S02.E11: Vengeance Is Mine

[WatchrTina]

Another random Outlander thought of the morning:  The guy with the port wine stain birthmark on his hand was the guy who disabled the wheel of Claire's carriage back in Paris -- we saw it in the title card.  And we saw that birthmark again when Claire and Mary were attacked.  But did it belong to Mary's rapist or to the guy who was holding Claire?  I hope it was the guy who attacked Mary -- that would make Mary's vengeance much more satisfying.  But that's not my recollection.  Oh well, another reason to re-watch.

Quote

WatchrTina, they were riding with the Jacobite flag so maybe that's why [the red coats attacked them]?  

Okay, that makes sense.  Jacobites don't have uniforms so they must have to have a way to identify themselves to friends and foes alike.

Edited June 19, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Archery]

14 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

 I've been bothered by the show's Cliff Notes version of some of this since the scene where young Lord John burst in on Jamie and immediately called him the notorious Red Jamie without any sort of context or the reality that Jamie hadn't done anything up to that point but have his name appear on a list and march some muddy men around.  The show still hasn't made clear why it's Jamie's face on a wanted poster and not the prince's or any of the other assorted characters we've seen.  And yeah, I know, the show has touched briefly on all this so it's not like they haven't addressed it at all.

Jamie has had a price on his head since before Claire met him..  He was wanted for murder.  Then he escapes his death sentence at Wentworth (having killed one soldier and grievously wounded another in the process).  His particular "Wanted" legend has been growing for years now.  And now, on top of that, he is a traitor.  

[lianau]

27 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

I don't know where all these people's heads are at. All of this stuff was in the book. In fact, they left stuff out because of time (and the lack of an actor).  As for the humor, Diana wrote this and I can see the difference. She interjected more bits of humor than we usually get and I enjoyed that. For instance, they guy who took the message to Hugh Munro. "Customarily, I'd be given a tip upon delivery!" he says, after Munro immediately scampers away. The double giggle over first, expecting a tip in the middle of all that, and two, over expecting a tip from a beggar!

As I said , some people have created very strong head canons and they are not happy when the show (or on occasion even the books ) leaves them behind . 

[nodorothyparker]

7 minutes ago, Archery said:

Jamie has had a price on his head since before Claire met him..  He was wanted for murder.  Then he escapes his death sentence at Wentworth (having killed one soldier and grievously wounded another in the process).  His particular "Wanted" legend has been growing for years now.  And now, on top of that, he is a traitor.  

In yet another mostly throwaway line, all of this was cleared up for him before he and Claire returned from France.  In the books, I believe the Duke had something to do with that too while the show made it seem the French king waved it away.  This round of being a wanted man and traitor is a recent thing.

[WatchrTina]

Quote

the fur collared cloak the Duke was suddenly and inexplicably wearing in the house and then dropped like the best kind of Disney villain.

He explains that he's just been talking to the soldiers around the house and that they have agreed to withdraw so he's just been outside (hence the cloak) but, yeah, I didn't pick that up on the first viewing.  I think it's because on the first viewing I was too busy saying, "Wait, what?  They're just going to withdraw on the say-so of the guy they've been ordered to watch?"  That made no sense but that is because he is lying to Claire -- he got them to withdraw into hiding because they are setting a trap for Jamie.  And of course the cloak is a plot-necessity -- we needed Claire to catch sight of his valet's hand so, cue the cloak-dropping.

Quote

The show still hasn't made clear why it's Jamie's face on a wanted poster and not the prince's or any of the other assorted characters we've seen.

I'm pretty sure there was a wanted poster for Prince Charles on that tavern door along with Jamie's.  Buy yeah, it seems weird that "Red Jamie's" fame in particular has spread so far and wide.  As I recall in the book, Jamie's wanted poster was just one of many that he and Claire were looking through in Edinburgh. The other notable Jacobites all had posters too.  Claire even gets her own wanted poster (of sorts) as there are rumors of some kind of witchy crone providing black-magic and the like to Prince Charles.

You are right that John (William) Grey having heard of "Red Jamie" before Jamie and his troops have had an engagement of any kind does strain credulity but that happens in the book too, doesn't it?  If I have to fan-wank that I'd say that there are people on the loyalist side who know Jamie -- perhaps met him during the past year in France -- and, once his name was on that list of BPC supporters, described him to others as a "fierce, red-headed giant of a man" and that word-of-mouth legend spread through the ranks of the English troops.  If Jamie had been a brown-headed, average-sized bloke his notoriety, both in the books and in the show, would be much less credible.

Edited June 19, 2016 by WatchrTina

[SoTheresThat]

53 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

I don't know where all these people's heads are at. All of this stuff was in the book. In fact, they left stuff out because of time (and the lack of an actor).  As for the humor, Diana wrote this and I can see the difference. She interjected more bits of humor than we usually get and I enjoyed that. For instance, they guy who took the message to Hugh Munro. "Customarily, I'd be given a tip upon delivery!" he says, after Munro immediately scampers away. The double giggle over first, expecting a tip in the middle of all that, and two, over expecting a tip from a beggar!

Diana said on CompuServe yesterday that this scene was a pickup scene inserted after the episode had been shot and edited.  She did not write that line, it was Ron's idea.

[nodorothyparker]

11 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I'm pretty sure there was a wanted poster for Prince Charles on that tavern door along with Jamie's.  Buy yeah, it seems weird that "Red Jamie's" fame in particular has spread so far and wide.  As I recall in the book, Jamie's wanted posted was just one of many that he and Claire were looking through in Edinburgh. The other notable Jacobites all had posters too.  Claire even gets her own wanted poster (of sorts) as there are rumors of some kind of witchy crone providing black-magic and the like to Prince Charles.

