Speculation and Wishlist

[Petunia846]

That would also indicate that they're not planning on splitting book three, which I think had been speculated about.

(Since there's such a clear split roughly halfway between the "getting back to Jamie"/"what's happened in 20 years" part and the "set sail for Jamaica"/"crazy Jamaica adventures" part.)

[WatchrTina]

In response to what Petunia846 said 

I agree this bodes well for the whole mad chase across the ocean being greatly condensed, which I would not mind at all.

[cypfan]

I haven't read the Terry D. tweet or your spoiler posts but the news to me is that there will be a Season 3.

 Maybe not official but certainly being planned.  

 

How do you book readers feel or think about DIA which is sooooo long being condensed to one 13 episodes?  

 

Now getting my courage to read spoilers.  To remain pure or delve in...............

[Petunia846]

I think there's a lot of stuff in DIA that can be condensed. I personally would not miss much of the

politics and Paris scheming or a lot of the early battles of the war

stuff. It's the character moments, the emotional things I care about. I don't come to Outlander for a history lesson. (Sorry, Ron!) Also, as Gabaldon books go, DIA is not really that long. It's a bit longer than Outlander, but it's nothin' compared to some of the later ones.

 

I added spoiler tags, but I'm not sure whether they're needed...book 2 plot points in very general terms...

Edited July 18, 2015 by Petunia846

[lianau]

DiA is easier to condense than Voyager because for the most part it's pretty linear storytelling , A happens , B happens .... Voyager 

is set in 3 different time periods with 3 different major story lines:

Jamie in the 18th century from surviving Culloden to his printer/smuggler career

Claire , Frank and Brianna after Claire's return until this story line merges with 

Claire , Brianna and Roger looking for Jamie 

Edited July 19, 2015 by lianau

[GHScorpiosRule]

I was having this conversation with a friend, and thought I'd put my wish list out here, as well.

 

I knew when the season ended, that the show is going to

bring back Tobias Menzies

. All I know is, I was rolling my eyes in Dragonfly in Amber with Black Jack's woe is me tour, and I don't want to see that in Season 2. It didn't make me feel sorry for him when I read the buik, and it certainly won't have me feeling sorry for him in the show.

 

Wah, wah, wah...cry me a fucking river that he feels pain.

Edited July 27, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[chocolatetruffle]

I was reading in another forum the speculation that Ron & Co. might change the story to make Claire pregnant with Bree right now instead of Faith.  This was based on comments Ron has made saying that he is going to make many changes to the DIA story - more than he did in Season 1. Thinking about how this show compressed, stretched and totally confused us w/ the timeline last season, I could actually see them doing this.  Jamie would send Claire through the stones late in her pregnancy rather than early.  Granted, we know for sure when Culloden happens, but we don't know at what date we are when Season 1 ends and Season 2 opens.

 

I would hate a change like this, but what other major changes might there be?  Just a random thought on a slow day.

Edited July 28, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[Petunia846]

I actually think I wouldn't hate that change.

The storyline with Faith is touching, but it doesn't really have many long-reaching consequences other than just sad memories. It would make sense to condense that into just one pregnancy if they have to. I also never liked how Jamie isn't around when Claire loses the baby, so that wouldn't be a problem. I guess it would impact that big Master Raymond scene, but that's kind of gross too, and it could be adapted into something less squicky.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I was reading in another forum the speculation that Ron & Co. might change the story to make Claire pregnant with Bree right now instead of Faith.  This was based on comments Ron has made saying that he is going to make many changes to the DIA story - more than he did in Season 1. Thinking about how this show compressed, stretched and totally confused us w/ the timeline last season, I could actually see them doing this.  Jamie would send Claire through the stones late in her pregnancy rather than early.  Granted, we know for sure when Culloden happens, but we don't know at what date we are when Season 1 ends and Season 2 opens.

 

Man, I hope he doesn't change that, because (and since buik talk is allowed here), that whole scene where she starts to miscarry, is right when she sees Jamie dueling with Black Jack and where that fucking sadist gets gelded.  Summer was able to upload the preview from Comic Con in slow motion, and there's a scene of

Claire crying/grief, and I think it's when she realizes that she lost Faith

.  I mean, they don't need to draaaaag out the scenes of the stillbirth, Claire's fever, and Raymond's mojo to cure Claire, but, but, but....ah, no point in having a gasket until it actually airs to see if I need to have a conniption fit!

[chocolatetruffle]

I actually think I wouldn't hate that change.

The storyline with Faith is touching, but it doesn't really have many long-reaching consequences other than just sad memories. It would make sense to condense that into just one pregnancy if they have to. I also never liked how Jamie isn't around when Claire loses the baby, so that wouldn't be a problem. I guess it would impact that big Master Raymond scene, but that's kind of gross too, and it could be adapted into something less squicky.

