S02.E12: The Hail Mary

[WatchrTina]

I moved my comment to the Books-vs-show thread

Edited June 26, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Jodithgrace]

Re: The Hail Mary

I don't have a problem with using a contemporary phrase as a title, as long as by contemporary we mean something that Claire would know from the 1940's.  So I looked it up, and saw that it originated in the 1930's when the "4 horsemen" of Notre Dame used it. Now, why Claire would be familiar with American football phraseology can be explained by her treatment of wounded American soldiers in WWII. They well might have used the term to describe a desperate maneuver used in combat, though it really didn't come into popular use until the 1970's. 

Note that the phrase wasn't used within the episode, only as a title, but I think it was a clever juxtaposition between Mary's desperation and Jamie's.

[nodorothyparker]

I probably would have liked this episode a whole lot more if it wasn't bumping up against the season finale.  While I was eventually mollified a bit to be reminded that that one will be 90 minutes, this show always comes back to inconsistent pacing issues, a seeming determination to get more than their money's worth on the secondary characters, and a sense of oh yeah, wasn't there a married couple in there somewhere this series is supposedly focused on?

That said, there were some nice character beats and storytelling decisions.  I'm as glad as anybody about the decision to remove Jamie from the lets marry Black Jack to Mary so you can hang out with your rapist storyline because that's one of the things that made Claire so hard to root for in the book.  Here, they at least tried to make it somewhat more about the practicalities of providing for Mary and her child after the Randall boys were gone instead of just more Frank Frank Frank.  They gave a modified version of book Jamie's "Damn all the Randalls" to Murtagh with his irritated "This is madness.  All this to save goddamn Frank Randall," to which in both mediums I've always wanted to say "buddy, you're not even remotely alone in this."  Mary even found her voice enough to get a nice shot at Claire over her earlier meddling.

I did really like Jamie's 11th hour desperate attempt to organize anything, to do anything to head off Culloden story.  That feels very much in character for him and makes more sense to me than sitting around waiting for the inevitable.  Sam was doing a nice job this episode in selling me on the waves of pure desperation and encroaching despair coming off him as more and more doors slammed shut on him.  Of course Charles is consistent to the end in not at all understanding how war is waged and getting lost in the dark.  That imbecile, indeed.

Tobias Menzies is as always perfection in everything he does down to every movement, gesture, and inflection, but I really wasn't sure what I was supposed to be feeling in a lot of it.  Yeah, even truly beyond terrible people still sometimes manage to love another person or kittens or whatever.  That doesn't redeem them and while I realize Claire was desperate enough to wrap this up that she throwing in everything but the kitchen sink it still seemed such an odd argument for her to even try to be making.  Meanwhile, Black Jack's sitting there offering no more than rapists gotta rape.  If by some fluke I don't die, I'm not going to make any pretense of trying to restrain myself over a promise to the one person I claim to love.  And beating the hell out of the corpse and terrifying the two women?  How confident do you feel about the choice you pushed now, Claire?

Similarly, there was some wonderful acting going on with Colum and Dougal.  Poor Dougal, always the bridesmaid brother not considered competent enough to be named guardian to the child he fathered.  And it sucks when your brother decides to off himself rather than listen anymore to you making his death all about you.  The faces Jamie was making while they were arguing openly about Hamish's paternity were great, like you guys do know I'm still here, right?  But as terrific as the scene was, it's another one that starts to fall apart when you really think about Colum's logic.  He wouldn't commit MacKenzie soldiers to the Stuart cause because he understood they couldn't win.  He won't name Dougal as his successor because he knows Dougal will immediately march those men into a losing fight and is astute enough to know that Jamie wouldn't.  But in naming Jamie his son's guardian and sort of heir apparent, has he forgotten that Jamie did march his own clansmen into this fight?  Or that Jaime is a named and declared traitor?  Does he really think that if and when they lose the British are just going to let Jamie stroll back to Leoch to take up the mantle there like nothing happened?

I really hope I'm wrong in thinking this is starting to smell like another whole 5 minutes at the stones.

Edited June 26, 2016 by nodorothyparker

[peacefrog]

nodorothyparker I agree about the placement of the episode and pacing of season. I did like the episode and think it is very good but I get the criticisms of it because all season long has been a shallow representation of what they are fighting for, Scotland, Lallybroch, the people, even Frank, but especially for each other. There is no mention of this, it's all rush to fit BPC in, the Old Fox, etc. Cut some of this and take some time with the story to see exactly what is motivating the characters. 

