Show Spoilers and Book Talk

[lianau]

43 minutes ago, Grashka said:

 

It's hard to discuss the subject without getting explicit, so I apologize in advance, but in the books Jamie's shame results from physically responding to Randall touching and carresing his genitals - which is a physiological reaction. The show turned the situation into Jamie imagining that he is making love to Claire while Randall was anally raping him which brought him to climax and "it was good not be in pain for anymore". Ufff. Which was a total WTF?! because for one, how those two things could be comparable, and two -  because Jamie just got very violently raped, so any following intercourse would be terribly painful. It was just....totally wrong on every level.

 

Well , Jack wanted that reaction . And he constantly mentioned Claire during the rape , if she touched Jamie like that and so on . Jamie tells Claire that in the Abbey and eventually Jamie  couldn't keep those two people apart due to the pain and exhaustion .

[toolazy]

59 minutes ago, Grashka said:

From marketwatch.com article:

 

Uhm. Where? When? I must have missed something there. When did the books ever put Jamie's sexuality into question? Where does ANY discussion of that sort take place?

 

It didn't.  There is no doubt in the books that Jamie is a heterosexual through and through.  The only times that his sexuality came up in the books was to make that point over and over.  Much is made of his friendship with LJG DESPITE his sexuality and general revulsion towards homosexuality that arose from BJR's rape.  

Anyone arguing otherwise can't read.

I'm not even going to read that article because I have a feeling it will make me want to throw something.

Edited September 11, 2017 by toolazy

[Nidratime]

Interview with Caitriona and Sam in Elle, from yesterday. Can't remember how spoilery it is, so I'll put it here.

An Outlander Kind of Love: Caitriona Balfe and Sam Heughan on friendship, fights, and the epic love story between Jamie and Claire.

http://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a12203135/caitriona-balfe-sam-heughan-outlander-interview/

[Petunia846]

3 hours ago, Grashka said:

Uhm. Where? When? I must have missed something there. When did the books ever put Jamie's sexuality into question? Where does ANY discussion of that sort take place?

 

2 hours ago, toolazy said:

It didn't.  There is no doubt in the books that Jamie is a heterosexual through and through.  The only times that his sexuality came up in the books was to make that point over and over.  Much is made of his friendship with LJG DESPITE his sexuality and general revulsion towards homosexuality that arose from BJR's rape.  

Anyone arguing otherwise can't read.

I'm not even going to read that article because I have a feeling it will make me want to throw something.

Yes, I was going to suggest, maybe it's an idea you could get if you just skim the books or read a synopsis and hear about LJG. But you're exactly right, if you're a person who can read, you should know that there's no question about Jamie's sexuality at all. That is very firm. There's also the info about the Duke of Sandringham being interested in Jamie as a boy and Jamie's reaction to that, which further confirms things.

[Nidratime]

Apparently, the "reunion episode" might be an extra special longer one according to Ron Moore:

Outlander’s Ronald D Moore teases extra long Claire and Jamie reunion episode

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-09-11/outlanders-ronald-d-moore-teases-extra-long-claire-and-jamie-reunion-episode/

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, Nidratime said:

Apparently, the "reunion episode" might be an extra special longer one according to Ron Moore:

Outlander’s Ronald D Moore teases extra long Claire and Jamie reunion episode

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-09-11/outlanders-ronald-d-moore-teases-extra-long-claire-and-jamie-reunion-episode/

As it SHOULD be!

[Nidratime]

Two new teaser trailers for the next episode ... I'm assuming.

http://ew.com/tv/2017/09/13/outlander-jamie-dunbonnet-episode-2-sneak-peek/?utm_campaign=entertainmentweekly&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&xid=entertainment-weekly_socialflow_twitter

http://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/news/a29374/outlander-season-three-episode-two-clip/

[Dust Bunny]

54 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

Two new teaser trailers for the next episode ... I'm assuming.

http://ew.com/tv/2017/09/13/outlander-jamie-dunbonnet-episode-2-sneak-peek/?utm_campaign=entertainmentweekly&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&xid=entertainment-weekly_socialflow_twitter

http://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/news/a29374/outlander-season-three-episode-two-clip/

I love seeing those three boys, in the first clip. I'm excited to see the younger generation come into their own.

