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

[Lion]

7 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

 

To be clear, I'm not saying this. I'd like to see everything that was fantastical in the buiks in the show-but I read an interview where Ron said he wanted to stay away from those aspects of that. Like in Outlander, how Claire saw the Water horses, but in show, Rupert was telling the story. Remember, someone saw Claire and called her a witch or something. And we're not sure yet how the show will, well, show how Raymond heals Claire. I mean, we know that Ron didn't change how Geillis was also a time traveler. As for Germain, once I finished Dragonfly in Amber, I never gave him another thought.

Plus, this is Ron Moore's show. He can do/use whatever he wants.

Sure, Ron Moore can change things. But making adjustments to the adaptation is not the same as saying the Comte's story shouldn't be used because it's somehow so different from the other many time travelers. 

It's incredibly unlikely that you never gave the Comte another thought considering he's mentioned multiple times throughout the series. There's a pretty large plot about his lineage in Echo, as just one example.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 minutes ago, Lion said:

It's incredibly unlikely that you never gave the Comte another thought considering he's mentioned multiple times throughout the series. There's a pretty large plot about his lineage in Echo, as just one example.  

It's not. Like I said, I didn't. I just didn't care about him. Sure, when his name was brought up, I was like, who, again? Oh, right. The guy from Dragonfly.  

[maraleia]

I'm still trying to figure out how the Randall name continues on with this family tree that was featured in the show. Book readers help me out? Thanks!http://www.farfarawaysite.com/section/outlander/gallery2/gallery3/hires/1.jpg

[peacefrog]

Yeah I didn't think much of him being a time traveler until I read A Space Between . Honestly I just thought he was another boring Parisian character(not a fan of Raymond either). I've read the books a few times and don't recall him having much page time at all. Maybe a remembrance in Voyager? Nothing until ECHO and don't recall him being fantastical in that. *shrugs*

I do think he is more interesting now after the novella(which was just OK). He certainly is more interesting now that Stanley Weber is playing him! Different aspects appeal to different people I guess. I kind of hope they go off books and keep him throughout the series in a bigger role. Then again my wish is for more TT and fantastical events in both books and tv show.

[Dejana]

55 minutes ago, maraleia said:

I'm still trying to figure out how the Randall name continues on with this family tree that was featured in the show. Book readers help me out? Thanks!http://www.farfarawaysite.com/section/outlander/gallery2/gallery3/hires/1.jpg

The Randall Family Tree appeared in the official series guidebook, The Outlandish Companion (recreated in the Outlander Wikia here) . Margaret Ainslie married Alexander Randall. For some reason, the show's version of the family tree doesn't list this as plainly as all the other marriages, which are stated in a very clear  "John Smith — Jane Doe" format.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Dejana

[maraleia]

6 minutes ago, Dejana said:

The Randall Family Tree appeared in the official series guidebook, The Outlandish Companion (recreated in the Outlander Wikia here) . Margaret Ainslie married Alexander Randall. For some reason, the show's version of the family tree doesn't list this as plainly as all the other marriages, which are stated in a very clear  "John Smith — Jane Doe" format.

Thanks a million!

[DittyDotDot]

18 hours ago, Dust Bunny said:

I didn't pick up on the Comte's time-travel identity from reading the books either, until I started interacting with other fans. Certainly not from my initial reading of DiA. I just thought he was a bit of a villain who dabbled in the black arts. So I missed the massive neon blinking signs, until other people turned my head and pointed them out to me.

I didn't pick up on the time-traveler bit, but knew something was different about him. His dabbling in the occult alone made me wonder what his deal was. And, I wasn't at all surprised he wasn't actually dead, though. I kinda expected him to crop up again in Voyager for some reason. When he didn't, I just sort of forgot about him until he was brought up again in Echo in the Bone.

So, I don't know if Diana had intentions for the Compte when she originally wrote him, but to me, it's basically one of those many things in this series you think are unimportant, but three books later learn it wasn't. 

 

12 hours ago, Dejana said:

The Randall Family Tree appeared in the official series guidebook, The Outlandish Companion (recreated in the Outlander Wikia here) . Margaret Ainslie married Alexander Randall. For some reason, the show's version of the family tree doesn't list this as plainly as all the other marriages, which are stated in a very clear  "John Smith — Jane Doe" format.

You know what's most interesting to me? I'm fascinated by all the characters whose names are filled in, but we never meet. 

[Nidratime]

I've never gotten as far as Echo in the Bone. Was it ever established where the Comte traveled to or where he was from? Is he in his "right place" in Paris of the 1700's?

[DittyDotDot]

32 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

I've never gotten as far as Echo in the Bone. Was it ever established where the Comte traveled to or where he was from? Is he in his "right place" in Paris of the 1700's?

