They (someone form the Clan, probably Rupert indeed) did spend money in the show for the blacksmith making it into a ring. The blacksmith said something about extra cost for having it ready the next day. Although in the book Jamie spends his share of the McKenzie's rent collection (which he is entitled to upon being wed) on a richly decorated ring with thistle and all after their return to Castle Leoch. It is also said in both mediums that he has inherited his family's land and money, but can't really access it since he has a price on his head.
@@hollymcalister4108 no, in the book it has nothing to do with the key to Lallybroch, that's a show only construct. In the book when they arrive back at Castle Leoch, Jamie disappears for a while and Claire thinks he's away to see Loaghaire. But he's actually away to get her a ring which has the Da mi basia mille inscription on it. The show changed that and Claire's replacement ring in season4 has the inscription.
MissTeeFy Oh my God. You’re right. How have I read the books 3 times and watched the show half-heartedly once, and I have gotten that wrong in my mind??? Holy crap!
It IS the same dress in the beginning. She fell down the hill and ripped the top fastener, lost her belt and watch. The designer purposely made the dress to look like a shift once she experienced some tumbling.
Exactly right. He would have no reason to think his daughter would be there. For that matter, he would look for his daughter in every red haired girl he saw.
Plus she was in a different context to the photos. B&W v colour, styled hair v natural /1700s hair, etc. He's Scottish he'll be surrounded by red heads.
In the scene where Brianna meets Jamie in the alley and he doesn’t recognize her, he also doesn’t ever really look at her. He barely glances at her, being a married gentleman. Also, the last person he was expecting to see was Brianna. He had no warning she was coming and didn’t know she could even go through the stones. So for me, that was never a plot hole.
Also, per the book, the photographs were lost at sea during the storm so it was at least 2 years since he'd even seen them. But yes, there's no way he's expecting his daughter to suddenly appear in front of him when he believes she's 200 years in the future.
The books explain the wealth in Paris belongs to cousin Jared Fraser who is going to the Caribbean and needs help from his nephew in running his business while he is away allowing Jamie and Claire to live in his Paris mansion with his servants.
Katherine. Benson They had a similar, but brief explanation in the show. They also implied that, while in Paris, Jaime did well for himself in the wine trade.
PS: Geillis bones being found before she was killed is not a error, it is the nature of time travel that has yet to come full circle, that story arc was by design.
Yeah I didn’t understand how this didn’t make sense. She was alive in 1968, that’s when she went back to the stones. Then she died in 1767....so of coarse her bones could be found?
@@maddyshoemaker5253But technically, instead of Claire, it could have been Geillis touching, holding those bones. She would be holding her own bones, which at the same time are in her body. Its just paradoxical.
You clearly never watched the actual show because if you did you would know, first of all, how to pronoun everyone's name. Secondly, each of these "plot" holes can actually be explained if you paid attention. Like Bree's magic cape. Did your eagle eye catch that she was wearing a completely different dress? And Lord John was wearing a completely different waistcoat? Because it was a different day. Wow. People changing clothes, what sorcery is this?
That kind of stuff is why I usually hate time travel stories. I can't stop trying to find a logic in it, and sometimes it gives me headaches. 😂 Too bad I was hooked on this one after a couple of episodes.
90% is a bit generous. This guy’s “knowledge” of the show almost seems based off of other UA-cam videos and random articles rather than him seeing a single episode.
Geillis and Dougal's child does make a reappearance in season 5, where he is married to Morag (the woman Roger protects on his way to America) and is responsible for Roger's 'situation' after the battle between the militia and the regulators. He is even played by the same actor that portrayed Dougal!
Or the fact their love child is in season 5!! Played by the same actor that played Dougal nevertheless. How could anyone that actually watched the show make so many mistakes?
I agree. He obviously hasn’t read the books. It must be very hard to fit so many hours of pages of storyline into a few 1 hour slots. They do an amazing job.
I agree because when I watch the show I’m am too busy watching the storyline to care about what was missed. The acting and story is superb and that’s all I care about. As for the books...Waaay too much to squeeze into these episodes. They do an awesome job!
I'd nitpick it to death. They screwed up the plot and cast so much. I'm on my third reading of the series and it's still amazing. Watched a few clips of the show recently and don't want to see any more. They've changed basic, important plot lines and twisted them. They actually omitted an entire important character, Malva Christie. Only watched this because they were blasting the series.
Geillis is FROM that time and that's when she time traveled. If you watched, she died in the 1700's. Not the 1900's. Hence why her bones were found. In the cave. That she died in. This guy makes no sense at all.
I've never read the books and none of what he mentioned as "plot holes" were. I know that these people need to produce content and aren't going to be actual fans of everything they post videos about, but this was just sad. It takes effort to be this wrong about something. lol
Exactly. I'm reading the books atm...just started book 5... and have now rewatched and it's all there. And the stuff this video says about Geilis is ridiculous, because her bones were found in the future and it's even explained properly in the show.
So glad I am not the only one who caught this. I was like... ummm explained... explained... like they get their money by running the liquor and shipping business for his Uncle??? Which is clearly explained??? And they get jewels from a variety of events... etc etc
Sharon Meadows - not to mention the fact that most fabrics get looser as they are worn for longer ( that’s why jeans are way more comfortable after a few days of wear ;) )
Some of these “plot holes” just make me think they didn’t even watch the series, or read the books....governors party in Jamaica, they got invited to while searching for young Ian, and they were living good in Paris, because jaime’s cousin arranged a place for them to stay.
alimostdope arjmandi Jamie and Claire stayed at the cousin's house and had use of his servants. In addition Jamie negotiated 30% of the profits from the winery (in the show) as his pay. They were not penniless by any means.
And, the outfits they wore were from the chest of clothes from Paris. Their ability to meet nobles in Paris and get an invite to the Governor's mansion is because Jamie has a rich cousin. That's not that crazy.
About recognizing Bree: - Jamie was busy doing no.1, when a woman addressed him. He was embarrassed. - He wanted to make it obvious that he is not interested in any woman, he is loyal to Claire. This is why he did not even look at Bree at first. - How the heck could he have expected that the woman in front of him is none other than his very own daughter from the 20th century?
Same, mine and my brothers were black when we were born, then he became blond and I a light brown. Now he has dark blonde hair, and I a chocklate brown. Hair changes easily and fasy
@@dogwoodhollow246 kids looks change as they grow and age. The younger William looks similar to Geneva, his mother. Brianna has dark eyes, Jamie nor Claire have dark eyes.
The first one. Looser fit = as in something that would be caused by losing her belt. Different neckline = you mean the shape created by the pearl button? The point at the base of it is the same, it's just open at the top.
All of these “errors“ except for one or two can be challenged. I think they do an incredible job with the show and the painstaking details especially for a multi historical settings across timelines.
As well with the period clothes including Native clothing and language, but the Cherokee language they used in the show is the new dialect of the Cherokee language that came to be after the War of 1812, but I do not fault them for that because the ancient Cherokee language is extinct.
If you freeze the frame where you can see a hint if the names, you’ll see there are 4 or 5 names across the top of the page which hints to his actual name. He would not have been able to marry under the McTavish name because Ned Gowin the lawyer said it has to be done by the letter, Correct on paper or Black Jack would have been able to disavow the contract.
And the Geillis timeline isn’t an error. She went back in time later on (in the seventies). She did a lot of research and kept the time she wanted to go back to in her mind (explained in the book). But that doesn’t always work since Otter Tooth went back too far.
How do you know where otter tooth was supposed to go? From the books? I didn't read them. But i can't remember there saying anything about him going to far as he was warning them in the show
Merlin in the books. They were supposed to read it in the journal Young Ian Gabe to them. I haven’t watched the last episode yet but at that time in the book, Claire meets the other person that went through the stones with Otter Tooth.
Regarding the Fraser's having money, in Season 2 when Jamie takes over running Jared's wine business they negotiate his substantial fee and Jared gives them the use of his house. In season 4, Jocasta gives Jamie a bag of money to get him started. And the fancy clothes they had in Jamaica in season 3 were all from their time in France, plus before leaving Scotland they had sold a large shipment of liquor.
