Show Spoilers and Book Talk

[Bort]

But they have to have already given a wink to the producers, right? Costuming, scouting, and all that pre-pre production has to get going soon, I would imagine. I don't think season 3 will require the number of costumes as 2, but I'm sure Terry Dresbach will be needing to work ahead.

Especially since, for the latter half of season 3, they could essentially borrow their sets and costumes from Black Sails.

[WatchrTina]

I've speculated about that as well Kariyaki but then I did a bit of digging and discovered that Black Sails films in South Africa so it's very unlikely the two productions will be able to share anything -- not costumes and, alas, not the remarkable ship sets that they built for Black Sails.  I could be wrong of course.  But it just seems like a REALLY long way for everyone to travel.

[Bort]

Ha, I was joking more than anything. I didn't really think it would be likely that they'd be able to share.

[Nidratime]

In this interview with Diana Gabaldon, there are spoilers for the structure of Season 2, that some of us already guessed. Also some comments on the first season, including changes production made that she "warned them about."

 

http://outlander-news.tumblr.com/post/138554578800/diana-gabaldon-discusses-about-season-2

[abbey]

I did not read what was originally intended for Black Jack and Jamie in episode 15 Grashka.  Could you share what was originally planned (and what Diana argued against?  Thanks.

[Laurie]

I'm not Grashka but I read Diana's comments on the CompuServe forum, too so I'll weigh in.

 

Apparently that episode was originally written so that after Black Jack stops the hanging and takes Jamie down to the dungeon he actually professes his love for Jamie and asks him to run away to the continent and live as a couple.

 

Fortunately Diana was there to throw herself on that live grenade and convinced them to change it to what we actually saw.

 

 

[Nidratime]

Apparently that episode was originally written so that after Black Jack stops the hanging and takes Jamie down to the dungeon he actually professes his love for Jamie and asks him to run away to the continent and live as a couple.

 

 

Are you kidding me?! That's totally off the wall and totally out of character! If they had done that, they'd definitely not be doing Outlander. (It's "bad enough" that we have scenes being created out of whole cloth that are making Frank into someone he wasn't.)

[Laurie]

That was pretty much the response on the forum, too...WTF?!?!  Although some speculated that maybe it was meant to be some sick/psycho mind game that Black Jack was playing just to lure Jamie into a false sense of security before BJ got down to the business he really wanted.  It's not like Jamie was going to accept that proposal anyway.

 

There was also a lot of discussion about how half of the writers came into the program as book readers and half of them didn't.  You can always tell the episodes Ira Behr (non book reader) writes because they stray so far from the books. 

[abbey]

Thanks Laurie for the explanation.  Wow....that is scary that a writer could have come up with that scenario and that they were actually considering it.  I don't mind some changes from the book but the thought of that scene being filmed is terrifying to me.  So far out of left field and would have totally skewed the whole BJR/Jamie story line.  Thank goodness they listened to Diana!

[asp]

Here's a pic of Diana's post on the subject:

 

[Dust Bunny]

Well, that helps explain the watered down scene by the stones in "Devil's Mark".

 

I can see why having non-book readers on the writing staff can be good to bring in outside perspectives. But when it comes to character consistency, iconic moments, and ongoing plots that affect continuity down the line - stay close to the source material.

[toolazy]

They have to include it , it's the starting point of  Jamie and John's relationship and something John remembers years later .

 

 

 

I hope they keep it just the way it was in the book . The spanking scene of season 1 didn't really work for me because they tried to appease the critics and as a result the scene just felt odd .

 

That scene with young Lord John won't work if Claire isn't furious.  It was a shitty way to keep the kid alive but Claire forgives Jamie for it so I can, too. Besides, if he had killed John we would not have had one of my favorite characters later on. It sucks that it cost Claire some dignity but FFS, it was war. 

[Dust Bunny]

So apparently People magazine has a picture of the red dress in it:

 

 

 

Outlander ‏@Outlander_Starz  8h8 hours ago
We know you're dying to see *the* dress and now's your chance! Pick up @people magazine for an exclusive peek at #Outlander Season 2. 

