S02.E13: Dragonfly in Amber

[Athena]

Spoiler tagged for now because summary is detailed:

Quote

Spoiler

Flashing forward to 1968, Claire travels to Scotland with her twenty-year-old daughter, Brianna, and meets Roger Wakefield. Claire visits Lallybroch and Culloden Moor to make peace with the past, while Brianna and Roger bond over researching Randall family history. Claire finally reveals the truth to Brianna about her time travel through the stones, her life in 1700’s Scotland, and Brianna’s true parentage. The story is intercut with another one back in the 18th century, which happens on the day of the Battle of Culloden. When Jamie’s last ditch attempts to deter The Prince fail, he and Claire come up with a dangerous plan – which Dougal overhears, inciting him to a murderous rage. Jamie must do everything he can to save the ones he loves, even if it means saying goodbye to some — or all — of them.

 

Reminder: This is for discussion of the TV show only, no book talk allowed - including saying "but it's different in the books". Book Talkers, please avoid posting and liking.

This episode will be 90 mins long. This thread is open for speculation. If you want to be completely unspoiled, please leave now. Thank you. Have a great long weekend.

[ganesh]

Why is this not on now?! I planned my day around this! I hope Claire knows how much yard work I got done today!

[Athena]

9 hours ago, ganesh said:

Why is this not on now?! I planned my day around this! I hope Claire knows how much yard work I got done today!

Sorry @ganesh. Starz took Outlander off for the July 4th long weekend. It'll be back next Saturday the 9th with an extra long episode. I'm sure Claire will appreciate it.

[piequinn35]

Geez I marathon season 2 and no finale last saturday :(

[ganesh]

Tell me about it. I was singing a song of lass that was gone to my dog ALL DAY. (I sometimes substitute in cats though, but whatever). 

[GenieinTX]

Watched on demand because I couldn't wait for tonight.  I cried through the whole thing!!  I think the worst was seeing Lallybroch in ruins.  That broke my heart.  The whole thing was an hour and a half of heartbreak. 

[Marvin]

Wow - what an ending to the season !! That was an amazing finale ! I decided to celebrate by ordering an Outlander Funko POP of Captain Randall !!

 

I can't wait for season 3 !! There will also be a season 4 according to wikipedia !

[Primetimer]

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

View the full article

[Miss Slay]

I've been wanting to quit this show all season and then very few episodes they would come back with an epic episode. The finale was no exception - it was fabulous. I loved everything about it - the use of flashbacks. Claire and Jamie. Tying in the daughter. Classic Outlander. 

I'll be back next season.

[Daisy]

11 hours ago, GenieinTX said:

Watched on demand because I couldn't wait for tonight.  I cried through the whole thing!!  I think the worst was seeing Lallybroch in ruins.  That broke my heart.  The whole thing was an hour and a half of heartbreak. 

I know what you mean. What a freaking amazing finale that was.

Seeing Claire older (i love the distinguished grey streak in her hair, and the glasses!!) and basically hearing from her daughter Brianna that she was always closed "in her own world" was so sad. Like she never really got over losing Jamie, at all. And the sad thing is - she had a piece of Jamie right there, and you'd think she'd be close with the daughter, but you get this sense that she wasn't. (and Brianna was totally Frank's world).  And just the little hits to the guts (like Brianna standing where Jamie had his back destroyed, and Claire's utter sadness about Lallybroch) it was like deaths of a thousand cuts. 

Roger's reveal. mindblown. 
Holy crap about Gellis. 

The History Stuff:
see, Murtagh wanted to do this for so long - they should have done it in Paris ;). WWMD! But I could see the desperation. But holy crap, all they could do to find a private room. (I get where they were, but still, it was like everyone was still walking in and out or eavesdropping), Claire helping Jamie kill Dougal (there might have been a ohh nooo) from my end. Jamie telling Claire he knew about the baby (that was like the sweetest thing). Their last time together... 

(sigh) what happened to Fergus! What happened to Murtagh!

Talk about an amazing way to kick off Droughtlander. :( 

[Avaleigh]

I cried for the last thirty minutes. I'm still fucking sniffling like I know these people or something. Good Lord, that was gut wrenching. 

I can hardly form a coherent thought. I may have a few issues with this show but it's super compelling and I'm finally sold on reading the books. 

I was sure that the daughter was going to be convinced by something that Frank wrote to the reverend. 

I'm so sad that Jaime and Claire have to spend all of that time apart. I understand why he couldn't go with her but I still wish that he'd accidentally been sucked back with her or something lol since his hand was so close.

Jaime already knowing about the baby--my heart is broken that he'll never be able to hold her. 

