# Outlander Full Season 1 thread spoilers within



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

*Episode 101: "Sassenach" *

I watched episode one on starz.com, no subscription needed.

The Druids at Dawn were beautiful.
This Jamie will do quite nicely 
I did not care for book Frank at all but show Frank was fine. 
A bit more sex than I was expecting (especially that table top!) but I'm not complaining in the least- it bodes well for a few key future scenes I am _very_ much looking forward to :up:

I loved the scenery and am SO happy to see that it was truly filmed in Scotland- that was simply gorgeous. 
Makes _all_ the difference, IMO.

Now I have to decide whether or not to get Starz


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Thanks for starting this!


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I have been a fan of the books for 20 or so years.

I am so happy with how they filmed and the actor choices.

There was a lot of "hunh, he's too small" going on about Sam Heughan when stills were shown and such and yet, he does verra nicely indeed.

I really liked the integrity between the book and the show. The actors are saying what the characters said in the book. To hear it now is amazing. And that said, there were some lines that were not in the books but fit quite perfectly into the scenes.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

As I mentioned in the other thread. I just finished the first book, which I mostly enjoyed, the first episode if very true to the book but did zero to draw in the casual viewer or a person who is not already a fan. It spent a long time on the setup and without more knowledge of what is to come I can see a lot of people giving up.

This should be a worry because less viewers reduced the likelihood of future seasons.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

That was about the slowest moving drama I've ever watched. Even the action scenes seemed slow.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I was not impressed by the first episode. The first half in the 1940s was especially boring. The 1700s was definitely more interesting. I will give it a couple more episodes.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Hoffer said:


> I was not impressed by the first episode. The first half in the 1940s was especially boring. The 1700s was definitely more interesting. I will give it a couple more episodes.


Hang with it. The 1940's stuff was to establish the back story and character of Claire. I know in the book the rest is all 1700s time but I believe in the show they will do some more jumping back and forth but I don't know how much.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

It was very slow. At some point I looked at the time remaining and was shocked at how much of the hour was left. I enjoyed it, but I have read the book. I am not sure how much it would draw someone not already familiar with the books (maybe that is why they had all the sex!)


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

JohnB1000 said:


> As I mentioned in the other thread. I just finished the first book, which I mostly enjoyed, the first episode if very true to the book but did zero to draw in the casual viewer or a person who is not already a fan. It spent a long time on the setup and without more knowledge of what is to come I can see a lot of people giving up.
> 
> This should be a worry because less viewers reduced the likelihood of future seasons.


I agree. My wife has read all of the books. I haven't and know very little about it. I thought the pre-jump part took a really, really long time. She didn't jump back until 41 minutes in. Since we all knew that was happening it seemed to take forever.



betts4 said:


> Hang with it. The 1940's stuff was to establish the back story and character of Claire. I know in the book the rest is all 1700s time but I believe in the show they will do some more jumping back and forth but I don't know how much.


Was it the 1940's? I thought it was right after World War I. Was it after World War II?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

pendragn said:


> Was it the 1940's? I thought it was right after World War I. Was it after World War II?


From everything I've seen it's WWII, although it sure looks like WWI costumes to me!


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> From everything I've seen it's WWII, although it sure looks like WWI costumes to me!


Wikipedia says World War II. The costumes looked like WWI to me, too. I also thought it was weird that she kept referring to it as "the great wary" and never the 2nd world war. It sounded like she only knew about one world war.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I too wondered if it was WWI. I even triple checked the show's description and it did say WWII.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Hoffer said:


> I too wondered if it was WWI. I even triple checked the show's description and it did say WWII.


It was the army helmets that looked WWI-ish to me.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

Cearbhaill said:


> It was the army helmets that looked WWI-ish to me.


That was a big part of it for me too.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

She travels from 1946 to 1743 - 200 years back.

Could the costume issues be because they are English not American?


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

Cearbhaill said:


> It was the army helmets that looked WWI-ish to me.


Those were used from end of WW1 until end of WW2. In 1944 they had a new design but not all British soldiers had them when the war ended.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I was totally unfamiliar with the books so I had no idea what to expect from this series. I just watched the first episode today and I was thoroughly impressed. The pace of the story may be slow, but it fits. I think if they tried to push it to a faster pace it would ruin the mood.

I fully expected some nudity and sex since it was on Starz, but I thought it was tastefully done and not long and drawn out like on most of their other series. I think I might actually be able to coerce the wife into watching this one. Really enjoying it so far.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> I was totally unfamiliar with the books so I had no idea what to expect from this series. I just watched the first episode today and I was thoroughly impressed. The pace of the story may be slow, but it fits. I think if they tried to push it to a faster pace it would ruin the mood.
> 
> I fully expected some nudity and sex since it was on Starz, but I thought it was tastefully done and not long and drawn out like on most of their other series. I think I might actually be able to coerce the wife into watching this one. Really enjoying it so far.


There is more blatant nudity coming up (no pun intended). One interview had the actors talking about 'modesty patches' and how they didn't really stay on very well.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Thanks for the heads up. I will have to rethink whether to get my wife involved with the show because she tends to bolt at excess nudity and anything irreverent.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

mr.unnatural said:


> I was totally unfamiliar with the books so I had no idea what to expect from this series. I just watched the first episode today and I was thoroughly impressed. The pace of the story may be slow, but it fits. I think if they tried to push it to a faster pace it would ruin the mood.
> 
> I fully expected some nudity and sex since it was on Starz, but I thought it was tastefully done and not long and drawn out like on most of their other series. I think I might actually be able to coerce the wife into watching this one. Really enjoying it so far.


Coerce the wife? This series (and books) is basically high quality Harlequin romance/bodice ripper. Women are by far the target demographic.

For the younger folk among us: 

bodice ripper

An historical romance where the heroine has lots of non-consensual sex, which becomes consensual. The book needs to have a gaudy cover with a woman with an extraordinarily long neck, heaving bosoms, and flowing hair, and a brooding man.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Bob Coxner said:


> Coerce the wife? This series (and books) is basically high quality Harlequin romance/bodice ripper. Women are by far the target demographic.
> 
> For the younger folk among us:
> 
> ...


Wow, I don't see it that way at all.

I view it as historical drama (which I like) + time travel aspects (which I like) + romance stuff thrown in to attract a certain demographic (I am indifferent).


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> Thanks for the heads up. I will have to rethink whether to get my wife involved with the show because she tends to bolt at excess nudity and anything irreverent.


I think it's mostly like Game of Thrones sex. Or actually a bit less graphic. You might try her on the first two episodes and see what happens. I know there isn't going to be wild sex in every episode because there just isn't in every chapter of the book.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Watched episode 1, and although it was beautifully filmed I probably won't continue. I just have too much to watch already.

I had read the first book, and liked it (but not LOVED it). But this episode didn't hook me enough to move it higher in my priority list.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

I see it as historical fiction with bonus fantasy and romance.
Having read many "bodice rippers" I can assure you they are _never_ as well written as this series of books, nor nearly as educational. I remember spending hours trying to get the House of Stuart and how it all related to France straight in my head while reading this.
Never mind all the Scottish stuff.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Bob Coxner said:


> Coerce the wife? This series (and books) is basically high quality Harlequin romance/bodice ripper. Women are by far the target demographic.
> 
> For the younger folk among us:


You clearly do not know my wife.  We're also not as young as we used to be.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

mr.unnatural said:


> You clearly do not know my wife.  We're also not as young as we used to be.


She might just change her mind after a few minutes of ogling watching Jamie Fraser and that damn kilt...


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Cearbhaill said:


> She might just change her mind after a few minutes of ogling watching Jamie Fraser and that damn kilt...


We're talking about a woman who gets up in the middle of the night to go to church. I have a hard time getting her to watch any TV with me because she'll get offended at the drop of a hat. The minute there's any nudity or sex she just gets up and leaves the room and refuses to watch any further episodes of whatever show we were watching. The same goes true for anything irreverent or even slightly pro-Obama or politically minded to the left.

Once I heard there was going to be more nudity coming I deleted the episoide after watching it. There's no point in getting her involved in a show she'll stop watching halfway through the first episode.

I was actually shocked to hear her laugh when I showed her an episode of Moone Boy. That only lasted until the scene where Martin's best friend was in a horse-drawn cart with the town priest and they got stuck in the middle of the St. Patrick's Day parade. The kid was an alter boy and started tossing the host wafers to the crowd, which got my wife extremely upset.

I honestly think at times that my wife was abducted by aliens and had her sense of humor surgically removed.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

mr.unnatural said:


> I was actually shocked to hear her laugh when I showed her an episode of Moone Boy. That only lasted until the scene where Martin's best friend was in a horse-drawn cart with the town priest and they got stuck in the middle of the St. Patrick's Day parade. The kid was an alter boy and started tossing the host wafers to the crowd, which got my wife extremely upset.
> 
> I honestly think at times that my wife was abducted by aliens and had her sense of humor surgically removed.


I'm thinking that Father Ted may not be her cup of tea either.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

mr.unnatural said:


> I honestly think at times that my wife was abducted by aliens and had her sense of humor surgically removed.


Sorry to hear- hopefully she has other attributes to make up for all this


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Cearbhaill said:


> Sorry to hear- hopefully she has other attributes to make up for all this


She does. She's a great mother and loving grandmother. She's also a diehard Catholic, which explains the lack of a sense of humor and ultra conservative political views.  Unfortunately, she has some misguided notion that she can't be human along with the rest of it and that she has to follow some strict guidelines reserved mostly for nuns and saints.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

eddyj said:


> ...(maybe that is why they had all the sex!)


 This had WAY less sex in it than most any other Starz show.

And, put me in the camp as one who enjoyed the premiere very much (not having read the books). Yes, it took quite some time to set up, but that was necessary. I didn't think it dragged at all....


