Lion
-
Posts
245 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Lion
-
-
This seems to be a frequently asked question all around this forum so I figured I'd chime in here at least.
The scientific link between alcohol and birth defects is fairly new. There have been casual connections made throughout history, most of which were viewed as more moral or hereditary issues. It wasn't until 1973 the the first scientific study linking alcohol with fetal defects was published and even then, it took more than a decade for it to really start trickling down to practicing doctors such that they would 'suggest' their patients merely lower their alcohol consumption rather than stop altogether. ffs, during the 70's and 80's, doctors were actually using alcohol in IVs to help stop preterm labor. Even when it became widely accepted that alcohol and fetuses don't mix, there was still a lot of disagreement about exactly how much alcohol a pregnant woman could drink before it became harmful. It wasn't until this year that the CDC and other groups came out with a very definitive 'no' on drinking even small amounts of alcohol when pregnant and even went so far as to recommend women not drink at all if they are sexually active and not on birth control.
Long story short, a 1940's woman really would have had no reason to think she was actively harming the fetus while consuming alcohol. And as has been mentioned, the sanitation and sewage concerns of mid 18th century Paris would present its own problems. However, a WWII nurse, especially one who had lived all over the world as a child, should be quite knowledgeable about many different water purification techniques. Though, considering iodine hadn't yet been discovered, bleach hadn't been invented, the methods are limited and more physically intensive. Though, since Claire wouldn't have known what we know about alcohol and fetuses, she'd really have had no reason to concern herself with it. Alcohol was probably in everything, including added to boiling water used to make tea, even if only to mask the nasty smell of the Parisian water.
-
1
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, dusang said:
I just saw my first headline about John's "scientific studies" piece and it appears that the painful irony here will be the misleading headlines indicating that he "debunked science" as opposed to the actual point that he took shoddy journalism to task.
YES! I had a head-desk moment reading through the headlines this morning and seeing that journalists totally missed the point.
My spouse and I are both frequently involved in having studies published. We are in very different fields, one science, one social science. But we still experience the same annoyance and fury of having the media latch on to a study, completely misread it and then misinform their audience about what it means. I've wondered whether it's a deliberate attempt to devalue science so the looneys can try to better sell their creationism, climate-warming-is-a-myth bullshit.
4 minutes ago, corinne said:Really enjoyed this one but it definitely highlights why I don't watch tv news any more. I have enough stress lol. Don't need to hear more about whatay or may not hurt me.
I think it would be a great comedic exercise to read or listen to these news items, and then source the study they cited so as to see what terribly awful reading skills they have. My spouse, children and I enjoy this as a dinner table activity.
-
2
-
-
Thankfully they cast an older child who can easily move between various ages up to and through the teens. Too many shows often start with actors way too young and forget that kids grow up, and they do so quickly. So we'll have an 8 year old Carl Grimes and then two years later show time, he'll be 17 and you just have to pretend that he was 15 at the start. But here, they smartly started with a teenager who can easily pass for young but can also easily be made to seem as an older teen.
-
29 minutes ago, Aeryn13 said:
But Vincent said it like "you once were the champion of this town when you conspired to get rid of the Mikealson, now I call on you to do this again". And this is totally not what happened. Marcel wanted to get rid of an overbearing dad figure, not free New Orleans. When his actions resulted in all Mikealsons being gone, yup, then he got it into his head to keep the city for himself and not make it known to them that he had survived. He took advantage of them moving on. Yet that is worlds different to what Vincent wants from him now.
But why would Vincent know the technicalities of what and why Marcel did what he did nearly a century ago? Marcel emerged the victor and then was a leader of the supernatural world in New Orleans. As such, he writes the history. That's how Vincent knows Marcel - the dude who kicked the Mikaelson's out of New Orleans because that's the public image, regardless of how things occurred in private.
-
3
-
-
On 5/6/2016 at 11:58 AM, A Beaverhausen said:
I agree with the sentiments expressed here that I could live without all the sexual violence, but I have to give DG props for showing how much of it there actually was back then and how often men could get away with it. Women lived in fear for a good reason, IMO.