Why couldn't he hear the buzzing, I wonder? Similarly, Brianna could hear the buzzing but I was unclear if her sort of boyfriend could. 

Geillis is a freaking psychopath, seriously. She's quite mad on top of being totally selfish. 

Eta:

Apparently Roger could hear the buzzing. I blame tears for why I initially missed that. ;p

Edited July 11, 2016 by Avaleigh

[jcin617]

So Bree and Roger are first cousins seven times removed?   Heh.  

[Madra Dubh]

Heartbreaking.

One thing I missed was a moment between Claire and Murtagh. I would have liked to see an acknowledgement of the bond they've formed.

[MSquared]

Just now, jcin617 said:

So Bree and Roger are first cousins seven times removed?   Heh.  

It's sad that I was trying to figure that out for most of the episode!  I actually think it's more like second cousins five or six times removed.  Bree's grandmother is Ellen MacKenzie Fraser and Roger's seven times removed grand father is Dougal MacKenzie.   That makes Bree's second cousin Dougal's grandchild...it's all very confusing!!

[jcin617]

15 minutes ago, MSquared said:

It's sad that I was trying to figure that out for most of the episode!  I actually think it's more like second cousins five or six times removed.  Bree's grandmother is Ellen MacKenzie Fraser and Roger's seven times removed grand father is Dougal MacKenzie.   That makes Bree's second cousin Dougal's grandchild...it's all very confusing!!

You're right; Bree and Dougal's grandchild are second cousins.  Roger is her second cousin six times removed.

Edited July 10, 2016 by jcin617

[Daisy]

2 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Somewhat hard to believe that in the 20 years Claire was back in the "modern" world, she didn't do any research to confirm that Jamie was actually killed in the battle.

 

Was Murtaugh one of the four names that were confirmed killed?  

No it's not. Remember. Frank made her promise to drop everything about Jamie if they were going to make this work. She did - hence why they burned the dress, it was the start of that promise. and I don't think even when Frank died, she'd up and go "let's go research about Jamie."

I thought it was more bittersweet that Frank "broke that promise." found out (or at least started to), but never told Claire. (but as we saw, we realised why - she'd totally go back, to try and find him). 

[jcin617]

I don't think Frank knew; he called off the Reverend's research and the letter about Jamie I think Roger said hadn't been mailed.

[Glade]

Wow!  That wasn't how I expected things would happen, but it was all harrowing and heartbreaking, I loved the amount of tension and racing about they did when Culloden was about to begin, and then that moment by the stones, their lovemaking was interrupted by the sound of cannons!  It was so powerful watching Jaime considering breaching his usual (and admirable) code of ethics about not killing unless it's absolutely necessary, and then tragic to see that it was ultimately his uncle he wound up killing, not the bonny prince.  I didn't realize that Culloden ended with officers being executed for treason, that's horrible.  I really hope Murtaugh survived!

I felt like I could watch the seven hour version of this episode and still be happy!  I will say though that pacing-wise I had spent most of my tears earlier in the episode, so pinning that final scene between Claire and Jamie at the stones in the last minute just made me feel exhausted; also because I was anxiously waiting to see what else would happen in 68!!  Where we were teased about a Claire/Gellis reunion (or preunion?)  Which never ultimately happened.

I guess I don't feel quite so bad for Gellis anymore, given that she burned her husband alive before anyone thought of burning her as a witch.  Though, is it possible that Claire oversimplified what she read in the notebooks?  Could that actually have been part of some cyclical spell where if she was ever burned herself, she would return to her time intact?  Though, if she was suspected of killing her husband, I don't imagine she could ever return to her own time, and maybe that was the reality she lived with, unlike Claire.  Either way I was hoping throughout the episode that maybe this could actually be a returned Gellis that Claire meets, but apparently not.  I guess that would have to wait until the 1970's anyway, by which point Claire's wig could get a lot worse!  I also have to say, that no offense but she really didn't look like a younger version of S1 Gellis to me. But her husband implied she was probably a returning student in her mid-twenties, not a bright-eyed freshman.  

I loved Roger and Bree together, they make a great couple.   I kept hoping all three of them would go through the stones together, and I was upset when they originally sent Roger away to get 'help.'  But maybe a little bit of planning/forethought would be best this time, not just madly running through the stones with no money/valuables or even semi-appropriate clothing.  At first I thought the buzzing noise was flies swarming the body of Gellis' husband, though I guess it's a bit soon for that.

