I came across this in The Bitbag 6/27/2016 in a piece by Shazadi Reyra:

I’ve been researching the fate of historical fiction on television and in feature films for over a year now, reading the novels for those series (or films) that are adaptations and studying the history for those that are not (like “Vikings”), watching the series unfold, and discovering how this unique type of…

What I find frustrating is that it would not have taken much to make this episode a lot better. In episodes that depend on intense emotion, Moore routinely gets in his own way. Episode 7 is a good example. Moore’s métier as a showrunner is quite evidently action.

I hope some of the actors from this cast get to be in productions with better
writing and, in a few cases this season, directing.

I understand what you are saying. When I try to figure out which reply goes with which post, it sometimes helps to look at the time imprint—the first day. Later, it's anybody's guess.

When three comments of mine sat together at the end of one of the pile-ups this week, without any of the other posts getting bumped out of the queue, it made me wonder. Thanks for this insight into the way the comments fall out of order. I hear you, and I'm looking at it. The thought that it is technology shuffling…

I hear you.

You would be correct.

Ron and his team have asserted that what he's done is better than his source material in every podcast. If he were really confident in his work, he wouldn't have to make excuses this way after each episode. The episodes would speak eloquently for themselves.

Did it ever occur to you that if something is called a "think piece" that is not a compliment? Did it ever occur to you that "out there on the internet" doesn't suggest much authority for the authors of these "think pieces"? For example, you and I discuss ideas, sometimes with a little heat, but we are each in our…

The people who are "bugged" by those who disagree with them use "Block User" so they don't have to read the posts of people they can't tolerate or whose arguments they can't refute. I'm fine with discourse on a comment thread and with defending the ideas I post, as I've made perfectly clear.

Note that you call my defense of my ideas rants, but that if I did not give points to defend what I say, you would call what I write opinions with no facts or logic to back them up.

[AV Club has put this comment far from the post to which it is a reply. More of the moderator picking sides.] Maybe you should work on thinking for yourself.

Very weak to call names, even when trolling. Once again using mental illness as an insult. Still very tacky. Stuff your very good points.

[AV Club has placed this reply out of order. More of the moderator taking sides.] I've made some very short comments. You have no argument. I'm noticing that you think it's OK to use mental illness as an insult. That's very tacky.

If there is a conspiracy, it belongs to Starz. Moore's backers seem intent on convincing "Outlander's" audience—-and maybe industry insiders now that awards season will soon be upon us—-that Moore's approach to Gabaldon's novels is ideal.

I would call her comment in the scene glib rather than humorous in tone, with the usual offhand superiority with which her character has become identified in Moore's "Outlander." It's interesting that Claire never seems as bright or self-possessed in Moore's "Outlander" as she does in the novels, for all Starz's…

Behaving like Moore's troll again.

Moore once again wins the contest you have set up between him and Gabaldon.

You are still cheering on Moore while putting down Gabaldon. I wonder why?