S05.E12: Never My Love

[DoctorAtomic]

Yes, that was the point. 

[Noneofyourbusiness]

9 hours ago, domina89 said:

- How did Jamie and the others know the Browns definitely had Claire before they started killing everyone?

Perhaps they followed the signs of a party of people moving away from Fraser's Ridge until they found the Browns' encampment, between Fraser's Ridge and Brownsville, which would make clear the Browns were indeed whom they were looking for.

9 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

Not that I expect some high level physics narrative, but even a brief discussion about maybe because the baby was born there.

From their faces and the way they said it, I didn't find it ambiguous that when Bree and Roger both said they were thinking of home, they meant Fraser's Ridge.

[BitterApple]

35 minutes ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

 

From their faces and the way they said it, I didn't find it ambiguous that when Bree and Roger both said they were thinking of home, they meant Fraser's Ridge.

I think it would've worked if previous episodes showed Roger wavering; or a scenario where they wanted to stay, but something happens that necessitates an immediate departure. As it stands, Roger was pretty adamant about leaving since the wedding, so him having the warm and fuzzies for the Ridge feels a bit misplaced. I'm not a book reader, so I don't know what's been changed and what hasn't, but this particular storyline was a bit clunky. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by BitterApple

[sas616]

I wish they'd elaborated more on that. I know the writers were going for Roger subconsciously viewing the Ridge as home, but I don't buy it. He was pushing to return to the future the entire season, and was packing their bags five seconds after Jemmy heard the buzzing. It seems like a pretty big heel-turn to me, but hopefully this means Roger's accepted his fate and doesn't spend S6 whining about it. 

 

Richard did an interview today where he talked about this (forward to about 9 min. in).  An excellent interview.   Further into the interview, he talks about Roger's 1st kill.  I love his insight into his character.  But then,  I just love Richard Rankin; he just always makes me smile.   Edited to add:  I pretty sure there's no specific book talk. 

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by sas616

[DoctorAtomic]

It's also kind of a cop out. Roger actively making the decision to stay and not even bother to travel to the stones gives him some actual agency. Here, it's like, 'uh I guess this means the stones think I think this is home so I guess it's home.' 

It grates on me when characters don't have a natural curiosity and at least ask some questions. I think we all knew they were still going to end up in 1772. No one ever mentioned that you can only go through the stones where you think you're supposed to go. It strikes me as sloppy. And it's quite correct that Roger's about face was very sudden. 

 

[Noneofyourbusiness]

Richard Rankin explanation matches exactly what I thought about Roger's thought process. These past few episodes, he had clearly become part of life at Fraser's Ridge over the months and years and I didn't feel his wanting to go back to the future was much more than a sense of obligation.

As for it not having been mentioned before that you would go to the time you're thinking of, that's not quite true, because Claire, Bree and Roger all focused on the person they wanted to reunite with when they went through the stones, though Claire's first unplanned travel was apparently random (she might have had the time period she and Frank had just been researching on her mind, though).

[Noneofyourbusiness]

12 hours ago, Blakeston said:

Did they ever ask them? Who knows?

Well, at least he as good as admitted his band had been setting the fires when he told Marsali they'd burn the houses in Fraser's Ridge down.

[jenn31]

4 hours ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

I'm pretty sure Doctor Atomic knew that, and was just referring to how Lionel's wife taking Claire's advice was his own fault.

Ah, could be. I thought he had forgotten about the wife trying to avoid getting pregnant and taking Claire’s aka Dr. Rawlings’ advice. I was jogging his memory. (I feel like we’re talking behind Doctor Atomic’s back. 😄 )

[BitterApple]

In case you missed the Behind the Episode like I did (grrrrr, thanks a lot High Town), I linked it here:

https://youtu.be/lx8WknFxdVM

I didn't realize the painting 1960's Claire was staring at was an abstract of Fraser's Ridge. They did an amazing and clever job of working Easter Eggs into that dream sequence. 

[Noneofyourbusiness]

9 hours ago, jenn31 said:

Ah, could be. I thought he had forgotten about the wife trying to avoid getting pregnant and taking Claire’s aka Dr. Rawlings’ advice. I was jogging his memory. (I feel like we’re talking behind Doctor Atomic’s back. 😄 )

Please see the top of this page.

