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

[WatchrTina]

I know I started this conversation by re-reading the last 18th century chapter and saying what I want to see but I'm reversing myself now.  I have recollected that there is no hut at the foot of the hill in the TV-verse so I predict we're not going to see a full-on, slow, romantic sex scene (with or without clothes).  There will be a passionate good-bye, it will break our hearts, there may even be last-minute, fully clothed, desperate sex but yeah, there is just no TIME.  In the book, Jamie asks the witness for an hour's reprieve, then sets all the wheels in motion to get the deed of sesine to Jenny (he sends Fergus with it), orders Murtagh to gather the Lallybroch men in one place on the battlefield (the better to have them slip away together) and then he rides 2 HOURS to Craig na Dun and spends a pretty long time saying a leisurely goodbye to Claire before they are rudely interrupted (in the morning, after dressing) by redcoats.  If you think too hard about the book time-line your head will explode.  How did BookJamie not completely miss the battle if he was two hours away at dawn?  Yeah, the TV version will be different, it will be more frenetic, there will not be slow, lingering goodbye sex.  But I better get my "Lord, ye gave me a rare woman" speech or I will still riot.

And then I'll sit down and start creating expectations for the reunion scene in season 3.  :)

Edited July 8, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Petunia846]

Not to be an argumentative grump (but I am feeling grumpy today, sorry...woke up with a headache that won't go away), but I also don't like the argument that Diana says all the time: if you don't like the show, you've always got the books.

Just because I have the books and can go back to read them, doesn't preclude me from being disappointed about the show. The books are fantastic, but they don't have Sam and Cait or any of the other wonderful actors or the other cool things that the show has. They're obviously two very different things, I know that, I'm not against adaptational changes. When I'm disappointed about the show it's not because it's not exactly the book, it's because the show has got so much potential in its own right to be something special and sometimes they squander that or get sidetracked.

Anyway, I don't hate the show actually, as much as it sounds like it. I just don't like when Diana makes me feel like I'm crazy for having an opinion. Maybe I should go take a nap.

[GHScorpiosRule]

3 hours ago, Petunia846 said:

I'm sorry, but that comment from Diana makes me want to throw something. I'm starting to really hate how condescending, she and the producers can be about how we feel about the show. Like we're not allowed to have feelings and be disappointed? If we're disappointed there's something wrong with us? Yes, actually, I do expect them to spend at least 15 minutes out of 90 on, you know, the central, integral relationship between the main characters of the whole series. Geez.

And people wonder why I don't like Diana Gabaldon. That whole comment of hers came off very condescending to me. Like we're supposed to love every.damn.thing not related to Jamie and Claire. 

Though I think they did a credible job condensing this buik, I STILL think Jamie and Claire-THEIR story-got short shriffed, so Gabaldon and Moore can just STFU. Because this could have been avoided.

iI'm going to be out of town this weekend, so won't be able to see the finale until Sunday.

Edited July 7, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[CatMack]

It's always going to be mileage varies when it comes to adaptations.  I haven't had any problems with the level of Jamie/Claire this season and it won't bother me at all if they don't adapt every intimate scene for the next episode.  In fact I'd frankly prefer if the show continues to cut some of the more ridiculous sex scenes from the books (the post almost rape sex from last season being cut was good, I'd be perfectly happy if they don't have last minute shove it in her while the redcoats are nearby sex when Claire goes back, and the Jamie's back is hurt and they're stranded in a blizzard but lets have sex under this bush sex from later in the series - those are the three off the top of my head that made me roll my eyes when reading).  Don't get me wrong I want intimacy and love and drama from their final moments together, but how it happened in the book isn't the only way to show that and I don't expect them to keep all the details the same.  If they fail to deliver the emotion then that's a valid criticism, but if they make us feel that love and that pain and they do so in a different way than the books did, then that's just fine with me too.  I'm not going to judge an episode we haven't seen yet just because we know there will be changes from the book.

That being said I do find Gabaldon's post to be condescending even though I mostly agree with her stance on adaptations.  But then, I often find her to be condescending and in general think her personality would clash horribly with mine were we to ever interact in real life, and that's a big part of the reason I try to avoid reading her interviews or posts, lest the series be ruined for me because I can't separate my dislike of the author from her work.  

[AheadofStraight]

Diana did say in a later response that they do show the connection so I think we just need to get that specific book scene/dialog out of our heads in preparation and hope for the best. :)

[DittyDotDot]

29 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

 If you think too hard about the book time-line your head will explode.  How did BookJamie not completely miss the battle if he was two hours away at dawn?  

I got so caught up on the timeline when I was reading it. I was like, wait, just the ride alone probably took an hour. I finally realized time is fluid, or at least it is in Diana's world, and I just needed to accept and focus on the character beats. 

29 minutes ago, Petunia846 said:

Anyway, I don't hate the show actually, as much as it sounds like it. I just don't like when Diana makes me feel like I'm crazy for having an opinion.