Women still live in fear. Men still get away with it.
I appreciate the sexual violence in the series and on the show. It's not that I like watching it or that I get off on it. It's that it's honest. It may be the ugly part of life, but it's still a part of life. It's not treated as an afterthought or something to include because it's shocking. We see the results and consequences of all of this violence and trauma, everything from sexual violence to domestic violence to institutionalized violence. None of the writers involved shy away from showing us how horribly damaged people can be by all of this. It's as real as the everyday work of tossing pee on wool to set the dye or the dangerous job of boar hunting.
18 hours ago, MsProudSooner said:Am i the only one who thinks, "Claire, don't drink that! You're pregnant!", every time she has a glass of wine or whiskey. :-)
I cringe, but it's good they leave in the drinking as a 1940's woman wouldn't have necessarily abstained. Diagnosing and understanding fetal alcohol syndrome is still a ways off.
-
1
-
-
Nothing like returning home from such a lovely vacation, feeling perfectly high on life, and then being greeted with an episode of Outlander that just punches you in the gut.
Black Jack Randall simply sucked all of the air out of the room. I was on edge despite knowing exactly what would and will happen. This is the point in the series where it's hard not to dislike Claire. Everything from destroying the life and prospects of two perfectly wonderful people (Mary and Alex) to making Jamie not deal with Randall in case of Frank. As Jamie pointed out, they were there to change history, and that change is going to mean probable change across the board. He has trusted her to know how this works, and it's abundantly neither of them, but especially Claire, have really thought about what changing things would mean. Would Claire have been in Scotland anyway if the Scots won and the Stuarts were returned to the throne? It changes how history is written and there may not have even been surviving documents about Frank's ancestor who was an asshole up in Scotland. Or Frank's ancestor would be treated as some more shameful branch of the family, like how people descended from slavers or Nazis feel- it might be perfectly interesting but one would be a whole lot less like to make a honeymoon out of it.
The problem is that Claire doesn't know how this timey whimey thing works. She doesn't know if the past can be changed. There is no real way to test it, at least that she knows of. At this point in the story, the audience is now aware that Claire and Jamie's time in Paris has merely served to do the exact opposite of what they've intended. They've literally put all of the movers, shakers and money makers together.
Loved King Louis. I loved that they had so many reasons for him to be throwing shade at BJR. It could be because he noticed Claire was not amused with him. Or because Lord Parritch was clearly giving BJR the evil eye. Or because Louis wanted to mock the British army a bit right before he maybe funds the rebellion. Or a gazillion other reasons. It was just so perfect.
-
4
-
-
Marcel and Rebekah did it together. At least, they conceived of it together. So, Vincent saying this isn't some sort of revisionist history.
This show has a serious woman problem. Either the writers are from the Supernatural staff and they despise women, or there is something going on on set that makes the women want to leave. Haley is the only woman left from the pilot (and she's died at least once and has forced to be a werewolf for months on end), and her story just revolves around the men in her life. It's all pretty gross.
-
2
-
-
19 hours ago, mac123x said:
At one point when Kol was trying to stop Davina from going after Lucien, he grabbed her and she gave him a magical shove. Inside the bar where no magic works. Or were the petulant ancestors successful in breaking that?
Didn't they establish last episode that the magical barrier in the bar was breaking down?
-
On 4/24/2016 at 5:32 PM, Dust Bunny said:
ETA: OR, if they want to be playful,
they could make the non-book readers think there might not be need for a season 3. They don't know Jamie lives. They don't know Claire goes back. How intriguing would it be for after Roger says "Jamie didn't die in Culloden" to have the screen go black and say "Outlander returns [insert date]. And THAT is the renewal notice.
Another week goes by with no word about renewal and this theory on waiting is starting to look even more enticing. On the one hand, it seems unlikely that a premium network would play these games, but on the other hand it would be quite delicious if they did. Outlander is doing well in the ratings, I think it's their top show ratings wise. They have received widespread critical acclaim. It's possible behind-the-scenes negotiations and such are still going on, but we're nearing the halfway mark and one has to think that not announcing now indicates games are afoot. I'm starting to route for your fakeout theory!
