Outlander Series discussion
Archive - Outlander on Starz S1
>
Episode 11 - The Devils Mark
message 1:
by
Diane
(new)
Apr 19, 2015 06:53AM
Wow - Great episode but did you have any doubt? There you have it the line about always being honest - so many were upset was left out of an earlier episode. Have faith that the really important things will get added when need be.
reply
|
flag
I watched the episode last night but will watch it again tonight to process it better. There were things I liked a lot and things that left me flat. Do realize that this is only my initial impression. I thought Lotte played the heck out of the part. Just perfect, the fire, the emotions, coming to Claire's rescue in the end. The whole episode had me near tears and very tense so they were doing something right. Yes, finally Jamie asked Claire to always be honest and she complied and spilled her secret. Of course Jamie is suppose to totally believe her and accept that she comes from the future & came through the stones, that is not the issue. It did bother me that he accepted it so quickly and without question. If Sam's eyes had been wide as saucers and then he told her after getting over the shock, that he believed her it would have been more dramatic and believable. We were all holding our breath anyway, but it was like a denoument for me that he just accepted everything like it was no big deal. I did want their parting to be more intense, to reveal more passion and regret, more intensity. Sam & Cait usually have such sizzling chemistry that it surprised me though we have to realize what they've both just escaped from so maybe there was a state of shock going on supposedly for one or both of them. I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. When Cait returns to Jamie I wanted a fierce passionate embrace and lots of tears. It fell flat for me. It was the turning point in their marriage and love in a lot of ways and I thought their trip to the stones and the reunion when Claire decides her fate is with Jamie was too low key for my taste. They haven't played any other part of this great saga low key on Starz so I was surprised. I will watch it again with an open mind. I thought Bill Patterson as Ned Gowan was brilliant in the episode. He & Lotte stole the show in many respects. I was glad to see the relief in Jamie and Claire & thought the best part of their acting was when he asked her if she were a witch, he asked about the scar & and she divulged her deep dark secrets. The tenderness started with Jamie tending Claire's wounded back. I thought that was done very well.
Best episode yet! We finally have the through-line set for Claire's commitment to Jamie's time and her life with him. The last ten minutes or so were portrayed in a "still waters run deep" way (or maybe "less is more"). There was a ton of passion but it was contained within both of them and for me, it was so much better as a result. When Claire returns from the stones to Jamie and tells him to get up, the look on his face was just priceless (not to mention the reflection of that single tear on his cheek). The realization that his life with Claire was not over but rather just beginning, the love he has for her - all reflected in a single look.
Perfection!
Perfection!
Since Claire is from the 1940's, how does she know that Geillis is from 1968. Wouldn't she only know about things up to the 1940's?
Kerry wrote: "Since Claire is from the 1940's, how does she know that Geillis is from 1968. Wouldn't she only know about things up to the 1940's?"She knows Geiliis is from the future some time because she has the same vaccination scar as Claire does, but Geillis told her it was 1968.
GREAT EPISODE! Loved it :)Geillis & Ned were great & Claire & Jamie close to perfection as always.
Have to admit I was holding my breath when she was at the stones, even though I knew what was going to happen & Father Bain, I was thinking WTF is going on here before it clicked he was using a bit of good old reverse psychology. A good way to bring him into the trial as there was no dog attack like in the book.
The episodes in this 2nd half just keep getting better & better. Bring on next week :)
Kathleen wrote: "I watched the episode last night but will watch it again tonight to process it better. There were things I liked a lot and things that left me flat. Do realize that this is only my initial impres..."I agree with Kathleen there was some great acting, and some of the scenes were good but some of the scenes left me wanting for the book version vs the screenwriter's version.
I thought Lotte and Caitriona did some fabulous acting in this episode. Their performances were believable during the witch trial. Nell also does a good job in getting us to loathe her character's jealousy of Claire. I also like Bill Paterson's portrayal of Ned Gowan. I wasn't as upset with Sam's part in the woods as Kathleen was. Although the sense of surprise was not shown in the scene, Sam did look stunned by the news when he paused not talking. I think the screenwriter/director should have developed this part a bit more.
