Season 2 speculations
Ever since we heard the official announcement that the OUTLANDER TV series has been renewed for a second season, there has been a lot of speculation about how they're going to handle the "framing story" that opens and closes DRAGONFLY IN AMBER.
*** SPOILER WARNING! If you haven't read Diana Gabaldon's DRAGONFLY IN AMBER, Book 2 in the OUTLANDER series, there are MAJOR spoilers for that book below! ***
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
The opening section of DRAGONFLY, starting with "Inverness, 1968", is quite a shock for first-time readers. And it seems to me that if the producers open Season 2 the same way the book does, with Claire and Brianna and Roger in 1968, they risk alienating viewers who have grown to love Jamie, and were expecting to see a continuation of Jamie and Claire's story from Season 1. Not to mention giving away, to viewers who have not read the books, the fact that Claire will eventually go back to her own time and have a daughter.
An alternative approach would be to start off Season 2 right where they left off, with Jamie and Claire in France in 1744, and end the season with Claire going back through the stones just before Culloden. The framing story, along with the introduction of Roger and Bree, could be covered in the first episode of Season 3, assuming there is one.
Whatever they decide to do, I'm sure they will put a lot of thought into it. The writers have done a fabulous job so far in adapting OUTLANDER for TV. DRAGONFLY IN AMBER presents unique challenges of its own, and I'm really looking forward to seeing how they deal with it.
*** SPOILER WARNING! If you haven't read Diana Gabaldon's DRAGONFLY IN AMBER, Book 2 in the OUTLANDER series, there are MAJOR spoilers for that book below! ***
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
The opening section of DRAGONFLY, starting with "Inverness, 1968", is quite a shock for first-time readers. And it seems to me that if the producers open Season 2 the same way the book does, with Claire and Brianna and Roger in 1968, they risk alienating viewers who have grown to love Jamie, and were expecting to see a continuation of Jamie and Claire's story from Season 1. Not to mention giving away, to viewers who have not read the books, the fact that Claire will eventually go back to her own time and have a daughter.
An alternative approach would be to start off Season 2 right where they left off, with Jamie and Claire in France in 1744, and end the season with Claire going back through the stones just before Culloden. The framing story, along with the introduction of Roger and Bree, could be covered in the first episode of Season 3, assuming there is one.
Whatever they decide to do, I'm sure they will put a lot of thought into it. The writers have done a fabulous job so far in adapting OUTLANDER for TV. DRAGONFLY IN AMBER presents unique challenges of its own, and I'm really looking forward to seeing how they deal with it.
Some pros to doing it that way - 1) it would likely be GREAT for book sales 2) would generate a lot of buzz and 3) It might also help them keep the Bree/Roger casting a secret. Most people who are fans of the show who have not read the books are likely to hear during the break between seasons one and 2 that someone has been cast as Claire's young adult daughter and Rev. Wakefield's now grown adopted son, which would be a huge spoiler about the time jump in any case.
Just my thoughts.
I was also one who was hoping for the last 2 mins of season 1 episode 16 to be Claire and Bree knocking on Roger's door in 1968 as the cliffhanger. But that only works if there's some way to keep the framing story without it getting cumbersome.