You are right that John (William) Grey having heard of "Red Jamie" before Jamie and his troops have had an engagement of any kind does strain credulity but that happens in the book too, doesn't it?  If I have to fan-wank that I'd say that there are people on the loyalist side who know Jamie -- perhaps met him during the past year in France -- and, once his name was on that list of BPC supporters, described him to others as a "fierce, red-headed giant of a man" and that word-of-mouth legend spread through the ranks of the English troops.  If Jamie and been a brown-headed, average-sized bloke his notoriety, both in the books and in the show, would be much less credible.

I had to go back and check the book to be sure, but you're right.  John does say he recognizes Jaime from the broadsheets, which again seems odd because they haven't really done anything much yet to warrant broadsheets.  But show John doesn't even that to go on or if he does never offers that as context.

The bit in the books where they all get to see their own wanted posters was amusing.  I wish they'd found a way to include it because it would have solved a lot of this.  It could have given us some shorthand for how long they'd been at war and where as well as providing another bit of absurd humor in an otherwise increasingly grim storyline.  I would have given anything to see Dougal in a snit that he wasn't considered important enough to be on the posters too.  I couldn't figure out who the other broadsheet on the door was supposed to be.  Could be Charles, could be Murtagh, could be a random Highlander in an bonnet.

[AheadofStraight]

I would've loved this scene! From Diana:

"One bit I particularly miss (from the original script _and_ the way it was filmed) was that I had Murtagh touch the Duke on the shoulder with the ax as he backs away from Jamie.  The Duke turns round, startled, but instead of just swinging at him, Murtagh advances slowly on him, with a few words of hissed, fateful Gaelic before the chop."

 To be honest, what I wrote in the first draft (not expecting anybody to let me keep it <g>) was, "(in Gaelic) "My name is Murtagh FitzGibbons Fraser.  Now you die!"

They liked it, though <cough>.  Especially Adhamh, who was excited and told me that was completely appropriate--that a Gael about to perform some ceremonial or important action _would_ in fact declare his identity and ancestry before doing it--and asked me if I knew the names of Murtagh's father and grandfather?

"Not right this minute," I replied.  "But give me thirty seconds..."

So the lines were written in Gaelic (by Adhamh), "I am Murtagh, son of Duncan, son of Donald, and now you will die."  Duncan did that with such conviction that it honestly made the hair stand up on my head to see/hear it--and (if you ask me <not that anybody did>), it made the final swing of the ax even more shattering.

But time....no time...   I hope they can do that bit as a DVD extra, though; well worth seeing! "

Also, thanks all for jogging my memory about Fergus.

[maraleia]

I wonder if writing this very interesting and great episode has caused Diana to think about editing her own books a little more. Now I don't mean the ones she's already written though. It will be interesting to see the script with all the notes.

My favorite line between Jamie and Claire was when Jamie asked how long it's been since Claire was in Inverness.

I do wish we got more of Fergus in these Scotland based episodes. Maybe I will have to read these books sometime in the future.

[Dust Bunny]

13 hours ago, Archery said:

I love how Jamie totally knows what Murtagh is going to do, and just pushes the Duke in his direction.

I loved Jamie's cold stance as he watched Murtagh take those swings. I didn't get my "I call her 'wife'!" line, but Sam brought the same emotion, as Jamie allowed Murtagh be the one to fulfill his vow of vengeance. It's a delight to see Sam embody Jamie's leadership growth.

Edited June 19, 2016 by Dust Bunny

[chocolatetruffle]

First of all I loved every.single.minute, every second, every FRAME of this episode!  I won't reiterate the details since most have been mentioned. But I was riveted throughout the entire thing. 

Perhaps it’s because I had the CC on for the first viewing, I did not have any issues with plotting that others have had.  In fact, I thought the plotting held together exceptionally well.  Jamie ordered his Lallybroch men to scatter and meet up at the crossroads while he, Dougal, Rupert et al. led the bulk of the Redcoats away (knowing, I suppose, that they wouldn’t break formation).  Ross said they waited at the crossroads but when their Laird didn’t show up they came to the church and one of the Lallybroch men was still hiding in the woods with the remaining horses.  There was glimpses of the other men in the church.

Re the wanted poster: it’s reasonable to assume that every highlander who signed that petition had a wanted poster issued for treason.  “Red Jamie” was probably a moniker that made it easier to identify him by his red hair, rather than “James Fraser, Laird Broch Tuarach.”  His physical appearance would have been known to the British because of his numerous documented arrests and imprisonments.

A couple of things I loved that I don’t think were mentioned: The title card. I LOL’d when the wig fell off the table, knowing what was to come, heee! Loved the vengeance being laid at Mary & Claire’s feet.  It didn’t matter that Murtaugh hadn’t said anything to them before because it was always understood that avenging the attack was a forgone conclusion.  That is a part of who he is.  But the absolute “cherry on the sundae” moment of that whole scene was when Mary went for being horrified to …”well, look at the time.  Anyone want to grab some dinner?”  And marched right out the door.  I literally howled!

[Bort]

3 hours ago, AheadofStraight said:

To be honest, what I wrote in the first draft (not expecting anybody to let me keep it <g>) was, "(in Gaelic) "My name is Murtagh FitzGibbons Fraser.  Now you die!"

Except that's a little too Princess Bride for me, so I'm glad they didn't keep that. 

[dustoffmom]

I think that was the point!  Paying homage to a wonderful line from another source.  I for one would have loved it!  :)

[TaurusRose]

7 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

John does say he recognizes Jaime from the broadsheets, which again seems odd because they haven't really done anything much yet to warrant broadsheets.  But show John doesn't even that to go on or if he does never offers that as context.

