Yeah, very interesting thought, would be a chance to great comeback of young Jamie in person of his grandson Jemmy 😂👍 the story can go on, all signs are there 😎 Jemmy & Germain are Cousins and strong friends, with young Ian as a respectable Liard 🧐 But at first we have to wait of Book 9 & 10 and the surprises Diana Gabaldon has planned 🤣
As far as Im concerned, he can stay dead. Did not like that guy. Everytime I see him on my tablet, I want to throw up. Neat idea to have The original Fergus play the older son of the adult Fergus. Very good thought Dragonfly!!
well... A - it IS a time travel story so there's always a possibility of traveling to a time one of his characters still lives. B - there are shows where a dead character plays an important role - through flash backs - see 'this is us'. C - he could come back as a ghost - there were ghosts in the series before. in the very beginning, then the native american who was a traveler ghost, why not more?
I really hope that at the end of the show, there might be a scene/flashback with Frank, going back to the very first episode where Frank sees a man (Jamie?) watching Claire at the window. Tobias Menzies was stunning!
Maybe the scene of Frank running into Jamie's ghost in the first season was actually Jamie as he lay in bed on the brink of death from the Snake bite in season 5. Jamie said (at least in the books) that he had to fight hard to stay with Claire as he watched her brush her hair both on Fraiser's ridge and in the B and B during the trip to Scotland with Frank....
@@bluefamily3937 we absolutely do not know that. Diana had said that, yes, that is Jamie’s ghost, and that is about 25 (Jamie among the dead @ Culloden, almost 25). She also has said that ghosts can be whatever age they want to be, and that it will all be revealed in book 10. In reading the books 20 times, I never considered his ghost being from his near death after the snake bite. I’d love for Diana to chime in, but as she has always said that all is revealed in book 10
I always use to imagine him adopting the modern world, society, roads, vehicles and such.. It will be much fun to see him like that. But the show revolves around the 18th century mainly. So they won't plot something like that I guess.
Yeah the part about Bonnett made no sense. Why would the actor be so stunned about his character being killed off when it’s exactly how it happens in the books? Besides, the character was so awful he obviously was doomed to be killed off eventually
Nuts. Each one should leave when he is no longer in the book. Black Jack was killed in Coloden as was Jamies uncle. They should never be seen again unless it is in a flash back.
Yes, don't like the actress that is Brianna, but I don't like the character of Brianna in the book either. Love David Berry he did an Aussie series, "A Place to Call Home" he was great in that too. Spoiler: Claire marries John Grey when she thinks Jamie is dead.
Oh, there is a chance to see JR in his „son“ Denys Randall-Isaacs, in the books we meet him together with William (Lord Johns stepson, Jamies son) in the British Army. Well, just let us see your version in TV-show 🧐
Would like to see spinoff series on several characters like John Grey, Jamie's lineage, and Claire's lineage and wonder as both characters are of French descent if there's a link between the Beauchamps and the Fraserlieighs? Would love to see spinoff of the short Frenchman occultist in Season 2. Might they meet up in New Orleans? In any case looking forward to next season.
Diana has always said the Claire’s parent matter not one bit in the story, she made them dead for a reason. And Master Raymond is an extremely important character, we will see him again in the books. Why would they meet in New Orleans? That would be a great distance to travel to (just curious)
@@leslieshand4509 Glad we'll see more of Master Raymond. I think mdeborah827's idea of New Orleans would have been a perfect fit because New Orleans a)belonged to the French at that time and b) has a strong cultural association with the occult.
I don’t think offshoots of her books should be done, her books have already been ruined by the tv writers. I heard she was writing aboutJamie’s parents but haven’t we read about Brian and Ellen numerous times in the books? Nothing new there except a way to make money.
