Outlander Series discussion

205 views
Outlander on Starz S2 > Episode 13 - Dragonfly in Amber

Comments Showing 51-100 of 224 (224 new)    post a comment »

message 51: by Ebele (last edited Jul 10, 2016 11:22PM) (new)

Ebele  (thegirlwonder1) I literally just emotional and left with many questions about what will happen next. I thoroughly enjoyed this season and I can't wait for seasons 3&4. I will start reading Dragonfly in Amber after I finish reading A Game of Thrones so this should be very interesting.


message 52: by Vanessa Eden (new)

Vanessa  Eden Patton (vanessaeden) | 549 comments This was the episode I've been waiting for all season. It was good but there were a few things that bothered me.
1)Bree: poor girl can't act. I can deal with her not matching the physical description of bree; I just don't think this girl can carry the show the way her character will force her to.
2) Jamie and Claire didn't cut their initials in their hands. That is one of the most romantic things Jamie and Claire did. Not to mention that their scars are mentioned in every book. It was also one of the things that gave claire strength to make it until she sees jamie again.

All in all it was really good. The actor that played Roger IMHO is a really good actor. I think they chose a good person to play roger.

I really hope they recast Bree.

I will miss little Roman that plays Fergus. He makes me cry all the time. That little boy is such a great actor. I am sorry to see him go.

But it was a good episode and a great way to end the series.

Draughtlander is on everyone!


message 53: by Meghan (new)

Meghan (writer_meg) | 4 comments I agree with everyone else who feels iffy on Sophie's portrayal of Bree. She just didn't give off that strong vibe that is so characteristic of Bree, and her acting felt sort of wooden, I guess. More like something I would see on the CW rather than Starz. I hope she does something to improve her acting.


message 54: by MichaelCollins (new)

MichaelCollins | 819 comments Bree must have some real important stuff if everyone (or at least the majority) seem to dislike Sophie's portrayal of her.


message 55: by Lynda (new)

Lynda | 67 comments Agree with missing the initials!!! hated Clair helping with demise of Dougal when the knife should have been in the throat.
Bree...when I first saw her picture, I thought - Oh, they have made a composite picture from Sam and Catrina and was amazed they had actually found someone with the looks. BUT, it drives me crazy that she is so much shorter that 6 feet, and hair is not thick, wavy and about to her waist. It's thin and looks as if it is full of split ends. She has a long way to go to be able to be believable. She is not of the caliber of most of the other actors. Don' really care for Roger. Too short and do not like tiny mouths. Oh well, had to vent among others who care. Yes, have to keep reminding myself that the scenes may be parts we didn't "see" in the books. Why do the writers keep leaving out some of the most salient parts??? I fear they are going to get farther and farther away from our beloved books.


message 56: by Lynda (new)

Lynda | 67 comments Meant to say that my husband - who has not read the books - thinks the ending was plausible and the whole story line works. He just doesn't know what he is missing!


message 57: by [deleted user] (new)

Lynda wrote: "Meant to say that my husband - who has not read the books - thinks the ending was plausible and the whole story line works. He just doesn't know what he is missing!"

Hi Lynda! I can totally see non-readers liking the finale. But, of course, you are right, they don't know what they are missing! I am glad that I am not the only one who feels that way. I posted earlier about this as well but in case you didn't see it....I read an interview that stated that they will indeed stray more from the book as the series goes on. Bummer.


message 58: by MichaelCollins (new)

MichaelCollins | 819 comments DIA is the first of the books I've read and am halfway thru, coming up on the end soon, so I guess so I will see what was left out. I did notice that Claire did not come upon the "joint" headstone in the churchyard but instead went to Culloden Moor which is something I thought she wouldn't do.

I liked Richard Rankin as Roger, Sophie Skelton I don't have any grave misgivings about although I though she was kinda irritating, phony accent and all. That opinion may change the deeper I get in the series.


message 59: by Liza (last edited Jul 11, 2016 02:26PM) (new)

Liza (lizaburgos) Claire looked like a version of Maria Callas, Jackie O and Audrey Hepburn(1960s Audrey) all at the same time - loved it! Classy

MichaelCollins wrote: "I actually thought they did a good job of moving Claire to '68 wardrobe/hairstyle wise. Was kinda surprised at the kinda short shrift Jamie (and 1746 Claire) got though. I can only speculate that t..."


message 60: by ☘ Erin K ☘ (new)

☘ Erin K ☘ | 23 comments MichaelCollins wrote: "DIA is the first of the books I've read and am halfway thru, coming up on the end soon, so I guess so I will see what was left out. I did notice that Claire did not come upon the "joint" headstone ..."

