S03.E03: All Debts Paid

[Clawdette]

I think Matt Roberts did a great job condensing the Ardsmuir material into the scenes that would convey its essence. Yes, I'm disappointed that some of my favorite moments didn't make it in but I'm pretty doggone grateful that the whole precious jewel transportation method was revised. Sam Heughan was truly the king of men in this episode. 

And Claire and Frank?  Whatever. Glad that's behind us.  

ETA:   I have been a fan of David Berry's work in "A Place to Call Home," and think he was a terrific choice to play Lord John. Great chemistry between Sam and him  

Edited September 25, 2017 by Clawdette

[Amers]

Thank God Frank is dead. I mean, I cried when he died. I kept seeing her feet sliding into to get married to him and I felt sad because I understood what she meant. She did love him, very much. Just not in a tangible way a wife should. More of a partnership. I didn't enjoy their story. I never understood him talking her back in the first place after going missing and coming back married. Lmao. Im afraid we will see more Frank though. Somehow. Lol

 

Loved the episode. I think they did an excellent job condensing it all down. I have loved every moment of Jamie's story this season. 

[mrsjoe]

1 hour ago, Future Cat Lady said:

I think the hair may also symbolizes that Claire is not entirely herself. Her very curly and unruly hair is styled in a very rigid manner. But when she goes back, her hair will be back to her wild and free style. Or I'm mostly seeing too much into it. 

Thanks for this perspective. I also thought the only reason they did it was because the hairstyle was aging, but then I can at least see the possibility that it's just one of the things she's doing to try to be who Frank and society want her to be, since she doesn't conform in so many other ways.  Sort of "I won't give up becoming a doctor and loving someone else, but I'll dress and style myself as the perfect wife".  It's sort of her sacrifice. And doesn't hurt that the curls returning will be her returning. Well spotted.

 

As far as Murtaugh goes, I'm wondering if we'll ever get the whole story. I am struggling with Jamie hiding out in a cave while Murtaugh was in prison, so wonder what explanation there will be. Guess it could be as simple as Jamie assumed he was dead until they ended up at the same prison.  I wondered though about Jamie calling him Murtaugh Fitzgibbons.  Wasn't his full name Murtaugh Fitzgibbons Fraser? Were they purposely not using their clan names because of being in prison? Or did I hear it wrong? Time to rewatch I guess.

[WatchrTina]

I've been enjoying imaging what the scene must have been like when Jamie and Murtagh were reunited.  They said in the episode that Murtagh has been stuck in Ardsmuir since Culloden (invent your own fan-wank for how that happened given that we saw them executing all the Jacobites after the battle).  Now imagine Jamie entering the dark, dank cells of Ardsmuir for the first time, six years after Culloden.  He hears an anguished cry -- an almost Wookie-like howl. Now call to mind that scene from "Return of the Jedi" in one of Jabba the Hutt's prison cells when Chewbacca emerges from the shadows to envelope Han Solo in a big furry hug of overwhelming emotion.  That's my mental picture of Jamie's arrival at Ardsmuir and his reunion with Murtagh.

Edited September 27, 2017 by WatchrTina

[whoknowswho]

I was about to give up on this season after last week, so I am so relieved to be fast forwarded past the Frank Angst years. I forget the books pretty much, because I read them many years ago, but I know they went the speed of light through pretty much 20 years of Claire and Jamie's life.  Which I am not exactly complaining about--I loved the past, not Claire's life with post Jamie Frank.  Frank, was always Black Jack Randall in my eyes so I hated every bit of screen time he had. Sorry, Tobias--I liked you in GOT, just not Outlander, I had such visceral hatred of Black Jack that I could not see Frank at all, without seeing BJR. 

I wasn't sure that was Murtagh, honestly I kept looking and trying to squint and praying I was seeing him. But I completely missed and misunderstood the whole White Witch conversation with the dying man--it was important, and I missed it.  So I need to rewatch. Giving they aren't going to give us weeks and weeks of torture post Culloden, I'm thankful I can rewatch it later.

Was a good episode, 1000X better than last week's was to me.  I really appreciated the lack of drama in comparison, this week, Frank's death notwithstanding.

[JayEeeBee]

Loved the episode. 

Frank is the worst. Where have I heard that?