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Just watched this, non-book reader. Good start, will certainly keep the SP. All pilots are expositional by nature, it's a rare one that gets an A+ while also setting up the premise.I gave this a B+... interesting story, decent acting & writing, much potential. Now it's up to eps 2,3,4 to grab the average viewer and keep us hooked.



mr.unnatural said:


> We're talking about a woman who gets up in the middle of the night to go to church.


There's church in the middle of the night?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Bierboy, more sex to come, but it's not the major plot point of the show.

What a fun moment. I was at a family reunion this weekend and last night (saturday) my aunt - who is 88 was trying to tell my uncle that she hoped he set up the dvr to record Outlander. LOL I was surprised but also going 'alright!' and discussing some of the plots in the books. I told I had seen the pilot on starz.com and told my cousin (her daughter) how to find it there and that it will be repeating on Starz several times in the next few days, so even if they missed the premiere, she can watch it later.

It was just fun to find a fan in a person I would never have thought to find one!


----------



## ronsch (Sep 7, 2001)

My wife and I watched the first episode last night. I refused to tell her what is was about because I knew she would bolt if I used the words "time travel".  

I too thought the setup was a little drawn out at the time but looking back it really was necessary to the back story. I may even get my wife to sit through another episode.

Since I am working down to first retirement in three weeks I have been having extra time to work on my TiVo backlog and am up to over 40 hours of free space out of 480! That means I can afford to add another show even though we are at the beginning of October 2013 for network shows.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

astrohip said:


> Just watched this, non-book reader. Good start, will certainly keep the SP. All pilots are expositional by nature, it's a rare one that gets an A+ while also setting up the premise.I gave this a B+... interesting story, decent acting & writing, much potential. Now it's up to eps 2,3,4 to grab the average viewer and keep us hooked.
> 
> There's church in the middle of the night?


There's midnight Mass on holy days if you're Catholic. Churches are often filled to overflowing for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Mass#Time_of_celebration_of_Mass

Time of celebration of Mass

Since the Second Vatican Council, the time for fulfilling the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation now begins on the evening of the day before, and most parish churches do celebrate the Sunday Mass also on Saturday evening.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Fun Reviews -

Liked this one. She has never read the books.
http://www.hitfix.com/monkeys-as-critics/recap-outlander-sassenach/single-page



> Everything is wonderful and nothing hurts. A woman on television just received oral sex from her husband that she initiated without the show vilifying her. Claire is merely a fully realized human being with sexual desires and wow this should not be so refreshing to see. But it is.
> 
> Also, that is one sturdy 200 year old table.


This one was funny, but my husband wouldn't not have lasted long. The author divided it up into the scenes that her husband had a commentary on.

http://thats-normal.com/2014/08/things-husband-says-outlander/



> HE GOT REALLY BORED AT REV WAKEFIELDS
> 
> Are they still on their honeymoon? What kind of honeymoon is this? Why are they talking about research and stuff? Im about to fall asleep.
> 
> How did these losers put up wallpaper back then? Itd be easier to paint.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

betts4 said:


> This one was funny, but my husband wouldn't not have lasted long. The author divided it up into the scenes that her husband had a commentary on.
> 
> http://thats-normal.com/2014/08/things-husband-says-outlander/


That was excellent. I also read the one about Game of Thrones. Please link to this each episode!

I had no idea Outlander was such a "chick" series. But the comments at the bottom of the "things my husband says" make that very clear.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

She had me with this statement-- "It probably the most refreshingly honest take on marriage since &#8220;Firefly&#8217;s&#8221; Zoe and Wash."


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

If you are on the fence with getting Starz, I just called and got three months for half price, $7 a month.
I begged for $0 but that was the best they offered.
I'd likely have paid the $14 anyway so this is great!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Cearbhaill said:


> If you are on the fence with getting Starz, I just called and got three months for half price, $7 a month.
> I begged for $0 but that was the best they offered.
> I'd likely have paid the $14 anyway so this is great!


Someone has me on ignore!



eddyj said:


> Called DIRECTV and they offered me 3 months for 1/2 price ($7). After that, I will see if we want to renew.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

eddyj said:


> Someone has me on ignore!


I don't have anyone on ignore!
I just can't remember doody and did not reread the thread before I posted.

I swear my short term memory is non-existent any more.
I can actually watch an episode of something and not remember the details 10 minutes later. I can't decide it it is truly a scary needs-to-be-checked-out-asap brain problem or that I no longer pay sufficient attention.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Yay!! They just approved season two!! That will be Dragonfly in Amber.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

betts4 said:


> Yay!! They just approved season two!! That will be Dragonfly in Amber.


So they are definitely doing one full book per season then?
That's a lot of ground to cover.
Makes me happy though, because


Spoiler



Master Raymond and Fergus are two of my favorite characters.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Cearbhaill said:


> So they are definitely doing one full book per season then?
> That's a lot of ground to cover.
> Makes me happy though, because
> 
> ...


I would have thought it might be more like a book per two seasons, but it may mean that they have consolidated.

And yes to your spoiler!


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Episode Two - Castle Leoch

Claire at the Castle. Wow

I liked the portrayal of the scars, but the whole scene felt a bit rushed. They should have give us a few more minutes for there to be a deeper connection. Or some line that showed that they had been in there longer together.

The scene with Jamie taking the punishment was great. The whole aura of the place was just how I had imagined. A big hall with lots of men and women crunched together to see the entertainment. I loved Colum's entrance. And Dougal standing quiet and just nodding as Jamie chose "fists" rather than beaten.

Watching Claire get dressed with Mrs. Fitz sure made me happy that I live in this century.

Book not show --


Spoiler



Wanted to talk about the book and not the show -- What was with the guy following Claire? I don't remember that. Was it Rupert? I'll be curious to see where that goes.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

betts4 said:


> Book not show --
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...





Spoiler



It was Rupert, yes, but I don't remember it either. Rupert- fat follower who doesn't care for his horse, Angus- beat Jamie in the Hall (edit: on rewatch I see that I was wrong- it was Rupert who beat him in the hall, too. Angus is smaller with darker features.), and Murtaugh- found Claire originally and bet his shirt she wasna a hoor. Gotta keep these dudes straight.
I don't remember Jamie being that scarred up at this point yet, but my memory isn't the best 
Also, book Claire wasn't held blatantly captive like that, either. They seem to be making something more ominous out of Dougal and Colum than I remember happening. As Murtaugh said they're up to something.



When I saw that they were kicking back to a flashback of the flogging situation I worried that they would have a younger actor as Jamie. But no, SH managed to convey a younger appearing Jamie just fine.

And why don't they want him inside Castle Leoch?

Nice use of flashbacks during the interrogation scene, but Claire was careless as far as referring to Beauchamp as both her husbands name and _her_ family name. Colum will not have missed that.

Was happy to see that it seems like Geillis will have a good presence.

I saw two Scottish Deerhounds in the Great Hall- nice and historically accurate as they would absolutely have had them around to hunt.

Millionth edit:
If you like the music in this show Bear McCreary's blog is the place to go.

Also, Ron Moore is doing a weekly podcast- not updated for this week yet but should be soon.
Go to http://www.starz.com/originals/outlander/ and down at the very bottom under "Extras" you see "Chat With Ron Moore." That's the first one.
http://assets.starz.com/stzcom/outlander/101podcast.m4a


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Cearbhaill said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I really love the music at the very beginning. I want to find the lyrics.

I missed the Deerhounds but am glad to hear they were there. I will look when I rewatch it.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

betts4 said:


> I really love the music at the very beginning. I want to find the lyrics.


Here you go- it's an adaptation of The Skye Boat Song, which is apparently an old Scottish folk song.

Sing me a song of a lass that is gone,
Say, could that lass be I?
Merry of soul she sailed on a day
Over the sea to Skye.

Billow and breeze, islands and seas,
Mountains of rain and sun,
All that was good, all that was fair,
All that was me is gone.

Sing me a song of a lass that is gone,
Say, could that lass be I?
Merry of soul she sailed on a day
Over the sea to Skye.



> I missed the Deerhounds but am glad to hear they were there. I will look when I rewatch it.


They were easy to miss, as they were doing what sighthounds do best- imitating rugs 

Left to right- Rupert, Murtaugh, Angus, Dougal, Jamie


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I did like Alec the horse master, but he was missing an eye patch! 

I get the feeling this may be the Betts and Cearbhaill thread!!


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

betts4 said:


> I did like Alec the horse master, but he was missing an eye patch!
> 
> I get the feeling this may be the Betts and Cearbhaill thread!!


I'm following along because I've read the books, but I'll be waiting for the DVDs.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I'm following along because I've read the books, but I'll be waiting for the DVDs.


I am trying desperately to keep book info out of it, respectfully, because I know for GoT's that was a big deal.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

betts4 said:


> I am trying desperately to keep book info out of it, respectfully, because I know for GoT's that was a big deal.


And I think that's how it should be (keep the book info out of the TV show thread.) I just mentioned reading the books since the TV show stuff isn't a spoiler for me.


----------



## Tracy (Mar 12, 2000)

It has been so long since I read the first book...remind me of what their ages are supposed to be. In my head I had Jamie at about 19 and Claire 5 years older. But his flogging story was from 4 years prior and there is no way that Jamie was 15 in that flashback. Of course, the show could be aging them up.

Also, book readers....



Spoiler



Does the first book end with Claire pregnant and traveling back to the 40's? Do we know that she gets there in the first book? And then, does the second book start with Claire telling Brianna the truth and then flashing back to all the Paris stuff and it ends with....Claire discovering that Jamie survived Culloden?


----------



## Tracy (Mar 12, 2000)

hummingbird_206 said:


> And I think that's how it should be (keep the book info out of the TV show thread.) I just mentioned reading the books since the TV show stuff isn't a spoiler for me.


Maybe there could be two threads....one that doesn't spoil any book stuff and one that does. I think that is how Game of Thrones works.


