AVS Forum banner

Outlander on Starz

55K views 926 replies 86 participants last post by  Don S 
#1 · (Edited)
Okee-doke, it's finally here! Much of Geekdom has been waiting on Ronald D. Moore's latest epic. Brought along his BSG buddy Bear McCreary as music director too. Because it's Moore, you know it will be well written. Because it's on Starz, you know it will likely be more daring than typical cablenet fare. Herewith a review. Enjoy!

TV Review
Outlander Is Many Kinds of Show, All in One Kilt
Time travel, history and Scottie hotties come together in an intriguingly unusual supernatural-romance mashup.
By James Poniewozik, TIME.com - Aug. 7, 2013

The first hour of Outlander (Starz, Saturdays, 9 p.m. ET) may have viewers who haven’t read the source material wondering exactly what kind of story it is–which can be a danger sign, or, as in this case, a good one.

Is it a supernatural story, because Claire Randall (Caitriona Balfe) finds herself spirited from 1945 to 1743 Scotland after coming across a druidic henge while on her second honeymoon? Is it historical fiction, because she finds herself taken captive by a Scottish clan at war with brutal English occupiers? Is it a romance, because Claire finds herself captivated by Jamie Fraser (Sam Heughan), a soulful, roguish Scottie hottie who may do more to bring back the kilt than any TV love interest since Sex and the City‘s Trey MacDougal?

It turns out it’s all of these things, which makes Outlander—whose premiere is already online if you can’t wait for Saturday—an unusual combo even in an era of pop-culture genre mashups. But Claire herself suggests yet another description: it’s a story, in a way, about traveling to another planet. “It was like landing on an alien world you’d only glimpsed through a telescope,” she says, finding herself a 20th-century woman navigating a past she knows only from history books.

Certain things don’t change, however. Claire is whisked not just from one Scotland to an earlier one, but from the aftermath of one war to the midst of another. During WWII, we learn in flashback, Claire worked as a front-lines British army nurse while her husband Frank (Tobias Menzies, currently in The Honorable Woman), a soft-spoken academic, was in British Intelligence. The two “outlanders”–as the Scottish term the English–are vacationing up north to prepare to begin a family, and to try to find their way back to normal after years of horror.

The henge, however, has other ideas, and Outlander phase-shifts late in its first hour from a PBS-like production into a different kind of costume drama. After a dangerous run-in with a vicious Redcoat officer–who happens to look exactly like Frank (and is also played by Menzies)–she’s saved, but also made the prisoner (or “guest”) of the Scottish Clan MacKenzie. Her hosts/captors suspect she may be a spy, this curious Englishwoman with puzzling clothing (“What kind of corset is that?” a Scotswoman asks when seeing Claire’s 1940s bra) and an un-18th-century assertiveness–not to mention her knowledge of futuristic medical concepts like bacterial infection.

Claire is an outlander in more than one sense: an Englishwoman in a suspicious Scots clan, and a spirited woman in a patriarchal society. The show is based on a book series (which I haven’t read) by Diana Gabaldon and produced by Ronald D. Moore, who carries a sci-fi pedigree from Battlestar Galactica, but it doesn’t fuss much with the why-and-how of Claire’s time travel. Instead it settles into Claire’s involuntary exploration of the past–and Balfe makes a wry, infectiously engaging guide.

The result is the most promising show in years for Starz, which since Party Down’s glory days has focused on blood-heavy spectacles like Spartacus and Black Sails or morose antihero dramas like Boss and Magic City. But it’s also something different in the larger universe of pay-cable drama: an epic drama told from the standpoint of an optimistic, resourceful woman rather than brooding, demon-chasing men.

That changes a lot, starting with the sex. Like Game of Thrones, Outlander is conscious of rape as a weapon of war, but it’s neither graphic nor gratuitous in portraying it. (In general, there seems to be more of a safety net as to how far Outlander will go in depicting the worst in human behavior–sexual or otherwise–not that there aren’t some brutal scenes.)

