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

[mybabyaidan]

I guess I am just used to most shows ending on cliffhangers, especially when they are guaranteed another season.  I am re-reading Book 2 now and the thought came to me that Claire back in the future (err....present?) with Frank would be quite a huge cliffy for non book readers.   I could be wrong, just wanted to put the sepculation out there. 

[CatMack]

I'm not to fussed about whether they keep it exactly as the book or spice it up a bit to draw viewers back for season 2.  Like I said, I'm back no matter what. 

 

But in regards to Ron Moore saying it's the same - Battlestar Galactica, Moore's other biggest claim to fame, killed off a major character mid season 3.  They did lots of interviews about the decision.  The actress talked about how much she was going to miss the show.  She signed up for a new series.  Even the other actors mourned the loss.  Then comes the finale - final seconds, boom, there's the character, alive and...mostly well.  They pulled off a really elaborate charade to make that twist as surprising as possible (they were so convincing they ended up having to tell certain key members of the cast because Edward James Olmos basically threatened mutiny). 

 

So what I'm saying is, when it comes to finales especially, I trust Ron Moore about as far as I can throw him, and "it's the same as the book" is a really easy lie to tell in comparison to the shit he's pulled off in the past.  So we'll see. 

 

I can't wait for this show to come back, but I have to.  Just over 10 weeks left. 

[theschnauzers]

Don't forget the BSG had no specific source material, they were making it season up as they went along.

 

Outlander is totally different, Ron has made clear they start with the events in each book in order, and then break it down into one hour episodes; and then they will add scenes (that do not contradict) the books, just add to them, and it's been clear they do run those by DG as well.

 

So I wouldn't assume that because Ron did that sort of thing in BSG, he'll do it in Outlander.

[CatMack]

Well, I was mostly joking.  But the point was, he's gone to extreme lengths to hide twists in the past.  He's also said that while they're very true to the books as much as possible, there will be some surprises for book readers too.  It would be extremely easy, if he wanted to keep something a surprise for book readers, to say "yes this will be pretty much exactly like it is in the book" and then have it not be.  That is incredibly easy to do in comparison to things he's done in the past.  If he wants to.  Which he might not!  He might be telling the truth, we might end with the exact same scene we did in the books.  Or he could have been speaking more generally, that we end at the abbey, but the actual final scene might be different.  I'm not saying he always lies.  Just that he can be tricksy.  So I'm not necessarily going to stop speculating about alternate endings just because he said it would follow the book.

[peacefrog]

I agree CatMack. I wish I could find the link to where Ron says this because it sounds very familar.  He said something like season 1 would cover Book 1.  I interpreted it to mean that all the emotional beats and plot points would be covered.  That does not mean he can't add stuff(Frank stuff, maybe that duel in promo) and change stuff.  He certainly can add a cliffhanger there. That's good tv. 

 

Count me in for hoping there is one.  Especially if it is different from the books.  I'm very ready for them to move away from the books TBH. I love all the books but I think it would be cool to see what they can do. 

 

The more I think about it ending the season with them in the cave happy is kind of dull. 

[Petunia846]

I really don't see the need for a cliffhanger, or rather more of a cliffhanger than the baby and where they're going to end up next. I liked the shock of seeing Claire and Bree and Roger 20 years later at the start of Dragonfly (after the panic attack passed), and any cliffhanger that showed Claire back in the 40s would ruin that. If anything, I'd go with the opening scene of Dragonfly, but I don't think they have Bree and Roger cast even now, so there's no way they could do that. I think the end of S1 is going to be so tough to get through, that everyone will be quite happy for a non-cliffhanger ending.

[absnow54]

I could see them revealing that Claire's voice over is her retelling the story -- we don't have to see who she's talking to -- at an older age, sometime in the future, ie little visual clues to hint that she's in the 1960's. The Dragonfly cliffhanger that happens at the very beginning of the book, is too big to pass up for a nearly year's long hiatus. They want people to continue talking about this show, and honestly, the end of Outlander sort of tinkers and meanders, and sure they've got plans, but "Maybe we'll persuade France into not funding this rebellion by going to lots of parties and talking to people" is a lot less exciting than "WHAT IS CLAIRE DOING BACK IN THE FUTURE!?!?!?!"