1. Maybe practice your pronunciation of any of these places - Culloden, Inverness, Stephen Bonnet, even the word Fraser was wrong. All words said in the series multiple times so no excuse there. 2. Geillis was originally from Bree’s time (1970s), went back in time to the 1700s where she meets Claire etc. and then was killed, and her bones found later and discussed by Claire. 3. There is hardly a difference in William’s hair colour at all, and people’s hair colours can shift. 4. Geillis and Dougal’s son appeared in Season 5 right before the Battle of Alamance when Roger got taken by him and handed over to the red coats who strung him up. He was literally played by the same actor as that who played Dougal himself. 5. Jamie might have seen a photo of Bree, but you tend not to recognise someone when you have it pretty firmly set in your mind that they’re some 200 years in the future and you aren’t likely to bump into them in your local town. 6. A lot of Claire and Jamie’s wealth came from the businesses Jamie ran or helped with, like the drinks company he assists with in France through family connections. Obviously there they manage to integrate with high society who look after their own. And when he was made Laird Of Lallybroch he would’ve inherited that wealth and made money from the tenants on his land. He then starts up his own whisky business too. Not really sure how that isn’t explained. 7. Although it isn’t brought up often now, I’m pretty sure the reason Claire had to stop her outward support of freeing slaves for exactly the reason you show. The town’s people who owned slaves were rioting and causing a lot of problems for them and Jocasta. The whole point of that storyline (as several of them are - ie. Dr Rawlin’s) was to show how Claire might have these 21st century ideas and ideals, but how they aren’t widely accepted back in the 1700s and even though she knows what will happen, she can’t force change upon the people of the past because it causes more problems than good, despite her best intentions. Basically if you pay any attention most of these can be explained. And if they aren’t explained in the tv show I’m sure they are in the books. The occasional costume mishap is understandable given the scale of the show.
I don't agree!! And I totally disagree about the dress that Claire wears when she pass through the stones the first time! It's a genius choice use that type of dress that ripping while she run in the woods became as an undergarment of that time!!!
@@rebeccathistle5874 I suppose not but I'm highly disappointed and a bit miffed over how the writers, casting crew and ultimately the director and producer screwed up Outlander. Had looked forward to seeing the series but after a few brief clips, not so much. Pity, the murderous bunch will probably make a lot of money out of destroying the Outlander story.
@@rebeccathistle5874 well the writers of the series pay fairly close attention to the books. I love that they make some different choices though. The wedding dress in the series was amazing and the one in the book sounded lovely but it wasn't like the one in the show. I love the contrasts of the books to the show, the show never veers from the purpose or the intent of Diana Gabaldon but when it veers from the details, it just makes things better in small ways or gets points across in one scene that take a half dozen scenes in the books. I love both because both are totally amazing and so well done all around.
The money and lavish living came from Jamie's uncle who hired him to run his wine business and live in his home while he was away on business. Jamie shared his uncle's large income.
Jared was Jaimie's cousin, remember in the warehouse with the Smallpox outbreak on the Count's ship. The Count asks who is this and Jared say's "Mon Cousin"
Yes, where Jamie negotiated to receive a percentage of the company’s profits. They must’ve been popping bottles in Paris like nobody’s business to afford their lavish lifestyle
We actually see Dougal and geillis's lovechild Buck MacKenzie in episode "Famous Last Words" season 5 He is even played by the same actor Graham McTavish
Would you recognize someone from seeing them in a picture and in your mind they can never meet because they are 200 years apart? Jamie glanced at Brianna and there was nothing further in his mind that that was his daughter, whom nobody knew could time travel... so yeah...
he did not find the gold while in prison in either the books or the series... he found the gems that Gelis and Dougal had hidden away for the Stewart cause... the gold had been removed by Jocasta and her husband and other men years before he had the chance to get there... in the books Jocasta has a third of that gold buried in a tomb with her husband and Dr. Danial Rowlings.
There were two treasures. The Jackabite gold from France. Stolen by Jacostas husband and taken to America and the MacKenzie treasure with coins and jewels including the sapphires. Which Jamie learned about while in prison and found after he broke out of prison. He have one of the sapphire to John Grey.
My one oversight in the movie involves his mother's pearls. When he gave them to Claire it was a single strand of pearls with no latches. When Brianna put them on for her wedding suddenly it became a double strand with a back clasp. They should have caught that.
It is a long single strand that goes up to her stomach. Notice that it is shorter when BRiana wore it because it is doubled up. But nevertheless it is the same one.
The biggest one for me was in the first episode Jaime is standing in the square looking up at Claire and her husband bumps into the "highlander" but they never explain that!
Finally someone notices that! It is also said several times that Jaime can't travel through the stones, so, I don't know if there is an explanation for this scene (maybe in the books that I personally haven't read yet)!
The commentator needs to do some actual research & read the actual books before he goes on & on about things we all know about, like Geillis’s timeline, Jamie’s illusion of wealth (more like good connections & a testament to Jamie’s convincing arguments than illogical wealth), and Dougal & Geillis’s “missing” love child who we meet in season 5!
I don’t think if you only watch the show that it’s totally clear exactly who Buck is. I mean, I think it’s mentioned once? I knew right away cause I read the books but I guess I didn’t pay attention to if they really point out that it’s gellis’ child.
That is similar to like Jamie being in the future. I didn't catch it at first until i tried to watch the show again and i remember frank saying he had saw someone looking over! I saw him and he looked like Jamie. But I do have a question why does Claire's hair or all of the people that cross the stones, why do they have curly hair and such since in the future they are totally different. Now I never read the books. Is it explained in there?
There was one thing that I noticed and not until the second time that I watched the series from beginning to end. The pearls that Jamie gives to Claire on there wedding night were one big strand with no clasp. But when Jamie puts it on Brianna's neck for her wedding to Roger they are 2 strands and have a clasp.
I caught one: The episode when Claire was lost in the woods (after she and Jamie came to America), she took off her wet boots by unzipping them. The zipper wasn’t invented until 40-50 years later.
i think she brought the boots with her when she time-travelled, before she goes back she even says she make a corset with zippers and made modifications on her dress
Michelle Bender oh yeah there’s no doubt about it that it was good. Just very long. One of my favorite things is all the detail to history in the books
I don't like the series, the books are SO much better. They turned Diana's treasure into trash. Omitting characters, changing plots, casting a blue eyed woman as Claire (haven't they ever heard of colored contacts?). I'm sticking with the books.
@@blanchekonieczka9935 It was so difficult to find an actress who could portray Claire. if they had to look for a blue eyed one, the wouldn't have found one at all? And not everyone can wear contacts
@@missjenny5200 although I don't like the show, I must admit she is a perfect Claire except for the eye color. I'm just upset at how much they changed the story. Deleting characters, changing when a character dies (Murtagh died at Cullodan for goodness sake), Roger and Brianna's initial parting in the past, so many changes it's barely recognizable as Diana Gabaldon's story. 😪
Totally shocked that I havent seen my favorite mistake yet. It's obvious to a scientist, maybe not so much to the untrained eye but here goes. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Claire and Jamie to have a brown eyed child (Brianna) because they both have blue eyes. Blue is recessive, brown is dominant so one parent must have brown eyes to have a brown eyed baby.
I actually noticed that too.... You should learn that in high-school science, still a good catch and more of a plot hole than anything this video brought up.
it is impossible, but its just a casting thing, not exactly a mistake in the show, claire wasn't supposed to have blue eyes (by the book) but they casted a blue-eyed actress still
In the scene after the escape from the witch trial, when Claire reveals to Jamie that she is from the future, Jamie begins the conversation saying "I know you have your secrets" instead of "I ken you have your secrets" -- a nano-second break in character dialog.
It is the same dress. The top button is torn away, and you can see the darts slightly above the natural waistline. Same dress. Only a guy would think it is different.🤣
As far as Jamie’s wealth while in France he was running his rich uncles winery. As a boy he had more than learned French. He was sent to France to be educated. People that want to comment on the series should read the books. Yes, they are long (1,000 pages or more) but well worth it!
If you were paying attention you would see that Bree is wearing a different dress when she and Lord John first arrive to the town where she is planning to see Stephen Bonnett. When she goes to see him it's another day, and she's wearing a completely different dress that's why she's wearing a cape.
The reason they had money in Versailles is because Jamie was entrusted with management of his cousin’s business, his home and a share of the profits. He earned the money for the clothing from a prosperous business. They also went as representatives of Jared’s company to Jamaica where there were people waiting for them. I think the white dress same one, the pearl and belt came off in the chase. That dress looks the same and still has the same cinched collar and cinched waste. The actual error in that scene is that her jeweled watch is on her wrist after she time travels but she later explains she lost the watch to the stones. The watch is gone when she’s running in the woods.
I was surprised seeing Claire wear that dress without stockings, which would be unusual for the time. Also in Scotland, that time of year, it would be freezing 🥶
I thought she had to be wearing stockings (women always wore stockings and only very very recently has it become normal Not to wear them…..unfortunately because everyone’s legs look better in them!!! )….but I noticed there was no seam in the back which ALL stockings had in that era. Of course, she couldn’t have on a modern girdle or garter/suspenders belt when she was stripped prior to being dressed in ‘proper’ clothing.
Seriously? Y'all got too much time on your hands to nitpick. Do you know how many takes & scenes & hours they put in? & Learn the characters correct pronunciation.
young William was actually born with dark hair but as he grew older his hair starts to turn red, that’s according to the books. That’s also how he realize that he’s real father is Jamie
ihave read the books 9 times and watched the series at least 4 times - my question has always been where did Roger get the nice big horse to finally show up at River Run? In neither the series or the books do they mention Jamie and Claire leaving him a horse.
