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

[Keeta]

The strapping scene didn't bother me nearly as much as the brutality of the Wentworth scenes.  It is still disturbing to me as I write this and I doubt I will be able to watch those scenes portrayed in full HD technicolor.  I literally wanted to stop reading as the events unfold and the only reason I kept going is because I knew there were 7 more books, so Jaime had to have put his life back together and moved on from it.  But if I had been reading it when it was first written I would not have been able to finish it.  Did anyone else feel the same way?  I have seen a lot of posts about the strapping, but I'm just surprised no one has mentioned Wentworth. 

 

I just re-read Outlander after the first half of season one, and even though I had read it more than once, the last time was a while ago, and I was still very disturbed at just how brutal those scenes were (possibly moreso than I remember being in the past). I guess I had (understandably) repressed the details. 

[lianau]

Given how graphic the flogging scenes were I'm not sure how much I want to see of Wentworth . It's not going to be easy viewing . In a way I feel sorry for the non readers because they expect fluffy romance (to a degree) and will get that .

[Alex]

Delurking to say that I was not expecting Wentworth when I read Outlander...

It's going to be perhaps more shocking for the viewers than for the readers (because to see something is sometimes worse than imagining it. Sometimes), but we were all shocked.

 

I'd also like to add that I was not bothered by the spanking scene. It's of course obsolete now in contemporary Western culture (less in other contemporary cultures. I'm stating, not excusing), but I thought it was a real representation of the Sottish (and European in general) culture of 18th century. Corporal punishment was still largerly used in schools in Europe until the Fifties at least. And it's still used in some families nowadays.

 

*off to the Small Talk thread in order to present myself*

[chocolatetruffle]

I read Outlander immediately after the mid-season break.  Even having seen the flogging scene (which was excruciating to watch) I was not expecting what happened at Wentworth.  I,too feel bad for those viewers who are non-readers because based on the graphic nature of the flogging scene, seeing IS going to be worse than imagining it while reading....

[Firebunny]

Yeah, my recommendation for people interested in the show is to watch the first half of the season before reading the book (mostly so they can enjoy the Virgin Jamie reveal to its fullest) and then read the book before the second half of the season starts so that they'll be prepared for Wentworth. 

[WatchrTina]

Well one of my speculations has been put to rest and I'm glad.  When Willie was introduced in the episode "Rent" I wondered why he had been added (he's not in the book).  I worried that he was a red-shirt who would die tragically very soon.  Then, when I saw his funny scene with the priest in "The Wedding," I thought "Ah ha!, That's why he was introduced."  But I continued to harbor a secret fear that Willie was a disposable character and that he would be killed during the rescue of Claire from Black Jack.  I speculated that his death would raise the stakes and clarify for the viewers why Claire had to be punished for leaving the glade (I, like many of us, have been wondering how that controversial scene is going to play in the show.)  Well, that photo they gave us for Doughtlander #4 clearly shows Willie riding behind an unhappy Claire. I'm guessing that this photo shows Claire riding with a sore arse.  That tells me he survives the rescue.  So yay!

 

So now I speculate that Willie is going to be beaten after the rescue as punishment for not keeping watch over Claire as he had been ordered too.  This will heighten the other clansmen's resentment of her because they'll know by then that she slipped away while his pants were down.  They'll understand why he has to take a beating -- even he will understand it and will take it without murmur -- but they'll all resent her for it (in addition to resenting her for putting them all in danger).  Then I predict that Dougal will turn to Claire, intending to beat her too, and Jamie will refuse, saying it's his place to do so as husband and he'll do it in the privacy of their room as in the book.  This (Dougal telling Jamie to bring her down from their room for a beating) actually does happened in the graphic novelization of the first book, "The Exile."

 

I listened to the audiobook of "Outlander" during a long drive over the holidays and I was, as usual, dreading this particular scene.  But I have to say it did not bother me as much this time.  Jamie takes a very long time trying to explain to Claire why it has to happen and in the end he even gets her to agree to take the beating but her resolve dissolves after the first blow.  The scene was not nearly as offensive and off-putting as I had remembered.  The long discussion on the subsequent day of Jamie's personal history with getting his own arse striped does go a long way toward explaining the culture in which this scene happens.  And I have to say I had forgotten exactly how the scene played out where Claire invites Jamie back into her bed and then threatens to cut out his heart if he ever lifts his hand to her again.  Jamie takes a formal vow never to to raise a hand to her in anger followed by "And now can we please go to bed?"  It actually was a nice scene and I enjoyed listening to it.  That surprised me.

