Shermie

So why is that, I wonder. Some book-to-screen adaptations have been done very well (LOTR, for example) but it seems like they always change characters and plot lines for no real reason. The book was successful because readers liked the characters and plot, so why change it? (Reminds me how pissed I was in the ‘80s heyday of book/miniseries, where they did one of a book I loved back then. Can’t remember the name, but it opens with a young woman confronting 4 successful women with “Which one of you bitches is my mother?” The miniseries eliminated one of the 4 women for no real reason and it changed everything.) Anyway… I haven’t read any of the Outlander books (yet), so I guess I have no expectations to be disappointed.

It would have worked better if Liza had said she was 29 at the beginning because she’d still be “in her 20s” but a few years older and that would explain some of her fish out of water actions/reactions. I do find the young vs “old” stereotypes trope-y and tiresome. I’m waaay older than Liza really is, and I know a lot of what the 20-somethings are talking about. And I’m not tech-stupid either.

Yeah. I guess there are no laws or anything yet about bigamy? There were actual witnesses to Claire and Lord John's wedding and then -- poof! it was like all the characters conveniently forgot. Jaime asks - are we still married? Claire says - how can we NOT be? Then Lord John calls Claire - Mrs. Fraser (reiterating that she is not Lady Grey) and well... I guess that's that. I guess all one had to do was declare -- "We are married!" or "We are no longer married!" and just by saying it out loud - that made it so???? Weird. Well, no. Claire and Lord John’s marriage is invalid because Jamie is still alive. She thought she was widowed so she remarried, dead hubby isn’t dead so he’s still the hubby. Second marriage isn’t legal. I mean, this episode and this show do a lot of weird, over-dramatic things, but the marriage question is pretty straightforward.

We found this series compelling, especially with the “based on history” parts. Bridger was a pip; the actor really nailed his charm, wit, and “don’t give a fuck” attitude. He was a revered mountain man of the era, considered the best. Definitely a survivor. Not sure what was up with the rest of the fort folks staying inside the burning bar? Glad that Sara, Devin and Two Moons survived after everything they went through. I assume they fictionally made it unscathed to California. Wonder if the husband in Cross Springs was actually real? She turned out to be a badass survivor too. I could barely look at Jacob; good gawd, imagine how he smelled with all that rotting flesh and dripping blood. Him kissing Abish made me cringe. And what bitter irony that after hunting for her for weeks (months?) and she survives all kinds of horrors and betrayals, he’s the one who kills her. The “Wild West” is romanticized as the result of a bunch of scrappy can-do explorers who lived off the land and forged their future. But it was clearly the result of clear cutting entire tribes of people, white men doing terrible things at the cost of their women and children, and a lot of dirty dealings by people who are recorded otherwise in history.

We just started this, and while I want to know who survives and how, wow, the violence is something. And it’s all well and good to be stitched up if you survive an attack, but infection is what’ll get you. Whatever cut you open wasn’t clean, methinks. I’m always awed by the people who actually did these journeys back then, bouncing around in covered wagons for weeks, going through raging rivers and over mountains, never knowing what danger was around the corner, all for some elusive dream. All I can think is they’re wearing the same clothes for the entire run. ::shudder:: She should have given some of her money for the horses, keep it in separate pockets or wherever she is stashing it. I thought it was stupid to leave the kid’s braces in the path; whoever finds them is going to know they’re on track for the woman and the bounty. Plus, metal braces would make a good weapon.

Of course it’s true; his polling numbers were dismal. And yes, some people still support him but very few. Even diehard Liberals weren’t supporting him specifically anymore. I had great hopes when he was elected, but he’s been a disappointment. If he had resigned last summer, we’d have a PM in place by now to deal with the American bullshit leader. He’s following in the footsteps of Biden and RBG; all 3 stayed on way too long to the detriment of their countries. As for disaster prevention, it would help if humans didn’t build things in deserts and on floodplains.

Good interview with Marc Carney, potential leader of the Liberal party in Canada. I haven’t seen the first part of the episode yet, about the fires in California. Jon knows his stuff, but I wish he’d stop interrupting his guests. He asks a question, Carney starts answering, and Jon interjects with a quip. I get it’s a comedy show, but the host has to let the setup finish before landing the punchline. And Jon doesn’t seem to know (and Carney sure wasn’t going to say it) but Trudeau resigned because nobody likes him. His polling numbers are in the tank and he was too self-involved or poorly informed by his aides, that this was the thing. And I wish American shows would quit acting like Trump taking over Canada is a joke. We don’t want to join your country, not now, not ever. Go away.

Lots of discussion about elder care options or lack thereof, cost comparisons, and the realism of the facility in this show compared to experience. I copied my last post from the episode thread, not sure if copied properly. 14 hours ago, possibilities said: Yes, you have to spend down your money, but you're going to do that anyway if you pay for some dormatory type institution so might as well choose home. If you’re in an apartment or condo, that might work, but if you live in a house and need home care, I assume you can’t mow lawn, tend gardens, rake leaves, or shovel show. Home care won’t do that. Aging in your house sounds nice, but there’s so much more to it. As the child of parents who stubbornly refused to move out of a house they couldn’t manage, I can tell you it’s a selfish choice. When they finally moved to a locally seniors apartment complex (independent living, no dining room), they loved it. I was angry they wasted so much time delaying the move that my very social father only got to enjoy for a year before he died.

