S02.E13: Dragonfly in Amber

[Petunia846]

7 hours ago, terrymct said:

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.

This actually something I hadn't thought about. Did the show ever explain that Geillis was stealing money from her husband and sending it to Dougal for his Charlie fund? Didn't the money from Geillis end up being important to the cause somehow even after her "death"? I know the show totally dropped how Dougal had stockpiled all those weapons that we saw in S1, but I don't remember Geillis' reasons for being with the farty guy being mentioned on the show at all. That's kind of a major, glaring loophole if you haven't read the books. Did I miss something or forget?

[morgan]

Yeah I think they totally dropped the ball with Geillis/money and Dougal/money.  I also wonder now that Geillis/Gillian has met Roger what will that mean if the show makes it to book 8?  

[Hybiscus]

17 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

Is anyone else bothered by the amount of commenting Diana does about the show?  It seems to me that she has to post something whenever there's a change to the book, whether she liked it or not, and in some cases, spoil the show (i.e., want to talk about something prior to it being aired).  Granted, she has been kept on as a consultant (which probably gives her more leeway than other story originators), but basically she signed away the rights to control the story when she sold the story to Tall Ships.  In some cases, she seems to be bordering on things that might be a contractual issue.

Then again, I understand she has always engaged with her fans, which I'm sure helps in Outlander's popularity.

6 hours ago, terrymct said:

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. :)

I recognized your name from the "no book talk" thread.  :)  Many of us come over to see what your group's thoughts are about the show.  It's interesting to get a fresh perspective.

1 hour ago, Clawdette said:

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.

I know! ( Because I'm nearsighted.)  There's no such thing as "driving glasses" like "driving gloves."  Either you need glasses for everything at a distance (which includes driving) or you need them to read.  Ok, you might need them for both, in which case you get bifocals.  I have those, but I still take them off for reading (& computer stuff).

[lianau]

Fanatics would demand her opinion if she suddenly stopped commenting . 

[MedievalGirl]

The only thing that bugs me about all of Diana's commenting is that it means she isn't writing the next damn book. 

[AheadofStraight]

1 hour ago, Hybiscus said:

Is anyone else bothered by the amount of commenting Diana does about the show?  It seems to me that she has to post something whenever there's a change to the book, whether she liked it or not, and in some cases, spoil the show (i.e., want to talk about something prior to it being aired).  Granted, she has been kept on as a consultant (which probably gives her more leeway than other story originators), but basically she signed away the rights to control the story when she sold the story to Tall Ships.  In some cases, she seems to be bordering on things that might be a contractual issue.

Then again, I understand she has always engaged with her fans, which I'm sure helps in Outlander's popularity.

 

Most of the time she's responding to long time book readers she's well acquainted with on her forum. I enjoy hearing what she has to say (whether I agree with it or not)! I especially like when she discusses behind-the-scenes stuff.

[Archery]

1 hour ago, Hybiscus said:

Is anyone else bothered by the amount of commenting Diana does about the show?  It seems to me that she has to post something whenever there's a change to the book, whether she liked it or not, and in some cases, spoil the show (i.e., want to talk about something prior to it being aired). 

I solve that problem by not following every word she says.  I read her posts on Facebook and that's pretty much it.  

1 hour ago, Petunia846 said:

Did the show ever explain that Geillis was stealing money from her husband and sending it to Dougal for his Charlie fund?

She said she had siphoned off "near ten thousand pounds" when she and Claire were in the dungeon waiting to be tried.  

[kieyra]

1 hour ago, LadyArcadia said:

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.

Yes, this. Someone having an opinion you don't like isn't trolling.

I've watched this show on and off since the beginning, but stopped participating in the forums back when non-book-fans regularly got shouted down and mocked for various things. And yes, the actress was bad enough that I came to make sure I wasn't imagining things, and I made a few posts when it turned out I wasn't alone. It really is shocking that they cast her, but I promise I don't have enough spare time to troll anyone about it. Also, I promise that my opinion isn't going to affect the show, the books or the actress in any tangible way.

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, Petunia846 said:

This actually something I hadn't thought about. Did the show ever explain that Geillis was stealing money from her husband and sending it to Dougal for his Charlie fund? Didn't the money from Geillis end up being important to the cause somehow even after her "death"? I know the show totally dropped how Dougal had stockpiled all those weapons that we saw in S1, but I don't remember Geillis' reasons for being with the farty guy being mentioned on the show at all. That's kind of a major, glaring loophole if you haven't read the books. Did I miss something or forget?

As @Archery said, I remember her saying she had collected some money for the cause, but I'm not sure if all that wasn't revealed later in the books too? Seriously, some of these plots really blend together for me and I can't remember when what was revealed in what book sometimes.

A bit of personal spec here:

Spoiler

 

I do wonder if some of what Geillis was up to is still yet to be revealed in the books, though. I wonder if she's not part of the conspiracy surrounding how the next ruler of Scotland is supposed to be from the last of Lord Lovat's line. Perhaps she purposely positioned herself close to both the McKenzies and Lallybroch for other reasons than helping the Bonnie Prince?

