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

[maraleia]

After last nights Paley Fest panel, I'm in agreement with the rest of you that DG doesn't need to be on these panels. I would rather hear from Lotte Verbeek, Laura Donnelly, Graham McTavish, Maril Davis, Terri Dresbach and whomever does the location scouting for the show from now on.

She brings nothing new to the table and the show should be able to stand on its own just like GOT does now.

[chocolatetruffle]

I agree that it's time to move on from DG's participaton on these panels.  I would love it if they would include some of the writers (Anne Kenney!) or directors on the panel, and I would add Grant O'Rourke, Duncan LaCroix and Stephen Walters to maraleia's  list of actors.  

[peacefrog]

I would love to see Matt Roberts and Maril Davis up there!

 

It was hilarious watching all the pr Tobias doing this week.

Edited March 14, 2015 by peacefrog

[WatchrTina]

I doubt if Diana will stop being a part of these panels because she is, after all, the creative goddess who gave rise to the Outlander-verse and 95% of the time she's quite entertaining.  I also think that she and the cast and Ron are all good friends (or they are all REALLY good actors) so I'm betting they won't run the risk of offending her (or, perhaps more importantly, her fans) by leaving her out of these kinds of events.

 

I felt a bit guilty about stirring up the conversation here about her comment but then I read the Rotten Tomatoes story about the 10 things they learned about Outlander at PaleyFest (link is in the media thread) and #10 was that Diana has a weird sense of humor.  Apparently some people in the audience WERE shocked by her comment.  I've noticed that the TV writers have been careful not to repeat it, which I appreciate on behalf of the unspoiled non-readers.  But if TV writers are speaking openly about how odd that comment was, then that gives the PR folks a good reason to have a talk with Diana about it.  Maybe this sort of thing won't happen again.

 

Meanwhile, back on the topic of speculation & snark -- during today's #AskOutlander someone tweeted Tobias the same question that I wanted answered -- namely did he want to play Alexander Randall in season 2?  His answer was an unequivocal "YES!"  So now I hope he does get to do it.  I know it's a bit of a gimmick but I think it would be fun.  And who better than Ron Moore to oversee scenes in which one actor plays multiple roles?  Remember all the shots in Battlestar Galactica with multiple versions of the same "model" of humanoid Xylons?  If he can pull that off then handling the scene where Alexander performs the wedding ceremony for Jack and Mary would be a piece of cake.

Edited March 14, 2015 by WatchrTina

[mledawn]

All this promotion has done has made me enjoy Tobias Menzies even more than I did already, and DG even less.

My favourite exchange from TM's #AskOutlander yesterday was when a fan asked him what BJR was always chewing on- something I'd love to know! His answer? "What's left of his morality". PERFECT.

 

TM himself also looks about 10 years younger than the characters he plays.

[auntlada]

DG's take on her comments at PaleyFest.

[peacefrog]

She doesn't get it. People are not upset because she wrote Wentworth. It is because she keeps talking about looking forward to seeing Sam "raped and tortured". Not Jamie. 

 

Yes I get what she was trying to say, she is looking forward to seeing great acting. It was awkwardly put the first time and for someone who claims to be so smart she could have said it a different way the next 5 times. Add that in with her stubborn refusal to acknowledge that "grotesque" means ugly, it's obvious she will never admit that she just might have been wrong.

[Athena]

Diana Gabaldon seems to enjoy inflicting violence (especially sexual violence) on her characters. Nearly all of the main characters suffer rape, molestation, or sexual exploitation. I know it was a different time, but when I first read the books, I started to wonder if there wasn't a bit of "torture porn" aspect. Now, I know this is just part of her writing style and have accepted it. 

 

It is annoying and creepy that she has mentioned it being done to Sam though.

[auntlada]

Add that in with her stubborn refusal to acknowledge that "grotesque" means ugly, it's obvious she will never admit that she just might have been wrong.

 

Grotesque doesn't have to mean ugly (particularly going by the dictionary definition). It's not a synonym. I'd say more often than not, I'd consider something grotesque to be ugly, but it's not necessarily ugly by definition. Bizarre and unnatural and probably ugly, but not necessarily.