 

Interesting Petunia846, maybe I wouldn't mind it so much.  If they did make her pregnant throughout, we'd also likely lose the Claire/Louis assignation and I wouldn't mind not seeing that, at all. By the way, I just got a look at the actor who's playing Louis and he's much younger than I pictured the character.

Edited July 28, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[GHScorpiosRule]

Yeah, if King Louis and Claire's "transaction" doesn't happen, then we don't get that scene by those brambles? happen, where Claire flinches from Jamie's touch, and that whole mess. Or maybe it does happen, because that's how Claire got Jamie released from the Bastille.

[Nidratime]

Do we need spoilers here? Not sure. Anyway, by eliminating the storyline involving Faith, you eliminate a major amount of drama that I would sorely miss. It broke my heart. I was blubbering like a fool while reading it. *I* would really miss it if they do away with that storyline.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Do we need spoilers here? Not sure. Anyway, by eliminating the storyline involving Faith, you eliminate a major amount of drama that I would sorely miss. It broke my heart. I was blubbering like a fool while reading it. *I* would really miss it if they do away with that storyline.

 

Well, the topic says book talk is allowed, but I think we're all erring on the side of caution with respect to spoilers for next season and events in books beyond Dragonfly.  Unless one doesn't read their headlines on their news and entertainment feed, and what with today's "media" giving away what's going to happen, it's difficult to remain unspoiled. And I mean headlines like "CHANGES for Season Two!" type thing. In which case, I don't know if we should still use spoiler tags. Or not.  But I have.

[peacefrog]

My crazy spec? They keep the miscarriage in. I think the 2 timelines are 1740's and 1940's. No 60's until the end. We will see Claire and Frank raising the baby. They may go with trying to fake the audience at first that it's Jamie's, then miscarriage and then try to fake audience out that Bree is Frank's until the end. 

 

I think they should leave miscarriage in, I don't think the timeline would work otherwise. There is so much drama there and that scene where they reunite for the first time after is one of the more beautiful written passages. I would be more than happy if they leave out Claire and Louie and just leave it like she did the occult stuff for him. I also don't care for the nettles scene. 

[WatchrTina]

My immediate reaction is to not like the idea of losing the Faith/miscarriage story-line. You lose a LOT of drama if you lose that. But the main thing you lose is the big fake-out from the book. When DIA begins we immediately meet Claire's 20th century daughter, who was clearly fathered by Jamie. Then, the very first chapter of DIA set in the 18th century begins with morning-sick Claire moaning "Bread!" So of course the reader assumes the tall, red-headed daughter is the result of THAT pregnancy and is shocked when the miscarriage happens. I think it will be a shame if the TV-only folks miss out on that shocker. I also don't think Jamie would allow his very pregnant wife to ride along with him as he goes to fight in a Jacobite rebellion. He'd insist on her staying safe at Lallybroch, healer or no, when he rode off to war. So I'm betting the Faith story-line will stay.

Edited July 29, 2015 by WatchrTina

[bearcatfan]

I was reading in another forum the speculation that Ron & Co. might change the story to make Claire pregnant with Bree right now instead of Faith.  This was based on comments Ron has made saying that he is going to make many changes to the DIA story - more than he did in Season 1. Thinking about how this show compressed, stretched and totally confused us w/ the timeline last season, I could actually see them doing this.  Jamie would send Claire through the stones late in her pregnancy rather than early.  Granted, we know for sure when Culloden happens, but we don't know at what date we are when Season 1 ends and Season 2 opens.

 

I would hate a change like this, but what other major changes might there be?  Just a random thought on a slow day.

When they cast Mother Hildegard didn't the press release state that Claire would later be a patient at the hospital? Also, Claire had to be pregnant when Jamie was taken as they hadn't had sex since. She is likely a couple months pregnant by the end of Season 1 which took place in June/July as Claire said it had been 8 months since she came through the stones. That's 1744 and isn't Culloden in 1746? I say the miscarriage/stillbirth is kept.

[cypfan]

While I can understand the emotional scenes that would be possible from the death of their first baby,

is this part of the book necessary to the main story line?

 

The scenes of Jamie and Claire comforting each other might bring them closer emotionally but would it be one of those scenes

that someone posts--- it could have been cut in order to include something else--?

[morgan]

I think they will keep it in and I do think they are important. They really bring home emotionally just why Claire's life and Bree's life could be at risk by staying (on top of Culloden). Knowing what happened with Faith, at least to me, defines a layer of Claire and Jamie as much as BJR.

[tcay]

It's important because it tells us how dangerous pregnancy is for Claire. It gives us the information that if Claire refuses to go through the stones when Jamie tells her to later on, she will likely die in childbirth. 