The amount of grey in Jamie's and especially Claire's hair seems to vary a lot from episode to episode, scene to scene. Claire was quite grey when she met up with Jamie at the print shop. Now, In America, her hair is usually dark, sometime with a small amount of grey.
Geillis told Clair that she was from the 60's when they were separated after the trial. Later seasons show the stones send people to different times based on what they want.
I think that books are one medium and movies are another. I’ve just started reading the books but I am not one to be upset or sad because one is different from the other. I think the Outlander TV series is amazing and and so well written and acted and the scenes/ places and everything is so believable and it’s reeled me in and in a sense I am shocked that I’m so “smitten” by this series which is totally unlike me ! So yes I did study communications: movies, tv, newspaper, photography and understand the differences however I’ve never been a series watcher so I know there’s such an addiction involved! Where did that come from? It’s a great story and the whole thing has much detail AND PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT THE MAIN MAN JAMIE LISTENS TO HIS WIFE CLAIRE AND THAT DOESNT SEEM TO EXIST VERY MUCH SO ITS VERY ATTRACTIVE OR ATTRACTING! Claire also listens to Jamie however I think most women tend to listen. And of course the actors/actresses are quite “easy on the eyes” and newcomers to acting so to speak and that also was a great choice! Then their is the amazing positive fandom in social media and magazines etc. There are the artists that carry the fans through Droughtlander and during the season also. There is never a dull moment! There is a lot of love and fun and beauty and art! There’s so much more happening! There are bad people everywhere however we fans believe that there are more positives than negatives. We wish the bad ones would go away but some people thrive on trickery and deceit. I thank everyone related to the Outlander series and books and say I hope this Outlander affair goes on for a long time to come !
Paesos, I totally agree with your take. Had not heard "Droughtlander " term before but that perfectly defines what we are in now. In one interview of the cast and Diana Gabaldan, Diana is very happy with the adaptation and understands that books and screen are two entirely different media and screen must be economical in terms of actors, scenes, dialogue, etc. Also, every actor must be paid and more if they speak so it behooves the budget to lessen the cast and let, say, one actor replace several book characters. I especially like how Murtagh's role expanded into the typical best buddy figure almost always found in film, to allow the protagonist to voice feelings, aims, etc. where a writer would use narrative. Perhaps because I saw the series first, I prefer the series. Claire cries and is generally more vulnerable in the series. In the books she's more flip and a bit of a wise guy.
Claire’s dress IS the same, she’d lost her belt which cinched in the dress hence why it’s looser and the button around the neckline was torn off and the collar line was ripped as well. Of course the production would’ve had several versions of dress as the scene would’ve been filmed over several days hence why they may look slightly different but regardless it’s still the same design and shape.
8:11 I thought about that too, however She clearly travels back in time before her bones are found. ; Claire was in Scotland when she saw Geilis go through the stones, but it isn’t until after Claire returns back to the United States that Geilis’ bones are found.
If you don't want to be called "click bait" do your research please. It seems that a great many of us were led here by our love for the story of Outlander and that you were wrong on many accounts. So just do the research and we'll love to hear what you have to say. Probably. Maybe.
The narrator can’t even pronounce the names properly ... “Steffan” Bonnet?? Craig Na “done”? The narrator clearly hasn’t watched the show or read the books, and therefore has no authority over criticizing these scenes, which can all be explained! 🙄
You missed one that had me gagging. When Briana comes upon jamie for the first time, he is urinating on a building. Jamie is right handed. When jamie then realized she is his daughter, he touches her face, hands, hair... With his right hand. OH DEAR LORD NOOOOO.... I was trying to crawl between the couch cushions, whimpering about hand sanitizer, during that whole scene.
Hey, I only have question. In the beginning, I think in first season itself, there was a man who was looking at Claire through window. Frank mentioned about him to Claire, and even said .. may be he was someone who you (Claire) loved in my absence. But in all the seasons it isnt disclosed that who that guy was. The appearance was like of Jamie, when he was hiding after Culloden war. One eye covered, long beard and entire same look. If someone has any idea please share
@@Dorlainedainwenz its not a spoiler exactly, frankie says he saw a ghost, and I believe there's a scene where you can see the ghost disappear before frankie's eyes, you just have to connect the dots
How about in S3 when Claire jumps ship and drifts to an island. She walked for 3 days before she passed out when she reached Father Fogden's place. When Mamacita came running from the shipwreck with the goat's head and Claire took off, it did not take her three days to get to the beach did it? Surely Mamacita did not wander off that far.
You’re forgetting the physical trauma of what happened. That can take a huge toll. Making it difficult to walk long distances and leasing her to only be able to walk a very short way. Plus, after drifting to shore, Claire had no idea where she was going, wandering around. So that can be the reason why she walked for 3 days at first. Plus, its not really explained where Father Fogden’s house actually is. So, Claire could have been walking around and the house being relatively close to the beach. And who says the beach where the shipwreck was is the same as she drifted on to? All possible explanations 😉
Claire and Jaime are able to live lavishly in France because of Jaime’s relative who he works for. Remember? You would know this if you read the book. The Geillis time difference is because of her husband’s body she burned. It sounds like you either haven’t read the book or don’t remember. Gap in continuity because of the slave thing? Why? I do not follow that or agree that it is not a part of the story.
Well, Claire was extremely drunk at the wedding, as she had been drinking all day long, she probably had forgotten her own name. He does not recognize Briana when seeing her in season 4, because it would have never occurred to him, that Briana would have time traveled to find he and Claire. That is an absurd criticism.
About the money. The Fraser family has money, but as a wanted man, Jaime had no access to his family's money. In Paris, they stayed at his cousins and ran his profitable wine business, so it was his cousins money. In Jamaica, the governor is Lord John Grey, so of course they were invited. Jacostas money is explained later in season 5, so if you havent seen it, spoiler ahead..... when fleeing Scotland during the revolution, her then husband stole a crate of Jacobite gold, which ended up getting their daughter killed during escape
Riches in France is due to Jamie’s relative who owns the wine business. He put house, food, money for dresses as all was good for his business. That’s what I think
Most of these errors are explained. Some of the dropped story lines are not essential to the plot. Such as the income discrepancies mentioned, Jamie has to live as a pauper/soldier because he is hiding from the British as Jamie McTavish, he can’t exactly run around as the Laird of Brocktourah and be discovered can he? He also couldn’t tell Claire about that at the time either. Also when they go to France, he meets with his cousin, a wealthy wine merchant who leaves for the West Indies, giving Jamie and Claire a full run of His household, including servants and wardrobe, and a very healthy 35% of the profits while Jamie runs his wine business. He gains access to prominent people because of his cousin. He’s got his own cash flow while in France. Makes perfect sense. The plot line of the slave ends because it is not essential to the story other than to tell how Claire is responding to a time she can not change and how she is appalled at how times were and she’s helpless to change it. The time line of Gallis makes perfect sense. She obviously didn’t go back in time until 1968, where she goes back at least a few years farther back then Claire because she was already there by the time Claire gets there, but she remains in the past, she never time jumps again. There is no time discrepancy there. The hair on young William was too dark to in the first child but then again many people who are bleach blonde as a child ends brunette by their teens. So it is plausible he grew into his color. There may have been a few wardrobe mistakes but the rest is either explained in the show or not important to the story.
Whoever wrote this didn't think things through. A few things, like Brianna's cape, were true, but most just weren't researched well enough. Geillis' time travel was thoroughly explained and consistent, for one, and her and Dougal's child shows up in North Carolina, Buck MacKenzie, played by Gavin MacTavish (Dougal).
What about that one scene in the end of the first season? (I'm not sure what episode this scene took place) Where Jamie goes to the future. Though, he does look old and using a cane. He's across the street watching young Claire getting ready for bed. But I guess we'll have to see later what happens with this scene, probably when this show finally ends.
There's a scene 24 minutes into episode one of season one where a shadowy, ghostly figure clad in highland garb but without a cane, that has a similar frame to Jamie (but is only seen from behind, in the dark) is looking up at Claire's bedroom window. You never see the person's face so we can't say for sure who it was.
There is a scene where Jamie's back is to a mirror. I noticed there were no visible scars on his back in the reflection. I don't remember which season it was in, though.
It’s the SAME dress. It had a button at the top of the open hole at her chest. It obviously ripped off and the hole just laid open further because the button was gone.
You forgot about fance. They did earn money in France ..Jamie's cousin had a achole business, his cousin went on holiday letting Jamie & Claire live in his house & run his business taking half the profits...
In one of the episodes Claire says "she lost her jeweled watch coming through the stones," but when she lands in 1745 she clearly still has the watch. After the chase by British soldiers she loses her belt and watch.
I have read in an article that Diana Gabaldon said, that it will be explained in her last book of the series (which apparently will be the one after next). So, nobody knows yet.