 

I'm sure she's trying to be professional (her Twitter is mostly silent about it), but I'm guessing Terry Dresbach is massively pissed. Here's one of the few tweets she did write about it:

 

 

 

Outlander Costume ‏@OutlanderCostum  2h2 hours ago
@roxydoesart @people I don't give out pictures. Not my jurisdiction or call to make.

 

Whoever came up with that idea should be fired. 

 

I really wanted that dress only revealed in the episode. I'm trying to avoid that image like the plague.

 

Big fail, Starz PR, big fail.

[nodorothyparker]

People magazine link http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2016/02/11/exclusive-outlander-season-two-trailer-and-red-dress/ for those who do want to see it.

 

I'm actually much more interested in the accompanying trailer that shows Murtagh clearly in the know about where Claire comes from and how it figures into all their plotting.  That's an angle I've never really considered in Dragonfly despite knowing that Jamie told him to take Claire back to the stones during their time at the abbey.

Edited February 11, 2016 by nodorothyparker

[morgan]

I thought the trailer gave away too much, personally. And I would have preferred no dialogue in the last scene with Claire and Frank. But I am so excited!!!! And I cannot remember if Murtaugh knew in the book at all. Does anyone remember? Definitely an interesting angle.

Edited February 11, 2016 by morgan

[nodorothyparker]

I was really surprised by how much the trailer was giving away too.  I would have thought they'd want to keep the Claire ends up back in the 20th century reveal as deeply under wraps as they could to have any hope of duplicating that immense WTH moment when you first realize it reading Dragonfly.

 

Jamie tells Murtagh to take Claire back to the stones at the abbey when he believes he's dying.  But we never get any indication of if he told him exactly why.  I suppose we can assume he had to tell him something more than just drop her off by that rock formation and she'll be fine.  We never get any other inkling that Murtagh has any particular knowledge about it though.  I'm kind of fascinated by the prospect.

Edited February 11, 2016 by nodorothyparker

[Nidratime]

No, I don't recall Murtagh being in the know ... although it must've been hard to keep such a secret considering what they were doing in Paris and *why* they were doing it. However, it would be lovely if they could also

save him from Culloden

.

[morgan]

At 1:07 on mine it looked like she was going over Roger's research to me. Didn't see anything that looked like a burning.

Edited February 11, 2016 by morgan

[Laurie]

Interesting...because at 1:07 for me it looks like Jamie standing and talking to a group of people arranged in a semi-circle in front of him.  I'm thinking that might be his tenants at Lallybroch when he's deciding who will go with him to battle and who will stay back or it may be later and he's talking to his men.

[morgan]

That's funny! I went thru the ew link, not the one here so maybe that's the difference? And yes I think that he is talking to the Lallybroch tenants in that scene.

Edited February 11, 2016 by morgan

[Dust Bunny]

So, they'll show us the red dress, but they won't show us Fergus. What the hell.

 

I'm so excited for the return of Lallybroch. That's when we see Jamie grow into himself.

 

Game of Thrones fans have it so much harder than we do. We're almost a month earlier for the premiere, and our books keep coming on time. 

[toolazy]

Interesting...because at 1:07 for me it looks like Jamie standing and talking to a group of people arranged in a semi-circle in front of him.  I'm thinking that might be his tenants at Lallybroch when he's deciding who will go with him to battle and who will stay back or it may be later and he's talking to his men.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I thought.  It looks like the same place where that idiot with McQuarry lit the hay on fire. I actually paused that to see who was in the crowd.

[morgan]

Isn't Claire hugging Fergus in one shot, too? At least I assume it's him

[GrailKing]

So, they'll show us the red dress, but they won't show us Fergus. What the hell.

 

I'm so excited for the return of Lallybroch. That's when we see Jamie grow into himself.

 

Game of Thrones fans have it so much harder than we do. We're almost a month earlier for the premiere, and our books keep coming on time. 