From what I understand he hadn't traveled before he met Geillis. So, he was in his real time in Dragonfly in Amber, I think. In the novella, he hints that he's spent the 20 years after his "death" traveling in the past, never staying in one time period too long, but doesn't specify exactly where and/or when he went. It seemed like he would return to his time between travels. TBH, Diana hasn't fully reveled all this yet.

The biggest thing I learned from the novella was that there are different groups of travelers and the travelers can see what group they belong to by the color of their auras. It seems the Compte and Master Raymond are from the same lineage, or at least the same cultural region, because they both glow blue. It also seems most of the travelers develop some of their more fantastical powers later in life. It seems there's still a lot to learn about the travelers and such even after the last book.

[Nidratime]

Claire has a blue aura too. Master Raymond says that's why he calls her Madonna.

[WatchrTina]

I re-read the smallpox / ship-burning scene in DIA last night and was interested to recall that Jared and the Comte St. Germain are rivals in the wine business and that the cargo on the ship that burned was 1/2 of the world's available supply for a particularly fine vintage of port.  That helps to explain the Comte's hatred of Claire -- he thinks she did what she did in part to benefit Jared (who DOES benefit -- he's positively gleeful at how the value of HIS shipment goes up due to the destruction of Le Comte's shipment.)  In the show, there is a line where Claire says she goes for a walk while Jamie and Jared are inspecting "the port" which I now assume means the Belle Rouge port (a wine) and not the port (harbor) of Le Havre, which is what some unsullied viewers might think.  I'm guessing the bit about the rare vintage and the fact that Jared and Le Comte were the only wine merchants to have it was in the original script somewhere -- how else does the Duke of Sandringham know about it to mention it when he see Jamie at Versailles -- but it got pulled out of the episode due to it running long.  It's not the end of the world, but it does remove one of Le Comte's motivations for his machinations against Claire & Jamie.  It's not pure vengeance for the ship incident -- he's also seeking to disrupt the operations of his major business rival, Jared, someone he thinks had a hand in the burning of his ship for business reasons, not just civic-minded, public health reasons.  I don't think the TV viewers even know Le Comte is a wine merchant.  They might have noticed that the warehouse to which the smallpox victims were taken were full of casks but it wasn't even clear that that was the Comte's warehouse.  It's a pity that aspect of his motivations had to fall out of the show.

Edited May 7, 2016 by WatchrTina

[WatchrTina]

I'm quoting Diana from the CompuServe discussion board because I absolutely love this post by her.

Quote

Romann came up to me while I was on set, introduced himself (with great sang-froid) and shook hands, then said he understood the third book was called Voyager, was that true?  I said it was, and he asked how old would Fergus be in the third book?

I  said, "Fifteen," whereupon he brightened up (and he was already pretty bright) and said, "_I_ will be fifteen by then!"

 "That's good," I said.  "But he's thirty by the end."   We were interrupted before I could tell him about the hand.   

--Diana 

[DittyDotDot]

I think that's the right timeline for Fergus, @Grashka, but when we first meet up with Fergus--living with Jenny and Jamie living in the cave but coming to visit them once a month for a shave and dinner--he would be about 15. Casting for Fergus in S3 should get very interesting.

[Lion]

Thankfully they cast an older child who can easily move between various ages up to and through the teens.  Too many shows often start with actors way too young and forget that kids grow up, and they do so quickly.  So we'll have an 8 year old Carl Grimes and then two years later show time, he'll be 17 and you just have to pretend that he was 15 at the start.  But here, they smartly started with a teenager who can easily pass for young but can also easily be made to seem as an older teen.  

[Clawdette]

Does anyone know how many episodes are left before we head back to Scotland?  If there are two more in Paris, that leaves six episodes for the return to the homeland.  There's a lot to pack in two episodes but I think they can do it.  More wine business (that we see from the preview), Fergus and Black Jack, the duel, Jamie's imprisonment, the loss of Faith, the King's chamber, sleeping with Louie, Jamie & Claire's reconciliation.  

Can they do it in two?  

[morgan]

My guess based on the titles alone would be 2 episodes, maybe 2.5.  There is a lot to do yet in Scotland so personally hoping no more than 2.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

55 minutes ago, Grashka said:

I've not seen any preview for next week episode, so I may be totally off base but something occured to me, when I was reading episode thread for 2.05 and people were asking what's the business with Annelise suddenly being around. Maybe she is the one that's going to be BJR's target in the upcoming episodes instead of Fergus? Because she surely seemed to express an interest in Randall (eww) when he was introducing himself in the gardens, they made a point to emphasize the duel Jamie once fought on her behalf and then there was that whole talk between her and Claire, when she was noting changes in Jamie - him no longer being an impulsive hothead, but a more reliable man.

I think that route would be less controversial though still hard to watch.