In the book he tells Claire he saw her in his dream he describes the scene where she is brushing her hair and makes a comment about the light not being like candle light
@carol Tarkenton I agree, it will be explained in the last book. Word is Jamie’s ghost will travel 200 years in the future to find Claire just before she goes back through the stones. It also explains how he knows about Brianna’s birthmark begins her ear. He saw it in a dream.
@carol Tarkenton I agree, it will be explained in the last book. Word is Jamie’s ghost will travel 200 years in the future to find Claire just before she goes back through the stones. It also explains how he knows about Brianna’s birthmark behind her ear. He saw it in a dream.
My only comment is Brianna’s American accent. She does a great job with it, accept for has anyone noticed how she pronounces the word “anything”. Her pronunciation of this word is a dead giveaway that she’s not American- no person from the US would say it the way she does. Small detail tho, I love the cast and the show.
Here is an actual error for you, when breanna is preparing to go through the stones there is a shot of her cutting her sandwich in half before she wraps it in brown paper. She is then later shown eating it as a whole uncut sandwich.
After Jamie rescued Claire from the witch trial, I always thought it was a little odd how incredulous the story of how Claire came through the stones seemed to Jamie, seeing as how he'd had to explain it to her when the Bard at Leoch sang a song about it. A line about how it was like the song would have helped the continuity a bit, imo.
In Season 1, Jamie is not wearing a jacket when Claire re-sets his shoulder - we see her put his arm in a sling - then when they go out the door of the cottage, he miraculously has on a jacket - how did he get that on over the belt that was holding his arm in place?
Yup, there's the stones in Scotland, the stones in America (can't remember where, Roger sees them when he's being taken back to the mohawk after he was sold to them), and the pool in the cave in the Caribbean (where Geillis died)
Just leave it alone. There are so few entertainment venue that are just that entertaining Outlander is entertaining in spades. If you want exacts read the books.
Claire almost introduced herself as Claire Randall instead of Frasier but he stops her short (it was when she came back after 20 years) and corrects her with their new last name
Or, was it a gem taken from her for going through the stones? Remember Claire said she didn't understand what Geillis said about the stones because she didn't have any the first time she went through. But when she went back, the stone from Jamie's father's ring that Jamie put on her finger went missing.
@curly6509, Claire did have a gem stone each time. The first time was a stone in her watch, which she mentioned to Brianna at Christmas time when they are exchanging gifts, and the second time with Jamie’s father ring, and the third with the birthstone Brianna gave her as a Christmas gift.
For what i remember, Claire sees Geilis bones after she tries to warn her about shes going to die, thats when Bree believes the whole time travel and wants to help Claire to find Jamie, when they lost hope and go back to Boston, when she saw the bones
She doesn't know the bones belong to Geillis. At that point, Claire still thinks that she died after the witch trial. She was trying to warn her about that.
I agree with most of the comments posted before this one but I couldn't help but notice that in a couple different houses, the fireplace's looked new and not blackened on the inside. We have had fireplaces in numerous homes, and it doesn't take long before the inside is discolored. Also, back in that era, fireplaces were usually placed on an outside wall of the home and not an interior part of the home...
Jamie didn't spend any money on the wedding ring. It was made from his key, and Rupert paid for it. For Pete's sake, do your research.
They (someone form the Clan, probably Rupert indeed) did spend money in the show for the blacksmith making it into a ring. The blacksmith said something about extra cost for having it ready the next day. Although in the book Jamie spends his share of the McKenzie's rent collection (which he is entitled to upon being wed) on a richly decorated ring with thistle and all after their return to Castle Leoch. It is also said in both mediums that he has inherited his family's land and money, but can't really access it since he has a price on his head.
In the book it is a purchased ring
@@carolinenugent5367 It's actually not. It's one made from a key to Lallybroch.
@@hollymcalister4108 no, in the book it has nothing to do with the key to Lallybroch, that's a show only construct. In the book when they arrive back at Castle Leoch, Jamie disappears for a while and Claire thinks he's away to see Loaghaire. But he's actually away to get her a ring which has the Da mi basia mille inscription on it. The show changed that and Claire's replacement ring in season4 has the inscription.
MissTeeFy Oh my God. You’re right. How have I read the books 3 times and watched the show half-heartedly once, and I have gotten that wrong in my mind???
Holy crap!
It IS the same dress in the beginning. She fell down the hill and ripped the top fastener, lost her belt and watch. The designer purposely made the dress to look like a shift once she experienced some tumbling.
It stretched, too
Tabitha Quindt. EXACTLY!!
Yes definitely the same dress.
Clothes often sag or stretch when wet, and being Scotland, it rained..a lot
Omg this narrator doesn’t have a clue 🙄
Jamie was hardly expecting to see his daughter in his own time zone. It's totally understandable that he would not recognize her.
Plus in the scene she came up behind while he was relieving himself behind a building. An awkward situation where one may avoid eye contact.
Exactly right. He would have no reason to think his daughter would be there. For that matter, he would look for his daughter in every red haired girl he saw.
@@dragnfly138 Yes Indeed. I guess we'll just have to cross that one off the list... And maybe several others 😂
Rosie Jacobs YES !
Plus she was in a different context to the photos. B&W v colour, styled hair v natural /1700s hair, etc. He's Scottish he'll be surrounded by red heads.
Correct title of this video: questions you get when you watch outlander without actually paying attention
Or if you just read the IMDB "goofs" submitted by those who also did not pay attention. Haha
Or things you bring up without having watched it at all.
Exactement!!
Ariana, not to mention his snide tone. The white dress is unbuttoned at the top and after dragging here and there, stretched.
@@annerodgers4081 absolutely, you're right!
In the scene where Brianna meets Jamie in the alley and he doesn’t recognize her, he also doesn’t ever really look at her. He barely glances at her, being a married gentleman. Also, the last person he was expecting to see was Brianna. He had no warning she was coming and didn’t know she could even go through the stones. So for me, that was never a plot hole.
Yes! Thank you. Couldn't have said it better.
Also, per the book, the photographs were lost at sea during the storm so it was at least 2 years since he'd even seen them. But yes, there's no way he's expecting his daughter to suddenly appear in front of him when he believes she's 200 years in the future.
Besides who remember someone u saw in a picture a while ago, I would not recognized either
not to mention the photos arent really in bright color, it is the 1970s after all
MJLOVE4EVR. Exactly!
The books explain the wealth in Paris belongs to cousin Jared Fraser who is going to the Caribbean and needs help from his nephew in running his business while he is away allowing Jamie and Claire to live in his Paris mansion with his servants.
Katherine. Benson They had a similar, but brief explanation in the show. They also implied that, while in Paris, Jaime did well for himself in the wine trade.
The TV show explains it as well.
Not only in the books!!! In the series too..they even bargain about the percentage that Jamie will get for keeping the wine business afloat.
This was explained in the show. I think the cousin is a wine merchant or something like that.
Jaime negotiates the use of the house and servants of his cousin in Paris plus 30% of the profits of the wine business.
PS: Geillis bones being found before she was killed is not a error, it is the nature of time travel that has yet to come full circle, that story arc was by design.
Yes, and first of all she died in 1767. Her body was found in 1968, so it seems fair to me. What a superficial video!
I totally agree! she was shown in the 20th century because she had not yet gone through the stones.
Yeah I didn’t understand how this didn’t make sense. She was alive in 1968, that’s when she went back to the stones. Then she died in 1767....so of coarse her bones could be found?
@@maddyshoemaker5253But technically, instead of Claire, it could have been Geillis touching, holding those bones. She would be holding her own bones, which at the same time are in her body. Its just paradoxical.
@@louisemb14 no she not. The bones scene happen after geilis go through the stones. So geilis already in the past
You clearly never watched the actual show because if you did you would know, first of all, how to pronoun everyone's name. Secondly, each of these "plot" holes can actually be explained if you paid attention. Like Bree's magic cape. Did your eagle eye catch that she was wearing a completely different dress? And Lord John was wearing a completely different waistcoat? Because it was a different day. Wow. People changing clothes, what sorcery is this?
Right I almost put that in my list -- it was a different day. Sheesh.
The voice over narration is actually a computer generated voice. The computer voice can't tell where to put the emphasis in the names.
That kind of stuff is why I usually hate time travel stories. I can't stop trying to find a logic in it, and sometimes it gives me headaches. 😂
Too bad I was hooked on this one after a couple of episodes.
I would say that 90% of the errors belong to the narrator!
Ikr it's ovbious he's never watched the show. His pronunciation is disgusting and cringey
@0:25 seconds in and I now don’t trust his word.
90% is a bit generous. This guy’s “knowledge” of the show almost seems based off of other UA-cam videos and random articles rather than him seeing a single episode.
@@antheacastelli It didn't seem to me like he even did that much research.
@@chrisThurt4269 I agree
Geillis and Dougal's child does make a reappearance in season 5, where he is married to Morag (the woman Roger protects on his way to America) and is responsible for Roger's 'situation' after the battle between the militia and the regulators. He is even played by the same actor that portrayed Dougal!
