S03.E06: A. Malcolm

[Kata01]

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/10/outlander-a-malcolm-print-ship-jamie-fall-to-pieces-sam-heughan-outlander-writers

Vanity Fair did a piece today on the backlash over the photo scene. I think it’s fair to say we’ve exhausted the particulars of the scene over the course of the last few days as to why it did or didn’t work for each of us. Indeed since Season 1 Episode 1, there have been some passionate reactions, debates, and discussions over book/tv inclusions and exclusions. In all this time I cannot recall (please refresh my memory if I’m wrong) this level of backlash over a scene since the series began. There was something particular about this scene that triggered such a negative reaction for many. I’m curious to know everyone’s thoughts as to why? 

Edited October 25, 2017 by Kata01

[dustoffmom]

Speaking for myself, this reigns as one of my top two or three favorite scenes in all the books thus far.  As such, I have/had very strong opinions as to how it ran it's course and should be portrayed.  And, it wasn't.  That is the sum total of it for me.  I had such a powerful image in my head and what I saw on the screen came nowhere near matching the movie running in my head.  Right or wrong, that's why I detested that effort.

Edited October 25, 2017 by dustoffmom
missing word typo

[WatchrTina]

On 10/25/2017 at 11:07 AM, Cloudberryjam said:

Hmm. Coffee talk a la Mike Myers:  Jamie broke down with Jenny  after Fergus hand incident but not upon Claire reunion/Brianna pics. Discuss. 

LOL.  Okay, I'm in.  I have two perspectives -- one from the point of view of Jamie's psychological state and one from the practicalities of filming the scenes.

Feral, post-Culloden Jamie is almost non-verbal.  He has so closed in upon himself that he does not speak a word for the first 15 minutes or so of the episode.  He's completely shut down emotionally.  He's still dealing with PTSD from having been sexually assaulted (which was only a couple of years before Culloden) and then he had to go though the loss of family, friends, his very way of life, and -- oh yeah -- his wife and unborn child.  He also lost his identity.  After being reared in the expectation of being a Scottish Laird he is, instead, relegated to living in a cave, a veritable semi-hermit.  He is in a very bad place.  The attack on Fergus, breaks through all that -- it's just the last fucking straw for Jamie.  Not only can he not live openly with his family -- just being in proximity to them puts them in peril.  It's too much.  He breaks down in the scene before the fire, but that breakdown is cathartic.  It's like a dam bursting.  After that, he remembers who he is.  Fergus can see the change.  "There you are Milord."  Immediately after that he takes command of the situation.  He declares his intention to turn himself in (or rather, have Jenny turn him in for the reward, despite Jenny's objections), he makes it happen, and then he assumes the mantle of his next leadership role -- that of Mac Dubh at Ardsmuir.  The breakdown signals a significant transformation in Jamie's psyche as well as the cumulative impact of all the shit he has been through.

The scene with Claire is very different.  Her return is earth-shaking.  It rocks his world.  He is deeply moved.  But he is still A. Malcolm, printer and part-time smuggler who has people depending on him and a lot of irons in a lot of fires.  He's also 14 years older and has seen some shit -- it takes more to knock him off balance.  So Sam's decision to NOT portray that version of Jamie as breaking down and sobbing in reaction so seeing photos of his daughter can, I think, be defended.

From the filming aspect there is, I think, an even more compelling justification.  Feral Jamie's breakdown is filmed only briefly and then the camera cuts away.  We are left to imagine him pulling himself together, drying his tears, blowing his nose, probably taking a stiff dram, and then -- once he has himself well in hand -- going to see Fergus.  That kind of cutaway isn't practical in TV version of the printshop scene.  It can be done easily in he book -- we have all the time in the world to imagine what "quietly going to pieces" means and what he would have looked like and done as he pulled himself back together.  Would all that take 5 minutes?  10?  Doesn't matter in a book.  But in a TV episode it does.  How would we have felt if the camera had cut away from a sobbing Jamie and then transitioned to later when he had gotten himself under control?  Wouldn't that have broken the flow of the scene?  I think THAT is actually one of the more compelling arguments for having Sam play the scene the way he did -- depicting Jamie as deeply moved, but not weeping.

Edited October 27, 2017 by WatchrTina

[Nidratime]

Quote

There was something particular about this scene that triggered such a negative reaction for many. I’m curious to know everyone’s thoughts as to why?

I don't share this enormous negative reaction, so I can't speak from my own heart and mind about it. If I found a segment of a TV show detestable, I would never watch it again. 

I wasn't looking for Jamie to emotionally breakdown during the photo scene. Possibly because I couldn't remember exactly how he acted in the books. Seriously. I just hadn't retained that. I did expect him to be a bit more amazed at the photos. But, leaving that aside, what really surprised and distracted me from his reaction to Brianna was the fact that he then went on to reveal that he had a son. I was so *not* expecting that, that I was focused on it immediately, thinking about what it would mean for the plot ahead, and so, I missed everything else after that. But, that's my "problem" as a book reader, expecting things to work out exactly the same way in this adaptation, when it's been clear from the get-go that the adaptation has taken some departures from the source material -- either changing something (sometimes major) or reordering the sequence of events. What I try to keep in mind is that we've had changes to the source material where book fans have applauded the writers and said, thank God they changed *that!* It was awful in the book! But then, when the writers make a change in our favorite part of the book, we rake them over the coals. I know that's a fan's right, but it's got to be somewhat discombobulating for the writers.

That being said, the writers' podcast should be very interesting as we will hear more about their thought processes and I have always found that podcast to be -- if not a source of information that makes one understand and puts oneself in their shoes regarding their limitations -- at least something that helps to see their own interpretations.

