Unpopular Opinions: Overheard in the Castle Leoch Kitchen

[ohhellsyeah]

I think Caitriona Balfe is beautiful but I really don't think she looks good in the 1940's scenes. Maybe that's intentional.

I also hate 1940's women's clothes and hairstyles. Way to formal and structured. I thought her wedding suit and hat was really ugly.

I agree, although I am not sure if I buy that it is intentional or not.  Perhaps the 18th century style stuff just suits her coloring/body type/whatever more.  She practically glows with her hair pulled back and in the 18th century dresses.

 

Regarding the graphic violence: I can't watch most of it, but in RDM's defense, isn't this the first time he's been on premium cable? He's probably still finding his footing with his new parameters of what he can film.

I'm also guessing he was influenced to take on this project by women in his life, and I don't mind if he brings some masculine energy to it, as the source material seems awfully romance-tropey. It's clear a lot of care and attention to detail is being put into the show, and at episode 7 that is sufficient for me.

I think that first observation is a good one.  BSG was as bleak as anything else that has ever been on television (including Game of Thrones), but without the excessive gore/exploitative sex that permeates premium cable. For me, he hasn't crossed the line in either regard but I know a lot of people who wouldn't be comfortable with it and that is not wrong.  Everyone has their boundaries with that they will or will not watch (or read) and that's fine.

 

On the second point, I disagree that Ron Moore would take on a project that spans eight novels on the advice of the women in his life.  That is a hell of a career commitment. 8 years is a long time.

 

Well...this was, I thought, the unpopular opinions thread. :) 

It is and I'm sorry if you feel like you are being ganged up on, but I've given this some thought I have something to say on the subject.  All genre writing is subject to tropes, it is simply that the tropes in each genre are different. That is what makes it genre writing.  The thing that irks me as someone who does read romance is that it is the most denigrated genre.  Sure nobody thinks that fantasy or crime fiction is the same as literary fiction, but it doesn't get the same level of scorn.  I am not suggesting that Diana Gabaldon should be considered for the Pulitzer, but it bugs that the one genre that is written by women and for women is constantly looked down upon.  I am not saying that you are doing this, but merely suggesting that this is why a lot of people have been a bit defensive about the subject. And again as someone who has read almost every genre there is, I don't think that Outlander fits squarely into the romance novel archetype.  If I say more I think I will get into book talk territory, so I'm not going to.

 

This^

Which is why reading comparisons to the sex scenes of GoT seem rather odd to me; GoT is definitely not a romance and has never pretended to be (the only truly romantic sex scenes were between Robb and Talisa and they were done well enough imo but that was a very small part of a very large show/story/cast). I love GoT for what it is, not what it isn't. I'm enjoying Outlander a lot but I don't compare it with GoT, The Tudors, The White Queen etc, they were/are all enjoyable to varying degrees but I feel no compulsion to berate one over another, there is enough love to go around :)

Well, most of my comparisons are some what tongue in cheek. Who can drink more, Cersei or Claire? (Claire because she drinks whiskey as well as wine, but do we all not think that Claire would be dead within 5 minutes of being in Westeros? Jamie could last an episode and Dougal an entire season, but Claire would be toast).  Also, Outlander wedding > than GoT wedding because nobody dies is also a joke.  

 

The only shows that I watch because I think they are legitimately good (rather than simply watching them because there is nothing else on) are Game of Thrones, Outlander and Justified. That being said, I am not blind to their faults. I have real problem with how women's bodies and female sexuality are presented on premium cable. I don't have the same genre expectations, obviously.  Game of Thrones will probably end with a definitive answer as to who should sit in the iron throne, but with everyone realizing this comes with a price. That price being generally the cost of every friend, family member or lover that the occupant cared about. For Justified, the foreshadowing leads me to believe all of my favourites are gonna die in Harlem.  Outlander?  Outlander needs to give me the super happy ending and I expect nothing less.

 

I'm sorry for the novel.  This probably belongs in another thread, but there is no Outlander vs. other shows thread. Maybe there should be after episide 8.

[justmehere]

comparisons to the sex scenes of GoT seem rather odd to me

 

 

I think it's mostly a matter of them both being high-profile, popular, premium-cable shows. Game of Thrones arguably epitomizes the "standard" of exploiting women and women's bodies -- there is a great deal of gratuitous nudity, and they go farther than the books in terms of harshness toward women. Outlander isn't completely on the other end of the spectrum given its own harsh elements, but it has the opportunity to use the cable medium in a different way. There's crudeness and nudity and graphic sex, but the story lends itself to different use. For me, it was an absolute breath of fresh air to see the realistic and sensual way that the scenes in The Wedding developed compared to most of what's out there. It's not that there is similarity between the stories that invites comparison, it's more: Hey, look, premium cable, here's what you can also do, and it will appeal to lots of people. GoT just happens to be the most high-profile example to use.

