absnow54

I was getting a tad bored with the series, but the most recent episode was hilarious. I was angry with Jason Dohring dropping out at first, but Robert Buckley's stilted, robotic delivery of exposition made up for it. And the random cut to Wallace. Ha! I hope the rest of the episodes are like this.

I'm not always 100% on board with his line delivery, but every one of his physical acting tics have been spot on. The wedding episode especially, when he gets her out of her corset and feels her up for the first time, Claire's ready to get the show on the road and tells him that it's her turn to undress him, and his reaction is just so genuine and overwhelmed, like his brain has stopped functioning and "oh my God, she let me touch her." Even though they haven't given him many interesting things to do, Sam's really brought some life to the character that makes him feel much more real than book Jamie was at times.

I couldn't get over how creepy he came off in her POV. I think it reflects how she views him now, and not how she viewed him then, which is making it hard to buy their attraction. I almost wish every episode had 3 points of view. His, hers, and a neutral party, but it was difficult enough watching some of the scenes 2 times, let alone 3, so they'd have to interlace the narrative. I found it interesting that from his story he doesn't remember her wearing a ring, while in hers, her wedding rings were very prominent.

She has very striking eyes. I could buy that she came from Sam Heughan.

I watched the Pilot again today without fast forwarding through the 1940's stuff, and early in the episode when Frank talks about sketching Claire's hand, I'd never really paid attention to what she had told him, which was that while they were separated, she couldn't remember the sound of his laughter. I thought that was an interesting thing to note, since Jamie and Claire's marriage thus far has been lots of teasing and laughing at one another. I thought it was an interesting contrast.

I think in one of the retrospective specials, Jan Hooks mentioned this sketch when paying tribute to Phil, so although it didn't really showcase her comedic talents (the episode they played at 10 was a perfect episode to play for that) it was a nice way to honor her. I actually liked Kristen Wiig during the monologue, but I think it's because I got warm and fuzzy feelings about her and Bill's chemistry from The Skeleton Twins and their promo interviews. The Hollywood Game Night sketch was too much though. It also made me miss Celebrity Jeopardy.

I liked the unreliable narrator and the changes in details between the two perspectives, especially since they generally landed on the extremes. I hope we'll get interviews from other characters in later episodes so we can get a different perspective on the other characters involved and flesh them out more. I'm still not sure how this format can be sustained over multiple seasons, but I've seemingly made some sort of blood pact with Joshua Jackson where I'll follow him anywhere, even subscription premium cable shows, so I'll be in for at least a few more episodes. Important question though, what is Maura Tierney's connection to The Wire? JJ was on Fringe with Lance Reddick, Ruth Wilson with Idris Elba on Luther, and Dominic West I'm sure knows someone from the Wire cast... how'd Maura get in on this project?

Joshua Jackson on MTV After Hours: http://www.mtv.com/videos/movies/1089260/joshua-jackson-cant-get-over-dawsons-creek.jhtml JoshJam2014 forever.

I believe actors/agents post the videos themselves to help build buzz/fan support. Not sure how that effects their chances, but I'm sure it has a negative impact.

I'm not sure if the height thing will really be a factor in the show verse. While Sam is approximately book-Jamie's height, Cait and Tobias are several inches taller than their book versions, so there isn't much contrast there. I think so long as they cast a red head (or, you know, someone with access to hair dye) Brianna's paternity will be pretty obvious. The casting department has been phenomenal at finding actors who have an easy natural chemistry, so I don't mind them cutting or twisting some of the book descriptions if it means we get an actress who can effortlessly fade into her character the way Sam and Cait seem to.

I kind of don't like the fact that they've left this ambiguous. A lot of the juxtaposition of this episode with Frank searching for Claire while Claire settled into her new marriage seemed to draw undeserved sympathy towards Frank, when Frank has implied that he was with other women the last time they were separated. Yes, Claire going missing is a horrible thing, but the whole "SHE RAN OFF WITH ANOTHER MAN!" angle without Frank admitting his own possible past indiscretions in some form, painted this imbalance between Frank and Claire that rubbed me the wrong way.

It's kind of funny, everyone is obsessed with finding out who Claire is a spy for when she's essentially one of Frank's agents. Frank has been heavily researching the region and the time period, and most of the things Claire has used in the field is the information that he's passed onto her. If she ever makes it back, and if they make it past the whole adultery/pseudo bigamy thing, she'll have tons of intel to pass on.