But there’s also the consensual sex–beginning with the fact that it exists, and not just for the enjoyment of male characters (and viewers). A tryst between Claire and Frank in the first episode, in which he kneels eagerly to pleasure her first, feels like a declaration of sexual principles. And then we have Claire’s 18th-century hall pass Jamie, of the strapping arms and roughly scarred torso–sexposition, meet pecs-position!–who establishes his guy-who-gets-it bona fides when Claire finds him wrangling a feisty horse. “She’s just a girl with spirit is all,” he says. “That’s always a good thing.” (Philosophical question: can you cheat on a husband who hasn’t been born yet?)

All this has raised the issue of whether men–or for that matter, women who are not already fans of the romance genre–will watch. Last week, Vanity Fair’s Joanna Robinson raised the hackles of some book fans by writing that Outlander’s credits, previewed in advance online, might scare off that audience with Bear McCreary’s plaintive highland-air theme song and the gauzy visuals of Stevie-Nicks-twirling druidesses.

I doubt Starz cares very much; the economics of cable mean a premium channel can do much better by targeting specific, underserved fans than trying to make something for everyone. The real problem with those credits is that they suggest a series way more misty and demure than Outlander actually is. This is a very writerly TV show–unfortunately, there’s so much voiceover narration that it’s sometimes like its own audiobook–but Claire is no starry-eyed poetic sap. She’s direct, clear-eyed, and unafraid to tell off her gruff Scotsman captors with an exasperated “Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ!,” my new expletive phrase of choice.

Good thing Claire is such good company, because after the enchanting first episode, the series wanders. Claire’s early focus is returning to “the stones” in hopes of returning home, but there’s no particular urgency. The series spends a lot of time luxuriating in the scenery and atmosphere, as if it’s meant to be binge-watched over a pot of tea on a rainy weekend at a bed and breakfast.

But once you accept, with Claire, that we may be sticking around for a while, Outlander becomes an intriguing kind of social drama, a study of a people under siege whose bristliness comes with a deep sense of honor. And the sixth episode, in which Claire again encounters Frank’s Redcoat doppelgänger, snaps the show into gear as it drives home the brutality of the occupation and the motivations of the rebelling clansfolk: it’s easily the series’ best episode yet.

It was also the last episode Starz offered for review. I haven’t read the source books, so I can offer no spoilers, though there are hints that Outlander is not nearly finished with its time-jumping convolutions. To a non-reader, it’s not necessarily clear, half a dozen episodes in, what kind(s) of story Outlander will turn out to be. But there’s enough to enjoy that you may not mind Claire taking her time and figuring it out.

http://time.com/3086646/review-outlander-starz/
 
#390 ·
I don't think there is a TV series that doesn't depend on a certain amount of conflict. Now with Frank/Black Jack Randall out of the story a new dynamic has to be established.

Claire has returned to Jamie's era but in the intervening years has become a different woman. Every movie and TV series has a roller-coaster story scheme, the rise and fall of personal relationships then the rise again. Claire's insistence to operate on the would-be rapist was to show her independence and expertise which I am sure will become a major element in the new season. The preview of the next episode indicates rocky days ahead.
 
#395 ·
Jamaica!? I didn't see that coming.

Maybe it's explained in the books, or will be later in the season, but how/why was a ship there near that otherwise deserted island at the exact same time as Claire and Jamie and little whats-his-name? Seemed totally weird, totally odd.

This season is so... strange. Is there general consensus that the books get better after whichever one this season is based on?
 
#396 ·
Maybe it's explained in the books, or will be later in the season, but how/why was a ship there near that otherwise deserted island at the exact same time as Claire and Jamie and little whats-his-name? Seemed totally weird, totally odd.
We wondered that too. Somebody had to tip them off, somebody who knew about the jewels being stashed on that island. Looks like Jamie's got a "mole" somewhere in his brood. The old family lawyer, perhaps?
 
