Sam Heughan: A Romance Hero for the Ages
We’re excited for the premiere of Outlander tomorrow! Here’s a column we wrote about Sam Heughan, the lovely actor who plays Jamie Fraser.
I’ve been thinking about the Golden Globes, which followed the Emmys in failing to nominate Sam Heughan for Outlander (the show was nominated for Best Drama, and both Caitriona Balfe as Claire and Tobias Menzies as Black Jack scored acting nominations). In criticizing this omission, most people point to the last few episodes of the season which, without getting spoilery, contain emotional and violent scenes which are the classic route to awards attention.
I would also have liked to have seen Heughan nominated, but for a totally different reason. In fact, I haven’t even seen the last two episodes yet. I thought Heughan did something exceptional long before those episodes – and that was to satisfy female viewers with his depiction of a beloved romantic hero.
People think women are simple. Throw a good-looking man on a screen, take his shirt off a few times, and have him deliver a few lines like “Because I wanted you. More than I had ever wanted anything in my life.” Anybody with a face, a body, and a British accent can do it. Right?
We’ve all heard this before, except instead of about actors, we hear it about our genre. “Romance heroes? So easy to write. Rich, good-looking, great in bed. That’s all women want.” There is a tendency to value “gritty” acting over the ability to win people’s hearts, just as there’s a tendency to weight downer prestige literature over the happy endings of genre romance. And yet the lucrative nature of romantic film means that if anybody could do it, I’m pretty sure a lot more people would.
Shockingly, women (and yes, I’m focusing on straight female readers here) are more complicated than that. If you look at AAR’s Top Ten Heroes poll (last conducted in 2009), we routinely fall for men who violate the stereotypical code. Jamie is a laird, true, but he spends most of the Outlander novels just getting by, and at many points, he’s destitute. Loretta Chase’s Sebastian Ballister (Dain), another Top 10 hero, is described as ugly. Mr. Darcy doesn’t even kiss Elizabeth Bennet, let alone have hot sex with her.
Portraying a romantic hero on screen is also harder than it looks. If it were as simple as scoring the role of a beloved character, then there should have been at least seven outbreaks of Darcymania (IMDB shows at least seven P&P adaptations; more if you count variants like Bride and Prejudice). There weren’t. Although there’s probably a plurality of fans for Timothy Dalton, Jane Eyre is still looking for “the” Rochester (I like Toby Stephens best, myself).
It’s not just what you’re given, it’s what you do with it. And Heughan has done something special. It is not every actor whose fans raise thousands of dollars for his charity of choice (in Heughan’s case, Bloodwise, for fighting leukemia and lymphoma). Or who inspires fans to vote literally millions of times for fan choice awards, upsetting such beloved and established favorites as David Tennant. It’s easy, folks say? Then why aren’t more people doing it?
To talk more specifically about what makes his portrayal a winning one for me, Sam Heughan’s Jamie is a wonderful mix of boyish enthusiasm, youthful awkwardness, and a power and sex appeal that are all adult male. He and Caitriona Balfe create chemistry in even the shortest dialogues – and sometimes in scenes with no dialogue at all. Jamie is strong (even dangerous) and smart, which makes him appealing as a protector and exciting as a fantasy. At the same time, Heughan lets Jamie be more vulnerable than I picture the character in the books, and it’s utterly charming.
What are some difficult romantic scenes in which I think Heughan did something special?
The music performance: in Episode 3 (The Way Out), at a performance of a visiting bard, Jamie lights up at the chance to sit next to Claire and translate for her. Heughan makes Jamie young and the opposite of hero-suave, eager to impress his crush Claire and totally oblivious to Laoghaire’s attempts to win him over. (This is a recurring problem).
Later in that same episode, the gunshot wound. Claire checks Jamie’s healing shoulder by loosening his cravat in the firelit castle surgery, and oh, the stories Sam Heughan tells with his eyes. If there had not been a fire going in the surgery already, one probably would have spontaneously broken out.
Wedding night awkwardness: So much of Episode 7 (The Wedding) is memorable for character-filled sex scenes. Heughan puts personality into every moment, even the ones which last only a second. It adds up to a full characterization of the uncertainty, hope, and passion of a young man on one of the most important nights of his life. Jamie’s are-you-kidding-me laugh when Claire panics and forestalls his kiss by asking about his family. His self-deprecating eyeroll at the endless process of removing Claire’s clothing. His pout when he realizes that he hadn’t done much for Claire. His expressions of pure physical pleasure. It’s rare enough to find authentic sex scenes on paper. On film, it’s the baby of a unicorn and a white whale. (I suppose that makes The Wedding episode some sort of narwhal?)