----------



## sakura panda (Apr 6, 2004)

I'm recording but didn't have a chance to watch the second episode. I'm also in the middle of rereading the series (audio, just finished book 4, Drums of Autumn, and am currently in the middle of a Lord John book) and rereading the last book (ebook, Written in My Own Heart's Blood), so I'm also a little concerned about getting myself confused.



Tracy said:


> It has been so long since I read the first book...remind me of what their ages are supposed to be. In my head I had Jamie at about 19 and Claire 5 years older. But his flogging story was from 4 years prior and there is no way that Jamie was 15 in that flashback. Of course, the show could be aging them up.
> 
> Also, book readers....
> 
> ...


I recall Jamie being 22 when they discussed their ages in the book (I don't think the show is that far yet? Based on what you all are saying?) and that Claire was 27. So, four years earlier would be 18.



Spoiler



The first book ends with her announcing her pregnancy. She does not go back in time and there is no indication that she wants to or will. It was not a cliffhanger ending.

The second book starts with Claire and Brianna in Scotland; the flashbacks end with Claire returning to the present, but more stuff happens in the present before the book ends with Claire finding out that Jamie survived.

Book three starts with what she does after finding out Jamie survived.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Tracy said:


> It has been so long since I read the first book...remind me of what their ages are supposed to be. In my head I had Jamie at about 19 and Claire 5 years older. But his flogging story was from 4 years prior and there is no way that Jamie was 15 in that flashback. Of course, the show could be aging them up.
> 
> Also, book readers....
> 
> ...





Spoiler



No. It ends with her staying and they go to France or Italy or something to try and stop Bonny Prince. Book three is 20 years later.



I thought he was 22 or something when meeting Claire and she was 28. Not sure.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

sakura panda said:


> I recall Jamie being 22 when they discussed their ages in the book (I don't think the show is that far yet? Based on what you all are saying?) and that Claire was 27. So, four years earlier would be 18.


:up:



Spoiler



oops. I haven't read book two - six in awhile.


----------



## Tracy (Mar 12, 2000)

Thanks!


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

hummingbird_206 said:


> And I think that's how it should be *(keep the book info out of the TV show thread.)*...


I also agree; I haven't read and don't plan to read the books, so I don't want to be confused while watching then going through this thread...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Bierboy said:


> I also agree; I haven't read and don't plan to read the books, so I don't want to be confused while watching then going through this thread...


How on Earth could we ever avoid that?


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> How on Earth could we ever avoid that?


...especially at my advanced age....


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

I just watched the first two episodes - I'm liking it so far, and I don't think it's moving slowly. However, I'm having a few problems with the casting. Don't get me wrong, they all look really good - but Claire is supposed to be 25-26, and Jamie is supposed to be 19ish. The actors are at least mid-30's, and look every bit of it, and that's taking me out of it a bit.

Not enough to stop watching, of course.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

JoBeth66 said:


> I just watched the first two episodes - I'm liking it so far, and I don't think it's moving slowly. However, I'm having a few problems with the casting. Don't get me wrong, they all look really good - but Claire is supposed to be 25-26, and Jamie is supposed to be 19ish. The actors are at least mid-30's, and look every bit of it, and that's taking me out of it a bit.
> 
> Not enough to stop watching, of course.


Another reason I'm glad I haven't read the books...


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

As discussed just a couple of posts above Jamie is 22. I think the look of both is pretty close.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Tonight's episode was great. There were scenes that were almost just as I imagined them and played just right by the actors. 

The scene with Jamie and Claire in the surgery and her checking his wound. Oh my. //swoon// what fun! 

The story/song that the Harpist sang and Jamie translated was an important key in the story. Others have done the time travel. And some have even come back. Now Claire knew that it was a folksong but it may have had some basis of truth to it. 

The show makes me excited about Scots weekend at the local MD Renn Faire. Men in Kilts, any age or size are nice.


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

JohnB1000 said:


> As discussed just a couple of posts above Jamie is 22. I think the look of both is pretty close.


I missed that. I thought I remembered from my original read of the book that he was 19ish. But even at 22/26, not buying it. They both look mid-30's. (Maybe I just can't pull myself out of it because I have kids who are 22, 24 & 27.)


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

JoBeth66 said:


> I missed that. I thought I remembered from my original read of the book that he was 19ish. But even at 22/26, not buying it. They both look mid-30's. (Maybe I just can't pull myself out of it because I have kids who are 22, 24 & 27.)


The actor that plays Jamie was born in 1980.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

That was *not* Lily of the valley- looked absolutely nothing like it.
Didn't look like wood garlic, either.
Sloppy research, show.
Grrr...


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Cearbhaill said:


> That was not Lily of the valley- looked absolutely nothing like it. Didn't look like wood garlic, either. Sloppy research, show. Grrr...


It had mutated in 200 years. That's what they looked like then.


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

pendragn said:


> The actor that plays Jamie was born in 1980.


So, 34. And he looks it. Definitely doesn't look 22.

Looks good in a kilt, though.


----------



## nirisahn (Nov 19, 2005)

I'm watching the show and reading the books. And yet, when I'm reading, I don't picture the actors for the characters. For some reason, I see them very differently.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

I still picture book Jamie differently as I read- I came up with such a nice visual in my head that I want to keep it.
Not that there is anything wrong with show Jamie except height, and that's probably just because the rest of the cast are all taller than they should be.
And I can live with that.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

posting without peeking (don't have Starz).....

Anyone hear any news if these eps will go up on a site like Amazon or iTunes?

If you hear real news, please not only post here, but send me a PM.. Thanks


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Cearbhaill said:


> I still picture book Jamie differently as I read- I came up with such a nice visual in my head that I want to keep it.
> Not that there is anything wrong with show Jamie except height, and that's probably just because the rest of the cast are all taller than they should be.
> And I can live with that.


I've always pictured Jamie as looking a lot like Mel Gibson in Braveheart and Claire like Andie MacDowell in Ground Hog Day.

eta: I read Outlander back in the 90's and developed the visualizations back then.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Well I had a red haired Viking descendant hulk of a boyfriend back in the day that I never got over, so _he's_ the main basis of my Jamie 
I'm 5'10" so it takes quite the tall man to tower over me, and I do picture Jamie _towering_, and doing so quite spectacularly.
Sigh...


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

So much love for this Dougal-centric episode. He is a marvelously complex character being masterfully played- by far my nomination for a nomination of some sort.
I love how the details of some of the secondary characters have been portrayed. Even Murtagh, who was not nearly as interesting in the books, is being fleshed out in a most wonderful way.
And of course the Angus and Rupert comedy tag team was in full force. Loved Claire telling Angus the port was a sedative and his saying "Is that Spanish?"
More sideways conversations with Geillis, too.
Loved the horse dung/ click your heels together three times etc. potion cooked up for Laoghaire.

And could Jamie's "Je suis prest" have been any more fan service-y in all it's candle lit goodness?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I enjoyed this episode. Loved the scene with Dougal and Claire and Geordie. Dougal stroking the man's forehead with his thumb and Claire asking him about his home. Yep.

The game of ? what that Dougal jumped into afterward to work off some of that steam from losing a man was great. Watching Jamie toss him over a shoulder was wild (even if it was a stunt thing, it was still wicked cool).

It's been all over FB, but the author Diana had a part in this episode. She was the lady upstairs as they went to the Gathering/oathtaking - Mrs MacTavish who Mrs Fitz remarks to about her dress.

Jamie's scene in the oathtaking was again, just right. The solemn looks, the words so serious and then Colum seeming to understand and smile at how his nephew played it. The only thing that bugged me was all the hands on the dirks/swords as Jamie stood up. Maybe should have just Dougal's but that was overkill to have them all go for a knife.



> I love how the details of some of the secondary characters have been portrayed. Even Murtagh, who was not nearly as interesting in the books, is being fleshed out in a most wonderful way.


Yes! They are doing a wonderful job with bringing these characters forward and weaving into them more into the story.

I wish I understood Gaelic! Is there a way to get a translated version?


----------



## Tracy (Mar 12, 2000)

I love the way Geillis sounds. 

Everyone catch the cameo by the books' author? She was the one who got dissed for wearing the same dress to the gathering twice. 

So happy to know the correct pronunciation of Laoghaire.


----------



## Tracy (Mar 12, 2000)

Ooops. What betts said about the cameo.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Tracy said:


> I love the way Geillis sounds.
> 
> Everyone catch the cameo by the books' author? She was the one who got dissed for wearing the same dress to the gathering twice.
> 
> So happy to know the correct pronunciation of Laoghaire.


The producer - Ronald D. Moore was also in costume and in the crowd somewhere. And he is one that has really adopted wearing the kilt.

Oh, and that opening scene with Claire on the ground, looking up at ? Rupert or Angus's kilt....hysterical! Well done.

I really enjoyed the actress playing Claire for the first time. Felt like she was starting to hit her stride with this role.

And did learn that they film 2 episodes at a time with the same director. So that helps with the actors and continuity in how things are played.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

betts4 said:


> And did learn that they film 2 episodes at a time with the same director. So that helps with the actors and continuity in how things are played.


Are you listening to the podcasts while doing a repeat viewing?
You will get a lot of info!
http://www.starz.com/originals/outlander/extras/extras
Just wait (forever) for the page to load and hit play on your DVR the same time you hit open/play on the podcast- they line up beautifully.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I have not been listening to the podcast but I will try that- thanks for the tip!


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I knew nothing about the books but started watching this on the elliptical. I liked the first episode enough that I made my wife watch it and we both are liking the show a lot. It feels like it belongs on Showtime or HBO compared to other Starz offerings, but I guess they tend to not pick up BBC shows.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

TAsunder said:


> I knew nothing about the books but started watching this on the elliptical. I liked the first episode enough that I made my wife watch it and we both are liking the show a lot. It feels like it belongs on Showtime or HBO compared to other Starz offerings, but I guess they tend to not pick up BBC shows.


