Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Show Spoilers and Book Talk

Athena

By Athena
in Outlander

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

DittyDotDot

DittyDotDot

25 minutes ago, AheadofStraight said:

In the big fight before Frank's death, Claire mentions that some of his mistresses have visited her. Maybe they'll actually show it?

This is what I figured. In fact, didn't one of the promos have a snippet of a scene like this--a young girl telling Claire Frank was too good for her or something like that?

  • Love 1
Link to comment
  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

mybabyaidan
mybabyaidan

My favorite part of that article:   Claire and Jamie have a run in with two desserters.   Now I am picturing 2 Redcoats wandering around the forest with cakes and various cookies.  They take Jamie

Firebunny
Firebunny

Maybe he gives her a pearl necklace, but not the kind we're expecting.             I'm so so so very sorry.  With my pervy little mind I couldn't not go there.

Posted Images

areca

areca

On 8/29/2017 at 10:44 AM, toolazy said:

That's true, but "carrying a torch" has a very specific meaning that should never be used to describe one's feelings for one's parents. 

He's not her parent.  In fact, they barely lived together a couple of years, no?

Link to comment
toolazy

toolazy

23 hours ago, lianau said:

They could still end it with Jamie and Claire in the water after Claire fell off the ship during the storm ... 

I don't think they will because they've talked about J&C winding up in the colonies.

17 hours ago, Grashka said:

Matt Roberts and Toni Graphia - according to this chart (thanks to Outlander America):

https://tara-58.tumblr.com/image/164831153805

 

I remember MR teasing about the big shock in the finale episode, so I guess they have changed things up...and I have my theory which involves Murtagh character.

Oh, and I find it HILARIOUS that they actually titled an episode as "Turtle Soup" ;-) ;-)

I hope you're right about Murtaugh - I'm having trouble imagining anything that would tickle me more. 

3 hours ago, areca said:

He's not her parent.  In fact, they barely lived together a couple of years, no?

"Carrying a torch" means that one has a romantic crush on someone.  There is NOTHING in the books to make us think that's the case.  

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Nidratime

Nidratime

Quote

"Carrying a torch" means that one has a romantic crush on someone.  There is NOTHING in the books to make us think that's the case.

Well, since Diana didn't write that copy, nor did any of the Outlander TV show writers, I wouldn't worry too much about it. 

Link to comment
lianau

lianau

5 hours ago, Grashka said:

A read a review from a fan who saw the episode 1 in San Diego and she wrote it doesn't show Murtagh's death - Jamie asks about his fate among the wounded Jacobites but no one has seen him,

My theory remains that Murtagh will live in show version of the story and will be reunited with J&C once they arrive in Colonies.

I'm not saying I'd stop watching the show but this would be one change I'm not sure I could live with . Murtagh and Duncan ( I assume Murtagh would be essentially taking Duncan's spot) are two completely different characters and I can't see Murtagh marrying Jocasta at all , never in a million years .

  • Love 3
Link to comment
DittyDotDot

DittyDotDot

42 minutes ago, lianau said:

I'm not saying I'd stop watching the show but this would be one change I'm not sure I could live with . Murtagh and Duncan ( I assume Murtagh would be essentially taking Duncan's spot) are two completely different characters and I can't see Murtagh marrying Jocasta at all , never in a million years .

Yeah, it's not a change I wish to see either. I think we have to lose Murtagh simply because he represents everything that was lost with Culloden. Sure, they have a couple other characters who could represent this too, but none who are as meaningful to Jamie as Murtagh, IMO.

However, I'm not saying I'd stop watching. The story isn't the same if Murtagh survives, but that doesn't necessarily mean the story will be worse or unwatchable.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
toolazy

toolazy

7 hours ago, Grashka said:

A read a review from a fan who saw the episode 1 in San Diego and she wrote it doesn't show Murtagh's death - Jamie asks about his fate among the wounded Jacobites but no one has seen him,

My theory remains that Murtagh will live in show version of the story and will be reunited with J&C once they arrive in Colonies.

