Season 2: Paris to Culloden

[Athena]

This is your season 2 book talk discussion thread. If you wish the subtitle to be changed, please suggest below.

[GHScorpiosRule]

6 minutes ago, Athena said:

This is your season 2 book talk discussion thread. If you wish the subtitle to be changed, please suggest below.

Thanks Athena! I love the subtitle!

 

Sae, now that the season is over, let's dish about what we like, loved, dinna like, dinna care fer, etc, etc., aboot season Two!

For me, by far, the last half was my favorite, because...Scotland. There were a couple of Paris episodes I really enjoyed, but the second half I much preferred.

[Nidratime]

How about a play on Geillis' speech to her 1968 supporters, with a French twist. (I wish I could remember the exact words.)

Season 2: "Je suis Bonnie Prince Charlie!" Or just, Season 2: "Mark Me!" (That should please Gabaldon who wanted Jamie and Claire to actually mark each other.)

Edited July 12, 2016 by Nidratime

[GHScorpiosRule]

7 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

How about a play on Geillis' speech to her 1968 supporters, with a French twist. (I wish I could remember the exact words.)

Season 2: "Je suis Bonnie Prince Charlie!" Or just, Season 2: "Mark Me!" (That should please Gabaldon who wanted Jamie and Claire to actually mark each other.)

Please, no "Mark Me" for the subtitle. Hearing him spouth that every third word in each sentence made me want to stab myself in the eyes with a spork!

[ulkis]

I liked the Paris episodes but I knew I probably would. The stuff in Dragonfly in Amber (the book) is usually my kinda thing but I found the prose in the book a bit  . . . I don't know quite what didn't work for me but I knew on-screen I would probably like it.

I like a lot of the humor in the episodes. There's always at least one part that strikes me as genuinely funny, and it's usually not inserted clumsily. I say usually because the fight scene at the end of episode 4 at the end of the dinner party was a bit too slapstick. 

[Athena]

2 hours ago, Nidratime said:

How about a play on Geillis' speech to her 1968 supporters, with a French twist. (I wish I could remember the exact words.)

Season 2: "Je suis Bonnie Prince Charlie!" Or just, Season 2: "Mark Me!" (That should please Gabaldon who wanted Jamie and Claire to actually mark each other.)

I almost wrote Mark Me but I didn't want us to reminded about what a douche canoe Charlie was.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm putting this here because it has to also do with this season.

I marathoner through season one on Saturday and jumped right into season two and got up to "The Fox's Lair."  And caught continuity gaffs.

Furrst, Jamie told Claire about his bastard of a gtandsire in "The Wedding" and that his father was a bastard. Though I'll have to double check on the bastard part.  He may have said "second son."  So there was no need really for Jamie and Jenny to explain who Simon Lovat was.

And since I saw the deleted scenes of Colum and Ned regarding "The Devil's Mark," I can't believe Colum's denial about not knowing anything about what happened to Claire. Yes, yes, if it didn't happen on the show that aired, it's not cannon. Even if Moore said it was cut for time. You ask me? I think it wasn't used because it was real CLEAR about what Colum knew and did or didn't do. So I don't like show!Colum anymore.

And if I may delve intae the shallow pool? Sam/Jamie luiks SO MUCH HAWTER and SEXAY when he's in Scotland and has, what I call, his Scotland hair. Just the way it's styled and windblown and so much more natural looking, with the non-clean shaven face and his brogue a wee bit thicker.

Me: SIGH.....

❤️❤️❤️???❤️❤️❤️???❤️❤️❤️???????????

[chocolatetruffle]

No I never want to hear those two words again - unless it's to ridicule the Bonnie Prince.  The season started off on the wrong foot for me when they gave us 40 minutes of Frank. It set up the season to be the story of Claire reuniting with her first husband, which totally confused the unspoiled viewers - most of whom were waiting for them to get back to the REAL story. There were also inconsistent timeline issues throughout. Finally, the last of the hates was the lack of "healing" time spent at Lallybroch, especially since there was no follow-up to the Lovat story: we never see Young Simon again.

