The Books vs. The Show: Comparisons, Speculation, and Snark

[peacefrog]

*sigh* You guys are right about how the book portrays homosexuality and shame on me for forgetting another problematic issue in this book. It's never over, is it? Why do I like these books, because I do!

 

Jamie's and others attitudes don't bother me, even though I absolutely do not agree. What is a problem in the series is that there is no counterpoint. There is no character who provides the other side.  Yeah there is John but he should not be the only one to do this. There should be a character to challenge these views because Claire is really no better than Jamie in this regard.

[absnow54]

*sigh* You guys are right about how the book portrays homosexuality and shame on me for forgetting another problematic issue in this book. It's never over, is it? Why do I like these books, because I do!

I remember being so angry while I read the first book, and then I immediately read the second, and then I reread the first. There are so many things I hate in the story, but Jamie and Claire are such great characters that I find myself hand waving so many things. I know the feeling. 

[WatchrTina]

 

*sigh* You guys are right about how the book portrays homosexuality and shame on me for forgetting another problematic issue in this book. It's never over, is it?

Oh.  Right.  We've got that coming down the pike.  To quote Claire when Murtagh shakes her awake, all hung-over and tousled in The Wedding episode;  "Oh God!"

 

 

Didn't Dougal have some throwaway line about how all the men will have to watch their asses after the duke was mentioned?  

Yes he did and then Ned shushes him, saying something about "hold your tongue."  Maybe Ned just meant, don't make jokes at a time like this (which is likely) but maybe, just maybe it's a hint that joking about the Duke's predatory sexual behaviour toward young men is not going to be treated as a laughing matter to the same extent as it was in the book.

Edited April 5, 2015 by WatchrTina

[lianau]

So glad we're done with it too.

 

The abbey scenes are the point where I had to put the book down and question WTF did I just read.  Wentworth is of course horrifically awful and I'm still not sure I can or will be able to sit through that, but I don't doubt that our actors won't be able to do something with it.  I honestly have no idea how they can visually portray the abbey stuff in a way that makes any sort of sense without it coming off as looking like our leading man is gone completely out of his head and brutalizing his wife. After The Reckoning, I believe the actors are up to the challenge.  I just don't know how they tell it.

 

I think it's not that difficult , they only have to make sure a few things are clear, that Claire is impersonating Jack Randall and telling Jamie to fight  Jack Randall, the use of opium and Jamie's high fever.

 

 

In the 18th century I can imagine a girl trying to lure a guy into sex-followed-by-marriage her by presenting herself in that way but what on earth could Laoghaire hope to accomplish by offering up her maidenhead to a married man other than getting pregnant and ruining her life?  It makes Laoghaire look more wanton and a bit more stupid than BookLaoghaire and quite frankly I didn't need another reason to despise her.  

 

So now TVJamie knows that Laoghaire put the ill-wish under their bed.  To quote Black Jack Randall, "That's interesting." I didn't think BookJamie knew, though now I'm wondering if he suspected it.

Doesn't she end up losing her virginity to a married guy because Jamie "rejected" her  or am I imagining stuff  here.

 

On Jamie suspecting Laoghaire , I always thought so and Jamie putting  it off as Laoghaire acting out her jealousy and not wanting to worry Claire too much .

 

 

 

Last night seemed to be the first explicit mention of Randal's sexuality, which raises another point of contention I had with the first two books, which was the portrayal that all of the villains are homosexual pedophiles. Diana, of course, goes on to write the complex and interesting Lord John, but the portrayal of Black Jack's and the Duke of Sandringham's sexuality to demonize them always made me uncomfortable, and I'm curious how the show will portray it, now that the Duke will be introduced soon.

I'm still not sure Randall is actually gay. He's a sexual sadist who has more access to men (lower rang soldiers and prisoners) due to his job . But I don't think he could have a normal relationship with anyone , male or female .

 

 

 

*sigh* You guys are right about how the book portrays homosexuality and shame on me for forgetting another problematic issue in this book. It's never over, is it? Why do I like these books, because I do!

 

Jamie's and others attitudes don't bother me, even though I absolutely do not agree. What is a problem in the series is that there is no counterpoint. There is no character who provides the other side.  Yeah there is John but he should not be the only one to do this. There should be a character to challenge these views because Claire is really no better than Jamie in this regard.

It's historical fiction and even Claire was born in 1918 , 50 years before Stonewall . And she left  for  a second time when homosexuality was still considered a mental disorder .