I didn't particularly like the re-write of the trial where the action is staged indoors in a courtroom vs outdoors. The scene as written in the book was much more dramatic (view spoiler)
I liked most of the scene with Jamie and Claire in the woods after she tells him she's a witch. I see they added back the line from the wedding scene where Jamie asks Claire for the truth (a very important line to their whole relationship, so I was glad it was back in the TV series too.
I didn't think the screenwriters/editing/directors did a good job with the scene at the stones. It was so better written in the books.
I liked Sam and Caitriona acting, that wasn't the problem. They changed too much, cut too much out that was in the book (another critical part of the book diminished by how they staged it in this show.). Specifically, instead of putting the line about the Jacobites /Culloden where it belonged as part of the Stones scene they added one line in passing in the scene in the woods. It was totally lost there and also made the parting of Jamie and Claire at the stones less dramatic or "flat" .
I also thought they should have used some on screen magic to have Claire start to fade as she touched the stones before Jamie grabs her (easily done with CGI today) for such a high budget production they don't seem to spend a lot on effective special effects.
I also think the lines they wrote were just not as effective as the original lines in the book and no real reason to change them other than the writers wanting to do their own thing. Especially when Claire goes back to Jamie at the end. "On your feet soldier" Really, she's going back for the love of her life. That line was so out of place. I felt that part was flat as well. There should have been one great love scene where Claire lays beside Jamie while he's sleeping and he wakes up to find her. So so much better than what the did stage.
I just finished reading an article by the writer who wrote this episode where she stated that they had discussed turning this into 2 episodes and she didn't want to because she wanted to write both scenes (the witches trial and the stones). Instead of succumbing to the desires of a writers ego, they should have given one of the most important scene in the show, more emphasis and time to do it right.
The episode was good mostly due to the great acting. It could have been much better if they had better screenwriters IMHO.
I kind of thought the "on your feet soldier" line was kind of bland. I wanted more emotion from Claire, I thought the look on Sam's face when she came to him was very effective.
When they were carrying Geillis through the crowd, you could hear the judges yelling about the unborn child and they had a quick flash of them looking concerned. Readers know Geillis was allowed to stay alive until the baby was born but readers also know that Claire didn't know that, she believed they really were taking Geillis to the pyre so that's what we saw. I loved the episode but i found it odd that Jamie's reaction to the news about Claire being from the future was to look off to one side staring. I didn't get the "stunned" or shocked feeling from him at all. I did, after a few seconds of her trying to gauge his reaction think that maybe he was adding up all the things that happened to her or that she knew or said that now made more sense.
I agre that "On your feet, soldier" seemed a bit clunky but overall I did think it was a great interpretation of the book for that part of it.
About the "on your feet soldier remark" . . Didn't TV Claire say that to Jamie after he fell off the horse when first going to Castle Leoch? To me it reflected their first encounter and symbolized their second start! I guess I'm easy to please since I'm loving it.
I teach qiilting and my classes start I shoe the students a pattern and my finished sample. I also tell them I never want to see a quilt from them that looks exactly like mine. Follow the pattern but make it your own. That's my philosophy on life.
On the 2nd watching of the episode I liked it much better. I read the interview with Ron Moore and the writer and that put some things into perspective for me. I would have liked Claire running to Jamie, waking him by her screams of joy, and grabbing him to her breast instead of the On Your Feet Soldier line. I do think them ending the scene with the slow burn of deep love and not showing much was very effective. I liked that. It was a good episode there was just so much up and down, so much drama. I was tense, on the edge of my seat & close to tears watching the entire episode both times and that is unlike me. Ron explains that Jamie has heard of songs about people going through the stones liked at the castle with Claire. He is a Highlander & so much about Claire doesn't add up so it kind of makes sense. They love each other unconditionally now and pledged to be honest so our saga has truly only just begun.
