Game of Outlander
I HAVE TO ADMIT that my wife and I have been watching both the never-ending saga of “Game of Thrones” and the ongoing dramatization of “Outlander.” My head is spinning in confusion.
As I watch “Game of Thrones and I realize that I have absolutely no idea what the heck is going on. To try to catch up on the multiple storylines Dawn and I watched an eight minute synopsis of the series on YouTube. It didn’t help me at all.
First of all, it seems that there are seven kingdoms that are constantly at war with one another. Too many. Only a person with a photographic memory, or Marilu Henner, could keep track of it all. And everybody in all the kingdoms has more complicated bloodlines than the entire state of Mississippi. Is everyone related to everyone else in this story?
I must admit that it is relatively easy to tell who are the Good Guys and who are the Bad Guys. The Bad Guys sneer a lot while the Good Guys clearly look like they just ate a bad clamroll. It’s not much – but it helps me keep things straight.
On the other hand: “Outlander” is easier for me to follow. It has only one kingdom – Scotland. I’ve heard of Scotland and I can pronounce it – unlike some of the place names in “Game of Thrones.”
The story line in “Outlander” is not confusing, although I could do with a little less of the Highland brogue. There are moments when subtitles would help.
Both shows are, essentially, just Soap Operas without the cheesy organ music. “Game of Thrones” is like “Dallas” minus the oil and “Outlander” is like “Falcon Crest,” only they kept the wine, which they drink almost nonstop. Combine all that wine and the Scottish accent and you can see why I could use the subtitles.
“Game of Thrones” is about a power struggle, with love (all kinds of love) going on in the background. “Outlander” on the other hand is about love with a power struggle cluttering up things.
One thing that both shows have in common is skin. Both writers have made an effort to have a number of fit and tanned unclothed bodies scattered throughout each episode. The only difference seems to be that in “Outlander” it is the lead actors who get nekkid, while in “Game of Thrones” it is mainly characters that are peripheral to the current plotline, or folks from the Screen Extras Guild hiring hall who cavort in the buff for the Minimum Pay Scale and lunch.
Hey, it’s a living.
By and large, I must admit that both of these shows are well done. I’m sure that the authors of the original source books are making a boxcar load of money as they should, because their names will be welded to these shows forever. No matter what else they create it is these shows that people will remember.
Even though both series have flaws (IMHO) they both fulfill their primary obligation: They are entertaining. They are both mild diversions from the daily crockpot of life that we all deal with. I doubt that anyone will ever say that their life was changed because they watched either “Game of Thrones” or “Outlander.”
At least I hope not.