Two of my observations - 

1) Murtaugh!! Because...well, Murtaugh! Honestly, it's been so long since I read the books, I don't remember what happened to him, I still don't and I'm not bothered by the fact he's here.  I can understand those who are though.

2) My secret Outlander confession - I don't like Lord John Gray. I never have. There! I said it.

I'm going to have to read everything again, but I still won't like him.  And you can't make me!

[jzygayle]

22 hours ago, caws 727 said:

Maybe Murtagh will take on the Duncan Innes role?  I always drew an comparison to them in the books anyway...thought it was just me, but maybe not.

I've thought that, too.  But given Murtagh's age and his years in prison, it strains credulity that he will survive (as he has to) through the not-very-safe ocean crossing and then 14 years indentured servitude.  This is one point in which I think  the books had it right at the beginning.  Murtagh was a beloved character, but given the times and conditions, it's just not likely (other than the script writing him in) he's going to be around by the time Jamie and Claire get to the Americas.

[Nidratime]

Quote

1) Murtaugh!! Because...well, Murtaugh! Honestly, it's been so long since I read the books, I don't remember what happened to him, I still don't and I'm not bothered by the fact he's here.  I can understand those who are though.

He died at Culloden. He was never at the prison with Jamie.

 

Quote

As far as Murtaugh goes, I'm wondering if we'll ever get the whole story. I am struggling with Jamie hiding out in a cave while Murtaugh was in prison, so wonder what explanation there will be. Guess it could be as simple as Jamie assumed he was dead until they ended up at the same prison.

I'm pretty sure, like the audience, Jamie didn't know Murtagh was there. Jamie was pretty out of it at the end of the battle. Half dead. I doubt he had any idea where anyone was who wasn't right up in his face. 
 

Quote

I wondered though about Jamie calling him Murtaugh Fitzgibbons.  

 

 

I'm guessing Murtagh had not wanted to connect the Fraser clan to himself while he was in prison, not knowing that Jamie was alive and the British were constantly harrassing the Murrays/Frasers in order to try and suss Jamie out.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Nidratime

[Haleth]

This episode was so full of plot, with many things in Jamie's life condensed or left out, but honestly, we're all waiting for the reunion so I'm glad they are rushing through these 20 years at lightning speed.

I recognized Murtaugh's voice before we even saw him.  

Oh, yeah, the promo with Jamie running around the ruins calling for Claire.  That must have been on the seal island.  Maybe we'll see it later in flashbacks.

[Nidratime]

Kind of off topic here, but obviously the British can't tell the future -- unlike Claire -- so it always struck me as funny that the British were transporting Scots REBELS to America (and Australia as well) just in time for the American Revolution. LOL! (Thanks for the help, guys!)

[jzygayle]

1 hour ago, Nidratime said:

 

I'm guessing Murtagh had not wanted to connect the Fraser clan to himself while he was in prison, not knowing that Jamie was alive and the British were constantly harrassing the Murrays/Frasers in order to try and suss Jamie out.

Murtaugh's middle name was Fitzgibbons--he was related to Mrs. Fitzgibbons (the housekeeper at Castle Leoch for Colum MacKenzie) in some way that I can no longer remember from the books.  So in much the same way that Jamie will take on (I think) Alex MacKenzie at Helwater, they had Murtaugh take on Fitzgibbons at the prison.

[DittyDotDot]

2 hours ago, jzygayle said:

I've thought that, too.  But given Murtagh's age and his years in prison, it strains credulity that he will survive (as he has to) through the not-very-safe ocean crossing and then 14 years indentured servitude.  This is one point in which I think  the books had it right at the beginning.  Murtagh was a beloved character, but given the times and conditions, it's just not likely (other than the script writing him in) he's going to be around by the time Jamie and Claire get to the Americas.

Even though I'm not upset that Murtagh lived, I still think it would've done more justice to the character to have him die and be the symbol of everything that was lost with Culloden, but this is another reason. I worry they're hanging on to him simply because they enjoy the actor and not for good story reasons. Personally, I'd rather have a character have a good story, die and be remembered fondly than hang on to them too long, myself.

1 hour ago, Haleth said:

This episode was so full of plot, with many things in Jamie's life condensed or left out, but honestly, we're all waiting for the reunion so I'm glad they are rushing through these 20 years at lightning speed.