Finally, I want to add, these changes to the source material -- this adaptation -- is allowing me to look at this material in a new way. Instead, of seeing a verbatim, even if edited, version of the books, these changes have made me look at the material with new eyes. And, even more fascinatingly, I am taken with how these writers, actors, and directors -- some of whom never knew this story before have interpreted it. What have they found in Diana's books that excites, inspires, puzzles, or confounds them? I find that interesting to contemplate in terms of a series of books that dates from the '90s, that no one has ever been able to adapt before this. It keeps the series -- for me -- a living story, just as the nth interpretation of a play, a book, or movie.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Nidratime

[katville]

I am on board with him telling Claire about Willie at that moment. Part of what made Claire and Jamie's relationship so strong was that they always could tell each other anything and be their authentic selves with each other. Jamie said that he had not told anyone about Willie but he immediately told Claire because even 20 years later, he trusts her in a way that he trusted no one else. One of the greatest things about Jamie and Claire's love story is that they are a team. I think Jamie was so happy to have that intimacy back, an intimacy that he never found with anyone else, nor honestly, wanted with anyone else. 

[WatchrTina]

Ooooh, I just read Connie Verzak's initial reaction to this ep and she spotted something that (I think) no one else has.  Remember when Yi Tien Cho (Mr. Willoughby) says something to Claire in Chinese and Jamie (who does not look best pleased) translates it as "honorable wife?"  I did wonder what that look on Jamie's face was about. Well Connie, in her initial reaction to the episode (link below) said:

Quote

Book readers especially will note Fergus’s “What about…” Jamie’s need to consult Ned Gowan, and the seemingly partial translation of Yi Tien Cho’s honorific for his wife. 

Seemingly partial translation?  Whaaaaa . . . Oh my gosh!  Yi Tien Cho must have called Claire "Honorable Second Wife."  That is brilliant!  The mystery of Jamie's displeased face is solved!

Here's the link to Connie's initial write-up.  (Her full photo recap is not up yet.)

http://tvkillstime.com/2017/10/22/deep-thoughts-outlander-306-a-malcolm/

 

Edited to add:

4 hours ago, Kata01 said:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/10/outlander-a-malcolm-print-ship-jamie-fall-to-pieces-sam-heughan-outlander-writers

Vanity Fair did a piece today on the backlash over the photo scene. I think it’s fair to say we’ve exhausted the particulars of the scene over the course of the last few days as to why it did or didn’t work for each of us. Indeed since Season 1 Episode 1, there have been some passionate reactions, debates, and discussions over book/tv inclusions and exclusions. In all this time I cannot recall (please refresh my memory if I’m wrong) this level of backlash over a scene since the series began. There was something particular about this scene that triggered such a negative reaction for many. I’m curious to know everyone’s thoughts as to why? 

I was dreading reading the story at that link but now I'm glad I did because both the Outlander Writers twitter account and Sam have walked back the sentiments expressed in their initial tweets (tweets that could certainly have been interpreted as accusatory or defensive).  I'm betting both sides regret having tweeted what they did and I'm betting the whole production team is surprised by the disappointment many have expressed regarding the print shop scene.

In response to KATA01's question quoted above -- the reason the changes in that scene vs. the book provoked such a strong reaction for me is that I think the reunion scene is one of the most iconic moments in the entire series.  I've probably read Voyager all the way through only twice but I've read that scene at least a dozen times.  If I'm in a bad mood or feeling sad, I've been known to pick up the book and just read that one scene -- from the moment Claire sees Jamie to the moment Jamie recalls that he's forgotten Mr. Willoughby and they rush off together.  That scene is burned into my memory.  I actually thought I was a bit obsessed with it but then I started reading all the reactions on Monday around the internet and I discovered I was not alone.  There is just something powerfully evocative about the scene as written -- seeing this strong man who has survived so much brought to tears by a dozen photographs of the daughter he has never known.  The wonder of it all -- the gasp when he sees the first color photo and learns that she has his red hair -- the quietly falling apart -- it's all so perfect.  That scene of overwhelming parental love / wonderment / longing / grief just rocks my world.  The TV version evoked a much more subdued reaction in me and then, (alas) Jamie's eagerness to tell Claire about Willie broke my heart a little because it felt like Bree deserved a bit more of her father's undivided attention.

Now, mind you, I'm getting over it.  I've written elsewhere on these boards (see above) about why I think the writers and Sam made the choices they did and I think I understand what drove their decisions.  Now that the initial shock is over I'm sure I'll watch this episode again (and again) and feel only joy at their reunion.  But the first time through, as a book-reader, I was disappointed.

Edited October 26, 2017 by WatchrTina

[toolazy]

12 hours ago, Kata01 said:

Just adding for the sake of adding that DG was not happy with that scene either ;) 

It's not clear which part you mean she is unhappy about? Because I've seen her pointing out that watching actors ugly-cry isn't always all that entertaining on the teevee.  What I do think she wasn't happy with was the inclusion of Willie.

 

Edit: Count me in as one the people for whom the photograph scene is a huge favorite from the book but I guess it's all about expectations.  I don't expect the show to portray all of my favorite scenes exactly as written.  It's not fair to expect that.  It would take something fairly extreme for me to find a scene "detestable" just because it doesn't match up with what I've pictured in my brain.   Yes, the portrayal of "going to pieces" was a little bit different in the show but it wasn't that much different - it was really fine and quite believable.  Now, I could have done without the Willie thing but again, not detestable, just different.  It actually makes a lot of sense that he would choose that moment to tell Claire about his son, especially given his previous mention of Faith.  Clearly his children were on his mind.  Not to mention that he knows that there is a big revelation come up for Claire so maybe he wants to lay out as much of the non-threatening truth out there as possible.   I'm actually glad that he didn't keep Willie a secret - it always annoyed me that he did in the books.  It seemed pointless.