Paul wrote: "My review of this superb episode http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2015..."I just read and enjoyed your blog post. I love that you have not read any of the books so your thoughts and predictions are "fresh". There are so many fans out there that have read the book/series and are too busy picking it apart from the book to truly enjoy it for what it is. I would recommend though, when the 1st season ends that you do read the first book. There is so much more detail I think it would enhance your enjoyment and appreciation of the Outlander world.
Ya know, I just have to say that I appreciate Ron making podcasts and explaining why he changed certain things in the show from the book version. I'm glad that helps alot of people appreciate the show more. I however, feel like if an artist has to explain why their work is good, then maybe it isnt. DG didn't have to write a desertion explaining why outlander was a good book....we all knew that from chapter 1. That's why I won't listen to the podcasts...because no matter explication Ron gives me will not change how I feel about the changes that have been made. I know what I like. Some of the changes he made I thought actually added alot to the story, some things he changed took away. Ya win some you lose some and everyone will have an opinion about it.
I actually have a theory I call the first-love syndrome that applies to this: when a story is told in more than one medium, the one we always loves most is the one we came to love first. I saw this happen with Lord of the Rings, in which people who saw the movies first through they were better in some way than the books which they read later, and vice versa. Of course, this doesn't always hold - there can be movies and TV series which are just not very good renditions of novels, and not good cinema or TV in their own right. But I think it is at play more often than we realize.
Best episode so far. -Geillis' acting was spot on.
-Ned Gowan was everything I wanted! So funny.
-The scene between Claire and Jamie where she spills her secrets was GREAT. The look on his face when she is talking through things... Mad/Confused/Understanding = so hot. Sorry, I really liked the "side look" from Jamie :) I feel like I really saw all those emotions in his face. That scene cemeted their relationship (in the show) to me more than anything. And then to have the stones right after that where he stops her right before she goes was SO EMOTIONAL. Broke my heart a bit!
I love that Claire's story is now revealed to Jaime and I think opens up for a lot more comedy, mutual understanding and a deeper relationship (view spoiler). It will be so fun to see that on screen!
LOVED THIS AND CAN'T WAIT FOR LALLYBROCH, (view spoiler)
I really loved Sam's acting...actually they all did sensational! I was so glad to see the "secrets" conversation take place. Of course there were a few things I found lacking but over all it was a superb episode. My husband even got teary-eyed when Claire chose Jamie over going back through the stones! (which touched my heart lol).
This episode shows the transition of their relationship from necessity and lust to LOVE.
I agree with Arlene, from necessity and lust to LOVE although the words will not be said aloud until Lallybroch.
Paul wrote: "I actually have a theory I call the first-love syndrome that applies to this: when a story is told in more than one medium, the one we always loves most is the one we came to love first. I saw th..."I agree with you Paul. People get so invested into what they experienced first; myself included. I am sure that people whose first experience of OL would be horrified at the way the book differs from the show. I try to throw out what I know and go with what is presented to me. So far I have not been disappointed.
I have decided not to reread the book for just that reason. I will do a reread of Outlander after the first season ends and before the second season begins. I want to enjoy each season of the show without comparing all the details.
It's been a few years sense I have read outlander. I am definitely wanting to read it again. But I still remember how the book goes and when the show differs I notice it. sometimes the changes are better and sometimes not so much. my point is if there happens to be a change I do not like listening to the pod cast and hearing ron's explication as to why he changed it will not make me like it if I already do not. As I said before I actually think most of the changes have been good. And to me it's no theory that people fall in love with the first medium and judge the second medium more harshly. If someone did a remake of the Mona Lisa I would definitely look at it with a critics eye. Just like with Lord of the Rings...I love love love the books and I thought the movies were done well. But believe me I judged it harshly when I watched it because I loved the books but the changes that were made I liked and I didn't need someone to explain to me why the movies were good.
The TV show is great...one of the finest shows on television. I love it. Naturally there will be a few things I wish they had not changed. It doesn't make me dislike the show, I just don't need the writers explaining to me why they changed something and make me like it if I dont. I was used to the master piece and of course I will measure it up to the master piece they are mimicking.