[WatchrTina]

 

I'm still not sure Randall is actually gay. He's a sexual sadist who has more access to men (lower rang soldiers and prisoners) due to his job . But I don't think he could have a normal relationship with anyone , male or female .

I think your second statement and third statements are true -- Jack is an equal opportunity sadist and one very screwed up individual.  But we also get hints that that the crux of Jack's pathology is his frustrated incestuous love for his brother Alex.  And we will also see (in Season 2 if they follow the books) Jack's startling reaction to seeing Jamie for the first time in France -- being shocked and calling him "Jamie", not with distain but with (dare I say it) affection and longing (OMG he's a sick MoFo -- that scene SO creeped me out.)  So as much as l'd like to skirt the issue, I think it's pretty clear Black Jack is gay.

[NoNeinNyet]

So as much as l'd like to skirt the issue, I think it's pretty clear Black Jack is gay.

We also have Jenny telling Jamie that Black Jack didn't rape her because he couldn't get it up. He seems to need the sadism no matter what but also does appear to prefer men.

Even with Lord John, we still have Claire being disgusted with his sexuality to extent. It's on a more personal level and fueled more by jealousy and knowledge of everything Jamie went through at the hands of Jack Randall but that almost makes it worse. In some ways, Claire equates John with Jack just due to their sexual orientation despite there being almost nothing else in common between the two men. She does revise her opinion over time but that was definitely something that bothered me when I was listen to the audiobooks a couple of years ago years after I originally read the first five books.

[WatchrTina]

 

Even with Lord John, we still have Claire being disgusted with his sexuality to extent. It's on a more personal level and fueled more by jealousy and knowledge of everything Jamie went through at the hands of Jack Randall but that almost makes it worse. In some ways, Claire equates John with Jack just due to their sexual orientation

Hmmm.  I can't agree with you there.  My read on Claire's reaction to John and the realization that he loves and desires Jamie is jealousy, plain and simple.  Remember that when she figures all this out she's only been back in the past for a few months, a few very difficult months filled with the discovery of Jamie's marriage to Laoghaire, his nearly dying at the hands of Laoghaire, the kidnapping of Ian, and Claire's being torn away from Jamie (again) by being press-ganged onto a British ship on the high seas.  After all that she discovers that a) Jamie has had a son by another woman that he failed to mention during their reunion and b) that child is in the keeping of a man who, it turns out, is Jamie's gay BFF who secretly longs for him in the same way Laoghaire did.  I always felt that any negative feelings expressed by Claire about John were exclusively driven by her jealousy over the fact that John loves Jamie and that he got to have a "relationship" (albeit a strained, difficult, and strictly non-sexual one) with Jamie during the 20 years when Jamie was lost to her.  I never got the vibe that Claire was disgusted by John's being attracted to men. 

 

Am I in denial?  I'll admit I didn't want her to feel that way (meaning I did not want her to have negative feelsings about John's sexuality).  But I can't think of anything in the books that speaks to Claire being disgusted by homosexuality.  (There was one moment of concern for the young man John sent to her for treatment but the less said about THAT misunderstanding the better.)

Edited April 6, 2015 by WatchrTina

[nodorothyparker]

None of the characters, even the "modern" ones like Bree and Roger, are from a time when being gay was a socially acceptable thing.  It was still considered a mental illness in their own 1960s and could be a hanging offense in Jamie's time.  

 

So then throw in that Jamie has a long-standing relationship (yes, strictly platonic but only on Jamie's end) with someone who shared a good portion of those years lost to Claire and is basically on equal footing with her in the sense that he too has raised a child of Jamie's and I think her jealousy gets the better of her.  It spills out to fixate on the one thing she knows John can't have and she can, given Jamie's own nature and his history with Black Jack.  That's not to say I consider her particularly accepting or even right, only that I think her attitudes in the first couple of books after her return can't be wholly unexpected.  And it does get better as she gets to know John better and feels more secure in her place in Jamie's life.

Edited April 6, 2015 by nodorothyparker

[WatchrTina]

 

[John] is basically on equal footing with her in the sense that he too has raised a child of Jamie's.

Wow.  I never thought of it that way.  But now I see that the scene that Claire stumbles upon -- Jamie and John looking at the miniature painting of William -- echoes that earlier scene in book 3 that I love so much.  I mean the one  where Claire shows Jamie all the photos of Bree and Jamie "goes quietly to pieces."  No wonder she is so jealous of John.  Thank you nodorothyparker.  I love that observation.

