have no need to pay for rights or royalties to existing authors, as their staff writers can churn this stuff out in no time.  Romance plots are, for the most part, notes on a theme.  Most don't require extensive research, world building, etc.  I don't think it's sexism, I think it's dollars.  The studios can create their own product cheaper than buying existing books.

Yes, there are exceptions - Bridgerton, Outlander, etc.  But even with Bridgerton, is the reason for the popularity of it the source material itself, that it's a "romance novel", or what Shonda Rhimes did with it - interracial casting, modern music, no strict adherence to period wardrobe, etc.? 

[janie jones]

17 minutes ago, chaifan said:

Yes, there are exceptions - Bridgerton, Outlander, etc.  But even with Bridgerton, is the reason for the popularity of it the source material itself, that it's a "romance novel", or what Shonda Rhimes did with it - interracial casting, modern music, no strict adherence to period wardrobe, etc.? 

I can only speak for myself, although I don't believe I'm alone, but I would certainly not be watching Bridgerton if not for the latter.

[Ohiopirate02]

52 minutes ago, chaifan said:

This may be an unpopular opinion, but here goes... I think one of the main reasons for not seeing more existing romance novel/series being picked up for TV is money.  Yes, there is a market, but it's being catered to by things like the Hallmark Channel, Netflix, etc., who can churn out a gazillion romance-novelesque movies every year.  They have no need to pay for rights or royalties to existing authors, as their staff writers can churn this stuff out in no time.  Romance plots are, for the most part, notes on a theme.  Most don't require extensive research, world building, etc.  I don't think it's sexism, I think it's dollars.  The studios can create their own product cheaper than buying existing books.

Yes, there are exceptions - Bridgerton, Outlander, etc.  But even with Bridgerton, is the reason for the popularity of it the source material itself, that it's a "romance novel", or what Shonda Rhimes did with it - interracial casting, modern music, no strict adherence to period wardrobe, etc.? 

Hallmark is their own breed of romance with very defined rules.  It is easier for them to write their own scripts that abide by those rules than to try to adapt someone else's work.  The hallmarks of a Hallmark romance are little to no sexual tension, low angst, and only one chaste kiss at the very end.  It's not an issue of money, but control.  

[eleanorofaquitaine]

In my view, it's a devaluing of women as the primary audience. Which is the way it's always been. What's one of the biggest insults to a "prestige" TV show? "It's become a soap opera." As if soap operas didn't make huge amounts of money in their hey day. Romance novels have basically been propping up the publishing industry for a while now, and yet they are considered as lesser because they primarily serve a female audience. 

Bridgerton has done well because a). it actually delivers the closest to the romance novel experience, including sex; b). because Shondaland actually put some money into it by having high production values and good actors, therefore signaling it respects it audience; and c). smartly expanding the audience through better representation.

It's a formula that other streaming services could use - and make money with - if they respected the audience who is responding to it. Lord knows, Marvel and Disney don't seem to have run out of ways to make Marvel shows. (And I am not knocking Marvel but no one seems to argue that there is not a market for creating more MCU programming).

Edited April 12, 2022 by eleanorofaquitaine

[IntrovertRed]

7 hours ago, chaifan said:

Yes, there are exceptions - Bridgerton, Outlander, etc.  But even with Bridgerton, is the reason for the popularity of it the source material itself, that it's a "romance novel", or what Shonda Rhimes did with it - interracial casting, modern music, no strict adherence to period wardrobe, etc.? 

I had no idea Bridgerton was a romance series until I finished the show. I happened upon it on Neflix one day and loved the actors.  While I do agree with your points, it's not what drew me back for season 2.  I enjoy the family dynamic and also wanted to see what happened with Penelope.  I'm sure the pandemic helped when so many people were home and streaming, right (for first season)?  In my younger days, I used to read romance novels, but got tired of the monotony, but I might read this series because of the show.  And I much enjoyed the second season compared to the first, Rege aside.

