http://www.ew.com/article/2016/10/28/outlander-claire-dougal-diana-gabaldon
---------------------------
At the point of Crisis and Annihilation, Survival is Victory- Dunkirk
I remember they talked about this in the podcast and how they decided to compromise and have them do it together. Which I'm glad they did. Although personally I would have preferred them to have stuck to the book.
shareI said months ago that they would have Claire be the one to kill Dougal, and it turned out to be what they wanted. I don't see it as Claire saving Jamie as much as he saves her, it just seems off to me. Once again it would be giving Claire Jamie's lines/ideas/actions. I am very grateful that they only had Claire help Jamie kill Dougal, not do it all alone. I think that was fine. It has them working together, as a team, and it continues the "fact" that Jamie is about to die.
I always thought that it needed to be Jamie who killed Dougal so that Claire would know he was going to die. If he didn't die in the battle she knew the MacKenzies would kill Jamie, no question. That's what made it "okay" for Claire to leave; Jamie was a dead man. Otherwise, Claire is abandoning Jamie to save herself. Yes, she is also saving her child, but it's better if she has the "sure" knowledge that Jamie is about to die.
I suppose having Claire kill Dougal would also make the MacKenzies want to kill her, and Jamie sending her through the stones saved her. But that isn't the same thing as Jamie sacrificing his love for Claire and his child as he did. It just doesn't work for me to have Claire kill Dougal.
Why does Claire always have to be this "badass" woman? I thought she was a strong woman as written in the book. They have a need to go overboard in making the show all about Claire. I'd love to hear Toni Graphia explain this-to get a woman's perspective on it. Actually, it would be great to her Ron, Matt, Toni, and Anne Kenney discuss it in detail. Is it for dramatic purposes only? Or is this how they all read the books-that it's Claire's story, she in always the central figure, she must always be the star? Don't they see the relationship between Jamie and Claire as the "star" of the books? Their marriage, their love? Maybe it's just that I don't understand how TV and movies work, and don't get what it takes to translate the stories from book to screen.
Edited to add this: I don't want to rake them all over the coals because of their choices in how the series is adapted, I really want to understand why they make some of the choices they make in adapting the show. I like to understand things.😃 Some are obvious, such as not including the rough sex with Claire telling Jamie to stop because he was hurting her, and his response to that. Time constraints I understand. Not everything can be included, even though I really miss some lines and scenes. But I'd like to know why they have the vision they have of these books. Is it just how they see the books? Or is it to surprise readers? To please Starz or Sony? What makes them see the books and characters as they do?
10 to 1 that Claire is the one who saves Jamie from being killed by Laoghaire when she shoots him. Claire will attack Laoghaire and her aim will be off. Jamie will be shot, but Claire saves him from a fatal wound. Then Claire will save Jamie from infection. She'll save his life twice.
It's a good thing that Ian needs to be captured, otherwise Claire would be the one to swim out to get the treasure.
It's a good thing that Ian needs to be captured, otherwise Claire would be the one to swim out to get the treasure.
Why does Claire always have to be this "badass" woman? I thought she was a strong woman as written in the book. They have a need to go overboard in making the show all about Claire.I agree with you totally. I don't understand why they feel the need to make the story all about Claire rather than Jamie and Claire. The need to give Claire Jamie's lines, ideas, and actions is just beyond me. Instead of taking things away from Jamie, just write more storylines for Claire if they think she is not doing enough as the lead.
Dougal MacKenzie was the clan's war chief, an extremely skilled swordsman, strength honed by decades of fighting, and they think Claire could kill him? Maybe with a musket at a distance, but close to with a blade? Who are they kidding?
sharethey think Claire could kill him?
[deleted]
Sure, if he was busy fighting Jamie and she came up behind him with a dirk to the kidney or neck.
Sony didn't like it though because they felt that it was Jamie's moment, he was the hero and he should be the one to kill Dougal. So that is why they came up with the compromise.
I've tried to hold back from calling RDM and some of the gang asses but the more I read, hear and see with my eyes I am truly concerned. RDM seems self righteous and is not going to care unless the heads block him and these others wanting to change things up for whatever reasons must be the one's mentioned who have not reading the book.
Perhaps if Sam & Cait step in on somethings as they have in regards to their characters, that may help as well. I understand Sam or someone stated it's best to prolong Jamie's recovery before having sex with Claire so soon..
I understand Sam or someone stated it's best to prolong Jamie's recovery before having sex with Claire so soon..
I think he came to Claire's bed within 2-3 weeks.Actually, I think it was much longer than that in the books. Sam and Cait said they needed to wait longer because they didn't show any of Jamie's healing at the end of season one as it should have been. They couldn't just start season two as book two started because Jamie hadn't healed. They messed up by not having his healing at the end of season one, so they had to give them extra time in season two which messed things up all around.