However, I enjoyed the Paris section (wee Fergus!) and the Scotland section, but definitely loved the second half a wee bit more...

[GHScorpiosRule]

I am up to the last two of this season's episodes in my rewatch, and frankly, the return to Scotland and the rest of the second season, were far better for me. Though there were a few scenes in Paris, that were just wonderful! Though I was verra disappointed that my "your oxters!" got changed to honeypot...the look on Jamie's face, and how Sam played it, did make me giggle. And it got me excited to think this was it, he'd be able to banish that motherfucking sadistic rapist from his mind...but no.

Then there was the emotionally charged: "Jesus. God, Claire." when she told Jamie he owed her a life. Followed by "Do.Not.TOUCH me." 

The hilarious bit with the bite marks with the trollops, and Jamie trying to 'splain that the whoors didn't get him riled with lust,..well they did, but riled up with lust for Claire. I seem to recall it was funnier in the buik.

The meeting with Jamie and Fergus, calling him the "wee fool" and "laddies." 

Me:SIGH...

And I wilna lie...I was rolling during the scene with John Grey. With Claire taking in the scene, calling Jamie a "Scottish barbarian," how she didn't give in to his demands (lustful), and ended with calling him a pig.  And the look on Jamie's face. How he rolled with it. PURE PERFECTION. With Claire kneeing him, his muttering "Sassenach" and then stealing that kiss at the end. Or, or, or, in the beginning, Jamie to Lord John: "Is your arm brroken? I thought I heard something snap." and then presses down on his arm.

Or the commando raid, and then Jamie stops; pauses. turns toward Claire for confirmation that that is the right word, reight? And Claire's giggling as they kissy-kissy. I so wish they'd had a quickie. I just love that scene with them; him in "commando face."

Me: Sigh....

Then we get to Scotland...like @chocolatetruffle said--the scenes at Lallybroch were sacrificed fer stoopuid scenes with Colum and hosebeast. I just loved visiting with Ian and Jenny again. And wee Rabbie. And ye can see the transformation of Jamie...especially at camp, when he first punishes Ross and Kincaid, and then tells Dougal he and his men will now be in sentry duty...taking the lashes himself because of the open fires that led to John being able to sneak in.

I enjoyed Sandringham more in the first season. This season? Too much moustache twirling villainy and scenery chewing even more.

The passion is still there with Jamie and Claire. I mean, goodness, the butterflies started tae aflutter in me belly during their kiss before he left to fight in "Prestonpans." 

And now I'm off tae watch the last two again.

Edited July 20, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[GHScorpiosRule]

Sigh...luiks like I'm going tae be talkin' tae meself here (just as happened during me marathoning reading of the buiks after season one ended)

Me: Any new thoughts aboot the second season?

GHScorpiosRule: Actually, yes. Here's what I noticed in me third rewatch of the season:

That Cait in the first season was verra comfortable riding a horse; yet in "The Fox's Lair", as they're leaving for Lord Lovat's place, She's hopping and bumping in her saddle, not in sync with her horsie, and left me wondering if it was because she hadn't been on a horse since the end of season one! She looked mighty uncomfortable--as opposed to how AWESOME and Warrior-like she looked as "The Search" ended, after Rupert, Angus and Willie joined her to head toward Wentworth to save Jamie.

There was some discussion about how the show "messed" up in how Brianna got her name as well. I didn't see it. Yes, Claire told Bree that she "promised" Jamie she would--leading one to think that maybe he asked her to do that. When that isn't always the case. She told him she would name her after his father or something, and that could also be considered a promise, if ye wull.

I still wish they'd have kept in line with the buik with Jamie refusing to be party to killing Bonnie Prince Charlie, and Claire saying "I'm so glad!" and it would have just looked better. At least to me.

