S02.E13: Dragonfly in Amber

[toolazy]

23 minutes ago, ulkis said:

There was one line that struck me as too modern - when Brianna said "have you been?" I feel like people didn't really start leaving off the "there" till the late 90s but maybe I'm wrong. But when she said that I thought that she should have said "have you been there?" No big deal, but it did stand out to me.

I'm pretty sure that people said "have you been" back then.  

[Jodithgrace]

One thing that they didn't use from the books, which I missed, was the holidays. The special days, like Samhain and Midsummer and Beltrane (?) when it was easier to pass through the stones. It would have mitigated the ridiculous coincidence that Claire and Bree just happened to be there on the very day that Geillis goes through the stones. In the book, it was one of these days, which is part of what makes Claire think that Geillis could be making an attempt, since she know she came from 1968 and there were only a few possible dates that would work.

About Sophie: she didn't bother me. I find that whenever you have a scene with a bunch of soft spoken genteel British people and you throw an American in there, the American always sounds loud and brash and somewhat jarring. I always think, Good Lord, is that how we sound to the rest of the world? But that was how Bree sounded to me, like an outspoken American.

But think what a difficult acting job this was. I've done some accent work and it is very hard to maintain, but especially when you are acting against people speaking your own natural accent. I thought she did a very good job. 

As to how Bree should actually sound. It's interesting. Even though she was born and raised in the US, both of her parents..the people who taught her to speak..were British. School would have knocked most of that out of her, but I would imagine that hints of it would come back, especially when she is in the UK. So I would be inclined to be very lenient about her accent, myself. 

Anyway, I really enjoyed the episode, even the cheesy ending. 

[Archery]

I've now read a couple of reviews of the finale.  The astonishment over Jamie "keeping track of Claire's periods" has me rolling my eyes.  It's not very complicated:  he realizes, "hey, I've gotten to make love to my wife every night for a whole month. She's pregnant."  Of course in the book, he has that great line, "And me a farmer too."  Plus, he notices other physical changes to Claire's body that only happened with her first pregnancy.  Not a mystery.

Claire being a shell of a woman is consistent with someone who lost a spouse, and cannot talk to anyone about him, or even acknowledge his existence for 20 years.  She has never really finished grieving, and that is an invisible wall between her and Bree.  As much as they love each other, Claire can never say things like, You sound just like your father.    I think they conveyed very well in this episode the stress of returning to Scotland for Claire.  Didn't she say that she had not spoken Jamie's name aloud in all that time?  CB really nailed that tension.

[DittyDotDot]

12 minutes ago, Jodithgrace said:

As to how Bree should actually sound. It's interesting. Even though she was born and raised in the US, both of her parents..the people who taught her to speak..were British. School would have knocked most of that out of her, but I would imagine that hints of it would come back, especially when she is in the UK. So I would be inclined to be very lenient about her accent, myself. 

Bree is described as having a weird accent in the books. It's not really Boston, it's not British, but some sort of hybrid. It sounds like the actress may have actually nailed the accent to a certain degree.

[CalamityBoPeep]

14 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Bree is described as having a weird accent in the books. It's not really Boston, it's not British, but some sort of hybrid. It sounds like the actress may have actually nailed the accent to a certain degree.

Yeah, I give Sophie a lot of leeway on the accent thing. Accents are inherited strangely. LOL My Scottish mother was called in to speak to my Kindergarten teacher in California because I was "having trouble" with the variations of the "oo" sound, learning to read. The teacher said I was saying them all the same. Mom came in, began speaking, and the teacher said "Never mind. It makes sense now." 

I speak with a slight Scottish lilt or word choice now and then, (mostly when talking to Scottish members of the family), all my "oo"s sound the same, add in a bit of California, along with a lot of Memphis, Tennessee then transplant to the Midwest... and it all comes out sounding really strange. My sister who moved to the UK at 19 and married a South African sounds something like an English Canadian.  

Which is all to say... You'll never see complaints from me, regarding Bree's accent.

Edited July 10, 2016 by CalamityBoPeep

[Clawdette]

I went off to college in the fall of 1968 and viewing Bree's wardrobe made me feel that I was back on campus.  The straight lines, the boots, even the hats were everywhere at the University of North Carolina.  I didn't spot clogs, though - I had three pairs of those.  So, from my perspective, her look was spot on.  I think I was as casual in behavior and speech as Bree.

I'm going to stop before I feel any older.

[morgan]

I have zero problem with Bree's accent either except I always thought it should be more English.  But that's mainly because I live outside of Boston and have a good friend who lives here who is English.  Her children, even the one born here, all sound English, although she says she thinks they sound American to her.  I'm guessing they have a weird hybrid accent.

