Outlander

[smitten]

Sam did a lot of good work with his Peak Challenge stuff. After Cait got engaged I can’t bieve people are still pushing that they are a real life couple so hard. TBTH, it’s kind of insulting to the actors - oH you must REALLY be in love, because no one can ACT like they are in love that convincingly.

[Millis]

I watched Outlander when it came to Netflix, and liked the first two seasons enough to subscribe to Starz in order to watch the next two seasons (plus it was a $5 a month deal). I did not read the books. I am not sure I'll stick around for season 5 since I hate season 4 (with some exceptions). My main source of hatred is my complete lack of interest in Roger and Brianna. For book readers, is it really just a matter of poor casting or do you think the writers of the show are doing the best they can with the source material? I'm starting to think the author stumbled on a good story (Claire and Jamie) but is actually not a good writer in general. Brianna is a horrible actress, and has zero chemistry with Roger, so their 'romance' is not believable and dull as dirt (to me), is Roger more appealing in the books? I think I'd still like the show if it weren't for the two of them, because Claire and Jamie are still interesting and good actors, plus lots of the other side characters are interesting, like Murtagh (sp??). Would the die hard fans lose their minds if the show writers just plunked Roger and Brianna on a plot of land somewhere and let them live their lives off screen? Or maybe a book reader can give me some hope that the next book/season has minimal to no Brianna and Roger?!

[kostgard]

Jul 19, 2019 9:05:29 GMT -4 Millis said:

I watched Outlander when it came to Netflix, and liked the first two seasons enough to subscribe to Starz in order to watch the next two seasons (plus it was a $5 a month deal). I did not read the books. I am not sure I'll stick around for season 5 since I hate season 4 (with some exceptions). My main source of hatred is my complete lack of interest in Roger and Brianna. For book readers, is it really just a matter of poor casting or do you think the writers of the show are doing the best they can with the source material? I'm starting to think the author stumbled on a good story (Claire and Jamie) but is actually not a good writer in general. Brianna is a horrible actress, and has zero chemistry with Roger, so their 'romance' is not believable and dull as dirt (to me), is Roger more appealing in the books? I think I'd still like the show if it weren't for the two of them, because Claire and Jamie are still interesting and good actors, plus lots of the other side characters are interesting, like Murtagh (sp??). Would the die hard fans lose their minds if the show writers just plunked Roger and Brianna on a plot of land somewhere and let them live their lives off screen? Or maybe a book reader can give me some hope that the next book/season has minimal to no Brianna and Roger?!

Not a book reader, so I can’t answer those questions, but just want to say I feel ya.

I’m really hoping that the writers were just trying to be true to the books but have now seen that Bri and Roger are not a satisfying replacement for Claire and Jamie. The fact that they kept C&J off screen for nearly entire episodes to focus on those boring-ass characters is outrageous. I hope they learned that lesson. From what I understand, Sam and Caitriona have pushed for more creative control next season. I hope they at least understand that Bri/Rog is a dud. Leave them behind at the homestead to raise their baby and let Jaime and Claire run off to have Revolutionary War hijinks with Murtagh, Fergus, and Lord John.

[Ladybug]

I think that as Jamie and Claire aged and the series went on, Gabaldon felt the need to extend the world of the books to other characters. Outlander and Dragonfly in Amber are totally from Claire's POV, then she starts to open it up a bit in Voyager and show Jamie's side of things. By the fourth novel, there are chapters from Bree and Roger's POV, and it just expands from there. All of the novels are long reads, but with the last two or three, I found myself skipping whole chapters if it wasn't relevant to the main plot or if I just didn't care for those characters. If you like Lord John, there is an entire series of novels about him spun off from Outlander.

Brianna was always a spoiled brat, even in the books, that's part of her character. She was Daddy's (Frank's) girl and had a lot of resentment toward her mother. Roger has never been as compelling as Jamie (few characters could be), but the crappy way he behaved towards Bree? Most of that is straight from the books. He really did dump her when he found out she was assaulted and pregnant with maybe another man's child. He has moments where I like him or sympathize with him, but overall, I don't really enjoy his character, and I think he's very wishy washy. He never seems to know the purpose in his life the way Jamie does (which is basically to take care of the people he loves and has a responsibility toward, that drives almost 100% of his actions in all the books). Roger is often selfish and is very much a 20th c. character. Bree has matured a lot since the book series has gone on, and she's become more like Claire in that she's very resourceful.

