Outlander (Tv show)

[Freshwater Spartan]

I am going to try something new for this show at least for this season. Normally I am a read first kind of guy. This time I am going to read just enough to keep ahead of the show, then watch the episode.

So far after three episodes I like what I see. I actually like the slower more patient pace. The violence and sex has so far been minimal but real and not gratuitous. This is a plus as more tv shows just mindlessly try to push the boundaries at the cost of the story. I'll disagree with most and say that the interior dialog has been done well for the most part. Then again I really enjoy Terrence Malik movies.

[Le Cygne]

I don't mind the voiceover, either. On second thought, I think I'll try that, too, but a variation, read after the episode. If it gets too unfaithful, I'll stop reading.

[Zorral]

The violence in Outlander, the novel at least, is always personal -- if not absolutely about one's own very self, then about family, about clan, about punishing-reinforcing that often acting only on one's own choices put EVERYONE IN DANGER and some people got hurt, badly, about "saving" Scotland from the Brits -- and vice versa: saving Britain from the Scots, about one's personal honor, and / or about one's own obsession with a particular person, where vengeance and sado-masochist stalking, as well as punishment for resisting British sovereignty tend to blend together in a scream of violence, that is o so personal. In some ways, there's this figure in the novel (and presumably in the series) who, in these days we could view as a very scary stalker.

With large dollops of examinations on the nature of loyalty, of love, of honor, and so on. Rather refreshing in these days. :cheers:

But if grit is what people want, well, not many baths, lots of mud and excrement and blood -- how much more grit do we need? O, we mean good people get killed in the order of defending their own people, well, that happens too.

[maria underfoot]

Episode 4 was great, the best so far IMO.

I wasn't that interested in the whole escape plot, but it was useful as a plot device to acquaint viewers with the politics and traditions of the Mckenzie Clan.

The scenes in the forest were beautiful, the music in the entire episode really stood out for me, both the Scottish tunes and the 20s song that played in the background, the game scene was very exciting, and the acting gets better and better. (just like Jamie gets more handsome every episode). I really enjoy Lotte Verbeek's character.

[Zorral]

There are some recappers whose knees one is sorely tempted to want, well, you know. It's as though they insist in watching the episodes for what they think they want, as opposed to what the writers and actors actually say and do. They complain constantly that things make no sense. Or insist something is something that it wasn't I don't get it, especially the description of what happened in this scene, which is what happened in the novel too -- not what a recapper close to home said was going on -- also then mis-reading the character of the man involved:

Colum did not try to rape Claire -- he claimed his time's right to feel her up enthusiastically, and Claire claimed her right as a woman of any time to clonk him good for doing that. Certainly that's harassment, but sheesh, that's part of what she's dealing with -- and I'll bet a lot of money she had to deal with as a nurse in battle field conditions from the doctors, officers, etc. too.

So far, I'm liking this very much.

[Ghost's Shadow]

I just finally watched episodes 2 and 3. They were amazing.

Couldn't believe that Jamie basically took the punishment because *he* was the one that was dishonouring, basically, Leghair (close enough)? Tsk tsk tsk.

And then Claire crying 'because she missed the intimacy with Frank'. Yeah, right. :P

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Laoghaire. It's one of those names that make people yearn for the sense and simplicity of 'Aoife'. :lol:

[Ghost's Shadow]

:lol:

I'm keeping track of an Outlander book forum's series section (haven't read the books myself), and yeah, someone called her Leghair there, if it wasn't here. :lol:

[sj4iy]

Here’s my review of episode 4. Keep in mind, I have not read the books, so this review comes solely from watching the show.

Good points:

Action! - finally, we get an episode with a lot going on and little ‘down time’. This was the first episode that actually felt like it moved quickly for me, and I enjoyed that. A thwarted escape attempt and a boar hunt made for good television. And now that Claire is finally leaving the castle, we have the promise of more action to come. Hopefully they will keep that promise.

Oath-taking ceremony - Not action-oriented, but interesting, none-the-less.

Neutral points that I observed:

Saint Jamie - yet again, Jamie sacrifices his own best interests in order to help someone else. He speaks French! He is put in an impossible situation, says the right thing and everyone is happy about it! The man rivals Mother Theresa. It’s not a ‘bad’ thing…yet. But I’m afraid that it could become one if the show doesn’t give Jamie some sort of human quality for the audience to connect with.

