Jump to content

Outlander (Tv show)


AncalagonTheBlack

Recommended Posts

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?

Love the actress who plays Claire. The actor who plays Jaime is growing on me. They were the pivotal ones that were going to make our break the show, so I am excited for them.

Gaboldon has said over and over Randall isn't homosexual, he is a sadist. An equal opportunity sadists, women or men. If you want to see how Gaboldon treats a truely homosexual character, keep reading the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoiler




,,, and they are plot points ... I mean, I am reading them right now! Not intending to be orwanting to be snarky, particularily since I didn't notice this in that way myself upon the initial readings -- this, in spite of, having so many gay friends then as now, er, whatever, the friends from then who were gay are still friends, and still gay, er, whaaa! ....



Er, in Outlander he's James, Jamie, Fraser, not Jaime (which latter makes no sense in any language -- so much for the realism of ASOIF :)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoiler

,,, and they are plot points ... I mean, I am reading them right now! Not intending to be orwanting to be snarky, particularily since I didn't notice this in that way myself upon the initial readings -- this, in spite of, having so many gay friends then as now, er, whatever, the friends from then who were gay are still friends, and still gay, er, whaaa! ....

Er, in Outlander he's James, Jamie, Fraser, not Jaime (which latter makes no sense in any language -- so much for the realism of ASOIF :)!

Lol, my phone's auto correct always writes it out Jaime. It's like it can't concive of any other spelling. Very irritating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, my phone's auto correct always writes it out Jaime. It's like it can't concive of any other spelling. Very irritating.

That's hilarious -- I think. :)

I just finished this latest Outlander re-read. I wish I had been able to edit the ms. There are glaring inconsistencies that shouldn't be in there. Such as

her decision to stay in 1743 when Jamie brings her to the Standing Stones so she can go back -- and they both know that it will work for her to go back, She stays because she admits to liking the life in spite of everything, and because she feels that she and James are meant for each other, and together they are meant to do Something. Then later, she talks to her self as if she's not been back to the Standing Stones at all, and needs to go, but she's not doing it. There are so many inconsistencies like this, the sort I cannot imagine either a line or copy editor missing.

At the time of publication there were many interviews and stories about Outlander as a phenomenon, which both the agent and the purchasing editor recognized it would be. So it's not as though it was published as a throw-away. (I was working in publishing then, so I got, heard and read all the industry scuttlebutt in those days.

So ... with the third episode new material has been added, and diversions from the novel have begun, so I am reading. This could be bad. I don't trust Moore -- not since his diversion in BS-Galactica from authentic strong female action with the rapey ship captain, and the capture of one of the female pilots, and when the female pilots are racing to mount up and rescue their comrade, the big men pilots come in and say, O no, not you girls,this is a job for us big strong boy pilots. And then they rape the captain or something. And the show never got back on track again, and I never even finished watching it.

They also had a terrible sense of editing rhythm on that series. Looking at the first episode and trailers for Outlander, I'm fearing on that level as well.

Was there ever a better edited series for rhythm and timing -- both action and dialog -- than Buffy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's hilarious -- I think. :)

I just finished this latest Outlander re-read. I wish I had been able to edit the ms. There are glaring inconsistencies that shouldn't be in there. Such as

her decision to stay in 1743 when Jamie brings her to the Standing Stones so she can go back -- and they both know that it will work for her to go back, She stays because she admits to liking the life in spite of everything, and because she feels that she and James are meant for each other, and together they are meant to do Something. Then later, she talks to her self as if she's not been back to the Standing Stones at all, and needs to go, but she's not doing it. There are so many inconsistencies like this, the sort I cannot imagine either a line or copy editor missing.

At the time of publication there were many interviews and stories about Outlander as a phenomenon, which both the agent and the purchasing editor recognized it would be. So it's not as though it was published as a throw-away. (I was working in publishing then, so I got, heard and read all the industry scuttlebutt in those days.