[peacefrog]

Grotesque doesn't have to mean ugly (particularly going by the dictionary definition). It's not a synonym. I'd say more often than not, I'd consider something grotesque to be ugly, but it's not necessarily ugly by definition. Bizarre and unnatural and probably ugly, but not necessarily.

Yes I understand this and have read all of her remarks trying to defend it.  She is like a petulant child trying to make it work instead of just admitting she chose the wrong word.  But hey, her and her ego won't let it go. 

[Nidratime]

I really don't care one way or the other what Gabaldon thought about Sam initially, because she clearly sees him as Jamie now and loves what he's doing. She often tweets to him and retweets his charity tweets.

 

But, what's funny is, when Sam was announced as the actor they cast for Jamie, I couldn't place his name. However, I had watched the Hallmark movie, A Princess for Christmas a number of times and thought the actor -- whoever he was -- attractive and charming, just as he should've been for the role. So, I was kind of caught off guard when I made the connection. Then, thinking about what he looked like and other professional photos of him, I immediately thought ... why, he's too male model pretty to be Jamie and not bulky or tall enough! If anything I could see him in Downton Abbey or another version of Brideshead Revisited ... all upper school, upper class. (Makes me want to see his initial audition tape for Jamie, because it must've been a doozey!)

 

That being said, good actors are good actors. The fact that you can take a person who looks like he wouldn't fit the role and find that he ends up embodying the role completely and you can't imagine anyone else doing it now is just a testament to his abilities, his interpretation, and to wardrobe and make-up!

[chocolatetruffle]

The fact that she wrote a very long post to eloquently explain her remarks speaks volumes to the fact that they were misinterpreted and off-putting.  She could have just as easily said "I'm looking forward to seeing these two powerhouse actors tackle those difficult scenes" (or words to that effect) and no one would have misinterpreted her meaning.  

 

I think these two actors will do a magnificent job and the scenes will likely be as horrifying to watch as they were to read.

Edited March 18, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[WatchrTina]

Diana re-tweeted this "twit longer" post -- "Jamie and the Rule of Three" -- (which I've read before) and I presume she was inspired to do so by discussions such as the one we are having.   I think it makes a credible case for why she put Jamie through all that he went through at Wentworth.

 

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sl9kd2

Edited March 19, 2015 by WatchrTina

[lianau]

I have to admit I'm kind of looking forward to the Wentworth scenes (and at the same time I don't ). It's going to be interesting to see how they handled it . Usually it's a woman as the victim .

[WatchrTina]

Ditto lianau.  I am NOT looking forward to seeing my literary boyfriend raped and tortured.  I AM very much looking forward to seeing how Ron and the writers and the director will rise to the challenge of presenting such a troubling scene without turning off the viewers.  It's going to be a very fine line for them  to walk and I'm eager to see if they can pull it off.

 

Sam and Tobias have said things in interviews that make me believe they both relished the acting challenge that those scenes represent.  So as a fan of both, I'm happy for them and looking forward to seeing their performances.  But I'm really not looking forward to what is going to happen.

[chocolatetruffle]

 

 

Diana re-tweeted this "twit longer" post -- "Jamie and the Rule of Three" -- (which I've read before) and I presume she was inspired to do so by discussions such as the one we are having.   I think it makes a credible case for why she put Jamie through all that he went through at Wentworth.

http://www.twitlonge.../show/n_1sl9kd2

 

WatchrTina thanks for posting this.  I don't know if you've listened to any of the Outlander Seminar over on StoryWonk.com but they discussed a lot of these ideas, especially the 3-event structure.  It's brilliant how the book raises the stakes for the reader.  While Lallybrook is so soothing and enjoyable, there is always the feeling that something really awful is right around the corner - then BAM! and we're off to Wentworth.  

 

I suppose I'll suffer through watching it though, and hope that the payoff at the end is worth it.  There better be some steamy hot tub/cavern scenes at the abbey, or else...

[Hybiscus]

The fact that she wrote a very long post to eloquently explain her remarks speaks volumes to the fact that they were misinterpreted and off-putting.  She could have just as easily said "I'm looking forward to seeing these two powerhouse actors tackle those difficult scenes" (or words to that effect) and no one would have misinterpreted her meaning.  