I tend to think Diana isn't all that good at public relations. She doesn't seem to have many filters and/or think through things before she says them. I don't disagree with what she's saying--if you're going in with certain expectations, you'll probably be disappointed and if you don't want to be disappointed you might want to adjust those expectations--but there's probably many ways to have better articulated that.  

[ulkis]

3 hours ago, morgan said:

I do feel for those who are non book readers because they are getting a very different story/shortchanged.  But I also have realized that fellow book readers and I often read/interpret the books so differently too.  So same words read, but their story is different than mine.

I compare to GOT.  I'm a non book reader of GOT with no intention of reading them.  I do read the book readers threads and see how they are compared, favorable and unfavorable.  I'm sure bookreaders think I'm shortchanged, and maybe I am.  I'm definitely not as engaged with many of the characters that they are.  I tend to like the ones no one else does.  But I'm good with that, and maybe non outlander readers are too so maybe I shouldn't care about them.  

2 more days!!!!!

Based on the reactions from non-book-readers, overall they don't seem to be feeling short changed. 

And imo, even if there were no books for GoT, viewers are still kinda short changed there because there are so many characters for so short a space it is very hard to get decent point of views for any of them.

I dunno, it's hard for me to say, I'm only kinda sorta a book reader. But the only scene where I think they really missed the mark is Claire returning from the stones last season and not making it clear she chose Jamie. Otherwise, it seems to be a decent adaptation, one which I think will be harder to do from this point out, so good luck to them.

Edited July 7, 2016 by ulkis

[ulkis]

3 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

I tend to think Diana isn't all that good at public relations. She doesn't seem to have many filters and/or think through things before she says them. I don't disagree with what she's saying--if you're going in with certain expectations, you'll probably be disappointed and if you don't want to be disappointed you might want to adjust those expectations--but there's probably many ways to have better articulated that.  

I think DG could be better at public relations if she wanted to be. I just think she doesn't give a damn. Sometimes it irritates me, sometimes it amuses me. A lot of stuff she has said has really irritated me - but she's won points with me because in the Outlander Companion she wrote an essay on people not cleaning up their own pee in public restrooms, heh.

What DG said was condescending but at the same time she has probably gotten a LOT of "but it's not the same as in the book!" comments and also probably a lot of the comments are probably picky as hell and the episode hasn't even aired yet (at least in the U.S.), and she probably shouldn't have replied at all, but I get where she's coming from. Who knows, maybe she's mad at some of the changes herself. Yes, she's criticized some of the show but she's probably never gonna say something like the whole show is crap. Or maybe she will someday, who knows, it is DG.

2 hours ago, Grashka said:

As for people complaining about level of C&J this season, I don't think it's only about sex but that in general....there just doesn't seem to be much going on between the two of them? They exchange a few words in passing and he gives her a peck.

I think there has been . . . they had a heartfelt parting before Prestonpans, and at the church he was going crazy over her giving herself to the British officers. But mileage varies, and I can see how some people feel they've been light on a Jamie/Claire. 

Edited July 7, 2016 by ulkis

[CalamityBoPeep]

1 hour ago, ulkis said:

I think there has been . . . they had a heartfelt parting before Prestonpans, and at the church he was going crazy over her giving herself to the British officers. But mileage varies, and I can see how some people feel they've been a little light on a Jamie/Claire. 

I think for me, the feeling is "Oh,My! That was an awesome connection-scene!" but then it gets swamped by all the rest, that time-wise, it ends up not feeling like enough. Those scenes are just too brief, too far apart from each other, and don't get a chance to breathe. So, I feel like they end up lost in the shuffle, even though they do exist.

[morgan]

I was just talking to a friend of mine.  She introduced me to outlander nearly 10 years ago and it has always been "our" thing.  She doesn't have cable or Starz play and will wait for season 2 dvds to come out to watch (and that is where we definitely differ!).  She asked me how the season was going and we got into a long talk about the different experience she will have since she will be able to binge watch rather than wait weekly.

I'm wondering if that might be better in a way?  All of J&C small moments of connection might feel "more" in a way?  What do you all think? Would it be a different experience?

i actually would love to rewatch the season straight through (well over a long weekend)  and see how it plays watching it straight thru like that?  

[ulkis]

Yes and no. I think binge watching, at least for me personally, gets me a little less involved. Like if you watch season 1 of something one week and then get to season 4 the next, and they make a joke or an allusion to season 1, there's a resonance that's a bit lacking than if you had been following along as each season aired. On the other, I do think episodes like the last one will seem less out of place when bookended by episodes 11 and 13. So I'm gonna go more with yes, for those of you who think the Jamie-Claire moments are slight, I do think watching in a row would make the moments stand out more.

Edited July 7, 2016 by ulkis

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, morgan said:

I was just talking to a friend of mine.  She introduced me to outlander nearly 10 years ago and it has always been "our" thing.  She doesn't have cable or Starz play and will wait for season 2 dvds to come out to watch (and that is where we definitely differ!).  She asked me how the season was going and we got into a long talk about the different experience she will have since she will be able to binge watch rather than wait weekly.

