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

[GrailKing]

Question? does anyone think the title song predicts the ending?

The song is based on Stevenson's poem.

 

Chorus:
Speed bonnie boat like a bird on the wing,
Onward, the sailors cry.
Carry the lad that's born to be king
Over the sea to Skye.
Original Version

Loud the winds howl, loud the waves roar,
Thunderclaps rend the air,
Baffled, our foes stand by the shore,
Follow they will not dare.

Chorus

Many's the lad fought on that day,
Well the claymore could wield,
When the night came, silently lay
Dead in Culloden's field.

Chorus

Though the waves leap, soft shall ye sleep,
Ocean's a royal bed.
Rock'd in the deep Flora will keep
Watch o'er your weary head.

Chorus

Burned are our homes, exile and death,
Scattered the loyal men.
Yet ere the sword cool in the sheath,
Charlie will come again.

======================================================================

Stevenson's poem

Robert Louis Stevenson's poem, which has been sung to the tune, has the following text:

[Chorus:] Sing me a song of a lad that is gone,
Say, could that lad be I?
Merry of soul he sailed on a day
Over the sea to Skye.

Mull was astern, Rùm on the port,
Eigg on the starboard bow;
Glory of youth glowed in his soul;
Where is that glory now?

[Chorus]

Give me again all that was there,
Give me the sun that shone!
Give me the eyes, give me the soul,
Give me the lad that's gone!

[Chorus]

Billow and breeze, islands and seas,
Mountains of rain and sun,
All that was good, all that was fair,
All that was me is gone.

 

Mod can move it if it is in wrong place.

Edited February 9, 2016 by GrailKing

[Athena]

Mod can move it if it is in wrong place.

 

Hello Grailking, I have moved your post to Books vs Show which is a spoilers and book talk topic where tags are not necessary. The questions you asked in the Ask the Outlanders threads are more broad and not plot specific. For more in depth discussion about the books and the show without spoilers, this is a more suitable thread.

[GrailKing]

Hello Grailking, I have moved your post to Books vs Show which is a spoilers and book talk topic where tags are not necessary. The questions you asked in the Ask the Outlanders threads are more broad and not plot specific. For more in depth discussion about the books and the show without spoilers, this is a more suitable thread.

ok

thank you.

[WatchrTina]

I started talking about the new trailer in the "Spoilers and speculations" thread but Athena's first post there says "no book talk" so I'm bringing my comments over here.

OMG I can't believe they included that final scene in the most recent trailer for season 2. "I'm back." Wow. I was shocked and I already knew she goes back (and why and when). I am SO looking forward to how they are going to play with the two time-frames from book 2. I've always thought that kicking off the show with a guy no one recognizes (Roger) who goes to the door and meets a 20-years-older Claire and her grown-up red-headed daughter could be a problem. I had a problem reading it. Now I suspect that the show will start in the 20th century but not with adult Roger. I think that last scene from the trailer may be the FIRST scene of season 2, episode 1 -- a tease to get the viewer intrigued and then the show will take us right back to the ship arriving in France. That's a common TV trick -- begin an episode with a shocking scene and the say something like "Two days earlier" and explain how they got to that point. Then the episode ends with the resolution to that shocking scene. So now I think that the show will do that but will spread it over the entire season. I think they will cut back-and-forth between the 18th and 20th centuries but, unlike the book, the 20thing century story will progress from the moment of Claire's return (the scene we just saw) all the way up to her discovery that Jamie survived, 20 years after her return. I think they'll include info about Claire and Frank's life together during those 20 years -- data that we only hear about in later books. This will give Tobias more to do and this dovetails with Ron's comment last year that there would be more Frank in season 2 than in book 2. If they take this approach they won't need to include Roger and Brianna until the very end -- possibly not until the last episode and given what we know about when the casting happened (i.e. long after most of the season was shot) that makes a fair amount of sense. This season is Tobias' last as a major character (though I'll bet he pops up in some nightmares in later seasons) and he's only in a few scenes (a few VERY IMPORTANT scenes) in the 18th century portion of book 2, so tracking the saga of Claire & Frank following her return must be the source of that greater level of involvement that Ron hinted at for Frank in Season 2

I'm excited. I can't wait for this ride.

