Show Spoilers and Book Talk

[peacefrog]

They changed the Abbey to Scotland so there would still be a threat of danger from the English is what I heard. Also, no grotto. That could just mean that the gist of that scene takes place in a different setting.

 

I'm still holding out slim hope that the critics' copies were missing a flash forward scene at the end, but I agree it does not look like it.

[bluebonnet]

Off topic, but I'm curious.  Are things like hair written into contracts?  Can Sam H be required by contract to keep his hair long?  Or would it be something more like a bonus if he uses his own natural hair rather than requiring extensions?  I

[CatMack]

I don't know if anyone on Outlander has hair length in their contracts, but it definitely is a thing that happens. Kit Harrington on Game of Thrones famously has it in his contract he can't cut his hair as long as he plays Jon Snow. I believe Emma Watson also had something similar while she was playing Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter movies, hence the drastically huge change to a pixie cut as soon as she finished filming the final movie.

[AD55]

Best Freudian slip:

 

"The character has been seen with a scarred back so far in the show, which apparently takes over three hours to create using prosthetics, and by the end of the season prophetic work will be required for his arms, legs and his head."

 

Perhaps Ron Moore will do a bit of prophesying for season 2 in his Outlander Xtra.

They changed the Abbey to Scotland so there would still be a threat of danger from the English is what I heard. Also, no grotto. That could just mean that the gist of that scene takes place in a different setting.

 

I thought the change might also be due to time constraints. There's an awful lot to get to in the last episode without including a scene of Jamie puking his guts out on the boat ride to France. On the other hand, I guess they could just travel by map like the Muppets.

[WatchrTina]

 

[Prosthetic] work will be required for his arms, legs and his head.

Oh god!  Not the face, not the face!

 

:)

Edited May 19, 2015 by WatchrTina

[Nidratime]

Another question answered by Kristin on E Online. Not really much more than we already knew:

 

http://www.eonline.com/news/657661/spoiler-chat-outlander-the-vampire-diaries-the-flash-law-order-svu-and-more

 

Nicollette: Kristin, I am SO RELIEVED that all the awful torture is behind us on Outlander! What can you spill about Jamie's recovery?
Um. That it includes some incredibly graphic scenes (as Jamie tells Claire what has happened) and the worst is most certainly NOT behind you. The worst is yet to come...But for you who have been asking, YES, the season does end on a positive note. It is not all doom and gloom and the final moments really set up with season two will be about. A storyline decidedly different than what you've seen so far—and will see—in Wentworth prison, with Black Jack Randall (shudder). Book fans, you also will see that a notable location has moved, and the timing is not what it is from the books—all done to make the storyline work better for a TV show/season finale. In the meantime, though, prepare to cry buckets. And prepare to have to look away. At points it is...Too much.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Nidratime

[Nidratime]

From Ask Ausiello:

 

http://tvline.com/2015/05/19/greys-anatomy-season-12-spoilers-arizona-callie-new-loves/

 

Question: I can’t believe I have to wait two weeks before the Outlander season finale. I know someone at TVLine has seen it. Can you tell us anything, pretty please? —Janet
Ausiello: Those who’ve read the book know that a major revelation happens in the last few pages. I can tell you (via Kim Roots) that a) said revelation is in the finale, but b) it doesn’t happen in the same place or in the same way that it does in Diana Gabaldon’s novel.

 

 

I can't remember where and what way "the revelation" happens. Will have to wait until I go home and check the book out.

[AheadofStraight]

Assuming this means the reveal that she is pregnant when they are in the hot springs? So it must not happen in the springs - or maybe they don't have the springs at all?

[justmehere]

I just hope that people will stick through to the end of the episode rather than giving up before it takes a more positive turn. After initial annoyance at having to wait an extra week for the finale, maybe it's a good thing to give people a little breathing room. I don't know. Back with all the spanking controversy, I was afraid this was going to be the much bigger issue.

 

The story for S2 is so different... I hope there are some previews available, even if they haven't filmed much yet -- something to entice viewers to continue. A year is a long time to wait, and it could go either way I guess. People either don't bother to come back after so much time, or they're calmed enough to look again and see what happens.

[Nidratime]

Just saw this tweet exchange. It's not really a spoiler, but don't know where else to put it.

 

Kimberly ‏@Crabby_Days 1h1 hour ago

@TallShipProds I've become a huge fan but very hesitant to watch the finale. May I ask if it is too graphic just for shock value?

Maril Davis ‏@TallShipProds 8m8 minutes ago

.@Crabby_Days it's completely consistent w/the book. In fact one could argue it's LESS graphic. Necessary to tell story of Jamie

 

[ulkis]

You know what I hope they don't do? It's a small thing/not a big deal amidst all the graphicness but him calling her "mother" is a moment I don't really like and it's easy enough to cut it out. They haven't really set it up by saying that Jamie's mother used to say "lay your head here" or whatever it was, but then Jamie also gave Claire Ellen's pearls when they were naked together (which I thought was a bit of an odd time to give them but hey what the hell), so I guess it could go either way.

