Outlander Spoiler Thread - ONLY for those who have read the book(s) or WANT to know what's coming!:)

[Anonymous]

I have read them all. They get progressively less good, but for me at least, having fallen for the characters in book one I can't help myself. Every time a new one comes out I buy it and spend a few evenings on the couch, engrossed. Because even though it isn't as good, its still entertaining. Jamie never does travel through the stones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have read them all. They get progressively less good, but for me at least, having fallen for the characters in book one I can't help myself. Every time a new one comes out I buy it and spend a few evenings on the couch, engrossed. Because even though it isn't as good, its still entertaining. Jamie never does travel through the stones.

I never could muster up much interest in Briana or Roger, so my interest in the books really dropped off. Seriously, Briana bores me to tears.

[Anonymous]

Re DG interviews: apparently she's excited for the future rapes scenes with BJR.

I get that the series can't be all Wedding, but if it's rape, abduction, rape, beating, rape, then I guess I canna watch ye ken?

[Anonymous]

I'm ok watching up until that warm spring bath. After that, yawn. But yeah, it'll probably all still look pretty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm ok watching up until that warm spring bath. After that, yawn. But yeah, it'll probably all still look pretty.

Warm spring bath?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm ok watching up until that warm spring bath. After that, yawn. But yeah, it'll probably all still look pretty.

Warm spring bath?

Sorry - when they swim in the hot springs - the "warm bath" that she wanted.

[Anonymous]

I want to know when that red coat boss will finally get to nail Claire's keister.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want to know when that red coat boss will finally get to nail Claire's keister.

Hmmm. Doesn't sound like you've read the book, LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to know when that red coat boss will finally get to nail Claire's keister.

Hmmm. Doesn't sound like you've read the book, LOL.

+1
LOL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I dunno. The post-wedding scenes in the book are very nice and I wouldn't have minded a bit more of that in the show. But honestly, I think it would not have made very compelling TV to have another episode focused on them talking and making love, especially since there would be no flashback scenes to break things up visually. And I also think by not lingering over Claire & Jamie's relationship at this point--focusing on Frank, and how "forced" her relationship with Jamie actually is at this point, despite their connection, and how savage life can be in the 18th c--the show is doing a better job than the book at demonstrating why Claire wants to get the hell out of 1743 and back to the future. Spending another episode on Claire intertwined with Jamie would have made it seem very strange to the uninitiated viewer when Claire tries to leave him.

+1

I think the series is doing a very good job of laying out Claire's choices in a logical fashion. I liked the books (I'm stuck somewhere in book 4 or 5 - I've been reading about Jacosta's wedding for like 3 years - it's NEVERENDING and I can't get through it), but DG's writing style is VERY heavy handed and I sometimes struggled to empathize with Claire's reactions/choices in the books. There are plenty of instances where I felt like drama was created (which is odd when you're talking about a book) and overplayed/reacted to in order to lead to passionate sex. Diana seems to have some kinks and they come through in her writing.

My Mom was all crazy after the mid-season finale because Claire ran to the stones. She acted as if that isn't in the books. I had to remind her that in the books, Claire's escape is MUCH more premeditated. She's miles from the stones when she realizes her location and makes a run for it while Jamie and crew are meeting Horrocks. I actually liked how the show handled it better. It felt very organic.

I forgot until I read this thread that we won't see Jamie's rape in "real time" since the show is 99% from Claire's perspective. The last 8 episodes are going to be crazy action packed. Based on interviews I've seen the stuff with Gellis has been mentioned, Jamie's rape, going to Lallybroch and that doesn't even touch on Culloden. Didn't the book cover a span of like 2 years? And we're only a couple of months in. They've got a LOT of ground to cover in 8 episodes. 6 months to return is crazy long - especially since they're done filming. I wonder if we'll have to wait a full year after that for season 2?

[Anonymous]

The French part of book 2 was slow for me, but it got better. I'm 3/4 of the way through book 3 and really loved the first half of it.

References to a character as "the Jew" or "the Chinaman" or "the Chinese" (referring to one individual) are really grating. I get that this may be historically appropriate, but still. Beyond that, some of the descriptions of the Chinese man, Willoughby, seem downright racist. The story is being told by Claire, who at that point has a 1968 orientation (so 20+ years after events of the first books). I guess in 1968, they might have been socially acceptable, but it seems to unnecessary. For example, the way she refers to the traditional clothes he wears would be something like, "I saw the Chinese, wearing his usual blue pajamas, speaking excitedly to the tavern keeper."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I dunno. The post-wedding scenes in the book are very nice and I wouldn't have minded a bit more of that in the show. But honestly, I think it would not have made very compelling TV to have another episode focused on them talking and making love, especially since there would be no flashback scenes to break things up visually. And I also think by not lingering over Claire & Jamie's relationship at this point--focusing on Frank, and how "forced" her relationship with Jamie actually is at this point, despite their connection, and how savage life can be in the 18th c--the show is doing a better job than the book at demonstrating why Claire wants to get the hell out of 1743 and back to the future. Spending another episode on Claire intertwined with Jamie would have made it seem very strange to the uninitiated viewer when Claire tries to leave him.