Edited October 26, 2017 by toolazy

[FnkyChkn34]

57 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Ooooh, I just read Connie Verzak's initial reaction to this ep and she spotted something that (I think) no one else has.  Remember when Yi Tien Cho (Mr. Willoughby) says something to Claire in Chinese and Jamie (who does not look best pleased) translates it as "honorable wife?"  I did wonder what that look on Jamie's face was about. Well Connie, in her initial reaction to the episode (link below) said:

Seemingly partial translation?  Whaaaaa . . . Oh my gosh!  Yi Tien Cho must have called Claire "Honorable Second Wife."  That is brilliant!  The mystery of Jamie's displeased face is solved!

Here's the link to Connie's initial write-up.  (Her full photo recap is not up yet.)

http://tvkillstime.com/2017/10/22/deep-thoughts-outlander-306-a-malcolm/

 

Does anyone here speak Chinese to confirm that's what he said? He has some fetishes, I was thinking that maybe he referred to something not so honorable. 

[Ziggy]

1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

Yi Tien Cho must have called Claire "Honorable Second Wife."

That would be interesting.  He called her "Honorable First Wife" in the book.  I didn't think anything of it the first time I read it, but the second time I definitely noticed it.  Of course, the second time I noticed quite a few hints about what's to come.

[FnkyChkn34]

4 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

That would be interesting.  He called her "Honorable First Wife" in the book.  I didn't think anything of it the first time I read it, but the second time I definitely noticed it.  Of course, the second time I noticed quite a few hints about what's to come.

I don't recall that from the book, I must have missed it. But how would Mr. Willoughby know about Leghair? I can't imagine that Jamie is running around Edinburgh boasting about abandoning his wife the hosebeast...

[Auj]

I have read Diana’s twitter, the writers and Sam Heughan comments on the photographs scene today. From what I read it was a collaborative decision with everyone agreeing on the outcome. That is cool with me. Often books are very different from the film version.  My philosophy about that is to enjoy both and don’t sweat it. Books have lots of detail. Films don’t. I know I have read lots of folks here say that they are not happy that Murtagh did not die at Culloden. I am thrilled that Murtagh is still alive.

I personally was just enjoying Jamie showing a mini portrait of his son. My thoughts were that Jamie probably believes he will never meet Bree, therefore he will never know her. Clare has chosen to spend the rest of her life with Jamie and will also probably never see Bree again. Now there is an interesting choice: what would I do; stay in the same time zone as my daughter or go back to the time zone as my true love? I would probably choose Bree, the daughter, even though she has her own life, of course, I would still get to see her. I am guessing but I think maybe Jamie will see his son again at some point. I hope so as I enjoyed that fact that Jamie had a son.

[WatchrTina]

31 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

But how would Mr. Willoughby know about Leghair?

If Mr. Willoughby is a part of Jamie's life (including the smuggling operation) then it seems reasonable that he would be aware that Jamie was a married man, even if that wife is seldom if ever discussed and never seen.  It may have come up as an excuse Jamie uses for why he does not consort with the ladies of Madam Jeanne's establishment.  He may have even mentioned being married if he caught a whiff of Madam Jeanne being interested in him personally (which was hinted at in the show.) 

[koboldin]

3 hours ago, Ziggy said:

That would be interesting.  He called her "Honorable First Wife" in the book.  I didn't think anything of it the first time I read it, but the second time I definitely noticed it.  Of course, the second time I noticed quite a few hints about what's to come.

He says "honorable first wife" in Cantonese - not second. :-)

[LadyAmalthea]

My biggest issue, and I had this problem with the book as well, is why on earth Claire would take a photo of Bree in a bikini to show Jamie in the first place.  

I think Sam's instinct was a good one, and outwardly "falling to pieces" would seem out of character for show Jamie.  I didn't mind the transition to Willy either, although it perhaps would have been better if they then went back to talking about Bree, or she was discussed later. 

But I haven't been waiting for years for this reunion to be shown onscreen, I've only read Voyager in the last year and so was not attached to the way it plays out in the book.   

Edited October 26, 2017 by LadyAmalthea

[Nidratime]

Quote

He says "honorable first wife" in Cantonese - not second. :-)

I don't speak Chinese and I didn't know if the person who wrote that article did either, but I always thought Willoughby said "honorable first wife," which would *clearly* also annoy Jamie because it presumes that there is more than one Mrs. Fraser. First wife? Okay, then, who's the second wife, right? Thank heavens Claire doesn't speak Chinese! ;-)

[Ziggy]

2 hours ago, LadyAmalthea said:

My biggest issue, and I had this problem with the book as well, is why on earth Claire would take a photo of Bree in a bikini to show Jamie in the first place. 

Yep!!!

[WatchrTina]

2 hours ago, LadyAmalthea said:

My biggest issue, and I had this problem with the book as well, is why on earth Claire would take a photo of Bree in a bikini to show Jamie in the first place.

Book!Claire says (of how she chose the photos of grown-up Brianna):

Quote

These showed her face in all the moods I could capture, always that face, long-nosed and wide-mouthed, with this high, broad, flat Viking cheekbones and slanted eyes--a finer-boned, more delicate version of her father's, of the man who sat on the cot beside me, mouth working wordlessly, and the tears running soundless down his own cheeks.

So it makes perfect sense to me that she would not have fussed about Brianna being in a bikini in one of them since it was Bree's face she was focusing on when she selected them.  She might also have thought it was nice for Jamie to see that his daughter has a fine figure and a healthy body.  You'll note that Bree is wearing trousers in the photo with the axe, which would also be pretty shocking in 1768 Scotland.  It's clear Claire didn't choose the photos for the clothes (or lack thereof). 

Claire also says (of her decision to take the photos through the stone):

Quote

I had thought long and hard about what I might bring with me, should my journey through the stones succeed.  Given my previous brush with accusations of witchcraft, I had been very careful.  But there was on thing I had to bring, no matter what the consequences might be if anyone saw them.