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:
To be clear, I'm not saying this. I'd like to see everything that was fantastical in the buiks in the show-but I read an interview where Ron said he wanted to stay away from those aspects of that. Like in Outlander, how Claire saw the Water horses, but in show, Rupert was telling the story. Remember, someone saw Claire and called her a witch or something. And we're not sure yet how the show will, well, show how Raymond heals Claire. I mean, we know that Ron didn't change how Geillis was also a time traveler. As for Germain, once I finished Dragonfly in Amber, I never gave him another thought.
Plus, this is Ron Moore's show. He can do/use whatever he wants.
Sure, Ron Moore can change things. But making adjustments to the adaptation is not the same as saying the Comte's story shouldn't be used because it's somehow so different from the other many time travelers.
It's incredibly unlikely that you never gave the Comte another thought considering he's mentioned multiple times throughout the series. There's a pretty large plot about his lineage in Echo, as just one example.
-
6 minutes ago, Summer said:
Also, guys, enlighten me. On Twitter someone posted an article entitled "Outlander had another character raped and it needs to stop" And the consensus from the replies was that, A: it's is in the book and B: It has to happen to progress the storyline between Mary and Alex. I'm asking honestly, does the rape of Mary really progress/impact the storyline with Alex? I honestly don't remember. From the show's perspective Mary and Alex have already declared their love for each other so how would her rape progress that storyline?
Mary almost certainly would have married that old dude if she hadn't been raped. She and Alex declaring love to one another would have been unlikely to change that because neither were much likely to go so against societal expectations and run away together, at least not as things were then. How Mary is treated by society after her rape really opens the door to her and Alex having a physical relationship.
-
3
-
-
I'm not sure how one can claim that St. Germain's story (which has been included across several books, btw) is somehow not 'grounded in reality' while Claire's is. Not to mention we meet MANY characters who are time travelers and who have varying levels of skills. We're talking everything from Raymond's strange healing of Claire after the stillbirth and his seeing auras to odd occurrences when travelers hold gemstones to heightened senses to Jem's and Mandy's telepathic connection and much more. We see Claire's mystical-seeming abilities growing as the series goes on (she's starting to see the blue lights and feeling the internal workings of a body, for example).
Even if someone somehow missed every hint that should have caused them to wonder what more there was to the Comte, it's completely baffling to suggest that including him as yet another time traveler is somehow so removed from the rest of the sci-fi/fantasy/magic/whatever so as to be 'not grounded in reality' despite the fact that the Comte is a single character in a series overflowing with those just like him.
-
More about the Comte. My partner pointed out to me that the he looked concerned when Claire threatened him with poison after the talk about her necklace. It strikes me that from his view, the Frasers can be seen to almost be gunning specifically for him. All of the things we've seen him actually do in retaliation has been to try to embarrass them (and he appears to take such joy in it as that's when he gets his best smiles), like when disrupting the chess game or ensuring the 'police' were called which will certainly create a minor scandal. We can speculate that he tried to poison her but it's not something that has been confirmed.
Now that he's leaving with BPC, knowing that he will be be a BPC financier, that at this time he's having an affair with Geillis (assuming they keep to the books) and that he's colluding with the Duke who has surely had some harsh words to say about Claire, things definitely have different optics when viewed from the Comte's eyes. The Fraser's have been complicit in destroying his property (yes, I know he intended in being complicit in causing a smallpox outbreak) and now Claire has openly threatened him. The Comte and his wife were giving one another such long meaningful looks. It's hard to really determine if it's because they intend(ed?) to do something against Claire or that they were worried what Claire would do to them.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:
Joan is Jamie's step-daughter (Laoghaire's daughter).
I pretty sure we all know the technical relationship between Joan and Jamie. But thanks for clearing that up for everyone who may have somehow been super confused about Joan having a different last name than her Da (in case you forgot, Joan considers Jamie her dad, Jamie considers Joan and her sisters his daughters).