[Nidratime]

Excellent write up of season 3.

Outlander Season 3 Review: The Naming Of Names

https://popwrapped.com/outlander-season-3-review-the-naming-of-names

[Clawdette]

I love that article, Nidratime. 

[LadyChaos]

I wonder, since TM is going to be in s4 in some capacity. I wonder if they are not going to show much of Claire's life with Frank now, and show more later.  Because the preview for 303 already looks like she and Frank are having that massive fight the night he dies. Indicating that 304 and 305 are all about finding Jamie and preparing to go back.

[Mockingbird]

MURTAGH. 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/live-feed/outlander-surrender-recap-caitriona-balfe-tobias-menzies-ron-moore-interviews-1038768

A strange way to break that news, but I will absolutely take it. I was dreading his death scene. Book Murtagh was fine, but show Murtagh is fairly consistently just wonderful. 

[toolazy]

54 minutes ago, Mockingbird said:

MURTAGH. 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/live-feed/outlander-surrender-recap-caitriona-balfe-tobias-menzies-ron-moore-interviews-1038768

A strange way to break that news, but I will absolutely take it. I was dreading his death scene. Book Murtagh was fine, but show Murtagh is fairly consistently just wonderful. 

YES!!!! Thanks for posting that.  

[AheadofStraight]

9 hours ago, LadyChaos said:

I wonder, since TM is going to be in s4 in some capacity. I wonder if they are not going to show much of Claire's life with Frank now, and show more later.  Because the preview for 303 already looks like she and Frank are having that massive fight the night he dies. Indicating that 304 and 305 are all about finding Jamie and preparing to go back.

Diana tweeted to Tobias yesterday that it would be strange not to have him around in season 4. No Frank flashbacks?

 

Quote

MURTAGH. 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/live-feed/outlander-surrender-recap-caitriona-balfe-tobias-menzies-ron-moore-interviews-1038768

A strange way to break that news, but I will absolutely take it. I was dreading his death scene. Book Murtagh was fine, but show Murtagh is fairly consistently just wonderful. 

They really have some explaining to do then. Hrmph. Book purist in me having some trouble with this one despite enjoying the TV character.

Edited September 18, 2017 by AheadofStraight

[LadyChaos]

11 hours ago, Mockingbird said:

MURTAGH. 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/live-feed/outlander-surrender-recap-caitriona-balfe-tobias-menzies-ron-moore-interviews-1038768

A strange way to break that news, but I will absolutely take it. I was dreading his death scene. Book Murtagh was fine, but show Murtagh is fairly consistently just wonderful. 

I wonder if he will take the place of Duncan Innes in the books.

[Eureka]

16 minutes ago, LadyChaos said:

I wonder if he will take the place of Duncan Innes in the books.

Not happy about this change at all. The whole idea (to me) in the books was that Jamie had to deal with those 20 years more or less alone without his support system.

[LadyChaos]

The question begs though.... we're is Murtagh now.... my first thought is that he must be in prison.

[Nidratime]

Jamie was never totally alone, at least while he was in hiding around Lallybroch. He would still see Ian, Jenny, Fergus, etc. If he meets up with Murtagh in prison, I don't think they're going to end up in the same place afterwards.

As for Murtagh taking another character's place, we don't know that for sure and they would definitely have to change the storyline to fit the type of man Murtagh is. I prefer to wait, rather than speculate.

[morgan]

If I had to guess, we won't see Murtaugh in prison, I think he was transported and we will see him in the new world when Claire and Jamie wash ashore.  At least that is what I would like to see, I do think Jamie alone in prison is important. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

13 hours ago, Mockingbird said:

MURTAGH. 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/live-feed/outlander-surrender-recap-caitriona-balfe-tobias-menzies-ron-moore-interviews-1038768

A strange way to break that news, but I will absolutely take it. I was dreading his death scene. Book Murtagh was fine, but show Murtagh is fairly consistently just wonderful. 