M.M.E. V. Exactly. How did he miss this?
Do your homework! Before posting video’s about potholes.
This one is a bit harder to pick out if you haven’t read the book. Graham doesn’t look like he’s in his 20’s.
@kathy But still Roger makes it clear who it is. He didn’t even have to look like him for us to know.
Wait omg I was wondering why that guy looked like Dougal LOL
Obviously this narrator didn't watch the show or is extremely un-observant. Can't event pronounce craig-na-dun or Stephen bonnet correctly
or Inverness or Culloden
Or the fact their love child is in season 5!! Played by the same actor that played Dougal nevertheless. How could anyone that actually watched the show make so many mistakes?
Also. Weirdly mispronounces “vehemently.”
I noticed that toom
I thought the same thing
The Voice over is making more mistakes then the TV Show.
Right? The way he pronounced Stephen Bonnet....😬😬
He butchered Inverness, Craig na dun and Colloden 😫
Fay Grenade Americans..
Whovian 1976. EXACTLY!
MiragesMisteryGirl more like someone who has never seen the show 🤦🏻♀️
I feel like these aren't really plot holes... this is just nitpicking.
I agree. He obviously hasn’t read the books. It must be very hard to fit so many hours of pages of storyline into a few 1 hour slots. They do an amazing job.
I agree because when I watch the show I’m am too busy watching the storyline to care about what was missed. The acting and story is superb and that’s all I care about. As for the books...Waaay too much to squeeze into these episodes. They do an awesome job!
Agree. Three of these were non issues.
Desiree. Exactly!
I'd nitpick it to death. They screwed up the plot and cast so much. I'm on my third reading of the series and it's still amazing. Watched a few clips of the show recently and don't want to see any more. They've changed basic, important plot lines and twisted them. They actually omitted an entire important character, Malva Christie. Only watched this because they were blasting the series.
Geillis is FROM that time and that's when she time traveled. If you watched, she died in the 1700's. Not the 1900's. Hence why her bones were found. In the cave. That she died in. This guy makes no sense at all.
Interesting. I’d have never thought of that. Now I’m very intrigued!
I think he meant how can you have the bones of a woman who is still alive at the same time-frame. Its a paradox.
@@louisemb14 no she dosent the bone situation happen after geilis goes back in time
Awful...just awful. Narrator has no idea of the show. Waste of time.
Vickie Kissinger. Totally agree. He is useless. This channel is useless.
Of course
Agreed! The geillis story line is totally explained. I found that very annoying.
Most of the items on this list have been explained in the books and on the show and are not errors.
I've never read the books and none of what he mentioned as "plot holes" were. I know that these people need to produce content and aren't going to be actual fans of everything they post videos about, but this was just sad. It takes effort to be this wrong about something. lol
Exactly. I'm reading the books atm...just started book 5... and have now rewatched and it's all there.
And the stuff this video says about Geilis is ridiculous, because her bones were found in the future and it's even explained properly in the show.
It’s the same dress! Button ripped off and belt fell off them dirty from falling running in the rain and woods !
So glad I am not the only one who caught this. I was like... ummm explained... explained... like they get their money by running the liquor and shipping business for his Uncle??? Which is clearly explained??? And they get jewels from a variety of events... etc etc
Sharon Meadows - not to mention the fact that most fabrics get looser as they are worn for longer ( that’s why jeans are way more comfortable after a few days of wear ;) )
Some of these “plot holes” just make me think they didn’t even watch the series, or read the books....governors party in Jamaica, they got invited to while searching for young Ian, and they were living good in Paris, because jaime’s cousin arranged a place for them to stay.
alimostdope arjmandi Jamie and Claire stayed at the cousin's house and had use of his servants. In addition Jamie negotiated 30% of the profits from the winery (in the show) as his pay. They were not penniless by any means.
@@janetsbridgeofsighs8974 Jaimie says 30-5% and Jared says "You'll do just fine"
not to mention after all their years apart Jamie had been working as a printer for many years
And, the outfits they wore were from the chest of clothes from Paris. Their ability to meet nobles in Paris and get an invite to the Governor's mansion is because Jamie has a rich cousin. That's not that crazy.
@@sarah_cate_art He wasn't making any money doing that, but he was smuggling and that earned him at least some money.
About recognizing Bree:
- Jamie was busy doing no.1, when a woman addressed him. He was embarrassed.
- He wanted to make it obvious that he is not interested in any woman, he is loyal to Claire. This is why he did not even look at Bree at first.
- How the heck could he have expected that the woman in front of him is none other than his very own daughter from the 20th century?
Meh. My nieces hair was black when she was born and then just suddenly turned reddish caramel. It happens. That’s not a plot hole.
Same, mine and my brothers were black when we were born, then he became blond and I a light brown. Now he has dark blonde hair, and I a chocklate brown. Hair changes easily and fasy
The kid looks nothing like Jamie at all. He could have been better cast.
Same here. My daughter’s hair was a slick pin straight black then it turned I to fluffy platinum curls and then to reddish blonde.
Yep! I feel like the narrator is just making stuff up to fill the content
@@dogwoodhollow246 kids looks change as they grow and age. The younger William looks similar to Geneva, his mother. Brianna has dark eyes, Jamie nor Claire have dark eyes.
The first one. Looser fit = as in something that would be caused by losing her belt. Different neckline = you mean the shape created by the pearl button? The point at the base of it is the same, it's just open at the top.
I didn't see the button it looked like it looks like it is sewed there
All of these “errors“ except for one or two can be challenged. I think they do an incredible job with the show and the painstaking details especially for a multi historical settings across timelines.
As well with the period clothes including Native clothing and language, but the Cherokee language they used in the show is the new dialect of the Cherokee language that came to be after the War of 1812, but I do not fault them for that because the ancient Cherokee language is extinct.
Of course
@@samheughan7350 that you?
@@samheughan7350 wow!
You're completely right. Almost all of them they're not errors. 👎🏼🤦🏼♀️
Wedding contract said Jamie McTavish because he was in hiding.
And Claire said to Laoghaire ''Cuts quite the fine figure Mr McTavish''
Look again. It says 'Fraser.'
If you freeze the frame where you can see a hint if the names, you’ll see there are 4 or 5 names across the top of the page which hints to his actual name. He would not have been able to marry under the McTavish name because Ned Gowin the lawyer said it has to be done by the letter, Correct on paper or Black Jack would have been able to disavow the contract.
@@rayma66 Claire was in such shock that she probably didn't remember his long long name
@@EVALEVICIUS I think so too.
And the Geillis timeline isn’t an error. She went back in time later on (in the seventies). She did a lot of research and kept the time she wanted to go back to in her mind (explained in the book). But that doesn’t always work since Otter Tooth went back too far.
How do you know where otter tooth was supposed to go? From the books? I didn't read them. But i can't remember there saying anything about him going to far as he was warning them in the show
Merlin in the books. They were supposed to read it in the journal Young Ian Gabe to them. I haven’t watched the last episode yet but at that time in the book, Claire meets the other person that went through the stones with Otter Tooth.
@@erinchambers9 oooh. Im trying to download the last episode but cant find it anywhere😪
Regarding the Fraser's having money, in Season 2 when Jamie takes over running Jared's wine business they negotiate his substantial fee and Jared gives them the use of his house. In season 4, Jocasta gives Jamie a bag of money to get him started. And the fancy clothes they had in Jamaica in season 3 were all from their time in France, plus before leaving Scotland they had sold a large shipment of liquor.
I got confused with her timeline though, is she initially from the past or the future ?
I’m glad I’m not the only one that thinks the narrator is the one messing up more 😂
Lol, I can't take it seriously when he can't even pronounce character names and locations properly.
I didn’t notice anything wrong with the dress as the button would have made the gap and everything else is just nick picking.
It is the same dress without the button and belt. Probably a little stretched out because of her falling and running through the woods.
I thought so too. They wouldn't make such an obvious mistake.
Yeah, it sounds like this guy has never worn a dress before 😂 a button and belt can really change how a dress drapes.
@@prudenceblue i mean, if he is a guy, he probably has not worn a dress before ( unless he is a crossdresser)
I personally believe you should erase this video, it's embarrassing.
FACTS it is truly dreadful
1. Maybe practice your pronunciation of any of these places - Culloden, Inverness, Stephen Bonnet, even the word Fraser was wrong. All words said in the series multiple times so no excuse there.
2. Geillis was originally from Bree’s time (1970s), went back in time to the 1700s where she meets Claire etc. and then was killed, and her bones found later and discussed by Claire.
3. There is hardly a difference in William’s hair colour at all, and people’s hair colours can shift.
4. Geillis and Dougal’s son appeared in Season 5 right before the Battle of Alamance when Roger got taken by him and handed over to the red coats who strung him up. He was literally played by the same actor as that who played Dougal himself.
