Outlander Series discussion
miscellaneous
>
Have Your Impressions Changed Due to Book vs. Tv Series?
I think the show allows to see Frank more than the book and I like that. I can remember when I first started reading the book I wanted Claire to get back with Frank. I thought maybe she would be slipping between the two times and have a husband in each. (I know that shocks a lot of people) After later books I disliked Frank and was all over Jamie and Claire. I think seeing Frank in the show allows me to not dislike his character and maybe understand their relationship more.
Book- Disliked Frank. He was way too detached and obsessive with his research. I never felt like they were a couple. He pretty much ignored Claire. And it has been awhile since I read it but didn't he cut Claire off when she was talking once? I found that rude of him. Leghair- of course I hated her for obvious reasons.Show- I find Frank charming. I like that they gave us more of Claire and Frank. They did seem in love and still had passion for each other. It makes me see why Claire wants to get back to him. In the book I was always annoyed at her defending Frank so much. I was like who cares about him, you have Jamie now. Leghair is also coming across as more likable. She is infatuated with Jamie. Claire has encouraged her to go after him. Jamie has kissed her. Later when Claire and Jamie come back married it will be understandable why she would hate Claire and send her into the lions den.
Those of you who have been on board via the books for decades, this is directed to you :Do you feel that perhaps, as Herself is consulting on the series, that she is allowing these liberties in plot/development/scenes/character as a way of fleshing out the original version? I would never be so bold as to ask her directly, but it occurs to me that this may be a vehicle to revisit (!!) the book scene by scene and add things she may have felt would work.
I think that may be a bit of it but she is just a consultant and not actually doing these changes. I have thought that she has expressed things that were maybe misinterpreted from her books so the picture is clearer for the series. An example would be how many many people disliked Frank and saw him as a not so upstanding character. She has defended his character and said he was not meant to be seen that way. the show puts him in a different light and allows the viewers an insight into his relationship with Claire. Laoghaire is the same. (view spoiler)
Diane wrote: "I think that may be a bit of it but she is just a consultant and not actually doing these changes. I have thought that she has expressed things that were maybe misinterpreted from her books so the ..."Whole heartedly agree we the this post. I think its going to be interesting seeing possible changes in characters. Not actual changes per say but because of our own personal experiences in life we can take someone in a different way than the author has intended.
Personally, I didn't think the changes to Frank or Laoghair were exceptional or anything because the way they're portrayed in the show is how I saw them in the book but I am definitely in the minority there.
But this gives Diana a chance to clarify things for us which is neat. Rob has said (in a podcast I think?) That they even ask Diana how the characters would act when they add scenes to make sure they stay true to the book and the way she sees the characters.
Great post, Ellen!I never thought of that, but it would make a lot of sense.
I think the show puts that back into perspective if you are willing to watch the show and not try to nitpick it to the book. I am enjoying looking at the story with a new perspective.
Ellen wrote: "Those of you who have been on board via the books for decades, this is directed to you :Do you feel that perhaps, as Herself is consulting on the series, that she is allowing these liberties in pl..."
No, I think she understands that Ron knows more about what creates a good screen version, as she does about storytelling. I think she approves of some of the changes in respect for that, but speaks up when she really thinks it will make a significant difference to the story. She mentioned in an interview she had them put the scene back in where Jamie was speaking to Claire about "not worrying while he is near her no one would hurt her" because she thought that important to the story.
The screen version I think is pretty much following the book so far, they have switched some things around and there are additions I didn't like, but for the most part I think its been fine. I just hope they keep the Claire/Jamie romance intact without many changes. I think sometimes that with male screenwriters might not understanding the romance as much as a women writer might, nor the importance of that to the female fans... I don't want this for the sake of male action scenes to negate that if you know what I mean.
Although I starting reading the books about 20 years ago, I just found out while watching "The Wedding" that Fraser rhymes with razor and not with glacier, so now I realize that I've been mispronouncing it wrong the entire time.
This would not have happened if I'd gotten the books on audio :)
This would not have happened if I'd gotten the books on audio :)
Barbara wrote: "Although I starting reading the books about 20 years ago, I just found out while watching "The Wedding" that Fraser rhymes with razor and not with glacier, so now I realize that I've been mispronou..."I had to laugh outloud Barbara!! I pronouncing it wrong the whole time, and I listened to the audio of Outlander.
I agree that the show shows Frank in a different light than the book. I just never had any feelings for him one way or another in the book, except wondering why Claire wanted to get back to him so badly after she had Jamie. But now I can see that they really loved each other and that they were trying to build theirs lives together after being separated for so long. I think Cat and Sam are doing an amazing job and from now on I won't be able to see these characters any other way. I think I'm infatuated with both of them... especially Sam and his nice ass!