Thinking with the little brain: In Episode 9, the Reckoning, there is a marvelous moment in which Claire and Jamie discuss Mackenzie clan politics as Claire gets ready for bed. Jamie starts to stumble in his speech, becoming distracted and physically twitchy, as he visibly loses the ability to process anything other than Claire+Bed+Nightdress = Possibility?
Colin Firth’s Darcy is two decades old. Richard Armitage’s Thornton is one decade. We are still recommending these performances to new romance viewers on our forums and blogs. In ten years, and in twenty, we’ll be doing the same for Heughan’s Jamie. And that’s something I just don’t anticipate for any of the performances that were nominated.
Do you think romantic actors suffer the same discrimination as the romance genre? Are you enjoying Sam Heughan in Outlander? If so, what are some of your favorite moments?
Caroline Russomanno
My father died a week ago and I have my 80 year old very spry mother staying with me. She gets sad at the end of the day–they met when they were 16–and so I turn on Outlander. We’ve started at the beginning and she’s entranced. It’s been a gift. It’s every bit as riveting to me on the second watch as it was on the first.
It’s so profound when the right story finds you at the right time. I’m sorry about your father.
A bit late to the discussion, but I’m also disappointed that Sam Heughan hasn’t been recognized by whoever dispenses acting awards. I read “”Outlander”” over 20 years ago, and ever since then, whenever the subject of a movie or television series came up, I would wonder who could play Jamie to the satisfaction of those of us who think that Jamie Fraser is one of the best romantic heroes ever created. Well, after watching season one, my questions have been answered–I cannot imagine anyone else playing Jamie!
By the way, in the blog, the subject of Mr. Rochester was brought up. My favorite portrayal of Rochester was in a BBC production of “”Jane Eyre”” featuring Samantha Morton in the title role and the very talented Ciaran Hinds as Rochester. Borrow it from your library, or stream it–it’s very well done!
I wanted to like the Ciaran Hind’s Jane Eyre (I loved him in Persuasion), but I couldn’t get past the yelling. He was just too angry for me. The Timothy Dalton Jane Eyre is like coffee for me. I really don’t get how anyone can not like it, but I know there are plenty of people who would rather have pop/soda, lol. :)
I so agree. I love how Heughan portrays Jaime as both the alpha male and very boyish. He’s fantastic. And I think the chemistry between he and Catriona is helped a lot by the fact that they seem to have a solid friendship off the set. Plus both were mostly unknown before the show so they didn’t come into it with the ego that fame can bring and it enabled them to be more down to earth.
I know this a blog about Sam, but since Claire and Frank have been mentioned, I’d like to add how much I appreciate what this TV adaptation has done with the supporting actors, in particular my favorites Murtagh, Ned, Angus and Rupert. Angus and Rupert add to every scene they’re in and often provide comic relief; Murtagh _is_ the one anyone would want to have at their back; and Ned, well, is just plain and simply delightful. I also think Gary Lewis is brilliant as Colum.
I am sorry to burst the bubble but the Golden Globes are not awards that are respected since the members of the Hollywood Foreign Press are paid off for their nominations. As everyone in the industry knows, the members of the HFP were treated to trips to Scotland and wined and dined lavishly by the producers of Outlander. This will create a backlash for future industry awards.
Outlander is not likely to get Emmy and SAG (Screen Actors Guild) award nominations so get ready to be disappointed. Unfortunately there are too many shows and too much competition for the limited number of nominations.
I don’t have a bubble to burst since Heughan was not nominated. But I agree that the volume of quality shows is also part of the problem.
It’s definitely true that there are so many shows out there. Also, the industry is still male-dominated with many more roles out there for men than women. The men’s field is always extremely competitive.
I’m probably fairly cynical and don’t have much faith in any award shows because of politics, money and other factors. And the best performance in one year may not be anywhere near the quality of another in a different year–or the reverse. Or there could be two or three equally outstanding performances. Those shows are fine for those that enjoy such things, but I myself just don’t watch them.
I couldn’t agree more! And, I’m also in total agreement with Darcy and Thornton… the only three “”romance”” performances I’ve purchased and never tire of watching are Firth in Pride and Prejudice, Armitage in North and South, and now Heughan in Outlander! They are timeless!