 

Edited July 11, 2016 by DittyDotDot

[morgan]

I absolutely could see that, DittyDotDot

[toolazy]

How did she personally position herself to be near Lallybroch?  

[terrymct]

4 hours ago, Petunia846 said:

This actually something I hadn't thought about. Did the show ever explain that Geillis was stealing money from her husband and sending it to Dougal for his Charlie fund? Didn't the money from Geillis end up being important to the cause somehow even after her "death"? I know the show totally dropped how Dougal had stockpiled all those weapons that we saw in S1, but I don't remember Geillis' reasons for being with the farty guy being mentioned on the show at all. That's kind of a major, glaring loophole if you haven't read the books. Did I miss something or forget?

I read the first book after season one, but none of the others.  My understanding from the show:. Geillis latched on to the old guy because his status gave her some protection and she had some leeway with hi. To do what she wanted.  Dougal was shown stockpiling guns and materials but this disappeared in season two.   He appeared to be effective in fundraising but in season two, Colum said Dougal didn't have the support of the people.  

[Nidratime]

I'm wondering, after Dougal and his pals were found out about their "rent collecting" trips whether Colum put the word out to his people to "knock it off!"

[juniemoon]

9 hours ago, LadyArcadia said:

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.

Hmm...I have a real love-hate relationship with the books (and kind of with the TV show, too), but the one thing that completely won me over was the prolonged, deeply melancholy, achingly lonely portrayal of Jamie's life during those 20 years apart. I could feel it in my bones. So I would love for Sam/Jamie to finally get his due with material he can sink into and use to show us new sides to his character. If they rush through that, I'll be so disappointed.

[Megan]

I did not like Roger in the books at all. So far Show Roger is an improvement.

Otherwise, I enjoyed the episode.

[vesperholly]

8 hours ago, Hybiscus said:

I know! ( Because I'm nearsighted.)  There's no such thing as "driving glasses" like "driving gloves."  Either you need glasses for everything at a distance (which includes driving) or you need them to read.  Ok, you might need them for both, in which case you get bifocals.  I have those, but I still take them off for reading (& computer stuff).

Ranging OT but my vision started to weaken in college and I finally got glasses in my mid-20s for distance. Even in my mid-30s now, I hardly ever wear them because I can still see decently in daylight. I definitely have to have them for driving at night, watching movies and if I want to see any nice landscapes with clarity. But IMO because I got fairly far into adulthood without glasses, they're still a "only when necessary" kind of thing. I never wear them at work because I work on a computer and get a headaches with them. My vision is still only like -1.0 and -1.25.

I really need to finish DiA. It's a slog on Kindles sometimes.

[emmiesix]

16 hours ago, terrymct said:

- 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.

I actually think it does, if you think about it.  Gellis is a *woman* in the 18th century.  She can't just caper about wherever she wants to go.  As (I think realistically) shown in the books, women were pretty in danger of rape or other violence when travelling alone.  She, like Clare, had to come up with a realistic story about where she was from, why she had no family, etc, and basically find a group or man to protect her.  She found a man to marry her with NO evidence of who she was or where she came from, and was probably supremely lucky to do so, rather than ending up in a whorehouse.  Upper-class society would be HIGHLY suspicious of a person of no known family, and it's not like she could easily swing from man to man once she got an established position.  It's mentioned in the book that she wanted to get to Colum (persumably to get the Mackenzies fully engaged in the rebellion, and perhaps use his influence to get more clans involved), but had to settle for Dougal.  Just because she's a fanatic, doesn't mean she is an expert at how to change history -- she just thinks more Scots should have rebelled.  As we saw with Clare and Jamie, it's not so easy for an average person to chance history.

[waldrons]

On 7/10/2016 at 9:07 AM, Amers said:

What in the world was up with the glowing stones and the fluttering lashes? 

I thought the fluttering lashes were poor Cait staring into the setting sun (or a bright facsimile thereof) and trying to keep her eyes open for the 20 minutes the scene seemed to take.  (And imagine how much longer it took to film!)

Quote

Isn't paper that old at risk to disintegrate at a moments touch and is kept in climate controlled rooms and handled with gloves, etc? 

and

And ditto on the handling of that historic document! I couldn't believe it wasn't in a protective sleeve and being handled with gloves. 

With a document as "unimportant" as a local land deed, it would not be protected in plastic or handled with gloves.  I've done family research in English records offices, and have routinely "checked out" lease agreements and wills from 17-something, complete with sealing wax (which I find pretty darn thrilling).  Apparently a lot of archives don't use cotton gloves any more... I was told it's because you're liable to do more damage because you can't feel the document.    

And there is a slim chance that a records office would have a pre-existing McKenzie family tree on file... I've seen this in Cornwall for prominent local families.