I'm still gobsmacked they could cover so much time in one episode. I'm guessing we'll see more of these parts later in flashbacks as both Claire and Jamie reveal more to each other like in the books, but there is so much of Jamie in those prison years, not to mention how it sets the stage for his relationship with Lord John. It's mind boggling they managed to get Claire's side of things and Murtagh in it too!

9 minutes ago, jzygayle said:

Murtaugh's middle name was Fitzgibbons--he was related to Mrs. Fitzgibbons (the housekeeper at Castle Leoch for Colum MacKenzie) in some way that I can no longer remember from the books.  So in much the same way that Jamie will take on (I think) Alex MacKenzie at Helwater, they had Murtaugh take on Fitzgibbons at the prison.

Glenna FitzGibbons is Murtagh's aunt by marriage. I kinda love the theme of how Jamie remakes himself each time he starts using one of his other names. Seems like Jamie's not the only one who is doing that?

[Wouldofshouldof]

7 hours ago, whoknowswho said:

the Frank Angst years

Or Frangst, if you will :)

[Squirrely]

I'm torn on this episode. I'm glad we're not spending 4 episodes in Ardsmuir, but it felt so incomplete and I think I would be sorely confused as a non-reader. At the very least they needed to show Jamie get his shave and washing before dining with John. He looked the same, with the exact same amount of stubble (yet he was filthy) in all the scenes. When would he have been able to shave in that place?! It made it seem like we only saw about 3 days, instead of a lengthy amount of time, and his growing friendship with John. 

I love Show Murtaugh so much, but I agree he should have died at Culloden. And as someone upthread pointed out, Duncan was freed in Scotland due to having one arm, and he was along for the adventures leading up to them landing in the Colonies. So I really don't think Murtaugh is meant to replace him. 

I don't so much mind the Claire and Frank changes, because they both got whitewashed. Yeah, Frank didn't have anything racist to say, but we also didn't see poor Brie as a child running out and looking for her mom after a babysitter got sick of waiting, yet again, for Claire to get home. The only hint we got of Frank really stepping up was his English breakfast. 

Bring on the printshop, dammit!

[Athena]

When I heard Berry had been cast, I did think he could pull off Lord John Grey, blond or no blond hair. In some ways, he looks better than the John Grey I imagine from the books. He is one of my favourite characters through the series and his friendship with Jamie is one of the best aspects. The actors have terrific chemistry and I can't wait to see Grey interact with Claire, Bree, and others. I wanted more of their Ardsmuir friendship and hope that in the Helwater scenes, he is still around more.

I will have to say that Claire has annoyed me a lot since the season began and in general, she has these qualities. However, her best moments are as a Doctor/healer and generally being badass against villains. Watching her grieving and being in a bitter, loveless marriage does her no favours.

[FnkyChkn34]

6 minutes ago, Athena said:

I will have to say that Claire has annoyed me a lot since the season began and in general, she has these qualities. However, her best moments are as a Doctor/healer and generally being badass against villains. Watching her grieving and being in a bitter, loveless marriage does her no favours.

Claire is always on the borderline of annoying me, and I do have to say that I liked her better in the book when Frank was a much bigger a-hole.  Of course, the story was from her perspective, so even if he wasn't an actual cheater, the book at least gave insight to her suspicions of his actions.  Here, they have an "agreement"???  Ugh.  ShowClaire really annoys me for making an agreement; bookClaire not nearly as much.  At least showClaire did ask for a divorce several times, and Frank's refusal still showed that he's an ass.

[Athena]

6 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Claire is always on the borderline of annoying me, and I do have to say that I liked her better in the book when Frank was a much bigger a-hole.  Of course, the story was from her perspective, so even if he wasn't an actual cheater, the book at least gave insight to her suspicions of his actions.  Here, they have an "agreement"???  Ugh.  ShowClaire really annoys me for making an agreement; bookClaire not nearly as much.  At least showClaire did ask for a divorce several times, and Frank's refusal still showed that he's an ass.

I'm fine with the agreement. I think the show should have added more scenes with Claire with people not Frank and Bree since she has issues really being present with either of them. Claire does love Bree, but like many mothers/daughters, this period was not their best. I think Claire should have been shown interacting with Joe more. Claire does not have men or as many friends as Jamie did in their time apart (and Jamie did need it more since he didn't even have Bree), but I think it would benefited to see show!Claire with friends. Her friendships in France were wonderful for the same reason.

