AD55

Love all of these scenes. Sam's expression when he faces down the mob at the witch trial is so sexy as well as commanding. I've seen some freeze frames of Sam's face in that scene -- oh my. A couple of my favorite part 2 Jamie moments: --At the hanging, when McQuarrie says "I only regret one thing," to which Jamie replies, "What would that be Mr. McQuarrie?" It's a small moment, and I'm not exactly sure why it gets to me. I think it's because Jamie's doesn't-miss-a-beat response shows someone is there who cares very deeply about what McQuarrie regrets and about McQuarrie himself. The "Mister" is Jamie telling the red coats that McQuarrie is a man deserving of their respect, at the same time he is letting McQuarrie know that what the red coats think doesn't matter. He knows the truth of who McQuarrie is -- only Jamie and McQuarrie exist at that moment. As always, Sam's delivery is perfect. --When Randall returns after freeing Claire and Jamie says, "She's away safe then." Sam's delivery offers just the slightest hint of doubt. It breaks my heart. Randall's "we are both men of honor," is chilling.

I'm trying to figure out if you're being facetious. I'll be surprised if any of the actors receive nominations. I think it's possible, though not likely, that there will be a nod to the costumes or score. I really hope I'm wrong because I certainly think the cast is deserving and the nominations would attract more viewers. The members of the academy are conservative and tend to nominate the same shows over and over. They have a penchant for shows such as Mad Men and the Newsroom that are viewed as reality based. Movie stars who are "slumming" it in a TV show are irresistible to Emmy voters. The Tony awards do this, too. An actor might have devoted her/himself to the stage, but if that's the year Scarlet Johansson or Catherine Zeta-Jones decides to show that she can tread the boards, someone who is just as or more talented but unknown to the general public is going to have to give up her seat. Game of Thrones has recently broken in, but it's a rare instance of a show based on a fantasy novel and it took a while. Occasionally a BBC drama will be acknowledged so that the Academy can show they have high-brow tastes, but it's also relatively rare unless it has Maggie Smith. Outlander has several strikes against it: it's based on a series of novels that are viewed as romance fiction by a significant number of people; in spite of its popularity among a huge number of genre fiction readers, I venture to guess it's not well-known among the people who do the nominating; all of the actors are relative unknowns; Starz series have not generally been considered to be high quality; I am in love with it, which my experience has shown is the kiss of death for a TV show; and Ron Moore is associated with science fiction, a genre that is almost never recognized. I think its strong presence at Comic-Con will be a strike against it -- rightly or wrongly, Comic-Con is considered to be an assemblage of nerds and fans with very specific and questionable tastes. If you want a cheap laugh on a sitcom or a shorthand for a character's nerdiness and unpopularity among the opposite sex, all you have to do is have them mention that they go to Comic-Con. I think Outlander's chances at the Golden Globes are slightly better, though still slim, as they are more likely to recognize international productions. I can't stress how much I hope I'm wrong, as I think the actors and everyone else associated with Outlander are outstanding. But there are only a few slots per category and there's some stiff competition out there. I've been watching television for a few decades, and I really do think we're in a golden age.

Yup. He was in the very first episode.

I'm struck by how sexy Steven Cree looks. I barely recognize him as Ian, whom I found kind of ordinary looking and more sweet than sexy. Tracy Wilkinson looks like Mrs. Graham would have looked if she used retinol. Why these things surprise me is a mystery. I have to keep reminding myself they're actors. Sam Heughan's a good looking guy, but I don't find him that attractive in modern dress and blond hair. He's too clean cut and conventionally handsome -- your garden variety TV leading man. But with red hair, a Highland accent, and a kilt, my, my, my.

According to imdb, he plays Uncle Lamb.

Nope, not discreet at all! I've only read one of the Lord John books and none of the other ancillary stories. It was 4 years ago, and my memory is wretched. Not that it keeps me from wrongheadedly weighing in.

I don't see how his "having sex with every man he meets" has anything to do with the fact that he apparently hasn't fallen out of love with Jamie after several decades. He's not being unfaithful, and I don't blame him for seeking comfort where he can find it. One advantage John has is that he's from the aristocracy and is also an officer, both of which would protect him to some extent from legal action. I also assume he's discreet. Persecuted groups have always had to learn to keep who they are a secret, which is not to say individuals never get caught and suffer terrible consequences.