I'm new to this group, but like everyone else I seem to be infatuated with the books and the TV series. I thought the last episode was great. I agree with Arleen, that the "on your feet soldier" was a great way to remind us of where/how their relationship began in the series. Though I liked the scene in the woods where Claire reveals the "truth, " I felt she could have been a bit more emotional about it. In the books, I read that scene as if Claire was somewhat hysterical. Did anyone else feel the same way? I also agree that when they got to the rocks, Claire should have looked more surprised. After all she didn't realize where Jamie was taking her. The line about Culloden would have worked better in this scene as well.Why am I so obsessed with this story? Overall, I loved it!
Lauren
I'm new to this group, but like everyone else I seem to be infatuated with the books and the TV series. I thought the last episode was great. I agree with Arleen, that the "on your feet soldier" was a great way to remind us of where/how their relationship began in the series. Though I liked the scene in the woods where Claire reveals the "truth, " I felt she could have been a bit more emotional about it. In the books, I read that scene as if Claire was somewhat hysterical. Did anyone else feel the same way? I also agree that when they got to the rocks, Claire should have looked more surprised. After all she didn't realize where Jamie was taking her. The line about Culloden would have worked better in this scene as well.Why am I so obsessed with this story? Overall, I loved it!
Lauren
Vanessa Eden wrote: "It's been a few years sense I have read outlander. I am definitely wanting to read it again. But I still remember how the book goes and when the show differs I notice it. sometimes the changes are ..."I agree with Vanessa that just because you read a book version you don't necessarily judge the TV version more harsh. You look at each version and judge it how it moves or doesn't move you. I liked most of the episode, there are things I didn't like as well. I do know the books, and if the TV series does something better than the book I tend to like it. For instance the episode of the Garrison Commander. I liked the change of Dougal telling the story of the flogging to Black Jack telling Claire the story. It added more drama to the story as well as visual emphasis. I like it because the change to the book made sense, and added something to the original version.
For the same reason I, like Mary didn't like what they did with the scene at the stones. They changed things that were good and dramatic in the book and gave us dialogue not done as well, visual imagery not as effective, and a love scene that was basically cold and not very meaningful.
I judge each scene on it's own, but as Vanessa said you are going to critique the second "Mona Lisa" on how well the artist did recreating it or creating a new version similar to it.
On this show I've experienced mixed feelings about the show. Most of the things I don't like seem to be related to changes made that really do not need to be changed no matter what medium they are in. I think the show's script- writing could be better. I really like the acting I loved Lotte's performance as Geillis, I love Caitriona's portrayal of Claire and Sam is Jamie to me. That doesn't mean I like every scene they are in because other variable effect their performance (script-writing, directing, settings, editing) things the actors don't control.
If as Lauren say's the expected emotion is not coming through (Claire should of been more hysterical telling her story), to me that's the script-writer/director responsibility to make that happen or fixing long before it reaches the screen. However after watching some of the deleted scenes on the DVD version, I also think editing is very important to a shows final version. I think some of the things they cut should be left in and some of the things they add should be taken out There are just a lot of variables to consider.
My opinion on the episode, pretty good could have been better.
Vanessa Eden wrote: "I however, feel like if an artist has to explain why their work is good, then maybe it isnt. DG didn't have to write a desertion explaining why Outlander was a good book....we all knew that from chapter 1. That's why I won't listen to the podcasts..."Yes, I totally agree. Many of the podcasts I've listened to seem like making excuses as to why the show is not as good as the book. I listen to the podcasts just to hear what they have to say. Most of the time I think the podcasts come across to me as more self-gratification rather than informational.
Diane wrote: "When they were carrying Geillis through the crowd, you could hear the judges yelling about the unborn child and they had a quick flash of them looking concerned. Readers know Geillis was allowed to..."Really, I missed that part as well. Perhaps Geillis is (view spoiler) But what do you think about Geillis saying the child is that of the Devil's who do you think in that time period (view spoiler) And why change it?