She's speaking of the packet of photos.  She is very careful with them -- they are hidden in her secret pocket.  So it's clear that Claire does not intend for anyone but Jamie to see them.  And if by some misadventure someone else DID see them, they would be more shocked by the mere existence of photographs than the fact that one of those photos depicted a young woman in very few clothes.  They've SEEN half-naked women before (as we saw, alas, in the walk-through the ground floor of the brothel.) But no one in 1768 Scotland has ever seen a photograph.

And now on a completely different topic, is it realistic that Jamie and Claire would be eating grapes in 1768 Scotland in a brothel in late December?  I'm pretty sure grapes don't grow in Scotland now, much less in 1768 (except maybe in a hot house, which would make them wildly expensive) and refrigeration did not exist at that time.  Let's not even talk about the fact that they were clearly seedless grapes, which only appeared in America in 1872.  I'll hand-wave that away since I don't want to see Jamie and Claire spitting out pips during their sexy post-coital tête-à-tête.  But how on earth did a brothel kitchen get its hands on grapes in December 1768?  Yes, this is what I really woke up thinking about.

[GHScorpiosRule]

10 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I don't want to see Jamie and Claire spitting out pips during their sexy post-coital tête-à-tête.  But how on earth did a brothel kitchen get its hands on grapes in December 1768?  Yes, this is what I really woke up thinking about.

Bolded: eh? Ye mean pits?

As for how? Smuggling. Aye, smuggling. Tha's me theory an' I'm stickin' tae it!

[WatchrTina]

5 hours ago, koboldin said:

He says "honorable first wife" in Cantonese - not second. :-)

Oh, thanks.  I had guessed he had said second (the article writer only said the translation was "incomplete.")

This of course begs the question of how Yi Tien Cho knew Claire WAS the first wife.  He's only just met her and in the book Mr. "Malcolm" is passing off Claire as his brand-new bride -- at least thats how Book!Jamie plays it in tavern where they go after the print shop reunion.  Since Yi Tien Cho probably knew about the existence of a pre-existing wife, it makes more sense that he would guess that Claire was the second wife.  (Note, I went cruising though the book looking for clarification but, ugh, the scene in the tavern basement with him is SO painful to read.  Not Jamie's finest hour, that's for sure. Nor Diana's either.)

It must have been so hard to live the life Jamie was leading - being "A. Malcolm" publicly in town, having a different name at the docks, having a "real" life back at Lallybroch, and having certain key persons who obviously knew him in all three worlds (like Fergus) and other people who only knew him in one (like the patrons of the tavern.)  It must have been exhausting.

1 minute ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Ye mean pits?

Ahem.  I was affecting a British accent.  There is a famous Sherlock Holmes story called "The Five Orange Pips."  So there.  :)

Edited October 26, 2017 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

4 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Note, I went cruising though the book looking for clarification but, ugh, the scene in the tavern basement with him is SO painful to read.  Not Jamie's finest hour, that's for sure. Nor Diana's either.

I went back to read this before this latest episode, and painful is a verra mild term. That whole scene, ugh. So glad it was chopped on screen. There was too much time in a brawl, the men wanting to get their hands on Yi Tien Cho for whatever it was he did to that whore, who was screaming up the place, and them running, Yi hiding in that...barrel? Claire's dress ripping, that aside from the introduction, which Gabaldon didn't really clarify, so I didn't really pay much attention.

7 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Ahem.  I was affecting a British accent.  There is a famous Sherlock Holmes story called "The Five Orange Pips."  So there.  :)

???

[aemom]

It occurred to me that it's a good thing that fashion hadn't changed much in the 20 years that Claire was gone, so she fit right back in.

Can you imagine if someone left in the 1960's and came back to the 80's with their 60's clothes?  You would definitely stand out.  :-)

[FnkyChkn34]

1 hour ago, AEMom said:

It occurred to me that it's a good thing that fashion hadn't changed much in the 20 years that Claire was gone, so she fit right back in.

Can you imagine if someone left in the 1960's and came back to the 80's with their 60's clothes?  You would definitely stand out.  :-)

Well, she did have the advantage of being able to research clothing of the time.  If something had drastically changed, she probably would have known about it and adjusted her dress appropriately to fit in.

[aemom]

21 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Well, she did have the advantage of being able to research clothing of the time.  If something had drastically changed, she probably would have known about it and adjusted her dress appropriately to fit in.

I thought about that too, but I wonder back in 1968 how detailed fashion records would have been?  Over the years, I'm sure that we've been able to research more and the internet is a great place to amalgamate things like that.  At any rate, it was just a funny thought that popped into my head. 

[FnkyChkn34]

On 10/23/2017 at 11:41 AM, FnkyChkn34 said:

So the other part I wanted to comment on is the voice-over.  (Sorry that I'm commenting randomly, I'm doing it as I get time at work.)

When Claire says they spent the entire meal savoring each other and talking about their lives for the past 20 years apart, the voice-over implies that Jamie would have said "I was rescued against my will at Culloden and my life was spared - more about that guy later - and Jenny saved my leg.  Then I lived in a cave for many years and that's when Fergus lost his hand.  I turned myself in so Jenny could get the reward money and spent the next several years in prison where I reunited with Murtagh!  Yeah, I know, I thought he was dead too... He was sent to the colonies and I was sent to be a groomsman.  I was spared because - remember when we pretended that I was going to rape you to scare that little kid shitless?  Good times, good times... well, that little kid became the warden of the prison.  He likes me. ::wink:: So he spared my life.  Then, well... Willie, I already told you about him, and... I marr- I mean, some more stuff happened... and here we are."  

Apparently all they really said was "we did some stuff, now we're here, wanna screw?  OK, cool."  

