Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

NoNeinNyet

Member
  • Posts

    121
  • Joined

Posts posted by NoNeinNyet

  1. I was just surprised at some of the fervor of the objections by people. I guess that was bound to happen once the show started to make more obvious changes. I feel the changes make watching the show more interesting rather than watching something exactly like the book.

     

    Almost every change that they've made so far has worked well within the universe of the show so I have faith that they'll handle the change with the ring well until they show me otherwise.

    • Love 1
  2. Interesting not much talk of it here. What do you guys think? Does having Jamie give her the ring at the wedding bother you? Does it really mean much to the later scene where he does give it to her in the book?

     

    It all depends on how they handle it. If Jamie still goes off to collect his share of the quarterly rent then they better come up with a good reason to need to go get that money as soon as they get back to Leoch. I'm fine with things being done differently as long as something pointless or untrue to the characters isn't slotted in as a replacement.

    • Love 1
  3. I guess my one disappointment with the wedding ep was the fact that, in the book, Claire got married to Jamie in the same church that she had married Frank in!  It was newly built during her and Jamie's wedding.  I think that would have made a nice realization for her, and a nice bit of freak-out, and I'm a bit confused as to why they felt the need to change it for the show.

     

    I always thought that her getting married at the same church was a little too coincidental. Also, in this week's podcast, Ron pointed out that they had already done something similar by having her visit Leoch and having sexytimes with Frank before she went back. A quick wedding with no family there actually felt like Frank being incredibly considerate of Claire's feelings since she pretty much had no family and also probably hadn't stayed in one place long enough to gather a bunch of friends around her. Their wedding guests would have mostly have been his family and friends. I thought it was a really great decision.

    • Love 4
  4. I would safely assume that from this point forward it will be all Jamie. In a way, having Jamie be more a background character, allows the viewers to get to know him at the same time Claire is getting to know him, especially through the wedding night and the "honeymoon." That's really when we as readers find out more about Jamie and who he is. I think the Wedding episode will be Jamie's breakthrough. 

     

    It's why I'm interested to see how they handle the beating and the aftermath of that. I've been listening to the audiobook in short spurts and they finally just got back to Leoch. Jamie tells Claire so much about himself while he's trying to get back in her good graces/give her enough information so that she might understand where he is coming from.

     

    It's also why I'm concerned about how much they have to fit into the second half of the season. I'm fine with less Jamie pre-wedding but I'm so concerned about how much of the stuff that defines his character will have to be compressed in order to fit the actual plot of the rest of the book into the last eight episodes. I do love the idea of the first half of the season mostly being about Claire and how she fits into this world and the second half being more about Jamie and how Claire finds her place now that she's with him. That may very well be why they've divided the season in the way they did.

    • Love 4
  5. At the 92nd Street Y discussion panel, Diana felt compelled (while talking about the wedding and sex scenes in general) to note that Sam has a fine mighty fine arse.  Then they high-fived.  So I'm guessing, yes.  :)

     

    I could already tell that his arse is probably pretty fine just by how his kilt hangs off of it. Of course, I do still want to see it in all of its uncovered glory. For reasons.

    • Love 10
  6. Also, ratings aren't the end all and be all for premium cable networks. What Starz is really concerned about is whether Outlander was the reason why they got a bunch of new subscribers. It's why the released the first episode online a week early. Then you had two weeks to decide whether you wanted to subscribe in time to see episode 2. Ratings can be convoluted in the first place but they're also mostly meaningless for a network that doesn't need to use them to set ad rates.

  7. I'm excited that from the picture that have been posted it looks like we're going to get a flashforwardback to Claire and Frank's wedding too! Double the fun.

     

    Ever since it was clear that we would continue to flashforwardback to Frank in episode 2, I've been hoping that we'd get to see some of Claire and Frank's wedding. It just works out too well for them not to do it.

    • Love 3
  8. At first, I was a little put off by the scene with the general because it was just so different from the book but it really served to make Black Jack look that much more dangerous by comparison. Also, by endearing Claire to the MacKenzies during the previous episode, it took away a lot of the work needed for Dougal and Claire to discuss what happened to Jamie allowing them to hand that story over to Black Jack and just leave Dougal finally being convinced that Claire is not a spy just by drinking from the spring and saying as much without being burnt from the inside.

     

    Looking forward to a rewatch now that I now how the episode goes. Also, I'm so glad that everybody knows that Jamie is a virgin now. Wedding, wedding, wedding!

    • Love 1
  9. I don't have access to the Oxford English Dictionary but flat out Googling it told me that the word honeymoon originated in the 16th century as "hony mone."

     

    I kind of wonder if the word existed yet wouldn't quite mean the same as it would to 20th century Claire. Either way, it's probably understood as the time period immediately following a wedding so the innuendo would be understood.