Wow, could he be anymore patronizing? Sometimes I really don't like Jamie. If some guy kissed me "to be nice," I would (a) want to throttle him, and (b) wonder what I did to seem so pathetic that I would welcome him throwing me a bone. I haven't read the book, so it's not very fair for me to criticize. Maybe John leaned in like the smelly aunt -- if so, I find that out of character. He knows how Jamie feels about homosexuality, an attitude that would be consistent with the period even had he not been violated. I really hope that John is not portrayed as so dense that he thinks Jamie would welcome his gesture of affection or doesn't understand why Jamie is kissing him or is shown to be so needy that he welcomes any display of affection, regardless of how condescending, from Jamie. I want John to get over his infatuation with Jamie. It doesn't strike me as realistic. Love depends to some extent on its being reciprocal. Most of us move on eventually when we realize our affection is not returned even if we are able to remain friends with the person.

Oh please God, no. Leave the adaptation to the adaptors.

This all makes sense. I'm guessing that most folks who wait in line at Comic-Con are long-time fans who are already spoiled through Book 8. Those happy folks who have just moved on to the next premium cable series may not even recall there was a little kid named Roger, and even if they do, they won't know how he fits in the story. Those who, like myself, are suckers for spoilers will have to do a bit of digging to get answers. I watch Game of Thrones, and it's not that hard to stay unsullied if you avoid interviews, articles, and wikis.

Thanks! I see your point -- it's almost more despicable if Jamie beats Claire only so that Dougal won't. If that had been his only motivation, he should just have told Dougal to get stuffed.

I think this is the right place to post this, but let me know if it should be in the season 1 or the books vs show thread. I'm curious if folks who have read The Exile believe the TV show did a good job of representing Jamie's POV in The Reckoning and the final two episodes.

I hate to say this but I'm partial to "You'll no speak to me that way, you foul-mouthed bitch," not for the sentiment but for the delivery. I also love Cait's tone and facial expression when she says, "But would you listen to me? No, I'm just a woman." I pretty much like everything about that scene.

I must have read the wrong ones, but I recall that the heroine often fears telling the hero something key such as she's already lost her virginity or had an out-of-wedlock child. It interferes with the course of true love for upwards of 200 pages at which point the hero reveals that he doesn't give a damn. Sorry to stray OT.

Yeah, I don't think you bring your 20-years absent wife to Lollybrach without saying, "oh, by the way, I'm married to Laoghaire," and then explaining the situation. How far is Edinburgh from Lollybrach? Was it a one-day journey? I don't buy that Jamie would set Claire up for the humiliation of learning about this from Jenny or one of the kids ("Uncle Jamie, I thought you were married to 'Aunt Laoghaire.'") It's a trope of romance novels and soap operas to have couples withhold information from each other in order to create drama, draw out the story, etc., as though any of Gabaldon's novels need to be longer. She is often unimaginative when it comes to creating tension, which IMO is why she keeps returning to the bag of rape stories she evidently keeps in the spare bedroom.

I wish the numbers had been interpreted/put in the context of other shows, but looking at the numbers for shows on HBO, it looks as though Outlander is in the middle of the pack but barely. If I am reading the numbers correctly, It's way behind GoT and less dramatically behind 6 other HBO shows. It's ahead of 9 others, 4 of which have been cancelled or are ending. 3 of the 9 have been renewed and there is no information about 2 others. I would say the numbers are mildly worrying. The fate of season 3 may depend on how many people were turned off by the last 2 episodes of season 1. ETA. I fixed the last sentence to say season 1 instead of 2. I meant if the ratings go down next year due to disgruntled viewers, it may not be renewed for a 3d season.

I think the following commentary on episode 16 is insightful, but read at your own risk as it contains SPOILERS for Voyager and Written in My Own Heart's Blood: http://sassenachsoftheworldunite.tumblr.com/post/120734799753/the-best-commentary-ever-on-jamie-and-claire

This is why being a translator is so challenging. Often, folks think it's a matter of translating word for word, but that is not the same as conveying meaning. I have a friend whose mother wrote subtitles for movies. I hadn't realized that you can, on average, only translate about a third of what the person says as that's all most viewers can read in the time allotted. It's a genuine art form.

I didn't take that scene as Jamie just realizing he still had a hand. I think he's moved at how fortunate he is that Claire saved it, while she assumes he's crying because it will never be fully healed. ETA. I bet this will be in season 2, maybe when Jamie uses it for the first time.

The sentiments are lovely, but I'm guessing (hoping) it's less stilted in the original. "As is my desire, put an end to this now." Who talks like that? It's apparently a very literal translation.

