Hybiscus
-
Posts
149 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Hybiscus
-
-
The main reason I was looking forward to the season finale was to watch Rowena die. Now Death is dead and Rowena continues to live.
I think I'm going to do my part to further the careers of Jensen and Jared and stop watching next season.
-
4
-
-
Gelded cattle are called steers. Although, the use of cattle is proper in this instance, cows are also used colloquially. So I think the use of cows here works just fine for me and did not offend my farm upbringing in the least.
It was never my intention to offend anyone. Nor was I offended. I was just trying to be humorous. Sorry everyone seemed to take it wrong. And yes! Steers! I knew there a term, I just couldn't remember it.
-
To be fair, the cattle we see on the show are likely to be an all female herd.
Really? How so? Perhaps because adding a bull or two (not sure if there are "gelded" cattle, so my farm-adjacent upbringing isn't necessarily that reliable) might cause a bovine orgy? ;)
-
Too bad. Because Highland cows are ADORABLE.
I only say this because WatchTina reminded us that pictures are "hung," but people are "hanged" in her delightful Outlander/Game of Thrones crossover...
That would be Highland cattle, not cows. Cows are female. :) Ok gosh, my Iowa farm community roots are showing.
-
Lastly: is Sam Heughan the king of the single tear? Discuss.
I am really, really late with this reply, but here it is:
No, that honor goes to Jensen Ackles of Supernatural. His ability to produce the single tear has inspired its own acronym, OPT (One Perfect Tear) and a song "A Single Man Tear."
-
2
-
-
WatchrTina, thanks for making me laugh out loud! Outlander/GoT crossover!
-
1
-
-
No, the scene came before Claire got there, so before Jamie's promise to surrender. Yes, he was in excruciating pain. But Jamie was also muttering that he would kill Jack. It just felt to me like it would have been almost an instinct to squeeze. To fight. The hand crushing came because he was fighting. Adding that part at all (I think it was added) -- with forcing his hand into Randall's crotch -- it felt like Jamie would have still attempted to hurt Randall.
Jamie was in excruciating pain. And he likely was in shock. I doubt he had much fight in him at that moment, let alone coherent thoughts. In the book, Randall broke his hand because Jamie had punched him in the nose (if I recall correctly). Here, hammering the hand seemed to be calculated and cold-blooded.
I'm not sure BJR chose the left hand, though. If he was trying to cause maximum injury, as he was trying in the book, wouldn't he have gone for the right hand? I realize it would make things even more difficult for Jamie in the future, but wasn't that the whole point? Also, in the books, I believe Jamie signs his name with his right hand. DG makes a point of talking about how difficult it is for him and how illegible (or distinct?) his signature is. I don't know if that's because left-handedness was frowned upon at the time. Anyone have any ideas?
-
1
-
-
Agree, it wasn't that bad. Tense & emotional, and a bit graphic, but it won't give anyone nightmares. It ended at MacRannoch's with Murtaugh coming up up with the idea of the kine. That's leaving an awful lot of ground to cover in 2 weeks. So I think we'll be getting The Scenes in "real time" rather than flashback.
-
2
-
-
insubordination, I think you've hit on the gist of the "never seen before on tv" thing. I think we might see an erection or two. I thought they weren't allowed on television, but looking into it, apparently it is allowed on pay cable networks, it's just that no one's done it. If so, I kind of shudder. Personally, I have no desire to watch either Sam Heughan or Tobias Menzies become aroused. There are just some things that should remain personal to the actor.
(Didn't put in under a spoiler tag because it's just speculation on my part.)
Or, maybe the "never shown on tv before" is a herd of cattle running through a prison. *snark*
-
5
-
-
Not to get off topic--ok, it is, but this will be the last I say on it: many years ago when I was working with a trainer, she told me that the arms and upper body respond much more quickly to weigh training than legs/lower body. It's why men tend to concentrate on the upper body more than legs. Instant gratification, baby!
-
I like that, too. As someone who has given birth and also rides horses, I can say that while I think it would be very uncomfortable to ride so soon after giving birth, it wouldn't be so painful that you couldn't do it if necessary. It could just be that I'm a fast healer -- I was only uncomfortable the first day -- but I assume Jenny is, too.
I don't like to comment on the actors' bodies, but since how much Sam works out is a matter of choice or something demanded by the show runners, I will say that I hated Sam's body at the mill. I should probably post this in the unpopular opinion thread, but I thought he looked muscle bound, not to mention the continuity issue. I'm just not a fan of the big neck look. It was also anachronistic, not that anybody in TV or movies worries about that when it comes to body sculpting. I suppose Sam's body at the wedding probably was as well, but at least it was somewhat believable that a person who is that active would look nice with his clothes off. That said, I live in a place where there are a lot of farms owned by hard-working folks. Few of them have bodies like TV Jamie's.
