FILM/TV COMMENTARY, Part I: Adaptation, Logistics, and Testicles > Likes and Comments
28 likes · Like
I so enjoyed the books but the last episode was a bit of a turn off, too much sexual activity and nudity. I watched it with my neighbour and it is embarrassing in mixed company. I am happy I don't have children to watch this, it is shown at 7 PM. Her costumes also leave nothing to write home about. I hope the last segment is better.
Dear Rose--
Well, tastes differ. Personally, I can't quite see how you'd do an honest version of that particular wedding night _without_ sexual activity (and what I thought quite tasteful and attractive nudity, myself). I mean--they didn't film _anything_ there that wasn't in the books.
Best,
--Diana
Rose,
I don't understand how the tv episode was too much sexual activity, it was nearly the same in the book. Maybe watch it without your neighbor so you can feel more comfortable to enjoy it. I think their wedding night was done perfectly.
Tricia
but books are meant to be read and you are alone. typically tv is shared. and I agree with rose that it was too much for tv, even though tastfully done.
I had never heard of Outlander before I read that Ronald D Moore was doing a new series. This is the power of tv. It can bring a whole new audience to a book series! So out I went and bought the books and devoured them (up to about book 5 after about 3 months of reading). They are amazing and in my personal opinion, Ronald has done an AMAZING job with the tv series and whoever is the casting agent needs to be taken out to lunch (FABULOUS!). The series fits the content of the book faithfully and very tasteful and is just an honest adaptation. Since I became "obsessed" with the book and tv show, I have gotten about 10 other people hooked and they have all commented on how amazing the books and tv show is (and they in turn have hooked in others and it becomes a massive snowball effect of Outlander lovers). Only one person mentioned the sexual explicitness of it....but not that it was bad (she loved it!) just that she sat down to watch the episode with her Mum and felt uncomfortable (her Mum had no issues though :-). I am glad finally to see romantic scenes on tv that are not geared towards rape and violence. I understand people may feel differently, and you are entitled to personal opinions...this is mine :-). I love the tv show. Not quite like having to wait until April though....:-P
Diana wrote: "Dear Rose--
Well, tastes differ. Personally, I can't quite see how you'd do an honest version of that particular wedding night _without_ sexual activity (and what I thought quite tasteful and ..."
Yes, I agree with you Diana.
With all the tasteless shows on TV now that throw in nudity for shock value I think Outlander is a breath of fresh air. Everything has been very tastefully done and I think they have done a beautiful job of showing the connection that Jamie and Claire have.
Denise wrote: "but books are meant to be read and you are alone. typically tv is shared. and I agree with rose that it was too much for tv, even though tastfully done."
Maybe too much for network TV. This is aired on cable.
I personally don't understand how it could have been done differently or more tastefully. It was extraordinary and pretty special. Loved it.
I got a little tired of so much sex in some of the books but overall they are wonderful and probably very accurate of the time. The TV series is very good too. I couldn't wait for her last book to come out. I'm reading it now and hate to put it down. What a fantastic author you are and what an imagination.
Tells you how off I am. First of all, complainers about the sex obviously don't watch much tv/cable. Second, if you read the book, the show was a little tamer. Or at least a bit more artistic, no where near as gritty as the book or the actual time period. As far as it comparing to the book, sorry but again I disagree. Being that this was my all time favorite book I felt the essence of the story was completely lost and the characters, and relationships for that matter, were not accurately portrayed at all. The Starz version is about Claire and Frank, not Jamie and Claire. And while Sam Heughan is nice to look at and all, he doesn't possess the presence of the book's Jamie, a domineering, self assured, BA, highlander who was wise and in total control. And Claire was smart, resourceful, sarcastic, and witty. Not uppity and condescending. Just my opinion. Book is an incredible tale and exceptional read. Starz version has many of the elements, but lost the feel by the third episode.