They my still be planning to bring up some missing dialogue in a future episode. I am thinking especially the part about honesty with each other even if some info is withheld. Also the whole thing with the ring that is driving people nuts - Claire didn't get her real ring until after they got back to Leoch so that may address that later. I think people need to watch the show for what it is in order to get the most out of it. When you expect it to be exactly like the book you set your self up for disappointment.
Ron said in an interview that the author has as many pages as they need and all the time they need ,where he has very limited time to get the main points of it together so it stays close to the book and hopefully satisfies everyone, and I feel keeps the spirit of the book.How can it be reasonable to put each persons favorites they felt were left out into episodes unless you had 30 years to do it and to watch it also for the next 30 yrs?
As long as he stays true to the spirit of the book and doesn`t stray away from it I am incredibly happy with these episodes they have given us,and if I see a favorite it will just be an added bonus
I wish soap operas were still as popular as they used to be, . . . and then I wish Outlander had been made into one, so we could see it for an hour every day. Then we'd have time for all our favorite moments. I'm glad we get a TV series, although I could do without the midseason break.
I will second that and maybe before it`s all over most of them will pop up because they are all very important to so many folks.Rachel I read Ron say something about the hiatus will last for so long(I wasn`t paying attention right when he said it)but after that he said he didn`t want to lose his(some kind of audience)so he would see how it went.I am sure I heard it so it must be an interview but I can`t find it now.
I have been very happy watching it all play out. I loved this mos recent episode, but, like others, I was hoping that there would have been the conversation about respect and his true reason for marriage. I also think that the scene (in the book) at Lallybroch when Jaime tells her the full reason is such a fan favorite that I can't imagine it not making an appearance in the series. However, I will gladly watch any or all Outlander-themed series that come around. It is also my ardent hope that they continue on with the entire series. I would love to see Brianna, Willie, Lord John, et al.
I love the adaptation in general, but I like some of the changes more than others. In general, the factual changes (like making the Fraser tartan less red or adding the scene where Claire is in the garrison with the British officers), aren't as important to me as the changes in character development.I think my favorite change is Claire. Claire is shown in the TV show as a little more likely to jump to conclusions and a little less adept at reading people and situations than Claire in the book, without making her any less intelligent. I can totally imagine that, since the book is written from her POV but the TV show takes a wider view, that change could be more about how she sees herself compared to how others see her, rather than actually change in her character. And I think that it sets up the character to grow more over the course of the show - that the experiences she has will changer her, making her a more interesting and dynamic character.
And I know people have complained about how Claire should be less thin, but I don't agree. In Outlander (the book) she's described as fine-boned, with long arms, strong narrow hands, and a round ass. It's only in later books, after 20 years and childbirth, that she's written as having luscious boobs or being plump. I know I'm a lot less skinny now than I was 20 years ago - I have no problem imagining that she starts out willowy right after WWII and ends up plump a couple decades later. It would be nice if she were shorter and had the perfect eye color, but I like her as an actress for this role, and neither of those details affects the character development or plot, so I don't mind.
I also like how the relationship between Frank and Claire is fleshed out so we that Claire's dilemma is harder. And I like how that in the show, I'm get to know Dougal, Rupert, and Angus better.
The only real problem I have is with Jamie. I love the actor, but I think that Jamie in the show is written as less wise and perceptive than Jamie in the book. In the book, his ability to understand people is one of the central aspects of his character. You can't mess with that without fundamentally changing his personality. But in the episodes so far, the writers have removed the situations where that perception is shown (for example, after the wedding, when he asks about Frank and makes sure Claire knows he understands that would be thinking about him) and added some where he's a bit more callous or callow (for example, when he makes fun of Leghair while sitting next to Claire). He's still thoughtful and chivalrous and brave and funny and all, but he's just not the same character without his keen insight.
Cathy wrote: "I love the adaptation in general, but I like some of the changes more than others. In general, the factual changes (like making the Fraser tartan less red or adding the scene where Claire is in th..."Wow that is an awesome point... your last paragraph. I never even thought about that but you are right. Hopefully they will fix that soon by starting to add more depth to his character.
That's so true, but I'm hopeing that they were more focused on Claire in the beginning and now that they are together we will see more of Jamie's character develop. He had such small parts before because Claire really had no real interest in him but now he will have a lot more time on the show and hopefully a lot more scenes.
