Unpopular Opinions: Overheard in the Castle Leoch Kitchen

[Zella]

30 minutes ago, Summer said:

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.  

Sometimes, I wished I could hear what the showrunners really think, off the record, because I don't necessarily think their standard answers indicate what's really going on or their own opinions. 

[toolazy]

I think we've seen less sex because 1) Jamie and Claire had a rocky time of it and weren't initimate that often, for various reasons and 2) Ron Moore has stated that nudity and sex scenes will not be gratuitous - they will only use them if it's important to the story.   Also, I think that the actors don't like filming those scenes.   

I think it's enough that they have shown us that Jamie & Claire are a thing again.  I thought Jamie was going to bend her over those potatoes and take her right there.  Cripes.  They were practically making out. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

There was Jamie's PTSD and nightmares over his rape that he was dealing with as well, which was a huge factor as to why not as many love/sex scenes.

[Dust Bunny]

2 hours ago, Summer said:

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

Agreed. I have to have all the lights out even near the living room so I can see what's going on. That's one of the reasons I love the outdoor, daytime scenes. Even if it's cloudy, it's much easier to see all the nuance at play.

Game of Thrones is the same way. I was watching it on my iPad on the way home from the cabin yesterday (I was in the passenger seat), and I had to watch it under a sweatshirt. Even then, I could barely make out what's happening. 

Edited May 31, 2016 by Dust Bunny

[WatchrTina]

Quote

Who the heck is lighting this season?

Yes!  Good question.  The place where I noticed it was in the scene between Claire & Fergus in his bedroom in ep 207.  Claire's face is super dark and, dare I say it, a bit creepy.  The other place I noticed it is also in 207 when King Louis is stroking Claire's face and calls her "La Dame Blanche."  The bedroom windows are behind them so each of their faces are shadowed though you can see little flecks of light reflected in their eyes.  I assumed the director was going for a spooky vibe given that they were about to enter the Star Chamber, but that doesn't explain making Claire look like Gollum in his cave during the scene with Fergus.

In "The Fox's Lair" I had a hard time seeing Jamie when he was pouring out his heart to the baby.  That's a damn shame there.

Edited June 1, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Nidratime]

Quote

Who the heck is lighting this season?

Candles? ;-)

[Summer]

17 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

In "The Fox's Lair" I had a hard time seeing Jamie when he was pouring out his heart to the baby.  That's a damn shame there.

Amen to that, WatchrTina.  Twitter all but exploded about that scene, and when I saw it (or actually DIDN'T see it) it was so dark I was really disappointed.  

[Summer]

Here I am back in the unpopular opinions thread again!  

I normally would never say anything about the actors themselves, but, I just saw pictures from the PaleyFest costume presentation from last night and what on earth is Caitriona wearing?????  She is a stunning, stunning woman with a body to die for and I just don't understand why she constantly wears the most unflattering outfits??  

::will duck from the tomatoes being thrown at me::  :)

Edited June 7, 2016 by Summer

[WatchrTina]

Yeah I saw her dress and thought "Oh Dear, Tom + Lorenzo are going to have a field day with that."  Tom + Lorenzo are a couple of fashion bloggers who started recapping the show and doing blog post on the costumes, but they also critique the fashions that actors wear to red-carpet events and they have been pretty brutal to Sam & Cait.  (They hate Sam's hair, which I think is pretty unfair given that he's keeping it long for us.)  I just looked and they haven't picked up on this one yet.  Their most recent post on Cait is about her look at the Cannes Film Festival.  They didn't like it but they did give her props for being bold so that's nice.

Edited June 8, 2016 by WatchrTina

[bearcatfan]

24 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Yeah I saw her dress and thought "Oh Dear, Tom + Lorenzo are going to have a field day with that."  Tom + Lorenzo are a couple of fashion bloggers who started recapping the show and doing blog post on the costumes -- they even interviewed Terry and she was active in their comment section for a while -- but they also critique the fashions that actors wear to red-carpet events and they have been pretty brutal to Sam & Cait.  (They hate Sam's hair, which I think is pretty unfair given that he's keeping it long for us.)  I just looked and they haven't picked up on this one yet.  Their most recent post on Cait is about her look at the Cannes Film Festival.  They didn't like it but they did give her props for being bold so that's nice.

I thought I heard that they were no longer going to talk about Outlander because of the reactions that some of the fans had when they talked about that "Fandom is Broken" article. I didn't see the exchange myself so I can't really comment on what actually happened. Did anyone else hear this?

