Rilla-my-Rilla

There was some casting news for the Lizzie character a while back. I just don't remember which thread. Before the season started, one of my friends did a reread ( I never got around to one like I planned) and I specifically asked her how far along in the book did Bree go back because I saw speculation on which episodes things happened and it all seemed late to me. But anyway, she said Bree went through the stones right around the 50% mark.

No, I think she just goes with Roger and watches him go through the stones. After he leaves, she probably touches the stone in wonder or something, not that she goes too. That's how I imagine it anyway.

I think so too. Also, the dark hair is down and Bree's is up when she goes. The clothes look "modern" too.

It's more like 202 years difference. In season 1, when Claire time travels she leaves 1946 and ends up in 1744. Then when she leaves during the battle of Culloden in 1746, she ends up in 1948. So she leaves Boston last season in December (Christmas) 1968 and probably goes through the stones in January 1969 so she should have gotten there in 1767. So she's probably been in the past this time around 18-20 months at this point I'd guess. It did have a time stamp that said North Carolina 1768. I don't think they are showing the timelines quite concurrently. Claire leaves Christmas 1968 so she probably went back in January 1969 to 1767 and now it's 1768. Claire tells Murtaugh that Brianna is alive in 1970, so I think the show has shown more time passing in the 1970s since it said Roger was in 1971 and the timelines will sync up once we see Bree and Roger in the past. As in, by the time they get there, more time will have passed for the Frasers in the 1760s.

Right. But the post I quoted said the only one known to Claire/Jamie (and etc) those two know of this other one. I was just pointing out that the show has shown at least one other travel spot. I thought there was another comment or two where it seemed like viewers thought Scotland was the only one.

There was also that cave water portal thing Geillis was going to go through in Jamaica last season to get to Bree. But then she lost her head.

Yeah, I guess I meant it doesn't really change Bree's plot. She sees the ring, wants to get it back, terrible things happen, she holds on to the ring, and then she gives it to Claire when she tells the detailed story about the terrible things that happened. All of those can happen with Jamie's ring. Mmmm. That does sound familiar. But in my mind, he was just upset in general that she tried to keep either ring instead of giving them up. But maybe he was just pissy about Frank's ring? I also don't feel like checking. ? We'll see what the show does I suppose!

She tries to swallow both rings in the book and in the show. Claire didn't do anything different. They changed which ring got pried out of her mouth. My guess, which was confirmed in the post above, was that change was because there is nothing distinctive about Frank's show ring. In the book it has some engravings and Diana can describe it however she wants, but on the show it has only been shown as a plain, gold band. Jamie's ring, while not pretty to me, is distinctive. The ring change doesn't really change anything going forward. It's just more sad to me that she lost Jamie's ring rather than Frank's but that doesn't change the plot at all.

November 4th

I just got back from seeing this. I did like it, but whew it could be uncomfortable in some parts. I guess that's not really surprising given the topics, so I just sat there in my head going oh no, oh no, oh no.

Yeah, this is almost exactly how I felt about the movie. The kissing swap in particular bothered me on top the general catfish. I needed something more from Sierra at the end. Or rather, if I was Veronica or Jamey, I would need more from her before I could move on.

Yeah, IMDB trivia says "While the film ignores all previous sequels, it pays homage to all Halloween films, as had been intended by co-writer Danny McBride" So that's fun. The spoiler part of the trivia has other specific scenes and references, Looks like teeth to me! (Ew)

I have read the 3 books and yeah, they could easily write Josh out if they wanted to. They moved up some of the plot from the 2nd book or skipped over things, plus I think they tied up things with Lara Jean and Josh well enough for that to be it. Lara Jean could just have a voice over saying Josh got really into the 60s and no one ever saw him again.

No. He's 22/23 when they get married.

They're on a radio station in Milwaukee. I checked the twitter feed for the station and they totally saw it. They have some tweets like we made it on HBO/LWT again!!!

I don't know if you've heard, but it is on Hulu now!

Always. I just finished a re-watch yesterday!

Bakra, I believe. (I saw the Wiki list of episodes and that's a title coming up)

In the books, yes they do come up again. All in the 3rd book. So, unless they drastically change it, we should see them again this season. Someone finds them, crazy things happen, and after that plot point is done, they are lost at sea.

I saw Diana commenting on this and she felt it was different. In the book, he had promised young Ian he could be the one to explain it and had intentions of going home. In the show, Jamie was saying he should raise their child instead of them. Like he would be better at it. Also, in the book, didn't Jamie try and keep Ian away from all his shady stuff? In the show, he had Ian all up in it and was "showing him the ways of the world" I don't know, the lying did seem different to me too. But who knew lies had shades I guess.

Not a lot of things gross me out and seeing the head stuff didn't bother me, but the sounds were pretty icky. The episode was only so-so for me. I'm not sure if I'll watch it again. Maybe I'll want to later in the week. Just not my fave episode here. It makes sense that there's tension and all, but still. Jamie's all I would give up everything for you, but I will not move out of this brothel even though you asked me to. Okay, dude. I know the Campbells are pretty much different characters, but they are not even close to how I pictured them.

Yeah, I was going to say I rewatched seasons 1 and 2 before season 3 started and I can notice a difference with how they look. It's subtle, but Jamie and Claire look older than they did.

Claire is 50 in 1968/when she goes back. In season 2, while still in France, Murtaugh writes down all the years Claire has lived and says something like, "you lived through all these years" and the list starts at 1918. Pretty sure Jamie is 4 years (or maybe it's 5 years?) younger than Claire. (I think the characters talk about how old they are in season 1, but I'm not completely sure on that despite having watched it again recently) Yes, Cait is 38 and Sam is 37. I rewatched season 1 and 2 before season 3 started and the characters look older to me. It's pretty subtle though, nothing drastic. The producers were saying they put gray in Jamie's hair too, but I don't really see that. Having dark hair, I sympathize with Claire's noticeable grays.

The start of that episode says it's 1752 and Jenny is heavily pregnant. And we're supposed to be in 1766 now. Even if we just go by Roger's research.

So, was Young Ian lying about his age or are we supposed to pretend he wasn't born 14 years ago?