In his podcast, Ron D. Moore said they actually researched whether or not a woman who'd given birth three days prior could ride a horse.
As for Sam, he bulked up for the show, because Jamie is described that way. He gained nearly 30 lbs of body mass. I believe he said at some point he stopped the weights and wen on the Paleo (?) diet to lose the weight. Those who saw him at Comic Con said he was quite big, but when they saw him during the big media push prior to season 1B airing, he had changed quite a bit. His natural body weight is fairly slender. (No, I am not obsessed. ;D)
-
1
-
-
I was a fan of the show before I started reading the books, starting the books during the hiatus. I stopped at Voyager, the third book. Some of Diana's writing is quite lovely. Her descriptions of certain things are very visual, and I like that. But yes, I agree she repeats things much too often—even the good stuff. I got rather tired of Jamie's "auburn gold lashes" or hair, or chest hair. We get it, he's a redhead.I understand that, but the constant "little man", "rat-looking man", "amphibous looking little man" practically every single time (or so it seems to me) is starting to grate whenever she mentions Murtagh or Master Raymond. First time, okay, so we have an image. But not every time we see the characters again or when Claire is speaking to them. I mean, she's not forever talking about how tall or big Jamie is. Okay, she does, but there's a point to it when she does. I know, I'm contradicting myself, but I hope y'all know what I mean, heh.
I mean, I get it. She thinks they're ugly.
With Dragonfly in Amber, I remember reading several chapters (during the Paris years) and thinking once I'd finished them, "Gosh, that didn't add a thing to the story." But I do understand people loving her work. I'm just as enthusiastic about it.
-
2
-
-
Promo for the next episode from Australia. Putting it in the spoiler thread since it's not quite the same as the one they've shown in the U.S.
I saw that earlier today. I think Starz purposely didn't include the initial scene, of
Jamie saying "I'll not surrender... to you... or any man."
for fear of looking homophobic,
-
As for no snow, they started filming in fall when the book started in spring. Ron decided to change the timing by 6 months since the trees were already changing color. Thus Dec in book = summer in series.
-
As horrific as Jamie's torture and rape was in the book, just from Jamie telling Claire about it, I think it needs to be shown on the show, and not just as Jamie telling Claire--unless there will be flashbacks. As long it's not gratuitous, which, really is an oxymoron, because I remember cringing, wincing, having to put the book down when I read it the first time. I'm up to 70% in the book right now. But I know it's coming. I don't know if I'll just tap, tap, tap until it's over or not. I know I've said upthread here I think, that when I re-read the In Deaths, I always skip the horrible parts; because I've done about 10 re-reads since the series reached the 10th book I think.
I know I won't be re-reading this book again, for reasons I've already stated.
And someone mentioned this in the episode thread, and I'm wondering as well, where is all this talk about Randall dying this season coming from? He's supposed to marry Alex's fiancé? or whoever that woman was that Alex got pregnant, right?
And to be honest, when I watch the On Demand episodes, I would much, much RATHER hear from Sam and Cait about the show instead of Ron. There, I said it. I also wish Starz would put out the 2 minute, 4 minutes little interviews that HBO and Showtime have done for their shows. Just because I'm shallow enough to want to hear Sam just speak.
For some silly reason (I think it's the fear that we're anticipating), I tried to read the part where Claire found Jamie in Wentworth, and he volunteers to let Jack Randall have his way with him. It was so painful reading about pale, defeated Jamie, I didn't anywhere near the volunteering. And that's not even the bad scenes! I may have to "watch" that episode with my eyes closed.
When you mentioned OnDemand, I was thinking you meant the podcasts. I just finished the podcast for 113, and am so annoyed! They took two of the very best scenes (Jamie and Ian with the hay wagon, and Claire and Jamie discussing children) and talked about some totally uninteresting thing. And later, they talked for 20 minutes (I may be exaggerating) about the rain! Sam has said he'd love to do a podcast with Ron, but I suppose it's all down to the schedule.
-
I thought he was injured and Jamie wouldn't leave him, which is why he got captured. I could have heard that wrong--the accents are sometimes a challenge for me.