If you didn't catch the 20+ photos they released today, it helps them a bit as I'm one LOL and they created another controversy regarding

Sansa

hopefully Sunday for that trailer.

I did not like the sound of Frank's reply, tension is brewing.

[Dust Bunny]

Oo, eagle eyes to see him on the horse! Yeah, I've been guessing Fergus was who Claire was hugging; I just wanted to see more than the back of his head.

[WatchrTina]

 

 I was really surprised by how much the trailer was giving away too.  I would have thought they'd want to keep the Claire ends up back in the 20th century reveal as deeply under wraps as they could to have any hope of duplicating that immense WTH moment when you first realize it reading Dragonfly.

I was shocked, SHOCKED that they gave away Claire goes back to the 20th century and I think the fact that they gave it away means that that scene will happen in episode 1.  That would be a nod to the structure of the book

which begins with Claire in the 20th century + 20 years.

 That's the only rationale I can come up with for including that in the trailer.

 

Okay, I can think of one more rationale.  Outlander is a story about a time-traveler.

 If they told the story of book two in strict chronological order then Claire's return to the 20th century would only come at the very end of the season.

If they kick things off in the 20th century then they set the stage for cutting back and forth between the two time frames including

Paris and the run-up to Culloden in the 18th century vs Claire's return to the 20th century, difficult life with Frank, his death, and the eventual discovery (in the last scene of the last episode) that Jamie survived.

 Kicking off the season with Claire's return would give them more to play with (and give Tobias as Frank more to do) than if they had only focused on

40-somthing Claire / Brianna / Roger

in the 20th century as the book does.

 

Can I just say that I hugged myself with glee and and shouted OH MY GOD to an empty apartment at the end of the trailer.  I'm off to watch it again.  And then I'm going to go read Terry's twitter feed because she must be PISSED about them revealing the red dress.  What an unnecessary thing for them to do.

 

Jamie tells Murtagh to take Claire back to the stones at the abbey when he believes he's dying.  But we never get any indication of if he told him exactly why.  I suppose we can assume he had to tell him something more than just drop her off by that rock formation and she'll be fine.  We never get any other inkling that Murtagh has any particular knowledge about it though.  I'm kind of fascinated by the prospect.

I have info on this but it comes from "The Exile" -- the graphic novel in which Diana re-tells the first half of book 1 but from the points of view of other characters.  If The Exile is canon, then it sheds light on this question.  It's not one of the big books so I'll slip behind the spoiler bars. 

In "The Exile", Murtagh actually SEES Claire appear when she comes through the stones. He has known, all along, that Claire was something "other," though I get the impression that he thinks she a fairy of some kind.

 

ETA:  I just saw that this is a "no book talk" thread so I'm adding spoiler bars.

Edited February 12, 2016 by WatchrTina

[GrailKing]

I was shocked SHOCKED that they gave away Claire goes back to the 20th century and I think the fact that they gave it away means that that scene will happen in episode 1.  That would be a nod to the structure of the book which begins with Claire in the 20th century + 20 years.

  That's the only rationale I can come up with for including that in the trailer.

 

Okay, I can think of one more rationale.  Outlander is a story about a time-traveler.  If they told the story of book two in strict chronological order then Claire's return to the 20th century would only come at the very end of the season.  By kicking things off in the 20th century they set the stage for cutting back and forth between Paris and the run-up to Culloden and Claire's return to the 20th century, difficult life with Frank, his death, and the eventual discovery (in the last scene of the last episode) that Jamie survived.  Kicking off the season with Claire's return gives them more to play with (and gives Tobias as Frank more to do) than if they had only focused on 40-somthing Claire / Brianna / Roger in the 20th century as the book does.

 

Can I just say that I hugged myself with glee and and shouted OH MY GOD to an empty apartment at the end of the trailer.  I'm off to watch it again.  And then I'm going to go read Terry's twitter feed because she must be PISSED about them revealing the red dress.  What an unnecessary thing for them to do.

What is the deal about showing the red dress?

Edited February 12, 2016 by GrailKing

[WatchrTina]

Hey GrailKing can you edit what you quoted from me?  I think I included some book-talk spoilers and those don't belong here.

