Must be a group member before inviting friends
Outlander Series discussion
Outlander on Starz S2
>
Episode 13 - Dragonfly in Amber
message 151:
by
M.
(new)
Aug 05, 2016 07:16PM
It's hard to notice anything else that's close to Jamie's face, lol
reply
|
flag
Monica wrote: "It's hard to notice anything else that's close to Jamie's face, lol"I'll concede that lol -- but when I posted that to Instagram some users suggested it was just 'cause he had to get new stuff after leaving France
MichaelCollins wrote: "Just my opinion lolhttp://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m1..."
LOL - are you going to put Jamie's picture on your holiday photo cards this year??
Monica wrote: "It's hard to notice anything else that's close to Jamie's face, lol"Agree!!
MichaelCollins wrote: "Monica wrote: "It's hard to notice anything else that's close to Jamie's face, lol"I'll concede that lol -- but when I posted that to Instagram some users suggested it was just 'cause he had to g..."
It's funny how many times the characters lose everything and have to get new stuff. How many dresses has Claire ruined from falling overboard, clambering through swamps, getting her bodice ripped, etc., yet somehow she always finds someone with old dress laying around that fits her!
So true; they're always arriving someplace penniless and beyond grubby, and within hours are dressed like royalty!
Beth wrote: "MichaelCollins wrote: "Monica wrote: "It's hard to notice anything else that's close to Jamie's face, lol"I'll concede that lol -- but when I posted that to Instagram some users suggested it was ..."
Clothes back then were used until they were truly beyond repair. It wasn't so much a matter of finding clothes that fit as making whatever is available at the moment fit. There are several times in the books where Jamie has to borrow clothes that are way too small and Claire makes fun of his too-tight trousers.
Monica wrote: "So true; they're always arriving someplace penniless and beyond grubby, and within hours are dressed like royalty!"In any other book I would be really annoyed with things like that, because it's so darn unrealistic, but somehow I can forgive all plausibility sins in Outlander. I just go with it!
Beth wrote: "MichaelCollins wrote: "Monica wrote: "It's hard to notice anything else that's close to Jamie's face, lol"I'll concede that lol -- but when I posted that to Instagram some users suggested it was ..."
Yeah really -- so often throughout the books they get into a fight or some adventures and Diana clearly desrips Jamie's shirt blood stained and in tatters and Clair has to do some major repair work.
Monica wrote: "So true; they're always arriving someplace penniless and beyond grubby, and within hours are dressed like royalty!"Yes, and the new breeks or new dress is always just a teensy bit too small, which further encourages every person Jamie and Claire meet to want to hop in the sack with them!
My daughter, who doesn't blink at Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead, just finished binge watching Outlander this morning. She sat there sobbing, saying "I hate this show! Why did that have to happen? When does season 3 start?!" I have sucked in another one, lol.
She isn't the only won waiting -- but at least Sam Tweeted recently S3 filming HAS begun!
Ron Moorse evidently shares your excitement indicating Voyager would be literally wall to wall action -- like the book. Ships and different ports of call will make it outstanding!
That's how it is in the book. From the moment Claire lands back in Edinbrough it's non stop!
Shanah wrote: "That's how it is in the book. From the moment Claire lands back in Edinbrough it's non stop!"Yeah I noticed that! The pace was pretty rapid and it was a constant page turner. Betting it will be an exciting season -- too bad we will have to wait until Spring tho'
Erin K wrote: "I was sorry they didn't include the part where Claire and Jamie cut each other's initials in their thumbs. It's a fairly minor detail but it's referred to several times in the books. It's part of t..."I was SO bummed they didn't include that too! The odd little ring exchange replaced it, maybe? Overall I was sorely disappointed with the finale. I also just finished listening to DIA on audiobook, so everything was super fresh in my mind.
she said it couldnt be done because of the blood knife used in filming. I would have liked to have seen that too. Perhaps when Claire is in flashback or something they can show it as a scar to remind us it's there. I had made that suggestion on a facebook posting.
I was disappointed they didn't show the discovery of the gravestone in the churchyard, particularly when that IS discussed going forward.
One fans estimate of when Droughtlander ends...
Keep in mind there are changes from print to screen.
Oh absolutely -- but the transfer over and the actors managing it have been magnificant!
Where in the books does Claire see the gravestone? I have read up to Voyager and don't recall reading it.
Actually I think it is in Voyager but I binge read the series so I get mixed up. Since this thread is for the TV series we really should not be discussing anything beyond what has been shown in the series.
It IS in Voyager but the background on it isn't fully elaborated (Roger to Jamie) until The Fiery Cross I think.
It's in DIA. I thought it was Vger too but it's not. It's what sets her and Roger on the paper trail.
I had to find it. It's chapter 5 of DIA. Beloved wife.
YES! Interesting explanation for it but staying spoiler proof means you have to keep reading onward.