#401 ·
The show and the books it is based upon could be described as "Chick lit/flicks" but they are much more than that, it seems to me. These are exciting stories filled with appealing characters. The best part is the way the stories poke fun at the romance novel genre.

I got on Diana Gabaldon's wavelength a long time ago and the TV show has been doing a worthy job of transferring her work to film. I have enjoyed the books so much that I have reread all but the last of them (Book 8), which I am about 25 percent of the way through now. This stuff is far from deathless art but it is great fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TitusTroy
#409 ·
I'm disappointed there's not more of the time-travel angle. We know that Claire is not the first, there was that Scottish chick who seemed to know quite a bit about how it works. But they killed her off before she could really explain anything. Frankly, with the great Ronald D. Moore (BSG) at the helm, I expected the sci-fi angle to have a little more weight in the plotline.
 
#410 ·
On Claire's last "jump", I don't even recall having any scene where she went to the stones .. she just magically appeared ..

The Time Travel angle is one of the areas in the show that has really not been pursued (so far) as much as it is within the books .. since I just started posting here a few days ago, I don't know what the regulations are as far as Book Discussion .. I am assuming it is the same as the GOT No Book Spoiler Thread ..
 
  • Like
Reactions: shivaji
#411 ·
I don't see any problem with putting "general" spoilers - like the time-travel question - in tags. I'm never going to read the books, and I doubt they're going to get into the TT stuff in the show since they've paid virtually no attention to it thusfar. Moore seems to be more interested in ripping bodices. Which is fine; that's how my wife rolls. I'd like a little more sci-fi with my ripped bodices though, 'cause that's how I roll.
 
#413 ·
Well, no .. it's not over, depending on how long the show lasts and if they choose to use the info, "Voyager" is soon coming to a close .. "Drums of Autumn", from what I understand, is greenlit for Season 4 .. beyond that, who knows ..

On Halloween of 1968, Claire returned to Jamie's time .. Abandawe an ancient cave and a stone circle on the island of Hispaniola could come up .. with Geillis Duncan .. as Claire and Jaimie search for Young Ian .. the backstory on the research Claire, Bree and Roger did in Scotland on Jaime was not given much treatment in the show .. there is just so much material in the books that is given no screen time, and, I suppose, rightfully so .. Claire never made her clothes before she made this seasons jump .. she shopped for clothing, without zippers, gathered coins/money .. Jaime lived in the cave for seven years .. Willoughby captures a pelican .. trains to catch fish for him while on the voyage .. that's all for now .. I could go on ..
 
#415 ·
Yeah, I like Lotte Verbeek a lot too. She has been great as the weird and mariticidal Geillis Duncan. The way in which Verbeek projects gleeful craziness has appealed to me. No wonder Geillis has no trouble attracting new victims, er, husbands that is.
 
#416 ·
Okay, so Geillis tells Claire she's been back in the 18th century all this time, having Dougal's baby, wedding a literal sugar-daddy, then becoming Queen of Rose Manor. But we know she must have gone back through the stones at some point because she crossed paths with Brianna in 1968 Scotland, campaigned for a new Scottish King (per the crazy woman's prophecy?), sacrificed her husband, and then went back through the stones again, returning to old Scotland. Which means she's a lying bee-otch and Claire knows it. Is that how everybody else sees it?
 
#418 ·
No...1968 was the the first and only time Geillis went back to the 18th century. She mentioned 1968 at the witch trial to Claire after displaying her inoculation scar. Remember she murdered her then-husband of the 1960's to travel back in time!

I'm wondering which European woman will get murdered (not Claire) and have her skeleton sent to Harvard. Will it be Geillis, the seer, Lohaire's daughter, or another woman?
 
#421 ·
I thought it was an excellent Season Finale .. wrapped it up nicely and ready to begin the next Chapter ..
 
#422 ·
Samurai Claire :)


I enjoyed the finale as well. The season ended considerably better than I expected, since I really hated all the 1940s timeline that took up a lot of the early shows. Surprisingly good finish to the season though. I wonder who else survived the shipwreck ..
 
