jo: (outlander)
jo ([personal profile] jo) wrote in [community profile] outlander_forum2017-09-17 10:56 am
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry
Entry tags:

Episode 302 - Show-Book Deviations ***SPOILERS***

*** WARNING! This thread is for discussing deviations between episode 302 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 302, please do so on the dedicated episode discussion thread.

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?
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only
anoyo: Columbus & Tallahassee shopping, text "Rule #32 Enjoy the little things" (zland enjoy)

[personal profile] anoyo 2017-09-21 03:30 pm (UTC)(link)
The bit with Fergus bugged me a little, since it's part of Fergus getting to be "historical," and I adore that, but I suppose it still accomplished the same thing? Except that if we ever make it to season I-don't-remember-which-Heart's-Blood-is, that little thing won't be there. Which, my god, we can hope we make it there!
jo: (Default)

[personal profile] jo 2017-09-21 05:42 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, totally. That was the main thing about if for. Plus the fact that with the way things played out in the show, cutting off his hand made no sense. It was a WTF moment.
anoyo: Neal B&W looking up. (wc neal possibilities)

[personal profile] anoyo 2017-09-21 06:46 pm (UTC)(link)
100% Maybe quicker than explaining that it became a part of the Dunbonnet lore? That's the only thing I can think of in its favor.
jo: (Default)

[personal profile] jo 2017-09-21 09:58 pm (UTC)(link)
Assuming they film all the books, I am REALLY going to miss Roger's moment of realization that it was Fergus. It was just so poignant.
jo: (Default)

[personal profile] jo 2017-09-21 10:13 pm (UTC)(link)
Also, I've been wondering if they're going to deviate from the book and not kill Murtagh. After ep. 1, Caitriona was asked on Twitter what became of Murtagh, and she replied that we would hear from him again. And Ron Moore was asked if Murtagh survives, and replied that we'd have to wait and see...

I was thinking that if they did decide not to have him die, what would they do with him? Then I thought that the most likely thing might be to drop the Duncan Innes character (the dude with one arm who ends up marrying Jamie's aunt) and replace him with Murtagh.
anoyo: Ianto "know everything" quote. (torchwood ianto know everything)

[personal profile] anoyo 2017-09-21 11:51 pm (UTC)(link)
To reply to both comments: Most of Roger's realizations are great. He's so smart, and yet so shortsighted sometimes.

As for Murtagh, I hope he's really only back for flashbacks. His literary purpose as Jamie's logical foil (logical when Jamie isn't, illogical when Jamie is, same with violence and romance) is really moot, with Jamie growing up as much as he does in "Voyager."

Also: I love Duncan, please let's keep him. (And Jocaste. Forever. I adore them.)
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only