April 1, 2015 at 3:57 am #7371
Is anyone still out there? I miss the thoughtful discussions on this board from the first half of the season, so I thought I’d start a new topic in the hope they will start again come this weekend.
Who else feels like a kid the week before Xmas?
April 1, 2015 at 11:52 am #7372Zina_tParticipant
I too feel very excited, can hardly wait for Saturday. There has been a new clip posted on FB and youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbtFxbEtFiA, Laoghaire confronting Jamie. This scene is not in the book, but a good addition to the series. Jamie is trying to be gentle with her, probably feeling guilty he hurt her feelings, but i can’t stop being disappointed in the way he handled this conversation, his trying to find excuses and blame it all on Dougal. His comments are even more misleading than his previous behavior towards Laoghaire. No wonder she feels he was forced into unwanted marriage and tries to get rid of Claire later on to free Jamie from such a burden. Not very honorable behavior if you ask me, suppose it is one of his flaws he learns to overcome as he grows older.
April 1, 2015 at 6:47 pm #7373
Yes! I just saw that clip and was startled by how much it digressed from the book version. I wonder if it is part of the way Ron and Co. are diverging from the book–I’ve noticed that the TV version has given various characters much different motivations for their actions than in the book. For instance, there was no hint of a sexual thing between Dougal and Claire in the book; Dougal’s hatred of Jamie was purely political. The show has given that hatred another layer, and one I don’t like. Same with this–in the book he did brush off Laoghaire, but not to the extent that he misled her about the marriage (at least, I don’t remember it being that way), so now Laoghaire’s jealousy has a deeper connotation. Maybe they’re doing that to heighten the tension, or maybe Ron and Co felt that the characters needed more motivation for their actions. I never really understood why Dougal wanted to kill Jamie in the books, but if he’s got an unrequited thing for Claire, it makes more sense.
April 10, 2015 at 3:41 am #7434
<I never really understood why Dougal wanted to kill Jamie in the books, but if he’s got an unrequited thing for Claire, it makes more sense.>
I got that in the book. Dougal wanted to kill Jamie because Collum’s life expectancy is compromised by his illness. If Hamish has not reached majority then both Dougal and Jamie (as Ellen’s son) have right to the Chieftanship (is that even a word?) The Clan could vote Jamie as Collum’s succesor. Very clever of Dougal to arrange the marraige between Jamie and Claire, as Collum points out, the Clan would not have Jamie as chief with an English wife. Thus Dougal has eliminated the threat without killing him.
April 22, 2015 at 7:05 pm #7770
Maybe Ron added the different twists to add more content or maybe to give the fine supporting actors more of a role.
April 2, 2015 at 9:28 pm #7375sonyakhanumParticipant
I’m super excited! And also miss the discussion! Work has been and will be quite insane for me for the next week, so I fear I won’t be able to fully and completely enjoy the show’s return. But, I’ll still watch it and will rewatch it when work dies down a bit 😀
April 2, 2015 at 9:37 pm #7377
The scene with Jamie and Loaghaire happens after they return and after Jamie and Claire have had their knock-out-drag-down-slap-silly fight on the road back. If Jamie and Claire aren’t sure where they stand with each other and haven’t yet admitted their true feelings to each other, why in the world would Jamie say any such thing to Loaghaire, or anyone else at Leoch for that matter? It’s none of their business at this point. So, I see Jamie being kind (“Dougal arranged it” – which is 100% true) to someone he still sees as a girl who will get over it and move on to another prospect. He wouldn’t predict the depths to which Loaghaire is going to go to get rid of Claire.
And this sets up for Loaghaire to believe she might get Jamie’s affections back if Claire is out of the picture. Which is important for later events, clearly.
It makes perfect sense to me as shown, actually, and is a great example of a scene that could very well have happened in the book, just off page away from Claire.
Did you see the clip EW released today of the fight on the road? Man, Caitriona and Sam just astound me every time! I haven’t seen any of the 109 screenings, so I’m dying for Saturday night to get here!
April 3, 2015 at 4:17 pm #7381
Katie—yes, that’s what I mean by Ron and Co. adding layers of motive to the TV characters that the book characters didn’t have. Yes, you assume that Loaghaire set Claire up to be at Gellies’ house because of her jealousy and hatred, but adding that scene between Jamie and her really amped up the emotional stakes.
And did you see where the premiere of Season 2 won’t be until 2016? I’m actually pretty angry at Starz about that. That’s more than 7 months between seasons. I know they’ haven’t started filming yet, but damn, I’m sick of waiting. I’m afraid if they keep dragging this series out they’ll lose viewers.
April 4, 2015 at 12:01 am #7385
All the cable shows I watch with high production values have 8-12 episode seasons with a year or more in between – Vikings, GoT, The Knick, Black Sails, Downton Abbey, Call the Midwife, etc., etc. Seems standard to me (and I really don’t have an issue with it). Which is why I don’t expect anything before April 2016 for season 2 *at the earliest*.
Sherlock is a 3 episode season with 18-24 months between seasons. And well worth the wait.
April 4, 2015 at 4:07 pm #7389sonyakhanumParticipant
Yeah, long breaks in between seasons is a standard thing for most cable television shows. With the high production quality, I’m not surprised. Each episode could be a full feature film in itself!
April 6, 2015 at 11:23 am #7400
I am fairly new to the forum so forgive me for jumping right in, but I didn’t like the down-by-the-river scene with Laoghaire at all. Putting all sentiment aside, it felt out of character for both Jamie and Laoghaire. Ignore the books. Just think about the show. This is an immature, jealous sixteen year old who is upset that her crush has married someone else — but she decides to seduce Jamie and give up her virginity to what end? To prove a point? And to what end do we see Jamie, who has been shown to be an honorable man deeply in love with his new wife, getting almost seduced? Where in the previous episodes and where in the character development to date is the foundation for this? Honestly it felt like aliens had landed.
April 22, 2015 at 7:12 pm #7771
I think the scene with Laoghaire by the river (according to Ron’d Podcast) was put in right after J and C’s blowout to show Jamie at a crossroads, he could walk away from Claire, her secrets and temper and abandon his vows or he could choose the “path” of a grown man and honor the vows he made with Claire.
I agree 7 months is way to long to have to wait, and there are only so many times I want to watch the episodes and read the books again and again.
April 3, 2015 at 7:55 pm #7382LalouParticipant
Sure, those endless breaks are exhausting. I guess it’s a marketing trick, but let’s keep in mind that post-production may take time with this kind of historic show. We know now that making costumes is a long-term job. What about the filming sets etc ? Maybe it will get simpler once they go to America.
I’m not sure about losing viewers, it seems that the book fans base will follow however long the wait.