Question to the group: Do you think Geillis really knew Claire was from the future before this episode? Or just that she was different than the other women of that time and came to that realization during the trial? :) Happy Tuesday!
I think she suspected Claire was from the future but wanted to confirm it. I don't on the other hand think Claire thought Geillis was.
I liked the episode. Though I do agree the "on your feet soldier" was cheesy. But that one, single, solitary tear down Jaime's cheek!! I DIED! Geillis was amazing. Also amazing, how lovely their hair looked after days in the thieves' hole!I agree that Geillis suspected that Claire was a traveler. Claire, at this point, has no idea there are others.
Catherine wrote: "I liked the episode. Though I do agree the "on your feet soldier" was cheesy. But that one, single, solitary tear down Jaime's cheek!! I DIED! Geillis was amazing. Also amazing, how lovely their ha..."Loved that tear too.. Sam's an amazing actor, his facial expressions are so real ..
^^ He's so much better than I had imagined. I'm absolutely in love with Cat. Even though she's doesn't physically resemble "book" Claire (why couldn't they at least given her lovely brown contacts?!?), she's so spot on attitude-wise.
Catherine wrote: "^^ He's so much better than I had imagined. I'm absolutely in love with Cat. Even though she's doesn't physically resemble "book" Claire (why couldn't they at least given her lovely brown contacts?..."I love Catriona too, I really don't care if she looks like the book character to a tee (taller, blue eyes). She is Claire to me. I think her acting is superb and that's what really counts.
I know what happened in the books as far as Geillis and her baby goes, whether they'll do the same thing here is probably not something we'll find out this season. We didn't find out until the second or third book (can't remember which). (view spoiler)
The episode in my opinion was one of the best and has become one of my favorites. I read all seven books and I'm hoping to acquire the eighth and really enjoyed it as they boarded the witchcraft trial and the character of Geillis, especially when she mentions the year that leaves speechless Claire: 1968. Although the book is Dougal who tells Claire those numbers. Both acted very well, but this time Lotte was the one who took the plaudits for her performance to tell everyone that she was a witch and show her pregnancy to the public enraged.On the other events, Ned Gowan has totally won my affection for being the only one who dared to defend Claire, a gentleman unlike others. The way people treated him gave me rage and shame because it is not deserved. Throughout the trial I felt like Claire, with rage and I think I would have screamed the same to that group of illiterate (no offense to anyone xD) and instead of Claire, I would have spit in the face Laoghaire so bitch and evil it is.
The scene where Claire finally tells the truth Jamie almost like I imagined in the book, but I admit I was a little disappointed that placed face Jamie, I imagined more impacted by the fact that she was from the future. I also would have liked to hear as she had her whole story about the future and not just hearing her voice in off. The farewell scene was both passionate and erotic (blushing sigh xD) and stones was perfect. I felt very sorry for the two, the circumstances that had joined. Unlike the book, the scene of his decision was shortened, but when she finally says, "Standing Soldier" was beautiful, perfect. Sam gestures were captivating and it's impossible not to love Jamie more than they already want, except I wish the reunion was longer jejejejeje. Now wait to finally reach Lallybroch :)
Brizo wrote: "Vanessa Eden wrote: "I however, feel like if an artist has to explain why their work is good, then maybe it isnt. DG didn't have to write a desertion explaining why Outlander was a good book....we..."
It seems fairly obvious that the reason Diana didn't have to justify anything is because she was creating an original work. On the other hand, the reason Ron Moore probably feels compelled to do so is because he's trying to satisfy a bunch of people who are never going to be satisfied because he's actually got the nerve to try and adapt that original work for television. He has to know it's a lose/lose proposition but I give him kudos for making the effort.
It seems fairly obvious that the reason Diana didn't have to justify anything is because she was creating an original work. On the other hand, the reason Ron Moore probably feels compelled to do so is because he's trying to satisfy a bunch of people who are never going to be satisfied because he's actually got the nerve to try and adapt that original work for television. He has to know it's a lose/lose proposition but I give him kudos for making the effort.
