That said I'm not sure how the rules work contract wise and if that would just mean the actors getting a bump in pay sooner?
In articles that were published when the show was premiering, I thought I read that producer, Ron Moore, had asked the priniciple actors to sign up to 6 year contracts. Now, whether they actually did so, is another thing. It wasn't made clear. All that we know is that the show has already been renewed for a second season, with the promise of 13 episodes that would cover the second book of the series. This first season will run for 16 episodes, with half of them (8) being shown this fall in the U.S. and the back 8 being shown in the spring.
In articles that were published when the show was premiering, I thought I read that producer, Ron Moore, had asked the priniciple actors to sign up to 6 year contracts. Now, whether they actually did so, is another thing. It wasn't made clear. All that we know is that the show has already been renewed for a second season, with the promise of 13 episodes that would cover the second book of the series. This first season will run for 16 episodes, with half of them (8) being shown this fall in the U.S. and the back 8 being shown in the spring.
If they have been signed for 6 year contracts, I am not quite sure how they will get around
the age/time jump
necessary for book three. It would make more sense to me to recast the lead actors
It would make more sense to me to recast the lead actors
Well, the actors are currently older than the characters they are playing which is fine for the story as it now stands. But...
you are correct and the characters take a larger leap in age in book three, but I'm sure they can handle that with makeup, hair dye, and other costume type effects. "Hollywood" has gotten pretty good at aging characters more believably than in the past.
Well, the actors are currently older than the characters they are playing which is fine for the story as it now stands. But...
you are correct and the characters take a larger leap in age in book three, but I'm sure they can handle that with makeup, hair dye, and other costume type effects. "Hollywood" has gotten pretty good at aging characters more believably than in the past.
I think Catriona could pull that off for Claire, but not sure Sam could with Jamie - he does portray Jamie well but I think his character would need to be recast.
Watched eps1-3 this morning online. Never having read the books I was unsure about the plot. It's a strange take on the time traveller theme but its very very good. The lead actress is very convincing, I don't like the voice over bits though (lazy writing?) she's a very beautiful subtle actor.
I visited the part of Scotland where it was filmed last year they have captured the mysterious atmosphere very well, some of the cinematography is breathtaking as Is Bear Mccrearys score.
Ill be watching more of this series, it's excellent and very different to the usual sci fi fantasy fodder, this is a grown up sophisticated show for a mature audience.
It was an acting tour de force, that's for sure. Both Tobias Menzies and the guy who plays Dougal (for his acting in earlier episodes) should be dueling for an Emmy. And, the beauty of some of the scenes, even the horrific ones was crazy.
It is amazing how some people can't see themselves for what they are.
The English Captain goes on about what a savage people the Scottish are, and yet there he is flogging someone almost to the bone, and punching a woman in the stomach and making a soldier kick her.
There was a lovely little article about the making of the latest episode. I'll link it here. For those who haven't seen the show ... well, you've been warned: spoilers!
It is amazing how some people can't see themselves for what they are.
The English Captain goes on about what a savage people the Scottish are, and yet there he is flogging someone almost to the bone, and punching a woman in the stomach and making a soldier kick her.
that was a brutal episode, and actually didn't expect him to sucker punch her in the stomach
It has just been announced that after episode 8, the show will be on break until 4th April. I expect a UK channel to pick it up sometime in the New Year and show all 16 episodes as a complete run.
It has just been announced that after episode 8, the show will be on break until 4th April. I expect a UK channel to pick it up sometime in the New Year and show all 16 episodes as a complete run.
During this period it wasn't the Scottish vs the English. In reality large parts of Scotland - the lowlands - were also against the Jacobites. And it was the defeat of the Jacobites at the Battle of Culloden (1746) which enabled the Scottish people to become some of the most influential and powerful people in the world.
Some historical facts to offset the large amount of anti-English nonsense shown in this drama:
The Union was created by a Scottish king of England.
Around 70% of Scottish people were against the Jacobite's and in favour of the Union.
The overwhelming reason why people were in favour of the Union had nothing to do with religion.
The Redcoats are the British Army and the Highlanders would become key proud members of that British Army. How the Redcoats are being depicted in this drama is fiction.
But why did so many Scottish people support the Union? A similar reason as to why the majority of Scottish people voted 'No' in the recent referendum. Jobs and money. By 1743 the big population centres down in the Lowlands - Glasgow and Edinburgh - were already seeing the huge benefits of the Union. The place was booming.
Meanwhile up in the Highlands, the Jacobite's were stuck in the past. And it was actually the Jacobite's who caused their own demise by fighting (killing) their way right down into the heart of England. A failed military campaign which ultimately proving to nearly everyone that these kilted menaces finally needed to be dealt with.
Some historical facts to offset the large amount of anti-English nonsense shown in this drama:
The Union was created by a Scottish king of England.
Around 70% of Scottish people were against the Jacobite's and in favour of the Union.
The overwhelming reason why people were in favour of the Union had nothing to do with religion.
The Redcoats are the British Army and the Highlanders would become key proud members of that British Army. How the Redcoats are being depicted in this drama is fiction.
But why did so many Scottish people support the Union? A similar reason to why the majority of Scottish people voted 'No' in the recent referendum. Jobs and money. By 1743 the big population centres down in the Lowlands - Glasgow and Edinburgh - were already seeing the huge benefits of the Union. The place was booming.
Meanwhile, up in the Highlands the Jacobite's were stuck in the past. And it was actually the Jacobite's who caused their own demise by fighting (killing) their way right down into the heart of England. A failed military campaign which ultimately proving to the vast majority of British people that these kilted menaces needed to be dealt with.
