Why did Starz change its Outlander trailer?


Written By: Janet Reynolds


  Source    
                                             *SPOILER ALERT*

Last week Starz released its first hint at what Season Two of Outlander holds in store for us in a trailer that had TV-only viewers shaking their heads in shock at the last image. This weekend, someone somewhere in the Starz marketing machine made a Big Mistake and leaked the Season Two trailer that had been originally released at the Television Critics Association winter press tour Jan. 8. It was only up for a few hours on Vimeo (never on the official Starz site or YouTube) but what a few hours it was. Having watched it a few times before it disappeared — thank you Outlander-Italy — we can say this much is absolutely clear: Toto, we're not in the 18th century anymore. Like touching the stones, click through for more details at your own risk.

The original trailer opens with a stricken Claire, dressed in 18th century garb, walking down a road — as in a paved road. A car follows. A man stops and asks Claire if she's all right. She asks him what year it is. "1948," he answers.

From there, we move to the hospital scene featured in the official trailer. Claire is in bed and Frank walks down the hall. "I'm back," she says. And Frank says, "I'm so grateful." (That head-shaking shock moment for TV-only viewers that ended the official trailer and had book readers saying, "Really?" But I will say no more about that!)

Flash to Claire getting off a plane and Frank at the end of the ramp reaching for her hand. As he reaches out to grab Claire's hand as she walks down the plane steps, we hear him say in a voiceover, "What truly matters is not where you've been but that you're here now." Claire does not look happy. As her hand, in slow motion, moves to grab Frank's hand, the hand grabbing hers morphs into Jamie's and we hear her voiceover say, "Not where. When."

From there the trailer moves to much of the same footage as the official trailer that was ultimately released. The main missing moment, which I loved but which blew my mind in the official trailer, was the bit where Murtagh says," You lived through all these years!" WHAT?

I can see why this original trailer got tweaked, especially after Starz released this week the titles of the first two episodes, "Through a Glass, Darkly" and "Not in Scotland Anymore." Bible readers may recognize episode one's title from 1 Corinthians 13:12: "For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."  

Indie film geeks will recognize it as the title of an Ingmar Bergman film.  Think it's just a coincidence?  Diana doesn't really deal in coincidence. Here's a synopsis of the film and a quote which strikes a familiar chord:


Karin (Harriet Andersson) hopes to recover from her recent stay at a mental hospital by spending the summer at her family's cottage on a tiny island. Her husband, Martin (Max von Sydow), cares for her but is frustrated by her physical withdrawal. Her younger bother, Minus (Lars Passgård), is confused by Karin's vulnerability and his own budding sexuality. Their father, David (Gunnar Björnstrand), cannot overcome his haughty remoteness. Beset by visions, Karin descends further into madness

Source


Source

That episode title has so many hints of Claire's impending struggle, which the original trailer played out more suggestively than the official trailer ultimately released to the public. (Book side note, because I can't resist: The title of part one in the book, Dragonfly in Amber, is "Through a Looking Glass, Darkly." Classic Diana Gabaldon to play off a biblical reference and classic Ron D. Moore to tweak the book. Oh, we are in for a ride this season!)

But I digress. Given these episode names, I can see why the original trailer was likely considered a little TMI. It takes the shock out of the Frank moment in the official trailer, especially for TV-only Outlanders — which are the people Ron D. Moore et al really do need to satisfy. Yes, book loving purists (hand is raised) want every frigging detail to be exactly the same in season two. But reality check, folks. TV is one medium and books are another. You can't do the same in both. It doesn't work as well.

And so Moore is clearly playing a bit with how Season Two unfolds so that the many fans who first experienced Outlander in Season One keep tuning in and, more importantly, that more join the Outlander Starz cult, ensuring a Season 3 and 4 and....you do know there are 8 books right? Now that is an ending we can all  get behind.

So what do you think? Was the original trailer TMI? Are you worried about how Season Two is going to be adapted? 

