# Outlander



## The Bluestocking (Aug 7, 2014)

Has anyone else watched the Starz adaptation of Diana Gabaldon's Outlander yet?

I saw the first episode and was so hooked by the story that I immediately got myself a copy of Outlander and a racing through it now! 

It's a cocktail of SF (time travel), historical fiction (18th century Scotland), and romance (self-explanatory).


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 7, 2014)

Anyone know what channel it'll be playing on in the UK? 

Series trailer:


----------



## WordSpinner (Aug 7, 2014)

My wife read the first book, and I am about 1/3 through Outlander now. I saw the first free Starz pilot episode and it was really well made. the acting is good, and they have a decent budget it would seem. Too bad I don't get Starz :-/


----------



## The Bluestocking (Aug 25, 2014)

Brian: So far, the word is that Starz (the cable channel producing the series) still hasn't found a UK channel to take it on.

We're now on to episode 3 - So far, so good. Ronald D. Moore is really doing a great job of adapting the book for television. No complaints from this lassie whatsoever


----------



## markpud (Aug 25, 2014)

I'm enjoying this show so far!  The "genre" elements are not in the foreground, she's traveled back in time and now she has to get on with life. Not overly emotional but definitely more drama than scifi, but it works pretty well.

Filmed on location in Scotland too, so it looks authentic!

No news of a UK network pickup as yet


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 31, 2014)

There's a short interview with Diana Gabaldon about the series at Natgeo:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...scotland-orkney-islands-stonehenge-neolithic/


----------



## The Bluestocking (Aug 31, 2014)

Hmm. I keep getting pleasant surprises with this series.

The latest one is that there definitely aren't any gratuitous sex scenes or sexposition so rampant in many Starz and HBOs series. The latest episode (episode 4) did not even have any! This is a huge plus in my opinion because it allows the story to get on and any sex scenes are basically an organic part of the story instead of a tacked-on shocker.

The adaptation is definitely done extremely well. Big round of applause to Ronald D. Moore and Diana Gabaldon!


----------



## Jesse412 (Sep 1, 2014)

I caught the series premiere on Starz and enjoyed it enough that I'll be checking out the rest of the season.  The premise is interesting and Caitriona Balfe was surprisingly good.  Apparently it's already been renewed for a second season.


----------



## markpud (Sep 2, 2014)

I'm continuing to enjoy this show too.. talking of gratuitous nudity, there was an "upskirt" moment this week 



Spoiler: Minor episode 4 spoilers



Glad that the desire for her to escape is being dealt with early on, and hopefully she is starting to move beyond that a bit more now.. Voice-over is still a bit too much for my taste too. Claire is showing that she is resourceful and intelligent, and that she's not afraid of blood and guts which definitely makes sense given her wartime nurse role. I wonder if next week's road trip will give her another opportunity to escape, or cement her bonds with the highlanders


----------



## Jesse412 (Sep 2, 2014)

Some brutal gore during the hunting scenes.  Excellent special effects makeups.



markpud said:


> I'm continuing to enjoy this show too.. talking of gratuitous nudity, there was an "upskirt" moment this week




Well "up-kilt" would be more accurate.


----------



## markpud (Sep 2, 2014)

Technically, yes! She didn't look impressed in any case...


----------



## The Bluestocking (Sep 3, 2014)

That "up-kilt" moment was a total facepalm moment for me LOL!


----------



## The Bluestocking (Sep 3, 2014)

Uh... this TV reviewer is complaining that episode 4 has *gasp* NO SEX:

http://www.idigitaltimes.com/outlander-series-starz-episode-4-exposes-shows-weaknesses-378918

Not sure if this is a symptom of how so many TV series now use far too much sexposition to the point where an episode with no sex is seen as weird at best, weak (as this reviewer calls it) at worst...


----------



## markpud (Sep 3, 2014)

Hmm, if they want this to be Game of Thrones then I suspect they will be disappointed..

Intriguing debate though, given how US TV is split between the nudity/swearing and no-nudity/no-swearing channels. Do people only watch Starz etc so they can see some sexy times, and then dislike the show if it doesn't deliver?

