Today in Outlander News
I’ve been waiting to use this gif in an Outlander post for MONTHS.
Now, undo-typing on that seven page letter you are writing in Twitlonger to @TallShipProd and @Starz_PR. Your twitter rage will not affect things already in motion. Go look at a sunset.
[Sidenote to @Starz_PR and @RonDMoore:
Hi there, friends. You know what happens when you let stuff leak out that hints at major minor changes to the chronology, story, character description, eye color, source of metal for a ring or the length of a string of pearls with regard to Outlander right? The fans cannot contain their chill.
Maybe let the next exclusive tidbit be released with a press release or some brown paper bags for hyperventilation or a goon to break fingers so no one can type diatribes on the internet in irrational response. All my thanks, Beth]
Spoiler Alert Ahead for Future Outlander Books:
But … Brianna
For you, fandom, the pulse of your anxiety over this potential change in the storyline is deeply felt. TN is the blood pressure cuff to your impending over-reaction. We feel you. Let us hug you. In other words, let’s break down this Brianna casting news, your anxieties and what they might mean for Outlander, season 2.
For those of you living under a rock (ie don’t follow Sam Heughan’s Mom ScotlandNow* on twitter) the news came out this morning via a TVLine exclusive that the producers are looking (finally???) for an actress to play Brianna in season 2!
*It’s not a cameo, Scotland Now. DianaG made a cameo. Ron made a cameo. Brianna is being cast. She’s a character in the show, played by an actor. For more, see cameo.
Enter Fandom Worry #1: But wait a minute. What about all those auditions we saw back in December where eager, too-short California girls were overacting the “Dunbonnet” monologue? Weren’t there casting notices out for Brianna back then? #possibleBrianna
Carpe Your Chill: Yes, that’s true. We had a whole Hangoutlander where we discussed how horrible they all were. So what’s the deal? Well, it’s very possible that casting notices went up during season 2 pre-production and then … they changed the timeline for the season. Realized maybe they didn’t want Brianna at the start of season 2, or didn’t need her right away for shooting. Or maybe some agents just jumped the gun and told their clients to get some Dunbonnet tears on Vimeo ASAP. Who knows? What we do know is that those didn’t go anywhere, and this notice is legit.
According to TVLine: The actress playing Brianna needs to be at least 5’8″ (she’s got to compete with Caitriona and Sam’s giganticism after all), an “earthy and grounded” young woman, but for whom “hair color isn’t an issue; the notice explains that the series will dye if necessary.” Um.
Fancast Fail source
Cue Fandom Worry #2: Let us #tbt to the original Outlander Fan Freak Out of 2013 … HAIR DYE. How can we possibly go on fancasting regular old real life BRUNETTE actresses into parts meant for fictional gingers? No one has ever successfully dyed an actor’s hair another color and made us believe it was real.
AHEM. source
Calm Yo Tits: There is a much bigger pool of #possibleBriannas now. We aren’t stuck with only Sophie Turner (hey, elevator friend!), Karen Gilliam, Amber Skye Noyes and Lindsey Lohan to choose from. This is good news. Although I’d be down with Felicia Day.
But there’s a bigger issue hidden in the casting announcement. It’s in this little hidden tidbit of Brianna’s character description: “Brianna has secretly followed her mother back in time to find the father she never met and the family she never knew” according to TVLine.
Fandom Worry Times Infinity: Hold the eff up. Brianna Randall is introduced to us in Scotland, in 1968, is told about her paternity Maury style, and STAYS in Scotland with Roger while her mother goes back in time. She EVENTUALLY goes to find her parents in the past (with Roger), but that’s not until BOOK F***ING FOUR. So what is this nonsense? Also, there is no Roger casting information out yet. Are we being introduced to Bree without her better Scottish half? SOMEONE HELP THIS FANDOM.
Ice Bucket Challenge Level Chill: We’ve already been told that Dragonfly in Amber (the source material for season 2) was more difficult to adapt, was less linear and required more finagling than the first book and the first season. So, we are all prepared for things to not begin as they begin in the book, yes? Yes. But we do know that season 2 follows Dragonfly in Amber’s general timeline (Claire and Jamie in France, and the lead up to Culloden back in Scotland).
That being said, does this casting notice mean we will be INTRODUCED to Brianna sometime in the past … before we ever meet her in the 60s? Will Claire see her in 18th century France or Scotland before she’s ever given birth to her in the future? I’m gonna go with a big fat NAW on that. She hasn’t BEEN BORN yet in Claire’s chronology so she can’t just be dropped into Jacobite Rebellion Scotland and say HI MOM. Ain’t gonna happen.
So, when DO we see Brianna? My guess is that the wonky season 2 storyline will show us Brianna as a cliffhanger to the penultimate episodes. We will get glimpses of Frank in the 40s, we will see Claire return to the 40s towards the end of the season, and we will see Brianna as a teaser to bridge us into season 3. That is in no way coherent or comprehensive, but it’s our collective best guess. Plus I love the idea that we could potentially get the majority of the Bree/Roger sleuthing in season 3, as they are mostly absent from that book.
One thing we CAN all get ice cold about … SPOILERS. I love nothing more than theorizing what’s coming up.
What are your theories about Bree’s introduction in season 2? Are we freaking out over nothing? Would it be HILARIOUS if they were doing everything EXACTLY like the book, just filming out of order to punk everyone? HAHAHA. No. Who do you want to see as Jamie and Claire’s spawn? Tell us!
