tcay

This review sums up a lot of my issues with the season: http://tomandlorenzo.com/2016/05/outlander-faith/ I'm ready for them to depart from the books. Keep the iconic relationship moments, rework the rest. The amount of rapes that happen in the book are far too concentrated on tv. I do think the show needs to respond to this kind of criticism and not just blindly stick to the book material. Number one on my list to rework? Brianna's rape. It's a thing that happens so that DG can explore her favorite theme: paternity. But rather than risk Bree doing something unlikeable like sleep with another man after Roger essentially leaves her (a very human reaction), she is raped. Bonnet can still be a villain without raping Bree. The show is going to have a predictable pattern of Jamie seeking vengeance against rapists, over and over, when there are so many other interesting points to the books that don't rely on sexual violence. I was going to say at least Voyager doesn't have this problem, but it does with Young Ian. Having the show being unwilling to change this stuff makes me think they are interested in the shock value of it, because no one needed to see Fergus be raped. As soon as BJR said "you'll do," we all knew what was happening. Claire doesn't see it happen and she's plenty horrified. We would have been too. I'm hopeful that the second half of this season will be better. But beyond art and costume recognition (and Caitriona's performance in episode 7), I do not think Paris did the show any favors.

Louise will later gossip with other women that Jamie has obviously been seeking sex outside the house because of Claire's condition. It's in the lead up to the duel. It's not a major plot moment but it always stung to read.

I haven't gone to look at the script yet, but I thought I heard Fergus say "ok" in English? Silly nitpick, but it stuck out to me. One thing that does bug me on the show is how quickly things pay off. Like Claire mentioned early on Mother Hildegarde's musical talents, and by the end of the episode they're already utilized for a major plot thing. I know there is so much to be covered, but it does make the events feel contrived when the thing they need is introduced and used in that same episode. I'm wondering if the post-brothel fight is coming up next episode. They've certainly been ramping up his visits. And I do like that they've established that the maid has noticed they're not having sex--that's good setup for some of the later and more public rumors.

I did not expect to see that detail either. I figured a low cut dress and perhaps some swan jewelry as a nod. I am impressed.

For those curious about the king's mistress and her, um, dress (link contains a NSFW photo): http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/04/outlander-nipple-dress-season-2

This is a gorgeous feature from Starz that I hope they do for all of the episodes: http://www.outlandercommunity.com/index.php?f=insideoutlander&s=201 BTS photos, scripts, set design plans, visual effects clips, etc!

Not to belabor the initials thing too much, but in the books Claire says the scar faded considerably over 20 years and that it's barely noticeable unless you know to look for it. So in my head it's something that could be ditched after this season and be believable? And more to the point, why is this marking beyond the realm of production feasibility but Randall's brand isn't? Neither is explicitly significant to plot after the episode. One shows Randall's depth of depravity in breaking Jamie, the other shows Claire's desperation to carry Jamie's physical presence with her. They're both powerful moments for different reasons, so I find myself wondering why the relationship-y one is less necessary.

I'd seen some references to that as well but could never find the actual source. I like the idea of the ring as a token, but at the same time I liked how visceral the physical mark was. But at least the groundwork is being laid for the gems.

I forgot all about Forez. Creepy guy!! Did Claire's hand have Jamie's initial on it? There was no explicit shot but I don't know if there was a glimpse either.

I saw DG say on compuserve that the Jamie/Claire dialog wasn't very Jamie/Claire-like, but that it had to accomplish a lot of exposition.

I rewatched it for the second time yesterday and one thing that struck me about Claire is how she seemed to relish in upsetting the Comte's plans, and the way she ignored Jamie as she ran towards the small pox victims (people that I don't think she could have helped regardless). For someone claiming to want to play the game to prevent the Rising, she sure as hell doesn't play it that day.

I'm fine with fleshing out Frank more if that means we have a better understanding of Bree later. I always found it hard to sympathize with Bree in DiA (despite, rationally, knowing I should), so I think giving more time to Frank's process and journey to becoming a father will better inform the way Bree behaves later (i.e. not being at all receptive to the news of her true parentage). My one question about the rejiggered framing device is does this spoil the fate of Claire's first pregnancy? She is not showing in the present timeline, but we know from the previews that she gets pretty far along with her pregnancy in Paris. I always liked that we went along with the story thinking Bree was that pregnancy, and then the gut punch.

I loved the Emmy panel. So nice to hear them talk about something other than their chemistry or playing drinking games. And Terry's explanation of the costumes was really thoughtful and smart.

Master Raymond's vest! I love these costumes.

I like the EW pictures, but I'm also massively chafing at the cover lines and the overall huge emphasis on the sex scenes. I get that it's marketing, but the positioning of the show as a bodice ripper/guilty pleasure just feels.. weak. It's gotten fans talking, though, so I guess it worked.