 

I think these two actors will do a magnificent job and the scenes will likely be as horrifying to watch as they were to read.

To me, the fact that she wrote a really long post about the situation makes her look defensive.  Of course, I expect nothing less than a really long post because Diana seems to be quite verbose.

 

After the Paley event (the first one I've ever sat through live), I thought quite a bit about Diana, her writing, her personality, and her inclusion on these panels.  I was (pleasantly) surprised to come in here and see I'm not alone in my thinking.  However, as WatchrTina (and her Fraser tartan) mentioned, she did create this beloved universe.  The question I'd raise is, does George R.R. Martin participate in the Game of Thrones panels?  I believe he does, at least some of them.  I don't know how much he contributes (if he's on the panels), but it does set a precedent of sorts.

[justmehere]

...how Ron and the writers and the director will rise to the challenge of presenting such a troubling scene without turning off the viewers.

 

 

There's been so much discussion about the spanking scene and whether it will turn off viewers (and no, I'm not opening that up again), but I'd think Wentworth would be the bigger problem. It's probably going to be one that I'll watch once, through my fingers, and that'll be it. Fast-forward from then on with my head turned (peripheral vision only). That's already the case with the whipping. Of course, people adore Game of Thrones despite all it's horridness.

[CatMack]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think the reason I'm so much more worried about the spanking scene then the Wentworth scenes, is because there's really no debate on how awful Wentworth is.  The narrative, the author, the fandom, everyone agrees it's horrific.  Of course that doesn't mean it's impossible for them to screw it up, but I feel like everyone is in agreement on the kind of tone Wentworth deserves.  Whether they show too much of it or whatever, I don't doubt that it's going to be portrayed as awful, I'm not worried about them romanticising it.  Whereas the spanking scene, for 20 years people have been arguing over whether it's spousal abuse or no big deal at all and some people even find it hot, so it's harder to predict what kind of tone they're going to go for.  

[Dejana]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think the reason I'm so much more worried about the spanking scene then the Wentworth scenes, is because there's really no debate on how awful Wentworth is.  The narrative, the author, the fandom, everyone agrees it's horrific.  Of course that doesn't mean it's impossible for them to screw it up, but I feel like everyone is in agreement on the kind of tone Wentworth deserves.  Whether they show too much of it or whatever, I don't doubt that it's going to be portrayed as awful, I'm not worried about them romanticising it.  Whereas the spanking scene, for 20 years people have been arguing over whether it's spousal abuse or no big deal at all and some people even find it hot, so it's harder to predict what kind of tone they're going to go for.  

 

Plus, the show has ridden a wave of "Yay feminist narrative female gaze at last!" publicity which the spanking scene just might undercut...

[Future Cat Lady]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think the reason I'm so much more worried about the spanking scene then the Wentworth scenes, is because there's really no debate on how awful Wentworth is.  The narrative, the author, the fandom, everyone agrees it's horrific.  Of course that doesn't mean it's impossible for them to screw it up, but I feel like everyone is in agreement on the kind of tone Wentworth deserves.  Whether they show too much of it or whatever, I don't doubt that it's going to be portrayed as awful, I'm not worried about them romanticising it.  Whereas the spanking scene, for 20 years people have been arguing over whether it's spousal abuse or no big deal at all and some people even find it hot, so it's harder to predict what kind of tone they're going to go for.

 

 

 

Very good point about Wentworth.

 

As for the spanking, the thing is that Jamie is supposed the be the romantic hero. He has at this point been portrayed as the "perfect guy". So for him to do that is pretty shocking. He also mentions that he enjoys it in the book. And a lot of people find this problematic. And DG seems to always dismiss anyone who sees it that way. 

 

Plus, the show has ridden a wave of "Yay feminist narrative female gaze at last!" publicity which the spanking scene just might undercut...

 

 

I can't wait to see the media reaction. Yikes!