I guess this is undeniably where we move forward, with twenty devastating years lost between Jamie and Claire.  But please, please please don't give Jaimie a beard in season 3!!  That's such a cheap overused way of aging men, as if we're supposed to develop some amnesia about how to use a razor in later life.  Don't hide Jamie's beautiful face, just give him some grey streaks in his hair if need be!  I'm not sad that Frank is dead, but did BJR really die off-screen?  I hope he didn't survive to rape new characters. 

I also can't wait for season 3!  Maybe I'll read the first two books now that the seasons have aired. 

[Madra Dubh]

12 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Was Murtaugh one of the four names that were confirmed killed?  

Roger said there were "five Fraser officers"  - four were killed and the fifth, Jamie, survived. I hope I'm wrong, but it seems like Murtagh would have been one of the other four officers.

[Daisy]

8 minutes ago, Glade said:

I guess this is undeniably where we move forward, with twenty devastating years lost between Jamie and Claire.  But please, please please don't give Jaimie a beard in season 3!!  That's such a cheap overused way of aging men, as if we're supposed to develop some amnesia about how to use a razor in later life.  Don't hide Jamie's beautiful face, just give him some grey streaks in his hair if need be!  I'm not sad that Frank is dead, but did BJR really die off-screen?  I hope he didn't survive to rape new characters. 

I also can't wait for season 3!  Maybe I'll read the first two books now that the seasons have aired. 

me too! maybe we should have Outlander Virgin Book Thread or something. (I'm also reading book 1 of GoT). I couldn't take it anymore. 

I think Jamie will have the beard. but here's hoping he doesn't. 

Edited July 10, 2016 by Daisy

[Avaleigh]

14 minutes ago, Daisy said:

me too! maybe we should have Outlander Virgin Book Thread or something. (I'm also reading book 1 of GoT). I couldn't take it anymore. 

I think Jamie will have the beard. but here's hoping he doesn't. 

Can we do this? I'm starting the first book now. I'd love to read with others.

[HumblePi]

I've only watched this series because there's nothing much else on to watch Saturday nights. I never really liked it that much, I tolerated it more or less out of boredom from the other shows on TV Saturdays. I never liked how the whole series is so focused on Claire nearly entirely. The close-ups of Claire with tilted eyebrows and furrowed worried brow, or a lingering tear, it just always seemed overly sentimentalized, if that's a word. Caitrona Balfe is a beautiful actress and model, she more or less owned this series in nearly every scene.

The season finale was predictable and obviously leads us to season three where Claire meets back up with Jaimie of course. They'll meet up with the Scottish witch that just burned her husband and ran through the stone.

It's so predictable that I think that next season I'll find something else to watch. This season was enough for me to say 'uncle' I give up.

Edited July 10, 2016 by HumblePi

[nara]

19 minutes ago, Madra Dubh said:

Roger said there were "five Fraser officers"  - four were killed and the fifth, Jamie, survived. I hope I'm wrong, but it seems like Murtagh would have been one of the other four officers.

I somehow doubt that Murtagh was an officer.  I bet the other officers were from Lord Simon's group.  At least I hope so.  Since we lost so many friends, I hope we get to keep Murtagh somehow in Season 3.  I cried when he insisted on coming back to Culloden to die with Jamie.

What a great episode.  Have they said anything about when Season 3 would be aired?  I long for the days when new seasons would start very predictably in September!

First the shallow stuff.  Caitriona and Lotte are beauties for the ages.  We have seen Cait in 3 periods and she is equally lovely in the styles of the 3 ages.  Lotte also looked equally gorgeous in modern style as she did in her 18th century garb.  I think they could have done more to age Claire-- she must be in her late 40's  or even 50 in 1968.  Not sure why she's wearing glasses now.  Reading glasses would have made more sense if it were part of her aging...

Apparently Claire went to med school--yay! She may have even done it while pregnant or with a small child, which is so Claire!

Was excited to see that adorable boy Roger Wakefield come back as a grown character.  Did not expect the connect to Dougal and Geillis, but his line about the "fucking barbeque" and him quoting Nathan Hale too were both cute.  Nice throwback to Geillis at the witch trial.  I guess I should have seen something coming.  However, I'm surprised that there wasn't more of an obvious connection between him and great--great--whatever grandmother Geillis/Gillian, though I guess she gave him a bit of a lingering look.   She seemed to have more of a connection with BriannaI squealed when I heard Geillis speaking--her voice is very distinctive.  Then when they actually showed her, I squealed again!  Speaking of Geillis, my only real disappointment in the episode was that Ganesh's brilliant theory of Claire + Jamie = Geillis was proven to be untrue.  :(  However, the idea that she had murdered ANOTHER husband, I found perfectly appropriate.  But I don't get why she changed her name from Gillian to Geillis...