I like that theory a lot, and it's not just wishful thinking.  They are going to need help once they get there and I guess they could still introduce Duncan Innes but why introduce a new character when we already have Murtagh who is a fan favorite and one of the handful of characters who are unconditionally loyal to Jamie. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
toolazy

toolazy

1 hour ago, lianau said:

I'm not saying I'd stop watching the show but this would be one change I'm not sure I could live with . Murtagh and Duncan ( I assume Murtagh would be essentially taking Duncan's spot) are two completely different characters and I can't see Murtagh marrying Jocasta at all , never in a million years .

So someone else can marry Jocasta but until I see ShowJocasta, I wouldn't write off anyone as her husband.  That said, I do not believe that Murtagh would cheat on his wife with a slave so if they go in that direction, I'll have a big problem. But that's not until what? Book 6 or 7? (The later books run together in my head.) 

  • Love 2
Link to comment
lianau

lianau

3 hours ago, toolazy said:

I like that theory a lot, and it's not just wishful thinking.  They are going to need help once they get there and I guess they could still introduce Duncan Innes but why introduce a new character when we already have Murtagh who is a fan favorite and one of the handful of characters who are unconditionally loyal to Jamie. 

Because Duncan isn't Murtagh , I mean Duncan stays behind when Jamie, Claire and Ian start to build what would become Fraser's Ridge . Could you see Murtagh doing that . They either have to change the entire make up of that early settlement or give him a personality transplant.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
DittyDotDot

DittyDotDot

7 hours ago, lianau said:

Because Duncan isn't Murtagh , I mean Duncan stays behind when Jamie, Claire and Ian start to build what would become Fraser's Ridge . Could you see Murtagh doing that . They either have to change the entire make up of that early settlement or give him a personality transplant.

Yeah, Duncan is a follower, while Murtagh is not. The reason Duncan ends up married to Jocasta is because he's a malleable personality. Jocasta needed a man to marry, but not any man would do, it had to be someone who wouldn't get in the way of her running the show. That is not Murtagh. Now, that's not to say they couldn't change the dynamic of the relationship so Jocasta and Murtagh could end up married. I actually think a union between Murtagh and Jocosta could be interesting to watch but Duncan is not Murtagh in any way,m shape or form, IMO.

However, my objection to Murtagh surviving is more that I think we need to lose almost all the rich Highland characters from S1 to make the impact of what was lost with Culloden to be felt. 

  • Love 6
Link to comment
Petunia846

Petunia846

To be fair (and this could make people go either way in real life) Murtagh was in love with Jocasta's sister...if Jocasta reminds him of Ellen, well...

I'm normally not in favor of big changes in the adaptation, but I would jump for joy if we get to keep show!Murtagh, just because the actor is so great.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Haleth

Haleth

I'd love for the show to replace Duncan with Murtaugh too.  (I'm picturing Jaime waking up after being shipwrecked in the colonies and looking up to see Murtaugh's face.). BUT I can't imagine Murtaugh lying to Jaime about the gold. (It's been a long time since I read the books so I may be misremembering how that all played out.)

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Dust Bunny

Dust Bunny

11 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Yeah, Duncan is a follower, while Murtagh is not. The reason Duncan ends up married to Jocasta is because he's a malleable personality. Jocasta needed a man to marry, but not any man would do, it had to be someone who wouldn't get in the way of her running the show. That is not Murtagh. Now, that's not to say they couldn't change the dynamic of the relationship so Jocasta and Murtagh could end up married. I actually think a union between Murtagh and Jocosta could be interesting to watch but Duncan is not Murtagh in any way,m shape or form, IMO.

However, my objection to Murtagh surviving is more that I think we need to lose almost all the rich Highland characters from S1 to make the impact of what was lost with Culloden to be felt. 

I've posted about this before; I agree with you 100%. (1) Culloden was a tragedy. War is hell. People die. Cultures disappear. Etc. Don't shy away from that reality. (2) Murtagh's death is formative for Jamie's journey. (3) I don't want Murtagh's presence to take away from the new characters we'll be meeting.

Still, I'm preparing myself that Murtagh does return. It seems like something Moore would think is clever and surprising to the readers. If that's the biggest change from the books, I can live with it.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
DittyDotDot

DittyDotDot

1 hour ago, Dust Bunny said:

Still, I'm preparing myself that Murtagh does return. It seems like something Moore would think is clever and surprising to the readers. 