Edited May 12, 2020 by Noneofyourbusiness

[taanja]

23 hours ago, Lola82 said:

My take on the last scene was that they did have sex. Claire made a whole speech how this will not be the thing that breaks her. Sex has always been one the best ways Claire and Jaime connected so she wanted to reclaim it for herself as a nonviolent act. That's why Jaime called her brave during that scene and she said she felt safe.

One unintentional moment of comedy for me was the Indian asking if she knows who Ringo Starr is. Why not pick a more popular Beatle?

I can't seem to remember what the orange symbolized. Was it in a past scene?

Yup. I thought immediately that was an after sex scene -- with Claire "reclaiming" the one thing she likes most (especially with Jaime) and when he said she was a "brave wee thing" or whatever he said that kind of clinched it for me.

The flashback scenes in that cool as hell tract house were the highlight for me. I know it was Claire's way of dealing with the reality she was going through at the time -- but it made me wish they could all go through the stones and live there. They all looked so damn good! The cloths! the hair!

Do Roger and Bree die in a car accident in the future? Is that what that was supposed to be?

Speaking of Roger and Bree-- so? what? wait? WTF? they just...came right back? didn't go anywhere? What? that was lame as shit.

[sas616]

7 minutes ago, taanja said:

Speaking of Roger and Bree-- so? what? wait? WTF? they just...came right back? didn't go anywhere? What? that was lame as shit.

Happened before, though the scene never made it into the episode. In Season 4, when Roger decided to follow Bree into the past, he didn't make it through on the 1st try (I believe the scene is included in the DVD set).  He successfully goes through on his second try.

 

[DoctorAtomic]

Well, ffs, that's a huge piece of information that invalidates just about all of our arguments. Why wouldn't they include that? 

[taanja]

4 minutes ago, sas616 said:

Happened before, though the scene never made it into the episode. In Season 4, when Roger decided to follow Bree into the past, he didn't make it through on the 1st try (I believe the scene is included in the DVD set).  He successfully goes through on his second try.

 

How would I know that since the show didn't "show" that? No character on the show ever mentioned that out loud either. That is even lamer that I initially thought. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

If it didn't happen ON the show, then it's not canon, as far as I'm concerned. Because not everyone buys the dvds. 🙄 <-- aimed at the show runners/people who thought it would be kewl to include it in the dvds.

[jenn31]

4 hours ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

Please see the top of this page.

No post was quoted, so couldn’t tell what it was in reference to. Especially being on a new page. Don’t always have time to scrutinize every post.

[jenn31]

13 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

If it didn't happen ON the show, then it's not canon, as far as I'm concerned. Because not everyone buys the dvds. 🙄 <-- aimed at the show runners/people who thought it would be kewl to include it in the dvds.

Completely agree. I hate when show runners have to explain their bad writing. The inside the episodes are often pretty bad too, with them patting themselves on the back. Like they have to justify their bad decisions. 

[jmnf19]

21 hours ago, BitterApple said:

I think it would've worked if previous episodes showed Roger wavering; or a scenario where they wanted to stay, but something happens that necessitates an immediate departure. As it stands, Roger was pretty adamant about leaving since the wedding, so him having the warm and fuzzies for the Ridge feels a bit misplaced. I'm not a book reader, so I don't know what's been changed and what hasn't, but this particular storyline was a bit clunky. 

I heartily agree. Roger had them packed and ready to leave barely after Jemmy put down the gem. A quick zip through the stones and he’s beaming at life at the ridge. It was so poorly done. I’d have preferred to see him disturbed that it didn’t work. Actually, I would have preferred it didn’t happen at all. It seemed shoehorned in. A great cliffhanger that fizzled out to nothing. There were better ways to show Roger growing close to the family and life there and gradually wanting to stay. This way it seems he’s wishy-washy. 

 

5 hours ago, taanja said:

The flashback scenes in that cool as hell tract house were the highlight for me. I know it was Claire's way of dealing with the reality she was going through at the time -- but it made me wish they could all go through the stones and live there. They all looked so damn good! The cloths! the hair!