I was shocked by the killing of Dougal.  I really thought we would have him for future seasons.  It was terrible that Jamie was the one who had to kill him.  I was hoping that Claire would do the job herself by plunging a dagger to save Jamie.  I would have preferred Jamie not to have the guilt of killing his kin.  I also wish Claire hadn't told Jamie about Collum taking poison.  It would have been better for him not to know that his uncle committed a mortal sin.  Also, I think killing BPC would not have done much at that point.  Yes, Culloden would have been avoided, but all those people would still have been executed or jailed as traitors.  

How heartbreaking that Jamie and Claire were separated when they needn't have been.  She could have gone to Lallybroch with Fergus (glad he was not at Culloden) and had the baby there.  But the scene when they said goodbye was well done and made up for the lack of attention given to the last time Claire was contemplating going through the stones.  I had been wondering why we didn't hear about Claire being pregnant in earlier episodes, so I'm glad Jamie knew.  Would she have gone to the future without telling him if he hadn't guessed?  I also felt terrible when he talked about 200 years of prugatory, because that must be what he endured in order to be the Highlander ghost from the very first episode.  :( I confess that I couldn't help smiling that Jamie has yet to build up his stamina--the sex was over very quickly!  ;)  I'm glad that she wants to go back, but what about her daughter?  Surely she cannot abandon her young daughter in the future?  Brianna is only 20 years old.  I enjoyed the bittersweet visits to Lallybroch and Culloden too.

I was a little sorry not to see Frank, but I was glad that Brianna was apparently quite devoted to him.  He got a raw deal in all this and he seems to have handled it in the most gallant way.  Interesting that he and Blackjack both raised other people's children.  Somehow I doubt that BJR was this gracious.  If he were alive still, I'd feel better about Claire going back in time, but perhaps Brianna will want to go too.  Brianna and Roger could both hear the stones (and Jamie couldn't) so presumably they can travel through it too!  In fact, I was yelling "don't touch it" to Brianna because she was getting awfully close.  

I do like how the final shot showed Claire's face lit up.  The woman who has lived in another world -- in a shadow world, if you will -- has finally come into the light.

I wish I could time travel to next year when Season 3 starts!  And then time travel back so I'm not a year older... :)

[ganesh]

2 hours ago, Daisy said:

Like she never really got over losing Jamie, at all. And the sad thing is - she had a piece of Jamie right there, and you'd think she'd be close with the daughter, but you get this sense that she wasn't. 

Claire is kind of a jerk. Because I'd think that. I don't get it. I would have thought the daughter would have grown up in love with Scotland. It was disingenuous. I think they dropped it with establishing Frank/Brianna so if that was developed, I could buy Claire being aloof, but there was nothing there. 

Ah, I had a good run. I really thought Claire's daughter was Gellis. Too bad 68-Gellis is completely clueless about Charlie. It's seems like a waste to me, since the daughter would have more of an investment going back to save her father. Though I'm not opposed to a closed time loop story. It's kind of tragic that Gellis was legit for Scotland, but Claire got her killed before she could do anything. Especially since she studied so much.

I think I would have stabbed Charlie 3 seconds after he compared himself to Jesus.

Claire with glasses is so scorchingly hot that the backdraft off my screen singed my eyebrows.

I'm surprised it took so long for Claire to come around to killing Charlie, since it was brought up already.

I bad for Frank. He didn't do anything wrong, and raised another man's child. Then we get to the finale and he's died. No last scene? Good bye? I feel like Claire undercut him; 'yeah, he totally raised you and put in all the work, but he didn't MAKE you.' I mean. Come on.   

I thought the daughter was a little too modern in her line readings, but I liked her. I thought there was a passing likeness to Jamie. 

Roger's reaction shot after the whole reveal was hilarious.

Fergus was so brave!

I know this isn't a time travel show, but I like that there was an actual scene about that. 

Jamie keeps track of his wife's periods? This is one of the best men ever.

Quote

I'm so sad that Jaime and Claire have to spend all of that time apart. I understand why he couldn't go with her but I still wish that he'd accidentally been sucked back with her or something lol since his hand was so close.

To be fair for the show, Jamie didn't hear the 'buzzing' when they were at the stones, and Brianna did hear it in the 'present'. So it's clear (Claire) that there's something about who can go through. 

2 hours ago, RogerDodger said:

Somewhat hard to believe that in the 20 years Claire was back in the "modern" world, she didn't do any research to confirm that Jamie was actually killed in the battle.

Really. Especially since she was "Jamie is the only man I ever loved". And in the flashforward midseason, she was still wearing her wedding ring. Ok, you were in a major American city. What were you doing for the last 20 years?