73 comments

  1. Great details on the Bergman film. I prefer less in the trailer, more upon first actual view. Even if I do know every friggin' detail of the book!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm still stunned that the official trailer gave away the huge Claire-goes-back-to-her-own-time spoiler! Kind of ruins the WTF moment for the non-book-readers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was surprised too. But I suspect there are plenty of other surprises to come based on the year info the original trailer showed

      Delete
    2. I agree..my husband has forbidden me to talk about the trailer or my knowledge from the books and I think it's a shame that others will have that bit ruined...but it's still gonna be awesome fir most U.S.!!

      Delete
    3. I disagree that knowing Claire goes through the stones to Frank ruined anything for TV only viewers. It will raise questions and intrigue them MORE. Maybe they will pick up books to found out now instead of waiting.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. That "alternative" trailer was definitely TMI and I have read all the books. The official trailer that was released is perfectly formatted with the Frank reveal at the end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you're right overall. But it was fun (as a book reader) to see this additional into in the original trailer. That said I am still worried

      Delete
  4. You can't put the egg back in its shell. Too much is out. I don't mind, but others probably do. It won't stop me from enjoying the second season, though my greatest wish right now is to hear that Outlander has been approved for season three. Tulach Ard!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm with you, Sherry....The cat is out of the bag, but the "readers' already knew this and I for one do not care...Just want it guaranteed that Season 2 is followed by Season 3,4,5,6 etc...Outlander is the best thing to have happened to Cable TV

      Delete
    2. Soooo with you on wanting more seasons. At least 3 so they don't keep us hanging. And yes in today's internet world it's almost impossible to keep the lid on anything.

      Delete
    3. I agree with you ladies Starz should just already commit to future seasons already!!! 😁 I would hope scripts & figuring story lines from books 3 & 4 are already being figured out. There's enough material in book 3 & 4 to have two or three seasons unless Ronald D. Moore cuts some book 3 to fit for a season.

      Delete
  5. I'm currently reading Dragonfly in Amber. I haven't gotten to the part of the book that Claire goes back and the circumstances around it. I was spoiled before reading the book, I did the spoiling myself cause I was curious. But I think, the official Starz trailer should have left the hospital scene completely out of it. It did spoil quite a bit of the story. I'm sure the TV only crowd are shaking their heads and wondering where this is leading to. If I hadn't started reading DIA and if I didn't spoil it for myself, I'd be going nuts right about now. I came to the books late, I saw the TV series first then read the first book. To keep myself busy during Droughtlander, I decided to go a head and read book 2 because I completely trust in Ronald D. Moore's adaptation. Yes, there will be changes, yes, I may not see a scene that I would like to see, maybe a scene will be different than the book, but I have to say, Outlander the TV show is just awesome! It's closer to the books than what some other adaptations I've seen (If you have read Cassandra Clare's The Mortal Instruments, and seen the movie and now the TV show, you'll completely understand what I'm talking about). I think the fandom got very lucky with Ron Moore's adaptation, it could be a lot worse. While I still think Starz dropped a huge bomb with the Frank scene's, I think many of the TV viewers only, will be going crazy trying to figure it all out and will definitely tune in because their interest is piqued. I'm just so excited to see it, April 9th can't come quick enough!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm rereading Dragonfly for the third time to "prep" for season 2. 😏 I agree the TV adaption (so far and fingers crossed) has been great. Now I'm curious about The Mortal Instruments. What's that about?

      Delete
    2. It's young adult fiction, but frankly, some of the young adult fiction is better than some adult fiction, in my opinion. I could give you a link to the author's site which would explain it better, than I could. The movie: The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones and Freeform's (ABC Family) tv show, Shadowhunters is very loosely based on Cassandra Clare's books and just very bad adaptations. The Mortal Instruments, it's in no way close to Gabaldon's work. It's a fun read though, if you are into the supernatural. http://www.cassandraclare.com/my-writing/novels/the-mortal-instruments/

      Delete
  6. For me the more inclusive trailer was perfect. Not TMI. But now that I have seen it many times, I selfishly do not care if it is taken down. My selfish need to see all has been met. Now I can let StarzPR satisfy their need without complaint.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes there was a side of me who was more relaxed too having seen it. But I've read the books too so I do know a bit about what's coming.