One thing which bothered me about the show (just reading them now), was how badly Frank had to take all this on the chin. It's clear he loves Claire dearly, and it was sad to see her total lack of regard for the man she originally married. Shows what a good person he is that he decided to stand by her and raise her baby. I realize he couldn't have children of his own, but I really admire him for this.. Obviously she loves Jamie (that intense a relationship, in such turbulent times). Just questioning how deeply she ever loved her first husband in the first place. hoping this reads a bit differently to be honest.
Teresa wrote: "One thing which bothered me about the show (just reading them now), was how badly Frank had to take all this on the chin. It's clear he loves Claire dearly, and it was sad to see her total lack of ..."
HI Teresa! I have had those same thoughts. However, Claire was way younger than Frank (over 10 years I believe) and never had parents or a family. So to me, it makes sense that she would easily fall for an older man who takes an interest in her. I think she loved him, but was not "in love" with him. That's my take anyway!
HI Teresa! I have had those same thoughts. However, Claire was way younger than Frank (over 10 years I believe) and never had parents or a family. So to me, it makes sense that she would easily fall for an older man who takes an interest in her. I think she loved him, but was not "in love" with him. That's my take anyway!
I also feel the same about Frank. He loved her but was not in love with her. If it were the other way around I think Claire would have taken Frank back after a disappearance. She never wanted or expected the relationship with Jamie and once it happened she could never get over it because it was all consuming. I think it is a tragic situation for all involved which is probably DG's point.
I agree with Diane and Nancy. I think when Claire and Frank married she was very young and naive. They were then separated by the war. During that time Claire matured and the two of them probably naturally grew apart. Then she meets the man with whom she will have share a love for the ages. I don't think she could have denied her feelings for Jamie if she tried. I think the mature Claire felt affection and respect for Frank but I don't think she would ever have really loved him whether Jamie was in the picture or not.
You probably misunderstand my actual intent. Her choosing Jamie is not an issue with me, my goodness, I would have too. i think she could have been kinder to Frank. She presented this all to him in a very self absorbed, uncaring manner. I would like to think in a similar situation i could have told all this to him in a manner where he could understand my pain without the carelessly damaging emotional download. He had moved on with his life, but came right to her when she resurfaced. I don't believe better treatment of Frank in this situation would have thrown shade on anything Jamie (now dead in the past) and Claire had together. Just starting DIA, so still need to read how the story actually goes down in the book.
Teresa wrote: "You probably misunderstand my actual intent. Her choosing Jamie is not an issue with me, my goodness, I would have too. i think she could have been kinder to Frank. She presented this all to him in..."I think to say that Claire presented her "news" to Frank in a self absorbed, uncaring manner is very unfair. She was experiencing a kind of PTSD -- not the WWII kind but from being wrenched away from Jamie so suddenly and leaving a century she had been living in for a couple of years -- I don't know how she could respond with thoughtfulness and affection at that point. I think what she really needed was a good therapist and instead she had Frank making ultimatums and burning her clothing which (except for the baby) was her last concrete link to Jamie and his time.
I agree with Sandy. Claire was emotionally attached to Jamie more so that she ever was to Frank. His ultimatums May have made sense at the time you could tell there was a lot of unhappiness in their marriage. Nothing was ever resolved... just buried for a long time.
Perhaps you are right. I am sure as i read it this will be more apparent in the book, where it is too difficult to portray on screen. Tobias Menzies is a great actor, he truly made me feel how Frank felt when hearing all this from her. I can't help but feel right now that Frank's signing up for a completely loveless marriage.
The feel is different in the book than in the TV show and having experienced both it is hard for me to comment with out taking the book into consideration. There is a different slant as far as Franks character is concerned in the TV show. Partially , I believe, because it is being re written from a different point of view. Partially because DG's original intent did not clearly come across in the books for many fans. DG has defended Franks position over the years believing fans did not get him correctly. When she wrote OUTlander she had never intended it to be published and did not fully flesh things out due to inexperience. The TV series has allowed us to see Franks character more like DG intended. Besides Tobias is such a wonderful actor (why has he not won any awards) he really puts life into the character of Frank.Keep reading Teresa and you will see a bit of a different side of Frank but having had a different point of view of Frank you will experience a fuller picture.
Diane wrote: "The feel is different in the book than in the TV show and having experienced both it is hard for me to comment with out taking the book into consideration. There is a different slant as far as Fran..."
Diane, that is an excellent point about book readers and watching the show.
Teresa, it might help you to know that I have read that Ron loves the character of Frank (and Tobias) and flat out said that he wanted to dive more into Frank than the book did. There was an entire episode about Frank in the first season that never happened in the book but made him look like a victim and I found myself being more sympathic towards him than I ever did reading the book.
Diane, that is an excellent point about book readers and watching the show.
Teresa, it might help you to know that I have read that Ron loves the character of Frank (and Tobias) and flat out said that he wanted to dive more into Frank than the book did. There was an entire episode about Frank in the first season that never happened in the book but made him look like a victim and I found myself being more sympathic towards him than I ever did reading the book.