Actually, I think it was much longer than that in the books.
That's one of those time periods that DG can't get right. She said it was months at the abbey for Jamie's recovery.
Seriously CHARACTER BIBLE. Cause you know details and getting things right.
Just like I was reading in book 5 the other night and she was talking about Fraser's Ridge (in the area of Boone NC) being 30 miles from Salem (now days Winston-Salem). Um no. Try 86 miles. Distance and time don't really seem to compute for the woman. She admits it though.
She might admit it, but it's annoying. A good author knows her details and facts.
------------------------
"How do you know this?"
"That's what I do... I drink, and I know things."
Oh yes... I recall the kiss that Sam and RDM wanted for Jamie & Laoghaire. I recall people getting pissed at RDM for saying the sexual chemistry between Sam & Nell was so thick you would have to cut it with a knife.
shareI'm sure the shippers went into a tizzy with that statement.
You know I think I'd actually love it if Sam and Nell started dating. If for no other reason than to watch heads explode.
He said that!? I didn't feel that at all when I watched. I just felt it was so wrong and would never happen.
shareOh yes... I recall the kiss that Sam and RDM wanted for Jamie & Laoghaire. I recall people getting pissed at RDM for saying the sexual chemistry between Sam & Nell was so thick you would have to cut it with a knife.
And again, Claire needed Jamie to kill Dougal so that it was a sure thing that Jamie was about to die within hours, either in battle or by the hand of a MacKenzie.
I can sort of understand about Cait feeling that Claire should do something, that she wouldn't just stand around while Dougal killed Jamie
And really, I wouldn't want to stand around and just watch, either. I'd at least whack him on the head with something.
Out of interest, they did film a version where it is just Jamie who kills Dougal. I just watched it in the deleted scenes on the DVD.
shareOhh.. And I've seen somewhere on SM that they corrected 1745 to 1744 in Episode 201.. Is it true?
---------------------------
At the point of Crisis and Annihilation, Survival is Victory- Dunkirk
I think they corrected that immediately. I'm pretty sure it says 1745 now on the version that I get on demand on Starz through Amazon Prime. It was only incorrect for a short time.
------------------------
"How do you know this?"
"That's what I do... I drink, and I know things."
Ohh.. And I've seen somewhere on SM that they corrected 1745 to 1744 in Episode 201.. Is it true?
I just can't... Too much stupidity in that writers room. Grrrrrrrrrrr.
They have got to get over this "it's Claire's story". No it frigging isn't, it's Claire AND Jamie's story.
With the correction from Starz/Sony, it makes me think someone there has actually read the books.
They have got to get over this "it's Claire's story". No it frigging isn't, it's Claire AND Jamie's story.I totally agree with you that it is Jamie and Claire's story, Diana has even said that. And I wish they would also get over the idea that Claire is some "badass" 21 century gun toting, fist wielding "Angelina Jolie" type woman. Claire is not a "badass"; she is just a strong woman who is determined to do what she thinks is right. She and Jamie are equal in this story: they need to stop trying to make Claire some superwoman hero who comes in to save the day at every turn. I thought it interesting to note that Diana said if it were left up to Ron, Claire would be the "badass" in every situation. Women love the books because of Jamie and Claire's love story; not because Claire is some badass, because she's not.
With the correction from Starz/Sony, it makes me think someone there has actually read the books.
Though in recent Twitter Q/A, Ron tweeted that Outlander is indeed "Claire AND Jamie's story", I believe?
This what Starz and Sony (just to compare) had to say when announcing Season 3 & 4.
Starz:
Starz CEO Chris Albrecht said of the renewal, “‘Outlander’ is like nothing seen before on television. From its depiction of a truly powerful female lead character, to the devastating decimation of the Highlander way of life, to what is a rarely seen genuine and timeless love story, it is a show that not only transports the viewer, but inspires the passion and admiration of its fans. On this 25th anniversary of the publication of the first book in the U.S., we are thrilled and honored to be able to continue the story that began with author Diana Gabaldon, and is brought to life by the incredibly talented Ronald D. Moore. There are no better storytellers for ‘Outlander’ than this team, both in front and behind the camera.”
“The world of Jamie and Claire is expansive and emotionally complex. The audience has rewarded ‘Outlander’ with their praise and loyalty, and we know we will deliver the best seasons yet in the years ahead,” said Jamie Erlicht and Zack Van Amburg, Presidents, U.S. Programming and Production, Sony Pictures Television. “Starz has been an incredible partner and has truly helped shape this into one of the most iconic premiere series on the air today.”