Unpopular Opinions: Overheard in the Castle Leoch Kitchen

[Archery]

Yeah, "torture porn" is one of those things about which Inigo Montoya would observe, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Keeta]

I'm a little taken aback at how often the acts in these latest episodes are being referred to as porn or torture porn -- so it must be an unpopular opinion to not find it so. Maybe I should look up those words and make sure I understand what they mean. When I think of porn, I tend to think of consensual sex -- if not loving -- not assault and abuse using sex as a weapon. Randall was assaulting and abusing Jamie. Even if Jamie agreed to stop fighting, it was still nonconsensual in that Jamie was coerced and threatened by way of using Claire's safety as a weapon. When a dramatization of a woman being raped occurs, do we call it porn instead of assault?

 

Hear, hear, Nidratime!  Definitely tired of seeing those words thrown around. Very dismissive, and a lazy catch-all term. Someone brought up the Saw movies in another thread, which to me is the closest example of the "true" definition of torture porn. 

 

As it relates to Outlander, I can understand the amount of graphic content in the final two episodes crossing personal lines for people, turning off viewers. I don't normally seek out extreme violence in my entertainment, but with Outlander I can handle it because 1) I know when it's coming, and 2) it's only one element among many. Aside from my own personal POV though, what differentiates this storyline from "torture porn" is the significance to the characters' lives, the completion of a story arc, and the emotional aftermath. And I say this even though for me, by the end of the torture/rape scenes in the finale I was starting to feel desensitized, and almost like "come on...! enough already". Clearly Ron Moore has a somewhat higher tolerance for this stuff than I do, given his comments about not wanting to go over the line/be gratuitous/etc. Ultimately that's subjective. But I think the choices are defensible, and a matter of scale. Using a blanket term like "torture porn" dumbs down the conversation.

[WatchrTina]

Someone famous once said of pornography "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."  I'm afraid the same is true of the expression "torture porn."  For me it means movies like "Saw" (which I've never seen but I've heard about) which exist solely to come up with as many ways as possible to depict people suffering from elaborate forms of torture.  I think the term refers to the presentation of depictions of suffering as entertainment --- as in "how bad can we make this, how elaborate can this be, oh THIS will blow their minds."  So far as I know there is no sex in that movie.  The term "porn" is used to denote the excessiveness of all (in the same way fancy food magazines are sometimes jokingly called "food porn").

 

The word clearly does NOT apply, for example, to the terrible scene of the storming of the beaches of Normandy in the movie "Saving Private Ryan" though I have heard that many survivors of that battle cannot watch that scene.  Horrible things happen in life and in fiction and I don't think it's "torture porn" when horrible things are depicted as horrible.  In torture porn the torture is the main point of the movie.  In drama, torture sometimes happens to main characters (as it sometimes happens in life) sometimes with or without a sexual element.  That doesn't make it torture porn.  So I think Nidradine is correct that the term does not apply to Outlander.  But like regular pornography the term is hard to define and i'm afraid that it will be bandied about in discussions of this show (or at least this season) for a long time.  

[riverheightsnancy]

I am late to the party, but I am sure that I have a wildly unpopular opinion, so here goes... I find the actor that plays Black Jack to be mesmerizing and quite captivating and sexy, even more so than Jamie. (I do not like the scenes when he is hurting people, though, I am not that awful!). But when the actor is having regular conversations as Frank or Black Jack, I just find him and his acting quite captivating. His eyes in some scenes are very dark and then as Frank more brown. Fetching. I have never seen this actor before, but I will have to look him up and catch him in his other works. 

[magdalene]

 

As it relates to Outlander, I can understand the amount of graphic content in the final two episodes crossing personal lines for people, turning off viewers. I don't normally seek out extreme violence in my entertainment, but with Outlander I can handle it because 1) I know when it's coming, and 2) it's only one element among many. Aside from my own personal POV though, what differentiates this storyline from "torture porn" is the significance to the characters' lives, the completion of a story arc, and the emotional aftermath. And I say this even though for me, by the end of the torture/rape scenes in the finale I was starting to feel desensitized, and almost like "come on...! enough already". Clearly Ron Moore has a somewhat higher tolerance for this stuff than I do, given his comments about not wanting to go over the line/be gratuitous/etc. Ultimately that's subjective. But I think the choices are defensible, and a matter of scale. Using a blanket term like "torture porn" dumbs down the conversation.

I was one of the first posters here to use the term "torture porn" to describe Outlander and I stand by that term. I think it's a perfectly valid way of describing the last two episodes. I also don't think I am "dumb" or stupid for thinking this.

 

When I canceled my Starz cable service my cable provider asked me whether I was canceling because of Outlander - some other cable subscribers had complained about the violent pornographic content on the show just that day. So it's hardly extra-ordinary to be offended by the show which has been nicknamed "Rapelander" in some quarters. Or stupid.

Edited June 27, 2015 by magdalene

[Nidratime]

That's an interesting question to ask, which brings up a number of thoughts. 1) It implies that one subscribed to Starz because of Outlander. I can't imagine, if you've been a regular subscriber who has been watching other Starz's series and movies and are fans of them, that you'd suddenly cancel the channel because of Outlander. Would you give up the other shows you enjoy as well? 2) And considering the violence and sexuality that regularly shows up on many premium channels over these many years, it seems odd that *only* Outlander would be singled out to ask about. I'm sure it's not. I wouldn't be surprised, if, back in the day, people were asked if they were canceling HBO on account of the violence and sexual content in The Sopranos, Deadwood, Game of Thrones, etc. 3) I've heard a number of people say they are canceling Starz *not* because they are offended by Outlander, but because that's *all* they watch on Starz and, since it won't be on again until next April (I think), they are canceling and will resubscribe when the show returns -- or find another way to watch it. So, a cable company asking if one is canceling because of Outlander and *why* is probably eliciting more than one reason/response. 4) Even if a sizeable percentage of subscribers are canceling because of Outlander's content, will that lead Starz to come down like a hammer on Tall Ships production and tell them to change their adaptation of the books? I think that's not likely. What's more likely is that -- if Outlander loses ratings -- they will either cut budget and/or episodes or cancel it altogether.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Nidratime

[magdalene]

I don't know why most people subscribe to Starz, I personally had subscribed to it this year to watch Outlander.  I had had Starz before though, at times my cable company was offering it as part of a package with HBO. That's how I came to be familiar with shows like Spartacus - which should have been a clue to me to expect extreme violence and pornographic sex from Outlander as Starz has a rep for shows with that. But Outlander was advertised as a historical time travel drama quality production.  That's how I was baited into watching the show. Now that I know what the show is they won't get me next year as a viewer.