AGREED!!! I had to walk away from the show. Claire and Jamie are barely recognizable, same with Brianna and Roger. When they changed the opening scene, series 1, episode 1, should have walked away and never trusted Ron Moore when he stated over and over again that they were making a show for readers, with hopes others would come along. I counted out of curiosity, and it’s been a few years, so my numbers might be slightly wrong, but in 16 - 1 hour long episodes from series 1, 7 were from the show writers and NOT Diana’s source material. I cannot forgive things like Jamie riding with the Black Watch, who are also tv writers characters, and cost the original story a full episode (which should have been used post Wentworth), the stupid meal at Brockton (where Claire is suddenly the best person to amputate an arm) a room full of characters we don’t know. The “traitors” they discover, cut down and bury, how Jamie and Claire come to discuss the “reckoning” (totally made up storyline, only in the minds of the TV writers, and the original discussion is 1,000 times better).They got the wedding wrong (wrong dress, wrong kilt and wrong ring and Jamie They changed stupid things, like how much money Geillis had embezzled (£10,000 not £1000), and how much Jamie had to pay Laoghaire (£1200 not £20). We never see Horrocks again, Jamie was betrayed too the Watch (which Ian and Jenny have not paid a cent to)by Ronald MacNab, Rabbie’s father, and that betrayal costs him his life). Claire and Jamie have sex before they return to Leoch, where Jamie has the blacksmith make a wedding ring (that absolutely looks totally different then the “key” ring, and it’s inscribed), Claire visiting Sandringham and the subsequent repercussions, all NOT part of Diana’s story. I could go on, they have changed the story so much, it is unrecognizable.
Laura Donnelly's character appeared in later books but Laura did not appear in the corresponding television episodes. She left "Outlander" because she took a role in a stage play. In subsequent episodes, references are made to Jenny but she is never shown. By doing this, the producers did not have to replace Laura with another actress in the role of Jenny.
Lies, lies, lies, I would actually welcome Jack Randall back in the series for a very simple reason. He was the best antagonist in the series, no one came close afterwards. as a result there's not enough tension and suspense in the series
Too many ads, did not finish watching! Why are most if not all the scenes in reverse? Lord John has been in all the books I have read up to page 120 in Book 8 so why would he be out????????
Murtagh died at battle of culloden in the books. So he got way more episodes then the books. Will be interesting when they do the later books and some characters come back
I like the actress who plays Brianna but I felt the initial meeting with Jamie fell horribly flat. I love David Berry as Lord John Grey and hate to see him go.
I was kind of hoping Tobias would return at some point. That dude was "off the chain" but he was wearing me out he was so bad. Maybe a flashback? Bonnet was also taxing my nerves with his bad behavior. I miss the 1st younger Fergus. I'm glad Murtagh was brought back, even if he died again. The initial Fergus had an impish but sweet quality about him. I guess they just needed someone older right away.
In my opinion, I think Lord John was the only one that didnt fit. Unless they had gays back in the 1700s. The rest were perfect for the roles. Especially Jamie and Claire. And Murtaugh. Love him. I know it sounds ridiculous but I still think he is alive. Somewhere. And will show up again when J and C need him the most.
Homosexuals have been around for the same amount of time as heterosexuals, so, yes, many “gays”. Murtagh’s spirit comes to Jamie whenever Jamie needs him, usually before a battle. In the books, he is a very different character and of course died, in Jamie’s arms on Culloden Moor. In the books he doesn’t know anything about Claire. Murtagh was one the only change in character that was better than the books.
Gay men exist since the beginning of time, of course there were men like Lord john in the 1700s. His apperance does not match the books but the essence of the character is definitely there. I can't imagine anyone doing a better job.
David is perfect for John. Yes, gay people exist it was punished by death. David, other then height and hair color, looks just how he’s described it the books. Why do you think he doesn’t fit?
Unless they had gays back in 1700s??? Did you really mean to say that ??? They had gays in the Bible …just sayin.,,,.. however guess people kept that stuff hidden and secret then …don’t know. I wouldn’t mind if they still kept lifestyle of people secret. It’s personal. TMI….