?? It has nothing to do with the BBC ?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

JohnB1000 said:


> ?? It has nothing to do with the BBC ?


It's a Left Bank Pictures show, which is heavily invested by BBC and generally has strong ties to it, including first look rights to anything they produce. I had assumed it had actually aired on BBC but I guess not.


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

Tracy said:


> So happy to know the correct pronunciation of Laoghaire.


 My son's fiancee's last name is O'Laoghaire. Every year in school she went through having to teach her teachers how to pronounce her name.

I'm (slowly) learning Gaelic because I want to be able to speak to my husband's family that are still in Ireland, several of his uncles have very little English. It's a difficult language.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I keep on hoping we will get subtitles for the Gaelic. Just because Claire has to suffer, does not mean we should!


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

We're supposed to be in the dark just like she is!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I don't wanna be!


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

TAsunder said:


> It's a Left Bank Pictures show, which is heavily invested by BBC and generally has strong ties to it, including first look rights to anything they produce. I had assumed it had actually aired on BBC but I guess not.


Kind of, in a roundabout way  Currently Sony owns Left Bank. Only BBC Worldwide had any investment (not the "real" BBC) they are the company that tries to sell BBC products worldwide. Plus Left Bank is one of 5 production companies involved.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

eddyj said:


> I don't wanna be!


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

Cearbhaill said:


>


*slides of her chair* 

I need to visit Scotland again. Or better, move there, always fantasised about that!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Personally, I also feel cheated that there are not nearly enough redhead bonny lasses!


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

JohnB1000 said:


> Kind of, in a roundabout way  Currently Sony owns Left Bank. Only BBC Worldwide had any investment (not the "real" BBC) they are the company that tries to sell BBC products worldwide. Plus Left Bank is one of 5 production companies involved.


Well, I guess I feel like Showtime and HBO missed out then. It feels better and less pornographic than the shows on Cinemax and Starz to me.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Cearbhaill said:


>


The first time I watched this, I then watched it about 17 more times. that day.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Not much discussion on "Rent" last week (I kept waiting!) so I am eager to hear what you all thought about this one.

This was difficult to watch. 
The departure from the book threw me a bit- I was wondering why in blazes were they making BlackJack even remotely sympathetic, looking into his own soul like that as he flogged "the Highland boy." Then of course I figured it out- a bit before Claire did but not by much. I may be slow but instead I think I may have been mesmerized by the level of acting I was watching- Tobias Menzies just stunned me. He has thoroughly mastered all the mircoexpressions in his bag of tricks- utterly superb job all around by him. My jaw nearly dropped at how good he was. I love the lines in his face- so interesting to look at.

I loved Murtagh's little smile when Claire took the bottle at the end- I needed that. Just one more instance of the peripheral actors being of such a high caliber that they thoroughly enhance even the smallest of moments. Murtagh/Lacroix rocks and is bringing so much to this character.

Dougal/McTavish as well.. _again_.

I am so pleased with the level of acting in this show- just stellar all around. I have to admit that during the wait for the series to start I was half afraid the show would end up reading as far too cheesy and thus disappoint me but instead I have been gobsmacked at how well done it is and this is entirely because of the cast and the locations.

I cried out at the screen several times- during the flogging with horror, then during the Claire/Jamie scene with delight- great delivery of some pivotal lines.
It was a rollercoaster of emotions- the lowest of lows to the highest of highs.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I enjoyed it, as always, but didn't really like the departure from the book. The whole bit with the English having dinner and her chatting with them was just boring to me. When Black Jack showed up it certainly got more interesting. I loved his bit with dusting himself off!

And yes, Tobias was awesome. And Claire's face as she listened perfect. The flogging scene didn't bother me as much because I was expecting it.



Spoiler



By the way, if you look behind Dougal is Jamie's dad - Brian. You can catch him in just two shots.












I can't wait till next week - and then one more episode till the big gap comes. bleh.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

betts4 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, if you look behind Dougal is Jamie's dad - Brian. You can catch him in just two shots.


Shouldn't that be spoilered? We don't know that yet.
I mean, I don't care, but you know some people...
And yeah, people on another board are already *****ing that


Spoiler



his hair isn't black enough. Geez.





> I can't wait till next week - and then one more episode till the big gap comes. bleh.


I hate midseason breaks.
I wish I had the self discipline to wait and binge watch, but I do not.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Cearbhaill said:


> Shouldn't that be spoilered? We don't know that yet.
> I mean, I don't care, but you know some people...
> And yeah, people on another board are already *****ing that
> 
> ...


Thanks. Fixed it.

Also, maybe I shouldn't have said anything about the boring bit at the table. It may have only been boring to me because it wasn't in the book.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I haven't read the book and I thought it was a little boring at the table, too. But overall, I liked the episode. Her husband's ancestor is quite the villain.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

betts4 said:


> Also, maybe I shouldn't have said anything about the boring bit at the table. It may have only been boring to me because it wasn't in the book.


I think the rework was really effective at building dramatic tension. By the time we got to that little gem of a scene at the end I was _ready_ for it.
Especially when Murtagh smirked after Claire grabbed the whisky and stomped off- I am enjoying this Murtagh a lot.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I didn't realize there was a midseason break. That pisses me off, since I am paying for StarZ just for this. How long is it off for? I might want to cancel it until it is back on.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

eddyj said:


> I didn't realize there was a midseason break. That pisses me off, since I am paying for StarZ just for this. How long is it off for? I might want to cancel it until it is back on.


I could have missed it but I don't think they have set a specific date yet.
They're hoping we will forget to cancel during the hiatus.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

eddyj said:


> I didn't realize there was a midseason break. That pisses me off, since I am paying for StarZ just for this. How long is it off for? I might want to cancel it until it is back on.


Yeah, I may be doing the same. I am certain there will be lots of info about when it's coming back starting a few months before it comes back!


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Up here on Canada we they just aired The Gathering on Sunday. A few questions, of you please. I don't talk understand that whole fealty thing. I guess he's not a favorite nephew of both uncles want to kill him. But how did he get out of the situation?

Also, why does Dugal wear pants? In fact, most of those kilts look like a jersey tired around the waist over some leggings. But Dugal doesn't even have that. Of course that could have just been his formal outfit for the Gathering and I'm not remembering well from previous episodes.

Looked like some good old time hockey there at the end. Just not on ice.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

As I understand it:

If Jaime refuses to swear to be part of the clan, it's a grave insult to the Laird and he would be killed.

If Jaime accepts and becomes part of the clan, he would supplant Dougal as the next in line and Dougal would surely kill him to regain his place.

So Jaime declared his fealty to his mother's clan but swore to the Laird that he would be his loyal subject (if that's the right term) for as long as he would allow him to live on his land. 

So Jaime appeased the Laird by swearing fealty to him without becoming an official member of the clan; which means Dougal is still next in line and is no danger to Jaime.

If I got it wrong, please correct me!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinty


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Anubys said:


> As I understand it:
> 
> If Jaime refuses to swear to be part of the clan, it's a grave insult to the Laird and he would be killed.
> 
> ...


All right except he declared his alliegence to his father's clan, the Frasers. and then the rest is correct.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

betts4 said:


> All right except he declared his alliegence to his father's clan, the Frasers. and then the rest is correct.


I didn't know that...I assumed it was his mother because their moto was french...Fraser doesn't sound very french...


----------



## Tracy (Mar 12, 2000)

Jamie's mother is sister to Dougal and Colum, right?


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

Tracy said:


> Jamie's mother is sister to Dougal and Colum, right?


Yes.


----------



## UTV2TiVo (Feb 2, 2005)

Dougal sure treats his nephew like crap! Guess he didn't like his sister much.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

UTV2TiVo said:


> Dougal sure treats his nephew like crap! Guess he didn't like his sister much.


Jamie is a direct threat to Dougal becoming Laird if/when Colum dies.
And other reasons


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I'm thinking Dougal is getting a little sweet on Claire.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Howie said:


> I'm thinking Dougal is getting a little sweet on Claire.


That line about grinding her corn was priceless.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Cearbhaill said:


> That line about grinding her corn was priceless.


:up:


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Well!










The photography as the ring rolled into the crack in the floor and how it reflected Claire as she walked over and reached down to retrieve it was stunning- just beautifully shot. It likely took them forever to get that right it was worth it! Lord that was gorgeous.

As was the dress. Uncomfortable, sure. But damn I thought it was beautifully made.

I was unhappy with Jamie's tartan- he was resplendant, yes, but this tartan simply hadn't the impact of the proper (book) one. And he was, for me, a bit too cleaned up what with the blow dried hair and all.

Ditto pearls- they needed to be more distinctive. But I'll adjust.

Initially I did not like how they jumbled up the timeline of the wedding with flaskbacks, but on second viewing it worked better for me. I did like how they brought resplendant Jamie into view, and also the way they panned up to the actual ceremony. The candles, the church, those in attendance- it was all quite beautiful.

I felt so bad for Jamie that Claire needed to swig 3 gallons of wine just to be in the room with him. *You know you're gonna do it*, why risk vomiting on the poor guy?

I think they have Sam bulked up a bit too much. I know why they are doing it, but still, he's at the point now where it's making his neck and face look wrong to me. He looks stuffed into his clothing at times.

I think his reaction to the oral rang a little false, but I so feel for actors in these situations that I will forgive that. Otherwise the sex was fine. As a leg girl I do protest the lack of seeing more of his. He kept those boots on for far too long.

No show- we do not need a Dougal triangle here.
That's just wrong.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I enjoyed the whole thing. I really loved the flashbacks of Jamie telling the story of the day.

What a beautiful couple!! I had no issue with Jamie's tartan and blow dried hair. I liked the story of where Murtagh found the tartan and how they got Claire a dress. Poor Ned.