[Meredith Quill]

Well, most of my comparisons are some what tongue in cheek. Who can drink more, Cersei or Claire? (Claire because she drinks whiskey as well as wine, but do we all not think that Claire would be dead within 5 minutes of being in Westeros? Jamie could last an episode and Dougal an entire season, but Claire would be toast).  Also, Outlander wedding > than GoT wedding because nobody dies is also a joke.  

 

The only shows that I watch because I think they are legitimately good (rather than simply watching them because there is nothing else on) are Game of Thrones, Outlander and Justified. That being said, I am not blind to their faults. I have real problem with how women's bodies and female sexuality are presented on premium cable. I don't have the same genre expectations, obviously.  Game of Thrones will probably end with a definitive answer as to who should sit in the iron throne, but with everyone realizing this comes with a price. That price being generally the cost of every friend, family member or lover that the occupant cared about. For Justified, the foreshadowing leads me to believe all of my favourites are gonna die in Harlem.  Outlander?  Outlander needs to give me the super happy ending and I expect nothing less.

 

I'm sorry for the novel.  This probably belongs in another thread, but there is no Outlander vs. other shows thread. Maybe there should be after episide 8.

 

I agree, tongue in cheek comparisons are good for a giggle and I always enjoy a laugh ;) I was specifically referring to the sex scenes comparisons for Outlander vs. GoT and my later point was basically that all shows have their strengths and weaknesses and therefore, imo to (seriously) compare one element directly to another is an exercise in futility when the shows have vast differences in structure, tone etc etc.

 

I think it's mostly a matter of them both being high-profile, popular, premium-cable shows. Game of Thrones arguably epitomizes the "standard" of exploiting women and women's bodies -- there is a great deal of gratuitous nudity, and they go farther than the books in terms of harshness toward women. Outlander isn't completely on the other end of the spectrum given its own harsh elements, but it has the opportunity to use the cable medium in a different way. There's crudeness and nudity and graphic sex, but the story lends itself to different use. For me, it was an absolute breath of fresh air to see the realistic and sensual way that the scenes in The Wedding developed compared to most of what's out there. It's not that there is similarity between the stories that invites comparison, it's more: Hey, look, premium cable, here's what you can also do, and it will appeal to lots of people. GoT just happens to be the most high-profile example to use.

 

I think your point is perfectly reasonable, the main point I was making is that GoT isn't, nor is it attempting to be romantic or a love story, therefore, reading comments such as (paraphrasing here) "the GoT producers could learn how to shoot a sex scene" is odd to me. Yes GoT is over the top, gratuitous at times etc but then so are the books on which it is based, even if the show does go further, it is of the same ilk as the events in the book.

I found the wedding and sex scenes in Outlander to be quite lovely and refreshing also, my point is that that is what Outlander is aiming for and it hit the target. GoT aims for a totally different feel/tone/story and it too hits the target it is aiming for; both shows are doing a great job of exactly what they set out to do.

I do fully understand why the comparisons take place, but if you peel back the flimsiest of layers; the logic behind those comparisons seems flawed imo.

[violetr]

Here's an opinion that's both unpopular and shallow: I do not find Jamie/Sam Heughan attractive. It's nothing against Heughan, who I think is doing a fine job. He's just too big and beefy for my taste. The overdeveloped pecs turn me off big time. In fact, I don't find any of the men attractive on this show, which boggles my mind because I love Scottish men! I mean, David Tennant, James McAvoy, Ewan McGregor, Kevin McKidd - yowza! Regardless, I love the show. I've been super impressed so far.

[bluebonnet]

I have to agree.  He's not one who would be on my swoon-worthy list.  It's the neck that turns me off.  Thankfully, he's really amazing in the role that it doesn't matter for me.  I think another one of my issues is that they haven't really gotten much into who Jamie is.  We have a pretty good idea, but he still feels too polished for me.

 

This is probably unpopular but I swoon a little for Murtagh.  It isn't that I think the actor has a beautiful face.  It's the attitude.  I find that gentle gruffness very attractive.  I'm often more attracted to characters (and people irl) based on attitude and personality.  