For myself I was born in the Midwest to parents from the Midwest, but moved to CA when I was 8.  Came east for college.  I definitely don't have my parents accent, but some words come out flat/Midwestern.  I think generally I don't have much of an accent at all.  My children don't have the occasional Midwestern thing at all, and they definitely don't have my husband's Boston accent.  They sound pretty accent less.

Im thinking Bree's being a mix or a bit off works. 

[whoknowswho]

1 hour ago, Jodithgrace said:

One thing that they didn't use from the books, which I missed, was the holidays. The special days, like Samhain and Midsummer and Beltrane (?) when it was easier to pass through the stones. . 

Beltane. :)

As a pagan, I wondered about this and why such an important part of the story was left out. It's one of the things about the books way back when written, that drew me. I didn't realize I had a such strong pull to paganism back then, just that it fascinated me immensely.

Being as the story has had a trial for witchcraft, and Geillis is a rather dark practicer of the craft...and the opening credits show what appear to be Druid types...I'm not sure why this hasn't been explored, except that there's just so much material and so much time. But it's such a neat part of the books from what I remember.

[DittyDotDot]

35 minutes ago, whoknowswho said:

Being as the story has had a trial for witchcraft, and Geillis is a rather dark practicer of the craft...and the opening credits show what appear to be Druid types...I'm not sure why this hasn't been explored, except that there's just so much material and so much time. But it's such a neat part of the books from what I remember.

I can't recall, was it a big part of the first two books, though? I'm not sure, but it seems like there was no real discussion of it until they found that notebook of Geillis's. Up until then, I don't think anyone realized it was the sun feasts when the stones worked.

[toolazy]

Next time I watch, I'll try to pause and get a better look at Geillis' notebooks.  I know they mentioned gemstones - maybe they mention special days, too. 

[AheadofStraight]

DG tweeted a story about the hand marking and it being left off the show (and the actual scene from the book)

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sosqdg

[theschnauzers]

There was no mention in the scene where Claire is reading Gillian's notebook about the Druid sun festival days. As I best recall over the various books, it appears the festival days weren't the only times one could past through the stones; but genetics and the presence of gem stones were factors, or the presence of a person in the traveler's thoughts which guided the time of the destination. For the viewer, the show has now given the clues about the buzzing, and the gemstones, but some of the rest might be addressed in book 3 when Claire goes back to find Jamie. 

Spoiler

I assume the search to find where Jamie is in 1765, 203 years back from 1968 will be part of this; I can't see it being done without uncovering Jamie's bookseller persona of 1765 in the 20th century, and where.

Edited July 11, 2016 by theschnauzers

[vesperholly]

9 hours ago, Summer said:

This was the only episode that I actually enjoyed out of the entire season.  I had become so disinterested this season I wasn't even looking forward to the finale, but as a pre-Outlander Richard Rankin fan, I WAS excited to see his performance as Roger (and he did not disappoint!  Yay!!) 

OH! I knew I knew him - he was the hot soldier who romanced Oona Chaplin's character on The Crimson Field.

Edited July 11, 2016 by vesperholly

[WatchrTina]

Well it turns out Diana was not best pleased by the decision to forgo the carving of initials into one another hands prior to Jamie & Claire's farewell at the stones.  She talks about it in this "Twit Longer" message (a kind of special Tweet with no character limit.  It includes an excerpt from the book showing the original farewell scene.)

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sosqdg

[lianau]

You know I think the carving might just be a bit difficult to make make up wise . A hand is almost always visible (Jamie's back only if he's shirtless) and has a lot of movement.

[toolazy]

She doesn't mention that Jamie gave her a ring - she only mentions that dragonfly in amber. The initials are one (two?)  of those things that I'm willing to give up at the altar of adaptation.  

[theschnauzers]

2 hours ago, lianau said:

You know I think the carving might just be a bit difficult to make make up wise . A hand is almost always visible (Jamie's back only if he's shirtless) and has a lot of movement.

Diana, Ron. Maril, Matt, and the other episode writer. have all indicated in interviews or in social media that there were practical short-term and long term production problems with the carving of their initials into the fingers; a-- it would be quite messy having to be cleaned up and reset for each take of that scene; b-- the impact of fake blood on the costumes; c-- there was no place handy near the Stones to do it (as the cottage was written out in season one when Claire and Jamie went to  the Stones); d-- they would need finger prosthetics constantly for both Sam and Cait going forward (the same reason theychanged the injury to Jamie's hand last season at the hands of Black Jack, and presumably to avoid the later amputation Jamie had in the books). So while the image is iconic on one level, it was quite impractical on others, hence they changed that out of the scene. And Diana did say that that conversation did result in one other change, to have the props department a more realistic looking amberstone than the one originally used in last season as Hugh Munro's wedding gift.