 

Plus I just loved the dual images during the duel. When I read it, it felt cinematic. 

[chocolatetruffle]

Interesting pros and cons for keeping or losing the scene!  After reading them all, I think I'll be o.k. with it, whether they leave it in or cut it.  I would love to get a look at the bible of story moments for the entire season - just to see what they've pulled out of book and what they left behind.  Also, what is going to be the main story they are telling?  Is it the run-up to Culloden, or Claire's journey back to the 20th Century, or the strengthening of Jamie & Claire's relationship, or something else.

Edited July 29, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[Starla]

I think they will have to keep the Faith storyline because of the timeline. As bearcatfan mentioned, it's summer 1744 at the end of season 1 and Culloden is a historical event that happens in April 1746. Unless they alter the date of the end of season one by more than a year, and send her through the stones at the very end of her pregnancy it wouldn't make logical sense. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Also, what is going to be the main story they are telling?  Is it the run-up to Culloden, or Claire's journey back to the 20th Century, or the strengthening of Jamie & Claire's relationship, or something else.

 

Well, based on the preview I saw in the media thread, I think all three! But I think mostly, Jamie and Claire's relationship and their life at the French Court.  And we mustn't forget how a certain character's role is going to be expanded. I'm just glad we are getting the

"oxters!" scene

.

[cypfan]

I have sadly come to realize that Jamie Fraser's life has elements of a Greek Tragedy.  

Can he never have joy for more than the length of a beautiful climax? 

 

The thought that he would selflessly send his pregnant beloved back to Frank and then live through the demise of his culture

and miss seeing his only legitimate child grow up is a real DG "grotesque" life.  

 

I have more to say but this is enough for now. 

[WatchrTina]

The one offsetting fact is that if Jamie had NOT sent Claire back through the stones Claire would likely have died due to the complications from her difficult pregnancy. So that was lucky for him. He suffered for 20 years but in the end he got back the love of his life and his daughter. If she had stayed and he had lost both, that would have been the real tragedy.

[cypfan]

Aye WatchrTina,,,,,,,,,but I want it all.   lol

[tallyrand]

Does anyone know if they leaving in Claire's red dress which brings all the boys to the yard???

[tcay]

I think I saw a quote from DG on facebook saying that yes, the red dress was filmed. 

[tallyrand]

I think I saw a quote from DG on facebook saying that yes, the red dress was filmed. 

 

Thanks! I think Season 2 lends itself to a TV show more so than Season 1, so I'm excited to see what gets brought to the screen!! All I know is they better not change one word of the goodbye scene!!!

[chocolatetruffle]

Nidratime brought over this link about casting and other speculation:

https://tvline.com/2015/08/25/outlander-brianna-cast-season-2-timeline-change/

Regarding that last part: I can see it now - Claire goes through the stones leaving Jamie devastated and fighting for his life; then they cut to... Bree on a horse, dressed as a boy and on her way to Lallybroch! Bang! 20-year time jump. That's a fantastic cliffhanger upon which to end the season. Then they spend the first part of the third season explaining how the hell that happened.

Edited August 28, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[tcay]

I finally saw the Bree casting sheet. I don't see the show jumping that far ahead in the action in season two. I just think they used a scene that would reveal good chemistry between Bree and Claire--wanting to see if the two play believably as mother and daughter. 

[Summer]

I've been pondering this for some time and would love to hear opinions.  How do you think the show will age Sam and Caitriona when the time comes?

 

My thought is that they won't alter their looks too drastically.  I have to assume the powers that be know a lot of the appeal of Sam and Cait (and yes, they are amazing actors) is how freaking beautiful they both are, would they risk covering those pretty faces with a lot of "age" makeup or prostethics?  I'm thinking they may age them via a few grey hairs and perhaps with "older" costumes or hairstyle, but maybe they won't muck around too much with their faces.  

 

What do you guys think?

Edited September 11, 2015 by Summer

[Andorra]

Since Jamie and Claire are always said to look so amazingly young in the books, I don't think they will alter their looks very much. Sam is 35 and has played a 23 year old now. He is actually nearer to "old Jamie" in age, than he is to young Jamie.

Cait is even half a year older, so for her the same applies.

I think they will have slightly "older" Make up, maybe a few grey strands of hair later on, but I don't think they will age them up that much.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Andorra

[Summer]

 

 

Sam is 35 and has played a 23 year old now. He is actually nearer to "old Jamie" in age, than he is to young Jamie.

Cait is even half a year older, so for her the same applies.

Excellent point, Andorra!  I hadn't thought of that!  And they really did a good job of making him look younger I swear he looks about sixteen in some of the scenes in The Wedding....

Edited September 11, 2015 by Summer

[Summer]

I'm curious what are all of your opinions about how they are going to structure S2 based upon any tidbits heard from Ron Moore or just any internet speculation?