If you’re in an apartment or condo, that might work, but if you live in a house and need home care, I assume you can’t mow lawn, tend gardens, rake leaves, or shovel show. Home care won’t do that. Aging in your house sounds nice, but there’s so much more to it. As the child of parents who stubbornly refused to move out of a house they couldn’t manage, I can tell you it’s a selfish choice. When they finally moved to a locally seniors apartment complex (independent living, no dining room), they loved it. I was angry they wasted so much time delaying the move that my very social father only got to enjoy for a year before he died.

Well, you get what you vote for or lobby for, I guess. Americans like to mock Canada and Europe for high taxes, but we get what we pay for.

Those numbers seem high to me. My MIL paid $3000 for her retirement homes that also room, not as nice as this to be sure, but even if this place was twice as much, I can’t imagine how anyone beyond millionaires could afford $15,000 a month for several years. If you have that kind of money, why not pay for in-home care? And $10,000 for Charles? Also seems high for an inexperienced part-time contracted employee. The residents here all seemed very capable of still living on their own. I suppose the social part is enticing and this place was very high-end. Not a walker or cane in sight, much less a wheelchair. Around here there are retirement homes with a nursing home wing. The retirement room (like a hotel room) is $3-4000 a month, and the nursing side is no cost since it’s health care (this is in Canada). Some are better than others; my father spent the last month of his life in a less than pleasant place, but we’re in a rural area and have to take what’s available. My mother and MIL were in nicer places. Ted Danson is a treasure; I really enjoy watching Cheers reruns. If a guy like him actually was in a retirement home, he’d be a god. If he could drive, he’d be a unicorn. The show was lovely, with such a realistic portrayal of the beginnings of dementia. It’s all fine to say you never want to be “put in a home”, but you’re giving those you say you love an incredible burden. I always say that if someone says they want to die in their house, then I say they must hate their kids. Ha, my grandson has called me “bruh”, the newer version of “bro”. It’s just silly, but yes, these kids are lazy and respectful. It’s the parents fault for not following through.

Lots of talk about retirement homes. The place in this show was where I’d like to live as a senior! But it wasn’t realistic because all the residents were very capable, no walkers or canes in sight, much less wheelchairs. If you’re that capable, you probably won’t move to an expensive retirement home. My mother and mother-in-law both lived in retirement homes that also had a nursing home side for them to move to if needed. They only had a bedroom with a small corner for a chair and tv, with a private bathroom - basically a permanent hotel room. It was okay because it served their needs for medical care on site and meals for them. These places cost about $3000/month. There are nicer (and I assume more expensive) options in my area. Once they go to the nursing home side, there’s no cost because it’s considered health care (this is Canada). The place shown in this show looked expensive with the menus and servers at meals, the bar and everything looked very high end. That’s okay; it’s tv. Ted Danson was awesome, as usual.

Oh my god, I’m so bored with this show now. I watched it for all the Scottish-ness, but we’ve been in dull old revolutionary America forever. Yeah, yeah, history blahblahblah. Don’t care. I’m not American, so I don’t know who all these people are and what the significance of some French guy is - they say his name and the viewers are supposed to be all ‘Ooooooo, intrigue!”. I’m just, who’s this guy now and why should I care? Just stick with them living in Scotland and whatever can happen there. Anything is better than this interminably lengthy American Revolution plot line. Given how things always go badly when the couples (Jamie & Claire, Brianna & Roger) go in separate ways (either geographically or time travel), I don’t know why they keep doing it. How is Bree going to get period clothing for her children in such a short time? Or is her plan to scoot back in time, find Roger, and then scoot back to the present? Because that will happen.

Since Matthew (the actor) wanted to stay, recasting is a moot point since it seems to be a budgeting decision. They should have kept him and Trixie in London with him mostly offscreen “at work” or “away on business” or whatever. He could make the occasional guest appearance in a small scene. Trixie could continue midwifery while trying to get pregnant. I think it would have been an interesting storyline to have a midwife deal with infertility while still having to deliver babies for other women (some of whom don’t even want another baby or maybe are terrible mothers). I can’t remember the show covering infertility since it’s all about midwives working with women who are already pregnant or who want to prevent it. And having a midwife be the one dealing with it would add another layer.

Because it's not the 1990s and that kind of thing is rarely done anymore with adults or older teenagers. Darren Stephen’s wasn’t recast in the 1990s; Bewitched was a 1960s show. Iwouldn’t want them recasting a main character, but Lucille and Matthew are replaceable. Away In A Manger has always had two melodies to choose from - one that starts low, and one that starts high. I guess I’m the lone voice in the wilderness here, but I enjoyed the episode and was happy to have a double length. Too many plots? Meh, it’s not hard to keep track of when they are such basic storylines. This show is my Christmas comfort TV that I always watch on Boxing Day. Some of it brings back memories of my very simple early childhood in the ‘60s - the clothes, the toys, the activities.