[FnkyChkn34]

2 minutes ago, Athena said:

I'm fine with the agreement. I think the show should have added more scenes with Claire with people not Frank and Bree since she has issues really being present with either of them. Claire does love Bree, but like many mothers/daughters, this period was not their best. I think Claire should have been shown interacting with Joe more. Claire does not have men or as many friends as Jamie did in their time apart (and Jamie did need it more since he didn't even have Bree), but I think it would benefited to see show!Claire with friends. Her friendships in France were wonderful for the same reason.

I think we'll get her friendship with Joe in the next episode or two - after she finds Jamie and goes back to Boston to quit her job and sell the house, etc.  This was a great conversation in the book, and I don't think they can skip it.

[ruby24]

I'm not a fan of this whole "we had an agreement" thing. I guess they did that to make Frank more sympathetic? I actually didn't find him completely unsympathetic in the book- it was sort of a Mad Men-esque marriage, where they were together, yet he had affairs and she knew about it but never said anything. And all the stuff about her never forgetting Jamie and him being the barrier between them that they can't get rid of was still there, which was why he cheated. Their big fight when he says to her "you could have acted like it mattered to you," hit her hard, because she knows it didn't matter enough.

I guess the show wants to make it very explicit that these people were so miserable they had to live separate lives for twenty years, whereas I can buy the difficulties of an unhappy marriage that still included sex and not an open agreement that he could have affairs.

I love LJG! 

[lianau]

1 hour ago, Squirrely said:

 

I love Show Murtaugh so much, but I agree he should have died at Culloden. And as someone upthread pointed out, Duncan was freed in Scotland due to having one arm, and he was along for the adventures leading up to them landing in the Colonies. So I really don't think Murtaugh is meant to replace him. 

 

I just hope they won't give him the role of poor executed Gavin Hayes . That would be even worse than keeping him alive . I'm sad to say but I'm really struggling with this change from the book.

[Nidratime]

Quote

Even though I'm not upset that Murtagh lived, I still think it would've done more justice to the character to have him die and be the symbol of everything that was lost with Culloden, but this is another reason. I worry they're hanging on to him simply because they enjoy the actor and not for good story reasons. Personally, I'd rather have a character have a good story, die and be remembered fondly than hang on to them too long, myself.

I have to admit, I have some sympathy for Ron Moore and his crew regarding this change. Even though Gabaldon created some great supporting characters on the page, Moore and Co. took it to a whole new level on screen, with sussing out the wonderful Angus and Rupert dynamic, as well as making Murtagh so attractive a character. Plus, they put extra work into Frank in order to balance out the conflict Claire would've felt. So, here we are losing almost all of Leoch, including Colum, Dougal, Rupert, Angus, and -- from Lallybroch -- Murtagh. Plus, losing Black Jack *and* Frank. These are a lot of really rich, beautifully acted characters to lose. So, I can see them saying, "Damn it! We're not letting Murtagh go!" If Murtagh had been as "unattractive" a character as he was in the books, it probably wouldn't have mattered, but the writers and actors really breathed a whole new level of life into several of these supporting players and it was probably killing them to lose them all. (Remember how pissed Ron appeared to be when the Willie actor left the show, so they had to kill Angus instead which also threw off what happened to Rupert?)

Quote

I'm not a fan of this whole "we had an agreement" thing. I guess they did that to make Frank more sympathetic? I actually didn't find him completely unsympathetic in the book- it was sort of a Mad Men-esque marriage, where they were together, yet he had affairs and she knew about it but never said anything. And all the stuff about her never forgetting Jamie and him being the barrier between them that they can't get rid of was still there, which was why he cheated. Their big fight when he says to her "you could have acted like it mattered to you," hit her hard, because she knows it didn't matter enough.

I'm not a fan of that either but I blame Frank for his choices. Claire gave him an out from the beginning and he didn't want to let go. It was Frank's responsibility to respect the marriage if he wasn't going to take Claire up on a divorce or even a separation. It's not like Claire -- once she was back from living in the 1700's -- was out seeing other men. Once they were both in the same century, she didn't break the marriage vows. He did. I guess it's kind of like when they were separated by the war all those years. There's hints there might have been affairs on Frank's side, at least, but once they were back together and committed to starting over, that should've all ended. It makes me wonder, if Claire had never time traveled, stayed with Frank, but became bored with wifely duties, whether her absorption in her career would've also put a strain on their marriage. After all, they would not have had Bree to glue them together. In my mind, they probably wouldn't have lasted.