Edited March 20, 2015 by Future Cat Lady

[Nidratime]

Maybe for those who will be turned off by Wentworth -- even those who've read it -- and can't stomach it, there will be people who think Outlander is "girly" and "all romancey" who will check it out upon being informed that it can be as "horrific" as Game of Thrones -- although on a personal level. After all, Outlander features a female voice and the outrage and horror is tremendously personal and not just knife or kill anyone in sight.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Nidratime

[justmehere]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think the reason I'm so much more worried about the spanking scene then the Wentworth scenes, is because there's really no debate on how awful Wentworth is.  The narrative, the author, the fandom, everyone agrees it's horrific.  Of course that doesn't mean it's impossible for them to screw it up, but I feel like everyone is in agreement on the kind of tone Wentworth deserves.  Whether they show too much of it or whatever, I don't doubt that it's going to be portrayed as awful, I'm not worried about them romanticising it.  Whereas the spanking scene, for 20 years people have been arguing over whether it's spousal abuse or no big deal at all and some people even find it hot, so it's harder to predict what kind of tone they're going to go for.  

 

Point taken as far as stirring debate over perceived right or wrong. I guess my view is different as far as what might turn viewers away though. Seeing a man tortured and raped in what I'm assuming will be graphic fashion seems, to me, more likely to lose them than a spanking scene that is arguably justifiable and which I expect to be presented in context as "reasonable punishment" for the danger Claire created. Whether they show Jamie enjoying it is another matter, certainly, and I hope they don't. But showing the male hero so completely overpowered in this way (his agreement notwithstanding) - and at a relatively early stage of the story - seems a shakier proposition to me in terms of viewer acceptance. The fact that it happens near the end of the season doesn't allow much time to recover a better perception that can endure a long hiatus.

Edited March 20, 2015 by justmehere

[Nidratime]

Diana just finished a twitter Q&A hosted by Barnes & Noble, and I asked her a bit about Claire's parents and I'm guessing she hasn't thought about my question....
   

@Sassycatz 37 minutes ago @Writer_DG @BNBuzz Will we ever learn anything more about Claire's parents? Which of them (or both) were time travelers? #BNOutlanderChat

    ‏

@Writer_DG 36 minutes ago   @Sassycatz @BNBuzz I doubt it, but who knows? #BNOutlanderChat

 

    

 

She also had a few more other interesting things to say, although I don't think I captured them all. Most of these are SPOILERS. Even though this is a book thread and spoilers are okay, I'm still not sure about how these measure up against the show, so....

 

@BNBuzz @Writer_DG #BNOutlanderChat Did Claire conceive at Lallybroch or at they Abbey?

@7_polk @BNBuzz Abbey. But they were there a lot longer in the book than in the show. #BNOutlanderChat

‏

 

@BNBuzz .@Writer_DG a fan asked: If all of the books make it to screen, which scene do you look forward to seeing come to life? #BNOutlanderChat

@BNBuzz Man, there are hundreds...<g> Want to see Jamie/Claire reunion, Jamie/Bree meeting, for sure. #BNOutlanderChat

 

@Writer_DG #BNOutlanderChat weird scene of Frank lecturing and showing Brianna's portraits of J&C. did that really happen?

‏@Writer_DG @stacmue Claire dreamed it; I don't know if it happened. #BNOutlanderChat

 

Oh, and someone asked if

Bree

has been cast yet and Diana said no.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Nidratime

[WatchrTina]

So I was sitting there eating my Scottish oatmeal, thinking about Outlander (as you do) and something struck me.  I was thinking about the new UK viewers and wondering if they will react the same way I did to episode 2 -- loving the scene by the fireplace, hating Dougal for the beating he makes Rupert deliver -- especially the blow to the shoulder.

 

That got me thinking about the trope of Jamie "submitting" to punishment for the sake of another.  He does it for Laoghaire on the thinnest of motivations (though I think there may have been some Dougal-level political motivations going in in his mind that have never been addressed in either the books or the TV show).  A lot of readers dislike the upcoming spanking scene because Jamie not only fails to offer to take the punishment for Claire -- he delivers the punishment himself.  I think the people who feel that way are mistaken -- I don't think it would have been allowed even if Jamie had tried and I think it was important that Jamie do the deed himself because if Dougal had done it I think the rift between Claire and Jamie would have been irreparable.  But then, at the very end of book 1, Jamie does offer to submit to a punishment to save Claire -- a terrible, awful punishment that very nearly destroys his will to live.  And he KNEW how it would be -- he knew about the young man at Ft. Williams who had submitted to Black Jack's desires rather than face the lash and who then killed himself afterward.  Now I think the only way that Jamie could submit to Black Jack was the certain knowledge that he would be hanged the next day and would not have to live with the aftermath.