+1

I think the series is doing a very good job of laying out Claire's choices in a logical fashion. I liked the books (I'm stuck somewhere in book 4 or 5 - I've been reading about Jacosta's wedding for like 3 years - it's NEVERENDING and I can't get through it), but DG's writing style is VERY heavy handed and I sometimes struggled to empathize with Claire's reactions/choices in the books. There are plenty of instances where I felt like drama was created (which is odd when you're talking about a book) and overplayed/reacted to in order to lead to passionate sex. Diana seems to have some kinks and they come through in her writing.

My Mom was all crazy after the mid-season finale because Claire ran to the stones. She acted as if that isn't in the books. I had to remind her that in the books, Claire's escape is MUCH more premeditated. She's miles from the stones when she realizes her location and makes a run for it while Jamie and crew are meeting Horrocks. I actually liked how the show handled it better. It felt very organic.

I forgot until I read this thread that we won't see Jamie's rape in "real time" since the show is 99% from Claire's perspective. The last 8 episodes are going to be crazy action packed. Based on interviews I've seen the stuff with Gellis has been mentioned, Jamie's rape, going to Lallybroch and that doesn't even touch on Culloden. Didn't the book cover a span of like 2 years? And we're only a couple of months in. They've got a LOT of ground to cover in 8 episodes. 6 months to return is crazy long - especially since they're done filming. I wonder if we'll have to wait a full year after that for season 2?

Based on this, I went googling. Looks like the series has been picked up for a second season (in addition to the next 8 episodes). HOWEVER, that second season will be based on Dragonfly in Amber:

http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/outlander-renewed-for-season-2-on-starz-1201283582/

I have no idea how they'll fit the rest of Outlander in 8 episodes.

I haven't read the first books in ages, but I definitely remember that Culloden is in DiA. I remember that because I accidently "read" that first (in audio book form) on a road trip to visit family. I was FLAT. OUT. BAWLING. MY. EYES. OUT. when Claire left Jamie for the stones to protect Brianna. Literally. I actually had to pull over and collect myself because I heard that part about 10 minutes before I showed up to my parents' house! I didn't want them to think anything was actually wrong.

I'd bet they do the whole going to Lallybroch in the next few episodes (maybe 2-3?), then the BJR/Jamie scene in eps 5-6, and the rescue as the season finale.

They cut out a ton from the book, but I guess that's to be expected.

[Anonymous]

I think they've made poor use of screen time, to only get this far in 8 episodes. I don't see how they can leave out the witch trial, since it's so instrumental to understanding the time travel and it sets up her revelation to Jamie. My bet is they cut the politics around Sandringham's visit to Leoch, which will be too bad. But they can't do anything with that and still fit in Lallybroch, Jamie's abduction, Wentworth, his escape, and the abbey in France. They need to keep the abbey. Claire's conversations with the monks were great.

Ew, DG said she's looking forward to the rape scenes? I don't usually bother with behind the scenes stuff, but when Jamie was first cast, I do remember reading something where she said he was SO great in the scene where he ends up beating Claire. Yeah, there's a lot of violence in the books and a lot of it is sexual, but I hadn't really pegged her as a rape/ sado fetishist. I thought she was going for historical accuracy. Repugnant.

[Anonymous]

The second half of the season will be action-packed for sure, but remember: they don't get to Culloden in the first book, that happens at the end of the second book, after they go to France.

Regarding DG and her kinks: I TOTALLY agree. I think a lot of the violence in the book makes sense within the context of the time, but I also think DG *likes* it and finds it a turn-out. Thus, she wants this hot, heavy relationship between Claire and the gorgeous Scot, but then she wants a reason for him to have to spank her (because DG is into that), so she engineers Claire's escape, without having properly demonstrated Claire's great desire to get back to Frank (because DG is so into Jamie herself). I think DG has woven a great yarn, and created some great characters, but I think she gets caught up in her own little fantasies at times. The show is approaching this from a much more objective viewpoint, and creating a better story because of it, IMO.

[Anonymous]

I just finished book 1 and am left wondering why they used an entire episode collecting rents. But the tv wedding was beautifully done and the series is nice on the eyes and ears.