Speculation Without Spoilers: Through The Stones

[Athena]

This is a spoiler free and No Book Talk speculation about the show. No show or book spoilers allowed. If you would like to discuss the books, we have more than book topic for it. Feel free to speculate where the show will go from here.

You can discuss previews.

[Dejana]

New trailer

[auntlada]

I'm going to have to find some way to see this (legally). I think it's Jamie's accent that does it.

[GHScorpiosRule]

It's a small thing, I know, and it doesn't bother me, but I could have sworn Jamie's hair is supposed to be past his shoulders?

 

That said, I am...intrigued. And I'm loving the brogue. 'Tis true that I have a wee bit o' weakness for the Scots and Oirish Brogues!

[auntlada]

I can't remember offhand about the hair. I do know it was cut at some point prior to the beginning of Outlander because he had a head wound and the monks (I think) had to shave his head. I'm not clear about how long before that was, though, and it's been a long time since I read the first book. And, of course, I don't know if that's part of the backstory for the TV show, either.

[peacefrog]

Looks like the premier is August 9th! I'm surprised it is on a Saturday and not a Sunday.

[TOWTooMuchTV]

Jamie's hair is shortish at the beginning of the book because of his recent head wound and recovery. At one point Claire even asks him why he wears it short and he tells her that is why...can't remember when though. So excited to have a premiere date!! Any thoughts on how much that first episode will cover? I could see it ending with her going through the stones, which would really stink because it would mean an entire episode with no Jamie!

[rainsmom]

My unspoilered speculation is that she'll go through the stones pretty darn early in the first show -- at least by the end of the first half, if not by the end of Act I. And then they'll use flashbacks to explain her past. My preference, though, would be to have her not go through the stones until near the end of the first episode. I'd like to get a decent grounding with her husband and her life in the 1940s.

[insubordination]

Agreed. They should develop her relationship with her husband first - though everyone will be desperate to see Jamie.

Edited June 1, 2014 by insubordination

[Athena]

Still almost two months away from the premiere. Check out the Outlander_Starz instagram for some nice production photos.

[Dejana]

A new promo trailer featuring behind-the-scenes and show clips interspersed with cast/crew/Diana interviews.

[Constantinople]

Everyone in 1743 is killed by germs that Claire brought back from the 20th century.

[absnow54]

Maybe their blood alcohol level is high enough that they'll all be immune.

Edited August 16, 2014 by absnow54

[Constantinople]

Was it Rupert who told Claire that he was Dougal's eyes and that Dougal had told him to watch her?

 

I ask because I like to think that Frank ran into Rupert's ghost outside of the inn in the first episode, and that Rupert was watching Claire through the window, still trying to figure out what she was up to, even 200 years later.

 

But I'm guessing it was probably Jamie, not Rupert.

[nyxy]

I think a spell of cross-dressing is in Claire's future. I say this because I think her story is supposed to serve as a foil/contrast to Charles Edward Stuart's, who cross-dressed as a serving maid to escape the English.

 

I'm also wondering if when Claire crossed over into the 18th century someone else crossed from the 18th century to the 20th. Should have paid more attention to the young woman (one of those who participated in the druid dance) who came back to look for something in the woods, forcing Frank and Claire to hide. That woman looked quite lost- maybe she could have been dumped into the 20th century. Heck maybe she's Jenny. If the stones are the portal between centuries, presumably there's been other time travel back and forth.

Edited August 19, 2014 by nyxy

[Nidratime]

I think a spell of cross-dressing is in Claire's future. I say this because I think her story is supposed to serve as a foil/contrast to Charles Edward Stuart's, who cross-dressed as a serving maid to escape the English.

 

I'm also wondering if when Claire crossed over into the 18th century someone else crossed from the 18th century to the 20th. Should have paid more attention to the young woman (one of those who participated in the druid dance) who came back to look for something in the woods, forcing Frank and Claire to hide. That woman looked quite lost- maybe she could have been dumped into the 20th century. Heck maybe she's Jenny. If the stones are the portal between centuries, presumably there's been other time travel back and forth.

 

I'd be interested in a story about someone from the 18th Century coming forward. Why must it always be from the future to the past?

[magdalene]

I wonder if anybody can go through these stones if the moment is right - or whatever else needs to be right . Or if only certain special people can pass through. And if I was Claire I wouldn't be so certain that these stones function as a time portal into the future. Maybe you can only go one time and only into the past.