[Door County Cherry]

8 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

It is easier for them to write their own scripts that abide by those rules than to try to adapt someone else's work.  The hallmarks of a Hallmark romance are little to no sexual tension, low angst, and only one chaste kiss at the very end.  It's not an issue of money, but control.  

They're loosening things up a bit with the formula but this is right; although they have adapted previous books to their formula. 

10 hours ago, chaifan said:

This may be an unpopular opinion, but here goes... I think one of the main reasons for not seeing more existing romance novel/series being picked up for TV is money.  Yes, there is a market, but it's being catered to by things like the Hallmark Channel, Netflix, etc., who can churn out a gazillion romance-novelesque movies every year.  They have no need to pay for rights or royalties to existing authors, as their staff writers can churn this stuff out in no time.  Romance plots are, for the most part, notes on a theme.  Most don't require extensive research, world building, etc.  I don't think it's sexism, I think it's dollars.  The studios can create their own product cheaper than buying existing books.

I don't agree with this.  I do think it's sexism.  Any genre-mysteries, sci fi, thrillers...etc. have their tropes and conventions.  Romance isn't alone in that.  (And I'd disagree that it takes no research to write a romance novel.  There are plenty of romance novelists who do extensive research into the world they're portraying.) 

The existence of mystery movies, comic book movies, sci fi movies, family drama movies...etc. hasn't precluded the adaptation of similar books or plays into television series.  I don't see any reason  why the existence of romcoms should block the development of romance book based tv series.  

As for the cost for the rights, it's not like there's is currently a bidding war for the rights to these books.  It's probably not cost prohibitive.  Plus, Hollywood options books all the time that they never develop or even option rights for foreign TV shows or books that end up looking nothing like the story its based on and they probably could have forgone the rights completely. 

[ouinason]

I think that Stephanie Laurens' Cynster family books would translate pretty good to TV, but the family is just enormous.  Same for Grace Burowes's books, which are nearly all interweaved at some level, to the point where it's practically  the "Grace Burowes Regency Romance Universe" rather than truly several book series.  there are so many modernly written series that I think would show off well on screen with the right adaptations.

[CountryGirl]

I should probably be embarrassed by myself as I just purchased most of Pat McGrath's Bridgerton collection. But can you really have too much makeup?

https://www.patmcgrath.com/pages/bridgerton

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, CountryGirl said:

I should probably be embarrassed by myself as I just purchased most of Pat McGrath's Bridgerton collection. But can you really have too much makeup?

https://www.patmcgrath.com/pages/bridgerton

I have debated getting some of this collection especially that blush palette, but I realize I literally have enough blush already in my collection to last me the rest of my life.  Like I have multiple powder blushes that are a decade plus old that I still use.  I have one that is the blush that never ends.

[CountryGirl]

13 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I have debated getting some of this collection especially that blush palette, but I realize I literally have enough blush already in my collection to last me the rest of my life.  Like I have multiple powder blushes that are a decade plus old that I still use.  I have one that is the blush that never ends.

Same with blush and eyeshadow but yet here I am, giving Sephora more of my $$$.

[GrannySmith]

One of the hotel tea rooms in London is advertising a Bridgerton Tea. Yes, I plan to go when I’m in  London in July. 

[Scarlett45]

On 4/29/2022 at 8:35 AM, CountryGirl said:

I should probably be embarrassed by myself as I just purchased most of Pat McGrath's Bridgerton collection. But can you really have too much makeup?

https://www.patmcgrath.com/pages/bridgerton

Do not be embarrassed. That blush palette was calling to me, and I hate blush- I did not get it, because I have spent too much money on makeup and clothing this spring (I am about 3 shades lighter than I normally would be this time of year because we have spent two years in doors!)

[Scarlett45]

For those interested in historical POC 18th century aristocrats of France and England , check out this YouTube video/podcast episode.

[andromeda331]

5 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

For those interested in historical POC 18th century aristocrats of France and England , check out this YouTube video/podcast episode.

I watched it. It was very good.