[WatchrTina]

I'll also be interested to see how Claire's saving of Jamie at the end of Book 1 is handled in the show.  So much of that episode is a psychological "battle" -- I can't imagine how it will be depicted visually.   Even in the book it's not really clear how Claire doping Jamie with opium, dousing herself with the scent of lavender (Black Jack's scent) and then "rousing" Jamie brought him back from the brink.  My own personal interpretation is that it gave Jamie the opportunity to fight back (which he had not been able to do in Wentworth due to his promise not to resist), which helped heal his psyche and rebuild that small "wall" around his soul that he confessed the Wentworth experience had all but destroyed.  But I also have always been a bit puzzled about the sex.  Did he realize it was Claire before the sex or did he still think she was Black Jack?  I know that Highlanders were big on eye-for-an-eye vengeance, so one interpretation is that Jamie rapes Black Jack in his fever dream (fulfilling his need for vengeance -- in the dream at least) and then awakens to discover that what he has actually done is have sex with his loving and willing wife (which is a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card on the whole homosexuality taboo.) It's one of those things in the books I try not to think about too hard (like how the stones work) but I will be very curious as to how the show-runners decide to depict that particular episode of sexual healing.

 

ETA:  I thought about it in the shower and now I am more and more convinced that Jamie will fight Black Jack in the fever dream (and visually that's going to be an exciting and life-threatening scene for Claire because even on the brink of death an enraged Jamie will be a very dangerous person) and at the climactic moment, when he's on the brink of doing some real harm, Claire will shake him out of it and make him realize that it is she and not Black Jack that is in the room.  She'll assure him that he's won the fight, that Black Jack has been vanquished, and then, only then, will they have sex (because, as Jamie points out after the Grant raid, "Fighting gives ye a fearful cock-stand.")  I think the show is going to take enough backlash from from strapping of Claire and the torture/rape of Jamie.  They won't want their hero raping anyone, even in a fever dream.  I may have to work hard to see if I can change my interpretation of the words on the page to match that scenario.  I like it better.

Edited January 22, 2015 by WatchrTina

[peacefrog]

Yeah took me several re-read to figure out what was going on as well as reading other people's take on what went down. Jamie was linking Claire with BJR and sex because his body responded. He throws her right? This is going to be tricky to show. I think you're right about showing him fighting back with BJR then as he "wins" fade back to Claire or something.

 

I had similar trouble reading the scene in, I think DOA, when he forces Brianna to relive Bonnet's attack.  I had to re-read that several times because I thought Jamie was raping her.

[chocolatetruffle]

Petunia846 said:

 

I think the end of S1 is going to be so tough to get through, that everyone will be quite happy for a non-cliffhanger ending.

 

This.  I'm sitting at the Clair's pregnancy is the perfect ending for the season table.  It's a nice surprise since both she and Jaime believe she is barren (I think Jaime tells Claire that Geillis told him shortly after they were married).  Of course, I have no idea what Ron & Co. will do, but I trust that whatever it is, they will hit exactly the right note to keep the audience's interest.  He has a great track record of doing just that and I don't believe BSG ended on a cliff-hanger every season. In fact either season 2 or 3, (can't remember exactly which) began with a time jump that was awesome because no one saw it coming.

[Nidratime]

In fact either season 2 or 3, (can't remember exactly which) began with a time jump that was awesome because no one saw it coming.

 

 

But Battlestar Gallactica wasn't a book, as far as I know and so there was no source material to go to and spoil the surprise. Considering how long it takes to broadcast these shows, I can see many people reading ahead to DiA and spoiling themselves re the Outlander time jump.

[chocolatetruffle]

That's true, Nidratime. A S1 time jump cliffhanger won't be a surprise to readers (and therefore not a real cliffhanger), so I guess in this instance, the only way to implement a "real" cliffhanger (for most viewers) is to make a change to the books.  My guess is that the majority of viewers are fans of the books and/or folks like me who read ahead during the break (I just finished book 4, so I've REAAALLLY read ahead), so making too much of a change would not sit well with fans. The writers must balance being true-ish to the books so as not to alienate their fan base, but also make interesting TV for those who remain unspoiled.

edited: to remove duplicate text

Edited January 22, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[justcris]

I would love it if they ended it on a cliffhanger. I thought the beginning of the second book was so shocking, I honestly feel it would be a waste not to use that to hook people in. It's the kind of twist that would keep people talking about it during the hiatus.