 

No. I absolutely do NOT want that twit to be involved in anymore of the show than she has been.  I think she was just used to "show" that Black Jack had arrived in Paris, since the show changed how Jamie found out he was alive.  I know some have asked why some viewers have thrown shade at her--it's the performance--there was, for me, an underlying cattiness in the way she said how the Jamie she knew was stubborn, impulsive...a "boy" as if him being a man now, was something that wasn't as...interesting.  And like I posted in the episode thread, if they stick to the buik, I hope that we only have Jamie hear Fergus yell or scream, and have Jamie run in, and just things from Jamie's perpective--that is, just see his expression, and by the time the camera turns to Black Jack, there's nothing controversial to see. Just maybe him pulling his pants back on.

[WatchrTina]

Well we already know they can't follow the book exactly with regard to Fergus because TVFergus told Jamie "I am not a whore" when he misunderstood Jamie's "interest" in him.  BookFergus (alas) WAS a whore.  He wasn't that fussed about going with Black Jack until he realized that Black Jack was into pain.  So I'm hopeful that TVJamie's decision to break his vow to Claire is prompted by Black Jack attempting to assault Fergus (preferably off camera) and being stopped by Jamie.  I hope Jamie tells Claire about it later when he gets out of prison, when he is trying to win her back, and that Claire will be sufficiently horrified by simply hearing about what happened to forgive him.

Here's another option.  Jamie could find Fergus afterward, weeping, and see that Black Jack has branded him, the same way he branded Jamie.  We wouldn't have to see the assault at all -- it could all be implied by Fergus' reaction and the brand.  Done well, that could be devastating.

Edited May 8, 2016 by WatchrTina

[morgan]

I think we will not see the assault but will hear Fergus scream/yell and Jamie rescue him and challenge.  Or maybe Claire will hear about the duel and rush to it and hear later from Fergus (see the brand).  

Whatever happens I'm guessing it happens next week and we can put it behind us!  Much like the wentworth scenes, I'm just going to be happy when that part is over.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

Okay. I admit, that Dragonfly in Amber wasna one of the buiks I liked or will even re-read, except mebbe the Jamie and Claire scenes...so...I canna recall why or wot made Claire come up with the idea to change history and stop the massacre at Culloden from happening.

Can anyone hear refresh me memory? Thanks!

[DittyDotDot]

If I remember right, Claire and Jamie decided they had to try and change things if they could. Scotland was home and they couldn't just stand by and watch it get destroyed. 

[chocolatetruffle]

I like that in the show, Claire also used the idea of changing the future as a way of giving Jamie a purpose, something else to focus on after Wentworth and a distraction from everything that went down.  It wasn't only about saving Scotland but saving Jamie as well.

[WatchrTina]

I'm doing a stupid thing.  I'm re-reading DIA. I know it's a bad idea -- I should just let the show wash over me and not get caught up in book-vs-show thinking but . . . I finished a novel, didn't have a new one in mind, and DIA was there, tempting me from my Kindle table of contents.  So I'm re-reading, but only as far as the show has gotten -- I don't want to get ahead.

My main reaction is that I had forgotten how funny this book it.  I know some people think the French portion is boring but find myself laughing a lot.  I just love BookJamie.  He is so very different from TVJamie -- mostly because they are at very different points in the healing process.  It was interesting, however, to hit the scene where Black Jack Randall's name comes up for the first time since Wentworth and Jamie has a horrific nightmare (which we "see" from his point of view) and then he spends the rest of the night trying to sit up, finally falling asleep in the window seat.  So there are definitely heartbreaking flashes of PTSD-Jamie in the book too.  But he's interspersed with comical-Jamie playing on the carpet with 9-or-10-year-old Fergus, and even more comical Jamie coming home from the whorehouse stinking of the night's revels and insulted at Claire's suspicions about what he's gotten up to.  Jamie is also pretty funny in the scene where they visit M. Raymond after the poisoning attempt.  He absolutely terrifies M. Raymond.  I rather enjoyed that.

I just got to the rape scene today at lunch.  Now THAT, I have to say, was handled better in the show.  Claire is just a bit too calm in that scene in the book.  So is Jamie.  I know some people have an uncanny ability to be calm in a crisis but Jamie and Claire are weirdly calm in the book (though I guess Claire breaking out in hysterical laughter indicates that she's not entirely holding it together.)  

What really struck me as I've continued to read is that I appreciate even more how difficult this book was to adapt into episodic television.  This book, much more than Outlander, reflects Diana's free-wheeling writing style with lots of short, self-contianed vignettes as opposed to a steady progression through the plot.  I regret how much they are having to leave out but I totally understand why it has to happen.

Edited May 12, 2016 by WatchrTina

[morgan]

I know a lot of people don't like DIA but I have always loved it.  And it definitely has been a bit sad not to have showJamie at the same point bookJamie was at.  I've missed the humor and small moments.  I am staying away from a re-read till the season is over though because I practically had the book in my hands during the first season and it didn't work well for me then.

I know you like the Scot and Sassenach podcasts.  If you are interested, Alastair did a great podcast for the book DIA.  Kind of fun to check out as you are reading.