So ... with the third episode new material has been added, and diversions from the novel have begun, so I am reading. This could be bad. I don't trust Moore -- not since his diversion in BS-Galactica from authentic strong female action with the rapey ship captain, and the capture of one of the female pilots, and when the female pilots are racing to mount up and rescue their comrade, the big men pilots come in and say, O no, not you girls,this is a job for us big strong boy pilots. And then they rape the captain or something. And the show never got back on track again, and I never even finished watching it.

They also had a terrible sense of editing rhythm on that series. Looking at the first episode and trailers for Outlander, I'm fearing on that level as well.

Was there ever a better edited series for rhythm and timing -- both action and dialog -- than Buffy?

First, Buffy... Faith.... ah man I miss that show....

Anyways, so if its diverging this soon what are the chances I'd be better off if I didn't read the books? Especially since I've really liked the first three episodes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's hilarious -- I think. :)

I just finished this latest Outlander re-read. I wish I had been able to edit the ms. There are glaring inconsistencies that shouldn't be in there. Such as

her decision to stay in 1743 when Jamie brings her to the Standing Stones so she can go back -- and they both know that it will work for her to go back, She stays because she admits to liking the life in spite of everything, and because she feels that she and James are meant for each other, and together they are meant to do Something. Then later, she talks to her self as if she's not been back to the Standing Stones at all, and needs to go, but she's not doing it. There are so many inconsistencies like this, the sort I cannot imagine either a line or copy editor missing.

At the time of publication there were many interviews and stories about Outlander as a phenomenon, which both the agent and the purchasing editor recognized it would be. So it's not as though it was published as a throw-away. (I was working in publishing then, so I got, heard and read all the industry scuttlebutt in those days.

So ... with the third episode new material has been added, and diversions from the novel have begun, so I am reading. This could be bad. I don't trust Moore -- not since his diversion in BS-Galactica from authentic strong female action with the rapey ship captain, and the capture of one of the female pilots, and when the female pilots are racing to mount up and rescue their comrade, the big men pilots come in and say, O no, not you girls,this is a job for us big strong boy pilots. And then they rape the captain or something. And the show never got back on track again, and I never even finished watching it.

They also had a terrible sense of editing rhythm on that series. Looking at the first episode and trailers for Outlander, I'm fearing on that level as well.

Was there ever a better edited series for rhythm and timing -- both action and dialog -- than Buffy?

Certainly... It was called Firefly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

Sorry, gotta go with Howdy on this one. Firefly was his best work. Not that Buffy and Angel didn't have moments of greatness, they did. Firefly could very well have declined in quality if it had gone on longer, but unfortunately, we will never find that out.

I am so sad I haven't been able to watch the last two episodes of Outlander. They sound like they were fantastic. I am eagerly awaiting my opportunity to catch up.

As for Moore handling this project, I admit that I have had trepidation about it. There were a lot of things I enjoyed about BG, but it felt like a mess in many ways. We will just have to see how it goes along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Firefly only have a few episodes and therefore couldn't stick around to decline, you shouldn't compare it to and let it come out on top of 7 seasons of Buffy.



It took me two tries to get into Firefly, because I almost fell asleep where I was sitting after the very first episodes, so the first time I quit and when rewatching the same thing happened but I didn't want to quit again.



What was the general goal of a show like Firefly? Space Cowboys, some flyin', some shootin', some kidnappin'? That was going to be repetitive soon enough. They didn't let it stick around until it got there, which is why people think so highly of it. But imo it doesn't deserve to come out on top of Buffy.



Great cast, though.




PS: I saw The Avengers a few days ago. Great movie.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Firefly only had one season and it was so good makes it all the more impressive. In general, the first season is never the best, because it takes the creators/writers/actors some time to really understand the story and characters. There are some noteable exceptions of course (GoT), but most of the time the first season isn't the best.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so back on topic. I liked the show, so far. Not blown away, but I will defiantly follow it.