[theschnauzers]

It's possible something from the beginning of the second book not involving the characters we don't really meet until DiA could have been written in inasmuch as Ron and Company didn't film those last two episodes until after the show premiered, and the show won its second season renewal.

 

Possible, and IMHO, very unlikely. My own guess is that they're end with Jamie getting Claire back to Craigh Na Din, and tell her to go since he doesn't expect to live through the coming final battle.

[WatchrTina]

theschnauzers I think you are confusing the end of book two with the end of book one.  Book one ends at the monestary in France, with Jamie on the mend after his ordeal at Wentworth.  

[peacefrog]

Anyone up to speculating on when the preview scene takes place? I think it takes place after they get back to Leoch and after the strapping and he is musing on all that has happened and we will see if he has regrets. I wonder what will take place between him and Leoghaire here, if that is her in the background, which I think it is. 

[tcay]

I also think it's after the return to Leoch, but when he leaves her in the room. I think they might be reorganizing things--maybe they don't have the tentative understanding after the strapping, and come back to Leoch still angry with each other. Some of the previews made it look like the oath happens with the sex scene at the castle, as well. 

 

So if he's still angry with Claire over what happened and runs into Laoghaire, he might unwittingly give her some hope that she still has a chance in whatever conversation takes place here. If that is Laoghaire. Adding more fuel to that particular fire.

[absnow54]

Didn't they cast someone to play Horrocks? I assume they're going to start episode 9 with Jamie and crew on their way to see Horrocks, and what we saw was Jamie's inner monologue as he contemplates his choice to leave Claire behind so he could clear his name, and then we'll briefly see how Jamie came to stand in Randall's window to rescue Claire, and pick up where the cliffhanger left off. That, or it's right after the rescue and before strap-gate.

[peacefrog]

I agree mostly except I think this is the opening scene(which we will get to again later in the episode), maybe thinking about how he has to punish her. Maybe they will use this before the opening credits? Next up could be the men and the Horracks meeting, return to Willie, then to Fort William and we are back to where we left off...

 

I wonder where the strapping is going to take place? Seems like a ton of stuff to cram into this episode as I've heard that the intense sex is in this episode also, which guessing from the preview trailer earlier this month looks to be paired with Jamie's oath to never beat her again(just my guess) at Leoch. I like your speculation about Leoghaire.

Edited January 25, 2015 by peacefrog

[WatchrTina]

Okay, here is my speculation.  I think the first half of episode 9 is going to be a re-cap of Jamie & Claire's relationship as seen from Jamie's perspective.  I think the sneak peek scene tells us where Jamie was during episode 3 while Claire was visiting that sick child.  I think he went for a walk and Laoghaire followed him and the conversation that began by the river ended with the two of them snogging in the pantry and being spotted by Claire.

 

Why include that, of all things, in a recap of the first half of the season?  I think it will be included because by the time we see episode 9 it will have been four episodes AND 7 FREAKING MONTHS since last we saw Laoghaire MacKenzie.  If jealousy of her is going to serve as the trigger for the big fight / make-up sex that I am expecting when Jamie and Claire return to Leoch, then the show-runners are going to have to remind viewers who the hell she is.

 

The timing of the voice-over however remains a mystery to me, in much the same way that it's not entirely clear who Claire is speaking to in her voice-overs.  Like Claire, we may never know who Jamie is addressing via the voice-over.

 

I hope that, having spent the first half of episode 9 reviewing the first half of the season from Jamie's perspective (and, I suspect, revealing to the viewers that he married her out of love/desire as much as out of a wish to protect her) the show runners will get on with it, get Jamie out of the window and rescue Claire.

[Hybiscus]

NO!!! No cliffhangers, please! The second season won't air until 20-fucking-16! That's too damn long to wait for a resolution! Leave us with something to bask in the glow of for God knows how long. Cliffhangers are not good tv! IMO, of course. (Can you tell I'm adamant about this?