That is all irrelevant (which is not the same thing as "false," of course). Nothing in the show has even as much as implied disagreement with the points you make. Claire is not in the Lowlands, she is in the Highlands, and among a small number of Scots who just happen to be Jacobites. The show is not trying to give a God's-eye view of the full political situation in Scotland or all of Britain at that time. It is simply the story of Claire and the people she comes into contact with, and it is from that perspective that the story is told. Now if there really weren't any Jacobites in the Highlands at that time, THAT would be a damning criticism of the historical veracity of the show, but you can't question that, can you? And since this isn't a documentary, but fiction, it is really worth asking just how much "historical veracity" the show has to respect. The central character is a time traveller, for God's sake.
That is all irrelevant (which is not the same thing as "false," of course). Nothing in the show has even as much as implied disagreement with the points you make. Claire is not in the Lowlands, she is in the Highlands, and among a small number of Scots who just happen to be Jacobites. The show is not trying to give a God's-eye view of the full political situation in Scotland or all of Britain at that time. It is simply the story of Claire and the people she comes into contact with, and it is from that perspective that the story is told. Now if there really weren't any Jacobites in the Highlands at that time, THAT would be a damning criticism of the historical veracity of the show, but you can't question that, can you? And since this isn't a documentary, but fiction, it is really worth asking just how much "historical veracity" the show has to respect. The central character is a time traveller, for God's sake.
It's how propaganda works. Put one group of people as the good guys, and set the others as the bad guys, it doesn't matter what the historical truths may be, some people will take what's shown as represented in the show as illustrative of who were (and still are) historically the good guys, and who were (and still are) the bad ones.
Taking liberties with history is precisely one reason why Mel Gibson's Braveheart was so successful in boosting Scottish nationalism. Set the English as the nasty brutes and Scots as brave warriors, and voilà, big boost in support for Scottish nationalism.
Comments
In articles that were published when the show was premiering, I thought I read that producer, Ron Moore, had asked the priniciple actors to sign up to 6 year contracts. Now, whether they actually did so, is another thing. It wasn't made clear. All that we know is that the show has already been renewed for a second season, with the promise of 13 episodes that would cover the second book of the series. This first season will run for 16 episodes, with half of them (8) being shown this fall in the U.S. and the back 8 being shown in the spring.
If they have been signed for 6 year contracts, I am not quite sure how they will get around
Well, the actors are currently older than the characters they are playing which is fine for the story as it now stands. But...
I think Catriona could pull that off for Claire, but not sure Sam could with Jamie - he does portray Jamie well but I think his character would need to be recast.
I visited the part of Scotland where it was filmed last year they have captured the mysterious atmosphere very well, some of the cinematography is breathtaking as Is Bear Mccrearys score.
Ill be watching more of this series, it's excellent and very different to the usual sci fi fantasy fodder, this is a grown up sophisticated show for a mature audience.
Enjoy!
Excellent stuff.
K
The English Captain goes on about what a savage people the Scottish are, and yet there he is flogging someone almost to the bone, and punching a woman in the stomach and making a soldier kick her.
K
Got a bit cheeky near to the end this week
http://www.vulture.com/2014/09/outlander-wedding-jamie-claire-ronald-moore.html
For what's it worth, I thought it was beautifully done. Very touching, and I don't mean that in a punny way.
K
that was a brutal episode, and actually didn't expect him to sucker punch her in the stomach
told you it was uncompromising .....
Ugh. That's a fair old wait.
The Union was created by a Scottish king of England.
Around 70% of Scottish people were against the Jacobite's and in favour of the Union.
The overwhelming reason why people were in favour of the Union had nothing to do with religion.
The Redcoats are the British Army and the Highlanders would become key proud members of that British Army. How the Redcoats are being depicted in this drama is fiction.
But why did so many Scottish people support the Union? A similar reason as to why the majority of Scottish people voted 'No' in the recent referendum. Jobs and money. By 1743 the big population centres down in the Lowlands - Glasgow and Edinburgh - were already seeing the huge benefits of the Union. The place was booming.
Meanwhile up in the Highlands, the Jacobite's were stuck in the past. And it was actually the Jacobite's who caused their own demise by fighting (killing) their way right down into the heart of England. A failed military campaign which ultimately proving to nearly everyone that these kilted menaces finally needed to be dealt with.
That is all irrelevant (which is not the same thing as "false," of course). Nothing in the show has even as much as implied disagreement with the points you make. Claire is not in the Lowlands, she is in the Highlands, and among a small number of Scots who just happen to be Jacobites. The show is not trying to give a God's-eye view of the full political situation in Scotland or all of Britain at that time. It is simply the story of Claire and the people she comes into contact with, and it is from that perspective that the story is told. Now if there really weren't any Jacobites in the Highlands at that time, THAT would be a damning criticism of the historical veracity of the show, but you can't question that, can you? And since this isn't a documentary, but fiction, it is really worth asking just how much "historical veracity" the show has to respect. The central character is a time traveller, for God's sake.
I enjoyed it for what it is (after all, why else would it be being discussed in this sub-forum!)
K
It's how propaganda works. Put one group of people as the good guys, and set the others as the bad guys, it doesn't matter what the historical truths may be, some people will take what's shown as represented in the show as illustrative of who were (and still are) historically the good guys, and who were (and still are) the bad ones.
Taking liberties with history is precisely one reason why Mel Gibson's Braveheart was so successful in boosting Scottish nationalism. Set the English as the nasty brutes and Scots as brave warriors, and voilà, big boost in support for Scottish nationalism.