I appreciate everyone's comments – it's slightly confusing, however, as I sometimes find myself simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing with various points. It's a sign of how thoughtful the conversation has been over the course of the series. I've appreciated how well moderated the forum has been. Okay, this is likely to be a long post, so you may want to move on – not much to see here. I go on at tedious length thinking that if I can sort out my feelings in one go, 'cause that's a thing, I might be able to transition to some other obsession until season 2 is imminent. I really want to get over my Outlander withdrawal. I second MsProudSooner's grades. I think what Moore and Co. did in adapting a long, rambling, and often poorly plotted book was amazing. Full marks to all. We tend to focus, naturally enough, on the cast, but they wouldn't be half as good were it not for the efforts of every single person who worked on the show. In fact, they wouldn't even be there at all if the show-runners didn't have amazing instincts. As the first day of shooting loomed and they still hadn't cast Claire, I imagine the people in the panic room were taking turns talking each other back from the ledge, but no matter how desperate they must have felt, they didn't settle. They waited until they found the perfect actor. For my part, I think Moore did a good job of balancing the relationship between Jamie and Claire with the need to open up the series. While I agree it's refreshing to see a more or less healthy relationship between two equals play out, I don't think what works in a romance novel or a two-hour romantic comedy or a traditional weepy would play out well over the course of a 16-episode series. I think they would have lost viewers. I was already sold on Jamie and Claire, but even I would have found it claustrophobic had they focused much more on the love story. It's clear from the first episode that Claire is going to end up with the “hunky” guy, as one friend of mine said. Claire and Jamie are such idealized characters that I believe the challenge was not to let their relationship dominate the whole series. There needed to be other things at stake. Even so, there were complaints that the time travel, politics, and historical context got short shrift. I understand that many feel that some episodes wasted time that would have been better used furthering the love story, but IMO, “The Search” is not one of them. The Claire and Jenny scenes were dramatic and revelatory and I found watching the relationship between Claire and Murtagh develop deeply satisfying. I have to say I could watch Cait sing a bawdy Scottish song to the tune of Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy all evening. She's adorable. Even though Murtagh and Claire are bent on serious business, this episode was a welcome interlude of relative calm, and I needed that before the horrors of the last two episodes. It was good to see that it was possible for itinerant performers to move safely from village to village, none of which were being pillaged by the Red Coats or the Watch, at least on screen. I know this will be unpopular and it seems paradoxical, but one episode I think actually did interfere with the development of the Jamie-Claire relationship is The Wedding. It's a joy to watch and I love the scenes with the supporting players, but that one night is asked to carry a lot of weight in the progress of their relationship. I would have preferred that half the episode be devoted to the wedding and half to Jamie and Claire getting to know each other after the wedding night – fishing, talking, fighting the Grants -- with the director using some device to show that time had passed and their relationship had deepened before the attempted rape by the deserters. Actually, I wish that had been cut so that rape didn't drive all of the major action. Jamie could still have left Claire behind because he was worried about taking her to the meeting with Horrocks and she could still have taken off for the stones. Plus, even though I know people don't always think rationally, Claire's blaming Jamie for the attempted rape never rang true for me. I do, on the other hand, understand why his feelings of guilt might have led him to think she did. My main issue with the witch trial is not the time devoted to it, but that I kept expecting someone to say, “well we did do the nose, but she is a witch!” That aside I like the time devoted to it because it highlights Claire's complicated relationship with Geillis. Another reason I like "The Search" is we get to see Claire and another woman together without any men. I don't want Jamie to be her only important relationship. When Geillis discovers that Claire has no reason to be in the 1740s, she is foreshadowing the last episode when Claire tells Jamie that their relationship is the only thing that makes sense of her trip through the stones. To me, that shows that Moore does get that the story is most importantly a tale of two people who find meaning through a deep and abiding love.

My son, who is quite a savvy viewer, assumed he is dead and I had to bite my tongue. He offered a fairly cogent analysis of what it means that BJ's death was as undramatic as it could get. Squish and he's gone -- no big ending speech, etc. I think we can talk about the episode here, but I'll use spoiler tags just in case.

I should post this in the Outlander in the Media thread, but since you mention reviews, the WSJ one is overwhelmingly positive: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2015/05/30/outlander-season-finale-recap-episode-116-to-ransom-a-mans-soul/

This is my take as well. I can only imagine his shame at having asked Willie to kill him. The shot of him in the rowboat wearing that risible tricorn hat about does me in. This show is so smart and the acting so brilliant that I can't help but worry that I am rationalizing away some of the indefensible choices. I am a dab hand at the self-serving rationalization as anyone who has seen my shoe collection knows.

Apologies if this has already been mentioned and I missed it, but something that went past me on first viewing is that we don't see Jamie take leave of Willie et al. Instead, he's a lonely figure in the boat with two men I presume are strangers while Claire and Murtagh farewell the men who risked their lives to save him. I'm going to assume he hasn't even been able to bring himself to look them in the eyes to thank them. I thought about this episode into the wee smalls, and I realize I still don't know how I feel about it. On the one hand, I believe it was a groundbreaking piece of television -- beautifully acted, directed, and written. On the other hand, I find myself agreeing with many, maybe even most, of the accusations that the violence was excessive and even meets the definition of torture porn. I've completely lost my objectivity.