This is the general trend: http://tvseriesfinale.com/t…
This trend is not good news on any platform. Also, they jive with the increase in viewer dissatisfaction overall.

I can't tell if you're being funny but overall viewership is way down and dropping every week.

I can't figure out how a show that has lost 25% of its viewers since the S2 premiere gets rewarded with 2 more seasons. That's some math.

LOLOLOLOLOL

There's always a lot of debate about Claire's behavior in the books. I think she's driven by guilt over leaving Frank and realizing that she never loved him the way she loves Jamie. That is obvious in the books.

Agreed!

Right, Claire has been on bedrest for many weeks by the time of the duel. Rushing to the duel was out of character for her and due to a complicated mess of feelings.

I take your point about smallpox as a cultural reference.

OK, this is a better argument. However, isn't more interesting to portray the aristocracy as flawed human beings rather than cartoons?

Moore actually has a belief that people who hate watch or love watch are all the same, so criticism doesn't matter. This goes all the way back to the Star Trek days. That's way I refuse to hate-watch.

Honestly, sigrid defends her points much better than you do. She hasn't called anyone stupid or delusional for liking it. She's saying it's so far below what it could have been and we should all expect more given the quality of the source material Moore had to work with.

I love your comment. I have also noted Moore's misogyny in his portrayal of Claire, which is the stereotype of a strong but heartless woman - a shrew. Moore's Claire has none of the softness or kindness and no compulsion to heal, which is what defines Claire and makes her hubris and bull-headedness understandable. The…

I disagree. Because the show films some plot points but is so PROFOUNDLY different in effect and feeling, it's very important to distinguish one from the other during analysis.

Great analysis. Both of them are so unlikable and their relationship so ridiculous… it's painful to hear about.

This is an argument from an extreme. No one is saying word for word. They could change the plot all they wanted or needed to for the adaptation. They cannot change the basic nature of the main characters -as they have - and the entire point of the story -as they did- and still call it outlander.

His ability to cope and heal and keep his faith were incredibly inspiring. To be completely broken down - well almost - and then come back from it is one hell of a story; one that breaks all the cliches and is riveting. That's the story we're not seeing. That's the story I want to see.
They've taken a deeply…

They should have filmed Jamie and Claire pouring their hearts out to each other … has that happened? No. Not even close. Watching Jamie overcome this with Claire was phenomenal in the book. The show is like a badly written Hallmark movie of the week cliche.

I want to see the recovery and then sexy times. If they would prioritize the healing they wouldn't even need the sex. The way they're handling it is BS. I want to see that intense connection that heals them both. If they would have the guts to film that, it would be a whole different story - literally.

And the joke is that men aren't watching it. There's nothing in it that appeals to men. Men aren't going to watch a show with such a weak male lead and a nasty wife.

And what was the point of all of it? None of it served the plot. Once again, the side dishes and anecdotes from the book became the main dish and the main dish thrown out.