I'm wondering if that might be better in a way?  All of J&C small moments of connection might feel "more" in a way?  What do you all think? Would it be a different experience?

i actually would love to rewatch the season straight through (well over a long weekend)  and see how it plays watching it straight thru like that?  

This is always an interesting question for me since I kinda binge almost any show I watch anymore. I mean, I don't watch the whole season in a day, but usually do batch up a couple episodes to watch together. That's how I watched S1--probably did the whole season in 4 to 5 weeks. I find it's easier to let annoyances go when you jump into the next episode, but you tend to forget about some of the more poignant moments too. It could be that binge watchers would notice the lack of intimacy more than the folks who watched it in real time and spent each week thinking about the show and those few moments?

I really don't know.

[morgan]

I tend to binge most shows now too, even if it's just one episode a night we will watch several a week.  I agree that it makes it hard to slow down and process some things.  

So DittyDotDot, since you binged the first season and not the second, do you have a preference?  Did you really notice a difference for you?

[ulkis]

@DittyDotDot , I like how we're both like, "yes? no? maybe?" which probably means the answer is it doesn't matter whether you binge watch it or not, if it seems like there is not enough intimacy then that impression will probably be the same. 

Maybe. :)

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, morgan said:

I tend to binge most shows now too, even if it's just one episode a night we will watch several a week.  I agree that it makes it hard to slow down and process some things.  

So DittyDotDot, since you binged the first season and not the second, do you have a preference?  Did you really notice a difference for you?

I actually haven't watched the second season yet. I almost paid for the Starz add-on for Hulu, but never got around to it. I like the show, but can't say I love it. I'm more interested in how they adapt the books than I am invested in the show itself.

TBH, I'm not sure it makes a big difference to me how I watch it, I'm probably gonna see whatever I see either way.

18 minutes ago, ulkis said:

@DittyDotDot , I like how we're both like, "yes? no? maybe?" which probably means the answer is it doesn't matter whether you binge watch it or not, if it seems like there is not enough intimacy then that impression will probably be the same. 

Maybe. :)

Exactly...or not. ;)

[morgan]

Oh interesting, I didn't realize that!

[maraleia]

I've found Diana's comments to be condescending and elitist most of the time and was really glad that she had no presence during the promotion of this season.

While I do wish the show would've delved into Claire and Jamie's romantic ties more this season I do understand TV constraints. I think Diana adds fuel to the fire when she makes these pronouncements online and I wish she would stop.

[GHScorpiosRule]

It's telling for me, that I can rewatch episodses from season one, over and over again, but have only managed to watch a few from this season over and over.  I don't think marathon watching would make a difference, because for the first half of the season, Jamie and Claire were at odds and not a united team they were in the buik. Even though I despised Claire in Dragonfly (Her making Jamie promise not to kill that sadistic motherfucking rapist, and then assuming he'd broken his promise not to fight or kill him, because, and etc., etc. Because a lot of his healing had taken place in Outlander, but for reasons, that didn't happen on the series and it had to take place in "real time" in the first half of this season.

So yeah, I'm very bummed and disappointed, and I don't give Moore any slack in that because he should have learned from what happened in the first season. But, them's the breaks. I have to accept what he gives us me.

The best thing about this season for me was seeing Scotland again and seeing show!Jamie transform into Buik!Jamie. At least, for me. And that's all due to Sam Heughan.

Edited July 8, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[fangirl]

I am new to this forum. I really need an outlet for complaining about the lack of relationship/intimacy in season two.  If you go on Diana's site, people mention it, but there's a sense that it isn't OK to be too upset. And Diana herself seems to think that everything is OK. I think she doesn't really perceive how much of their relationship made it onto the cutting room floor. I have read a lot of interviews and the overall impression is that a lot of love making and intense conversations were in the scripts, but they got left out (in favor of the breakneck plot line as noted up thread). What just slays me is that I really fell in love with this series because I thought it was doing something different! I thought actually saying something NEW--something new about men and women and power struggles and intimacy, something new about the connection between men and women and something new about feminism and vulnerability and bonding...and the list goes on and on...except they aren't saying any of it this season! They really aren't.  They just stopped communicating about relationships and they got into some weird PTSD thing and war and intrigue. There were so many wonderful opportunities for us to see the sexuality and jealousy and power struggles played out, and ....poof...all up in smoke. What is left is a fairly mediocre story about a war. The great actors made it meaningful and even sumptuous, but...as someone said up thread, I haven't rewatched any of the second season, whereas I rewatched so much of season one. The air and the breathing room and the non verbals are largely gone too. It's like they hired a new show runner or something.

Also, one last rave--Sam Heughan carries this show and for some reason few people in the media are not willing to admit that. It's all Catriona and Catriona. Yes, she is greatly gifted, but they don't really admit that he is captivating and so powerful as Jamie Fraser.