#423 ·
I felt the second half of this season was much too rushed and my wife says they left a lot out from the books. While not a bad season, this wasn't as good as the first two IMO. I'm curious where it goes next year while they make a home in the "new world."
 
#424 ·
^^^ Yes, book material was left out .. however, there is no way to squeeze Gabaldon's entire material from just one book into a 13 episode season .. I felt they did an excellent job given the restrictions .. all seasons have felt rushed to me, based on the books ..
 
  • Like
Reactions: gwsat
#426 ·
I agree it was rushed and the season finale especially the Geilis part was just silly and very anticlimactic. I thought killing her so quickly just left me saying "that's it"? I think the story line of the "200 year old child" should have been pursued further perhaps with a cliffhanger at the end unlike what we got, they "landed" in the US.
 
#428 ·
‘Outlander’ Renewed for Seasons 5 and 6 at Starz
By Ashley Boucher, TheWrap.com - May 9, 2018

“Outlander” has been renewed for Seasons 5 and 6, Starz announced Wednesday.

The time traveling drama will return to the network with Season 4 this November, though a specific date has not been set. The series, based on Diana Gabaldon’s popular novel series, stars Caitriona Balfe as Claire Randall and Sam Heughan as Jamie Fraser.

Seasons 5 and 6 will be based on material from Gabaldon’s fifth and sixth books, “The Fiery Cross” and “A Breath of Snow and Ashes” in 12 episodes each season.

“Fans can rest assured their beloved Claire and Jamie will be back facing new challenges, adversaries and adventures in seasons five and six as we delve into American history and continue the story of the Frasers as they settle in the New World,” said Starz President and CEO Chris Albrecht.

“Outlander” is executive produced by Ronald D. Moore, Maril Davis, Toni Graphia, Matthew B. Roberts, and Andy Harries. It is produced by Tall Ship Productions, Story Mining & Supply Company and Left Bank Pictures in association with Sony Pictures Television.

Season 4 production is currently underway in Scotland, and will be 13 episodes, based on the fourth book in the series, “Drums of Autumn.”

https://www.thewrap.com/outlander-re...nd-6-at-starz/
 
#429 ·
I am glad the TV series is so successful that we can look forward to several more seasons. I have read all of Diana Gabaldon's "big enormous" (her term) books and am anxiously awaiting Book 9, Go Tell the Bees that I am Gone. I hope Gabaldon doesn't become another George R.R. Martin and just stop publishing new books in the Outlander series, as Martin has done in his Song of Fire and Ice (Game of Thrones) series. I have now given up on the idea that Martin will publish another one before the Game of Thrones TV series ends, if ever. Hope the same thing doesn't happen with Gabaldon. Anyway, we'll always have Paris, er, Outlander.
 
#437 ·
I agree but I love all of Gabaldon's "big enormous" Outlander books and am ready for Book 9 in the series. Gabaldon has said that she wants to finish writing this latest one by the end of 2018 but is making no promises. Hurry Diana!
 
#444 ·
just because an author releases a new book every year (like The Expanse book series) doesn't make them any more or less dedicated to their craft...books as complex as Song of Ice and Fire are inherently more complicated and require much more time and thought then a simpler story...plus you can't dictate to an author how fast or slow they should be writing...if a book sucks then people will complain...if someone takes too long to get things to the point where they are satisfied then people complain...it's a lose-lose situation...I'd rather release a book that I'm happy with versus rushing to meet some fan hysteria deadline and compromise my vision

** yes GRRM has taken too long to release these final few books but I'm still on the side of the artist
 
#450 ·
Upon mature reflection, I am convinced that I was entirely too hard on GRMM when I said he seems to care less abut creative output than he does celebrity. When I wrote that, I failed to take into consideration how brutally hard writing a book in the A song of Ice and Fire saga has to be. As another great writer, Red Smith put it, "Writing is easy. You just open a vein and bleed."
 
Top