I think the actress playing Bree is behaving in the way we'd expect a younger teenager to behave today... sulky, emotionally volatile, hating her mom. So it feels "off" for an older teen to be acting so bratty.  (And just because a teen-aged daughter says she hates her mom, doesn't mean they're not actually really close...)

In the stone scene, my eye was caught by a rag around Jamie's hand and I was trying to remember how he'd injured himself.  I wonder if they filmed them cutting their initials and then cut the scene?

[Pestilentia]

15 hours ago, AD55 said:

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?

I'm guessing you don't know many surgeons.

[emmiesix]

3 hours ago, waldrons said:

In the stone scene, my eye was caught by a rag around Jamie's hand and I was trying to remember how he'd injured himself.  I wonder if they filmed them cutting their initials and then cut the scene?

The fight with Dougal is when he gets the cuts on his hands.

[AD55]

4 hours ago, Pestilentia said:

I'm guessing you don't know many surgeons.

Oh I've met surgeons who think they are superior to doctors in other specialties. Um, no. I'd like to think Claire isn't one of them. I believe specialties are often chosen on the basis of the person's temperament as well as interests. To engage in  generalization--always foolhardy when posting on a fan site--I read at least one article (I can't recall where) that cited a study saying people who become surgeons tend to be less patient with slower means of treatment. It's not that other doctors are less gutsy or skilled (pun not intended). Now, I know somebody is going to tell me I'm full of it, and I have certainly known exceptions. I had a great orthopedic surgeon who fully supported my pursuing noninvasive treatments first.

It doesn't really come up in the books, as I recall, but Claire went to medical school at a time when doctors were put on pedestals and nurses were actually trained to make sure they were viewed by patients as a couple of rungs below deities. My mother did her nurses training in the 1930s and wore a sparkling white dress and a stiff nurse's cap throughout her career, which extended into the late 70s. She would never have called a doctor by his or her first name. She said nurses were trained never, ever to question a doctor's judgment.

Claire lived in two centuries with different attitudes toward the medical profession but pretty similar attitudes toward women. There were women heads of departments in the 1960s but they were damned rare. When you occupy a liminal position like that--revered as a doctor but often dismissed as a woman--I think it makes you less likely to take your privilege for granted. Not to say it doesn't happen. Sometimes Claire is accused of arrogance, but I don't see her that way at all. I think it's more that she respects her own abilities--men don't get taken to task for that--and has also learned that she doesn't have the luxury of engaging in and especially exhibiting self-doubt. I think Claire is temperamentally suited to being a surgeon. She isn't terribly patient and is a risk taker. Also, as a war nurse, she served in an environment where there wouldn't always have been time or resources to use less-invasive treatments.

Edited July 12, 2016 by AD55

[waldrons]

9 hours ago, emmiesix said:

The fight with Dougal is when he gets the cuts on his hands.

Oh, of course!  My memory must have leaked out of my eyes along with the tears...

[TaurusRose]

Not a lot to say about this episode that hasn't already been said.  After the GoT season finale, it was a little bit of a let down, but I think it's because the bulk of time was spent in the '60s with people I don't care about (Roger & Brianna).  I liked all of the Claire & Jamie stuff.  I'm surprised that some thought SH's acting was off, I thought he was perfect as always.  CB looks great in period clothes ('60s) although the hair was startling...it was too big and too poufy for me, but that's personal taste.  I wasn't wowed by the actors playing R&B, with a heavier negative favorability score going to the actress.  Maybe she'll get better.  But right now she's in the same category as the kid who plays Fergus IMO, not terribly impressive.  I thought the ending was pretty hokey even though I liked the lighting effects on the stones. This was not the best episode of the season in my opinion, but again, I'm in it for Jamie & Claire, not Roger, Brianna & Claire with a side of Jamie.      

[CTrent29]

I have to be brutally honest.  Overall, I was not that impressed by Season Two.  And considering my feelings for the novels that followed "Dragonfly in Amber", I do not see this series improving over the years.  I think what tripped up this season for me were the Paris sequences.  It was just filled with stupidity - especially in the form of Claire and Jamie's decisions, cliched tropes (more rape) and the lack of interest in the "golden" pair trying to change history.  The Scotland sequences were an improvement, but Claire and Jamie's return came a bit late.  And this season finale was . . . it just did not impress me.  And the writer for the "Armchair Anglophile" website pretty much expressed what I was thinking about Claire's decision to return to 18th century Scotland in the following:

Quote

 

And Roger has a little gift for Claire: it turns out that Jamie survived the Battle of Culloden after all, and went on the run. Claire hears that and immediately decides she has to go back, because it’s not as if she has any obligations or responsibilities in the 20th century, right? Like, her patients? Or her daughter? Are you going to take your 20-year-old daughter back to Rapeland, Claire? Does that seem like a good plan to you?

Oh, right. Plans are not your thing. And you’re clearly no longer worried about screwing up historical timelines. It’s really all about what you want. Sigh. And, we’re back where we started.