I loved it too. I was feeling zen while rewatching them (and zipping over the brutal scenes). Someone needs to make a video compilation of just the 60’s scenes, without the harsh cuts to reality (which of course were needed for the episode).

 

5 hours ago, taanja said:

Do Roger and Bree die in a car accident in the future? Is that what that was supposed to be?

I thought it was just Claire realizing that there were dangers in any era. Her parents died in a car accident, Frank did too, both in modern times. That would be a kicker, sending them back to be safer and then they die there in an accident. 

[nara]

3 hours ago, jmnf19 said:

I heartily agree. Roger had them packed and ready to leave barely after Jemmy put down the gem. A quick zip through the stones and he’s beaming at life at the ridge. It was so poorly done. I’d have preferred to see him disturbed that it didn’t work.

I hope that this issue is explored in the next season. I think that it‘s reasonable that they didn’t focus on why the stones didn’t work because there was a higher priority of helping Claire, but I hope they don’t just forget it. Is the stones not working specific to these people or is Wendigo stuck too? 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

13 hours ago, taanja said:

Do Roger and Bree die in a car accident in the future? Is that what that was supposed to be?

I saw it as Claire's dissociation reflecting a bit of reality from her real life - letting herself feel the grief of knowing she would never see Bree, Jemmy, or Roger again.

[DoctorAtomic]

17 hours ago, jenn31 said:

I hate when show runners have to explain their bad writing.

Showrunners shouldn't be explaining anything. It's a way overused device nowadays, but that's a whole other conversation. I also agree that you have to show what you want to show when the show airs or it doesn't count. 

This is kind of unfair now because most of us haven't seen the dvds so the traveling makes no sense unless you have the there is internal consistency. 

The whole thing is stupid anyway. They could have had one scene where Roger decides to stay and that's it. 

I don't know why it bothers me so much, but the entire plot has turned into garbage now. 

[Blakeston]

13 hours ago, nara said:

I hope that this issue is explored in the next season. I think that it‘s reasonable that they didn’t focus on why the stones didn’t work because there was a higher priority of helping Claire, but I hope they don’t just forget it. Is the stones not working specific to these people or is Wendigo stuck too? 

Wendigo said he needed a gemstone. I'm assuming his issue was that he didn't have one.

As for Bree and Roger, I really hope there's a decent explanation for why they didn't time travel. If they went on a two-week horseback trek to the stones, and then chose to focus on Fraser's Ridge when they got there - instead of focusing on the 1970s - then they're even stupider than I thought.

I'd prefer it if the explanation was that the stones can see deep into your subconscious to determine where you really want to go, even if you're unaware of it. Of course, that doesn't explain why Claire was transported to the 1740's in the first place...unless on some level she was longing to live in Black Jack's era.

(Actually, what I'd really prefer is if Roger and Bree were transported back to the 20th Century never to be heard from again, but I know we won't be that lucky.)

 

[taanja]

1 hour ago, DoctorAtomic said:

Showrunners shouldn't be explaining anything. It's a way overused device nowadays, but that's a whole other conversation. I also agree that you have to show what you want to show when the show airs or it doesn't count. 

This is kind of unfair now because most of us haven't seen the dvds so the traveling makes no sense unless you have the there is internal consistency. 

The whole thing is stupid anyway. They could have had one scene where Roger decides to stay and that's it. 

I don't know why it bothers me so much, but the entire plot has turned into garbage now. 

Initially it was the time travel aspect of this show that made me want to watch. It annoys me when the show makes it a big deal to travel through the stones (Hell! we even had a new character that said he was from 1968!!!) but then skims over or does a complete fake out with Roger and Bree.

[BitterApple]

I'm choosing to believe Bree's and Jemmy's desires to stay at the Ridge overrode Roger's desire to return to the future. I know it's a flawed theory, but it works for me, lol. 

I always figured Claire initially ended up in the 1740s because she and Frank were discussing Culloden all the way up until she went poking around at the Stones. History was on her mind, and that's where the Stones took her.

[DoctorAtomic]

45 minutes ago, Blakeston said:

Of course, that doesn't explain why Claire was transported to the 1740's in the first place...unless on some level she was longing to live in Black Jack's era.