Time traveling witch - sorry, I don’t remember her name, but she’s very obviously a woman who has traveled back in time like Claire. The show hasn’t really made this as ‘mysterious’ as they seem to think they have. Just hoping the show doesn’t decide to keep this badly kept secret ‘mysterious’ for too much longer, or it will get stale quickly.

Bad points:

Return of the nagging Voiceover - after a two-episode reprieve with very little VO, it returns with a vengeance and manages to be even more annoying and unnecessary than it was in the first episode. We absolutely do not need to hear about Claire’s escape plan. It is so INCREDIBLY obvious that it simply feels redundant. We see her looking at the sentries; we see her ‘losing’ her ribbons in the trees. We see the basket of food, we see her take off and then we even HEAR her entire plan as she blurts it out to Jamie in the stalls. There was no need for us to hear about it in VO. To me, it just feels like the filmmakers are so scared that the audience might miss on little thing or interpret something differently that they have to pound it in.

Claire acting idiotically - she acted the fool this episode. Continuing with an escape that had been foiled already, telling her intended victim “Hey, I put a sedative in your wine!” simply because she THINKS he won’t understand what it means, and her preachy nagging all during the boar hunt for really no reason at all was just dumb. I don’t think she’s an idiot, but she was acting stupidly for who-knows-what-reason.

Dougal can’t make up his mind - in episode 1, he didn’t hold with rape…3 episodes later, he tries to rape Claire after breaking up a rape. I’m confused. It also seems that they can’t make up their mind on how to define his character. I’m not saying they can’t make him complex, but they are either making him too much of a villain or too much of a hero at times, instead of making him a bit of both at the same time.

Close-call rape…again and again - so, Claire’s been ‘nearly raped’ 3 times in four episodes, only to get out of it one way or another at the last second. There’s also been threats about raping her, as well. I’m not saying I want to see Claire raped, but it is losing its impact, tbh. I know that it was a common thing back in those days, but either the show needs to drop it for a while or move on.

So, I would give this episode 7/10 because we finally are getting somewhere, kind of.

[Dr. Pepper]

This last episode seemed a bit disconnected with none of the parts really fitting together. It's still a bit too early to tell if this is a problem the show will have going forward. However, the disconnected feeling of the separate plots did work with the disconnected feeling Claire is experiencing with being out of her own time, so perhaps it was intentionally done that way? The voiceovers are still grating.

(very spoilery below, not just a vague comment about the books so read at your own risk. Not even kidding, serious spoilers.)

But I've now read the books and the voiceovers are making a lot more sense. I wonder if the showrunners just took the gamble that there would be at least a second season and these voiceovers will open season 2 as Claire telling Roger and Brianna the story of her and Jaime up to the point she went back through the stones. That's assuming season 2 starts with a 20 year jump forward. With her telling the story to someone, the voiceovers wouldn't be so grating as we'd be seeing the expressions of those hearing the story. Still, it is a gamble since the voiceovers are the most heavily criticized component of the show. Mostly because they aren't really telling the audience anything we aren't seeing.

[Zorral]

I am simply worried that Moore & Co. will do the bs that ruined BS-G, including extraordinarily clunky rhythmically beat and scene editing. And that they will do what the Co. of Got did, with changing the story ever more with the wrong deletions, bad additions, and general stupid.

[Veltigar]

This was actually the first episode were the voice-over didn't bother me. It was superfluous in the beginning (when she was playing the game and we saw the ribbons), but it had a nice rhytm to it. It punctuated her plan and it wasn't pretentious like that stupid vase voice-over from episode 1.

What I liked

The boar sequence was great. As a kid I grew up with Astérix le Gaulois, so I have a soft spot for anything boar(hunt) related. They handled the action really well (I have to say I didn't expect that) and I'm eager to see where they'll take us to next actionwise. I also loved the presence of death in the episode. Life was short, nasty and brutish in that time and the show doesn't shy away from that.

I thought Claire asking the dying man about his home (is that in the books btw?) was brilliantly done. Really excellent writing and acting. If I were a novelist/screenwriter this is the thing I would borrow from Outlander. Up to this point I was unsure about Claire as a character, but you can now place me firmly in the 'love her' camp.