There were some of the sex I enjoyed and some did seem a bit rushed through more than it could have been. I was really unhappy with Jamie and the oral bit. 


Spoiler



I believe a scene in the book a day or two later out in a field)



And absolutely - Dougal back off.

And this is a bad pic, right from the tv screen, but -


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Not sure how many episodes back we are in Canada -- "Rent" just aired last night. Couple of questions, if you don't mind. When that man in the village (who later turned out to be a British officer) came out and asked if Claire was alright, he clearly had an English accent. Was that not a concern to them? How common was it to find an Englishman in a Highland village? They pretty much kidnapped Claire when they found her, thinking she might me a spy. Or was the accent meant for us? 

Why does Jamie look so much different from the others. Clean shaven, differently dressed, clearly not so "rough-around-the-edges". Or, again, is that more for us?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I also made the comment that they should have showed where/how they got the blow drier. 

A couple of things jarred me (as opposed to the book). I don't remember Claire being nearly that hesitant to jump in bed with Jamie (might be CRS), and the Dougal thing is definitely rubbing me wrong.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Great recap. Maybe not safe for work, but not too crazy either.

http://professionalfangirls.com/outlander-episode-1x07-the-wedding-post-coital-glow-er-i-mean-recap/


----------



## lalouque (Feb 11, 2002)

Okay, I don't have Starz. Somebody has to tell me how to watch this for free. Because the TV series is sounding much better than the book.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

lalouque said:


> Okay, I don't have Starz. Somebody has to tell me how to watch this for free. Because the TV series is sounding much better than the book.


You can join TVTorrents. I'm sure it's up there (have not checked). Let me know if you need an invite.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Anybody know yet how long the break will be? I need to know if I should cancel Starz after next week's episode (pretty sure the answer is yes).


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

eddyj said:


> Anybody know yet how long the break will be? I need to know if I should cancel Starz after next week's episode (pretty sure the answer is yes).


I have the same question.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

lalouque said:


> Okay, I don't have Starz. Somebody has to tell me how to watch this for free. Because the TV series is sounding much better than the book.


I have all the episodes on my never delete file in TiVo, but no way to record them. Sorry.


----------



## lalouque (Feb 11, 2002)

betts4 said:


> I have all the episodes on my never delete file in TiVo, but no way to record them. Sorry.


Betts, you're such a tease! I guess I just have to come over for a visit and we can have an Outlander marathon.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

lalouque said:


> Betts, you're such a tease! I guess I just have to come over for a visit and we can have an Outlander marathon.


Come on up!!! :up:


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

betts4 said:


> Great recap. Maybe not safe for work, but not too crazy either.
> 
> http://professionalfangirls.com/outlander-episode-1x07-the-wedding-post-coital-glow-er-i-mean-recap/


That's hilarious!


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

betts4 said:


> Great recap. Maybe not safe for work, but not too crazy either.
> 
> http://professionalfangirls.com/outlander-episode-1x07-the-wedding-post-coital-glow-er-i-mean-recap/


I like the show, but that recap is 100 times better. I need to remember to go there each week.


----------



## lalouque (Feb 11, 2002)

Thanks to everyone who sent me links to watch online. Verra much appreciated.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

lalouque said:


> Thanks to everyone who sent me links to watch online. Verra much appreciated.


I'm really sorry about the bait and switch on tvtorrents. Nobody knows why it's down or when it will be back up (if ever).


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

http://www.thewrap.com/starz-sets-outlander-return-for-april-2015/



> STARZ SERIES "OUTLANDER" midseason premiere set for
> SATURDAY, APRIL 4TH 2015
> 
> Outlander's Highly Anticipated Wedding Episode Delivers Largest Audience of the Season with 3.8 Million Live +3 Viewers, Up Almost 40% Since Premiere
> ...


I am betting Starz will see a drop in subscribers soon.


----------



## Tracy (Mar 12, 2000)

April? Ugh.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

If I had known that, I would not have signed up in the first place.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I am really enjoying the 'what is Frank doing' flashes. It's a storyline NOT in the books and has become interesting.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

This show should be banned from TV. It gets the women way too worked up and needy for redheads. I need to hydrate.


----------



## jennifer (Dec 2, 2001)

philw1776 said:


> This show should be banned from TV. It gets the women way too worked up and needy for redheads. I need to hydrate.


Hush your mouth


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Where's my hair dye?....


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Starz has now been cancelled at my house. My wife was pretty peeved about the long hiatus too. It is quite possible we will not sign up for Starz again in April. I think a long hiatus like this after just a few episodes is moronic. I have stopped watching more than one show that took a long mid-season break, and this may become another one.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I am going to cancel it also. It's only $10 extra dollars a month, but for that I can have a burger at the local pub. 

I will start again in March next year, though. I know that.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

I binge watched the whole thing this past weekend.

I really enjoyed it, but Jaime was a bit too short and pretty for my taste compared to book Jaime.


----------



## Tracy (Mar 12, 2000)

I don't mind the pretty, but the short is disappointing as Jaime's height is such a big deal in the books.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Tracy said:


> I don't mind the pretty, but the short is disappointing as Jaime's height is such a big deal in the books.


I think Sam is only an inch or two shorter than Jamie was- the difference is that Caitriona is much taller than Claire, and most of the supporting cast is 'Hollywood tall' as well.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

In the books, Jaime is portrayed as almost larger than life. 

I dunno - I just can't believe they couldn't find a really tall, built guy who is a little less pretty.

I think this Jamie is doing a decent job, but he isn't close to the Jamie I pictured in the books...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

nyny523 said:


> I dunno - I just can't believe they couldn't find a really tall, built guy who is a little less pretty.


They asked me but I didn't want to dye my hair...


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Anubys said:


> They asked me but I didn't want to dye my hair...


:up:


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Anubys said:


> They asked me but I didn't want to dye my hair...


What hair?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

eddyj said:


> What hair?


My back hair...what else?

(the sound you hear is that of all the ladies throwing up a little - or a lot - in their mouths)


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Anubys said:


> My back hair...what else?
> 
> (the sound you hear is that of all the ladies throwing up a little - or a lot - in their mouths)


Yes.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Cearbhaill said:


> I think Sam is only an inch or two shorter than Jamie was- the difference is that Caitriona is much taller than Claire, and most of the supporting cast is 'Hollywood tall' as well.


I think this is it. I don't mind Jamie. Stand him next to Dougal and they do pretty well. But the actress for Claire is just not what I imagined at all - and that throws it off for me. She is described differently in the books. //shrug//. I don't find the actor for Jamie too pretty because in my mind Jamie was a handsome sexy guy that women were drawn to like a magnet. 
Murtaugh is definitely not as scraggly as I thought, but I kind of like him this way.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I throw this question out to those that have not read the book - did it seem like Claire was actually raped by the English jerk? penetration and such? 

In or out of the book, I still could not imagine Jamie letting it happen - even with a gun to his head. He is a good enough fighter to have knocked the gun away. 

I also couldn't imagine how Jamie and Claire were having sex with all those clothes on. Well, thinking about what a Scotsman wears under his kilt, maybe.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Not to me...he lifted up her dress but didn't have time to actually do it. The hero came in the nick of time.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

oh wait...you mean the first time? 

then...um...yes...he seemed to have had enough time...


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Anubys said:


> Not to me...he lifted up her dress but didn't have time to actually do it. The hero came in the nick of time.


You mean Claire?  and her sgian-dubh?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Anubys said:


> oh wait...you mean the first time?
> 
> then...um...yes...he seemed to have had enough time...


Oh, yes. The first time. In the field.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

betts4 said:


> You mean Claire?  and her sgian-dubh?


LOL...I should have put "hero" in quotes...it was very Zorro-like with the dramatic entrance from the window and all


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Anubys said:


> LOL...I should have put "hero" in quotes...it was very Zorro-like with the dramatic entrance from the window and all


Oh I loved it. Yes, dramatic, but even knowing it was coming, I was pleased. Replaying it a few times. Swooning a bit. Now that was just how I imagined it from reading the book.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Finally, a TV show where the characters out drink the Irish family on Blue Bloods!


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

from one of the blog recaps -










http://professionalfangirls.com/out...s-now-recap-everyone-wants-a-piece-of-claire/


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

My biggest contention with the whole series has been there hasn't been enough Jamie/Claire time. 

I hate to bring the book up again, but in it, there is a lot more interaction both before and after the wedding to get the two to be more attuned to each other. To give more feeling to the phrase that Jamie says "Is it always like this..." I was expecting more so it is hard for me to wonder if the non book readers are getting that same special love that has grown between them. And is essential in my mind to the story.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

No penetrative rape- the slo-mo threw us off.

Yes, not enough Jamie/Claire development to make us understand both the nature of his personality and and the reasons for their bonding. It's thrown a lot of people off- I know I was quite disappointed with episode #8.

IMO it should have been _much_ more honeymooning and far less of The Frank Show. All the choppy cuts and Frankbacks negated the slow burn of those couple of days immediately following the wedding where magic happened.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Cearbhaill said:


> No penetrative rape- the slo-mo threw us off.
> 
> Yes, not enough Jamie/Claire development to make us understand both the nature of his personality and and the reasons for their bonding. It's thrown a lot of people off- I know I was quite disappointed with episode #8.
> 
> *IMO it should have been much more honeymooning *and far less of The Frank Show. All the choppy cuts and Frankbacks negated the slow burn of those couple of days immediately following the wedding where magic happened.


I agree.

And that said, I really was touched by the bit of Frank and Claire and the stones. THAT was magic. That is what I would love to see with Claire and Jamie.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Cearbhaill said:


> No penetrative rape- the slo-mo threw us off.
> 
> Yes, not enough Jamie/Claire development to make us understand both the nature of his personality and and the reasons for their bonding. It's thrown a lot of people off- I know I was quite disappointed with episode #8.
> 
> IMO it should have been _much_ more honeymooning and far less of The Frank Show. All the choppy cuts and Frankbacks negated the slow burn of those couple of days immediately following the wedding where magic happened.