To be fair, for every traveler, you basically go into the past. For Claire and them, it seems like it was about 200 years. For Gellis, she went farther back, but I can at least cite that she needed the blood sacrifice to control when she wanted to land. She was researching the stones. She could have info dumped to Claire on plenty of occasions on how they work and just get it all out of the way. 

I don't think they should be getting into the physics of the stones, but on the other hand, just a modicum of consistency is just being respectful to the audience. Like, I don't care that there's a bunch of people that 'hear' the stones and need a gemstone to travel. That's fine. Those are the rules. I can roll with that. 

The simple and direct explanation is that you can't go forward from your origin - so the baby effectively blocked them. That's all they needed. We all said as much here because we actually watch the show and pay attention.

42 minutes ago, taanja said:

Initially it was the time travel aspect of this show that made me want to watch.

That and it was the guy from Galactica producing the show. I don't mind that it's not actually about time travel per se. I do like Claire using her advanced know-how to make medicines or Bree making the needle; I wish there was more of that. Or knowing how the revolution is going to turn out. 

What I don't like is that these characters are actually smart and capable, and now just act kind of ignorant to move the plot along. I mean, come on, traveling back to the ridge, neither of them had any discussion? Or, before they left, Claire didn't talk about whether the baby could go forward, when she literally said, "I don't know if you can go forward with the baby" when Bree was pregnant? 

I know it's a minor nit, but it's a symptom of a larger problem with the way the show is written that really just sucks out what could be so much of a better show with a little more effort. 

[Cdh20]

Claire was somehow meant to be with Jamie, that’s why she landed in 1743. 

[theschnauzers]

What Roger and Bree said in 612 is that they were thinking of “home”. We can’t assume we know when or where that is, other than they remained in that time and near the Ridge.  When Claire returned from 1968-69, she knew when and where Jaime was, and that is where she ended up. When Bree travelled back, she knew when Claire was, but not where, so she went back to the time, but in Scotland but found Lallybroch. Roger, in following Bree, essentially followed Bree back in time even though he didn’t know exactly where Bree was.

 

[Blakeston]

20 hours ago, theschnauzers said:

What Roger and Bree said in 612 is that they were thinking of “home”. We can’t assume we know when or where that is, other than they remained in that time and near the Ridge.  When Claire returned from 1968-69, she knew when and where Jaime was, and that is where she ended up. When Bree travelled back, she knew when Claire was, but not where, so she went back to the time, but in Scotland but found Lallybroch. Roger, in following Bree, essentially followed Bree back in time even though he didn’t know exactly where Bree was.

 

In 1968, Roger came to the conclusion that going back in time through the stones sent you back a specific number of years* (202 or 203, I guess)? So I think he was operating under the assumption that he knew what year Bree was in, and that he would be sent to the same year.

* In making that assumption he conveniently ignored the fact that Geilis went back further.

[Cdh20]

35 minutes ago, Blakeston said:

In 1968, Roger came to the conclusion that going back in time through the stones sent you back a specific number of years* (202 or 203, I guess)? So I think he was operating under the assumption that he knew what year Bree was in, and that he would be sent to the same year.

* In making that assumption he conveniently ignored the fact that Geilis went back further.

Did Geillis having a human sacrifice allow her to choose a time?

 

[DoctorAtomic]

3 hours ago, Blakeston said:

In making that assumption he conveniently ignored the fact that Geilis went back further.

Yeah I was just going to say. She murdered her husband so I can buy that human sacrifice gives you some control. 

Otherwise, the show has been consistent in just having a gemstone and going back the 200 years. 

I'm not sure Roger knew that. 

I mean, they showed the burned body right there as Gellis went through. I think she actually explained it beforehand. 

The whole 'thinking' is a fanwank. It's a reasonable one, but a show shouldn't have to fanwank itself to get where it needs to go for plot. 

Edited May 15, 2020 by DoctorAtomic

[Blakeston]

I'm just saying that Roger's presumption was unwarranted. He seemed to think that Claire's two experiences with time travel demonstrated clear-cut rules - even though another person had a very different experience.

So when he went back through the stones, I think he was confident that he'd wind up 202/3 years in the past like Claire did. Even if he shouldn't have been so confident.