Now they made it even more of a rush by making it the day of Culloden. I think the time they have left together is going to be shortchanged even more. 

[nodorothyparker]

That's the thing.  Despite some of my issues with it, I really did like most of this episode.  But also I found myself checking my mantel clock at various points thinking "They do know they only have one episode left to wrap all these various details up, introduce Brianna and Roger, and give Jamie and Claire a satisfactory enough ending after basically ignoring them for episodes to get people to want to come back next season, right?"  

And shallow is a very good word for so much of it.  I did realize after writing about Colum's motivations above that he was probably thinking of this rising in the same terms as previous historical Scottish risings and in that context, it makes sense that while he assumes there will likely be some consequences eventually everything will more or less return to status quo, the clans will still be the clans, etc.  But the show has never really spelled out why this time will be so different, save for Frank mentioning it very briefly early in the first half of last season.  Claire hasn't really been able to tell them much beyond that their "culture" will be destroyed, whatever that means to them.

Edited June 26, 2016 by nodorothyparker

[ulkis]

I don't think they will introduce Roger this year. I think at most the last shot of the finale will be Claire going back through the stones, then "Boston 1968" on the screen and then Brianna on screen and Claire saying, " . . . and that's what happened" or something like that.

[Archery]

Nodorothypsrker, I'm not sure how Claire would ever be able to fully explain the concept of the wiping out of the clans.  How could they ever compute that? It reminds me of the dude Claire learns about later, who tries to warn the Native Americans about the coming genocide. How would you even convey that, when the clan system is ingrained in them so deeply?  

I think Claire's argument to BJR was the only one she could make: You love your brother, so do this one thing he asks.  Control yourself for as long as it takes to die in two days, or, if you don't believe my prophecy, to see her and the baby someplace safe. I don't think either of them envisioned the newlyweds setting up house in a cozy flat somewhere.  Really, if BJR did survive, he'd still be deployed in the Scottish backwater until his commission ended, and Mary would be ensconced art the Randall family seat in Sussex with the baby.  

[Dust Bunny]

14 hours ago, ulkis said:

I'm torn about Murtagh. I think they should probably stick to the book on that count but definitely won't complain if they change their mind.

Agreed. I still think Murtagh's death would be a huge gut punch to drive home the tragedy of Culloden. Sure, the loss of Rupert will suck (Dougal's death is a whole other thing), but we've really come to know and love Murtagh on a deeper level. And I think Murtagh's death is formative in Jamie's growth and journey. Moreover, there's the narrative question that we still don't know what happened at Culloden between Jamie, Murtagh, and BJR. Murtagh's death might be instrumental in the final showdown between Jamie and BJR. (I hope Diana told them what happens there and that they filmed that for future reference, along with any other Culloden scenes.)

That being said, I'm with a bunch of you that I won't complain if Murtagh lives. This episode showed me that their well-thought-out changes can smooth out some of the rough spots in the books. The one thing that made me wonder if they would keep him is when he said Mary wasn't be the sort of woman he imagined marrying. For a moment, that made me wonder if Jocasta was more his type, and that he could take over Duncan Innes' role. 

Still, it's hard for me to imagine Murtagh leaving Jamie's side at Culloden, since he knows what happens on that moor. Even if Jamie ordered Murtagh to escort the Lallybroch men and Fergus home, I'm not sure Murtagh would go.

I'm so glad we get 90 minutes for the finale. There's a lot to cover, and I don't want the emotional beats rushed. Thank you, Starz, for not forcing an edit that would undercut some iconic moments.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Dust Bunny

[toolazy]

2 hours ago, ulkis said:

I don't think they will introduce Roger this year. I think at most the last shot of the finale will be Claire going back through the stones, then "Boston 1968" on the screen and then Brianna on screen and Claire saying, " . . . and that's what happened" or something like that.

Spoiler

They are definitely introducing Roger & Bree this year - Starz announced their casting months ago and last week they released promo photos.

[Squirrely]

23 hours ago, ulkis said:

I don't think they will introduce Roger this year. I think at most the last shot of the finale will be Claire going back through the stones, then "Boston 1968" on the screen and then Brianna on screen and Claire saying, " . . . and that's what happened" or something like that.

Spoiler

Roger and Bree have been cast, and they have filmed scenes in Scotland. 