      Delete
  7. I can understand that this may be disappointing for non-book readers, since the big shocker is now "out of the bag", instead of leaving everyone hanging at the end of an episode. But what I noticed and thought "oh, that's so Frank", is that he is shown holding a briefcase, on the tarmac, when Claire gets off the plane and their hands touch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even on their second honeymoon, Frank takes his work with him....Now, Claire returns to him and still his briefcase takes precedence....Amazing that he remains oblivious

      Delete
    2. Omg that is such a great observation about Frank and the briefcase. Love that. So perfect!

      Delete
  8. I so hope at the end of this series that it hasn't all been just Claire descending into madness in a mental ward. I would be so very disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There would be a 21st uprising if that happened

      Delete
  9. Having read the books several times over i personally don't find any of this shocking. I'm actually so excited i almost pee myelf every time i see the trailer :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah waiting is impossible. I'm rereading Dragonfly for the third time just to maintain my own equilibrium.

      Delete
  10. I don't think showing her with Frank gives away too much. It's like when we cracked open DIA for the first time and went "WTF?" Viewer-only types will be champing at the bit to see how that plays out.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks Janet. I was wondering what the heck was going on? I saw it once, but blink and it's now gone.

    I guess I like subtlety in trailers.

    But I have to say, I am so glad that we weren't shown the run up to the stones (literally and figuratively), but instead of what occurs after.

    Perhaps the first episode is not at all the dichotomy between 1745/1948/1968 but a nod to living in the different worlds of political backstabbing and unfortunately no less dangerous France for Jamie and Claire.

    I am sure S2 Ep1 is likely to start with a bang, a wedge between what is old and new, their renewed love and interference from people and ghosts of the past.

    And the second episode expands upon that, more exploring their inadequacies in this new world and losing ground on their plan.

    Can't wait. This adaptation is worlds apart from others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ditto! Couldn't have said it any differently or better myself.

      Honestly waiting patiently for start of S2 Ep1. But CANNOT wait for the multiple character clashes that happen Voyager. I am beside myself waiting for word on season 3. I feel book 1-2 and season 1-2 are just the beginning of Claire and Jamie's journeys together. I guess I like less war battle scenes and more character growth/challenges. Who would be casted to play Lord John Grey!?!

      Delete
  12. Barbara D, I agree. The trailer was great, and just made me want even more to see the second season. It's fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So many possibilities to see where they go with this. I wish it was April now!

      Delete
  13. Thanks Janet. I was wondering what the heck was going on? I saw it once, but blink and it's now gone.

    I guess I like subtlety in trailers.

    But I have to say, I am so glad that we weren't shown the run up to the stones (literally and figuratively), but instead of what occurs after.

    Perhaps the first episode is not at all the dichotomy between 1745/1948/1968 but a nod to living in the different worlds of political backstabbing and unfortunately no less dangerous France for Jamie and Claire.

    I am sure S2 Ep1 is likely to start with a bang, a wedge between what is old and new, their renewed love and interference from people and ghosts of the past.

    And the second episode expands upon that, more exploring their inadequacies in this new world and losing ground on their plan.

    Can't wait. This adaptation is worlds apart from others.

    ReplyDelete
  14. the episode name is also the title of a chapter in the book. From a discussion group of DIA we discussed 3 meanings. 2 mentioned (the Bible and the movie) but also an episode of Highlander where McCleod helps Warren by helping him recall their history together of their battles for Scotland's freedom and missions to return the Bonnie Prince to the Throne. But he realizes that it might have been better to let the past stay buried. Coincidence. I think not

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did not know about that Highlander, which I've never seen. Do you recommend it?

      Delete
  15. I'm brand-new about outlander series books and tv. I saw S1 in dvd and now reading 2nd book. I find series completely out of ordinary, revolutionary, characters and history. I can't believe in Starz's mistake btw Trailers. Need maintaining pression on TV watchers. Competition is ruthless btw series. So, I won't care about two trailers, outlander get me emotional and upset enough!!!! And, like you, I don't know how it ends. If should it happen to me the same of Claire I would kill myself!!! Maybe, because I looked for and found "a Jamie", close to me, now at home :-)))

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you about the series. We've been lucky with Ron Moore's adaptation overall. Hopefully he'll do the same with season 2~

      Delete
  16. My husband is a non-book viewer, and when he saw the first (official) S2 trailer, his reaction was "Whoa! WTF? How did THAT happen??" Now he's even more excited because he's dying to know why Claire went back and the ramifications of it. So, I think for viewers only, it didn't really spoil anything, instead it whetted their appetites.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey I had that reaction too and I read the books! :) Part of that was the Frank comment at the end, which if you've read the books I think you'll know why. And yes, I think the tweaking to have just that one key scene really got everyone going! I wish April was tomorrow!