2 hours ago, Daisy said:

No it's not. Remember. Frank made her promise to drop everything about Jamie if they were going to make this work. She did - hence why they burned the dress, it was the start of that promise. and I don't think even when Frank died, she'd up and go "let's go research about Jamie."

I don't buy that at all. Claire? Come on. Because she toed the line in old Scotland. She wore that wedding ring for over a decade in the present, and in this episode she said Jamie was her one true love. It's ridiculous to think that she held all that back for 20 years. 

[Daisy]

Well I think the major difference is here - she had Brianna to think about.  I think the lines were very much drawn in the first episode and Claire abided by it. And then on top of it - we have to remember all of the promises she made Jamie that she wouldn't dwell on what happened when/if she went back, and she promised him too. So that's two promises + Brianna to think about. and if we do want to go with the fact that Claire can be and is a touch selfish - I can also see her keeping it really all to herself because of "reasons." 

Going by what was said, I could see Claire being withdrawn and not being forth coming with everything. Bree said she lived in her own world (which is true. Old Scotland). She promised the two men she loved (or at least the love of her life) - not to research or find out about him, and promised someone she card about very much to let Jamie be dead. So I can honestly see Claire respecting both wishes. If not Frank's, 100 percent she'd keep Jamie's. 

[ruby24]

Wow, the girl that plays Briana is a TERRIBLE actress. Am I the only one who sees this??

I'm officially worried for next season. This is the first time this show has screwed up on casting someone. She couldn't deliver a single line reading convincingly in this episode. I was shocked at how horrendous she was.

Everyone else they have ever introduced has been awesome in their roles. How could they fuck this up so badly?

[qtpye]

27 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

I'm officially worried for next season. This is the first time this show has screwed up on casting someone. She couldn't deliver a single line reading convincingly in this episode. I was shocked at how horrendous she was.

I loved the episode and could not believe how bad she was.  I could see the acting where everyone else is so effortless.

[ruby24]

Yeah, I should mention that the episode was great overall, and I can't wait for Claire and Jamie to reunite, but...I just had to come in here and say this, because I really couldn't believe how bad that girl was.

It stood out because everyone else on the show is so great. I mean, every time they introduce a new character, he/she is always great, so this was just shocking to me.

I'm not a book reader either, so I can't comment on how her character should be or anything, so I wasn't distracted by that. I was distracted by how poor this performance was. And I'm concerned, knowing she's not going anywhere and I'm probably supposed to invest in her. I can tell you right now, that's not happening if they don't recast this character.

I don't know how they could have made such a mistake.

[Athena]

9 hours ago, Daisy said:

me too! maybe we should have Outlander Virgin Book Thread or something. (I'm also reading book 1 of GoT). I couldn't take it anymore.

 

9 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

Can we do this? I'm starting the first book now. I'd love to read with others.

The individual book threads in the book section only have the spoilers for the book of the title and any of those before it. If you read the Book 1 thread, it only has spoilers for book one and perhaps some from the show. If you want more of an active book reading thread, I can create one.

[Daisy]

15 minutes ago, Athena said:

 

The individual book threads in the book section only have the spoilers for the book of the title and any of those before it. If you read the Book 1 thread, it only has spoilers for book one and perhaps some from the show. If you want more of an active book reading thread, I can create one.

please if you don't mind Athena :) that would be great. 

Sort of a spoiler free, active book thread?

[Athena]

8 minutes ago, Daisy said:

please if you don't mind Athena :) that would be great. 

Sort of a spoiler free, active book thread?

Here you go. Also pinging @Avaleigh . You and others can determine the pacing or however you want to organise it. I have made it clear that it's primarily for new readers to work through the books for the first time. If you do have pressing questions, I or one of the bookwalkers can answer without spoiling too much.

[HumblePi]

http://previously.tv/outlander/outlander-ends-its-season-at-the-beginning/Good synopsis of this finale episode

At first I thought that Claire's 60's bouffant hair was a little overdone but checking google images, I see it wasn't exaggerated at all. Check out Dolly Parton's

I'm with many others that agree that the woman who played the part of Brianna was just horrible. All I could imagine is that the casting director wanted to save some money and went to a local college and found this girl in a Theater 101 class and signed her up cheap.

I agree that Claire talking to the rock for more than five minutes was overkill. The rat in the attic served no purpose either. I sort of miss 'good Frank' because he and Claire had a very passionate marriage before she passed through the stone. By coming into this episode with Frank already dead, I felt they didn't give that side of Claire's married life an honorable enough narrative. Frank loved Claire desperate and by suddenly thrusting Claire at us as a woman that has been heartsick for Jaime all the years that she and Frank were married gives little credit to Frank for being patient and searching desperately for Claire all that time. I'm disappointed in the writing, the acting and the story. I won't watch next year because it's basically a story about Claire and Jaimie Fraser. Scotland, England, wars and history are really just there for some background and additional various cast.