ETA: Oooh, I've had another thought. I wonder if they can keep secret that fact that 20th century Claire is pregnant? I don't see how -- it's a central conflict between Frank and Claire -- but if the DID, they could try to trick the viewers into thinking that Claire goes back to the 20th century after she loses baby Faith. It would be a short tease -- Jamie & Claire reconcile quickly -- but that's definitely a note they could play to keep alive the season-long question of "why does she go back?"

Edited February 16, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Summer]

I think you're absolutely right, WatchrTina  in regard to the structure of the first episode.  I think it's a feasible thing for the non book readers to see Claire back in 1940's , I would imagine a lot of them thought Claire would go back eventually.  And I would also imagine a lot of non spoiled non book readers would think S2 just picks up where S1 ended and follows them through their attempt to change history.  So by gently suggesting that this may not be the case was smart of RDM and co.  

 

Also, I believe Richard Rankin and Sophie Skelton are just filming their scenes now, so that suggests the 20 year gap will be towards the end of the season, right?

 

Love in the S2 preview (will put behind spoiler bar just in case) 

that it appears Murtagh knows about Claire being from the future. I wonder if they will change his fate at Culloden based upon how popular Duncan is?

[morgan]

Very interesting WatcherTina! I'm going to open my mind and see where the show goes with all of this. I do believe Roger and Bree will only be at the end, but hadn't thought of them going back and forth with the 40s time period.

[DittyDotDot]

From the spoilers thread...

 

 

Thank You,

Did Claire leave Frank's ring?

Also is this a mistake or is there a purpose, in the return to Leoch

Claire and Gellis Duncan are talking with Gellis being a bit risqué, when Jamie comes back to inform Dougal that his wife passed then Gellis becomes Geilie from Claire's thoughts, is that a mistake? I thought we don't hear about her other name until Claire is back in her future.

 

Claire does indeed have Frank's ring. She will keep a ring on each hand for almost the entire series and those rings play a significant part in Drums of Autumn, also.

 

What you were saying about having something from both time periods and the rings allowing Claire to travel...you are pretty close. Although the nature of traveling hasn't been totally explained yet, there is some thought that certain metals (and gem stones) protect the travelers and Claire having both a silver and gold ring might be why she's managed travel successfully a couple of times. 

 

As to Geillis/Geilie: I believe I read somewhere Geillie is the familiar/nickname of Geillis. Like calling someone named John "Johnny". That's not Geillis' given or "other" name she goes by in the future. 

[GrailKing]

So Claire got her Nick name off screen?

I'm not at the witch trials yet, but in show I don't remember her saying Gelli.

I don't remember it when Claire was in the town either.

[DittyDotDot]

No, I don't remember Claire using the familiar in the show either, but I think, in the book, it's meant to show how close she feels to Geillis. On the show, they show that aspect and I kinda think Claire and Geillis have a slightly different dynamic on the show than they have in the books. But, it won't be the last time Claire uses it in the book.

[GrailKing]

OK, a thought just popped into my head kinda of a whim thing we know Claire comes back stays decades and returns Bree also,she brings medicines,photos, books? maybe does she bring back The PILL!, I don’t think the morning after version was around then

As I said this just popped into my head on a whim.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Athena
Removed spoiler tags as this an All Books thread

[AheadofStraight]

GrailKing - that would be a departure from all of the books if it happens.

[GrailKing]

GrailKing - that would be a departure from all of the books if it happens.

Which part all or just the pill?

[asp]

Just the pill.

[toolazy]

There is a point in one of the later books where Claire sort of regretfully thinks about the pill but she understands that it is too impractical to bring over enough to matter.  Not to mention not wanting to risk being caught with things made of plastic. 

[GrailKing]

thanks both,

it was just a whim question lol

Than again, if she knew the natures ingredients she could have applied for English / American patents :>)

[Cubisa]

In the books, Claire gets some herbal contraception from the Indians that Bree takes to control her fertility - daeco seed? And if I remember correctly, she tries to get Marsali to use a contraceptive sponge. So there were some ways to try to limit fertility at that time, without needing to rely on the pill.