How could you have skipped reading Outlander? I can't read a series out of order - just a thing for me but, you really do miss out on a lot of information if you don't read it. I'd really encourage you to go back and read it before you go on with the series, if you plan to.


message 61: by MichaelCollins (new)

MichaelCollins | 819 comments Erin wrote: "MichaelCollins wrote: "DIA is the first of the books I've read and am halfway thru, coming up on the end soon, so I guess so I will see what was left out. I did notice that Claire did not come upon..."

I thought that the Starz series explained things well at the get go so I didn't feel like I'd been missing too much if I dove in at DIA...in fact during that book Claire DID give little asides of what happened in book 1. In fact I'm at the place Dougal showed up in Paris but that never took place in the Starz series so that part of the book going forward will be interesting.

But now that we are into Droughtlander phase I figure I will certainly have time to go back and read Book 1 ...after Voyager.


message 62: by Melany (new)

Melany (melholtz) | 6 comments I liked the episode but I'm not sure why they didn't just make it a 2hr season finale and made the Jamie/Claire scenes not so rushed, Sam was amazing as Jamie in this episode, his vows at the stones to Claire made me cry, would have been nice to have the missing goodbye scenes from the book.

I was curious to see how they would tie it all in and also manage to fit the whole geillis thing and I thought they did a good job even with all the changes, it fit the story well. I loved the 60s clothes, not so sure about claire hair.

oh and can someone tell me why is it that geillis time travels back a lot more than 200 years as opposed to claire? I'm not sure that I've read about this in the books or I might have forgotten!

So Bree, she is not perfect in terms of the book but she does look a lot like Sam. As a book character she took a while to grow on me and I remember being slightly annoyed with her attitude in DIA, I think that changes in voyager and specially in drums of autumn. So I'm hoping that might also be portrayed in the tv show.

I will miss some of the wonderfull actors that won't be there next season, however voyager should be amazing on the screen! do we really have to wait a year??!!! A big casting for next season will be adult John grey, have they released that yet?


message 63: by MichaelCollins (new)

MichaelCollins | 819 comments I don't think they have cast the adult John Grey yet -- or the adult Fergus, which should be interesting


message 64: by Nadia (new)

Nadia (tribalrose) | 57 comments I too loved the episode - overall. Though, will agree with most points put across by everyone.
I'm really disappointed with the lack of CGI on 'passing through the stones'. I mean 'time travel' is basically what the whole story is based on. I feel its really lacking on the visual effects, in that instance.
I know we can all imagine it in our heads, when reading. But they are adapting the story to screen... even just 2 seconds of special TV magic, to make it more believable.
Any others feel the same?


message 65: by MichaelCollins (new)

MichaelCollins | 819 comments Nadia wrote: "I too loved the episode - overall. Though, will agree with most points put across by everyone.
I'm really disappointed with the lack of CGI on 'passing through the stones'. I mean 'time travel' is..."


I agree -- for something that the story revolves around the time travel thru the stones is treated in a pretty dull non-descript fashion. I knew Calir/Bre/Roger would see Gellis vanish thru the stones and was surprised at how ordinairy it was treated.


message 66: by Nadia (new)

Nadia (tribalrose) | 57 comments Do you think it must be down to budget?
I find it hard to believe... as its only for a few seconds.
And having to watch as Bree & Roger 'have seen & now believe'... and us, as viewers, don't see a thing.....

Aaaahhh I'm nit picking!


message 67: by MichaelCollins (new)

MichaelCollins | 819 comments Nadia wrote: "Do you think it must be down to budget?
I find it hard to believe... as its only for a few seconds.
And having to watch as Bree & Roger 'have seen & now believe'... and us, as viewers, don't see a..."


That could be part of it but I kinda doubt it -- it would be so brief and occur rarely that cost shouldn't be a factor.But yeah -- I'm glad Roger and Bree were there to get a good look at it as I was kind dubious and had to pay close attention.


message 68: by Nadia (new)

Nadia (tribalrose) | 57 comments Hahahahaha!
It's a bit like that, hey!?


message 69: by MichaelCollins (new)

MichaelCollins | 819 comments Nadia wrote: "Hahahahaha!
It's a bit like that, hey!?"