WOW! Great point, Cathy!This had crossed my mind early on, but I love Sam as Jamie so much, that I didn't give it too much thought, until you spelled it out here.
He was wise beyond his years in the book, which made perfect sense, considering that he had already lost his parents and a brother, and been through imprisonment and torture.
It's slightly adorable though, how they make him seem younger and a bit less perceptive on the show, and I'm thinking maybe as the series continues, we'll see the development of all this wisdom he has in the book.
Barbara wrote: "Although I starting reading the books about 20 years ago, I just found out while watching "The Wedding" that Fraser rhymes with razor and not with glacier, so now I realize that I've been mispronou..."That is one of the advantages to the audios...I couldn't for the the life of me figure out how to pronounce Laoghaire until I heard Davina Porter do it.
I love the glimpses we get of Murtag,always standing as close to Jamie as he can get and now at the Wedding with the big smile on his face ,boy you can really see how proud he is of him and how much he loves him.I can`t even stand to think about him getting killed,it`s just not fair they should lose each other.
I'm not making excuses for the series. Claire is so epically miscast if they do a 2nd season with her I won't watch it. I could dismiss petty physicality's if the acting was stellar and the chemistry between her and Jamie was good, but both fall well below expectations. She's too thin and tall,not pretty enough,and not strong or feisty enough to fill out the dimensionality of Claire's character. Tobias is great as Black Jack,but not Frank. Frank is supposed to be bookish and delicately handsome and somehow everyone has forgotten. And they have taken liberties with the story and script that I don't care for. In particular with the latest episode. They chopped it up and did weird and in-cohesive flashbacks,cut out Claire's hilarious inner dialog,the part about the ring is all wrong, the conversation about honesty and the reasons why he married her got botched, plus the lovemaking is almost instructional as well as passionate on Claire's part. It all came off as superficial and unatural. It was done in a tasteless and abrupt way, and I didn't care for it. Seeing Balfe naked was even less awe inspiring. Thank God for Jamie
I'm loving the TV series, the story is close enough to the books and the changes make it more interesting for us that know the story so well. The casting is spot on and the set is just superb.
Regarding changes they've made to the series: It's been almost 10 years since I last read the first book - I reread it while I was in Edinburgh on a two week trip because I couldn't resist the opportunity of immersing myself into both the real world of Scotland and the book's version at the same time. Anyway, I've forgotten much of the minutiae so what I'm seeing on the screen is better than just fine. I never dreamed I'd be able to "see" it at all so I'm really grateful for this opportunity.
And now, as I'm reading MOBY, I finally have a more concrete sense of Jamie and Claire's physicality (however different than originally conceived in the books) and it's making for an even better reading experience.
And now, as I'm reading MOBY, I finally have a more concrete sense of Jamie and Claire's physicality (however different than originally conceived in the books) and it's making for an even better reading experience.
its probably good that STARZ doesn't feel the same way as Julianne since they have already committed to a second series and they start filming in the next few months
Dee wrote: "its probably good that STARZ doesn't feel the same way as Julianne since they have already committed to a second series and they start filming in the next few months"
Yep, it's a good thing they are more forgiving and see the potential of the series.
I forgive them for the music of the opening credits, I forgive them for Cait's acting... at times not so great, I forgive them for the ring. I'm just too happy to see Outlander on screen to hold grudges.
Yep, it's a good thing they are more forgiving and see the potential of the series.
I forgive them for the music of the opening credits, I forgive them for Cait's acting... at times not so great, I forgive them for the ring. I'm just too happy to see Outlander on screen to hold grudges.
I never realized until this series how hard it would be to get a book on the screen and I feel like from the first minute I saw it that Ron Moore and all the writers and the actors have to be absolutely genius professinals(and professinal is the key word here,they aren't dudes off the street)to pull this off perfectly every episode.
Exactly. How many times do we have to read about how this series doesn't match the book. We. Get. It. But what I don't get is why you have to personally attack the actress because she doesn't match your idea of Claire. Not pretty enough, too tall and skinny, saggy boobs? That's just mean and unkind. DG seems just fine with her and she wrote the bloody books.