      Delete
    2. I am hoping Ron Moore & company will expand on the ramifications of Claire going back to the 1940's and Frank's response. Also, WTF did Frank do while Claire was gone? It appeared, TV-Outlander, that he heard Claire when they were both at the stones shouting each other's names. Clue? Foreshadowing that Frank is going to research the history of these standing stones. If I was a historian and told of magical stones, went to stones and shouted-maybe heard my wife, I would be researching the $@#! out of those stones. In one later books, MOBY in a hidden letter to Brianna, telling her he found Claire and Jamie's record of marriage. So when did he do this research? Hmm... Diana Gabaldon is writing one of this season's episodes.

      Delete
  17. Funny... I sat through a couple of conference workshops this week that addressed the habits of the all-important Millennial generation, who are crazy influential as it relates to just about everything. They said this generation needs to know the outcomes first, but then has no problem going back and starting from the beginning and digesting it all once they do. I watched this trailer and thought - hell, that guy was more right than I cared to admit. They've spoiled it for TV watchers, yet everyone will gobble it all up, all the same.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ohhhh, I missed the "other" trailer! The one thing that caught my attention in the hospital scene, was the creepy, eerie way that Frank said he was glad she was back. Something in my brain expected Frank to continue on as "Black Jackish", and I really can't wait to see how Claire handles that feeling everytime Frank speaks to her, or looks at her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, Kathleen, I can tell you that Frank does act a little differently in the books....and I think it's entirely possible we can/will still be surprised by Frank and how he treats Claire going forward. All we got here was a snippet. That's a great point about how Claire will react because of course her feelings must be forever tainted don't you think? Mine certainly would. Black Jack tortured the love of her life!

      Delete
    2. Oh Kathleen, I felt the same way! I thought Frank's tone was almost sarcastic!

      Delete
    3. Oh! Good point! I completely forgot that they look like each other and Frank-not accepting Claire went back into time, wouldn't understand why she doesn't tolerate his touch or seek comfort from him as before in DIA! OMG! How could I be so obtuse!

      Delete
  19. As a TV watcher (I have deliberately not read DIA yet so that I could avoid spoilers) I was shocked and FURIOUS about the official trailer revealing that Claire goes back to Frank/1940's. That was a MASSIVE surprise, which should have been left to happen as a shock and surprise while watching the show-- rather than squander it in the trailer (it's like giving away the ending of a murder mystery or something like that). It's not something I wanted to happen, and I'm not happy about it. I'm concerned Season 2 will be too dark and way too depressing for my taste, frankly... Due to that trailer, I'm already very sad about the idea of Claire and Jamie splitting up...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can totally see being furious at this little bomb they dropped at the end of the trailer, no matter which one you saw. As a book reader, it was surprising as well....for spoiler reasons I can't tell you. This is a challenging time for Jamie and Claire coming up for sure....but remember, there are 8 books so all's well that ends well ultimately...

      Delete
    2. It will be ok, - just keep watching...

      Delete
    3. Dear Pat and Janet,
      Thanks for the reassurance. I will be watching the show; I think it is a masterpiece, and I will definitely read all the books at some point. I just enjoy the show better by not knowing what is going to happen-- and I enjoy the surprises of the show. I strongly feel it was an exceptionally bad idea for Starz to give away such an important surprise at this point in time, before season 2 has aired...

      Delete
    4. Londonite,

      Keep watching the TV show. Ron Moore is letting us get prepared for another reversal of fortunes. Remember all the Black Jack flogging flashbacks and how Jamie refers it is personal for Black Jack. Well, the reversal of fortunes in S2 affects Claire most directly instead just Jamie with the time travel. S1 Claire opted not to go back "home" and stayed and the issue of time travel has not been mention, so showing a clip of the scene where Claire has traveled again just prepping audience something major must have happened for/to Claire to have time traveled again.