As for Miss Brianna herself, well, it makes my cold, cold, and meanie heart feel good that her portrayal doesn't make her "better" than how she appears in the buiks. I did some eyebrow raising, when we first meet her, because she's being rude and sarcastic toward Roger for no good reason.  and then when Claire says that maybe they should talk alone, when she's confonted about "cheating on Daddy" and she says Roger is her friend and he stays. Well, if he'd been a good friend, I could understand that, but she's known him for all of a DAY, and sure, let him sit in on what should be a private conversation, since it's not public fodder. Except for the headlines about when Claire returned.  

I get she's upset. But I also believe that children know when their parents are not in a good marriage, and that scene, where she's asking Claire if she EVER loved Frank, just irked. How old is she? 10? She's 20. Maybe it was show's way of "telling" us what a GOOD MAN Frank was. Which, sure, yeah, except for his

 

cheatin' ways, racism and threats to take Brianna away from Claire and the fact that he didn't want her to "fuck a black man"

and all that silly stuff.

I got sick, real quick of her "Daddy! Daddy! Daddy!" mantra. Like correcting Claire when Claire told Roger that she had considered his father a good friend. As if Claire is supposed to mention Frank as if she and Frank were one person. Or that Claire not mentioning Frank was also a good friend was something Claire did on purpose.

Or mebbe it's just my Brianna bias.

So no, I had no problem when Claire told Brianna that what she and Jamie had was not just "fucking" but that he was the love of her life. It shut her up but good for a minute.

Edited July 25, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

On 7/24/2016 at 1:41 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

Sigh...luiks like I'm going tae be talkin' tae meself here (just as happened during me marathoning reading of the buiks after season one ended)

Me: Any new thoughts aboot the second season?

GHScorpiosRule: Actually, yes. Here's what I noticed in me third rewatch of the season:

 

There was some discussion about how the show "messed" up in how Brianna got her name as well. I didn't see it. Yes, Claire told Bree that she "promised" Jamie she would--leading one to think that maybe he asked her to do that. When that isn't always the case. She told him she would name her after his father or something, and that could also be considered a promise, if ye wull.

My problem was the change from the book, not within the show. It's been awhile since I read the book, but I'm pretty sure it's his idea to name the baby after his father. I thought he said something like name him Brian, after my father. So it would be nice, to me, if he still could have name his child since he has such a rough time ahead. Besides, he doesn't think of tricking Lord John anymore, Claire does (there were some in the non-book thread that thought Jamie would be stupid to catch on. I guess because he never has any ideas of his own. It's almost always Claire) I'm okay with them being in it together though. He needs Claire to pretend to be a witch to get out of things with his Grandpa and was going to sign away Lallybroch?, but he does okay in the book. I think there were more, I just can't think of now. The change I did like involving cutting Jamie out was having him not be involved in the BJR wedding shenanigans.

[GHScorpiosRule]

20 minutes ago, Rilla-my-Rilla said:

My problem was the change from the book, not within the show. It's been awhile since I read the book, but I'm pretty sure it's his idea to name the baby after his father. I thought he said something like name him Brian, after my father. So it would be nice, to me, if he still could have name his child since he has such a rough time ahead. Besides, he doesn't think of tricking Lord John anymore, Claire does (there were some in the non-book thread that thought Jamie would be stupid to catch on. I guess because he never has any ideas of his own. It's almost always Claire) I'm okay with them being in it together though. He needs Claire to pretend to be a witch to get out of things with his Grandpa and was going to sign away Lallybroch?, but he does okay in the book. I think there were more, I just can't think of now. The change I did like involving cutting Jamie out was having him not be involved in the BJR wedding shenanigans.

Ah. I didn't catch that it was comparing it to the buik.  I still remain boggled that people actually thought that Jamie was going to sign away Lallybroch instead of him stalling until Claire showed up. He mentioned it to Claire, as he tells he everything, but I never ever believed he was going to do it.

It's one of the reasons I'm looking forward to season three--we're finally in

non-buik readers may caper about at their own risk and end up reading this thread.