[Archery]

I'm sorry, maybe this is an unpopular opinion itself, but: who gives a sh*t what Tom+Lorenzo think about Cait's dress or Sam's hair?

[WatchrTina]

Tom+Lorenzo are nobody special -- just some bloggers who focus on fashion -- but I do recall when Terry Dresbach first became aware of them she posted in the comments section of their blog, "Who are you guys? ??? Want to come work for me?"  That was in response to one of their fashion-oriented reviews of a Paris-based episode.  It's completely understandable that Terry would be happy to discover a blogger who was talking about the clothes in an appreciative and knowledgable way.  I suspect she had not yet discovered their rather critical opinions of Sam & Cait's red-carpet looks.

So yeah, they are no more (or less) important than any other entertaining and intelligent bloggers out there.  I enjoyed their recaps and their fashion reviews of the Paris episodes and cringed over their critiques of Sam & Cait's style in real life.  I'll be disappointed if it's true that they've quit posting about the show due to bad behavior by Outlander fans in the comments section of their website.  But I won't lose any sleep over it.  There's always Frock Flicks to fill the gap.

Edited June 8, 2016 by WatchrTina

[toolazy]

Tom & Lorenzo have quit recapping Outlander and writing their weekly style posts because after their less-than-positive review of "Faith", diehard Outlander fans unloaded on them on Twitter.  Some of those folks were a tad unhinged.

I feel two ways about this. First, I think that people who make their living critiquing others should have a pretty thick skin when it comes to fan blowback  but I also know that some of Outlander's fandom is kind of crazy*. It's a book series and a teevee show, not a religion.  People shouldn't be attacked for daring to criticize something that you (erroneously) think is sacred.  

So anyway, they were like "screw it, life's too short" and bailed.  I'm sorry about it but I totally understand it.  

 

 

*For instance, I can't deal with the thing where people refer to Diana Gabaldon as "Herself."  I mean, holy crap, people, these books are good but they are also seriously flawed.  (I say this as someone who has spent the better part of a year reading them over and over - that's how I know that they're flawed.)

Edited June 8, 2016 by toolazy

[WatchrTina]

Quote

For instance, I can't deal with the thing where people refer to Diana Gabaldon as "Herself."

But . . . I've done that and I'm not unhinged.  I do that in the same way I sprinkle my posts with "ye ken" even though I'm not Scottish.  It's how the folks on the Ridge refer to Jamie (as "Himself") and I know I've run across that idiom of speech in other historical British and Irish fiction. It's a way of designating a group's leader and whatever else you may think of her there is no denying that Diana is the creative font from which all of the Outlander-verse flows (at least the book-version of the 'verse and it's only been in book discussions where I've called her that).  It's just a bit of fun to call her that, ye ken?  But yeah, I agree with your main point that some people do get too heated in their discussion of TV shows.  

So T+L got blow-back on Twitter for having an unpopular opinion on the "Faith" episode, did they?  That's interesting.  I love that episode -- I think it's a tour de force of acting for Cait (just give her an Emmy now) and I cried more than once over it, but it also includes a depiction of a child being raped, Claire having to "pay" King Louis for a favor in a particularly degrading way, and one really bad faux beard, so I can just guess where they had issues with it.

Edited June 8, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Archery]

I just don't think some random dudes who spend their time criticizing other people's work product are entitled to any deference. Their opinions aren't any more valuable than mine or yours, whether it's about a show, a hairstyle, or a dress that some actress wears. 

I think calling Diana Gabaldon "Herself" is kinda funny. 

[toolazy]

The "Herself" thing mostly bugs me on her Facebook page where it seems fawning and too much like sucking up to her.  

[Zella]

1 hour ago, toolazy said:

The "Herself" thing mostly bugs me on her Facebook page where it seems fawning and too much like sucking up to her.  

Agreed! I've tried reading posts on there and on her Compuserve forum, and when they refer to her as "Herself" there, it honestly makes me think of a cult. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Until I watched the latest episode (11) I was thinking this morning that I was not at all impressed with Season 2 so much.  Episode 11 was good to me because it hearkened back to some of the early adventures in Season 1.  I really wish the show had spent more time in the world of Season 1: particularly before Claire married Jamie.  I think Claire learning her way around the world of the Highlanders was much more intriguing than anything I've seen since.  