I don't know...it would have turned into a skinamax show...

I like watching sex as much as the other guy (and gal!), but it's a slow moving show in the best of times...spending an episode on their honeymoon and O face after O face would have been boring, IMO.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

betts4 said:


> I agree.
> 
> And that said, I really was touched by the bit of Frank and Claire and the stones. THAT was magic. That is what I would love to see with Claire and Jamie.


I agree - we really got a good sense of the connection between Claire and Frank, but I just haven't felt that same intensity between Claire and Jaime.

Maybe if he were taller...


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Anubys said:


> I don't know...it would have turned into a skinamax show...
> 
> I like watching sex as much as the other guy (and gal!), but it's a slow moving show in the best of times...spending an episode on their honeymoon and O face after O face would have been boring, IMO.


By honeymooning I don't necessarily mean all sex all the time but more all of the little conversations and touches and exchanges that make for intimacy.

And there was a significant (book) conversation left out of this whole wedding/post wedding period that they just have to add back in at some point- it is the foundation of the whole Claire/Jamie dynamic. Without understanding their relationship all the "need to go back" angst makes no sense.


Spoiler



The "nothing between us so far except respect and respect might have room for secrets but not for lies" talk.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Cearbhaill said:


> By honeymooning I don't necessarily mean all sex all the time but more all of the little conversations and touches and exchanges that make for intimacy.


/jerks head awake

I wasn't asleep...honest...I heard everything you said!



In all seriousness, I don't think they can do that on TV. Those are the kind of things you cut out of books to make a show. Whatever conversation and intimacy that must be done, was done (and can be shown here and there later).

As a non-book reader, I already thought devoting an entire episode to the wedding was too much; but I kept thinking about everyone here and how much they must be loving it (and that blog about it was worth it). But to spend another episode TALKING (and shopping, maybe?)...


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Anubys said:


> /jerks head awake
> 
> I wasn't asleep...honest...I heard everything you said!
> 
> ...


What it was are things that could have been worked in. For me, watching them on the hilltop just before Hugh showed up was the start, but then it got cut off and seemed to become them having sex before getting accosted. There could have been a couple more short minute or two scenes that would have helped build it up.


----------



## nirisahn (Nov 19, 2005)

I'm hiding this because I don't want to spoil it for those who haven't read the books.


Spoiler



I have an issue with the housekeeper telling Frank about the stones and with everything that happened when he went to the stones. In the books, when Claire comes back and tells Frank where she was, he doesn't believe her. But now that the writers have had Frank go to the stones and hear Claire call to him, I wonder how they'll play out her return. In the books, his not believing her was a huge sore point in their marriage after she came back.


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

nyny523 said:


> I agree - we really got a good sense of the connection between Claire and Frank, but I just haven't felt that same intensity between Claire and Jaime.
> 
> Maybe if he were taller...


It's not that he's not tall enough (I think the actor is 6'2" or so), it's that SHE is WAY too tall - maybe 5'10"? She's supposed to be little.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

nirisahn said:


> I'm hiding this because I don't want to spoil it for those who haven't read the books.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


The way it was shot Frank couldn't tell if he heard Claire calling or birds/geese. I'd think his rational mind would put it down to wishful thinking and not believe that it was really her.


Spoiler



He'll still likely not believe her but, like the books, will come to accept her. And , if you read far enough you know that he did teach Brianna all sorts of things that would be useful to her back in the 1770's, so on some level he did end up believing. And he did research on Jamie as well- even placed his headstone for Claire to find IIRC.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Maybe the best part was seeing Wee Roger come in and offer Frank some biscuits!!!


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

betts4 said:


> Maybe the best part was seeing Wee Roger come in and offer Frank some biscuits!!!


I whooped!! :up:


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

The last scene was extremely weird and veered the show into ridiculous for me. That said, it was just one scene so it's not like I'll be giving up on the show or anything -- it's still one of my favorites.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> The last scene was extremely weird and veered the show into ridiculous for me. That said, it was just one scene so it's not like I'll be giving up on the show or anything -- it's still one of my favorites.


It's a romance novel bodice ripper, by definition somewhat ridiculous.
Suspension of critical thinking is necessary and readily achieved by the great cinematography and fine cast.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

philw1776 said:


> It's a romance novel bodice ripper, by definition somewhat ridiculous.
> Suspension of critical thinking is necessary and readily achieved by the great cinematography and fine cast.


Until that scene I had not found it preposterous to the point of disengaging me from the show. If the story starts turning more and more ridiculous along these lines, it will lose me quickly. I get that it's largely a romance, but that doesn't mean it needs to be a cheesy one.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

TAsunder said:


> Until that scene I had not found it preposterous to the point of disengaging me from the show. If the story starts turning more and more ridiculous along these lines, it will lose me quickly. I get that it's largely a romance, but that doesn't mean it needs to be a cheesy one.


I hope they don't make it too cheesy. Though Black Jack is known to rip bodices - like Jamie's sisters a few episodes back.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

philw1776 said:


> It's a romance novel bodice ripper, by definition somewhat ridiculous.


Them's fightin' words to most Outlander fans.
It's historical adventure


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Cearbhaill said:


> Them's fightin' words to most Outlander fans.
> It's historical adventure


I admit I have only read the first, but it is at best historical romance.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

It is historical romance, but the historical part is very well researched and accurate.

Definitely many levels above your basic "bodice ripper".


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

"Not a bodice ripper!" cries brings to mind the old retort "I only subscribe to Playboy for the articles"


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

It is a bodice ripper, and more!


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

I'm on book 3 and there's no way it's a bodice ripper. It has sex in it and romance but so do a lot of thrillers and other genres.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

JohnB1000 said:


> I'm on book 3 and there's no way it's a bodice ripper. It has sex in it and romance but so do a lot of thrillers and other genres.


:up: :up: :up:


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

No new Outlander to watch tonight.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

betts4 said:


> No new Outlander to watch tonight.


Right! Try waiting until April next year. that's when it picks up again with new episodes.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Church AV Guy said:


> Right! Try waiting until April next year. that's when it picks up again with new episodes.


Yeah. I know. Just like all the other great shows. Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Suits, Walking Dead...etc...and so on. I save them and rewatch them. Long live my TiVo!


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

To keep us busy through the hiatus- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFEYHu_s6G8#t=78 .
Podcast covers tv show, books, cast, making of, etc.
I have not seen the entire first episode yet but by several accounts it is worthwhile if you are jonesing.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Season ONE continued -------------------------


OMG!!!! what a great episode. I loved Jamies narrative and the sex scene was fantastic!!

Nicely done and I look forward to more!


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

50 Shades of Jamie!

If anyone has a link to that hilarious blog of the lady that loves this show, please post it!


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Bueller?

Bueller?

Bueller?


where is everybody?!


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Sorry- I was on another board 

I especially liked the inclusion of more politics/Jacobite rebellion. I liked how Dougal finally lost it and proclaimed out loud that he had fathered Hamish. And I liked how Colum accepted Jamie's advice on how to proceed. Seems Jamie _had_ been in the running as heir after all and Colum was mighty ticked off that he effectively removed himself from the race by marrying Claire. Or _Dougal_ removed him by arranging it- well played, Dougal.

I liked that we heard Jamie's side of things as narrator. I think non-book folks needed his character fleshed out more so that we can understand Claire actually falling for him.

I think they handled the spanking scene as well as possible while tiptoeing around our modern viewpoints.

And I think Blackjack is one bad MF. Asking to see Jamie's back and the casual invitation to a threesome. They should have killed him while they had the chance.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Dougal played it great. He had Jamie marry Claire AND thought he could get Claire to sleep with him as well!

I'm asking because I don't know: were women in 1940s England THAT liberated? Claire seems to have a woman's 1980s+ views and attitude.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Cearbhaill said:


> Sorry- I was on another board


I'll let it slide...this time!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Anubys said:


> I'm asking because I don't know: were women in 1940s England THAT liberated? Claire seems to have a woman's 1980s+ views and attitude.


Well, she worked as a battlefield nurse, right? So she was probably more independent than your average woman of her time.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Also remember that she was not raised within a traditional family, but by an archaeologist uncle- Uncle Lamb.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Yes, Claire was not an "average" woman of her time.

Not to mention that WWII allowed women to do more than at any other time before. Many women worked at men's jobs while they were away at war (Rosie the Riveter, anyone?)


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Anubys said:


> 50 Shades of Jamie!
> 
> If anyone has a link to that hilarious blog of the lady that loves this show, please post it!


Here you go - I THINK this is who you mean.


----------



## dbranco (Nov 20, 2003)

Anubys said:


> If anyone has a link to that hilarious blog of the lady that loves this show, please post it!


This site is my favorite for Outlander reviews. Hilariously calls Dougal "Scottish Santa" and Murtagh and Angus are the "Tweedle Twins".

http://www.hitfix.com/harpy/recap-outlander-the-reckoning-drives-home-the-reality-of-18th-century-sexism


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

betts4 said:


> from one of the blog recaps -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the links, but this is the one I loved last year. They don't have anything new since the stuff about the trailer


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I'm only halfway through this weekend's episode (been very busy) but the lack of buzz here is disconcerting!


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Anubys said:


> I'm only halfway through this weekend's episode (been very busy) but the lack of buzz here is disconcerting!


I'm sorry- I'm watching my mom these days and can barely find time for a fly-by, much less in depth thoughts which I am too mentally exhausted to form anyway.

Loved Sandringham, loved the post duel swordplay, loved Gellis's scenes, and Laoghaire is a bad, bad girl.