Edited July 10, 2016 by HumblePi

[ihartcoffee]

11 hours ago, Glade said:

Wow!  That wasn't how I expected things would happen, but it was all harrowing and heartbreaking, I loved the amount of tension and racing about they did when Culloden was about to begin, and then that moment by the stones, their lovemaking was interrupted by the sound of cannons!  It was so powerful watching Jaime considering breaching his usual (and admirable) code of ethics about not killing unless it's absolutely necessary, and then tragic to see that it was ultimately his uncle he wound up killing, not the bonny prince.  I didn't realize that Culloden ended with officers being executed for treason, that's horrible.  I really hope Murtaugh survived!

I felt like I could watch the seven hour version of this episode and still be happy!  I will say though that pacing-wise I had spent most of my tears earlier in the episode, so pinning that final scene between Claire and Jamie at the stones in the last minute just made me feel exhausted; also because I was anxiously waiting to see what else would happen in 68!!  Where we were teased about a Claire/Gellis reunion (or preunion?)  Which never ultimately happened.

I guess I don't feel quite so bad for Gellis anymore, given that she burned her husband alive before anyone thought of burning her as a witch.  Though, is it possible that Claire oversimplified what she read in the notebooks?  Could that actually have been part of some cyclical spell where if she was ever burned herself, she would return to her time intact?  Though, if she was suspected of killing her husband, I don't imagine she could ever return to her own time, and maybe that was the reality she lived with, unlike Claire.  Either way I was hoping throughout the episode that maybe this could actually be a returned Gellis that Claire meets, but apparently not.  I guess that would have to wait until the 1970's anyway, by which point Claire's wig could get a lot worse!  I also have to say, that no offense but she really didn't look like a younger version of S1 Gellis to me. But her husband implied she was probably a returning student in her mid-twenties, not a bright-eyed freshman.  

I loved Roger and Bree together, they make a great couple.   I kept hoping all three of them would go through the stones together, and I was upset when they originally sent Roger away to get 'help.'  But maybe a little bit of planning/forethought would be best this time, not just madly running through the stones with no money/valuables or even semi-appropriate clothing.  At first I thought the buzzing noise was flies swarming the body of Gellis' husband, though I guess it's a bit soon for that.

 

Did you notice they all 3 heard the buzzing.  Yet Jamie couldn't hear it when Claire asks him when she is near the stones.  

[cardigirl]

I was hoping for some more of Frank in this episode as well, but I wonder if they are saving it for next season? 

Might be a way to keep Toby involved in the show.    

 

I enjoyed this episode, but I think I enjoyed the first episode of the season just a little bit more. Not sure why. Maybe it was a tighter episode. 

Edited July 10, 2016 by cardigirl

[BusyOctober]

Add me to the list of Bree dislike.  Egads, she was awful!  They couldn't have found another red haired 20year old who could deliver a line?  She reminded me of Vaness Beyer's child actress character on Saturday Night Live.  So very untalented, and if she is going to be featured a lot next season, I can't even.  

Claire looked fantastic in '68!  I loved her post WW2 look and styling, but her face was stunning as a 50 yo.  

I don't understand time travel mechanics, and it hurts my head to try to reason it out.  But this part just won't get out of my brain, so if someone could talk me off the ledge, I'd appreciate it. Since Roger was a direct decendant of Gellis, what would have happened if Claire had stopped her from going through the stone?  I know she didn't want to stop her, just warn her, but if Gellis never went back in time to become Dougal's baby mama, would Roger just "poof" out of existence?  Would he evoporate on the spot once Gillian missed her opportunity to time travel? Claire and Bree had already met him.  Would they just get instant amnesia and forget they stayed at his house & toured Scotland with him yesterday?

OK, head hurts again and I need to lie down...

[jcin617]

Since everything we've seen so far in the show lends itself to predestination, the very fact that Roger was there means that Claire could never stop Gellis.  Just like she couldn't stop Culloden because it was already part of history.

While Claire tries to make a big show about changing history, it's just easier to think of it as "what happened, happened".   

Edited July 10, 2016 by jcin617

[Daisy]

I have to re watch the first episode to see (or rather, hear) if we hear buzzing. 

so basically, Buzzing = StoneTravel

[Madra Dubh]

10 hours ago, ruby24 said:

Wow, the girl that plays Briana is a TERRIBLE actress. Am I the only one who sees this?? 