[Pestilentia]

Quote

No one will convince me that they could not have found a tall, big boned, size 16 actress who's a red head to play Brianna.

My memory of book Bree is of her absolutely towering over everyone and being almost sasquatch size, especially her feet. I don't know whether that is accurate or not but it's what my memory is giving me. Like she and Jamie were almost part of a super race of humans. We lost that when Sam was cast, or I guess more accurately when Caitriona was cast as she was so much taller than book Claire. We got past that OK with Sam (for the most part) so I guess we can get past Sophie, although Bree's imposing physicality was, for me at least (a woman who works out hard to stay strong) a big part of her character. And FWIW I have no lines in my face and I'm well out of my 50's- aging doesn't happen to everyone the same way.

Anyway, I think I am done being critical of Sophie- she's been tossed into a well oiled production and is doing her best, so I'm going to let her simmer a bit and see how she turns out after the flavors meld.

Quote

And finally, I questioned the choice to have the sounds of the battle interrupting Jamie and Claire. I'd estimate that the trip to the stones took the better part of an hour on a horse, given the distance to the battlefield (indicated by the smoke in the background), and if the battle's already started by the time he left the stones, then it wouldn't really be surprising that he survived it, since he would have necessarily missed most of it. It wasn't a super-long battle, after all. Longer than Prestonpans, certainly, but still not very long.

Upon rewatch I kept noticing Jamie noticing the sounds of battle, and thought "Yep- your friends are all out there fighting and dying and here you are snuck off into the bushes boning your lady-love." OK, no bushes, stones on a hilltop, but still.

No wonder he lived- he was late to the party. I thought that a poor representation of our hero (who is an officer) and wish it hadn't been handled that way.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I was too tired to post me thoughts on the finale after I watched. I'm at work now, but can't access the site so I can't post ALL my thoughts via my phone, so... I'll say only this:

I LOVED IT!

I had no issue with the actress playing Bree-I'm not a fan of the character-she annoys me beyond end, as those who have read my comments in the buik threads ken. So her behavior on the show just lined up. Though I will say I don't recall any distance between her and Claire in the buiks, yet OF COURSE they had to put conflict between them here...why?

I loved Roger! But I HATE the beard. But I'll forgive that because his Scots brogue makes up for it. But I still want it gone.

I don't agree that Sam didn't knock it out of the park.  He totally did for me.  And I'm confused by what I've read how he always has a perpetual "grin" or "smirk" on his face. Smirk? I haven't seen that unless a scene called for Jamie to smirk. 

The line from Claire about how Bree was "so like him" came aboot from Bree moving her head and smiling while asleep, just Jamie does. But she didn't do that here. Small nitpick, I know.

1968 Claire is GORGEOUS.

And I didn't like that they didn't have Claire doing the research and unable to find Jamie's name in that list of fallen men. I mean, that's how it happened in the buik, right?

iI'll have more later tonight once I'm in front of my computer.

This is an episode I can rewatch again and again. Okay, I may fast forward the Bree scenes where I want to just shake her. And just focus on Jamie and Claire.

[morgan]

GHScorpiosRule, In the book Claire gave Roger the list of men to research, but didn't include Jamie because she knew he would accomplish his goal of dying at Culloden.  She didn't want to know, never researched him because it would be too painful.

[AheadofStraight]

8 hours ago, toolazy said:

She doesn't mention that Jamie gave her a ring - she only mentions that dragonfly in amber. The initials are one (two?)  of those things that I'm willing to give up at the altar of adaptation.  

The ring fell flat for me because we've never seen it before. WHY wasn't he wearing that one all season instead of the other one? Like he never would have shown Claire his dad's ring before - to the point where he had to explain what it was as he gave it to her? (I'm not actually upset about it but it didn't pack much emotional punch for me.)

[WatchrTina]

My theory is that the ring was introduced just so that Claire could see that the stone was burned away during her trip back.  Between that and Gillian/Geillis' notebook she'll figure out that carrying a gemstone will help her "steer" to the destination.  That's important later on (the need for gemstones is a huge plot-point in the Book 4 Roger/Brianna story) so I think that's the only reason they included it here -- not because it would resonate with the viewers.