Perhaps that's it. I'm certainly no authority. I just went on the basis of Watch guy saying there were no survivors. My thought was that MacQuarrie was injured and Jamie stayed with him until he died. But like I said, that was my interpretation. Perhaps I should check IMDB to see if he's in any more episodes before spouting my mouth off. :-)
-
McQuarrie:
- I hope he shows up again in future episodes. As for the rest of the Watch, good riddance, especially the creepy one who started the fire.
I don't think he'll be returning. Didn't he die in the raid? I got the impression everyone died except Ian, the Watch guy, and Jamie.
-
No, I wasn't talking about the love scene by the fire, but I thought I'd read how he wanted the Witch Trial to be longer, because DRAMA! and he didn't want Claire's telling Jamie about how she came to be in 1743, or really, what we're all calling the Stones scene to be longer. The wanting to cut the love scene out I do recall.
Still, my question, I think, is still valid. How does his wanting to take out/shorten, not provide pivotal scenes from the book to the screen demonstrate his "wanting to be as true to the series" as possible? Oh, and not piss off his wife in the process? I'm giving him the side-eye and stink eye going forward If I manage to read him talking about wanting to be true and then pulling shit like he did for this week's episode.
Now, I'm not saying everything from the book has to be put on the show, that's not realistic, or even possible; and I understand, and don't have a problem with some of the deviations from the book, but the important stuff? Damn right I expect it to make it to the show.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I understood what you were saying about Ron wanting the witch trial to go longer at the expense of the stone scenes. I'd read that somewhere, too. (I did NOT know he didn't want Claire to tell Jamie how she came to be in 1743. Because that would be all kinds of wrong!) I was using the fireside sex anecdote (which he mentions on his podcast with Toni Graphia) as an example that he doesn't always "get it."
In no way did I mean to invalidate you question/remarks! You have every right to feel the way you do, and to express it, and every right to be disappointed. And every right to give Ron the stink eye. (Truthfully, the scene didn't play out the way I'd wanted it to, either. But having just come to Outlander in the past few months, it's not something I'd waited so verra varra long to see brought to life. )
Know what I mean? O' course ye do!IOf course I do! :)
-
But good GOD, I'd forgotten how awful some of Gabaldon's writing was. The wordiness, the...the...I can't put my finger on it, but I prefer the actual dialogue of the characters...for some reason, they come across more...smoothly? I dunno.
There are moments when her prose is nice, but there are times when you can tell she's trying too hard. The over-description gets worse as the novels go on. And if I never read another "the gold auburn curls of lashes/arm hair/chest hair/whatever.." again, it will be too soon.
And I'm someone that's not attached to this series, but love Jamie, if that makes sense.As for Ron, well, I'd read how his wife loves this series and he wants to do it justice and not piss off his wife, right? Well, in the episode/Book talk thread, I think it was, or was it media? They're all blurring together, so I apologize...I read today that it was his idea to have a longer witch trial because that's what he wanted. More drama or whatever, and the writer wanted more of the scenes at the Stones. That irked me.
Is that the book series or the tv series, or both? I can understand loving Jamie without loving the rest. :)
Ron did mention in his podcast that he had wanted to cut the finger sex scene, but admitted his was an idiot for thinking that. He also said something similar about Jamie's voice over in episode109 where Jamie said he didn't feel right about killing an unconscious man (Black Jack); he really wished he'd deleted the voice over. Maybe he'll feel the same way about the stones scenes, or maybe he'll get hell from his wife for it.
-
I need to find it but Terry mentioned one reason was 2nd half, different tone and they are to show/symbolize Jamie growing into who he is. Trousers were worn more by upper class or command, like Dougal.
Good to know. I hadn't found anything from Terry, but i know she'd had a Q&A on twitter, but I am Twitter-challenged and couldn't find/follow it.
WatchrTina, you'd mentioned you thought they were "breeks.: I think breeks are the knee pants that are worn with the stockings and buckled shoes. "Trews" are the trousers that actually go to the ankle. I do recall Ron and Terry mentioning them in a podcast, but since I listened to the podcasts in close succession, I couldn't tell you where I heard it.
(FYI, I did tell the mods they could move the convo to a more appropriate thread.) I shall now shut up on this subject. Except to reiterate, Sam looks mighty fine in the them. :)
-
2
-
-
*snort* I've been hanging out in the no book talk thread (mostly just reading) and it has been real hoot. Moreso after this episode than any other. They really are hitting on some key points, and it's so much fun to see what the unsullied are thinking.Somebody posted this in the "no book talk" thread.
The poor wee lamb is in for a shock in season 3.