I don't quite understand how story beats are consistently missed.  As a non-book reader, I didn't find it odd that the kid back in Prestonpans knew who Jamie was for two reasons: (1) he already had quite the colorful history with the Brits stationed in Scotland prior to the Jacobite uprising and considering his physical stamina for abuse and distinctive features (i.e. red hair), it makes sense that British patrols, and those constantly in their company, would have some knowledge of him, and (2) his name was now on a document pledging loyalty to BPC. Jamie and company weren't exactly hiding while they went about rallying men and gathering supplies for BPC's cause prior to any actual skirmishes so, it doesn't seem odd at all that there would be today's version of wanted posters circulating around the highlands.  The British had been occupying Scotland for years and not every Scot was a rebel; the redcoats had spies and I would expect the "best army in the world" to have a pretty good idea about what the enemy was up to.  The explanation for the rebels splitting up and coming together at the church was also addressed.  That said, I like it when writers assume that the viewers are paying attention to the story and can figure things out without being constantly fed exposition by the characters.  I've learned to watch Outlander with CC on because there are times I wouldn't know what the clans were talking about without it.  

Quote

Now what on earth did the people on Twitter complain about?

Twitter can be toxic.  Someone complains and the next person has to top that person's complaint and so on and so on.  Some of the complaints are reasonable, but others are just whacked.  I'm sure there are tons of book scenes complete with beloved dialogue near and dear to someone's heart, but the fact is there is no way in hell that a visual production (like a television series) can show them all. They have to pick and choose, condense and merge for the medium.  I think reasonable people should be able to realize that and move on. This also applies to casting, IMO.  It is what it is.  I think the producers did a stellar job casting the leads and the other principal characters. Now there are plenty of shows out there to bitch about and even I would be happy to join the choir for those offenders, but for the most part, I don't feel that Outlander is one of them. 

Quote

Except that's a little too Princess Bride for me...

Maybe so, but it seems the basic structure of such a declaration is authentic per Àdhamh Ó Broin, Outlander's Gaelic expert.  

Edited June 19, 2016 by taurusrose

[abbey]

Per Diana (over on the compu-serve forum) the line about usually receiving a tip was actually thought up by Ron. She was being complimented on what  a       humorous line it was and she wanted to give credit where it was due.           

[Archery]

9 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

In yet another mostly throwaway line, all of this was cleared up for him before he and Claire returned from France.  In the books, I believe the Duke had something to do with that too while the show made it seem the French king waved it away.  This round of being a wanted man and traitor is a recent thing.

Louis provided safe passage through England for Jamie, but he wouldn't have the authority to pardon him for crimes under English law.  

Quote

I don't quite understand how story beats are consistently missed.  As a non-book reader, I didn't find it odd that the kid back in Prestonpans knew who Jamie was for two reasons: (1) he already had quite the colorful history with the Brits stationed in Scotland prior to the Jacobite uprising and considering his physical stamina for abuse and distinctive features (i.e. red hair), it makes sense that British patrols, and those constantly in their company, would have some knowledge of him, and (2) his name was now on a document pledging loyalty to BPC. Jamie and company weren't exactly hiding while they went about rallying men and gathering supplies for BPC's cause prior to any actual skirmishes so, it doesn't seem odd at all that there would be today's version of wanted posters circulating around the highlands.  The British had been occupying Scotland for years and not every Scot was a rebel; the redcoats had spies and I would expect the "best army in the world" to have a pretty good idea about what the enemy was up to.  The explanation for the rebels splitting up and coming together at the church was also addressed.  That said, I like it when writers assume that the viewers are paying attention to the story and can figure things out without being constantly fed exposition by the characters.  I've learned to watch Outlander with CC on because there are times I wouldn't know what the clans were talking about without it.  

Yes, to all of this.  I love that that this show assumes the audience is smart, and can remember characters beats from last season.  

Edited June 20, 2016 by Archery

[ulkis]

imo, the nickname Red Jamie gets introduced very suddenly in the books as well; Claire's just like, Jamie did something at Prestonpans and men shouted "Red Jamie" at him.

Edited June 20, 2016 by ulkis

[Andorra]

On 6/19/2016 at 4:30 AM, lianau said:

Then you have the Outlander pervs who get off on Jamie and Claire having sex and see the story as more of a background, the way  to get them to have sex at various places . They are complaining because Jamie and Claire aren't having enough visible sex and instead story is happening .

I think that's not a fair description. I'm one of those, who think that there isn't enough sex scenes this season. I'm not a "perv" though and I don't see the story as a "background" or  a way for them to "have sex at various places".

Sex is an essential part of Jamie's and Claire's relationship in the books. A way to connect and to be really intimate with each other. It's like a special kind of language between them and some of the most beautiful scenes in the books are actually sex scenes. They left out so many of those beautiful, heartwarming and funny moments this season, because they're skipping all the sex scenes. I'm sad about it and I absolutely hate their lame excuses for it. "Jamie and Claire are not newlyweds anymore"? They're married for 18 months, what stupid argument is that? Or: "We don't need to see it, to know that it happens"? We didn't need to see the rapes either, but they had time enough to show them! 7

It's sad, that we have more rapes this season, than consential sex scenes between Jamie and Claire. It will be even worse in season 3. I'm gonna puke if they're going to make us endure Frank-nursery sex, Geneva and probably Laoghaire and we won't see Jamie and Claire, because "they're not newlyweds any more" and "we know that it happens so we don't need to see it". 

What happened to "when it's in the book it will be in the show" and "we're not shying away from it"? Direct quotes from Ron D Moore last season. IMO they are very much shying away from it now, for what reason? If Sam and Cait hadn't fought for the scene with the baby bump, wouldn't there have been any scenes at all?

 

About the episode:

I liked it, but didn't love it. 

I liked the scene with Prince Charles, where Jamie was the only one standing by him. I think for the first time the prince didn't seem like an idiot. 

Even though again no sex scene, at least there was this very sweet scene where Jamie is praying for Claire. That brought tears to this sappy soul's eyes, sniff. 

The English officer is Evelyn Napier!! (Little Downton Abbey reference)

Overall a lot of humor and a lot of action in the episode though. Loved the scene where Jamie and Murtagh tried to read Claire's Gaelic, that was a hoot LOL. 

Also loved the Duke of Sandringham. He's OTT, but so funny. 

