Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

to say that Outlander is just

58 replies

BunnyLebowski · 27/04/2015 10:33

Goodnight Sweetheart mashed up with Braveheart and Quantum Leap? With a soupcon of Mills & Boon.

I've only watched the first episode. Maybe it gets better. But holy shit it was so unoriginal and lame.

Is it worth persevering??

OP posts:

Original poster

BunnyLebowski · 27/04/2015 12:08

Thanks all.

I think I'll sack it off. I watch a lot of telly and am quite definite about what I like and dislike. Outlander offers nothing fresh or new to me. It feels stale and generic.

But then I hated Breaking Bad with a passion so what do I know .

OP posts:

Grantaire · 27/04/2015 12:20

I said over on the Outlander thread that it took me 4 episodes to get into it. I even fell asleep a few times during the first 2. Now, I love it. It isn't a movie, it's a series and it is a slow burner at first. The books are very long and it takes time to establish the notion of a 1940s woman in an eighteenth century, culturally different setting. I'm not sure you can easily do that in an hour and move the plot on sufficiently.

I hated Breaking Bad too Bunny. A v good example of sticking with something because people promised it would improve. Half way through series 2 I gave up and accepted it was not for me.

Original poster

BunnyLebowski · 27/04/2015 12:23

Precisely Grantaire.

Me: Breaking Bad is dull

Everyone: Stick with it, it gets really good!

Me: Season 3 and Breaking Bad is still really dull

Everyone: Stick with it, it gets really good!

Me: Nope. I'm done.

Overrated crap.

OP posts:

FrChewieLouie · 27/04/2015 12:27

Hmm, I have many friends who rave about the books (including one who warned me it would 'rip my heart out', which I'm not sure I'm up for tbh ) but I didn't find episode 1 as engaging as I'd hoped. I really want to fancy Jamie but I don't so far.

I'll stick with it for a while, since these friends tend to share my tastes - maybe Jamie will grow on me.

AliceLidl · 27/04/2015 12:31

I hated the book, so I'm not going to watch the TV series. Usually the books are better, so if I didn't like the book I can't see me liking the series.

However I've just started reading the Game of Thrones books and I'm loving that, waiting to read the books before watching the TV series.

Grantaire · 27/04/2015 12:32

Jamie's barely in the first few episodes. This is a good thing because of what's to come. He should feel unfamiliar and unknown because that's what he is to Claire and she is forced to learn to know him more intimately than she knows anybody. You learn who he is as she does. You don't have to fancy him though. I don't watch many things with fancying a character as a prerequisite. You might just find you do though. He's v interesting and has a lovely bottom. He's not my type but I can see the attraction. Jamie has a lovely heart.

bigmouthstrikesagain · 27/04/2015 12:37

Thing is I found myself wanting to redeem the evil rapey captain (ancestor of her husband) rather than stick with boring man child Jamie ... Which is clearly not what I am meant to be doing. So maybe book Claire is not whiney and irritating and book Jamie is rugged and likeable but not the tv versions? Anyway I may read the books I know tv can ruin excellent source material.

VivaLeBeaver · 27/04/2015 12:40

Is it only on Amazon Prime btw?

Original poster

BunnyLebowski · 27/04/2015 12:43

Ooh Alice I'm envious that you're just starting GoT . The books are an entirely different and superior experience to the show. I like the show but I love the books.

Just watching the show without reading the books is like eating a pot noodle when you have filet mignon in the fridge .

OP posts:

cozietoesie · 27/04/2015 12:51

...Just watching the show without reading the books is like eating a pot noodle when you have filet mignon in the fridge ...

They're different experiences - or should be. Try watching 'All About Eve' or 'Bad Day at Black Rock' - two very different directors (Mankiewicz and Sturges) but you probably won't be in the least interested in the source material or the staging because you'll be too busy watching them!

cozietoesie · 27/04/2015 12:56

I 'think' it may only be available for streaming on Amazon Prime at the moment, Viva. (DVD purchases would be separate.) I'll stand to be corrected on that one though.

Original poster

BunnyLebowski · 27/04/2015 13:07

In the case of All About Eve cozie I imagine the film far surpasses the 9 page short story that inspired it. It's one of my all time favourite films.

Very rarely does a TV/film adaption equal or better the original book.

Game of Thrones most certainly doesn't.

