Archives for the Date January 29th, 2019

owlnguava: lbmockingbird: Google much? I urge everyone to listen to tonight’s That’s Normal…



Google much?

I urge everyone to listen to tonight’s That’s Normal Hangoutlander podcast. It was very entertaining. Beth, Becca and Nicky were great, and someone tweeted a very interesting fact. North Carolina is only 437 miles from New York. A horse can travel from 30 to 40 miles a day. Jamie, Claire took over seven months for a round trip?

This kind of sloppy writing is inexcusable. Some changes in the writers’ room need to be made.

Such a BS of an excuse. They can establish the homestead in a few weeks and Jamie can find JQM in the wilderness in a morning like it’s no big deal. Were they trying to avoid criticism over this detail so decided to rob us of the birth scene? That’s insulting intelligence

All the logistic and technical issues they raised to explain their changes can’t justify these changes. 

I’m not a book-reader so I am in no position to comment on book-to-show changes. I just care about if the show makes sense and respects the spirit of the story they have previously developed onscreen for three seasons. I’m very disappointed in this season not because it failed my expectation of missing certain scenes. I’m heartbroken it’s not even the show I have seen for three seasons.  I can’t believe Roger was raised by Reverend Wakefield and Bree by Claire. Roger who had helped Claire to look for Jamie. Bree who was aware of her parents’ joyless marraige and Claire’s broken heart for two decades. I did look forward to this season for these two characters despite I heard they were not as inspring in the books as Jamie and Claire. But nothing turned out sensible and consistent of these two characters.

I have also read the defense about the show being an adaptation and time constraint of fitting everything in so they needed to make changes.  If I am given to be aware of any changes from books to show, my questions are, whether such changes can elevate the essense and aesthetics of the original story? Do they transcend the human emotions of these characters and better illustrate the relationships of this characters? Do they follow the logic and momentum these books have sustained?  I can’t give any positive answers to these questions for S4.

“the clock keeps whispering to me, ‘there’s never enough time’”

“the clock keeps whispering to me, ‘there’s never enough time’”

(via eefrostpoetry)

marian4456: ipalecollectorpoetry: lizm2011: saint-hildegard-of-bingen: denise-alwaysuselove: bde…







Outlander caps its wobbly fourth season with an unfocused finale

“In America, Outlander became scattered and lost.”


it didn’t have to be this way

And in conclusion ..
The finale reinforces a lot of the season’s ongoing problems to really bring its central stories to life, stalled by pacing and distracted by a sprawling narrative that never allows for enough character development. In America, Outlander became scattered and lost.”

And this “stray observation”:

On my wish list for next season is a lot more focus, more character development for Brianna, less sexual assault, and more Claire? Is it just me or was this season bizarrely light on Claire?

It better change because it is not our show anymore!

Who else wishes they could shove these reviews under Toni & Matt’s noses?? 

outlanderamerica: lenny9987: suhailauniverse: lenny9987: outlanderamerica: lenny9987: One of…







One of the questions I have leaving Season 4 is still, “why did Roger have to shave his beard before going back in time?” 

Back in 4×07, Fiona was remarked that if him traveling didn’t work, he’d “have shaved his beard for nothing.” Was there a missing scene of him going through Geillis’ research and learning about the impact of body hair on the effectiveness of the stones? 

Toni Graphia said they shaved Roger’s beard because men didn’t wear beards then.   But then Murtagh…

That is… such a stretch (on production’s part). OUT OF FASHION DOESN’T MEAN IT’S A NECESSITY FOR HIM TO SHAVE IT, hahahaha. If THOSE are the details they’re paying attention to and writing into the scripts and the justifications…


Okay, I haven’t been completely fair. I mean, there is a time and place and a way to work things like this in. For instance, back in S2 when they’re going to Versailles, Jamie remarking to Murtagh that most of the men will be clean shaven works wonderfully. Because in the court of Louis XV that kind of attention to detail in dress and physical appearance was EVERYTHING. 

But here… in this situation… if it’s a significant change like that to a character’s appearance that isn’t going to be self-evident from context and you have to go out of your way to put into the script the explanation for the change… it’s probably a waste of time and resources. 

Lenny, you’re being more than kind and more than fair.  LOL

mary-waitforit-lou: nighean–donn: PLOT TWIST! How the finale…




How the finale should have gone 👌🏼😂


Unpacking MBR’s comment


At this point, MBR is defending the choices that were made for S4. Everyone has their interpretation of DG’s books. What is never up for debate (to me) is that Outlander has always been and will always be the story of Jamie and Claire Fraser. Whether to stay true to that and critically think about what to let go and what to emphasize on (other storylines, etc), is a choice that should logically be based on the essence of the books – Jamie and Claire. Moreover, consideration should be given to what sells because why make a product that nobody wants to buy? Shouldn’t a good adaptation also feeds into the demand? Do we see majority of viewers, professional or otherwise, demanding Broger storyline, highlighting the chemistry between Rankin and Skelton, or applauding their acting chops? 

We look at the books and try to follow the main storyline in the books.  If you look at the main storyline in Drums of Autumn, it is more than 50 percent Roger and Bree. Their story actually begins in Drums of Autumn and it does go forward.

The main storyline of Outlander is Jamie and Claire Fraser. There are other storylines but they all tie into J/C. Even if it is his interpretation that DOA is 50% Broger, it is not as if J/C is diminished in the book. Broger as they adapted it is problematic. Coupled with the severely misplaced casting, it spells disaster. This is not a pairing that should be lauded as the next great love story (that overshadows J/C). 