 

So, it looks like Willie will stick around.  I'm glad.  I like the actor.  Now I hope he ends up being the same "Willie" who witnesses the climactic scene between Dougal and Jamie at the end of book 2.

Edited January 6, 2015 by WatchrTina

[chocolatetruffle]

 

Well, that photo they gave us for Doughtlander #4 clearly shows Willie riding behind an unhappy Claire. I'm guessing that this photo shows Claire riding with a sore arse.  That tells me he survives the rescue.  So yay!

 

I was so happy to see the Trailer sneak peek, but I thought that scene might be when Claire, Murtaugh et al are on their way to Wentworth to rescue Jamie.  She looked so determined in that shot.  It didn't occur to me that it could be after the strapping scene, but that could also be a possibility.  Either way, it looks like it's going to be a very exciting second half!!

[tcay]

Yeah I definitely think Willie is going to be used in some way to make the strapping scene more palatable, at least on an intellectual level. Still going to hate watching it.

[Nidratime]

Looks like Kristin from E Online has seen the first three episodes of the second batch. She's asked a question about them and gives her impressions. You can get a general idea from what she says what will be covered in those episodes. Since this is spoiler material for the show, I'll put it in spoiler tags:

 

MannyH: Outlander scoop! Saw on Twitter you got the first episodes back. Spill, spill!

 

LOVED THEM. HARD. All you need to know: The first episode back is gut-wrenching, uncomfortable/offensive and then basically straight-up porn. The second episode back is slower-paced and odd, but an amazing set up for the third episode back, which is STRAIGHT UP BANANAS. I didn't breathe from about half-way through the episode to the end of it. Major game-changers galore and something that fans who didn't read the books wouldn't think would happen so soon.

 

http://www.eonline.com/news/611441/spoiler-chat-outlander-revenge-pretty-little-liars-and-more

[Petunia846]

Looks like Kristin from E Online has seen the first three episodes of the second batch...

 

So episode plot-wise I'm thinking...

 

109: rescue, strapping, return to Leoch, angry sex

110: Leoch stuff...the bad omen thing, the Duke, the fairy baby, Geilis killing her husband

111: arrest, the hole, witch trial, the great escape, and Claire confesses

 

(I don't know if that needs to be spoiled or not since it's really just a list of scenes from the books. This gets confusing.)

[Nidratime]

Ron Moore talking about Season 2 with "Zap2it."

 

http://www.zap2it.com/blogs/outlander_ron_moore_starz_dragonfly_in_amber_season_2-2015-01?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[ScotchnSoda]

Ron Moore talking about Season 2 with "Zap2it."

 

Have you seen the Season1B full trailer?  If so, 

What the heck dual was that? Didn't seem to be the ones from DiA !

[WatchrTina]

ScotchnSoda asked the question I wanted to ask but did it behind a spoiler mask.  But since this is an all-book talk, book vs. show speculation and snark thread I'm going to boldly go ahead and speculate on what that was we saw in the trailer.  If you haven't seen the trailer and want to see it unspoiled go watch it now. The link is in the media thread.  (Athena if I'm not following the rules, slap me down.)

 

So the trailer shows Jamie fighting a duel on a big, formal estate.  I do not recognize the guy he's fighting. To my mind this can have one of two explanations.

 

1. It's a flash-back to the the duel he fought in his youth in Paris when he was love-sick over that French woman who later becomes Claire's friend and neighbor (and Bonnie Prince Charlie's lover).  We only find out about that in DIA (book 2) and the only reason we hear about it at all is that Jamie has to explain to Claire how he knows her (Claire picks up on the they-have-history vibe).  It's not an important plot point at all except that he tells Claire the reason he lost the fight is that his hair came loose (he had it tied back in a pony-tail) and got in his eyes.  This is the reason why, in DIA, he cuts his long hair off before he sets out to duel with Jack Randall. Claire seeing the hair on the floor is how she knows that is where he has gone.  (As a side note, I have been hoping that we would see that dramatic hair-cutting scene next season.  Half the female viewers would be dismayed -- "No! No! Not the hair!" -- and half would be like -- "Oh good, I liked his hair best in the pilot anyway -- shorter is better."  Personally I don't think it will happen because of the need for pick-up shots and shooting scenes out of order.  It would be too much of a continuity nightmare.  But I digress.)

