Ronald D. Moore Addresses Changes to Season One Ending

**Do NOT read this post if you have not read Outlander or if you do not want to know how the season will play out and differ from the book.  Seriously, do NOT read any further if you don’t want to be spoiled.**

Screenshot 2015-04-04 21.38.05

Personally, I have had my suspicions about how Season One would end.  Would it be like the book with Claire and Jamie in the abbey in France?  Or would they end it with no abbey scenes and the couple on the way to France?  We have seen behind the scenes photos (by paparazzi) of them filming scenes on a ship, so that part had to at least be in the show.

Michael Ausiello of TV Line spoke to executive producer Ronald D. Moore about the ending and answered that question.  Here is what is from the TV Line article on spoilers:

Creator/executive producer Ronald D. Moore recently told TVLine about a slight discrepancy taking place at the very end of the season. To keep it spoiler-free for those who haven’t read the Diana Gabaldon novel: There’s that thing that happens at a place that rhymes with “Schmentworth,” and then “instead of going to France and playing all the abbey scenes there, I chose to keep the abbey in Scotland so there is still a danger to them and a need to escape.” But, he reassures fans of the books, “the abbey scenes are still there.”

So there you have it.  Yes, the abbey scenes will be there, but they won’t take place in France.  That now spurs me to question whether the characters at the abbey will be still present in the series.

Source: TV Line

  • emd04

    I really hope they are….because those scenes are my favorite in the books. But isn’t this a historical issue? I mean, there WOULD NOT have been any abbeys in Scotland, right? Because of Henry VIII’s dissolution of them? The Pilgrimage of Grace didn’t work out…..so??

  • Frances Duquette Davis

    “That now ‘spurns’ me to question….”??? Sorry, couldn’t help myself. I know you mean “spurs.” I’m just the grammar police. : (

    • alphadawg7

      Fixed it. Thanks!

  • Guest

    Hmmmmm! Interesting. I was wondering how the would make it into a cliff hanger.

    • Pat Cocivera

      I thought the cliff hanger was the tides movement, Claires condition

  • Melinda Ray

    I seriously hope they keep at least some of the interplay between Claire and Fr. Anselm. They are among the most beautiful in the book. If that storyline is left out I will be very, very disappointed because I think it is such an important part of the journey for Claire.

    • Clare L

      I agree that the discussions of Catholicism and the spiritual,
      philosophical and psychological aspects of the characters and their ruminations are part of the journey of self-discovery and ultimately mutual understanding that make these books so interesting. If it’s all action and adventure, sex and politics (all of which I love too!), then I’ll feel cheated. And are Claire and Jamie never to have relief and moments of peace? Knowing they arrive in the safety of the abbey, without threat of the British recapturing them, and the beautiful, triumphant ending scene in the grotto pool, finally gives them healing and hope for the future.

    • Pat Cocivera

      Melinda I also see this as a very important part of C and J story. Claire got answers here that she never would have other wise and helped her make decisions on her part of revealing the future and later this was the one things that gave her answers she needed when she was back with Frank.

  • Melinda Ray

    I think we may have to look the other way on this one and give a little dramatic license. I would rather keep the characters and maybe have a smallRoman Catholicor Celtic monastery where none would have been than to lose the scenes from the story. The only other idea I have is that there were some small Anglican religious communities functioning in England by this time, but I don’t think any in Scotland. I am going to do some research on this myself and see what I can find.

  • Clark B McCurdy

    Staying in Scotland at some nonexistent abbey would be a big disappointment. The scenes in the French abbey and the discussions with the friar there are some of the best and more meaningful of the discussions as well as the bringing Jamie out of his shock, PTSD and personal injuries. Then, again, is there to be no Book 2? How about the intrigues and byplay of Drangonfly in Amber?

    • emd04

      Oh, book two is coming–it’s season 2. But I guess they didn’t want to move everything to France for just this? But as I was thinking about this last night: they could easily have shot somewhere in Scotland and said it was France.Not that hard.

  • Yesenia

    I’m fine with that. France was more of a landscape rather than a character itself. If they can give us similar characters to the ones in the book, awesome. As long as the show doesn’t abandon the essence of the series and the guide it provides, I am OK with these minor changes.

  • von

    So far I have understood and accepted the small changes that Ron Moore has made from the books and enjoyed them. As we were told by the actors; the aim was to add to and compliment the books to give a fuller picture and to create something which would stand on it’s own for non readers of the novels.
    I believe he has made good choices so far apart from letting Jamie know; that Laoghaire put the ill wish under the bed. As that knowledge was kept from Jamie for many years and was tied in with Claire being arrested for the witch trial, it looks like that storyline will change a lot. Especially if they do get to do the later books. After all I cannot see Jamie marrying Laoghaire as he does in years ahead, if he knew those things, no matter how lonely he was or how much Jenny might bully him into it.
    But I do have faith in Ron Moore doing his job well. For the most part I cannot fault his casting or production and his choice of writers.
    So even though I am also disappointed the abbey will not be in France, I’m pretty sure he will keep some of the main scenes in there and characters that made the Abbey so special. At least poor Jamie will not have to suffer the sea sickness on top of all the appalling injuries from Randal. I must admit I think Diana must have a sadist streak of her own which she plays out through some of the horrific events she makes Jamie go through.
    Also with the threat of the English on the doorstep!!l it should make for some interesting added action. I look forward to seeing Ron’s take.
    I must admit I think Diana has a somewhat sadist side to her character that she plays out through some of the events in the books and Jamie seems to suffer more than most as a result.

