Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* OrphanedEtymology: Averted, Jamie in one episode asks Claire what the word "fuck" means after hearing her use it. [[spoiler:Significantly, Geillis uses "fuck" in a sentence in front of Claire during their witch trial. While Claire is too stressed to notice, this is a subtle foreshadowing of Geillis' reveal.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by a Catholic ecclesiastical court, which is a separate jurisdiction. The last real Scottish prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
to:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up by their attorney, but they're being tried by in a Catholic ecclesiastical court, which is a separate jurisdiction. The last real Scottish prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* BurnTheWitch: Claire and Geillis are accused of witchcraft, with this as punishment. Accurate, unlike some examples, as Scottish law actually had burning at the stake as punishment (although most condemned were strangled first).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by a Catholic ecclesiastical court, which is a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
to:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by a Catholic ecclesiastical court, which is a separate jurisdiction. The last real Scottish prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by a Catholic ecclesiastical court in ''ad hoc'' proceedings-this is a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
to:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by a Catholic ecclesiastical court in ''ad hoc'' proceedings-this court, which is a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by a Catholic ecclesiastical court in ''ad hoc'' proceedings-this is apparently a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
to:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by a Catholic ecclesiastical court in ''ad hoc'' proceedings-this is apparently a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by a church court in ''ad hoc'' proceedings-this is apparently a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
to:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by a church Catholic ecclesiastical court in ''ad hoc'' proceedings-this is apparently a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by a church court in ''ad hoc'' proceedings, that is apparently a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
to:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by a church court in ''ad hoc'' proceedings, that proceedings-this is apparently a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by a church court in "ad hoc" proceedings, that is apparently a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
to:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by a church court in "ad hoc" ''ad hoc'' proceedings, that is apparently a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by a church court in "ad hoc" proceedings, apparently a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
to:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by a church court in "ad hoc" proceedings, that is apparently a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by a church court, which apparently has separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
to:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by a church court, which court in "ad hoc" proceedings, apparently has a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by a church court, which apparently has a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
to:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by a church court, which apparently has a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by an ecclesiastical court of the Church of Scotland, which apparently has a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
to:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by an ecclesiastical court of the Church of Scotland, a church court, which apparently has a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was actually a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by an ecclesiastical court of the Church of Scotland, which apparently has a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
to:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was actually made a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by an ecclesiastical court of the Church of Scotland, which apparently has a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was actually a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. The last prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
to:
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was actually a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. It's brought up their attorney, but they're being tried by an ecclesiastical court of the Church of Scotland, which apparently has a separate jurisdiction. The last real prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* BitterAlmonds: Claire smells this on Arthur Duncan's death, leading to her conclusion that he was poisoned.
Added DiffLines:
* GreenEyedMonster: Laoghaire towards Claire after she marries Jaime.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added a values dissonance moment
Changed line(s) 18 (click to see context) from:
* DeliberateValuesDissonance
to:
* DeliberateValuesDissonanceDeliberateValuesDissonance: Many examples. For example, Claire's 18th-century husband Jamie is a very sympathetic character--but when Claire disobeys him and puts their group in danger, he feels morally obligated to [[DontMakeMeTakeMyBeltOff take a belt to her bottom]]. ...it doesn't go well for anyone.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added a couple of choice OhCraps
Added DiffLines:
* OhCrap: Claire gets a full OhCrap in "Both Sides Now" after she tries to bluff "Black Jack" Randall by claiming that she's an agent of Randall's patron, the Duke of Sandringham. As Randall notes, that actually means being an agent for the Duke's wife, and Claire acknowledges that she's been in communication with the Duchess.
--> '''Randall:''' But then, of course, the Duke... ''[takes some rope out of his desk]'' ...never married.
** And in the next episode ("The Reckoning"), Randall gets his own OhCrap when he fires Jamie's musket at Jamie's head at point-blank range... only to discover that Jamie had been carrying an unloaded musket.
--> '''Randall:''' But then, of course, the Duke... ''[takes some rope out of his desk]'' ...never married.
