Season 3 storyline - Outlander (2014) Discussion

[–] Andorra 8 years ago

We will see:
- what Jamie is doing for 20 years
- Claire is doing for 20 years
- Claire travels back in time
- the Highland Culture is lost
- they will travel to Jamaica in search of a young relative who got kidnapped.

reply

[–] nily-lw-998-104247 8 years ago

Wow! Thanks for the fast response!!
I love this show so much! I can't wait to see that. Is there an explanation why it's been 20 years for Jamie as well as for Claire? I am trying to understand this time traveling thing. I mean, it would be weird if Claire is 20 years older than Jamie but doesn't it make more sense for her to go back to the time when she left (the battle of Culloden)? What's the author explanation to it?

reply

[–] FnkyChkn34 8 years ago

Time runs parallel in the two worlds, so 20 years has passed in both. As far as I know, Claire will always travel 202 years, forward or back.

------------------------
"How do you know this?"
"That's what I do... I drink, and I know things."

reply

[–] Souleiado1 8 years ago

We keep mentioning South Africa because this is where the studios are and where they will shoot the scenes like Andorra mentioned above that are suppose to take place on the boat and in Jamaica.

reply

[–] FnkyChkn34 8 years ago

Why Africa? What about Scotland? Shouldn't they try to save the culture of the clans or is that already lost?

Outlander will use the sets used for another Starz show, Black Sails. That production set is in South Africa, but Jamie and Claire travel to the Caribbean, including Jamaica and Hispaniola.

The culture of the Highlands is already lost - Claire returns 20 years after Culloden. We'll see what happens to Jamie and the Highlanders in that 20 years though.

------------------------
"How do you know this?"
"That's what I do... I drink, and I know things."

reply

[–] laura1-07 8 years ago

I love your excitement.  You should start reading the books while waiting for Season 3. I think you will love them.  They are my favourite book series ever.

reply

[–] nily-lw-998-104247 8 years ago

Thanks!! :) I think I'll take your advice and start reading the books. I absolutely LOVE this show! Best show ever!!! :)

reply

[–] Souleiado1 8 years ago

You should really like the books , there is so much more than the show. The books also explain and explore in more details the relashionship between Jamie and Claire , it has also more humor. And while it may not be consider a great work of literature , Diana has the gift to deliver beautifully written scenes that do stay with you.

reply

[–] nily-lw-998-104247 8 years ago

Thanks :) I'm definitely going to do that. Usually I prefer to watch a show/movie before reading the book because the books do contain much more details and I don't want to have high expectations. But this show is so good I don't think I have nothing to worry about. Plus, I've already watch season 1-2 so I can definitely start reading.
I'm kind of intrigued about the third season though. I wonder what it would be like to see the same characters 20 years later. Wouldn't it be a huge change to see them in their fifties...? I guess we'll have to wait and see. A few more months till the spring, can't wait!!

reply

[–] Souleiado1 8 years ago

You will have to wait and see or rather wait and read but the third book Voyager like many other fans is my favorite book from the entire serie. Most of us have been waiting for a long time for some of the fan's favorites moments that will happen in season 3, you shouldn't be disappointed.,

reply

[–] nily-lw-998-104247 8 years ago

Oh really? I did not know that. It's good to hear!! Now I'm even more excited!! :)

reply

[–] redheid 8 years ago

Claire will have just turned 50 and Jamie will be 45. Both age well, so they shouldn't look too much older.

reply

[–] broughps 8 years ago

You've already seen what Claire looks like at the end of season two.

I'd say wait until you've seen a season before reading the book that goes with that season. That way it will fill in the details and you won't be disappointed by what's not there.

reply

[–] nily-lw-998-104247 8 years ago

Both of you are right. In real life people usually change a lot but Claire hasn't changed much in the season 2 finale.
As for the books, I'll start with reading the first two and maybe by the time I finish, season 3 will start :D
English is not my first language but I always prefer to read a book in its original language (if possible).

reply

[–] broughps 8 years ago

Depends on the person. My mum is 80 and looks like she's in her late 60s or early 70s. At least that's what people have been guessing when they meet her.

reply

[–] Justice456 8 years ago

Both of you are right. In real life people usually change a lot but Claire hasn't changed much in the season 2 finale.