There isn't really even a character in which I am terribly invested at this point.  Not even Claire and Jamie - and that's sad considering they are the main characters.  When Angus died in episode 10, I wasn't as moved as I should have been.  To be honest, even when Jamie was raped at the end of Season 1, as difficult as that was to watch due to the subject matter alone, I didn't really feel as much sympathy for him as I probably should have.  Sure, the actor is pretty, but I haven't been able to either feel much sympathy for him or cheer for him as a character since he beat his wife. I see a lot of talk of Jamie being this "King of Men" but I don't see it portrayed.  I see a guy maybe doing the best he can under the circumstances.  But that doesn't make him any different and certainly not any better than a lot of other people I know in real life.  I lost most of my sympathy for Claire early in this Season when she bargained with Jamie for BJR's life for Frank's sake.  And I certainly haven't felt this 'epic love story' they are supposed to have.

I'll finish watching the season, because there's only 2 episodes left now, so i might as well stick it out.  But knowing pretty much how it ends: they don't stop Culloden from happening, and Claire ends up back in the 20th century, I really can't think of anything that has me on the edge of my seat eagerly anticipating Season 3.  And since I already know that Seasons 3 and 4 have been confirmed, I'm pretty sure it's safe bet that Jamie doesn't die, so it won't be any surprise to me to when they reveal he's still alive either in the final moments of the finale or in the first ep of Season 3.  

It's all very...meh...to me.  Other than enjoying the discussion of each episode after it airs, I really can't think of any reason to keep my Starz subscription and not just wait until Season 3 has completely aired and binge watch it then.  If I watch Season 3 at all.  

[Summer]

Continuing by thoughts about the lack of intimacy/sex this season vs last season.  I honestly think it was very calculated by TPTB on the show.    Hook the viewers in S1.  Hollywood is a very orchestrated place and they want ratings.   Very little happens organically.  There are SOOOOOO many instances in S1 where they simply did NOT have to show boobs or bums that weren't sex scenes (which I believe the nudity was necessary)

Mrs. Fitz dressing Claire (they could have easily shot that showing just Claire's naked back waist up)

Geillis doing her midnight in the woods dance; she rips her top off at the very end because why? 

During the Witch Trial, Geillis ripping open her dress to show she is pregnant.  She could have easily just opened her dress to her chemise and shown her stomach that way

Jamie at the mill pond.  They specifically shot Sam in just enough water to barely cover his privates and bum.  And in the book, wasn't he wearing red shorts or something?

When Black Jack captures Claire, did her boobs need to be exposed practically the entire scene or even at all? Black Jack is scary and Claire was in danger, we got it. 

Jaimie and Claire in the grove when they are caught by the deserter red coats. Sam exposes one of Cait's breast, again, why? 

I saw something recently on Twitter that, I believe Matt Roberts wrote, something to the effect of how Terry makes the costumes so well that its impossible to "rip the bodice".  Yet, I saw an article last year, can't for the life of me remember where, that Terry was saying she had to explain to Ron how hard it was to rip open a dress of that time, that wool and the way the garments are constructed it would be impossible to simply rip the dress open, but then she went to say (paraphrasing) "But Ron is the boss and he wanted the bodice to be easily ripped, so that's what he got".   Ron knows damn well what he is doing and how to hook viewers and it's got nothing to do with It's in the book or not in the book or how many episodes they have or how much they have to cram into each show.   He was going for viewership and exposure (ha! no pun intended)  for the show for S1.  He wanted people talking about and watching Outlander and they did, good or bad. 

Gah, sorry for being such a debbie downer for this season.   I'll lie low for a while, those of you who are enjoying this season don't need my negativity crammed down your throats!  

[whoknowswho]

2 hours ago, Summer said:

Continuing by thoughts about the lack of intimacy/sex this season vs last season.  I honestly think it was very calculated by TPTB on the show.    Hook the viewers in S1.  Hollywood is a very orchestrated place and they want ratings.   Very little happens organically.  There are SOOOOOO many instances in S1 where they simply did NOT have to show boobs or bums that weren't sex scenes (which I believe the nudity was necessary)

Mrs. Fitz dressing Claire (they could have easily shot that showing just Claire's naked back waist up)

Geillis doing her midnight in the woods dance; she rips her top off at the very end because why? 

During the Witch Trial, Geillis ripping open her dress to show she is pregnant.  She could have easily just opened her dress to her chemise and shown her stomach that way

Jamie at the mill pond.  They specifically shot Sam in just enough water to barely cover his privates and bum.  And in the book, wasn't he wearing red shorts or something?

When Black Jack captures Claire, did her boobs need to be exposed practically the entire scene or even at all? Black Jack is scary and Claire was in danger, we got it. 