[kieyra]

It is and I'm sorry if you feel like you are being ganged up on, but I've given this some thought I have something to say on the subject.  All genre writing is subject to tropes, it is simply that the tropes in each genre are different. That is what makes it genre writing.  The thing that irks me as someone who does read romance is that it is the most denigrated genre.  Sure nobody thinks that fantasy or crime fiction is the same as literary fiction, but it doesn't get the same level of scorn.  I am not suggesting that Diana Gabaldon should be considered for the Pulitzer, but it bugs that the one genre that is written by women and for women is constantly looked down upon.  I am not saying that you are doing this, but merely suggesting that this is why a lot of people have been a bit defensive about the subject. And again as someone who has read almost every genre there is, I don't think that Outlander fits squarely into the romance novel archetype.  If I say more I think I will get into book talk territory, so I'm not going to.

 

 

After listening to this week's podcast, in which Terry says "It's not a romance, I've been arguing about this for 20 years!" I realized a few things:

 

1) As someone who knew nothing about the source material and almost didn't watch the show after reading the book synopsis, keep in mind that I was (and probably a lot of us are) completely unaware of walking into what is apparently a well-established war-zone when we make comments that include the phrase 'romance trope'.

 

2) It seems like there's actually two levels to the debate: a) it's not a romance; b) SO WHAT IF IT IS? WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?. And I don't really have a dog in either fight, all I've ever said is 'the setup is romance-tropey', which I think is accurate. But it's not like I'm saying any of the following: romance is bad, romance is the only thing that has tropes, the show is bad. Nothing like that, I just need more elements to sustain my interest in a lengthy scripted drama. But I can see why, with the '20 year argument' thing Terry mentioned, it's a sore spot among book fans. 

 

3) If she's been having the fight for 20 years, then yes, I do believe she was likely influential in bringing the source material to RDM's attention. :)  In the podcasts, she clearly knows every scene from the book(s) and fills in details that RDM is not familiar with. But once again, pointing out that women are more likely to read romance or quasi-romance novels doesn't mean anything 'bad'. 

Edited September 23, 2014 by kieyra

[peacefrog]

I think the ring Jamie gave to Claire is nice!

[taanja]

 

Does this show run the danger of making Claire that girl.. you know... the one... every man wants her... everyone is secretly in love with her, though, she really isn't that great.

 

I feel no jealously toward "that girl"  The character is supposed to be a beautiful woman. (Not to mention that the actress IS beautiful)  Beautiful people are treated differently. It is what it is. And yes. Every man wants to be the one who "gets" the beautiful woman. beauty after all is a potent thing. Everyone wants a piece of it. It is what it is.

 

[Tif]

Claire is no Joey Potter. ;)

[absnow54]

At this point, I don't think Claire suffers from Joey Potter It! Disorder. So far only Jamie and Dougal seem to be fawning over her and it's because of her tenacity, so there's an actual character trait they're attracted to and not just a "she's the most beautifulest and blandest of them all." I think we've also seen enough interactions between Claire and Angus and Rupert to support them being friendly with her too, even though Angus is too surly to be friendly all the time. The scene with Claire charming a room full of English officers was a bit heavy handed for my liking, especially when Dougal and Thomas shared a warm "she sure knows how to put us men in place" chuckle, so I do agree that the show runs the risk.

[missmarple]

Bluebonnet 

This is probably unpopular but I swoon a little for Murtagh.  It isn't that I think the actor has a beautiful face.  It's the attitude.  I find that gentle gruffness very attractive.  I'm often more attracted to characters (and people irl) based on attitude and personality.

 

Not unpopular to me . I'll take Murtagh over Jamie anyday.  I find Murtagh sexy and I posted in another thread  that he needs his own show-I wasn't  kidding. I hope we see more of the character.

 

My own unpopular opinion regarding Jamie- is I hated the way he looked in his wedding outfit. I thought he looked pirate from a 1980's metal video. I kept waiting for him say argh, hoist the sails mateys .He was dressed perfect for talk like a pirate day.

[peacefrog]

I actually like his outfit but the hair was just 80's awful.

I'm having a lot of trouble with his hair at times. Not always but most of the time. I much prefer how he looked earlier in the series with the shorter hair.

[taanja]

Yeah. the character Jamie doesn't do anything for me as well. He's barely more than a baby. And he looks it.

 

I am on the Dougal train all the way --- unpopular as that may be. I've always been partial to the" bad boy" asshole. (Spike? I miss you!)

 

An elder man with chiseled features and a steely gaze is my kind of man. HaHa! Sure he's brutal and basically a bastard but what can I say? maybe I am a little in love with the actor? Graham McTavish? (sp?) right? His name rolls off my tongue like sugar!

[Nidratime]

For me, Dougal is attractive from afar, on paper, in small doses ... however you want to put it, but it'd be hell being involved with him. I'd think you'd always be "the little lady" to him no matter how smart or talented you were and thus dismissable.