And I totally agree about how hard these books are to adapt!  That's why even when I don't like or agree with certain choices, I still give high praise to Ron Moore et al.

[WatchrTina]

I think the show has now created a bit of a conundrum for itself.  

In Book 2, Alex asks Claire to bring her husband and bear witness at the wedding of Mary to his brother, Jack.  In the book, I always assumed that Alex has no idea that there is history between Jack and Jamie/Claire.  In the book, Alex has left Paris by the time Jack arrives. I just re-read the scene in the Duke's house where Claire slips away to look for Alex, runs into Mary (who is doing the same thing) and they both are informed that Alex has been discharged from the Duke's service and has left Paris.  Mary runs away in dismay and Claire chases her and runs directly into Jack.  That's when she finds out he is alive and moments later he sees Jamie for the first time.  So Alex is long gone by the time Jack and Jamie duel in Paris and I always assumed that Jack simply never told Alex the truth about the duel and how he was injured.  I have to think that because otherwise Alex asking Jamie to be a witness at Jack Fucking Randall's wedding is just too much to endure.

In the show, Jack has come to Paris specifically to assist his brother.  One has to assume Alex is still in Paris, otherwise, what is the point?  Presumably Alex will be a his brother's bed-side during his recovery.  At this point, Alex cannot be a fan of the Frasers.  First Claire tells him he has to give up Mary (an addition to the TV story that I hated) and then she swears a false accusation that gets Jack thrown in the Bastille, and then Jamie tries to kill Jack.  I can't wait to see how Alex reconciles asking those two people -- of all the people in the world -- to bear witness at Mary's wedding to Jack.  I'm guessing the whole wedding is going to be a lot more unplanned. Something like this -- Mary turns up in Edinburgh (she's run away to be with Alex) and it is SHE (and not Jack) who begs Claire to tend to Alex.  Then Jack turns up looking for his brother and Jamie turns up looking for his wife and everybody manages to control themselves in the presence of a dying man who pleads with all of them to fetch a clergyman (since TVAlex doesn't appear to be one) so that Jack can marry Mary and look after her and his (Alex's) child.  In fact, a clergyman may already be conveniently located in the room tending to Alex, a dying man, and we may see a reprisal of the old threaten-the-clergyman-into-performing-the-cerenmoy trope we first saw in ep 107, The Wedding.

I am very interested to see how that scene is going to play out.

Edited May 15, 2016 by WatchrTina

[morgan]

Interestjng!  I had assumed Alex had gone back to England or Scotland in search of employment or to whatever family there.  Or perhaps to follow Mary in spite of Claire's interference.  Which is what I guess I really was thinking happened.  It is their love story after all.  Just because someone said it wasn't a good idea doesn't mean they have to listen.  

Can't wait to see what happens!

[Nidratime]

Hmm, that's bizarre. I wouldn't be put off if -- during Jamie and Claire's separation -- Jamie has a dream about Claire and himself in her modern world, but he would only be able to include what she described to him, which would be a strange mix of his present and her modern present.

[WatchrTina]

Quote

I wouldn't be put off if -- during Jamie and Claire's separation -- Jamie has a dream about Claire and himself in her modern world

There is evidence for that in the book.  I'm almost certain that Jamie does have a "dream" wherein he "sees" Claire in the 20th century. He describes it to her later when they are reunited and the things he describes are things he cannot have seen in real life but that Claire recognizes from the 20th century (maybe it was a telephone he described?)  Furthermore there is an element of astral projection going on in that scene at the end of Voyager when the drugged crazy lady seems to have made "contact" with Brianna's sleeping/dreaming consciousness in the 20th century.  I'm convinced that while Jamie may not carry the time-travel gene, he DOES carry some kind of "astral-projection" gene and it is the combination of those two factors, coupled with a dose of Roger's time-travel gene that give Jem and Mandy such weird abilities including as being able to "hear" where the other is within a several mile radius.  I've also fan-wanked that Jamie's astral-projection gene is the reason his ghost shows up in the square outside Claire's hotel room in episode 101.

So yeah, I'd be totally on board if Jamie "sees" Claire in the 20th century while "dreaming" during their prolonged separation in Voyager.  The only problem is that Ron Moore seems to be avoiding any supernatural elements other than time-travel.   Then again, he did put the ghost in ep 101.

[DittyDotDot]

12 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

There is evidence for that in the book.  I'm almost certain that Jamie does have a "dream" wherein he "sees" Claire in the 20th century. He describes it to her later when they are reunited and the things he describes are things he cannot have seen in real life but that Claire recognizes from the 20th century (maybe it was a telephone he described?)  Furthermore there is an element of astral projection going on in that scene at the end of Voyager when the drugged crazy lady seems to have made "contact" with Brianna's sleeping/dreaming consciousness in the 20th century.  I'm convinced that while Jamie may not carry the time-travel gene, he DOES carry some kind of "astral-projection" gene and it is the combination of those two factors, coupled with a dose of Roger's time-travel gene that give Jem and Mandy such weird abilities including as being able to "hear" where the other is within a several mile radius.  I've also fan-wanked that Jamie's astral-projection gene is the reason his ghost shows up in the square outside Claire's hotel room in episode 101.