Jaimie and Claire in the grove when they are caught by the deserter red coats. Sam exposes one of Cait's breast, again, why? 

I saw something recently on Twitter that, I believe Matt Roberts wrote, something to the effect of how Terry makes the costumes so well that its impossible to "rip the bodice".  Yet, I saw an article last year, can't for the life of me remember where, that Terry was saying she had to explain to Ron how hard it was to rip open a dress of that time, that wool and the way the garments are constructed it would be impossible to simply rip the dress open, but then she went to say (paraphrasing) "But Ron is the boss and he wanted the bodice to be easily ripped, so that's what he got".   Ron knows damn well what he is doing and how to hook viewers and it's got nothing to do with It's in the book or not in the book or how many episodes they have or how much they have to cram into each show.   He was going for viewership and exposure (ha! no pun intended)  for the show for S1.  He wanted people talking about and watching Outlander and they did, good or bad. 

Gah, sorry for being such a debbie downer for this season.   I'll lie low for a while, those of you who are enjoying this season don't need my negativity crammed down your throats!  

I actually completely agree with everything you've said. This season they are making up for last season's boobs and arse everywhere, by making sure there are no boobs and arse ANYWHERE. That's fine with me, I'm not interested in either Sam or Cait's bodies, but what happened to make such a huge shift?  It can't be all "because we have so much story to tell" this year. 

[Ava]

It's storyline dictated.  At the beginning of the season, Jamie is still traumatized by his rape and trying to recover from that.  Every time he attempts to make love to Claire he sees BJR's face.  Off putting to say the least.  They got past that hurdle but then have to deal with how dirty Jamie feels about lying and pretending to everyone.  Again, not exactly a good atmosphere for the sexy times.  Then there was the whole Faith situation and a long separation.  By the time they get back to Scotland, their emotional connection is back.  We don't need to see them making love all over the place.  The emotional connection is what's needed.  There was a bit much boobage etc in season one, yes, and maybe not quite enough in season two.  Maybe in season three they'll find the right balance.

[cardigirl]

My unpopular opinion is that I LOVED season 2.  So much good stuff in it. I thought it was beautifully filmed, acted, and a wonderful way to tell the story.  And while I can appreciate a good sex scene, I didn't really feel a great lack thereof just because there were fewer scenes this season than Season 1.  I have a difficult time watching the extended rape scene of Jamie in season 1 and really am not entertained by such things. 

And I think all 3 of the main actors are spectacular in their roles.  Actually, I think everyone in the show is well cast. 

[Guest]

I stopped watching when I realized that the show was more building up the Claire/Jaime romance (which seemed to me to be a bit of Stockholm Syndrome mixed with his desperate desire to be a hero) but all I wanted to see was how she got back with Frank.  That seems to be a very unpopular opinion among Outlander fans.

[katville]

On 12/28/2016 at 3:39 PM, cardigirl said:

My unpopular opinion is that I LOVED season 2.  So much good stuff in it. I thought it was beautifully filmed, acted, and a wonderful way to tell the story.  And while I can appreciate a good sex scene, I didn't really feel a great lack thereof just because there were fewer scenes this season than Season 1.  I have a difficult time watching the extended rape scene of Jamie in season 1 and really am not entertained by such things. 

And I think all 3 of the main actors are spectacular in their roles.  Actually, I think everyone in the show is well cast. 

This. I loved season 2 also -- the costumes, the scenery, everything. With Starz offering a free weekend right now, I think I am going to watch S2 again, especially since we just returned from Paris.

[aliferous85]

Another one who loved the shit out of season 2. The costumes and the setting and how everything was just a little less bleak. I think if you're watching a tv show for the sole reason of watching characters having sex, you're not appreciating the show in itself. 

I don't have an issue with the scenes in themselves, but the show shouldn't feel like that is their hook to draw viewers (though Starz apparently thinks so). It should be serving every kind of viewer, whether they are interested in Jacobite history, 18th century clothing, or Scottish geography.

[FnkyChkn34]

On 8/13/2017 at 5:40 AM, aliferous85 said:

Another one who loved the shit out of season 2. The costumes and the setting and how everything was just a little less bleak. I think if you're watching a tv show for the sole reason of watching characters having sex, you're not appreciating the show in itself. 

I liked season 2 as well, but... less bleak?  Jaime has PTSD, a baby dies, and then they literally go to war.  Sorry, but season 2 was a good bit more bleak than season 1, IMO.

[aliferous85]

Season 2 didn't have a double flogging. I am sure this will somehow be redeemed in the two upcoming seasons though.