[nodorothyparker]

My books are in packing boxes from a recent move so I can't specifically quote it, but I believe it's in the fourth book where John learns about Brianna and comments to Claire that they have even more in common than he previously realized.  It's at the same point that John and an adolescent Willie show up at the ridge and of course Claire's first thought is that John is reasserting his claim to Jamie and how unfair it is that she can't show him Bree in the same way.

[peacefrog]

Yes John and Claire both kind of needle each other about each of their connection and experiences with Jamie. John occasionally will tell Claire something and add "Did he not tell you?" Or Claire will be smug and (I can't remember what book at all) surprise John with knowing something. 

 

Regarding Claire and her views on homosexuality due to the time period she is from. Obviously she is from a period where acceptance of LGBT is not as "advanced" as today and it is accurate for her, Roger and Bree to hold these. My point is that it would be a better balance if some character would have different and accepting views on homosexuality. Throw the argument of historical accuracy out because I'm sure there were people who had no care who someone found themselves attracted to.  Sure it's probably in the minority but society doesn't move forward without people who have progressive views, ones who are ahead of their time. 

[nodorothyparker]

I actually think Bree doesn't do bad at all beyond her immediate need to be reassured that Jamie never reciprocated John's attentions, which considering that she's only known Jamie for a few months and has totally bought into her parents' epic love story isn't really that surprising.  Sure, she threatens to out John to force him to marry her, but both she and John know it's a mostly idle threat.  She clearly values him as a family friend right up through the William reveal.

 

Fergus interestingly doesn't seem to judge either.  We know he was gay for pay as a child prostitute and isn't much bothered by it.  We also learn in the last book that he's long drawn his own conclusions about John and other than being a little surprised to realize that Jamie knows about John and Percy doesn't really think much about it either beyond not wanting his young son to walk in on them.  As a parent, I can't really blame him for that whether the couple be gay or straight.

[peacefrog]

Good point, forgot about Fergus. 

[NoNeinNyet]

Yes John and Claire both kind of needle each other about each of their connection and experiences with Jamie. John occasionally will tell Claire something and add "Did he not tell you?" Or Claire will be smug and (I can't remember what book at all) surprise John with knowing something. 

 

Regarding Claire and her views on homosexuality due to the time period she is from. Obviously she is from a period where acceptance of LGBT is not as "advanced" as today and it is accurate for her, Roger and Bree to hold these. My point is that it would be a better balance if some character would have different and accepting views on homosexuality. Throw the argument of historical accuracy out because I'm sure there were people who had no care who someone found themselves attracted to.  Sure it's probably in the minority but society doesn't move forward without people who have progressive views, ones who are ahead of their time. 

 

Yes, this is exactly what I meant about Claire's views on homosexuality and Lord John specifically. Her views make sense considering the context of the time she is from and the jealousy she feels. The story of Alan Turing says a lot about post-WWII British attitudes towards homosexuality. I also agree that it would be nice to have at least one character with subtly progressive views but I understand why the characters we do have have the views that they do.

Edited April 6, 2015 by NoNeinNyet

[Dejana]

I'm already seeing comments about Black Jack being both over the top and tedious. If viewers already think he's one note now, wait until Wentworth and everything in S2. I don't think it's going to go over well with non-book fans in particular, how Claire implores Jamie not to kill the man who sexually assaulted him, as well as a child, lest he risk Future!Frank not existing. Maybe if it's more clearly reframed as Claire disappearing from Jamie's life, if there is no Frank for Claire to take on a honeymoon to Scotland...

[ScotchnSoda]