 

I could have lived with a much shorter version of the Alex/Mary/Jack/Claire story. Too much time was wasted on listening to an actor cough, IMO. But I've always felt that BJR is too cartoonish of a villain, in the books as well. I don't see the depth or any nuances. Tobias knocked it out of the park, absolutely. But my god, enough was enough halfway through. Claire is about to leave Jamie for a godawful amount of time and this is how they're depicting the Eve of Colloden? Ugh. 

On the other hand, I loved the Dougal and Colum scenes. I thought they were masterfully written and acted. 

Edited June 27, 2016 by Athena
Added spoiler tags

[chocolatetruffle]

Re: the title

For me, The Hail Mary refers to the prayer aka The Ave Maria: “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.”

This speaks more to the desperation of our characters as their hope to survive Culloden runs out and the approach the likely "hour of their deaths" and certainly the death of the Highland culture, their families' way of life and for Claire & Jamie the separation. 

The other meanings already mentioned, for me, are secondary.

Re Roger & Bree:

Spoiler

My TV Guide has an article interviewing the two actors and Richard Rankin talks at length about Roger's role in the final episode. 

[TaurusRose]

5 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

Similarly, there was some wonderful acting going on with Colum and Dougal.  Poor Dougal, always the bridesmaid brother not considered competent enough to be named guardian to the child he fathered.  And it sucks when your brother decides to off himself rather than listen anymore to you making his death all about you.  The faces Jamie was making while they were arguing openly about Hamish's paternity were great, like you guys do know I'm still here, right?  But as terrific as the scene was, it's another one that starts to fall apart when you really think about Colum's logic.  He wouldn't commit MacKenzie soldiers to the Stuart cause because he understood they couldn't win.  He won't name Dougal as his successor because he knows Dougal will immediately march those men into a losing fight and is astute enough to know that Jamie wouldn't.  But in naming Jamie his son's guardian and sort of heir apparent, has he forgotten that Jamie did march his own clansmen into this fight?  Or that Jaime is a named and declared traitor?  Does he really think that if and when they lose the British are just going to let Jamie stroll back to Leoch to take up the mantle there like nothing happened?

I don't believe Dougal's competency was the issue for Colum, but Dougal's character.  Dougal was grudgingly loyal to his brother, but he was also a hot-head.  Dougal was not a leader; he wasn't one to compromise or negotiate.  He saw everything as a challenge to charge through with as much force as necessary.  Dougal motivated men through fear and intimidation.  Colum pointed this out rather succinctly with just one sentence, "Brother, if you were half as popular as you are in your mind, more men would be in your army." Colum foreshadowed his choice for Hamish's guardian in S1. The main reason he was upset by Jamie's marriage to Claire was that her nationality took his nephew squarely out of the running for laird should Colum pass.  Jamie had proven his ability to disentangle himself from sticky clan situations when he pledged an oath of obedience rather than fealty at the gathering, and again when he offered an alternative that satisfied everyone's egos after Colum confiscated Dougal's BPC fund.  Jamie is not only a warrior, but he's also a strategic thinker; he's fair and just in his decision making, and an all around likable person.  Colum saw all of this in his sister's son and that is why he was the laird's first choice.  And even though Colum knew Jamie would rally the MacKenzies to battle, he knew that Jamie would put his men's welfare above that of a losing battle and Dougal would not.  Finally, TBF, Colum had taken the yellow jasmine prior to Dougal's arrival.  His very relaxed, almost labored speech was the tip-off.  Prior to that, he had been alert in mind and fully engaged with his visitors despite his pain.  Dougal might have noticed if he wasn't already drunk, but Dougal being Dougal, maybe he wouldn't have even if he'd been sober.

Edited June 26, 2016 by taurusrose

[ulkis]

52 minutes ago, Squirrely said:

Roger and Bree have been cast, and they have filmed scenes in Scotland. 

Oh, darn. I think I like my idea better, heh. Because otherwise I do think Roger's intro will be rather rushed. Even if the whole last half hour is devoted to the 1960s.

[AD55]

I'm more sympathetic to Frank than most, though I can't say I'm particularly fascinated by him. One thing that has bugged me, though, is that I can't recall anyone ever mentioning that if Frank isn't born, the possibility of Claire's passing through the stones is practically nil. You'd think that would reconcile Jamie to BJR's survival in the short term. If I had been Claire, I would have played that card, but unless I've forgotten something, which is entirely possible, it never seems to occur to anyone.

[dustoffmom]

AD55....add me to your 'anyone' it never occurs to list but damn if I can't see easily how you are correct.  The only reason she was anywhere near Inverness was because her new husband was a history freak who decided to spend his honeymoon tracking down his family history.  As far as we know, she had no  other connections or reasons for ever being there.  Interesting catch and one that surely had never occurred to me before your post.