You know, Murtagh doesn't have to survive Culloden for us to see him on the show again. For one, it's a show about time travel, so there's always a possibility we meet him at another time. Two, there's lots that's told in flashbacks, not only Jamie and Claire filling each other in in their years apart, but just telling stories of who they were before they met each other. Three, Jamie has a very vivid dream life, Murtagh could easily pop up in that fashion. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Nidratime

Nidratime

Here's "The View" segment. LOL! Sam basically stumbles upon calling a woman out on her age:

Q: Is sex as good in your 20's as it is in your 40's?

His A: You tell me!

Just now, Clawdette said:

I was just coming over to post about this.  Thirty minutes of thoughtful conversation!

They have one for Richard too, but it's not as insightful because the interviewer doesn't have a clue about Outlander.

You'll have to select the interview at the bottom of their screen by clicking on Richard's photo:

https://build.aol.com/uk/

Link to comment
GHScorpiosRule

GHScorpiosRule

(edited)
8 minutes ago, Clawdette said:

My favorite Sam word from the Yahoo interview:  expletive.  He pronounces it ex-plee-tive.  I love language and accents.  

I love the way he says buik, luik, ur-eye-nul! I?????? I wish he'd speak with his Jamie brogue in interviews! Sae mooch sexier, ye ken?????

Edited by GHScorpiosRule
Link to comment
Summer

Summer

Regarding the Murtagh surviving Culloden theory.   All of the other main characters got a nice, dramatic death scene (Dougal, Angus, even the French characters from S2) usually the producers will do that as a kind of respectful good bye to the actor.   From what I've heard Murtaughs death isn't shown, at least in the first episode, although they could show it in a later episode as a flashback.   I'm just thinking with an actor as popular as Duncan was, I would imagine the producers would want to give him a big death scene send off, allow Duncan a nice scene and closure for the fans.   So maybe they could be planning on having him show up, say,  in the last episode, as a big surprise reveal?   

I loved Murtagh and would be happy to see him continue in the series, but I haven't read anything past Voyager, so I only know from you guys how it would impact the series going forward.

Just a thought....

  • Love 3
Link to comment
GHScorpiosRule

GHScorpiosRule

4 hours ago, Nidratime said:

Uh oh. I think I know who this guy's going to be playing:

 
ETA: Looks like the tweet disappeared. Did he jump the gun without STARZ approval?

 

8 minutes ago, Petunia846 said:

Who were you thinking he'd play?

Since he was talking about next season, I'm thinking...Bonnet?

Link to comment
Nidratime

Nidratime

That's the character who immediately popped into my head. However, it's been such a long time since I read Drums of Autumn, I can't remember many of the significant supporting characters. I barely remember the plot! LOL!

Link to comment
DittyDotDot

DittyDotDot

(edited)
2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Since he was talking about next season, I'm thinking...Bonnet?

Hmmm? Is Bonnet a "sassenach"? I thought he was Irish, but then remembered he had been working in Scotland before ended up in the colonies... ? 

I can't think of anyone else off the top of my head who would fit the "nasty" bill, though.

 

ETA: never mind, @lianau answered the Irish part while I was trying to remember. Stupid brains! ;)

Edited by DittyDotDot
Link to comment
morgan

morgan

Ack!  My husband said he would sign up for starz and hasn't yet....said he would this afternoon.  I would do it myself but he has better luck usually talking our provider into a good deal.  I guess I have to wait a bit longer to watch.  Was it good?

Link to comment
Dust Bunny

Dust Bunny

4 hours ago, morgan said:

Ack!  My husband said he would sign up for starz and hasn't yet....said he would this afternoon.  I would do it myself but he has better luck usually talking our provider into a good deal.  I guess I have to wait a bit longer to watch.  Was it good?

Yup, really good. Worth the wait - hang in there!

43 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I subscribe to Starz through Amazon Prime and it's always released at midnight on the day it'll air. I think I started it at 12:07. ;)

I do too. I didn't think to check until later. Now I know, going forward. :)

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Nidratime

Nidratime

I think this is interesting ... and a spoiler for book folks.

Why Outlander's Writers Are Leaving This Important Book Element Out of the Show

https://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/Claire-Find-Jamie-Gravestone-Outlander-43996608

 

*****

I don't agree with this analysis. A little too much emphasis on a very small part of the episode, but I think the idea that the series is returning to a similar structure to season 1, i.e., working to bring the two lead characters together again is a good and smart one.