[WatchrTina]

Oh. My. God.  Diana just confirmed something I speculated about above.  Except I was talking about Book 1 so is that speculation or interpretation and analysis?  Hmmmmm.  Okay I'm going to tread carefully here.  I put the text below behind the spoiler tags because it is an excerpt from the yet-to-be-published book 9.  But in it Jamie and Claire discuss something that happened in Book 1, which is fair game here.  I said just a few days ago that I've always assumed that part of the sexual healing that takes place at the end of Book 1 was due to Jamie having the opportunity to take eye-for-an-eye vengeance against Black Jack by raping him while in his opium-enhanced fever-dream. Except of course it is actually Claire he has sex with and she's willing so when he wakens he gets a get-out-of-jail-free card on both the rape and the taboo homosexual act.  I also speculated that the TV show will not go there.  Well Diana just pretty much confirmed that I was right about the rape.  So if the show does not go there, they'll be playing fast and loose with the source material.  

 

“Ye healed me of something a good deal worse, Sassenach,” he said, and touched my hand gently. He’d touched me with his right hand, the maimed one.
“I didn’t,” I protested. “You did that yourself—you had to. All I did was…er…”
“Drug me wi’ opium and fornicate me back to life? Aye, that.”
“It wasn’t fornication,” I said, rather primly—but I turned my hand and laced my fingers tightly with his. “We were married.”
“Aye, it was,” he said, and his mouth tightened, as well as his grip. “It wasna you I was swiving, and ye ken that as well as I do.”
I swallowed, watching the fire-shadows move on the rough-hewn wall and recalling all too vividly the coldness of hard stone against my back and the fire-shot, fractured images that had splintered in my mind as his hands had closed around my neck. I cleared my throat by reflex.
“It was me at the end,” I said softly, and touched his face with my free hand. “You came back--to me.”

Edited February 1, 2015 by WatchrTina

[lianau]

I think it's good that she spelled it out because the original book 1 story is open for interpretation and I've come across a lot of confusion regarding these scenes . I always understood it as Claire( taking over the role of Randall) giving Jamie the permission to fight . Jamie was dying because he promised not to fight back and than was too traumatized to undo  that promise .

[chocolatetruffle]

 

I always understood it as Claire( taking over the role of Randall) giving Jamie the permission to fight .

 

I usually don't like it when authors tell me their intent in a particular scene.  I prefer it when it's left up to the reader to make their interpretation of character motives and intentions based on textual nuances.  I also interpreted this scene as Claire giving Jamie the opportunity to fight back.

[peacefrog]

I really don't like how DG continues to try and blur the lines between rape and "swiving".  I'm not sure what point she is trying to make but it seems to be a continual theme. Fighting back to regain your sense of control I get, but raping your rapist is just...

Edited February 2, 2015 by peacefrog

[lianau]

He was drugged and feverish  , I don't think sober healthy  Jamie would get there. 

[chocolatetruffle]

So the new Droughtlander promo is out and there are at least 3 scenes depicted that are not, by my memory, in the book.  So they are definitely making changes, and based on what I saw, it's going to be very exciting, with more conflict and tension building in the series.  We also see a bit of the actors playing Jenny and Ian (two of my absolute favorite characters) and I definitely approve of the casting.      

[peacefrog]

Saw the promo! It looks great and they mentioned a few times that there were surprises in the last episode so we shall see. I was disappointed in the way Ian looked. When he cast I thought he was great.  

 

I don't even care if actors match book descriptions.  I'm sure his acting is fine.  I just thought his look was really tragic.  Looked like a wig or like George Washington, not some strapping Scottish dude. I see also their attention to hair continuity continues with regards to Claire and Jamie, lol. 

 

There is so much jammed in!  2 months to go!

[WatchrTina]

Well the Droughtlander #4 trailer made me squee.  Seriously, I cheered out loud, all alone in the house, in front of my computer.  It gave me the reaction I had been expecting to have from the sneak peek at the first scene of episode 9.  That one left me annoyed and grumpy.  This one makes me very happy.  I haven't analyzed it too much because it's clear they are deviating from the book in some places and I'm looking forward to enjoying those surprises.  But can I just say it warmed the cockles of my heart to see Claire telling Laoghaire MacKenzie to back the f*&k off!