[jjj]

Starz is part of my cable package, so I won't be cancelling it, but I'm already using the cursor to jump forward past the violence and rape scenes, and I am only up to the post-wedding/rescue episode.  Based on what I am reading, there is much worse to come, and I am already pretty done with the level of violence/sexual aggression I am seeing half-way through this first season.  I know life was much, much harder then, and that the clans are a social structure with their own rules, but what I am objecting to is the gratuitous emphasis on violence in what I had expected to be an historical love story.  My mistake, and of course the cable channels are making more money from the "Game of Thrones" shock value.  All I knew about this were occasional news stories about the series that mentioned time travel and a 1940s nurse who had to choose between two lovers/husbands.  I'm mainly watching for the scenery now, but watching less than half of each episode as I jump forward.  Sounds like I'll just be watching the credits by the end of this season.  Just my unpopular opinion! 

[WatchrTina]

 

I'm not feeling Jamie's character as portrayed on the show.

Well, this is the unpopular opinions thread so you picked the right place to express that opinion :)  As you say, he looks nothing like my mental Jamie and yeah, he had a bad case of "hobbit hair" in a few of the episodes but he had me at "I guess that means you're coming with me" in episode 1.

 

 

he bears a certain resemblance to Theon Greyjoy

Yes!  I saw that too.  I think it was in episode 8 when he and Claire are fighting by the river -- maybe when he stuck out his chin -- or maybe when he was looking so anguished and bewildered (Theon looks that way a lot ye ken.)  It freaked me out a bit.

 

If you want to be freaked out even more go look at Sam's IMDb photos from his pre-Outlander days -- the ones where he is blonde with short hair.  He could totally pass as Alexander Skarsgard's bother.  Of course Alexander Skarsgard's actual brother is on the show Vikings so I guess I'm saying I do think Sam looks like a Viking.

[Summer]

I didn't read the books so I had no Jamie in my head, Sam was Jamie to me.  However, I find that I am only a fan of Sam AS Jamie.  When I see pictures of him from other roles or pre-Outlander days he has no appeal to me at all.  Usually when I become a fan of an actor I will go out of my way to see them in other things they have done, like Aiden Turner from Poldark.  I am not a Hobbit/Lord Of the Rings fan but have been watching the latest Hobbit movie on cable just to see Aiden and its fun to see him in another role.  But for some reason this isn't the case with Sam.  I suffered through A Princess For Christmas and it literally made me cringe, didn't enjoy seeing Sam in that role.  At all.  It was similar for me with John Krasinski from the US version of The Office.  Loved him and the Jim and Pam storyline, but when I watched other movies he was in he had no appeal to me whatsoever, I only like him as Jim.  

 

The cleaned up blond version of Sam really reminds me of Cary Elwes from A Princess Bride......

[Bort]

I suffered through A Princess For Christmas and it literally made me cringe, didn't enjoy seeing Sam in that role. At all.

A Princess for Christmas is suffering no matter what. Whoo, that's terrible. I suffered through that one for Sam AND Katie McGrath, without even the Irish accent in her case. It was painful.

[Nidratime]

I wouldn't judge all of Sam's work based on A Princess for Christmas. Clearly, just seeing him in Outlander should make it clear that he's a good actor who does a stellar job in projects worthy of his abilities. (Just think of all those good actors who once worked on soap operas!) That being said, I haven't seen him in much else, so I can't recommend anything particularly.

[mizkat]

Unpopular opinion--I really don't want them to go to France. Nothing against France, but one of the appeals of this series to me is the Scottish landscape. France is very been there done that with me, especially since they're not actually going to be filming in France. I know Cait has been saying it will be lush and bright, but give me gritty Scotland any day and rough and tumble Jamie to boot. I know he's a laird (uh, is he still a laird?) but, yeah, no gentrified Jamie for me. 

[Andorra]

I just don't see anything striking about show!Jamie neither look nor personality-wise.

Funny how different taste can be. I think he looks magnificent and he comes over incredibly charismatic. I didn't know the books first of course so I had only show-Jamie. But I fell in love with him pretty much immediately.

[WatchrTina]

 

I felt his gigantic outburst in episode "Reckoning" seemed to come out of nowhere because up to this point there had been literally no signs that the guy has a temper, so why this mildly mannered man suddenly looks like he is ready to rip Claire's head off?

I think that's a very interesting comment but I don't agree that the Jamie's unexpected outburst is necessarily a weakness in the show.  Haven't you ever been in a relationship in which the other person has a strong reaction to something that makes no sense to you at first blush?  My experience is that when that happens I've just stumbled onto someone's "hot-button" and if the relationship is good I'll find out what it is and how to handle it.  (If the relationship is bad they'll deny it's a hot-button and frustration ensues.)  I think the show did a pretty good job of allowing Claire (and the viewer) to come to understand the complexity of Jamie's feelings -- his anger at her having put herself in harm's way by disobeying him; his suspicion that she did it to punish him (which reveals that he must think he deserves to be punished for not protecting her at the glen); the gut-churning fear he had to master in order to go to her when she screamed, having naught but "his bare hands" as weapons; his disgust at the scene he witnessed from the window; and his horror at the fate that nearly befell her at the hands of his worst enemy.  There's a lot going on in that scene.  I think Jamie's outburst rings true and is understandable.  Claire comes to understand it as well and that also rings true for me.  

Edited September 27, 2015 by WatchrTina

[mizkat]

Over all, his character often seems flat and bland IMO. I still hope they will make a better job with him in season 2 as DIA is the book when Jamie comes into his own as a leader, husband and man.

 

I haven't read past skimming Outlander, but I think the show is going in this direction. I will say that the jam packed angst and action and constant jeopardy going on in the first season has been at the expense of fully growing Jamie's character, even though there has been some growth. I think the scene with him giving advice to Colum about the clan turmoil was the first step in showing he can lead, only to take a few steps back when he gets to Lallybroch, which made sense to me. Considering he's 22 and by the end of the season he had been flogged twice, tortured, raped, forced (sorta) into marriage, has a price on his head, finds out his wife is from the future, had to save said wife from attempted rape and her own flogging (and possible burning), gives her a chance to go back to her first husband, has to leave his beloved homeland, plus have some sexy times with his wife and now is an expectant father--there's not much of a chance for him to show leadership skills since the plot is overpacked. But Sam does seem to bring those maturing moments when he can (I mentioned one in The Reckoning episode thread). 

 

I do think that the show has established that Jamie, for all his faults, is irresistible to everyone. Claire basically falls into insta-love with him, Dougal, even amid his jealousy, will protect him if need be, Mrs. Fitz is smitten, Murtagh is steadfast even when Jamie's being a fool, Rupert and Angus and Willie will risk their own lives to save him, Colum takes his counsel, Sandringham has been attracted to him for years, Ian is a loyal friend, McQuarry bonds with him almost on sight, Leoghaire (sp) is besotted, and of course there's BJR's horrific obsession with him. It's all very Marty Stu for me actually, like Claire is Mary Sue-ish at times. What's saved the character is that he's done some stupid things that have gotten him into real trouble, he's equally as loyal to those he loves and who love him, and he does try to do the right thing even if he goes about it the wrong way. I think BJR broke him, and when he gets the pieces put back together again he will be more mature and confident, at least in dealing with people and accepting his role in life. It's been interesting to see this journey, IMO. 