 

Enough said.

[whoknowswho]

On 7/11/2016 at 6:21 PM, Hybiscus said:

Is anyone else bothered by the amount of commenting Diana does about the show?  It seems to me that she has to post something whenever there's a change to the book, whether she liked it or not, and in some cases, spoil the show (i.e., want to talk about something prior to it being aired).  Granted, she has been kept on as a consultant (which probably gives her more leeway than other story originators), but basically she signed away the rights to control the story when she sold the story to Tall Ships.  In some cases, she seems to be bordering on things that might be a contractual issue.

Then again, I understand she has always engaged with her fans, which I'm sure helps in Outlander's popularity.

Yes--it bugs the shit out of me, and I find it disingenuous. We know she wrote the books, we know how she wrote them and how she thinks--but does she always have to give a blow-by-blow, play-by-play of every single line of dialogue, whether it's aired or not--how she likes it, or not? It's like she apologizing to her fans for things she hasn't even done, the moment anyone has a tiny bit of criticism toward any episode. I've read a few facebook posts and her compuserve forum a bit--but it's so full of fawning fans it bugs me enough not to go back. I like her writing, but I don't care for her constant patter about every_single_thing.  Showing publicly how you disagree with the show writers, the dialogue, the lighting, prosthetics,  etc, just makes you look unprofessional in my eyes.  I'd be irked if I worked on this series and was constantly second guessed, disagreed with in public via tweet and facebook posts, etc.  

Now--that's not to say I don't think shes 100% right, either--I think she is right--those are her books, her visions--her "baby" as it were. I just don't think she should be quite as vocal in her disagreement and spoilery of things. Some things just don't need airing in public, even if it makes for interesting reading. 

As far as the last episode went---I didn't shed a tear, though I kind of hoped I would. I was bothered by too much Brianna and Roger, and not enough Jamie. I was bothered by Claire's helping to kill Dougal. I liked the old bastard, and felt it was not in character for Claire to cause Dougal's ultimate demise. She's a "healer"-- a nurse, a doctor--and above all else--you are supposed to "do no harm".  I watched it, enjoyed it--but only watched the first half again and not the last 1/2 hour, it just didn't grab me at all. 

Didn't care much either way for the new actress--I'm not British or American so I didn't find her accent particularly bad--if she was speaking Newfie--I'd pick that apart, but Boston, not so much.  I just thought she was a bratty 19 year old. Roger was adorable in a dorky kind of way.  Claire's hair was sort of "Jackie O" to me--she looked beautiful, and her hair really wasn't that big compared to what was real in the 60s. (I am a child of the 60s)

Jury's out for me whether I'll watch the next season.  I never got past book 4 in real life.  

I loved season 1--I liked this season considerably less, being bored by the entire French connection, the lack of intimacy and chemistry among the characters this year. 

 

[Keeta]

4 hours ago, whoknowswho said:

On 7/11/2016 at 5:21 PM, Hybiscus said:

I loved season 1--I liked this season considerably less, being bored by the entire French connection, the lack of intimacy and chemistry among the characters this year. 

 

I think a lot of people don't love the 2nd book for the same reason (all the political scheming), so fingers crossed season 3 is an improvement with less of that and more focus on the central relationship.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Keeta

[whoknowswho]

On 7/11/2016 at 6:21 PM, Hybiscus said:

4 hours ago, Keeta said:

I think a lot of people don't love the 2nd book for the same reason (all the political scheming), so fingers crossed season 3 is an improvement with less of that and more focus on the central relationship.

Here's my problem with what's coming (and I really don't know what's coming) if the two main characters have now aged 20 years, the last thing we're going to see is them boning like rabbits! I'm post menopausal and in my 50s, and even if my husband looked like Jamie...well, the last thing on my agenda these days is sex. So-- they are not going to be the same 2 characters from the past 2 seasons. That makes me sad, it makes me sad that Claire waited 20 years and could have waited forever if Frank hadn't gone and died. I'm quite disappointed with this season, with Faith and Je Suis Prest being the notable exceptions. 

I'm still not grey, and have few wrinkles, but you can't escape the weight that comes to your middle area with age, you just can't. I'm in good shape, but my body doesn't look at all like it did in my 30s. So, that concerns me, how will they age these characters so they don't look like 20 year olds playing 50 year olds.  I certainly thought Gillian/Geillis in 1968 looked older than she should have. :(  

Nitpicky, I know but it was quite a comedown last episode for me. The love Jamie and Claire had for one another--just seemed flat this season. There was no real sex (just quickies) and little intimacy. It didn't make the story stronger, IMO. but your millage as always may vary. 

[Nidratime]

Well, in regard to the aging of the characters and the interest that might or might not hold for the audience in terms of their romance/sex life, what immediately comes to mind are the numerous TV shows that feature "older" women from the get-go as the central character -- not just in terms of their professional life but their romantic life as well. And these, are (or were) very popular TV shows where viewers were invested in the total characters and seemed to find their love lives interesting.