     

    Speaking of 20th century Claire, she was drop dead gorgeous in the scene where she was shaving Frank. She's still beautiful even with the messy hair from traveling by horseback for days and days but it was quite a contrast to see her with such glossy, tamed curls. I have to go back and watch that again because of course my focus was more on Tobias Menzies's two very different performances. This episode was so wonderful.

    • Love 1
  10. I'm wondering if there is something wrong with my podcast app because I have updated several times and still can't see episode 5's podcast. I have an iphone and use their podcast app to keep track of all my podcasts. I'm definitely subscribed to the Outlander podcast. I'm just really frustrated that it won't show up. So frustrated that I decided to register for an account just so I could ask the rest of you listeners for help and see if any of you are having the same problem! :) Love the show and love the podcast (although I agree Terry can take over sometimes to the detriment of things)

     

    They seem to be really inconsistent about putting the episodes in the RSS feed. I use Downcast and I'll get the same episode more than once and then the new one won't come out until several days after it came out.

  11. All of the characters had a really good episode. Edgar continues to be my favorite and Jimmy and Gretchen are so wonderful. That breakup was a punch in the gut.

     

    I also like that they're continuing to have Becca show up because she explains a lot about Lindsay. Lindsay a lot more like her sister than she'd like to admit but the fact that they're not exactly the same also explains how Lindsay came to cheat on Paul.

  12.  I don't know how far in advance of airing they record these, but I really, really hope they do decide to separate them.  I doubt that they're reading here for feedback though.

     

    They can't be too far ahead because Ron did mention on this week's podcast that they were now to a point where episodes are airing. I hope that they can at least make a change for the second half of the season.

  13. Well, here goes.  I am a lurker/reader and very infrequent poster.  I have been reading now for several days the many, many posts and opinions here on the infamous strapping scene.  If I may...I am a 62 year old Gammy who has read this opening book at a minimum 12 times.  And ladies (and gentlemen) I never gave a single thought to that scene!!  It was deserved, she disobeyed, and he did what he had to do.  End of scene.  (donning fire retardant suit now)  As someone born in perhaps a decidedly different era from many of you, allow me to assure you I was spanked on a regular basis.  Not BEATEN, spanked and there is a difference.  Not only by my parents, but by neighbors, their friends, my grandparents, teachers, you name it.  If any adult thought I needed a good swat....no hesitation to give it!!  ouch!  However, I sure learned what was acceptable and permissible quite clearly.  And, even more shocking.......(get ready now), I SPANKED MY OWN CHILDREN on a regular basis!!!  I see many of you swooning now.  Sorry to shock your system like this, but trust me, anyone born in the 50's, 60's or even 70's got their butt walloped on a regular basis! This grand horror at spanking/smacking is a somewhat new idea.  Those of us of a certain age may think differently.  Now, I'll admit if my own husband had decided to 'spank' me I would likely have objected...forecefully!  But nonetheless, the idea of what occurred here left no huge impression on me, in multiple readings.  He needed to punish her for her dangerous actions but much more he needed to IMPRESS on her the danger she put them all in by her actions.  I found it totally in character, most acceptable and I hope they have filmed it exactly as DG wrote it.  Turn on Jaime.....for this?  Of course not!

     

    Spanking a child is a lot different than spanking a grown woman, though. I'm 30. I was spanked as a child and should I have children of my own, I might spank them depending on what my spouse and I agree on for discipline. I understand why Jamie spanked her in that situation but the joy that he took from it still seems out of character for me and I hope that they downplay or leave that part out.

    • Love 2
  14. The book itself is contradictory--Dougal says he would have married Claire if he'd not been married vs. Jamie saying Dougal picked Jamie to undermine him.

     

    But Dougal needed Claire married at that time in order to make her Scottish to protect her from Randall. Sure, he'd have some of the same problem of Jamie if he married a sassenach but Dougal doesn't have the price on his head as an additional disadvantage plus war chieftain and brother of the current laird and son of the previous one probably outranks a nephew of the current laird/grandson who came from the previous laird's daughter and another laird's bastard. He might have been able to overcome marrying Claire more than Jamie could.

  15. The actress who played Ygrette on Game of Thrones is also available.  But I don't recall her being particularly tall.  I'm six feet tall and I'm really really looking forward to a statuesque Brianna.

     

    Ooo, Rose Leslie does do fiesty pretty well. Google says that she's 5'6", though, so not really tall enough. There's also the question of whether she can do an American accent. Her voice always sounds so Scottish to me that it would be weird to hear another accent coming out of her.

  16. In knitting and crafting news, I really liked Claire's cute knit capelet. I think that is the one piece I've wanted to knit so far. I already have a few pairs of arm warmers. 

     

    That was a darn cute cute capelet. It's convinced me that maybe I need a little garter stitch in my life.

    • Love 2
  17. OT: Thank you for the reco about The Honourable Woman- I've been seeing that film referenced here and there and it might be on Netflix I think- if so, I will totally check it out.

     

    The Honourable Woman is a miniseries, not a movie. It's still airing in the US.

×
×
  • Create New...