LMR

Ignore the spoiler bar. Its there by accident and I can't get rid of it! He's definitely had a hair cut. There have been a few pics both from fans who've bumped into him in the street and a few events (such as him being announced president of Bloodwise, Scotland) where his hair is shorter (but curly, he's obviously hit the GHDs for the BAFTAS). There have also been pics from set where he has much longer hair so they must be using hair pieces.

His exact words are 'Call me Ishmael' which is the very famous first line in the book Moby Dick. I assume that Joe's words at this point are a reference to this and its a tongue in cheek sort of exasperation that comes with not really understanding what his son is doing, coupled with his sense of humour that leads him to this line. I do think DG very definitely attempts to lead the reader to the conclusion that the Ishmael encountered in the 18th C is an ancestor of Joe and his family though. Its not especially subtley done imo, either.

I just loved this. Jamie and Claire talking about Jamie and Claire is one of my favourite things and fond as I am of some of the other characters, they continue to be what I read the books for and this is just lovely. Whilst I'm not clear on how long they were at the abbey for, I am a little suspicious on the actual timeline, but it makes for a beautiful moment so I am willing to forgive it.

I think the thing I hate so much about the Bonnet story line from start to finish (inc the whole Roger shit show) is that it all relies so much on the whole 'when people get the wrong end of the stick but don't bother to actually ask' trope. One of the better things about the series (for me) is that it up to this point does a decent job of avoiding just this kind of melodrama and then it flings itself full force into it. But you're right - RDM loves a villain and given that Bonnet is the 'big bad' across a good number of books I imagine we will see a LOT of him. Hopefully they can/will at least tidy up some of the worst bit up. I also hope they can find an actor of Tobias Menzies' calibre, his portrayal went a long way towards justifying RDM's playing up of his role.

Here's a thought. Do you think if they move the action straight to NC they might leave out Bonnet? Although that subplot takes up, what three books? Four? Its actually entirely possible to tell the tale without him in it. The only real impact is Ian joining the mohawk and there are other ways of achieving that. (The parentage of Jem, again, is a question that you know will be resolved from the get go - one of the ongoing themes in the books is men stepping up in this respect there was no way Roger was going to prove to be the exception to that rule!) The whole 'misunderstanding' in the woods makes me froth at the mouth with annoyance and lets face it there is enough rape in the first two seasons for us to be able to live without this one. Maybe its because much as I love Roger, Brianna wrecks my head, but its a sub plot I don't like in the books and if the show could see its way to dropping it entirely, I would love it. I'm clutching at straws aren't I?

Anyone watching Versailles? I know it just premiered in the states but I watched it on Netflix at the start of the summer (I'm a brit living in SE Asia!). Its definitely worth a watch during droughtlander if you like historical drama. Its very much in the Tudors mould. (Which full disclosure I hated because I am a history teacher and know too much about the period to be able to fully enjoy the liberties they took with the actual History, but I know a lot of people LOVED). The costumes are absolutely gorgeous and it definitely made me want to go to France. I also think some of it actually was filmed on location as its a french co-production.

This is a thing between books and show. Whilst BJR is a massive presence in the books, the show has intensified that quite significantly (particularly with the Frank backs and the link that always brings). Even in DIA BJR is a sub plot to the bigger things, especially once back in Scotland. In the TV show he's definitely more front and centre (though to be fair this could as much be about the nature of TV vs Book and the amount of story that has had to be pared out to make a narrative that works on TV and isn't too sprawling). I agree though, the fact its taken her 7 books to properly circle back round to it, suggests its not a story she's all that interested in, but maybe since they are back in the relative peace of the Ridge in Bees, there will be more room for backstory.

I just read the same re Romann Berrux. I'm assuming that maybe they'll keep Wee Fergus for the Dunbonnet stuff and then from Edinburgh on it will be adult Fergus. Even though in the book timeline Fegus is mid to late teens and could reasonably (ish) we played by his older versin I do think that part will be more powerful with the younger version, both in terms of audience attachment (I can't imagine Leap will happen more than 2-3 episodes in) and the power of the imagery.

I'm ok with seeing Culloden. I think as viewers we need that pay off. We spent a whole season working up to it, Claire and Jamie are separated because of it, so given the differences in mediums and just the more episodic way it will have to unfold on TV, it might (especially for non-book readers) be a bit of a let down (maybe?) We don't see it in the book because we can't see it from Jamie's POV as he doesn't remember, but in a TV medium we can see it and still have Jamie not remember, because its not a tightly bound to the perspective of individuals. As an adaptive device it works for me.

That's good to hear anyway. 10 episodes was way too few. I still think that Outlander was best served by its original 16 episode run (though without the 6 month hiatus)

It will be interesting to see how they manage it. I do not think they can keep Claire and Jamie apart for too long, but agree that they have a lot of story that needs to be told. I'll be very interested to see how they do that. Part of me thinks flashback, but that would cut Bree and Roger's stuff right down as so much of Claire's story is told to Roger. I wonder will they do something like they did in Season 2. Start at the end (or in this case the middle) and then work back. It gets Jamie and Claire back together from the start which then gives them room to unpack the rest of the story. I don't know that I can wait another year...

I really hope so. Its too awful to contemplate. Its really gotten under by skin as a theory though, maybe its because I've just reread Voyager and I'm still very much in the story and feeling the feelings!

I heard the 10 thing from S&S too (I think I mentioned it on another thread). I do hope it is 13 episodes. There is just so much to get through in book 3. There are like 3 different stories, just in the back half!

Ok, I saw something on Tumblr (not the most reliable of sources, I know, but still) that made me concerned (and also made me realise that maybe I don't trust RDM with the source material as much as I want to that I have even entertained it). It was basically that instead of Mary McNab come to the cave before Jamie is arrested it will be Laorighe and that as a result one of her daughters will be Jamie's. Realistically, I don't think this will happen but I was surprised by how much it sadly wouldn't surprise me if they did that. As it is I really don't know how they are going to retcon the whole Jamie knowing about L's role in having Claire almost burnt as a witch. I guess having Jamie father one of kids might negate that... Ugh. It annoys me to contemplate. For what its worth I suspect that given they cannot not do Geneva (though please god, fix that before it hits the screen) and they have to have L, I think they will likely cut the Mary seen altogether. They only have 10 episodes so as it is I think a lot of the front half will be bunched (unless they do a lot of flashback, as I can't imagine we will be made to wait more than 3-4 episodes before Print shop unless they want a full scale fan riot), having Jamie involved with 3 different women in that time, regardless of the situation, will harm the story they are trying to tell. I works in the books (just, I could live without both Geneva and L) as you get a better sense of the time elapsed and the lonliness Jamie endures, but I think that will be much more difficult on TV. Mary and the scene in the cave could be easily removed without impacting the story so I won't be surprised if she is. And if this fan theory is the alternative I hope verra keenly they do.

I'm pretty excited about the casting. Re LJG, I have so say, despite having read the books several times its only in my most recent reading that the idea of LJG being shortish and delicate looking really caught my attention. As a result, colouring aside I think the casting here is right on the nose. He's very much how LJG from Voyager on looked in my head. He's very handsome, but in a very different way to Sam's Jamie and I think that contrast is the main key to the differences in their physical presences. Both Fergus and Marsali are almost exactly perfect (my only question with the latter will be how effectively they age up Nell Hudson because right now they look like sisters, its a very good physical match)