Shorty186

I now think they've kept Rupert alive to be the witness to Dougal's death. I found the part where Claire was trying to escape the house to warn Jamie to be so suspenseful. Which I usually tend not to feel when watching Outlander, since I mostly remember things from the books. I don't know if it was DG's writing or not (since she's talked about how heavily they edited her script), but I really liked it. The only thing that stuck out as not making sense is when Murtaugh laid the Duke's head at Claire and Mary's feet, since he made no promise to them. He made it to Jamie.

Well they haven't killed Colum yet. I'm wondering if there's a reason for that, unless I'm misremembering the book timeline.

I'm disappointed about this It's like they tried disguising some bad news by making it potentially exciting. And failed. These final 8 episodes are going to go by so fast.

Hmm, so I found a recap and they said the episode ended with Jamie saying the ill-wish was sent by "a lady." I guess I misheard because I thought he said "Laoghaire." Guess I must've been projecting what I already knew.

Well, if no one else is going to start ... I really liked it, but watching a TV show with hundreds of other people is a strange experience. Mostly because I think the audience in general found a lot of things to be funny that I'm not sure the writers intended. I was pretty surprised that they played the strapping scene comedically since I remembered reading the actors talking about how they wanted to treat it respectfully and not take it lightly. So, I don't know if it was supposed to be as played for laughs as the audience thought. I'll to see if it comes off more serious when I re-watch by myself. However, I did appreciate that they didn't excuse Jamie's behavior by having Dougal be the one to make him punish Claire. To me it made sense that he'd have these beliefs in "justice" since that's how he was raised. Plus it made his promise to Claire more meaningful that he was willing to change for her. I thought they really covered a lot in the episode - which they needed to barrel through the rest of the book - while also adding new things from Jamie's point of view. However, I really saw no point in the Laoghaire scene where she throws her boobs at him. I liked her ultimate humiliation, but I don't know why the writers thought it necessary to tempt Jamie. If it was to show that he doesn't want just ANY physical relationship, he wants Claire, I think that's been pretty obvious from the start. And if it was to show that any man would be tempted by the offer of sex, I think we know that too without having to explicitly see it. It just made me mad to see Jamie with someone who wasn't Claire. Then again, maybe it was to set her up as a more devious character as evidenced by the episode's end, with Jamie being so sure it was her who left the ill-wish. But if the writers are setting her up to be more complicit and aware in her set-up of Claire, that would seem to change things when Claire learns Jamie married her. Surely she would be like, "How could you marry that bitch, she tried to kill me!" Right? All in all, I thought it was a really strong episode and can't wait to see it again in three weeks. And then re-watch dozens and dozens of times more. Anyone else?

So ... can we talk about the episode if we saw it at Paley Fest or no?

If Diana was going to bring any character back from implausible death, I'd want it to be Jane. She's the only thing that made William interesting.

Okay, so I've been thinking about a silly question for quite a while. Apropos of nothing, other than Outlander 1B is still FIVE months away, can anyone explain the joke Claire makes about hedgehogs having sex? She says it on their wedding night, but for the life of me I can't understand what she means by: No, I thought. I won't. I will not. But I did. "Very carefully," I replied, giggling helplessly. So now we know just how old that one is, I thought. Was there a common hedgehog sex joke circulating in 1940s England or something ... ?

I agree with your entire post, Tina, but regarding Did you find someplace where Ron or the writers explained why they skipped it, or do you mean you think it was left out due to time? Because if there was a reasoning, I would love to know it, as I was really pissed off by its exclusion.

Caitriona tweeted the same, so I guess they'll be doing it together :)

So after watching this several dozen times (for purely research purposes), am I the only one that noticed Sam likes to use tongue? And am oh so grateful he does? :)

Well, I was VERY happy to see the pearls and liked how they were presented. I didn't remember the exact description of them, but I definitely thought they were too long. I hope Jamie will still end up giving Claire the other ring, otherwise, what will the writers create in its place? There's no reason to change something so important like that. I actually liked the change of Claire and Frank's wedding, firstly because it showed a contrast between Frank and Jamie, without painting Frank in a negative light. Not that I love Frank or anything, but it's very obvious that the writers don't need to make Frank look bad in order to make Jamie look good. He looks good all by himself :) And secondly, because I always thought it was too coincidental that Jamie and Claire would get married in the exact. same. church. as Claire and Frank. Time travel through stones and seriously HOT 23-year-old virgins I can believe, but I draw the line at a coincidence like that.

Actually, IMDb says he's 34, so even better for you. :)

I was just going to post what Kariyaki said. The part where Jamie says, "You have my name, my clan, my family ..." Sam's birthmark is on the wrong side of his face, so they flipped multiple scenes for the promo.

Hmm, I noticed the absence of Ellen MacKenzie's pearls. I hope Jamie still gives them to Claire before the wedding, complete with Dougal's mini-outrage.

I'm sorry, Tina. I was hemming and hawing over whether or not I should keep my mouth shut. On the bright side, a new episode is less than two days away ... :)

Well, you should check out this article about the BBC. http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/scotland-independence-what-happens-to-the-bbc-1201302708/ They're basically saying that if Scotland votes YES, they will lose the BBC and all their shows, which apparently 60% of Scots would love to keep.

Hi, first time poster. I started reading the books after the pilot preview and now I'm almost through Book 5, anyway ... regarding Sam's stunt double, if you open the photo gallery here: http://www.scotlandnow.dailyrecord.co.uk/lifestyle/pictures-outlander-stars-film-end-4122917 the fifth photo says it's of Caitriona and Sam's stunt doubles. If that's true, I don't think he looks anything like that guy in the screen cap. This guy's face is much fuller and younger-looking. ETA: Some photos may be spoiler-ish as they're from the filming of episode 16.