?????

58 minutes ago, Eureka said:

Not happy about this change at all. The whole idea (to me) in the books was that Jamie had to deal with those 20 years more or less alone without his support system.

Me either. I understand that Duncan Lacroix became very popular--and it would have been difficult to lose him as Murtagh. BUT, what formed Jamie, and the man he became, was due to losing Murtagh. At least for me.  Not to mention, he would see his ghost.

And it's been awhile, but didn't Diana write that though Jamie has not recollection of Culloden, that he carries Murtagh's body? Remember, in the buik, he was a small statured man.

Edited September 18, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[DittyDotDot]

23 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

And it's been awhile, but didn't Diana write that though Jamie has not recollection of Culloden, that he carries Murtagh's body? Remember, in the buik, he was a small statured man.

I don't remember Jamie carrying Murtagh in the book, but he woke up next to Murtagh's body on the battlefield and there was no doubt he was dead.

Edited September 18, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[GHScorpiosRule]

11 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I don't remember Jamie carrying Murtagh in the book, but he woke up next to Murtagh's body on the battlefield and there was no doubt he was dead

Jamie woke up next to both Murtagh and BJR's bodies? Why do I only remember him waking up to discover that motherfuckingmurderingtorturingRAPIST Black Jack?

[katville]

I for one am very happy. I think Murtagh will add a lot of what will be needed in the colonies -- a tie to the beginning books. Sometimes I felt like I was reading a completely new series in the last four books, to their detriment. 

[FnkyChkn34]

My initial reaction to this is great news.  I came to love showMurtagh!!  I don't know what role he'll play and I don't really care; I'm happy to still have him.

[nodorothyparker]

I'm willing to take a wait and see on this one.  Show Angus and Rupert strayed a fair bit from their book counterparts and worked out very well and show Murtagh has already been much more of a fleshed out character than he was in the books as well.   As of this last episode it's already been six years since he and Jamie would have last seen each other.  If they don't meet up again for awhile, it could still have largely the same effect.  I like Duncan Lacroix and what he's done with the role a lot and I'd rather have him maybe as some retooled version of Duncan Innes than yet another new character in what's going to be a sea of new faces going forward.

[DittyDotDot]

56 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Jamie woke up next to both Murtagh and BJR's bodies? Why do I only remember him waking up to discover that motherfuckingmurderingtorturingRAPIST Black Jack?

Probably because it was his motherfuckingmurderingtorturingRAPIST!! Those things stick in the mind, ya ken? ;)

[FnkyChkn34]

The more I think about Murtagh, the more I remember someone somewhere saying that Murtagh can't be the Duncan Innes character because he'd never marry Jocasta.  But, why wouldn't he?  He offered to marry Mary to do the honorable thing, so why wouldn't he marry Jocasta to the honorable thing as well?  I haven't read all of the books, but does Duncan then cheat on her?  Well, Murtagh wasn't so discreet in France, now was he?  So that could be "in character" as well.  I think I'd be fine with this change, if it indeed is the path the writers took.  We obviously have no idea so we'll just have to wait and see!

[nodorothyparker]

Both Duncan and Jocasta end up cheating on each with house slaves, which is going to cause all kinds of issues if they get far enough to adapt that bit anyway. The thing that makes me think subbing Murtagh for Duncan could work is that Duncan initially stays on to help out at Jocasta's plantation and later eventually marries her because she's been trying to strong arm Jamie into becoming her heir and taking over the plantation from her and he just. can't. do. it. both because of the slavery issue and because of his need to feel like his own man.  So whoever is in the Duncan role is still taking care of Jamie's family and doing what Jamie needs to be free to forge his own path.  Sure, there are still further issues down the road with the hidden French gold, but who knows if they'll get that far into the story or include that anyway?  It's not like the show hasn't dropped or completely rewritten other relatively minor plot points as needed.