For instance, the comedy, Murphy Brown where the lead character was no cute, young thing, and Candice Bergen was 42 when the show began and 52 when it ended.

The Good Wife, in which Julianna's character was also a more mature woman and the actress was 43 when it started and 50 when it ended.

Madam Secretary, Tea Leoni was 48 when the show started and is now 50.

How To Get Away with Murder, in which Viola Davis was 49 when the show started and she is now 51.

Prime Suspect, the British detective show where Helen Mirren played the lead character throughout her 50's.

Veep, where Julia Louis-Dreyfus plays Selina all during her 50's.

In all these shows, the women's characters are not only accomplished but they're also sexy. And these actresses *are* the actual ages that Caitriona and Sam will be playing, even though the latter two are still in their mid to latter 30's.

Now, granted, all of these shows are based in the recent past or present where one would expect that people can maintain their looks through modern means and health regimes, but as we all know ... Jamie and Claire are timeless! ;-)

Edited July 13, 2016 by Nidratime

[toolazy]

Regarding intimacy in season 3:

Spoiler

Maril Davis has said that there will be more sex in the third season than in the second.  

Also, those two f**k like bunnies throughout all of the books.  Menopause didn't slow Claire down at all. 

[whoknowswho]

4 hours ago, toolazy said:

Regarding intimacy in season 3:

  Hide contents

Maril Davis has said that there will be more sex in the third season than in the second.  

Also, those two f**k like bunnies throughout all of the books.  Menopause didn't slow Claire down at all. 

Lol, lucky her. Guessing Ms. Gabaldon had yet to experience it when she wrote that-- not the sexiest time of your life, but that's another story for another time.  But then I'm almost 10 years past menopause, so of course that makes me older physically than my chronological age. 

Loved Murphy Brown--she was gorgeous, but she also played her age. Same with Viola Davis. The other ones are people or shows I don't know--Tea Leoni--I still picture her as a young, pixie like short haired blonde who was in....what show-long time ago...The Naked Truth, I think. How can she only be 5 years younger than me? 

I'm glad there will be something of substance in the next season, but I'll be squicked out pretty quickly if it's Roger and Brianna...

[mtsmvfn]

44 minutes ago, whoknowswho said:

Lol, lucky her. Guessing Ms. Gabaldon had yet to experience it when she wrote that-- not the sexiest time of your life, but that's another story for another time.  But then I'm almost 10 years past menopause, so of course that makes me older physically than my chronological age. 

Loved Murphy Brown--she was gorgeous, but she also played her age. Same with Viola Davis. The other ones are people or shows I don't know--Tea Leoni--I still picture her as a young, pixie like short haired blonde who was in....what show-long time ago...The Naked Truth, I think. How can she only be 5 years younger than me? 

I'm glad there will be something of substance in the next season, but I'll be squicked out pretty quickly if it's Roger and Brianna...

Nothing really happens between Roger and Brianna until book 4..

[bearcatfan]

On 7/12/2016 at 3:54 AM, waldrons said:

I thought the fluttering lashes were poor Cait staring into the setting sun (or a bright facsimile thereof) and trying to keep her eyes open for the 20 minutes the scene seemed to take.

That was my impression too upon my 3rd viewing. Prior to that I hadn't paid attention to the fluttering.

7 hours ago, whoknowswho said:

you can't escape the weight that comes to your middle area with age, you just can't.

I know plenty of women in their 50s who haven't that weight around the middle, even after 2 - 4 children.

On 7/12/2016 at 11:15 AM, AD55 said:

Oh I've met surgeons who think they are superior to doctors in other specialties. .... Now, I know somebody is going to tell me I'm full of it, and I have certainly known exceptions. I had a great orthopedic surgeon who fully supported my pursuing noninvasive treatments first.

I'm not going to tell you that you are full of it. I will say though in my experience, orthopedic surgeons are the ones that are the most down to earth followed by neurosurgeons believe it or not. That may be because if you are calling in a neurosurgeon, it's often pretty bad. They may have developed more empathy as a result. Otherwise, my experience was that surgeons really believe that they are better than everyone else. So I'd say your analysis was pretty spot on.

[Atlanta]

It must really depend on the doctor's personality. A good friend is an oncologist and she's not at all arrogant. Confident, yes, but not arrogant. 

[dustoffmom]

On 7/13/2016 at 6:34 AM, Keeta said:

I think a lot of people don't love the 2nd book for the same reason (all the political scheming), so fingers crossed season 3 is an improvement with less of that and more focus on the central relationship.

 

I believe you are correct, and I must be the odd man out.  DIA has always been my favorite volume of the group and Voyager my least liked.  

[bearcatfan]

21 hours ago, Atlanta said:

It must really depend on the doctor's personality. A good friend is an oncologist and she's not at all arrogant. Confident, yes, but not arrogant. 