It was even shorter than that lol


message 70: by Liza (last edited Jul 11, 2016 11:17PM) (new)

Liza (lizaburgos) anyone noticed (forgot her name. roger's housekeeper) is an extra on episode four season 1 of outlander? minute: 48:53

just a thought.
yes, i am watching it again and checking out the details.


message 71: by Nadia (new)

Nadia (tribalrose) | 57 comments Liza wrote: "anyone noticed (forgot her name. roger's housekeeper) is an extra on episode four season 1 of outlander? minute: 48:53

just a thought.
yes, i am watching it again and checking out the details."


Yep!! Think your right. 48.35 on my clock, lol!
Gosh you have a VERY keen eye! Well spotted!


message 72: by Nadia (new)

Nadia (tribalrose) | 57 comments So I've just finished washing up my dinner dishes (I'm in Australia..) and I'm pondering your little revelation.

Wow.. is it coincidental, that in the present day she is a witch (or whatever they're called) in training? Please correct me if I've muddled that up.


message 73: by Liza (new)

Liza (lizaburgos) I didn't think of this. she could be a witch since her relative was one! Good point :)


Nadia wrote: "So I've just finished washing up my dinner dishes (I'm in Australia..) and I'm pondering your little revelation.

Wow.. is it coincidental, that in the present day she is a witch (or whatever they'..."



message 74: by Shay (new)

Shay (shaylyn318) I am highly disappointed in the casting of Bree. (view spoiler) She is way too short and feminine looking. So unless they plan to drop that part entirely it makes no sense to change her so much. Also I didn't like the changes with Leghair. (view spoiler)


message 75: by MichaelCollins (new)

MichaelCollins | 819 comments I thought in the books Jamie DID marry Loughire -- had to eventually buy her off too.

By the way, good catch about Roger's housekeeper. Wonder if that means anything?


message 76: by Nadia (new)

Nadia (tribalrose) | 57 comments MichaelCollins wrote: "I thought in the books Jamie DID marry Loughire -- had to eventually buy her off too.

By the way, good catch about Roger's housekeeper. Wonder if that means anything?"


I wonder too...
Of all the female 'extras' they could have used, why her? When she has a role already? mmmmm......

In the books, every character that Diana dreams up, plays their part, in the extensive labyrinth of the Outlander journey.
Even if only a brief role... they're often mentioned &/or return later on down the track.


message 77: by MichaelCollins (new)

MichaelCollins | 819 comments Yeah I'm getting to then point where I appreciate Diana' story telling flexibility as it seems to keep things interesting. After navigating through parts of the preceding story I'd bee reluctant to diminish that actress's role unless Ronald Moore says she was simply cast for convenience.


message 78: by Nadia (new)

Nadia (tribalrose) | 57 comments Shay wrote: "I am highly disappointed in the casting of Bree. [spoilers removed] She is way too short and feminine looking. So unless they plan to drop that part entirely it makes no sense to change her so much..."

I see your point Shay.
That said... I really was very unsure about Cait playing Clare, in the beginning (with some of her visual differences to the book description & it being her first acting gig.)
However, two seasons on, I think her acting ability has blossomed. I LOVE her :) and think she has done an incredible job playing her.
Not sure where their going with the character of Loughire.. will be interesting to see it unfold next season.

And what a looong wait that'll be :(


message 79: by Zoey (new)

Zoey  (rozannen) | 229 comments I loved the final episode & think it is probably my favourite of this season. Yes Jamie & Claires 'Goodbye' was a bit rushed but I loved him saying the 'you gave me a rare woman lord' part and dont really know what could have been cut out to make it longer. So overall I'm happy.
I couldn't wait for the 1968 parts as Roger is one of my favourite characters & I love Richard Rankin and wasn't disappointed in the slightest. I had no problem with Sophie as Bree, thought she did a fine job and the physical differences don't bother me at all. Sophie is a few inches too short with the wrong colour eyes & Cait is a few inches too tall with the wrong colour eyes. Doesnt matter in the overall scheme of things. To me anyway :)
I have to agree with Vanessa above about young Fergus. He was brilliant & will definitely be missed :( But I am hoping we will get him for at least a couple of scenes in Season 3. The bit where (view spoiler) is a pretty important part so I would think that would be included maybe? But as much as he will be missed I am really looking forward to see who they cast as the older version :)
Murtagh is another that will be missed. There is someone who looks nothing like his character in the books but I dont think they could have found anyone better. Loved him. I did see pic of him that he posted just recently which showed he was re-growing his beard (he shaved it off at the end of filming) so maybe he is preparing for a few Season 3 scenes too. Some flashbacks maybe?


message 80: by Carol (new)