[DoctorAtomic]

That's correct. But Roger drew conclusions on the only data he had. And he was correct. You can't really expect anyone to know what they don't know, and nothing happened outside that frame of reference to cause him to question whether his conclusion was wrong. I don't really get the point. We know that Gellis could control travel by killing someone, but I don't see that applies because they were planning to return to 1972. And it has been clear cut that you go back when you go through the first. *Every* traveler we've seen has gone back first, and every one of them that has returned, has gone forward 202+time spent iirc. 

In fact, given his logical reasoning, it's actually more dumb that they were all like, 'oh I guess it was because we were thinking of home and this is home now?' I don't see why the show needed to violate its own internal consistency when there was a way more simple and direct answer.  

I would go so far as to say, there's more drama in Roger realizing he *can* go to 1972, but can't bring his family, and next season comes to terms with 1772 finally being his home. Or instead of him whining all season, you give some stronger direction for the actor to actually show that character development. 

I'm baffled as to why they deleted the scene about him having to try twice to get through the stones the first time because that ends any bitching I have about it.  I genuinely like the show. I don't know why this irks me so much. I don't know if it's because I think it could be way better with a little forward thinking or what.

Edited May 15, 2020 by DoctorAtomic

[Blakeston]

28 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

That's correct. But Roger drew conclusions on the only data he had.

But didn't he also know that Geilis had traveled back further into the past than Claire did, despite having left 23 years later?

If he did, he just ignored that information. And he had no way of knowing whether the human sacrifice affected anything or not, so I don't see much reason for him to ignore Geilis's experience altogether.

[Cdh20]

Exactly what was in that notebook of Geillis’  that Claire took from her house?? Clearly no valuable information, just a bunch of theories?

[DoctorAtomic]

I don't remember at all that Claire took notes from Gellis. That's even worse that we're not privy to any of that. 

[Cdh20]

59 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I don't remember at all that Claire took notes from Gellis. That's even worse that we're not privy to any of that. 

Claire took the notebook in episode 213, in 1968.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Cdh20

[DoctorAtomic]

Did she ever say anything about it?

[bettername2come]

So count me as one of the people who feel like not much happened. Well-acted and whatever happened between Jamie and Claire, I love how wrapped up in each other they are in that final scene.

In the rescue, I loved Jamie saying “You’re alive. You’re whole.” I also liked Jamie, Ian and Fergus saying they do her killing for her. At first, just because I love their love and family loyalty, but then I remembered all three of them are rape survivors and that threw an extra layer onto their vengeance and protection of Claire.

 I think Adult Fergus has finally won me over. I still prefer young Fergus, but this one has grown on me. Someone should really let him in on the time travel shenanigans. I don’t like that his family is hiding stuff from him. After all they’ve been through together, it seems so dishonest.

[captain1]

Is it terribly shallow of me to want that fabulous sixties home?

[Cdh20]

On 5/15/2020 at 10:52 PM, DoctorAtomic said:

Did she ever say anything about it?

You know I do not remember? They may have talked about it in 305, when Claire was preparing to go back to find Jamie. I wondered if Bree  looked at it before she  went?  I am one of those people who isn’t a sci-fi fan so may have overlooked those details ( in the show & the books I did read).

Edited May 18, 2020 by Cdh20

[DoctorAtomic]

You'd think it would be a point of interest. 

[cardigirl]

On 5/16/2020 at 12:34 AM, Cdh20 said:

Claire took the notebook in episode 213, in 1968.

 

On 5/16/2020 at 12:52 AM, DoctorAtomic said:

Did she ever say anything about it?

 

On 5/17/2020 at 9:05 PM, DoctorAtomic said:

You'd think it would be a point of interest. 

Claire does talk about what Geillis' notebooks say in Dragonfly in Amber.  It's not a lot of dialogue or many details, but she is shown leafing through the notebooks, with a voice-over. 

And later she tells Bree at the stones, after Geillis has gone through, that Geillis believed that human sacrifice was required to travel but that no one ever died when Claire went through. I don't remember when Claire begins to figure out that a jewel is necessary for going through. 

[DoctorAtomic]

We saw Gellis kill the guy to go through anyway. That's not really news. 