[terrymct]

I was really hoping that we'd see more of the Battle of Culloden, but looking back on it, this is really primarily a Claire POV story and not showing the battle allows for uncertainty and hope about Jamie's fate. Also, it'd be frickin expensive to film well. A hodgepodge of thoughts on the episode:

- Dougal was right. He didn't know about the information from the future. Going from the information he had, Jamie and Claire were plotting treason. He was also right that Claire was leading Jamie into it, although he didn't know the real reason why. Dougal was also right that he shouldn't have taken Claire into the MacKenzie community, that didn't make sense from the beginning but was just the author/writers' vehicle to get Claire and the story going.

- Claire is more directly responsible for Dougal's murder than Jamie is. Jamie was defending himself and his wife's honor. When the fight got down to the turning point, instead of intervening to save both men, she added her strength to turn the blade and make sure it was driven down into Dougal's chest. Jamie is facing repercussions for the action, but Claire was the one who sealed the act. She's not at all upset over her role in killing a man. Not one bit. Not upset over putting Jamie at risk, either. Just upset that she and Jamie have to be separated, which is actually a result of her and Jamie's various failed plans and her own actions.

- Roger is a joy. It's nice that the author/writers looped back to tie him to Gellis and Dougal's child. The actor playing Roger is also very good. Unfortunately, he's playing against an actress playing Bree who would be better suited to her local high school production of Brigadoon. She stinks. Her bad, bad, bad acting are interfering with the development of chemistry between Roger and Bree, something I suspect we're supposed to be glomming on to and that will be significant as the story continues next year.

- All the Roger praise aside, he really should have questioned Claire's cockamamie time travel story. I'm glad they had Bree voice so many of the things some of the viewers have brought up. Claire was screwing around on Frank. Yes, she was. OMG, they're separated by centuries! That's essentially the same excuse people back in the sailing era for having a wife at home then a lover in a distant port. Claire and those sailors were still married, no matter how hard they worked to justify their actions. It was the first time that someone really truly told Claire she sounded crazy. That's good to finally see/hear.

- Claire was a crap parent because she was moping around for all those years and not engaged with her in-person family. Frank, who I keep hearing is supposed to be terrible in some way, not only took in his wife who disappeared and returned three years later pregnant with another man's child but he raised that child as his own in an apparently a loving, engaged, and attentive way. Frank is an underappreciated sad sack, cuckolded in both senses of the word (adulterous wife, raised off spring not his own) by Claire.

- Gillian/Gellis' time in the 60's was interesting. The "science" of time travel was laughable at best, but having her so dedicated to Scottish independence that she's willing to go back in time to effect change is neat. Having her cross the stones already in proper clothing and studied on the era helps to explain why she was able to blend in more easily. Of course, she's psycho as evidenced by her willingness to murder but then again Claire has very little room to talk in that regard. The point where this all falls apart is when you get to Gellis' actions back in the 1700's. She studied who the main players were, but then when she got to the time did nothing to get near to those players. She married a local official to gain a safe refuge and had an affair with a war chief who was raising money for the cause. If she was SO dedicated to independence and knew who were the players and what the time line was, why didn't she do more to get herself close to those players? Instead, she links herself to a Clan that had a comparatively small presence at Culloden and did nothing to help Dougal or the more significant players actually defeat the English. That doesn't make sense.

- Was anyone actually surprised that Jamie survived Culloden and escaped before he was hung? It'd be a quick end to the Claire-Jamie romance if he had been. It's clear from the business of who can and can't hear the buzzing sound that Roger and Bree will somehow be going back through the stones either with Claire or on their own. It'd be nice (but won't happen) if Roger and Bree could drop in to timelines we've already seen Claire go through and tell her not to do that, don't say that, stay away from that person, and so forth. Roger could be sympathetic but sensible, while Bree could read the riot act to her mother. THAT would be fabulous.

- Of course, Claire is not only a doctor but an amazing surgeon. Very Polly Sue romance character development there. On the other hand, she had plenty of time to pursue her degree while poor old Frank was being an actual parent to Bree.

Edited July 11, 2016 by terrymct
fixed a couple of typos

[AheadofStraight]

15 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

My theory is that the ring was introduced just so that Claire could see that the stone was burned away during her trip back.  Between that and Gillian/Geillis' notebook she'll figure out that carrying a gemstone will help her "steer" to the destination.  That's important later on (the need for gemstones is a huge plot-point in the Book 4 Roger/Brianna story) so I think that's the only reason they included it here -- not because it would resonate with the viewers.