 

I wish I wasn't having such a hard time making out what the Scottish characters are saying. I can only understand about every third word Jamie is saying. I am missing out on a lot of subtext too because I am constantly trying to catch up on conversations.

[Pestilentia]

 

 

I wish I wasn't having such a hard time making out what the Scottish characters are saying. I can only understand about every third word Jamie is saying. I am missing out on a lot of subtext too because I am constantly trying to catch up on conversations.

Closed captioning.

One click is all it takes.

[Constantinople]

I wonder if anybody can go through these stones if the moment is right - or whatever else needs to be right . Or if only certain special people can pass through. And if I was Claire I wouldn't be so certain that these stones function as a time portal into the future. Maybe you can only go one time and only into the past.

Frank touched one of the stones when they were investigating them, but I'm not sure if it was the same stone that Claire later touched.

I wonder if the flower that Claire picked has something to do with it.

Do we know how often the pagan dance is done? Is it only for whatever they call Halloween? If that's a requirement, it could be a long time until Claire gets back.

[nyxy]

I wonder if anybody can go through these stones if the moment is right - or whatever else needs to be right . Or if only certain special people can pass through. And if I was Claire I wouldn't be so certain that these stones function as a time portal into the future. Maybe you can only go one time and only into the past.

That would be so interesting-- if the trips are just one way. And if only some people could pass through.

In terms of when the time is right- Claire's passing through might have been enabled by the sacred ceremony that took place just the night before.

 

ETA in response to Constantinople's question above: I'm not sure how often the pagan ritual takes place. On Halloween for sure, but I have a vague memory of someone saying it was once a month. Could be wrong.

And I completely missed Frank's touching the stone....interesting!

Edited August 19, 2014 by nyxy

[Constantinople]

There's a bit of a parallel between Frank's wartime work, and what's happening now. During the war, Frank stayed in London while sending agents behind the lines. Claire mentioned that most of the agents never returned. Once again Frank is staying, this time staying in the present, while Claire is going behind the lines by traveling 200 years in the past (they say the past is like a foreign country).

Not sure what this means, but if it's foreshadowing, Claire better get used to the 40s, the 1740s.

[Constantinople]

From S1E3: The Way Out
 

Those were some interesting red shoes that Geillis was sporting.

Presumably Claire will figure out a way to drop a house on Geillis, take her shoes and make her way back to Craig Na Dun

 

Then she'll click her heels while saying, "There's no place like home", and all will be well.

[sosmitten]

The first thing I thought when I saw those shoes was the Wizard of Oz.  I totally assumed it was intentional.

[Constantinople]

Claire hasn't traveled back in time to 1743. She's just gone completely nuts.

That explains why

 

• Claire hasn't accidentally killed anyone with her 20th century germs,
• Frank and Black Jack Randall look exactly alike (except for the hairstyle), and
• Claire keeps talking to herself in the guise of narration

[absnow54]

Given that any scene that doesn't include Claire is a flashback being told to Claire (Jamie's wedding planning, BJR and the flogging) the inclusion of Frank's POV in Both Sides Now confirms that Claire and Frank will meet again for her to hear his story.

[Nidratime]

Well, they've been telling us over and over, in the show, the person who leaves always returns.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Nidratime

[peacefrog]

Given that any scene that doesn't include Claire is a flashback being told to Claire (Jamie's wedding planning, BJR and the flogging) the inclusion of Frank's POV in Both Sides Now confirms that Claire and Frank will meet again for her to hear his story.

When Frank sees the ghost it was from his POV, straight up. He tells Claire about it but there is no flashback.

[absnow54]

When Frank sees the ghost, I don't think it's told too differently from when Jamie tattles on Dougal for telling him not to look too eager for a woman. The scenes appear to take place in the present, but in the next scene Claire is being informed about it. We know that Claire knows that Frank saw a ghost because we saw a scene of him telling her about it. So far I don't think a scene has taken place outside of Claire's POV unless a character has told her about the scene. Staying within that narrative structure, it means that the only way we the audience can see these solo Frank scenes is if Frank (or someone witnessing Frank's anguish like the Reverend or the tea reading lady -- I can't remember her name) had (or technically will have) relayed it to Claire. I guess I'm operating under the impression that Claire's voice over is the true present, and all the show present, be it 1945 or 1743 is a story she's remembering. 