[nodorothyparker]

I'm having a lot of trouble with his hair at times. Not always but most of the time.

 

The wedding hair just looked weird, like it had been brushed within an inch of its life.  Which is maybe the point for a character who I think we're supposed to think normally doesn't bother with it much but was trying to clean up for his big day.  It did make sense to me that over the course of the story it reverted back to its normally frizzy mess as that kind of hair is wont to do.

 

But I don't get what they're going for with his hair much of the time either.  In the book, there's a reason why his hair is short at the start.  But we're at midseason and it's never come up.  It's clearly not a fashionable look for the time as the style was to wear it long and isn't even consistent from scene to scene.  Sometimes it looks badly cut and really distracts from his face.

[peacefrog]

He's got more "Claire hair" than Claire.

That reminds me, off to Claire thread!

[taanja]

For me, Dougal is attractive from afar, on paper, in small doses ... however you want to put it, but it'd be hell being involved with him. I'd think you'd always be "the little lady" to him no matter how smart or talented you were and thus dismissable.

 Valid. but I have a sickness. I admit it. In true life I would probably end up chopping off his ...ummm.... manly member... in a fit of rage. But the chemistry I see between him and the actress who plays Claire is simply amazing. And like I said ---that actor is lovely.

[lucindabelle]

Unpopular opinion but I felt the flogging scene was bad, dull exposition, bad playwriting 101， where a character tells a story to inform the audience not because he wants something from e person he's talking to.

Do NOT care how important it is in the books. Do NOT care how it's meant be taken. I found it ineffective. I find this show in general seven episodes in to be very poorly written compared to game of thrones or many others.

I don't think it is a gender issue but it may well be a romance trope issue since so many comments on every recap seem to be the feelings, the feelings, watching without kids or husbands, etc. I'm not swept away by he love story, not convinced by the peril, I think this is not a great example of historical romance either (heck adventures of Robin Hood was twice as exciting and dashing).

I don't find either lead particularly compelling. I love the scenery and am watching for that and some period stuff but the plotting is very slow considering how far we are in. There doesn't seem to be very much at stake.

Those are my unpopular opinions ...

[DoughGirl]

Unpopular opinion but I felt the flogging scene was bad, dull exposition, bad playwriting 101， where a character tells a story to inform the audience not because he wants something from e person he's talking to.

Do NOT care how important it is in the books. Do NOT care how it's meant be taken. I found it ineffective. I find this show in general seven episodes in to be very poorly written compared to game of thrones or many others.

I don't think it is a gender issue but it may well be a romance trope issue since so many comments on every recap seem to be the feelings, the feelings, watching without kids or husbands, etc. I'm not swept away by he love story, not convinced by the peril, I think this is not a great example of historical romance either (heck adventures of Robin Hood was twice as exciting and dashing).

I don't find either lead particularly compelling. I love the scenery and am watching for that and some period stuff but the plotting is very slow considering how far we are in. There doesn't seem to be very much at stake.

Those are my unpopular opinions ...

I have to agree. I quit watching (and from what I've read, I'm glad I bailed when I did) halfway through the flogging scene and BJR's boring soliloquy. I check in here from time to time to see if I'm the only one who thinks the adaptation of this show is just terrible and it seems, on this forum anyway, you and I are in the minority.

[peacefrog]

doughgirl and lucindabelle I think your opinions on the adaptation have a lot of merit. I think that because so many love the books, that I myself do, the negatives are overlooked or just don't bother them. It's good to have people call out the show.

doughgirl I know you have read the books, have you thought of binge watching when it is done or is it the violence that bothers you the most?

Lucinabelle I don't know if you have read the books. I do kind of agree that what the show has played out so far has lacked a bit of urgency as far as showing what is at stake. On the other side I like that they are taking time to build up characters.

[DoughGirl]

doughgirl and lucindabelle I think your opinions on the adaptation have a lot of merit. I think that because so many love the books, that I myself do, the negatives are overlooked or just don't bother them. It's good to have people call out the show.

doughgirl I know you have read the books, have you thought of binge watching when it is done or is it the violence that bothers you the most?

I don't have a problem with the violence per se, I just feel it's being amped up unnecessarily. And IMO, the changes to the story are bogging it down and not improving it at all. I just can't watch another minute of it.

[lucindabelle]

I read book one when it came out, remember it very slightly, didn't feel compelled to read more.

I do thnk I'd be enjoying it more if I could binge watch.

I get what you are saying about building up the characters but I still feel I know little about Jamie except eye candy, noble, decent, good, etc. Adjectives, not personality traits.