** And in the next episode ("The Reckoning"), Randall gets his own OhCrap when he fires Jamie's musket at Jamie's head at point-blank range... only to discover that Jamie had been carrying an unloaded musket.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
8
Changed line(s) 13,14 (click to see context) from:
* AManIsNotAVirgin: Averted, Jamie is indeed a virgin.
* AbsenceMakesTheHeartGoYonder: Frank has a slight suspicion that Claire was unfaithful during their 5 years apart, but she denies it and is insulted by it. Even so, he claims it wouldn't bother him and he would understand considering the 5-year-seperation.
* AbsenceMakesTheHeartGoYonder: Frank has a slight suspicion that Claire was unfaithful during their 5 years apart, but she denies it and is insulted by it. Even so, he claims it wouldn't bother him and he would understand considering the 5-year-seperation.
to:
* AManIsNotAVirgin: {{Averted}}, Jamie is indeed a virgin.
* ArtisticLicenseHistory: Claire and Geillis Duncan are prosecuted for witchcraft. The year is 1743, and the British Parliament had abolished this crime in 1735. Under the Witchcraft Act they passed, it was actually a crime to ''accuse'' someone of this. The last prosecution for witchcraft was in 1727.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5,6 (click to see context) from:
Same as the books it's based on, the genre of the series is a little hard to classify. While the producing network seems intend on categorizing it mainly as a romance (and marketing it towards women), it does tick off many boxes where HistoricalFiction tropes are concerned, and [[HistoricalFantasy due to the time travel involved can also be of interest to fantasy and sci-fi fans]].
to:
Same as the books it's based on, the genre of the series is a little hard to classify. While the producing network seems intend intent on categorizing it mainly as a romance (and marketing it towards women), it does tick off many boxes where HistoricalFiction tropes are concerned, and [[HistoricalFantasy due to the time travel involved can also be of interest to fantasy and sci-fi fans]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3,4 (click to see context) from:
In 1945, married World War II nurse Claire Beauchamp Randall goes on a second honeymoon to Scotland with her husband Frank only to find herself transported back in time to 1743. It's a time of danger and Civil War, where she encounters both her husband's vicious ancestor "Black Jack" Randall, and dashing Highland warrior Jamie Fraser.
to:
In 1945, married World War II nurse Claire Beauchamp Randall goes on a second honeymoon to Scotland with her husband Frank only to find herself transported back in time to 1743. It's a time of danger and Civil War, where she encounters both her husband's vicious ancestor "Black Jack" Randall, Randall and dashing Highland warrior Jamie Fraser.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 15 (click to see context) :
* DressToDressing: Claire in the first episode.
Added DiffLines:
* FromDressToDressing: Claire in the first episode.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* DressToDressing: Claire in the first episode.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
Also notable for casting actual Scots in all the main roles, showcasing Scotland's landscapes as far as possible, and using Gaelic (that isn't subtitled!) in most episodes.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5,6 (click to see context) from:
Same as the books it's based on, the genre of the series is a little hard to classify. While the producing network seems intend on categorizing it mainly as a romance (and marketing it towards women), it does tick off many boxes where historical fiction tropes are concerned, and due to the time travel involved can also be of interest to fantasy and sci-fi fans.
to:
Same as the books it's based on, the genre of the series is a little hard to classify. While the producing network seems intend on categorizing it mainly as a romance (and marketing it towards women), it does tick off many boxes where historical fiction HistoricalFiction tropes are concerned, and [[HistoricalFantasy due to the time travel involved can also be of interest to fantasy and sci-fi fans.
fans]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
Outlander is a British-American television drama series, adapted from Creator/DianaGabaldon's series of [[Literature/{{Outlander}} novels]]. It's created by Creator/RonaldDMoore, of Series/BattlestarGalactica fame. It stars Caitriona Balfe, Sam Heughan and Tobias Menzies.
to:
Outlander is a British-American television drama series, adapted from Creator/DianaGabaldon's series of Diana Gabaldon's [[Literature/{{Outlander}} novels]]. series of novels]], and airing on Starz. It's created by Creator/RonaldDMoore, Ronald D. Moore, of Series/BattlestarGalactica fame. It stars Caitriona Balfe, Sam Heughan and Tobias Menzies.