Please pardon the interruption to the topic under current discussion, but I desperately need would your opinions on Season 2.  Does anyone out there believe (or even hope) that there is even a teeny, tiny chance that season 2 will skip the 20th century Part 1 of Dragonfly in Amber and start directly with Claire's "Bread" scene - pregnant and with morning sickness in Le Harve?  I'm really hoping that we can skip the whole 50yr old Claire and grown Brianna intro.  It was a good hook for the stand-alone book, but maybe not for a television series that has so many of us reader/watchers and non-book readers wanting to see the story of Claire and Jamie continue, not to mention the political build up of the Rising.  I fear that trying to make our beautiful Claire and Jamie look 20 years older/younger in such a short period of time  would be jarring, and beg for nit-picking.  Season 3 could pick-up Claire's return to 1948, the excellent scenes at the hospital, Frank and Claire's struggle, all the while interspersed with Jamie waking up "dead", the 18 Scot officers holed up in the little house, Hal (what's his name) honoring his brother, John's debt of honor.  Now we could continue with parallel stories and only switch back & forth in geography.  Now scenes of life in Boston, disastrous dinner  but in a more linear story-telling fashion.  Then scenes of life in Boston, little red-haired girl growing up, Claire wanting to become a Dr. etc, interspersed with Jenny tending Jamie's injuries, 7-yrs in a cave, etc.  This way we get to Inverness 1968 more "organically".  DIA part I can be added to the front of Voyaager chap 2 etc.  An added bonus would be that the current actors can undergo some subtle aging and once we get to 20yrs later, they age naturally thereafter.  Also, Brianna and Roger would not have to be cast until later.  I'm sure you see my drift.  If it's just me, tell me to get over it. 

[CatMack]

There's no chance of that.  There's very little I'm willing to say for certain about how things will be adapted, because these writers can adapt however they want, but this I'm willing to bet money on.  They're already casting Bree and Roger for season 2, so they're hitting the 20th century.  Ron Moore has said they're playing with the structure to figure out the best way to adapt it to screen, but no way does that mean putting off all 20th century stuff a season.  My guess is there will be a lot more back and forth than in the book.  So rather than just having all the 20th century stuff at the beginning and end, we'll jump back and forth more, get more Brianna and Roger reactions.  Just spec on my part, but it's a good way to make sure we get Jamie in every episode while still firmly establishing Brianna and Roger (and maybe developing them a bit more than they are in the book - they don't really start to feel like actual people to me until at least book 4).  But no, I don't think there's even a tiny chance of them skipping the 20th century in season 2, nor would I want them to.  As much as I wanted to throw book 2 across the room when I started reading, it's a brilliant story structure for the story told.  Tweaking it a bit for TV sure, but no way do the writers ditch that extremely dramatic hook to tell a totally linear story.

 

I hope that didn't come off too harsh.  You are of course entitled to your opinions and concerns about what the show will do.  I just don't see that being a realistic theory, or one that particularly appeals to me.

Edited April 8, 2015 by CatMack

[lianau]

I want them to keep the 20th century part in the beginning . I sort of want it to start with a shot of the fireplace at Reverend Wakefield's house ( since that would not be so 20th century specific ) and then pan over to Roger maybe looking at a dated obituary of his adoptive father.

[chocolatetruffle]

I don't mind them starting with the beginning in 1968.  Although it might be interesting if they saved that as a midseason cliffhanger ending.  Of course, that is assuming they end up doing a midseason break, which is not guaranteed.  Or, they could jump back and forth, with flashforwards to Roger, then Bree and finally we see a glimpse of Claire sometime around midseason.

[sara217]

The dual time period structure was one of my favorite things about book two. I think 60s Claire would show up early, at the end of the first episode. But they could hold off on revealing Bree for a while since she doesn't really have much to do in the story anyway.

[tcay]

My probably-won't-come-true speculation is the season one finale ending is a time jump to Claire holding a baby in a modern hospital. It would give non-book readers a heart attack, but I doubt that's happening.

 

I do think we'll flip back and forth between time periods much more often. I also wonder how they'll address Frank: it's a bit much to handle that Claire is in the future, has a grown daughter, and oh yeah Frank is dead. Like will Frank the character exist at all in season two? Seems odd to shunt him off until season three flashbacks. So maybe some of those flashbacks in book three will happen in the second season, to give Frank a presence?

[WatchrTina]

tcay I speculated the exact same thing only I added the notion of the shot on Claire being a close-up so you don't realize she's in a modern hospital until the camera pulls back, panning up from Claire's face -- equal parts joy and sorrow -- to Frank standing beside her, looking somber.  Wouldn't that be just wicked?

 

 

As much as I wanted to throw book 2 across the room when I started reading, it's a brilliant story structure for the story told.

I totally agree with the first part of your statement but not the second.  I was beside myself when I started book 2.  I still struggle with it.  I can't WAIT to see what Ron and the writers are going to do to improve it because I want Jamie and Claire in the same scene in episode 1 of season 2 (and I rather suspect I'm going to get that.)

[peacefrog]

Oh my biggest hope is they do the time jump at the end of the season!