I'm curious about the deviations, though. I've read a books years ago and my memory is a bit fuzzy. My impression is that the first two episodes were pretty faithful while the third deviated a bit more. I have no memory of the whole sick boy/Lily of the Valley/Ruins plot, but I defiantly remember the boy who got his ear nailed to the pole. It also seems like Claire and Jamie have more scenes together than they did in the books. Would someone enlighten me on the differences? (It is okay to compare books and show, right?). Maybe I should just reread the book :P


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could this end up being the greatest of all time?

You mean the greatest bore of all time? I would say yes. It's off to a solid start already. :p

Okay, so back on topic. I liked the show, so far. Not blown away, but I will defiantly follow it.

I'm curious about the deviations, though. I've read a books years ago and my memory is a bit fuzzy. My impression is that the first two episodes were pretty faithful while the third deviated a bit more. I have no memory of the whole sick boy/Lily of the Valley/Ruins plot, but I defiantly remember the boy who got his ear nailed to the pole. It also seems like Claire and Jamie have more scenes together than they did in the books. Would someone enlighten me on the differences? (It is okay to compare books and show, right?). Maybe I should just reread the book :P

Don't know if it's OK or not but please, please be careful about the spoilers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the third episode yesterday. Again, I haven't read the books. I want to give this show a fair shot because it has promise, so I'm going to watch the first six episodes. But the pacing is very, very slow. I don't mind quiet moments or dialogue, but there has to be more than that to sustain an hour's worth of story. The past two episodes have dragged if I am honest. I think part of the problem is that we don't know what the Scottish people are saying unless they deign to translate it for us. I know they are trying to 'put us in Claire's shoes', but as someone who lived in another country where I didn't speak the language, I know it's very, very easy to just tune that out after a while. I think the third episode has been the weakest so far, though. The story was very predictable and the priest is over the top. In fact, I preferred the dream she has at the beginning where she imagines telling Mrs. Fitz what really happened to her. That was actually a very exciting concept, but instead we get her messing around in the apothecary, getting jealous over another woman and saving a boy who had conveniently eaten something she could cure. Then we get the song at the end that tells her EVERYTHING she needs to know. If I were to be honest, I'm more interested in the other witch woman than anything else at this point...to know who she is and what she knows about the stones.

So, there's my review. Hoping it picks up in the next episode, because "day to day life at Castle Leoch" isn't going to sustain the show for very long without something happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the third episode yesterday. Again, I haven't read the books. I want to give this show a fair shot because it has promise, so I'm going to watch the first six episodes. But the pacing is very, very slow. I don't mind quiet moments or dialogue, but there has to be more than that to sustain an hour's worth of story. The past two episodes have dragged if I am honest. I think part of the problem is that we don't know what the Scottish people are saying unless they deign to translate it for us. I know they are trying to 'put us in Claire's shoes', but as someone who lived in another country where I didn't speak the language, I know it's very, very easy to just tune that out after a while. I think the third episode has been the weakest so far, though. The story was very predictable and the priest is over the top. In fact, I preferred the dream she has at the beginning where she imagines telling Mrs. Fitz what really happened to her. That was actually a very exciting concept, but instead we get her messing around in the apothecary, getting jealous over another woman and saving a boy who had conveniently eaten something she could cure. Then we get the song at the end that tells her EVERYTHING she needs to know. If I were to be honest, I'm more interested in the other witch woman than anything else at this point...to know who she is and what she knows about the stones.

So, there's my review. Hoping it picks up in the next episode, because "day to day life at Castle Leoch" isn't going to sustain the show for very long without something happening.

I'm fine with the slow pace, but only because I know what happens. The book is like 200 pages, so stringing it out for a whole season is going to make it seem REALLY slow. Also, unlike many other series, it's the Clair show, so you only get 1 PoV and yes it gets boring.

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...