Geillis had suspected that Claire was a time traveler for some time now. You can see that in their acting in many episodes. Claire has no idea there are other time travelers at that point, much less specifics like Geillis being one until she sees the vaccine mark at the trial and finally internalizes her 1968 comment at the very end. I wish Cait had been more emotional and acted more lovey dovey. Sam's portrayal worked better but I would have loved more intensity in the parting. Yes, the single tear on Sam's cheek was priceless.
Barbara wrote: "Brizo wrote: "Vanessa Eden wrote: "I however, feel like if an artist has to explain why their work is good, then maybe it isnt. DG didn't have to write a desertion explaining why Outlander was a g..."Agreed
I must say that Claire exhibited more emotion in the book and agonized over it at great length - and ran down the hill and reunited with him in a really touching scene. Her agonizing over the the potential parting was downplayed with alot of restlessness and what about when Jamie said "I saw you begin to go??!!!" Anyway, Claire and Jamie both agonized a great deal and I had hoped they'd show the same emotional detail that they did with the wedding - pivotal - yes the witchcraft trial was too - but Claire deciding whether to go back even more so. Jamie should have gotten his due during that too - they did not show the gut wrenching trial they went through at the stones. I know It won't all be perfect, overall I feel they're doing a marvelous job - I feel they do Claire a great disservice not showing her emotion in regards to Jamie -he is the other half of her soul and is central to everything - while we all value her toughness and intelligence, Claire with Jamie is the one place she really allows herself to feel and connect - and I felt some keen disappointment at the end of that scene Cait has shown us real acting chops, let's give her the time and direction to get it done right on scenes like this!. In Dragonfly in Amber on the eve of Culloden they need to pay particular attention to that..scene, it is one of THE pivotal scenes there and I cried (which is not my habit) quite hard over that scene)in the book.
Mary wrote: "Kathleen wrote: "I watched the episode last night but will watch it again tonight to process it better. There were things I liked a lot and things that left me flat. Do realize that this is only ..."AGREE AGREE AGREE!!!!!!
For some reason they said they decided to show Claire showing up from Jamie's perspective rather than have her sitting by the stones and doing more narration. I admit, I prefer the book, but I also loved that moment when it was just silent and we saw that tear slide down Sam/Jamie's face.
Ron Moore probably feels compelled to do so is because he's trying to satisfy a bunch of people who are never going to be satisfied because he's actually got the nerve to try and adapt that original work for television. He has to know it's a lose/lose proposition but I give him kudos for making the effort.
It's not a lose/lose proposition to adapt a book with 25 million readers who transport themselves into instant viewers. If done well you have a defined market before you even sell the show. Which is why Starz bought 2 seasons in advance of the show start. Adaptation is only hard in that there are people out there with expectations. Your job as an adapter is to do your best in meeting those expectations.
I think Ron is use to creating fantasy shows for teenagers, who accept pretty much everything. Now he has to deal with adults who not only read, but have opinions about what is good. It is a different world then he's use to. So perhaps a stretch for him too.
Paul wrote: "I actually have a theory I call the first-love syndrome that applies to this: when a story is told in more than one medium, the one we always loves most is the one we came to love first. I saw th..."This is a good theory but has never worked for me. Even if I watch the movie/show first, the novel is better. With one exception being The Notebook. I thought the book was disappointing because it didn't detail the first part of their romance like the movie did.
I think books are just normally better. There is a narrator or we hear a person's inner thoughts that don't necessarily translate well on the screen. And then they have to change lines to make what they're thinking clear and that tends to irk book fans.
Lots of likes and dislikes with with this episode.I thought the trial was awesome but was a little disappointed it was out doors but that's not huge. Just made it a little less likely that Jamie and Claire could escape so easily through doors with everyone about.
But this is what I thought was weird. In the books there aren't really any big hints that Gellis is from the future. I think there are a couple subtle ones but in the show they gave us some big ones. Like when Claire sees her dancing in the previous episode and it looks like the dance the women did before the stones.