 

As for red dress, it plays a central role in one particular scene in the book so book-walkers have been looking forward to seeing it but we have assumed that, like the wedding dress, it would be kept secret and revealed on in the episode where it comes into play.   I'm sure that's what Terry assumed too.  Somebody in the PR dept. didn't get the memo, unfortunately, and they spoiled it. 

 

ETA:  Aaaand now I have to eat my words because I just read the People magazine story.  It's all about the red dress.  I had assumed some PR person had given out the red dress photo thinking it was just one more beautiful costume but no -- they used it as valuable currency and got a very nice write-up on People.com in return for the exclusive reveal.  Okay.  I'm over it.  PR is good for the show and I love the show so, what are you gonna do?

 

If you want to know more about the red dress see:

http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2016/02/11/exclusive-outlander-season-two-trailer-and-red-dress/

Edited February 12, 2016 by WatchrTina

[toolazy]

I don't think it's that big of a deal that they released the picture, though were I Terry I'd be quite peeved.  I'm sure that the scene where Jamie first sees her in will be gratifying regardless. 

 

I'm also not that upset that they have shown her in the 20th century.

It's the first thing you learn when you open up the book, after all.  The fun is trying to figure out how they got from here to there.  

Edited February 12, 2016 by toolazy

[peacefrog]

That picture of the Red Dress is the key art for the season. I'm assuming it will be what is used for all the promo like billboards, bus wraps(if there are any) and DVD cover.

In the trailer Claire is hugging Mary Hawkins not Fergus. This was in the teaser trailer that was released back in December and I think up thread we have the actress who plays Mary confirming it. She is very tiny and childlike.

I love this trailer, it just is amazing. It does give away huge things but my husband watched(non-book reader, unspoiled) and he wasn't shocked. He thought she would be going back at some point, even thought it would be at the end of last season, so it wasn't such a big spoiler. He is shocked though at the jets that appeared and said he thinks she is a lot further in the future than when she left. Overall he was really excited about the trailer.

[GrailKing]

Hey GrailKing can you edit what you quoted from me?  I think I included some book-talk spoilers and those don't belong here.

 

As for red dress, it plays a central role in one particular scene in the book so book-walkers have been looking forward to seeing it but we have assumed that, like the wedding dress, it would be kept secret and revealed on in the episode where it comes into play.   I'm sure that's what Terry assumed too.  Somebody in the PR dept. didn't get the memo, unfortunately, and they spoiled it. 

 

ETA:  Aaaand now I have to eat my words because I just read the People magazine story.  It's all about the red dress.  I had assumed some PR person had given out the red dress photo thinking it was just one more beautiful costume but no -- they used it as valuable currency and got a very nice write-up on People.com in return for the exclusive reveal.  Okay.  I'm over it.  PR is good for the show and I love the show so, what are you gonna do?

 

If you want to know more about the red dress see:

http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2016/02/11/exclusive-outlander-season-two-trailer-and-red-dress/

was spoiler tag sufficient or you want me to wipe it out totally?

Thanks, I'll check the link, I'm very busy between here and GOT threads .lol

[morgan]

I'm coming to terms with how much they showed, specifically Claire in the future. Especially since they are not starting the season like the book, as someone else pointed out (either here or a different site) this gives non-readers that same jarring knowledge that she does go back.

Interesting that she is hugging Mary. I assumed it was Fergus because of the size difference. Mary must really be tiny!

[WatchrTina]

was spoiler tag sufficient or you want me to wipe it out totally?

What you did was perfect.  Thanks

 

he thinks she is a lot further in the future than when she left.

Your husband is SO smart.  I didn't even think about it but yeah, there weren't jets in 1946.   Oooooh the plot thickens as to where they will take us in the coming season.

[GrailKing]

That picture of the Red Dress is the key art for the season. I'm assuming it will be what is used for all the promo like billboards, bus wraps(if there are any) and DVD cover.