 

In contrast, I think Claire has changed a little bit, but not by much. She came to the 18th century as a smart, capable, independent woman, and she hasn't lost any of that, except for having less independence (but still more than if she'd married someone like Dougal). She's learned to adapt, she's fallen in love, and she made a choice to stay and try to change the future. But she's still Claire from the 20th century. So while the story of Outlander seems to basically be Claire's story, interestingly enough she's not the character with the most change and growth. 

 

JMO, MMV, and all that. 

[Athena]

As a reminder, this is a No Book Talk thread. You are free to discuss your opinions, unpopular or otherwise, in a variety of other threads when and if mentioning/comparing the books. Thank you.

[WatchrTina]

 

I do think that the show has established that Jamie, for all his faults, is irresistible to everyone. Claire basically falls into insta-love with him, Dougal, even amid his jealousy, will protect him if need be, Mrs. Fitz is smitten, Murtagh is steadfast even when Jamie's being a fool, Rupert and Angus and Willie will risk their own lives to save him, Colum takes his counsel, Sandringham has been attracted to him for years, Ian is a loyal friend, McQuarry bonds with him almost on sight, Leoghaire (sp) is besotted, and of course there's BJR's horrific obsession with him. It's all very Marty Stu for me

Ouch.  That was painful to read because it's true.  Let me see if I can come up with some counter-examples.  Taran MacQuarry's men weren't too keen on him and Horrocks certainly had no trouble trying to use him for his own needs.  Speaking of using -- Dougal has certainly shown that he's willing to humiliate Jamie for his own ends (using his scars for fund-raising) and it was made pretty clear that if Jamie had taken the oath to Colum his life would have been in danger from Dougal.  Colum may have taken Jamie's advice in the end but Jamie certainly wasn't the golden boy when he and the other two "weasels" were summoned to Colum's office for a dressing-down or when Colum banished him from the castle for getting involved in that duel.  Jenny certainly knows Jamie's short-comings and is willing to point them out (though of course she loves him as a brother.)  Claire tosses him on the floor for a talking-to when he screws up (or evicts him from their marital bed).  I also don't think Claire fell into "insta-love" -- she was quite upset by the need to marry him, felt guilty that she enjoyed the sex, and was horrified discover his notion of being a good husband included beating his wife when she "needed" it.  I don't think Jamie is portrayed as "practically perfect in every way" which is my notion of a Mary Sue / Marty Stu character.  The very point you make, that he demonstrates character growth over the course of the season (e.g., his increasing confidence in his dealings with others, especially Taran MacQuarry and his realization that beating Claire was a mistake) argues against him being a "Marty Stu."

 

I do agree that Claire's character does not change that much.  She's five years older and just come through a war -- she's already a more fully-formed individual and she brings that character (warts and all) into the 18th century.  It's the warts that stop her being a Mary Sue character.  There are quite a few people who dislike her on sight.  And while she's a good healer, she makes a lot of mistakes in her dealings with people (as would be natural for someone transported back in time 200 years.)  Claire's journey in season one is really about her finding her place in a whole new world (classic fish-out-of-water story) while Jamie's is more a classic coming-of-age story.  I think that's why he displays more character growth in season one.

Edited September 30, 2015 by WatchrTina

[mizkat]

Claire's journey in season one is really about her finding her place in a whole new world (classic fish-out-of-water story) while Jamie's is more a classic coming-of-age story.  I think that's why he displays more character growth in season one.

 

True, and well put. 

 

We do have differing views of Marty Stu, though. :) Don't get me wrong, I'm quite smitten with Jamie. It's not a critique on him being overly perfect, only that there's definitely "something" about him that appeals to a variety of the other characters. And I think the insta-love with Claire comes across that way to me because there is so much plot and not enough time devoted to them getting to know each other until one or the other is thrust into a life or death situation. One can say that was life back in the day, but not really. It was a more immediate and urgent type of life, but all the jeopardy is a bit much to cover in one season of TV, IMO. It makes it hard for a viewer to catch a breath and savor the characters--which again, IMO, are really, really strong and well-written, and I'm including the secondary ones. I guess that's why I would have liked to have a few less adventures and a little more character focus, but that's just me. 

[Keeta]

True, and well put. 

 

We do have differing views of Marty Stu, though. :) Don't get me wrong, I'm quite smitten with Jamie. It's not a critique on him being overly perfect, only that there's definitely "something" about him that appeals to a variety of the other characters. And I think the insta-love with Claire comes across that way to me because there is so much plot and not enough time devoted to them getting to know each other until one or the other is thrust into a life or death situation. One can say that was life back in the day, but not really. It was a more immediate and urgent type of life, but all the jeopardy is a bit much to cover in one season of TV, IMO. It makes it hard for a viewer to catch a breath and savor the characters--which again, IMO, are really, really strong and well-written, and I'm including the secondary ones. I guess that's why I would have liked to have a few less adventures and a little more character focus, but that's just me. 

 

It's not just you, mizkat! One (of many...) reasons why The Wedding is my favorite episode because it's all about these two characters learning about each other. My favorite sections of the books are never the life-in-jeopardy plot points, but character moments, conversations, emotional beats. Unfortunately the show "has" to squeeze in all the events that drive the plot, which due to time constraints makes it a bit lopsided, especially in the 2nd half of season one. There's so much ground to cover, it makes it a hard balancing act for sure. 

[terrymct]

I was introduced to Outlander first by previews that Starz was running in movie theaters which made it sound like a period adventure with a bit of time travel fish out of water thrown in as means to observe and comment on life in that century in Scotland. The first half of the season more or less fit in well with that impression. I loved the scenery and costumes, of course, and really was getting into the inter- and intra-clan politics and the Scots interactions with the British. I didn't realize that this series was based on romance novels...at all...so the second half of the season was a bit of a shock to me. The things that long term fans adore, primarily Claire, Jamie, and their relationship, were what I found to be the weakest and least interesting parts of the series in large part because of their roots in the romance genre. All that said and as an "outside" viewer (maybe like Claire falling through the stones myself), I have some observations that I've been thinking about since the first series ended. I've re-watched episodes, all of them but the last two which I really don't care to see again.

