Jump to content

Outlander (Tv show)


AncalagonTheBlack

Recommended Posts

Less than regular TV? I don't know about that anymore. I watch a lot of TV shows and it seems 10-13 episodes seems to be the sweet spot now.

It's definitely the case for summer programming and Hannibal and 24 seem to be handling it well too. I still think most TV is in the 20-22 range (unless they get cancelled). In general the good TV seems to run shorter seasons so it could be selection bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my frustration. I find a brand new show that I know nothing about except that it is based on a popular series of books I haven't read. I proceed to watch a really well done television show that actually excites me because of the wonderful prose in the narration, the beautiful dialog, the amazing shots, and some of the best costume designs and set decoration that I have ever seen. I then come to a thread about this, and the largest discussion isn't really about the show itself, only what people hate about the use of narration (Which I disagree with entirely).


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my frustration. I find a brand new show that I know nothing about except that it is based on a popular series of books I haven't read. I proceed to watch a really well done television show that actually excites me because of the wonderful prose in the narration, the beautiful dialog, the amazing shots, and some of the best costume designs and set decoration that I have ever seen. I then come to a thread about this, and the largest discussion isn't really about the show itself, only what people hate about the use of narration (Which I disagree with entirely).

...and I was excited for a tv show that has been hyped for the past year as the next "Game of Thrones". I watched it eagerly, and was greatly disappointed that it was nothing like I had hoped. Am I not allowed to discuss my displeasure? You are certainly allowed to express your excitement. If you like the show, then you're certainly not alone and will find many who agree with you. But this is a thread for everyone, so everyone is allowed to discuss their opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough HP. I'm sure we've all experienced something similar when it comes to shows/ books we enjoy. I know I had a similar reaction to yours when I started watching The Leftovers and the thread dedicated to that show was filled with posts about how the tone of the show was far too morbid for most ( when that was the most enjoyable thing about it ). I just don't get why we can't have room for both, and in doing so accept valid criticisms made against a show.

As an aside, if anyone wants a fairly hilarious review of the show, a podcast I listen to recently did an episode which you can find here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh good, I thought it was just me rolling my eyes at Jaime. I miss the dynamic with Frank. This is much cheesier. Honest, this is in the "eh, maybe when i'm bored," category, but I would have watched the hell out of the show-that-might-have-been, with no tacky time traveling Romance novel cover models, but with Frank and Claire unravelling their marriage and maybe some low-key historical mystery in postwar Britain. Lots of landscapes and shots of Inverness being grey. Many hats. Much silence. Less corset-cleavage. (BTW, are the historical dresses really unflattering on all the actresses or is it just me? Possibly kudos for historical accuracy, at least.)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get the comparisons to Game of Thrones. I'm not sure why it's being advertised that way. They are so very different.



I loved the second episode. I like the slow build up and enjoy the character building. I think Catriona Balfe is wonderful and I enjoy watching her play Claire. The opening music is really pretty and I like that it really sets the tone for the show. I'm glad they are not just making this only about Jaime and Claire as I enjoy the other characters as well, especially Dougal and I think Tobias Menzies is doing a wonderful job as both Black Jack and Frank. I'm glad we are getting 16 episodes of it, as that is a good indication that they are really going to flush out the story told in the book and we won't have to see it chopped up into pieces.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my frustration. I find a brand new show that I know nothing about except that it is based on a popular series of books I haven't read. I proceed to watch a really well done television show that actually excites me because of the wonderful prose in the narration, the beautiful dialog, the amazing shots, and some of the best costume designs and set decoration that I have ever seen. I then come to a thread about this, and the largest discussion isn't really about the show itself, only what people hate about the use of narration (Which I disagree with entirely).