 

2. If it's NOT a flashback to the Paris duel (which seems likely if you look at his clothes) then this must be a scene created out of whole cloth for the show.  Oooooh goody!  Speculations ho!  The only time Jamie is on a great estate in book 1 that I can think of is when he goes hunting with the Duke.  Could the duel somehow be tied up with Jamie's efforts to get the Duke to use his influence to get him un-outlawed? Maybe the officer who accused Jamie of being the shooter during the escape is at the estate and Jamie calls him out as a liar and then they duel (kind of like a Game of Thrones trial by battle / let the gods say who is telling the truth thing.)  I don't think trial by duel was a real thing in 18th century Scotland but if your main accuser is dead that is a good way to get the charges against you dropped in the 21st century so I suppose it could work in the 18th.  

 

Here's another speculation for you.  I don't think we're going to see Jenny give birth to her 2nd child, as we do in the book.  She's looking quite tiny in the waist in every scene.  I'm fine with that.  Jamie can still have his grand-mal hissy fit over her first child (Randall's child!!!  -- not) being named after him. 

 

And since we're speculating, what do you suppose has gotten Dougal so riled up in the trailer?  That's not in the book.  The heated tete-a-tete between Dougal and Colum that was in an earlier teaser could be the scene when Colum finds out Dougal has gotten Geillis Duncan knocked up but it could also  be part of a brand new scene where Colum finds out Dougal has been fund-raising for the Stuarts.  I'm wondering if Dougal's melt-down is because someone calls him out for fund-raising without Colum's permission -- perhaps even taking the money and diverting it to other purposes.  We know Dougal is a hot-head where his pride is involved (hence his fit of rage when he thinks the Grants have kidnapped his sister, Ellen) so whatever is going on in that scene I'm sure it's designed to show why Dougal is NOT a good candidate for clan chieftain and to foreshadow the confrontation between him and Jamie at the very end of book 2.  Oooh, the more I think about it I'd like to see that fight be about Dougal's loyalty to the Stuarts because of course it is his loyalty to Bonnie Prince Charlie in the face of certain defeat that makes him go all murderous toward Claire at the end of book 2 when he overhears her offering poison to Jamie as a weapon against the prince.

 

Gosh this story has twists and turns.  It's going to a fun couple of years (and hopefully many more than just 2.)

Edited January 10, 2015 by WatchrTina

[mybabyaidan]

Good speculation, but I do think Jenny gives birth to her 2nd...I vaguely remember Cait talking about a birthing scene.  I can't for the life of me remember where or when I heard it. 

 

I did think the same thing when I saw Jenny in the promo though, I was like "damn she looks good for just giving birth!"

[Nidratime]

Here's another speculation for you.  I don't think we're going to see Jenny give birth to her 2nd child, as we do in the book.  She's looking quite tiny in the waist in every scene.  I'm fine with that.  Jamie can still have his grand-mal hissy fit over her first child (Randall's child!!!  -- not) being named after him.

 

 

 

I vaguely remember the actors talking about a scene or scenes involving Jenny giving birth back when they were first promoting the show, but maybe my memory is shot.

[WatchrTina]

Regarding the new trailer -- I've watched several times and i still can't decide if Dougal says "I can protect you" or "I canna protect you."  If it's the former then I assume that's a moment from the scene in which Claire asks Dougal for help rescuing Jamie from Wentworth prison and he suggests that she just write him off and marry Dougal instead.  If it's the latter then I think this is a new scene in which Claire's arrest as a witch is foreshadowed.  it may well be that Claire's being caught up in Geillis' arrest will be less a matter of accidental wrong-place-wrong-time (damn you Laoghaire) and more a deliberate conspiracy by . . . someone.

 

So what did you hear?  Does he say "I CAN protect you"?

 

 

I vaguely remember the actors talking about a scene or scenes involving Jenny giving birth back when they were first promoting the show

Hmmm.  I think I remember that as well.  In that case I may have to give the costume department some grief for being unrealistic.  I'm sure the use of corsets helped 18th century women hide their baby weight better than we let-it-all-hang-out 21st century women but the Jenny I saw in the trailer could not possibly be just a few weeks postpartum.  But I'll reserve judgement until I see the episode.

Edited January 10, 2015 by WatchrTina

[Petunia846]

So what did you hear?  Does he say "I CAN protect you"?

I just assumed it was "I can protect you" and it was the scene where he suggests they get married. I thought that especially since we've already seen them "going there" with Claire and Dougal's interactions (the forced kiss, at the magic fountain, and the suggestion after the wedding).

