"Casting Jackman as Wolverine is kinda like casting Robert Redford as Spider-Man or Robin Williams as Batman."

You are a deeply unpleasant person.

Right, the same way you read and reply to those who disagree with your view I assume? Good lord I hope you are not a teacher in English or any of the humanities actually.

Yeah, I'm a little shocked that the reviewer is STILL questioning that. By this episode especially the show seemed quite clearly to want to point out Claire will have another kid.

Genre show without any real presence in the zeitgeist (like Game of Thrones or, ugh, American Horror Story and, further back, Lost). That equals completely ignored by the Emmys.

"The idea I have is that she's ALWAYS been the vessel, it just awoke when
she crossed the moral threshold and seduced Mina's fiance."

"Again, acting chops aside we didn't see anything that couldn't have been
done in 10 minutes of a B plot with plenty of other things going on."

I don't think having basically one bottle episode each season is all about finances, though that prob plays some part. John Logan started off as a playwright—I am sure he relishes the chance to do essentially a one act play each season like this.

But Banning's methods are completely and utterly legit for the era, really. I mean I suppose that Ives is "lucky" that, even if her parents stopped visiting they still paid for her and she wasn't just sent to Bedlam.

SHe definitely got the lobotomy—it allowed her to return home where she was pretty, well "out of it" would be putting it mildly but seemed to be behaving herself until, you know, that whole sex scene with Dracula (Lucifer?) embodying an image of Sir Malcolm that her mom walked in on and promptly died. Or that;'s how…

The Emmys rarely care for "genre work" unless that show becomes so big, both ratings and especially in the zeitgeist that they would look dumb ignoring it (hence wins for Game of Throns, Lost, etc)

I kinda agree with you on Dracula, although I can reconcile it by thinking this is a much older entity (obviously) who only currently is taking the name Dracula (which I know needs some work on my part to make work since he seemed to use the name Dracula no matter what human form he took…)

Clever thought, although I for one would be extremely let down (and thankfully I don't think this series will end with a comatose Ives starring at a snow globe).

"So my conclusion is that—even though they claim to do otherwise—Starz
and Moore willfully reduce the "Outlander" novels to the same thing we
see in "Black Sails,”"

Fair enough, I guess. I haven't read the second book (and, as I said, the last of the books I've read) in a decade, but I'll try to at least skim it before tonight's episode. I still think you are completely wrong, BTW, but I do appreciate that you bring a well discussed argument against the series. But please,…

Might I suggest that you do in fact care about influencing anyone or expecting the current climate change—or why else would you constantly repetitively repeat the same posts? Maybe even a blog about the state of literature at the moment? My current fave author is Alan Hollinghurst—whose yours?

I just find it odd that those two cases are ones that you find indicative of some sort of rebranding of Outlander. Both scenes were shown as vastly unpleasant. Not "fun and games" for any character,

And, while I know Netflix isn't known for doing this, but this is one show I'd like to see hire new showrunners. Marta Kauffman and Howard J. Morris just seem unable to really connect to the 30 min serialized format. Most episodes seem to be taking place right after the previous episode, but in terms of the…

UGH. Was this meant to be a season ending where audiences stand and applaud? If it was meant to be ironic or sarcastic or something, then it completely didn't work for me.

Starz' advertising for Outlander has been focused primarily on a stereotypical audience playing up the romance. To deny that is silly.