      Delete
  20. I'm looking forward to the explanation of Murtagh knowing about Claire's travel through the stones. Herself has said that she was asked whether Murtagh knew and she said yes, and that his finding out or knowing was done off screen so Ron, et al ran with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If anyone has read The Exile, the graphic novel (think comic book) it shows Murtagh watching Claire coming thru the stones............

      Delete
    2. I heard about that Murtagh development and The Exile from someone else. I'm not normally a graphic novel reader but do you recommend it Jan? I may read it just for seeing that Murtagh moment!

      Delete
    3. I saw that comment from Herself too PJ. I have to say I didn't know that from the books for sure so I was blown away by that part of the trailer. I think I have to get The Exile :)

      Delete
    4. Janet

      I would read Exile and Joan/Michael novella if you want to understand the time travel a bit. Also read/listen to the Virgins novella about young Jamie and Ian soldiering in France.

      Delete
  21. I submit that, knowing book readers would miss the expected WTF experience at the beginning of DIA, Ron D Moore shifted Claire's return to Frank to the beginning of Season 2. From this perspective, the trailer is no more a spoiler than reading chapter 1 and meeting Dr Claire and grown Brianna. If its possible, RDM and his brilliant writing team just might put sole viewers and devout book readers on similar ground as we all scramble to figure out how they sequence the telling of the DIA story. We book readers do know the events, but it will be just as exciting for us because we'll never know which piece we'll see next.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Linda this is a great point. I'm curious to see what Ron will do with time....because even though he has obviously shown Claire's return to Frank it's not the time book readers were expecting. I suspect he's throwing in some Voyager concepts too. While I worry a little — I really don't want him to make more agitatation between Jamie and Clair than really existed — it seems fair he would get to play with time in a series about, well, time travel. What do you think?

      Delete
    2. Linda & Janet,

      In an interview, Ron Moore has mention concerns on adapting Voyager, book 3, since it is so long & so much happens in it. Also in an interview with Outlander Cast Maril Davis mention Diana Gabaldon has shared how the book series will end. So I think it is fair to hypotheses that Moore and writers will:

      1. Continue to faithfully adapt the Outlander storyline for TV, but maybe not in the same order as the books.

      2. Continue working on writing episode scripts for a season 3+ because of the clue from S1 Ep. 8 Frank and Claire at standing stones shouting each others name.

      3. Moore & Davis KNOW the ending of the series!! Whether Outlander finishes with book 9 or 10. Gabaldon already knows the lead up to the final scenes! They have Books 3 to 8, who knows what from book 9 they have to work with. They have to give non-book viewers the clues that readers find from the titles of the book, chapters, and seemly random plot points that have stretched from book 3 and beyond.
      -Fraser Prophecy
      -Conspiracy/Fraser family chart Frank discovers & leaves in a hidden letter from Brianna.
      -Why does Frank take so much time to teach Brianna to shoot, camping, and taking over the child care so Claire could focus on medical school?

      4. Maril Davis, Terry Dresbach, & Matt B. Roberts are book fans to start with so Moore will not being messing up any storylines. Dresbach even tweeted that if Moore had screwed up something, no more home cooked meals was the gist of it.

      5. Casting-so far has been perfect for all major and minor characters. The actors have been very proud to be part of this project. So hopefully everyone stays healthy for future seasons.

      Delete
  22. I submit that, knowing book readers would miss the expected WTF experience at the beginning of DIA, Ron D Moore shifted Claire's return to Frank to the beginning of Season 2. From this perspective, the trailer is no more a spoiler than reading chapter 1 and meeting Dr Claire and grown Brianna. If its possible, RDM and his brilliant writing team just might put sole viewers and devout book readers on similar ground as we all scramble to figure out how they sequence the telling of the DIA story. We book readers do know the events, but it will be just as exciting for us because we'll never know which piece we'll see next.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It is a book. It is a tv series. Not life or death.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So true. And yet it's so fun to obsess and wonder 😏

      Delete
  24. Like this post Janet,but having read the books twice I don't care that the cat is out of the bag!What I would like to know will they do Voyager?, as it has not been announced as yet,anyhoo roll on Apr.9th.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They've hinted about voyager. I can't believe they would leave us hanging after season two.