So yeah, I'd be totally on board if Jamie "sees" Claire in the 20th century while "dreaming" during their prolonged separation in Voyager.  The only problem is that Ron Moore seems to be avoiding any supernatural elements other than time-travel.   Then again, he did put the ghost in ep 101.

I agree, Jamie's got some sort of supernatural ability in the books. You know, I think a dream like this could very well set the stage for Jamie sending Claire back to Frank at the end of the season. I always thought Jamie was rather quick to decide what he was going to do in the aftermath of his fight with Dougal. Something like this could help set the stage quite nicely in some ways.

[Archery]

I must confess that, in the midst of the tense scene in the garden at Versailles, when BJR and Claire see each other, I had one of those inappropriate moments. BJR says, "The King."   Claire says, "F*** the King," and I think, "Well, not quite yet, Claire, don't get ahead of yourself."  I had to pause the recording to get over my giggles. So inappropriate. 

[WatchrTina]

Quote

Okay. I admit, that Dragonfly in Amber wasna one of the buiks I liked or will even re-read, except mebbe the Jamie and Claire scenes...so...I canna recall why or wot made Claire come up with the idea to change history and stop the massacre at Culloden from happening.

Claire knows the date that Jack Randall was supposed to die.  When he was apparently trampled to death at Wentworth over two year early that provides evidence to Jamie and Claire that the future CAN be altered.  They talk about it at the end of book 1 and it is one of the things that inspires them to try to stop Culloden (while simultaneously confusing them because Claire still has Frank's wedding ring.)  The reappearance of Jack Randall is such a complete personal horror show for Jamie & Claire that they never stop and have a conversation about how his being alive calls into to question their original assumption that the future CAN be changed.  Claire still believes it on some level since she starts to work very hard to ensure that Jamie DOESN'T change the future by preventing Frank's ancestor from being conceived but you have to wonder if Jack's reappearance causes Jamie to begin to wonder if Claire's original version of the future IS inevitable and that's why he makes her promise to go back to Frank if anything happens to him.  It's a bit depressing to think of it but on top of everything else, Jack's reappearance is a huge hint to Jamie that the future is written in stone and nothing they are trying to do will have any effect.  Talk about living with a sword hanging over your head! I think that's one of the reasons why Jamie is so horrified when he receives the declaration that Prince Charles signs on his behalf, openly declaring him to be a traitor to the current British king. (That cry of anguish from him when he reads it just KILLS me.)  It's not just that the prince has put him and everyone he loves in harm's way,  it's not just the un-fucking-believable presumptuousness of signing another man's name to a document like that, it's the horror of the apparent inevitability of Jamie's being drawn into the conflict on the losing side.  How horrible to have to go to war under those circumstances.

Edited May 17, 2016 by WatchrTina

[peacefrog]

20 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

I agree, Jamie's got some sort of supernatural ability in the books. You know, I think a dream like this could very well set the stage for Jamie sending Claire back to Frank at the end of the season. I always thought Jamie was rather quick to decide what he was going to do in the aftermath of his fight with Dougal. Something like this could help set the stage quite nicely in some ways.

I agree. I just posted in the episode thread that I think the dream would have worked. My reason was mostly for any chance to get the 3 main actors to share a scene just elevates the episode. The most memorable episodes(other thanThe Wedding!)are the ones where they have. But your reasoning here is better, I love insights to Jamie's thoughts.

Secondly as mentioned by WatchrTina Ron really is staying away from the fantastical and I think that is a mistake. That part is why Outlander is Outlander. I never would have read this if it didn't involve time travel.  I want more!

[Dust Bunny]

I just started reading the script notes for 206 on the Inside Outlander website. There was mention of a different dream that was cut, that didn't happen in a car. 

Quote

As you'll see from the final cut of the episode, this scene wasn't in it. In fact, we didn't even film the scene, which is a little bit of a sore subject. This dream sequence came about after we split Episodes 205 and 206. Originally they were conceived as one episode but when it became too big to film we decided to split the episode into two, ending 205 with Jamie’s promise not to kill Black Jack. So to start Episode 206 I wanted to put Jamie in the same scene as Frank: the ghost he had just promised to save. And it was a way to illustrate Jamie coming to terms with his promise not to kill Black Jack. It was also the set up for the later scene in which Jamie asks Claire for a promise…to go back to Frank if the situation in the 1700’s goes pear-shaped, as we like to say. Because the dream sequence had so many elements of battle, we scheduled it to film at the same time as the Prestonpans episode. Unfortunately, filming got a little behind (big battle scenes are always complicated and have many moving parts), so after much vacillation and debate, Ron and I decided to cut this scene. As you see in the episode we trimmed the top of scene 6, starting the show without Jamie waking from his dream. Unfortunately, without the dream sequence we lost the connective tissue that showed Jamie had made peace with his promise to Claire and therefore made up with his wife. Sam, Caitriona and Tobias were all really excited about performing this dream. It was a way to step out of the box. Shame we didn’t get a chance to film it. 