I always thought Claire and Frank were mis-matched. I felt that Claire growing up without a father may have found safety and comfort in him but from that perspective. In Jamie, well, she felt her soul rise and fall with every breath that he took and it was way too easy to fall for him. If she truly loved Frank like that, it would not have been so easy.
Thanks. I had just finished Outlander at the end of last month, and immediately dived into DIA. Nancy, its funny having read this as I was watching and rewatching episodes, i didn't notice that his grieving, the near miss blackmailing, and Mrs. Graham's explanation of the mystical aspect of the stones isn't part of the book. Guess that shows how totally immersive the show and books are when doing both at the same time. Luckily I believe I will be beyond Voyager by the time next season begins. This is precisely why i don't like reading books after watching the screen adaptations of them.
That may be so, but she did love Frank and spent so much worry and energy on Franks behalf even after she knew Jamie was the love of her life. I do not think it was way too easy for her to fall for Jamie. She resisted for quite awhile before being forced into marriage. At that point she had not "fallen" for Jamie and was using the marriage as a means to an end and still trying to get back to Frank. I think she and Frank would have been fine had she never gone through the stones. Her love for Frank would have been enough if she never had the comparison of what love for Jamie was like.I think the age difference with Frank could have been because she was looking for that "older man protector" . After being separated for so long and Claire finding her own as an Army nurse things changed and she did not need protection. They were just getting reacquainted after the separation when Claire disappeared. They did not have time to grow into their new roles in their marriage. Finding herself in the 1700's put Claire back into that position of needing protection and she was resistant to that also. Jamie of course fell into that role of protector quite easily while trying to be understanding of her strangeness and differences and allowing her some degree of independence.
True Diane, Frank did appear to be friends as well as a research colleague with the reverend. So they must have been fairly close in age. (They should have made the actor playing the Reverend a tad younger though.) You could tell Claire was bored by his interest in all the historical stuff he was into, probably her Uncle's influence. Guess it was good she was indulgent enough to listen. I think some of the things they were discussing ended up being useful to her in the past.
Teresa wrote: "True Diane, Frank did appear to be friends as well as a research colleague with the reverend. So they must have been fairly close in age. (They should have made the actor playing the Reverend a tad..."I always got the impression that Claire had been fortunate to hear some historical background that gave her sort of a "Heads up" before going thru the stones the first time.
Having said that, I was more sympathetic to Frank from the show ('Cause I agree with the above) that Tobias was an amazing actor that certainly robbed awards time.
My sympathy kinda faded wjhen reading DIA and DG had revealed he seemed to keep a bunch of mistresses floating about -- and yet had demanded perfect allegiance from Claire who had had to forgo Jamie.
Wonder is the upcoming S3 will see more of that and indeed if the "gravestone" will eventually be discussed.
Bet they do. I saw an interview after one of the shows where they said the time sequences were changed up to make the show easier to follow, and allow them to save 1968 for the finale. It doesn't mess with the stories integrity to do so. i've just read through the modern beginning of DIA, and I'm kind of glad they chose to do that with the show. Just as pleased having watched the show for the book to have began differently. Makes me feel like I'm not just reading a carbon copy of S2 after having watched it.
Teresa wrote: "Bet they do. I saw an interview after one of the shows where they said the time sequences were changed up to make the show easier to follow, and allow them to save 1968 for the finale. It doesn't m..."I really liked the way they structured S2 -- the beginning and end were certainly well done and fit well, achieving great continuity.
Teresa wrote: "Thanks. I had just finished Outlander at the end of last month, and immediately dived into DIA. Nancy, its funny having read this as I was watching and rewatching episodes, i didn't notice that his..."
Teresa, I totally agree! Which is why once I 'discovered' Outlander via the series, I bought the book, recorded the series and then watched after. While there were a few times I was really frustrated with the show, I still was able to enjoy it. I understand they are different mediums and for me, the book is always better simply because it 'tells' the story so much more. The second season, for me, was a big let down overall. I look forward to Voyager but can't help but think it will be veer away from the book and continue to do so as the series goes on...this is also something I read about Ron and team...fyi. We shall see.
Teresa, I totally agree! Which is why once I 'discovered' Outlander via the series, I bought the book, recorded the series and then watched after. While there were a few times I was really frustrated with the show, I still was able to enjoy it. I understand they are different mediums and for me, the book is always better simply because it 'tells' the story so much more. The second season, for me, was a big let down overall. I look forward to Voyager but can't help but think it will be veer away from the book and continue to do so as the series goes on...this is also something I read about Ron and team...fyi. We shall see.
Diane wrote: "That may be so, but she did love Frank and spent so much worry and energy on Franks behalf even after she knew Jamie was the love of her life. I do not think it was way too easy for her to fall for JamieDiane,
You it the nail on the head here. I couldn't have summed Claire's feelings for both Frank and Jamie any better. Thanks.