Edited July 26, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

4 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Ah. I didn't catch that it was comparing it to the buik.  I still remain boggled that people actually thought that Jamie was going to sign away Lallybroch instead of him stalling until Claire showed up. He mentioned it to Claire, as he tells he everything, but I never ever believed he was going to do it.

It's one of the reasons I'm looking forward to season three--we're finally in

  Reveal hidden contents

Jamie's POV and it's as much his story as Claire's

I'm spoilering because non-buik readers may caper about and end up reading this thread and I dinna want tae accidentally spoil them, since there's no "book talk" flag to this thread.

The whole Grandpa, Colum, Claire pretending to be a witch, Laoghaire tangent kinda bugs me anyway. I figured he wouldn't sign it away here since he signs it away to his nephew later and not doing so would drastically change so much in the future, but it just seemed unnecessary to put it in this story line. 

Yeah, can we have season 3 now?!?! No? I guess I'll wait then. :(

I thought I saw a book talk tag, but sometimes people must caper about so I guess better safe than sorry.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Och! I dinna see that! Thanks @Rilla-my-Rilla!

Well, Lord Lovat was a superstitious arsehole, so I dinna mind that Jamie and Claire tried to convince him she was a witch. Plus they never used what actually happened in the buik about how Jamie proved Claire's innocence, which, dinna work, because, ignorant boobs, intent on burning the witch! How he threw his cross around Claire's neck and she still remained standing. So I don't quibble over the small stuff like that. And well, the hosebeast was never at Lord Lovat's in the buik, either, but the writers thought we "needed" to see her, beause we're so stupid with short attention spans, that we have forgotten aboot her from the last season. Since she returns in season three.

[toolazy]

The showrunners really don't have a lot of respect for their non-book reading viewers ability to recall and comprehend.  

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

Yeah, and now Jamie knows she sent the note and to try to get Claire killed so how's that going to look later? :/ Oh well. I'm always in favor of the less is more approach with Laoghaire, but I can't always get what I want. Like ever :)

[emilyplum]

From a grand scheme standpoint, I'm really happy with Season 2.  It was just as beautiful and heartbreaking as I thought it should be. 

I still wish they'd combined the watch and the search into one ep in season 1, so we could have had one extra episode to cover Jamie's healing at the abbey.  That would have removed a lot of the angst and strain between J/C in the start of Season 2...but I get why they did it, and I appreciate more time being given to him having to get over such a trauma.

I wish they'd scrapped almost all of the Fox's Lair episode and just covered it with a few lines of dialogue (Hey, we went to see my jerk of a grandfather, he gave us some men, but he's playing both sides, his son is sort of anemic and we'll see how that goes, etc. etc.), and given us a full episode of Lallybroch fluff instead of just 5 minutes of a potato harvest.  I know that DIA is a BIG BOOK, with lots of plot (and a lot of that plot is handled "off screen" so to speak in the book and has to be given screen time in the show in order to make sense to viewers), so I know they had to sacrifice a lot of the fun and tender stuff in order to get it all on our televisions. I didn't just miss sex scenes between Jamie and Claire (even though to me, those scenes often have some of Diana's best dialogue); I also missed their humor and their intimacy as a couple and a family.  And that section of the book in Lallybroch really was beautiful, when they had some hope of just living their lives as farmers. 

But anyway.  It was still great.  I loved all the performances, almost all of the changes, and having it all brought to life on my TV.

I always thought it was ridiculous in the book for Claire not to have told Jamie that it was Laoghaire's note that got her in the middle of the witch trial morass, so I'm glad they changed that in the show.  Claire basically told him to forgive Laoghaire in the Fox's Lair, so it'll be interesting how they work that in for Season 3. 