Everyone else they have ever introduced has been awesome in their roles.

9 hours ago, qtpye said:

I loved the episode and could not believe how bad she was.  I could see the acting where everyone else is so effortless.

 

23 minutes ago, BusyOctober said:

Add me to the list of Bree dislike.  Egads, she was awful!  They couldn't have found another red haired 20year old who could deliver a line?  She reminded me of Vaness Beyer's child actress character on Saturday Night Live.  So very untalented, and if she is going to be featured a lot next season, I can't even.  

 

So glad to hear other people felt this way. I kept reading good comments about her, and thought I'd really missed something. But the second time I watched... Nope, nothing missed. She's not good. It's something in her delivery and inflections. I felt like I was watching someone act, not watching a character in a story.

Ruby24, you're right - it is particularly glaring because everyone else in this show is so good at becoming their character, that the contrast with this actress makes her lack of that Becoming stand out.

[kayma]

I like Roger. He's kind of adorable. Brianna is ok. For a show that is so good about everyone else's accents and diction, they needed to pay more attention to Brianna. She was so whiny sounding and some of her dialogue took me right out of the show, which never happens during Outlander for me. Hopefully, they work out her dialogue and she settles in. 

I think it's really sad that Claire seems to have only lived a half life the past 20 years and that her relationship with Brianna suffered for it. It seems like a disservice to Jamie's memory but was probably inevitable after losing him.

The best parts for me were the parts in the past. I kept wishing they'd hurry up back to them. As good as Caitriona is as Claire (and she's so deserving of the praise), I think Sam stole the episode in their parting scenes. How he didn't break until she was looking away, that realization when he couldn't hear the buzzing, and that accepting nod when he touched the stone and nothing happened. I had been spoiled about the speech about 200 years of purgatory and loving her well and didn't know how Sam would make that sound natural and not a romance novel trope, but it was perfect. I so hope we get to see his reaction after she's gone and (hopefully) him killing Black Jack next season.

Oh, Murtagh. I'm still hoping he lives.

Overall, the whole 20 year separation seems so contrived and such lazy writing, but that's a problem I have with the source material, which I won't reading anyway.

[Madra Dubh]

11 hours ago, nara said:

I somehow doubt that Murtagh was an officer.  I bet the other officers were from Lord Simon's group.  At least I hope so.  Since we lost so many friends, I hope we get to keep Murtagh somehow in Season 3.  I cried when he insisted on coming back to Culloden to die with Jamie.

I figured that because he was training the soldiers in Je Suis Prest and is one of the few on horseback, he's one of the Fraser leaders...? But maybe not an officer. . . I hope you're right!! What a beautiful, complicated-yet-not character. Complicated in that a lot lies beneath the surface, but not in that he is what he is - loyal and of utmost integrity. The loss of the relationship between him and Jaime would be a loss for the show.

[Daisy]

I haven't heard the actress speak - I wonder if have the issue was, she's British and can't do a flat American accident and that was the cause of the struggle? (ie: why people thought she was bad). I'm not even going to lie. It didn't bother me - but i wasn't really focused on her. at all. it was more of please get back to Scotland. ahh, Scotland. 

[ganesh]

I didn't notice either. I tend to think this is an example of outside media shaping expectations prior to viewing. I am unspoiled on the shows I watch; don't read articles till after, etc. That's why I complain if an episode thread includes "so and so EP said on twitter..."  Which doesn't happen for this show here thankfully. I've been doing it for years, and overwhelmingly my viewing experience is different. Besides, the actor is going to be in the role for a while. I don't know what "bad" means in this context because I'm not an actor, but maybe she'll have time to get better.

It makes sense that Claire and Bree can hear the buzzing, but not why Gellis can. Is there another connection between them? Although Gellis had to burn the body and Claire didn't have to do anything. 

I'm also wondering if the show will get into any way to control them? We know Gellis goes back in 1968 but ends up prior to when Claire when back, and Claire when in the 40s. So when will Claire go back if she goes now?

It's weird that this was all kind of wrapped up in 2 seasons. I don't quite get what the conflict is going to be if Claire goes back to live in Scotland-past. There aren't any more battles iirc.

[nara]

1 hour ago, ganesh said:

I didn't notice either. I tend to think this is an example of outside media shaping expectations prior to viewing. I am unspoiled on the shows I watch; don't read articles till after, etc. That's why I complain if an episode thread includes "so and so EP said on twitter..."  Which doesn't happen for this show here thankfully. I've been doing it for years, and overwhelmingly my viewing experience is different. Besides, the actor is going to be in the role for a while. I don't know what "bad" means in this context because I'm not an actor, but maybe she'll have time to get better.