[WatchrTina]

I love the books and very much enjoy the hot sex scenes between BookJamie and BookClaire.  I don't think I would enjoy this show nearly as much if TVJamie and TVClaire were depicted having sex as often as they do in the books.  For me, it's the difference between erotica and pornography (and no, I'm not saying sex on TV is pornography -- hang in with me.)  I've always had this theory that women are more drawn to reading erotica than looking at pornography.  Maybe not all women, but I think that statement is true for most women. It is certainly true for me. Men (I think) find visual depictions of sex more arousing than women and women (I think) are generally more turned on by written depictions of it where they can more easily access the emotions of the scene and "get inside" the character's head.  I enjoy a well-written sex scene. I'm not embarrassed when BookClaire (in her first-person POV) describes Jamie's cock as "hard as a brass rod against my bared thigh."  That's from the sex-by-the-campfire scene after the attack on the rent party in book one -- the best sex scene yet in the whole series IMHO -- but there is NO WAY that that scene could be portrayed in the TV show with the same degree of candor and intimacy without me becoming wildly uncomfortable.  It wouldn't be erotic, it would be embarrassing.  I don't feel like a voyeur when I read all the hot-and-sexy moments between BookJamie and BookClaire but when I hear fans clamoring for more sex scenes to be depicted in the show I feel uncomfortable.  I've seen enough interviews with actors in general and Sam & Cait in particular to know that filming sex scenes is an uncomfortable, decidedly un-sexy business that requires a lot from our actors.  Despite that, this series has given us some of the best TV sex ever -- sex from the "female gaze" as reviewers are so fond of pointing out.  The sex in the wedding episode may never be topped but the reconciliation sex in the blue alcove bed this season was pretty terrific.  I do not feel a lack of intimacy between our lead characters this season.  Jamie praying over Claire a couple of weeks ago was terribly moving.  I didn't need to see them make love afterward to know it happened.  That goodbye kiss and bow that Jamie gave Claire before going off to fight the battle of Prestonpans . . . Mon Dieu!  I don't understand anyone who says they don't feel the connection, the love, the desperate need to stay together that is motivating our main characters.  I think the show is doing the right thing by only including sex scenes when they are necessary to move the plot forward.  I think it is the ethical way to treat the actors and I think it also serves the TV story best.

And having said alI that, now I need to mentally prepare myself to watch the show's One True Pairing -- the OTP-est OTP ever -- be torn asunder.  <sigh>

Edited July 8, 2016 by WatchrTina

[toolazy]

I have to agree with WatchrTina here.  There isn't a lot of time spent with Jamie & Claire staring longingly into each others eyes because 1) there's a lot of other story to cover and 2) it would get annoying after a while. That said, every scene with Jamie & Claire is imbued with their love and devotion to each other.  Sam & Cait are doing a great job of selling their intimacy and connection.  It saddens me that so many people don't see it. 

Look, this is fundamentally a problem of point of view.  The story in the book is told almost entirely from inside Claire's head.  Therefore, we weren't in the war councils or fighting the battles or training the troops.  We were with Claire while she prepared her medical supplies and thought about Jamie. Constantly she's thinking about Jamie.  All of the things that the show has to show us, she was simply told about.  We know what happened in the battles and the war councils in the books because Jamie told her.  She saw none of it herself.

Do we really want this show to be nothing but voice-overs of Claire telling us her thoughts interspersed with scenes where Jamie tells her what just happened?  I don't.  I have no problem leaving Claire's POV to see the action first hand.  This means that there is less time to devote to personal relationships because there needs to be action.  The showrunners have to find a balance.  A lot of people feel like Moore has failed to find that balance, but I don't necessarily agree with them.

Edited July 8, 2016 by toolazy

[fangirl]

I totally agree that they have Jamie doing the same thing over and over again with Bonnie Prince and the Scots and it is tedious.  It also limits Jamie as a character.  But I also believe that he would show other sides of his personality if they made the story about more than war strategy. Some of this war stuff could be summarized to make room for developments in the relationship.  I see your points about how they can't show as much sex as we see in the books, but come on, what sex did we see at all this season? I felt nothing during the blue scene with was so short that I coudn't get a read on any emotions.  With Claire on top it just drove home this point that she has gotten to be the head of the family. There has been so little sex, sensuality, physical connection between the couple this season that I read on Diana's forum that someone actually thinks that Bree is the King of France's child because they did not perceive any procreation happening between Claire and Jamie. If that scene with Claire and Jamie was the most fecund scene in the story, there's a problem here, folks.  The problem with talking about intimacy on a forum is that it means different things to different people--the most intimate thing that happened all season was the honeypot scene (probably took four minutes of screen time) and no body parts shown, so it's not like an audience needs throbbing members to get a feeling of intimate connection.   A few more four minutes like the honeypot scene would have gone a very long way to show that this is not your average two-job middle class couple arguing about how she is off at work too much.  Indeed, there is a whole psychological side to the story that got thrown under the bus, and some of this does have to do with sexuality and some of this just has to do with how men and women create a marriage together.  The entire first season built up so slowly to this side of the story that by the time season two came I felt completely blindsided by the new tone and themes and lack of follow through.  Parts to the marriage story that really got left by the side of the road: 1. No need to make PTSD last so long that the marriage was compromised for so long -- they could have easily worked it away through a voice over about time and healing, or they could have had Claire and Jamie work through it in a couple of conversations or even...god forbid...in a love-making scene. The whole brothel/bites/hickies did not work for me and made Jamie look like some kind of frenetic neurotic 2. The betrayal of Claire to Jamie by insisting he not kill BJR was the most heated and interesting conflict in the entire season and it just got dumped as a story line...jamie was rubbing her feet and that was that (oh, yeah, she's the queen and he's nothing so of course he would forgive her) (sorry for the snark.....)  3. The make up scene after the baby loss was almost non-existent. Let's go to Scotland? OK, it's symbolic, but I mean why not order a pizza together? (snark, snark) And if going back to Scotland was truly symbolic of them returning to their true selves and lives, how come we got a summary voice over telling us they healed at Lollybroch?