 

I don't think anyone likes that Jamie and Claire missed 20 years together and Jamie missed raising Bree. It's a tragic, heartbreaking, dark love story. However I kind of think it's what makes Outlander, Outlander. I hate parts, disagree with a lot of the direction Gabaldon took, characters etc., but I have to admit I would not change it.

 

I realise I contradict myself here because I do want the show to get further away from the books. As much as I hate the spanking I'm glad they kept it in, yet I'm also glad they did not do the Leoch sex as in the book. So to be honest I don't know what I'm looking for, lol.  I think I just want to be surprised.

 

So Scotchnsoda I don't think you are wrong in wanting the story told that way at all. It's not the way I want it told but neither is wrong.

[NoNeinNyet]

I definitely agree that we're going to see more back and forth between the 20th and 18th century than we got in the book. It gets us to Jamie faster and it allows more "show not tell" when it comes to defining Roger and Bree and characters and sprinkling their early flirtation throughout. It just makes more sense when you think about how a TV show is structured. It could be that we have an episode or two where it's all or mostly in one century but I see that happening more in the middle of the season. They got Claire to the 18th century much faster in the show than she got there in the book so it would make sense that they wouldn't wait too long to show us 18th century France in the second season.

 

When I first saw someone guess that they'd show Claire in the 20th century with Bree and Frank at the end of the first season, I thought that was a horrible idea but the more I think about it, the more I like it. It saves them time in the season 2 premiere because we would already know that Claire returned to the 20th century while she was young. Suddenly the direction of season 2 seems much different than you would guess it would be if they went with the book ending. It really is a compelling place to leave it.

[chocolatetruffle]

 

When I first saw someone guess that they'd show Claire in the 20th century with Bree and Frank at the end of the first season, I thought that was a horrible idea but the more I think about it, the more I like it. It saves them time in the season 2 premiere because we would already know that Claire returned to the 20th century while she was young. Suddenly the direction of season 2 seems much different than you would guess it would be if they went with the book ending. It really is a compelling place to leave it.

 

Actually this may be exactly what they are planning to do.  I saw an interview with Sam where he said that at the end of the season Jaime and Claire are in 2 different places, or words to that effect.  I thought he meant emotionally, but maybe he meant it literally.  Of course, I don't think the audience at large will find that very satisfying, as Ron often says about the ending of season one.

[Nidratime]

End of the first season? You mean *this* season? They don't even have the actors hired yet and season 1 is in the can. Besides, she doesn't even go back until the second season. I think I'm misunderstanding....

[CatMack]

We're speculating about whether they've changed the ending of season 1 to make it more of a cliffhanger, basically if they've stuck anything on the end to at least hint at Claire's return to the future rather than just leave Claire and Jamie in an almost happily ever after scenario of being safe with a baby on the way.  They haven't hired actors for Bree or Roger yet so we're not going to get them showing up at the end of season 1, but we could potentially suddenly flashforward to Claire, pregnant or with a baby, in the 1940s again, and have that be a total mystery (for non-book readers at least) that keeps people talking all hiatus.  It would be a big change, and I don't know how likely I think it is, but those are the kinds of changes I don't mind.  It doesn't change the story itself, just when the audience learns certain things, so it's better paced for TV.  

[WatchrTina]

Just weighing in to say there there spoilers out there about the ending of season 1 so be on your guard if, like me, you enjoy speculating about how Ron & Co. will interpret the books but don't really want to know about the ways in which they will embellish or diverge from the books.  I've read an obscene amount of interviews during Droughtlander and the only "spoilers" I encountered were hints about things that, as a book-walker, I knew were going to happen -- major mentions to specific items like "witch trial," "Wentworth," and veiled references to how dark it gets and that some serious stuff goes down between Jamie and Black Jack.  But I walked right into a totally unnecessary spoiler yesterday about how a particular note-worthy scene was shot and what was shown and then tip-toed carefully away from another story that promised to reveals certain things about how the season will end.  Be careful out there!

[Nidratime]

Well, if anyone saw the spoiler in the spoiler thread about

where the location of the last part of the show will be, I think that's a good cliffhanger, i.e., will they get away.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Nidratime

[chocolatetruffle]

Just because the producers say they haven't hired anyone to play Bree and Roger yet doesn't mean they are telling the truth.  They could have hired the actors, filmed scenes and be keeping the whole thing under wraps.  It's been done before when a show wants to bring on a "surprise" actor. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I will say this: Reading Dragonfly was TORTURE for me. Worse than pulling teeth. It was agonizing. But being the anal retentive I am, I finished it. Was so wrung out, I blame Dragonfly for me not being able to read through Voyager, which was through Jamie's POV! And I only got through a third of it.