- Dougal isn't a villain in this story. Sure, he's at odds with Claire but that doesn't make him a bad guy. His priorities are his clan, the Jacobite cause, and his libido. Most of the time when he's at odds with Claire, he's looking out for the MacKenzies or trying to keep at his Jacobite work. The author doesn't do him any favors, though, she has him make some stupid decisions. Why, if you're worried that this woman you found in the woods is some kind of spy do you take her home with you? Why, if you think she's a spy, do you then take her around to the villages where you openly raise money for the Stewarts? The short answer is that he shouldn't or wouldn't do these things except that Gabaldon needs him to do so to get Claire in position to see castle life, then to see village life and to observe the fundraising. That's poor writing. Dougal's weakness is women, but more than that, he's like every other straight man in this series and falls instantly for Claire. He's not evil like some of the other characters, hurting people for fun or for solely his own profit. I think he could be the most interesting character in this series, particularly his relationship with Collum and their balance of power, but the books didn't go that way because it's a romance focusing on Claire and Jamie.

- Gabaldon has some pretty strong axes to grind about men in this series. I mentioned this in one of the threads about a specific episode, but it keeps coming back to me. Probably because of the story's roots in romance novels, the men fall into some clear categories:

• Real men, the desirable ones: Most of the clansmen, in particularly Jamie and Dougal. Uber masculine, walking a line between caveman and civilized. Alpha males
• Thoughtful men, nice to have around but not the guys you really want to be with: Ned, Ian, and Frank. Is "beta male" a real term? The second tier guys who have usefulness, are smart and try to use their brains before their muscles, but they won't sweep you off your feet. You could settle for one, though.
• Gay men: Duke of Sandringham. Mincing. Duplicitous. A menace to males in the Real Men category.
• Damaged men: Black Jack, could have been Jamie had he not been saved by Claire. Black Jack has the Duke as a patron and as such is exempt for most repercussions of his actions. Why would the Duke be so attached to Jack? Did Jack catch his eye years ago? Is Jack's warped sexuality (and maybe mind) an outcome of his interactions with the Duke? There are a lot of cards left on the table by the author that point to this sort of thing, but she never specifically draws the lines to connect them.

- Claire is a villain (but not the primary one) when viewed from the POV of the Clan MacKenzie. Claire is very lucky that almost everyone falls for her on sight because beyond some medical skills here and there, she's mainly brought trouble to the MacKenzies intentionally, by accident, or through no fault of her own. She increased Black Jack's focus on them. She caused them on multiple occasions to have to risk injury or their lives. She's the source of problems for them, which holding her close only worsens.

- Claire and Jamie and the power of True Love : Claire and Jamie have a May - September relationship going that doesn't really make sense and isn't interesting, in large part because it's a romance novel relationship. Jamie is younger than Claire. For heaven's sake, he's supposed to be a virgin and the way people have sex in Gabaldon's story he'd have to be a kid or a priest. Claire is old enough to have gone through nursing school and then a world war and a marriage, although at least two of those overlapped extensively. I know this relationship is supposed to showcase the different expectations of people from their respective eras as well as the difference in the balance of power in a couple. The series doesn't help you to understand why Claire would be so quick to ditch her own time and her husband Frank for young, gorgeous, but fairly vacant Jamie. Love at first sight? Is that enough that you barely give your husband a second thought? Is that why she barely wondered if she was a bigamist? Was there nothing in the 1940's that even called to her a little bit? Even the confidence that someone wouldn't be trying rape and/or kill you on average about once a week? Why doesn't Claire have more mental difficulty with Black Jack looking just like her husband, whom we have to assume she must have liked at least a little bit at some point? Between getting over the world war, falling through a time rift, having a man who looks just like your husband (and is his ancestor) try to rape you on more than one occasion, getting beaten by a man you have fallen in love with, etc, Claire should be a frickin basket case or at least be off kilter. But she's not. Very little about Claire and Jamie's relationship makes sense to me and I just can't get invested in it. I think it's a combination of their being romance novel leading characters and some weak writing.

Outlander is such a good idea for a story. I wish that the screen writers would take these characters, primarily the clans people, in some interesting directions.

Edited to correct the author's name. Sorry about that.

Edited October 15, 2015 by terrymct

[Laurie]

Her name is Gabaldon.

[magdalene]

I was introduced to Outlander first by previews that Starz was running in movie theaters which made it sound like a period adventure with a bit of time travel fish out of water thrown in as means to observe and comment on life in that century in Scotland. The first half of the season more or less fit in well with that impression. I loved the scenery and costumes, of course, and really was getting into the inter- and intra-clan politics and the Scots interactions with the British. I didn't realize that this series was based on romance novels...at all...so the second half of the season was a bit of a shock to me. The things that long term fans adore, primarily Claire, Jamie, and their relationship, were what I found to be the weakest and least interesting parts of the series in large part because of their roots in the romance genre. All that said and as an "outside" viewer (maybe like Claire falling through the stones myself), I have some observations that I've been thinking about since the first series ended. I've re-watched episodes, all of them but the last two which I really don't care to see again.

- Dougal isn't a villain in this story. Sure, he's at odds with Claire but that doesn't make him a bad guy. His priorities are his clan, the Jacobite cause, and his libido. Most of the time when he's at odds with Claire, he's looking out for the MacKenzies or trying to keep at his Jacobite work. The author doesn't do him any favors, though, she has him make some stupid decisions. Why, if you're worried that this woman you found in the woods is some kind of spy do you take her home with you? Why, if you think she's a spy, do you then take her around to the villages where you openly raise money for the Stewarts? The short answer is that he shouldn't or wouldn't do these things except that Gabaldon needs him to do so to get Claire in position to see castle life, then to see village life and to observe the fundraising. That's poor writing. Dougal's weakness is women, but more than that, he's like every other straight man in this series and falls instantly for Claire. He's not evil like some of the other characters, hurting people for fun or for solely his own profit. I think he could be the most interesting character in this series, particularly his relationship with Collum and their balance of power, but the books didn't go that way because it's a romance focusing on Claire and Jamie.

- Gabaldon has some pretty strong axes to grind about men in this series. I mentioned this in one of the threads about a specific episode, but it keeps coming back to me. Probably because of the story's roots in romance novels, the men fall into some clear categories:

• Real men, the desirable ones: Most of the clansmen, in particularly Jamie and Dougal. Uber masculine, walking a line between caveman and civilized. Alpha males
• Thoughtful men, nice to have around but not the guys you really want to be with: Ned, Ian, and Frank. Is "beta male" a real term? The second tier guys who have usefulness, are smart and try to use their brains before their muscles, but they won't sweep you off your feet. You could settle for one, though.
• Gay men: Duke of Sandringham. Mincing. Duplicitous. A menace to males in the Real Men category.
• Damaged men: Black Jack, could have been Jamie had he not been saved by Claire. Black Jack has the Duke as a patron and as such is exempt for most repercussions of his actions. Why would the Duke be so attached to Jack? Did Jack catch his eye years ago? Is Jack's warped sexuality (and maybe mind) an outcome of his interactions with the Duke? There are a lot of cards left on the table by the author that point to this sort of thing, but she never specifically draws the lines to connect them.