Yay for Mary! And then Murtagh!!! OMG. 

The last scene was just shockingly hilarious. My favorite line: "I think we better go", LOL, that was so English! 

Edited June 20, 2016 by Andorra

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

Outlander Gets Its Bloody Revenge

Old friends (and frenemies) come out of the woodwork when Claire gets separated from the group and needs saving.

[Summer]

6 hours ago, Andorra said:

I think that's not a fair description. I'm one of those, who think that there isn't enough sex scenes this season. I'm not a "perv" though and I don't see the story as a "background" or  a way for them to "have sex at various places".

Sex is an essential part of Jamie's and Claire's relationship in the books. A way to connect and to be really intimate with each other. It's like a special kind of language between them and some of the most beautiful scenes in the books are actually sex scenes. They left out so many of those beautiful, heartwarming and funny moments this season, because they're skipping all the sex scenes. I'm sad about it and I absolutely hate their lame excuses for it. "Jamie and Claire are not newlyweds anymore"? They're married for 18 months, what stupid argument is that? Or: "We don't need to see it, to know that it happens"? We didn't need to see the rapes either, but they had time enough to show them! 7

It's sad, that we have more rapes this season, than consential sex scenes between Jamie and Claire. It will be even worse in season 3. I'm gonna puke if they're going to make us endure Frank-nursery sex, Geneva and probably Laoghaire and we won't see Jamie and Claire, because "they're not newlyweds any more" and "we know that it happens so we don't need to see it". 

What happened to "when it's in the book it will be in the show" and "we're not shying away from it"? Direct quotes from Ron D Moore last season. IMO they are very much shying away from it now, for what reason? If Sam and Cait hadn't fought for the scene with the baby bump, wouldn't there have been any scenes at all?

Andorra if it was possible for me to agree with you any more I would jump through the computer screen and do it!  This! Exactly!   I stated in another post that I feel like the show did the ultimate bait and switch to us between S1 and S2.  And yes I get that the first part of the season they explored Jamie's PTSD and the lack of intimacy made sense but he was pretty much over that by episode 4.  I don't get it either. 

[AheadofStraight]

7 hours ago, Andorra said:

I think that's not a fair description. I'm one of those, who think that there isn't enough sex scenes this season. I'm not a "perv" though and I don't see the story as a "background" or  a way for them to "have sex at various places".

Sex is an essential part of Jamie's and Claire's relationship in the books. A way to connect and to be really intimate with each other. It's like a special kind of language between them and some of the most beautiful scenes in the books are actually sex scenes. They left out so many of those beautiful, heartwarming and funny moments this season, because they're skipping all the sex scenes. I'm sad about it and I absolutely hate their lame excuses for it. "Jamie and Claire are not newlyweds anymore"? They're married for 18 months, what stupid argument is that? Or: "We don't need to see it, to know that it happens"? We didn't need to see the rapes either, but they had time enough to show them! 7

It's sad, that we have more rapes this season, than consential sex scenes between Jamie and Claire. It will be even worse in season 3. I'm gonna puke if they're going to make us endure Frank-nursery sex, Geneva and probably Laoghaire and we won't see Jamie and Claire, because "they're not newlyweds any more" and "we know that it happens so we don't need to see it". 

What happened to "when it's in the book it will be in the show" and "we're not shying away from it"? Direct quotes from Ron D Moore last season. IMO they are very much shying away from it now, for what reason? If Sam and Cait hadn't fought for the scene with the baby bump, wouldn't there have been any scenes at all?

This!! I did bristle at the "perv" comment because I'm always one complaining about the lack of sex. However, for me, it isn't necessarily the sex itself but the dialog... those scenes in the book are some of the best because of the conversations and humor and affectionate talk that truly define J&C to me and why I love their relationship so much.  I am genuinely curious why they backed off so much (the actors? the writers?). It does seem quite abrupt after last season and especially after going back to re-watch some episodes. ETA: I do agree with WatchrTina below that the big reason is probably time. Though, I think we could argue several places where things could've been cut to make room. :)

Edited June 20, 2016 by AheadofStraight

[WatchrTina]

Quote

I'm one of those, who think that there isn't enough sex scenes this season. I'm not a "perv" though and I don't see the story as a "background" or  a way for them to "have sex at various places".  Sex is an essential part of Jamie's and Claire's relationship in the books. A way to connect and to be really intimate with each other. It's like a special kind of language between them and some of the most beautiful scenes in the books are actually sex scenes.

I find this comment very interesting in light of my re-read of DIA.  Last night I got to the point where, following the battle of Prestonpans, after a long day of treating the wounded, Claire finally gets to sit down next to an exhausted Jamie and he tells her the story of the battle.  It's one of those timey-wimey Claire POV things about the book that we, the readers, don't get to hear Jamie's first-hand account of the fight until it is over.  The description is grueling and I thought to myself "Oh heck, this isn't a good bit to be trying to read myself to sleep with."  But then we get one of those Claire/Jamie scenes that is just so wonderful.  Jamie is suffering the effects of post battle-trauma.  He's starting to shake from fatigue and coming down from the adrenaline high .  Claire recognizes the symptoms -- she experienced them too after particularly arduous experiences as a war nurse.  She KNOWS.  So she take Jamie to get some food and then they go off in search of a bed, preferring a mattress of leaves and tartan plaid under a tree, off by themselves, to the smells and noise of a bed indoors, crammed in among strangers.  And although what they really need is sleep the nearness of Claire arouses Jamie and so of course they have a short, sweet shag first.