I don't know if the word Barbecue is an old one but I've never read it in historical literature and when Gellis says at the trial that "it looks like I'm going to attend a fucking barbecue." It really stood out to me.
Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that even AFTER Gellis told Claire the # 1968, Claire still seems totally shocked when she finally sees Gellis vaccination scar. Claire had hint after hint after hint and then still seems completely taken off guard. That didn't seem realistic to me.
It also fell flat, because if you fell through time and you were getting vibes that someone else in this timeline was also a time traveler, wouldn't you try to feel out the situation? Claire doesn't.
_________________
I'm sure they will come up with a way for (view spoiler) I know scenes don't often translate well from book to screen but I did wonder why this one was changed. It didn't seem necessary to me, but what do I know. It just does seem less likely that she'll be (view spoiler) even though we know she must be.
_____________
There were 2 other things that I missed in regards to Jamie and Claire. One, I missed Claire disappearing when she touched the stones. I know Jamie is from a time when superstition abounds, so it's probably easier for him to believe Claire than perhaps someone from our time meeting a person from the past claiming the same thing. But I liked how when she started disappearing it cemented that for him.
The other thing I missed was Claire telling Jamie what's going to happen during the war and to stay out of it. I missed this most of all because I felt like even though Claire was leaving, she was still thinking of Jamie. She wanted him to be safe.
If you watch the episode carefully when Claire is telling Jamie where she's from, during the part where her narrator voice comes over and she says that she told Jamie everything, you can hear her tell him that something like "that's why the Scotts never had a chance and that's what happens at Culloden." (not exact words but same meaning). So she did technically tell him, but it's easy to miss and I liked the urgency of it when they were at the stones.
But all in all, it was a really good episode and I loved Ned. I thought he came off better in this than in the book.
Oh one more thing....I thought it was interesting that this was a burning and not a drowning. Weren't they going to be drowned in the book? It's been a while since I've read this scene.
I also thought it was really interesting how they played up Leghair's involvement. There is absolutely NO question was Leghair is trying to do to Claire on the show. However Diana has said in the book that Leghair didn't know exactly what was going to happen and merely hoped to discredit Claire to Jamie by being associated with Gellis when everything went down.
I liked this blatant involvement. However it makes it make a little less sense now. Because Claire would have told Jamie! In the books Claire doesn't tell Jamie what happened with Leghair because as Diana put it, Claire thinks Leghair is young and foolish and didn't really know what she was doing. But that's not what this is. What good reason would Claire have for not telling Jamie about Leghair? Because Jamie can't know about Leghair's involvement because he'd never (spoiler from book 3) (view spoiler)
Mrsbooks wrote: "Lots of likes and dislikes with with this episode.I thought the trial was awesome but was a little disappointed it was out doors but that's not huge. Just made it a little less likely that Jamie..."
I agree with everything you said, but The acting was great as usual but the episode could of been better written & edited. Especially the ending at the stones.
They included irrelevant new things like all those people giving testimony yet they cut down the most important part scene of Claire and Jamie at the stones. A pivotal part of the story. Just doesn't make any sense adaptation or not.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Oh one more thing....I thought it was interesting that this was a burning and not a drowning. Weren't they going to be drowned in the book? It's been a while since I've read this scene.
I also ..."
Yes, this reveal of Leoghaire involvement in the was not thought through in terms of the following books. It seems like the writers never read the future books to know the implications of their changes, then they play catch up. They did the same thing with the ring..
Brizo wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Oh one more thing....I thought it was interesting that this was a burning and not a drowning. Weren't they going to be drowned in the book? It's been a while since I've read thi..."
I agree it's annoying really how hard would it be to map everything so at least your consistent if the tv series does go on.
I am finding something different. Inspired by the series, I am reading through the series (not my first rodeo) There are things in the later books that seem to be used in the current season. (view spoiler) each time I recognize one of these bits, I wonder about what will happen if the series goes through the whole series? Oh well - Sha na na na na na Live for today.