5. Jamie might have seen a photo of Bree, but you tend not to recognise someone when you have it pretty firmly set in your mind that they’re some 200 years in the future and you aren’t likely to bump into them in your local town.
6. A lot of Claire and Jamie’s wealth came from the businesses Jamie ran or helped with, like the drinks company he assists with in France through family connections. Obviously there they manage to integrate with high society who look after their own. And when he was made Laird Of Lallybroch he would’ve inherited that wealth and made money from the tenants on his land. He then starts up his own whisky business too. Not really sure how that isn’t explained.
7. Although it isn’t brought up often now, I’m pretty sure the reason Claire had to stop her outward support of freeing slaves for exactly the reason you show. The town’s people who owned slaves were rioting and causing a lot of problems for them and Jocasta. The whole point of that storyline (as several of them are - ie. Dr Rawlin’s) was to show how Claire might have these 21st century ideas and ideals, but how they aren’t widely accepted back in the 1700s and even though she knows what will happen, she can’t force change upon the people of the past because it causes more problems than good, despite her best intentions.
Basically if you pay any attention most of these can be explained. And if they aren’t explained in the tv show I’m sure they are in the books. The occasional costume mishap is understandable given the scale of the show.
ppl
Cragh na DUNE: not Dunn, Stephen (as in STEVEN) not STEFFAN, Cull-O-den: not cullo-DEN
OMG, so many mispronunciations. FRAY-zers, not FRAY-zhers. LOL I can't with this video. ;-)
THANK YOU!
Omg this was bugging me
The way he says Inverness is also fairly cringy...
@@kefinkamed InVERness. 😬
@@melissapontanilla3138 tell me about it, I get that all the time with my last name.
I came to the comments just to see how many others were screaming at the narrator the entire time. Lol, looks like nearly everyone!
😂 me too.
Same here🤣
My husband and I were both correcting him. So proud we weren't the only ones going uh no you got that wrong lmao.
OH my god. ''Stefan'' ?
S T E P H E N pronounced as S T E V E N
Yeaaah 🙈🙈🙈🙈🙈
Merlin ironically my husband’s name is Steven, but when I’m irritated with him he’s Stefan.😂
I don't agree!! And I totally disagree about the dress that Claire wears when she pass through the stones the first time! It's a genius choice use that type of dress that ripping while she run in the woods became as an undergarment of that time!!!
I thought Mrs. Fitz reaction to her bra was charmingly funny. "It's from France." Eyebrow raise. LOL!
In the book she was wearing a flowered dress and the still thought it was her "shift".
@@blanchekonieczka9935 yes i ken .. but I think it's not the purpose of this video compare books to tv show ..
@@rebeccathistle5874 I suppose not but I'm highly disappointed and a bit miffed over how the writers, casting crew and ultimately the director and producer screwed up Outlander. Had looked forward to seeing the series but after a few brief clips, not so much. Pity, the murderous bunch will probably make a lot of money out of destroying the Outlander story.
@@rebeccathistle5874 well the writers of the series pay fairly close attention to the books. I love that they make some different choices though. The wedding dress in the series was amazing and the one in the book sounded lovely but it wasn't like the one in the show. I love the contrasts of the books to the show, the show never veers from the purpose or the intent of Diana Gabaldon but when it veers from the details, it just makes things better in small ways or gets points across in one scene that take a half dozen scenes in the books. I love both because both are totally amazing and so well done all around.
The money and lavish living came from Jamie's uncle who hired him to run his wine business and live in his home while he was away on business. Jamie shared his uncle's large income.
Jared was Jaimie's cousin, remember in the warehouse with the Smallpox outbreak on the Count's ship. The Count asks who is this and Jared say's "Mon Cousin"
Yes, where Jamie negotiated to receive a percentage of the company’s profits. They must’ve been popping bottles in Paris like nobody’s business to afford their lavish lifestyle
carolyn haney Thank you, I came to say the same thing.
The pronunciation is horrible
Right? It's obvious he's just there for the voice and hasn't watched the show.
Amen! Geez 😒
I just commented too.
Especially with Stephen Bonnet, he says Steffen >.
In the scene where Brie meets Jamie, he is not expecting to see Brie in his own time, therefore he doesn't recognize her straight away.
Lucinda Hurst exactly. That’s even explained in the books.
We actually see Dougal and geillis's lovechild Buck MacKenzie in episode "Famous Last Words" season 5
He is even played by the same actor Graham McTavish
When I didn't notice it
I did noticed that!!! So that one is the son? Wow! Thank you Konstantina.
@@irmarobbins you're very welcome 💕
Would you recognize someone from seeing them in a picture and in your mind they can never meet because they are 200 years apart? Jamie glanced at Brianna and there was nothing further in his mind that that was his daughter, whom nobody knew could time travel... so yeah...
While Jamie was in prison, he found the gold that the old man was muttering about. That comes from the books, but didn't make it onto the screen.
Yes it was. There was an entire episode where he escaped the prison, found the gold and kept one piece I think. Which he gave to Lord John.
he did not find the gold while in prison in either the books or the series... he found the gems that Gelis and Dougal had hidden away for the Stewart cause... the gold had been removed by Jocasta and her husband and other men years before he had the chance to get there... in the books Jocasta has a third of that gold buried in a tomb with her husband and Dr. Danial Rowlings.
There were two treasures. The Jackabite gold from France. Stolen by Jacostas husband and taken to America and the MacKenzie treasure with coins and jewels including the sapphires. Which Jamie learned about while in prison and found after he broke out of prison. He have one of the sapphire to John Grey.
My one oversight in the movie involves his mother's pearls. When he gave them to Claire it was a single strand of pearls with no latches. When Brianna put them on for her wedding suddenly it became a double strand with a back clasp. They should have caught that.
It is a long single strand that goes up to her stomach. Notice that it is shorter when BRiana wore it because it is doubled up. But nevertheless it is the same one.
The biggest one for me was in the first episode Jaime is standing in the square looking up at Claire and her husband bumps into the "highlander" but they never explain that!
Finally someone notices that! It is also said several times that Jaime can't travel through the stones, so, I don't know if there is an explanation for this scene (maybe in the books that I personally haven't read yet)!
It's the ghost of Jamie. That is why he seems to disappear when Frank tries to approach him.
The commentator needs to do some actual research & read the actual books before he goes on & on about things we all know about, like Geillis’s timeline, Jamie’s illusion of wealth (more like good connections & a testament to Jamie’s convincing arguments than illogical wealth), and Dougal & Geillis’s “missing” love child who we meet in season 5!
I don’t think if you only watch the show that it’s totally clear exactly who Buck is. I mean, I think it’s mentioned once? I knew right away cause I read the books but I guess I didn’t pay attention to if they really point out that it’s gellis’ child.
That is similar to like Jamie being in the future. I didn't catch it at first until i tried to watch the show again and i remember frank saying he had saw someone looking over! I saw him and he looked like Jamie. But I do have a question why does Claire's hair or all of the people that cross the stones, why do they have curly hair and such since in the future they are totally different. Now I never read the books. Is it explained in there?
Thanks for your amazing comments
@@alejandracareaga4166 Rain water and no hair products or conditioner I guess, and no hair straightener
There was one thing that I noticed and not until the second time that I watched the series from beginning to end. The pearls that Jamie gives to Claire on there wedding night were one big strand with no clasp. But when Jamie puts it on Brianna's neck for her wedding to Roger they are 2 strands and have a clasp.
I caught one: The episode when Claire was lost in the woods (after she and Jamie came to America), she took off her wet boots by unzipping them. The zipper wasn’t invented until 40-50 years later.
i think she brought the boots with her when she time-travelled, before she goes back she even says she make a corset with zippers and made modifications on her dress
They are the same boots the came back to the past with
I think many of these plot holes are explained in books or by producers
They're explained in the show too.
the problem is as Sarah Herzig says, they're explained in the show. Whoever wrote the script didn't pay any attention at all.
They literally got all their money from helping Jamie’s cousin with wine selling
The wedding took forever to film
Me and others who read the books: 😔 and to read...
Hey. The gathering was an interesting part. I enjoyed all the drama that went on during it. But yes. It was long.
Michelle Bender oh yeah there’s no doubt about it that it was good. Just very long. One of my favorite things is all the detail to history in the books
I don't like the series, the books are SO much better. They turned Diana's treasure into trash. Omitting characters, changing plots, casting a blue eyed woman as Claire (haven't they ever heard of colored contacts?). I'm sticking with the books.
@@blanchekonieczka9935 It was so difficult to find an actress who could portray Claire. if they had to look for a blue eyed one, the wouldn't have found one at all? And not everyone can wear contacts
@@missjenny5200 although I don't like the show, I must admit she is a perfect Claire except for the eye color. I'm just upset at how much they changed the story. Deleting characters, changing when a character dies (Murtagh died at Cullodan for goodness sake), Roger and Brianna's initial parting in the past, so many changes it's barely recognizable as Diana Gabaldon's story. 😪
Totally shocked that I havent seen my favorite mistake yet. It's obvious to a scientist, maybe not so much to the untrained eye but here goes. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Claire and Jamie to have a brown eyed child (Brianna) because they both have blue eyes. Blue is recessive, brown is dominant so one parent must have brown eyes to have a brown eyed baby.