It's a lovely scene and helped me fall asleep.  You know what's another lovely scene?  The potato cookout at Lallybroch. Jamie wrestles with his young nephew who inadvertently steps on his balls due to his inability to sit still in Jamie's lap and gets a handful of grass down his neck for his trouble, which Claire fishes out, allowing the wee lad to fall asleep in her lap.  Sigh.  I love those Lallybroch scenes.  They are the treats that we, the readers, get to see that, alas, the TV show had to rush past.  I'm afraid most of the sex scenes in book 2 fall into that category.  They are lovely and I like them but they are not essential to the forward motion of the plot so that makes them optional in the limited format of the TV show -- especially when there is SO MUCH PLOT that has to be covered.  I, for one, am grateful that, even with all the to-ing and fro-ing that had to happen in this episode they took the time to give us that moment of intimacy with Jamie praying over Claire and then slipping into bed with her.  Correction -- shirtless Jamie (thank you show-runners).  Jamie, Claire notes, is "freezing" and ordered into bed to warm up.  We all know what happened next.  Thank you Diana!  That little fix of Claire-Jamie intimacy was all I needed and I'm so glad they kept that story beat because it wasn't just fan-service, it reiterates that yes, Jamie and Claire are still very much in love and their one safe place is in each others arms -- all the better to torture us when Claire and Jamie are ripped asunder later in the episode.  

I believe the show runners when they say that we will get sex scenes and intimacy scene when they are essential to the plot and we won't get them when they are not because there just isn't TIME.  It's a limitation of any TV adaptation of a VERY BIG BOOK that we don't get to see many sweet, warm character moments because there is just such much darn plot to be covered.  I don't think the show-runners pulled a bait-and-switch. I don't think they've suddenly become prudish.  I think they love the positive reaction that the show's best sex scenes have garnered,  I just think they have a wildly difficult task in adapting these huge books and small scenes of marital intimacy, like Jamie & Claire's sex-under-a-tree-following-battle (or the two of them wrestling with wee Jamie after the potato feast) naturally fall to the way-side.

Quote

If Sam and Cait hadn't fought for the scene with the baby bump, wouldn't there have been any [sex] scenes at all?

If I recall correctly, Sam and Cait fought to shoot that sex scene in a way that the baby bump was clearly visible -- they didn't have to fight to include the sex scene in the first place.  It was always going to happen because Jamie & Claire's lack of intimacy at the beginning of the season -- Jamie's inability to have sex with his wife due to his PTSD -- was a major plot point.  That plot point led to two sex scenes -- one scene of a failed attempt (the "honeypot" scene) and of course we had one scene showing them getting past that road block.  Whenever a sex scene is necessary to the plot, I'm sure we'll see it.  But we won't see all the other sex scenes because we just don't have the luxury of unlimited time and space like the book does. Thank goodness we still have the books.

Edited June 20, 2016 by WatchrTina

[RulerofallIsurvey]

34 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Whenever a sex scene is necessary to the plot, I'm sure we'll see it.  But we won't see all the other sex scenes because we just don't have the luxury of unlimited time and space like the book does. Thank goodness we still have the books.

Non-book reader here.  I usually stay off of the book threads so as not to be spoiled (at least until after the episode airs.)  However, since this conversation is happening here, I wanted to reply to give perhaps another pov.  

First, I agree with @Andorra, @Summer, and @AheadofStraight.  I think I'm even one who has complained about the showrunners suddenly seeming prudish this season.  

I disagree with the above assessment.  The problem, for me, is that on the show we haven't seen all those wonderful scenes you describe in the book - those wonderful scenes that help build the characters and relationship between Claire and Jamie and would make their separation at the end of this season (based only on what I saw in the first episode) truly heartbreaking.  'Cause, right now, for me - I ain't feeling it.   In fact, I would say that more sex scene ARE necessary to the plot for this very reason.

And as a show-watcher, I shouldn't have to read the books in order to get that feeling.  If I do, then the showrunners aren't doing something right.  

In fact, I don't want to read the books.  I read the first book during the hiatus in the first season, and then desperately wished I hadn't.  The book nearly ruined the show for me.  It's just not my thing.   

So while, it may be a good thing for those who like the books that they do have those to which they can go back and relive or fill in the missing moments from the TV show, from a TV show only perspective, it is not a good thing that people watching feel the need to supplement their information because something is obviously missing.  

Edited June 20, 2016 by RulerofallIsurvey
what is necessary.

[Petunia846]

34 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I believe the show runners when they say that we will get sex scenes and intimacy scene when they are essential to the plot and we won't get them when they are not because there just isn't TIME.  It's a limitation of any TV adaptation of a VERY BIG BOOK that we don't get to see many sweet, warm character moments because there is just such much darn plot to be covered.  I don't think the show-runners pulled a bait-and-switch. I don't think they've suddenly become prudish.  I think they love the positive reaction that the show's best sex scenes have garnered,  I just think they have a wildly difficult task in adapting these huge books and small scenes of marital intimacy, like Jamie & Claire's sex-under-a-tree-following-battle (or the two of them wrestling with wee Jamie after the potato feast) naturally fall to the way-side.

Jamie's inability to have sex with his wife due to his PTSD -- was a major plot point.  That plot point led to two sex scenes -- one scene of a failed attempt (the "honeypot") scene and of course we had one scene showing them getting past that road block.  Whenever a sex scene is necessary to the plot, I'm sure we'll see it.  But we won't see all the other sex scenes because we just don't have the luxury of unlimited time and space like the book does. Thank goodness we still have the books.

Totally agree with a lot of what you said, but I think the issue we come back to is the question of what is the main point/plot of this story? (as in the whole huge multi-book series) If we say (as I think Moore believes) that this is a story about a woman who goes back in time and experiences war, tries to change the future, etc, etc...then sure, those tender moments and scenes don't advance the plot.

However, if we say (as I think a lot of readers believe) that this is a love story between Jamie and Claire (note, no love triangle) and how they manage to come together and stay together over the course of their marriage...then actually, many more of those tender moments and scenes are actually vital. Maybe still not all of them, but definitely more than we've seen in either season.

I guess it might be that there are some readers and viewers who come to this story looking for detailed political machinations and brushes with history, but I think for me and many others we come to this story for the relationships—Jamie and Claire, but also with the extended family (Jenny and Ian) and the found family (Fergus). Those relationship moments for us are the main point of Outlander, not Charlie or the battles or who rules which clan. The battles and crazy things that happen are a vehicle for revealing or changing the characters' relationships to each other.