[cardigirl]

I'm looking forward to the finale, and have to say, this second season has been very entertaining for me.  I didn't really watch the show last season, and I have not read the books, so can't really compare things, but I have been highly entertained all season long.

The acting, the sets, the camera work, all wonderful.  It's one of the most beautiful series I've ever seen. I hope that Season 3 will be as entertaining. 

[ulkis]

10 hours ago, Grashka said:

IMO it's what it's. Caitriona is indeed carrying the show. Not taking anything from the rest of the cast, as they are usually on the top of the game and doing marvelous things with the material, but she is the one who carries most of emotional baggage and gravitas. 

I'm in between. I don't think SH carries the show but I do think between CB and TM he's underrated in the media. Especially in comparison to Menzies. He does a great job in the role but he doesn't blow my mind or anything.

1 hour ago, fangirl said:

I read on Diana's forum that someone actually thinks that Bree is the King of France's child because they did not perceive any procreation happening between Claire and Jamie. 

I think there is a lot you can say the show did wrong (and here I say "you" in the general sense), but imo if someone thought that, then that's their own fault, not the fault of the show. I don't think the show has done anything to remotely indicate that. Well, I guess like you said since the King coerced Claire into letting him use her and there have been no explicit sex scenes with Jamie, you could say that is a remote indication but key word there is "remote".

[fangirl]

Quote

I also understand that for actors filming sex scenes is no fun, but I can see why other fans find that particular difference between season 1 and 2  somehow jarring.

Interesting perspective.  Are you saying that you think there is less sex this season because the actors don't like to do it?  I can see how you would infer that connection, given the way that SH in particular talks about filming sex scenes. But surely there can't be a correlation between their willingness and the actual scripts themselves?

[toolazy]

Moore has always said that he wasn't going to ever show sex gratuitously.  There was a lot of sex in season 1 because they were newlyweds and were finding their way to each other, so those scenes served the story.

The alcove sex served the story - it showed Jamie & Claire finding their way back to each other as Jamie heals.  The next time (that I can recall) we see them sexually intimate it's at Lallybroch and maybe they could have shown us more but the clear intent of the scene was to show us that they had healed their post-Faith rift. So, again a story purpose.  We know that they continued to have sex because after the commando raid, Claire was surprised that Jamie didn't want to have sex because they had to leave.  We're left with no doubt that that's what would have happened had they had time.  

There is evidence all over the place that Jamie & Claire are as close and connected as they ever were.  Just because they aren't sex scenes, doesn't detract from them.

Still, though, more shirtless Jamie would be welcome.  There should be a shirtless Jamie minimum ever episode.  5 or 10 minutes would suffice. 

[WatchrTina]

Quote

Last season featured some seriously racy sex scenes that didn't advance the plot at all. I mean, what purpose did "butterfly" sex scene from opening of episode 10 serve?

Oh I think that had an important role.  The prior episode ended with reconciliation sex in front of the fire followed by the discovery of the "ill-wish" and Jamie's realization that Laoghaire left it there. It was a good idea to confirm at the very beginning of the next ep that that discovery did not set back the reconciliation between Jamie & Claire.  We see that their reconciliation has held, despite what must have been an awkward conversation about WHY Laoghaire would leave an ill-wish under their bed.  It also made Laoghaire's mistaken beliefs about the state of Jamie & Claire's marriage all the more pathetic later in the episode.

However, regarding the need for a shirtless Jamie minimum -- I support this initiative.  Where do I sign the petition?

And now here's a bit of speculation for you.  When Sam was cast they asked him to go immediately into the gym and bulk up.  It wasn't like he was out of shape at the time -- the guy participates in marathons and triathlons.  They just wanted a bigger, more warrior-like physique for their 20-something hero.  Now Sam is going to have to play Jamie aging 20 years over the course of a few episodes.  I suspect they have let him go back to his former fitness regime during the hiatus, which keeps him very fit, but leaner and less muscular up top.  That physical change might help sell both the aging and the years of privation that Jamie goes through.  I'm betting he'll still look mighty fine with his shirt off, but he will look different.