We don't have such a split here in good ol' Blighty, but we have a "watershed" after which more adult content can be shown (after 9pm I think). Not saying that's definitely better or worse, but in my opinion makes more sense.. e.g. an AMC show can have as much gore and death as it wants, but no strong language?! Its not as though they put it on at 6pm when kids would be more likely to see it.

Side note, I was in Holland last year and they were showing Walking Dead in the middle of the day on free-tv, without any cuts.. Different standards for different cultures.....


----------



## Jesse412 (Sep 8, 2014)

The_Bluestocking said:


> Uh... this TV reviewer is complaining that episode 4 has *gasp* NO SEX:
> 
> http://www.idigitaltimes.com/outlander-series-starz-episode-4-exposes-shows-weaknesses-378918
> 
> Not sure if this is a symptom of how so many TV series now use far too much sexposition to the point where an episode with no sex is seen as weird at best, weak (as this reviewer calls it) at worst...


I thought episode 4 was one of the best yet.  I feel viewers like that represent the lowest common denominator.  Unfortunately that could also be said about the American television audience.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Sep 8, 2014)

Well, there was no sex scene in episode 5 either but it was a strong episode because it really took you into the Outlander world (and gave it very strong historical context). You can just feel Ron D. Moore and his team really setting everything up very nicely.

I really like this series!


----------



## Jesse412 (Sep 8, 2014)

Great cliffhanger


----------



## The Bluestocking (Sep 8, 2014)

Art School Dropout said:


> Great cliffhanger



I know! Now I'm like: "We have to wait a whole week to find out what the answer is? Oh man..."


----------



## markpud (Sep 8, 2014)

Ha, the cliffhanger ending was just one of those "oh come on!" moments. But I'm 99% convinced she will say...



Spoiler



that there's no problem and she is a guest of the MacKenzie's... Better the devil you know, at this point.

It was an enjoyable journey through Scotland, life in the villages and the politics of the time. The writers did a nice job in leading us to believe that Claire had figured out that money was being siphoned away as theft from Calum, but in fact they're raising funds for the Rebellion. She was pushing the point of how doomed they were a bit too hard I thought, just before the Redcoats arrived...


----------



## The Bluestocking (Sep 10, 2014)

@markpud - How do you do that neat effect to hide spoilers?


----------



## Jesse412 (Sep 10, 2014)

[ SPOILER ][ /SPOILER ]
 without the spaces


----------



## The Bluestocking (Sep 10, 2014)

Art School Dropout said:


> [ SPOILER ][ /SPOILER ]
> without the spaces


 Oh thanks!


----------



## markpud (Sep 10, 2014)

Edited - always check for a page 2 before replying


----------



## The Bluestocking (Sep 11, 2014)

I am so impatient for the next episode now. Grrr... Cliffhangers iz EVILS!!!!


----------



## The Bluestocking (Sep 14, 2014)

Wow! This week's episode is really graphic and harrowing. Black Jack Randall is a sociopathic SOB - and even as a reader, I didn't really comprehend how much of a sociopath he was until this episode graphically laid it all out for the viewer.



Spoiler



Apart from that, the final scene was hilarious - all Claire's micro-expressions (especially at Jamie's punchline of "I reckon one of us should ken what we're doing") is priceless!


----------



## Jesse412 (Sep 14, 2014)

Tobias Menzies was excellent in this episode.  His Black Jack is scary as hell.  He was good in Doctor Who and Game of Thrones but this performance was on a whole different level.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Sep 15, 2014)

Art School Dropout said:


> Tobias Menzies was excellent in this episode.  His Black Jack is scary as hell.  He was good in Doctor Who and Game of Thrones but this performance was on a whole different level.



He deserves a bloody - ha! - Emmy Award and BAFTA for his performance!


----------



## markpud (Sep 17, 2014)

I agree this was a great episode. Although as an Englishman I take issue with the massively stereotypical portrayal of the English officers. But this is a prevailing view, and it's entirely possible that a proportion of English officers were snobbish a-holes given this is the portrayal shown over and over again - no smoke without fire?!