I also agree with Zorral, I can't believe why people would think Dougal tried to rape her (after all they weren't in a sept :P ). He was certainly harrasing her and she knocked him down for that. It isn't very long ago since women had to endure that type of treatment on an almost daily basis. It's pretty realistic that it would happen, I think the BBC's the Crimson Field also had a good bit about the treatment of nurses in WWI, I don't think WWII nurses would have been treated much differently.

The Oath scene was also impressive. The reviewer of the AV-club couldn't wrap his head around him and I'm pitying him right now. Once you wikipidia the concept of tanistry, it all makes perfect sense. And I do get Jaime's loyalty to his name, as well as the fact that the uncles would rather not kill their nephew.

The field hockey scene was also very well done. When I used to play that, I usually ended up complaining about the stupid rule that you can't move your stick higher than your knees. This episode makes me thankful for the rules, so very well done Outlander. Nicely composed and shot. The music was also expertly done this episode. I suppose it was more modern (1940's) music, but I could be wrong.

I was pleasantly surprised by the fact that the escape ploy was over so quickly. I was really dreading an entire episode of a pointless escape scene. It was the least interesting part of the episode, boarhunt and oathceremony were vastly superior. Some might find this episode a bit cobbled together structurally, but I didn't mind. If all the 'filler' episodes are like that, I'm hoping we'll see more. This might be the benefit of a 16 episode each season format. This episode was really a breather. As such it reminded me of episodes like the tales from Ba Sing Se from ATLA.

One final thing I greatly admired was the building of Dougal's character. He was your basic onenote gruffy Scotsman before, but he was great this episode. Especially his final scene with Jaime was superbly done. I hope they'll feature his character more in the next episodes.

What I didn't like

Laoghaire really is a bit stupid. I don't really know if the character will do anything important later on, but even if she didn't, she's quite flat. The actress is very pretty, but the character doesn't really feel lived-in.

At the moment, Jaime doesn't bother me much, because the actor who plays Jaime is very good, however if he remains this perfect I'll might have to throw him in the Gary Stu department. Let's see him pick his nose or cheating his taxes next episode, that would be great. That being said, is it just me or does he grow more handsome by the episode? I'm a straight guy, but damn that actor is a heartthrob. Kind of hard to believe that Claire isn't already all over him. The actor reminds me of this quote from the simpsons:

Diner Cook: Oh yes. Senora left with a rugged yet sensitive man of science. Homer: (worried) Rugged? Is that the same thing as 'handsome'? Diner Cook: Oh no. Handsome means he looks at himself in the mirror. Rugged means you look at him. Homer: (groans)

EDIT: There is actually a lot more that I liked than I didn't liked. And most of the things I disliked were pretty minor. I'm very interested in what comes next. This was I think the best episode so far. I would say it goes (4-3-1-2) at the moment.

EDIT 2: Loved the outfit Claire wore at the end of the episode. I'm usually not the one to take notice of costumes, but I like this aspect of the show very much. I'm curious if this show could give GoT a run for its money during next seasons technical emmy award in this department.

[Adam with one D]

Finally watched the fourth episode today... I am really appreciating a well acted, written show that is on a premium cable channel that doesn't have gratuitous beheadings or sex scenes... (nothing against GoT)

[Zorral]

I goofed up in a spoiler, naming a fellow Colum, when I intended Dougal, as doing, you know, that thing, that thing that was committed by the one with the legs, Dougal, not the one without good legs, Colum.

My weird dyslexia strikes again, dang! I apologize.

As this isn't exactly from a Romance novel per se, more an historical time travel novel, why are the recappers resentful that Claire and Jamie aren't having sex yet? Fer pete's sake -- this is the 18th century! People take their religion seriously, you don't have sex if you are a woman worthy of marriage until marriage -- and Jamie is a gentleman. Nor is there birth control. As well, in Claires first era, the 40's and 50's of the 20th century, good girls didn't hop into bed with people so easily either (the war(s) opened things a lot that way, but in-between, there was a spang-back on sexual expression for women. And the ignorance of sexual techniques and so on was very wide-spread -- and it was really easy to get pregnant, just as in the 18th century. What's so hard to understand about this?