Our main goal is to follow the storyline, but we get caught between a rock and a hard place. Do you follow the book, or, because some fans want more Jamie and Claire, do you just add Jamie and Claire? Once again, we have to write for both sides. You can’t just write for people who have read the book; you have to also write for people who have never read the book before.

ADD Jamie and Claire? This right here tells me he is clueless about the essence of the show. J/C is not optional; they can’t just be added and stirred for the sake of it. THEY ARE THE STORY. They cannot be taken out of their own story. If that is his desire, write another story. Don’t do the adaptation. Write an original storyline. 

Books readers or not, fans and professional critics want Jamie and Claire. If fans who adore J/C storyline are considered bias and their opinions unreliable, critics have also spoken – there is heightened awareness of how much J/C is missing from S4. If he really cares about the survival of show, he should know that Sam and Cait are Outlander and they sell the show because of their acting and their chemistry. If S4 is any indication, Broger is not a pairing that will make this show what is was, nor will it save the show moving forward. 

It’s a balance, so if you flood the stories with solely Jamie and Claire scenes — talking, having romantic moments, having great moments — that’s not necessarily the story, and I think that’s why Diana moved away from it in Drums of Autumn, and told the story of Roger and Bree. It’s a dramatic story, there’s a lot going on, there are a lot of dilemmas, and it incorporates Jamie and Claire. They have to go and find Roger, they have to get him back and try to fix all the mistakes that were made.

DOA is full of Jamie and Claire’s beautiful moments. They are together again, living their life they had in their dreams for 20 years. The notion of flooding the stories with J/C scenes just for the sake of it shows me that MBR does not understand Outlander. DG did not move away from anything J/C related, so it’s blatant lie to justify his adaptation. 

Finding Roger is part of the storyline that cannot be separated from the bond that Jamie was trying to cultivate with his daughter. Instead of showing anything positive about Jamie-Bree relationship, unnecessary conflict was created and prolonged between them and time was spent on Frank and Leery. The mission of finding Roger could have and should have been condensed into half an episode or an episode That’s on MBR. He needs to stop perverting the book to suit his narrative. 

We felt that that was the drive of the season. Again, it’s the drive of the book, so we followed the book. I’m not going to say that we won’t try to look for places that we can root around in some of the other books and see if we can’t find something in flashback. Who knows?  But it’s a delicate balance. You want to please everyone, which you cannot do, and so our fallback is the books.

There was no balance. S4 was Broger heavy; undermining Jamie and Claire’s storyline made for uneven and lackluster storytelling. 

If you look at season four, and you look at the books, we’re faithful to the main storyline of the books. This is what we talked about earlier, there are a lot of moments that I loved — and fans loved — from the books, and I’m like, “Oh, that’s a great scene.” But we have to ask in the writers’ room, “Does this move the story forward?”  And sometimes you go, “No, that scene doesn’t. It’s a beautiful moment; it’s a beautiful character beat.”

Jamie and Claire’s storyline continues evenly from when they were shipwrecked. Are we suppose to forget that they are finally together again? Are we suppose to forget that they are building Fraser’s Ridge for themselves and their families? That they are trying to make a life together? If he stayed true to the books instead of trying to undermine their relationship, it would have taken S4 to the places it needs to go. Did Dogface walking around aimlessly, slut shaming the supposedly love of his life, regulator’s storyline, endless dinner parties, Jocasta-Murtagh, and LJG’s gratuitous sex scenes move the story forward? 

You want to have room for it, you want to try to put it in, and, trust me, the writers’ drafts of these scripts are long, and then what we have to do is see if we can film them, and that’s when production comes in, and we start to figure out how much we can film in the time allotted, so it’s a massive puzzle.

Well, he failed. Time to admit it and stop trying to justify the problematic adaptation and his role in the production of it all. 

Outlander’s a big, big show with a lot of moving parts. What I think really was the biggest change between season three and season four — it was slowly happening in season three, but it really took effect in season four, is that there are so many other characters now, and they have stories. We’re not just feeding the Jamie and Claire story anymore. These other characters have their own stories. I think that’s the biggest difference, and it takes a little getting used to.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. Nobody is expecting them to include everything from the books. Half of the stuff DG writes is forgettable. What she does well, very well, is the story of Jamie and Claire. Their love is great, their bond is strong, their loyalty admirable, and their passion, legendary. Every other storyline relates back to them. They are the center of the books. They are the books. Saying that he’s trying to feed J/C story is insulting to the person who created the story and to fans who know the books inside out. Is he truly unable to see how he can connect the dots and embark on an adaptation that honors the books?

They only getting used to from here on is the failure of generative adaptation of an amazing story of love and loyalty that transcends time and space. 

It’s more so going forward, because those stories take root, and those people give birth to kids, and those kids have stories, so you always want to focus on the main characters, you have to fall back to it, but it’s a very difficult.  The backlash is, “Well, you’re not giving us the characters we want.”  And we go, “Well, we are following the books,” so it’s a dilemma for us. 

Resorting to a convenient narrative when under attack is never graceful. Let’s call it what it is. It’s not following the books. It’s not even following what sells the product. It’s the failure to understand the heart and soul of Outlander and that is the story of Jamie and Claire Fraser. 

AWSOM Powered