Are all English/British officers so posh that they're oblivious to the realities of life? Hmmm


----------



## Scorpiuscat (Sep 20, 2014)

WOW!!!  This episode with Black Jack blew me away, what an emotionally well written and acted episode.

Just too bad my bonnie Scotland didn't vote for independence, I was rooting for my fellow kinsmen from across the pond.


----------



## Jesse412 (Sep 20, 2014)

This show and the recent vote in Scotland reminds me of one of my favorite Paul McCartney songs.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Sep 20, 2014)

So. Jamie and Claire are getting hitched in this weekend's episode.

And a million ovaries all over the world will be exploding.

Me? I reserve judgement until I've watched the episode LOL!


----------



## The Bluestocking (Sep 22, 2014)

Ah! Last night's episode was excellent! They somehow managed to make the sex scenes NOT gratuitous - always a plus!

Also - Dougal is really turning into a multi-faceted anti-hero...


----------



## markpud (Sep 27, 2014)

Yeah I enjoyed this episode too, it was a realistic portrayal of a young lad who knows little about what he's doing, and a woman who doesn't want to be there but eventually accepts him and shows him a trick or 2!

The line where he thought they'd do it "like horses" was hilarious. And you're right that Dougal is a really fun/nasty character who could have been the bad guy of the show, but is downright sympathetic compared to Randall (attempted rape notwithstanding).


----------



## The Bluestocking (Sep 27, 2014)

markpud said:


> Yeah I enjoyed this episode too, it was a realistic portrayal of a young lad who knows little about what he's doing, and a woman who doesn't want to be there but eventually accepts him and shows him a trick or 2!
> 
> The line where he thought they'd do it "like horses" was hilarious.



Yah, and Dougal's use of the phrase "grinding your corn" in episode 6 had me in stitches!


----------



## markpud (Sep 28, 2014)

Another action packed episode for what seems to be the last one for a while... resuming in April apparently! Maybe the UK can catch up meanwhile (assuming anyone's planning to pick the show up over here)..



Spoiler



Enjoyed seeing Frank's side of things this week, the almost-reunion at Crag-na-dun, and the shades of Black Jack that come through when Frank's provoked..

Horrendous week for Claire, sexually assaulted twice and back in the hands of Black Jack again.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Sep 28, 2014)

What an ending to the mid-season finale! 



Spoiler



Jamie bursting in just as BJR was about to rape Claire, and saying (all steely-eyed): "I'll thank ye to let go of my wife."

Total hero moment right there. And one that's difficult to pull off without looking ridiculous. Acting, timing, and editing has to be right on.


----------



## markpud (Sep 28, 2014)

Spoiler



yeah that was a well executed moment... but what can he really do with a blade at his wife's neck? And by neck I mean breast, obviously 

I was impressed with the first half season. It exceeded expectations and felt "real". Just enough fish-out-of-watery-ness, 18th Century Scottish life, evil English soldiers and love/anguish. Elements combined cleverly with the awesome Scottish scenery and music to really keep my attention.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Sep 29, 2014)

markpud said:


> I was impressed with the first half season. It exceeded expectations and felt "real". Just enough fish-out-of-watery-ness, 18th Century Scottish life, evil English soldiers and love/anguish. Elements combined cleverly with the awesome Scottish scenery and music to really keep my attention.



Have you started reading the books? They are good - hefty tomes - but well-researched and excellent.

As for the answer to your first question - you'll see


----------



## markpud (Oct 4, 2014)

No doubt there's be some easy way out of the cliffhanger, but maybe they'll do something original with that setup - we shall see!

Not read the books, but I'm sure the subject would make for a good read!


----------



## The Bluestocking (Oct 4, 2014)

markpud said:


> No doubt there's be some easy way out of the cliffhanger, but maybe they'll do something original with that setup - we shall see!
> 
> Not read the books, but I'm sure the subject would make for a good read!



Haha! I know _exactly_ what's coming. It's going to be controversial.

Yes - Gabaldon writes bloody good doorstops. It can sometimes be a bit of a trudge but it's packed with action and intrigue.


----------



## markpud (Oct 4, 2014)

I shall wait patiently for 6 long months.... 