[AD55]

1 minute ago, dustoffmom said:

AD55....add me to your 'anyone' it never occurs to list but damn if I can't see easily how you are correct.  The only reason she was anywhere near Inverness was because her new husband was a history freak who decided to spend his honeymoon tracking down his family history.  As far as we know, she had no  other connections or reasons for ever being there.  Interesting catch and one that surely had never occurred to me before your post.

dustoffmom, I have a mild passion for time travel novels & movies. Gabaldon has said a number of times that the time travel was introduced because she couldn't make Claire talk like an eighteenth-century woman. I think it was mainly a plot device for her and she didn't get interested in time travel conundrums until the later novels. I suspect Moore and company are, but they couldn't really introduce that element because Jamie and Claire's estrangement in DIA is crucial to the plot. I'm now OT, so I won't say more.

[GHScorpiosRule]

57 minutes ago, AD55 said:

I'm more sympathetic to Frank than most, though I can't say I'm particularly fascinated by him. One thing that has bugged me, though, is that I can't recall anyone ever mentioning that if Frank isn't born, the possibility of Claire's passing through the stones is practically nil. You'd think that would reconcile Jamie to BJR's survival in the short term. If I had been Claire, I would have played that card, but unless I've forgotten something, which is entirely possible, it never seems to occur to anyone.

I can't recall which episode it was, but Jamie and Claire did have a conversation about if Frank wasn't born, Claire wouldn't be there to go through the stones, etc., and Claire held out her hands, and Frank's ring was still on her finger. I recall a discussion where Back to the Future was brought up and her ring was compared to Marty's family picture and his brother and sister "fading."

32 minutes ago, dustoffmom said:

AD55....add me to your 'anyone' it never occurs to list but damn if I can't see easily how you are correct.  The only reason she was anywhere near Inverness was because her new husband was a history freak who decided to spend his honeymoon tracking down his family history.  As far as we know, she had no  other connections or reasons for ever being there.  Interesting catch and one that surely had never occurred to me before your post.

Frank wasn't Claire's new husband. They were in Scotland for their second honeymoon to reconnect after their separation during the war.

Just saw the episode and really enjoyed it. I will admit, I read all the comments and expected Jamie to only be in like five minutes or something. Glad that wasn't the case. I would also have preferred less wheezing and coughing scenes, but I have no issues with the episode.

But Good God ALMIGHTY. Did the real Bonnie Prince Charlie care more about the Brits than the men he somehow managed to convince to fight and die for him? Why no one in that room just threw down their weapons and declared they weren't going to fight anymore since he doesn't give two bluidy shites for them, and cares MORE about being a gentleman and making sure the Brits are treated more fairly?

And I felt nothing for Dougal in his final scene with Colum, because it was all aboot MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEEEEE. I'm hoping Colum didn't hear any of it; or most of it; like how dare Colum not recover from his fall from the horse.

And it was already revealed last season, that Dougal threw in Colum's face that Hamish was Dougal's child, so I don't understand anyone's confusion over it "finally" being revealed. It was revealed when they all returned to Leoch last season, after Jamie and Claire's marriage.

I just love the expressions on Sam's face when he shows what Jamie is thinking. And I got a delicious thrill when Jamie knocked furniture over when Claire told him about that sadistic, raping motherfucker Black Jack. And then how the wheels in his mind started working.

So, so, so, SAE VERRA happy that Jamie didn't have to stand up for, console or comfort his rapist. I liked the change not because it was illogical, or wrong in the buik, but because it was vile, disgusting and offensive to me.

Every time that sadistic, raping motherfucker Black Jack clears his throats, or makes any kind of sound that is not speaking non-offensive words, I get creeped out and disgusted and just want to curl up in the fetal position.

Yeah, the beating on the chest of a dead Alex by his brother? It's all about you, too, isn't it?

I love the moments we got with Jamie and Claire, and just as in The Wedding, I grin like a tween when they kissy-kissy, like they did here. Sigh...

Yay for a 90 minute finale!

BOO! for having tae wait TWO WEEKS.

I'd like to think Moore learned from last season, so that the finale isn't rushed/crunched, and that I we get the emotional scenes, and more than one or two minutes of Jamie and Claire.

Unless they have time to do flashbacks, we'll probably see Tobias Menzies, because Moore just luuuurves him. It better be his death scene I see, if they decide to expand from the buik and not just have his rotting corpse lying over Jamie's legs, which saved Jamie from dying.

