Show Spoilers and Book Talk

[Clawdette]

That cape definitely looks like something that would have been available in the late 60s. I had one in navy and it may actually still be in the attic. As Claire assembled her trip-back-through-the-stones wardrobe, I can see her choosing this. 

[Dust Bunny]

Finally. Droughtlander has officially hit me. I've been waiting for photos for weeks. Outlander was my distraction during breast cancer treatment in 2015. Now I need it to be my distraction in America 2017. "The West Wing" 2.0.

I think they have to age them slowly. It's a long book series; you don't want to do too much too soon.

Sam's smile at Cait has me so excited for reunited joy, post-print shop. Gotta get the joy where we can find it, these days. I'll be an easy viewer to please for awhile.

[DittyDotDot]

Oh, I like the cape only because it looks out of place, like it should be if she acquired it 200 years into the future. Now I can't stop smiling thinking of zippers! ;)

I think lighting will make a big difference in the aging. But, I'm also firmly set in the less-is-more camp on these things anyway. Plus, Sam and Cait are going to have to be aged up for most the rest of the series now, probably best to keep it simple at first and build up over time.

[areca]

It's entirely possible they'll be doing the aging with CGI...it's getting to the point where it's equally effective and cheaper than straight up makeup work.

[Nidratime]

Actor playing Mr. Willoughby:

http://m.imdb.com/name/nm2299621/?ref_=vi_close

[Dust Bunny]

I trust that the writers will handle Willoughby well, but I always felt it was an unnecessary plot. It reminds me of that writing exercise in school when someone starts a story by writing a paragraph and then passing it to the next student to write the next paragraph and so on. You read the story, and often something random will have happened that doesn't make sense. The later students had to either go with it and weave that into the story or just ignore it and try to keep the story on track. So I hope Willoughby will be a truly fleshed out character, and not a plot point to be used. 

[WatchrTina]

Weel I'm looking for a distraction on this day-after-the-inauguration and I re-read Voyager recently so I'm going speculate about what Mr. Willougby brings to the novel and what (if anything) could be cut from his role.

The first part of Voyager is all about reuniting Jamie & Claire and explaining what they've been through during the 20-year separation.  The print-shop reunion (sigh) marks a hard stop in that part of the book.  The minute Jamie says "I've forgotten Mr. Willoughby!" we begin what I think of as "Voyager Part Deux -- The French Farce" and Mr. Willoughby plays a couple of key roles in that story.  

Diana wanted to get Jamie and Claire out of Scotland and to the New World.  She needed a compelling reason for them to go.  Chasing after the kidnapped wee Ian was sufficient for that.  But she also needed a reason for them not to return immediately to Scotland -- otherwise they surely would have escorted Ian home after they rescued him.  That's where Mr. Willoughby comes in.  He's the one who secretly betrayed Jamie to the excisemen, leading to the battle on the beach.  That same betrayal is the reason that the captain of the ship that presses Claire into service knows who "Alexander Malcolm" really is.  It is Mr. W's betrayal that makes Jamie realize it is time to get out (and stay out) of Scotland for a while, while upping the tension on board the ship when Jamie realizes that one of his men has betrayed him. 

Diana throws us a red herring when she has Mr. Willoughby murder an exciseman in the brothel.  I think that was done so that Jamie (and we, the readers), wrongly assume Mr. W can't possibly be the one who has secretly betrayed Jamie.  But Mr. Willoughby shoots that exciseman to protect the "honorable first wife" he's just met.  He can be chivalrous in his actions to protect Claire while still harboring the deep resentment of Jamie that we learn about at the end of the book.  He has complex motivations.  That's actually a good thing.

Diana throws us another red herring when she gives us the scene at the ball in the Caribbean that suggests that Mr. Willoughby is the "fiend" that was murdering women in Scotland when Claire first arrived and who has now murdered again.  Now why does THAT have to be in the book?  It amps up the tension nicely.  It picks up (and finally resolves) the "murder-mystery" plot thread that had begun earlier in the book.  But I think its main purpose is to create a crisis that makes it difficult for Lord John to aid Jamie in his search for Ian (which he would most likely have done in other circumstances.)  I now wonder if the murders and the "fiend" will be cut from the TV show.  That ball given by Lord John needs to end in crisis, with Jamie nearly unmasked, and Claire nearly recognized by the captain of the ship she jumped off of.  That could be accomplished without the murder plot-line, but then you need a reason for Mr. W to run away.  Hmmm.  It will be interesting to see what they do.