Perhaps less bleak is an odd description, but yes, I found it easier to watch then the second half of season 1.

[abbey]

My unpopular opinion is that I don't like the sex scenes.  It is one thing to read them in the book but entirely another (for me anyway) to watch two naked people going at it on the screen.  I don't care how well they are done, how great the chemistry is, I still feel like I am watching an x rated film.  My boyfriend calls it "scottish porn".  I leave the room or close my eyes when I know one of those scenes is coming up.  I sure wish I could relax and enjoy them but I have visions of my dear late father walking in the room and throwing the tv out the window.  Which he would do in real life if he was still here and was in my living room when one of those scenes was on.  Love the show over all, just wish the sex wasn't quite so explicit.

[FnkyChkn34]

19 hours ago, aliferous85 said:

Season 2 didn't have a double flogging. I am sure this will somehow be redeemed in the two upcoming seasons though.

Perhaps less bleak is an odd description, but yes, I found it easier to watch then the second half of season 1.

I see what you're saying.  I guess I didn't really consider season 1 to have a double flogging either, considering it was a flashback - does that make sense?  I know they showed it, but it didn't take place in either of the two main time periods that the actual story was taking place.  Season 1 had a bit more hope to it because he's recovered from the flogging and it's in the past.  The last 1 or 2 episodes were awful, but that carried over into season 2, IMO.

[aliferous85]

You know, the thing is that the double flogging is narrated really well.

It just went on achingly forever and I resorted to changing the channel for half minute intervals so I didn't have to see all of it.

I thought aside from Mary being raped, it was a generally less explicit season. And I was okay with the sex scenes ratio. 

[FnkyChkn34]

I think the whole show and all of the stories are narrated really well.

I may cringe a time or two, but I don't think I've ever changed the channel or closed my eyes.  

And let's face it, I'm in it for shirtless Sam Heughan.  The more I see of him (pun definitely intended), the better.  It's an adult show; adult content doesn't bother me.  Bring on the sex and violence - it's all just fictional anyway.  No actors were actually flogged or harmed, and no babies were made, in the making of this show. ;)

[Daisy]

On 8/15/2017 at 3:39 PM, FnkyChkn34 said:

I think the whole show and all of the stories are narrated really well.

I may cringe a time or two, but I don't think I've ever changed the channel or closed my eyes.  

And let's face it, I'm in it for shirtless Sam Heughan.  The more I see of him (pun definitely intended), the better.  It's an adult show; adult content doesn't bother me.  Bring on the sex and violence - it's all just fictional anyway.  No actors were actually flogged or harmed, and no babies were made, in the making of this show. ;)

(laugh). that sounds like a tagline you'd see at the end of Xena! :D 

I guess my unpopular opinion may echo yours is that  i agree. I think this show/the stories is narrated very well, and I like how it's presented. I'm coming at this series with Virgin Eyes (watch the season first, read the books basically right after). But i never really have an issues with the explicit scenes on the show  on either side of the spectrum  sexuality, or violence because I find that it's nuanced evenly with just  every day 'normality" that when it's extra 'explicit" (depending on which angle that the show is going for), you naturally get swept up in the emotions that they are going for. Which I think is a mark of a good t.v. show. (and i truly don't mind my smut as I tease my friends. I love a good romance novel with well written and  detailed love scenes because it seems more realistic to me  and seeing it portrayed on the show is fine as well - same as well placed violence or any other type of 'horror' for lack of a better word). 

[Fable]

On 8/15/2017 at 8:55 AM, abbey said:

My unpopular opinion is that I don't like the sex scenes.

I don't like them either, mostly because I think some things are better left to the imagination.  I certainly wouldn't want to watch my friends going at it, no matter how much I enjoyed their company.  

[Linderhill]

my unpopular opinion is that I don't really give a crap about young Fergus. I liked him better in the book because of the characterization but he plucks my nerves in the TV version. I've never been a big fan of the precocious child trope that Hollywood is so fond of but I haven't found anything in young Fergus to change my mind. Every time I read some article about how adorable the actor/character is I roll my eyes. I'm going to welcome the adult version of the character.

On that note, I never cared for Geilis either. I couldn't stand the character in the books and like her even less than in TV version. I don't care for Lotta VerBeek's acting in the roll (I actually loved her in Agent Carter) but the forced quirkiness grated on me.