Oh I agree. But I still think it could've been something that Jamie was wearing or had more punch. I noticed that when she left it was on her finger and but when she arrived back in episode 1 she was checking for it in her boobs, lol

[AheadofStraight]

20 minutes ago, terrymct said:

- Claire is more directly responsible for Dougal's murder than Jamie is. Jamie was defending himself and his wife's honor. When the fight got down to the turning point, instead of intervening to save both men, she added her strength to turn the blade and make sure it was driven down into Dougal's chest. Jamie is facing repercussions for the action, but Claire was the one who sealed the act. She's not at all upset over her role in killing a man. Not one bit. Not upset over putting Jamie at risk, either. Just upset that she and

- Claire was a crap parent because she was moping around for all those years and not engaged with her in-person family. Frank, who I keep hearing is supposed to be terrible in some way, not only took in his wife who disappeared and returned three years later pregnant with another man's child but he raised that child as his own in an apparently a loving, engaged, and attentive way. Frank is an underappreciated sad sack, cuckolded in both senses of the word (adulterous wife, raised off spring not his own) by Claire.

Both of those points are major changes to Book Claire. I particularly wasn't fond of the change to her relationship to Bree. They seemed quite close to me in the books from what I remember.

Edited July 11, 2016 by AheadofStraight

[terrymct]

Sorry folks, I meant to post my comments in the No Book Talk thread. I've learned some interesting things from accidentally coming in here, though. :)

[Atlanta]

36 minutes ago, Grashka said:

 

I would like to clarify - since you are posting in book thread - it's not at all how it was in the book. Claire didn't participate in Dougal's death, he was killed during his fight with Jamie, and Claire was actually holding him in her arms when he was giving his last breath. She also felt guilty about his death years later, even though she didn't kill him.

Brianna and Claire are close in the books, though Bree has been spending more time with Frank due to Claire's medical studies and work as surgeon. Also, Claire was not such a pile of misery when she came back to Scotland with adult Bree, she had also more agenda: she came to perform a research on Lallybroch men Jamie wanted to save, and to try changing Geillis's Duncan's fate. Her marriage to Frank wasn't a complete crap either, and she was attached to him even though she was no longer in love with him.

This. ^^ Claire and Bree were close in the books and Frank wasn't always a perfect husband. There are flashbacks of her dealing with a cranky/sick baby Bree, their heat is broken, she's trying to get it fixed and he comes home and gets on her case that she looks like crap and why isn't dinner ready for their guests. Later when she's in med school and after dealing with a bad babysitter, he finally agrees to take her to the office with him when she's home from school. She was willing to drop out of med school. As far as her being a MarySue surgeon...Bree is of course going to brag on her mom. Not many women were doctors back then and you add a proud-of-her-mom daughter. We also find that she's got something 'extra' (Master Raymond mentioned it earlier in the season) with healing and diagnosing. Can't wait for the banter between her and Dr Abernathy. :D

Frank and Bree were close and we find out he made a point of her learning to ride, shoot, handle the outdoors, etc because in his research he found out something about her. I can't remember what, but he knew she was going to wind up going through the stones. I wonder why they had her as a history student at Harvard when in the book she's an engineering major at MIT? The engineering thing is a big part of who she is. She loves to tinker with and invent things.

I want Bree's wardrobe--minus the cords though. :D 

[Archery]

11 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Well it turns out Diana was not best pleased by the decision to forgo the carving of initials into one another hands prior to Jamie & Claire's farewell at the stones.  She talks about it in this "Twit Longer" message (a kind of special Tweet with no character limit.  It includes an excerpt from the book showing the original farewell scene.)

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sosqdg

To be fair, though, she seems very happy with what was shown, even though it differs from what she wrote:

Quote

I’d thought of posting this bit from DRAGONFLY before the show’s finale, and warning you that the show wasn’t doing it this way, lest finding this particular bit omitted might cause some of you (you know who you are…) to become Disgruntled and thus miss the real beauty and intensity of Jamie and Claire’s farewell.

But then I decided that I shouldn’t do that; not only would it be a spoiler, it might well rile some people _a priori_ and not only spoil the ending for them, but also cause any amount of hopping up and down and general agitation that I didn’t think would serve anyone going into what’s really a spectacular ending.

In the end, if the actual creator of the story and characters is okay with the way her books are being translated to the screen, adaptations and all, then I'm good.  I think Moore and Co. have been incredibly respectful of the source material and the author, which doesn't happen as often as it should (see:  Stephen King and The Shining). 

Edited July 11, 2016 by Archery

[kieyra]

I'm a casual viewer  (but heavy television viewer in general) who was completely taken aback at how bad the actress was. It pulled my attention more than anything else in the episode that didn't involve Claire. 

--I agree some of it is the clunky dialogue she is being asked to deliver. But good actors rise above that. In fact, other actors on the show probably ARE rising above it and we just don't notice it, because they can't have one specific writer just writing HER dialogue. 