 

Let me say that another way.  Jamie took a beating for Laoghaire because he knew he'd heal in a few days and it would be much worse for her (psychologically) than it would be for him.  The physical beating he took was worse than expected (damn you Dougal!) and it revealed some things to Jamie he didn't know for certain before so there was a bigger psychological toll to him than he expected.

 

Jamie didn't take a beating for Claire after rescuing her because he knew if she somehow escaped being punished for what she had done, the clan would never forgive her, trust her, or be willing to protect her again.

 

When Jamie promised to submit to Black Jack in order to save Claire, he wasn't just offering her the protection of his body.  He was offering up his soul.  He knew it would destroy him to have to give himself, unresisting to Black Jack.  He knew the psychological toll it would take.  And he did it anyway.

 

I've sometimes criticized Diana's writing skills in the first book but I think only now am I realizing how she set us up to appreciate the full scope of Jamie's sacrifice at the end of book 1.

Edited March 27, 2015 by WatchrTina

[methodwriter85]

I'm a non-book reader who prefers being spoiled. It's been really interesting learning how everything shakes out- earlier, someone made a comment about how non-book people were going into this expecting Pride and Prejudice: Highlander Edition. I'm going to admit, I totally went into this expecting a more sexually explicit Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman: Highlander. They really pushed the romance angle but the show is far grittier than that.

 

Diana Gabaldon seems to enjoy inflicting violence (especially sexual violence) on her characters. Nearly all of the main characters suffer rape, molestation, or sexual exploitation. I know it was a different time, but when I first read the books, I started to wonder if there wasn't a bit of "torture porn" aspect.

 

 

It's a little off-putting. That is why I am not surprised that Briana is raped. I bet Jamie's grown-up son will get raped during the Revolutionary War, too. And if they decide to let Amanda and Jem grow up into adulthood, I'm sure they'll both be raped as well. Well, at least she's an equal opportunity when it comes to this.

 

Wee little Roger is adorable. So it looks like the grown Roger will need to have blue eyes and brown hair...too bad Matthew Goode is too old and too well-known at this point.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Athena
Removed spoiler tags.

[Glaze Crazy]

 

Wee little Roger is adorable. So it looks like the grown Roger will need to have blue eyes and brown hair...too bad Matthew Goode is too old and too well-known at this point.

 

Being now caught up in and absolutely loving BBC's "Poldark" (which you guys are going to love when it shows up on PBS in June, if you aren't already watching it on BBC) I would say the same about Aidan Turner as Roger. I can't even imagine the melted tv screens should that happen.  Shirtless field clearing at Fraser's Ridge anyone?

[methodwriter85]

 

With William, they will have a tougher row to hoe, but they have plenty of time to figure it out.  And the show will be so huge by then any tall young actor with a passing resemblance to Sam will be submitting his photos wearing a red wig and a kilt.

 

I thought William's hair was chestnut, though his beard is red?

 

I do wonder how things are going to go..if they'll wind up condensing some of the books/seasons. Because really, the optimal run for a cable series seems to be about 5 to 7 years. It's rare that they go beyond that.

[WatchrTina]

 

I thought William's hair was chestnut, though his beard is red?

Yes, you are right.  I sort-of mis-spoke when I typed the comment you quoted above.  What I meant was that any young actor who looks enough like Sam Heughan to pass for his son would submit photos of themselves made up to look like Jamie (with a red wig and kilt) to prove the resemblance.  But you are correct that William is NOT a ginger and is embarrassed by his red beard.

 

Am I right that we don't actually see grown-up William until Book 6?