[DittyDotDot]

4 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

I have to admit, I have some sympathy for Ron Moore and his crew regarding this change. Even though Gabaldon created some great supporting characters on the page, Moore and Co. took it to a whole new level on screen, with sussing out the wonderful Angus and Rupert dynamic, as well as making Murtagh so attractive a character. Plus, they put extra work into Frank in order to balance out the conflict Claire would've felt. So, here we are losing almost all of Leoch, including Colum, Dougal, Rupert, Angus, and -- from Lallybroch -- Murtagh. Plus, losing Black Jack *and* Frank. These are a lot of really rich, beautifully acted characters to lose. So, I can see them saying, "Damn it! We're not letting Murtagh go!" If Murtagh had been as "unattractive" a character as he was in the books, it probably wouldn't have mattered, but the writers and actors really breathed a whole new level of life into several of these supporting players and it was probably killing them to lose them all.

Oh, I agree, I have sympathy for TPTB on this, but I also think they' may end up doing disservice to what they did on that front in the long run. I'm just someone who believes in making these decisions for story reasons if at all possible. Sometimes it's just out of your hands, but this one wasn't, so we'll have to wait and see if it works out for them or not.

[jadecorleone]

12 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

I have to admit, I have some sympathy for Ron Moore and his crew regarding this change. Even though Gabaldon created some great supporting characters on the page, Moore and Co. took it to a whole new level on screen, with sussing out the wonderful Angus and Rupert dynamic, as well as making Murtagh so attractive a character. Plus, they put extra work into Frank in order to balance out the conflict Claire would've felt. So, here we are losing almost all of Leoch, including Colum, Dougal, Rupert, Angus, and -- from Lallybroch -- Murtagh. Plus, losing Black Jack *and* Frank. These are a lot of really rich, beautifully acted characters to lose. So, I can see them saying, "Damn it! We're not letting Murtagh go!" If Murtagh had been as "unattractive" a character as he was in the books, it probably wouldn't have mattered, but the writers and actors really breathed a whole new level of life into several of these supporting players and it was probably killing them to lose them all. (Remember how pissed Ron appeared to be when the Willie actor left the show, so they had to kill Angus instead which also threw off what happened to Rupert?)

I'm not a fan of that either but I blame Frank for his choices. Claire gave him an out from the beginning and he didn't want to let go. It was Frank's responsibility to respect the marriage if he wasn't going to take Claire up on a divorce or even a separation. It's not like Claire -- once she was back from living in the 1700's -- was out seeing other men. Once they were both in the same century, she didn't break the marriage vows. He did. I guess it's kind of like when they were separated by the war all those years. There's hints there might have been affairs on Frank's side, at least, but once they were back together and committed to starting over, that should've all ended. It makes me wonder, if Claire had never time traveled, stayed with Frank, but became bored with wifely duties, whether her absorption in her career would've also put a strain on their marriage. After all, they would not have had Bree to glue them together. In my mind, they probably wouldn't have lasted.

Not to mention their experiences during WW2.  The whole purpose of the second honeymoon was to reconnect (if I remember correctly) and get to know each other again. Having deployed myself, no matter what capacity you serve in, you come back a changed person and it definately effects the relationships you had before. 

[toolazy]

41 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Oh, I agree, I have sympathy for TPTB on this, but I also think they' may end up doing disservice to what they did on that front in the long run. I'm just someone who believes in making these decisions for story reasons if at all possible. Sometimes it's just out of your hands, but this one wasn't, so we'll have to wait and see if it works out for them or not.

But keeping him around because it's hard to lose sooooo many characters at once IS a story reason.  Maybe it's not a plot reason, but it does have an effect on the characters.  

[iMonrey]

I don't know that I really needed three episodes of backstory about Claire and Frank's marriage. I feel like the Season 2 finale flash-forward pretty much filled me in on everything I needed to know about what happened to Claire after she returned to her own time. So I'm not sure what the point was of going back to it again once we've already seen the aftermath. I do need to see what happens with Jamie during those 20 years, obviously, and maybe it makes more sense to switch back and forth between Claire's story and Jamie's, instead of having three solid episodes of only Jamie. But I don't feel like I really learned anything useful here about Claire. 

I'm excited to get to the point where we were when we left off last season, so these past three episodes have been a bit of a struggle to me.

