I might feel differently had I never read the book, but like 90% of the viewing public, I did. I think it's probably challenging living up to the great writing of Diana Gabaldon. I miss some of her great scenes like the ring scene, the Claire's anger over Laohaire scene. Even though, I try to view the show as presented I can't quite get the book out of my mind.
That being said I actually liked most of the episode. I wish they had done a few things differently but most of it was done well. The acting was superb in most of the scenes.
I thought the Jamie Claire anger scene coming back from Ft. Williams was the best scene in the episode. The acting was great by both Sam and Caitriona. It was dramatically written and pretty much followed the anger exchange in the book.
As for Jamie going into get Claire with an empty gun, in the book he shot and killed a man on the way into the Ft. Williams, which was why his gun was empty. He rushed to her when he heard her scream. Why the writers changed that to some stupid line about "Ned telling him not to kill anyone so he left his gun empty" was just bad screen writing. Especially after they put in a scene to blow-up and killed 5 soldiers during the escape. Come on guys at least be consistent to what you wrote! Also the reason Jamie didn't kill Randall was because he heard the soldiers coming and wanted to get Claire out of there quickly; that voice over explanation they gave in the show was unnecessary and a bit lame. The jump into the water was also ridiculous on so many levels, 1st the line "I don't know if there is water down there?" and then they jump (the clothes & arms alone would of drowned them, even if they were stupid enough to jump into a dark abyss not know if it contained water). This segment should be high on the list of how to screw up a good scene with bad writing/directing.
I know some of the scenes were challenging, especially the spanking scene. That was a scene in the book and it had to be in the show even if it offends the modern women. It is what would have happened in 1744. I felt the writers could of included a bit more in the to explain why Jamie had to punish Claire. No it was not because he's a masochistic wife beater! In the book, he sits down and explains to her that if he didn't punish her the men of the clan would and it might be worse than a spanking. Highland justice for putting the men in danger is why he felt he must spank her.
I also did not like the music they played during the spanking scene, nor Jamie smiling as he spanked her (so distracting to what should have been a serious angry exchange). In the book, Jamie lost control got angry punishing her more because she tried to fight back. The dramatic emphasis of this scene did not come across because of that music and smile.
After the spanking, the book had a part where Jamie tries to make up with Claire on his ride back to the Castle by bearing his past, letting her into his inner feelings (something women can't resist). They cut that part out too. They should have left some of that as it was originally written. Especially the knife to Jamie's throat, which took place on the ride back. It is what caused Jamie to make the vow to Claire. The writers should have left that scene on the ride back, not switched the order and make it part of a sex scene in the castle. They diminished the meaning of the vow scene turning into a quasi masochistic sex scene on Claire's part. The sex scene was supposed to be a passionate sex scene because Jamie wanted to "own her body and soul" and Claire too felt this after she accepted his love and the wedding ring (another scene they changed to the detriment of the show). Did the writer not understand love or good passionate sex? or was it just bad directing? I don't know it didn't work except of exploitation and yes, the book was way better.
In the additional scenes added not in the book, I did liked the Jamie Laoghaire scene by the river. Nell Hudson did some fine acting here. I also liked the Dougal/Colum exchange about his Jacobite gold. I did not like the entrance back to the castle. This scene should have been done as it was in the book with Jamie carrying Claire into the Castle, Laohaire and Colum seeing them and everyone wondering why he's carrying her. Instead, they turned this into an unnecessary welcoming extravaganza. Not as dramatic, requires a lot more resources in staging it, and just didn't work as well. In addition, I thought there was way too many scenes with Colum in them; time wasted that could have been used better by including the things cut which would have made this episode better.
The show seems to make the same mistakes repeatedly. Perhaps it's ego wanting to do their own writing or a lack of understanding of the book on the part the production team, if so someone needs to take a look at the effect of that on the show's quality. I know Diana Gabaldon is a consultant on the show. She should be pointing out these discrepancies to them, if not then they need to hire someone who would or they need to listen to her. The episode was good it could of been better.
That being said I actually liked most of the episode. I wish they had done a few things differently but most of it was done well. The acting was superb in most of the scenes.
I thought the Jamie Claire anger scene coming back from Ft. Williams was the best scene in the episode. The acting was great by both Sam and Caitriona. It was dramatically written and pretty much followed the anger exchange in the book.
As for Jamie going into get Claire with an empty gun, in the book he shot and killed a man on the way into the Ft. Williams, which was why his gun was empty. He rushed to her when he heard her scream. Why the writers changed that to some stupid line about "Ned telling him not to kill anyone so he left his gun empty" was just bad screen writing. Especially after they put in a scene to blow-up and killed 5 soldiers during the escape. Come on guys at least be consistent to what you wrote! Also the reason Jamie didn't kill Randall was because he heard the soldiers coming and wanted to get Claire out of there quickly; that voice over explanation they gave in the show was unnecessary and a bit lame. The jump into the water was also ridiculous on so many levels, 1st the line "I don't know if there is water down there?" and then they jump (the clothes & arms alone would of drowned them, even if they were stupid enough to jump into a dark abyss not know if it contained water). This segment should be high on the list of how to screw up a good scene with bad writing/directing.
I know some of the scenes were challenging, especially the spanking scene. That was a scene in the book and it had to be in the show even if it offends the modern women. It is what would have happened in 1744. I felt the writers could of included a bit more in the to explain why Jamie had to punish Claire. No it was not because he's a masochistic wife beater! In the book, he sits down and explains to her that if he didn't punish her the men of the clan would and it might be worse than a spanking. Highland justice for putting the men in danger is why he felt he must spank her.
I also did not like the music they played during the spanking scene, nor Jamie smiling as he spanked her (so distracting to what should have been a serious angry exchange). In the book, Jamie lost control got angry punishing her more because she tried to fight back. The dramatic emphasis of this scene did not come across because of that music and smile.
After the spanking, the book had a part where Jamie tries to make up with Claire on his ride back to the Castle by bearing his past, letting her into his inner feelings (something women can't resist). They cut that part out too. They should have left some of that as it was originally written. Especially the knife to Jamie's throat, which took place on the ride back. It is what caused Jamie to make the vow to Claire. The writers should have left that scene on the ride back, not switched the order and make it part of a sex scene in the castle. They diminished the meaning of the vow scene turning into a quasi masochistic sex scene on Claire's part. The sex scene was supposed to be a passionate sex scene because Jamie wanted to "own her body and soul" and Claire too felt this after she accepted his love and the wedding ring (another scene they changed to the detriment of the show). Did the writer not understand love or good passionate sex? or was it just bad directing? I don't know it didn't work except of exploitation and yes, the book was way better.
In the additional scenes added not in the book, I did liked the Jamie Laoghaire scene by the river. Nell Hudson did some fine acting here. I also liked the Dougal/Colum exchange about his Jacobite gold. I did not like the entrance back to the castle. This scene should have been done as it was in the book with Jamie carrying Claire into the Castle, Laohaire and Colum seeing them and everyone wondering why he's carrying her. Instead, they turned this into an unnecessary welcoming extravaganza. Not as dramatic, requires a lot more resources in staging it, and just didn't work as well. In addition, I thought there was way too many scenes with Colum in them; time wasted that could have been used better by including the things cut which would have made this episode better.
The show seems to make the same mistakes repeatedly. Perhaps it's ego wanting to do their own writing or a lack of understanding of the book on the part the production team, if so someone needs to take a look at the effect of that on the show's quality. I know Diana Gabaldon is a consultant on the show. She should be pointing out these discrepancies to them, if not then they need to hire someone who would or they need to listen to her. The episode was good it could of been better.