It's not meant to be unkind,it's straight up observation and the truth. They picked this actress because they were in a bind. It's not personal and I don't have anything against her,but SHES NOT CLAIRE. Sorry. One question, if this is who she pictured why is she half a foot taller,green eyed,skinny,and practically black haired? That sex scene in episode 7 was like watching two junior high teenagers fumble in a back seat, it was abrupt, lacked feeling, and looked way too contrived. It was disingenuous and did not convey the intimacy they had in the book. Btw the costuming isn't entirely accurate either. Her breasts are so squashed and pushed up you can almost see the nipple and the line where it's cutting off her circulation! Women of her station would not have had their breasts on display they would have worn neckerchiefs and kertchs. Low cut gowns were reserved for the evening and formal occasions. Scotland was poor and still under English law. Only royalty and high ranking nobility were allowed to wear fur, purple and lavish fabrics and colors. They were a poor people. They had, if lucky something for daily wear and something for formal occasions. Not six million outfits and trinkets.
no, they picked the actress because (if you listen to DG) she BECAME Claire! there is a reason why they waited so long to cast her (she was picked only a week before they started filming after going through multiple casting sessions)and i'm sorry - but i'm going to take the knowledge from someone like Terri who did the costumes and is well known and respected over someone who just rants...so far everything she has done has been backed up by meticulous research
Everyone is allowed an opinion and I'm sorry that mine is different, and that I'm not frolicking in a field of daisies happy. This is a story that I've been attached to and re-read countless times for over a decade. I know these characters like the back of my hand and it feels like they are almost friends of mine. It's very personal and I am entitled to being upset and having a different opinion.
you can only know a character as well as an author writes it, and if said author approves of and supports the actress chosen for the position, then your opinion about "knowing them like the back of your hand" is kind of invalidatedhonestly, i've read the books, listened to teh audiobooks more times than I can count over the years, but I realize they are just characters, they aren't real - you can't be friends with them, you are never going to get to meet them in real life - maybe that is why I (and others) can separate ourselves and enjoy the show
Look up sumptuary laws from 14th to 18th century. And btw I lived overseas for a huge amount of time. I grew up studying European customs and culture. I lived it. It's also what I minored in. Look at my book list, all historical fiction ... Hmmmm
I heard on Ron Moore's podcast, that Claire has only four to six outfits, they're just mixed and matched to create different appearances.I have no problem if someone dislikes the TV series; everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But this criticism of the physical appearance of actors is ridiculous and uncalled-for! There are PEOPLE behind each actor, and while Kate may never read these criticisms, they're just rude. Ok, she doesn't look like the Claire of imagination, that's fine. But to continue on and make disparaging remarks about her breasts or her butt or whatever else, isn't a good thing. As a woman, I would not appreciate anyone making rude comments about my body, so I try to give that same respect to other women.
Fair enough. NONE of her physical attributes match up to Claire. Nor is she a strong enough actress to pull off her fierce and feisty personality. She can't even cuss like Claire without making it sound unatural. However, Jamie is divine... Costuming, yes I can see they did that, but hair and breasts at least during the day would have been covered. (Unless she was of lower class,which she clearly isnt)And fur on a cloak was an extravagant inaccurate touch.
Oh my lord... Terri has talked about the little changes she decided on and why. Also, the dress Claire got married in came from a brothel. In the book too. Actually, when I look up those wedding dresses, I see bodices very similar to what Claire wore as examples of 18th century wedding dresses. Lastly, who cares if the costumes aren't 100% accurate. Honestly, it's starting a knit and old fashioned trend out there, which is awesome. Even my mother stopped and asked me how it's been going, and telling me how the 'Outlander sewing and knit' fashions are becoming a trend in the DIY community. And it's not that you have differing opinions, differing opinions are just fine. It's that you're opinions come across as self-important and rude to others.
We get that you don't like Caitriona. You've said it every week. But to insinuate that anyone who does like her must not hold the characters 'dear to us' or that we're 'frolicking in a field of daisies' is offensive. Your opinion is not more important than the other members.
I've been reading these books for 20 years. I've read Outlander probably that many times, if not more. I'm not exaggerating. I've read it at least once a year since the day I discovered it as a teenager. I would never assume that makes me more of a 'fan' or validate my opinions on the casting choices over anyone else, and particularly not the author who created the characters.
I can't stand when other fans refuse to discuss the bad aspects of the show, because I believe in a healthy debate, but I also can not accept someone with criticisms taking over and putting everyone else down.
To each their own, but you can bring it down a notch and not be so offensive. And if that's all you're here to do, be offensive, I can't help but feel like that is exactly your intention.
I believe poor Julianna has a big time need to bring all the rest of us down to her super negative level because what other purpose would she have for watching the movies instead of turning it off and then coming on here, except for all the negative attention she will now thrive on?Remember any attention is better than none.
I've just got the impression that that was the idea, to come in here and cause us to get all riled up.
At first I was wasn't sure on the choice of Caitriona Balfe as Claire, or even Sam as Jamie, but they both grew on me and I think the show is doing really well by the books.