I agree with Stevie, too much emphasis on Frank and the picture I had in my mind of Jamie was of a burly, muscular Scot always taking control and Claire I pictured a little more sturdy not the fragile looking woman in the series, more of a Maureen O'Hara look. I had read the first few chapters of the last book when the series started and find I have a hard time concentrating on the characters now as I have a completely different picture of them.
We all picture the characters the way our imagination sees them when you read a book and that's not necessarily the same as each other. You can't expect them to be the same as your imagination sees them on a TV series. That's ridiculous.
Without all the Frank flashbacks and the cuts to what he's doing in the 40's, it would be lost on non-readers why Claire is so desperate to get BACK to the guy. Claire can only say in the voice overs so many times that she misses him and wants to go back to him, which is an entirely different experience when you're reading her thoughts. TV and films cannot be a word-for word adaptation to a book, its entirely implausible to expect that. Diana has never, in all 8 books, LJ novels, novellas, etc ever described Jamie as 'burly', nor does he always take control of Claire, the two of them are fairly level in that department- they both give and take, on par with one another.
I believe it was the co-executive producer that said when they are auditioning, they have a description of what they are looking for physically from the source material, however, acting trumps eye color, height, size, etc. Of course these characters aren't going to be what some people have been picturing in their heads for 20+ years now, but this show is in the hands of not just TV people, but FANS of the books, wanting to be as faithful to the story and characters as possible in an entirely different medium, and I think they're doing a phenomenal job.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, however I think you're expecting too much of a modern twist on what's desirable and pretty. The goal was authenticity and remaining as true to the source material and the time periods as possible.
Every person that reads a book has a different experience with it, and to cast off someone else's interpretation of it because the actors don't look the way you wanted them to is truly a loss for you. Enjoy it for what it is, an adaptation.
Also, saying the costumes are nothing to write home about... Lady, that's just nuts.
Brilliantly said! Couldn't agree with you more.
Denise wrote: "but books are meant to be read and you are alone. typically tv is shared. and I agree with rose that it was too much for tv, even though tastfully done."
I don't think that at all. If I compare it to the current running hit shows like Game of Thrones, it was mild by comparison. These books are sexual even erotic in nature, but from a women's view of sexuality. We see all sort's of men sexuality on TV and it's about time we see sexuality from a woman's perspective. I give them a lot of credit for having the courage for giving women a voice in this man-centric TV land. The sex scenes were very real, very well done.
Even when it comes to some of the more challenging sexual scenes to come in the book, I think they should be included in the TV show. Diana books handle the rapes (both male and female) in a way that gives the victims perspective, verse the rapists. I think that is a shift from what we get on many shows. Anyone who's read the books knows sex is part of the story. If sexuality is embarrassing to you, I'd choose another show to watch. This is not a show for children, nor a show for those that do not expect to see sex on TV.
I really like your perspective, Brizo, and the points you highlight. Thanks for your post.
Amanda wrote: "Without all the Frank flashbacks and the cuts to what he's doing in the 40's, it would be lost on non-readers why Claire is so desperate to get BACK to the guy. Claire can only say in the voice ove..."
I agree with you on the casting, I think the casting was brilliant. I loved Sam as Jamie and Caitriona as Claire, they both are brilliant at acting the roles. I think the same for Frank/Black Jack and Dougal.
I haven't always agreed with every episode being presented as well as it could of been. I think Diana books are so encompassing with details that are just hard to duplicate in any medium. They are doing a reasonably good job at that, but I see room for improvements as well. And speak out about that when I do feel they could of done something better.
Honestly though, I love the show, even if it's not quite as good as the books. But then again there is only one Diana Gabaldon so I do give them a break for not being able to live up to her level of expertise!
Jonetta wrote: "I really like your perspective, Brizo, and the points you highlight. Thanks for your post."
Thanks Jonetta.
Brizo wrote: "Denise wrote: "but books are meant to be read and you are alone. typically tv is shared. and I agree with rose that it was too much for tv, even though tastfully done."
I don't think that at all. ..."
