?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
September 25 2017 @ 06:48 am
Episode 303 - Book-Show Deviations ***SPOILERS***  
I'm sorry -- just can't wait for the show discussion thread to be started!

*** WARNING! This thread is for discussing deviations between episode 303 and the source material, the novel Voyager. If you have not read the book, please understand that the discussion will contain possible spoilers for the series moving forward (including possibly beyond the current season). However, if you have no intention of reading the book, or don't mind spoilers, or are simply curious to know how things differed, proceed at your own risk! ***

If you wish to discuss episode 303, please wait until the dedicated thread is started.

There were a few notable changes from the source material in this episode. How do you think these will affect the story going forward? Did you like the changes? Did any annoy or upset you?
 
 
 
siobhan63siobhan63 on September 25th, 2017 10:51 am (UTC)
I was right! At least, it's looking very much like I was right!

OK, so the big one here is MURTAGH. In the book, Murtagh is DEAD. He dies in battle at Culloden. Jamie tells Claire about it in ch. 53 or something. As I'd explained in another post just after ep. 301 aired, based on a few tweets I'd seen from Caitriona and Ron Moore, I was starting to suspect that maybe Murtagh wasn't going to die on TV, and I even postulated that he might replace another character from the book, Duncan Innes. And some disagreed with me. But... He lives. He's being deported to the colonies. It looks very much as if he will be reunited with Jamie et. al. in season 4, and the logical thing is still that he replaces Duncan. Of course, they could still have Duncan, but would you need both Duncan and Murtagh? In Voyager, Jamie meets Duncan in Ardsmuir. We didn't have that character in this episode. So I'm sticking with my Murtagh is the new Duncan theory.

I know some quite like Duncan, I had no strong feelings towards him one way or the other, so I am fine with keeping Murtagh around instead. Duncan Lacroix is great in the role, so it would add an interesting twist to things down the road.

The other thing for me in this episode is that they made it really clear that Claire and Frank had a mutual agreement to basically lead separate lives and see others -- as long as they were discreet about it. Or at least, that Frank could do so. In the book, there was no such agreement, and that's why a lot of people hate Frank -- because HE CHEATED ON CLAIRE. Well, that and because he's not Jamie, but mostly because he cheats on her. But this agreement puts everything in a new light, and makes Frank far more sympathetic. I mean, in this episode in particular, I was really more on his side than on Claire's. Also, if I recall correctly, in the episode, not only do they have this agreement, but it was Claire's idea. The Frank haters are gonna hate on that one SO much.

I'm totally OK with how they did this. I never hated Frank, not even in the books.

I was a bit puzzled as to why Jamie wanted Lord John to kill him when Jamie came back to the prison after escaping. Because he didn't find Claire so he had nothing to live for again? I'm pretty sure nothing like that was in the book -- so it confused me. It's the only thing in the episode that I felt was really out of place and odd.
caitri: bookscaitri on September 25th, 2017 10:19 pm (UTC)
The, ah, reunion with Jamie and Lord John in the book is much less violent and more amusing, because LJ is basically behind a bush to take a bathroom break and then he finds himself nose-to-nose with Jamie. I do think that the violence of the scene as filmed was Jamie kind of goading John, not necessarily out of suicidal inclinations but because at this point he is just so worn down and IS self-destructive with a need to feel--and that's what makes their scene a little bit later touching because they are talking about how they have both buried their emotions and suicidal feelings and are try to live again.

For me the bigger hiccup was in Claire and Frank's big argument. I think that in the book the dealbreaker with me for Frank is his casual racism with Joe, and how he 1) accuses Claire of having an affair with him and 2) one of his reasons for taking Bree away is because she's friends with Joe's son, and doesn't want her to marry a black man. And I kind of feel like they must have filmed something like this and then cut it, because in the argument Claire pushes back against his accusation of adultery that...he hadn't brought up. (I suppose we're meant to think they are talking about Jamie though??) And my dealbreaker with screen!Frank was that he invited his fuckbuddy over to the house, and was going to skip Claire's graduation party???? That felt incredibly brutal and out of character.
siobhan63: powerpuffmesiobhan63 on September 26th, 2017 10:47 am (UTC)
I totally remember how LJG "finds" Jamie after the latter escaped. My confusion with that scene was just over Jamie asking to be killed -- because that wasn't in the book (which I just recently finished rereading) and seemed out of place and unnecessary.

When Claire referred to adultery, I immediately thought she was referring to Jamie. I'd totally forgotten about the Joe angle because we've seen sweet f-all of the friendship between Joe and Claire. Either they didn't film any of that, or they did, but 99% of it ended up on the cutting room floor due to time constraints. It's one of the main weaknesses of this episode for me -- Claire's story is really rushed -- nothing about her friendship with Joe, nothing about her studies, etc. Also 100% neglected was the relationship between Frank and Bree. There was just the one throw-away line where Frank tells Claire that between school and the hospital, Claire was never around, so of course Bree would choose to go to England with him. Maybe the producers should have lobbied for a slightly longer episode for this one -- 75 minutes maybe...
Kaylee Winchester: Outlander-Claireroguem on September 27th, 2017 12:23 pm (UTC)
I could live with a lot of the changes, but weirdly enough I wasn't too happy to see Murtagh again. Don't get me wrong I love the character, but in the book I felt that loosing both Murtagh and Claire at Culloden shaped so much of his grief, and how he proceeded afterwards.
Also Jamie being totally alone in his memory of Claire would have showed better how isolated he felt. I wasn't exactly happy that they transferred Jamies prayer for Claire and the child over to Murtagh.
I kind of suppose there will be no Duncan Innes, which actually saddens me because he was a completely different character with different motivations, and I can't help but wonder how this will impact major plot points moving forward.

As a whole this episode ended up feeling a bit rushed, and I would have liked to see more of Claire and Joe's friendship.
siobhan63siobhan63 on September 27th, 2017 01:25 pm (UTC)
If indeed Murtagh will replace Duncan Innes going forward, then I can understand it from a logistics point of view for the producers. They will already have to deal with special effects for Fergus's hand going forward, so likely they were maybe not keen on having to deal with also having to do SPX for Duncan's missing arm. And of course, Ian Sr.'s missing leg.

I honestly can't really think of any Duncan-centred plot points that would be negatively impacted by having Murtagh instead. Although one thing I hadn't noticed the first time I watched the episode was that the duration of the indenture term in the show was extended to 14 years -- in the book I think it's 7? So not sure what that might mean going forward re: Murtagh and Jamie finding each other in the colonies.
Kaylee Winchester: Outlander-Claireroguem on September 28th, 2017 11:06 am (UTC)
Well, Ian Sr isn't in it that much and Fergus's hand will be disguised by a glove at some point, so I don't really see the problem. A little creative camera work could save them too. But I do get what you're saying.
I guess I just can't see the whole [Future books spoiler]Jocasta - Phaedre situation play out with Murtaugh.

Yes, it's 7 years in the books, I didn't catch that change. There's probably a reason for it, but I couldn't guess.
siobhan63siobhan63 on September 28th, 2017 05:55 pm (UTC)
What ... when Duncan got it on with the help? I could totally see Murtagh doing that -- remember Suzette in season 2?
Kaylee Winchesterroguem on October 10th, 2017 10:13 am (UTC)
Yeah, but I'm more thinking of the way it all happened.
Anyways, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.