 

That said, I'm sure the show runners will make Season 2 much more palatable. And I won't even nitpick (not that I've been a nitpicker thus far for this show), over whatever changes they'll make.

[CatMack]

Just because the producers say they haven't hired anyone to play Bree and Roger yet doesn't mean they are telling the truth.  They could have hired the actors, filmed scenes and be keeping the whole thing under wraps.  It's been done before when a show wants to bring on a "surprise" actor. 

 

It's possible, of course.  The "surprise actor" thing has gotten a lot harder with the internet and social media, but it can still be done.  

 

I went back to check some timeline things - the first article I could find that confirmed they were actively starting the casting process for Brianna was from Sept 2014.  Also, Sharon Belle posted a youtube video in Oct 2014 saying she had auditioned for Bree a month prior.  Filming for season 1 ended in Sept of 2014.  So they were holding auditions the same month they wrapped filming.  It's possible they snagged an actress just in time to film a cameo, but the timing would have been tight.

 

I find the idea that they've cast Bree, and probably Roger, sometime in the last couple months but haven't announced it - either to avoid spoiling the time jump or to save it for the hiatus so people have something to talk about - a lot more convincing then the idea that they had them, or at least Bree, cast last fall, but theoretically anything is possible.

[maraleia]

What's interesting is both of the TV versions of Outlander and Game of Thrones are improving on their source material and as a non-book reader of both series (I love spoilers which is why I'm in this thread) I'm liking the changes that Ron and Maril are making here and Dan and David are making to GOT.

[chocolatetruffle]

 

I find the idea that they've cast Bree, and probably Roger, sometime in the last couple months but haven't announced it - either to avoid spoiling the time jump or to save it for the hiatus so people have something to talk about - a lot more convincing then the idea that they had them, or at least Bree, cast last fall, but theoretically anything is possible.

 

You're right, it would be cutting it tight if they filmed it in September.  However, I just listened to an interview with Caitriona in which she offhandedly said that she went back in December to do some pickups.  Maybe they could have shot something then.  This is all total speculation on my part and the showrunners could simply plan to end it at the end of book 1 and all this other stuff floating around is just to give fans like us something to talk and speculate about.

[CatMack]

Which is clearly working.  We're on to you, Outlander showrunners.  And we're...going to keep doing exactly what you want us to.  

Edited April 9, 2015 by CatMack

[ulkis]

That said, I'm sure the show runners will make Season 2 much more palatable. And I won't even nitpick (not that I've been a nitpicker thus far for this show), over whatever changes they'll make.

 

Agreed. Although actually I don't think they should change too much from the first book, for the sake of non-book-readers, actually. It's an engaging story that doesn't need to be changed too much, and that they should get to experience.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Agreed. Although actually I don't think they should change too much from the first book, for the sake of non-book-readers, actually. It's an engaging story that doesn't need to be changed too much, and that they should get to experience.

 

ulkis!!!! I didn't know you watched this show! Now we've got two shows in common! One (this one) which is really very good, and the other, well, we'll not tarnish this thread by bringing that fakakta dreck.

[ulkis]

ulkis!!!! I didn't know you watched this show! Now we've got two shows in common! One (this one) which is really very good, and the other, well, we'll not tarnish this thread by bringing that fakakta dreck.

 

:) I'll reply in the off-topic thread.

[Hybiscus]