These recappers are women who often complain there's no "romance" in the lives, that men aren't romantic, and they are sexually deprived, or least deprived of truly loving, passionate sex. Maybe if you had more patience, things might work out better? I don't know that for sure, of course, and there's a lot to be said for instant gratification, I guess. But the Real Stuff seems to want more time devoted to matters than, ooo, nice chest, bed me now big boy! Now it seems to be more on the order of ooo, nice bank acccount, bed me now rich boy!

They want a 2014 costume party, not the 18th century, in which life was hard for nearly everyone, and particularly hard for children and women -- and especially if they're poor -- and a lot times, even if they aren't poor. What were the stats for dying in or from childbirth back then? How many pregnancies did the average woman have? Most men had several wives as they successively bred their wives to death.

[sj4iy]

I goofed up in a spoiler, naming a fellow Colum, when I intended Dougal, as doing, you know, that thing, that thing that was committed by the one with the legs, Dougal, not the one without good legs, Colum.

My weird dyslexia strikes again, dang! I apologize.

As this isn't exactly from a Romance novel per se, more an historical time travel novel, why are the recappers resentful that Claire and Jamie aren't having sex yet? Fer pete's sake -- this is the 18th century! People take their religion seriously, you don't have sex if you are a woman worthy of marriage until marriage -- and Jamie is a gentleman. Nor is there birth control. As well, in Claires first era, the 40's and 50's of the 20th century, good girls didn't hop into bed with people so easily either (the war(s) opened things a lot that way, but in-between, there was a spang-back on sexual expression for women. And the ignorance of sexual techniques and so on was very wide-spread -- and it was really easy to get pregnant, just as in the 18th century. What's so hard to understand about this?

These recappers are women who often complain there's no "romance" in the lives, that men aren't romantic, and they are sexually deprived, or least deprived of truly loving, passionate sex. Maybe if you had more patience, things might work out better? I don't know that for sure, of course, and there's a lot to be said for instant gratification, I guess. But the Real Stuff seems to want more time devoted to matters than, ooo, nice chest, bed me now big boy! Now it seems to be more on the order of ooo, nice bank acccount, bed me now rich boy!

They want a 2014 costume party, not the 18th century, in which life was hard for nearly everyone, and particularly hard for children and women -- and especially if they're poor -- and a lot times, even if they aren't poor. What were the stats for dying in or from childbirth back then? How many pregnancies did the average woman have? Most men had several wives as they successively bred their wives to death.

The novels were sold as romance novels at first. They are famous for their steamy sex scenes. I've never even read them, but that's what every review I've read mentions about them. Hell, the opening credits have several steamy shots of naked bodies being caressed and a straight-off-of-a-bad-romance-novel shot of the two leads galloping across green pastures on horseback.

Instead of making assumptions about peoples' sex lives on why they want to see sex in the show, maybe look at the advertising that surrounds the books and the show itself.

[Dr. Pepper]

The novels were sold as romance novels at first. They are famous for their steamy sex scenes. I've never even read them, but that's what every review I've read mentions about them. Hell, the opening credits have several steamy shots of naked bodies being caressed and a straight-off-of-a-bad-romance-novel shot of the two leads galloping across green pastures on horseback.

Instead of making assumptions about peoples' sex lives on why they want to see sex in the show, maybe look at the advertising that surrounds the books and the show itself.

Really? Because (not really a huge spoiler but I'll tag it anyway because there's a minor one)

there really aren't elaborately described steamy sex scenes in the books. It's mostly vague language that tells us they've just had sex or are just about to have sex and then the narrator politely glances away. The sex scenes that are described in detail are the rapes, but usually after the fact and never steamy or sexy.

I had never even heard of the books before talk of the show started. I have been keeping up with several reviewers of the show and I've also found it disappointing how much they are downgrading the show based on Jamie and Claire not jumping into bed just yet. It would seem really inconsistent for the character to fall into sex with Jamie within a short time (a month? not sure of the timeline so far) when we've been told that she spent years away from her husband in an environment where people would generally find the need to seek intimacy and yet she did not do that. Her circumstances changed when she fell through the rocks, but it doesn't seem like her personality has. Jamie just being an all-around attractive dude isn't really enough reason for Claire to have sex with him at this point. Not going to lie, I am eager to see them doing the horizontal because Balfe and Heughan have amazing chemistry. But I'd hate for the characterization to be ruined in favor of viewers getting their rocks off.