Edited July 8, 2016 by WatchrTina

[toolazy]

I would actually prefer him a little less musclebound, WatchrTina, so I hope you're right.  But really, I'll take a shirtless Sam however I can get him - I'm not inclined to be picky here. 

[mtsmvfn]

1 hour ago, fangirl said:

Interesting perspective.  Are you saying that you think there is less sex this season because the actors don't like to do it?  I can see how you would infer that connection, given the way that SH in particular talks about filming sex scenes. But surely there can't be a correlation between their willingness and the actual scripts themselves?

Cait and Sam have said in various interviews that they didn't believe that J+C would go back to having sex after Wenthworth and that they fought not to have those scenes included in the show.. The only sex scene that Cait and Sam fought to be included was the scene with them having sex and showing the belly.

 

I'm with Watch Trina it seems that I'm watching a different show than the people complaining about the missing sex scenes and intimacy.. Yeah they are not going at it like in the books but it would be ridiculous if they did that.  I totally understand what they were trying to show for this season and still love the show for what it is.  its not the book, if I want it to be like the book I will just read the book. 

[WatchrTina]

But . . . then we wouldn't know that Jamie had learned to reciprocate the <ahem> lesson that Claire taught him on their wedding night.  These are important details!  Besides, Murtagh committing coitus interruptus is funnier than Murtagh knocking on the door while they're basking in afterglow.  And Jamie insisting on being allowed to finish is just one more reason for us to all fall in lust love with him.

Edited July 8, 2016 by WatchrTina

[fangirl]

Quote

Quote

But . . . then we wouldn't know that Jamie had learned to reciprocate the <ahem> lesson that Claire taught him on their wedding night.  These are important details!  Besides, Murtagh committing coitus interruptus is funnier than Murtagh knocking on the door while they're basking in afterglow.  

Now I can totally understand what you are saying here--the details of their intimacy are fascinating and do advance the plot.  I think that nails what I loved about season 1, that someone cared enough about those little "ahem" ins and outs to make it be a major part of the story.  But it sounds like you are saying that that aspect of the plot is over and now that they are close, the rest can be part of our imagination. I humbly accept that position that you share with others as well. I just wish I felt it.  I don't. I feel like the ins and out of the relationship, whether or not sexual, are the heart of the story and no matter how important politics are, sexual politics will be equally important to this series.

[WatchrTina]

Quote

But it sounds like you are saying that that aspect of the plot is over and now that they are close, the rest can be part of our imagination.

Weeel, there are many noteworthy intimate moments between Book!Jamie & Claire in the future so I expect that there are plenty more love scenes in their TV future.  I don't expect to ever see another episode like the wedding with three sexual encounters in it but the show-runners aren't stupid:  they know that Jamie and Claire's relationship is the heart-and-soul of the show and that they need let the viewers in on the physical/emotional side of it.  Those of us of a certain age are looking forward to the depiction of a happy, healthy sex life between two people in their 40s (and 50s if we're lucky) and I think the show-runners know it so I'm confident that their passion for one another will continue to be an important component of the show.

[Wouldofshouldof]

During the live tweeting of the finale last night, someone complimented Cait on the glasses she wore while driving.  She responded that she had told the director she wanted to wear glasses and they provided her with a nice selection.  

Cait has also said that she doesn't read the books any further ahead than the season they're currently filming.  Therefore she wouldn't know about Jamie and Claire discovering they both need glasses in Echo.  If the show makes it to that season, that could lead to a continuity gaffe.  Ah well, we should be lucky to have such a problem, aye?  (Of course, it's something they could easily leave out of the show.)

[WatchrTina]

Okay, season 3 speculation time!  Some have complained about the lack of Jamie-time in the season 2 finale.  They're right of course -- Jamie's memory looms large over all the 1960's scenes in the finale and Jamie is the driving force in every run-up-to-Colloden scene, but he gets a lot less screen time than Claire does, just like in Episode 201.  

Time to flip that equation on it's head!  I predict that the first few episodes of Season 3 may be almost Claire-free.  I presume we'll get snippets of her preparing for her trip through the stones but that's all boring stuff (I don't even recall what she does other than buy a faux 18th century dress and collect some 18th century coins).  I presume we'll have some scenes with Brianna and Roger so we don't forget who they are.  I presume we'll see Jamie have some painful flashbacks and dreams as he longs for Claire.  But mostly -- for at least two or three episodes -- I think it's going to be all Jamie all the time.  I, for one, can't wait.

[Petunia846]

Well the other thing Roger, Bree, and Claire were doing was trying to research what had happened to Jamie over the 20 years since Culloden. Bree finds the bit about the Dunn Bonnet cave guy and figures out it was Jamie. I think they figure out he was in prison. And then they find the anti-British thing that A. Malcolm had printed and make a guess that it's Jamie. All the stuff they had to do so that Claire knows where to go to find him once she goes back. I predict that we'll see glimpses of that research but when they start talking about what they found with each thing it'll bleed into a flashback so we're seeing it actually happen to Jamie, not listening to them give tons of exposition.