I will wait til after the show concludes before picking up the books though, so I can enjoy the TV adaptation to it's conclusion unspoiled.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Oct 4, 2014)

markpud said:


> I shall wait patiently for 6 long months....
> 
> I will wait til after the show concludes before picking up the books though, so I can enjoy the TV adaptation to it's conclusion unspoiled.



Well, they have made quite a few changes from the books, so it wouldn't be too spoiler-y.

The TV series storyline follows the book storyline fairly faithfully but adds a whole new dimension to the story because of the choices Ron D. Moore and his merry band of writers made during the adaptation process to make the story work for television.

Also, it's quite ROTTEN for Starz to make us all wait for 6 months :/


----------



## markpud (Oct 4, 2014)

There'll always be some differences when a book is adapted. I've gone both ways with shows like this and GOT that I've not read the source, whereas with Walking Dead I'm right up-to-date on the Novels. It gives a different perspective either way - GOT has given some surprises to the book readers, but the non-readers have been blown away by GRRM's ruthlessness!


----------



## Alysheba (Oct 25, 2014)

Why on earth they are making viewers wait 6 months for part two of season one is idiotic. They might as well call it season two. I love the series. At least 6 months give me time to read the book.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Feb 28, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> Anyone know what channel it'll be playing on in the UK?
> 
> Series trailer:



Hey Brian - news on that front:

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/a...lable-to-uk-viewers-from-march-2015-1-3702833


----------



## The Bluestocking (Mar 29, 2015)

The second half of OUTLANDER will be kicking off on 4th April 2015.

Not long now til we see what happens - Jamie Fraser has crouched at that window with his gun for long enough!


----------



## markpud (Mar 29, 2015)

The Bluestocking said:


> Jamie Fraser has crouched at that window with his gun for long enough!


It has seemed like an eternity!


----------



## The Bluestocking (Mar 29, 2015)

markpud said:


> It has seemed like an eternity!



Tell me about it! Now we shall find out what happens next (though technically, having read the book, I know what happens next is going to be controversial, to say the least).


----------



## REBerg (Mar 29, 2015)

The far too long delayed return of this series will plug the hole in my Saturday night DVR to-do list left by the end of the _Black Sails_ season. Probably no coincidence in the Starz master plan.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Apr 3, 2015)

WOOHOO!


----------



## Connavar (Apr 5, 2015)

I just saw the new ep and it was a real good one.  Fresh take seeing from Jamie's POV.    I enjoyed the clash of Jame's times,culture,traditions with the spoiled modern POV of Claire.


----------



## markpud (Apr 9, 2015)

Great to be back!! Spoilers for the mid-season premiere:



Spoiler



The raid on Fort William, however improbable was good fun! Really think he should have killed Randall while he had the chance though...

The spousal abuse scene (that's what it is, by modern standards, even by 1940's standards) was hard to watch, I think they did a reasonable job of explaining his thought process although I'm not a fan of the voice overs in general. He's a man of his times, and yet the modern audience cannot tolerate such behaviour and Claire's reactions were well portrayed. I don't think it's fair to call her spoiled in the context of being beaten and not liking it..


----------



## Connavar (Apr 9, 2015)

markpud said:


> Great to be back!! Spoilers for the mid-season premiere:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Frankly the modern fans reaction to that scene annoy me alot for several reasons.  



Spoiler



First i want to say i understand Claire's modern woman reactions and she isnt spoiled for being shocked that happens. 

However the fan reactions, getting angry, finding it hard to watch are silly to me.  Its hard to watch if you see it from Claire POV.  But a logical,historical, human history POV Claire deserve worse than that.  Like Jaime said if she was a man she would get killed or worse.  Its much more barbarical times, when they cut peoples head off publically.  Closer to times of burning witches, Henry VIII killings his wifes for fun.  Its easy to watch for me from that historical POV.   Frankly Jaime is a saint, million miles ahead of his time for not wanting to hurt his wife like that.

Beyond stupid that recappers, reviewers call Jamie an abuser, wife beater like he was a violent modern man who enjoyed that. He punished her like everyone was punished in his times.  You cant compare to sick modern men who beat their wifes.