[BooBear]

I don't think it is a gender issue but it may well be a romance trope issue since so many comments on every recap seem to be the feelings, the feelings, watching without kids or husbands, etc. I'm not swept away by he love story, not convinced by the peril, I think this is not a great example of historical romance either (heck adventures of Robin Hood was twice as exciting and dashing).

I agree. I just am not that compelled by this show itself.  I echo someone up-thread that said Jamie wasn't their cup of tea.  Jamie just doesn't do it for me and as a dabbler in romance novels I know the Scottish highlander trope and never did it for me even there. (I think I am more into Frank) The show itself seem to be trying to make the material more than it really is, and it is coming off as boring and missing things.. I think most episodes have left viewers confused (if they didn't read the book). I probably would not have watched it at all if there was anything at all on Saturday nights. It isn't horrible -- just forgettable. But I will watch the final episode just to see what they do with it, but if it is as lack luster as the wedding.... welp...

[lucindabelle]

I actually did read romance novels in grad school until I realized they were making me unhappy with actual people. But growing up first it was Barbara Cartland with the ellipses, gray eyes and heart shaped faces... Then the rape fantasy books... Then he PC romances. But even in those the man is often sarcastic, etc. Jamie is like the prince in a Fairytale and so far, just as bland. Gallant. And?

[DoughGirl]

I read book one when it came out, remember it very slightly, didn't feel compelled to read more.

I do thnk I'd be enjoying it more if I could binge watch.

I get what you are saying about building up the characters but I still feel I know little about Jamie except eye candy, noble, decent, good, etc. Adjectives, not personality traits.

IMO, the show is spending way too much time on BJR and Dougal and Jamie has been lost in the shuffle. As you say, he's been reduced to eye candy with no real personality, just a body to play off of. A cardboard cut out.

The show itself seem to be trying to make the material more than it really is, and it is coming off as boring and missing things.. I think most episodes have left viewers confused (if they didn't read the book).

Exactly. RM has decided to make it the BJR/Frank show, co-starring Dougal, with a guest star appearance of Jamie Fraser. It's confusing because it's throwing the backbone of the story off.

[WaltersHair]

It seems to me it's be the Claire show with everyone else showing up in equal parts.

[Rekilt]

Spoke with a friend who started watching the show, never read any of the books and she says the same thing as many people here regarding Jamie. He's hot and all but there's no way she would consider choosing him over Frank and her time. She pointed out, it's her time, Frank is a loving supportive husband, they have great sex why would anyone in their right mind choose the loss of modern conveniences, a great husband with great sex for someone you've only known a month or so.

I tried to explain that in the book, Frank isn't as loving and more cold fish and they've actually been physically together about the same amount of time, due to the war as her and Jamie were. But she responded that's not how it appears on the show. That actually made me a little irritated. I hope they do a better job at showing how awesome Jamie is to non book readers soon.

ETA: I edited out my super non specific sentence that might be considered a spoiler.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Rekilt

[DoughGirl]

It seems to me it's be the Claire show with everyone else showing up in equal parts.

I didn't even find the Claire character/story compelling in the show. More like the catalyst for the rest of the action.

[lucindabelle]

After latest episode, Jamie seems callow (is it always like this? Seriously), hot, yes, but... Plumbing, aspiring, electricity. Frank misses her and there's nothing wrong with him, on the show, in episode one they had sex something like four times.in the 18th century people keep attacking her. If I were Claire I'd want to get back home too.

Also isn't "it's going to be a hard sell" a spoiler? Seriously for all I know Claire goes back and forth Iin time. Isn't this a no book talk thread?

Edited September 28, 2014 by lucindabelle

[BooBear]

I dislike this show.

 

First, co signed that it bothers me that she is so into Jamie when Frank is kind of awesome himself.  But even if we take him away being awesome, I can't help but think about all the modern conveniences she is giving up ( what does she do on the road with TOM?). Not to mention doesn't she have any friends / family in 1945? The show hasn't made this clear.  Beyond all that.. she seems to be choosing a world where men don't listen to her and rape is an every day occurrence. She can't be anything but a wife and is considered property.  This alone makes me wonder about her mental health / maturity. 

 

BJR is just ridiculous.  One thing about real life and GOTs is that people who are this out of control tend to get take out by someone because they are too out of control.  You telling me there isn't one redcoat who would not tolerate him raping and whipping? You telling me that someone wouldn't just hall off and kill him and bury the body... and you think the redcoats would really look very hard? Don't care if he has a protector... there has to be limits.  Or society will take you out.  Not everyone gets the "memo".  But I also don't understand from the show his fascination with Claire or Jamie. 

