outlander_forum | Season 3 Prep

jo posting in

With the season 3 premiere date fast approaching, is anyone doing anything special to prep for it? Are you reading (or re-reading) Voyager? Binge watching (or re-watching) seasons 1 and 2? Planning viewing parties for the premiere?

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

suzy

I am new to Outlander as of this summer. I binge watched all episodes in 2 weeks. And then I bought the first book. Read it. Was not that captivated by the book after having just seen it so I am holding off on the book series until I've watched season 3. I think I prefer to see it first as the show became my "base" for the characters. Sorry Diana!

I am already re-wathing it. *lol* I just really fell for the show I guess and I'm very glad to not have been through the droughtlander experience.

From:

I am likely in a minority among the book fans, but I honestly think the first book isn't very good. I read it during the break in the middle of the first season (they aired the first 8 episodes, took a 3 month break, then aired the last 8 episodes) because I needed to know what was going to happen. I really liked the book the first time I read it, but after rereading it a couple of times, it's by far my least favourite -- the adaptation is WAY better. I think the books get stronger as the series progresses, with the most recently published one being my favourite. But I would say book 1 is the worse of the lot.

From:

I've rewatched the first couple two seasons, except for the final episode of season 2 -- I'll likely watch that one just before season 3 starts. (Oh, and I also skipped ep. 208, The Fox's Lair, because I really disliked that episode). I've also started rereading Voyager, but I've got two other books on the go as well, so I am not certain I will get through it before Sept. 10. Might be possible if I prioritize it over the other two, but at the moment I'm alternating between the three. Luckily they're all very different stories so I'm not getting too confused.

From:

suzy

Ah, glad to hear it wasn't just me that didn't like the book that much. I thought I was alone! It didn't flow for me at all and I had a hard time to actually finish reading it. Which of course can be because I had just seen it. :P But I thought I would learn more about the characters in the book but learned surprisingly little I must say. Of course they skipped some things as they do in adaptations but those were only minor things. Prefer the TV version for sure.

But the first book was Diana's first attempt at writing wasn't it? So I'd guess she learned, i.e becoming better over time. I mean I don't know of course since I've only read the 1st one but that would be the natural state for any author I think. :)

From:

It was her first attempt at writing, and wasn't even supposed to be anything that was going to end up published. So there's that. But for me, there's other stuff too. I know the show is always described as sort of being about Claire ("It's about a woman from the 1940s who goes back in time..."), but the Outlander series, for Diana, was never about Claire, or even Claire and Jamie, but only about Jamie. For Diana, Claire is essentially just a tool to tell Jamie's story. When I found that out, it really pissed me off! But it also explains why Claire is really so one-dimensional in the first book in particular. Also, her backstory is largely ignored. We learn all sorts of things about Jamie as a child, etc., but nothing about Claire other than the basics. Yet her adventures with her archeologist uncle would have been fascinating I think. I loved that the show gave us some flashbacks to her time during the war -- that is never explored by Diana in any of the books. I've read that Diana sort of gets annoyed a bit with the show producers because they don't make the show essentially about Jamie. She keeps reminding them that "it's Jamie's story".

From:

suzy

"it's Jamie's story"

Wow. Really? I didn't know that. And I certainly didn't get that reading it either. I also thought it was all Claire's story. Isn't that why it is a 1st persons narrative in the book? Which I really dislike btw.

Hmmm. So basically Diana wrote the book(s) of her dream man then. And that's why he's seemingly so perfect. She is Claire trying to describe this amazing, gorgeous giant of a man that can do no wrong and everybody(almost) just love. Huh, and that's where the 1st person narrative comes in... yup. Now I get it.

also explains why Claire is really so one-dimensional

You're so right! Really. Maybe that is yet another reason why I prefer the TV version. I just hadn't connected all the dots. The characters are simply more developed all around in the show and I feel a connection to them much better than I did in the book. Like Frank! He was so much more likeable in the show.

From:

So basically Diana wrote the book(s) of her dream man then.

Apparently Jamie's physique in the book is modelled on her actual husband. So yeah, I think she is pretty much just fangirling Jamie. Don't get me wrong -- I love Jamie too, but I have a hard time taking the character seriously because he's so perfect. I sometimes refer to him as a unicorn -- doesn't exist in the real world!

As for the first-person narrative, the first book is the only one that is 100% like that. Starting with the 2nd one, some chapters are from Roger's point of view but normal 3rd person, and as the series progresses, more and more characters get their own chapters in 3rd person. Only Claire's chapters remain 1st person.

From:

suzy

I am re-watching and I saw something I failed to see the first time around. It's just an observation but I really reacted to it now. I don't know if that has ever been talked about but I find it's a HUGE error and it's a bit baffling they got it so wrong. Or is it me that is somehow misunderstanding the timeline?

In episode 2x01 it clearly states 1745 but then later, months later, when Faith dies it's 1744... ?

From:

That intrigued me, as I'd not previously caught it. I googled a bit, and apparently the date stamp in the first episode was supposed to be 1744, and it was changed for the broadcast that evening, but not in the web release that came out earlier in the day (Starz releases the episodes online via their app at midnight and air it on their TV channel at 9:00 p.m., so the episode is available online before it is broadcast). So if you're watching the web episode that someone uploaded to a 3rd party site, it would still have the 1745 date. I will have to check the episode on Netflix as well as my blu-ray version to see if indeed the date in 201 is 1744 and not 1745.

From:

suzy

Oh that's funny. My blu-ray version has 1745 though. :o

From:

Heh! I'd found a discussion forum where people were noticing the 1745 date and many replied that it had been fixed for the evening broadcast. It should be 1744 in 201 -- if they released the DVDs without fixing that, that was a mistake.

From:

I checked the episode on Netflix and the date stamp is indeed 1744. I haven't checked my DVD version yet, however, but it's definitely been fixed on Netflix.

From:

suzy

I should re-sheck my DVD to be 100% sure but I am almost sure I saw the year 1745 on my blu-ray. Huge mistake if they didn't bother to fix it. Not that truly mind but still, it IS a huge mistake!