----------



## markpud (Apr 9, 2015)

Spoiler



I'll try to clarify myself a little.. I did mean it was hard to watch from Claire's POV, and also from my own. Not because the scene was out of context historically, but it was out of her context and, out of mine. I do agree that Jaime is highly open-minded to his new wife's strnage behaviour, but in this case he had no choice or risk the wrath of the clan.



But finding something hard to watch doesn't mean I'm not enjoying the show, or the episode. Heck I love Walking Dead and Game of Thrones where much worse things occur!!


----------



## Connavar (Apr 9, 2015)

markpud said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No i didnt mean your reaction because it being hard to watch means you are enjoying it, you care about the characters.  It was hard to watch for me too emotionally because Claire is our heroine.

I meant the overall reaction by other fans, reviewers has been Jaime is horrible for what he did and not understanding he had to follow the law of his clan, the tradition,law of his times.  You cant remove Jamie, what he had to do from mid 1700s to 2015.  Thats silly.


----------



## REBerg (Apr 18, 2015)

Whenever I time travel, I have one very strict rule: No trips to the past! That's the only problem I have with this series, which is otherwise excellent in all respects.

If the course of time can be altered by the flapping of a single butterfly's wings, and I take this element of chaos theory to be self-evidently true, imagine the immense timeline havoc that can be wreaked by Claire traveling to 1743 Scotland and interacting with the ancestor of her 1945 husband.



Spoiler



Jaime said he passed on killing Black Jack, which I expected him to do without hesitation, because Jack was unarmed. Had he done so, it would be highly unlikely that Claire's 20th century husband would have existed, they would not have taken the trip to Scotland, and Claire would not have been sent back in time by the magical stones.

So, what would that do to her presence in 18th century Scotland? Poof? What would it have meant for the present? No PGA? Who knows?

If Black Jack had succeed in having his way with Claire, which he has twice attempted, Claire might be put in the position of being her 1945 husband's great-great-great-great grandmother. Yikes and ugh!



So, all you time travelers out there, stay out of the past! Make your devices Wayforward, not Wayback machines. Visit the future all you want. Check out those winning lottery numbers; although you should make that count, because it's unlikely that you would get away with it twice.


----------



## REBerg (Apr 20, 2015)

Big reveal!



Spoiler



Geillius is/was a time traveler too, hailing from 1968!

That knowledge had barely hit the fan before Geillius was heading, as she put it, to a f*****g barbecue as a confessed witch. I can only hope that Dougal followed Jamie's example and came riding to the rescue before the eager-beaver villagers lit the bonfire.

I really wanted to know how she got there – more mischief from the magic stones? old-fashioned, H.G. Wells-style time machine? DeLorean? How long had she been there? Why did she decide to dabble in the dark arts, considering how the folks of the time felt about witchcraft?

Claire's apparent choice to remain with Jamie rather than return to 1945 was touching. Or were the stones just “offline” when she made the attempt?


----------



## Alexa (Apr 9, 2017)

Season 3 should return in September. I wish they could accelarate the production.



> _*Outlander* s_eason 3 is officially happening! Starz picked up _*Outlander*_ with showrunner Ronald D. Moore for seasons 3 and 4, which will adapt Gabaldon's *Voyager *and _*Drums of Autumn*_ novels, respectively.
> 
> The show has just started production in South Africa, after several months of filming _*Outlander*_ Season 3 in Scotland.



Outlander Season 3 Release Date, Trailer, Cast


----------



## Piper (Jun 8, 2017)

markpud said:


> I agree this was a great episode. Although as an Englishman I take issue with the massively stereotypical portrayal of the English officers. But this is a prevailing view, and it's entirely possible that a proportion of English officers were snobbish a-holes given this is the portrayal shown over and over again - no smoke without fire?!
> 
> Are all English/British officers so posh that they're oblivious to the realities of life? Hmmm


I don't watch the series once I saw it veering from the books and realized that Ron Moore refuses to read the books for some bizarre reason.  That being said, the books don't necessarily portray all the officers that way and the Lord John books (the young boy that Jamie captures but allows to live in the second book) but now all grown up and having adventures of his own definitely shows a different side to the British military officers.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 22, 2017)

Perhaps a daft question, but is the _Outlander _TV series family-friendly - or have they sexed it up for the screen?