[CatMack]

The actress wasn't pregnant and I have never seen 'fat' makeup that didn't look absolutely awful, so I'll give them a pass on Jenny looking trim.  Besides, it's not unheard of - mother of one of my old classmates was skinny as a broomstick, when pregnant she wouldn't show at all until at least 6 months, then she'd pop a little bump for the rest, and be back to her skinny self almost immediately.  It's not the usual, but everyone's body is different. 

 

I definitely think the duel is a completely new added scene for the show, probably something to do with the Duke.  My guess is they felt they needed something to fill in the time at Leoch before the witch trial.  The things that happen in the book are interesting but not necessarily a good fill for a 50+ minute on screen episode that needs to have its own sense of pacing. 

 

 

I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about the strapping scene lately.  I wanted to figure out exactly what my problems with it were, I guess so that I could better adjust my hopes and expectations for the show.  I'm warning you now, this got long.  I know I've written a fair amount about this already.  I swear I'm not going to keep harping on it forever.  But I know this has been a contentious scene for over 2 decades, and that's not likely to change any time soon, and I'm just trying to make peace with it.  Which I actually think I have, much more than in the past anyway.

 

When it comes down to it my problem isn't really with the strapping itself.  I get it.  I really do.  I've seen the actors, other fans, and Gabaldon herself all talk about how difficult it is but you have to think about it from the 1740's POV.  The thing is though, it's really not that hard to do that.  Like, really, it's really not hard to understand.  Corporal punishment is incredibly easy to understand, it's pretty much the form of punishment that requires the least amount of critical thinking.  I get that it was fairly normal for the time period (although as I brought up before, there are at least some historians who dispute the idea that someone in Jamie's social class would find it acceptable to physically discipline a spouse).  I get why the other men want it.  I get why Jamie does it.  I don't like it, but I don't hate him for it.  The strapping itself isn't what angers me.

 

It's the aftermath that drives me up a wall.  Jamie gives this big romantic line later in the book that everyone loves to quote, something along the lines of "I can stand pain myself, but I couldn't bear yours".  Which falls completely flat for me in the face of how he behaves after the strapping.  We see him strap kids later in the books, and despite that I'm definitely against corporal punishment for children in the present day, I never had the same problems with those scenes.  And it's mostly because of how Jamie, and the narrative in general, treats it.  It's not something he likes doing.  It's upsetting for him the first time he does it to Fergus, and I think there's an instance with young Ian that he also gets upset about though I can't recall all the details of 8 books off the top of my head.  And more importantly we have multiple instances of him taking care of the kids emotionally afterwards.  Any teasing that happens doesn't happen while they're still horribly upset about it.  It's a solemn affair, a duty that must be performed.  That's what bothers me about the strapping.  Claire is clearly angry and upset, hurt not just physically but emotionally, and Jamie just acts like a total ass about it.  Like she's just being an unreasonable, pouting child.  He treats her more like a child than he does the actual children he eventually finds himself punishing.  Add to this that we readers get Claire's POV, but she gets to voice very little of it to Jamie, and it lends the whole thing this air of paternalistic condescension that's just gross an unnecessary. 

 

You can write about sexism without being sexist.  Having a scene with Jamie strapping Claire isn't in and of itself sexist.  Having Jamie spout off a bunch of justifications straight out of The Abusers Handbook and Claire just kind of silently fuming for awhile before getting over it is sexist (yes, I realize she threatens him, but it's too little too late at that point for me and Jamie is never really threatened by her threat, it's pretty toothless).  Unintentionally, I'm sure.  I don't think Gabaldon hates women or anything like that.  But to quote one of my favorite fan writers, Mark Oshiro, who was reading and writing about a different fantasy series at the time:

 

This is what I love about how Pierce chooses to write her books. The evils of the world are still here – sexism and racism and homophobia and classism – and yet she positions the narrative so that it makes it clear that there is something deeply wrong. A lot of fantasy is realistic about its depictions of misogyny, but what does it do if you never engage with it? You end up passing those stereotypes and prejudices along instead of challenging them.

 

My problem really comes down to Diana Gabaldon creating a very tricky and emotionally fraught situation dealing with a lot of issues about relationships and sexism and abusive gender dynamics (and just because something used to be normal doesn't mean it wasn't abusive and damaging) that are still a problem today that many of her females readers have probably dealt with, and then she refused to do anything with it.  She just kind of shuffled it off as quickly as possible.  And that comes up again with a lot of the racial stuff in the later books.  She has no problem showing racism, but largely avoids actually dealing with it beyond some token white guilt from Claire and Brianna and to a lesser extent Roger.  Racism and sexism become a plot device, something to spice up the narrative, not something to actually be dealt with or explored.  It completely plays into the status quo, but gets trumpeted as a brave choice for refusing to be PC or some such horseshit, when actually it's completely lazy.