Edited July 27, 2016 by emilyplum

[Archery]

I have been re-watching S1 for the past few days, really looking at it through the lens of S2, and it's pretty amazing to see the character development when you see them end to end.  Claire almost looks like a totally different person in "Sassenach" compared to "Dragonfly in Amber" (I'm talking about her Scotland persona).  Jamie's journey is just . . . I can't even.  But what struck me with respect to S2 was a new, fuller appreciation of the episode "The Search," in S1 regarding Murtaugh.  I realized that that episode laid the foundation for Murtaugh's complicity not just with Jamie but also with Claire that we see in S2, including his acceptance of her future-ness and buying into the crazy notion that maybe they could stop Culloden.  In "The Search," Murtaugh for the first time sees how ride-or-die she is for Jamie, all the way from spending days in the saddle crossing the Highlands to her rescue-Jamie-or-die-trying Wentworth plan.  I had thought originally that his acceptance of Claire's future story had to do with his own fierce devotion to Jamie.  After rewatching "The Search," I think it has to do with Claire's fierce devotion to Jamie.  This is not a woman who would lie to or fool Jamie.  This is a woman who would move heaven and earth to rescue him.  That seed is planted for Murtaugh in "The Search."

[Keeta]

On 7/27/2016 at 3:39 PM, emilyplum said:

I wish they'd scrapped almost all of the Fox's Lair episode and just covered it with a few lines of dialogue (Hey, we went to see my jerk of a grandfather, he gave us some men, but he's playing both sides, his son is sort of anemic and we'll see how that goes, etc. etc.), and given us a full episode of Lallybroch fluff instead of just 5 minutes of a potato harvest.  I know that DIA is a BIG BOOK, with lots of plot (and a lot of that plot is handled "off screen" so to speak in the book and has to be given screen time in the show in order to make sense to viewers), so I know they had to sacrifice a lot of the fun and tender stuff in order to get it all on our televisions. I didn't just miss sex scenes between Jamie and Claire (even though to me, those scenes often have some of Diana's best dialogue); I also missed their humor and their intimacy as a couple and a family.  And that section of the book in Lallybroch really was beautiful, when they had some hope of just living their lives as farmers.  

I agree about the Fox's Lair. To me, the potato harvest scene felt kind of overacted, like the actors knew they had to imbue this scene with all the happiness from the Lallybroch section of the book that gets almost zero time on the show. Like the writing asked too much of them, and without giving them the context and time to really earn that emotion. (Or maybe I'm reading too much into it, haha)

[ulkis]

@emilyplum I mostly agree with your entire post. Your idea of getting rid of the Fox's Lair may have helped. I can't really put my finger on what they could have done, and I do think there was a lot of necessary exposition in those episodes, but I feel like something could have been cut from the battle-heavy episodes later on. It all kinda just blended together.

But overall I liked the season. I thought it bookended really well. I think that's the one thing it may have done better than season 1. I was watching with a non-book reader, and they asked "did they just totally drop the part about her being a time-traveler?" at the end of the season. I thought that despite Jamie not having a lot of screentime in episodes 1 and 13 you really felt his presence, and I think both those episodes rectified the mistake in season 1 where they made it ambiguous whether the stones worked or not, and made it clear Claire chose and wanted to be with Jamie.

And Murtaugh was awesome this season. I enjoyed most of the side characters this season actually.

[ruby24]

On 8/7/2017 at 2:51 PM, Grashka said:

I have to say, I wonder how they are going to approach sex scenes between Claire and Jamie this season. I know that many people are awaiting those scenes and threatening with a riot if they are not going to get sex and intimacy on full-display after season 2, which was somehow lacking in that department ;-) I think the cast and crew are very aware of that as I've seen them teasing "sexy times" numerous times. But I don't think they are ever going back to sex scenes a'la season 1 "The Wedding" or Jamie's head between Claire's leg in Castle Leoch. I'm curious how they are going to approach the subject of intimacy between two mature people and what about the fact that 50 years old Claire is played by 37 years old actress. I don't think it would be honest or well received -  pretending that woman, who is supposed to be 50 (no matter how much attractive), has a body of still young former super model.

