stingo

It's not like they have to wait for the books to written.

stingo

Saw episode 2 just now. I think they're doing a fine job. It is like they have identified the essential story, but if you read the books it can seem a bit rushed.

Jadzia

I hope season 2 isn't representative how the rest of the season will be. I found it really dull. I'm just not interested in the politics of the time. I'm having a hard time following the plot and I feel I need to go read more on Wikipedia to understand what they are doing.

I want more Claire and Jamie.

stingo

I'm thinking perhaps you'll be disappointed then, as the stated goal is to avert the Jacobite rising of 1745.

Baron Of Hell

I'm loving season 2 so far.

dex14

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/06/01...-seasons-starz

Geofferson

Good news and I assume they mean April 2017.

scorpion

Great news!

Strapped4Cash

I'm happy to hear it. Though I hope they don't keep making ever more important changes from the books. I felt that, on their own merits, those were the worst parts of S1. And while I don't have Starz, and so haven't yet watched this Season past Ep. 1, have heard that the inclusion of wasn't handled well at all.

Still, as I just watched the first 2 Seasons of Black Sails, then I'm looking forward to the sort of/kind of/not really crossover with that show

B.A.

mcnabb

I loved the first season, and I'm about 8 episodes into the 2nd season. While this show is brilliantly shot, and has a great cast, the 2nd season story just isn't doing it for me. I feel bad cause I really like this show, but the overall story on the Jacobite Rising just doesn't interest me that much.

DWilson

I've never been much for Romantic Fantasy but I sampled the first episode and stayed for the first season. I've been kind of avoiding the second season because I knew a lot of the sex and violence would be traded for pregnancy woes and court intrigue. However, with the season finale coming up I decided to get on with it and ended up watching the first six episodes yesterday and will continue today. Frankly, I'm not much of a "binger", but I've really been engrossed with the show, perhaps even more than the first season.

stingermck

For me season 2 was a blast, until they left France and went back to Scotland. Now its just slow. Still have a few eps to watch before the finale.

Jadzia

I agree. I keep meaning to read up more on the actual history so I can appreciate the plot better but I just haven't cared enough to do so yet. I have been pretty disappointed with this season mainly because the things I loved about the first season (time travel, Claire and Jamie) have been somewhat minimized. This season they haven't really interacted as much with each other and Claire seems pretty comfortable living in her new time. I liked how they started out the season in the 1940s and I wish we had more glimpses of that throughout to balance out all the political and war stuff.

mcnabb

I think I'm going to bolt with this show, even though it pains me to say it cause its so well done. I'm frankly just bored with the season as I watched Episode 9 last night and there is nothing that is driving me to watch the next episode. (My rule is never watch a show out of obligation, only cause you want to see what happens next).

hdnmickey

I thought the most recent episode was great. A great set up for the season finale where we likely get an a break from the military side and get back to the time travel and family dynamic. From everything I have read the time travel fans will either be really happy or really pissed depending on how they want to see things go.

DWilson

I'll admit that the two (or is it three?) "Return to Scotland" episodes have slowed down the dynamic of the Second Season and just feel like they are covering familiar ground as period stories go. However, I, too, am sticking through the season finale. I've also heard that the time-travel aspects will be touched on (based on some casting notices).

Strapped4Cash

I've not seen the Season yet, save for the first episode that was free, but have been looking forward to next Season, where (in the books at least) the story goes in some more interesting (imo) directions and there are some important changes in certain dynamics. I hope to have Starz too by then.

hdnmickey

I've really enjoyed the return to Scotland episodes, including the underlying knowledge that they are building towards something that will either go down as it always has per actual history or they will find a way to make radical, long reaching, changes.

Don't get to attached to the order things happen in the books, or even how things worked out in the books. I haven't read them, but i have read many things that go on about the differences.

Strapped4Cash

Thanks, but I know about that from watching Season 1, and some things I've heard about S2. For example, in the books Claire did go on a search for Jamie, but it had nothing to do with a song and wasn't anything like S1Ep14 "The Search". That ep. was the most "original" to the series and so I'm guessing best showed the "vision" of Ronald D. Moore and the show writers, and imo it was the worst of that Season.

Some differences are understandable, like Jamie recovering in an English abbey leads to the end of S1 having the dramatic scene aboard ship where he, Claire and Murtagh depart for France, but in the books the abbey was French and had more time devoted to it, and included things like Claire's philosophical questioning about God, humanity, time travel, potentially changing history, etc. which really added to her character, the story, and what they were going to attempt in Book/Season 2.

Some differences might seem small, but may grow to be bigger in the (book) story later and/or are (book) fan favorites. In the books time travel has an effect on gem stones and that becomes more pronounced and important later on, for example. Another difference is that in the books Jamie gives Claire a pearl necklace on their wedding day, that had been his mother's, that is often an important and dramatic story element throughout the book series. It being a key element in Sir Marcus MacRannoch helping Claire rescue Jamie from the prison near the end of Season 1.

I've heard that Ronald D. Moore really doesn't like Jamie's portrayal in the books, thinking him too perfect, and so often waters him down and/or changes him in the show. Sometimes it can be tough to tell whether he's joking about that, but Jamie's character has definitely been changed for the show. So that can be a disappointment.

Otoh, there can be little things, like a Season 1/Book 1 character is/was supposed to make a tiny cameo in S2/Book2, but we the audience aren't really supposed to recognize them (until much later in a short story). I don't want to spoiler, but IMDb doesn't show the actor/actress credited with that part being in Season 2, so unfortunately I'm guessing they dropped that little Easter Egg.

What I have heard about is Laoghaire appearing in S2 of the show, but she never did in the books, and it sounds like her arc was, and leads to, definite changes from the book story.

Still, much of what they're doing is still an adaptation of the books, and based on S3 spoilers I've heard then the tv story is still going in the same direction, which I am excited for.

Count Dooku

I've found the pace of this second season incredibly slow, especially since they returned to Scotland. Have to admit I'm bored by the show at times.

DVD Josh

Funny thing is I actually like this season much better. I hated S1 but my wife is goo goo gaga about the show so I watch it for her.

hdnmickey

Strapped4Cash

I think we're speaking of the same character.

hdnmickey