    • DrBlueFrogPhD

      I’ve been wondering how Jamie could possibly marry Laoghaire knowing what he knows now. In the book, while he may have had an inkling as to who had put the ill-wish in their bed, he seemed to (literally) brush it off as a practical joke and didn’t put much thought into it. In the show, Jamie seemed to be really unsettled by it. So I guess it matters how Claire decides to deal with it and Laoghaire now. The previews make it seem like she takes a very antagonistic stance with her, but we’ve been fooled by the previews before. Claire may end up telling Jamie that they should just ignore the Laoghaire since she’s just a child and doesn’t know better or at the very least doesn’t understand the consequences of her actions.

      • Tammi MacClellan Heupel

        I took Jamie finding out about the ill-wish from Laoghaire and then telling Claire it was her that put it under their bed as a sort of deceptive sidetracking of Claire’s thoughts regarding Laoghaire should she find out about him touching Laoghaire and almost kissing her. I did not like the fact that it was portrayed thusly in the show. It made it seem rather ‘cat-like’ and completely un-‘Jamie-like’. I hope I am wrong.

  • Nancy VM

    hmmmm… will have to put my history mind away for that one.

  • DrBlueFrogPhD

    I have to say that for the most part, I’ve been really pleased with the changes they’ve made so far in the telling of the story, but this one may be a bit difficult to reconcile. Partially because Diana Gabaldon prides herself on doing her research and she wrote books 1-3 without actually having ever been to Scotland, yet they are praised for being so accurate. Then again, if the storytelling is good enough, it won’t matter where they set the abbey.

    • Ginger

      As you and I have both said before, in Ron we trust… :^)

  • Cat Mckenzie

    My personal feelings about changes from book to screen took shape when Ron Moore said early on in one of the “Con” Panels , that what he envisioned was an “Adaptation” of the beloved books. I LOVED the books like so many Fans, so tho I might cringe and say “oh they left out this part” or that, we were forewarned. I can turn back to the books and re read what was missing, and thereby soothe my Outlander-afile Soul, or, I can glory in a well written series, with excellent Production Direction, Screen Writing and Actors, that will be a History Maker that I witnessed first hand !

  • LearningTime

    I don’t think the location is that big of a deal. It allows for Jamie to heal before traveling to France. I’m not sure if they’ll keep the seasickness in, but if they do he won’t have to deal with both healing and that at once. Also, the threat of the English will be a plot point to get them to leave the Abbey. I always thought it was too soon for them to leave in the books and didn’t think the reasons were clear/good enough.

    • emd04

      Well the reason in the book is that he needs to go somewhere safe, and the only safe place is 1) outside of English control–so France and 2) with family that doesn’t want to kill him–the Abbey. Remember that they were looking for Jamie, who isn’t exactly inconspicuous. There’s not a lot of places they could go.

      • Creggan

        I thought LearningTime was referring to when they left the abbey, not Scotland. I too thought they left the abbey a bit early with Claire pregnant. I would have advised them to wait a little longer for the weather to get better.

        • emd04

          oh, that would make sense……well I think they left the abbey when they did because if they wanted to stop the Bonnie Prince or do something to prevent the ’45, then they needed to get going, right? And initially they also thought Italy, which would take longer to get to? Something like that.

          • Creggan

            My memory was of Claire being cold all the time, so I pulled out my copy of DOA, and yep, they were in Le Havre in Feb 1744. It’s true they wanted to prevent the ’45, but if it were me, I would have wanted to wait a little bit until Mar to travel with my expectant wife, instead of traveling in Jan/Feb. That would still give them 13 months to work at preventing the ’45.

          • emd04

            Well, regardless…I seem to remember there being a reason for them to leave, or something. Maybe Jared? Something was going on. But that’s not really a propos in re: the TV show.

        • LearningTime

          Correct…that’s what I was talking about. It seemed like Jamie went from deathly I’ll to ready to travel/work within a few weeks. They were traveling in the cold and Claire was dealing with morning sickness. The monks weren’t pushing them out…so why leave then? Why not wait a few weeks to month more? By putting them in a Scottish abbey, the reason to leave after just recovering and early pregnancy will be obvious…to get somewhere safe.

  • Bethanie Martin Shepherd

    The historical time in Scotland is 1743,not 1587.

    • emd04

      Right: I put in 1587 to demonstrate that the abbeys had been outside ecclesiastical jurisdiction for almost 200 years–meaning that there isn’t a feasible way for Jamie to be in a *Scottish* monastery. There weren’t any. You see this in Scottish Prisoner, too–the abbey/monastery they go to is in Ireland, where such things *did* still exist.

  • E Coleman

    There were no functioning monasteries in Scotland in the 18th century and there are no hot springs at all…. A great deal of the second season takes place in France but that will be filmed in Scotland. Why not do the same with this? After all, Claire risked taking Jamie to sea precisely to remove him from the greater risk of recapture, because the British would be leaving no stone unturned in their zeal to find him. Feeling safe was a necessary element of his recovery– and an interlude of peace should have been well-deserved by them and us, the watchers, at that point.

    So the stills we’ve seen of C and J dockside are of their embarkation for France? Season 1 is extending further than the book, then. I’m now wondering if Season 2 is going to continue right on chronologically, skipping right over the time jolt that occurs at the opening of DIA, at least temporarily?