 

On the other hand I'm almost sure they are going to treat us with a certain sex/intimacy scene

  Hide contents

which involves breastfeeding

 

which will probably annoy many people like hell ;-)

I'm just now reading the books and I've finished the second one. I was really surprised to find out that there was a LOT more sex in that book than there was onscreen, especially compared to the first season. I wonder why they toned it down? I mean, judging by everyone I know who watches it, the audience for this is mostly female and yes, a definite part of the appeal IS all the sex and sparks between them, I just know it.

Huh. 

[lianau]

2 hours ago, ruby24 said:

I'm just now reading the books and I've finished the second one. I was really surprised to find out that there was a LOT more sex in that book than there was onscreen, especially compared to the first season. I wonder why they toned it down? I mean, judging by everyone I know who watches it, the audience for this is mostly female and yes, a definite part of the appeal IS all the sex and sparks between them, I just know it.

Huh. 

They dragged the end of season 1 into season 2 and couldn't recover from it .  At the end of book 1  Jamie is traumatized from his experiences in Wentworth prison but the actual ending is quite positive and he and Claire had reconnected sexually even though he clearly is suffering from PTSD symptoms (and will for the rest of his life ) .  I'm not sure why the decision was made to  change the way Claire brought Jamie back to her  ( I love the opium scene ) and why they decided to portray Jamie the way they did in the early parts of season 2 (whiny and self-pitying which book Jamie never was)   . Maybe they were afraid people would accuse them of not taking rape seriously enough  and thought it needed to be dealt with for longer?  But as a consequence of that, Show Jamie and Claire were off with each other at a time that book Jamie and Claire were not . And when Show Jamie and Claire  finally made progress in their relationship  , Claire was having pregnancy troubles and then a still birth followed by a war . 

[Glade]

Such toxic, survivor-shaming labels as "self-pity" and "whining" should never be used in reference to someone who has been so brutally raped and mutilated as Jaime; he is entitled to express his emotions as they come after the event, and IMO the show is the more accurate version of PTSD.  I'm really glad they changed it from the book and didn't show them having wild, pleasurable sex immediately afterwards as if the events had no effect on him whatsoever, but showed the realistic consequences of rape.   Personally, I thought there was more then enough sex in S2, and hope the show isn't going to go overboard to make up for the complaints in S3.

[ruby24]

Yeah, and also, from reading the books (so far), I have the impression of their overall relationship as being VERY physical and if not driven entirely by sex, then most definitely key in their connection to each other. Which some relationships are in a way that others never experience. 

I feel that the show got that in Season 1, but lost it in Season 2, which is unfortunate. Not that I didn't enjoy Season 2 when I watched it, but I remember noticing there wasn't nearly as much sex and thinking well, that must mean that was how it was in the book. But now having read the book, it's like, nope! The show just decided to take things in a different direction on its own. I can see they were probably trying to be more sensitive in portraying Jamie having a more realistic recovery from his horrific experience, but I didn't get the feeling it was brushed over in the book- he still has nightmares and that scene with Ian was really effective. 

But changing the urgent physical connection between him and Claire because of it had an impact, for sure. I...think it might have been a mistake, actually. The very possessive passion they feel for each other is so crucial to their relationship, imo.

Edited August 29, 2017 by ruby24

[toolazy]

I don't know, I had no trouble understanding when J&C were connecting physically and when they weren't - there were enough clues and signals in the show without them having to be explicit about it.  Moore & Co are on the record saying that if the sex does not someone advance the story, they aren't going to show it. They aren't going to give us sex for sex's sake.  I don't mind that, given the relatively small amount of screen time they have relative to the story that they have to tell.

There is soooo much more to J&C than sex, anyway. 

[WatchrTina]

On 8/29/2017 at 2:21 AM, Grashka said:

I didn't miss sex scenes in season 2 all that much, altough the change between very vivid depictions in season 1 and "none at all" in season 2 was rather abrupt.