I don't know how unpopular this is but I do think that Ron Moore is a bit obsessed with Tobias Menzies. He's a great actor but Ron has built up Frank's character and neglected Jamie so much its not funny. Yes, BJR is a big part of the story but Frank never was. I appreciate that RDM wanted to build up Frank's character to explain why Clair would want to go back to him but I think he went a little (or rather a lot) overboard.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Linderhill
(eta: paragraphs are important)

[pancake bacon]

4 hours ago, Linderhill said:

but Ron has built up Frank's character and neglected Jamie so much its not funny.

Neglected Jamie? He's the lead character of the show. Frank has been in a handful of episodes. How much build-up could've happened?

We've seen a lot of Jamie compared to Frank, so in that comparison, he's not neglected at all. Now, if you had said too much Black Jack, then have it. 

[Linderhill]

1 hour ago, pancake bacon said:

Neglected Jamie? He's the lead character of the show. Frank has been in a handful of episodes. How much build-up could've happened?

And yet there are so many scenes emphasizing what a stand up guy Frank is, Frank is so put-upon, Frank is just a poor woobie that missed his wife so much while she was galavanting in the past and now he has to accept this child she's carrying, etc. etc. etc.  As stated, this is the unpopular opinions forum.  Whether its popular or not, my opinion is that there has been too much time spent with Frank.  He seems to make every scene he is in about him.  Whether this is an acting or directing or story telling choice, I'm just not that interested in Frank and his Journey.  I tune in for Clair and Jamie and their story.  I am a book reader, I read Outlander not long after it came out and I've continued to read the books because I want to follow their story, not Frank's.  

[pancake bacon]

By sheer volume and story quality, Claire & Jamie's story is very well told. The show's not a zero sum game, in my probably unpopular opinion. Adding dimensions to Frank makes this a better show. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Thought I'd better post it here, since this is probably bound to be an unpopular opinion.  From the Media thread:

Adding more fuel to the fire... ;-)

Hannah James Says Jamie Was 'Never Raped' by Geneva on 'Outlander'

https://www.glamour.com/story/hannah-james-says-jamie-was-never-raped-by-geneva-on-outlander

From the article:

Quote

Here's the thing, though: Outlander is famous for its hot sex scenes, but no amount of steamy tension can negate the fact Jamie wasn't acting on his own accord here. There was manipulation and there was pressure; even if that's not visibly apparent in the scene, it exists—which makes what transpired between Jamie and Geneva problematic. Sorry, but there's no getting around that.

Couldn't the same be said about Claire on her wedding night to Jamie?  

[morgan]

Claire and Jamie were both manipulated into marrying each other, but Claire did it to save herself from Black Jack...she saw it as the lesser of 2 evils. And it wasn't  Jamie  who manipulated her....he didn't threaten or coerce her.  It wasn't Jamie's idea, he just stepped up to the plate.  

With Jamie/Geneva, she threatened his family if he didn't submit.  Big difference.  Had it been a third party who forced Jamie, under threat to him/his family, to sleep with Geneva, that would mean Geneva didn't rape him.  As it was she did.  

[TaurusRose]

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 11:51 PM, Fable said:

I don't like them either, mostly because I think some things are better left to the imagination.  I certainly wouldn't want to watch my friends going at it, no matter how much I enjoyed their company.  

 

 

I have no problem with sex scenes for the most part.  None of my friends look like Sam and Catriona or any of the other good-looking people getting it on in film or television; also, it's not their job to have sex for my entertainment, so you're right.  Wouldn't be interested.  LOL

But to be OT, my unpopular opinion is having to deal with another man who has the hots for Jamie.  Seriously, it's starting to look a bit gratuitous at this point. Stop it.

Edited October 5, 2017 by taurusrose

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, morgan said:

Claire and Jamie were both manipulated into marrying each other, but Claire did it to save herself from Black Jack...she saw it as the lesser of 2 evils. And it wasn't  Jamie  who manipulated her....he didn't threaten or coerce her.  It wasn't Jamie's idea, he just stepped up to the plate.  

I think an argument could be made that Jamie coerced Claire into marrying him by proxy.  For all intents and purposes, Claire was being held hostage by the Mackenzies - one of whom she believed Jamie to be until right before their wedding.  And even then, he was acting on behalf of the Mackenzies' best interest while in their employ.  Dougal was the de facto head of the rent party, making decisions for Collum (the Laird) while on the road.  It was all of them (the Mackenzies) against her.  If Dougal had insisted Claire wed Rupert or Willy to save her life, Imo, Claire would have had no choice but to go through with that also.  Dougal only picked Jamie because picking Jamie also suited his purpose - Claire lucked out.  But she was just as manipulated and coerced into sharing Jamie's bed as Jamie was into sharing Geneva's bed.