----------



## The Bluestocking (Sep 22, 2017)

Brian G Turner said:


> Perhaps a daft question, but is the _Outlander _TV series family-friendly - or have they sexed it up for the screen?



They haven't sexed it up - the sex scenes they show were already in the original books.

There's plenty of violence and sadistic torture and sexual assault too.

So no - not family-friendly.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 22, 2017)

Oh, okay - I'm not far into the first book so I wasn't sure what to expect from the TV series.


----------



## REBerg (Sep 22, 2017)

Brian G Turner said:


> Perhaps a daft question, but is the _Outlander _TV series family-friendly - or have they sexed it up for the screen?


Definitely not family friendly.


----------



## Alexa (Sep 23, 2017)

But the book is worth reading, so keep going Brian !


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 24, 2017)

Ah, okay - I got to around 30% of the book - and for the next 10% it's pretty much all just Claire and Jamie having sex.


----------



## REBerg (Sep 24, 2017)

Brian G Turner said:


> Ah, okay - I got to around 30% of the book - and for the next 10% it's pretty much all just Claire and Jamie having sex.


Claire and Jamie are a sweet, time-crossed couple. It's the perverted sexual appetite of Jonathan "Black Jack" Randall which makes _Outlander _an adults only series.


----------



## Alexa (Sep 24, 2017)

Brian G Turner said:


> Ah, okay - I got to around 30% of the book - and for the next 10% it's pretty much all just Claire and Jamie having sex.



Quite normal for a young married couple.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 24, 2017)

REBerg said:


> It's the perverted sexual appetite of Jonathan "Black Jack" Randall which makes _Outlander _an adults only series.



Oh, dear - I'm starting to dread reading more of it. These days I normally refuse to read anything with sexual violence in it.


----------



## REBerg (Sep 24, 2017)

I've been told that the books are even darker than the series.
I am not an extremely sensitive person, but I found the end of the first season very difficult to watch. I can't imagine what the books contain to top what was presented on screen.


----------



## Alexa (Sep 25, 2017)

I read all the books and I can tell you the series are much darker.


----------



## REBerg (Sep 25, 2017)

Alexa said:


> I read all the books and I can tell you the series are much darker.


Hmm. I was amazed when I when the books were judged as darker than the series, as I had just finished the first season and was still appalled. I guess it's a subjective thing.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 25, 2017)

Ok, it sounds like rape is a big part of this series: why are people saying Outlander is a rape... — Outlander Q&A so I'm going to bow out. 

I got to about halfway, and it was okay, though the historical aspect never felt strong - the Highlanders came across as caricatures, and the landscape around here is so stunning that its complete absence is very noticeable. Black Jack Randall just came across as a cardboard villain, existing for the sole reason that the writer wanted someone dastardly.


----------



## Connavar (Sep 27, 2017)

Brian G Turner said:


> Perhaps a daft question, but is the _Outlander _TV series family-friendly - or have they sexed it up for the screen?



Its more cable sexy times in season 1, there are dark use of sex in late season 1 but usually its a quality historical series more about scottish history in S2, highland culture, British Empire battles than too much cable sex.    Its not for kids but S2, S3 are more serious, historical fiction, time travel romance when your lover is 250 years behind you in Scottish history.


----------



## Judderman (Feb 12, 2018)

So my wife and I have just binged through the first and most of the second season of this. I wouldn't recommend watching it so quickly as some of the flaws become more apparent. My wife likes it, partly due to the costumes and settings. Perhaps partly due to the male lead. Whereas the female lead is plainer (relatively). I somewhat enjoy it but it varies episode to episode. The content and type of story varies so much throughout the series. Sometimes romantic drama, sex and arguments, sometimes battles or raids, sometimes brutality. I suppose that is a good thing in that you don't know what you are going to get.