 

So to get back to comparing it to the show - I have pretty high hopes that the show will do better.  For one thing, it would be virtually impossible for them to do worse, IMO.  Just having Sam and Cait and their ridiculously emotive faces acting this stuff out is probably going to be a vast improvement.  But there are specific things that are giving me hope too.  Like the trailer.  We have a shot of a woman holding a dirk to Jamie's throat while he's lying on the ground in pain.  I've seen some speculation it's at the Abbey, but honestly I don't see them using footage from that time period for early promos like this, and frankly Jamie doesn't look injured at all like I would expect him to be after Wentworth.  I think it's the dirk threat after the strapping, and if I'm right then I'm already 10X happier.  Because yeah, Jamie's big, and a male with the accompanying privileges, and he could do whatever he wanted to Claire and there's a good chance she couldn't stop him.  But she's also a nurse with intimate knowledge of the human body and no small amount of chutzpah and let's not pretend like she couldn't kill him 57 different ways in retaliation if she wanted to.  Having her use her knowledge to actually gain the upper hand (it looks to me like she's using her thumb to put pressure on his carotid artery) and actually have him at her mercy, giving her threat actual menace instead of being an empty gesture, that's already a big difference for the better.  Claire does not have to be a helpless damsel just because she's back in time, even with regards to Jamie.

 

They've said the strapping and the aftermath and the return to Leoch are kind of condensed.  We see Claire holding a dagger on a naked (or at least shirtless) Jamie.  We've also seen several shots of Claire and Jamie talking somberly about living apart, a split second of Jamie holding up the dagger (looking 100% more remorseful than he ever was in the books, so again an improvement), and lots of making out, and all of that looks like it takes place in the same room.  Jamie is fully clothed during the oath, so if I'm right about the naked/dirk scene being Claire's threat, something is pretty clearly different from the books. 

 

So my prediction is: strapping -> Jamie tries to go to bed with Claire, Claire pulls a knife on him, Jamie starts to realize Claire is really not OK with what happened -> they still have their talk while riding, about Jamie's childhood, but Claire keeps freezing him out all the way back to Leoch -> instead of fighting over random Laoghaire jealousy, they finally deal with the strapping, hopefully in a more nuanced way than the books did -> Jamie makes the oath -> make up sex.  There have been a few lines from actors that I think support this too - Sam has talked about Jamie doing things he feels like he has to even if he doesn't want to and specifically mentioned the strapping scene, which IMO is a change in Jamie's attitude from the book.  Cait has said that Claire doesn't let Jamie get away with things just because he's from the 18th century (didn't reference a specific scene in the interview, but sounds promising).  In the TCA panel yesterday Sam said "He comes to her and declares that he will never do it again."  That again sounds like a change to me (it doesn't sound as reactionary as it was in the books), one that fits my theory above and indicates a much more respectful and remorseful Jamie. 

 

So yeah, now the tl:dr version of that short novel I just wrote it: I will never be completely OK with the scene in the books purely because I think Gabaldon dropped the ball on the fallout and actually digging into the emotions and the sexism involved.  She wanted the drama without the follow through.  That's a failing that will never get better, it's set in stone.  But I think the show is in a really good position to improve on that.  I'm fine with them including it instead of cutting it like a lot of people wanted, just so long as they treat it with more nuance, thought, and respect than Gabaldon did.  And I think there are a lot of indications they did.  I won't make my final judgment until I see it, but for now I think I've moved past a lot of my worry and trepidation.

 

Honestly at this point I think I'm more scared of the fan reaction.  The arguing between book readers is bad enough, adding show watchers can't possibly make it any better. 

[mybabyaidan]

I heard I can't protect you.  Figure it was an add on not in the book.

[Petunia846]

Random off topic comment, CatMack, thank you for that quote in your post. I'm now in the middle of reading Mark Oshiro's thoughts on my favorite series ever, Tamara Pierce's Song of the Lioness Quartet...which I just reread for like the eight billionth time over Christmas break. I won't get hardly anything done today now, but at least I'll be enjoying myself.

 

Also, an on topic comment, your reasons for hating the strapping issue are my reasons too. It's all about the aftermath and how it's dealt with, and I never feel like Jamie 'gets it' and Claire lets him off way too easily.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Petunia846

[Hybiscus]

Yeah, my recommendation for people interested in the show is to watch the first half of the season before reading the book (mostly so they can enjoy the Virgin Jamie reveal to its fullest) and then read the book before the second half of the season starts so that they'll be prepared for Wentworth. 