I agree, I really like both the show and the books.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Rose
(new)
Oct 11, 2014 08:36AM
I so enjoyed the books but the last episode was a bit of a turn off, too much sexual activity and nudity. I watched it with my neighbour and it is embarrassing in mixed company. I am happy I don't have children to watch this, it is shown at 7 PM. Her costumes also leave nothing to write home about. I hope the last segment is better.
reply
|
flag
Dear Rose--Well, tastes differ. Personally, I can't quite see how you'd do an honest version of that particular wedding night _without_ sexual activity (and what I thought quite tasteful and attractive nudity, myself). I mean--they didn't film _anything_ there that wasn't in the books.
Best,
--Diana
Rose,I don't understand how the tv episode was too much sexual activity, it was nearly the same in the book. Maybe watch it without your neighbor so you can feel more comfortable to enjoy it. I think their wedding night was done perfectly.
Tricia
but books are meant to be read and you are alone. typically tv is shared. and I agree with rose that it was too much for tv, even though tastfully done.
I had never heard of Outlander before I read that Ronald D Moore was doing a new series. This is the power of tv. It can bring a whole new audience to a book series! So out I went and bought the books and devoured them (up to about book 5 after about 3 months of reading). They are amazing and in my personal opinion, Ronald has done an AMAZING job with the tv series and whoever is the casting agent needs to be taken out to lunch (FABULOUS!). The series fits the content of the book faithfully and very tasteful and is just an honest adaptation. Since I became "obsessed" with the book and tv show, I have gotten about 10 other people hooked and they have all commented on how amazing the books and tv show is (and they in turn have hooked in others and it becomes a massive snowball effect of Outlander lovers). Only one person mentioned the sexual explicitness of it....but not that it was bad (she loved it!) just that she sat down to watch the episode with her Mum and felt uncomfortable (her Mum had no issues though :-). I am glad finally to see romantic scenes on tv that are not geared towards rape and violence. I understand people may feel differently, and you are entitled to personal opinions...this is mine :-). I love the tv show. Not quite like having to wait until April though....:-P
Diana wrote: "Dear Rose--Well, tastes differ. Personally, I can't quite see how you'd do an honest version of that particular wedding night _without_ sexual activity (and what I thought quite tasteful and ..."
Yes, I agree with you Diana.
With all the tasteless shows on TV now that throw in nudity for shock value I think Outlander is a breath of fresh air. Everything has been very tastefully done and I think they have done a beautiful job of showing the connection that Jamie and Claire have.
My 6 year old daughter wanted to watch Outlander with me. I told her she couldn't because there was course language and nudity. She said she liked that...after I stopped laughing, I told her that she would have to wait til she is a little older. As a lover of the books, the series does not disappoint.
Denise wrote: "but books are meant to be read and you are alone. typically tv is shared. and I agree with rose that it was too much for tv, even though tastfully done."Maybe too much for network TV. This is aired on cable.
I personally don't understand how it could have been done differently or more tastefully. It was extraordinary and pretty special. Loved it.
I got a little tired of so much sex in some of the books but overall they are wonderful and probably very accurate of the time. The TV series is very good too. I couldn't wait for her last book to come out. I'm reading it now and hate to put it down. What a fantastic author you are and what an imagination.
Tells you how off I am. First of all, complainers about the sex obviously don't watch much tv/cable. Second, if you read the book, the show was a little tamer. Or at least a bit more artistic, no where near as gritty as the book or the actual time period. As far as it comparing to the book, sorry but again I disagree. Being that this was my all time favorite book I felt the essence of the story was completely lost and the characters, and relationships for that matter, were not accurately portrayed at all. The Starz version is about Claire and Frank, not Jamie and Claire. And while Sam Heughan is nice to look at and all, he doesn't possess the presence of the book's Jamie, a domineering, self assured, BA, highlander who was wise and in total control. And Claire was smart, resourceful, sarcastic, and witty. Not uppity and condescending. Just my opinion. Book is an incredible tale and exceptional read. Starz version has many of the elements, but lost the feel by the third episode.