      Delete
    2. I hope it so it must happen as they are doing a magnificent job of adaptation,thanks Janet!

      Delete
  25. Omg I just wrote this epic thank you post, went to preview it and it disappeared! �� Well, this will force me to focus and edit my remarks, which was essentially what the post was about in the first place. Editing. Adapted.

    I wanted to thank Janet for first saying she was a book purist, but then saying she understood what a challenge it was to recreate Outlander for TV.

    I watched the show first. Then I read the books. Twice. Now, I am a TV producer. I primarily do news, but also do documentaries, live coverage of major events and even wedding and family videos. I thought I could contribute significant insight on some lists about the challenges of adaptations. I was shouted down by book purists to the point that I actually had to block people. Well, I love my craft and get a little wild that some people can't see just how GOOD this series has been. Actually, superb. I suppose it didn't help that I called them book nazis. No matter. I will speak out to defend just about anything Ron and company do to the story to bring it to the screen. He is brilliant. Diana is not a stupid woman nor a torturted artist. She knows this is major quality and and can only drive new viewers to the books for more. And lest you forget, this is about ratings and money. If Outlander doesn't perform for them, the plug will be pulled.

    So. Thank you for being sensible. You're giving me the courage to defend the editing and flow of Outlander to those who want it verbatim. No matter who else I have to block.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I concur truly&totally Debbie!

      Delete
    2. Debbie thanks for your response. I have been regularly amazed by how this fandom is so divided and unable to pleasantly agree to disagree about certain aspects of the show, the characters, the actors' lives etc.....It's sad to hear that you had to get to a place of blocking people ultimately. This is about entertainment people! Whether it's through a book or a TV show or both! And they are both different mediums....just as watercolors offer different artistic options than oils....Anyway thanks for reading and sharing your insights.

      Delete
    3. I agree with you that the book purists need to relax. I cannot begin to think how one would adapt a book to visual media let alone a time travel book. Book 2 is so complex that it switches from 1740's, 1940's, & 1960's depending who is talking & WHEN they are talking let alone WHERE they are talking.

      Delete
  26. Debbie, you are so right. Now we have a book series to love, and a TV series to love. Remember Gone With The Wind? Margaret Mitchell wrote a very different world for Scarlett (including more kids) but the movie adaptation is still one of the greatest films ever made. I am grateful so many creative people have loved the same books I cherish...and know what to do with them to bring them to the screen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joyce--excellent point about Gone with the Wind. I hadn't thought of that but of course read the book (loved) and have seen the movie (loved) many times....I recall there was a brouhaha when a British actress was chosen to play Scarlett. Bottom line there is likely going to be a divide forever between book purists and film/TV adapters. We should just be glad Ron and Maril are doing so well....If they succeed and bring in more fans, we ALL can be happy with more seasons

      Delete
  27. Anything with more Frank and Claire,especially the first 2 episodes, means that I can fast forward both and watch the episodes in 5 or 10 minutes. Definitely will never watch them in real time!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haha! You sound like a hard-core Jamie/Claire fan! I totally get that. I really am not a Frank fan. HIs character is very well acted but I didn't like him in the books and I don't like him in the show! Not sure if you've read the books so I don't want to be a spoiler.....but I will say this: this too shall pass :)

      Delete
  28. life without peace and joy is nothing, i want to give thanks to this greatman name Dr. Agbazara who help me to get back my lover who left me for 6month,but this great man he help me to get back my lover who i never thought will ever come back but this great help me to get her back to me,all thanks to DR AGBAZARA TEMPLE who help me to get him back people that have problem should call him with is private cell number +2348104102662 or email him: agbazara@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  29. I just want to give a quick advise to any one out there that is having difficulty in his or her relationship to contact Dr.Agbazara because he is the only one that is capable to bring back broken relationship or broken marriages within time limit of 48 hours. You can contact Dr.Agbazara by calling him on his mobile +2348104102662 or write him through his email at ( agbazara@gmail.com )

    ReplyDelete

Back to Top