I watch quite a lot of Horror Movies and as a result have seen some graphic stuff at times. I think though this series is the most graphic, mainstream drama TV series I have seen. Although less so in season 2 than 1. Spartacus now looks modest in comparison. I thought it was a series with a bit of time travelling, a lot of romance and some fighting and politics thrown in. The first six episodes seem to follow that. A bit of intrigue and some developing romance. Then episode 7 is stocked with sex. I haven't read Mills and Boon but that episode is what I imagine for the genre. But then it just keeps on going and gets more extreme. So there is female rape, male rape and then briefly in season 2 even child rape. There is torture and hanging. There seems to be a rule that the main character has her breasts showing for much of season 1.  Just another show with the desire to shock.

I don't suppose there is much realism here in terms of the greater story and how life is depicted. Everyone looks so clean. I also don't get why Jamie lives in a relatively small place with apparently few staff in Scotland yet seems to have so much influence. Then his Uncle in France was fabulously wealthy and they can turn up with all manner of fine clothes. Then the way the main characters get connected with royalty is dubious. Then this stuff about the legend of the White Lady (witch) which just conveniently pops up. You can at least say something is always happening. Clair jumps between in shock, to in control of those around her, to being able to act in all sorts of roles. Jamie, some of his close family, and his follower/adopted father seem to be the only "good" people in the show. Clair jumps between wanting to change the future and not changing the future. She calls Jamie's uncle selfish but she sometimes seems to be the most selfish person on the show. Though she always has the healer angle to fall back on 

I did enjoy some of the humour. Some of the scenes with the head of the clans etc. Some of the battle scenes. Also the early parts where they have the mythology and religion around the standing stones. There is definitely some good stuff in there.


----------



## Judderman (Feb 13, 2018)

I just watched s2 e11 and 12. They were amongst the best episodes. Still some extremely convenient coincidences occurring but overall it was great Historical Fiction.


----------



## Judderman (Feb 20, 2018)

Well, I blasted through the 3rd series. Other than the first episode and one or two others it was mostly packed with action and all sorts of goings on. Good fun mostly. The 3rd series still has sex/titillation scenes that are mostly well shot, but much less of them than the first series. Much less brutality too. I though the story in the first half of the series was pretty good, but the second half is really a true Fantasy series. I think Fantasy is a more accurate classification than Historical Fiction. There is adventure on ships, desert islands, voodoo/pagan rituals, fighting with "Hercules" etc. Could be Indian Jones . Diana Gabbadon has some great ideas for adventures but the way they are strung together is sometimes utterly ridiculous. She just throws things together. And the coincidences seen in the first and second series are raised to epic levels. They are travelling across the ocean and still the same surrounding cast all pop up again and again as if the world population is so small. It seems once someone appears and says more than a few lines they are destined to appear again on the show until dead. It is just one of those shows you can't take seriously, but try and enjoy the adventures and drama that is shoved together almost at random. Is each following season still going to have Jamie in trouble for something new and arrested repeatedly? Probably partly caused by his wife's curiosity again.

I mean what can you say about:



Spoiler: s3 spoilers



having someone escape a ship and drifting to a desert island, meet an insane priest, then their love's ship crashes on the same island, then they go to Jamaica and meet an old friend who is the governor, and another key character is a landowner whose treasure the main characters have stolen, and various other past characters have turned up at the same time. Plus the incident with the ship turning up to Silkie Island when young Ian is there despite apparently people never going there. Or the pointless coincidence about the skull.


----------



## olive (Nov 12, 2019)

I haven't read the books, I don't think I will. I just have finished it a few days ago. To me, it was a kind of series you can't just look away after started and then at some point you get fed with it and drop. I tried to finish but couldn't reach the end of the 4th season. And apparently there are 8 books.


----------



## olive (Jan 2, 2020)

I found out what bugged me about this series. Too many things are happening to the protagonists while they don't change enough according to what happens to them, but then they can't change that much and follow their path. So while the story is playing to the hard facts, the nature of the changing times -which gets more basic but more difficult and wild at the same time-  the main characters become some sort of 'mythic creatures' fighting with all that with a never wavering iron will and strength and it feels like they lose their realism. It doesn't feel natural. I think that's why I was overwhelmed but also hypnotised by the 'oh my, what is going to happen next' feeling. And it felt exhausting.

Are books the same? Is it a good, loyal adaptation in that sense?


----------