There was some mention in the episode thread how 206 seemed like some disconnected vignettes. This battle dream might have brought together Jamie coming to peace with postponing the duel and then the duel itself. It would have been interesting to watch, certainly something a wee different from the book. Moreover, that dream of Claire moving from Jamie to Frank could plant the seed that Claire might need to leave Jamie. It explains his far off look at the beginning of the episode. Sam assumed that dream would be filmed later, so he's acting as if he's pondering that dream.

I can imagine how frustrating it must be for a writer to have a scene like that cut, due to production timing. You're excited to watch your scene finally filmed and added to your episode only to be told, "Sorry, we don't have time to do this now."

Edited May 17, 2016 by Dust Bunny

[emilyplum]

21 hours ago, peacefrog said:

Secondly as mentioned by WatchrTina Ron really is staying away from the fantastical and I think that is a mistake. That part is why Outlander is Outlander. I never would have read this if it didn't involve time travel.  I want more!

I thought this for a while too, but based on one review I read (can't remember where or when, sorry) that we were going 'beyond time travel' this season, sci fi wise...I think we're going to get the blue light/Raymond scene this upcoming ep. 

And also, she had the stone-less/empty ring when she came back to the 40s in Episode 1.   I've got a hunch they're going to switch that up to be Raymond giving her the ring with the stone, and explaining how it could help. But, who knows. The gem stones weren't introduced until Book 3, really, right?  But anyway, that's more fantastical sci-fi-y stuff, that it looks like we'll get to see. 

[Dust Bunny]

Well, this has me slightly concerned. I saw a link for an article on the Outlander Reddit thread where Diana says there's an off-book scene in 207 wherein the show jumps the shark. I'd like a comment by Maril, as I thinks she bridges book and production as well as anyone can.

ETA: Maril DID reply to a tweet about it (about 10 hours ago; I'm behind the 8 ball), and said that moment wasn't in episode 7. For whatever that's worth. Though the fact that she knows which moment is shark-jumping-esque does not fill me with glee. A lot of people are guessing the Laoghaire angle, but who knows.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Dust Bunny

[WatchrTina]

Well, I have completely caught up with the show and have to stop my re-read of DIA.  Maybe I should stop altogether because it is just reinforcing for me how much the condensing of the action into 13 episodes can have a negative impact on the story and/or the characterizations.  Specifically, Book!Claire is seriously frightened when she starts bleeding.  She immediately discontinues her duties at the hospital, sending a note to Mother Hildegarde who sends her prayers and a potion recommended by the midwives at the hospital.  Claire then spends the next several days / weeks on self-imposed bed-rest.  Contrast that with TV!Claire who returns home from what must have been a fear-filled night at the hospital looking haggard and seemingly in some discomfort (she's suddenly walking like a heavily pregnant lady after being downright light-footed earlier in the ep when she rushed up the stairs to M. Raymond's shop) but despite all of that she goes off chasing after Jamie.  I think I understand why the writers did it -- it amps up the tension to have Claire forced into the action of rushing after Jamie when she already frightened and unwell.  And quite frankly TVClaire's miscarriage (or is it a stillbirth?) is probably more believable than BookClaire's since BookClaire had been taking better care of herself.  But I'm afraid that TVClaire is going to be considered reckless and cavalier about her pregnancy and some viewers may even blame her for the tragic end to her pregnancy.  TVClaire is already taking some heat for trying to break up Alex/Mary and promote a match between Mary and god-forsaken Jack Randall.  I really hope things turn around soon because I hate the idea of people finding Claire unsympathetic and I think we are at risk of that.

Edited May 19, 2016 by WatchrTina

[DittyDotDot]

9 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Well, I have completely caught up with the show and have to stop my re-read of DIA.  Maybe I should stop altogether because it is just reinforcing for me how much the condensing of the action into 13 episodes can have a negative impact on the story and/or the characterizations.  Specifically, Book!Claire is seriously frightened when she starts bleeding.  She immediately discontinues her duties at the hospital, sending a note to Mother Hildegarde who sends her prayers and a potion recommended by the midwives at the hospital.  Claire then spends the next several days / weeks on self-imposed bed-rest.  Contrast that with TV!Claire who returns home from what must have been a frighting night at the hospital looking haggard and seemingly in some discomfort (she's suddenly walking like a heavily pregnant lady after being downright light-footed earlier in the ep when she rushed up the stairs to M. Raymond's shop) but despite all of that she goes off chasing after Jamie.  I think I understand why the writers did it -- it amps up the tension to have Claire forced into the action of rushing after Jamie when she already frightened and unwell.  And quite frankly TVClaire's miscarriage (or is it a stillbirth?) is probably more believable than BookClaire's since BookClaire had been taking better care of herself.  But I'm afraid that TVClaire is going to be considered reckless and cavalier about her pregnancy and some viewers may even blame her for the tragic end to her pregnancy.  TVClaire is already taking some heat for trying to break up Alex/Mary and promote a match between Mary and god-forsaken Jack Randall.  I really hope things turn around soon because I hate the idea of people finding Claire unsympathetic and I think we are at risk of that.