Carol | 193 comments So...about young Fergus. It seems to me that if they do Voyager right, we will still get to see him! Voyager is told in pieces, as Claire is getting ready to go back through the stones, and what has happened to Jamie in the 20 years that have passed since Culloden. I certainly hope they do that! So much happens that is important to the rest of the story, I can't imagine they will leave it out! And Fergus has a rather large role to play....


message 81: by Silverblades (last edited Jul 13, 2016 12:03PM) (new)

Silverblades | 265 comments I recognize that Sophie's lines seemed a bit stiff, hopefully, her accent will improve with practice. Her height didn't bother me too much, nor did her eyes, and as for her hair, they tried to make it thicker and wavier, but it didn't look right for the 1960's, so they ended up deciding that it was more important that it look true to the time period. This means that, like Claire's, her hair will probably curl up and change if (or when) she travels back to the 1700's.


message 82: by MichaelCollins (new)

MichaelCollins | 819 comments Silverblades wrote: "I recognize that Sophie's lines seemed a bit stiff, hopefully, her accent will improve with practice. Her height didn't bother me too much, nor did her eyes, and as for her hair, they tried to make..."

I think Ron Moore said her accent was ok as is simply because they are doing a fair number of accents already on the show.


message 83: by Silverblades (new)

Silverblades | 265 comments MichaelCollins wrote: "Silverblades wrote: "I recognize that Sophie's lines seemed a bit stiff, hopefully, her accent will improve with practice. Her height didn't bother me too much, nor did her eyes, and as for her hai..."

That was in reference to her not going full on Massachusetts accent. I honestly wouldn't have minded if she had allowed a bit more of her natural British accent through. Her parents are from England, so her speech doesn't have to be 100% American.


message 84: by MichaelCollins (new)

MichaelCollins | 819 comments Silverblades wrote: "MichaelCollins wrote: "Silverblades wrote: "I recognize that Sophie's lines seemed a bit stiff, hopefully, her accent will improve with practice. Her height didn't bother me too much, nor did her e..."

I knew her background was British ans thought her US accent surprisingly good. The fact she may have skipped a NE dialect I didn't consider important.


message 85: by M. (new)

M. MacKinnon | 121 comments I think we might give Sophie's Brianna a bit of a break, at least for now. The beginning scenes, even in the book, are somewhat awkward as she wrestles with the weirdness of a mother who was always "in her own world" and hard to get close to, and I thought her acceptance, which so paralleled Jamie's, was endearing. She has some time to develop her dramatic side before she meets...you know who.


message 86: by MissSusie (last edited Jul 13, 2016 01:09PM) (new)

MissSusie | 146 comments Monica wrote: "I think we might give Sophie's Brianna a bit of a break, at least for now. The beginning scenes, even in the book, are somewhat awkward as she wrestles with the weirdness of a mother who was always..."

I agree it took me a long time to really like (Book)Bree so I had no real problems with her performance because I wasn't a big fan of hers in the book either at this time. But I really enjoyed Richard Rankin as Roger and I do believe I will love him as much as book Roger.

I too am so sad to be losing young Romann as Fergus though as others have said we will see him a bit still as a young boy but I am so curious who they will get to play him as an adult and I even went in to see when Fergus' children were born hoping he could play one of them but alas he doesn't even get married till Jamacia.

I will not pass judgement on Sophie as Brianna yet. And I absolutely loved the finale and had no problems with anything that was left out, I am happy with the job Ron Moore is doing and feel like he is keeping the feelings of the book true if not every word and scene.

Now I need to re-listen to Voyager!


message 87: by Silverblades (new)

Silverblades | 265 comments MichaelCollins wrote: "Silverblades wrote: "MichaelCollins wrote: "Silverblades wrote: "I recognize that Sophie's lines seemed a bit stiff, hopefully, her accent will improve with practice. Her height didn't bother me to..."

As one who lives in NE I fully agree. And for the record, I fully approve of Sophie as Brianna.


message 88: by Zoey (new)

Zoey  (rozannen) | 229 comments The reason there was no carving of initials :)

 photo 13620341_10154234587037778_2817369594650526256_n_zpsnp7jrja2.jpg


message 89: by MissSusie (new)

MissSusie | 146 comments Zoey wrote: "The reason there was no carving of initials :)



"


Ron has actually explained it by saying the blood was too much and the costume changes and such so he decided against it.


message 90: by Zoey (new)

Zoey  (rozannen) | 229 comments MissSusie wrote: "Zoey wrote: "The reason there was no carving of initials :)



"

Ron has actually explained it by saying the blood was too much and the costume changes and such so he decided against it."