I was delighted with what Starz referred to as "Brief Nudity" and must say Jamie is a very fast learner


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Jeez...I had stopped watching just as all the good stuff started!

I thought it was pretty obvious that that woman would kill her husband, though. The duel was pretty funny. I don't know why the Laird/Lord was so upset, though. So his brother is cheating with another woman, what's the big deal?


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Cearbhaill said:


> ...I was delighted with what Starz referred to as "Brief Nudity" and must say Jamie is a very fast learner


It's easy when you have a good teacher....


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

Hmm, discussion of this show seems to have stopped.

I must say it's becoming a little less interesting to me. Claire's crazy adventure of the week. And this last episode (The Search, I think?) was pretty drawn out.

I came to this show a bit late, so more or less missed the hiatus. But it almost looks like the hiatus killed it, given the lack of new posts here.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

The BEST episode is coming up. Jamie in the Prison with Black Jack Randall. OMG. I hope they do this part right.


----------



## Tracy (Mar 12, 2000)

I didn't remember that whole section with Claire singing, but I read the first book about 10,000 years ago. Is that in there?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I didn't remember that stuff either. This episode was slow and boring. Wife agreed on that too.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I gave up on trying to revive this thread!

after last week's episode, I wanted to kill myself...that was just terrible.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

I'm still here - but there was no Jamie in this past episode, so not much to discuss...


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

betts4 said:


> The BEST episode is coming up. Jamie in the Prison with Black Jack Randall. OMG. I hope they do this part right.


_Very_ odd what you consider BEST


But isn't this spoilerish?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Best episode would be for someone to just shoot Jack Randall in the head. I am tired of the stuff with/about him.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Still digging this show....and haven't had to turn in my man card yet....


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Bierboy said:


> Still digging this show....and haven't had to turn in my man card yet....


guys...remember not to tell Bierboy that he is on double secret probation...


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

Tracy said:


> I didn't remember that whole section with Claire singing, but I read the first book about 10,000 years ago. Is that in there?


Book discussion spoilerized:


Spoiler



I haven't read the books, my wife has. She said the singing did not take place in the books.





Cearbhaill said:


> _Very_ odd what you consider BEST
> 
> 
> But isn't this spoilerish?


I haven't read the books and her comment didn't spoil anything for me. We're coming up on the end of the season. It makes sense that really good stuff is going to happen.


----------



## sakura panda (Apr 6, 2004)

I'm recording but not watching.

I listen to a couple of podcasts that discuss the episodes after they air (Outlandercast and The Scot and the Sassenach) and at the moment I'm still listening to episodes from the hiatus that discussed the book itself; I want to finish that before I start in on the new episodes. I'm currently listening to the audio version of _A Breath of Snow and Ashes_ and I don't think I could handle keeping track of the story in more than two directions at the same time.


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

Bierboy said:


> Still digging this show....and haven't had to turn in my man card yet....


Naked Catriona Balfe is much of the reason I stick with this show.


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

Cearbhaill said:


> _Very_ odd what you consider BEST
> 
> 
> But isn't this spoilerish?


This episode was god-awful. Please, more sex and romance and less torture. At various points in this episode, I started whistling the Mission Impossible theme. I really enjoyed this show in the beginning, now I'm about to bail on it.


----------



## ronsch (Sep 7, 2001)

I don't know. That was some pretty intense stuff.

Betts4, Did it live up to your expectations?

Loved the final talk between Claire and Randall!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Well, what a way to turn what started as a fun series into a sea of darkness and depression. I went from looking forward to seeing it to not wanting to see it ever again.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Yeah, this last episode was horrible to watch. My wife thinks if the victim was a woman it wouldn't have been so tough to watch, but I don't think I agree. To see anyone brutalized like that isn't enjoyable at all.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Last one too. I almost gave up on it, but since this was the finale, I watched. Wish I hadn't. 

I really don't remember the book being this graphically violent. Or maybe I just skimmed over those parts.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

ronsch said:


> I don't know. That was some pretty intense stuff.
> 
> Betts4, Did it live up to your expectations?
> 
> Loved the final talk between Claire and Randall!


I haven't watched the last three episodes yet. I have heard lots of good and bad about the prison rape scenes though.

And reading interviews about next season - it will be decidedly different in tone because it will be in Paris France and have changes in attitudes there. That will be based off of Dragonfly in Amber (book two).


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

eddyj said:


> Last one too. I almost gave up on it, but since this was the finale, I watched. Wish I hadn't.
> 
> I really don't remember the book being this graphically violent. Or maybe I just skimmed over those parts.


I didn't watch it and I'm glad I made that decision based on your comment, along with many others. They certainly DID take a fun and interesting series and turn it into a dark depressing story. It may be realistic, but reality can be very dark and depressing, and not entertaining.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

eddyj said:


> Last one too. I almost gave up on it, but since this was the finale, I watched. Wish I hadn't.
> 
> I really don't remember the book being this graphically violent. Or maybe I just skimmed over those parts.


There was a lot of internal dialogue in this section of the book that broke up the disturbing parts. But the book was actually more graphic and disturbing than what was shown onscreen here.

I thought it was a beautifully filmed and acted episode- the lighting in these dungeon scenes was extraordinary, and Sam and Tobias both did stellar work. The Pieta moment as well as the sailing scenes at the end were simply gorgeous.

IMO the graphic depiction of the two different types of rape were necessary to show how Jamie was broken first physically and then emotionally. He's always been such a stoic character who was able to withstand any and all types of physical punishment- that Blackjack was able to weasel into his head so effectively the second time around was integral to the journey Jamie faces in recovery.


Spoiler



And it is a very long journey- the repercussions of these events follow Jamie the entire rest of his life. He never truly recovers.



So graphic, yes, but with ten tons of warning and a super special disclaimer at the beginning. Even the last words of the previous episode were "Shall we begin?" so none of it should have come as any surprise.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

BrettStah said:


> Yeah, this last episode was horrible to watch. My wife thinks if the victim was a woman it wouldn't have been so tough to watch, but I don't think I agree. To see anyone brutalized like that isn't enjoyable at all.


I asked myself that question while watching, actually. Then I wondered if women would feel less detached because it's a man and not a woman.

The broken hand made it a lot worse, I think (at least for me). I don't know why that is. I could not watch and had to FF through when Claire was fixing his hand.

I'm not sure I'm coming back next season, to be honest. The last 3 episodes were not very good (and the one where they were searching for Jamie was one of the worst episodes of any show I've watched in a long, long time).


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Anubys said:


> I asked myself that question while watching, actually. Then I wondered if women would feel less detached because it's a man and not a woman.
> 
> The broken hand made it a lot worse, I think (at least for me). I don't know why that is. I could not watch and had to FF through when Claire was fixing his hand.
> 
> I'm not sure I'm coming back next season, to be honest. The last 3 episodes were not very good (and the one where they were searching for Jamie was one of the worst episodes of any show I've watched in a long, long time).


The broken hand in the book was a very intense scene. And it brought to the forefront (for me) just how far the love, commitment and trust had grown between the two. Not having seen the episode yet, I know in the book Jamie had basically written his hand off. That she could give him hope of it healing and functioning again was a big step.

I was going to wait and watch this with my Outlander BFF but she has been too busy. I will be catching up tonight.

And the last part of the book is both dark and grim and yet, with the love between the two - it shows that there are ups and downs in the world but they can be gotten through.


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

BrettStah said:


> Yeah, this last episode was horrible to watch. My wife thinks if the victim was a woman it wouldn't have been so tough to watch, but I don't think I agree. To see anyone brutalized like that isn't enjoyable at all.


Thanks. This helped me decide to bail on this show. Maybe I'll try next season. But this show started out great and got progressively worse. And last week's episode was NC17 violence that I spent fast forwarding. I'm gonna skip the conclusion, where I assume he's sprung from the prison via a cattle stampede.

I hate torture scenes in general, and these in specific were way too graphic. Life's too short to fill it with such images.

Also, I find it so unrealistic that both Jamie and Claire would have allowed Randall to live back when he broke her out of the fort.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> Also, I find it so unrealistic that both Jamie and Claire would have allowed Randall to live back when he broke her out of the fort.


I said to my wife, while watching this episode, that the most ridiculous and hard to believe thing in the series was not the time travel, but the fact that no one had killed Randall before then.

And then he is left alive after being knocked out, again.


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

eddyj said:


> I said to my wife, while watching this episode, that the most ridiculous and hard to believe thing in the series was not the time travel, but the fact that no one had killed Randall before then.
> 
> And then he is left alive after being knocked out, again.


Even happier I am skipping this episode.

Randall is a guy that needs killing.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

eddyj said:


> I said to my wife, while watching this episode, that the most ridiculous and hard to believe thing in the series was not the time travel, but the fact that no one had killed Randall before then.
> 
> And then he is left alive after being knocked out, again.


/Doctor Evil

You just don't get it, do you?

/end



Another thing I found unbelievable is that they rescued Jamie, fixed his hand, nursed him for days/weeks, yet nobody washed him.

I know nobody washed him because the brand on his body was a shock to all


----------



## Tracy (Mar 12, 2000)

I knew what was coming and this was still a very difficult episode to watch but I don't think it was a 'bad' episode. Definitely dark but extremely well done considering the subject matter.

If next season starts the way the second book does, I would highly recommend checking it out even if you were turned off by the end of this season.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> Randall is a guy that needs killing.


They are somewhat afraid that if they kill BR then Frank (his gggrandson) will never exist. 
It's been glossed over in the show but bookClaire was awfully worried about it.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Cearbhaill said:


> They are somewhat afraid that if they kill BR then Frank (his gggrandson) will never exist.
> It's been glossed over in the show but bookClaire was awfully worried about it.


But the decision not to kill him is being made by people who know nothing of this.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Watched it last night.

