Lion

Obviously Frank's last name is Randall and more obviously he's related to Black Jack. These things aren't in question, so it's mostly a matter of thinking about how and why the grandmother's and great grandmother's names were listed as Randall. It's suggested that Frank's grandmother was a sort of historian. Perhaps she wasn't a very precise historian. After all, she didn't even include dates of birth and death which Frank mentions is typical of family bibles like that. Or perhaps she wasn't a historian at all and just decided to put the known family history in a pretty book and included herself and her mother in law without care of their maiden names. Of course, there could be some family secret or whatever to explain, but usually the easiest explanation is the right one.

It doesn't really make sense that they'd be waiting for GoT to premiere in order for the renewal news to not get lost in other GoT premiere news. This show started well before the new GoT season will start and it airs on a different night. If they didn't want to be in the shadow of GoT, they would have (1) already announced a renewal and/or (2) aired the season well outside of the typical Game of Thrones season. So no, the GoT theory doesn't make any sense at all and I think it's concerning that they are waiting. One theory that would make sense is if all the contract negotiations have yet to be finalized. Not just the actors, writers, directors, etc, but also simply the budget and number of episodes. Sometimes that stuff gets held up, especially when a network airs a new platform (like STARZ did this year) and is unsure just how many new subscribers a show is bringing in.

I found it pretty boring as well. Not that the episode was bad. I'm just finding myself already tired of being in France. It's not interesting to me. It never has been in the books, either. There were too many things that sort of annoyed me in this episode. The servants being there when they were talking of secret stuff, though that's already been mentioned. It doesn't even matter that they mentioned the servants were trustworthy, it's just a stupid error to have so many standing around when they are having a full blown conversation like that. Then the many walls being between Claire and Jamie. We get it, there is a divide between them. That doesn't excuse the incredibly lazy filming techniques. At one point I got up and rolled my eyes, having to leave the room because it was yet another scene with some physical barrier between Jamie and Claire. Talk about uninspired directing and set design. Yawn. What episode do we get to leave France? The good of the episode was certainly introducing Mother Hildegard and Fergus. Excellent casting there. Fergus is so Fergus. It still makes me cringe that Jamie changed his name and the reasons why, but I still had an "ah, my sweet Fergus" moment. I wonder if they are going to reveal anything about the Comte also being a time traveler. The way it's revealed in the books, it's nearly irrelevant to Claire and Jamie's story. I'm not sure how much magic the show is willing to have each season. There will already be Raymond's mystical healing of Claire and Claire's travel back through the stones. Maybe revealing another time traveler -and one that's related to boot -would be a bit too much? I already find the books are way too slow in giving details about the sci-fi mystery. I do wish the show would be more liberal in this.

Oh good. Another character of color bites the dust. This show is just on a roll!* *sarcasm, disgust, etc.

The great grandparents as well, but obviously this will be explained. Or it won't. Sometimes that's how family trees go.

Did Malcolm take a demon knife when he scampered away? It seemed like Maze had the only ones, but it also looked like Malcolm took something.

This is almost lame, but I get a little choked up over how good Samantha Bee really is. This episode was top notch. I'm extremely progressive, I have radical politics, I'm super involved in social issues, I voted for Bernie in my state's primary and I tend to vote for the most liberal candidates on ballots, frequently green party politicians. But even I'm sick of some Bernie supporters. As Sam pointed out, the cognitive dissonance is astounding, and often matches that displayed by Trump supporters. I was at lunch with my best friend the other day and we got into a heated discussion about this year's election cycle. She could have been one of those people on the panel. It was so frustrating. I'm trying to figure out a way to send a clip of this to bff without it putting her on the offensive. This episode coupled with the one about progressive democratic voters not going to the polls in 2010 and 2014 have the potential to elevate Bee to a platform of such great influence. She's so wonderful.

Queer continues to be a contentious term and it matters when it's used, how it's used, where it's used, who uses, etc. In certain situations, it's problematic. The author of the recap identifies as a gay male, but that hardly means that it's appropriate to use when authoring a recap, especially when the context includes stereotyping behaviors (like his description of King Luis' movements). I self-identify as queer. It's a word I use fairly frequently, but where appropriate. I wouldn't use it in an essay for work, unless the paper were through a specific lens or required discussion of queerness. The author isn't writing the recap through an LGBTQIA lens. To be fair, I think it would be great to recap with a queer lens seeing as both the show and the books are extremely problematic in how they present presumed gay characters. The Duke of Sandringham and BJR embody some of the worst, most offensive stereotypes. Instead, the recapper chooses to use offensive and problematic language.

Adding my voice here, too. This recap had a lot of offensive or problematic language (twink, 'gay-ish' head swivel, queer). He has a long history of this. It's pretty disgusting.

I guess they could have kept that dialogue, but I can't really figure out a way it was necessary. It's an excellent line in the book, but DG is incredibly wordy. And repetitive. And wordy and repetitive. With only 13 episodes with which to tell this portion of the story, they really need to be as tight as possible with what they do show and what dialogue there is. We already know they are there to get noticed in order to make connections. Nearly every scene and voiceover reconfirms this. It reaches a point of mindless redundancy if everything is explained multiple times over. Furthermore, these two episodes have shown Claire being firmly in charge of managing their covert affairs. She's the one delivering orders and praises and making plans. Jamie, and by extension Murtagh, are following her lead and so far doing little to provide their own input, at least in her presence. In this tv narrative, it makes sense to drop Jamie's line because right now, he's not calling the shots. Finally, Louise sends her to a specific dressmaker. We meet Louise as someone who is a bit outlandish, over-the-top. We can reasonably figure that this is a woman who is quite daring and will probably be served by those who assist in that daring nature. Louise specifically mentions that the dressmaker will create something fit for a queen. Not only did the dress get Claire and Jamie noticed (which is a necessary part of their mission), not only has Claire been in charge of both the mission and her wardrobe, but she was specifically sent to a dressmaker who could make her something that could stand out and above all (or at least almost) all others. For these reasons, I have zero issues with the red dress and how it came about. The narrative was clear in establishing the believable steps it took to the red red dress without reminding us constantly and explicitly they are there to get noticed in order to accomplish a mission. I probably would have enjoyed seeing Claire practicing walking and sitting and maybe even folding her clothes and arguing with the maid some more, but tightly packed 13 episodes means I'm willing to understand these things are done off screen.

Some of that seems to be due simply missing details. For example, people were turning their heads at Claire when she was walking to Master Raymond's. It's not like she was the only Lady in that area. It's because she stands out with her style. And of course, the red dress turned heads. One only needs to listen to how Louise discusses Claire with the 'finance guy'. It was "the red dress", no other descriptor necessary. Everyone in that party noticed. The king gave her a once over. I'm not really involved in the fandom, but I feel relatively confident that Louise is not some fan favorite. I have to lol to that. On the show, the actress has made her certainly quite enjoyable.

I think Murtagh would would be excellent in the Duncan Innes role. The only reluctance I have towards it is that if Murtagh survives, then Jamie's story immediately after the war is different. Not a huge difference, but Jamie was very alone after the war. He was one of the rare survivors, he had 'lost' Claire, he was living in a cave. I think that isolation for those years was meaningful not just for the post-war story, but for the 20+ years that followed. It would be quite easy to make minor adjustments so as Jamie and the audience still has our Murtagh. But I'm not sure it's the best choice long term. Of course, Murtagh and Jamie could be separated some way. Maybe Murtagh is arrested and sent to the colonies immediately after Culloden, with neither knowing the other survived. That would work.

I had concerns about the nipple dress. A lot of shows would have turned the nipple dress into simple eye candy for the sake of titillating eye candy. In this episode, it was a great addition to the "we're not in Scotland anymore, Toto" theme. Yet it also showcased well with the episode focus on women as source of strength and power. The king's mistress walking tall and proud in her daring dress juxtaposed with the previous scene of the king requiring an audience to help cheer on his bowels was quite well done.

My concerns about the nipple dress were so very misplaced! I'll comment in the episode thread.

Omg. So I don't follow shows when they are on hiatus and thus am usually completely surprised by casting. The casting for this season. Wow, amazing. I don't think Raymond and his shop could have been any more spot on. Everything about him was exactly as I'd imagined. I agree, the Louise, Claire and Mary show would be just marvelous. I'm already feeling such horror at what will befall our dear Mary. Everything about this episode was the best. I didn't think I'd like the France parts as much, but it's working so well.

I could just be remembering how Claire described her. I thought I had recalled her using words like "followed like a puppy, annoyed, obedient" and the like. Though it's been a long time and I think I listened to the book rather than read, and I don't retain as well with just listening.

No, 'we all' don't know that. Many of us might, but certainly not everyone. This is like demanding that Jamie and all those other Scots be experts in the botany of their own country, at least enough to know that Lily of the Valley is from 'Prussia' and is poisonous. It's already been well established in the show that the British have more military might. Claire brings it up in "Rent" and Ned Gowan responds with something along the lines of "duh, tell us something even babies don't know."

I think how that dress is perceived by the audience will depend entirely on how the scene is set. I may be recalling this wrong, but I think in the books the nipple dress lady looked uncomfortable as though she'd been forced into that dress against her will. Or that might have simply been Claire's assumption. Either way, the nipple dress needs to be treated carefully so that it's not just a nipple dress. It needs to say something, and it needs to say something more than just characterization about the man in the scene. Of course, it can just be a nipple dress that's a lazy way to show the daring fashion with the king and his court. However, I think that might damage some of the credibility this show has built, especially in how it treats its female characters.

I definitely figured Jonah and Rip had been a couple. I'm going to be really annoyed if it turns out they weren't. I thought it was excellent to introduce another LGBT character.

I think the show has done a fairly decent job keeping race and gender issues historically accurate. Well, as accurate as possible with a low budget show like this. Obviously the Civil War is well over by 1871 and the realities out west would be a bit different. Anna Deavere Smith is not white.

That was the very first time that I actually believed the actor playing Monty might know how to act. There was a good hint of emotion there. I agree about the show being at it's best when Clarke, Octavia and Raven are central. Lindsey Morgan is amazing. Is this seriously the worst Bellamy is going to get?

It was way better than an "I'm sorry". Javi acknowledges the problem, accepts the hurt as valid, recognizes his own fault in this, has gone on to educate himself, and has challenged himself to do better. It was significantly different from the party line of "character had to die, we care so little about our audience that we'd do it all the exact same again."

Maybe Monty will kill his mom. What this show really needs is yet another female character killed off, especially when she's a person of color (sarcasm, in case anyone's confused). Then the fandom can hold a lively debate about whether or not killing one's mom is matricide. Or it could just be something to do with incest. It's really only a matter of time before this show gets to the incest trope. I'm not even sure the fanfic world has started incest shipping for this show.

So, finally just googled it because that has never applied in my case and after a very unscientific survey, it doesn't apply in the cases of at least 12 people I know. To give an idea of my case, credit union account opened during childhood (connected so we'll ignore this one), different credit union account opened the day after turning 18 (zero credit at this point), another credit union account opened in the midst of destroyed credit (due to credit fraud I described above). All of these are at different credit unions. The only issues I ever encountered was having to verify that I was eligible to join that bank (like living in a certain county, working a certain job, etc). This same thing came up when I queried people. But there are thousands and thousands of different banks and credit unions so obviously there will be a lot of difference in each. So, google. There are some banks that check credit scores, but apparently the advice for this is to turn to credit unions. However, that doesn't mean that all credit unions don't check, merely that the requirements to join credit unions can be different. But, there is apparently a whole other system of financial reporting scores that I didn't know about. ChexSystems and EWS, to start. These things are looking at stuff like bounced checks and overdraft and other transactions with a bank that might be negative. I'm cringing at the idea that I need to monitor yet another thing, though I'm tempted to put it out of mind since it's never even been on my mind. I will have zero need to open a new account in the foreseeable future anyway.

Wow, and that's how you appropriately respond to something like this. Good job, Grillo-Marxauch.