Edited March 31, 2015 by WatchrTina

[methodwriter85]

William sounds like he could be a very interesting character. Imagine being raised to think you were an aristocratic blue-blood, only to discover that you're really the bastard spawn of Scottish dude. I kind of don't want to wait 6 years for him. Oh, well.

 

The funny thing is that the actors would do the red wig and kilt and be totally off, because again he's not a redhead and Willie wouldn't be caught dead in a kilt because he's a properly snobby Englishman. I guess his character arc would be to eventually accept himself, and even don a kilt or something. LOL.

 

By the way, the comments about the ring were hilarious. Can I be honest? The cannon "fan made" ring looks like something my sister could have gotten at Claire's in 1997. I was expecting something that looked really unique and cool, not something I've seen a hundred times.

 

I kind of like the show ring. I like that it's rough. Although I kind of thought they were going to go with a Claddagh ring like Buffy. Then again that's Irish. I wonder if anyone's bought the ring yet? If they were smart, when they work the inscription part in, they can offer a special deal for the rings to be offered with the inscription, as well as signed autograph from Sam Heughan. I think THAT would get people to cough up the dough for them.

 

It's going to be interesting to see how the Book People Who Want Everything to Remain the Same, the book people who are okay with changes, and the Non-Book People are going to interact. It's strange to think that you've got to spoil books that have been out for almost a quarter century, but eh. I've met people who really just do not want to read the book source material (my jaw dropped when I met a guy who told me he's seen the Hunger Games movies but never read the books), so yeah. I'm going to try and read the books but I don't really care about spoilers. I tend to read the plot summaries of books before I read them anyway. I'm weird like that. I knew

Prim was going to die before I even read the first Hunger Games book.

Edited March 31, 2015 by methodwriter85

[Keeta]

Honestly as the show gets farther into the books I will probably care less and less about the writers making changes. Although when I say "changes", I suppose what I really mean is "cuts". I wouldn't want them to change most major plot points or character traits, but I also think there's a lot of filler that could probably be easily cut.

 

And they've also shown they can add and flesh things out in a way that enhances the story for television, which bodes well for other changes in the future.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Keeta

[WatchrTina]

I'm a devoted reader but I'm beside myself with glee that the book is not limited to Claire's point of view because it brings us things like the opening 3 minutes of episode 9, which got posted to the Outlander Facebook page yesterday right before Sam's Q&A. (No, it's not the Jamie-talking-to-himself by the river scene -- it's all action action action!) If you have Facebook, go watch. I'll wait.

We know how episode 8 ended, with Jamie in the window. And in the book the reader eventually is told, when Claire is told, how he came to be in that window. But the TV version jumps into Jamie's point of view for this episode so we get to see the rescue unfold in "real time." I canna wait to see the rest. And I LOVE the books. But I canna wait to see how the story is going to be re-interpreted for the screen.

This is the speculation thread so I'm going to throw out another speculation.

In an early teaser for the second half of season 1 we see Dougal basically losing his shit over something back at Leogh. Why? Book-walkers don't know because in the book, when Jamie & Claire return to Leoch the focus is on them and specifically Claire's reaction to suspecting that Jamie has gone off for a chat with Laoghaire (jealousy, ill-chosen words, fumbled presentation of the wedding ring, argument, tears, recriminations, reconciliation, rough make-up sex, sleep). Ever wonder what was going on in Colum's study at that time?

Imagine Dougal having to explain to Colum WHY Jamie & Claire had to marry and WHAT HAPPENED NEXT. Colum is likely to be initially pleased by the marriage in that Jamie being wed to a Sassenach pretty much ensures he can never be elected laird. But during the course of that conversation he likely to learn that Dougal's main motivation was not to protect Claire from physical abuse at the hands of Black Jack, it was to ensure she wasn't tortured into revealing that he'd been fund-raising for a Stuart restoration. Colum will be furious when that comes to light. Then he's going to find out that Black Jack Randall now knows that Colum is harboring a fugitive (Jamie), and he (Colum) is the fugitive's own uncle. Furthermore, Black Jack has to know that it was Colum's own men -- The Clan Mackenzie -- that just attacked members of His Majesty's 8th Dragoons and killed at least one of them (per the book). That puts Clan MacKenzie and Leoch right in Black Jack's cross-hairs. That's what I think leads to that heated conversation between the brothers that has been teased and 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 -- especially if the show changes her cause of death and has her die by violence -- maybe even at the hands of the Red Coats? Maybe an act of retaliation for the rescue of Claire? Nah, I doubt it -- that would really be going far afield.