Whereas there are several versions of Darcy and Rochester there are no other performances to choose from for Jamie. His portrayal of the character may end up being timeless due it being the only one. I love Colin Firth’s Darcy but I also like Laurence Olivier’s performance and although I adore Armitage’s Thornton I’ve never seen anyone else in the role (are there other versions?) to say he gives the definitive performance.
The only two “”timeless”” performances in these classic romances I have found is Timothy Dalton as Rochester (all other versions, for me, pale in comparison) and, to a lesser extent, Ciaran Hinds as Wentworth in Persuasion. I’ve watched (or tried to watch) most if not all of Jane Eyre’s various incarnations and I have seen 3 versions of Persuasion.
I feel like I’m picking on Starz Outlander and I am most definitely not. I am very happy with the series so far and I think all the actors are doing a great job. I’m a fan. It’s just that I’m not in love with it. Does that make sense? I’ll watch the next season but I’m not anxiously awaiting the show to come on. I like it but I’m not excited to watch it. I think that has a lot to do with the fact that Sam’s version of Jamie, while wonderful, doesn’t make me feel like he needs Claire like Dalton’s Rochester does Jane or how Hind’s Wentworth longs for Anne.
We are all so different in what works for us and I totally get how a large percentage of fans have found their Jamie in Sam. He is a traditionally good looking guy who is charming, has a wonderful smile, and is doing a darn good acting job (even emmy worthy :) )!
I pretty much agree with your assessment, Katie. I enjoy the series but it wouldn’t be a tragedy if I missed it and caught it later on in another version. I do think that you hit on one issue I’ve noted, which is that I don’t actually feel the intensity of the romance in the series from Sam Hueghan’s portrayal the way the books convey it.
I don’t think it’s Sam’s performance that may lessen the focus on the romance between Jamie and Claire but instead the scripts and the set-ups of the episodes themselves. The production choices IOW to make it appeal to others with more action, villains, and the like. For instance, IMO too much time is definitely given to Frank and BJR that could have been devoted to the development of the main romance, particular on the road home after the wedding. While I enjoy each actor’s performance, time is also given to several (Dougal, Geillis, BJR, for instance) to have their “”moments”” in the spotlight. As much as I do enjoy the series, it is TV after all that tries to appeal to a wide audience, and I think doesn’t get nearly enough screen time in the first half of the season.
oops, missing word above—I meant the JAMIE/SAM doesn’t get enough screen time–for the development of the romance.
“”timeless”” to me… I don’t speak for all! :)
I read Outlander the first year it was published. I held off watching the show at first because I did not want my vision of Jamie to be ruined. Fortunately I gave it a chance and was pleasantly surprised by Sam’s portrayal. I have not been as pleased with changes made to Frank’s involvement and that is a different discussion. Sam has done an amazing job portraying Jamie in the various scenes including the worst possible. Sam deserves much more acclaim than he has received hopefully that will change.
FWIW, I’m with you all the way, Elizabeth, about the changes (and screen time) given to Frank. I also thought episode six, the Garrison Commander, went on way too long. In short, I would have preferred that some of the time given to the two Randall characters would have been given more to the development of Jamie and Claire’s relationship. I hope there is a thread on this sometime. Maybe on the message boards?
Thank you Dabney for this amazing piece on describing a true romantic character. The popularity is the WHOLE DEAL: the storyline and the acting have to blend. Jamie is so verra verra perfect because he is an expressive actor and has picked up on the nuances of a sensitive, expressive Scottsman–confident, yet boyish, gorgeous yet humbled by his circumstances. And we love him because he is flawed and gorgeous, all rolled into one, just to name a few reasons. I fear he won’t be the same Jamie with all the Paris finery around him. Season 2 will truly be an entirely different story, and so far in the book DIA (I’m still reading) there isn’t as much magic or playbul folicking between the two. Hope the scriptwriters fix that!!!
Just FYI so you know, Caroline Russomanno wrote this wonderful piece. You can find her name at the end of the article, where each different writer’s name appears on each new blog piece. Dabney is the Blog Manager so she posts–or places–the articles here–I think.
Thanks for making that clear! In our reboot, which should be up by the Spring, blog pieces will have the correct author at the top! I thought Caroline’s piece was wonderful as well!
Just want to remark on the ‘Mr. Rochester’ comment, for me, William Hurt in Zefferelli’s 1996 version opposite the exquisitely vulnerable Charlotte Gainsbourg,
came closest to portraying Rochester’s desire to give and receive love. Never really understood why Jane fell in love with Rochester before that film.
Never seen that one! Perhaps “”Best Rochesters”” is a future column for me.