 

*raises hand*

 

I picked up the book after the cliffhanger.  (Also, I missed this not so little gem until OnDemand had it in their "Best of 2014" folder.)  I'm still reading (slow reader), but did sneak a peek at the final chapters.  It's hard to imagine they'll be quite as graphic as the book, but this is pay cable.

 

Incidentally, even though I saw tv version first, I actually have a different picture of book-Jamie and book-Claire in my head.  I like tv-Jamie and tv-Claire better.  :)

[Nidratime]

Someone posted the titles of the upcoming episodes from season 1. I will put the link in spoiler territory to make sure people don't click arbitrarily.

 

http://www.outlandertvnews.com/2015/01/titles-revealed-for-outlander-episodes-109-116/

[WatchrTina]

Well I've been lamenting the shooting/airing schedule for Season 2 over in the media thread but I'm coming here to voice a wish.  I know that the show is going to film most (if not all) of the Paris scenes from Book 2 in Scotland and I understand their reasons for doing so but there is one scene in Book 2 that they really ought to film on location.  Jamie and Claire catch sight of Alexander Randall (Black Jack's younger brother) for the first time while strolling in the gardens of the Palace of Versailles.  They need to go to Paris for that scene because I'm pretty sure the gardens look very much as they did in 1745.  I guess they could get away with a long establishing shot of the modern grounds with people in appropriate costumes CGI'ed in, followed by close-ups of the actors standing next to big ornate shrubs and benches.  But it would add a lot of verisimilitude to the show if we actually saw Claire and Jamie at Versailles.

[tcay]

Yeah I'm hoping for some exteriors of Versailles. It's possible that shooting there is just insanely expensive, but that location is completely transportive. 

 

I'm not sure they'll ever get fast at shooting this show. Everything moves around so much. And this is way, way off, but do you think they'll stick to shooting in Scotland when the majority of the action eventually takes place in the Carolinas? Wilmington has built-in support for filming already, plus the Carolina landscape is arguably just as important to the texture of the story as Scotland is. 

[peacefrog]

I think there may be a few exterior shots of Paris.  It may even be filmed in another old European city that might be closer in appearance to 18th century Paris than today. As for North Carolina I think much of it will be in Scotland.  It was noted over and over how much the Ridge resembles it. 

 

I think the biggest issue will be if they follow Voyager and have to go to the Caribbean.  I hope they do cause maybe we'll get Jamie swimming in warm tropical clear blue water.  I can dream right?

[theschnauzers]

The primary issue about North Carolina is that the state legislature has scrapped the financial incentive program for productions in North Carolina, which took effect in late 2014. At the pace the filming seems to be taking, there's a few years yet before we have to worry about location filming in North Carolina (much of which might be possible for exteriors in the lowlands, the Piedmont and the Appalachians.)

Yeah I'm hoping for some exteriors of Versailles. It's possible that shooting there is just insanely expensive, but that location is completely transportive. 

 

I'm not sure they'll ever get fast at shooting this show. Everything moves around so much. And this is way, way off, but do you think they'll stick to shooting in Scotland when the majority of the action eventually takes place in the Carolinas? Wilmington has built-in support for filming already, plus the Carolina landscape is arguably just as important to the texture of the story as Scotland is. 

[Petunia846]

The primary issue about North Carolina is that the state legislature has scrapped the financial incentive program for productions in North Carolina, which took effect in late 2014. At the pace the filming seems to be taking, there's a few years yet before we have to worry about location filming in North Carolina (much of which might be possible for exteriors in the lowlands, the Piedmont and the Appalachians.)

I'd be happy to welcome them to East Tennessee. The mountains look the same on either side of the border. I suppose the lowland NC stuff would look different though, and I have never heard of any kind of film industry in TN. Oh well, I can dream, right?

 

I think they'd be crazy to stay completely in Scotland for the American portion of the books. I know there will always be bits and pieces of Scottish scenes to film, whether in the 1700s or with the 1900s timeline, but still. Nothing I've seen of Scotland from the show looks like the Smoky Mountains to me, which is basically where the Ridge is supposed to be. I know, out of all the viewers of the show in the world, there are probably very few who will have actually been to this area, but I think it's just as unique as Scotland is, and I don't look forward to them trying to play it off like it is the same.

[tcay]

I know, out of all the viewers of the show in the world, there are probably very few who will have actually been to this area, but I think it's just as unique as Scotland is, and I don't look forward to them trying to play it off like it is the same.