Actually that wasn't the point. I was hoping to find people who felt the same way I do,but apparently I'm barking up the wrong tree because everything is rainbows and flowers here. I was wanting people to commiserate with. Episode 6 was so promising. Black Jack put in an amazing performance . I can see why they chose Menzies after all (as Frank he doesn't really fit though), and Balfe's acting had started to get better, and then I saw Episode 7. The scenes were distasteful and woefully lacking to me. They left essential things out,apparently I'm a lone reed in the wind here. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, shame on me for voicing mine and having one that differs from everyone else's ......
And yes maybe I was trying to elicit some kind of response that wasn't ," it's so great,it's amazing,everything is perfect and wonderful."
This post was after all, supposed to be reactions and responses to the book and the series. Good and bad.
Cheryl wrote: "That's so true, but I'm hopeing that they were more focused on Claire in the beginning and now that they are together we will see more of Jamie's character develop. He had such small parts before b..."Cheryl, I'm also thinking along your lines.
We really haven't seen enough of Jamie in the series thus far, for his true character to be portrayed. There may well be more to the wedding/honeymoon for us too see in the final episode? Who knows.... they may include their dialog on 'honesty' or Claire's childhood with Uncle Lamb, (amongst other's we feel have been omitted) in different scene/s &/or episodes? I think it would be so difficult to condense the whole novel into 16 episodes... there HAS to be some alterations.. (although we as avid book fan's may well feel they are sacrifices :)
That said, the talent of all involved in the production is immense. Scotland is truly a panoramic beauty, but would also be incredibly challenging to film in!
Overall, I'm absolutely stoked how well they have brought the book to visual life.
It's not WHAT you are saying - it is HOW you are saying it - every post you have made in the group has been interpretated as being antagonistic which is why we are fustratedThere are people who disliked the wedding - many who comment often but they are not expressing their views in a way thatakes people who liked it seem dumb/less like fans - if you can't see that then maybe this isn't the group for you
Oh Julianna you poor thing I really feel sorry for you for feeling so down and unappreciated when all you really want is to find someone with your super negative attitude flaming all the Professinals in the films and as someone above said you are just mean in your descriptions and poor thing you need to remember you are posting those hateful words on the internet and Lord knows who will see them-there are other discussions maybe you could find one someplace else where they are in agreement with you and can commiserate them all you want .
I want to make sure to say, to repeat what Dee is saying, it is NOT about you disliking the show. It is not that you are unhappy with the production.The problem is, and why you are finding that we are upset and feeling insulted by you, is that you are using phrases like ' because everything is rainbows and flowers here', or 'And yes maybe I was trying to elicit some kind of response that wasn't ," it's so great,it's amazing,everything is perfect and wonderful."'
It's as though you are telling anyone who thinks differently that their opinions are invalid. Guess what, I didn't really care much for the episode either. I stated that, but I'm not telling people who thought they loved it that they're wrong or all the reasons why I'm right.
I think it's more that you are purposely trying to antagonize people.
Like Cait or not, there really is no reason to make derogatory remarks about her appearance. Say she doesnt look like "your" Claire - Fine, Say you dont like her acting - Fine. But I dont understand why women (some not all) think its ok to say awful things about another womans looks or body shape. Too tall, too short, too fat, too thin, not pretty, saggy boobs etc etc. No wonder the world is full of women with body issues. We are all different & we are all beautiful :)Rant Over...
Now I would just like to say, that yes Im loving it, even some of the changes I really liked and after seeing the preview for episode 8 (even though I havent yet seen 7) Im really looking forward to see what they are doing with Frank.
And one more thing... ITS FINALLY WEDDING DAY HERE IN AUS YAY!!!!!! In just over 9 hours I can see what everyones been talking about :) :) :)
Someone mentioned Jamie's lack of sophistication and I agreed with that observation until the wedding episode when I saw how he poured that glass of whiskey for Claire and I thought, oh yes, there you are, Jamie Fraser. That was a very sophisticated move for a 20 something in the wilds of 18th century Scotland :)
I ask, because my opinion of Claire is completely different now that I've seen her on TV.
Initially, when I read the books, I didn't connect with Claire. She got on my nerves a lot, because I didn't understand a lot of what she did, or why she did it. Many times, I was like, "Why are you taking it out on Jamie? It's not his fault you're in 1743."
Now though, after the TV series, I LOVE Claire!! Credit Kate for bringing her to life so well, but I feel a lot more empathy for her.
I also feel more empathy for Frank thanks to the show, and Tobias specifically.
(Apologies if I spell any character or actor names incorrectly.)