Don't have the voice-over imply that they told plenty of stories when 5 minutes later you're going to have Jamie bring up that he was in prison.  That's clearly a major event that he left out of the long, in depth conversation during the meal that he probably wouldn't have actually left out.  Very disjointed.  Details like this dragged the episode down, whereas other parts were excellent.

Replying to my own post because I'm cool like that...  I've watched this episode at least 6 times now, and I really do like it.  But this part still irks me. 

In the voiceover, she says "we reminisced about our time together" and then "we filled in the details of our time apart" or something extremely close to that.  Uh, no.  You didn't.  Clearly.  Bothers me every time I watch it, knowing how much Jamie then reveals to her later throughout the night - Ardsmuire, the gash on his leg, etc. - and then what he doesn't reveal - Leghair, Young Ian, etc.

I don't care about the photograph scene; it was fine.  This is the scene that bugs me the most.  Just that one unnecessary and inaccurate voiceover...

[ElsieH]

I just wanted to add my (probably unpopular) opinion on the photo scene. I'm okay with Sam trying to go for internalized "falling to pieces". I just don't think he quite managed it. I say that not only because of my impression of the scene, but also of my non-book reader husband who flat out said something to the effect of "wow he doesn't really seem all that excited to see her". Even knowing how overwhelmed he was, my husband just thought it came across like he was pretty nonchalant about it. I wouldn't go that far, but I do think something was missing, and like others, it probably would have been much better if he hadn't interrupted Claire talking about Bree to tell her about Willie right  that second. My second unpopular opinion is that they could have either cut one of the three sex scenes or shortened the first one to give us more of the emotional stuff before going straight to doing it.

[GHScorpiosRule]

16 minutes ago, ElsieH said:

but also of my non-book reader husband who flat out said something to the effect of "wow he doesn't really seem all that excited to see her".

Did your husband not see the look of pure pleasure and happiness on Jamie's face when he woke from his faint and realized Claire was real? Not being snarky, honestly asking. I mean, he really lit up.

[ElsieH]

Yeah, but I meant he didn't seem excited to see Bree when he said that. While he was looking at her pictures. He looked like something was going on, sure, but it didn't come across to us as overwhelming emotion, which is why I think Sam missed the mark on whatever he was trying to do (and I think he gets it absolutely right most of the time, not a slam on him at all). And of course my husband doesn't think about this stuff nearly as much as I do, and he is a guy who isn't the most observant when it comes to things like that. He just said it seemed off, because he didn't seem as awed by the pictures as he would have thought.

[FnkyChkn34]

25 minutes ago, ElsieH said:

I just wanted to add my (probably unpopular) opinion on the photo scene. I'm okay with Sam trying to go for internalized "falling to pieces". I just don't think he quite managed it. I say that not only because of my impression of the scene, but also of my non-book reader husband who flat out said something to the effect of "wow he doesn't really seem all that excited to see her". Even knowing how overwhelmed he was, my husband just thought it came across like he was pretty nonchalant about it. I wouldn't go that far, but I do think something was missing, and like others, it probably would have been much better if he hadn't interrupted Claire talking about Bree to tell her about Willie right  that second. My second unpopular opinion is that they could have either cut one of the three sex scenes or shortened the first one to give us more of the emotional stuff before going straight to doing it.

Did your husband mean Claire or Bree?

7 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Did your husband not see the look of pure pleasure and happiness on Jamie's face when he woke from his faint and realized Claire was real? Not being snarky, honestly asking. I mean, he really lit up.

He lit up when he saw Claire, because Claire was a real, live, breathing woman in front of him.  But I would agree with ElsieH's husband that Jamie didn't look all the happy to see Bree.  But - Bree was just photographs, and he had no idea what photographs were, so he was highly confused (IMO).

[koboldin]

26 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

 

In the voiceover, she says "we reminisced about our time together" and then "we filled in the details of our time apart" or something extremely close to that.  Uh, no.  You didn't.  Clearly.  Bothers me every time I watch it, knowing how much Jamie then reveals to her later throughout the night - Ardsmuire, the gash on his leg, etc. - and then what he doesn't reveal - Leghair, Young Ian, etc.

This this this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Why say they leisurely talked about 20 years when the next scenes comment anew on things that would have a place in the voiced over dinner convo?

[JenTen1585]

I don't post here often but I love to read everyone's comments and thoughts and see if they match up with mine.  I was mixed on the photographs/William scene.

I think the they could have saved all the backlash with about 15 seconds.

The way I saw it, when he looks at the last photograph, of Bree smiling and holding up the fish, she looks just like William in that photograph and it triggers Jamie to tell Claire about him.  If they had just showed him looking through the photos and then putting his head on Claire's shoulder with quiet tears coming from his eyes for about 15 seconds, it all would have been good.  Then he should have looked again at the last photo and could have preceded in the scene from there.  The show also didn't have time for the book scene where he asks Claire to "draw" Bree for him and she describes which parts look like him and which like her.  So it feels like Jamie does not care as much as it feels like he does in the book.  The whole fact that he hides William in the book is because, as he later explains, he didn't want Claire to think he valued Bree or loved her any less just because he had another child as well.  

That being said - what I liked about Jamie telling Claire immediately about William is that it's one less secret he is hiding from her.  

After the horrible reaction to Claire finding out about Laoghaire, it made me angry on Claire's behalf when she had to find out from John that Jamie had a son.  To the point that I was shocked she was not more angry about him again hiding such an important part of his life.  So I like that is one less thing that he's hiding from Claire.  

I also thought it was interesting where in the show he seems to sit up to tell her about Laoghaire and she tells him not to rush it.  Later when she finds out, he could go back to this moment and say he was going to tell her but she stopped him and told him not to.  In the book, as far as I can recall, there was no such moment.  I think that moment makes Jamie more sympathetic than he deserved in the upcoming fight.  Although, even in the book, I thought Claire overreacted.    