25 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:My theory is that the whole novella was written specifically to retcon the Comte's death in DIA and to create a rationale for M. Raymond to show up again in the big books. Mark me, I think we're going to see him and/or Le Comte St. Germain in Book 9.
Except the Comte and Raymond have been sort of 'ghosts' in multiple books. They have served to move and shake several fairly major plots despite being completely off screen. Even if one missed all the massive neon blinking signs in DiA that point to the Comte having something extra special about him, and the curious bit about him having some random interest in financing BPC, it's impossible to believe that one could go on to miss every single other hint or explicit mention of Raymond and the Comte the other books, the ones that came out before TSB. So, I mean, you're welcome to your theory but it doesn't actually make any sense.
-
I don't remember all the specifics, has been years since I read it. Michael Murray is heading back to France after Ian's funeral and he's escorting Joan MacKimmie, Jamie's daughter, as she'll be joining the convent. The Comte, real name Paul Rakoczy, is in Paris at this time as he's hear Raymond has returned. The Comte's gifts are explored, he can see or feel biology, or something of that nature. Joan has a special gift, she can see things and she hears voices, usually to warn of impending doom. Due to a mix up, the Comte hears of Joan and think she's Claire's daughter so he kidnaps her and takes her to his personal stone-traveling basement. He's basically trying to figure out how to go waaaay forward in time to see if that slows down aging. Raymond shows up looking younger, reveals to him they are all related, then he and the Comte simply disappear.
I don't recall specifics about when he originally came but he's traveled to several different times and can direct himself much better than Claire. He also verifies that he is the one Geillis spoke of when she said she'd met another in France. She was Melisande, I think they had a child together and while he's trying to impregnate another woman (a special obsession of his, you'll recall Fergus' potential parentage), he briefly wonders if he might be having sex with his own daughter.
-
16 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:
Well, those of us who have read the novella that reveals that St. Germain survives the Star Chamber know that. But I have a theory that that is NOT what Diana originally intended. I don't recall there being any hints in DIA that St. Germain is a time-traveler. I've wondered if, after DIA was published, people pointed out that Claire and M. Raymond murdered an innocent man (well, innocent of orchestrating the attack on Claire & Mary -- guilty of lots of over bad stuff) and Diana decided to write the novella in which she retcons that he was only mostly dead in the star chamber.
Well this is a book thread so one would assume that everyone posting here has, um, read the books. Or at least is willing to be spoiled.
Whether or not you think Diana did not originally intend him to survive and be a time traveler doesn't mean much when that's clearly what happened to him. As far as any hints about the Comte being...different...well, obviously there are plenty! Not only do people gossip about him being involved in sorcery and such, but he's lumped in together all the time with the two known time travelers, Raymond and Claire.
-
3 hours ago, toolazy said:
You can follow your shows, it's just not as easy - look for "Manage content" or something like that in the menu next to your screen name at the top right of the screen.
I'm not too unhappy with the redesign - the site seems to work better on my computer.
To clarify, I don't consider the "Manage Content" feature to be at all useful in actually following shows. I used to be able to go straight to My Show page and know which forum had been updated and even see the most recently updated thread in that forum, straight from the My Show page. Now it's just a list, which is stupid. The note at the top of the forum says the David Whoever bot knows about the problem and suggests that it will be fixed or improved. We'll see.
2 hours ago, WatchrTina said:I don’t understand why the Duke – who is nothing if not politically savvy – would make snarky comments about the pope at a table full of Catholics (virtually all upper-class French are Catholic at this time). And why on earth would he say it in front of Prince Charles, knowing perfectly well that his father King James has been living under the protection of the pope for years? Are we supposed to think that BPC’s inappropriate kiss of Louise’s hand was enough to make the Duke completely reconsider his support of BPC? Or are we supposed to think the Duke is deliberately trying to provoke the prince in order to get the measure of the man? And why does Louise try to change the subject when BPC brings up politics? Is it just that she is angry about the kiss? I couldn’t quite wrap my head around their motivations during that conversation.