The whole second half of Voyager is just one crisis after another driving Jamie and Claire to America and throwing up roadblocks to ensure they don't return to Scotland.  In the adaptation of the first two novels all the key plot "crisis" points were retained.  It was the quiet character moments that had to be cut.  Mr. W is deeply entangled in the key plot points and crises of Voyager (particularly the betrayal that motivates Jamie into abandoning the life he's created for himself in post-rebellion Scotland).  I don't think he could possibly be removed from the story.  Also his skills with acupuncture are essential to give Diana a way around the life-threatening seasickness that her character, Jamie, is forever saddled with.  For that reason you couldn't just re-write the character as another Scot.

I know Mr. W is a controversial character and I am very interested to see how he will be portrayed on camera.  But I think it would have been impossible to eliminate him from the story.

ETA:  Upon reflection, I probably should have put this in the book vs. show thread.  Sorry.

Edited January 22, 2017 by WatchrTina

[lianau]

I truly hope they don't make too many changes to Mr Willoughby. I want Jamie to treat him just like he treats him in the book , pretty much as an exotic pet and not a person . Jamie as a character has some really deep flaws which, I think, are being  glossed over  by many people because he's Jamie Fraser who can't do anything wrong .

[auntlada]

I think the trick will be making Mr. Willoughby not a caricature, but still allowing Jamie to see him in what is today an unacceptable way -- although for his time, I think Jamie's treatment of Mr. Willoughby is very enlightened.

it will be more difficult on screen, I think, because in the book, readers see him through Jamie's and Claire's eyes, so his character is filtered, but on screen, viewers will see him wih their own eyes. That lack of historical filter means they need to show him more accurately as a real Chinese man or they are going to offend a lot of people.

[Nidratime]

Quote

 

Is Ira Steven Behr back working with Outlander?

Caitriona Balfe ‏@caitrionambalfe Jan 20
At last ...! @IraStevenBehr aka Blue beard has joined the fun! Or the madness ... either way he'll fit right in. Xxx

 

Well, apparently ... he only joined twitter. No news here folks.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Nidratime

[toolazy]

I'm not that offended by the way that Jamie treats Mr Willoughby.  It's Claire referring to him as "Jamie's pet Chinaman" that I object to.  This woman came from 1968 so it seems to me she should be a little bit less obnoxious about it.  Maybe I'm expecting too much but this is a woman whose best friend is a black man and has herself suffered discrimination as a female doctor.  

I have a feeling that events will be greatly changed from the books so I'm keeping an open mind. 

[areca]

On 1/20/2017 at 11:30 PM, Dust Bunny said:

I trust that the writers will handle Willoughby well, but I always felt it was an unnecessary plot. It reminds me of that writing exercise in school when someone starts a story by writing a paragraph and then passing it to the next student to write the next paragraph and so on. You read the story, and often something random will have happened that doesn't make sense. The later students had to either go with it and weave that into the story or just ignore it and try to keep the story on track. So I hope Willoughby will be a truly fleshed out character, and not a plot point to be used. 

Oh man...I adored Willoughby to be honest.  All of it.  The elegance, the disdain, the yearning, the human tragedy of it all.  Some of his speeches were my very favorite parts of the books.  I always found him to be quite fleshed out.  I hope they do it justice too!  But for different reasons I guess.  

[lianau]

On 22.1.2017 at 8:25 AM, Grashka said:

I also think that book!Jamie is a flawed man, and I mean it in a good way - it's what builds a good character, isn't it. I always find it very curious that a big part of the fandom (not anyone here though) totally gloss over it and basically believe everyone around him should kiss his hands all day long in endless thanks for his utter perfectness, most especially William lol

And then they lash out at Brianna and William for not immediately being Team Jamie fuck everyone else . 

What really annoyed me in the last book was Jamie going out to kill Claire's surviving rapist without telling her  because he can't stand the idea of having him walk around. 

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, lianau said:

And then they lash out at Brianna and William for not immediately being Team Jamie fuck everyone else . 

What really annoyed me in the last book was Jamie going out to kill Claire's surviving rapist without telling her  because he can't stand the idea of having him walk around. 

Sadly that's totally in character. After all, how much time and energy did he and Roger expend to try to take down Stephen Bonnet?  Against Bree's stated wishes, in fact.  When their women are raped, it is the men who are apparently the victims.  