 

I don't know, do people like that moment?

[chocolatetruffle]

I don't know, do people like that moment?

 

Raising my tiny little hand - i do...

 

It kinda gave me chills when I read it, because that's when I knew that Jamie had come out the other side.

[ulkis]

Don't worry, feel no shame. :) I'm not a fan but I'm not judgin'. I was just wondering if I was calling for a well-beloved moment to be cut off, heh, since I haven't really seen anyone mention it specifically so far.

[bluebonnet]

I didn't like it.  I got the point of it, but I guess mommy/son issues is where I draw the line, even if the mommy thing is done to illustrate a character's metaphorical rebirth.  I wouldn't be upset to see it included, though I might roll my eyes and maybe give an internal shiver/squirm.  

 

ETA: Totally not meaning this in any sort of judgey way.  Sorry if it comes off that way!  It was just one of those lines that made me super uncomfortable.  

Edited May 20, 2015 by bluebonnet

[Nidratime]

Huge, huge SPOILER of a promo for the next episode via a foreign broadcaster:

 

Edited May 25, 2015 by Nidratime

[Dust Bunny]

I said "oh my gawd" three times watching that. And that was only 20 seconds. Damn.

 

I can't imagine what it would have been like to be on set. The multiple takes to cover different angles... Those guys are incredibly brave and committed/dedicated to their work.

 

Forget a security blanket, I'm afraid I'm going to get sick watching this. I'll have to rethink about accompanying whisky with this episode.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Dust Bunny

[ulkis]

I can't imagine what it would have been like to be on set. The multiple takes to cover different angles... Those guys are incredibly brave and committed/dedicated to their work.

 

After hearing about the idea Tobias Menzies suggested throwing in there that got shot down (using Morley's body as a bed), I am thinking that at least he for one was prepared for whatever the scenes were gonna throw at them.

[Starla]

That trailer makes me nervous.

[areca]

After hearing about the idea Tobias Menzies suggested throwing in there that got shot down (using Morley's body as a bed), I am thinking that at least he for one was prepared for whatever the scenes were gonna throw at them.

That's actually somewhat annoying.  It's completely inconsistent with the character of BJR to be honest.   I expected better of Menzies.

Edited May 26, 2015 by areca

[GHScorpiosRule]

After hearing about the idea Tobias Menzies suggested throwing in there that got shot down (using Morley's body as a bed), I am thinking that at least he for one was prepared for whatever the scenes were gonna throw at them.

 

 

Oh Ew. That was Menzies' idea? Ugh.

 

I think I'll treat myself...for not clicking on any of the links above or the spoilery images in the media thread.

[ulkis]

That's actually somewhat annoying.  It's completely inconsistent with the character of BJR to be honest.   I expected better of Menzies.

 

How do you think it's inconsistent? I'm not disagreeing or agreeing, but genuinely wondering because I don't have that much insight on the character besides what I've read from book 1. 

 

My second thought after hearing he suggested that (my first being "whaaaaaat") was gee, that would be a tad uncomfortable, in many ways, for the poor fellow playing Morley. (Although actually I'm sure they would use a fake body or something. maybe. I hope.)

[GHScorpiosRule]

How do you think it's inconsistent? I'm not disagreeing or agreeing, but genuinely wondering because I don't have that much insight on the character besides what I've read from book 1. 
 
My second thought after hearing he suggested that (my first being "whaaaaaat") was gee, that would be a tad uncomfortable, in many ways, for the poor fellow playing Morley. (Although actually I'm sure they would use a fake body or something. maybe. I hope.)

 

Taking response to Book v. Show Thread

Edited May 26, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[areca]

BJR's more visceral and involved with, focused on, the person he's torturing.   He doesn't really go for shock, he seems to have a much more subtle and invested sort of conversational approach to his perversion.  The corpse thing just wouldn't...work.  It doesn't fit his pattern.  I dunno.  I can't explain it.

Edited May 27, 2015 by areca

[WatchrTina]

I agree areca and I feel pretty certain that if Tobias suggested it it was tongue-in-cheek.  I'll bet they were sitting around spit-balling ideas and Tobias pitched that.  I like to imagine the others looking at him and saying, "Dude, no.  Just, no." and then laughing.

[Nidratime]

Review of Outlander that includes discussion of the last episode as well.

 

John Doyle: Outlander and the triumph of a true female superhero

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/john-doyle-outlander-and-the-triumph-of-a-true-female-superhero/article24646989/

[mledawn]

I posted this in the other thread as well, but John Doyle is a bit of a cynic so it was nice to see the praise in that article.