I don't feel like Frank's story was really fleshed out though. The only two substantial things we got from it is that Frank now knows the legend of the stones, and that he's really good at describing broaches... I mean he suspects that the mysterious man outside the window had something to do with Claire's disappearance. I really think they could have condensed his scenes to Frank at the police station, Frank going through Claire's suitcase, the story of the stones, and then Frank stopping at Craigh na Dun on his way out of dodge. The Frank/BJR parallel seemed unnecessary and the writing was on the wall with the lady trying to dupe him ("Come alone! Bring the reward money! Did I mention the money? You should bring it.") that the whole plot lost any suspense. The only scene where I felt like Frank was desperately trying to find Claire was at the stones, and that scene worked really well. The rest he just seemed mundane and bored and more annoyed than sad.

Does anyone know if these movies are playing on Starz at the end of the series?

Yes, Jamie was in a difficult position where Frank was only an idea to him, and one that he was jealous of at that. I don't think his actions were spiteful towards her other husband, but I do think that if Claire's existence was at risk, and not the existence of some guy he didn't even know, he would have behaved differently.

I couldn't deal with the fact that Claire began to sympathize with Randall while she was estranged from Jamie. I don't recall if she knew about Fergus at this point, but the way she viewed Jamie's actions as entirely selfish when her actions were just as selfish drove me crazy. Her single minded focus on ensuring Frank's birth while ignoring Jamie, who was obviously suffering from his rape, made her seem so cold.

I thought it was an interesting change to have Claire so close to the stones without realizing it because she was so swept up in her new marriage and fun times with the clan (this of course is pre-deserter attack.) If Claire had been focused on her plan to get back to the stones, she would have noticed how close she was and probably could have gotten Jamie to take her there to show her the magic stones from the songs they had heard, instead of choosing to take a roll in the heather with him.

Claire's quest to protect Black Jack and Black Jack's half-assed redemption arc really turned me off to the story. I understood she felt guilty about the whole Frank situation (I never got the impression that any of it involved whether or not she'd cease to exist in the 1740's if Frank was never there to take her to Scotland, but I've only read it once) but Black Jack was a very real and immediate danger to the people she cared about in the present, and she seemed to be not only blind to it, but smug about the fact that she believed that she was right. I felt so bad for Jamie during that time period because he was constantly thrust into his rapists orbit and was powerless to do anything because Claire had granted BJR immunity until he could father an offspring.

This reminds me of that joke where the iceberg didn't sink the Titanic, it was the added weight of all the time travelers trying to stop its sinking.

Didn't Claire also have the scar from the blood vow on her wrist when she has her palm read in the first book? I thought that meant that Claire had in some way existed in the 18th century first. So yes, Colloden is her fault. ;-)

This thread is for comparing the book to the show and speculation. People are allowed to have positive and negative reactions to the adaptation. I don't see anyone threatening to torch Ron D's house yet for injustices (maybe in other corners of the internet, but not here), just people speculating how the rest of the season will play out given what's left in the book and how the show's covered things so far. I really enjoyed that scene as well. In the book she had this idea that she was close, but it came off as such a long shot. Having her within reach of the stones was really compelling, and I liked that she could hear Frank through the stones, it was sort of a callback to the supernatural element of the screams she heard when she first touched them. I'm really curious to see how they'll play the scene of Claire and Jamie at Craig na Dun. I'm kind of hoping they take their time there with Claire comparing her life in 1743 with her life in 1945. In the book it's really "hmm, Jamie or hot baths..." It could be a good time to really explore Claire's character.

I feel like telling her that Jamie didn't die in Colluden would be a much better way of going about it than chronically cheating on her... Frank not telling Claire was pretty selfish, but at the same time, he did it to protect Brianna. If he'd told Claire she may have run straight back to the stones and either abandoned Bree or brought her along, which would put her in danger. Now those are some shades of gray that I'd like to see Tobias Menzies play.

From the Unpopular Opinion thread... This is how I interpreted Frank from the book, but the TV show has shown something very different. All of Claire's Frankbacks have had her included and engaged in all of Frank and the Reverend's discussions. The reason she went off to the kitchen to get her tea leaves read was because she felt so out of place with the Reverend. With the show, these little flashback scenes help with the exposition, but I think Claire's portrayal is off in them when painting her relationship with Frank against her relationship with Jamie. I never got the impression that Frank was a bad guy, only that he didn't know how to relate to Claire and wasn't the guy for her. Contrast that with Jamie who is very open with discussing feelings and their relationship. The show has done a disservice in portraying both relationships, in my opinion, which is making it hard for me to understand her final choice in the show universe.

Moving my response to the Book Comparison thread since the topic is veering towards not so unpopular opinions...

I got a much better hold on Jamie's character in the Wedding episode alone than I've gotten from Claire's through all 8 episodes. I can see where Jamie and Claire's relationship has been woefully underdeveloped, but to me Jamie has been developed just fine for this stage of the story. I understand why he does things without him having to tell me, like Claire's voice overs constantly have to do.