- Claire is a villain (but not the primary one) when viewed from the POV of the Clan MacKenzie. Claire is very lucky that almost everyone falls for her on sight because beyond some medical skills here and there, she's mainly brought trouble to the MacKenzies intentionally, by accident, or through no fault of her own. She increased Black Jack's focus on them. She caused them on multiple occasions to have to risk injury or their lives. She's the source of problems for them, which holding her close only worsens.

- Claire and Jamie and the power of True Love : Claire and Jamie have a May - September relationship going that doesn't really make sense and isn't interesting, in large part because it's a romance novel relationship. Jamie is younger than Claire. For heaven's sake, he's supposed to be a virgin and the way people have sex in Gabaldon's story he'd have to be a kid or a priest. Claire is old enough to have gone through nursing school and then a world war and a marriage, although at least two of those overlapped extensively. I know this relationship is supposed to showcase the different expectations of people from their respective eras as well as the difference in the balance of power in a couple. The series doesn't help you to understand why Claire would be so quick to ditch her own time and her husband Frank for young, gorgeous, but fairly vacant Jamie. Love at first sight? Is that enough that you barely give your husband a second thought? Is that why she barely wondered if she was a bigamist? Was there nothing in the 1940's that even called to her a little bit? Even the confidence that someone wouldn't be trying rape and/or kill you on average about once a week? Why doesn't Claire have more mental difficulty with Black Jack looking just like her husband, whom we have to assume she must have liked at least a little bit at some point? Between getting over the world war, falling through a time rift, having a man who looks just like your husband (and is his ancestor) try to rape you on more than one occasion, getting beaten by a man you have fallen in love with, etc, Claire should be a frickin basket case or at least be off kilter. But she's not. Very little about Claire and Jamie's relationship makes sense to me and I just can't get invested in it. I think it's a combination of their being romance novel leading characters and some weak writing.

Outlander is such a good idea for a story. I wish that the screen writers would take these characters, primarily the clans people, in some interesting directions.

Edited to correct the author's name. Sorry about that.

 

Personally I actually liked the romance part of the story and a good romance story is not that easy to pull off.  I think the romance genre tends to get dissed and disrespected unfairly and a lot of times by people who don't even read or watch the genre. 

 

I wish the show would have stayed a historical romance with time travel elements and some clan politics thrown in. It's when it veered off into this lurid and violent rape fetish it lost me and I just couldn't cope with that.

[Nidratime]

Personally I actually liked the romance part of the story and a good romance story is not that easy to pull off.  I think the romance genre tends to get dissed and disrespected unfairly and a lot of times by people who don't even read or watch the genre.

 

I wish the show would have stayed a historical romance with time travel elements and some clan politics thrown in. It's when it veered off into this lurid and violent rape fetish it lost me and I just couldn't cope with that.

 

 

But see, then it wouldn't represent the story Gabaldon wrote, because it is ALL OF THAT. It's a romance with time travel and clan politics *and* it contains violent (and some would say) lurid scenes of people being attacked in many ways -- not just raped. That's the story. Moore didn't make it up and it would've been wrong for him to leave it out. In fact, what he made up was almost all of the Frank scenes after Claire went missing. He also made up some of the situations Claire dealt with to illustrate how a modern woman with Claire's skills dealt with life in the past, such as the poisoning of Mrs. Fitz's grandnephew and Claire's solving of the problem. She did do things like that in the book, but it was drawn out and couldn't easily be illustrated in a shorter TV show. So, apparently, the writers decided to kind of condense the situation and give us one or two examples of how Claire's presence affected life at Leoch and how that affected her, i.e., came back to bite her on the a$$.

[DittyDotDot]

I think labeling Outlander as romance doesn't really encapsulate what the books are. I'm not saying there isn't a love story at the heart of the books, but that's not all it is, IMO. I'd be hard-pressed to put the books into one specific genre myself. I do agree that the show does feel more like a typical romance novel, but IMO, that's the show, not the books.

 

- Dougal isn't a villain in this story. Sure, he's at odds with Claire but that doesn't make him a bad guy. His priorities are his clan, the Jacobite cause, and his libido. Most of the time when he's at odds with Claire, he's looking out for the MacKenzies or trying to keep at his Jacobite work. The author doesn't do him any favors, though, she has him make some stupid decisions. Why, if you're worried that this woman you found in the woods is some kind of spy do you take her home with you? Why, if you think she's a spy, do you then take her around to the villages where you openly raise money for the Stewarts? The short answer is that he shouldn't or wouldn't do these things except that Gabaldon needs him to do so to get Claire in position to see castle life, then to see village life and to observe the fundraising. That's poor writing. Dougal's weakness is women, but more than that, he's like every other straight man in this series and falls instantly for Claire. He's not evil like some of the other characters, hurting people for fun or for solely his own profit. I think he could be the most interesting character in this series, particularly his relationship with Collum and their balance of power, but the books didn't go that way because it's a romance focusing on Claire and Jamie.

 

IMO, there is no real villain in this story. There are many men and women who do things that may appear villainous, but generally speaking, they are just people who are products of their time and circumstances. In other words, shit just happens and people respond to the shit happening as best as they can. Of course there's the odd Black Jack Randall here and there, but I don't even think of him as "the villain" of the story. He's a sadist asshole, for sure, but that's just who he is and there's always at least one asshole in every pack.

 

I'm curious as to your use of Gabaldon as the author for the show, though. The show is an adaption of her novels, but the show is not written by her, nor is she the showrunner; as far as I know she's only a consultant and doesn't make decisions for the show. Many of the things you attribute to her are not of her design and play out a bit differently in the books. That's not to say she's infallible or that the books are great works of literature, but I wonder why the responsibility wasn't places on Ron Moore's shoulders?

[terrymct]

IMO, there is no real villain in this story. There are many men and women who do things that may appear villainous, but generally speaking, they are just people who are products of their time and circumstances. In other words, shit just happens and people respond to the shit happening as best as they can. Of course there's the odd Black Jack Randall here and there, but I don't even think of him as "the villain" of the story. He's a sadist asshole, for sure, but that's just who he is and there's always at least one asshole in every pack.

 

I'm curious as to your use of Gabaldon as the author for the show, though. The show is an adaption of her novels, but the show is not written by her, nor is she the showrunner; as far as I know she's only a consultant and doesn't make decisions for the show. Many of the things you attribute to her are not of her design and play out a bit differently in the books. That's not to say she's infallible or that the books are great works of literature, but I wonder why the responsibility wasn't places on Ron Moore's shoulders?

