‘Outlander’ Season Two Synopsis

294CBF9100000578-3107958-image-a-22_1433269760456

Along with the press release for the casting of Master Raymond, there is a synopsis for Season Two of Outlander.

““Outlander” is the story of a married combat nurse Claire Randall (Caitriona Balfe) from 1945 who gets transported back into the year 1743, and is forced to marry Jamie Fraser (Sam Heughan), a young Scottish warrior. Season two ofOutlander” begins as Claire and Jamie arrive in France, hell-bent on infiltrating the Jacobite rebellion led by Prince Charles Stuart, and stopping the battle of Culloden.  With the help of his cousin Jared (Robert Cavanah), a local wine merchant, Jamie and Claire are thrown into the lavish world of French society, where intrigue and parties are abundant, but political gain proves far less fruitful.  Altering the course of history presents challenges that begin to weigh on the very fabric of their relationship.  However, armed with the knowledge of what lies ahead, Claire and Jamie must race to prevent a doomed Highland uprising, and the extinction of Scottish life as they know it.”

Source: Starz

  • sigrid28

    SPOILERS NO LONGER EXIST!

    For a year, entertainment journalists and book readers posting on comment threads have been browbeaten when it comes to including “spoilers” in writing about the “Outlander” television series. By “spoilers,” I mean clues to what will happen in an upcoming episode or season that has not yet aired. The logic of this is that some secrecy will protect the surprise for nonreaders of the books who are following the television series. I see the point in this, as it forces viewers to tune in to see what happens and this drives ratings.

    During the last three weeks, showrunner Ronald D. Moore has teased that we should expect new characters, new plotlines, and new settings in Season 2, which will be a departure from the novel on which it is based, Diana Gabaldon’s “Dragonfly in Amber.” At this point, given this disclaimer, I don’t see how entertainment journalists and book readers who are not fully in the know about Season 2 could spoil the series for anyone, even a hermit in a cave.

    Meanwhile, Moore and his team will still be free to tease the heck out of us to their hearts’ content when it comes to creating buzz for Season 2. The only difference is that now entertainment journalists and book readers should be free to comment based on their knowledge of Gabaldon’s novels without worrying about spoilers. So tease, tease away, Starz publicists.

    Here’s how this will work: Moore may tease that he will not yet tell fans what actors will play Roger and Brianna. We may then ask whether Moore is waiting to cast them because he will remove entirely the twentieth-century content in the novel that frames events leading to Culloden, where Jamie, Jack Randall, and Claire could all conveniently be killed. This would allow Moore’s adaptation to end very satisfactorily after just two seasons. Or we may ask whether Moore postpones casting Roger and Brianna because he will take up the twentieth-century story at the end of Season 2, dropping Gabaldon’s framing device, in order to provide a cliffhanger leading into Season 3, in the event that Starz extends the series for another year: Jamie sends Claire back through the stones to carry their second child to full term (the first dies in childbirth in the novel), thinking he will die at Culloden or be hunted to death after. Frank takes her back, and we see Brianna grow up. After Frank dies, when Brianna is eighteen, Claire decides to tell her about her biological father. Two years after Frank’s death, Claire and Brianna discover that Jamie did not die at Culloden. Cut to Season 3. Once Season 2 airs, we can write about whether our predictions came true.

    • alphadawg7

      Yes, they do exist. I am not a book reader for Game of Thrones and do not wish to know what happens. It is nice to not know what is happening next. I don’t get that with Outlander

      • sigrid28

        Do you eat everything you see? Just don’t read if you come upon a spoiler. Season 2 is going to be so different from the novel, only the Starz team will be able to give you genuine spoilers for Season 2 anyway. With the rest of us, it’s just talking about a book you haven’t read yet.

        • D R Allen

          Just don’t read a comment if we don’t want to see a spoiler? It would be easier just to block your IP address since you INSIST on dropping spoilers (w/out warnings) all over cyberspace!

          • sigrid28

            These are not spoilers. My comments discuss the novels. The adaptation only starts with the novels and does not adhere to them in content or organization. Moore has stated this over and over. The producers do not wish to make the adaptation a recreation of the novels. That is their choice. If the adaptation is just like a version of the original, the way a cover is like the original recording of a song, but not the same, then both works of art may be discussed: They are separate, each with its own goals and qualities.

            Do not be afraid. Season 2 can only be truly revealed by Moore and his team, as the public has no idea what is in it now that he has separated it from the content of the novels. What do you like about the novels? Do you like the adaptation? You, or I, or anybody may talk about the novels, the adaptation, or none at all, without doing any harm. There is no longer the presumption that the adaptation follows the novels.

          • D R Allen

            That is not true – so far the series is VERY closely following the novels. This is the OUTLANDER TV NEWS website (where only the SHOW’s plots should be being discussed).

            If you want to talk about the book, comment on BOOK websites.

          • sigrid28

            Thank you for your response. Have you read the Outlander TV News Home page? : “The goal is to be able to share with you news about the series in every capacity.” We can quibble about whether or not Season 1 followed the books “very closely,” but what I am commenting on now is Moore’s intention to deviate from the books in Season 2. He has stated his intention to do so throughout the media. If Moore may discuss the differences between the book and the series, why can’t I–or you, for that matter. Discourse about the series only serves to promote it and bring more viewers into the fold.

