There are a lot of things that can be assumed about the next season of Outlander but here are a few reminders of things that we know we will be seeing. If you aren't at all worried about spoilers there is a box you can click on to get the book related "things we know" but otherwise I recommend show fan stay away from the spoilers.
1. It is likely going to be based on the fifth book of Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series called The Fiery Cross. Of course, we are unsure if we'll get the entire book or part of the book. You may not know this but this is the longest book of the first 5 by nearly 400 pages so it stands to reason we will not be seeing the entire book. Also, the PTBs (powers that be - ie our executive producers) have mentioned it might be easier to break up the books a little. I'm rather keen on this idea as I think it would make things feel less rushed.
2. Both season 5 and 6 will have only 12 episodes each. Season 1 had 16 and 2 through 4 had 13. However, standard season on premium channels tend to be 10 or 12. Outlander has been an exception. Losing an episode does support them taking on portions of book rather than the whole.
TV Fans, if you think about season 4 there are a lot of story lines which were left hanging. Here are just a few story lines PTBs (powers that be, ie writers and producers) need to address early on in season 5.
1. Are Roger and Brianna still married? They hand-fasted which is for a year and a day. Roger was gone the entirety of Brianna's pregnancy and then the wee one was 2 months old, the day before Roger returned. This means Roger and Bree have another month on their hand-fast. Will they marry? I mean we assume right? So do we get another wedding? PLEASE!
2. Roger and Brianna have this little boy now. What is his name? Bree waited for Roger before she gave the baby a name so what will it be? And will it be addressed immediately in the season premiere? I truly hope so because that child needs a name.
The natural reaction to Wilmington is to discuss the rape of Brianna. Horrifying but boldly told. Watching all those people sit around and ignore what was happening; apparently, there are few men like Jamie Fraser in the 18th century.
Still I thought we could talk Brianna and Roger's fight. Many seem to condemn Brianna for her anger while others seem upset at Roger for even leaving Brianna but the basis of the fight. To me the entire spiraling out of control of their emotions was at fault. Neither one was willing to see the others side of things which will always lead to a blown up. My issue was Roger's belief that there was nothing to be done to save Claire and Jamie.
He tells Bree Claire had been dead for 200 years. But does this apply when you can literally transverse those years? Granted they are messing with history but if it were 200 miles and they knew something would happen wouldn't they warn them? Roger's argument seems flawed in this regard. Yes, the passage is dangerous but they have the capability to cross the divide.
He says it wrong to save the lives of only those they loves but what about the countless others they don't know? Did Roger not save baby Jemmy onboard the Glorianna? Had he not been in the past would baby Jemmy have been tossed overboard? Has Claire not saved countless lives in the 18th century which wouldn't have been saved if she'd stayed in the 20th century?
As a historian does Roger believe time can't be changed, something he never addresses? Claire and Jamie speculated about this when trying to stop Culloden and yet they were unable to prevent Culloden from happening. But is something as big as a war impossible to stop whereas preventing the deaths of two people seem much simpler and possible?
Roger and Bree's fight escalated so fast and didn't really delve into what the other was thinking about traveling. Roger seems to believe saving Jamie and Claire is somehow wrong and yet he travels back to help and/or save Brianna. It seems he believes once Claire choose the past her fate was seals and yet when Brianna goes back he's willing to risk life and limb to go after her? How is his decision any different than Bree's?
Roger's stance on this issue seems very flawed.
Lynette Rice @ Entertainment Weekly
Welcome to Outlander Watch where we strive to bring you up-to-date news about the book and TV series Outlander.