Please pardon the interruption to the topic under current discussion, but I desperately need would your opinions on Season 2.  Does anyone out there believe (or even hope) that there is even a teeny, tiny chance that season 2 will skip the 20th century Part 1 of Dragonfly in Amber and start directly with Claire's "Bread" scene - pregnant and with morning sickness in Le Harve?  I'm really hoping that we can skip the whole 50yr old Claire and grown Brianna intro.  It was a good hook for the stand-alone book, but maybe not for a television series that has so many of us reader/watchers and non-book readers wanting to see the story of Claire and Jamie continue, not to mention the political build up of the Rising.  I fear that trying to make our beautiful Claire and Jamie look 20 years older/younger in such a short period of time  would be jarring, and beg for nit-picking.  Season 3 could pick-up Claire's return to 1948, the excellent scenes at the hospital, Frank and Claire's struggle, all the while interspersed with Jamie waking up "dead", the 18 Scot officers holed up in the little house, Hal (what's his name) honoring his brother, John's debt of honor.  Now we could continue with parallel stories and only switch back & forth in geography.  Now scenes of life in Boston, disastrous dinner  but in a more linear story-telling fashion.  Then scenes of life in Boston, little red-haired girl growing up, Claire wanting to become a Dr. etc, interspersed with Jenny tending Jamie's injuries, 7-yrs in a cave, etc.  This way we get to Inverness 1968 more "organically".  DIA part I can be added to the front of Voyaager chap 2 etc.  An added bonus would be that the current actors can undergo some subtle aging and once we get to 20yrs later, they age naturally thereafter.  Also, Brianna and Roger would not have to be cast until later.  I'm sure you see my drift.  If it's just me, tell me to get over it. 

It's funny you should open this topic.  I was actually trying to figure out a good way to open season 2.  (Kind of as a writing/creativity excercise.  I've only gotten part way through the 2nd chapter.  heh.)  While it was ok in the book, I don't think it'd translate well to the screen.  If it followed exactly, Jamie wouldn't be in at least the first 1 or 2 episodes. So far, the changes Ron Moore & co have made from the books have only made the series better.  I guess i should trust him on that. 

 

As for aging Jamie & Claire 20 years, remember that both actors are in their mid-30s.  I don't think the changes would be too drastic in appearance.  For those of you who haven't reached 45 or 50 yet (unlike me), it really isn't that old. (The older I get, the actual age of what's "middle age" and "old age" keeps being moved further and further back.  Hee.)

 

I do agree with CatMack:

 

Ron Moore has said they're playing with the structure to figure out the best way to adapt it to screen, but no way does that mean putting off all 20th century stuff a season.  My guess is there will be a lot more back and forth than in the book.  So rather than just having all the 20th century stuff at the beginning and end, we'll jump back and forth more, get more Brianna and Roger reactions.  Just spec on my part, but it's a good way to make sure we get Jamie in every episode while still firmly establishing Brianna and Roger

 

While I'm not sure how I'd like to see season 2 begin, I'd really like to see it end similarly to the book,

with Claire thinking Jamie died at Culloden, only to be told in the final moments that Jamie survived.

  It would be a great way to keep things positive for non-book readers while still feeling the loss of the separation.

[methodwriter85]

They might add a few wrinkles and some lighter streaks to their hair, but I honestly can't see them making Caitrionia or Sam put on middle-aged pudge to sell it.

 

It's going to be a big shock, though.

Edited April 9, 2015 by methodwriter85

[CatMack]

Whenever I think about them aging Cait and Sam I usually end up thinking about the Tudors.  Henry's makeup never seemed super duper "old" in the later seasons, but when they did the flashback montage right at the very end and you got to see how young he looked in the pilot, it was a huge difference.  I think it was mostly hair coloring and styling, facial hair, and very subtle makeup tricks.  Everything else was acting (voice, body language, etc).  I imagine we'll end up with something like that here.  They're both supposed to look pretty good for their ages in the books anyway.  My only concern is that it looks believable that they're Bree's parents when they're standing next to her.  One of the worst things about the 3rd Mummy movie (and normally I pretend this movie doesn't even exist so let us never speak of it again) was casting an actor only 10 years younger than the actors playing his parents.  And he looked it too.  No parental chemistry when they look like they're practically the same age.  But I trust the casting/costuming/makeup departments pretty well at this point, so I'm not too worried.  

[ulkis]

I think with a little make-up CB could pass for 45. Older than that might be tough though. It will be tough with Bree, because even if they get an actual 20 year old to play her and not someone in their later 20s, if she's anywhere near as tall as Bree is supposed to be it projects as older.

Edited April 10, 2015 by ulkis

[Future Cat Lady]

I'm one of those who thinks that they will spoil the fact that Claire goes back because

a) That cliffhanger packs a lot more punch that the actual ending of the book.

b) They don't have to worry about spoiling the story when they announce the actors playing Brianna and Roger. 

 

Like others have said, I think that we might see Claire in the 40s pregnant, giving birth or with the baby (possibly with Frank). Or, we flash forward to the 60s with a grown up Bree. They started the casting process for her months ago. It's highly possible that Bree has been secretly cast. They might have only needed her to shoot a small scene. 