April 3, 2015 at 11:51 pm #7383
Good point about the fan base. And since they’re filming in France next season (will it really BE France, or stand-in studios for France?) the production will be big, and long. Seven months seems to be somewhat excessive, though.
April 3, 2015 at 11:57 pm #7384
There might be some second unit filming in France, but the bulk of the French scenes will be shot in Scotland either in studio or in locations made to look like 18th century Paris.
April 10, 2015 at 3:53 am #7435
<There might be some second unit filming in France, but the bulk of the French scenes will be shot in Scotland either in studio or in locations made to look like 18th century Paris.>
I have been so impressed with the quality and authenticity of this production and for all it has done for the industry in Scootland! Kudos to all involved!
That said, I don’t know what the plan is for when they reach America (and seeing as how I live in the Appalachian Mountains would be thrilled to have the film crew here in Watauga County where several movies have been filmed) but even if they find a site in Scotland to use for Faser’s Ridge, it will break my heart (for many reasons) if they do not cast Native Americans in the roles of the Cherokee and Iroquois roles.
April 5, 2015 at 11:12 pm #7395
So, what did everyone think of E09? I like what they did with Laoghaire’s character, definitely gives her more of a motive for trying to off Claire.
April 5, 2015 at 11:38 pm #7396
I have many thoughts, but don’t have the time to put them all down coherently right now (that’s what I get for having two of my kids only two days apart – birthday party-palooza time around here right now!). I will when life calms down.
Mostly very impressed. I did have some disappointments, but I think that’s because of unrealistic expectations set by the super-fans who went to the early screenings more than anything else. More in a few days. 🙂
- This reply was modified 7 years, 1 month ago by Katie (@bunnums).
April 6, 2015 at 5:30 pm #7401michellibellParticipant
I thought the spanking scene was handled wonderfully. Knowing that it is one of the more controversial scenes in the books, adding the light, fun music to the background was a great choice. It really lightened the mood.
I loved this episode. I liked the tension between Collum and Dougal.
April 6, 2015 at 7:21 pm #7404
Thanks for starting this topic, I’m happy to see some folks are still around and are up for discussing the show.
First off, I loved Ep9 and think its the best one yet! I thought the differences from the book enhanced the story, rather than detracted from it. Yesterday I went back and re-read the pertinent chapters and found myself thinking OK, this sentence might have been what led the writers to extrapolate about this or that. I felt like the added scenes could have been a hyperlink from the book – showing what went on when Claire was not present – and then back to the regular text. (Sorry, I’m probably not explaining that visualization very well…)
I agree that the spanking scene was well done, especially in showing that at this point in their relationship Jamie & Claire didn’t “get” each other or their perspectives. It really got across the contrast between Jamie’s expectation that Claire would just submit to the spaking and Claire being outraged that he would even consider such a thing. I am glad they showed her putting up such a struggle. The music and cuts to the commentary from the men in the taproom helped alieviate some of the tension.
I didn’t mind the extra Laoghaire scenes either. I thought they brought an air of realism to the story and something I could relate to. I’ve personally seen men who are conflict-averse, very vested in their self-image as the “nice guy”, or wanting to keep peace at all costs within a social group behave in much the same way with the supposed gentle let down and not being clear about their feelings and intentions. Only to have their behavior come back and bite them in the ass later. I’ve seen women hang on to any scrap of attention, seeing only what they want to see and hearing only what they want to hear, and pursue men who are not interested in them only to be disappointed and bitter in the end. I thought the temptation of Jamie and his deliberate decision to try and fix things with Claire echoed modern marriages, where the couple might be going through a rough patch and one spouse is tempted by the hottie at work, but sees that as a wake up call to recommit to his/her spouse and work on their marriage instead of cheating.
I have seen many comments on social media about how the show seems to be “tearing down” Jamie. I would call the changes humanizing. In the book, I found Jamie to be almost too perfect and as a result, not that interesting. (Then again, I gravitate to characters that have nuance and depth and contradictions such as Severus Snape, Boromir & Faramir, Spike (BtVS), and that’s what I loved about all the characters on BSG.) Seeing different aspects of his character in the show has made him more likeable and renewed my interest – for example, how he easily demonstrated great people skills and conflict resolution with Colum and Dougal, but it took him much longer to figure out how to apply those skills to his relationship with Claire.
April 7, 2015 at 3:37 am #7406
That’s an interesting point about Jamie’s “people skills” in dealing with Colum and Dougal. The first watch-through, I wasn’t sure I was on board with that whole subplot Colum/Dougal feud. But after I thought about it I realized it is one of those TV changes that is giving the characters more depth AND more motivation to do what they already do in the book. The one big problem I’ve had with the books is that characters do Big Things with seemingly little visible (to the reader) motivation. I always thought the Laoghaire betrayal, for instance, was an overblown reaction to what was presented as little more than a jealous snit. The show has brought out those unwritten but important motivations very well so far.
And what IS with that whole “tearing down Jamie” thing anyway? A man can’t be emotionally astute and willing to change his attitude without being unmanly? I find it rather humorous that in this one episode he invades the stone walls of a fortress, rescues his wife, gives her the belt as punishment, and then is thought of as unmanly because he finally comes around and says, “I’m willing to try this balanced and equal relationship thing.”
On another topic, the whole ep had such a different vibe being from Jamie’s point of view, and while I understand why they did it I don’t think I like it much. The thing that drew me to the books, and the show, was its female perspective. I especially noticed it during the make up sex scene; the camera angles were a lot of the standard male-perspective shots that didn’t draw me in the way the Wedding did. That’s not to say I didn’t, ahem, appreciate it.
April 7, 2015 at 1:32 pm #7411
Interesting point about the makeup scene, I’ll have to go back and rewatch with an eye towards how it was filmed. That said, I never particularly cared for that scene in the book. The dialogue (I’m going to make you mine, call me Master, etc.) came across to me as eye-rolling or cringe-worthy or a cheesey cliche, not sexy in the least. I was thankful they didn’t belabor the point.
I found the argument by the river to be far more intense and passionate. That was probably my favorite segment of the episode. Both actors excelled at portraying the fear, worry, and love that was coming out as anger, in facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice.
Anyone having any thoughts about Claire slapping Jamie? I haven’t seen that discussed much.
April 22, 2015 at 7:20 pm #7772
Huh, I didn’t notice about the make up scene. I love the Jamie view point, it gives us a better look into his thought process on trying to figure out Claire, and this marriage business. He says it himself that he thought the spanking would be the end of it but how naive he actually was. I don’t do any of the social media discussions, gives me heartburn, I’m glad I found this. Thanks Terry.