[DittyDotDot]

27 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

The more I think about Murtagh, the more I remember someone somewhere saying that Murtagh can't be the Duncan Innes character because he'd never marry Jocasta.  But, why wouldn't he?  He offered to marry Mary to do the honorable thing, so why wouldn't he marry Jocasta to the honorable thing as well?  I haven't read all of the books, but does Duncan then cheat on her?  Well, Murtagh wasn't so discreet in France, now was he?  So that could be "in character" as well.  I think I'd be fine with this change, if it indeed is the path the writers took.  We obviously have no idea so we'll just have to wait and see!

It's not that Murtagh wouldn't marry Jocasta exactly. The reason Duncan and Jocasta marry is because Jocasta needs a husband or someone who can be the "manly" face to her business. But not just any husband will do, she needs someone who is willing to sit back and let her call the shots and be her husband in name only. Which, is not Murtagh, IMO. Duncan does have an affair with a slave girl later, but Jocasta is also having an affair with one of her slaves too. Their marriage just isn't one of love.

Although I'm not thrilled by this change, I think it can work. In fact, I actually think a relationship between Murtagh and Jocasta could be interesting to watch. It couldn't be the one Duncan and Jocasta have in the books, but that's okay with me. But, that would also mean Murtagh wouldn't be with Claire and Jamie very much while they build Fraser's Ridge and during the Revolutionary War Duncan and Jocasta move to Canada. So, I think it can work best if Murtagh doesn't become who Duncan is in the books and instead replaces one of the minor Scottish characters who lives on Fraser's Ridge.

Edited September 18, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[FnkyChkn34]

12 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

It's not that Murtagh wouldn't marry Jocasta exactly. The reason Duncan and Jocasta marry is because Jocasta needs a husband or someone who can be the "manly" face to her business. But not just any husband will do, she needs someone who is willing to sit back and let her call the shots and be her husband in name only. Which, is not Murtagh, IMO. Duncan does have an affair with a slave girl later, but Jocasta is also having an affair with one of her slaves too. Their marriage just isn't one of love.

Although I'm not thrilled by this change, I think it can work. In fact, I actually think a relationship between Murtagh and Jocasta could be interesting to watch. It couldn't be the one Duncan and Jocasta have in the books, but that's okay with me. But, that would also mean Murtagh wouldn't be with Claire and Jamie very much while they build Fraser's Ridge and during the Revolutionary War Duncan and Jocasta move to Canada. So, I think it can work best if Murtagh doesn't become who Duncan is in the books and instead replaces one of the minor Scottish characters who lives on Fraser's Ridge.

I agree.  I would prefer that he does not take the Duncan role, but when I was thinking about it more, I realized that it wouldn't be the worst thing.  As you said, he's a different type of person, but it could still work.

[Glaze Crazy]

Hector bought River Run with some of the French gold and it comes into play later when Jamie and Co. use some of it to pay for several different endeavours, money/wealth they otherwise wouldn't have access to in their circumstances. So I don't know how they can omit it's existence, but then again, many characters on TV and movies seem to have no problem doing stuff without obvious financial abilities too.

I'm open to seeing what they do with Murtaugh. I know I've said that Jamie's loss of Murtaugh at his side was a huge part of his character's growth and maturity towards being a full leader of men, but I think if they go with them being separated for 20 years it could achieve the same effect in an acceptable way. I don't see Murtaugh returning to his constant sidekick role though. He's also had those years on his own to become a separate entity. By the time the story moves to the colonies Jamie has grownup Fergus and wee Ian as his own extensions/sidekicks, so I don't see a place for Murtaugh as attached to Jamie's side, but rather as more in the Duncan Innes role, present sometimes and busy doing plantation business offscreen for most other times.

[Atlanta]

6 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I agree.  I would prefer that he does not take the Duncan role, but when I was thinking about it more, I realized that it wouldn't be the worst thing.  As you said, he's a different type of person, but it could still work.

Innes seemed too milquetoast for me. I can't imagine Murtaugh as a beta male. 