1 hour ago, morgan said:

With Jamie/Geneva, she threatened his family if he didn't submit.  Big difference.  Had it been a third party who forced Jamie, under threat to him/his family, to sleep with Geneva, that would mean Geneva didn't rape him.  As it was she did.  

Geneva did not threaten Jamie's family.  She threatened Jamie's freedom.  Claire very life was threatened, which, personally, I think was worse.

Quote

Geneva: I couldn't fathom why someone of Major Grey's standing would spend so much time with a common groom. Colonel Melton was tight-lipped at first, but after a few well, quite a few glasses of port, I was able to coax a very interesting tale from him.

Jamie: Ye shouldna done that.

Geneva: Mama would not be at all pleased to know her groomsman is, in truth, a notorious Jacobite soldier who fought in the army responsible for my brother's death. I'm very sure she'd have your parole revoked, incarcerating you once again.

Jamie: Ye filthy wee bitch.

Geneva: That language suits you, Red Jamie.

(PENSIVE STRING MUSIC)

Jamie: I'm sorry yer brother died. Truly. But I'll not return to prison.

Geneva: You'd run back to Lallybroch? What a quaint little name. I suppose they would post soldiers. Come to my room. Tonight. Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=outlander-2014&episode=s03e04 

The 'post soldiers' bit still only threatens Jamie's freedom directly.  Not his family.  

Getting back to the original quote from the article: 

Quote

There was manipulation and there was pressure; even if that's not visibly apparent in the scene, it exists—which makes what transpired between Jamie and Geneva problematic. Sorry, but there's no getting around that.

Replace Geneva with Claire and the statement is still true.  There was manipulation and there was pressure; even if that's not visibly apparent in the scene, it exists - which makes what transpired between Jamie and Claire problematic.  Sorry, but there's no getting around that.  

Edited October 5, 2017 by RulerofallIsurvey

[morgan]

We obviously disagree and that's ok.  The way I see it, In no way did Claire consider Jamie to have any power when she wed him.  Not after the humiliation Dugal subjected him to over and over and over during Rent.  She knew Jamie was directed to marry her, in fact had no choice vs the choice she had (black jack vs marry Jamie).  And she was given the choice.  If she wanted the protection of the Mackenzies, she needed to marry Jamie.  It was the only way Dougal said he could realistically think of to protect her.  She didn't offer a better solution, so she opted for that plan.  

Geneva threatening Jamie's freedom was a rape move.  And soldiers at Lallybroch definitely would have been a threat to his family.  Ian likely would have been arrested off and on again, along with an even older Fergus and nephew Jamie.  It was never a good thing when the Red coats focused their sites on Lallybroch so he would be a fool if he didn't see that as a direct threat to those he loved.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Yes, we disagree, because I don't understand how you can say that Jamie had no choice to marry Claire but Claire had a choice whether or not to marry him.  Seems to me they both had a similar choice, albeit not very good ones.  In Claire's case, as you pointed out, it was 'marry a person of Dougal's choosing or get handed over to BJR.'  In Jamie's case, it was 'marry Claire to 'protect' her or let her get handed over to BJR.'.  Jamie could have let Claire get handed over to BJR as much as Claire could have chosen to get handed over to BJR.  Neither of them absolutely had to go through with it, imo - and I think it's disingenuous to imply otherwise.  

If Claire wanted the protection of the Mackenzies, she needed to marry whomever Dougal chose.  That happened to be Jamie.  As I said, it could have just as easily been Rupert or Willie.  Dougal choosing Jamie wasn't the only way he could protect her from BJR.   Dougal chose Jamie for his own political reasons as well.  

And since Jamie did have a choice about whether or not to marry Claire, I think he did have a certain amount of power and I also think Claire knew that Jamie had a certain amount of power when she wed him, and especially on their wedding night, knowing that the men were waiting downstairs to ensure that the marriage was consummated.  Claire did not have a choice about whether or not to have sex with Jamie that night.  And neither did Jamie give her one.  I sure don't recall Jamie offering to lie or fake it and say that they'd done the deed when they hadn't, if her 'protection' was his only concern.    

Like I said in my first post, I put this here because it is the Unpopular Opinions thread and I knew my opinion would be unpopular.  So it's okay if you disagree with me.  But since your opinion is probably not Unpopular like mine, it probably doesn't belong in this thread.  :)

[morgan]

Good point!  