April 7, 2015 at 2:20 pm #7416
I agree with AllisonL on the camera angles used in the makeup sex scene. I don’t spend a lot of time watching porn (well I don’t spend any time watching it) but I have seen films, both narrative and documentary, about the adult film industry and there was one shot in particular that seemed right out of those types of movies — and just as soul-less. It was all about getting the shot of that penis going in and out thing. There seemed very little emotional connection between the two people involved in the act – these were certainly not the lovers of The Wedding or Both Sides. In fact, this was not lovemaking, it was having sex. I actually preferred the make-up sex in the book, which at least involved passion — and sought to answer the question, will you have me? with an answering, yes.
I agree also on the scene at the river between Claire and Jamie. It was the most powerful and real scene in the whole episode. I appreciated the way Jamie restrained himself, even though lets face it Claire pushed and shoved him hard and got right up in his face. I didn’t have a problem with her doing that, or the slap, it seemed very real; but I think it is interesting that most fan discussions and professional reviews have focused on Jamie’s punishment of Claire — with not a word about her getting physical with him and his not hitting back. This said more about him than a lot that happened later. It said a lot about her, too. She could not have been so rough and aggressive with him if at bottom she didn’t trust him completely not to hit back. (Perhaps that was why she was so shocked by the later punishment, which was not about passion or anger of course but about 18th century mores.)
April 7, 2015 at 5:23 pm #7419
I think you’re right about Claire trusting Jamie enough to hit him, I didn’t think of that. It fits with the punishment, that she felt betrayed by him after trusting him like that. All the comparisons between this ep and “Fifty Shades of Grey” are so off base that I stopped reading them. I was so irritated at the Salon.com article; normally that writer is pretty good about understanding what she’s reviewing, but not that time. I actually thought the make up sex scene honestly captured the essence of what DG was trying to convey in the book–all the intense emotions of the last couple of days, between the capture, attempted rape, rescue, punishment, Leery’s jealousy, and the lingering anger culminating in some brutal (on both sides) lovemaking. In the book description of the scene DG does say the brutality was mutual:
“We savaged each other in desperate need, biting and clawing, trying to draw blood, trying each to pull the other into ourselves, tearing each other’s flesh in our consuming desire to be one.”
Interestingly, the small moment when Claire straddles him and puts him inside her was one of those honest and real moments that you never, ever see in movies or TV and what makes the sex in Outlander so believable. Any woman who’s ever had sex on top has done that. At that point in the proceedings it was all about the raw sex, but by the time they climaxed it had become lovemaking again. And in the book, when Jamie talks about not being able to master her soul without losing his own, Claire admits that Frank never “got” that, and I always felt that was the moment she fell in love with Jamie.
April 13, 2015 at 4:20 pm #7656
[quote quote=7435]<There might be some second unit filming in France, but the bulk of the French scenes will be shot in Scotland either in studio or in locations made to look like 18th century Paris.>
I have been so impressed with the quality and authenticity of this production and for all it has done for the industry in Scootland! Kudos to all involved!
That said, I don’t know what the plan is for when they reach America (and seeing as how I live in the Appalachian Mountains would be thrilled to have the film crew here in Watauga County where several movies have been filmed) but even if they find a site in Scotland to use for Faser’s Ridge, it will break my heart (for many reasons) if they do not cast Native Americans in the roles of the Cherokee and Iroquois.
Oops – just realized I’m jumping the gun a bit. We’re not there yet.
April 18, 2015 at 5:30 pm #7730
Glad to see this thread about the second half of the season! I did not plan to watch any episodes for awhile but circumstances put me at my sister’s house this week and we watched two episodes back to back. My sister has not read the books and so she just enjoyed being immersed in the series.
Of course I bring my thoughts about the books to each episode so here is my humble compare and contrast:
I enjoyed everything about the episode #9 rescue, the argument by the river, and the reckoning. Not sure why everyone referred to the reckoning as “the spanking” because Claire gets whipped with a belt…but it was just handled so well. SH really had a chance to shine in these scenes. I really enjoy LV’s portrayal of Geillis. She is such a nuanced character. I was impressed with many of the series’ adaptations to screen with Dougal, Column and Jamie. CB is such a wonderful actress and she creates a fantastic on screen Claire.
There are a few things I think the series should be mindful of. CB is just taller and more commanding than book Claire. There were times during the reckoning scenes that CB looked just as tall as SH. When CB slaps someone it’s going to appear very aggressive. Claire is strong in so many other ways not sure the physical stuff is all that necessary.
I did not care for the temptation of Jamie (his father was devoted to his mother, his sense of honor), Laoghere’s insult to Claire (she thought Claire was a witch and so would not have risked a “curse”) or the choreography of the make up sex scene (looking forward to the next one though). Sorry for any spelling errors. All for now.
April 21, 2015 at 9:00 pm #7761
Maureenanne that is a really interesting observation. I was taken aback by that slap. It was one thing for Claire to slap Jamie, her peer in strength (even though he’s clearly more than her peer in physical strength) and quite another to hit a younger, much smaller person. I hadn’t thought about it until you brought it up. I didn’t like Claire while she was doing it, and now feel that the writers/director really did her character an ill service. My question is why? What were they trying to prove? Why is Claire being shown as so physically aggressive for that matter? I don’t have a sense of her as being that way at all in the books. Brianna, yes. And that is one reason that I have always had a hard time with Bree: a big woman who slaps and hits people. What will the writers do with that character? And how can we expect the male characters to show restraint and not be willing to critique the women when they act out physically?
April 21, 2015 at 9:56 pm #7764
Episode 11 and the Claire that I relate to was back! CB’s performance was superb. It is interesting the different sides of the character developed by the various directors and writers. To me, this episode had the A team. After seeing the Raven dress that Terry posted I just had to watch the episode and it made me cringe to see this beautiful creation on Geillis in the thieves hole! I am inspired to do a version of this with a deep hunter green (if I can find the right textured fabric). Loved the erotic scene by the fire. Sometimes less is more.
My favorite scene was Claire placing her hand on LV’s belly. Just a simple gesture but it spoke volumes about her loving, caring nature.
April 22, 2015 at 7:27 pm #7775
I think the slap was purely reactionary to L talking about C being old and cold in bed. That must have hurt Claires pride coming from a 16 yr old and her worrying about being older than Jamie at 28.
April 22, 2015 at 7:23 pm #7773
Allison, I agree with what you said about the make up scene. It was about him trying to master her the way his family did it for generations and then finding out that you can’t master someone without losing yourself in the process.
April 22, 2015 at 4:48 pm #7766
I saw the slap as one of exasperation, not necessarily of malice—Laoghaire was, after all, acting like a spoiled brat. I did like the way Cait played the “apology,” though, like she really wasn’t sorry but had to say the words. I would be hard pressed not to slap L’eery myself, in that situation. What has REALLY intrigued me is that Ron has said, on his FB page, that the reason Jamie went back to the church was because he was looking for L’eery, and we’d find out more in Season 2. What the what?