So anyway, when I hear the producers and others say, oh those scenes aren't relevant to the plot, it rings hollow to me because I completely disagree with their definition of what the plot is. They're not irrelevant to my Outlander.

[WatchrTina]

It's hard for me to respond to your post, RulerofallIsurvey because I am a reader and we were having a books-vs-show conversation.  We were talking about all the intimate scenes that have been left out, which we wouldn't know about if we hadn't read the books first.

If I tried to respond to the bait-and-switch complaint that a non-reader might pose it would be a struggle for me because I don't understand viewers having expectations or feeling entitled to a certain number of sex scenes per season.  If there is one thing this show taught the viewers last season it is that this show will surprise you and go places you may not expect.  It's not a standard "romance" (I would have thought that the last two episodes of season 1 would have cured anyone of that expectation.)

Quote

I think for me and many others we come to this story for the relationships—Jamie and Claire, but also with the extended family (Jenny and Ian) and the found family (Fergus). Those relationship moments for us are the main point of Outlander, not Charlie or the battles or who rules which clan.

I agree with you Petunia846 -- I have often described the 8-book epic that is Outlander to people as "The story of a marriage."  But I take to heart Diana's advice that when we are watching the show we need to put the book down and experience the story in a different way.  I love my book Jamie & Claire (who, BTW, look nothing line Sam & Cait) but I've also fallen in love with TV Jamie & Claire and the story of their marriage.  I love their intimacy.  I love him praying over her in this episode and her ordering him to get his cold naked arse into bed (okay she didn't say that but that's where my brain went, sue me.)  I don't think TV Jamie & Claire suffer from a lack on on-screen intimacy. I'm grateful for all the lovely intimate moments we do get, like that fierce look they gave one another after they kissed just before Jamie left for the battle.  And then he bowed, like he did on their wedding day.  Oh.  My.  God.  I melted at that.  I don't know -- maybe I'm an outlier here -- but I'm still getting plenty of warm, shivers-up-my-spine, romantic moments from season 2 of this TV show.

ETA:  That scene in the church -- Jamie refusing to give Claire up to the redcoats, then finally being forced to agree -- having to CARRY her to the door, then being forced to give to her Dougal instead.  Come ON.  Wasn't that just the most romantic scene ever?  That was right up there with "Stay alive, no matter what occurs.  I will find you!" from Last of the Mohicans. (Sigh).  For the record, Jamie in my head looks a lot like Hawkeye in that scene, but with red hair.

Edited June 20, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Clawdette]

What I think is missing this season is the portrayal of the undeniable, electric magnetism that Jamie and Claire have for each other.  This is what I'm missing - the constant pull for them to be near and with each other.  I'm not sure non-book readers will really understand Claire's need - that she cannot ignore - to go back to the past to try to find Jamie. 

It's that Jamie/Claire relationship that kept me reading eight lonnnnng books.  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

23 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

It's hard for me to respond to your post, RulerofallIsurvey because I am a reader and we were having a books-vs-show conversation.  We were talking about all the intimate scenes that have been left out, which we wouldn't know about if we hadn't read the books first.

If I tried to respond to the bait-and-switch complaint that a non-reader might pose it would be a struggle for me because I don't understand viewers having expectations or feeling entitled to a certain number of sex scenes per season.  If there is one thing this show taught the viewers last season is that this show will surprise you and go places you may not expect.  It's not a standard "romance" (I would have thought that the last two episodes of season 2 would have cured anyone of that expectation.)

My apologies if I misunderstood the conversation about the sex scenes or lack thereof.  What I was reading was not only a discussion of what was being shown book vs show but show Season 1 vs. show Season 2.  Most of the complaints I have read have been about that - or perhaps that is only my perception of the complaints - but it is that 'bait and switch' to which I was responding.  

I don't have any expectations of a certain number of sex scenes or feel entitled to them either, so I do not think that is a fair assessment of my comment.  It seems as dismissive as the 'perv' comment (which I am sure you did not intend) above to which Andorra responded when she said:

8 hours ago, Andorra said:

What happened to "when it's in the book it will be in the show" and "we're not shying away from it"? Direct quotes from Ron D Moore last season.

If this were really true, we'd be seeing all those wonderful moments you described above in your post. Also, as Andorra noted, if they have time to show the rapes and linger on them, they have time to show Jamie and Claire together more intimately as well.

My point, which may have been lost, is that with so few (nearly none!) sex scenes - and until this episode with Jamie praying over Claire, very few scenes of real intimacy at all between a  husband and wife) the separation which even non-book readers know is coming is not going to be very poignant. The remarks that sex scenes are not necessary to the plot do not ring true to me, because  the major plot point, imo, IS the ending separation.  I, personally, think more intimate scenes would have helped ramp up the angst and drama of that eventual separation.  As it is, I'm going to be shrugging my shoulders and thinking, 'eh, she's probably better off with Frank.'  Surely, that's not what the showrunners really want me to think?

ETA: and what @Clawdette just said while I was slowly typing.

Edited June 20, 2016 by RulerofallIsurvey

[DittyDotDot]

52 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I believe the show runners when they say that we will get sex scenes and intimacy scene when they are essential to the plot and we won't get them when they are not because there just isn't TIME.  It's a limitation of any TV adaptation of a VERY BIG BOOK that we don't get to see many sweet, warm character moments because there is just such much darn plot to be covered.  I don't think the show-runners pulled a bait-and-switch. I don't think they've suddenly become prudish.  I think they love the positive reaction that the show's best sex scenes have garnered,  I just think they have a wildly difficult task in adapting these huge books and small scenes of marital intimacy, like Jamie & Claire's sex-under-a-tree-following-battle (or the two of them wrestling with wee Jamie after the potato feast) naturally fall to the way-side.