[Petunia846]

On 9/17/2017 at 11:35 PM, Mockingbird said:

MURTAGH. 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/live-feed/outlander-surrender-recap-caitriona-balfe-tobias-menzies-ron-moore-interviews-1038768

A strange way to break that news, but I will absolutely take it. I was dreading his death scene. Book Murtagh was fine, but show Murtagh is fairly consistently just wonderful. 

OMG. Eeeeeeeeee! That's crazy they just laid that out in an interview though. Anyway...eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! I'm pleased.

13 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

The more I think about Murtagh, the more I remember someone somewhere saying that Murtagh can't be the Duncan Innes character because he'd never marry Jocasta.  But, why wouldn't he?  He offered to marry Mary to do the honorable thing, so why wouldn't he marry Jocasta to the honorable thing as well?  I haven't read all of the books, but does Duncan then cheat on her?  Well, Murtagh wasn't so discreet in France, now was he?  So that could be "in character" as well.  I think I'd be fine with this change, if it indeed is the path the writers took.  We obviously have no idea so we'll just have to wait and see!

I think I posted somewhere, at some point...I also think it's not so far a stretch for Murtagh to marry Jocasta because he was in love with her sister, Jamie's mother Ellen. But we'll see. I would be perfectly happy still having Duncan and just having Murtagh hanging around the Ridge.

I don't really think keeping him alive takes away from the tragedy of Culloden or Jamie's experience. I guess we'll see next week whether I'm wrong about this, but I don't think we'll see him at the prison. My guess is that he's already been transported to the colonies and that we won't see him until Jamie and Claire wash up in GA or even until the start of S4. In that case, Jamie is still going to have twenty years and a whole lifetime of experiences without him, just like he's had without Claire. And Murtagh will similarly have lived another lifetime and will be a different person when they meet again.

Or we'll find him again next week in prison. Who knows? *dances away happily*

[DittyDotDot]

13 hours ago, Glaze Crazy said:

I don't see Murtaugh returning to his constant sidekick role though. He's also had those years on his own to become a separate entity. By the time the story moves to the colonies Jamie has grownup Fergus and wee Ian as his own extensions/sidekicks, so I don't see a place for Murtaugh as attached to Jamie's side, but rather as more in the Duncan Innes role, present sometimes and busy doing plantation business offscreen for most other times.

In that case, I guess I would question the point of saving Murtagh if he's not going to be part of the action, so to speak?

[FnkyChkn34]

Also, how old is Murtagh?  After the time jump, he'll be in his 60s?

[LadyChaos]

This is why I suspect they will get rid of Duncan and put Murtagh in his place.... Duncan is older 60s-70s?, marries Jocasta and stays in River Run while Jamie settles in Frazier Ridge. So instead of introducing a new character, they are just going to have Murtagh became Duncan's character. He will help Jamie until he decides to stay with Jocasta in River Run, then we will just see him time to time as the story calls for it. In reality I can see why they might choose to do this since we really wouldn't have Duncan in every ep or even every other ep if they get that far in production. Why waste time trying to establish a background for a character we will only see maybe 2-3 eps per season when they can give that part to an established character already that is loved by fans. 

 

Really it it happens all the time in TV and movies. Of course this is all my suspicions.

[Nidratime]

Sneak peek of the scene in episode three where Lord John Grey discovers that Jamie is at Ardsmuir.

http://www.tvguide.com/news/outlander-exclusive-john-william-grey-jamie/

[Haleth]

Quote

This is why I suspect they will get rid of Duncan and put Murtagh in his place.... Duncan is older 60s-70s?, marries Jocasta and stays in River Run while Jamie settles in Frazier Ridge. So instead of introducing a new character, they are just going to have Murtagh became Duncan's character. He will help Jamie until he decides to stay with Jocasta in River Run, then we will just see him time to time as the story calls for it. In reality I can see why they might choose to do this since we really wouldn't have Duncan in every ep or even every other ep if they get that far in production. Why waste time trying to establish a background for a character we will only see maybe 2-3 eps per season when they can give that part to an established character already that is loved by fans. 

I completely agree. It makes sense to combine a well received character with a minor one we only see occasionally. 