Is it Saturday yet?

Edited April 1, 2015 by WatchrTina

[ElsieH]

I thought that was the teaser for when Column and Dougal are arguing over him knocking up Geillis. Much later in the season, but that's what I assumed it was. Will be interesting to see what they add in. It still seems like there is too much left to fit in 8 episodes.

[lianau]

It's going to be interesting to see how the Book People Who Want Everything to Remain the Same, the book people who are okay with changes, and the Non-Book People are going to interact. 

I'm a weird book reader, I don't want them to change some of the more controversial storylines (beatings , rapes, portrayal of Mr Willoughby ...) but I have no problem with exploring other viewpoints and giving Frank more space .

[Nidratime]

I thought I'd link to this Ron Moore interview in this thread rather than the media one just so there's no chance of spoiling anyone on the content of the story. However, the thing I wanted to draw attention to was something Moore said about the show.

 

http://www.hitfix.com/the-fien-print/interview-outlander-showrunner-ronald-d-moore-on-the-end-of-the-droughtlander

 

HitFix: Sure. Now a couple of people on Twitter since they knew that this was happening today have been referring to something called "The Droughtlander," which I had not heard of before about an hour ago. Looked back on doing this eight-and-eight thing, how would you say it benefited you or the storytelling and how did it maybe not? And what you would do differently next season?

 

Ronald D. Moore: The only way it really affected the storytelling was that I knew that I had to come up with a good cliffhanger for the eighth episode and then, like we talked about, how do you restart into the ninth episode. Beyond that it didn't really affect anything else because, again, we had the book so we knew what the story was. And whether you ran them consecutively or took a two week break or took a month long break it was still going to be basically the same story.

 

HitFix: But in this case it's...

 

Ronald D. Moore: In this case there is a significant break.

 

HitFix: Yeah, a rather long break. How does that change your perspective for next season then?

 

Ronald D. Moore: Well, next season we have a different episode order. It's 13 instead of 16 so I think it's going to run probably in a different way.

 

HitFix: So you're anticipating not needing to do this again?

 

Ronald D. Moore: That's what I'm anticipating. Yeah.

 

 

[mledawn]

Oh...

SADFACE

[Nidratime]

Oh...

SADFACE

 

About what?

We already knew we weren't getting 16 episodes for the 2nd season, although they always stuck provisos in suggesting that things might change. What I'm rejoicing over is not have the season split up in two again!

[mledawn]

I hadn't settled on the former.

[CatMack]

Most of the cable shows I watch have 10 or 12 episodes, so 13 is still more than a lot of cable shows do.  16 really was kind of a lot, though there's enough content to fill them.  A shorter season 2 probably means more condensed plotlines which frankly is OK with me.  While Diana's inability to edit doesn't really start to become an issue for me until about book 4, there's still a lot of stuff in book 2 (and 3) that could easily be cut or condensed to make for a more tightly scripted story.  I enjoy the political aspects of book 2, but it can get a bit repetitive and meandering.  

[Shorty186]

I'm disappointed about this

https://twitter.com/Outlander_Starz/status/583788589680435202

  

 

It's like they tried disguising some bad news by making it potentially exciting. And failed. These final 8 episodes are going to go by so fast.

[Athena]

Hello Sassenachs, just a quick reminder to say that interviews, previews and official promos are not considered major spoilers. When it comes from the TPTB, you don't have to spoiler tag it. Thanks!

[Glaze Crazy]

I'm not surprised it's not coming back until next year though. They haven't even started filming it yet.

[Keeta]

Anyone else looking forward to not discussing the spanking anymore? #overit

[peacefrog]

 

Anyone else looking forward to not discussing the spanking anymore? #overit

Yup. So glad this is done. I guess the episode also dealt with the questionable Leoch sex from the book. Right? Was that what it was last night? No issue of consent. 

