STARZ' Outlander had over 3.5 million views of their premier via TV and other media. Approximately 45% of the viewers were MALE. Outlander is NOT a "bodice ripper" romance but a genrebending historical fiction, action, drama, romance, scifi story with battles, murder, love, hate all wrapped in possibly the most beautifully filmed production on television today. To limit your description to a "woman's" TV show is to really miss the mark for Outlander. Obviously men have already figured that out.

Agree with the previous post (another Laura) - Thank goodness Ron D. Moore is the producer actually _MAKING_ the series, since he understands the material. This is historical action-adventure, with strong family _and_ romantic relationships. Hardly a bodice-ripper: it does the show and prospective viewers no good to so label it. After reading this interview, I am more relieved than ever that Jim Kohlberg failed to make a movie version of Outlander! Ron D. Moore's version is truly exceptional, riveting television. My husband and I (who are both fans of Diana Gabaldon's novels) loved the first episode, and everything we see coming in trailers, photos, and interviews looks even better!

My first impulse is to give Jim Kohlberg the benefit of the doubt and am more inclined to think he was taken out of context or (gasp) misquoted. I've just read too many reviews and interviews that are more fiction than not. He clearly loves the source material and I doubt the author would have sold him the rights to begin with if this were not the case. But, I will say that chances for a season 2 are in the bag. No one does this much marketing for a one-season-wonder. No one. Season 3 on the other hand....

Perhaps, Jeanne. That said, there is additional context, not in this article, which is also being referenced (from extensive comments made in myriad places, by the folks involved, about the making of Outlander over the years).

Having read the entire "Outlander" series, I can tell you that the books are definitely better at suspending one's disbelief about time travel. They are also quite complete in their descriptions of the main characters, Jamie and Claire, and the actors in the TV version are quite ill-suited to their parts.

I also know that Diana Gabaldon took so long to turn over the rights to her first book ( the subsequent sequels are even better) because she knew it would mean losing all control of the story line.

The TV series does NOT make women dream of men in kilts like the books do!

This is to the guy A Scot:
Ill-suited?! Seriously Dude? Have you just seen the pic's or did you watch the episode?

When the author describes her characters and then the producers find exact description of those characters [especially Sam Heughan who is even tall and weighs as the character he plays] how is that ill-suited? If the author who created them says they ARE what she envisioned, who am I to dispute it? I've seen the 1st ep and they are perfectly cast.

I do admit that for many the book characters we tend to 'adopt' and superimpose a 'vision' of them in our minds, they may not fill the bill, yet if one is a true fan of the books, one is grateful for it just being offered in this medium.