 

I don't see how it is so hard to get back to the stones.. grab Jamie and say, Jamie I want to go to the stones... Jamie would be like "ok" --  done.

 

Jamie is ok but he is still a product of his times. He would not see Claire as his equal but his "property" and what kind of a life could Claire have with him. RIght now he is a wanted man. He could die tomorrow.

 

All of these things make me want to reject Claire as an immature child who is willing to put herself in danger to "get some" with a younger man.  If her life in 1945 was unhappy I could see her wanting to stay as there would be nothing left in 1945 for her. But the show has set up a smart nurse (position of power) married to a great guy with the war freshly over ... choosing a much inferior life.

 

Plus it is boring and endlessly drawn out.

[annlaw78]

BJR is just ridiculous. One thing about real life and GOTs is that people who are this out of control tend to get take out by someone because they are too out of control. You telling me there isn't one redcoat who would not tolerate him raping and whipping? You telling me that someone wouldn't just hall off and kill him and bury the body... and you think the redcoats would really look very hard? Don't care if he has a protector... there has to be limits. Or society will take you out. Not everyone gets the "memo". But I also don't understand from the show his fascination with Claire or Jamie.

Yeah, knowing what we know now, why didn't Murtagh finish the job on Randall when he had the chance in the first ep, rather than just knock him out and run away with Claire? Randall's the Scourge of the Scots, has tortured his boy Jamie, and is basically the Hitler of the Highlands. Why, exactly, wouldn't Murtagh kill him (there were no witnesses, save Claire).

IMO, the show is spending way too much time on BJR and Dougal and Jamie has been lost in the shuffle. As you say, he's been reduced to eye candy with no real personality, just a body to play off of. A cardboard cut out.

BOOBEAR, ON 26 SEPT 2014 - 7:28 PM, SAID:

The show itself seem to be trying to make the material more than it really is, and it is coming off as boring and missing things.. I think most episodes have left viewers confused (if they didn't read the book).

Exactly. RM has decided to make it the BJR/Frank show, co-starring Dougal, with a guest star appearance of Jamie Fraser. It's confusing because it's throwing the backbone of the story off.

Ditto to all these posts. I don't really understand the promotion of Dougal, BJR, and Frank over Jamie, screentime-wise. Someone suggested in another thread it's because McTavish and Menzies are stronger actors the Hueghan, but, come on. Jamie's a main character. Hueghan has done a fantastic job of pulling focus in nearly every scene he's in, and working with pretty limited material consisting of pretty much "Jamie swans in, does something to make the women swoon, Claire's bosom heaves as she bandages him, Jamie swans out."

I got from the initial scene with BJR that he's the big bad. I didn't need a 40-minute tete-a-tete with him to understand that. I understood from Frank's despair at the stones he's in agony over Claire; I didn't need half the show to be devoted to him. What I don't get, is whether Claire and Jamie have any connection other than "hey, we've put a ring on it, we might as well shag."

Edited September 28, 2014 by annlaw78

[Nidratime]

Well, that would've been a huge change from the book ... no Black Jack Randall from day one of Claire's adventure in the 18th Century?

[annlaw78]

Well, that would've been a huge change from the book ... no Black Jack Randall from day one of Claire's adventure in the 18th Century?

I get it, but my issue is with the completely unnuanced portrayal of BJR as a Hitler+Edward Longshanks + Jason Isaacs' character in The Patriot + Tim Roth in Rob Roy. If he's THAT COMPLETELY EVIL, then why on earth wouldn't Murtagh have shanked him when he had the chance, and ridden the world of that black mark on humanity? So, if you need BJR going forward to catalyze the plot and be a villain, fine, but you probably should rein it in a bit, so it's believable that our man Murtagh would not have ended him at the first opportunity. Edited September 28, 2014 by annlaw78

[DoughGirl]

Well, that would've been a huge change from the book ... no Black Jack Randall from day one of Claire's adventure in the 18th Century?

Can't really write my opinion about this without spoilers but the BJR stuff in the show is OTT.

[absnow54]

Honestly I thought BJR was just as cartoon-y, over the top evil in the book too, possibly even more so than his portrayal on the show. Most of my gripes with the show are straight out of the source material, but with the pacing and visual media of television, have only been amplified.

[DoughGirl]

Honestly I thought BJR was just as cartoon-y, over the top evil in the book too, possibly even more so than his portrayal on the show.

IMO, the show has only exaggerated the character, making it 100 times worse.

I can't decide if the changes made to the story in the show are A: to convince watchers that it's not a romance, B: that old "no one will watch a show that has a female main charcter" drivel, or C: just bad writing.