[Dust Bunny]

 

I think they will cut back-and-forth between the 18th and 20th centuries but, unlike the book, the 20thing century story will progress from the moment of Claire's return (the scene we just saw) all the way up to her discovery that Jamie survived, 20 years after her return.  I think they'll include info about Claire and Frank's life together during those 20 years -- data that we only hear about in later books.  This will give Tobias more to do and this dovetails with Ron's comment last year that there would be more Frank in season 2 than in book 2.

 

That's brilliant, WatchrTina. A byproduct of that would be we wouldn't need to see as much of Claire's 20 years in Voyager/season 3. They can spare more time for Jamie's 20 years, their time together post-reunion, and maybe a hint of Roger and Bree's bonding (though that'd be outside of the scope of Voyager and more in Drums). Bringing in more R & B in season 3 would keep Rik and Sophie actively involved in the show and keep them front and center in the viewers' minds. It avoids a Bran-free season, like what Game of Thrones did last year. 

 

I was just scrolling through the trailer on pause to see things advance super slowly. I think 1:25 might be the duel from Claire's perspective. The only thing making me question that is the presence of other people in the shot. Though I know there were usually witnesses and seconds in duels, I always thought that particular duel would be clandestine between Jamie and Jack, due to the illegal and passionate nature of it. I hadn't noticed this shot until just now, because it's super fast, in relation to other shots in the trailer.

 

Hurry up, April 9th!

Edited February 13, 2016 by Dust Bunny

[GrailKing]

In the books, Claire gets some herbal contraception from the Indians that Bree takes to control her fertility - daeco seed? And if I remember correctly, she tries to get Marsali to use a contraceptive sponge. So there were some ways to try to limit fertility at that time, without needing to rely on the pill.

Oh, there was, but not as good I don't think, I'm kind of excited to read about Brianna but it'll be a while.

[asp]

So there were some ways to try to limit fertility at that time, without needing to rely on the pill.

 

 

Yeah! Abstinence! :D

Edited February 13, 2016 by asp

[GrailKing]

So from the trailer, are they totally by passing the FAITHfull incident and straight on into the 20th century?

[WatchrTina]

 

I noticed Dougal in the crowd. So, like Murtagh he will be probably more involved in the main storyline

Dougal is also present in two of the battle scenes in the trailer -- right behind Jamie in the one where Jamie has the shield (Angus and Rupert are there too) and when I paused the trailer on one of the smokey fighting scenes I spotted Dougal in the background.  We never actually see Dougal fighting in the books, do we?   Jamie fights with his own Lallybroch men at Prestonpans, not the men of Castle Leoch.  I do seem to recall one battle where Jamie and his lot end up barricaded in a church at some point (and now I think of it I don't recall how they get out of that one -- oh goody season two is going to be able to surprise me a bit) -- but was Dougal there too?  Is there any battle in book two where Jamie and Dougal fight side-by-side?  We wouldn't "see" it in the book because Claire is never present on the battlefield and book two is still locked in her point-of-view (in the 18th century) but I don't recall hearing Jamie talk about Dougal after any of the battles.

 

And isn't it interesting that in that one scene where Jamie has the shield that Jamie's is LEADING and Dougal is following him into battle.  Interesting behavior for a war chieftain.

 

 

So from the trailer, are they totally by passing the FAITHfull incident and straight on into the 20th century?

I don't really understand your question.  Book 2 begins in the 20th century and then returns to the 18th where Claire is pregnant with baby Faith.  She is seen pregnant in many scenes in the trailer and the pregnancy was announced in the last scene of Season 1 so they won't be skipping that.