Some of the non-book readers are getting antsy about the separate time lines. I can only imagine the grumbling about Geneva and the horror once Laoghaire comes back into the picture. 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Haleth

[ElsieH]

18 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

Sneak peek of the scene in episode three where Lord John Grey discovers that Jamie is at Ardsmuir.

http://www.tvguide.com/news/outlander-exclusive-john-william-grey-jamie/

Wow, that guy playing Quarry is a surprise. Not sure the prisoners would call him Handsome Harry, he seems older than the one in the book. But I guess that doesn't matter since he doesn't really show up again in the main series.

 

I am really hoping the show gets better. I really don't mind when they change things, especially when it makes more sense than it did in the book. And I think most of the changes they had done before now did make better sense and improved things in general (with the exception of the Fox's Lair-- that was just outright dumb). But so far in these 2 episodes, I haven't really liked any of the changes and feel that they are changing things that actually made more sense in the book, like the reason Fergus got his hand chopped off. At least in the book he didn't pick an argument with the redcoats. I can't really put my finger on it, but something just seems off so far. I only hope it picks up steam because frankly, the whole Caribbean adventure part of Voyager one of my least favorite parts of the whole series anyway. I was rather hoping they would make that storyline better and have it make more sense than it did in the books (to me anyway).

 

On that note, add me to the list hoping Ron is just faking everyone out about Murtagh. I just don't see how they can keep him alive and have it be believable.

Edited September 19, 2017 by ElsieH

[FnkyChkn34]

20 minutes ago, ElsieH said:

I am really hoping the show gets better. I really don't mind when they change things, especially when it makes more sense than it did in the book. And I think most of the changes they had done before now did make better sense and improved things in general (with the exception of the Fox's Lair-- that was just outright dumb). But so far in these 2 episodes, I haven't really liked any of the changes and feel that they are changing things that actually made more sense in the book, like the reason Fergus got his hand chopped off. At least in the book he didn't pick an argument with the redcoats. I can't really put my finger on it, but something just seems off so far. I only hope it picks up steam because frankly, the whole Caribbean adventure part of Voyager one of my least favorite parts of the whole series anyway. I was rather hoping they would make that storyline better and have it make more sense than it did in the books (to me anyway).

I'm quoting the above post not to single it out, but just to ask a general question to all posters in response to a point it brings up, if I may:

I hear/see a lot of complaints about "all of the drastic changes" that the show has made so far.  (Some here, many on other social media like Matt Roberts' instagram, etc.)  Honestly, I haven't noticed any "major" changes yet.  What are these, and why are they so egregious?  Matt (and maybe Ron) already explained that they had to film the Lallybroch scenes in daylight due to the crew and filming constraints.  Those changes don't bother me.  We also get very little of Claire and Frank's marriage in the book, so they have to make up a little extra to flesh (flush?) it out, and those don't bother me either.  What am I missing?

 

ETA:  Fergus is a hothead; it makes perfect sense to me that he'd mouth-off to redcoats.  Just carrying a cask of ale in the book didn't seem like reason to lose a hand to me, so I guess I don't mind that change either.  Also, he was leading the redcoats away from Jamie's cave in the show, so he was actually doing a good thing.

Edited September 19, 2017 by FnkyChkn34

[DittyDotDot]

26 minutes ago, ElsieH said:

Wow, that guy playing Quarry is a surprise. Not sure the prisoners would call him Handsome Harry, he seems older than the one in the book.

If I remember right, Harry got his nickname of "Handsome Harry" due to an ugly scar on his face. As I recall, he wasn't particularly handsome. I'm not quite sure, but isn't Harry the same age as Hal, who is, what, 10-15 years older than John?

30 minutes ago, ElsieH said:

I haven't really liked any of the changes and feel that they are changing things that actually made more sense in the book, like the reason Fergus got his hand chopped off. At least in the book he didn't pick an argument with the redcoats.

I haven't seen the episode yet, but I believe Fergus did indeed pick a fight with the redcoats in the book. Well, maybe pick a fight isn't the right phrase, but they wanted to confiscate the cask he was carrying and, instead of just giving it to them and letting them go on their way, he mouthed off to and taunted them which led to the cask being dropped and one of the soldiers pulling out his sword.