Added DiffLines:
Same as the books it's based on, the genre of the series is a little hard to classify. While the producing network seems intend on categorizing it mainly as a romance (and marketing it towards women), it does tick off many boxes where historical fiction tropes are concerned, and due to the time travel involved can also be of interest to fantasy and sci-fi fans.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* LargeAndInCharge: Dougal.
Added DiffLines:
* RedHeadedHero: Jamie.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added line(s) 8 (click to see context) :
* AttemptedRape: Claire is nearly raped several times in the first half-season alone.
* CircleOfStandingStones: How Claire is transported back in time.
* CircleOfStandingStones: How Claire is transported back in time.
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
* IdenticalGrandson: Frank and Jonathan "Black Jack" Randall.
to:
* FishOutOfTemporalWater: Claire.
* {{Gorn}}: The camera doesn't shy away from the serious injuries Claire treats, but Black Jack's savage scourging of Jamie might be one of the goriest sequences ever televised.
* IdenticalGrandson: Frank and Jonathan "Black Jack"Randall.Randall.
* JerkWithAHeartOfGold: Dougal, though the respective quantities of "jerk" and "gold" are often deliberately ambiguous.
* NoHoldsBarredBeatdown: Frank gives one to one of the robbers in the mid-season finale.
* SoftSpokenSadist: Black Jack Randall is very soft-spoken and terrifyingly sadistic.
* {{Gorn}}: The camera doesn't shy away from the serious injuries Claire treats, but Black Jack's savage scourging of Jamie might be one of the goriest sequences ever televised.
* IdenticalGrandson: Frank and Jonathan "Black Jack"
* JerkWithAHeartOfGold: Dougal, though the respective quantities of "jerk" and "gold" are often deliberately ambiguous.
* NoHoldsBarredBeatdown: Frank gives one to one of the robbers in the mid-season finale.
* SoftSpokenSadist: Black Jack Randall is very soft-spoken and terrifyingly sadistic.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
Outlander is a British-American television drama series, adapted from Creator/DianaGabaldon's series of [[Literature/{{Outlander}} novels]]. It's created by Creator/RonaldDMoore, of Series/BattlestarGalactica fame. It stars Caitriona Balfe, Sam Heughan and Tobias Menzies.
In 1945, married World War II nurse Claire Beauchamp Randall goes on a second honeymoon to Scotland with her husband Frank only to find herself transported back in time to 1743. It's a time of danger and Civil War, where she encounters both her husband's vicious ancestor "Black Jack" Randall, and dashing Highland warrior Jamie Fraser.
!!Tropes
* AManIsNotAVirgin: Averted, Jamie is indeed a virgin.
* AbsenceMakesTheHeartGoYonder: Frank has a slight suspicion that Claire was unfaithful during their 5 years apart, but she denies it and is insulted by it. Even so, he claims it wouldn't bother him and he would understand considering the 5-year-seperation.
* DeliberateValuesDissonance
* IdenticalGrandson: Frank and Jonathan "Black Jack" Randall.
In 1945, married World War II nurse Claire Beauchamp Randall goes on a second honeymoon to Scotland with her husband Frank only to find herself transported back in time to 1743. It's a time of danger and Civil War, where she encounters both her husband's vicious ancestor "Black Jack" Randall, and dashing Highland warrior Jamie Fraser.
!!Tropes
* AManIsNotAVirgin: Averted, Jamie is indeed a virgin.
* AbsenceMakesTheHeartGoYonder: Frank has a slight suspicion that Claire was unfaithful during their 5 years apart, but she denies it and is insulted by it. Even so, he claims it wouldn't bother him and he would understand considering the 5-year-seperation.
* DeliberateValuesDissonance
* IdenticalGrandson: Frank and Jonathan "Black Jack" Randall.