Edited February 13, 2016 by WatchrTina

[GrailKing]

Dougal is also present in two of the battle scenes in the trailer -- right behind Jamie in the one where Jamie has the shield (Angus and Rupert are there too) and when I paused the trailer on one of the smokey fighting scenes I spotted Dougal in the background.  We never actually see Dougal fighting in the books, do we?   Jamie fights with his own Lallybroch men at Prestonpans, not the men of Castle Leoch.  I do seem to recall one battle where Jamie and his lot end up barricaded in a church at some point (and now I think of it I don't recall how they get out of that one -- oh goody season two is going to be able to surprise me a bit) -- but was Dougal there too?  Is there any battle in book two where Jamie and Dougal fight side-by-side?  We wouldn't "see" it in the book because Claire is never present on the battlefield and book two is still locked in her point-of-view but I don't recall hearing Jamie talk about Dougal after any of the battles.

 

And isn't it interesting that in that one scene where Jamie has the shield that Jamie's is LEADING and Dougal is following him into battle.  Interesting behavior for a war chieftain.

 

I don't really understand your question.  Book 2 begins in the 20th century and then returns to the 18th where Claire is pregnant with baby Faith.  She seen pregnant in many scenes in the trailer and the pregnancy was announced in the last scene of Season 1 so they won't be skipping that.

I think it's because of the show and knowing what happens, but not reading book two yet it's literally a foot away under book one, the trailer makes it look like they bypass Faith and Claire goes straight to Brianna,bypassing

the still birth

Knowing what my wife and I went through; I was fearing they bypass what is a most tragic point in couples lives.

[Athena]

I think it's because of the show and knowing what happens, but not reading book two yet it's literally a foot away under book one, the trailer makes it look like they bypass Faith and Claire goes straight to Brianna,bypassing the still birth

Knowing what my wife and I went through; I was fearing they bypass what is a most tragic point in couples lives.

 

It does not necessarily mean that they will bypass Faith. Claire loses Faith in France and it's a turning point for the couple, but she becomes pregnant again with Brianna. They find out right before Culloden so we'll see how the characters and writers play that.

 

This an All Books category. Spoiler tags are not necessary here. Thank you.

[WatchrTina]

 

Yes, Dougal was in the church, Rupert died there in his arms

Well damn.  I had forgotten that.  Oh well, serves me right for cheerfully being in this thread.

 

Still, I think Jamie finds Dougal and his men there -- they weren't fighting together beforehand.  So we still have surprises ahead and one of them has to be when Jamie and Dougal fight in the same battle.

Edited February 13, 2016 by WatchrTina

[GrailKing]

It does not necessarily mean that they will bypass Faith. Claire loses Faith in France and it's a turning point for the couple, but she becomes pregnant again with Brianna. They find out right before Culloden so we'll see how the characters and writers play that.

 

This an All Books category. Spoiler tags are not necessary here. Thank you.

tags may not be needed, but I err on side of caution, it's only a click. :), that part I knew, that's why I asked if they just bypassed or minimize Faith, it would be sad and wrong if they do.

[DittyDotDot]

Dougal is also present in two of the battle scenes in the trailer -- right behind Jamie in the one where Jamie has the shield (Angus and Rupert are there too) and when I paused the trailer on one of the smokey fighting scenes I spotted Dougal in the background.  We never actually see Dougal fighting in the books, do we?   Jamie fights with his own Lallybroch men at Prestonpans, not the men of Castle Leoch.  I do seem to recall one battle where Jamie and his lot end up barricaded in a church at some point (and now I think of it I don't recall how they get out of that one -- oh goody season two is going to be able to surprise me a bit) -- but was Dougal there too?  Is there any battle in book two where Jamie and Dougal fight side-by-side?  We wouldn't "see" it in the book because Claire is never present on the battlefield and book two is still locked in her point-of-view (in the 18th century) but I don't recall hearing Jamie talk about Dougal after any of the battles.

 

And isn't it interesting that in that one scene where Jamie has the shield that Jamie's is LEADING and Dougal is following him into battle.  Interesting behavior for a war chieftain.

 

I haven't watched the trailers yet but Dougal was present in some of the battles sequences in the book, but not til sometime after Prestonpans. Collum comes to meet with the Prince only after a couple successful battles and other clans come forward to support the cause. And it appears he's not willing to join the fight after he talks with Claire and Jamie. But then Collum dies and Dougal gets his wish to join the fight.