[SunDevil]

I'm still slogging my way through book 5, so maybe this will be problematic down the line, but right now I'm really hoping the show merges Duncan with one of the current highlanders. I'd prefer Murtagh, because the characters serve the same purpose, but I would accept Rupert, Angus, or even Willy. I mean, Duncan loses an arm and is imprisoned in Ardsmuir, so a current character surviving in his stead doesn't, IMHO, lessen the impact of all the loss at Culloden.

 

ETA: And if they choose to keep Willy, maybe they can explain why there is never a fallout from Dougal's death. 

Edited February 6, 2015 by SunDevil

[chocolatetruffle]

I'd be totally on board for Murtaugh surviving and marrying Jocasta Cameron (assuming the wedding happens - I've just started book 5).  The actor is very popular, so perhaps...

[Petunia846]

Well Jocasta was Ellen's sister, right? (I'm totally blanking on whether she was Ellen/Dougal/Colum's sister or aunt.) And Murtagh had a thing for Ellen, so...

 

Long live TV version Murtagh! Heh.

 

I doubt they'll do that though. I bet they're looking forward to the shock value of killing so many characters off.

[Keeta]

I was disappointed in the way Ian looked. When he cast I thought he was great.  

 

I don't even care if actors match book descriptions.  I'm sure his acting is fine.  I just thought his look was really tragic.  Looked like a wig or like George Washington, not some strapping Scottish dude.

 

I know, that was a little surprising, because the actor's IMDb photos struck me as very promising: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2189243/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t19  Plus I picture both Ians with dark hair.

 

Looking on the bright side, it was a super short glimpse of him, so hopefully when we actually see more of him it won't seem as bad.

[mybabyaidan]

I am afraid for poor Willie after seeing the new promo.  He is definitely getting his arse handed to him by the Highlanders.  I am thinking the Claire taking the beating for him might not be far off.

 

Poor Willie.  He just needed to pee.

[WatchrTina]

 

I doubt they'll do that though. I bet they're looking forward to the shock value of killing so many characters off.

Really?  I think they are dreading it.  They did so well with the casting I think they will be absolutely gutted to lose Colum, Dougal, Angus, Rupert and Murtagh all in rapid succession.  

 

I rather like the idea of Murtagh's character being merged with that of Duncan.  They'd have to cook up some reason why Murtagh survives Culloden and I can't imagine where Murtagh would hold up during all those years while Jamie's living in a cave, and it seems unlikely that after all that time they'd end up in the same prison.  But if all that worked, and then Murtagh was shipped off to America while Jamie was sent off to be the groom on Lord John's friend's estate, just think how that would break the viewers' hearts and how happy we'd be when he turned up again in American all those years later.  But I doubt that will happen.  

 

 

Poor Willie.  He just needed to pee.

If that's all he needed he would have just turned and faced a tree.  Claire sent him off "50 yards at least" because he needed to drop a deuce.  Poor soul got caught with his pants down . . . and he doesna even wear pants.

Edited February 7, 2015 by WatchrTina

[Glaze Crazy]

Murtagh and Dougal still come into play (albeit more in spirit and reference) in several places in later books so I'm good with the story staying true to the sad fact that all these great characters, just like real people from that era, died in the '45 and left great voids in their families' lives and the story as written.  I wouldn't be surprised if the actors do a bunch of cameo type stuff further on into the series. 

 

Besides, I'm entertaining myself trying to do a bunch of stunt casting for minor characters in later books even though I know the show would flow better without any "Hey, it's that guy!" moments.  Still picturing Daniel Day Lewis getting offered the 5 minute walk-on bit (in Heart's Blood) reprising his previous turn as the same fictional character from one of my favorite movies of his.  I would like to see them find a spot for Sean Connery, maybe Farquard Campbell?  For Duncan, well, I wonder what David Tennant will have on his schedule in a couple of years? LOL.  And I'm sure they can fit Sean Bean into some character that gets killed off within a couple episodes. 