I just finished a re-watch of the first half of season 2 and I have to disagree with the description of "none at all".  That reconnection scene in the blue alcove bed between pregnant Claire and Jamie is a wonderful sexy scene.  And although it ends badly, the playful scene between freshly-waxed Claire and Jamie is one of my favorites.  I love the way Sam plays that scene with the expression on his face evolving from uncertainly to being intrigued to being scandalized then back to intrigued and turned-on until (alas) a flash-back of Black Jack spoils the moment.  That scene was verra sexy . . . right up until the moment when it broke my heart.

[WatchrTina]

The re-watch continues.  I just got to the episode, Prestonpans.  Gosh this show is good.  That episode is everything you could want -- action, pathos, humor, intrigue, and off-the-charts chemistry between the two leads.  The casting in this show is nearly flawless -- I just LOVE these characters.  The battle of Culloden is going to be really hard to watch.  I'm starting to dread it as much as Claire does in this episode.

[Keeta]

While my husband commandeered the TV to watch Game 6 of the World Series, I took my laptop and re-watched “Je Suis Prest” and “Prestonpans”. I definitely have my issues with season 2, but it was nice to be reminded of some really good stuff in this section of episodes. I like that it feels contained and focused on the preparation for war, lacking some of the more outlandish (no pun intended) plot points. We get the great introduction to Lord John, some lovely moments of connection between Jamie and Claire, Jamie in his element as a soldier, and the tension between Jamie and Dougal is really well done. Plus those beautiful shots of the Scottish countryside. OH, and I was very happy to be reminded of the very attractive Richard Anderson (who helps them find the trail in the dark before Prestonpans). He’s kind of like the dark and slender version of Jamie, or like how I pictured an older Young Ian in the later books.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Keeta

[ulkis]

I don't know how but "Dragonfly in Amber" ended up being my favorite episode of the show. I was actually really nervous about the show jumping ahead twenty years but it worked well. I guess I just thought the episode was well structured and the actors who play Roger and Brianna won me over. I think the Brianna actress has some iffy moments but overall she's fine.

A highlight of the episode for me is Brianna and Claire's fight, and Claire yelling "and Jamie and I were of a hell of a lot more than fucking, he was the love of my life!" With Roger making "this is so awkward" faces in the background.

[Camera One]

I just finished rewatching Season 1 after watching Season 2, and I wish I had done the rewatch prior to starting Season 2.  It was in 2018 (two years ago) that I watched the first season, and I had forgotten most of the details.  Midway through Season 2, I started rewatching the first season, which I'm glad I did, or else the finale with Geillis would have been confusing.  I think I liked Season 1 more after seeing Season 2, even though I didn't like Season 2 that much.  Now that I've finished the rewatch, there were things that would have been more meaningful had I remembered (eg. the dragonfly in amber that Claire saw at the museum in the Season 2 in fianle, the potatoes in the Season 2 visit to Lallybroch, the Je Suis Prest mention in Season 1, etc.   

[Cdh20]

19 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I just finished rewatching Season 1 after watching Season 2, and I wish I had done the rewatch prior to starting Season 2.  It was in 2018 (two years ago) that I watched the first season, and I had forgotten most of the details.  Midway through Season 2, I started rewatching the first season, which I'm glad I did, or else the finale with Geillis would have been confusing.  I think I liked Season 1 more after seeing Season 2, even though I didn't like Season 2 that much.  Now that I've finished the rewatch, there were things that would have been more meaningful had I remembered (eg. the dragonfly in amber that Claire saw at the museum in the Season 2 in fianle, the potatoes in the Season 2 visit to Lallybroch, the Je Suis Prest mention in Season 1, etc.   

It didn’t seem as though you loved the show, are you going to go ahead with season 3? Etc? Waiting years between seasons is annoying because you do forget what you watched ( for most shows anyway, not this one, because I have rewatched a lot).

[Camera One]

9 minutes ago, Cdh20 said:

It didn’t seem as though you loved the show, are you going to go ahead with season 3? Etc? Waiting years between seasons is annoying because you do forget what you watched ( for most shows anyway, not this one, because I have rewatched a lot).

Yes, I do plan to start Season 3 in the next few days or so!