[FnkyChkn34]

4 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I haven't seen the episode yet, but I believe Fergus did indeed pick a fight with the redcoats in the book. Well, maybe pick a fight isn't the right phrase, but they wanted to confiscate the cask he was carrying and, instead of just giving it to them and letting them go on their way, he mouthed off to and taunted them which led to the cask being dropped and one of the soldiers pulling out his sword.

This sounds right to me as well.  Fergus never could keep his mouth shut. 

[pootlus]

I don't mind Murtagh being alive at all, it's a small sop to my heart after losing Angus and Rupert even though I realise that they had to go to illustrate the horrors of war and the destruction of Scottish culture.

I'd rather he join Claire, Jamie & Young Ian at Fraser's Ridge than replace Duncan Innes, who seems to be more of a plot point in Jocasta's story than a character in his own right, but that's just me.  Some parts of the Fraser's Ridge story got quite boring (how many times did we need to hear about Claire tending her vegetable garden?) so I'm happy for another character to liven things up.  Heck, they could do an entire episode of Murtagh versus the White Sow. 

[ElsieH]

14 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I'm quoting the above post not to single it out, but just to ask a general question to all posters in response to a point it brings up, if I may:

I hear/see a lot of complaints about "all of the drastic changes" that the show has made so far.  (Some here, many on other social media like Matt Roberts' instagram, etc.)  Honestly, I haven't noticed any "major" changes yet.  What are these, and why are they so egregious?  Matt (and maybe Ron) already explained that they had to film the Lallybroch scenes in daylight due to the crew and filming constraints.  Those changes don't bother me.  We also get very little of Claire and Frank's marriage in the book, so they have to make up a little extra to flesh (flush?) it out, and those don't bother me either.  What am I missing?

For me, it's not really "major" changes, it is minor things that make less sense to me. For instance, I didn't like the way the fight between Jamie and BJR was romanticized. That may not be a change since we don't actually know what happened. I also don't like the way they have changed Frank. Maybe they will show more in the next few episodes, but the way they have him portrayed so far indicates to me, they are glossing over how the problems between Claire and him really are two-sided. I'm thinking of the line "For God's sake Claire, couldn't you have cleaned yourself up a little?" on the day from hell.

 

Really though, I guess most of my issues are from the latest episode, and it is a lot of minor things that just seem to have impacted my overall enjoyment of the episode. The dunbonnet makes no sense if it doesn't cover any red hair. I think the viewers are smart enough to see how isolated Jamie is and what it has done to him without the visual cues that are obvious and detract from the story. It didn't make a lot of sense to me that the redcoats would even know about the dunbonnet either or be looking for him. Why would the Fraser tenants gossip about it around them? How did the redcoat hear a board creak but not the baby fussing? Why did Jenny act like wee Ian was the first bairn Jamie had seen since before Culloden? Where were the other Murray kids? Would any red-blooded male really stop in the middle of sex to pick a fight? Fergus losing his hand just because he was taunting soldiers (and not because he refused to hand over the cask and taunting them, but the actual amputation seemed more or less an accident when they pulled out a sword). All that just detracted from the episode for me. Again, not to the level of Fox's Lair, but I dunno.

 

I did like some changes, like Fergus shooting the raven. Because it made more sense to me that way. Also Jenny turning Jamie in was well done. I liked the neighbors too. But no mention of Claire, that she had the sight and knew he wouldn't be hanged, no mention that she was pregnant when Jamie "lost" her. All that would have been nice to have I think and made it more enjoyable for me. Anyway, just my opinion, but we are only a couple of episodes in.

[DittyDotDot]

1 minute ago, pootlus said:

Heck, they could do an entire episode of Murtagh versus the White Sow. 

Oh, the white sow...yes, Murtagh and the white sow could be epic and immensely entertaining!

3 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

This sounds right to me as well.  Fergus never could keep his mouth shut. 