Was stunned by just how right on the torture and rape were. Even knowing what was coming and knowing how the night in prison had progressed for Jamie and Randall, what was brought to the screen was incredibly moving. I hope both actors get some awards.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Cearbhaill said:


> *IMO the graphic depiction of the two different types of rape were necessary to show how Jamie was broken first physically and then emotionally.* He's always been such a stoic character who was able to withstand any and all types of physical punishment- that Blackjack was able to weasel into his head so effectively the second time around was integral to the journey Jamie faces in recovery.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Graphic yes, and rightfully so. It was a story not just about Claire and Jamie, but also about Black Jack, Jamie and Claire. Black Jack was a sadistic nasty intelligent man that knew what he needed to do to get what he wanted from Jamie. I had chills when he loosed his hair and was having Jamie think it was Claire's hair. And I was yelling at the tv. But, I had to keep watching.

That's good writing/acting.

And compared to what has happened on Game of Thrones? eh.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

The recent controversial Game of Thrones episode didn't actually show a rape - they got the idea across without getting unnecessarily graphic and gruesome. 

Personally I think they could have achieved their main goal without being so graphic in This Outlander episode.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

BrettStah said:


> The recent controversial Game of Thrones episode didn't actually show a rape - they got the idea across without getting unnecessarily graphic and gruesome.
> 
> Personally I think they could have achieved their main goal without being so graphic in This Outlander episode.


That was my point. I understand the importance of what happens to the story line, but they seemed to almost want to be a graphic as they could get away with, and not just telling the story.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I also think expectations of what kind of show it is play a role here.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Anubys said:


> I also think expectations of what kind of show it is play a role here.


Absolutely. If I watched GoT or Daredevil, I expect the level of violence shown. This was definitely not what I expected when I started watching the show. I had read the book, I knew the story, but it is the presentation that was too much for me.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

eddyj said:


> Absolutely. If I watched GoT or Daredevil, I expect the level of violence shown. This was definitely not what I expected when I started watching the show. I had read the book, I knew the story, but it is the presentation that was too much for me.


I'm worse off than you, then (I win! ). I had not read the books so my expectations were of light period piece with a hint of SF (time travel). I had zero expectations of hardcore stuff like this.

There were many "almost rapes" that were stopped in the nick of time...lots of comedy as well...I expected a fantasy show with humor and lots of "hero" action...then we're hit with this and it's a totally different show from what I was expecting.

Long story short: this show isn't good enough to be this dark.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

I've enjoyed the show and will continue to watch next season. That being said, I found the graphic flashbacks to his rape to be totally unnecessary. Rather than FF through them, I distracted myself with the iPad during those scenes since I didn't want lose any sense of the show's time continuity. I don't think it will continue to be this dark (at least I hope not....)


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Executive producer Ronald D. Moore's take on why this ep had to be so brutal...


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I have a friend (BFF acatually) who has been watching the episodes that I recorded. Usually every couple weeks and a couple three at a time. She read the book Outlander but it has been 15 or so years. She didn't remember all that had happened. 

However, that said, when they got Jamie out of prison and the at episode ended her first comment was "that's it? that's all they show of the trauma of that night?". I told her to wait and let's watch the finale. I did toss a spoiler in that more will be shown.

And she loved how they did the scenes. She told me she liked the flashbacks instead of doing it real time all at once. And that things were so graphic. One thing she did remember is that it is a life changing night in Jamie's life. I still think it was done well and with just the right tone to it. Jamie seeing Black Jack and then seeing Claire and then not knowing which way to turn needed more of an explanation than just "oh he raped me". We the viewer had to get into the scenes and I feel like the way it was shown was right on.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Bierboy said:


> Executive producer Ronald D. Moore's take on why this ep had to be so brutal...


thanks! I haven't read it but am headed there next.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Just read this one --

http://www.zap2it.com/blogs/outlander_star_sam_heughan_ron_moore_finale_rape_scenes-2015-05



> While in the book Jamie tells Claire about what happens after the fact, the TV series would have to show the abuse. That presented the obvious question of how much should "Outlander" actually reveal to the audience, and it wasn't a simple one to answer.
> 
> "I felt that what was important was to make it as truthful as possible," Moore says. "OK, this is the story. Let's not blink and let's not look away, but you didn't want to be gratuitous either. You wanted to play what it was and be truthful to it, but you didn't want to revel in the pornography of it or something or the vulgarity of it. Just because you are on Starz doesn't mean that you have to show everything or that you want to. You're not trying to sort of shove it in the audience's face but at the same time, you don't want to shy away from it because it's such an important moment in the life of the show and in the life of particularly Jamie's character."
> 
> By the end of production, Moore realized they'd made something unique with the finale. "All the way through the process I kept trying to think if I'd seen anything like this on TV or even really in film, and I don't think we've seen anything portrayed the way we portrayed this," he says.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

Cearbhaill said:


> They are somewhat afraid that if they kill BR then Frank (his gggrandson) will never exist.
> It's been glossed over in the show but bookClaire was awfully worried about it.


I haven't read the books, but my wife has.

Do we know if whatever offspring Black Jack has that results in Frank has been born yet?


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

pendragn said:


> I haven't read the books, but my wife has.
> 
> Do we know if whatever offspring Black Jack has that results in Frank has been born yet?


On the show? 
No, we have been told nothing of any of his domestic ... arrangements.

Otherwise your wife knows


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

I came late to outlander and just watched the finale last night.

My husband doesn't like TV/movies which are too dark so the penultimate episode near killed him. I texted Eddy for info on the finale and with his guidance I watched it alone. Good thing! I gave him a sanitized rundown of the episode so he's up to date for next season.



mooseAndSquirrel said:


> Please, more sex and romance and less torture.


Amen. No fun happy sexy time lately. :-(



BrettStah said:


> Yeah, this last episode was horrible to watch. My wife thinks if the victim was a woman it wouldn't have been so tough to watch, but I don't think I agree. To see anyone brutalized like that isn't enjoyable at all.


I definitely agree with your wife and thought so throughout the episode. We've been watching women be brutalized on TV forever. This was different not just because it was extra explicit, but because he's a man and you're not used to seeing it. Welcome to our world.

It certainly wasn't enjoyable and it wouldn't have been any more so if Jamie has been a woman but it would have been less shocking and would have inspired fewer magazine articles.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Anubys said:


> Another thing I found unbelievable is that they rescued Jamie, fixed his hand, nursed him for days/weeks, yet nobody washed him.
> 
> I know nobody washed him because the brand on his body was a shock to all


That got a big eye roll from me, too.

Really? You didn't check him for further injuries?


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Did season 1 end at the end of the first book ?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Pretty much.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Haven't watched yet (though I will) just wondered how they will handle the changes (season 2 spoilers)


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

Bump....

*Season 2 of Outlander to premiere two days early for Starz subscribers*

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/04/05/outlander-early-season-2-premiere-starz-subscribers



> The premium network announced Tuesday that the premiere of Outlander season 2 will be available starting Thursday, April 7, exclusively to subscribers, two days before the episode airs.
> 
> Subscribers can watch the episode on the Starz streaming app or Starz.com, as well as on other on-demand and online platforms. For everyone else, the 13-episode second season of the sci-fi historical drama based on Diana Gabaldons series premieres on April 9 at 9 p.m. ET on Starz.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

My wife will be happy this is returning soon. We may wait to binge watch the season though.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

I watched this earlier this year and in general I like the show.

Buuuttttt..... I have a big problem with Claire and the way she screwed over Frank.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

That's an odd definition of "subscribers".


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

We'll catch this on the free Starz weekend, and then the wife will want to subscribe for the rest of the season (which is exactly why they have the free weekend, of course).

Is the S2 schedule out, so I can figure out when the most cost efficient way to subscribe is? I assume this is not available (legally) through any other way?


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

I gave up on this as too full of violence, torture and rape. Any word on the tone S2 will take?


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> I gave up on this as too full of violence, torture and rape. Any word on the tone S2 will take?


Yeah, at this point my husband is out. I'll have to pre watch and let him know if it's safe before he'll watch with me.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Robin said:


> Yeah, at this point my husband is out. I'll have to pre watch and let him know if it's safe before he'll watch with me.


That last episode of season 1 was pretty graphic, and seemed gratuitous in the depiction of rape. Definitely wasn't a pleasant viewing experience. I'll still watch season 2 though.


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

FYI,

The first episode of the second season is now available via On Demand from Starz.

Magical means also.

Officially airs tonight at 9:00p.m. EST.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Malcontent said:


> FYI,
> 
> The first episode of the second season is now available via On Demand from Starz.
> 
> ...


See post #254


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

Bierboy said:


> See post #254


The episode wasn't available via magic at that time. Now it is.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Malcontent said:


> The episode wasn't available via magic at that time. Now it is.


Yeah...whatever...smeek at will


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I just re-watched the last episode of the previous season. I had forgotten how graphic it was and it grossed me out a little this second time, too. I still think it's an excellent show, and I'm looking forward to watching the first of the new season in the next couple of days or so.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

That's definitely an episode I'll not be rewatching.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

brettstah said:


> that's definitely an episode i'll not be rewatching.


+1000


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

Howie said:


> I just re-watched the last episode of the previous season. I had forgotten how graphic it was and it grossed me out a little this second time, too. I still think it's an excellent show, and I'm looking forward to watching the first of the new season in the next couple of days or so.


Heck, I gave up before that. The torture and rape and the lack of killing the guy that really needed killing just turned me off. I liked the romance and the sex in the early episodes. And I'm all for tension and drama. Torture is where I draw the line (except for Game of Thrones and I ended up FFimg through all the Reek scenes). And I knew from my wife's reading of the books what was coming in that last episode.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> And I knew from my wife's reading of the books what was coming in that last episode.


I had read the books, and I knew what would happen. But they did not need to be so graphic about it. They went way past the "showing" into the "let's make the viewers want to not watch again", IMO.


----------