Exactly. I appreciate that this isn't a show trying to play a Vancouver-area forest as Scotland, so I hope they go for that kind of authenticity when the gang moves to the Ridge.

[theschnauzers]

They might be able to use north Georgia (as Georgia does have a film incentive program), and there are bits and pieces set in Savannah in the various novels, but I agree the Appalachians and the foothills of the Piedmont look nothing like Scotland. Although Romania might be an alternative as it was a stand in for Hatfields and McCoys a couple of years back for the West Virginia/Kentucky border area of the Appalachians and even natives of that area couldn't tell the difference.

 

But I do agree that it would be hard to substitute for Jamaica, or the Carolinas, or even Philadelphia and the Hudson River valley at lleast for some exterior shooting.

[WatchrTina]

 

Nothing I've seen of Scotland from the show looks like the Smoky Mountains to me

I have a theory that they will send a second unit to the USA to film some long, establishing shots of the actual Smoky Mountains and then will shoot the rest of it in Scotland.  It's basically the same theory I have for how they are going to handle Versailles (above.)

[Nidratime]

Why not shoot in the US since that's a lot closer than going all the way to Scotland? At that point, most of their story will be in the US and I hear them constantly talking about how hard it is to write and produce the show in the US while filming in Scotland. I don't get why they would stay in Scotland.

[WatchrTina]

I assume that once a show is up and running (crew in place, studio space & equipment acquired, warehouse space for storage & workshops in place, local extras and day players vetted and identified, etc.) you would not want to start over.

[Glaze Crazy]

I hope they shoot the Jamaica and Colonies stuff in places geographically closer to the actual book locations too.  I've also seen a bit of Scotland and I don't think I saw any place that would fill in for the Southern Appalachian forests and mountains.  "The Walking Dead" films in Georgia and didn't they film the 1st Hunger Games there too?  They also have to cast Native Americans and African Americans in future seasons.  No doubt easier to find these actors, especially the Native Americans, stateside.  I'm sure the cities of the 1700's Colonies and Jamaica will have to be created on a film lot, since I doubt Philadelphia, Wilmington and Long Island look the same today, for the most part.

 

ETA: If this question hasn't yet been asked of Ron and Co at some fanfest panel I expect it will be at some point.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Glaze Crazy

[theschnauzers]

From what I can recall, Ron has said that interior/stage shooting will remain in Scotland, as there are parts of each novel (so far) that take place there, either in the 1740s forward, the 1940s and then the 1960e forward. The only other locale that may come up is Boston of the mid-20th century as well. To say the least, Outlander is not a story that stays put in one time or one place. :)

[WatchrTina]

I binge-watched "Black Sails" yesterday.  It's set in 1715 and they've built a bunch of ship/sets for it so here's a speculation for you.  I wonder if STARZ will let Outlander borrow the Black Sails ship sets when Jamie & Claire set sail in pursuit of young Ian.  It would make economical sense and I'm sure the design of ships didn't change that much in the 50 years between 1715 and 1765 (when Claire comes back.).  If they are in production at different times it could work.  Even if they only did the outdoor shots and long shots on those sets, building the indoor (below-decks) sets in Scotland, it would make a lot of economic sense.

Edited January 18, 2015 by WatchrTina

[peacefrog]

Do shows with different production companies let each other use sets? It would be a good idea but I wonder how that works if not the same company. 

[WatchrTina]

I don't know peacefrog but they've been cross-promoting the two shows like crazy and I just read that Black Sails was renewed for a 3rd season and that they are building a new ship/set for the show that's taken 3 months to build.  So it seems to me that there would be motivation for both production companies to cooperate and for Black Sails to rent the use of one of their ship sets to Outlander.

[justmehere]

Where does Black Sails film? Is the location feasible for such a thing without hauling crew to a new location or hiring separate crew for limited use? (Would they borrow crew? I don't know.) Just wondering if the logistics would make it all that economical. There might be authentic (or full replica) ships they could hire for limited outdoor/long-shot scenes rather than building something. If they did use Black Sails' ships, STARZ would probably have all kinds of publicity about it. We'll see!

[WatchrTina]

Just looked it up.  Black Sails films in South Africa.  Well, that's not convenient at all for a Scotland-based production so my speculation is now looking much more unlikely.  But hey, you never know.

[mybabyaidan]

I was thinking a little about how they are going to end the season.  I don't think it will end on the happy note that Claire is preggers, like the first book did.  It will definitely end on some kind of cliffhanger.  I am thinking they will end it with the audience finding out Claire is back in the 1940's.  