It's like, "Yeah, Outlander is about this guy Frank, who has a fascinating, sadistic, evil look alike ancestor in the eighteenth century. Well, Frank's wife goes back in time and meets the ancestor and adventure ensues. She meets up with a fascinating, horn dog highlander, who forces her into marriage with a young highlander character (who just happened to have been flogged by the deliciously evil sadist) but wants to jump her bones himself. Romance? No way!"

[BooBear]

Honestly I thought BJR was just as cartoon-y, over the top evil in the book too, possibly even more so than his portrayal on the show. Most of my gripes with the show are straight out of the source material, but with the pacing and visual media of television, have only been amplified.

Perhaps the source material is the problem. But as someone who hasn't read the book.. I look at this show and simply see a romance novel. No matter how much they try to make it more serious.  BJR is a dated ridiculous character.  It isn't that he is so evil, but that is evil is so without motivation and also focused so irrationally on despicable romance tropes.  Focusing on Jamie and Claire but I don't really hear the specific motivation for it. He hates the Scots... ok, well that would seem to indicate he would want to kill as many as possible. Not waste his time with two of them.   Surely there would have been one red coat that would have objected to them taking Claire... that is essentially declaring war on Clan McKenzie?

 

It is, I think, kind of insulting to have Claire almost gets raped 5 times now. Always -- almost. How bloody likely is that?  Isn't it kind of saying to a real woman, if you got raped it was your fault... you weren't as spunky as Claire.

 

Its romance drivel.  Though I am up for a spinoff staring Frank Randell with a love interest that actually loves him.

[seaELare]

I don't really understand the promotion of Dougal, BJR, and Frank over Jamie, screentime-wise. Someone suggested in another thread it's because McTavish and Menzies are stronger actors the Hueghan, but, come on. Jamie's a main character.

 

 

I think RDM answers that in this AccessHollywood interview.  Sort of lends some credence to that earlier suggestion of writing for the stronger actors in the cast.  

 

 

Access: It feels like you guys are having a lot of fun with Tobias [Menzies'] talents on this. He gives so much in both parts. Is part of writing Frank also because you just know you have this great actor in Tobias?

Ron: Oh, absolutely. There's the point in any series where, you know, you stepped into a show with just scripts and ideas in your head of who the characters are, but the deeper in you go, the more you start writing towards your actors. You start learning their voices, you start appreciating what they're good at, what they're not so good at, and you start, you know, particularly [tailoring] their parts for them, so the more we saw of Tobias, we were like, 'Oh, wow. We can really go some places with him,' and we just kept going because we just saw that there was a lot of fertile ground to work with.

 

 

Read more at http://www.accesshollywood.com/outlander-mid-season-finale-qanda-ronald-d-moore-on-bringing-back-frank_article_99284#S7IL8buYci64eLOV.99

[annlaw78]

 

I think RDM answers that in this AccessHollywood interview.  Sort of lends some credence to that earlier suggestion of writing for the stronger actors in the cast.

Yeah, I thought I had heard that.  I think I've hit saturation point with Menzies' characters, though, and I am ready to devote less screen time to the collection of sneers and tics and sadism that is BJR.  And enough Frank, for now.  We've got some business to attend to in the 1740s!

[Sasha]

I find Frank too bland and unattractive to be the male romantic lead. Jamie is barely a supporting character and if you didn't think the actor had the chops for a lead role then you shouldn't have cast him. BJR is a cartoon and I'm not impressed with the greatness of TM.

I don't see him anywhere in the same league as Bryan Cranston or say Matthew McConaughey. Two recent Emmy nominees. Drop him down to supporting category and put him up against Peter Dinklage or Mandy Patinkin? Nope. He's decent but so amazing you rework the part for him? That's Norman Reedus from The Walking Dead. BJR is more like the Governor and needs to die post haste.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Sasha

[mybabyaidan]

Jamie is barely a supporting character and if you didn't think the actor had the chops for a lead role then you shouldn't have cast him. BJR is a cartoon and I'm not impressed with the greatness of TM.

 

 

Exactly.  I do really enjoy TM, but they have really over played him IMO.   I am at the point where I am starting to resent tv Frank, and that's blowing over into my fondness for book Frank.

[WaltersHair]

I think RDM answers that in this AccessHollywood interview.  Sort of lends some credence to that earlier suggestion of writing for the stronger actors in the cast. 

 

Quote

    Access: It feels like you guys are having a lot of fun with Tobias [Menzies'] talents on this. He gives so much in both parts. Is part of writing Frank also because you just know you have this great actor in Tobias?