April 22, 2015 at 7:25 pm #7774
Seriously, why was he looking for Laoghaire? Also when L told C that she would dance on her ashes I was yelling at Claire to spit in her face. Not my normal reaction, that’s just how emotional I got watching it.
April 22, 2015 at 7:28 pm #7776
Are you talking about Ron’s comment on Twitter during the live tweet on Sat evening? (Photo hopefully attached.)
Because that was completely tongue-in-cheek, which was confirmed later by people in the know. 🙂
April 22, 2015 at 7:42 pm #7778
That was my reading of it, as well. He made quite a few comments in that vein. Here is a compliation of all his tweets during the airing of that episode: http://www.threeifbyspace.net/2015/04/outlander-ron-moore-tweet-catch-up-episode-11/ I was glad to read them afterwards, it helped me understand the why behind certain artistic choices. (I haven’t had a chance to do the podcasts yet, I think that might be a project for the downtime before Season 2!)
My impression of the both of Claire’s slaps was that she must have seen Gone With The Wind before going back through the stones, and was channeling her inner Scarlett. I get the general impression that it wasn’t a “big deal” for movies done in the 30s and 40s, thinking of as another example “Wuthering Heights” – everybody was slapping everybody else in that one. There are plenty of blogs & articles about why films showing women slapping men is OK, even “cute,” and not treated the same way if the genders were reversed. Don’t have the engery to go there today…
April 23, 2015 at 3:31 pm #7790
yup, that was it. So he was just putting us on? Damn his eyes. 🙂 where was it posted that he was kidding?
April 25, 2015 at 8:42 pm #7876
Am I the only one who watched the “dark Black Jack is coming to get you” preview clip and have their stomach lurch? I read the books and I know what’s coming and I’m so filled with dread. I have a friend who is watching the show and hasn’t read the books, and we will be watching the last 2 eps. together, with scotch, for moral support.
April 25, 2015 at 8:54 pm #7877
Oh no, not just you AllisonL! And with all the foreshadowing in 112 “Lallybroch”? (Which I watched on StarzPlay last night.) The physical stuff will be hard to watch, no doubt, but it’s the emotional pain and torture and the “breaking” of Jamie’s heart and soul that’s going to do me in.
April 27, 2015 at 4:24 am #7894
For some reason this episode did me in, with the foreshadowing. I think it was the scene when Jamie is in Randal’s office. There’s something about how Tobias plays BJR that creeps me the hell out more than he ever did as a book character. I wasn’t that much of a Frank/BJR fan until now, and Jamie will always be my go-to, but Tobias is one amazing actor.
And what did we all think of the little FF when BJR was trying to “get ready” to rape Jenny? In the podcast Ron said that wasn’t specifically written into the script, but on the day they just were in the moment and went there, and it turned out to be perfect.
April 30, 2015 at 3:01 am #7926
Tobias Menzies is an incredibly brave actor. I’ve read quite a few criticisms about the episode and I’m trying to make sense of that given my husband’s reaction to the episode (he was blown away, has not read the books), Ron Moore’s very honest podcast (scripts can change, budget realities, imperfect art of TV making), and my usual reaction which is to try to compare the episode to the book (I loved the episode). My conclusion is that I have to stop doing the book/episode comparison. This series is going to have to be allowed some artistic expression because where once there was DG and her editor weighing in on the final product…now you have Ron Moore (and DG) and the many writers, directors actors that are charged with creating something new and wonderful based upon stories that many of us love. I can’t fathom what it takes to reach agreement on any one episode. I get the strong sense that all the folks involved are completely committed and so that is enough for me. I’m just going to be looking for the essence of the characters and not the book v. series conundrum. Getting back to TM as BJR, I was able to somehow marginalize his character when I read the books. I just read quickly through certain passages. With the series, I truly appreciate DGs ability to create characters of great beauty and great horror. The episode reinforced how BJR wrecked the lives of Jamie, Claire, Brian, and jenny. Tobias was brilliantly odious…smelling Jenny’s hair, sticking his dirty finger in her mouth, fondling himself (no penis envy here), propositioning a frightened, beaten young boy just kissed by his father. I don’t usually watch horror movies and so I can’t think of a darker character. Laura Donnelly was equally brilliant as the contrasting character. She was the heroic virgin martyr who managed to avoid rape by laughing at the devil. There has to be some saint story that comes close to this, right…like Cecelia that is thrown into a tub of boiling water and doesn’t burn. There were lots of softer moments that I enjoyed with Jamie/Claire and Jamie/Jenny. I know where this story is headed and I dread the Wentworth prison scenes. At this point I’ll watch out of respect for TM and SH because none of that could be easy. Whiskey, neat! Sorry for the rambling, typos, poor grammer.
April 30, 2015 at 10:37 am #7929
I thought it was a strong episode with a giant caveat that has to do with “the essence of the characters” as you put it so nicely Maureenanne. My caveat has to do with the essence of Jamie’s character. I may have written already about this so apologies if so, but with absolutely no comparison to the book — only looking at the character of television Jamie — I was very uncomfortable with “Lallybroch”. The charming, extremely smart, observant, canny, politically astute (see “The Gathering”) Jamie who grew up watching a good Laird, his father, and understands the significance of rents, (see “Rent”), has observed Colum, has fought in France with his comrade Ian, acts out and behaves boorishly and is an awful Laird. This television Jamie, who has gone through so much, and who was a man when we met him, seems to be regressing to something not really very likeable. Of course people regress a bit when they go home. But I don’t agree at all with the choice, whether by committee or not, to make this really nice, smart person suddenly not nice and badly behaved and not politically astute at all. In fact, petulant. I don’t think it was good character development. The drunken Jamie scene, were he is all “I am the Laird” was cute as can be. And that alone could have told us a lot about how he was seeing himself. The writers didn’t have to take a brick bat to a character they spent some time developing. Of course he is flawed, but he is who he is. Why change horses here?
April 30, 2015 at 1:51 pm #7930
I think you make some very valid points. We see Jamie regress to the boy he once was playing dress up in his father’s clothes, brandishing his father’s sword and squabbling with his sister. Perhaps the visit to the grave will not only heal his relationship with his sister but give him some perspective and resolve. I’ll be looking for this in the next few episodes.
Overall I think CB and SH are persuasive as Claire and Jamie. There are times when some directors/script writers portrayed Claire too aggressively and Jamie less commanding. Not sure why. Jamie is a natural leader with a commanding presence. He’s rough around the edges as would be most men of his time. Claire is the keen observer always trying to make sense of her surroundings. At the end of the season I’ll try to go back and figure out which episodes best embody this. For now I think the Gathering for Jamie and episode 11 for Claire.