 

You're right, the battle sequences are written different than we get later in the series because it's all from Claire's POV. I don't recall it being stated Dougal and Jamie went into battle together, but I do remember Dougal being around camp and such. I also remember there's a public demonstration of broadswords done with Jamie and Dougal not long after the MacKenzies join up. 

 

This should be interesting to watch and get a different POV than the book.

[peacefrog]

I think by showing Dougal and Jamie fighting together it will make their final confrontation that much more poignant.

I know a lot of people want Murtagh to be saved and take over Duncan Innes story but I just don't see how that can happen. I do however see a potential to save Rupert and have him go that route. Angus seems more Dougal's guy in the TV version. Either one it makes sense to continue to use one as one of Jamie's fellow Ardsmuir prisoners.

Also has anyone seen Willie in any trailer? He seems missing.

[DittyDotDot]

Ooh...and we'll need Willie to be witness to certain events.

[GrailKing]

I was looking up prices for The Exile on Amazon and B & N and notice while watching the ask the writer video that Diana looks to have two wedding rings, Gold on her right and Silver on her left, opposite of her protagonist.

[Dust Bunny]

 

I know a lot of people want Murtagh to be saved and take over Duncan Innes story but I just don't see how that can happen. I do however see a potential to save Rupert and have him go that route. Angus seems more Dougal's guy in the TV version. Either one it makes sense to continue to use one as one of Jamie's fellow Ardsmuir prisoners.

 

I actually hope this doesn't happen. Losing Murtagh and all the MacKenzies of Leoch makes the tragedy of Culloden real for the viewers. And it allows Ardsmuir to take on its own identity, as a different part of Jamie's life. It further shows that Jamie continues to be a leader of men amidst different groups of men. Not to mention Duncan Innes only has one arm, and that plays a role in the story. I suppose they could have Murtagh lose an arm in Culloden, but I just can't see Murtagh having the personality to deal with Jocasta. Unless they have him be traumatized by Culloden, or something.

 

Still, I'd much prefer the Culloden tragedy made real and a new chapter turned in Ardsmuir. 

[WatchrTina]

 

Duncan Innes only has one arm, and that plays a role in the story. I suppose they could have Murtagh lose an arm in Culloden, but I just can't see Murtagh having the personality to deal with Jocasta.

I'm of the opposite opinion.  I would love to see Murtagh take over the Duncan Innes role.  Duncan is reluctant to marry Jocasta because he's not a "whole" man.  Murtagh could be reluctant to marry her because he feels he is betraying Ellen's memory.  The book never suggests (that I can recall) that Jocasta and Ellen were anything alike but the show could go there.  Duncan could be startled to notice the similarities between the two sisters and feel tortured by his attraction to Jocasta, seeing it a s betrayal of Ellen.

 

I know it's long-shot but I actually do hope they take this approach.  Think about the emotional beats that could happen.  First there could be an unexpected and joyful reunion at Ardsmuir, followed by yet another parting when Murtagh is transported to America.  In fact, Jamie could ask Lord John to prevent it from happening (and it would KILL him to have to ask that) and John could be in position where it is too late or he cannot do it -- Jamie has a different status at the prison due to his being a Laird and that status was key to John being able to keep him in Great Britain.   His failure to stop Murtagh from being transported could be just one more reason for Jamie to resent John.  And then, of course, in season 4 we could have yet another joyful reunion between Jamie and his godfather.  I hope they do this.  #SaveMurtagh

Edited February 13, 2016 by WatchrTina

[DittyDotDot]

See, I don't think Duncan and Murtagh resemble each other at all. Duncan is always one of Jamie's men. Even after he and Jocasta are married, Duncan still looks to Jamie for leadership. Murtagh might happily follow Jamie into hell, but he could make his own way there without Jamie too. To me, they are totally different characters and I don't think one can really replace the other.

 

Plus, for Jamie to really step out and remake himself in prison, I think all the men need to be mostly unknown to him. Part of what makes Ardmuir work in the books, for me, is these men followed Jamie when they had no reason to. His Lallybrook men followed him because he was their laird, it was their duty to follow him. Murtagh follows Jamie for the same reason and the promise he made to his mother--and because he obviously has a great affection for Jamie. But the Ardsmuir men have no tie or loyalty to Jamie and has to earn his place as their "laird." 