That's par for the course when you come to these internet forums. Just take it with a grain of salt and enjoy your show. I see this dynamic on these forums time and again. I try to be optimistic and put out my positive thoughts and feelings when I enjoy a show regardless of the naysayers. If it helps, I have absolutely enjoyed and loved the first two episodes. I have read the books and they are doing a wonderful job of adapting the books to screen. It puts me in mind of the Pride and Prejudice adaptation with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle that really stuck with the novel and did it justice. I just hope they keep it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's par for the course when you come to these internet forums. Just take it with a grain of salt and enjoy your show. I see this dynamic on these forums time and again. I try to be optimistic and put out my positive thoughts and feelings when I enjoy a show regardless of the naysayers. If it helps, I have absolutely enjoyed and loved the first two episodes. I have read the books and they are doing a wonderful job of adapting the books to screen. It puts me in mind of the Pride and Prejudice adaptation with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle that really stuck with the novel and did it justice. I just hope they keep it up.

Just would like to say that I loved that mini-series...Pride and Prejudice is one of my favorite books and that mini-series was absolutely perfect. I usually really like period dramas. But I think P&P had humor to help push the story along in an entertaining way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my frustration. I find a brand new show that I know nothing about except that it is based on a popular series of books I haven't read. I proceed to watch a really well done television show that actually excites me because of the wonderful prose in the narration, the beautiful dialog, the amazing shots, and some of the best costume designs and set decoration that I have ever seen. I then come to a thread about this, and the largest discussion isn't really about the show itself, only what people hate about the use of narration (Which I disagree with entirely).

I can see why that would have been frustrating for you. Sometimes it can be a downer when something you love is constantly negatively criticized.

If it makes you feel better, the only thing I had a problem with is the voice over. Good prose or not, it was jarring for me. That is a valid opinion because it is subjective. I certainly don't expect you to agree with me.

All in all, I think this show is going to be very good, one of my favorites.

As a note to some of the other posts, I have no clue why people are comparing this to AGOT. They are nothing a like. The only thing they have in common is that neither are told in a modern setting.

eta for grammar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was inspired to dig out my copy of Outlander from the book shelves (far too overpopulated and inadequate bookshelves, meaning rows three deep, as well as piles and piles on the floors). it will be Labor Day Weekend recreational reading. It's been years since I read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was inspired to dig out my copy of Outlander from the book shelves (far too overpopulated and inadequate bookshelves, meaning rows three deep, as well as piles and piles on the floors). it will be Labor Day Weekend recreational reading. It's been years since I read it.

I love the books. I know a lot of people get frustrated with them because the story meanders and sometimes becomes implausible, but Claire grabs you and won't let you go. She is (along with another character that is better develped later in the series) one of my favorite literary characters.

I love being in her head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only care for Outlander which I liked very much. That it turned into a series that sailed all over the place didn't work for me at all. But everything set up in the first 40 + pages of Outlander worked extraordinarily well for the rest of the novel. The only mis-step, for some reason, was Claire -- Claire, of all people, as steeped in blood as she'd been for all the war years! -- not recognizing the blood on the door stoop as blood. But fortunately, the series seems to have made a correction there.



I read the first 132 pages of Outlander last night, and today watched the free first Starz episode. I thought it was splendid (particuarly the horses :). What is the problem all these people are having with the voiceover? The novel has it, for pete's sake, especially as Claire is the narrator and pov.



They did an incredible job of turning the first 80 pp., the first three chapters into an episode of television. This is particularly so as the writers had to deal with two historical eras, neither of which are ours: the immediate post war year of WWII, and then the 1740's. This is part of how her relationship with her husband feels valid and honest too. It's also interesting how the episode shows Claire "rescuing" Jamie -- which is rather a motif in their relationship. And of course it works because Claire's life from childhood on has equipped her to function in a world without modcons.



The characters and pacing are equally fine. It's highest quality television. If the rest of the episode live up to this first one. I won't know, of course, until Outlander is on dvd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only care for Outlander which I liked very much. That it turned into a series that sailed all over the place didn't work for me at all. But everything set up in the first 40 + pages of Outlander worked extraordinarily well for the rest of the novel. The only mis-step, for some reason, was Claire -- Claire, of all people, as steeped in blood as she'd been for all the war years! -- not recognizing the blood on the door stoop as blood. But fortunately, the series seems to have made a correction there.