April 30, 2015 at 2:09 pm #7931
Yes, he regresses to a boy, well put. Around 10 years of age. But he isn’t 10. He is 23 (or so). He could still have a fraught relationship with his sister, full of misunderstanding, and continue to be portrayed as an adult male able to lead. Yes make him flawed, but with the flaws of a fully realized adult. What is it with the writers’ seeming need to infantilize him, kind of cut him down to size?
And with Claire, yes you are so on the money! She is written/directed to be aggressive to the point the audience has to wonder, can this woman have no nuance? This is something that started with “Rent” I think and continues here. Claire can be written as a modern woman in strange circumstances who stands up for herself and others as the writers did so beautifully in “Sassenach”. But too often aggression seems to replace thoughtfulness. (Jenny and the trollop remark is an example of the writers going over the top also. What did that tell us about Jenny? Nothing good.)
May 1, 2015 at 2:07 am #7940
It’s interesting that you mention Rent because that was an episode that had a scene or two that fell short. I later read an interview with CB and she was very candid that a challenge for her is to just stroll along naturally (picture castle leoch where she was strolling over a bridge and sees Dougal with Hamish) v. what she did for 10 years as a high fashion model. There was a scene in one of the local establishments where she walks toward Dougal (I think) in this very aggressive way and it seemed off to me. After reading the article I thought Hmmm I wonder if this is what she is talking about. I could see a model walk like this in one of Terry’s fabulous creations 🙂
CB’s strength is her expressive face and hands. I keep telling my husband that it is like studying a Rembrandt painting…it’s all about the eyes and the hands. I think she does capture many wonderful Claire moments.
April 30, 2015 at 2:40 pm #7932
I didn’t see Jamie as regressing when I watched the episode, I saw him as being a little punch-drunk with new freedom and power, stepping into a role that has been a fantasy for him his entire life. He let his fantasy of what it was supposed to be like being laird (being compassionate to the tenants, for one) lead him to make immature choices. I also saw it as the way the writers created conflict in the episode, which they needed to do. DG is a gifted writer, but there are long, long, LONG stretches in her books in which there isn’t much conflict/resolution, which is essential for a TV show. Each ep. has to have a story arc within the large arc of the season, and the even larger arc of the series. There was no way they could have all just hung out at Lallybrach, having sex and declaring their love, the whole episode the way they do in the book. A strong, confident leader Jamie is a boring Jamie (from a TV perspective, anyway). And I can’t help but remind myself that Jamie is the same age as a lot of frat boys I knew in college and the kids of friends I have now. Although most of them are strong and confident they also can be boneheads a good deal of the time.
I didn’t like the “trollop” comment either, it was out of character for Jenny and it established the wrong impression of her for nonreaders. I expect they did that to create more of a conflict with Jenny that will be resolved after Jamie is captured, but it was over the top. Something else I missed from this ep is the appearance of Murtagh brining their things from Castle Leoch, and the story of how Mrs. Fitz threw a fit and fought Collum about whether to rescue Claire. I fell in love with Mrs. Fitz at that moment. I hope we see more of her in the show even though that’s the last of her in the book.
April 30, 2015 at 5:42 pm #7935barbc624Participant
I have to agree with Jackie. Jamie didn’t ring true to the character they have created in the show (not even going into the book character – that way lies madness!). You can’t make excuses by comparing him to 23 year olds of today. In the 18th century people grew up and became adults early,both males and females.The extended adolescence of modern times didn’t exist. You were either a child or an adult, and adulthood probably started around 16-17.
Jamie has studied in France, fought as a mercenary, survived imprisonment and flogging by BJR, has lived as an outlaw, has navigated a potentially deadly situation at the Gathering through his wits and diplomacy, and has given Collum very astute counsel about Dougal. On top of that he has been brought up and trained to be the Laird since he was 8 years old. He would have known what to do and how to behave as Laird without acting like an arse. He might have been unsure and uncomfortable at first but he would have kept that to himself (and maybe Claire) just as he kept quiet and dealt with Dougal’s behavior during “Rent” without making a public scene of it. To have him revert to a 23 year old frat boy just didn’t make any sense to me.
Yes, siblings bring out the child in us, but that could have been shown and expanded during the Jenny interactions. To have him be a bumbling, egotistical fool to others when trying to be the Laird, didn’t ring true to the character. It wasn’t the mistakes he made, those were believable, but the attitude he had.
As far as conflict, there was room for plenty of conflict between Jenny and Jamie. There are definite issues there that could have been expanded on. Drama doesn’t always have to be in your face, over the top action to be good. Personally I think that it insults the viewers intelligence to think that every episode has to have some kind of obvious overt conflict. The show got that in the first few episodes, but seems to have forgotten it in EP 112.
Episode 111 was so fraught and emotional that a step back to a more subtle interpersonal drama between Jamie and Claire and Jenny would actually have been a relief. A chance to take a breath before what is coming.
I’ve enjoyed the show so far and expect to continue to enjoy it but for me Episode 112 was a miss and I probably won’t ever rewatch it and will try not to think of it again.
I did like drunk Jamie and the graveyard scene with Jenny as well as theJamie/Claire conversations in the Laird’s bedroom and at the end.
May 2, 2015 at 1:26 pm #7941
Spoiler if you have not watched The Watch!
I am watching The Watch and honestly they have lost me. Who really cares about any of these people? A perfectly good story really needs this whole subplot? The constant emphasis on minor characters, now the men of The Watch, and made-up and drawn out conflicts at the expense of through story, seems really odd to me as a TV watcher not just as a reader of the books. Everyone’s lives are under threat (an artificial one created in the writers’ room) and then we have a pause for intermission, a nice domestic chat about how it feels to be pregnant, this from the books. (This is a strong scene and Jenny is excellent.) Honestly, I just don’t care anymore.
- This reply was modified 7 years ago by jackie.
May 5, 2015 at 2:53 am #7948
Spoiler – my thoughts on The Watch!
We know from previous episodes that Jamie was willing to be flogged or killed to save his sister’s virtue. They made peace in the last episode. We also learn that Jamie lost his mother (and sibling) to childbirth and we hear the screams from Jenny who is facing an unlucky breech birth. You would think that would engage Jamie in Jenny’s story. It is my opinion that the episode lost an opportunity to show how helpless men of that time would have felt when their loved ones were giving birth. We see a bit of that with Ian. Jamie’s response to Claire’s concerns that she could not conceive would have been so much more believable if Jamie appeared to be at all concerned with his sister’s welfare. ( He’s already kicked his sister out of the master bedroom knowing she is in her final stages of pregnancy.) Let’s see…I lost my beautiful mother (and sibling) in childbirth, my sister is going through complete hell, I have a price on my head…it’s ABSOLUTELY for the best that Claire has not yet conceived. However, Jamie is way too preoccupied with The Watch burning hay, dirty boots on the Laird’s table and the compass and coins that Horrocks is stealing.