[Veltigar]

I had never even heard of the books before talk of the show started. I have been keeping up with several reviewers of the show and I've also found it disappointing how much they are downgrading the show based on Jamie and Claire not jumping into bed just yet. It would seem really inconsistent for the character to fall into sex with Jamie within a short time (a month? not sure of the timeline so far) when we've been told that she spent years away from her husband in an environment where people would generally find the need to seek intimacy and yet she did not do that. Her circumstances changed when she fell through the rocks, but it doesn't seem like her personality has. Jamie just being an all-around attractive dude isn't really enough reason for Claire to have sex with him at this point. Not going to lie, I am eager to see them doing the horizontal because Balfe and Heughan have amazing chemistry. But I'd hate for the characterization to be ruined in favor of viewers getting their rocks off.

Very well put and I agree.

[sj4iy]

Really? Because (not really a huge spoiler but I'll tag it anyway because there's a minor one)

there really aren't elaborately described steamy sex scenes in the books. It's mostly vague language that tells us they've just had sex or are just about to have sex and then the narrator politely glances away. The sex scenes that are described in detail are the rapes, but usually after the fact and never steamy or sexy.

I had never even heard of the books before talk of the show started. I have been keeping up with several reviewers of the show and I've also found it disappointing how much they are downgrading the show based on Jamie and Claire not jumping into bed just yet. It would seem really inconsistent for the character to fall into sex with Jamie within a short time (a month? not sure of the timeline so far) when we've been told that she spent years away from her husband in an environment where people would generally find the need to seek intimacy and yet she did not do that. Her circumstances changed when she fell through the rocks, but it doesn't seem like her personality has. Jamie just being an all-around attractive dude isn't really enough reason for Claire to have sex with him at this point. Not going to lie, I am eager to see them doing the horizontal because Balfe and Heughan have amazing chemistry. But I'd hate for the characterization to be ruined in favor of viewers getting their rocks off.

I'm not into romantic things at all, but the two leads looked like they were about to jump each other from episode 2 as she cried in his arms while his shirt was off as they sat in front of a fire. She got jealous of him kissing another girl in episode 3. If their relationship is moving fast, it's because the show has made it move fast, not because viewers are wishing it. It's been telegraphed so hard that it's not about 'if', it's about 'when'.

[Zorral]

Sold because of their steamy sex scenes -- yet the first, and obvious sex that sends Claire mooney is described between Claire and her husband, Frank, in the 20th century. Though clearly very intense -- and Claire tells us that from the beginning of their relationship, their erotic connection was passionate for them both, and they are counting on this to get them through these initial post war weeks, when they saw each other for what amounts to a very few days during the entire war -- and they hadn't been married long before the war began.

The next ones don't happen

until Claire and Jamie are married

. Few of them are described in detail, though the ones that are, are quite intensely described. By the close of the novel

Jamie turns from sex all together due to being so continuously raped as part of Randall's very sophisticated and manipulative sadistic torture -- and sex between man and wife becomes Claire's way of healing Jamie from the soul sickness he's suffering from the rapes and psycho-sexual spoilage done to him. Though very intense, this isn't steamy, this is -- terrible, for the hurt and suffering are so great, and they love each other so much. Which is why it works.

There's another reason intelligent people who have a sense of self-control don't eff like bunnies in the 18th century, venereal diseases were rampant and they were awful. Even in the Claire's time, penicillin to fix venereal infections was a very recent discovery; as a WWII army nurse, Claire would have seen all the consquences of venereal diseases contantly and up close. .

It's surprising that Randall hasn't infected Jamie, considering his proclivities and behaviors and attitudes -- or perhaps, that's one of Jamie's great attractions -- his all around healthiness of mind, body and soul?

[Veltigar]

I'd like to point out that Claire and Jaime

marrying

is still a spoiler. A minor one, because we all see this coming, but I'd still keep it in spoilertags. This isn't a bookreaders thread.