absnow54

You know, I barely noticed Murtagh and Rupert in the book, but I've missed the clansmen something fierce on the show. They've done a great job giving those characters life, and I can't wait to see them pop up again next week.

This bothered me so much. I've read theories that the choking did kill her, but because he used the force, there was no bruising, so the robot doctors overlooked the symptom. But, hello, Obi Wan witnessed the strangling and was right there when she was being treated. I didn't understand why they killed her and why she didn't just go into hiding on Alderaan as was originally implied in Jedi. If they could send Luke to live at Anakin's step brother's house with the Skywalker surname still attached(!!!!!) they could easily hide Padme too.

The fact that the people behind Broad City are developing the spinoff makes me really excited.

This really is becoming the most prestigious "yeah, whatever, hand over the money" cast ever assembled.

I agree. The original cast had an amazing chemistry while the prequel cast never really gelled. The only time I can recall the actors working well together was in the opening scene of Revenge of the Sith when Anakin, Obi Wan, and R2 go to rescue Palpetine, and it made me so excited to finally see Star Wars be fun again, but then it was quickly back to business as usual.

I'm bummed that Jon Hamm isn't hosting this season. I figured with Mad Men ending in a few weeks, he'd be an obvious choice. I feel like he was supposed to host the episode after, and the attitude amongst the crew was "Well Reese just did it, why can't you?" Marci Klein goes off on him at length in the Live From New York book.

I'm really curious to see if they'll incorporate Leia into this movie since she's the one who ends up with the plans, and therefore, is ostensibly involved in the plot.

That's a really good point! I never thought of it that way. Claire spent a lot of time in the first few episodes piecing Jamie back together. If the dislocated shoulder didn't get him, I'm sure the bullet wound would have. Jamie didn't just need a woman, he needed a proficient healer to keep up with his reckless lifestyle.

While it was a beautiful scene, I actually resent it even more now because I think it took away from the climactic moment of Claire actually reaching the stones in this episode. There's been such a dramatic shift in Claire's character since we broke from her POV and now I want to know what's changed in her head from desperately running screaming toward the stones 3 episodes ago to having to be reminded what her husband's name is. I was grumbling about too much Frank in the first 8 episodes, but now there's not nearly enough to support the story they had started to tell.

I'm confused about Laoghaire's place. I assumed she was higher born since she carries the MacKenzie name and lives in the castle, but then again, we also know she's Mrs. Fitzgibbon's granddaughter... I thought Jamie implied in the episode before the wedding that he was not a suitable match for someone like Laoghaire because he was a broke fugitive (an undersell since we now know he owns Lollybrach.)

I agree with your entire post, but especially this. The actors spark together in a way that makes me ignore logic and root for them full steam. From all we've seen in the show world, Claire had a perfectly happy life and marriage in 1940's (the book highlighted some more negative aspects, I think) and has seen nothing but violence and horror in the 1740's. It makes no sense for her to stay, but the actors sold it. Kudos to them!

While he doesn't explicitly apologize, he is regretful at the realization in the book. That scene was verbatim except for his "I'm very, very, sorry" line.

I thought Ned mentioned that word was sent to Jamie, but it would take several days for him to get there, but I think I made that up. I could have done with a lot less of the witch trial. Extras shouting "Witch!" for 30 minutes just isn't compelling to me. I did love Ned and his "win the townspeople over with corny English jokes" strategy, and Lotte was wonderful as Gellis. Gellis and Claire's friendship is so interesting to me because they're constantly straddling that line between friends and enemies. I loved every second after Jamie showed up. Sam Heughan has mastered the hopeless devotion of a love struck man. Since the moment Claire popped his shoulder back into place, he's been looking at her like she's hung the moon, and the realization that he had to let her go in this episode. Ugh. Unf. I could watch 6 minutes of just his face. As for the Stones Redux, I thought it was sort of lost in the shuffle. This moment should have been huge. It's been Claire's main objective since the first episode, and it completely fizzled, and that's been my issue with this second half of the season. They've shifted the focus too much from Claire's journey. Sure, these other stories they're telling are important, but Claire and the stones is the story, and it doesn't feel like that anymore.

I watched this again after reading "Inside Scientology" and no wonder they didn't mention Lisa McPherson! All the high up, former Scientologists they interviewed for the documentary had blood red hands from that incident. I haven't read "Going Clear" but I agree with everyone else, this documentary really glossed over a lot of the crazy stuff going on. Especially LRH's insane back story and Miscaviage's rise to power where he essentially replaced Elron's entire executive team.