I do understand Allison’s point that there needs to be action sequences that move the episodes forward. I am of the opinion that the Watch and Horrocks and McQuarry was just overwhelming for this episode and took Jamie’s character development off course. If the reason for having this episode was to show Jenny giving birth, then allow that to develop and choose one of action threads or bring Murtagh or Dougal back into the picture. Murtagh and Dougal getting drunk with Ian and Jamie would have felt exactly right to me. I would have been happy with an episode where we see a young Jamie, maybe some adventures that he, Ian and Jenny had as children, a glimpse of Brian and Ellen and their married life. Their presence and influence is still pervasive at Lallybroch and it would have been a bittersweet glimpse into the life that Jamie and Claire could have had.
A small criticism…Pregnancy is a fun and beautiful time and I would have loved that silhouette of Jenny in her shift before labor but not during. During labor it was just creepy. I had a baby in breech position, the labor is not at all normal and I think I would have shot my husband if he tried to take a pic like that of me. I also did not care for the men looking down at Jenny laying on a heap of hay. It reminded me of the mare having difficulty foaling and Claire having to help out with that. Sorry, that appears in the story not the series but I can’t erase those memories. All I kept thinking was poor Jenny is now the mare….
On a positive note, I loved the sets for Lallybroch. The costumes were my favorite of the season. Claire and Jenny are fantastic together. I liked the scene where Jenny tells Claire what pregnancy is like. It would have been better before the labor started. Once labor starts, it is really hard to go there with your mind. The birthing scene where Jenny and Claire are crawling around and then Jenny sits back on her lap…I was right in that moment and I remembered that pain! Wee Jamie, Pan and Merlin steal the show. I was impressed with the actors portraying McQuarry and Horrocks. Again I don’t think there was enough time for all of that so I’ll go with Horrocks because he sets up my favorite scene in the episode. Ian running Horrocks through! I loved Ian and Jamie in this moment. Ian is shaking and Jamie is solid as a rock. Finally.
May 5, 2015 at 4:45 pm #7949
The whole “we’re more concerned with the Watch then Jenny’s possible childbirth death” thing did strike me as off, but not until I thought about the ep later. I recall in the book that Ian was pretty torn up thinking Jenny was dead, until Claire told him otherwise. And I did not get why Claire made Jenny give birth on blankets on the floor, and not in the bed. Was it the crawling around thing? That lost me. The only thing I can say in defense is that neither woman told the men how dangerous this birth was going to be, and really, what can a man do other than sit downstairs and drink while his wife is screaming upstairs? My thought is that they were thinking, they can’t do anything about what’s going to happen with Jenny, its in Gods hands, and if she’s going to die she’s going to die whether we leave or not—but there is another immediate danger we CAN control, which is the Watch. If that was the motivation I wish it would have been clearer, because it does look like the men just said, WTF, let’s go on a raid.
May 5, 2015 at 2:15 am #7947
I just watched The Watch (ha) and I actually liked what Ron and co. did with it. DG herself mentioned it in her FB page, that it was both not anything remotely like the book and exactly like the book at the same time. There was so much they pulled from the book that I was very happy to see. But the whole Watch thing–I know why they did it, but I thought it screamed “something bad is coming, something Really.Bad. is coming” the entire time. I mean, bad guys are always dirty, and those guys were filthy. 🙂 In the books the whole Lallybroch thing is a peaceful interlude, then Jamie is whisked away off camera with no real set up or explanation. I like that the show brought that to the front and gave it a more visual explanation, and I like the way they brought Horricks back into it. I also thought the juxtaposition between the tension in the birthing room (is Jenny going to die??) and the increasing tension with the Watch was interesting. But I found myself so tense and stressed out toward the end that I couldn’t watch, gods know what I’m going to do for the last 2 episodes.
May 11, 2015 at 1:40 am #7956
Spoilers Episode 114!
Watching this episode on Mother’s Day was a pleasure. There were lots of intimate moments in the midst of big drama. Jenny and Claire set off on this desperate attempt to rescue Jamie…and Jenny’s milk comes in. She proceeds to take care of things while Claire watches fascinated. It just reminded me of times when my friends had babies before me and they were showing me or telling me what it was like and I’m thinking that is so cool…really, my body is going to do that? It’s a very lovely moment before the action starts back up. Murtagh and Claire are literally at the end of the line with their search, at the end of their rope with each other and we finally get to see the vulnerable side of Murtagh. His unrequited love for Ellen has been channeled into his fatherly love for Jamie. He made me cry. This is going to sound strange but I loved the Dougal and Claire scene in the cave. The banter back and forth about the pieces on the chessboard for Claire and Lallybroch was just brilliant and better than anything I have seen on GOT for awhile. Claire agreeing to marry Dougal is so complex…is it purely tactical for her own protection, for Lallybroch, does she plan to somehow divert the rebellion…oh well, to me Dougal acknowledges Claire’s intelligence here which is so rare for a man of this time. It was an oddly intimate scene.
So now I just have to gush…how adorable was CB as the Sassenach troubadour or the fortune teller? The whole Murtagh and Claire quest was quirky and I love quirky. Great scene with the puppets reenacting Claire’s disappearance at the stones. Loved the twist with the faeries. The juggler outfit was just dashing on Claire. Claire’s favorite song from the 40s set to a song that would get Jamie’s attention.
So glad this episode aired today since Wentworth would have sent us moms into complete meltdown. My husband has promised to watch wentworth with me holding my hand and telling me…this is just a show…they are just acting….SH is just fine. Here have another scotch.
So, did any of you view Jenny differently after this episode? I loved how the director had Jenny give the housekeeper a quick kiss before she left Lallybroch and then Claire before she left the search. I am trusting you both to care for my loved ones until I see them again. Happy Mother’s Day all.
May 11, 2015 at 5:11 am #7957
I’m mixed about this episode—I loved it for all the reasons maureenanne did, except for the scene with Dougal. I don’t think Claire really would have bargained marriage with Dougal in exchange for …what, exactly? She got nothing from him. He didn’t give her any help, just said he wouldn’t stand in her way. He is already convinced Jamie is dead so he has nothing to lose, literally, in the bargain. I’m going to have to watch it again but it doesn’t make sense.
I’m with you about the last two episodes. I’ve already lined up a team of sympathetic friends I’ll be watching with.