It makes sense that Claire and Bree can hear the buzzing, but not why Gellis can. Is there another connection between them? Although Gellis had to burn the body and Claire didn't have to do anything. 

I'm also wondering if the show will get into any way to control them? We know Gellis goes back in 1968 but ends up prior to when Claire when back, and Claire when in the 40s. So when will Claire go back if she goes now?

It's weird that this was all kind of wrapped up in 2 seasons. I don't quite get what the conflict is going to be if Claire goes back to live in Scotland-past. There aren't any more battles iirc.

I didn't have any issues with Brianna either. 

Geillis apparently thought the time travel could be controlled with jewels. I went back to the first episode of the season because I remembered Claire dropping a ring. It looks like that's the ring that Jamie gave her in this episode, but the stone was missing when she arrived back in the modern time. So maybe Geillis was right.  Of course, this relies heavily on what I  believe I saw with the help of my DVR and pause button, so maybe someone else can validate it.

Jamie and Claire will find trouble or make it themselves, so don't fear for lack of conflict. Maybe they will get involved in the American or French Revolutions.  Heck, maybe Claire will even cause one of them!

[Pixel]

If Gillian was pre-time travel Geillis, how did Geillis end up at an earlier point in time than Claire? Does what I'm asking make sense? If Geillis is going back when Claire is 50, shouldn't she have shown up in Scotland 20 years after the battle of Culloden? How do they control where in the past they go?  And what if when Claire goes back she ends up there before she and Jamie met, and now she's a creepy cougar after a young, hot virgin?

[ganesh]

That's what I'm saying. There's been a lot going on with Claire from our pov, so I wouldn't expect her to be thinking about time travel stone mechanics. But now, it's a salient point. She spilled the beans to the daughter, they all saw Gellis go through, and we're left with Claire saying "I can go back." It's a natural follow up to question how/if she can return to where and when she wants to.

I kind of hope they get into that. 

And: I wonder if Claire has some innate control over the stones, which is fine, and I'd hope they explain that. 

The other thing that always stuck with me was in the first season at the big banquet, there was a song about someone who used the stones then. I was really hoping Claire would meet someone else in the past with knowledge of the stones. There's got to be some legends out there. 

Edited July 10, 2016 by ganesh

[Pixel]

Time travel stuff always gets wonky when you think about it too much, but it would be helpful if they threw in a little bit of something about how well they can or can't control where (or when) they end up.

And also, if I'm Claire, I don't know if I want to go back to a couple of weeks after I left Jamie so that there's very little lost time between them, or if I don't want to suddenly be 50 years old to his 23 years old.  In that time period, anything older than about 35 is close to the end of the lifespan, isn't it? I'm going to have to go Google average lifespan in Scotland in the 1700's.

ETA: Based on averages, if you managed to survive childhood you could potentially live to be in your 50's. Maybe even older, if you were really lucky and had good nutrition. Even though Dougal looked about 60, he was probably only 28. :)

Edited July 10, 2016 by Pixel

[cattykit]

Anachronism alert:  Brianna is a student at Harvard in 1968, when it, as all the Ivies, was still closed to women. 

[ganesh]

It's all timey whimey wibbley wobbley. 

Knowing Claire, I could easily see her being the cause of the French revolution. The thing is, from what we've seen, the past isn't changeable. From a tv pov, I don't see that Claire going back in time and having adventures is going to make compelling tv. The show rocks, so I'm really interested in what is coming next. 

On the other hand, I still think that Claire going to the past changes some things just by being there. But that's more timey whimey.

[theschnauzers]

21 minutes ago, cattykit said:

Anachronism alert:  Brianna is a student at Harvard in 1968, when it, as all the Ivies, was still closed to women. 

Not quite. There was a women's college affiliated at the time with Harvard College, both of which were part of Harvard university.and there were courses at Harvard open to them. And IIRC, there had been women faculty at Harvard by then. (I'm pretty sure of it in fact because the woman who was the dean of my law school was the first woman to teach at Harvard Law a couple of decades previously.

[cattykit]

1 minute ago, theschnauzers said:

Not quite. There was a women's college affiliated at the time with Harvard College, both of which were part of Harvard university.and there were courses at Harvard open to them. And IIRC, there had been women faculty at Harvard by then. (I'm pretty sure of it in fact because the woman who was the dean of my law school was the first woman to teach at Harvard Law a couple of decades previously.

Although they did receive degrees from Harvard, women at the time would never have casually told someone they were going to Harvard, they would have said they were going to Radcliffe.

The actress playing Brianna is singularly awful.