 

 

I agree about real villains, with the exception of Black Jack.  Unless you see him as once having been fairly balanced, then becoming warped because he was victimized by the Earl (or whomever) he's just a mustache twirling villain.  There's no reason for him to be like his is, unlike most everyone else.    Villains and heros depend on your perspective.  Claire is the hero/heroine (I don't like the term heroine because it has a lot of baggage with it, not going to use it from here on out) from her point of view, a woman trying to deal with some basically unimaginable things (falling through time, sexual and physical assaults on a regular basis, etc).  From the point of view of the people who are impacted by her decisions, she's not a hero because she causes a LOT of problems.    Black Jack, on the other hand, really doesn't have a redeeming or non-evil side with the exception of having fathered or will father a child that leads to Frank, the poor sap that Claire leaves back in the 1940's but who is needed to get Claire to the stones so she can fall through and meet her True Love .

 

The story is Gabaldon's.  She conceived the great majority of the characters.  I've seen some mentions in reviews or on the boards that some are larger or smaller than she wrote, some dropped, etc., in the movement from page to screen.  That's expected.  Books have a LOT more time and leeway than do movies or TV shows.   Claire is hers, as is Jack, Frank, and Jamie.   Did Ron Moore add all the rapes?  Did he add Jamie beating Claire?  What about the idea that Claire miraculously and rapidly curing Jamie of the effects of his sexual assault by Jack?   Ron Moore is a translator, who of course can screw things up or improve them.  The story is Gabaldon's.   It's a romance because the heart and soul of it is Jamie and Claire's romance that defies time, space, logic, social structure, and all the odds.

[DittyDotDot]

The story is Gabaldon's.  She conceived the great majority of the characters.  I've seen some mentions in reviews or on the boards that some are larger or smaller than she wrote, some dropped, etc., in the movement from page to screen.  That's expected.  Books have a LOT more time and leeway than do movies or TV shows.   Claire is hers, as is Jack, Frank, and Jamie.   Did Ron Moore add all the rapes?  Did he add Jamie beating Claire?  What about the idea that Claire miraculously and rapidly curing Jamie of the effects of his sexual assault by Jack?   Ron Moore is a translator, who of course can screw things up or improve them.  The story is Gabaldon's.   It's a romance because the heart and soul of it is Jamie and Claire's romance that defies time, space, logic, social structure, and all the odds.

 

Well, without getting too much into the books here, I'll just say that, many things played out differently on-screen than they do in the books. Claire didn't magically cure Jamie of being assaulted by Black Jack in the book. I haven't seen the episode yet, but if that's how it played out on-screen, then it is not true to the story Gabaldon wrote. As to the rape, yes, there is some of the rape in the book and some was added by the show. I understand why some of the changes were made, but not all of them hold true to the story Gabaldon wrote. Even if they did, I'd still hold the showrunner responsible for what is on the show because the decision to use those elements on the show are the showrunner's. As I'd also hold the showrunner responsible for the things they got right or even improved upon from the books. But, I'm weird that way.

 

Here's an unpopular opinion: after just finishing reading the books, I actually have a better appreciation for the show than I first did. I only started reading the books because, despite the pretty scenery and all, the romantic tone of the show wasn't really doing anything for me, but was curious where a few of the story threads were going. For the most part, I think they did a fairly good job of adapting these books, more or less. While Gabaldon's writing style leaves much to be desired at times, these books are very lengthy and complex. It must be a serious challenge to try and translate them to screen. 

[WatchrTina]

 

What about the idea that Claire miraculously and rapidly curing Jamie of the effects of his sexual assault by Jack?

This is a no book talk thread so I'll just weigh in to say I don't think Claire was depicted in the TV show as magically "curing" Jamie.  I think she was depicted as pulling him back from the brink of despair.  In my opinion, the Jamie that is portrayed in the final scene on the boat is a man who is just hanging on by the skin of his teeth.  She even asks him if they are really going to be okay and he says "I'll see to it" but I took that not a his declaration that all was fine but rather that he was determined that all would be fine, eventually.  The last long-shot of the two of them on the boat does not show a smiling Jamie basking in the news of his wife pregnancy.  It shows a somber man with a lot of responsibilities on his shoulders and a fair amount of healing left to do.  At least, that my interpretation.

[terrymct]

This is a no book talk thread so I'll just weigh in to say I don't think Claire was depicted in the TV show as magically "curing" Jamie.  I think she was depicted as pulling him back from the brink of despair.  In my opinion, the Jamie that is portrayed in the final scene on the boat is a man who is just hanging on by the skin of his teeth.  She even asks him if they are really going to be okay and he says "I'll see to it" but I took that not a his declaration that all was fine but rather that he was determined that all would be fine, eventually.  The last long-shot of the two of them on the boat does not show a smiling Jamie basking in the news of his wife pregnancy.  It shows a somber man with a lot of responsibilities on his shoulders and a fair amount of healing left to do.  At least, that my interpretation.

 

 

I hope you're right.  He went from ranging between nearly catatonic to suicidal all the way to fairly functional in surprisingly short order.  The first third of next season should be fall out for Jamie.

[bearcatfan]

I agree with WatchrTina, Jamie was barely holding on. He does have a moment of true joy at the news of the pregnancy but it's brief. We've been told by the actors involved and Ron Moore that Jamie's recovery will continue into season 2. I actually think he actually said that the rape will effect him for the rest of his life.

 

Jamie is not "vacant." He deftly manuavered between his uncles during the gathering, helped broker the peace between them when Colum and Dougal were arguing about the money for Bonnie Prince Charlie and was the first to realize the trap when he went out with the Watch. He also was right about Claire staying away from Gellis. It's been shown that he's clever. Unless you're using a different definition of vacant that I'm used to, I can't see how Jamie fits.

[terrymct]

Jamie is not "vacant." He deftly manuavered between his uncles during the gathering, helped broker the peace between them when Colum and Dougal were arguing about the money for Bonnie Prince Charlie and was the first to realize the trap when he went out with the Watch. He also was right about Claire staying away from Gellis. It's been shown that he's clever. Unless you're using a different definition of vacant that I'm used to, I can't see how Jamie fits.

 

 

He's had a few flashes of insight, but for the most he's at the mercy of forces around him rather than being in control.  He responds to others' decisions or actions rather than driving action.  Jamie is gorgeous, especially when he stares moodily at the horizon or something...and he does that a LOT..., but floats at the mercy of the currents.  Even when he makes a decision, such as to rescue Claire from Black Jack, it's in response to an action taken by someone else.  He never thinks proactively (I do hate that term though lol).

[DittyDotDot]

He's had a few flashes of insight, but for the most he's at the mercy of forces around him rather than being in control.  He responds to others' decisions or actions rather than driving action.  Jamie is gorgeous, especially when he stares moodily at the horizon or something...and he does that a LOT..., but floats at the mercy of the currents.  Even when he makes a decision, such as to rescue Claire from Black Jack, it's in response to an action taken by someone else.  He never thinks proactively (I do hate that term though lol).