Pun is the lowest form of wit. The French of this era actually hated puns if the movie “Ridicule” is based on fact. And puns seldom work as humor when your audience speaks English as a second language. So the Duke’s joke was really bad. Did he also intend it as an insult to Prince Charles (who is short and who needs money)? If so, does it seem realistic that the Duke would be motivated to snark on the prince so quickly?
Well the Duke isn't supposed to be sympathetic to Catholics or the Stuart royal family, so his behavior seemed perfectly legitimate and justified. He was acted as any high ranking noble Englishman would in that environment. BPC was being his usual fuck up by getting pissy, and I assume Louise recognized that the Duke couldn't sit at the table and feign agreement or camaraderie with the Stuart prince. It seeme to me like she was genuinely trying to help Charles because she understands the politics of the game while he clearly doesn't.
QuoteI feel like something got cut out of the fight in the drawing room. Why on earth would Claire toss Jamie curtain ropes to use as a weapon? Not that it wasn’t an entertaining choice -- it just felt odd.
Because it's a non-lethal weapon that was better than what he had. That heavy tassel at the end served it's purpose quite well. Another plus is that the rope can be used to tie people up to help them calm down.
2 hours ago, morgan said:WatchrTina thinking about Cait and those stairs...not just Cait climbing them over and over, but over and over in heavy costuming! She must have thighs of steel!
I think most of the shots of her going up the stairs are done from behind without even showing the side of her face, so I assume it's probably a stand in quite a bit of the time.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:
I choose to believe that Le Comte St. Germain actually did intend to kill Claire with poison in episode 204. I think this is hinted at very clearly in the episode by the way he is watching her and his satisfied reaction when she falls ill. I have to believe that because if not, what happens to him later in the Star Chamber (what M. Raymond and Claire do to him) is unjustified. I know we are led (in this episode) to believe that he is behind the assault on Mary & Claire, but as a reader I know that was not his doing – it was the Duke. It will be interesting if that is made clear in the TV show or if the viewer will be allowed to continue to think that Le Comte is complicit in the attack on Mary & Claire even after the real puppet-master behind the attack is revealed.
The Comte is shown watching Claire with a special look when she enters the dinner party after her attack so I'm not so sure that his special look when she was wheezing from bitter cascara can be confirmation he was involved. As to the bolded, we know that what really happened in the chamber isn't what Claire thinks happened in the chamber. We know Raymond very deliberately didn't kill him and really only stepped in to offer the dragon's blood when the Comte started to turn the tide against Claire. It seemed a small mercy to quickly clear up the 'trial' with the trick as it got all of them out of the room alive, even if it meant the Comte had to go to another time for a while.
This is why I'm so curious about whether or not they'll bring in the Comte's full story as part of this because it changes things a bit, at least how certain acts are perceived. I assume Raymond is telling the truth that he didn't sell the Comte the cascara and that he'd only sold it to one person in the last months. We know the Comte does his own visits at Raymond's, though that doesn't preclude him having sent someone sometime in the last few months to procure the cascara. The Comte seems to take great pleasure in Claire's discomfort (his stare down of her at Raymond's shop followed by a smirk is a great illustration of this), though that doesn't necessarily mean he tried to poison her. He definitely could have. I don't know.
Dammit, I just really need/want to know if the Comte time traveling/metaphysical body magic thing will be introduced.
-
8 minutes ago, toolazy said:
When is the Comte revealed to be a time-traveler? Is it the story where Michael delivers Joan to the convent?
Yeah, The Space Between. I think it's one of the best books in the series, tbh.
-
1
-
-
This was really enjoyable. I've been in the minority in that I wholeheartedly approved of Claire and Jamie experiencing the distance between them. I didn't have any special feelings about the abbey cave scene so it's not something I missed. The way they portrayed their relationship post rape has not only been very realistic, but it's a great improvement in the adaptation. It's made their reconnection much more meaningful, and also joyful to watch.