[AheadofStraight]

There really isn't too much spoilery in here but Diana says to put the book down for this last episode. I'll miss the hot springs but I knew it wasn't going to happen because Kristen on E! basically spoiled that...  https://www.facebook.com/AuthorDianaGabaldon/posts/909432675766236

[chocolatetruffle]

Review of Outlander that includes discussion of the last episode as well.

 

John Doyle: Outlander and the triumph of a true female superhero

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/john-doyle-outlander-and-the-triumph-of-a-true-female-superhero/article24646989/

 

That article makes me very happy.

[Nidratime]

There really isn't too much spoilery in here but Diana says to put the book down for this last episode. I'll miss the hot springs but I knew it wasn't going to happen because Kristen on E! basically spoiled that...  https://www.facebook.com/AuthorDianaGabaldon/posts/909432675766236

 

I'm very disappointed that the hot springs are out. That was a beautiful scene ... in my head. I didn't know that Kristen spoiled that even though I read what she said, but oh well.

[AheadofStraight]

My bad - it wasn't Kristen, it was Ausiello

 

Question: I can’t believe I have to wait two weeks before the Outlander season finale. I know someone at TVLine has seen it. Can you tell us anything, pretty please? —Janet
Ausiello: Those who’ve read the book know that a major revelation happens in the last few pages. I can tell you (via Kim Roots) that a) said revelation is in the finale, but b) it doesn’t happen in the same place or in the same way that it does in Diana Gabaldon’s novel.

 

[Nidratime]

Okay, I read that when he posted it and I didn't know what he meant at the time. But, combined with what Gabaldon says, it comes together. Grrr. Still disappointed. (Do they have underground hot springs in Scotland?)

[ElsieH]

Can someone remind me why they moved the Abbey from France to Scotland? And is the Abbey somewhere the redcoats aren't allowed to arrest people? 

[Keeta]

I believe just for time constraints, given everything they have to cover in the episode.

[Nidratime]

Can someone remind me why they moved the Abbey from France to Scotland? And is the Abbey somewhere the redcoats aren't allowed to arrest people?

 

 

I don't know what powers the redcoats have vis-a-vis the Abbey, but having them take a breather at a Scottish Abbey does help to maintain the tension of possible capture. And, even though I have no idea whether this was a factor, Alastair -- of the Scot and the Sassenach -- said that having Claire and Jamie escape to France in only a few hours (or however long it took) was unrealistic. According to him, it would've taken a couple of days (or longer?) by boat and Jamie probably would not have lasted through the trip in his condition.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Nidratime

[lianau]

I believe just for time constraints, given everything they have to cover in the episode.

And fearing that Jamie surviving the trip to France right after his torture would be too medically impossible .

[ulkis]

I suppose they took that into consideration, but I highly doubt, realistically, Jamie would have survived the whipping they showed in episode 6 either. I'm thinking it was just about time constraints.

[AheadofStraight]

I know someone who went to Diana's book signing yesterday. (She posts here *waves* :) She told us that Diana mentioned that they filmed the scene of Jamie finding out Claire had waxed her armpits and legs. (Keep in mind it could get cut from the episode.) I thoroughly enjoyed that in the book but I'm surprised it is part of the story because I haven't seen a single hair on Claire's body....I don't recall any hair in the wedding scenes nor in the Scottish Alarm Clock scenes either....or the rough sex scene....or....

Edited June 1, 2015 by AheadofStraight

[Nidratime]

The preview of Season 2 that was shared at San Diego is now on Youtube as well. I thought I would post that link here, so it can be discussed more freely.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZd-e4OgK8Q

 

Early in the reel, is that Claire looking like she's styled for the 20th century?

[chocolatetruffle]

It looks like there are going to be a lot of flashbacks and/or dreams.  That would likely account for Claire in the 1940's with wee Roger and Jamie naked and covered in blood.  But the sets and costumes look amazing: very textured and rich fabrics and colors.

 

ETA: There's also a shot of Frank (boo) and little Bouton (yeaaa!).

Edited July 12, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[bearcatfan]

At first I thought that the brief glimpses of the duel meant that they had filmed THAT duel scene. Now I think it's a flashback to when Jamie was previously in France.

[WatchrTina]

Apparently they showed this reel twice at Comic Con and the first time it was played at the wrong speed which is what was filmed above.  That's why the music sounds so frantic and the few lines at the end sound like were uttered by Alvin and the Chipmunks.  I presume they fixed it for the second viewing and I look forward to seeing it  when a proper version is released to us.