[peacefrog]

Excellent point and I agree completely. I also can't see Murtagh surviving because I really believe there is an important reason why he died that day that has not been revealed. (Other than saving Jamie)

[WatchrTina]

Oh, Peacefrog I think you have a point.  We never did "see" where Murtagh fell, or why or how.  Jamie can't remember what happened to him during the battle of Culloden, nor how it is that Jack Randall came to be dead, sprawled across Jamie's legs on Culloden field.  Yet he does seem to be certain that Murtagh died.  Did someone else tell him?  Who could have -- Jamie is the only man to have been given at "out" following the battle.  Hmmm.  Ah well, Diana knows and she can warn the show if they are writing themselves into a corner by merging those two roles.

 

If we can't #SaveMurtagh, then at least they need to film a epic end for him during the battle, throw it in a vault, and reveal it to us as a flash-back in a future season when Jamie finally remembers what happened.

[peacefrog]

Oh, Peacefrog I think you have a point.  We never did "see" where Murtagh fell, or why or how.  Jamie can't remember what happened to him during the battle of Culloden, nor how it is that Jack Randall came to be dead, sprawled across Jamie's legs on Culloden field.  Yet he does seem to be certain that Murtagh died.  Did someone else tell him?  Who could have -- Jamie is the only man to have been given at "out" following the battle.  Hmmm.  Ah well, Diana knows and she can warn the show if they are writing themselves into a corner by merging those two roles.

 

If we can't #SaveMurtagh, then at least they need to film a epic end for him during the battle, throw it in a vault, and reveal it to us as a flash-back in a future season when Jamie finally remembers what happened.

We do know Murtagh died. Jamie finds him barely alive and Murtagh says something about its not painful.

But I sincerely hope that whole what happened on the Culloden battlefield has been filmed like you said and thrown in the vault! How great for continuity, hair and age, to get now in case the show goes for 5 more seasons!

[ulkis]

Now I suspect that the show will start in the 20th century but not with adult Roger.  I think that last scene from the trailer may be the FIRST scene of season 2, episode 1 -- a tease to get the viewer intrigued and then the show will take us right back to the ship arriving in France.  That's a common TV trick -- begin an episode with a shocking scene and the say something like "Two days earlier" and explain how they got to that point.

 

I'm think you may be right. Otherwise that seems like a huge scene to put into a promo.

[ElsieH]

I wonder if they might start season 2 with Claire at the stones going back to the 20th century right before Culloden. Then everyone would wonder how she got there and why. She'd also be pregnant and it wouldn't be obvious that it's Brianna she's carrying instead of Faith. And then they can flash back to France and everything.

[GrailKing]

I wonder if they might start season 2 with Claire at the stones going back to the 20th century right before Culloden. Then everyone would wonder how she got there and why. She'd also be pregnant and it wouldn't be obvious that it's Brianna she's carrying instead of Faith. And then they can flash back to France and everything.

Except for book readers, that's why I first thought they were bypassing Faith that; and she wasn't pregnant in the Paris scenes.

[Petunia846]

I've seen several scenes of Claire in a shift in bed with Jamie in Paris where she has a very big belly. I don't remember off the top of my head whether those scenes are in the newest promo or not, but I know I've seen them. The way those dresses are cut hides a lot of what we would expect to see of a pregnant belly, but it's there. I don't think you need to worry about them skipping over that part of the story.

[Dust Bunny]

 

I've seen several scenes of Claire in a shift in bed with Jamie in Paris where she has a very big belly. I don't remember off the top of my head whether those scenes are in the newest promo or not, but I know I've seen them. The way those dresses are cut hides a lot of what we would expect to see of a pregnant belly, but it's there. I don't think you need to worry about them skipping over that part of the story.

 

Yup, there are at least 2 shots of her with her pregnant belly in bed with Jamie, while he's embracing her.