No, not all people age at the same pace. The women in my family look at least 20 years younger than their actual age. To me, Claire looked a little too old for 50 with the wide streak of gray hair.

reply

[–] redheid 8 years ago

Book Claire had a few grey hairs sprinkled among her brown, didn't she? I kind of think the streak looks skunk-like.

reply

[–] Justice456 8 years ago

Book Claire had a few grey hairs sprinkled among her brown, didn't she? I kind of think the streak looks skunk-like.

Yes, she mentioned just before going back in time that she had a few scattered strands of grey, not a lot. I thought the series gave her way to much grey.

reply

[–] laura1-07 8 years ago

In real life people usually change a lot but Claire hasn't changed much in the season 2 finale.

It helps that Caitriona Balfe is older than the Claire. The same goes for Sam Heughan and Jamie.

reply

[–] nicu_82 8 years ago

I love the show and am just starting the first book but for some reason I'm really hung up on the age thing! I feel sad that Jamie & Clare missed 20 years of their prime together.

reply

[–] Andorra 8 years ago

We all do, trust me! I was ready to throw the book out of the window when I realized Diana seperated them for 20 years!!!

reply

[–] Justice456 8 years ago

We all do, trust me! I was ready to throw the book out of the window when I realized Diana seperated them for 20 years!!!

Ditto!

reply

[–] redheid 8 years ago

We all do, trust me! I was ready to throw the book out of the window when I realized Diana seperated them for 20 years!!!

Sometimes it really bothers me that Jamie and Claire missed all those years together. I'm glad to know that others have the same reaction to those 20 years apart!

reply

[–] laura1-07 8 years ago

I love the show and am just starting the first book but for some reason I'm really hung up on the age thing! I feel sad that Jamie & Clare missed 20 years of their prime together.

I know. I find that so sad. 

reply

[–] nily-lw-998-104247 8 years ago

Yes I agree. 20 years is a very long time. I'm guessing in because of their daughter. It could have been cool if Claire had returned back in time with her daughter when she was younger (say 5-6 years old).

reply

[–] broughps 8 years ago

But then they'd all be living in a cave. As Jamie points out when would have been good time for Claire to go back before that 20 year mark? Jamie was in the cave, then Ardsmuir and then England.

reply

[–] IMDb_ID_Name 8 years ago

Technically, I believe they would be living at Lallybroch, while he was at the cave and would probably visit once in awhile.
What would it have been like if she came back during his stay at Helwater, but before William is born. He would have gotten some childhood years with Bree, and she'd be more likely to believe her mother's story at 10. I can't help it but I always wanted them to have another child as they never got to share raising a child together. She would be 40 and it is very hard at that age to get pregnant, especially for Claire, but there would be a chance.

Courage consists not in hazarding without fear; but being resolutely minded in a just cause.

reply

[–] broughps 8 years ago

You're assuming Claire and Bree would have gotten to go to Helwater with Jamie. He was still technically a prisoner.

Remember though that pregnancy and delivery are dangerous for Claire. Chances are if she had gotten pregnant again in the 18th century she would have died. But yes it would have been nice if Jamie and Claire could have had more children.

reply

[–] laura1-07 8 years ago

I can't help it but I always wanted them to have another child as they never got to share raising a child together.

I know what you mean. It's sad that Jamie didn't get to raise his daughter. He is so good with children as well.

reply

[–] Krish728 8 years ago

At least he gets to raise his grand children.. He already has a strong influence on Jemmy..

---------------------------
At the point of Crisis and Annihilation, Survival is Victory- Dunkirk

reply

[–] laura1-07 8 years ago

At least he gets to raise his grand children..

Yes, and he got to spend a few years around William.

He already has a strong influence on Jemmy..

I love his relationship with Jemmy. It was so sad when Roger, Bree and the children had to return through the stones in Book 6. This line always brings a tear to my eye.

"If one day, a bhailach," Jamie said conversationally, "ye should meet a verra large mouse named Michael-ye'll tell him your grandsire sends his regards."

Although when I first read it, it did take me a moment to realise he was talking about Mickey Mouse. LOL!

reply

[–] Krish728 8 years ago

Although when I first read it, it did take me a moment to realise he was talking about Mickey Mouse. LOL!