Edited September 28, 2014 by absnow54

[Petunia846]

From twitter:

@TVGuideMagazine A full minute of the #Outlander premiere will air during the #BlackSails premiere on January 24 #TCA15

They certain know how to tease us viewers without any mercy, don't they?

 

So, I love Outlander, but I'm pretty sure I hate Starz.  That was not a full minute of actual episode, they had to have been counting Ron's intro in that. Gurr. And while obviously I love Jamie, that told us nothing at all about anything.

 

All their attempts to make the wait easier are so completely unsatisfying...which is probably their true intent anyway. I should just stop bothering to follow the show's promotion until it's time for actual episodes to come back.

[peacefrog]

Lol yeah that was a let down. 

 

That was not a minute! The 2 promo vids with Sam and Cait were longer.

Edited January 25, 2015 by peacefrog

[Kiwi]

Hmmm I just watched the clip on spoilertv, it did seem like a whole lot of nothing.

[WatchrTina]

Since we're among friends I have to say that my reaction to the "sneak peek" was say, out loud, "Oh Fuck you Ron!"  And my second reaction was "Who the hell was that blonde?"

 

I'm better now.  Don't tell Ron I cursed him out.  I'm still one of his biggest fans.  But seriously?  Talk about over-promising and under-delivering.

 

So, did you stay tuned for Black Sails?  Because it was really good.

Edited January 25, 2015 by WatchrTina

[theschnauzers]

There is a sort of overlap between the two shows that became evident on Black Sails tonight, with the scene in London involving the Admiralty and the time period (which was about the same time as the early Jacobite uprising in 1715), qand the attitude of the British. That said, who can blame the pirates?

 

As to the sneak peak, it is interesting that is how the next episode begins with Jamie's POV, I don't recall those words coming from Jamie in the books, so that is what makes that more interesting. April still can't come soon enough.

Edited January 25, 2015 by theschnauzers

[Guest]

Hmmm I just watched the clip on spoilertv, it did seem like a whole lot of nothing.

 

It does seem to indicate that the episode will likely recap 1A through flashback from Jamie's point of view and probably end with him showing up to rescue Claire.  I'm guessing that the blond is the girl he was kissing who wanted the love potion, but I saw the blurry version so just guessing.

Edited January 25, 2015 by ParadoxLost

[Petunia846]

So, did you stay tuned for Black Sails?  Because it was really good.

 

Nope. I was mad so I turned it off and went to bed. Hope that was part of their plan.

[CatMack]

The video is 1:35 long and Ron's intro was 20 seconds.  So yes, the episode clip itself was a minute long, actually a little longer.  Exactly like what they said.  I don't really get what people were expecting or why y'all are pissed.  IDK, maybe it's because I'm used to cable shows having even longer breaks with even less news or teasers.  They've been extremely generous IMO. 

[WatchrTina]

CatMack if they told us in advance it was only going to be a minute, I didn't get the memo.  The teaser trailers have been a couple of minutes long so yeah, I was expecting more.  I was hoping we'd actually see Jamie rescue Claire.  In hind-sight I understand why they didn't show that but if you end an episode on a cliff-hanger and then tell me, "Guess what, we're going to give you a sneak-peek at the first scene of the next episode!" it's not completely unreasonable that I might have hoped to see the cliff-hanger resolved.

 

The other thing is that if they had released the scene on February 4th as the next "goody" in the let-us-help-you-get-through-droughtlander campaign I would have fallen all over myself "squeeing" with joy.  That's not what they did.  They played it right before the season premiere of Black Sails as a promotional effort to try to convert Outlander fans to Black Sails fans.  They enticed people into altering their viewing habits in the hope that it would benefit STARZ. This was not done primarily for the fans nor was it motivated by generosity. It was done for the network.  So I feel entitled to whine a bit over my disappointment.  

 

 

So, did you stay tuned for Black Sails?  Because it was really good.

Nope. I was mad so I turned it off and went to bed. Hope that was part of their plan.

LOL.  Yeah that's the complete opposite of what they were hoping for.

Edited January 25, 2015 by WatchrTina

[chocolatetruffle]

 

They enticed people into altering their viewing habits in the hope that it would benefit STARZ. This was not done primarily for the fans nor was it motivated by generosity. It was done for the network.