-
1
-
-
I probably should have asked this in the "By the Prickling of My Thumbs" thread (if so, mods, you can move it), but lets address the 800 pound gorilla in the room: Why is Jamie suddenly wearing trousers? I figured initially it was because they were quicker to put on when Murtaugh knocked on the door. But he's continued to wear them. After all the hullabaloo and press about the kilt, why change now?
I thought it might be answered in one of the podcasts for either 110 or 111, but so far I've found nothing. Not that I'm complaining. Sam, er, Jamie looks might fine in his "trews." I just want to know why. Has Terry Dresbach said anything?
-
1
-
-
While I would have liked to see the fade out, there's something very cool about it being Jamie's faith in who Claire is that is the key of why he believes her. It is such a juxtaposition of the need for proof in the trial.
Sure, there are still elements I miss. I too would like to hear Jamie tell Claire about his prayer to let her go. And I do hope there are some deleted scenes, including the voice over Claire had while deciding which future she wanted.
I thought I'd read somewhere that Ron said he didn't want to do the "fade out" because he thought it would be too "sci fi" (which is sort of strange because he's done a lot of sci fi). But making Jamie's belief in Claire's story about his faith in her worked very well for me. Your first paragraph summary (which I deleted and can't seem to restore) exemplified all the things I loved about the episode. While the voice over was from Claire, those scenes are really from Jamie's point of view. If you hadn't read the books, you might not realize on first watching, but it is all about him preparing to say goodbye.
I too was hoping we'd get the bit about Jamie's prayer, but upon thinking about it more, ending the episode just after Claire returned was more climactic. I'm hoping they'll include that conversation at the start of the next episode. Especially since 112 is written by Anne Kenney.
And, as others have said, I'll be mad if they don't include the bit about praying to let her go. And I'm also wondering how they will fit all the backstory with Jenny, Ian, and Randall, or if they will bother. 16 episodes is not nearly enough it seems to cover this book, one of the shorter ones. How on earth will they manage season 2 with just 13?
Well, there's a lot of filler in Dragonfly in Amber, in my opinion. I'd remember reading a couple chapters and then think, wow, that didn't add anything to the story.
Like in this episode, Jamie and Claire agreed that they could have secrets but always be honest. Well, that was a fantastic -and key- moment in the book (on their wedding night) that felt like it was thrown in and if you blinked you missed it in this episode. It's something that comes back again and again in future books. Maybe Ron and Co should have been required to read the entire series, or at least through Voyager, before creating this show. What he thinks are subtle or unimportant changes have an impact down the line. And that's what so frustrating to those of us who are emotionally attached. We want to see what we know these amazing actors can pull off. Just imagining ample time devoted to the ending of this episode, and all the emotion and dialogue before, during, and after Claire chooses to stay gives me chills! They could have made it every bit as, if not more, magical as it is in the book. The material is there. The actors' talents and chemistry is there. It's just so frustrating!Wasn't the truth conversation on their wedding night was a deleted scene? For some reason, I can see it playing out in my head and I'm not that imaginative to have made it up from nowhere. (Then again, I suppose I could check the DVD, huh?) Even so, I don't think it was a throw-away line here at all. It was very key to the moment. This was the time when the truth was absolutely essential.
I don't know if Ron has read all the books, but his wife Terry has, as has Maril Davis. And I believe Anne Kenney and Toni Graphia were big fans of the books, too. Ron has said he has an obligation to not screw up his wife's favorite books, so I'm putting my faith in him.
Seeing so many people here who were really unhappy with the episode got me thinking. With something you've loved so much for such a long time, we tend to play our favorite scenes over and over in our minds. We know how we want them to play out, but not everyone's version is going to be equal to ours. Then there are all the trials and tribulations of screen restrictions (like timing), studio execs (who have complained that certain costumes or shots make Caitroina Balfe look fat), and a myriad of other things I'm sure I can't possibly imagine. So when what we get doesn't fit with our own expectations, we're disappointed.
I'm not saying those who were disappointed in the shouldn't be. Those who didn't like this episode have made valid points, and I understand where you're coming from. It just makes me sad that so many people here were so disappointed in something I so enjoyed.
-
4
-
-
Hi Book readers! I'm up to date on the show and want to read the books now, but I'm not so sure I want to get ahead of the show. Which book(s) correspond(s) to what we've seen so far? Thanks!
We're not quite 2/3 through the first book. I believe season 1 will correspond directly with book 1.
-
1
-
S01.E01: Sassenach
in Outlander
There"s a blog at greatscotblog.com tries to "dissect" the Gaelic. Even before the first episode aired, she cautioned you can't trust the close captioning fit Outlander. MANY of the close captions are wrong.