[Nidratime]

The casting of Mr. Willoughby has been confirmed and we also have the casting of Captain Leonard:

Quote

Outlander ‏@Outlander_STARZ 3m3 minutes ago
The #Outlander clan is growing by two more members! Welcome Gary Young as Mr. Willoughby and @CharlieHiett as Captain Leonard!

[Dust Bunny]

I just finished Voyager on audiobook on Tuesday (it's amazing how fast the books go, with my new 2 hour daily commute). Willoughby came off much better than the 3 times I read it. I'm not sure why. Maybe the change of voice gave a better sense of him having his own identity, as opposed to being defined by Jamie or Claire.

Minor aside, I'm going to Hamilton in May, and I've been obsessively listening to the soundtrack for months. When I got to Voyager's chapter of the hurricane, I had to google, as soon as I got home, to see if that was Hamilton's hurricane. Alas, Hamilton's was in 1772, and Voyager's hurricane was 1767.

I'm in no rush (I'm enjoying the ride), but I hope we get to the Revolutionary material. TURN: Washington's Spies is an under-rated show. It'll be fun to see Jamie, Claire, and Co. interact with American history.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Dust Bunny

[morgan]

Ok, I just have to say while I don't envy your 2 hour commute, I am wildly jealous of your upcoming tickets to Hamilton!  My 12 year old daughter and I listen to the soundtrack often.  At least we have that!  Love that you checked on the hurricane dates!  Lol.  

[Nidratime]

The following is actually a book spoiler from a tweet Diana Gabaldon made today re a future Outlander book, so I'll put it in spoiler tags for all.

Regarding Jamie's ghost....
 

Spoiler

 

@Writer_DG Does it ever come up again? Does the Ghost of Jamie visit 1940's Scotland?

Diana Gabaldon :  All there is is what's in the book. You won't see the ghost again until the last thing in the last book--and we're not there yet.

 

Edited February 5, 2017 by Nidratime

[lianau]

Honestly , am I the only one who doesn't give a **** about the ghost . I'm reading a book about time travel and the ghost really isn't important to me .

[Nidratime]

A couple of photos have been posted of Claire alone and Claire with Frank, from two different decades if their clothes are any hint.

[Bort]

The article says they shot in South Africa for the Caribbean stuff. They are using the Black Sails sets after all, it seems...

[toolazy]

I wonder if they're trying to avoid competing with Game of Thrones, which I think is going to start back up in the summer. 

Edit: It looks like I replied to the wrong thread (twice.)  It won't hurt my feelings if a mod wants to move it. 

Edited February 15, 2017 by toolazy

[Bort]

They could also be trying for next season's Emmy eligibility.

[Nidratime]

Quote

I wonder if they're trying to avoid competing with Game of Thrones, which I think is going to start back up in the summer. 

Have no idea if they wait just for that.

The only thing about September is that many new shows, as well as the old ones premiere at that time. So, even though it won't be competing against GoT directly, it will be competing against whatever new and old Sunday night shows are starting in the Fall. The last two seasons, Outlander was mostly competing with reruns or got a month's jump on all the new programming.

[toolazy]

I have to say, I was mentally prepared for  June premier because it was pretty obvious that it wasn't going to happen in April but man, September is a long time to wait.  

[morgan]

I have had August in my mind all along so September isn't too far off.  Trying to reconcile myself to the fact that I have a busy spring, and summer is always, well, summer.  So September, while a long way away, isn't too bad I guess.  I would rather that than have then rush it.  I guess. 

[Dust Bunny]

September?! Damn. I was preparing for June as well. But September?!

Aren't the Emmys usually in September? If so, wouldn't they miss being eligible for that? (A quick Google tells me yes, and that Stephen Colbert will be hosting. That's cool, at least.)

Maybe, because seasons 3 and 4 were renewed together, the Droughtlander between those seasons won't be as long as this one. And/or maybe this allows a long break for the cast, to avoid their burnout. I would like to see as much of the series on screen as possible, so a little delayed gratification is OK.

I'll play my own game of which happens first: the start of Outlander Season 3 or the end of the Trump Administration. Either way, I win. :)

Edited February 15, 2017 by Dust Bunny

[Haleth]

Awww, man!  September?  That sucks.

[Bort]

13 hours ago, Dust Bunny said:

Aren't the Emmys usually in September? If so, wouldn't they miss being eligible for that?