--It's not that her accent is 'weird', it's that it's inconsistent. (e.g., people complained about Billie Piper's strange accent on Penny Dreadful, but it had internal consistency from one scene to the next)

--As written she came across as a horrible brat, and I had difficulty believing she was Claire's daughter due to the gruff way she treated Roger upon meeting him. I'm used to horrible bratty teens on television, so it wasn't a big deal, but making her a little less snotty might have gone a certain way towards mitigating the character's reception. (Yes, I understand she has valid reasons for being angry. People can be angry, even to their parents, without being awful.) 

Nothing personal against the actress, and I have no emotional involvement in the character. In this particular instance I blame the casting. 

[Archery]

3 minutes ago, Atlanta said:

As far as her being a MarySue surgeon...Bree is of course going to brag on her mom. Not many women were doctors back then and you add a proud-of-her-mom daughter.

Not sure where the Mary Sue accusation comes from (I mean, I know it comes from fans, but there's nothing in the episode or the book that warrants it). Claire says, "I'm a doctor now," and Bree chimes in that she's not just a doctor, she's a surgeon.  It's not like she said "and she's the greatest surgeon ever and just completed the first brain transplant!"  Surgeons are a level up from regular doctors.  How does that make her a Mary Sue?  (IMO, that accusation against Claire always tastes to me like subtle sexism.) 

[Atlanta]

Just now, Archery said:

Not sure where the Mary Sue accusation comes from (I mean, I know it comes from fans, but there's nothing in the episode or the book that warrants it). Claire says, "I'm a doctor now," and Bree chimes in that she's not just a doctor, she's a surgeon.  It's not like she said "and she's the greatest surgeon ever and just completed the first brain transplant!"  Surgeons are a level up from regular doctors.  How does that make her a Mary Sue?  (IMO, that accusation against Claire always tastes to me like subtle sexism.) 

I thought I saw someone accuse her of going into MS territory. Hard trying to keep up with this thread. lol

[DittyDotDot]

9 minutes ago, Atlanta said:

This. ^^ Claire and Bree were close in the books and Frank wasn't always a perfect husband. 

I don't remember Claire and Bree being all that close before Claire tells her about Jamie. Also, from what I recall, Frank wasn't revealed to be a less than perfect husband until later. I thought he was still painted as a tragic figure--a man who takes his wife back in and raises another man's child fairly selflessly--until after Claire tells Brianna the truth. To me it was almost like Claire had been living the lie her and Frank agreed to for so long, she almost started to believe it, but once the mask she was wearing was broken, the whole truth started spilling out. I always thought that's when her and Bree started to be closer, once Claire wasn't holding anything back from Bree anymore. 

[Tara Ariano]

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

Outlander Ends Its Season At The Beginning

Which you already guessed, probably. THAT'S HOW TIME TRAVEL SHOWS WORK, YOU GUYS.

[Nidratime]

Quote

Not sure where the Mary Sue accusation comes from (I mean, I know it comes from fans, but there's nothing in the episode or the book that warrants it). Claire says, "I'm a doctor now," and Bree chimes in that she's not just a doctor, she's a surgeon.  It's not like she said "and she's the greatest surgeon ever and just completed the first brain transplant!"  Surgeons are a level up from regular doctors.  How does that make her a Mary Sue?  (IMO, that accusation against Claire always tastes to me like subtle sexism.) 

Plus, wasn't she basically doing some form of surgery at times back in the past? Being a healer is what she was, so actually getting the proper training when she returned to the 20th century makes a lot of sense.

ETA: As for the other topic, I always thought Bree and her mother were not close due to a combo of Claire's pining for Jamie, studying to become a doctor at a time when many mothers were stay at home, and the sense that Bree's parents' marriage was not ideal making her somewhat cold to her mother since she didn't understand why and seemed to take Frank's "side."

Edited July 11, 2016 by Nidratime

[LadyArcadia]

On 7/10/2016 at 6:20 AM, Pestilentia said:

And I have to say that the casting of Roger was so spot on that I don't even have words- it's as if he walked right off the pages of the book onto the screen. I had to make mental adjustments for Claire, for Jamie, for Murtagh- for most of them, but Roger looked and acted exactly as he did in the books. He's going to be a real pleasure to watch in the coming seasons.

Not quite for me. The book describes him with black hair. I envisioned a big guy with jet black hair.  But, I can go with this Roger. He did a great job and he had modern sensibilities that will do well with his fish out of water story. Plus, he was completely believable as an awkward dude with a crush. Loved him.

On 7/10/2016 at 9:50 AM, CatMack said:

Honestly the level of hate Sophie is getting is ridiculous.