I also came late to Outlander and had never read or even heard of Diana Gabaldon and the Outlander series. After watching the first six episodes, which totally mesmerized me, I decided I needed to read the books. After reading the first two books, I concluded that had I not seen the series first, I would not have continued reading the remaining book. s Why you ask? I found the “”book Claire”” to be egoistic, immature, and silly. Frankly I would not have continued reading any of them; but Outlander drew me back because now I see a Claire that I like and admire. The mistakes she makes that get Jamie in trouble are a natural reaction of a woman out of her element who is struggling to fit it. Caitroina’s portrayal of Claire is that of an intelligent, worldly woman, quick-witted, brave and capable of handling almost any situation. Yes, she is beautiful, yes she elegant, but she has given me a “”Claire”” that I admire and I believe in.
This article is very well written and describes how most Outlander fans feel about Sam. I can’t understand why 2 of the 3 main stars were nominated and not Sam. It just doesn’t make sense. It has been said that Caitriona had more scenes and that he was more in the background, but as so beautifully described above, he did much more than that. They would not have been able to do the Wedding episode if there wasn’t already a chemistry between them. It would not have been believable. Sam is going to be the next big Star in the industry ( hopefully we can keep him to ourselves a bit longer though). Caitriona is also on her way to choosing whichever script she wants to do. I’m ready to move to Scotland!!!
Thanks for the kind comments. I really do feel that Sam was overlooked because as an industry, film and television marginalize things which appeal to women. Hopefully in his case, as they say, living well will be the best revenge.
Julie said, “”I can’t understand why 2 of the 3 main stars were nominated and not Sam. It just doesn’t make sense.””
Caroline said, “”Hopefully in his case, as they say, living well will be the best revenge.””
Exactly. Well said.
I do agree that the industry marginalizes entertainment that is perceived as “”feminized.”” I think too that in a male-dominated industry, there is much more competition over awards and good roles for men as there are for women. Heughan is just up against some great actors and great performances, and at a time when TV is doing some of its very best work.
This article sums up how I feel. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I loved the books and have not been disappointed with the Starz production. Jamie has been everything we could want the character be. Sam is beyond my dreams. Funny, excessable, boyish, joyful, charming,great looking and an actor who has been seasoned without to much exposure. I don’t know much about his personal life and I think that is good. We don’t need too. Cait is excellent and appears to be an unspoiled beauty. We either have two movie stars who haven’t become jaded or two actors who never will. Cheers to the Irish and the Scots and thank you from the bottom of my heart!
I came to Outlander late, when the promos and then the free episode came across my news feed; still trying to figure that out. I was hooked from the first scene; my mother was a WWII Army nurse stationed in Ireland, England and France. I can imagine Mother doing what Claire was doing in that scene! From that point on just about everything was believable.
As for the actors, I am totally impressed with their skill at prorating their characters so convincingly. I felt as if I was there in the story.
Cait nearly tore me apart as Claire sobbed hysterically when Jamie sent her away in Wentworth. She fought Jamie at the river in Episode 1 and the Reckoning. She fought for him in the Search and to Ransom a Man’s Soul. Cait as Claire did an excellent job.
As for Sam being a romantic hero…where to start? Every momovement he makes is romantic especially Episode 1 from the dislocated shoulder to the fight along the stream. The spanking scene and it’s afterwards. All Sam has to do is breathe! However, he is a nuanced act, superbly delivered. Go SAm!
Yes, yes and yes!
I think they are both brilliant in their roles. My only complaint is that Claire’s character deviates quite a bit from the book in regards to her sense of humor. In the book she is wry and witty and laughs quite a bit. Her portrayal in the show is very serious and you don’t often see the twinkle in her eye and laughter. I miss it. Other than that; I don’t believe either of their characters could be improved upon.
I think Sam Heughan is doing a great job and I do think he deserves some recognition for his portrayal of Jamie based on those last 2 episodes. That being said he is not my Jamie. Whereas Timothy Dalton is the essential Rochester for me, Sam is not Jamie. I like the series and I’ll keep watching it but I would be happy to see another adaptation with an actor who can convey what Jamie is to me in the books. Same thing goes for Claire. The only actor from the Starz series who might be giving the definitive performance of an Outlander character, imho, is Tobias as Black Jack.