In episode 8, the one after the wedding episode, Claire was faced with the choice between Frank and Jamie when she spotted the stones and she chose Frank. Unfortunately, the episode after that was told entirely through Jamie's POV, so we missed whatever conflicting emotions Claire had to settling into her domesticity with Jamie rather than going back into "MUST GET TO THE STONES!" mode. I know the show is trying to move into different storylines with Jamie's freedom, the political conflict, and now Claire/Gellis witch trial, but the unresolved loose end from Frank and Claire's story is distracting.

True, but I feel like after the whole Fort William incident, Jamie isn't going to leave the B-team to keep an eye on Claire. Jamie is Murtagh's primary concern, but if Jamie told him to stay, I imagine he would. I can't remember, did he go on the hunt in the books? Or did he stay behind?

This episode was a lot of fun. I loved the duel scene, it feels like it's been forever since Jamie got into a dumb fight, and Claire had to sew him back together. I also feel like half the clips in the credits were from this episode.

It appears that StarzPlay is posting episodes Saturday mornings. I don't know when they post, but I know they posted early last week, and this week as of 7:30, at least, episode 110 is available.

I haven't found the nudity on this show to be gratuitous, with the exception, maybe of the rescue scene, but that more so, was off putting to me because of the endless threats of violence and rape against Claire. Otherwise, I haven't found this to be like other cable shows where the primary settings are whore houses for unspecified reasons, and the men stay fully clothes while the women are heavily sexualized at every turn. A woman's body is considered more taboo, and while Jamie (and Frank in their Pilot sex scene) flashed just as much flesh, Claire is considered more naked because she has breasts, and those are valued more as a commodity for men to ogle at, than as their primary purpose to sustain life. I do find it interesting that the sex scenes in this episode were kind of bland and borderline pornographic and haven't gotten nearly as much attention as the wedding episode, and that this episode was directed by a man.

As someone who very recently saw Pete Davidson doing stand up, I have to laugh, because one of his jokes (after a series of weed jokes) was "What do you expect from me? I'm a kid. Who thought this was a good idea?" about the intelligence of his jokes. His opener was very good though.

Technically Rupert beating Jamie falls into this category, even though it was at Dougal's malicious command. Rupert was following orders and there were no hard feelings, because it was the order of things. Jamie carried out the unspoken order of the clan by punishing Claire with the strap. But again, two scenes juxtaposed. One is played with tense ominous music as the room gasps with horror at the scene, the other is played with light hearted fiddle music while the boys downstairs guffaw over those two crazy kids. I wasn't even that offended by the scene. Jamie is twice Claire's size. If he wanted to hurt her, he would have. I do understand why people are so turned off by it though.

Because the show isn't pushing the rapists as heroes/romantic love interests. Rape is something to be abhorred on the show. People react to it with the proper disgust. The wife beating, however, was accompanied by wacky hijinks music. It's not a matter of which is worse. It's a matter of how the show chooses to present certain topics, the message essentially was: rape is bad, but a man chasing his screaming wife around with a belt is funny, and that's not okay for some people.

I get what you're saying, but my main issue with the spanking thing is the context. And what I've always taken issue with in the books is Jamie's attitude towards the beating. The show, in my opinion, handled it well. Jamie didn't think it was a big deal, because as someone stated earlier, he assumed that Claire expected it. When he realized how offended and hurt she was by it, he felt genuine remorse and sincerely apologized. There was actual respect between the partners. For me, when reading this section of the book, I felt betrayed by Jamie. When the boy had his ear nailed to the post, he didn't understand why Claire was upset, but he respected her point of view and helped the boy go free. With the spanking, and subsequent scenes with the dubious consent, Jamie stops caring about what Claire thinks. He treats her like a piece of property, which goes against everything we've seen of Jamie before (and everything we see of him after.) Yes, there's the debate of "well that's how it was back then..." but it seemed extremely out of character to me that Jamie would think this way. He takes punishment for other people in the castle, he helps the boy go free, he wears the scars of senseless violence. Yes, it's reasonable for Jamie to screw up from time to time, but what the book ignored was the possibility that Jamie could be wrong. It was always Claire who had to get used to it. I'm grateful that the show reinterpreted these events and Claire's modern effect continued to enlighten Jamie rather than taking them both two steps back.

I am so distracted by this too. Sam and Cait's chemistry is off the charts, and their dedication to the physicality of the love scenes is commendable, but then Sam starts making these ridiculous over the top faces that even Meg Ryan side eyes while she's eating her sandwich.

I'm not sure he was slut shamming, but it still was pretty insensitive that he was only considering how Claire's attempted rapes affected him and not how traumatized Claire must have been, almost being raped, promptly being abandoned, and then quickly being captured and almost raped again. The clan promised they'd protect her, and for all intents and purposes, they've been doing a pretty shitty job. But the clan was absolved from any blame because they had to justify the spanking. This is a good point. Maybe they were the soldiers that were originally going to escort her to Inverness during the Garrison Commander?