 

If you are an unspoiled, non book reader, then the S2 preview basically looks as if it starts right where S1 left off.  However for those of us who have read the book know that is not the case at all.   As we know Roger has been cast (still SO excited about Richard Rankin getting the part, squee!) and Terry Dresbach recently tweeted about having to find 1960"s costumes so they are definitely going to show that time period but how?

 

I mentioned in another thread how jarring the first few chapter of DIA were for me with 20 year time jump and I knew what to expect.  If they start off S2 exactly as the book will it freak out the non spoiled non book readers?

 

I'd love to hear some opinions, so speculators speculate!

[tcay]

My guess right now is that the show will open roughly where it left off in the 18th century, but then end the first episode with the reveal that Claire's narration is her telling the story to Bree and Roger in the 1960s.

 

I do think opening the show exactly the way the book opens will make people think they missed an episode and be too distracting almost?

[Summer]

 

 

My guess right now is that the show will open roughly where it left off in the 18th century, but then end the first episode with the reveal that Claire's narration is her telling the story to Bree and Roger in the 1960s.

I do think opening the show exactly the way the book opens will make people think they missed an episode and be too distracting almost?

That makes a lot of sense, Tcay.  And I agree about non book readers getting all confused, if I didn't know what to expect when I read DIA I would have been like "Huh? what just happened here?"  

[Future Cat Lady]

There is some speculation that they will do a flash forward to the 40s first. I think that's very possible possible. They don't seem to be in a hurry to film the 60s stuff and the show is rumored to start airing again in april. So that part could be in the last episodes. I think they might show what happened when Claire first goes back.  

[Nidratime]

Well, if they do show her going back to the 40's and if she mentions she's pregnant, than non book readers won't be expecting what happens to Faith and that will be a surprise.

[Dust Bunny]

 

There is some speculation that they will do a flash forward to the 40s first. I think that's very possible possible. They don't seem to be in a hurry to film the 60s stuff and the show is rumored to start airing again in april. So that part could be in the last episodes. I think they might show what happened when Claire first goes back.

 

That makes a lot of sense. The prologue of DIA is when Claire wakes up from the stones "in sorrow, then in joy, and at the last, in solitude." (It's depressing just to write that.) It jumps to the 60s in chapter 1. I could see her waking up as the cold open before the credits, like Jamie with Horrocks at the beginning of "Reckonings".

 

In Frank-related reflections, I used to be annoyed we saw him so often. Yet, after enough re-watches of the season and 2 re-readings of the books, I'm alright with that. When we discover, in "Written in My Own Heart's Blood, 

that Frank knew for years that Jamie was real and was preparing Brianna to go back in time by teaching her hunting and such

I'm cool about it. One of the things I'm excited about in book 9 is 

when Bree shows Frank's letter to Jamie and Claire, so Jamie can see how much Frank loved Bree and trusts Jamie with her care,

With all those considerations, I'm cool with more Frank in season 2.

[tcay]

If anyone needs reassurance from DG regarding season 2:

 

Season Two actually does follow DRAGONFLY more closely than Season One did with OUTLANDER.

[Steelmom82]

I don't think it will happen, but wouldn't it be cool if we go through the first half of the season with Claire and Jamie in France and it's exactly as it is in Book 2. But when Jamie goes off to fight at Colluden and sends Claire back through the stones, we flash forward to 1968 and she's telling it all to Brianna and Roger. It would be a little confusing to people who don't read the books but I still think it would be a nice twist to have the audience not realize it's a flashback until it's over.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I don't know where to put this, so I'll put it here: The thing I am most looking forward to seeing is the return of fellow posters, who seemed to have disappeared into the ether, as it were. Or should I say...stones? You know who you ARE!!!! I miss ye!

[Dust Bunny]

 

I don't know where to put this, so I'll put it here: The thing I am most looking forward to seeing is the return of fellow posters, who seemed to have disappeared into the ether, as it were. Or should I say...stones? You know who you ARE!!!! I miss ye!

 

It's fun to see the show publicly back under the "O"s on the forum listings. Soon this place with hopping. 

[peacefrog]

Wheee! I was not expecting to see the episode threads yet! What a great surprise.

Edited March 31, 2016 by peacefrog

[lottiedottie]

I'm new to the show, thanks to the free streaming on Starz. I can't wait to join in on the season 2 conversation--I went and read many of the S1 threads already. I just started reading the first book,  but I have been spoiled by the book threads (willingly!) so I have an idea of what goes on. I'm looking forward to seeing how the story gets from here to there.

[Athena]

I have renamed this thread to be a general, no spoilers book talk speculation and wishlist thread. Book spoilers are allowed; no TV spoilers. For no book talk, please go here.