[tcay]

I was really resisting the idea of them doing that, but now I can all too easily see the pregnancy reveal and then a fade to black... and a fade to Claire in a modern hospital, holding a baby with Frank by her side, as the end of season one.

 

It would be a cool cliffhanger in the cruelest way possible. 

[abbey]

Having the first season end up with Claire back with Frank and a baby would seriously mess with the timelne of the first two books.  Hopefully they will find another way to do a cliff hanger ending.  They did rather well with the episode 8 cliff hanger.  Let's hope they are equally good with episode 16.

[CatMack]

I don't see how it would mess with the timeline of the books.  If we basically get the end of the book (pregnancy reveal, happiness, etc), then fade to black, cue "1940somthing" caption, or something similar to indicate we've returned to the 40s but well after Claire disappeared, and then Claire stumbles into Inverness, or something similar...it doesn't really mess with the timelines of the books at all, just means the audience gets the "Claire returns to the future" twist slightly earlier than book readers did.  Heck, if it weren't for the fact that Roger and Bree haven't been cast yet I could see them ending season 1 with the first scene of book 2, Claire and Bree turning up on Roger's doorstep. 

 

I honestly hadn't really given much thought to how they'd end the season.  I guess it's because I know I'll be back no matter what, so I wasn't really thinking about how they'd want to set it up to keep viewers who might be less invested still interested in coming back.  But now that I am thinking about it I agree they'll probably add some kind of cliffhanger.  Or, if not a cliffhanger per se, something that amps up the intrigue.  I wouldn't say book one ends on a happily ever after, but it's definitely one of the more final endings of the series - it could have served as a stand alone book ending if she hadn't turned it into a series. 

 

I think the most obvious hooks they could add to reel people back in for season 2 - they'll either tease or reveal the return to the 40s as already mentioned, or they might just really amp up Jamie and Claire committing to changing history.  I can't remember if they actually decide for sure to do that by the end of book 1, or if they just talk about it but don't decide until book 2, but they could easily include that in season 1.  And that's something that, if played right, could be a big hook and set up excitement for season 2 without necessarily being an actual cliffhanger.

[bluebonnet]

I also agree that it doesn't mess with the timeline to end with baby-in-the-1940's cliffhanger.  That follows the timeline pretty perfectly in the books.  The only thing that changes is the presentation of the timeline.  I think it would be interesting if they further adjusted the sequence of events by not making it clear that Claire goes back because she's pregnant so that we end with Claire in the 1940's with Frank and baby and her staring off into the distance and the audience left wondering if what happened had actually happened and if it did, whose baby is it.  I can't see it working that way right now simply because there needs to be a good explanation for why Claire leaves Jamie.  It wouldn't really work if Claire's reason for going back was to save her own skin because that's just not the Claire they've presented to us thus far.  But still, it would be hilarious to have all my Outlander!show friends begging me to tell them if it was all a dream or who the baby daddy is.  

[peacefrog]

It could work if they end the 1743 stuff at the monastery with Jamie not fully recovered and him telling Claire to go back. He tells her Murtagh will take her back to the stones. 

[abbey]

Sorry!  I forgot Dragon Fly in Amber started out in the 1940's and then went back to Claire and Jamie, Culloden etc.   Yes it wouldn't mess up the timeline of the books and might make for an interesting and intriguing ending for those who don't know what happened next. 

[Ava]

Just to clarify  (hee, hee, Clarifiy!)  Dragonfly in Amber starts in the 1960's (1967, I think).  Bree is 19.

[abbey]

Apparently my knee surgery is wreaking havoc with my few remaining brain cells!  Thank you Ava for the clarification :-)

[Tif]

For what it's worth, Ron Moore has said in a few interviews that Season 1 ends just as Book 1.  

[WatchrTina]

If Season 1 ends just like Book 1, with Jamie on the mend, the happy reveal of the pregnancy, and Claire & Jamie debating over France vs. Rome, that will be fine with me.  If they end it with the two of them having that conversation in the underground hot spring, all the better (we'll just ignore the fact that pregnant women shouldn't use hot tubs.)  But I actually LOVE the idea of the last scene of the season being someone handing Claire a brand new baby and then the camera pulls back to reveal Frank in 1940's clothes, looking somber.  Claire could weep and then Frank could reassure her, vowing to love the baby as if it were his own.  Just think about the fan reactions to that!  You'd hear jaws dropping across the globe. 

Edited January 21, 2015 by WatchrTina