[AD55]

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Yes, we disagree, because I don't understand how you can say that Jamie had no choice to marry Claire but Claire had a choice whether or not to marry him.  Seems to me they both had a similar choice, albeit not very good ones.  In Claire's case, as you pointed out, it was 'marry a person of Dougal's choosing or get handed over to BJR.'  In Jamie's case, it was 'marry Claire to 'protect' her or let her get handed over to BJR.'.  Jamie could have let Claire get handed over to BJR as much as Claire could have chosen to get handed over to BJR.  Neither of them absolutely had to go through with it, imo - and I think it's disingenuous to imply otherwise.  

If Claire wanted the protection of the Mackenzies, she needed to marry whomever Dougal chose.  That happened to be Jamie.  As I said, it could have just as easily been Rupert or Willie.  Dougal choosing Jamie wasn't the only way he could protect her from BJR.   Dougal chose Jamie for his own political reasons as well.  

And since Jamie did have a choice about whether or not to marry Claire, I think he did have a certain amount of power and I also think Claire knew that Jamie had a certain amount of power when she wed him, and especially on their wedding night, knowing that the men were waiting downstairs to ensure that the marriage was consummated.  Claire did not have a choice about whether or not to have sex with Jamie that night.  And neither did Jamie give her one.  I sure don't recall Jamie offering to lie or fake it and say that they'd done the deed when they hadn't, if her 'protection' was his only concern.    

Like I said in my first post, I put this here because it is the Unpopular Opinions thread and I knew my opinion would be unpopular.  So it's okay if you disagree with me.  But since your opinion is probably not Unpopular like mine, it probably doesn't belong in this thread.  :)

Plus wedding night aside, Claire was a prisoner of the Mackenzies and Jamie never made any effort to free her. He didn't even look the other way when she was trying to escape. I've always thought it could be argued that Claire is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. I'm not going to make that argument myself, even in the unpopular opinion thread!

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, AD55 said:

Plus wedding night aside, Claire was a prisoner of the Mackenzies and Jamie never made any effort to free her. He didn't even look the other way when she was trying to escape.

To a certain extent, Jamie was also a prisoner of the Mackenzies, even though they were his family from his mother's side. He had to be hidden. He couldn't be acknowledged as a Mackenzie, let alone Fraser, even if it was for his "safety." And maybe, just maybe, he prevented Claire from escaping because he knew that it wouldn't be safe for her?

[AD55]

1 minute ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

To a certain extent, Jamie was also a prisoner of the Mackenzies, even though they were his family from his mother's side. He had to be hidden. He couldn't be acknowledged as a Mackenzie, let alone Fraser, even if it was for his "safety." And maybe, just maybe, he prevented Claire from escaping because he knew that it wouldn't be safe for her?

On the first point, it seems out of character for Jamie to look out for his own neck when there's a damsel in distress to be saved. The second possibility seems  more plausible.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

11 minutes ago, AD55 said:

I've always thought it could be argued that Claire is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. I'm not going to make that argument myself, even in the unpopular opinion thread!

Oh, I definitely think Claire had a bit of Stockholm Syndrome!  I think some really good arguments could be made for it.  But not today.  One unpopular opinion at a time is enough.  ;)

[cardigirl]

I've got a question and a bit of an unpopular opinion. I wasn't sure where to ask it, so I'll put it here.  I have a friend who is beside herself over the last 5 minutes of episode 5 (where Claire and Jamie see each other again for the first time in 20 years) and she has rewatched it over and over and over again.  And cries. And clearly that is a thing, as my Instagram keeps reminding me, to watch only that part over and over, but I don't get it.  While I love the television series and think it is a beautifully filmed show, with lots of pretty people in it, I'm not going gaga over the scene in the print shop. Perhaps I'm not a real fan.  :(   I have rewatched many of the episodes several times because I loved the way they were filmed.  So my question is, why should I care so much about a single scene?  And the hotly anticipated semi-pornographic reunion episode in two weeks? I'm more interested when they talk about the history or the time-travel bit.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, cardigirl said:

why should I care so much about a single scene?  And the hotly anticipated semi-pornographic reunion episode in two weeks? I'm more interested when they talk about the history or the time-travel bit.  

If you're a fan of Jamie and Claire and their love story/relationship, this was a big deal. And I'm one who has rewatched it over and over again. And I have to confess, I raised my eyebrows at your description of the anticipated love scenes that are upcoming, because there was such a dearth of them last season.  But, that's how you feel and your right. I can't say anymore, because there is no buik talk allowed, and

I'd have to explain using the source material why this is such a big deal.