May 31, 2015 at 11:41 am #8065
It seems to me that there is a problem between Ron Moore and both the character Jamie and the real life actor Sam who plays him. On the character: Ron seems to have intentionally set out to diminish Jamie as well as the bond between Claire and Jamie culminating in the well executed rape and torture at Wentworth that almost destroys Jamie but also has him responding not just physically (which happens in rape) but sexually. (I know, I know, he thought he was Claire, if you buy that.) You can see what Ron is doing with the two characters, making them a, if not the, central relationship for narrative purposes instead of Jamie and Claire.
On the other side, Ron is enamored it appears of both the characters Frank and Black Jack and the actor Tobias Menzies. Ron has said he wants to expand the Black Jack role, just because Tobias is so good. Ron thinks, he says, Frank is a great character and wants to expand it, too. Now Ron is giving interviews about the characters taking on lives of their own, especially in the context of Frank especially because he wants to use Tobias more. Of course things change in television adaptations, but not usually in the first season and not usually making such sharp angled turns. When a relationship is the core of a story, usually that is fully and solidly established, before branching out. Claire and Jamie are the core of the story in the books, but not apparently to Ron.
In True Blood things changed as they did in the books, but the show succeeded first thing in establishing the centrality of Sookie’s relationship with Bill. It didn’t muddy the waters almost immediately. And regardless of her later relationship with Eric and with others down the line, we at least knew where things began and why.
In Outlander, Ron cemented the centrality of Claire’s relationship with Frank, at the expense of viewers getting to understand the power of the relationship between Claire and Jamie. There are a lot of people out there still mystified as to why Claire chose to stay in the 18th century: the foundation for that decision was unclear. In To Ransom she finally says to Jamie that she believes the very reason she was sent back in time was to be with Jamie. But, the audience is told it and not shown it. The joyful parts of their falling in love are brief, we do not see the strength of the bond that keeps her from returning to her own time. The book characters (forgive me) actually have conversations, banter, and are equals. It’s fun. But we only are allowed in the television show a glimpse of that after lots of screen time establishing the primacy of the Claire-Frank relationship. We see Jamie literally sacrificing his body as promised to save Claire, and Claire going crazy trying to save him, but why? what is it they see in one another?
On Sam: It has become noticeable to fans of the show and even academic researchers that Ron has a problem with Sam. What that problem is, no one knows. But it is objectively manifesting itself in public. Over and over Ron gives interviews wherein he praises Cait and Tobias and says NOT ONE WORD about Sam or maybe mentions his character if he is forced to. Even in interviews about Wentworth and To Ransome a Man’s Soul he has little if anything to say about Sam, the actor. It is clear that he has a bias, but what is it? Does he find Sam uninteresting as an actor? Then why did he cast him? Is it that he just cannot abide the character Jamie, who he eye roll, finger quote, calls the King of Men? Has he had to mentally un-man Sam as well as Jamie to create his own Outlander world?
- This reply was modified 6 years, 11 months ago by jackie.
June 1, 2015 at 7:22 pm #8096
Jackie, I have not noticed anything remotely resembling what you’ve observed about Ron’s attitude or feelings toward Sam, and I’ve probably read 90% of the interviews and podcasts and videos out there relating to Outlander. All the things I’ve read leading up to 115 and 116 from Ron discuss how intense and uncomfortable the shoot was for both men, a lot of the logistics about filming in the cell, and how the TV story is different from the book story, but I never felt that he was slighting Sam in the least. Can you point me to the sources you’ve read that make you feel this way?
As far as changing the importance of the central characters, I don’t agree that the focus is going to move from Jamie and Claire. I’m actually excited to see some of the Claire/Frank stuff in season 2, which is just alluded to in DiA, and later in Voyager. The idea that she has to go on living without Jamie, and be with a man that she once loved, who betrays her with other women, and all the while thinking Jamie died, is going to be some incredible storytelling. All the things about her character that Jamie loved, and Frank ignores, to see how Claire lives with that day to day is going to take some amazing acting from Cait, which I know she can pull off. Those 20 years apart changed both of them, but in the books you get a lot more of Jamie’s life during that time (in Voyager, which I’m rereading now so it’s fresh in my mind) and so much less of Claire’s. Then to see how their love is so strong that it overcomes all of these things–wow, that will be something. And how Frank struggles to love a woman who bore another man’s child, and how much that child looks like Jamie, and knowing that she doesn’t feel for him what she once did, but still choosing to stay with her anyway, yeah, I want to see Tobias do that. I think, in every way that counts, focusing on the Claire/Frank storyline will only reinforce the Claire/Jamie lovestory by showing how inferior everything else is. My only issue is that we have to wait 8+ months for the story to continue.
June 1, 2015 at 7:50 pm #8097
I want to first apologize for having been so hard on Ron in my post. I didn’t mean to be. And I am especially bummed as people have been really unkind toward Terry on twitter — although she has been giving as good as she got for sure — about an EP who is also her husband and love. I logged on a couple of hours ago and thought I would edit my post, but for some reason the edit function wasn’t working. Having said that: what I said in my post is not something that I have observed, it’s something that hundreds or even thousands of women (mainly) have noticed and commented on on blogs and Facebook and Twitter. So, it is in the water. And in fact, on a post in one of the private Facebook groups, an academic researcher was quoted as having noticed while doing her research on the adaptation of Outlander for television that there was a marked disparity in the number of mentions by Ron of Sam as compared to mentions of Cait and Tobias. When she realized there was a disparity, she went back and started counting. I believe it was part of a presentation at a conference. Because her research involved observing and interacting with the fandom on social media in order to understand how they responded to the adaptation, she got a pretty good idea of what people were thinking. So, this is not just me. But it is interesting that ordinary fans (not the kind who look up peoples’ kilts!) were noticing also. I don’t have the original post where she talks about the numbers, but I can give you a link to a series of abstracts for a conference that address adaptation and the romance novel. (Looking…) Ok here you go: http://teachmetonight.blogspot.com/2015/04/romance-iv-outlander-adaptation-and-art.html I can’t give you links to the many online conversations about this as they are closed groups on Facebook. So, even with the link you wouldn’t be able to see anything. So that’s the best I can do. I will say this: I read DIA (which is not a real easy read) into the wee hours of the morning weeping over the discovery Claire and Roger and Bree made and then immediately downloaded Voyager, still weeping, from joy that they had found him, from fear that he was gone, from joy that there was a chance he still lived, through fear that Claire wouldn’t find him. I have never been a fan in my life (well, I have always had crushes on some of Jane Austen’s male protagonists) and the experience of Outlander, and DIA and Voyager, brought me into a fandom. At times, in the first throes of love (so to speak) I felt as though I were existing in two worlds simultaneously, my 21st century New York world and 17th century Scotland. I stayed up all night for days reading those three books. And with all my heart I say, it wasn’t because of Frank.
- This reply was modified 6 years, 11 months ago by jackie.