I think it likely that nearly everyone has their own picture of Jamie from the books in mind. I base that thought on the years of “”battles”” online about which actor would be the best Jamie, which made me think even back then that it unlikely that just one portrayal would ring everyone’s chimes. I don’t mean this as a criticism at all, but likely as it is what it is. My best friend is new to the Outlander books and between us we have three Jamies–each our own book “”take”” in addition to Sam. :) Maybe that’s one of the glories of the Jamie character in the books, that he evokes such personal responses in individual readers.
I forgot to add, given the different takes I’ve heard about Jamie over many years, the resounding success of the series and wide support for Sam himself is quite an accomplishment.
Hi Eliza! I’m sure Sam is the perfect Jamie for lots of fans and I do like him in the Starz series. I’m also very sure that everyone who read the book(s) has their own perfect picture of who and what Jamie should be. While I’ll never quite understand how anyone can not think of the Timothy Dalton/Zelah Clarke as the definitive version of Jane Eyre ;) , I do think the character of Jamie is just too beloved for one actor to embody and make everyone happy. I would love to see another version of the story but I doubt that will happen, at least any time soon. LOL, I think my favorite thing about Starz’s Outlander is the theme song, not the actors.
I agree. I like Heughan’s interpretation but I would be open to others as well. I would definitely like to see other representations of Claire, as I’ve been a bit more lukewarm about her portrayal.
Hi Blackjack1! I like Caitriona but she is so polar opposite of how I imagined Claire (not really looks, but in tone) that I think a different actress in the part would be of more interest to me even than a new Jamie.
I agree with all of your arguments and examples as well as those in the comments section. One of my first favorite moments is just after the Ambush at Cockmannon Rock. Claire ran; Jamie chases. We get a bit of knee porn as he dismounts … and makes it look like something he’s done all his life. Then, after their “”discussion”” with is face all bloody, he says “”then I guess you’re comin’ wi me”” with that sexy little grin.
Yes, that’s a fun moment, too!
Thanks cesse47. That scene and when Sam delivers that line “then I guess you’re comin’ wi me” was the moment in the first episode that I really _knew_ the series was going to be good because Sam had brought the quintessential Jamie to life for me with that one line and one look.
There are network tv shows, cable tv shows and internet streaming shows. Way too much competition. And I do think Sam Heughan deserved a nomination. But I agree that nominations usually go to actors who have never won before or who play villainous characters. I think it’s easier to play the bad guy, and I’m sure actors and actresses agree, because one can go over the top. Nevertheless, Sam Heughan does a fantastic job. He always seems to have a twinkle in his eye which endears him to the viewer.
I agree about the twinkle, and sense of humor. I also think he has heart and a warmth that just reaches out to grab the viewer–that is, in addition to his always on the mark acting chops.
So disappointed for Sam…my positive thought: Emmy nom in the Fall. My negative thought: Jon Hamm…again?
Hamm has been nominated but I don’t think he’s won yet.
He did win the Emmy last Sept. & he is no longer eligible since the show has ended.
Yes, I do indeed think that romantic actors suffer romantic discrimination in awards shows that seem to go instead almost invariably to those who have the villain/crazy/over-the-top roles. I think the exceptions to that are the actors who get nominated and/or win because they’ve been overlooked previously and it’s make-up-for-the-oversight time despite what has done in the current year. IOW, if it’s not a fan-based awards show, there are politics involved as many actors themselves have commented on for some time. Sometimes the truly deserving win but that’s not always so.
As for Sam, I also really like scene you mentioned where Claire checks Sam’s bullet wound and the fire in the fireplace just pales in comparison to the looks Jamie gives Claire. Another real favorite is after Jamie saves Claire from the witch trial and how he treats her afterward when she tells her story at last and at the stones.
I also really enjoy his work in action scenes as well, for instance in the shinty game and later on in the sword fight with the MacDonalds after the Duke of Sandringham’s duel. He nails what needs to be done every time.
Another favorite scene with both Claire and Jamie is the fight they have after Claire has been rescued from BJR at Fort William. Their intensity with one another is just incredible.
I agree. He and Catriona are terrific together.
I would have liked to have seen Hueghan nominated too. I do think given the lack of high quality romances that _Outlander_ so far has generated lots of attention though. I wonder too if over time, more nominations will come if the show’s quality holds up. And I agree too that having a high quality romance series on is a welcome change.
My only disagreement may concern the other nominees. I think there’s a good chance that Jon Hamm will be remembered for the iconic role of Don Draper, and I actually do think he did his best work in the final season, which was wonderful. So many shows run out of steam in the end, but _Mad Men_ did not. I haven’t seen _Mr. Robot_, _Nacros_, or _Ray Donovan_ and so I can’t speak to the longevity of those shows or the actors’ performances in them. I love Bob Odenkirk’s “”Saul,”” though I know him mostly from the amazing _Breaking Bad_.