In the trailer Claire is hugging Mary Hawkins not Fergus. This was in the teaser trailer that was released back in December and I think up thread we have the actress who plays Mary confirming it. She is very tiny and childlike.

I love this trailer, it just is amazing. It does give away huge things but my husband watched(non-book reader, unspoiled) and he wasn't shocked. He thought she would be going back at some point, even thought it would be at the end of last season, so it wasn't such a big spoiler. He is shocked though at the jets that appeared and said he thinks she is a lot further in the future than when she left. Overall he was really excited about the trailer.

The earliest jet fighters appeared around 1939 (Germany), 1940? (Italy) 1941 (UK) 1942(US), Russia and Japan-1945,I thought those jets looked Korean era.

Not to far removed from where she left and the passenger jet 1960ish which is a decade or more, so they advanced her rather quickly I think.

 

This is also the high time for

polaroid and Kodak

can't wait to see Jamies face.

Edited February 12, 2016 by GrailKing

[GrailKing]

I don't think it's that big of a deal that they released the picture, though were I Terry I'd be quite peeved.  I'm sure that the scene where Jamie first sees her in will be gratifying regardless. 

 

I'm also not that upset that they have shown her in the 20th century.

It's the first thing you learn when you open up the book, after all.  The fun is trying to figure out how they got from here to there.  

I know people talked about if certain people can pass and all like magically tied and I think maybe on a second go round, but nothing started this for Claire until she picked the flowers, then the stones sang and the winds picked up and she touched the stones.

As far as getting back she has on her person items from both centuries so maybe that now allows her to pass both ways, I can't remember when I read ahead on

Frank's death if she left the gold band or not so it may not be rings or metal type

just having on you something from both era could do, but her first pass did not happen until she picked the flowers, like most places with historical or religious sanctity you should not disturb the area.  

[asp]

Oh! GrailKing I like the idea of the flowers (Forget me nots) having something to do with Jamie's ghost or some prior memory of him, like an endless loop theory.

[GrailKing]

Oh! GrailKing I like the idea of the flowers (Forget me nots) having something to do with Jamie's ghost or some prior memory of him, like an endless loop theory.

Thank You,

Did Claire leave Frank's ring?

Also is this a mistake or is there a purpose, in the return to Leoch

Claire and Gellis Duncan are talking with Gellis being a bit risqué, when Jamie comes back to inform Dougal that his wife passed then Gellis becomes Geilie from Claire's thoughts, is that a mistake? I thought we don't hear about her other name until Claire is back in her future.

[WatchrTina]

 

like an endless loop theory

"All of this has happened before, and will happen again."

 

That's a key quote from Ron Moore's previous show, Battlestar Galactica.  I'm quite sure the two things have nothing whatsoever to do with one another, but isn't it interesting?

 

I have a question for Athena.  Are we allowed to talk about the books in this thread?  There was a whole conversation earlier about an upcoming scene from the book, introducing a new character, William Gray (who's casting was announced so I know we can talk about him) but the conversation got very specific about what happens in that scene in the book -- info that TV-only people would not have access to.

[GrailKing]

I was shocked, SHOCKED that they gave away Claire goes back to the 20th century and I think the fact that they gave it away means that that scene will happen in episode 1.  That would be a nod to the structure of the book

which begins with Claire in the 20th century + 20 years.

 That's the only rationale I can come up with for including that in the trailer.

 

Okay, I can think of one more rationale.  Outlander is a story about a time-traveler.

 If they told the story of book two in strict chronological order then Claire's return to the 20th century would only come at the very end of the season.

If they kick things off in the 20th century then they set the stage for cutting back and forth between the two time frames including

Paris and the run-up to Culloden in the 18th century vs Claire's return to the 20th century, difficult life with Frank, his death, and the eventual discovery (in the last scene of the last episode) that Jamie survived.

 Kicking off the season with Claire's return would give them more to play with (and give Tobias as Frank more to do) than if they had only focused on

40-somthing Claire / Brianna / Roger

in the 20th century as the book does.