[CalamityBoPeep]

3 hours ago, ElsieH said:

My second unpopular opinion is that they could have either cut one of the three sex scenes or shortened the first one to give us more of the emotional stuff before going straight to doing it.

 

2 hours ago, JenTen1585 said:

 

I think the they could have saved all the backlash with about 15 seconds.

The way I saw it, when he looks at the last photograph, of Bree smiling and holding up the fish, she looks just like William in that photograph and it triggers Jamie to tell Claire about him.  If they had just showed him looking through the photos and then putting his head on Claire's shoulder with quiet tears coming from his eyes for about 15 seconds, it all would have been good.  Then he should have looked again at the last photo and could have preceded in the scene from there.  The show also didn't have time for the book scene where he asks Claire to "draw" Bree for him and she describes which parts look like him and which like her. 

 

For me, looking at the show as a whole (from season 1 to now), this seems to be the point where the production team loses me most. I mean, don't get me wrong... I love the show, and will continue to watch. It's just that they rarely seem to let the emotions breathe in the scene. I know they've got a lot of plot to get through. I just get the most disappointed when it's one of these giant turning-point scenes, and we're missing the emotional depth that the scenes in the book deliver. And they promised, teased, and all but directly affirmed that this particular episode would be allowed to breathe! Which I guess to them means, watching people slowly disrobe then have sex.

Yes, yes, Outlander has sex. And I'm not a prude. But emotions happen, people talk, people go quietly to pieces. All they need to do is pause at the emotional scene. Give it a chance. When there's a hug, linger for a second. Take a breath! (Sam didn't need to sob. He needed to do more than he did though, in my opinion. It didn't have to be melodramatic. It just had to be something more than "yep, she's cool, here's my son.") 15 extra seconds would have helped. Camera focus on shaking hands would have helped. Sam taking some deep breaths to compose himself after having his world shaken, would have helped. Just give us a few seconds to breathe that in.

When they don't woo us, it feels a little like checking boxes, and "Wham, bam, thank-you ma'am." And it leaves non-book-readers wondering what the big deal is. I'll say one thing for Diana... when she's writing an emotional scene, she knows how to linger without making me, as a reader, feel like I'm just there to watch two pretty bodies getting it on. She definitely shows-not-tells the depth of connection between Jamie and Claire. Of course, that skill is counter-balanced with the lingering over battles and surgeries, which makes me tired.

[Petunia846]

For me, the bigger disappointment was the earlier scene when Jamie first wakes up after fainting. That's what I reread when I reread the print shop...Claire walking in, the first few words exchanged, the touch, the faint, and then the emotional hugging and stuff. I usually don't even make it as far as the scene where he looks at the pictures, although that is a nice scene too. When she barely touched him and then he says something about the alepot, I was so thrown and discombobulated that I didn't know what was going on the rest of the episode. It all felt weird after that.

The thing is, I like a little melodrama in my stories. Sorry if that's not cool, show runners, but that's why I like Diana's books and her writing. Sorry, not sorry. If I wanted to watch Masterpiece Theater or some Austen adaptation, I'd do that, but I turn to Outlander for the emotions. And yeah, sometimes they should be big and melodramatic, in my opinion.

One of my other favorite scenes is also very melodramatic, the scene in Outlander when Claire finally tells Jamie she's from the future, and they didn't deliver for me there either. She's half crazy from the witch trial and being beaten and he asks her if she's a witch and she just cracks, and it's fantastic. But of course on the show she just kind of sniffled on a log.

[ElsieH]

5 minutes ago, Petunia846 said:

Claire walking in, the first few words exchanged, the touch, the faint, and then the emotional hugging and stuff. I

Yes exactly! They didn't even hug before they started making out! I'm no prude either but I had that exact thought when I read Sam's tweet.... It should be melodramatic, this is a drama after all. I wouldn't have cared if he didn't break down sobbing, I just didn't think he conveyed what he thinks he did. I did like it overall but it wasn't my favorite episode by far, and I was hoping it would be. 

 

PS I agree about the time travel reveal too.... Sniffling on the log didn't have the same impact. But that didn't bother as much as this one does. 

Edited October 26, 2017 by ElsieH

[Petunia846]

Well they played it up so much and Matt talked up how much it was going to be "true to the books" or whatever he said. I don't usually expect it to be exact, but he said it!! Don't say it if it's not going to be. We know not to expect that. We're intelligent people.

Maybe his script was closer to the book than the finished product and he didn't realize it before making promises. Of course, marketing plays into that a lot too, and marketing should never be trusted (on any show ever).

[CalamityBoPeep]

15 minutes ago, Petunia846 said:

One of my other favorite scenes is also very melodramatic, the scene in Outlander when Claire finally tells Jamie she's from the future, and they didn't deliver for me there either. She's half crazy from the witch trial and being beaten and he asks her if she's a witch and she just cracks, and it's fantastic. But of course on the show she just kind of sniffled on a log.

I nearly mentioned this exact thing in my previous post, but deleted it because I didn't want to get too specific with my complaints in the episode thread. But yes, yes, yes! That was the other big emotional scene that ended up feeling flat to me. I mean, eventually I got to the place where I conceded it was nicely done as they did it too... but the initial viewing left me going "wait, what? Is that it?"

Sometimes less isn't more. More is more. LOL

[Kata01]

I’ve re-read the books in this series so often over the years that I can repeat the dialogue verbatim in some areas. That little confession out of the way, I have a tremendous amount of respect and appreciation with the writer’s diligence in incorporating certain iconic dialogue into the series. The thing is that when changes are made for plot purposes, like Jamie telling Claire about Willie when she’s showing him the photos of Bree, direct lines from the book become muddled and lose meaning. 