 

Plus the fact that in the earlier trailer we see Jamie and Claire kneeling down in a cemetery. Jamie is wearing his kilt (probably in anticipation for going back to Scotland shortly), and Claire doesn't look pregnant. I was kind of surprised they included that one, though for non-book readers it's not obvious what's going on.

[GrailKing]

I've seen several scenes of Claire in a shift in bed with Jamie in Paris where she has a very big belly. I don't remember off the top of my head whether those scenes are in the newest promo or not, but I know I've seen them. The way those dresses are cut hides a lot of what we would expect to see of a pregnant belly, but it's there. I don't think you need to worry about them skipping over that part of the story.

I must have been concentrating too much on the planes, missed those scenes, as they are there.

Claire's is probably telling Frank her story and they vacillate between past and future.

[peacefrog]

Yeah I can't tell either but my best guess is 1948. She's reading the family tree? It looks like she is recovering, maybe at the Reverend's shortly after she returns. Looks like a woman, housekeeper Mrs. Graham. Then you see jets fly. I don't think she's really older, I've always found the '40s scenes she looks older than she really is.

[GrailKing]

I have a very stupid question regarding new trailer and Claire going through some books at 0:48. Is that supposed to be "older" Claire? Because for me she looks somehow older than usual in that scene, but on the other hand no way in hell she looks nearly 50. It's probably too short of a moment to determine. And I have no idea who could be that person talking to her, even hard to tell if it's a woman or man. Certainly not Roger though, given posture and hair.

She's reading the Randall family tree, It shows BJR as direct ancestor to her husband Frank, which according to what I have is not entirely correct, and it looks like a female in front of her she had mid length hair.

Claire looks older but how long it's is I don't know; she could just look older because of what she went through.

 

ETA: voices are Murtogue,Jamie and Claire.

I'm also wondering if he is placing trust in Frank with words spoken by him with Claire or he just placing faith in their marriage near the end of the clip.

Edited February 15, 2016 by GrailKing

[GrailKing]

Well since we had a nice ice storm I stayed up and shovelled so my wife can get to work, so I decided to look at the trailer again between 1:29 and ~ 1:32 and to me it looks like Jamie and Claire are talking about their / his trust and Jamie says" in this I do and this I will"  as he holds Claire's left hand and a small lift of it, it's the hand that normally has Franks wedding ring ( can't see it but scene before she has both), anyone know if this is from book?

To me it's like he's getting her ready to go back to Frank and putting trust in that decision, then they cut to Frank in the 20th century.

I read that part when I got book two and it was emotional for both.

 

ETA: also she doesn't look pregnant there.

Edited February 16, 2016 by GrailKing

[DittyDotDot]

I haven't watched the trailer yet, but that dialogue doesn't immediately jump out to me as being in the book. When Claire heads back to Frank in the book Claire's only, I think, two months pregnant and not showing yet, so it could be. 

 

I wonder if it's after Claire loses Faith and Jamie gets out of the Bastille, though? He comes to Claire and they have some talk about trust.

Edited February 16, 2016 by DittyDotDot

[GrailKing]

The editing and part of the voice over makes it odd.

You folks would know more than I, but it was strange to me.

 

So Frank will find out she' with child by Claire or surprise?

Edited February 16, 2016 by GrailKing

[DittyDotDot]

Claire tells him basically on-sight, but I believe a doctor had already told Frank before he saw Claire.

[GrailKing]

Claire tells him basically on-sight, but I believe a doctor had already told Frank before he saw Claire.

okay.

< 190 pages and I can discuss book 1 theory’s with full knowledge. :@)

[GrailKing]

Damn, forgot to ask, did Claire tell Frank about BJR?

 She's looking over the family tree book with BJR married to MH.

 

ETA: Never mind almost done with book one, Started Book2 and found my answer.

Edited February 18, 2016 by GrailKing

[Dust Bunny]

Not sure where this originates from, but here's an alternative trailer. It includes the scene where Claire asks what year it is. 

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k3gmH95sccTb1DfC5HX

 

ETA: I see it's in the spoilery discussion thread too. I'll just leave it here for now for easy access to both book-and-show spoilery discussion. 

Edited February 21, 2016 by Dust Bunny