Personally, I thought Claire was very cavalier in the book and one of the reasons Dragonfly in Amber is one of my least favorite books. Her entire attitude throughout the French portion of the book annoyed the crap out of me. But, to me it's an important part of the story, though. Claire is still in the mind set that she can't be hurt by history because she's from the future and knows things. IMO, losing Faith was a tragic reminder that knowing things isn't going fix everything.

I'm really far behind on the show, but if they're hitting that tone with Claire on the show, IMO, it's totally consistent with the book and important characterization for Claire. I think that if viewers find Claire unsympathetic now, it will be okay as long as we see growth from her from having this experience. 

 

5 hours ago, Grashka said:

That, also the show made Claire adopt an unpleasant "Get in here, get out of here, know your place in the rank" attitude toward Murtagh, and she hardly does anything around Fergus other than rolling her eyes or snapping. At this point it's hard to imagine adult!Fergus throwing himself at her feet and crying "Milady! Lord send you back to us!" But maybe they will show more heartwarming aspects of their relationship once they go back to Scotland. I hope so.

As I recall, Fergus and Claire barely interact in the book until after Claire loses Faith and Jamie ends up in the Bastille. It's not until after she learns how Fergus was basically a child prostitute does it seem they start to have a real relationship. In so many ways, everything kinda changes after they lose Faith and head back to Scotland. So, again, it sounds like it's actually consistent with my recollection of the book.

You guys are actually giving me hope right now. I'm really tempted to pay for the Starz Hulu add-on just so I can see how they manage to pull this book off in so few episodes. There's a lot to cover and I was worried the character growth would end up taking a back seat to the political machinations, which I always thought was the weakest part of this book. 

Edited May 18, 2016 by DittyDotDot

[DittyDotDot]

10 minutes ago, Grashka said:

You are right. Based on this beautiful pic from the upcoming episode, I think that's the way it's going to happen in the show as well.

I agree that Claire was at her most irritating in DIA (French part) and it was difficult to rot for her at this point of the story. Still, I think the show is ramping it up by making some weird IMO choices like Claire messing with Alex and Mary. Also, as I said above, in books I've never got that slighty condescending, matronly vibe from Claire, that she has been recently giving in the show.

The show also made some weird choices last season with regards to Geillis and Dougal's "love" for each other, so I guess it's not wholly unexpected they make some other weird choices. I don't know, I still don't think it's too worrisome they make Claire unsympathetic now, as long as they pay it off with growth later.

For what it's worth, even though it's not my favorite book of the series or my favorite book for Claire, this is the book that got me interested in Claire, which is mostly due to how Claire was written as not always being so easy to like. It's what makes Claire so complex to me. People aren't always likable even though we may love them. 

[morgan]

Omg that picture.  Wow.  I am going to need boxes of tissues and possibly my old teddy bear for Saturday's episode.  My heartless husband who prefers action in his outlander might be banned from watching with me.  He can come back for Scotland.  

[DittyDotDot]

6 minutes ago, Grashka said:

Wonder what's your favourite book for Claire then? :-)

For me it would be a toss between "Drums of Autumn", "Written in my own heart blood" and "Echo".

(For Jamie probably "Voyager", MOBY and "Fiery Cross")

For Clair, Drums of Autumn, no contest for me. For Jamie it's tougher, he grows into his own man in Voyager, but I also love how he uses that growth to walk between the two factions in The Fiery Cross.

[Archery]

Quote

That, also the show made Claire adopt an unpleasant "Get in here, get out of here, know your place in the rank" attitude toward Murtagh, and she hardly does anything around Fergus other than rolling her eyes or snapping. At this point it's hard to imagine adult!Fergus throwing himself at her feet and crying "Milady! Lord send you back to us!" But maybe they will show more heartwarming aspects of their relationship once they go back to Scotland. I hope so.

I disagree with both of these.  Claire treats Murtagh as part of the team, except when she is arguing with Jamie. And then it becomes, for her, a matter between her and her husband, so she asks (okay, demands) Murtagh to leave.  But that's when she's already upset or pissed. Her "years of my life" conversation with Murtagh is more typical.  With Fergus, there is the type of playfulness that you have with a kid that is precocious or older than his years.  When Fergus and Jamie are about to ride off to ruin the Comte, she banters with Fergus:  "And you, don't do anything dimwitted" (foreshadowing there), and he responds with sort of a wide-eyed, "Moi?" and that adorable little hand gesture.  I don't see anything unpleasant about either of those interactions as shown. 