I agree with Stevie, too much emphasis on Frank and the picture I had in my mind of Jamie was of a burly, muscular Scot always taking control and Claire I pictured a little more sturdy not the fragile looking woman in the series, more of a Maureen O'Hara look. I had read the first few chapters of the last book when the series started and find I have a hard time concentrating on the characters now as I have a completely different picture of them.
We all picture the characters the way our imagination sees them when you read a book and that's not necessarily the same as each other. You can't expect them to be the same as your imagination sees them on a TV series. That's ridiculous.
Without all the Frank flashbacks and the cuts to what he's doing in the 40's, it would be lost on non-readers why Claire is so desperate to get BACK to the guy. Claire can only say in the voice overs so many times that she misses him and wants to go back to him, which is an entirely different experience when you're reading her thoughts. TV and films cannot be a word-for word adaptation to a book, its entirely implausible to expect that. Diana has never, in all 8 books, LJ novels, novellas, etc ever described Jamie as 'burly', nor does he always take control of Claire, the two of them are fairly level in that department- they both give and take, on par with one another. I believe it was the co-executive producer that said when they are auditioning, they have a description of what they are looking for physically from the source material, however, acting trumps eye color, height, size, etc. Of course these characters aren't going to be what some people have been picturing in their heads for 20+ years now, but this show is in the hands of not just TV people, but FANS of the books, wanting to be as faithful to the story and characters as possible in an entirely different medium, and I think they're doing a phenomenal job.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, however I think you're expecting too much of a modern twist on what's desirable and pretty. The goal was authenticity and remaining as true to the source material and the time periods as possible.
Every person that reads a book has a different experience with it, and to cast off someone else's interpretation of it because the actors don't look the way you wanted them to is truly a loss for you. Enjoy it for what it is, an adaptation.
Also, saying the costumes are nothing to write home about... Lady, that's just nuts.
Brilliantly said! Couldn't agree with you more.
Denise wrote: "but books are meant to be read and you are alone. typically tv is shared. and I agree with rose that it was too much for tv, even though tastfully done."I don't think that at all. If I compare it to the current running hit shows like Game of Thrones, it was mild by comparison. These books are sexual even erotic in nature, but from a women's view of sexuality. We see all sort's of men sexuality on TV and it's about time we see sexuality from a woman's perspective. I give them a lot of credit for having the courage for giving women a voice in this man-centric TV land. The sex scenes were very real, very well done.
Even when it comes to some of the more challenging sexual scenes to come in the book, I think they should be included in the TV show. Diana books handle the rapes (both male and female) in a way that gives the victims perspective, verse the rapists. I think that is a shift from what we get on many shows. Anyone who's read the books knows sex is part of the story. If sexuality is embarrassing to you, I'd choose another show to watch. This is not a show for children, nor a show for those that do not expect to see sex on TV.
I really like your perspective, Brizo, and the points you highlight. Thanks for your post.
Amanda wrote: "Without all the Frank flashbacks and the cuts to what he's doing in the 40's, it would be lost on non-readers why Claire is so desperate to get BACK to the guy. Claire can only say in the voice ove..."I agree with you on the casting, I think the casting was brilliant. I loved Sam as Jamie and Caitriona as Claire, they both are brilliant at acting the roles. I think the same for Frank/Black Jack and Dougal.
I haven't always agreed with every episode being presented as well as it could of been. I think Diana books are so encompassing with details that are just hard to duplicate in any medium. They are doing a reasonably good job at that, but I see room for improvements as well. And speak out about that when I do feel they could of done something better.
Honestly though, I love the show, even if it's not quite as good as the books. But then again there is only one Diana Gabaldon so I do give them a break for not being able to live up to her level of expertise!
Jonetta wrote: "I really like your perspective, Brizo, and the points you highlight. Thanks for your post."Thanks Jonetta.
Brizo wrote: "Denise wrote: "but books are meant to be read and you are alone. typically tv is shared. and I agree with rose that it was too much for tv, even though tastfully done."I don't think that at all. ..."
I agree, I really like both the show and the books.