Right, and maybe they WANT to miss it for reasons like Game of Thrones (or other shows) will be competition. If they air during the next eligibility period, I don't think Game of Thrones will have a season airing that year.

[katville]

I was not prepared for September. Although it is my birthday month so it will be a nice birthday present!

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Wow September is a long time.  I just figured April like last year, or maybe May.  (Got to admit, I don't keep up in the news with it that much.)  Plus, there's a shorter season - fewer episodes, right?  

[abbey]

I believe it is 13 episodes, which is the same number as season two.

[Wouldofshouldof]

I'm going to Scotland the first week of September, so I really hope the premier is after that.  I can come home and dive right in!

[RulerofallIsurvey]

4 hours ago, abbey said:

I believe it is 13 episodes, which is the same number as season two.

Okay, thanks!  I was probably remembering/thinking of the fewer number of episodes in S2 versus S1.

[Nidratime]

Someone posted this image on another message board. Don't know how legitimate it is since there are people in these photos I don't think I've seen before.

https://17463306921283182029.googlegroups.com/attach/d75a1af1a3c13/FB_IMG_1487813773032.jpg?part=0.1&view=1&vt=ANaJVrFBFbwhLz2ESGmsy5OcFeWQ0ax_QnAOAQvd57e0k2TFTLNt1PdgZgLyQWu5H-azhF55ujx_FWMdg4r-9spRUyQrAzLlnAKtRUCgFNPkmc-sHPH-nRk

[Eureka]

Quote

41 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

Someone posted this image on another message board. Don't know how legitimate it is since there are people in these photos I don't think I've seen before.

https://17463306921283182029.googlegroups.com/attach/d75a1af1a3c13/FB_IMG_1487813773032.jpg?part=0.1&view=1&vt=ANaJVrFBFbwhLz2ESGmsy5OcFeWQ0ax_QnAOAQvd57e0k2TFTLNt1PdgZgLyQWu5H-azhF55ujx_FWMdg4r-9spRUyQrAzLlnAKtRUCgFNPkmc-sHPH-nRk

 

I think that's real. I see people they have confirmed as Joe Abernathy, Marsali, Lord John, Mr. Willoughby and the young sea captain whose name is escaping me. There are a few I don't remember but recognize the faces.

[Nidratime]

I'm struck by the little boy, third on the right. Is he Willie?

[toolazy]

Also, there are the actors playing Geneva, Isobel, Young Ian and the elder Fergus.  

[WatchrTina]

On 2/23/2017 at 8:23 PM, Nidratime said:

I'm struck by the little boy, third on the right. Is he Willie?

I think he looks too old to be Willie.  I think Willie is only 3 or 4 years old when Jamie leaves Helwater and that's the last we see of Willie in Voyager (other than a miniature portrait that John shows Jamie when the meet in the Caribbean).  Maybe he's very young Ian -- a version we meet before Jamie goes off to prison -- who'll be replace by an older actor (the guy from The Hobbit whose photo is 2nd from the top on the right) when the story leaps forward to Jamie & Claire's reunion.  Or maybe he's Jenny & Ian's oldest son -- young Jamie.

Edited February 25, 2017 by WatchrTina

[DittyDotDot]

4 hours ago, Grashka said:

I agree though that he is too old for 4 years old William.

Perhaps they couldn't find an age-appropriate actor who could actually act?

[Nidratime]

Here's that interview that the Ross Owen radio show (U.K. show, I'm guessing) did with Diana Gabaldon the other day. I've not listened to it so I don't know how spoilery it is either in terms of the show or the books. That's why I'm placing it in this thread.

(By the way, the interview starts about 19 minutes in, but some of the stuff before that is interesting, especially the first song.)

 

Edited February 25, 2017 by Nidratime

[WatchrTina]

8 hours ago, Grashka said:

So either flashbacks, or teenage version of John is going to reappear in episode 1, for the battle, perhaps to remind the non-book readers about his story with Jamie and why Hal would spare his life after the battle.