[chocolatetruffle]

I was just listening to the Scot & Sassenach podcast and they mentioned something that I had to rush over and share. They noted it was Murtagh who was the first Highlander to see Claire after she came thru the stones and it was Murtaugh who was the first person to save her from Randall.  Murtagh should be acknowledged in the Claire/Randall, Jamie/Randall dynamic but there hasn't been any mention of that since it happened in episode 1.

Re: that picture - it just breaks my heart and makes me angry that they cut the scene between Fergus & Claire while waiting for Jamie after the dinner disaster. 

[toolazy]

Well, they have to save something for the Deleted Scenes on the DVDs.

[WatchrTina]

Quote

Claire treats Murtagh as part of the team, except when she is arguing with Jamie. And then it becomes, for her, a matter between her and her husband, so she asks (okay, demands) Murtagh to leave.

I don't think Murtagh is offended by being asked to leave when Jamie and Claire get into a fight.  Remember when Claire walked down the stairs in the red dress and Jamie objected?  Murtagh prepared to make a hasty retreat and Claire had to tell him NOT to leave.  Furthermore, in this episode in particular Claire can be forgiven for ordering Murtagh out of the room because she has to talk about Frank and the future.  She can't have that conversation in front of Murtagh because he hasn't been told about the time-travel yet.

Edited May 19, 2016 by WatchrTina

[toolazy]

Have any of you watched the previews for episode 8? I'm worried that Diana's "jump the shark" moment is

Spoiler

that Jamie trades Lallybroch to Simon Lovatt in exchange for his support for BPC.  I sincerely hope that is some kind of weird misdirection because that would be a change I would be VERY unhappy about.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, toolazy said:

Have any of you watched the previews for episode 8? I'm worried that Diana's "jump the shark" moment is

  Reveal hidden contents

that Jamie trades Lallybroch to Simon Lovatt in exchange for his support for BPC.  I sincerely hope that is some kind of weird misdirection because that would be a change I would be VERY unhappy about.  

I saw it. But wasn't there a similar conversation in the buik? Either way, SCOTLAND!!!! And we ken Jamie is a canny man. And if I'm wrong, then ye'll hear me scream verra loud and vociferously, and cursing Ron Moore.

[emilyplum]

Everything I've been able to glean about  DG's "jump the shark" comment is 

Spoiler

It was something completely out of character for Claire and has to do with Laoghaire...so my assumption is that Claire actually does let Collum or whomever have her punished for getting Claire wrapped up in the witch trial.  If that's the case - I'm perfectly fine with this particular shark being jumped!

[Dejana]

Bringing over an interview from the media thread where the writer of 2.07 explains the motivations for depicting various things, including Black Jack attacking Fergus:

 

Quote

“I don’t think we were ever going to not include it, we just wanted to make sure that we did it justice and it wasn’t gratuitous or titillating in any way,” Graphia says of the scene, which appears may be the first-ever depiction of child rape on television. “Some people are going to be unsettled by it. We did it in what we consider an organic way. Hopefully people understand it and even applaud it, it’s something that goes on and it shouldn’t be in the dark.”

The attack is mentioned in Diana Gabaldon’s book, A Dragonfly in Amber, but not shown; when it came to the episode, Graphia felt that such a crucial moment—the reason Jamie broke his promise to Claire—had to be depicted onscreen, no matter how upsetting. “We need to understand why Jamie broke that promise,” she says. “Claire couldn't just hear about it. You’re supposed to be angry when you see it.”

What garbage, frankly. The exact book dialogue from this scene was plenty horrifying, not only in terms of what Fergus endured at the hands of Black Jack but just how knowing such a young kid was, about the world's oldest profession. The actors involved were more than talented enough to convey the emotions without needing extra visuals. If the show is so desperate to be edgy and envelope-pushing, I do wonder why they altered Fergus's background with child prostitution. Maybe a Standards & Practices thing? I guess you could shield an underage actor from thrusting or whatever with editing, but not dialogue about how long men take, experience with oral, etc. In later books Fergus does reference his time as a prostitute, but they did have him come from the brothel, and I guess his hand will still get chopped off, so it shouldn't shift his backstory too dramatically, in the grand scheme of things.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Dejana

[peacefrog]

I agree Dejana . They really don't think highly of their audience, actors and writers if they could not convey what went on by the dialogue written. Maybe they want the backlash for publicity? Why do they feel the need to show, not tell with this but other parts like tender times with J & C are not? With regards to the King's payment I'm really baffled as to why they left that in when it really had to bearing on the story or end game, they even had an out. The king could have been grateful for Jamie's porridge advice! It all leads a bad taste in my mouth. Just really odd choices they make. 

[Archery]

I think there is room to disagree with their choices without making you absolutely right and them absolutely wrong.