OP posts:

cozietoesie · 27/04/2015 13:13

Ah - a fellow devotee!

Grantaire · 27/04/2015 13:15

Brokeback Mountain is a good example of a film imagining a book and exceeding it. It's only a novella and beautiful but the film is glorious.

The Notebook might be romantic tripe but that's also better than the book.

Game Of Thrones the series is quite good. The books are fecking brilliant. You absolutely should read them first. I remember being so cross watching GoT when they got the basic foundations of a relationship wrong. It just shifted focus in the wrong direction. You have to let go of the books a bit.

Book Jamie is better than tv Jamie. He's an educated man, speaks several languages (better than Claire who is pretty fluent), is well read and has a clever, ruthless streak. In the series he's pretty standard hero fare but they don't really show his intelligence in the way the book does. Again, you just let it go.

justonemoretime2p · 28/04/2015 22:27

JUST started watching the final episode.
It took me a little while to really get in to it, now I'm really enjoying it.
It's one hell of a love story.

Imustgodowntotheseaagain · 28/04/2015 23:18

Hated the books. There are some big historical mistakes, yet the author makes a massive deal about her research skills. I actually wrote to her (yes, arrogant know it all teen!) and she wrote back, saying "it says fiction on the cover" which i thought was a massive cop-out.

bigmouthstrikesagain · 29/04/2015 12:05

I have hears about the liberties taken with history in the books and listened to the cavalier attitude from the writer about it in her WH interview. She annoyed me. GRR Martin researched medieval history then invented a world to play about in - that is impressive - I think the Outlander writer wanted some hunky men in kilts to play with.

queenofwesteros · 29/04/2015 12:36

I was a bit meh at episode 1 of Outlander, couldn't decide whether Claire was going to annoy me too much. 12 episodes in and I bloody LOVE IT. Claire is feisty, strong, intelligent, no-nonsense and capable. I would also love her wardrobe. She's my new girl crush. Jamie is...well. AND HE GIVES GOOD SEX. He's my new boy crush.
I even thought it might outrank Game of Thrones for a tiny bit but after Monday's GoT that's been sorted out good and proper. But a close second though!!

cozietoesie · 29/04/2015 12:57

OK - I'll persevere then. I suppose that I've already paid for it. (And how's that for a lame reason?)

I'll blame you queen if it's not up to scratch for me!

EddieStobbart · 29/04/2015 13:24

bigmouth that's exactly how I feel about it - the author really fancies men in kilts and conjured up a really elaborate scenario around how to get a really one

I quite like it, am half way through book 1 but watched all the series so don't think I'll finish now, the book's not good enough to do both. I can't get past some of the things Claire doesn't seem to be that bothered about as a relatively modern woman (choosing someone from a time that was still pretty hands-on esp with the war was a good idea). Surely full-on corsetry, working out the mechanics of dealing with periods, scratchy unwashed wool, lice, lack of deodorant and terrible breath would have been worthy of more of a mention (I think there was the odd reference to "moss" as a sanitary towel).

Watched the last two episodes of the series last night then watched a couple of the third series of Vikings (was trying to do some boring work) and I did actually find myself pining for it a bit - Vikings seems to veer between atmospherically grim or camp with not much in between!

tabulahrasa · 29/04/2015 13:34

"Surely full-on corsetry, working out the mechanics of dealing with periods, scratchy unwashed wool, lice, lack of deodorant and terrible breath would have been worthy of more of a mention"

Actually some of those things are definitely covered in later books.

cozietoesie · 29/04/2015 13:45

I think that sewage is the last great frontier, tabulah. I can think of only three films of the modern-ish era (Elizabeth, Pulp Fiction and Independence Day) where important characters are seen within 20 ft of/actually using a toilet.

I look forward to adding Outlander to my mental list.

LBOCS · 29/04/2015 13:49

Jurassic Park, cozie?

cozietoesie · 29/04/2015 13:52

True! I'll add that one.

I think that if I was a man, I'd avoid toilets - all but one of the scenes on my list, have the toilet occupant being killed in some horrible way.

SenecaFalls · 29/04/2015 13:57

I second what Grantaire has said. The books are popular fiction, not serious literature by any means, and the historical accuracy improves as the books progress.

I think the series is very well done; casting is excellent, and it is refreshing especially to see love scenes filmed with a female gaze and a woman's perspective.

Flip

1 2 3