I actually noticed that too.... You should learn that in high-school science, still a good catch and more of a plot hole than anything this video brought up.
It is not impossible. The genes for the blue eyes can come from grandparents.
@@ThereseStordahl brown eyes not blue....it's impossible.
it is impossible, but its just a casting thing, not exactly a mistake in the show, claire wasn't supposed to have blue eyes (by the book) but they casted a blue-eyed actress still
In the scene after the escape from the witch trial, when Claire reveals to Jamie that she is from the future, Jamie begins the conversation saying "I know you have your secrets" instead of "I ken you have your secrets" -- a nano-second break in character dialog.
GOOD CATCH
It is the same dress. The top button is torn away, and you can see the darts slightly above the natural waistline. Same dress. Only a guy would think it is different.🤣
Interesting, but most of those mistakes aren't mistakes at all. You should pay more attention to the dialogs.
Of course
As far as Jamie’s wealth while in France he was running his rich uncles winery. As a boy he had more than learned French. He was sent to France to be educated. People that want to comment on the series should read the books. Yes, they are long (1,000 pages or more) but well worth it!
If you were paying attention you would see that Bree is wearing a different dress when she and Lord John first arrive to the town where she is planning to see Stephen Bonnett. When she goes to see him it's another day, and she's wearing a completely different dress that's why she's wearing a cape.
The reason they had money in Versailles is because Jamie was entrusted with management of his cousin’s business, his home and a share of the profits. He earned the money for the clothing from a prosperous business. They also went as representatives of Jared’s company to Jamaica where there were people waiting for them.
I think the white dress same one, the pearl and belt came off in the chase. That dress looks the same and still has the same cinched collar and cinched waste. The actual error in that scene is that her jeweled watch is on her wrist after she time travels but she later explains she lost the watch to the stones. The watch is gone when she’s running in the woods.
Jamie taps his fingers when he is thinking hard or reflecting on something. So far, I've counted 8 different times in 7 different episodes.
I was surprised seeing Claire wear that dress without stockings, which would be unusual for the time. Also in Scotland, that time of year, it would be freezing 🥶
I thought she had to be wearing stockings (women always wore stockings and only very very recently has it become normal Not to wear them…..unfortunately because everyone’s legs look better in them!!! )….but I noticed there was no seam in the back which ALL stockings had in that era. Of course, she couldn’t have on a modern girdle or garter/suspenders belt when she was stripped prior to being dressed in ‘proper’ clothing.
Seriously? Y'all got too much time on your hands to nitpick. Do you know how many takes & scenes & hours they put in? & Learn the characters correct pronunciation.
Hey
young William was actually born with dark hair but as he grew older his hair starts to turn red, that’s according to the books. That’s also how he realize that he’s real father is Jamie
And it's a thing, happened to my hair. Though mine started even darker then young William's and got at least as red.
ihave read the books 9 times and watched the series at least 4 times - my question has always been where did Roger get the nice big horse to finally show up at River Run? In neither the series or the books do they mention Jamie and Claire leaving him a horse.
Could he have gotten it at some point but where or how never was a strong point
I love when someone immediately assumes it's a plot hole and not that it's information that you missed or forgot.
The amount of grey in Jamie's and especially Claire's hair seems to vary a lot from episode to episode, scene to scene. Claire was quite grey when she met up with Jamie at the print shop. Now, In America, her hair is usually dark, sometime with a small amount of grey.
Geillis told Clair that she was from the 60's when they were separated after the trial. Later seasons show the stones send people to different times based on what they want.
The reason they had money in France was because they where staying at Jamie's cousins house and ran his business
For some strange reason I thought Roger was descended from Geillis and Dougal. Did I just dream that up? 😂🤦♀️
You didn’t. He is a descendant
I think that books are one medium and movies are another. I’ve just started reading the books but I am not one to be upset or sad because one is different from the other. I think the Outlander TV series is amazing and and so well written and acted and the scenes/ places and everything is so believable and it’s reeled me in and in a sense I am shocked that I’m so “smitten” by this series which is totally unlike me ! So yes I did study communications: movies, tv, newspaper, photography and understand the differences however I’ve never been a series watcher so I know there’s such an addiction involved! Where did that come from? It’s a great story and the whole thing has much detail AND PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT THE MAIN MAN JAMIE LISTENS TO HIS WIFE CLAIRE AND THAT DOESNT SEEM TO EXIST VERY MUCH SO ITS VERY ATTRACTIVE OR ATTRACTING! Claire also listens to Jamie however I think most women tend to listen. And of course the actors/actresses are quite “easy on the eyes” and newcomers to acting so to speak and that also was a great choice! Then their is the amazing positive fandom in social media and magazines etc. There are the artists that carry the fans through Droughtlander and during the season also. There is never a dull moment! There is a lot of love and fun and beauty and art! There’s so much more happening! There are bad people everywhere however we fans believe that there are more positives than negatives. We wish the bad ones would go away but some people thrive on trickery and deceit. I thank everyone related to the Outlander series and books and say I hope this Outlander affair goes on for a long time to come !
Paseos Acaballo Enbusca del Condor I agree ☝️
Paesos, I totally agree with your take. Had not heard "Droughtlander " term before but that perfectly defines what we are in now. In one interview of the cast and Diana Gabaldan, Diana is very happy with the adaptation and understands that books and screen are two entirely different media and screen must be economical in terms of actors, scenes, dialogue, etc. Also, every actor must be paid and more if they speak so it behooves the budget to lessen the cast and let, say, one actor replace several book characters. I especially like how Murtagh's role expanded into the typical best buddy figure almost always found in film, to allow the protagonist to voice feelings, aims, etc. where a writer would use narrative. Perhaps because I saw the series first, I prefer the series. Claire cries and is generally more vulnerable in the series. In the books she's more flip and a bit of a wise guy.
Claire’s dress IS the same, she’d lost her belt which cinched in the dress hence why it’s looser and the button around the neckline was torn off and the collar line was ripped as well. Of course the production would’ve had several versions of dress as the scene would’ve been filmed over several days hence why they may look slightly different but regardless it’s still the same design and shape.
8:11 I thought about that too, however She clearly travels back in time before her bones are found. ; Claire was in Scotland when she saw Geilis go through the stones, but it isn’t until after Claire returns back to the United States that Geilis’ bones are found.
If you don't want to be called "click bait" do your research please. It seems that a great many of us were led here by our love for the story of Outlander and that you were wrong on many accounts. So just do the research and we'll love to hear what you have to say. Probably. Maybe.
The narrator can’t even pronounce the names properly ... “Steffan” Bonnet?? Craig Na “done”? The narrator clearly hasn’t watched the show or read the books, and therefore has no authority over criticizing these scenes, which can all be explained! 🙄
You missed one that had me gagging. When Briana comes upon jamie for the first time, he is urinating on a building. Jamie is right handed. When jamie then realized she is his daughter, he touches her face, hands, hair... With his right hand. OH DEAR LORD NOOOOO.... I was trying to crawl between the couch cushions, whimpering about hand sanitizer, during that whole scene.
I was in those cushions with you with my giant bottle of Purell.
Not really a mistake or plot hole tho...
That’s called a different time, not a plot hole. Hygiene was less important back then!
Hey, I only have question. In the beginning, I think in first season itself, there was a man who was looking at Claire through window. Frank mentioned about him to Claire, and even said .. may be he was someone who you (Claire) loved in my absence. But in all the seasons it isnt disclosed that who that guy was. The appearance was like of Jamie, when he was hiding after Culloden war. One eye covered, long beard and entire same look. If someone has any idea please share
***SPOILER ALERT******
it's Jaimes ghost.
@@Dorlainedainwenz its not a spoiler exactly, frankie says he saw a ghost, and I believe there's a scene where you can see the ghost disappear before frankie's eyes, you just have to connect the dots
How about in S3 when Claire jumps ship and drifts to an island. She walked for 3 days before she passed out when she reached Father Fogden's place. When Mamacita came running from the shipwreck with the goat's head and Claire took off, it did not take her three days to get to the beach did it? Surely Mamacita did not wander off that far.
You’re forgetting the physical trauma of what happened. That can take a huge toll. Making it difficult to walk long distances and leasing her to only be able to walk a very short way. Plus, after drifting to shore, Claire had no idea where she was going, wandering around. So that can be the reason why she walked for 3 days at first. Plus, its not really explained where Father Fogden’s house actually is. So, Claire could have been walking around and the house being relatively close to the beach. And who says the beach where the shipwreck was is the same as she drifted on to? All possible explanations 😉
Her dress was ripped and dirty as she ran through the woods, fell and rolled in dirty leaves etc.