I respectfully disagree. Beautiful girl; terrible actress.  She completely took me out of the story.  She was clearly acting. I don't want to see people acting, I want to be brought into the fantasy.  I will be verra pleased if they change the actress. In this cast of immense talent, she does not fit in at all.  

Loved the changes to the book, except for the end.  When I read it I was heartbroken. 20 years is such a long time! I was in shock. I couldn't believe the author would split up the couple for 20 years!  I'm pretty sure I actually shouted, "No! No! No! That can't be!" 

The way the show portrayed it, it will be no big deal. We just saw them together in the last 5min of the show and we know she'll go back.  It will significantly lose the impact of the reunion unless they hold off her return for half of the season - but they can't do that because there's too much story to tell.  So, I predict she'll make it back within the first two episodes; completely downplaying the heartbreak and sacrifice.

[MedievalGirl]

The glasses bugged me. There is a scene several books later where Jamie picks up on Claire squinting and finds some glasses for her. 

I did not mind the actress playing Bree at all. Yeah, there was some exposition but that is difficult for anyone. I found the character sullen in the books and like that Sophie played Bree with more anger. I honestly thought she would be better received. 
Roger, oh boy, Roger. I feel entirely justified in my crushing on him all these years. The beard felt wrong for all of about 30 seconds and then he was completely Roger. 

[theschnauzers]

1 minute ago, MedievalGirl said:

The glasses bugged me. There is a scene several books later where Jamie picks up on Claire squinting and finds some glasses for her. 

I did not mind the actress playing Bree at all. Yeah, there was some exposition but that is difficult for anyone. I found the character sullen in the books and like that Sophie played Bree with more anger. I honestly thought she would be better received. 
Roger, oh boy, Roger. I feel entirely justified in my crushing on him all these years. The beard felt wrong for all of about 30 seconds and then he was completely Roger. 

The glasses come up in Voyager, in fact, as 1765 Jamie and Claire find an optician in Edinburgh  to make them both pairs of reading glasses before they depart on the voyage to the New World.

[Atlanta]

4 minutes ago, MedievalGirl said:

The glasses bugged me. There is a scene several books later where Jamie picks up on Claire squinting and finds some glasses for her. 

I did not mind the actress playing Bree at all. Yeah, there was some exposition but that is difficult for anyone. I found the character sullen in the books and like that Sophie played Bree with more anger. I honestly thought she would be better received. 
Roger, oh boy, Roger. I feel entirely justified in my crushing on him all these years. The beard felt wrong for all of about 30 seconds and then he was completely Roger. 

If Richard/Roger ever gets his own thread on this board, it needs to be something to do with chunky knit sweaters. :D

[Clawdette]

The thing that bugged me about the glasses was that they indicate that Claire is nearsighted and needs glasses for distance.  Lord knows that farsightedness comes with age, as I've been in reading glasses since my late 40s (still can't master bifocals or contacts).  So, if Claire needs glasses for both distances, she should be in them all the time.  And, I don't see that happening.

[LadyArcadia]

Oh, I forgot to mention I loved the journal entries and the nod to the book fans. I saw Bahamas and another location, that I forgot, but it must be where the encounter in Voyager ends up. Good stuff.

As much as I didn't like the actress that played Bree, I found myself actually eager to get back to the 1968 storyline.  Weird... I guess I like Roger and Bree in the buiks more than I realized.

[DittyDotDot]

33 minutes ago, theschnauzers said:

The glasses come up in Voyager, in fact, as 1765 Jamie and Claire find an optician in Edinburgh  to make them both pairs of reading glasses before they depart on the voyage to the New World.

So many things blend together in my memory anymore--I can never remember what parts of the 1968 hunt through history happens in DiA or Voyager--but I think the glasses are much later...Echo in the Bone?

ETA: or what @Grashka said while I was trying to remember if it was Echo or MOBY.

Edited July 11, 2016 by DittyDotDot

[AD55]

4 hours ago, Archery said:

Not sure where the Mary Sue accusation comes from (I mean, I know it comes from fans, but there's nothing in the episode or the book that warrants it). Claire says, "I'm a doctor now," and Bree chimes in that she's not just a doctor, she's a surgeon.  It's not like she said "and she's the greatest surgeon ever and just completed the first brain transplant!"  Surgeons are a level up from regular doctors.  How does that make her a Mary Sue?  (IMO, that accusation against Claire always tastes to me like subtle sexism.) 

This has nothing to do with whether or not Claire is a Mary Sue character, but I was mildly irritated at Bree's "She's being modest. She's not just a doctor, she's a surgeon!" I'm going with Bree's being justly proud of her mother, but did the writers need to have her suggest that medical doctors are inferior to surgeons?