[DittyDotDot]

Aren't Roger and Claire doing more background into Geillis, too--Finding the notebook and learning more about how the stones work? I can't remember if there was some of that in Voyager or if all of it was in Dragonfly in Amber. 

I actually would love the show to fill in Jamie's side of things more than the book did, though. I always felt like a lot of Jamie's story was underdeveloped in the book--especially his time at Ardsmir and Hellwater, but I also think this might be something easier done on-screen than in writing form. Voyager is really the remaking of Jamie, so I hope they give it the screen time it deserves.

[WatchrTina]

I'd really like it if they dipped into the Lord John novels and included the Helwater bits from those novels in the TV show as well.  The only problem with that is that Voyager already has a lot going on in it so trying to cram in more info from the Lord John novels is just making the challenge worse.  Still, I'm a huge Lord John fan and the scenes between him and Jamie at Helwater are quite dramatic and inform the relationship between those two men so it would be nice if they were all included.

Edited July 10, 2016 by WatchrTina

[morgan]

I am not sure that they will be able to develop anyone's story more in the show than the book. Only 13 episodes doesn't leave a lot of room for that.  I think this is where some of the novellas have come into play helping to flesh a bit more out and giving us further glimpses into the lives of the characters. it will never be exactly enough though, will it?  Lol

[DittyDotDot]

2 minutes ago, morgan said:

I am not sure that they will be able to develop anyone's story more in the show than the book. Only 13 episodes doesn't leave a lot of room for that.  I think this is where some of the novellas have come into play helping to flesh a bit more out and giving us further glimpses into the lives of the characters. it will never be exactly enough though, will it?  Lol

Probably not. It really isn't much time to get in so very much. It's a different challenge than Dragonfly in Amber, because there was so much plot to cram into 13 episodes; Voyager is a lot of character to fit into 13 episodes. It baffles me how they're going to do it. TBH, I think Voyager is the season I've been most curious about how they'll adapt it.

[CatMack]

I feel like Voyager has a lot going on, but has the advantage that it's not all strictly speaking 100% necessary.  Others may disagree of course, but I think of it like the Harry Potter books, in a way.  There were whole subplots that never made it into the movies because they just weren't necessary to the main plot and while they gave info on the characters themselves and depth to the world, the story worked without them.  But when it came time for the last book, there aren't really subplots, pretty much everything is directly important to the finale of the entire story the series has been building to, so they ended up splitting the book into two (a point that Hollywood seems to have missed when it keeps splitting other adaptations that really, really don't need that much room to unfold).  Particularly when it comes to the voyage itself and Jamaica and the constant separating of Jamie and Claire - I think there's plenty they can cut out or at least streamline to help with pacing and not over cramming 13 episodes.

It's been awhile since I read that book.  There's a big enough hiatus that I may decide to read it again soon - there will be enough time for the details to fade so I won't get hung up on little things.  But my predictions based on my vague remembrance of major plot points and on what I've seen Ron talk about for season 3...

He seems really gungho about the ship stuff in season 3, so I honestly think the pace at the beginning will be pretty fast.  I'm going to predict Claire goes back at the end of episode 1, 2 at the latest.  We'll definitely get flashbacks to Jamie as they research, I think, and Claire has to set her affairs in order in the 60s - given that he plays a role later in the series I don't think they'll skip Joe.  We don't have to see all of Jamie's flashbacks right away though, he and Claire both reminisce about their time apart once they reunite, there's plenty of time to fill in gaps as the series goes on, and I don't think they'll want to keep Jamie and Claire separated much longer than they have to.  So I think the reunion will be in episode 3 at the latest.   Back to Lallybroch and Loaghaire for episode 4, then on the water by episode 5 or 6 (I can't remember everything that happens before they set off so I don't know how long it will take to set up).  Like I said I don't remember all the convoluted happenings in the second half of the book, aside from remembering I found ir convoluted, but IMO the plot points that are 100% necessary are meeting up with Lord John again, probably at least the separation where Claire goes with the sick ship, Fergus and Marsali getting married, all the stuff with Geillis, and winding up in America at the end.  And like I said I expect we'll continue to get flashbacks to their 20 years apart throughout all this (heck, probably for the rest of the series if the writers think something is relevant).  So that's kind of a lot but I think 7 or 8 episodes can cover it if they're on the sea by episode 5 or 6.  Voyager just has so much that can be simplified IMO I'm not too worried about it, though I do think inconsistent pacing has been this shows Achilles heel so far.

[peacefrog]

I'll add my 2 cents to Voyager speculation. A. Malcolm will be at the earliest episode 5. We will see parallel scenes of what C & J are going through with a theme. Maybe like feeling like outsiders, finding a friend(Joe/John), hopping on the sex train again. Maybe they will fill in some J/C memories that we didn't see the past 2 seasons, quiet, intimate moments.

I'm really excited for this season & beyond. I'm happy these first 2 books are finally out of the way. Voyager really feels like the simplest of them all to adapt but then again they seem to focus on different things than I would.

I missed speculation on the 9th book title, but I really love it. Sounds like something Jenny would say. I don't think it means death really, just war time and people in transit. It reminds me of people concerned about MOBY meaning! 