For example, in the book when Jamie tells Claire that he owes her his soul for being the mother of his child or that they will live forever through their daughter, he hasn’t told her yet about Geneva or Willie. On the show he tells her much earlier than the books (though I don’t recall him using Geneva’s given name in the printshop scene). Wouldn’t it be fair to then also say the same for Geneva- he owes her his soul too? She’s the mother of his child. Or that the blackmail sex will live forever through Willie? I know what he means when he expresses those beautiful sentiments to Claire (and it’s just for Claire), but as far as the show, it didn’t work for me. It was too soon to say such things right after revealing he had child with another woman. 

While I love hearing iconic lines from the books come to life on screen, they also need to make sense where inserted because the show does change things around from the books. I’m more of a “keeping to the spirit of the source” sort when it comes to adaptations, but I do appreciate their effort. 

Edited October 26, 2017 by Kata01

[Nidratime]

Quote

For example, in the book when Jamie tells Claire that he owes her his soul for being the mother of his child or that they will live forever through their daughter, he hasn’t told her yet about Geneva or Willie.

Well, that would mean that when Claire does find out about Willie in the books, *then* Jamie owes his soul to Geneva rather than earlier? I don't think *when* Jamie tells Claire about Willie -- or actually, in the books, it's when she's told by someone else about Willie -- is the important factor in how Jamie feels about about Claire or their daughters. Jamie and Claire were and are deeply in love and created Faith and Brianna out of their love which will, in Brianna's case, allow that love to live forever. On the other hand, Jamie was blackmailed into a sexual act with Geneva. They didn't come together out of love and there was definitely no intention to create a living product of their relationship because they didn't have one. There's no doubt Jamie loves Willie and probably would never wish him not to exist, but I doubt he feels that Willie is living proof of a deep connection between himself and Geneva that will live forever as a symbol of their love. Willie is a living product of a sad and unfortunate encounter. Jamie will love him for *him*, but Jamie will not connect his existence to a soulful love that lasted a 20 year absence, let alone centuries.

[morgan]

I agree with so much that is being said.  That breathing room is important.  I often wonder if tptb confuse the fans clamor for more intimacy with the idea that intimacy = sex.  I want to see those emotional moments.  I am probably one of the few that would be fine if the sex scenes faded to black.  Don’t get me wrong, I love their passion and applaud so many of the scenes like the pregnancy one in France that actually shows her belly, the one in the first ever ep with Claire pushing frank down, and of course the wedding...all the wedding!  But the wedding was fabulous because of the intimacy and emotional beats allowed.  And I loved their connections in this episode...the tentative start and the reconnection is important.  But I’d be good with a little less time with the sex and more for the connection with their Bree conversation.

Edited October 27, 2017 by morgan

[CalamityBoPeep]

1 minute ago, morgan said:

I agree with so much that is being said.  That breathing room is important.  I often wonder if tptb confuse the fans clamor for more intimacy with the idea that intimacy = sex.  I want to see those emotional moments.  I am probably one of the few that would be fine if the sex scenes faded to black.  Don’t get me wrong, I love their passion and applaud so many of the scenes like the pregnancy one in France that actually shows her belly, the one in the first ever ep with Claire pushing frank down, and of course the wedding...all the wedding!  But the wedding was fabulous because of the intimacy and emotional beats allowed.  

Exactly! I'm not opposed to sex. I do think this is a fairly common point of confusion in Hollywood though. So many production teams seem to think that when fans are clamoring for the depth of emotion felt by their favorite couples to be shown, that we mean "we want the sex!"

I was thinking about this the other day. One of my formerly favorite shows was completely ruined (and finally cancelled (I checked out at the end of the third season, in complete frustration)) because TPTB could not conceive of intimacy meaning anything other than getting together sexually, and they were adamant that they would not allow that to happen! So adamant that they torpedoed their own show.

I can watch absolutely beautiful fan videos that show nothing but momentary looks and reaction shots, and feel like those videos breathe more life into the relationship than the actual show did. That's terrible! Amateurs, fiddling around with the footage and the timing, are creating more emotional depth than the actual professional show editors and producers!

Not that I want Outlander to be set to a modern music track, or anything. I don't want Outlander to look like a fan video. I just want those moments to hover, for just that instant, before landing. I want them to be allowed to Be!

[millahnna]

1 minute ago, CalamityBoPeep said:

I was thinking about this the other day. One of my formerly favorite shows was completely ruined (and finally cancelled (I checked out at the end of the third season, in complete frustration)) because TPTB could not conceive of intimacy meaning anything other than getting together sexually, and they were adamant that they would not allow that to happen! So adamant that they torpedoed their own show.

 

Just curious...Sleepy Hollow?  Your description there doesn't quite match that situation but could arguably be considered a broad interpretation of how that show fell apart in some ways.  First thing that came to mind. 

[CalamityBoPeep]

2 minutes ago, millahnna said:

Just curious...Sleepy Hollow?  Your description there doesn't quite match that situation but could arguably be considered a broad interpretation of how that show fell apart in some ways.  First thing that came to mind. 

LOL Got it in one guess. And yeah... it was more complicated, but ultimately they just couldn't understand what it was that fans were really looking for.

Edited October 27, 2017 by CalamityBoPeep

[GHScorpiosRule]

I respect everyone’s opinions who have stated they wanted more intimacy/emotion and less focus on sex. That said, it is also true that there were a lot of fans who criticized season two for the lack of sex scenes; too much focus on Jamie’s PTSD.

And it’s also true that I had no problem with the sex scenes in this episode and found them to be a nice parallel to “The Wedding.”

And let's be honest-Jamie and Claire lotsa lotsa sex. It’s a big part of their relationship and I think Sam and Cait do a wonderful job with them. 

Frankly, I think the writers should just concentrate on how to translate what is in the buiks to the screen as much and best they can and not try to appease or service the fans. That’s when they run into trouble, and trying to decide that, is when the show suffers.