The showrunners, and some of the fans, are very taken with Bree and Roger, but the heart of the books and the show are Jamie and Claire. That's why people follow this series. Most of the fans disliked the shift in focus from J&C to B&R in season 4. I like the actor who plays Roger, Sophie Skelton is not a good actress, but the characters are nowhere near as compelling as the main focus of the show- the Frasers.

[Deleted]

It's so odd how much criticism of Sophie Skelton there is, her screen test with Rankin was great. I honestly think a lot of it is due to "fans" who want more scenes between Claire and Jamie. It's accepted as fact among fans of Tobias Menzies that the same fans HATE TV Frank so much because he was portrayed sympathetically, and his stories took time away from the 1740s. I do agree that the whole episode devoted to Sophie and Laoghaire was badly done, I couldn't figure out the reason for it.

[Millis]

I can say with 100% honesty that my dislike of the actress that plays Brianna is entirely due to her inability to act. I took a long break from Outlander after the episode when the guy that raped Brianna high jacked Jamie and Claire's boat (I'm obviously horrible with names!), and I specifically said to a friend that I really wish they could give Claire and Jamie's story a rest and let them be happy while they focus on other characters. I'd LOVE if there were a secondary story that was interesting, and I wonder if the Brianna Roger story would be interesting if handled by different actors. I did not read the books so I don't know how they come across in the books at all.

ETA: I watched the clip of her screen test and... I stand by my assessment. I suppose it's all subjective, I liked Kit Harrington as Jon Snow and I know many people did not. Brianna might just not be my cup of tea.

[Ladybug]

Yeah, I saw the screen test and wasn’t wowed, either.

[kostgard]

I went into the show with no expectations, having not read the book, and I’m fine with side characters getting more time (please find a way to bring Jenny back!). I was actually okay when Brianna was a side character - not the strongest actress, but it didn’t matter because she wasn’t actually carrying the scene or the storyline and she certainly looked the part (very, very pretty with red hair). But once they started focusing on her...yikes.

She’s had a few moments where she was good (I thought she did a good job in the scene where she returns to her room in the wake of the rape), but overall she just doesn’t have the chops. To be fair, she’s having to deal with a character who is written (it seems by design) to be obnoxious and one who acts like she is 15 despite being a college graduate, and she just doesn’t have the skills to rise above the material. Plus her relationship with Roger is a poorly written, non-sensical dud. Again, when they were side characters they were cute and it wasn’t so bad. But then we’ve got Roger slut-shaming her, Brianna rightfully walking out in his ass after that only to turn around and be all, “I wasn’t sure where I stood in our relationship” (you dumped him for being a slut-shaming ass. That’s where you stood). And despite the fact they couldn’t have spent more than a few weeks in each other’s company (due to living on opposite sides of the Atlantic) and their last meeting ending in slut-shaming disaster, they still tried to sell it as some sort of epic relationship when it really, really isn’t. They got me with the fake out that made it seem like Roger returned to the 1970s. I was just like, “Good. Honestly, this is better for everyone.” That would have been the braver/better choice instead of a watered-down version of her parents’ relationship. I think I would respect Bri more if she was like, “Seriously, fuck that guy. He can read about me in the history books” and found herself a hot 18th century guy like her mom did.

Honestly, if they wanted to focus on a younger couple to keep things fresh, Fergus and Marsali are right there. And they are far more believable and charming than Bri and Roger.

[Martini Girl]

Everything at Starz changed once Lionsgate bought them. None of it for the better. I don't know many people who work there now, and I know that Outlander changed executives last year. I also know Lionsgate executives are sticking their noses into the show when they shouldn't, and nothing I saw from Lionsgate produced any belief that their presence would make a positive difference-- quite the contrary. They're all about budgets and doing things cheaply, so god only knows how the new season will turn out. Chris Albrecht is out, and he was the one who insisted that Jamie and Claire, not really "age" because it wasn't "sexy", much to the chagrin of the actors.

I think both Cait and Sam are Executive Producers now, so they may have more authority on story direction. Other than that, I've got nothing. I loved season one, thought season two looked pretty but was very uneven, hated season three, watched only half of season four, and have no desire to continue really.

[smitten]

Roger and Bree are very compelling characters in the books... eventually, especially after the Fiery Cross, when they start to come in to their own a little more. But I won't say any more cuz Spoilers!

I hated season 4 too. I feel like I miss Jamie and Claire, which is ridiculous considering the series is About Them!!