June 1, 2015 at 8:05 pm #8099
At first glance, I’m not particularly impressed with Dr. Matthhews’ assersions – seems like she’s finding what she set out looking for. If you take a look at the summary of another conference paper/panel, she seems to have an axe to grind. For example, “My paper examines this influence by showing how Gabaldon uses her position as the author to offer the “correct” interpretation to readers’ questions, all while creating an online persona that is friendly to those who agree with her, but caustic to those who do not.” Perhaps her papers would impress me more if they were available to read in their entirety (including footnotes & backing data), as well as any peer reviews, not just a couple of paragraphs of summary.
Also, I’m highly curious if Dr. Matthews will be at all involved in DG’s appearance at an upcoming book festival hosted by her academic instution.
- This reply was modified 6 years, 11 months ago by AnCatDubh1980.
June 2, 2015 at 11:43 am #8107
I am sorry you were not impressed AnCatDubh but these were abstracts and the only link I had. I would not characterize hypotheses as assertions or even agendas: it’s the way academic research works. You look at the data, you see patterns, you form a hypothesis that may explain what you are seeing, and then you do the research, gathering the evidence — hoping to prove your hypothesis but knowing you may find out you are wrong. Or you may end up going down an unexpected pathway and reformulating the original hypothesis. As far as the numbers are concerned, numbers are numbers. Professor Matthews went back and literally counted.
June 2, 2015 at 1:04 pm #8109
I am very well aware of how the process of academic research works, no need to be condescending. I am also well aware of the fact that multiple scholars can examine the same body of data and arrive at vastly different interpretations and conclusions, most likely according to their confirmation biases. I’m a skeptic, I’m not simply going to read an abstract and accept that as TRUTH. Sorry.
June 29, 2015 at 3:08 pm #8175
I wasn’t being condescending. I was explaining the process of discovery in academic research, because you said she seemed to have found what she set out to find. Based on your problem with Professor Matthews’ “assersions” etc. you didn’t seem to get that this kind of work starts with a hypothesis. But if you are familiar with academic research, great. But there was not a darn thing condescending about what I wrote. It was informational. And I didn’t (and neither did Professor Matthews) claim it was the “TRUTH”. Really? But numbers still don’t lie.
June 1, 2015 at 8:45 pm #8101
She lost me with the Art of the Middlebrow.
I am fairly new to social media and so I have only a few things that I follow to gain a better understanding of the making of the show. I agree with Allison in that I have not noticed a trend in Ron favoring one character over another. He seems to find time to point out strengths in all of the characters.
I did see the negative messages sent directly to Ron and Terry and can’t fathom why someone would think that is the right way to provide feedback. I am sure Starz, Ron et al have methods to acquire meaningful feedback from fans. Given the events of yesterday, maybe this Outlander leadership could direct fans to a site so that they can vent at their leisure. I find this blog really valuable because I feel like we can communicate with one another and talk through challenging episodes without calling anyone out personally. There have been aspects of certain episodes that didn’t quite work for all of us and I find it interesting to hear everyone’s thoughts. It does not detract at all from my love for the novels and series.
June 1, 2015 at 11:59 pm #8102khenlowParticipant
I’m so perplexed why people would be so mean to the TV cast and crew. They clearly worked so hard on season 1. Even if you don’t like their artistic choices, you can be respectful. I just don’t get why, in a world so full of angst and sadness, we can’t all find the space to be kind. Call me naive, perhaps. But life is too precious and short to be caught up in anger.
[gets off soapbox]
I agree wholeheartedly that it’s possible to love the show and the books, and, to that end, I wrote about just that topic here: It’s called “Why Book to Screen Adaptations Can be Great, or What I Learned from Watching Outlander” – http://redshuttersblog.com/2015/05/outlander.html.
I welcome your thoughts. Thanks, all.
June 2, 2015 at 1:19 pm #8110
I saw some of the Twitter storm, but stopped reading because I didn’t need that kind of negativity in my day.
WRT your comment about being perplexed about why people would be mean to Ron, Terry, et al. I get the impression that some fans feel like since they pay their $15.99/month for Starz, that they are entitled to get what they want or complain loudly about it to anyone within earshot. Ron et al have been very generous with the fans in terms of explaining their artistic choices and the how’s and why’s behind creating the show. But that’s not enough. It seems like there are some virulent fans that will not be satisfied with anything short of a mea culpa along the lines of yes, we f’d up the show, we’ll have Starz pull it and go back and reshoot exactly the way you, Miss Twitter Troll, want it done.
It was kind of interesting that I was reading some posts over on the DG Compuserv boards and one person started a thread about how s/he preferred TV Jamie to book Jamie, and didn’t think DG was the greatest writer. Of course this person got jumped on, but what I found fascinating was the number of other posters criticizing the OP for critizing the books becuase they weren’t “the books s/he wanted to read.” But many of those same posters, in other threads, certainly felt very free to critize the show. No smackdown for expecting “the show s/he wanted to watch” anywhere to be found.
Thanks for sharing your blog post. I think what frustrates me the most about all the bitching and moaning is the utter lack of perspective shown by these individuals.
Other great adaptations (if you speak French or don’t mind subtitles): La Reine Margot & The Horseman on the Roof.
June 2, 2015 at 11:07 pm #8113
I have a lot of issues with DG’s writing (rape as a plot device is a big one) and Fiery Cross was such a slog that it made me put off the entire series for 15 years, but she CAN tell a good story. And her characters jump off the page. For me, the show has given so much more depth to all the characters, especially secondary ones like Dougal and Murtaugh. I never felt that Jamie was given the short shrift in the series so I don’t understand that sentiment from all the Miss Twitter Trolls (that is fantastic and I’m gonna use it a lot!). I agree, AnCatDubh, that I, too, cannot fathom why people can’t wrap their small minds around the truth that *a TV show can’t put in everything from the book*. It’s not possible, and it would be a terrible, boring show if they did. Why is that so hard to understand? Yeah, I was sad the hot springs didn’t make it (and so, apparently, was DG) but I completely understand why. And after seeing 116, I totally understand why Ron wanted to cut the Father Anslem bit. Without the context of the perpetual adoration and his conversation with Claire after the confession when he absolved her of the sin of bigamy, it made little sense and dragged down the pacing of the episode. A clear case of “sometimes the book stuff doesn’t work on TV.” What I’m afraid of is that Ron, Terry, and the rest will pull back from sharing so much of their work behind the scenes because of the vitriol.
June 3, 2015 at 1:02 am #8118khenlowParticipant
Thanks for reading my post, all, and thanks for the other books to check out – I will add them to my never ending Goodreads to read list!
June 2, 2015 at 2:23 am #8103
I enjoyed your article and I would recommend Hardy’s “Far From the Madding Crowd” as a fabulous book to screen adaptation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.