 

I wonder if that's not the point, though. It's early in the story and it seems like Jamie is in the middle of a few different plans and machinations by outside forces. So far it seems he's just been floating between the various forces hoping not to get sucked in to far he can't get himself out.  Will he now start to try and plot his course more? Especially since it's no longer just him, he now has a wife and child on the way to consider. 

 

However, I don't think he was totally vacant in this first season. He took control of the wedding and made it his own affair rather than just go along with what Dougal wanted. And, he was trying to be proactive in getting the price on his head lifted by meeting with Horrucks and Sandringham. Of course those things didn't turn out to as he planned, but I think he's learning. 

 

Still, it does seem there are plenty of people like this in life--people who seem to always be on defense, that is--so I don't find it unrealistic.

[terrymct]

I wonder if that's not the point, though. It's early in the story and it seems like Jamie is in the middle of a few different plans and machinations by outside forces. So far it seems he's just been floating between the various forces hoping not to get sucked in to far he can't get himself out.  Will he now start to try and plot his course more? Especially since it's no longer just him, he now has a wife and child on the way to consider. 

 

However, I don't think he was totally vacant in this first season. He took control of the wedding and made it his own affair rather than just go along with what Dougal wanted. And, he was trying to be proactive in getting the price on his head lifted by meeting with Horrucks and Sandringham. Of course those things didn't turn out to as he planned, but I think he's learning. 

 

Still, it does seem there are plenty of people like this in life--people who seem to always be on defense, that is--so I don't find it unrealistic.

It will be nice if he grows. Honestly, he and Black Jack are still two dimensional (Jack more than Jamie). Some of the supporting characters are richer with less screen time.

[Archery]

My two probably very unpopular opinions:

 

I thought the flashback of Jenny and Randall in "Lallybroch" was quite powerful. Yes, it was creepy and not something I would watch over and over again but Jenny's resiliency and bitter, hard won victory over BJR was something to remember IMO. Also the actress Laura Donnelly made the most of it. I could do without BJR flashing his dick though.

 

Also I'm rather fond of Frank and Claire running up Craigh na Dun in "Both Sides Now". The name shouting was too much and I've seen people mock this scene as "Pantene shampoo comercial" but I still think that moment was visually stunning and made me feel for Frank.

 

 

This is non book thread so I can't say anything specific but...as someone who have read most of the series sans the last book I will say Jamie is probably the most complex and interesting of all characters Gabaldon created. His development takes more than one book though and at the beginning he may appear as a classis romance novel figure.

Still I think his wit and keen intelligence was with him from the beginning - it's just mostly glossed over in the show IMO

Jamie seems to lack agency because he is both very young and in hiding.  Most of the first half of Season 1 is him just trying to lie low and not be noticed.  Claire keeps messing up his game, and you see flashes of Jamie-the-laird in Lallybroch (where he's technically still in hiding, but in plain sight) before it all goes pear-shaped.  He shows that he is capable of reading the room and walking several very dangerous political tightropes, with Dougal/Colum and the Duke.   

 

He's also very young.  At 23, he has a lot of man-skills, but still is very cocky and self-assured. Up until this point, he has been able to overcome or withstand anything.  There isn't anything, in his mind, that will change that.  And so, he comes across as sort of a leaf on the wind -- unconcerned as only a cocky young man can be.  And he is that way until the moment that Jack licks the scars on his back.  THAT is the point where Jamie grows up, abruptly.  The way he relates to everyone in his life after Wentworth is fundamentally changed.  I think that transformation is completely intentional, both in the book and in the show.   

[RulerofallIsurvey]

He is not "vacant." 

Hey!   New poster here!  First, (unpopular opinion - NOT I hope)  just want to say how happy I am to find a forum that is okay with criticizing the books/plot/etc.  even though they may still really like them.  Make sense?  In another forum, if *anything* was said negatively about the books or the author the poster was automatically crucified...  

 

Anyway, I just rewatched the extended Reckonings  episode.  (I really like  the extended version)  There are several scenes which are cut from the aired version that show Jamie as the albeit young, but able up-and-coming-Laird that he is.  Or could be if he want to be be.  

 

And that's just it.  He doesn't really want to be Laird.   But he shows a lot in those scenes, of what he actually  could be.

 

So my unpopular opinion?  I liked the extended Reckonings WAY better than the aired version.  And the extended, excluded scenes show Jamie as not as "vacant" as you say.  

 

And I also like Claire shutting him out more instead of seeming just petty.  I really hope that makes sense.  

[bearcatfan]

I really like the extended version of "The Reckoning" as well. I also agree that it was better than the aired version and really showed Jamie's intelligence. I also liked when he stood up to Colum regarding Claire, or was that a deleted scene from another episode?

[RulerofallIsurvey]

I really like the extended version of "The Reckoning" as well. I also agree that it was better than the aired version and really showed Jamie's intelligence. I also liked when he stood up to Colum regarding Claire, or was that a deleted scene from another episode?

 

That was in the extended Reckonings.  I thought that scene with Colum was very interesting.  It showed Colum as very manipulative, and made more sense of Claire's arrest for witchcraft later on.  

 

I also liked the scene with Gellis threatening Jamie.  I got into a long discussion on another forum about the beating - I won't rehash it here.  But there are real court/parish records of the time and even earlier that show men being publicly reprimanded for just threatening to beat their wives.  So you'll notice at first, Gelllis is talking to Arthur - who is the fiscal.  He would have had the authority to bring charges against Jamie, but he refuses because he doesn't want to get on Colum's bad side.  At which point, after he leaves, Gellis threatens Jamie herself.  

 

I also like that, because it does show that Gellis and Claire were friends.  I didn't really get that much of their friendship just from the show itself.  

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

I don't really like the new version of the title song. Probably because I'm fairly partial to the first season version. Until I heard it had been changed before the season aired, I just figured it would be the same song with scenes from the second season thrown in. Well, I was half right I guess.

[Andorra]

Two unpopular opinions:

 

First: I like Jamie's long hair!

 

Second: I like the PTSD storyline and the opening rift between Jamie and Claire. I think Sam plays it excellent and it's the part I'm most curious about in the upcoming episodes. I know most book readers are complaining about the lack of intimacy between them, but I love it and I can't wait so see how they'll overcome it. 

[peacefrog]

I agree about the PTSD storyline. It's so necessary and it's being handled well. Sam really is giving a great performance in a role that doesn't have the razzle dazzle of the villain.

Now about Jamie's hair, lol.

[GHScorpiosRule]

In between this season's episodes, I'm rewatching Season One, and I find I prefer the first season over the current season.  I think it's because Scotland is also a character in the first season; and yes, seeing and watching how much Jamie wanted and then fell in love with Claire. And watching them not being able to keep their hands off each other. As disturbing and difficult it was to watch the last two episodes, Season one keeps my attention.  I suspect it's because this season, Jamie and Claire are so distant with each other and there seems to be this wall between them. Not just physical distance, but emotional as well.  I'm hoping they reconnect soon. I don't like those two crazy kids being apart like this!