[Archery]

AD55, I agree; Claire's presence in the past depends on her being with Frank in the present.  But we are watching this in a post-time travel fiction era, where, whether it's the random Doctor Who episode, or Star Trek's City on the Edge of Forever, where the time travel paradox (if I change something small in the past, I erase the circumstance that makes my going back in time possible), makes these arguments obvious.   For Claire, born in 1918, that idea isn't part of her pop-culture psyche.  So I have always cut her some slack for not being able to reason through znc explain exactly why Frank has to exist in the future.  Me, I'd explain to Jamie why Edith had to get hit by that car and be done with it -- but then I was born in 1967.  

[AD55]

9 minutes ago, Archery said:

AD55, I agree; Claire's presence in the past depends on her being with Frank in the present.  But we are watching this in a post-time travel fiction era, where, whether it's the random Doctor Who episode, or Star Trek's City on the Edge of Forever, where the time travel paradox (if I change something small in the past, I erase the circumstance that makes my going back in time possible), makes these arguments obvious.   For Claire, born in 1918, that idea isn't part of her pop-culture psyche.  So I have always cut her some slack for not being able to reason through znc explain exactly why Frank has to exist in the future.  Me, I'd explain to Jamie why Edith had to get hit by that car and be done with it -- but then I was born in 1967.  

This is an interesting take, Archery. Because this is OT, I just looked for a place to move the discussion and discovered there's a whole time travel thread that I need to read. I suspect my question has already been discussed at length!

[dustoffmom]

Scorpio, yes, I know they were not actually newlyweds and were on a second honeymoon of sorts.  Just didn't want to go into a longer winded discussion of how she came to be there.  And she did go to some pains to explain that though they had been married for a while, they had in fact spent so little time together during the war that they were more like actual newlyweds than not.

[peacefrog]

Just occurred to me, did Dougal see the vile in Colum's hand after he realized he's dead? I wonder if he is going to accuse Claire and Jamie of murdering Colum as well as attempting to murder BPC? More incentive to get Claire away.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Just now, peacefrog said:

Just occurred to me, did Dougal see the vile in Colum's hand after he realized he's dead? I wonder if he is going to accuse Claire and Jamie of murdering Colum as well as attempting to murder BPC? More incentive to get Claire away.

He did, yes.

[toolazy]

I doubt he'll blame Claire or Jamie because Colum was pretty clearly holding that bottle on his own. 

[morgan]

Toolazy, that assumes he will be thinking rationally.  I can completely see Dougal just going off the deep end and blaming Claire for witchcraft/undo influence over Jamie.  

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

Outlander Expresses Its Brotherly Love

On the eve of the season's climactic battle, two sets of siblings are forced to find closure.

[toolazy]

2 minutes ago, morgan said:

Toolazy, that assumes he will be thinking rationally.  I can completely see Dougal just going off the deep end and blaming Claire for witchcraft/undo influence over Jamie.  

Spoiler

I think Dougal will save his Claire-rage for the next episode.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

5 minutes ago, morgan said:

Toolazy, that assumes he will be thinking rationally.  I can completely see Dougal just going off the deep end and blaming Claire for witchcraft/undo influence over Jamie.  

@morgan, I'm pretty sure

 

that Dougal did say that about Claire in the buik, when he and Jamie started fighting.

Edited June 27, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[morgan]

Yes I think he did GHScorpiosrule.  And I see it playing out with him completely unhinged like WatchrTina was saying he did in season 1 after his wife died.  I think I saw it more controlled seething in the book, but can't remember and won't check till season is over.  

Toolazy, has to be next episode, it's the last one!

Thank god The Great British Baking Show starts up on Friday.  I have no shows after the Outlander finale!

[GHScorpiosRule]

19 minutes ago, morgan said:

Yes I think he did GHScorpiosrule.  And I see it playing out with him completely unhinged like WatchrTina was saying he did in season 1 after his wife died.  I think I saw it more controlled seething in the book, but can't remember and won't check till season is over.  

Toolazy, has to be next episode, it's the last one!

Thank god The Great British Baking Show starts up on Friday.  I have no shows after the Outlander finale!

Me either. And I don't feel like going back to check, either.

For me? I needs tae find ouut when Poldark premieres!

ETA: DAMMIT. Pushed back to the FALL!

Edited June 27, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[Bort]

For all his faults, at least Dougal didn't beat the shit of his dead brother's body like BlackJack did.