[WatchrTina]

 

Still picturing Daniel Day Lewis getting offered the 5 minute walk-on bit (in Heart's Blood) reprising his previous turn as the same fictional character from one of my favorite movies of his.

Well if we're going to do cross-overs I wouldn't mind seeing Adrian Paul and Christophe Lambert on screen for 30 seconds, introduced as Duncan and Conner MacLeod.  Couldn't they show up at the big gathering at the end of book 4 / beginning of book 5?  You know, just as window dressing?  Or maybe when someone announces "The MacLeods are here!" the camera could just pan over a group of people that includes them.  The "Highlander" fans would LOVE that easter egg.

[lianau]

I'm still slogging my way through book 5, so maybe this will be problematic down the line, but right now I'm really hoping the show merges Duncan with one of the current highlanders. I'd prefer Murtagh, because the characters serve the same purpose, but I would accept Rupert, Angus, or even Willy. I mean, Duncan loses an arm and is imprisoned in Ardsmuir, so a current character surviving in his stead doesn't, IMHO, lessen the impact of all the loss at Culloden.

 

ETA: And if they choose to keep Willy, maybe they can explain why there is never a fallout from Dougal's death. 

 

There is a minor fallout years later but nothing big since all people looking for revenge died at Culloden .

 

 

 

Well Jocasta was Ellen's sister, right? (I'm totally blanking on whether she was Ellen/Dougal/Colum's sister or aunt.) And Murtagh had a thing for Ellen, so...

 

 

Jocasta is the youngest sibling . Ellen was the oldest .

[MedievalGirl]

Catching up Re: Formal gardens

I've been watching The Musketeers (BBC America) and they film in the Czech Republic near Prague. The formal garden they use for the Versailles is spectacular. That would be a good set cameo for me. LOL. I promise not to geek out on plants from the wrong hardiness zone in a formal garden in Scotland as compared to Paris.  

[WatchrTina]

I woke up thinking about Outlander (as you do) and I've had a thought.  Jamie cannot remember exactly what happened to him on Culloden field.  We still do not know how it is that he came to be lying on the battleground, senseless, with a dead Black Jack Randall sprawled across his legs.  I've always assumed that he killed Randall -- that's the Highlander-style vengeance I think Jamie craves.  But Diana has never confirmed that and I wouldn't put it past her to make the situation MUCH more complex.  Maybe Randall saw Jamie on the battlefield and then switched sides mid-fight, fighting side-by-side with Jamie, defending his weak right side as Ian used to do (wouldn't THAT just mess withe Jamie's mind).  It would be ironic and troubling if Randall ended up being killed by a confused and angry Redcoat, while in the act of defending our hero. Even more twisted, maybe his trying to help enraged Jamie to an extent that he killed Randall anyway.  Maybe THAT's what Jamie can't bear to remember.  This is, of course, pure speculations.

 

So here's what I hope will happen.  I hope the show-runners will film what "really" happened at Culloden during the filming of the  upcoming season (while they still have Tobias available).  This assumes Diana will tell them what "really" happened.  It assumes she's already decided that (which I suspect she has).  That way they would have the footage, could put it in the vault and could sprinkle it into Jamie's nightmares all through the 10-15 years I expect this show to run, teasing the viewers (and readers) until finally revealing the complete event in season 9 or 10 (depending on when Diana finally lets Jamie remember it.)

Edited February 14, 2015 by WatchrTina

[WatchrTina]

There's a clip floating around out there right now -- an extract from the new BlueRay DVD talking about edged weapons -- that is introduced by Sam wearing a new look.  He has a much bigger beard than he ever wore in the show and his hair is getting longer too.  I'm very curious about this.  I think he's filming an independent film right now and I'm guessing the big beard is for that role.  But I'm glad to see the hair getting longer because I'm hoping we see him wear his hair in a ponytail or queue in Paris, the way it's frequently described in the book.  I loved that look on Adrian Paul when he played Duncan MacLeod in the TV show "Highlander" and I think it would look good on Sam.  But the main reason I want him to grow his hair out is so he can cut it off for real on camera before he goes off to duel Black Jack Randall like he does in Book 2.  I just think that would be an amazing scene.  

