Outlander season 7

Same.

I'd always found her irritating or slightly bland before 1970s Scotland.

Rachel annoyed me with her dialogue - all that "thee" all the time sounded historically inaccurate and grated!

I thought Bree & Roger said they'd been back 2 years in which case I don't know they're feeding the children but they definitely look older than 2 and - what, 5?

I've got the free trial for lionsgate and have started episode 1 and I'm not enjoying it. Is this series worth sticking with?

I think so but then I love it
Give it a few episodes before you decide

Definitely watch season one. Give it up to episode 7 and then make up your mind.

The TV show kept Jemmy younger, however in the books he was 7 years old when they left. He is now 10 years old and will be getting more "talking" time on the screen, so they needed an older actor. Mandy is supposed to be 3 years old.

Sorry if it wasn't clear I'm up to date and just started the current series and not enjoying it.

Obviously, we think so.

Took me 2 or 3 episodes to get into it, if I remember, so stick with it for now.

Don't watch the next to last episode of season 1 ;)

I thought I wasn't going to be able to watch this as VM messed up the timings for this episode.

So was excited to suddenly find it there on saturday.

Oh dear, what a let down.

Even by my standards of Bree and Roger being so boring, their plot line and dialogue was dire. Like one of those C5 afternoon shows aimed at women. I actually dont think they add anything to the storyline (maybe in the books they do). Cant think why they are needed.

But then because the 1980s Scotland scenes (like some awful makeover show) were all a bit silly, I just found the Jamie and Clare will they get to Scotland, what will happen, really slight and poorly done. And as for that stupid kiss in the street. Implausible. Why have they made him into a total crackpot.

Then William having an accident, and guess what in miles of swamp or whatever, he is discovered, and by somebody who knows who he is and happens to know a handy doctor round the corner.

Then just when they are going to saw his arm off, a convenient bag of pus miraculously emerges out of the hole in his arm.

The story line has always required a bit of suspended belief, but this just seemed laughable.

Bree and Roger are dire which is such a shame as Jamie and Claire are cast SO well with SO much chemistry. All I can think is Sam and Cait had other projects so they focused on other characters but it is truly dire. It's such a shame - so much potential!

I like Roger but I wouldn't be sorry if they wrote Bree out.

Bree is much better in the books, the casting is just a bit off with Sophie. Roger however is a bit pathetic in both although sharing a stage with Jamie would make most men look a bit inadequate.

Even by my standards of Bree and Roger being so boring, their plot line and dialogue was dire. Like one of those C5 afternoon shows aimed at women. I actually dont think they add anything to the storyline (maybe in the books they do). Cant think why they are needed.

I think of Outlander, overall, as light entertainment so it doesn't bother me. I agree that they have been boring characters but I quite liked the move to 1970s Scotland. The job interview was a bit implausible, but I've managed to suspend disbelief for the rest so far!

Though I've mentioned more than once that I've found Ridge and America dull so a change of scenery was a welcome change.

I've started reading the first book, so will see how it compares.

I've always felt that the show has down graded Roger. He is a much more empathic character in the books. I love his character arc in the books and he really comes into his own in books 8 & 9

Graham McTavish and Tobias Menzies were much sexier stronger actor actors than this new crew who make Jaime stand out even more. The newer actors are just so wet!

I've always watched Outlander a bit like when I watched Lost, sort of with suspended belief.

But being a bit lazy and not very educated I liked what I assumed where fairly accurate historical details, whether Scotland, France, Jamaica and then the US.

I though this is what the books are famous for.

But now its all very domestic, and I know that Claire has told Jamie how the war will go, but that still doesn't mean that around them there must be lots of talk, and resentment over conscription, and so on.

Even just an overhear conversation, or angry street exchanges, or look have you seen this is the paper.

I bet not everyone was gungho to fight the British. Probably slipped quietly into the hills.

And without feeling anything sentimental about the US being "land of the free" I thought there would be more about the alienation from the UK, links with France and so on.

I wouldn't expect an in depth history lesson, but just a bit more about the world around.

This could easily fill up lots of episodes, and then when needed we could have a quick race through time with Bree and Roger, babies grow to toddlers, house renovations go well, Bree becomes woman of the year, and so on. Could be covered in about 15 minutes I suggest!!

Thought interesting that back in America the episode covered what a few weeks, but in Scotland it was 3 or 4 years.

Although come to think of it, with the story so dependent on unlikely coincidences, maybe Poldark will briefly make an appearance!

I bet not everyone was gungho to fight the British. Probably slipped quietly into the hills.

Not only that, quite a few Scots settlers in North Carolina were loyal to the Crown. And as you say, some tried to stay as neutral as possible. The actual history is much more complex than is usually depicted in books and TV.

Jamie was loyal to the crown for a tome because of what he stood to lose. However he now knows that the crown will lose so he has made his sympathies for the rebels known. However he wasn't expecting to be conscripted. Also his conscription in the books was a lot more dramatic than how he calmly signed up on TV. I recall that their ship to Scotland being attacked by the rebels and then the men were conscripted. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, will go read that part again.

Also really action scenes are the only thing left to make outlander watchable. Jamie can't stay on the ridge forever meddling in tenants affairs. It would be too boring, look at how season 6 was received .

Very true, Graham mctavish was brilliant

Well this time VM seem to have released this week's episode earlier so watched last night.

Will not say much more about it but they must have listened to my criticisms from last week!

But I do think part of the problem is that now there are 2 storylines / 2 timelines they have to skimp on each.

SPOILER

this episode annoyed me "let's not check the history books to find out what happened" bawling her eyes out while she's sat in front of a box full of letters clearly showing the don't die at this battle!

Can they write Bri out?

Can they write Bri out?

I know I am repeating myself, but wish they focused more on events with Claire and Jaime, and get more in depth idea of issues at the time (we all know part of the point of Outlander is to have the couple happen to turn up at interesting historical moments).

They could just do a quick summary of Bree and Roger every 3rd or 4th week. They just dont have substance.

I agree not enough Jamie and Claire in this episode, though surprisingly I loved Bree's acting for the first time ever!
Also a change from the books about Ian James, he's so cute. I can't remember what his name is in the books but it wasn't that.
TV William is more likeable than book William.