[Kata01]

24 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

Well, that would mean that when Claire does find out about Willie in the books, *then* Jamie owes his soul to Geneva rather than earlier? I don't think *when* Jamie tells Claire about Willie -- or actually, in the books, it's when she's told by someone else about Willie -- is the important factor in how Jamie feels about about Claire or their daughters. Jamie and Claire were and are deeply in love and created Faith and Brianna out of their love which will, in Brianna's case, allow that love to live forever. On the other hand, Jamie was blackmailed into a sexual act with Geneva. They didn't come together out of love and there was definitely no intention to create a living product of their relationship because they didn't have one. There's no doubt Jamie loves Willie and probably would never wish him not to exist, but I doubt he feels that Willie is living proof of a deep connection between himself and Geneva that will live forever as a symbol of their love. Willie is a living product of a sad and unfortunate encounter. Jamie will love him for *him*, but Jamie will not connect his existence to a soulful love that lasted a 20 year absence, let alone centuries.

In my post, though, I say that I understand what Jamie means in the dialogue. My point is that with the plot change of Jamie telling Claire about Willie immediately, those particular lines from the book to the show didn’t work for me. I thought it was too soon for him to say such things right after telling her he had a child with another woman.

His words are literal to Claire - You are the mother of my child, I owe you my soul. 

In context of the reunion as depicted on the show, there were changes and chunks of dialogue left in/taken out from the book, so that particular line and the other I mentioned  in my earlier post was a clunk for me, though I do understand Jamie’s meaning in them. 

[ElsieH]

Quote

 

I just don't know. I haven't liked this season much, even though I had such high hopes and wanted to. It started with the first episode and the homoerotic ending of black Jack. I thought it was over the top and unnecessary. Then we had all the caveman stuff and changes to Frank. The only episode I have really liked is Helwater. I will keep watching but I have been really disappointed with the season so far. 

[Thalia]

7 hours ago, koboldin said:

Why say they leisurely talked about 20 years when the next scenes comment anew on things that would have a place in the voiced over dinner convo?

I just finished watching a movie I recorded last night.  DR. ZHIVAGO.   And there was a part that reminded me of A. Malcolm, as it involved Yuri and Lara meeting up after some time apart.  The editing makes it clear that they are talking and talking.  And talking some more.  In other words "catching up."  And then, just after this (spoiler, in case for some reason someone hasn't seen this movie:  

Spoiler

Lara and Yuri go back to her apartment, and in a post-coital moment, she asks him if his wife and son are with him at the nearby family estate.  I might not have noticed it if not for the discussion we've been having here (and indeed, I've seen ZHIVAGO at least a dozen times over the years), but in all that time they spent talking about how Yuri ended up in her small town, he never mentioned his wife and child left Moscow with him?

[WatchrTina]

Just checking in to say that I just watched the episode again -- a bit drunk (on Sam's favorite Scotch) -- determined to let go of preconceptions and expectations.

When you come to the episode  that way . . . damn it's good.  Damn, it's hot.  Once I let go of what I expected to see, it was just wonderful.  I love this show and I want to hug the whole creative team for doing such a good job.

Edited October 27, 2017 by WatchrTina

[toolazy]

10 hours ago, AEMom said:

I thought about that too, but I wonder back in 1968 how detailed fashion records would have been?  Over the years, I'm sure that we've been able to research more and the internet is a great place to amalgamate things like that.  At any rate, it was just a funny thought that popped into my head. 

People in the 60's had access to most of the same information we have access to now, it was just a bigger pain to access. Books, libraries, that kind of thing.  The 60's were hardly the stone age.  

[morgan]

51 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Just checking in to say that I just watched the episode again -- a bit drunk (on Sam's favorite Scotch) -- and determined the let go of preconceptions and expectations.

Where you come to the episode  that way . . . damn it's good.  Damn, it's hot.  Once I let of of what I expected to see, it was just wonderful.  I love this show and I want to hug the whole creative team for doing such a good job.

I learned in the first season that I need to watch each episode 3x to appreciate it. The first viewing I mostly seem to notice what is different/missing from what I expect.  The second viewing is with my husband and I think I focus on his reaction (non book reader) and notice things I may have missed or not appreciated the first time.  The third viewing I usually settle in and enjoy and see what tptb accomplished.

[MedievalGirl]

11 hours ago, AEMom said:

I thought about that too, but I wonder back in 1968 how detailed fashion records would have been?  Over the years, I'm sure that we've been able to research more and the internet is a great place to amalgamate things like that.  At any rate, it was just a funny thought that popped into my head. 

The book Patterns of Fashion 1: Englishwoman's Dresses and their Construction by Janel Arnold came out in 1964. The outfit Claire makes looks almost exactly like something pictured in the book. In the sewing scene she has another book on the table which fellow costumers think is The cut of women's clothes 1600-1900 by Norah Waugh which came out in 1968. The open book has a diagram from an 18th century encyclopedia by Diderot and d'Alembert. (Conveniently, the later would be well out of copyright.) All this stuff is based off of surviving 18th clothing or art produced in the 18th century. That's better than a lot of costumers of any era look at. #immacostumingdork

[morgan]

5 hours ago, MedievalGirl said:

The book Patterns of Fashion 1: Englishwoman's Dresses and their Construction by Janel Arnold came out in 1964. The outfit Claire makes looks almost exactly like something pictured in the book. In the sewing scene she has another book on the table which fellow costumers think is The cut of women's clothes 1600-1900 by Norah Waugh which came out in 1968. The open book has a diagram from an 18th century encyclopedia by Diderot and d'Alembert. (Conveniently, the later would be well out of copyright.) All this stuff is based off of surviving 18th clothing or art produced in the 18th century. That's better than a lot of costumers of any era look at. #immacostumingdork

Oh good catch!  Love all the details this production team puts in.  

Not to mention, any difference in fashion could be attributed to where she has been being slightly different.  Aka, “it’s french” lol