          • D R Allen

            The difference is that Ron Moore is the show runner, and you are NOT. He and SPTV are the ONLY people with the legal right to decide which elements of the show should be made public, and which shouldn’t.

            There are a LOT of non-book-reading TV “Outlander” fans who are waiting to be surprised by what they see on the show, and your CONSTANT publications of plot lines (at Outlander fan sites all across the web) from the book are spoiling their enjoyment of SPTV’s product.

          • distachio

            The synopsis is from STARZ’ own press release. Relax!

          • alphadawg7

            We have a spoiler policy on our site. You must adhere to it regardless of what you think about them. http://www.outlandertvnews.com/2014/08/outlander-tv-news-spoiler-policy/

          • sigrid28

            Thank you for your response. I saw this statement on the home page for Outlander TV News: “The goal is to be able to share with you news about the series in every capacity.” How does discussion of the relationship between the adaptation and the book fail to meet this criterion? Also, I would be interested to know whether controversy constitutes “news”?

      • distachio

        A synopsis is not a spoiler; it’s a summary — comparable to what you’d read on the back of a paperback.

        • D R Allen

          Yes, and ONLY SPTV, Starz, and Ron Moore have the right to say what is included in that synopsis and what isn’t.

          Anyone else making up their own (based on what was published in the books) are not only spoiling things for SPTV/Starz’s future audience, but are VERY likely violating international copyright laws.

          • distachio

            Um..read the first paragraph again. That synopsis is taken directly from a *STARZ press release*.

            Smh, so much angst over nothing.

      • distachio

        That synopsis is from STARZ own press release. It doesn’t spoil you on anything that actually happens.

  • sigrid28

    SPOILERS NO LONGER EXIST!

    For a year, entertainment journalists and book readers posting on comment threads
    have been browbeaten when it comes to including “spoilers” in writing about the
    “Outlander” television series. By “spoilers,” I mean clues to what will happen in an upcoming episode or season that has not yet aired. The logic of this is that some secrecy will protect the surprise for nonreaders of the books who are following the television series. I see the point in this, as it forces viewers to tune in to see what happens and this drives ratings.

    During the last three weeks, showrunner Ronald D. Moore has teased that we should
    expect new characters, new plotlines, and new settings in Season 2, which will be a departure from the novel on which it is based, Diana Gabaldon’s “Dragonfly in Amber.” At this point, given this disclaimer, I don’t see how entertainment journalists and book readers who are not fully in the know about Season 2 could spoil the series for anyone, even a hermit in a cave.

    Meanwhile, Moore and his team will still be free to tease the heck out of us to their
    hearts’ content when it comes to creating buzz for Season 2. The only difference
    is that now entertainment journalists and book readers should be free to comment based on their knowledge of Gabaldon’s novels without worrying about spoilers. So tease, tease away, Starz publicists.

    Let’s start with the Season 2 synopsis, above, provided by Starz publicists. There is
    no way to tell whether the twentieth-century content in the novel will be included in Season 2 or not. If it isn’t there, that suggests very clearly that there will be no Season 3, to people who know the novels and how they interconnect.

    Another example: Moore may tease that he will not yet tell fans what actors will play
    Roger and Brianna. We may then ask whether Moore is waiting to cast them because he will remove entirely the twentieth-century content in the novel that
    frames events leading to Culloden, where Jamie, Jack Randall, and Claire could
    all conveniently be killed. This would allow Moore’s adaptation to end very satisfactorily after just two seasons. Or we may ask whether Moore postpones
    casting Roger and Brianna because he will take up the twentieth-century story
    at the end of Season 2, dropping Gabaldon’s framing device, in order to provide
    a cliffhanger leading into Season 3, in the event that Starz extends the series
    for another year: Jamie sends Claire back through the stones to carry their second child to full term (the first dies in childbirth in the novel), thinking he will die at Culloden or be hunted to death after. Frank takes her back, and we see Brianna grow up. After Frank dies, when Brianna is eighteen, Claire decides to tell her about her biological father. Two years after Frank’s death, Claire and Brianna discover that Jamie did not die at Culloden. Cut to Season 3.

    Here’s the beauty of this spoiler-free Brave New World. Once Season 2 airs, we can then write about whether our predictions came true.

  • sixela872

    Not sure who came up with that first sentence – that’s a rather pessimistic view of the first season.

    • Jolene Brimage Prosper

      If you are talking about the forced marriage as being rather pessimistic; the fact is, she is positioned to a forced and speedy marriage or endure abuse or death at the hands of Jack Randall. But If you are speaking of a the lack of mentioned love between the combat Nurse Claire and her husband Frank, the voiceover narration clearly explains that Claire and her husband’s relationship is bridged primarily by sexual intimacy. Jamie & Claire’s love grows over time.

      • sixela872

        As a synopsis forth entire first season, it is inaccurate. She is forced to marry and then falls in love and stays. That addition of falling in love would have made the sentence more accurate. And I know the facts of the story, thanks.

        • Jolene Brimage Prosper

          Thought this thread was for friendly and intellectual exchange. If my distillation has irritated you accept my apologies. Thank you