Edited April 25, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[Summer]

On April 25, 2016 at 4:35 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

In between this season's episodes, I'm rewatching Season One, and I find I prefer the first season over the current season.  I think it's because Scotland is also a character in the first season; and yes, seeing and watching how much Jamie wanted and then fell in love with Claire. And watching them not being able to keep their hands off each other. As disturbing and difficult it was to watch the last two episodes, Season one keeps my attention.  I suspect it's because this season, Jamie and Claire are so distant with each other and there seems to be this wall between them. Not just physical distance, but emotional as well.  I'm hoping they reconnect soon. I don't like those two crazy kids being apart like this!

Agreed, GHSR!  I mean, I totally get why they are building the wall between Claire and Jamie to show the PTSD and it makes perfect sense but it doesn't mean I have to like it!  But, for me, S1 was special.   I ADORED the storyline, it's exactly what I like to watch.  The S2 storyline just doesn't appeal to me.  I actually find myself forgetting it's on every Saturday night.  I will continue to watch but for me, it's not the magic that was S1.  Maybe things will improve once they get back to Scotland and it's starts "feeling" the same as S1.  

[toolazy]

Buck up, little campers -

Spoiler

the second half of the season will find our characters back in Scotland.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Athena
Spoiler tag

[lvbalgurl]

Having just been introduced to the series (binge-watched this week) these are my perhaps? unpopular opinions:

I love Frank, and, what's more, I think it's more difficult to play a character like Frank than it is to be Black Jack Randall.  There is a wealth of material in playing the psychotic, twisted BJR; it's the kind of role that is made for award-winning, so deliciously evil and manipulative it is.  Frank, otoh, is an everyman scholar who is, very simply, desperately in love with his wife and the idea of a happily ever after.  So much of his belief in happiness is tied up in a future with Claire, and it's so awful and heartbreaking to see him hope, to see the light enter his eyes at the thought of them together, when his wife is wanting someone else.

I am absolutely amazed by TM's ability to play both characters so extraordinarily well.

What I believe may actually be unpopular, is that I love Jamie and Claire as well.  I adore all three characters and want things to work out well for all of them.  While I find TM the superior actor of the trio, I am completely won over by the way SH portrays Jamie's love for Claire in such a beautifully earnest, innocent way.  Even after all that has happened to him, there is still a boyish sweetness to Jamie that I find wonderful and joyous to watch.  As for Claire, what I find most fascinating about her are the qualities that get her in trouble - the stubborn nature, fierce independence, the outspoken tongue.  I love that she's smart and capable and passionate; I love the spirit of the adventurer, the wanderer that lives within her.

[Archery]

lvbalgurl, I am totally, 100% in agreement with you.   These are great, complex characters, played extraordinarily well.  

[Hybiscus]

Ok, here's my unpopular opinion:  I don't think Tobias Menzies's performance as Black Jack Randall is all that great.  People say it's "nuanced" and "complex" but all I see is evil sneering and goading.  I've been watching "The NIght Manager" and Tobias's character has the same curled lip.  Granted, BJR is a tough role to play, mainly because he's simply "evil" without any underlying cause, and Tobias probably does the best he can with the role.  But I just don't think he's all that amazing.

[violetr]

Quote

The S2 storyline just doesn't appeal to me.  I actually find myself forgetting it's on every Saturday night.  I will continue to watch but for me, it's not the magic that was S1.  Maybe things will improve once they get back to Scotland and it's starts "feeling" the same as S1.  

Although I'm enjoying learning about the Jacobite cause (I seemed to have missed this entirely as part of my formal education), I tend to feel the same way. I'm just not terribly interested in the French angle. I miss Scotland. I keep watching the show because of the wonderful production values and caliber of acting, but right now the only character I really even like is Murtagh. And Bouton. Ha. I don't particularly care for Claire or Jamie, and I never did understand why a modern woman would willingly give up a modern life for this good-hearted but kinda lunkhead-y guy. I just don't understand her motivations. 

[Summer]

Who the heck is lighting this season?  Is it just my TV that every intimate scene with Jamie and Claire is pitch black?  

Which brings me to my next rant.  What gives with the amount of nudity/intimate scenes last season vs this season?  I feel like the show did the ultimate bait and switch between S1 and S2.  It seemed like in S1 any chance they could they would show boobs or Sam's bum in attempt to draw in both male and female viewers, and any criticism was waved away with "it's in the book".  I'm pretty sure DIA has just as much sex, if not more and Maril was getting a lot of heat on Twitter about the lack of intimate scenes in S2 and she gave the standard excuse "we have so much to include, we have to leave certain things out"...hmmmm, well you left hardly ANY of the sex scenes out of S1, save for the grotto scene, and actually added some. I don't recall the.....ahem...'finger intimacy" scene by the camp fire from Devil"s Mark in the book.  I don't get it.   If that one love scene from The Fox's Lair was in S1, you can be sure they would have whipped off Claire's nightgown (like they did practically any chance they could in S1 from the Frank love scene in the bed and breakfast, to Mrs. Fitz dressing Claire, etc) yet all we got was a dark, long shot and fade to black.  It's almost as if Caitriona now has it in her contract how many times her boobs can be shown this season. I don't have any problem with nudity in the right context, it just seemed like last season they used it many times when it really wasn't necessary and this season not at all, even when it would have made sense. 

Edited May 31, 2016 by Summer

[Zella]

27 minutes ago, Summer said:

Which brings me to my next rant.  What gives with the amount of nudity/intimate scenes last season vs this season?  I feel like the show did the ultimate bait and switch between S1 and S2.  

I don't know what the reasoning is, but I have noticed this on other premium cable shows. Granted, the other shows I've seen this with were on HBO, but I noticed the amount of nudity and sex scenes diminished quite a bit between season 1 and 2 for both Game of Thrones and Boardwalk Empire. (Not to say there still wasn't quite a bit, but I did think it took later in the seasons to appear and the overall number of instances was reduced.) In fact, it was a running joke between me and my friends who watched the shows. I noticed the same thing with Outlander. I don't know if it is backlash from the actors or if the shows just like to flaunt their premium cable status in the first season or what the deal is, though I lean toward the "we snagged audiences in season 1, so we can dial back now." 

Edited May 31, 2016 by Zella

[Summer]

9 minutes ago, Zella said:

though I lean toward the "we snagged audiences in season 1, so we can dial back now." 

Agreed, Zella!  I think whats bugging me is the show took a certain amount of heat for all the nudity/sex/rape last season and RDM and Co. standard answer was "hey, it's not our fault, it's in the book" and this season it's very much STILL in the book, yet, like you say, completely dialed back.