Yes I know, its just a bit of humour :)


message 91: by [deleted user] (new)

Zoey wrote: "The reason there was no carving of initials :)



"

Haha!


message 92: by [deleted user] (new)

MissSusie wrote: "Zoey wrote: "The reason there was no carving of initials :)

I also read that 'explanation' and find it to be ridiculous! Remember Season 1...too much blood! Seriously? I am so not buying that excuse. Thank goodness I knew beforehand that they didn't include it so I was prepared. But I was so incredibly disappointed and for book readers, their departure in the TV series didn't even come close (of course, my opinion) to the book.

Ron has actually explained it by saying the blood was too much and the costume changes and such so he decided against it."



message 93: by Tessa (new)

Tessa Eversole (dearnabby) | 39 comments How hard would it have been to cut in close to just their hands to carve the initials and then zoom out in their dang costumes again?! That part broke my heart in the books and ill be sad to see those scenes mentioning them in the later seasons. oh well...


message 94: by [deleted user] (new)

Tessa wrote: "How hard would it have been to cut in close to just their hands to carve the initials and then zoom out in their dang costumes again?! That part broke my heart in the books and ill be sad to see th..."

Exactly Tessa!


message 95: by Megan (new)

Megan | 86 comments MichaelCollins wrote: "Bree must have some real important stuff if everyone (or at least the majority) seem to dislike Sophie's portrayal of her."

**Spoilers ahead**
Personally, I find Bree's character to be quite ornery (I'm currently about 3/4 through The Fiery Cross, and to me she's just this moaning, perpetually lactating pain in the arse!) I didn't mind the actress's portrayal of her, in fact I thought she was quite endearing. She's quite a bit younger than I visualised, but I thought her and Roger bounced off each other quite well and I thought her acting was fine. Personally I just think she's a bit of an annoying character, whereas Roger is very likeable, so the actor had a less difficult time convincing the audience. I've read some comments on social media and some of them are about as negative as those directed to the women Sam Heughan has been acquainted with since his rise to fame. I just hope people give her a chance. It would be awful for such a pivotal cast member to feel rejected by the fan base when they're so loving and supportive of everyone else.

What I was most miffed about was them deciding to omit the scene where Claire discovers both BJR's and Jamie's stone at St Kilda, as where I'm up to with the books (I don't know beyond The Fiery Cross) but it's a source of real anxiety for Claire, not wanting to return to Scotland... I would've preferred they keep that in and have Claire's monologue at the Fraser's memorial stone at Culloden at St Kilda instead. Not sure how they're going to get around that as it's integral to not only the future story but Frank's motivation too.


message 96: by Megan (new)

Megan | 86 comments Nancy wrote: "MissSusie wrote: "Zoey wrote: "The reason there was no carving of initials :)

I also read that 'explanation' and find it to be ridiculous! Remember Season 1...too much blood! Seriously? I am so no..."


You couldn't get much more blood than that vile nightmare Jamie had when he was banging Claire who morphed into BJR! I'd rather they cut that out instead! It was disturbing!!


message 97: by Megan (new)

Megan | 86 comments Melany wrote: "I liked the episode but I'm not sure why they didn't just make it a 2hr season finale and made the Jamie/Claire scenes not so rushed, Sam was amazing as Jamie in this episode, his vows at the stone..."

Haha, my mum came over as I was rewatching the episode, spied Claire's hair and make up and said "Oh I used to wear my hair and make up exactly like that!" and then gave me a verbal tutorial on how to get the look down pat! haha!


message 98: by Diane (new)

Diane (Tvor) | 19 comments There's still time for Claire to find Jamie's gravestone at ST. Kilda, I think. The season ended with Roger telling her he thinks Jamie survived. I wonder if S3 will start with them doing some digging and finding the stone? Could still happen.


message 99: by MichaelCollins (new)

MichaelCollins | 819 comments Good comments all - and kinda depresses me as to how seriously Outlander got ripped off at the Emmy nominations.

I can see for costumes and sets but no recognition of the talents, abilities, cheivements of Tobias, Caitriona, Sam just seems kinda lame and does not do justice to the series,

As an aside I was kinda disappointed in them omitting fining of the Gravestone at St. Kilda as i thought it critical to the story moving forward


message 100: by MichaelCollins (new)

MichaelCollins | 819 comments From the Master himself:

“Outlander was robbed,” Game of Thrones author George R. R. Martin wrote in a response to someone who commented on his LiveJournal on Friday. “All three leads were amazing… especially Tobias Menzies in his double role as Frank and Black Jack.”


back to top