[Keeta]

Yes, they didn't even go there, which I think was definitely the right call. Enough controversial stuff to cover without that.

[CatMack]

I'm really looking forward to the reveal at the stones.  My favorite parts of the book are when 18th century people and 20th century people talk about the time travel and its various consequences, so finally getting an in-the-know Jamie is something I'm very much looking forward to.  And just judging by the promos it seems like they may be slightly changing Geillis' roll a bit, giving her more to do before/during the trial, which excites me.  I adore her in all her fucked up glory and I love her relationship with Claire and how twisted it gets.  

 

So yeah, glad that's behind us and looking forward to what's too come.  I guess the scene I'm most worried about now is the abbey healing scene.  It's not that I'm looking forward to Wentworth, but I don't really doubt that they'll be able to portray it well, even if I don't like watching it.  But the abbey scene is one of those...weird ones.  I'm not worried about it in terms of it being offensive, just...how do you translate that to screen effectively?  It's just so bizarre in the book, I hope they've managed to give us a visual representation that makes sense!

[nodorothyparker]

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.

[WatchrTina]

 

Yup. So glad this is done.

Okay that made me laugh.  Remember when the big season 1, part 2 trailer came out a few months ago and the first title card said "The wait is over"?  I laughed then as well because of course the wait was nowhere near over.  I'm afraid the discussion of the spanking scene isn't over either but maybe, just maybe, by this time next week we'll be done.

 

 

I guess the episode also dealt with the questionable Leoch sex from the book. Right? Was that what it was last night? No issue of consent.

Right.  Whew.  Glad they side-stepped that one.  Also glad they made that hot make-up sex the balm on the open wound of a major marital schism and not just the follow-up to a fight sprung from a misunderstanding (Claire's mistaken jealousy of Laoghaire.)  Both were good departures from the book.

 

I'm having mixed feelings about the scene by the river.  I like it in that Laoghaire's humiliation there makes her later actions against Claire more understandable and I like that it's made clear that she has good reason to think Jamie is unhappy in his marriage (he IS unhappy for most of the episode -- just not for the reason she thinks.)  But the whole walk to the river in naught but her corset and petticoat under her cloak seemed a bit anachronistic.  It reminded me of the modern trope of a woman presenting herself to a man in bra, panties, stockings and garter-belt, all hidden beneath a fur coat.  Usually it's a high-priced call-girl who presents herself that way.  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.  I guess that's not a big enough deal to stop him marrying her 15 years down the road, especially since, thanks to the river scene, he'll understand why she did it.  But I do wonder when he's going to find out about Laoghaire's role in Claire's arrest.  I think he has to NOT know at the time he marries Laoghaire, otherwise it would be just too much of a betrayal of Claire's memory.  But it will be interesting to see if TVClaire keeps silent on that point in season 3 the way BookClaire did, leaving it to Bree to clue the family in when she gets to Lallybroch.

 

Aaaand now my mind has wandered all he way to Book 3 and the reunion scene between Jamie and Claire.  In this most recent episode we see Jamie, uncertain and unsure, asking Claire if she wants to live separately (great acting moment for Sam BTW) and in 3 years or so the shoe will be on the other foot when Jamie asks Claire why she's come back -- making it clear to her that he's a different man now -- and asking if she's committed to living with him again.  I'm already looking forward to Sam & Cait playing that scene.  Good grief.

Edited April 5, 2015 by WatchrTina

[absnow54]

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.

[nodorothyparker]

Didn't Dougal have some throwaway line about how all the men will have to watch their asses after the duke was mentioned?  So I assume they're going there.

 

I've always hated how Jamie plays up his encounter with the duke at 16 for laughs or how hilarious all of the McKenzies seemed to think it was that this grown man was chasing their teenage kinsman around trying to force sex on him.  A lot things can be chalked up to times and attitudes were different then but this isn't one of them.  Homosexuality was largely considered an unnatural abomination to the point that as we see later with Lord John, it was a hanging offense in the British military, and yet they all apparently think it's funny here.

Edited April 5, 2015 by nodorothyparker