I can't remember in the book who did the poisoning and who set up the attack. I vaguely recall that the Duke was involved in at least one of those plots, but can't be certain. (and thanks to anyone who can remind me of these things). I've been so curious if the show will get into the Comte being a fellow time traveler and a relation to Raymond (and by extension, Claire) so I might be reading more into it than is really there. I'm starting to see these scenes between the Comte and Claire as way less sinister than perhaps they really are. I almost feel like they have to touch on it because there won't really be another chance to do it in the future considering his survival and ultimate reveal as a time traveler happens in a side story well outside of Jamie and Claire's story. So when he's watching Claire with such intensity, is it because he's planning something sinister, is it because he just really hates her, or is it because he realizes she's just like him (of course it could also be all of the above).
I thought Fergus' was both parts adorable and concerning. Adorable because the actor is just so perfect for the role. Concerning because (1) the inappropriate eating is often a problem orphans experience due to neglect, abuse, periods of hunger and other traumas so it's really sad to see it (though I'm not even sure anyone involved with the production has any concept of childhood traumas, which is annoying) and (2) it doesn't jive with how we know he acts after the attack on Claire and Mary. I thought I recalled him being very upset about it, and the way his table eating is filmed makes it seem like he's not yet so attached to Jamie, which is too bad. Their relationship is such a special one.
30 minutes ago, maraleia said:I really loved this episode for so many reasons that I'll comment on later. Wanted to ask everyone here if they are having trouble reading the forums due to the font type and size? I hate the changes in that regard.
The new forum is terrible. I can barely read anything, I can no longer follow my shows, and a dozen other problems. I hope they'll be fixing their fuck up quite soon.
-
I really hope those extras are blacklisted. What terrible horrible pieces of shit.
This show really couldn't afford to lose more women. I'm sure Davina will continue to be part of the show, at least for a while. But simply having 'killed' her, even if she comes back is rather annoying. I'm tired of death not meaning anything on these shows. It seems like all of the CW shows have completely lost their entertainment value simultaneously this year.
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, Nay said:
I'm very much in the minority but I don't get wound up about fictional violence so the Polis stuff really didn't bother me to watch, and it made perfect sense for Jaha to go this route. If only 3% are rejecting the chip then stringing up a few as an example will work to turn the remaining holdouts. Death is quick, torture is long and very painful. If its 'take the chip or die quickly' vs. 'take the chip or have days of prolonged pain' then I can see Jaha thinking he is likely to get more results with the second option.
Sigh. It's not about getting 'wound up about fictional violence' or being 'bothered' to watch, but about gratuitous violence. You'll notice that you haven't seen anyone remarking on Indra's violence against Pike. That was earned, it fit with what we know of the characters, and it served the story. Kane's crucifixion was gratuitous. The story had already determined that threatening the lives of chipped individuals was the fastest route to getting someone to swallow the chip. This prolonged torture served no purpose considering the known method is the one that worked in the end. The torture served no purpose in the story other than to just toss in their beloved and disgusting religious imagery. In this way, it was bothersome. At least to viewers who care about how stories are told. Some obviously don't.
-
2
-
-
Didn't the kids on the dropship initially treat Octavia as though it was the first time they had seen her up close?
Talk about completely gratuitous violence with that crucifixion. ALIE already knew there was no reason for it to be done considering the great success she experienced after getting Abby to
drink the koolaidswallow the chip. The only reason for the script to not immediately go the route of threatening Abby's life is because they wanted to include some completely unnecessary violence. Guess they thought it was edgy. Instead, it's only stupid.-
7
-
-
Oh my poor sweet Murtagh. "A man doesna concern himself with the affairs of women." Guess we know why Ellen MacKenzie wasn't won over by those boars husks bracelet things.
-
3
-
S02.E05: Untimely Resurrection
in Outlander
A need for hydration isn't really comparable to something like consuming tobacco. Even though many or all of the beverages Claire is consuming has a fermented component, it's still providing hydration, which all humans need to survive. Not to mention, Jamie and Claire are operating a liquor business.
As far as tobacco, I would have thought snuff was the popular tobacco product of the time, especially in France. I wouldn't expect to see a lot of smoking in those settings. We do get some smoking in backgrounds and comments about tobacco smells, but still, snuff should be the go-to product.