[Cdh20]

I thought I would post this in the episode thread as this episode won a Women’s Image Award in the drama series category. Considering the subject matter was controversial, it was respected/awarded, for artist value & dealing sensitively with that! 

[Shermie]

Quote

Is it terribly shallow of me to want that fabulous sixties home?

Interesting that many people think the house was fabulous. I joked to my husband that they're either in the '60s/'70s or landed in a recent HGTV reno. Had this aired even 5 years ago, many would have reacted to that house as, "Ew, they're in a tacky 1960s Brady Bunch house!" But now mid-century modern is considered beautiful. 

As for the time travel, yeah. Even one mention by Roger that he was feeling some reticence about leaving would have been better writing.

Is the actor related to the Rankins from Nova Scotia? He can sing, so maybe?

[Camera One]

I waited a week to watch this season finale, and it was not very enjoyable.  I hated watching Claire being beaten and raped by so many men.  I don't see the point of the kidnap/violent assault storyline again, so it felt gratuitous.  I didn't find Lionel comeuppance very satisfying either, though Marsali was awesome.  I don't want to see more of the Brown's.

What a letdown with Brianna and Roger back where they started.  It was the least interesting story route.  I'm glad Claire came home to see Brianna there, though, after such a horrifying ordeal.

The 1960s dream sequences were cool, though they were way too short.  

I'm not sure what I'm looking forward to from the series from this point onwards.  I'm not really that interested in seeing more of the "drama" at Fraser's Ridge with the Brown's.  I can't say I'm too interested in seeing the American Revolution either.

I'm sad my binge watch of the series is over, now that I'm caught up with all the available episodes.  I started Feb 27 with Season 2 and now it's Apr 30.  Four seasons (plus a rewatch of Season 1, halfway through Season 2) in just 2 months.  I'll have to say it was worth it despite my mixed feelings about the show sometimes.

[DoctorAtomic]

I felt this past season spun its wheels for the most part. It was middling at best. I find it troubling that sexual assault is such a go-to plot device that I have questioned whether the author had issues that she's working out. 

I am interested in the pov of the American Revolution from the south. 

I also want to see how this fire is going to play out. I'm convinced Claire will Claire it all up and the fire will be cover for them faking their deaths. It would be cool if Jamie is one of Washington's spies. 

Once you get through the revolution though, I'm not seeing what else there is to tell here. 

 

[Camera One]

On 5/1/2021 at 3:54 PM, DoctorAtomic said:

I am interested in the pov of the American Revolution from the south. 

I also want to see how this fire is going to play out. I'm convinced Claire will Claire it all up and the fire will be cover for them faking their deaths. It would be cool if Jamie is one of Washington's spies. 

From a southern perspective, it might be interesting to see the impact of the British proclamation that slaves could gain freedom by joining the British.  I would find it interesting if Jaime and Claire eventually ended up with the Loyalists who moved north, so we could see the Canadian colonies for a season, or just the whole process of Loyalists on the move.  Or this could be a reason for them to go back to Scotland, which would allow us to see them interact with Jaime's sister and her family again.  

Quote

Once you get through the revolution though, I'm not seeing what else there is to tell here. 

We could see the impacts of industrialization on England and Scotland.  Jaime somehow becomes the manager of a textiles factory and Claire demands better worker rights including minimum wage and sick pay.

I'm sure Claire and Jaime would still be healthy enough to participate in the French Revolution and the revolutionary wars, LOL.

Edited May 9, 2021 by Camera One

[DoctorAtomic]

Didn't the guy that founded Canada end any slavery there? It has to be around that time almost. They could get slaves into Canada. 

If they're going to do the revolution, it would be better to take a different angle than usually. 

[Camera One]

5 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

Didn't the guy that founded Canada end any slavery there? It has to be around that time almost. They could get slaves into Canada. 

You might be thinking of John Graves Simcoe, who became the Lieutenant Governor of the new colony of Upper Canada, mostly populated by ex-Americans (the Loyalists).  The people fleeing America were allowed to keep the slaves they already had, though in 1793, Simcoe passed a law to stop any new slaves from being brought into the colony.  Canada didn't officially separated from Britain until around a hundred years later, in 1867.

Edited May 9, 2021 by Camera One