Yep.  Although I think Starz also wanted Black Sails viewers to know that Outlander has hot guys, too!  :)

[WatchrTina]

Weel if that's what they were going for they missed the boat because most of the footage was beauty shots of a highland stream.  Jamie was barely in the clip and he was shown only once in close-up.  If you want to attract the fans of a swashbuckling show like Black Sails to another show you might want to show some action rather than 60 seconds of mainly voice-over of a guy waxing philosophical about his life choices.

 

The co-mingled promotional trailer that followed the "sneak peek" -- the one that cut back and forth between Black Sails footage and Outlander footage -- probably did more to interest Black Sails fans in Outlander than the scene that preceded it.  I loved it.  It made me laugh.

 

For those who didn't catch the sneak peek last night, it has been posted on the Outlander Anatomy blog:

http://outlanderanatomy.tumblr.com/post/109069677298/opening-scene-of-1x09

 

I saw over on Twitter that Matt Roberts wrote episode 9 so we have him to thank for the following words: 

 

"Everyday a man has a choice to between right and wrong; between love and hate; sometimes between life and death; and the sum of those choices becomes your life.  The day I realized that is the day I became a man." 

Thanks Matt.  It will be interesting to see the context in which those words are spoken.

 

As for the images in the sneak peek, it seems clear to me that this scene is from what we didn't see during episode 3 -- what Jamie was up to while Claire was visiting that sick child.  I'm pretty sure the blonde woman walking up behind Jamie is Laoghaire MacKenzie and this scene may explain how she and Jamie came to be snogging in the pantry during that episode.

 

I love the idea that episode 9 is shot from Jamie's point of view but I have mixed feelings if it's going to go all the way back in time to episode 3 and recap what we have already seen from his perspective.  I'm worried we might not get to Claire being rescued by the end of episode 9.  Oh well, I'll just try to have a little faith.  They haven't let me down yet -- at least not with the full episodes.

Edited January 26, 2015 by WatchrTina

[peacefrog]

I'm choosing to think this was the only part of the episode they could show due to tons of action, drama and sex. It's tough to speculate what it was because of the curious lack of hair continuity on this show that usually goes to great lengths to sweat other small details, lol.

 

Edited to add: Do we need a thread to discuss speculation on the tv show? I'm not sure if this thread is the best place to discuss this scene? I'd like to discuss how Jamie's monologue mirrored Claire's opening monologue from Sassenach. Maybe an "all episodes, no book talk" thread?

 

Edited again to say never mind, found it. I put it in the spoiler thread.

Edited January 25, 2015 by peacefrog

[peacefrog]

Ok I've gotten my act together and think this is the most appropriate thread to discuss the preview scene.

 

I liked how Jamie's monologue starts the same as Claire's from Sassenach "Strange the things you remember".  Is the season long theme "choices"? How does that play along with time travel or does it?

 

Can we tell or guess when this scene takes place? Flash back or forward with regards to Jamie's attempt to rescue Claire? 

 

It's hard to not speculate without using what I know from the books. I do think this is a scene that is after the rescue attempt rather than before. I think they are playing with the narrative again.

Edited January 25, 2015 by peacefrog

[Athena]

Hello Sassenachs! I moved a number of posts from Scheduling & Ratings to this topic. You can discuss TPTB approved previews here and speculate without book talk. Bookwalkers, you can Books vs Show or the Book One topic. Thanks!

[Athena]

Bumping this thread up post-finale for the non-book watchers.

[Daisy]

Everyone. the drought is almost over. thank the goodness. 

[Athena]

Bumping this thread up for unspoiled, no book talk watchers to speculate for S2 and beyond.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

May I post sneak peaks here or should they only go in the spoilers thread?

[Athena]

You can post them here since the other thread has way too many spoilers for the unspoiled. Thanks. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Thanks Athena.  :)

Sneak peak for Ep. 205

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Promo for Ep 3:

 

And a sneak peak:

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Preview for 3.08 First Wife: https://www.starz.com/video/a7d774f5-cf20-4d54-9b75-25a6490852de

 

I'm guessing Claire finds out.   Looks like Jenny is being as much of a B to Claire as the first time Jamie took her to Lallybroch.