[LadyArcadia]

For the life of me I can't remember Duncan's betrayal in the books.  I remember a betrayal, but I thought it was that other dude (that went after Ian) and his wife (that Ian killed protecting Jamie), not Duncan.  For some reason the betrayal that people are referencing didn't stick with me.  Regardless, I always thought Duncan was like Murtaugh to Jamie, so I'm happy to see he's filling that role.

I'm shocked that I was sad about Frank's death. A very non-event for me in the books. They set out to make Frank more sympathetic and they did that.  Well done!

I'm also very impressed that they squeezed in so much in so little time.  Yes, there were many things missing, but what they did cover was miraculous. I think a non-book reader would easily get the relationships and timeline from what they showed.

[lianau]

Duncan didn't betray Jamie , he was one of the few people Jamie could rule out because he only has one arm  and couldn't have hanged the guy in that smuggling incident . 

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, LadyArcadia said:

For the life of me I can't remember Duncan's betrayal in the books.  I remember a betrayal, but I thought it was that other dude (that went after Ian) and his wife (that Ian killed protecting Jamie), not Duncan.  For some reason the betrayal that people are referencing didn't stick with me.

Duncan didn't betray Jamie, as I recall--that was Mr. and Mrs. Bug--but I think some people might be thinking of how Jocasta hid the truth about the gold  (which could be seen as a betrayal) coupled with Duncan cheating on Jocasta with a slave girl later. (Although, Jocasta was also sleeping with a slave, so...).

1 hour ago, toolazy said:

But keeping him around because it's hard to lose sooooo many characters at once IS a story reason.  Maybe it's not a plot reason, but it does have an effect on the characters.  

What I mean is, if they saved Murtagh to serve another part of the story...like they sat down and said, we want to do this, but can't if we kill Murtagh, then fair enough. But if they did it just to keep the actor on the show because he was well-liked, that's not a a story reason, that's a personal reason.

Edited September 25, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Haleth]

I don't have a problem with the writers switching out a new character for one already known by the audience, shows based on books do this all the time.  (Shoot, I could name dozens of characters cut from GoT.). These casts become ungainly, not to mention expensive.  Murtaugh for Duncan works fine for me.

I hope we get more about Joe, otherwise he is a wasted character that could have been cut out too.

[DittyDotDot]

5 minutes ago, Haleth said:

Murtaugh for Duncan works fine for me.

Are they doing Murtagh for Duncan, though? I mean, Duncan wasn't transported. He ran Jamie's smuggling business and travels with them to Jamaica. In fact, doesn't Duncan eventually captain the ship?

[GHScorpiosRule]

So I was sick with the flu and wasn't in any frame of mind to watch this on Saturday (thank everyone who mentioned Amazon Prime!) or even last night. So I just watched it now and CAN SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE SAM HEUGHAN AN EMMY ALREADY????? He has been the MVP of this season so far and has been knocking EVERY SCENE he's been in out of the Fucking Park!!!

And I'm TOTALLY ??at Matt Roberts for making sure that Frank remained this perfect, long-suffering husband who was trapped in a loveless marriage and unable to marry his long suffering mistress (NOT IN THE BUIK), instead of the philandering, cheating, with a string of his students, AND also having sex with Claire, RACIST ARSEHOLE he was. He was leaving Claire and threatening to take Bree with him because he didn't want her to "fuck" a Black man, something she might have gotten from Claire, and NOT for an understandable UNSELFISH reason.??????????

I'm sorry, but Menzies ain't all that, and the writers' need to make Frank the POLAR opposite to BJR is a total cop out and unfair to Claire. It's no wonder that the unsullied and non-buik hubbies think Frank got a raw deal and is so sympathetic. I couldn't care less and don't give any figgety , BLUEDILLY FUCKS about Puir puir Frank.

I LOVED that the line from Jamie to Lord John was kept from the buik- "Take your hand off me or I will kill you."

Sam was BLOODY FANTASTIC in conveying Jamie's silent simmering rage.

Edited September 26, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[satrunrose]

I liked it. I would have liked more time between John and Jamie, but with 13 (?) episodes, I know there isn't time and I think they did a very impressive job of cramming it all in without feeling crammed. I'm also happy that Murtagh is staying around. One of my problems with the books is that I think a lot of the strongest characters show up in the first three books. