FnkyChkn34

What about apples? There's a scene in the first or second episode where someone grabs an apple from a huge bushel and says, "this is one of the last apples of the world?" Bacon (I think that's his name, the chief cook) says no, the virus hasn't hit apples yet. So... this may be too simple of a question, but can't they grow and eat apples?

Yes, but she explained the concept of vaccines to Jamie, and he was very curious about the future. She could have just shared it all with him and he'd understand.

I have absolutely zero idea what you are talking about, but since we seem to agree on a lot of different topics/shows, I'll agree as well. ;-)

I definitely see flaws in Claire, but I feel like I'm not "supposed to" so I try to overlook it. I think it's obvious that the author and the show writers want me to love Claire, so I do my best to do that.

I guess this is an example of my other problem... not a problem, per se, but observation I guess. The show is an adaptation of books. The books are still here for anyone to read and they stand alone. The show can stand alone. The books weren't written as plays or screenplays to be acted out word for word with no variations whatsoever. If people can't enjoy the show just because the show writers changed things, well, then, maybe this show isn't for them? People say the same about every book to movie/tv show adaptation. There's a reason why the phrase "the book was better" exists. But that doesn't mean the show/movie isn't also good. A strict comparison line by line, scene for scene, however, can ruin both.

I agree. Frank was a conniving cheater, and was nearly from the day Claire returned. So the fact that we haven't seen that yet bothers me a little bit. I don't care that Claire was gone for 3 years and pregnant with another man's baby, making Frank so noble to "take her back." Frank wanted kids, Claire was pregnant - problem solved. Selfish reason, and he gave her ridiculous ultimatums while he still went behind her back. Many times I wish Claire had said f off, I'll take care of myself.

I have a new question, and here seems to be a decent enough place for it... Complete this sentence: "If I were Claire, I'd..." I mean, when she went back through the stones, what else should she have done. She wrapped up her business at home, got Bree off to college, told Joe, found a dress that fit in with the time period, and took some photos and penicillin with her - but wouldn't you have done so much more? If I were Claire, I'd have learned how to MAKE penicillin (not just attempt experiments with bread, but really know what I was doing), and taken all available vaccines for Jamie. Maybe I'd have even learned how to invent electricity, and indoor plumbing! I'd have learned how to make toothpaste and other essentials that I've come to depend on daily. I'd have shoved my pockets so full of stuff! I didn't really like that she didn't do that...

I recall that it was always very vague as to why Ian was arrested multiple times, and I think DG meant to do that on purpose. He was arrested just because the redcoats felt like it, but also because I think they always thought he'd have info on Jamie's whereabouts.

Hmm... I'm with @kariyaki on this one, because I don't recall that at all. Wouldn't it have come up then when Claire came back? I don't recall Ian in Edinburgh, or Jenny in Lallybroch, ever saying something like, "so... that kid you were pregnant with, is he/she still in 'France' too...?"

Wasn't the Dunbonnet reference directly from the books? I thought that it was; I vaguely recall having to look up the definition of "dunbonnet." The redcoats could have seen a glimpse or two of this mysterious man on their patrols, rather than need people to gossip. You bring up other very valid points, and I definitely see where you are coming from. I do think some of your points, IMO, are more critiques with the episode (still very valid!) rather than actual changes that the show writers made. Did Jamie tell anyone in the books that Claire was pregnant? I thought he just told everyone she was "gone" and then he refused to talk about her. I don't recall the sight or reference to him being hanged. Didn't they both assume he'd die at Culloden?

This sounds right to me as well. Fergus never could keep his mouth shut.

I'm quoting the above post not to single it out, but just to ask a general question to all posters in response to a point it brings up, if I may: I hear/see a lot of complaints about "all of the drastic changes" that the show has made so far. (Some here, many on other social media like Matt Roberts' instagram, etc.) Honestly, I haven't noticed any "major" changes yet. What are these, and why are they so egregious? Matt (and maybe Ron) already explained that they had to film the Lallybroch scenes in daylight due to the crew and filming constraints. Those changes don't bother me. We also get very little of Claire and Frank's marriage in the book, so they have to make up a little extra to flesh (flush?) it out, and those don't bother me either. What am I missing? ETA: Fergus is a hothead; it makes perfect sense to me that he'd mouth-off to redcoats. Just carrying a cask of ale in the book didn't seem like reason to lose a hand to me, so I guess I don't mind that change either. Also, he was leading the redcoats away from Jamie's cave in the show, so he was actually doing a good thing.

Also, how old is Murtagh? After the time jump, he'll be in his 60s?

I have absolutely nothing to support this, but I also think people might be getting taller each generation, as well. But I do definitely agree with weight. For example, when I was 18, I could fit into the dress my grandmother wore to my parents wedding in 1970, when she would have been 55ish and a mother of 3. I think the tag said size 8, but it is definitely a modern-day size 2/4. I'm not sure it would even still fit me and I'm considered a healthy weight today. She definitely fit in to the category of being thinner then.

I agree. I would prefer that he does not take the Duncan role, but when I was thinking about it more, I realized that it wouldn't be the worst thing. As you said, he's a different type of person, but it could still work.

The more I think about Murtagh, the more I remember someone somewhere saying that Murtagh can't be the Duncan Innes character because he'd never marry Jocasta. But, why wouldn't he? He offered to marry Mary to do the honorable thing, so why wouldn't he marry Jocasta to the honorable thing as well? I haven't read all of the books, but does Duncan then cheat on her? Well, Murtagh wasn't so discreet in France, now was he? So that could be "in character" as well. I think I'd be fine with this change, if it indeed is the path the writers took. We obviously have no idea so we'll just have to wait and see!

Hopefully it's another world cruise and they'll be leaving again for awhile.

My initial reaction to this is great news. I came to love showMurtagh!! I don't know what role he'll play and I don't really care; I'm happy to still have him.

Those flashback/dream scenes of Sam/Jamie though? Whew, those were good...

IMO, the worst episode of Outlander is still "The Fox's Lair" - the awful grandfather, the return of Laoghaire, Claire acting like a witch, etc. But I agree with the sentiment; even if this wasn't your favorite, it was still pretty darn good.

Then I think this is just another inconsistency on the show, because in the previous seasons all women were referred to by their rank. Lt. Foster, Lt. Granderson, Cmdr. Garnett, etc. Maybe that is what Sasha prefers, knowing that she's Intelligence and not really a sailor like the rest, but I still find it disrespectful. Wikipedia says she was a "former Navy intelligence officer" so maybe she's not even in the Navy anymore? But if that's the case, WHY IS SHE COMMANDING THE ON-SHORE SPECIAL MISSIONS????? Ugh. Sorry. Just bothers me that her character is so... vague. But speaking of Lt. Green (nee Foster), why have she and male Lt. Green been put so far on the backburner this season? Are the actors unable to get along, so they can't have any scenes together or something? I like that this is a Navy-first show, with action and adventure, but a little human emotion and softer sides of characters never hurt for a minute or two.

Did they really call her "Ms. Cooper" in the meeting near the beginning of the episode? "Ms. Cooper" is running the special missions on shore??? Give me a break. She looked better in this episode though, imo, less make-up. No way Fletcher survives that jump and swim. Might just be the most unrealistic thing yet... though there's a lot of competition for that title.

Yes, we do have confirmation - I forget if it was Murtagh or someone else, but at the beginning of last week's episode, someone told Jamie that "all the Lallybroch men made it home safe." The mystery of Murtagh, however, may never been answered. I didn't notice the sound of the stones or the good looking Redcoat, but I'll have to pay attention on a re-watch. She definitely did, but that doesn't explain the mystery of the missing children! I had the exact same thoughts - where were they? But now I assume it would have been too difficult to find that many young actors just to hang out in the background of scenes; they weren't crucial to any of the scenes that the writers decided to include.

@ChiliCrab, I totally agree about Green. I may also be biased (towards his jaw line [so pretty]), but I also am missing both him and Kara this season. Danny should be running those off-shore missions, not Sasha or Burk. And as I've said above, I definitely agree that Green (and Wolf and the others) had the situation under control on the boat better than Burk did.

I don't think I saw this part, but maybe that pairing would have made me actually like Aiden. This review makes me actually want to go home and watch today's episode. First time I've been excited to see it in a very, very long time. So, thanks!