[lianau]

I really hope they kill off Murtagh . I will miss him but that's the point . A huge part of Jamie's life after Culloden was isolated and lonely  , having Murtagh around would change that significantly .

I also hope we'll get enough Ardsmuir and Helwater .

[Clawdette]

My first experience in not having my book perception of a character translate to the screen is when Richard Chamberlain was tapped to play Father Ralph in "The Thorn Birds."  I had pictured the character as John Gavin-like (tall, dark, and handsome) and Dr. Kildare, while very handsome, didn't fit.  But upon viewing I absolutely loved Chamberlain and he is now my Father Ralph.

I think this happens frequently when our beloved books are adapted for the large or small screen.  It's disappointing when actors don't fit our mental picture, satisfying when they do, and surprising when they win us over.  I've learned that my opinion is just my own and to try to move past my own perceptions and enjoy the adaptation as presented.  I'm happy to see the written word brought to life and hope the stories I love will be loved by others, especially those who read infrequently.

[toolazy]

20 hours ago, lianau said:

I really hope they kill off Murtagh . I will miss him but that's the point . A huge part of Jamie's life after Culloden was isolated and lonely  , having Murtagh around would change that significantly .

I also hope we'll get enough Ardsmuir and Helwater .

They could do something to isolate Murtagh from Jamie - he could wind up in prison or even transported where Jamie hooks back up with him in the new world.  He would make a fine replacement for Duncan Innes.

[WatchrTina]

I love the idea of Jamie and Murtagh being reunited in prison after both of them spent years thinking the other died at Culloden, only to be torn asunder again when Murtagh is transported to America and Jamie is sent to Helwater.  I love the idea of substituting Murtagh for Duncan Innes in the American scenes in Season 4.  #SaveMurtagh!

[abbey]

Not sure I like the idea of substituting Murtagh for Duncan Innes.  Two different personalities.  Cannot see Murtagh married to Jocasta and living the life on RIver Run.  I wouldn't mind seeing Murtagh alive and well but not as Duncan.

[DittyDotDot]

2 minutes ago, abbey said:

Not sure I like the idea of substituting Murtagh for Duncan Innes.  Two different personalities.  Cannot see Murtagh married to Jocasta and living the life on RIver Run.  I wouldn't mind seeing Murtagh alive and well but not as Duncan.

Yeah, I'm not seeing the Murtagh in Duncan either. Murtagh is his own man who chooses to follow Jamie out of loyalty; Duncan is always someone's man, but never his own man. I love Murtagh, both book and show versions, and losing him is one of the saddest things in this whole series for me, but I think it's also the right choice. Doesn't mean we have to totally lose Murtagh though. Jamie has a very active dream life and there's lots of things that come back around in these books that can be told in flashback on the show. Plus, Murtagh has a presence throughout the books, even though he's not physically present, IMO. However, If they do end up saving Murtagh, I don't think he can take the place of Duncan. 

[Keeta]

The more I think about it, I hope season 3 holds off on the Jamie and Claire reunion. One of the best things about season 1 was the slow burn of their relationship over the first six episodes. I don't know if they need or should have quite that many before Claire goes back, but there is 20 years of life to delve into, and the audience should really feel that pain of separation to make the payoff worth it. Besides, the last third of Voyager is the part I tend to skip (sorry Ron - I know, all the ships!!!), so I don't need a majority of the season to cover that stuff. 

[DittyDotDot]

30 minutes ago, Keeta said:

The more I think about it, I hope season 3 holds off on the Jamie and Claire reunion. One of the best things about season 1 was the slow burn of their relationship over the first six episodes. I don't know if they need or should have quite that many before Claire goes back, but there is 20 years of life to delve into, and the audience should really feel that pain of separation to make the payoff worth it. Besides, the last third of Voyager is the part I tend to skip (sorry Ron - I know, all the ships!!!), so I don't need a majority of the season to cover that stuff. 

I agree. I think they need to have them truly separated for a few episodes to get the payoff to resonate properly. At minimum, a third of the season, then a third of the season can be reunion and setting up for the voyage and a third at sea. 

On another note, I can understand why Ron is excited to film the ship stuff. It's a new challenge and if I was a film maker, I'd probably love trying to work out how to film it, too. I don't think it necessarily means he thinks the ship stuff is more important than the reunion scene, but I bet it doesn't pose the same challenge as figuring out how to bring a pirate attack to life. 

[AheadofStraight]

This is a quote from Maril - I do think we'll see a meaty separation. (I hope.)

 

Quote

You're going to make us work for it, aren't you?
MD: [Laughs] Yes, because you should feel that. I would hate to see them together immediately. Like I said , we’re still kind of figuring that out, but you should feel that 20 years has passed and it shouldn’t be easy. That's a huge separation for them and they think they'll never see each other again.

http://www.etonline.com/tv/192986_exclusive_outlander_claire_voyager_homecoming_jamie_makeover_how_many_season_3_episodes_maril_davis/