I know some oncologists do surgery, but that isn't their primary focus. It's treating cancer. It's not all doctors., it's primarily surgeons and there are exceptions. But considering how many surgeons I've seen with that particular personality trait it almost seems like there's a class they take to teach arrogance.

Edited July 14, 2016 by bearcatfan

[Nidratime]

Just rewatching the episode, and it occurred to me there was a parallel to the modern story and the 1700's time frame. In one, Jamie was trying to stop Bonnie Prince Charlie from continuing with his attack plans and in the 1960's one, Claire was trying to stop Geillis -- who called herself Bonnie Prince Charlie, along with her rally attendees -- from continuing with her plans.

[satrunrose]

Late to the party but I really, really loved this episode. I got a little sniffy through Lallybroch, a bit misty through Dougall's death and the farewell to Fergus, teary at the clan stones and outright bawling at Craig Na Dun. (Especially the last part where he's holding on to her and reaching towards the stones and crying and gah!!!)

I was glad they had the "God, I loved her well" line (very well delivered by Sam) but was even happier that they had my favourite line about "this child will be all that's left of me, ever" (bawled when I read it, bawled when I saw it).

I was pretty astounded that 1960s Claire lined up almost exactly with how I had imagined her appearance-wise. The book makes a bit of a deal that Claire is pretty well-preserved, as is Jamie, so I think they have a fair bit of latitude. 

Acting wise, I thought Sam had some amazing moments right after he (and Claire) killed Dougal. The book isn't as clear how much it affects him until, erm, is it Breath of Snow and Ashes or Firey Cross? Cat's best moment was when right after she started to tell Brianna but before Bree freaked out. As for Bree and Roger, Roger is not at all the way I pictured (longer, floppy black hair, green eyes, taller and thinner) but I was really impressed how the actor completely owned the role (which is great because I love Roger while they're on the Ridge, less so in the 1980s and Drums of Autumn). As for Bree, I'm not that disappointed. There were a few clunky lines, but I felt they were all near the beginning when she was stuck being the exposition fairy and at the end when things got fairly cheesy. She did fine with the more dramatic moments plus I thought she and Roger had great chemistry and were really sweet together. (As for my feelings towards BookBree, I don't dislike her, but she is so amazingly good at everything that it's a little annoying especially on the Ridge. I think I would like her more if she had one random thing that she sucks at like Jamie with music or Claire with lying). 

I liked the changes to the 1960s framing device. I never really warmed to 1960s BookClaire, although I get the pur lassie's been grieving for 20 years, the mysterious plot to...stop Gellis? Tell Bree? Set up Bree and Roger? 

Spoiler

Get away from the euthanasia thing?

isn't really clear and long-con closed off Claire is so much more like, well Jamie, that it never really worked for me. I like the idea that there wasn't an ulterior plan they just got there and Claire got swept up by her past while Bree was getting swept towards her future. 

My only critique was the ending. I expected the "He meant to die, but he didn't" followed by a cut to Jamie's eyes popping open at Culloden (with or without BJR), or severely bearded Jamie with haunted Wentworth eyes in someplace dark (cave or Ardsmuir), or even a crane shot through Edinburgh ending up at the door saying A. Malcolm, printer and leaving the non-bookies to wonder what the heck that was about and the bookies squeeing about that scene. Maybe all of those ideas were too predictable, and let's face it, you knew once Claire heard he survived she was going to go back eventually, so it doesn't hurt to spell it out, but the end result was too Gone With the Wind (also poor Bree). 

[morgan]

Watched again yesterday and the episode just keeps getting better.  Minor quibbles but mostly just love it.  Feel about it very much like I did with episode 1.01 where I realized this show was going to do things right by me.  Not everything the way I would do it, but overall and I can't imagine anyone doing better.

I have to laugh and scratch my head, btw.  Took a peek at the non-book-readers thread and I'm amazed at how many of them think that Claire will go back 20 years older, but expect time to have stood still in 1748.  That Jamie and everyone there will still be younger.  I don't think reading the books that ever crossed my mind, but then maybe the books were clearer about parallel time?  Although they show time passed at same rate when Claire came back to modern times.  

[Nidratime]

I think some people on that thread believe that Claire will try to return to the 1740's, right after Culloden. I understand how one would think that since it's not clear that, if Claire goes back to the 1760's, that Jamie will still be alive, findable, and available. They're not thinking about the research she does to at least answer one of those questions. After all, if I were Claire, I would also wonder if Jamie was still alive 20 years later, considering he'd be on the run and be living a life in which his life is much more perilous.

[morgan]

Yes I see that.  They will be surprised next season for sure.  I remember being so sad about those lost 20 years but also understand them.  It wouldn't be like if she had stayed or gone back right after culloden they would have realistically had much of a life.  In the end I love watching them rediscover each other, and learn about the people they have become.  I very much love how Diana changes them but still they are Jamie and Claire.  