[NoNeinNyet]

I just wonder if we're going to get the haircut since it would be difficult if they had to shoot pickups later on. I'm already curious if it's going to be noticeable that Sam and Catriona's hair is shorter when they're back at Leoch since they already stated that they shot all of the Leoch stuff at once.

[WatchrTina]

Well the PaleyFest Outlander panel was pretty good.  Sam was off-the-charts charming.  Cait, Sam & Tobias were funny.  Ron was thoughtful and interesting.  Diana was also thoughtful and interesting . . . right up until the point where she said how she was looking forward to seeing Sam raped and tortured.  Now, I'm aware that she's actually said that before, but I was shocked that she said it tonight because everybody else on the panel had been so careful to NOT spoil the second half of the season.  Ron had even said that one of the things he really liked about the second half was that, even though it was very dark, it took you in some unexpected directions and he really appreciated that.  So much for "unexpected directions."  I actually felt sorry for anyone who hadn't read the book who heard that comment from Diana.  I'll bet the STARZ PR department cringed so hard they sprained something.

[Athena]

 Diana was also thoughtful and interesting . . . right up until the point where she said how she was looking forward to seeing Sam raped and tortured.  Now, I'm aware that she's actually said that before, but I was shocked that she said it tonight because everybody else on the panel had been so careful to NOT spoil the second half of the season. 

 

I know Diana has mentioned how she likes writing about pushing her male characters to these dark, psychological corners. Her frequent mention of the rape and torture of Jamie has become off-putting to me though. Honestly, it's a bit creepy how much she looks forward to it. It's disappointing that she mentioned it, but at least some viewers can be prepared for it.

[chocolatetruffle]

I thought it was creepy as well - and a little shocking.  Mostly, because she said she was looking forward to seeing "Sam" tortured, not "Jamie" the character.  I suppose she was making a joke that fell horribly flat.  I did appreciate that she followed it up with a compliment to Sam and Tobias on the work they put into those scenes.  

 

The sound quality for me was really bad so I missed a lot of what they were saying.  Did anyone catch DG's answer to a question about something that she thought should be in the show that wasn't there?  I heard her say she told Ron that the readers would really miss "it," and Ron retorted that he had put "it" back.

[CatMack]

I read exactly one interview with Diana when I first started reading the books and decided very quickly I was never going to read or watch her interviews again.  She's very creative and has written some wonderful things, but her personality is such that she actually spoils my enjoyment of the series if I pay attention to her 'behind the scenes' stuff.  Pretty much anyone who says things like they don't like to be PC is a person I'm going to dislike intensely on a personal level.

 

I do think it's bizare that she spoiled that so openly when they'd been careful to not go into details.  Yes, it's an old book at this point, the spoilers are out there, but we're talking about the TV show in this context and she could have expressed that opinion without mentioning specifics.  

 

chocolatetruffle, I believe the line they were talking about was "You need not fear me" from the second episode (I didn't watch the panel but I read some write ups on tumblr.

[chocolatetruffle]

Ah, Thanks CatMack!  Yeah, I'm glad they kept that in.

[absnow54]

Her frequent mention of the rape and torture of Jamie has become off-putting to me though. Honestly, it's a bit creepy how much she looks forward to it.

I agree. I didn't seen this particular instance or the context, but there was another earlier event (before the show aired, even) where she could barely contain her glee as she talked about the prospect of Sam being raped and tortured. And she always says Sam too, which makes the scene feel less like a huge, character defining moment, and more like a kink that makes me feel grossly uncomfortable.

[Tif]

I read exactly one interview with Diana when I first started reading the books and decided very quickly I was never going to read or watch her interviews again.  She's very creative and has written some wonderful things, but her personality is such that she actually spoils my enjoyment of the series if I pay attention to her 'behind the scenes' stuff. 

I feel the same way.  She's really really smart, and at the same time she knows it.  Sometimes her lack of humility in interviews is offputting to me and I end up disappointed.  

[peacefrog]

I completely agree about DG. At this point they don't need her on these panels to help sell the show to book fans. She says nothing new and keeps throwing out awkward mentions of Sam being "grotesque" or mentioning looking forward to him being raped. Keep as a consultant if they must but leave her out of the panels.