Edited July 11, 2016 by AD55

[Nightshade]

I'm a non- book reader who likes the book threads. I completely enjoyed the finale and 90 minutes went fast. Always love Claire and Jamie. I learned from this thread that Claire didn't help Jamie kill Dougal in the book, I liked it in the show but does anyone think because of injury to his hand from Black Jack, she had to help him? I liked the character of Roger and I didn't have a problem with the actress who portrayed Brianna. I was surprised when she said her mother lived in her own world, that seemed sad for both of them but I didn't remember reading anything like that from the book threads only that Brianna was close to Frank. Claire and Jamie's parting was sad and well played.  I will miss this show.

[GHScorpiosRule]

38 minutes ago, LadyArcadia said:

Weird... I guess I like Roger and Bree in the buiks more than I realized.

I see wot ye did there @LadyArcadia!!?

[lianau]

4 hours ago, Atlanta said:

 I wonder why they had her as a history student at Harvard when in the book she's an engineering major at MIT? The engineering thing is a big part of who she is. She loves to tinker with and invent things.

 

She started out as a history major and only  switched to engineering after Claire went back 

[dustoffmom]

Seems to me she dropped the history major after Frank dies.  She was doing that for him IIRC.

[Andorra]

On 7/10/2016 at 4:50 PM, CatMack said:

Honestly the level of hate Sophie is getting is ridiculous.  Maybe it's just because I spent the last 6 months heavily involved in local community theater, but if y'all think Sophie is really "terrible" than I feel envious that you have never had to actually sit and watch someone who truly has no talent whatsoever.  I'd like to address the complaints more directly but honestly I am completely baffled to the point where I don't even know what you all are talking about to try to come up with a rebuttal.  

IMO it's trolling. So many of the posters have never ever commented on the show before and now they're spamming the Outlander boards with exact the same postings (word for word btw), and provoking reactions of the viewers. 

I think it's way over the top. Brianna is supposed to be a brat and I thought Sophie did a good job portraying her as one. I thought her accent was great, but I'm not an American, so maybe I can't hear it? And I also thinks she looks very much like Jamie. My daughter, who is an unspoiled non book reader took one look at her and said "that's Jamie's daughter!". Also she (who is 14) thought Bree was really "cool", so maybe daughters see Teenage Brats differently than their mothers. 

[ulkis]

6 hours ago, AheadofStraight said:

Oh I agree. But I still think it could've been something that Jamie was wearing or had more punch. I noticed that when she left it was on her finger and but when she arrived back in episode 1 she was checking for it in her boobs, lol

No, she checked her hands first in episode 1, then she checked the boobs. :)

[LadyArcadia]

22 minutes ago, Andorra said:

IMO it's trolling. So many of the posters have never ever commented on the show before and now they're spamming the Outlander boards with exact the same postings (word for word btw), and provoking reactions of the viewers. 

Not sure who you're referring to, but I'm definitely one who posted my opinion, only to realize several had already posted the same thought prior.  (guess I really should have read the entire thread before I put in my two cents). While I'm mostly a lurker, I certainly have posted before.  I also don't believe it's trolling. I was watching with a friend last night, who is not a book reader and does not frequent any boards, and I said, "She is terrible!"  My friend immediately replied, "Oh my God! Thank you! I didn't want to say anything!"

While it may appear troll-ish to those who disagree, the majority may just have the same opinion that she was not good.

[ulkis]

21 hours ago, Andorra said:

I think it's way over the top. Brianna is supposed to be a brat and I thought Sophie did a good job portraying her as one. 

I don't think Brianna was being a brat at all. She finds out her father is not actually her biological one and her mom says it's some man from the past. I wouldn't expect her to have an understanding reaction. I just think the actress was not great. I don't think, as some have suggested, that writing her nicer or more understanding would have helped. I remember thinking in the attic scene she said one of her lines oddly and Brianna was doing nothing bratty in particular there. I don't think the actress is a lost cause at all but there's definitely room for improvement.

As for the character herself, in the books, I haven't read many of her scenes so I don't really have an opinion on her but I think probably it's the same problem as other characters who are offspring of popular couples; they're difficult to write because you want to make them their own person but at the same time want to noticeably show the traits of their parents in them, and the character just ends up being just a lukewarm version of one, or both, of the parents. And then a lot of the time the writer wants to show conflict with the parents, but they don't want to make the parents too crappy, so the daughter/son ends up looking like an overreacting melodramatic person.

It's a thankless role to write/play a lot of the time.

Edited July 12, 2016 by ulkis