I just don’t know if Heughan was left out because he’s an actor in what has largely been a romance or because he was facing stiff competition.
I have only seen earlier seasons of Mad Men. Those were fine, but nothing which made me think, “”This is magic.””
_Mad Men_ is such a different type of show than _Outlander_ and it really feels like apples and oranges in a comparison. I don’t know if “”magic”” is a term I would use, but it is definitely a highly intellectual and often dark and satiric and even cynical look at American culture. The literary snob in me says that it’s far superior to _Outlander_ in terms of its writing and vision. _Outlander_ is fun and entertaining but more in a swashbuckling kind of way though I do enjoy watching it. _Mad Men_ for me though is one of the best TV series I’ve ever watched.
Spot on! l
oved Mad Men for it’s depth of characterizing a narcissistic personality type and an era!
It’s definitely left a void for me. These kinds of show are few and far between!
I’m with you about the “”magic”” of Outlander, Caroline. People are so very often in their heads, so to say, analyzing and criticizing things or putting them in categories or boxes, that a show like Oulander, or a poem, a song, a book, or whatever that puts you right in the moment or perhaps sweeps you away is truly magical and wonderful experience IMO. The world’s greatest prophets often talked about “”be here now”” or being right in the moment as I said. That’s not escapism IMO but being truly open, receptive and alive.
I just got that intangible sensation of “”I’m watching something special.”” It sucked me in. I wanted to keep that experience going – following fan tumblrs, recommending it to new people, reading about the production (especially the costuming), seeing the actors on Twitter, listening to the soundtrack – I just love anything that puts me back into that world. I’ve even dug out my Scottish recipes.
Some things are just lightning strikes. I also felt this way about The X-Files, and about Star Wars (although I have THOUGHTS about the new movie). I know a lot of other people get it from Twilight, Titanic, or Harry Potter, so it’s not the same products for everyone.
Maybe the critical establishment mistrusts “”feelings”” as a metric of success, no matter how deep they are or how unusual it is to inspire them – not in the least because we as a society tend to feminize “”feelings”” and then denigrate female things. But it could also be because “”magic”” is so difficult to predict and control, and studios and performers want to reward shows which succeed in a way that they are more comfortable with.
I think some do minimize “”feelings”” as a barometer of quality. That comes up often in how many so quickly dismiss romance as a genre.
Feelings are also a very subjective way to assess quality too, which is why some readers love _Lord of Scoundrels_, for instance, and some hate it. Art can be very subjective. But that’s not to say that we can’t assess quality of writing from perspectives of critical depth and cultural relevance. For example, _Mad Men_, since that has been a consistent feature in critical awards, is a riveting show for me, and I think it does speak to my emotions, and is at the same time intellectually astute and wonderfully insightful, and so that sparks my intellect. It’s the “”whole package”” for me. While I enjoy _Outlander_ emotionally, I find I’m not as intellectually challenged and engaged as I am with some of my favorite shows.
Caroline, I love your terms “”something special”” and “”lightning strikes”” but I think that equals something more than only feelings although feelings can certainly be involved (and I think your points about feelings were well made!). For some it may indeed be more feelings than anything else, but for others, like me, it’s a _total experience_ that “”sucked me in”” as you also said. IOW, a total experience that also involves my mind and something more universal and timeless about the human experience. “”Timeless”” is the key word here about this show since we have a main character from one time traveling to another where the culture is different but people are still people after all, even though the costumes, weapons and customs are different. I think that very set-up throws many viewers, like me, into a much larger perspective than merely the one we all live in now to look at what humanity aspires to and does no matter the time.
It’s tricky more often than not to compare various types of art. For instance, to go much further afield, one sees Monet all over the place, and that’s fine for those to whom he appeals, while others may be more drawn to Van Gogh, or maybe even an earlier Renaissance piece. While some may dismiss the comparing of great art works to television shows, the overall point is valid in any case: different experiences of mind, body, and soul in experiencing something (art, TV or whatever) is the final thing that counts.
While any individual can state what has more of an effect on her-/himself, no one–repeat: no one–can declare what is a more meaningful, insightful or enjoyable experience of something for someone else no matter what the medium is.
An equal exchange of what effects each person more is fine; debating or arguing which is better or superior is probably a waste of time. I’d never convince a Monet lover that I think Van Gogh is superior (to me anyway), so I just don’t even go there.