‘Outlander’ season 3 premiere: One relationship ends in a sexually charged duel

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/outlander-season-3-premiere-one-relationship-ends-in-a-sexually-charged-duel-2017-09-10

Link to comment
Haleth

Haleth

1 hour ago, Nidratime said:

‘Outlander’ season 3 premiere: One relationship ends in a sexually charged duel

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/outlander-season-3-premiere-one-relationship-ends-in-a-sexually-charged-duel-2017-09-10

Wow.  IMO characterizing Jamie's and BJR's relationship as a "quasi love affair" is very disturbing.  And then the writer of this article implies that Jamie may be bisexual because of his reaction to being raped?  I agree the staging of their fight was meant to suggest a romantic encounter, but I saw nothing erotic about two men trying to kill each other in the most brutal way possible.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
unlfan03

unlfan03

(edited)

The love affair with the Randell men has reached the breaking point with me, if RDM and the writers decided to keep BJR alive to torment Jamie and Claire I would seriously turn off the show a that point. BJR was a down right evil guy in the 1st book, a foil and loose end to tie up in DIA and a non entity except slight mentions in the rest of the books. Allow him to die at Culloden when he can haunt the battle field for the rest of time like the evil bastard he is.  /rant Though I saw the staging of their fight as a call back to the duel in Paris, at least with the leg wound being at a point to "unman" Jamie like BJR was. I haven't re-watched  that episode but did that have some 'romantic' undertones as well?

Back to earlier speculation, if Murtaugh is our surprise once we get to the Colonies I don't think that Murtaugh has to take Duncan Ines' place in the story. I could see him being more of a backwoodsman type person (ala John Quincy Myers from DOA). It will have been 20 plus years since Culloden and if some how he survived but was captured and sent to Georgia as an indentured servant he would have time to serve his indentured term. And he is not one to stay on a plantation or turpentine farm, think of how he reacted to living in Paris, so the mountains and back country life would have been a perfect place for him. That is at least how I would write it if I was one of the show writers.

Edited by unlfan03
changing book reference
  • Love 4
Link to comment
GHScorpiosRule

GHScorpiosRule

12 minutes ago, unlfan03 said:

Though I saw the staging of their fight as a call back to the duel in Paris, at least with the leg wound being at a point to "unman" Jamie like BJR was. I haven't re-watched  that episode but did that have some 'romantic' undertones as well?

No, it wasn't. That fight was ugly and brutal as well, without the nimbus of the glowing sun.

Add me to the very short list of not wanting Murtagh to have survived Culloden. It was his death that shaped a good portion of who Jamie ultimately becomes. I love Lacroix as much as everyone, but keeping him alive would change everything.

Link to comment
nodorothyparker

nodorothyparker

As much as I may emotionally want to keep Murtagh and Duncan Lacroix around, I think they'll have to significantly retool Duncan Innes' story to make that work at all because they're really not the same character.  On one hand, I could see them doing that because it did work fairly well with the beefed up Rupert and Angus, who were really not their book characters at all beyond sharing names and working for the MacKenzies and it does keep a fan favorite on the canvas rather than have to establish yet another new character in a season that already has a lot of them.  On the other, the butterfly effect of subbing Murtagh for Duncan is pretty far reaching if they ever make it to adapting those later books.  So ... I don't know.  

The whole bathed in golden light, lover's embrace ending for Black Jack and Jamie doesn't really work for me either for reasons that have already been eloquently stated on various threads.  Even if you buy that it was a significant "relationship" for Black Jack, equating it as that across the board for both of them opens some ugly doors that are already out there where some read it as Jamie the reluctant bisexual or "well, he technically did consent," which is a real thing I've seen.  That's not what it was at all.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
GHScorpiosRule

GHScorpiosRule

I'll say this now; I'm NOT a fan of STARZ doing the "This Season on Outlander" instead of just giving me previews of what will happen next week! I've stayed pretty much spoiler-free, even though I've read the buiks. I was happy to see that at least we'll have wee Fergus for a wee bit. Though I am not looking forward to what happens to his puir hand!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...