    Ron: Oh, absolutely. There's the point in any series where, you know, you stepped into a show with just scripts and ideas in your head of who the characters are, but the deeper in you go, the more you start writing towards your actors. You start learning their voices, you start appreciating what they're good at, what they're not so good at, and you start, you know, particularly [tailoring] their parts for them, so the more we saw of Tobias, we were like, 'Oh, wow. We can really go some places with him,' and we just kept going because we just saw that there was a lot of fertile ground to work with.

 

I've thought this all along. I don't think Sam has the same level of acting ability, but I don't expect him to either. I think he will probably really shine in the next season.

 

I just have an overwhelming appreciation for TM, so I'm biased. I've looked around and I see I'm not alone. I don't know if the creators/writers expected this or not.

 

I'm also glad they didn't make Frank or BJR cartoon characters. I still hate BJR with a passion, but TM makes him fun to hate.

[lucindabelle]

It's quite obviously a romance. The way it's being received just demonstrates that.

[annlaw78]

 

I'm also glad they didn't make Frank or BJR cartoon characters. I still hate BJR with a passion, but TM makes him fun to hate.

BJR seems pretty cartoonish to me.  Sneers, tics, horribleness.  

[mitzy]

The sneers, tics, horribleness are just some of the reasons I find him fascinating to watch. Obviously YM does V.

[kieyra]

Hmm, I really did like the show for the first four or five episodes, and I was mostly only here in this thread because "romance trope". I felt like the first lengthy episode with Claire and BJR was perhaps the high point of the show, although I had to fast forward through the flogging. But I believed in BJR as a bad guy in that episode. Now, yeah, just a cartoon. And something else along the way really cracked open the artifice of the show for me, not sure what. I think listening to the podcasts didn't help. Too much awareness of "the man behind the curtain". I haven't ever done that with a tv show before, but people kept gushing about the podcasts for Outlander and I caved. I don't think I'll do that again soon.

Otherwise...yeah, I don't know. The mid season finale posts already sum up a lot of my thoughts on the finale, so I won't rehash, but yeah. I won't pretend I won't watch next half-season, but my expectations will be adjusted.

[ArctisTor]

I don't see how it is so hard to get back to the stones.. grab Jamie and say, Jamie I want to go to the stones... Jamie would be like "ok" --  done.

That was one of the things that stuck in my craw the most in the book and now the TV series.  Jamie had proven several times throughout the story he's willing to risk his life for her.  I'm sure if she played up the loving wife card, clearly not that difficult since she's obviously fallen for him, he'd have taken her to those stupid stones without much preamble.  She was afraid of breaking his heart?  She was going to break it anyway.  At least seeing her disappear before his eyes would explain her disappearance and Jamie a product of superstitious 1743 would have understood what happened in a way poor son of a bitch Frank wouldn't have and doesn't as per the last episode.  It wouldn't have lessened Jamie's heartache, but he'd have at least understood she didn't belong in his time.  My brain fanwanked it saying she subconsciously never did want to go back in the first place, so never considered the obvious of asking Jamie to take her there.  Unfortunately, I think it probably was more likely just clunky writing to prolong the melodrama.

[taanja]

I don't have a problem with the character Frank or his ancestor. I don't have a problem with Dougal and his manly cuteness.

The thing I just can't wrap my mind around ---beside the fact that Claire is basically out of time/out of place/ out of sync in 18th century --- Jamie loves the idea of Claire ---not Claire herself. I base this on the fact that he knows absolutely nothing about her. Not even her real name.

 

Even if they build on the relationship and make it the epic love story of all time ---it is still all based on a lie.

[Constantinople]

All of these things make me want to reject Claire as an immature child who is willing to put herself in danger to "get some" with a younger man.

 

 

Though I am up for a spinoff staring Frank Randell with a love interest that actually loves him.

 

Now that you mention it, Frank should dump that adulterous, cradle robbing, alcoholic bigamist, who only seems to care about "Frank" when she remembers she's living in McRapeistan and Craig Na Dun is staring her right in the face.

 

ETA: Changed "Now that you two mention it" to "Now that you mention it" since BooBear is not two people.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Constantinople

[mybabyaidan]

Is she "really" a bigamist though?  Her first (second?) husband hasn't even been born yet.   There's the rub.  Is Jamie her first husband since she married him in the 1700's and Frank her 2nd since she married him in the 1930's?  Or is Frank her 1st since she married him first in terms of the timeline of HER life, and Jamie 2nd?  Is she married to them both at the same time, even though they are 200 years apart???   Ok, I am giving myself a headache here.

 

Maybe she should ask Ned Gowan.  After she is done trying to not be killed, raped or kidnapped every second.