[Nidratime]

The problem is (and was) the moment a pregnant Claire goes through the stones to the 20th century and has a healthy child, she was pretty much going to stay put through the rearing of that child to adulthood. She couldn't responsibly risk taking a child through the stones back to the 18th century. For one, the child might not have been able to go, might have been harmed in transit, would have had a riskier life in the past, and certainly would not have the ability to make such a life-changing choice, herself, as a minor. (Her mother would've had to make it for her, which is morally wrong.) Furthermore, Claire would've never left Brianna behind, before adulthood.

In addition, one of the reasons Jamie wanted Claire to go -- other than the obvious danger of being the wife of a "Jacobite traitor" -- was that she already had a troubled pregnancy and lost the child. She would get much better care in the 20th century and be more likely to both survive the pregnancy and have a healthy child. Remember, Claire almost lost her life, along with Faith. You can't count on Master Raymond showing up for all of Claire's pregnancies. 

[morgan]

Yes I know all of that, but realize non book readers might not.  I don't think they understand the horror of going through the stones, at least not as thoroughly as a book reader does.  

[DittyDotDot]

4 minutes ago, morgan said:

Yes I know all of that, but realize non book readers might not.  I don't think they understand the horror of going through the stones, at least not as thoroughly as a book reader does.  

Well, to be fair, the books didn't really say this until Voyager, either. It seems like got worse for Claire each time she went through them, but we didn't know that until she went back to the future. 

[DittyDotDot]

I agree @Grashka. I always say Voyager is the remaking of Claire and Jamie. Sure, he's still a bit of a hot-head, but he's learned to temper it and use it to his advantage. Jamie earns his title as laird instead of it just being his birthright. And Claire is still feisty and vibrant, but she's also learned to pick her battles and compromise so that not everything is a conflict in her life. They grow up so much in those 20 years apart that I wouldn't have it any other way--despite it being incredibly sad at times.

[ulkis]

On 7/18/2016 at 6:06 AM, morgan said:

Watched again yesterday and the episode just keeps getting better.  Minor quibbles but mostly just love it.  Feel about it very much like I did with episode 1.01 where I realized this show was going to do things right by me.  Not everything the way I would do it, but overall and I can't imagine anyone doing better. 

I'm pleasantly surprised at how much I liked the 1960s sequences and have actually watched them more than I have the 1740s scenes. To be fair to the latter, probably because they were so chopped up. 

Edited July 22, 2016 by ulkis

[AuxArx]

Finally watched the finale last night, and thought it was well done.  And as someone who was around in the 60s, I enjoyed the music and the clothing.  Thought Claire looked very Jackie O.  Liked Roger but still waiting to see more of Brianna to see if she becomes more like what I envisioned from the books.  I keep seeing this commercial for Expedia with a red-haired actress (playing a teacher leaving India after volunteering there--I think).  Anyway, she's more Brianna-ish to me, although I don't think she's tall enough.  Oh well, I'm sure the real casting agents wish we'd let them do their job!  Can't wait till next year.

[areca]

Finally watched.  This Brianna is the first major, major miscast.  I'm all for unknowns but this woman cannot act.  Roger however, is perfect.  

Edited July 25, 2016 by areca

[katville]

The choir singing while Claire was walking through the Reverend's house was so evocative. It gave me chills. And again at Lallybroch. Speaking of Lallybroch, I was okay until she saw Jamie in the archway. Then it was nothing but tears. And when she was at Culloden and talking to the Fraser headstone -- heartbreaking.

I think that Jamie knew the whole time that they would be unsuccessful. He had a Plan B all the while.

I am actually relieved that they broke up the scenes the way they did. I am not sure my heart could have taken any more of Jamie and Claire's goodbye. As it was, it was one of the saddest things I have ever seen on TV. I have never thought of myself as an overly romantic or sentimental person but this episode squeezed my heart.

I am undecided about Bree. I don't think it is fair to the actress to judge her solely from one episode -- especially one in which she had the most thankless role in the cast. I do think that she captured the look and mannerisms of Jamie very well. I have no problem believing that she is his daughter. Roger is adorable. I like him much more than in the book.

Caitriona Balfe did such a fantastic job with older Claire. How she carried herself, the lowering of her voice, I was impressed. She is an incredible actress. With such a talented supporting cast, I think that Sam Heughan's acting talent is overlooked sometimes but he really is the heart of this show. Their goodbye was pitch perfect and everything I hoped it would be. I have only read up through book 3 but I think I will pick up the rest now.

Edited August 11, 2016 by katville

[Scarlett45]

I finished the episode yesterday. Im not a book walker but I enjoy your discussions as you have a much more nuanced/detailed take on things. 

I'm not sure if Brianna's mannerisms are an acting choice or due to the actresses lack of range. I think in the beginning of the episode Brianna did sell the idea that although she loves her mother (and her mother loves her) there is a disconnect or a secret causing a wedge between them.