LOL!! Thanks for that.. I didn't know Jamie was talking about Mickey Mouse till now.. I thought he was talking about the angel Michael.. but didn't understand why.

---------------------------
At the point of Crisis and Annihilation, Survival is Victory- Dunkirk

reply

[–] laura1-07 8 years ago

I thought he was talking about the angel Michael.. but didn't understand why.

It took me a moment, but then I remembered that Brianna had told Jamie about vacations to Disneyland as a child earlier in the book (Chapter 52) and how she was regretted that Jemmy would never get to go. I suppose Jamie was thinking that Brianna could take him there now.

It was a funny exchange at first:

“Mm-hm. And there are cartoon characters—I told you about cartoons—walking around. You can go up and shake hands with Mickey Mouse, or—”

“With what?”

“Mickey Mouse.” She laughed. “A big mouse, life-size—human-size, I mean. He wears gloves.”

“A giant rat?” he said, sounding slightly stunned. “And they take the weans to play with it?”

“Not a rat, a mouse,” she corrected him. “And it’s really a person dressed up like a mouse.”

“Oh, aye?” he said, not sounding terribly reassured.

reply

[–] Krish728 8 years ago

Going by books.. I think Claire shouldn't have left at all.. I mean, Jamie sends her off to Craig na Dhun, but Claire could've made a run for Lallybroch instead.. Because Lallybroch was the only place Claire considered as her home.. And that home was about to go through famine in the coming years.. she'd also keep Jamie's promise of making sure their child is safe, living at Lallybroch (Claire doesn't know that it's going to be a risky pregnancy, then). And Jamie comes to Lallybroch, badly wounded.. Claire helps him survive.. Jamie lives in cave.. Claire and her daughter at Lallybroch.. helping out Jenny and the tenants.. She could sometimes visit the cave.. And Jamie certainly comes down to Lallyborch.. With Claire's knowledge, Lallybroch could go through the famine smoothly, and Jamie doesn't have to get caught to the red-coats to help Lallybroch survive..

It's all my thought though.. I had it while reading Voyager.

---------------------------
At the point of Crisis and Annihilation, Survival is Victory- Dunkirk

reply

[–] Andorra 8 years ago

She would have died in childbed then though, so in the end it was all meant to be. (At least in Diana's universe).

The truth just is, that Diana thought them having to raise a child during the time of famine and Highland clearings was a boring storyline, so she said, she avoided it by separating them. I disagree with her. I think it would have been even more interesting and heartbreaking to read how they struggled while Jamie lived in the cave, then when he went to Ardsmuir and even more so in the years of Helwater. What could she have done to be near him? I would have liked to read that.

reply

[–] laura1-07 8 years ago

I would have liked to read that.

So would I, much more than reading about them apart which I found quite difficult.

reply

[–] Skipmaus 8 years ago

I agree it is very sad but dramatically it is a fantastically bold choice.

Maybe I'm a bit of a masochist but I am really looking forward to the heartache of seeing them apart, as long as I know they will find their way back to each other.

GRR...ARGH!

reply

[–] Krish728 8 years ago

She would have died in childbed then though, so in the end it was all meant to be.

If Diana wished, she wouldn't. It's just that the separation was kind of very hard read for me.. "A 20 years of life that could've been."

I would have liked to read that.

I would too. And I agree that it would be very interesting to see how they'd manage with Jamie in the cave, or in the prison, or at the Helwater..

---------------------------
At the point of Crisis and Annihilation, Survival is Victory- Dunkirk

reply

[–] redheid 8 years ago

But Bree loved Frank and he loved her. What would Brianna have thought at being ripped from her father and home and taken to a much more primitive, dangerous life? She would never have seen Frank again. Travel through the stones is very risky; would Claire want to take a chance with the life of her child?

reply

[–] laura1-07 8 years ago

It could have been cool if Claire had returned back in time with her daughter when she was younger (say 5-6 years old).

I do wonder what would have happened if Claire had found out Jamie was alive sooner when Brianna was just a child. But I'm not sure she would have taken Bree away from Frank and into such a dangerous time or instead left her child behind without a mother. Perhaps it's best she didn't find out and have to face that decision. And if she didn't go back, she would have been even more miserable knowing he was alive and she couldn't be with him.

reply

[–] nily-lw-998-104247 8 years ago

Thank you for all the replies!! :)

reply