Yes, even Jamie is thinking something to that effect while it's happening and Jamie is hidden nearby unable to help Fergus.

[FnkyChkn34]

5 minutes ago, ElsieH said:

For me, it's not really "major" changes, it is minor things that make less sense to me. For instance, I didn't like the way the fight between Jamie and BJR was romanticized. That may not be a change since we don't actually know what happened. I also don't like the way they have changed Frank. Maybe they will show more in the next few episodes, but the way they have him portrayed so far indicates to me, they are glossing over how the problems between Claire and him really are two-sided. I'm thinking of the line "For God's sake Claire, couldn't you have cleaned yourself up a little?" on the day from hell.

 

Really though, I guess most of my issues are from the latest episode, and it is a lot of minor things that just seem to have impacted my overall enjoyment of the episode. The dunbonnet makes no sense if it doesn't cover any red hair. I think the viewers are smart enough to see how isolated Jamie is and what it has done to him without the visual cues that are obvious and detract from the story. It didn't make a lot of sense to me that the redcoats would even know about the dunbonnet either or be looking for him. Why would the Fraser tenants gossip about it around them? How did the redcoat hear a board creak but not the baby fussing? Why did Jenny act like wee Ian was the first bairn Jamie had seen since before Culloden? Where were the other Murray kids? Would any red-blooded male really stop in the middle of sex to pick a fight? Fergus losing his hand just because he was taunting soldiers (and not because he refused to hand over the cask and taunting them, but the actual amputation seemed more or less an accident when they pulled out a sword). All that just detracted from the episode for me. Again, not to the level of Fox's Lair, but I dunno.

 

I did like some changes, like Fergus shooting the raven. Because it made more sense to me that way. Also Jenny turning Jamie in was well done. I liked the neighbors too. But no mention of Claire, that she had the sight and knew he wouldn't be hanged, no mention that she was pregnant when Jamie "lost" her. All that would have been nice to have I think and made it more enjoyable for me. Anyway, just my opinion, but we are only a couple of episodes in.

Wasn't the Dunbonnet reference directly from the books?  I thought that it was; I vaguely recall having to look up the definition of "dunbonnet."  The redcoats could have seen a glimpse or two of this mysterious man on their patrols, rather than need people to gossip.  

You bring up other very valid points, and I definitely see where you are coming from.  I do think some of your points, IMO, are more critiques with the episode (still very valid!) rather than actual changes that the show writers made.

Did Jamie tell anyone in the books that Claire was pregnant?  I thought he just told everyone she was "gone" and then he refused to talk about her.  I don't recall the sight or reference to him being hanged.  Didn't they both assume he'd die at Culloden?   

[Bort]

9 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Did Jamie tell anyone in the books that Claire was pregnant?

No, because I remember waiting and WAITING for him to tell Jenny, especially when she would annoyingly pester him about fathering children. He didn't tell her about Faith nor that Claire had been pregnant when she "left."

[DittyDotDot]

9 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Wasn't the Dunbonnet reference directly from the books?

Yes. And, as I recall, the redcoats had been lurking around trying to catch this "dunbonnet" who was rumored to be in the area and they thought was an escapee--not necessarily Jamie or Red Jamie, though. In fact, as I recall they unknowingly almost caught Jamie on one occasion when they came upon the cave when Jamie was outside, but he slipped into the cave and they walked right past him.

[GHScorpiosRule]

33 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Did Jamie tell anyone in the books that Claire was pregnant?

 

24 minutes ago, kariyaki said:

No, because I remember waiting and WAITING for him to tell Jenny, especially when she would annoyingly pester him about fathering children. He didn't tell her about Faith nor that Claire had been pregnant when she "left."

And this led to the awesome scene in Voyager when Brianna shows up and show everyone the pearls that Claire gave her, that were the pearls that belonged to Jenny and Jamie's mother.

[Nidratime]

27 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

 

And this led to the awesome scene in Voyager when Brianna shows up and show everyone the pearls that Claire gave her, that were the pearls that belonged to Jenny and Jamie's mother.

That's in Drums of Autumn, right?