Being 19/20years old she's also old enough to be aware that something was not quite "right" about her parents' relationship, like when she asked if she loved him or missed him. At that point she wasn't angry she just wanted to know, and the way Claire looked away. I kind of was expecting Brianna to get slapped when she told her Mom "you fucked around on Daddy like a bored housewife"- Brianna would be my Mom's age now and you did NOT speak to your parents that way. When Claire said "he was the love of my life", I think that was probably the first time Brianna saw that kind of emotion in her Mother's face. 

 

So so far I don't have a problem with how they are portraying Frank and Brianna's relationship. Seems they loved each other a lot and what ever issues Claire has with Frank as a man/husband she acknowledges that he was a good father to Brianna and that Jaime couldn't be, but not because he didn't want to. (She told Brianna as much). 

 

I am glad only have a few a few days to wait until Season 3 where we can be reunited with the characters of Outlander. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by Scarlett45

[Kim0820]

On 7/9/2016 at 3:38 AM, Dust Bunny said:

Did anyone else expect a big shock or blue lighting to happen when Roger and Geillis shook hands? And I’m assuming this means Geillis will recognize Bree when she sees the photos in season 3. It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out.

I absolutely loved that Claire helped Jamie kill Dougal. It was beautiful. That act of love, support, and being with him every step of the way exemplifies their marriage. And it was mirrored when Jamie guided Claire’s hand to touch the stone. That might be one of my favorite changes of this season.

I enjoyed the timey-wimey discussion of what would happen to Roger if Claire talked to Geillis. They at least acknowledged the consideration, and then it ended with Claire’s “I don’t know how all this works.” I think that’s a sufficient way to leave it for now, and it’ll pacify some nonbook readers

While they were killing Dougal, I wondered how much muscle power Claire added.  But though it might be little, it showed how she was with Jamie on it.

Geillis talking to her own descendant.  I had wondered about Claire doing that but so far she has none in the 1740s, though her daughter was conceived there.  

The plot stays so that they don't have to deal with the issue of people not existing.  Claire realized she can't talk Geillis into not going, or Roger does not have a necessary ancestor.  Does Roger disappear?   We teased my nephew, telling him he would not exist if it were not for his parents going to the same university and meeting there.  He said, "I'd have found someone else."  Maybe that's how it works?  If BJR had really been the ancestor and Jamie killed him, then Claire went back to find there was no such person as Frank Randall, that could have been kind of fascinating.  

On 7/9/2016 at 7:09 PM, Petunia846 said:

Claire just says, "His father's name was Brian and that's where your name came from." I didn't even notice the "named after your father, just as I promised," at Culloden the first time I watched.

I wonder if Frank realized this; what if he didn't want to agree to the name? 

On 7/9/2016 at 7:53 PM, Wouldofshouldof said:

Oh, that reminds me - They didn't include the scene where Claire finds Jamie's headstone.  Her knowledge of that stone has implications later on. Of course, maybe they'll show that next season.

Yes, I had thought it odd Claire could not find out what happened to him, before she agreed with Frank she would not try anymore.  By 1948, he had a headstone in any event.  He was a landowner/laird.  But then she could have gone back right away.  But if you want more books, that happy ever after would have gotten in the way of that.  She didn't try to find it in 1968 and went to the Fraser clan stone at Culloden, when she had not been sure whether he had died there or not.

On 7/9/2016 at 10:28 PM, maraleia said:

Also, is there something we find out later as to why Claire can hear the buzzing and travel through the stones but Jamie can't? I understand why Gellis and Roger can- they are related but there has to be something in Claire's family history that points to this ability.

Maybe Jamie can only travel on certain days?  He was thought to have gone to check on her in the S1Ep01.  But so far, no one has gone forward except for those returning to a time they had lived in.  

On 7/10/2016 at 12:02 PM, molshoop said:

Why not at least give her blue contacts to wear? 

 

That is a problem, I noticed right away - both her parents have blue eyes so their child has to have blue eyes.  I wondered if it brought up speculation she was really Frank's.

The plot called for catching Geillis just after she went through.  I was thinking Claire could find Geillis, tell how little good she did before, and warn her of what happened to her.  Like Groundhog Day, she could try again.  Tell her not to act so suspiciously witchy, and that she can confide in Claire Fraser when she runs into her.  

It was good that Claire became a doctor.  She had a lot of freedom in the 1740s that the 20th century would not offer her, so she was well prepared to learn surgery.  She can be of even more help if she goes back again.  

I wonder if blood pressure was known back then, and what it was - the nurses under Claire's supervision looked mystified when she mentioned it.  

Ironic they were down to killing BPC.  Murtagh wanted to do that from the beginning.  It was so sad seeing Jamie try everything, and BPC never being convinced.  The French gold argument was quite compelling, I thought.  How like men to value not looking like a coward over practicality.  It seems like they had no imagination about how big the British army was and thought it consisted only of those they'd actually seen.  

We know BJR died on the date of Culloden, so Jamie might have gotten to kill him.