 

Can I just say that I hugged myself with glee and and shouted OH MY GOD to an empty apartment at the end of the trailer.  I'm off to watch it again.  And then I'm going to go read Terry's twitter feed because she must be PISSED about them revealing the red dress.  What an unnecessary thing for them to do.

I have info on this but it comes from "The Exile" -- the graphic novel in which Diana re-tells the first half of book 1 but from the points of view of other characters.  If The Exile is canon, then it sheds light on this question.  It's not one of the big books so I'll slip behind the spoiler bars. 

In "The Exile", Murtagh actually SEES Claire appear when she comes through the stones. He has known, all along, that Claire was something "other," though I get the impression that he thinks she a fairy of some kind.

 

ETA:  I just saw that this is a "no book talk" thread so I'm adding spoiler bars.

I knew about the Exile, but it's not at my local B & N looks like I'll have to order it on line, I would read it side by side with book 1.

A Outlander rendition of all leather must be boiled. lol.

[DittyDotDot]

Thank You,

Did Claire leave Frank's ring?

Also is this a mistake or is there a purpose, in the return to Leoch

Claire and Gellis Duncan are talking with Gellis being a bit risqué, when Jamie comes back to inform Dougal that his wife passed then Gellis becomes Geilie from Claire's thoughts, is that a mistake? I thought we don't hear about her other name until Claire is back in her future.

 

Moved to the Books vs Show thread, just to be safe on the "book talk" issue. Plus, no need for those pesky spoiler tags!

[Athena]

I have a question for Athena.  Are we allowed to talk about the books in this thread?  There was a whole conversation earlier about an upcoming scene from the book, introducing a new character, William Gray (who's casting was announced so I know we can talk about him) but the conversation got very specific about what happens in that scene in the book -- info that TV-only people would not have access to.

 

This a TV spoilers only discussion. Less emphasis on Book Talk which can be moved to Books vs Show or Book 2. I have been easy going about some book talk here as I know most of you are book readers and we don't have many actual non book readers here in the off season. However, I do appreciate more book talk in other threads.

 

As this is Spoilers thread, it really is not necessary to tag your spoilers.

 

Thank you for those of you have moved onto Books vs Show. :)

[Summer]

I read DIA really fast and the first half of Voyager and I'm confusing myself.  Isn't it in Voyager that we get more of an in-depth look into Claires life with Frank when she returns?  Or does that happen at the end of DIA?  I'm reading DIA again right now and the only insight about Claire returning is the newspaper clippings Roger finds, is there more about her life with Frank at the end of DIA? Because I feel like the hospital scene w/Claire and Frank at the end of the S2 preview would be from Voyager?

 

Gah!  I'm all confused now!!  

[Nidratime]

Outlander TV News is reporting that the first two episode titles for the new season have been released:

 

Episode 2.01 of Outlander is titled “Through a Glass, Darkly“, and Episode 2.02 is titled “Not in Scotland Anymore”

 

[GrailKing]

Do their titles match the book?

As I will be starting book two in earnest next week, 3 chapters left from book 1.

 

[Nidratime]

The title of episode one matches up with the title of Part One of the book, but I'm not sure if the second episode title is ever used.

[asp]

New trailer for season 2 with some added footage:

https://vimeo.com/155613427?ref=tw-share

[GrailKing]

New trailer for season 2 with some added footage:

https://vimeo.com/155613427?ref=tw-share

Unfortunately not there.

[asp]

Apparently Starz removed all vídeos. Try here:

 

http://outlanderitaly.tumblr.com/post/139681964321/outlander-season-2-alternative-trailer

[GrailKing]

Apparently Starz removed all vídeos. Try here:

 

http://outlanderitaly.tumblr.com/post/139681964321/outlander-season-2-alternative-trailer

That one works, I still think seeing the scene with Jamie and Claire talking "in trusting this " is two parts: one in either in there love or their plan and two: if the plan doesn't work out Jamie is trusting Frank to take care of Claire and other ( he's looking directly at the gold band and squeezing or shaking the hand as he says the words.

[GrailKing]

A photographer is there also ~1:22, so much for privacy.