I read the first 132 pages of Outlander last night, and today watched the free first Starz episode. I thought it was splendid (particuarly the horses :). What is the problem all these people are having with the voiceover? The novel has it, for pete's sake, especially as Claire is the narrator and pov.

They did an incredible job of turning the first 80 pp., the first three chapters into an episode of television. This is particularly so as the writers had to deal with two historical eras, neither of which are ours: the immediate post war year of WWII, and then the 1740's. This is part of how her relationship with her husband feels valid and honest too. It's also interesting how the episode shows Claire "rescuing" Jamie -- which is rather a motif in their relationship. And of course it works because Claire's life from childhood on has equipped her to function in a world without modcons.

The characters and pacing are equally fine. It's highest quality television. If the rest of the episode live up to this first one. I won't know, of course, until Outlander is on dvd.

This is a fair assessment of the books. They simply don't appeal to many people because they do sail all over the place. I still love them.

And the show did do an extraordinary of capturing the feel of the characters. That one nit pick, the voice over (which I won't harp on anymore), was the only thing I had a quibble with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a fair assessment of the books. They simply don't appeal to many people because they do sail all over the place. I still love them.

And the show did do an extraordinary of capturing the feel of the characters. That one nit pick, the voice over (which I won't harp on anymore), was the only thing I had a quibble with.

I think they do appeal to many readers, otherwise more installments in the series wouldn't continue to be published? Or so it seems to me anyway.

But sheesh, changing things from straight up historical fiction, that was good fiction too, to bs like fantasy-horror!. Of course, that's all most people seem to be able to think to do with the Caribbean -- author knows nothing about the cultures or the people and history of these places so it seems to me, who does. Then the preposterousities she commits with the War of Independence era, about which I also know a great deal -- and mixing up all these times and generations, who surely get dizzy by now traveling back and forth in eras -- this is bad writing, bad writing most of all because it prevents a suspension of disbelief and thus immersion.

None of this happens in Outlander. It should have been left to stand alone. But, people buy it, and the publishers knew they would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not read the books. (how many are there?, btw). Personally the timing of the series is serendipitous because I only within the last month found out that I'm of Scottish descent when I always thought my family was Irish.



Edit- Caitriona Balfe is absolutely beautiful which is a nice bonus.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 books and still going, I think.

I've not seen the second episode yet.

Wow, thats at least 4 more than what I expected.

And of course it works because Claire's life from childhood on has equipped her to function in a world without modcons.

Not trying to get any spoilers, but do you learn more about Claire's childhood?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, thats at least 4 more than what I expected.

Not trying to get any spoilers, but do you learn more about Claire's childhood?

Bits and pieces. You get a sense of it and some major events that happen but you never get a first hand view of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not read the books. (how many are there?, btw). Personally the timing of the series is serendipitous because I only within the last month found out that I'm of Scottish descent when I always thought my family was Irish.

Edit- Caitriona Balfe is absolutely beautiful which is a nice bonus.

Not only is she beautiful, she seems the perfect look for Claire -- so filled with vitality, a sense of humor, a ferocious temper when roused, intelligent, commanding, in the way a WWII field triage nurse would need to be, still feminine but utterly not glamorous or "girly" even -- whatever it is I mean by "girly" -- meaning I'm not sure what I mean by it. :)

What I shall be curious to learn is

whether in the television series, villainous villain ends up as fully villainous as he is in the novel, committing what he does commit in the novel, 25 years + out from when Outlander was originally published, and people didn't protest homosexuality as a marker of villainy, or that homosexuals, villainous or not, would naturally try to force themselves on non-homosexuals (or anyone for that matter), and when so many still equated pedophilia and same sex sexual orientation.

Does anyone know whether the first season of Outlander covers the whole novel? Or is the second season supposed to finish it, or start with Dragonfly and Amber?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...