Oooh, I like that idea.  Lord John is such an important player in book 3 and in the rest of the series, they need to ensure the non-readers aren't going "Wait, who is that?" when we meet him at the prison.  John's first encounter with Jamie is burned forever in his memory but for the viewers that was just a small moment in an action-filled season.  So yeah, I'm betting a flashback (or two) is in our future.  I'll bet we get a flashback using footage we've seen from season 2 from when we're in Jamie's head (when he meets John again) but I'll bet we also get some new footage from John's point of view showing the aftermath of that event (John's humiliation when he returns to his unit) featuring the original young actor and a new young actor playing Hector.  I think I recall that BookHector dies at Prestonpans and I don't think BookJohn was at the Battle of Culloden so I don't think we'll see either of them in "real" time in the first episode of season 3.

[DittyDotDot]

4 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I think I recall that BookHector dies at Prestonpans and I don't think BookJohn was at the Battle of Culloden [...].

That's how I remember it too.

[toolazy]

On 2/15/2017 at 3:43 PM, Dust Bunny said:

 

Book Hector died at Culloden, I think.  

Edit:  I just looked it up (thank you, Kindle search feature) and he did die at Culloden.  

 

Edit: Ignore the quote box up there.  For whatever reason, I accidentally quoted it and couldn't figure out how to delete it. 

Edited February 25, 2017 by toolazy

[WatchrTina]

Thanks toolazy.  You are correct.  I just looked it up as well.  In Chapter 8 of Voyager John reminisces about how Hector was the only one who would talk to him after the debacle with Red Jamie Fraser and his men's commando raid disabling all of John's regiment's cannons.  And then he thinks to himself "It had been ten years since Hector had died at Culloden, hacked to pieces by a Highland broadsword."

But I have this memory of John's brother Hal insisting that John look at Hector's dead body so that he could really KNOW he was dead and grieve property.  Did I imagine that?  If that happened then young John was at the battle of Culloden.  But if he is there -- presumably still serving with his brother's regiment -- it seem odd that Hal would send Jamie off in that wagon without having his brother look at him to ensure that it WAS the same man.  I know that didn't happen -- when John and Jamie come face-to-face at the prison it's the first time they've seen one another since John's humiliating ordeal - so that seem like an inconsistency within the books.  But maybe I'm wrong in recollecting that scene where John see's Hector's dead body

[DittyDotDot]

6 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

But I have this memory of John's brother Hal insisting that John look at Hector's dead body so that he could really KNOW he was dead and grieve property.  Did I imagine that?

I'm sure I remember this too and that's why I thought Hector had been killed at Prestonpans. So, what was John doing while Hal was overseeing the execution of the prisoners?

[Clawdette]

I hope that tow-headed youngster is not young William.  His hair is supposed to be black, isn't it?   This enabled Jamie to stay at Hellwater as long as he did.  (Of course they could darken his hair for the role.)

[toolazy]

51 minutes ago, Clawdette said:

I hope that tow-headed youngster is not young William.  His hair is supposed to be black, isn't it?   This enabled Jamie to stay at Hellwater as long as he did.  (Of course they could darken his hair for the role.)

His hair isn't black.  It's described as "chestnut" like Geneva's.

As for what John Grey was doing in the aftermath of Culloden, it's easy to imagine that he was doing any number of things. After all, Hal didn't have his entire regiment with him at the farmhouse - he just had a couple of people with him so presumably all of the others were off doing whatever it is that soldiers do in the wake of a battle.  Hal didn't need John to ID Jamie because he already knew all the necessary particulars.  It isn't a plot hole, exactly, but it is a way for John & Jamie to discover each other later at the prison.

[DittyDotDot]

7 minutes ago, toolazy said:

As for what John Grey was doing in the aftermath of Culloden, it's easy to imagine that he was doing any number of things. After all, Hal didn't have his entire regiment with him at the farmhouse - he just had a couple of people with him so presumably all of the others were off doing whatever it is that soldiers do in the wake of a battle.  Hal didn't need John to ID Jamie because he already knew all the necessary particulars.  It isn't a plot hole, exactly, but it is a way for John & Jamie to discover each other later at the prison.

I wasn't suggesting it was a plot hole, I seriously couldn't remember. In fact, I don't remember John ever mentioning he was at Culloden. Apparently he was; did he fight in the battle?

[toolazy]

2 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

I wasn't suggesting it was a plot hole, I seriously couldn't remember. In fact, I don't remember John ever mentioning he was at Culloden. Apparently he was; did he fight in the battle?

That I don't know.  The only parts of it I can think of offhand involve John thinking about Hector there and seeing him dead. I don't know if he did any fighting or not.  I don't think John directly mentions fighting at Culloden in Voyager, but I might have missed it.