By the way, the boarding house Alex and Mary were staying at in Inverness isn't the same place Frank and Claire stayed at on their honeymoon, is it?

[GHScorpiosRule]

Just now, kariyaki said:

By the way, the boarding house Alex and Mary were staying at in Inverness isn't the same place Frank and Claire stayed at on their honeymoon, is it?

It didn't look like it. Man, I hope it wasn't.

[morgan]

No it wasn't.  Would have been kind of a cool callback but at the same time would have felt a bit odd because I would have expected Claire to reminisce a bit like when she first went to Castle Leoch.  

[Keeta]

8 hours ago, peacefrog said:

nodorothyparker I agree about the placement of the episode and pacing of season. I did like the episode and think it is very good but I get the criticisms of it because all season long has been a shallow representation of what they are fighting for, Scotland, Lallybroch, the people, even Frank, but especially for each other. There is no mention of this, it's all rush to fit BPC in, the Old Fox, etc. Cut some of this and take some time with the story to see exactly what is motivating the characters. 

Now they made it even more of a rush by making it the day of Culloden. I think the time they have left together is going to be shortchanged even more. 

Agreed. I have enjoyed a lot of season 2 episodes, but something about it has felt shallow all the same, as you mentioned. I wonder how a second viewing will change (or not) that feeling, since I'm sure it at least partly stems from a subconscious comparison of the depth of the book with the tv show. 

About this episode, was I the only one really bored by Colum and Dougal? I'm sure it's partly to do with the writing, but something about Gary Lewis as Colum just does not do it for me, and never really has. Graham McTavish is terrific as Dougal, but I did not feel any emotional connection to his speech when Colum dies, and was just waiting for it to be over. (I'm taking issue mainly with the writing and length of that scene; not a knock on his acting at all!)

I am optimistic that TPTB will give J&C's last day together and parting the attention it deserves. I know they kind of bungled the first time Jamie brought Claire back to the stones, but the show has gotten some other emotional scenes/episodes so very right (the wedding; when she tells Jamie the truth about being from the future). They have shown they are entirely capable of giving us a great finale. I wish we didn't have to wait 2 weeks for it!

[qtpye]

Good Lord, I am so happy about Black Jack dying.  As horrible as he would to Mary, can you imagine what he would do to any innocent child placed in his care?  The poor thing would live a life of sexual abuse and torture.

I love Tobias M and hope to see him in more things, though I know he is still on this show as Frank.

[toolazy]

18 hours ago, morgan said:

Yes I think he did GHScorpiosrule.  And I see it playing out with him completely unhinged like WatchrTina was saying he did in season 1 after his wife died.  I think I saw it more controlled seething in the book, but can't remember and won't check till season is over.  

Toolazy, has to be next episode, it's the last one!

Thank god The Great British Baking Show starts up on Friday.  I have no shows after the Outlander finale!

Spoiler

Right, but in the books the thing that set him off was his impression that Claire was trying to convince Jamie to off the Bonnie Prince.  I guess they can switch it up if they want.  We'll see in two very long weeks. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

A Pox on you, @toolazy! Now I'm going tae have tae luik in the buik to verify if it's both, one or the other!

Have I mentioned how much I looooooove Jamie's stubbled luik? 'Tis verra sexay, aye?

And though it probably belongs in the previous episode thread, I just have to add that, just as I LOVE how he says "Aye," I really lovelovelove, how Jamie says "nuthin'" like he did last week. It made me insides curl up in vicarious thrill!

Wot?

[CalamityBoPeep]

On 6/26/2016 at 2:44 PM, Dust Bunny said:

 Moreover, there's the narrative question that we still don't know what happened at Culloden between Jamie, Murtagh, and BJR. Murtagh's death might be instrumental in the final showdown between Jamie and BJR. (I hope Diana told them what happens there and that they filmed that for future reference, along with any other Culloden scenes.)

Over the course of the season, I've thought several times that I hope they shoot all of their Culloden footage at the same time, no matter when they plan to use it. For the sake of continuity, it just seems like it'd be a good idea to get that stuff in the can to hold for when they need it. That way they don't have to worry about actor availability and all of that. But I know that's not usually how these things work in production. Which is a real shame, because it's really distracting to see things really wrong from one episode or season to the next. Some series are more blatant with not seeming to give a damn though. LOL *coughGilmoreGirlscough*

[katville]

While I found this episode slow at times, Gary Lewis and Graham McTavish brought their A game. They play brilliantly off each other and I will miss them. 

Edited August 9, 2016 by katville