I'm really far behind on the show, but I think this is the difficulty with adapting any book. This is why I generally prefer the written versions of almost anything. There's just unlimited space to fill out the characters. 

There's a lot of plot in all these books, but Dragonfly in Amber is especially complex with all the political machinations going on. They only have 13, 40-minute episodes to tell their story--which blows my mind they can get it all done and get any character beats in that space of time. I imagine it's a which-option-is-more-likely-for-the-viewers-to-be-able-to-live-without-and-still-understand-the-story sort of decision here. So, whether you agree with what they thought was necessary or not, I agree with @WatchrTina. I don't think it's that they've suddenly become prudish, but they figure the audience is able to live without those intimate scenes to understand Clair and Jamie's relationship. 

[WatchrTina]

Quote

 I, personally, think more intimate scenes would have helped ramp up the angst and drama of that eventual separation.

I don't think intimate (sex) scenes are what we need for that.  I think Jamie's tortured refusal to be separated from Claire in the church scene foreshadows the coming separation and Jamie's pain very effectively.  The scene of Jamie praying for Claire's safety and that of any eventual child they may come to have is also a nice bit of foreshadowing of the child we know she is going to carry back with her through the stones.  Intimacy comes in many forms.  For example I loved the way they put their heads together in the very first scene when Jamie is just too frustrated for words.  They are united in the secret knowledge of all that may be coming and all that may be lost.  That was a wonderful, intimate moment.  We are never allowed for a second to forget what these two mean to one another.

Edited June 20, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Petunia846]

21 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I agree with you Petunia846 -- I have often described the 8-book epic that is Outlander to people as "The story of a marriage."  But I take to heart Diana's advice that when we are watching the show we need to put the book down and experience the story in a different way.  I love my book Jamie & Claire (who, BTW, look nothing line Sam & Cait) but I've also fallen in love with TV Jamie & Claire and the story of their marriage.  I love their intimacy.  I love him praying over her in this episode and her ordering him to get his cold naked arse into bed (okay she didn't say that but that's where my brain went, sue me.)  I don't think TV Jamie & Claire suffer from a lack on on-screen intimacy. I'm grateful for all the lovely intimate moments we do get, like that fierce look they gave one another after they kissed just before Jamie left for the battle.  And then he bowed, like he did on their wedding day.  Oh.  My.  God.  I melted at that.  I don't know -- maybe I'm an outlier here -- but I'm still getting plenty of warm, shivers-up-my-spine, romantic moments from season 2 of this TV show.

ETA:  That scene in the church -- Jamie refusing to give Claire up to the redcoats, then finally being forced to agree -- having to CARRY her to the door, then being forced to give to her Dougal instead.  Come ON.  Wasn't that just the most romantic scene ever?  That was right up there with "Stay alive, no matter what occurs.  I will find you!" from Last of the Mohicans.

 

Those were all great moments, so I agree there. For me honestly, this season has been pretty good. I had more quibbles with last season and the lack of Jamie/Claire moments while we had extra things with Frank.

I think there's a difference though between clutching the book as gospel and being unhappy with how certain things are portrayed and focused on. There have been lots of changes from the books this season that didn't bother me at all. I don't mind changes that streamline things or have to be done due to logistical issues. I don't have a problem with little, individual changes...I have a problem with the overall effect of the changes on the overall tone/point of the story. I have a problem with added Frank scenes (like we had last season), for example, because they pull the focus of the story away from Jamie and Claire.

Honestly I don't have a lot of issues with this season. I've actually been very happy with it. I loved this episode and as many back as I can remember. I agree with you that we don't need actual sex scenes to see the intimacy. All those other little moments you've mentioned work for me, too. I think the problems are more with what was done (or not done) last season and how it didn't build a strong foundation for the believability of the intimacy that we're getting now, but that has all been argued over and over again, so there's not really much more I can say about it.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

2 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I don't think intimate (sex) scenes are what we need for that.  I think Jamie's tortured refusal to be separated from Claire in the church scene foreshadows the coming separation and Jamie's pain was more effectively.  The scene of Jamie praying for Claire's safety and that of any eventual child they may come to have is also a nice bit of foreshadowing of the child we know she is going to carry back with her through the stones.  Intimacy comes in many forms.  For example I loved the way they put their heads together in the very first scene when Jamie is just too frustrated for words.  They are united in the secret knowledge of all that may be coming and all that may be lost.  That was a wonderful, intimate moment.  We are never allowed for a second to forget what these two mean to one another.

See, for me, the action was happening so fast in the church I blew right past it.  And it seemed to kind of come out of no where, considering I hadn't seen much intimacy lately.  Maybe if I watched the episode multiple times, I'd get it on the third or fourth viewing, but it shouldn't take that either.

As for the intimacy shown with the prayer, I agree with you there.  But notice that they actually took more time on that scene and let it play out.  It wasn't a brief, blink-and-you-miss-it look between them.  

As an aside, on the prayer - at the time he said it, though I immediately recognized it for the foreshadowing of the second pregnancy that it was, I also immediately thought - and when the hell is she supposed to get pregnant when they never have sex anymore?  :)

[WatchrTina]

Quote

when the hell is she supposed to get pregnant when they never have sex anymore?  :)

Clearly you need to have a dirtier mind.  Of COURSE they had sex right after that!  He was naked.  He was cold.  Can't you just imagine that cold, naked skin of his coming into that nice warm envelope of space that Claire has been occupying?  I like to imagine that Brianna was conceived right then and there, that night.  

Come to the dark side.  The water's fine.  :)

Edited June 20, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Bort]

Everybody, this conversation about sex scenes in the show vs. book needs to be in the aptly named Book vs. Show topic, please. If discussing the specific scenes in this episode, it's fine but any of the more general discussion on the subject needs to go elsewhere. 