[peacefrog]

Obviously after seeing this the "future" scenes are not the '60s but the 40's and the aftermath of when she came back. Wee Roger is in it and Rev Wakefield. Now maybe they filmed it like you are thinking Claire is having memories of Frank in the 18th century but really she is thinking of Jamie in the 20th(kind of like "Lost's" "we have to go back" twist episode)? I wonder if there won't be any 60's until the end, the opening shock would just be that she went through stones again.

[chocolatetruffle]

Seeing wee Roger in flashback (yeah, I'm sticking to my theory only because she has a flashback to Frank in DIA) is a great way to introduce the character so that we know who he is when we see him as an adult.  Also, doesn't book Claire meet wee Roger in the first part of Outlander?  I know she didn't in the show, we only see a brief scene of him in a Frank flashback in Both Sides Now.

[peacefrog]

Yes she does meet Roger with Frank.

 

I have seen some slowed down gifs of this footage and there is one of Claire in a grey sweater in the 40's and she is wearing 2 rings. It could be the 60's but the style looked more like the 40's.

[cypfan]

I have not ( as of yet) read this thread.  I prefer to keep my spoilers at a minimum. I take full responsibility for being in a "spoiler" thread. :)

 So forgive me if what I post is a repeat of someone else's post.

 

After watching both the Comic-Con panel and the TvLine video, I have concluded that jealousy may be a new emotion to explore in season 2.
The "red dress" info adds to my conclusion. 

 

Also, I have spent the day wandering the web searching for info about the big day yesterday. I am so appreciative of everyone who takes the time to post their links, tweet, post photos etc.at the Comic_Con yesterday.

[Dejana]

Are they going to deal with the 1960s at all in S2? There are fewer episodes and some of Moore's answers... He has to be cagey with the media, but it occurs to me that the 1940s material could easily fill 13 episodes and you could introduce Bree and the "twenty years later" stuff in S3.

[chocolatetruffle]

Yes she does meet Roger with Frank.

 

I have seen some slowed down gifs of this footage and there is one of Claire in a grey sweater in the 40's and she is wearing 2 rings. It could be the 60's but the style looked more like the 40's.

 

Well then that suggests that they are going to show Claire's return ported over from Voyager.  Which is a major change because Frank isn't in DIA except in a brief memory scene.  My guess, is that they're going to do a Both Sides Now, Part Deux, flashing forward to Claire's return, Frank's anguish and a bit of the Reverend and wee Roger thrown in as Claire begins to adjust to life in the 20th century, while simultaneously telling the story leading up to Culloden - terrific [insert 'tooth-sucking side eye'].

 

So far, Moore & Co. have said nothing to suggest they are going to include anything from the 1960's.  In fact, he & Diana both keep saying that "there are going to be a lot of changes" from the book, so that might be code for a major plot is going to be dropped.  It would explain why they haven't cast Bree & adult Roger yet.

 

Ah, well, I still have pretty clothes and pretty guys to look at and hopefully, a lot of humor along the way (like the red dress scene, which apparently has been filmed).

Edited July 12, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[GHScorpiosRule]

Heh, even Sam said he sounded like the chipmunks, as the video was speeded up in that intro clip.

 

I loved all the scenes I saw, but going forward, am going to try and stay spoiler free, because I don't want to know what is coming, so that I know it's coming and then have a less of an impact.

 

Okay, who here heard what Sam's line was from the buik? If only he would just use his Scots brogue all the teime, I'd be verra happy.

 

I'm not concerned at this point that we haven't "seen" the scenes from the '60s. I suspect they may film them last, as there was no mention of Bree or adult Roger being cast. At least, not in that intro clip above.

 

And though Ron did say a lot was changed, he also said they worked back to line up with the buik.*

 

*That's the way I'm going to spell the word because it's just sooo sexy when Sam says it and he's not even using his Jamie voice when saying it.

Edited July 13, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[peacefrog]

One other bit we learned is DG is writing an episode, #11. Any guesses what that will be? To early for the stones? Alex wedding? Dougal and or Colum's death? 

[Glaze Crazy]

Starz didn't waste any time pulling that YouTube spoiler video. I saw the periscope one last night so I'm good.

 

I think I'm sticking with my idea that Claire has a lot of dreams/flashbacks about Frank and herself in the 1940's, thus the shots of wee Roger and Reverend Wakefield.  I'm mostly basing this on also having seen the trailer for The Walking Dead and they are notorious for editing their trailers to misdirect any discernible plot points.  I will try and watch it again in case I missed something.  But as a book reader I am on board with any changes since they have assured us the main thread of the story from point A to point B will remain.  I'm glad DG is involved still, since that Collider interview had her saying she has to tell them not to kill off characters that will be important later in the story.  I took that to mean books she hasn't written yet and it also makes me wonder who they wanted to kill off now that ends up important to the story later, LOL.