Claire and Jaime are able to live lavishly in France because of Jaime’s relative who he works for. Remember? You would know this if you read the book. The Geillis time difference is because of her husband’s body she burned. It sounds like you either haven’t read the book or don’t remember. Gap in continuity because of the slave thing? Why? I do not follow that or agree that it is not a part of the story.
Well, Claire was extremely drunk at the wedding, as she had been drinking all day long, she probably had forgotten her own name.
He does not recognize Briana when seeing her in season 4, because it would have never occurred to him, that Briana would have time traveled to find he and Claire. That is an absurd criticism.
About the money. The Fraser family has money, but as a wanted man, Jaime had no access to his family's money. In Paris, they stayed at his cousins and ran his profitable wine business, so it was his cousins money. In Jamaica, the governor is Lord John Grey, so of course they were invited. Jacostas money is explained later in season 5, so if you havent seen it, spoiler ahead..... when fleeing Scotland during the revolution, her then husband stole a crate of Jacobite gold, which ended up getting their daughter killed during escape
Riches in France is due to Jamie’s relative who owns the wine business. He put house, food, money for dresses as all was good for his business. That’s what I think
Most of these errors are explained. Some of the dropped story lines are not essential to the plot. Such as the income discrepancies mentioned, Jamie has to live as a pauper/soldier because he is hiding from the British as Jamie McTavish, he can’t exactly run around as the Laird of Brocktourah and be discovered can he? He also couldn’t tell Claire about that at the time either. Also when they go to France, he meets with his cousin, a wealthy wine merchant who leaves for the West Indies, giving Jamie and Claire a full run of His household, including servants and wardrobe, and a very healthy 35% of the profits while Jamie runs his wine business. He gains access to prominent people because of his cousin. He’s got his own cash flow while in France. Makes perfect sense. The plot line of the slave ends because it is not essential to the story other than to tell how Claire is responding to a time she can not change and how she is appalled at how times were and she’s helpless to change it. The time line of Gallis makes perfect sense. She obviously didn’t go back in time until 1968, where she goes back at least a few years farther back then Claire because she was already there by the time Claire gets there, but she remains in the past, she never time jumps again. There is no time discrepancy there. The hair on young William was too dark to in the first child but then again many people who are bleach blonde as a child ends brunette by their teens. So it is plausible he grew into his color. There may have been a few wardrobe mistakes but the rest is either explained in the show or not important to the story.
a belt can easily fall off as for the pearl remember it takes gems to go through the stones
The gem for the stones was in her watch. She says it in the show.
But it's easy to lose a button
Whoever wrote this didn't think things through. A few things, like Brianna's cape, were true, but most just weren't researched well enough. Geillis' time travel was thoroughly explained and consistent, for one, and her and Dougal's child shows up in North Carolina, Buck MacKenzie, played by Gavin MacTavish (Dougal).
What about that one scene in the end of the first season? (I'm not sure what episode this scene took place) Where Jamie goes to the future. Though, he does look old and using a cane. He's across the street watching young Claire getting ready for bed. But I guess we'll have to see later what happens with this scene, probably when this show finally ends.
The author hasn’t given it away yet. She implied it will be one of the closing scenes
There's a scene 24 minutes into episode one of season one where a shadowy, ghostly figure clad in highland garb but without a cane, that has a similar frame to Jamie (but is only seen from behind, in the dark) is looking up at Claire's bedroom window. You never see the person's face so we can't say for sure who it was.
There is a scene where Jamie's back is to a mirror. I noticed there were no visible scars on his back in the reflection. I don't remember which season it was in, though.
It’s the SAME dress. It had a button at the top of the open hole at her chest. It obviously ripped off and the hole just laid open further because the button was gone.
You forgot about fance. They did earn money in France ..Jamie's cousin had a achole business, his cousin went on holiday letting Jamie & Claire live in his house & run his business taking half the profits...
I feel like it was the same dress, the reason with it was looser was because the pearl popped up allowing her to breathe better
In one of the episodes Claire says "she lost her jeweled watch coming through the stones," but when she lands in 1745 she clearly still has the watch. After the chase by British soldiers she loses her belt and watch.
Perhaps she thought she lost the watch itself coming through the stones. This happened rather quick after that.
She lost the jewel in the watch, not the watch itself
Tbh the biggest hole is the ghost of Jamie in the first episode, and its never mentioned again
that's not a hole .. is the ending of the series. The ghost will be explained, according to Diana, in the last book (10th).
I have read in an article that Diana Gabaldon said, that it will be explained in her last book of the series (which apparently will be the one after next). So, nobody knows yet.
In the book he tells Claire he saw her in his dream he describes the scene where she is brushing her hair and makes a comment about the light not being like candle light
@carol Tarkenton I agree, it will be explained in the last book. Word is Jamie’s ghost will travel 200 years in the future to find Claire just before she goes back through the stones. It also explains how he knows about Brianna’s birthmark begins her ear. He saw it in a dream.
@carol Tarkenton I agree, it will be explained in the last book. Word is Jamie’s ghost will travel 200 years in the future to find Claire just before she goes back through the stones. It also explains how he knows about Brianna’s birthmark behind her ear. He saw it in a dream.
My only comment is Brianna’s American accent. She does a great job with it, accept for has anyone noticed how she pronounces the word “anything”. Her pronunciation of this word is a dead giveaway that she’s not American- no person from the US would say it the way she does. Small detail tho, I love the cast and the show.
Let’s try to pronounce the words correctly, huh? 🙄
Here is an actual error for you, when breanna is preparing to go through the stones there is a shot of her cutting her sandwich in half before she wraps it in brown paper. She is then later shown eating it as a whole uncut sandwich.
After Jamie rescued Claire from the witch trial, I always thought it was a little odd how incredulous the story of how Claire came through the stones seemed to Jamie, seeing as how he'd had to explain it to her when the Bard at Leoch sang a song about it. A line about how it was like the song would have helped the continuity a bit, imo.
He believed her immediately though
Jamie was the opposite of incredulous. Taken aback for like a quick second but then he wholeheartedly believed her.
In Season 1, Jamie is not wearing a jacket when Claire re-sets his shoulder - we see her put his arm in a sling - then when they go out the door of the cottage, he miraculously has on a jacket - how did he get that on over the belt that was holding his arm in place?
I have to wonder if “Dylan” has watched more than a few UA-cam clips of the show.
I believe there was more than one place where they could do the time travel, more than one location for the stones
Yup, there's the stones in Scotland, the stones in America (can't remember where, Roger sees them when he's being taken back to the mohawk after he was sold to them), and the pool in the cave in the Caribbean (where Geillis died)
Just leave it alone. There are so few entertainment venue that are just that entertaining Outlander is entertaining in spades. If you want exacts read the books.
Claire almost introduced herself as Claire Randall instead of Frasier but he stops her short (it was when she came back after 20 years) and corrects her with their new last name
The button popped off of her dress, when she took a tumble.
Or, was it a gem taken from her for going through the stones? Remember Claire said she didn't understand what Geillis said about the stones because she didn't have any the first time she went through. But when she went back, the stone from Jamie's father's ring that Jamie put on her finger went missing.
@curly6509, Claire did have a gem stone each time. The first time was a stone in her watch, which she mentioned to Brianna at Christmas time when they are exchanging gifts, and the second time with Jamie’s father ring, and the third with the birthstone Brianna gave her as a Christmas gift.
@@curlybibliophagist2 No the stones took her gold watch with gems in it
@@mariannemiller9111 awesome, thanks!
@@EVALEVICIUS thank you!
About William hair, children can change hair colour and eyes. My sister was blonde with Blue eyes, now she has light Brown hair and eyes.
A flash of Jamie’s black briefs showed when Roger and Young Ehin moved him into his bed in the snake bite episode season 5.
Ian, not Ehin.
For what i remember, Claire sees Geilis bones after she tries to warn her about shes going to die, thats when Bree believes the whole time travel and wants to help Claire to find Jamie, when they lost hope and go back to Boston, when she saw the bones
She doesn't know the bones belong to Geillis. At that point, Claire still thinks that she died after the witch trial. She was trying to warn her about that.
@@sarahherzig6587 i know,but like, the bones appeared after Geilis was already gone, right? The opposite of what the video said
Yes, you’re right. Sorry, I read your comment wrong.
@@sarahherzig6587 im sorry, english is not my native language 😅
Maria Luisa Constantino no, you said it perfectly! I just read it wrong! 😄 sorry about that!
You are bringing very close attention to very tiny differences that even a seasoned watcher would hardly notice honestly. Terrible review
I agree with most of the comments posted before this one but I couldn't help but notice that in a couple different houses, the fireplace's looked new and not blackened on the inside. We have had fireplaces in numerous homes, and it doesn't take long before the inside is discolored. Also, back in that era, fireplaces were usually placed on an outside wall of the home and not an interior part of the home...