[Summer]

Taking my opinion over to the Unpopular Opinions thread.   Boy, I seem to spend a lot of time over there and thats a bummer for me.  I am just not feeling this season :(

Edited June 20, 2016 by Summer

[lianau]

Maybe I should have worded the perv thing differently . I'm not contesting that sex is part of their relationship . I meant that there are people who only care about them having sex and nothing else . They don't care about any other characters or story lines that don't lead directly to sex . I even came across a comment somewhere claiming that sex is the only way Jamie is able to show love.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

39 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Clearly you need to have a dirtier mind.  Of COURSE they had sex right after that!  He was naked.  He was cold.  Can't you just imagine that naked bare skin of his coming into that nice warm envelope of space that Claire has been occupying?  I like to imagine that Brianna was conceived right then and there, that night.  

Come to the dark side.  The water's fine.  :)

LOL!  Well, or maybe I was thinking - cold husband getting into bed with me...Brr!  get those icicles you call feet off of me!

Of course it didn't help, imo, that the last thing I remember seeing was Claire closing her eyes and rolling onto her side facing away from Jamie.  They didn't even have a sexy kiss, a sultry smile and then a fade to black.  I would have been fine with that.  But that's not how I interpreted it.  And once again, if that's not what they meant to convey, then that is a show failure.  

Edited June 20, 2016 by RulerofallIsurvey

[whoknowswho]

2 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

I'm really far behind on the show, but I think this is the difficulty with adapting any book. This is why I generally prefer the written versions of almost anything. There's just unlimited space to fill out the characters. 

There's a lot of plot in all these books, but Dragonfly in Amber is especially complex with all the political machinations going on. They only have 13, 40-minute episodes to tell their story--which blows my mind they can get it all done and get any character beats in that space of time. I imagine it's a which-option-is-more-likely-for-the-viewers-to-be-able-to-live-without-and-still-understand-the-story sort of decision here. So, whether you agree with what they thought was necessary or not, I agree with @WatchrTina. I don't think it's that they've suddenly become prudish, but they figure the audience is able to live without those intimate scenes to understand Clair and Jamie's relationship. 

I didn't read all the books, I started them all when they first came out many years ago, and got up to and finished Drums of Autumn. Then life got in my way, vision problems seriously hampered my ability to read paper books, and I just never bought the remaining books. But what I remember so much about the books is this: It was an incredible love story, with beautiful prose and imaginative writing.  Jamie and Claire had incredible, beautiful chemistry together and loved each other so dearly.  That it allowed them to continue across space and time, and many years of being apart. Last season, Claire was magical, full of guff and spirit and bravery, and intelligence. 

This year, not so much. In fact, Claire is anemic to me this year--not overly intelligent, not particularly "nice", no really huge redeeming features that would cause a man, or men, to lay down his life for her.  With the exception of the Scots--she is bristly to everyone else, English or French. I HATED the France part of the book, and I hated the France part of this season with the exception of "Faith", and the costuming.  I think I actually missed two episodes and I don't even care.

This episode left me sad. I know there's little time left, and it's all bloody battles and war and loss. I didn't find Sandringham's death particularly  just, or appealing--just bloody and more in keeping with a show that wants to lure male viewers with some great blood and gore. That they've achieved.  But the heart of the books has always been about a great love, a love that knows no time--and this year it doesn't seem to be clicking. I'm not a fangirl--I don't need to see sex scenes to feel the connection between these two people, and I know I'm going to HATE every minute she spends with Frank.  If they have sex, I'll probably barf in my mouth. 

I'm really overall disappointed with this year as a whole--I like Fergus, but he's about the only other figure I liked with the exception of Angus, Dougal and Rupert. 

[chocolatetruffle]

I really want to respond to this from the POV of an industry professional (I'm an actor) but I'm taking it to the Book v. Show thread.  So if you're interested, follow me over there :-)

[ulkis]

I do wonder if at the end of the day the "Fox's lair" was necessary, unless the stuff with Simon lays fruit later on. They could have spent a bit more time at Lallybroch in that episode, imo.

Edited June 23, 2016 by ulkis

[aulait]

Does anyone know the real life name of the castle they showed in the distance shots before the Sandringham scenes? 

[AheadofStraight]

I don't remember off the top of my head but I think they referenced it in Ron's podcast. Started with a D, I think. (Sorry, not very helpful!)

[sasunnach]

On 6/20/2016 at 4:05 PM, chocolatetruffle said:

I really want to respond to this from the POV of an industry professional (I'm an actor) but I'm taking it to the Book v. Show thread.  So if you're interested, follow me over there :-)

I'd love an insider's perspective on the issue... alas, I am not a book reader though.  Do you think you can give an alternate version for the show viewers? Maybe, if you use an example or two from the last episode to highlight your point(s), it can go in the most recent episode thread? Thanks either way!

 

On 6/20/2016 at 11:41 AM, kariyaki said:

If discussing the specific scenes in this episode, it's fine but any of the more general discussion on the subject needs to go elsewhere. 

Some interesting topics were brought up here!  I think I may be able to conform my thoughts to one of the existing threads (when I get off my duff to respond that is!).  But just as an FYI, there really is no general issues thread for the show viewers only, or did I miss it?

thanks.

[Bort]

4 minutes ago, sasunnach said:

Some interesting topics were brought up here!  I think I may be able to conform my thoughts to one of the existing threads (when I get off my duff to respond that is!).  But just as an FYI, there really is no general issues thread for the show viewers only, or did I miss it?

thanks.

No, you didn't miss it. We'll do a general season 2 thread once the season is over. But most non-episode-specific discussion tends to be a book vs show debate, so usually that thread will suffice. 

[chocolatetruffle]

3 hours ago, sasunnach said:

I'd love an insider's perspective on the issue... alas, I am not a book reader though.  Do you think you can give an alternate version for the show viewers? Maybe, if you use an example or two from the last episode to highlight your point(s), it can go in the most recent episode thread? Thanks either way!

Sasunnach I sent you a PM.