 

And like I said above, they will be spoiling the story for non-book readers when they announce who's been cast as Bree and Roger. Will they announce that they've cast a character named Brianna or Brianna Randall or Claire (and Jamie's) daughter?  And why did they cast an adult? Ans what if she'a a natural redhead? I'm sure there will also be some set pictures coming out that will spoil the time jump?

 

So basically, doing the time jump at the end of season solves a lot of problems. In my opinion anyway. 

[Nidratime]

This interview that was just done with writer/producer Matt Roberts (who wrote The Gathering and The Reckoning) is terrific. I put it here because they do compare the show to the books. The interviewer is Lani Diane Rich of the Storywonk web site.

 

http://storywonk.com/the-scot-and-the-sassenach-episode-23/

[AD55]

I agree with Hybiscus about the actors aging 20 years. Sam turns 35 this month and Caitriona will be 36  in October. Sam is playing a 22-year-old (I think. There's some ambiguity about his age in the books.) and Cat is playing a 27-year-old. Surely they can play people who are 10 years older than they are. As someone else said, DG makes a big deal about how well Claire ages, and Jamie seems to look almost as good, in spite of having spent years in a cave followed by a long stint in prison.

 

I figure if I can accept the time travel and that Jamie can do anything except possibly be lead dancer at the Bolshoi, I can suspend my disbelief about their ages. I concur with those who say that casting Bree and Roger will be key, but given the ages of most of the actors who play high school students on shows like Buffy and Glee, I'm not too worried. I trust Ron Moore and his casting director to find actors who can pull it off.

[WatchrTina]

Just watched episode 10 on demand.  I'm not going to spoil anything or discuss it in detail until after the official showing tonight.  Just weighing in to say, with regard to the changes vs. the book -- I approve!

[lianau]

Jamie was born on May 1st 1721

[WatchrTina]

 

 

I think Colum's going to seize the money raised for the Stuarts, which is what will cause Dougal to lose his shit.

Alternatively Dougal could be losing his shit over the news that his wife has died but I rather doubt that because so far the TV show hasn't even acknowledged that he HAS a wife. Still, it's a possibility

<gloat mode on> I wrote the above on March 31 in response to the teasers for the second half of season 1.  That's some first class speculation if I do say so myself.   <gloat mode off>  :)

 

ETA:  Just harkening back to our earlier conversation in this thread in which we voiced our concerns about how homosexuality -- and the Duke's behavior in particular -- would be presented.  I think the show managed to walk the fine line.  The MacDonalds' taunting Jamie & the Duke with insults accusing them of being gay lovers (okay "Sodomites") accurately portrays the common view toward homosexualtiy at the time (though I found it less-than-credible that they would have the balls say it to the Duke's face.)  On the other hand, Jamie's talk with Murtagh in his and Claire's bed-chambers shows that while Jamie certainly knows of the Duke's attraction to men he not all that fussed by it and is even willing to possibly capitalize on the Duke's "affection" for him (so long as it does not require that he actually "offer up {his] hindquarters.")  I thought Jamie got a bit concerned when the Duke started using the "wash your back" metaphor -- fearing it wasn't metaphor -- but once he understood that it was his sword arm the Duke was interested in and not any other part of his anatomy he relaxed and even took that pat on the cheek without being bothered by it.  I also think the show did a good job of showing how 18th century "morality" and scruples regarding homosexuality were cheerfully ignored when convenient.  Colum and Dougal clearly know about the Duke but he's a powerful ally so Dougal is told to hold his tongue when he makes a joke about it in private.

 

I do think it was smart of the show to have Jamie say of the Duke that "He was certainly very attentive" of 16-year-old Jamie "But that's as far as it went."  So, no groping in the stables or requests for Jamie to help him bathe. We haven't seen anything to suggest that the Duke uses coercion to obtain access to young men, which we certainly do see in the books. Smart move.

Edited April 12, 2015 by WatchrTina

[maraleia]

Help me out here. Did they imply that Gellis died in this week's episode because from what I've read in the books she survives this trial?

[peacefrog]

We find out she survives in Voyager but there are hints in DIA.  I think Dougal tells Claire when she is looking for his help with Jamie that they let her live until she has the baby and they give the baby to foster parents.

 

I don't remember though how it becomes known officially that Buck is Dougal's on Roger's family tree.

Edited April 20, 2015 by peacefrog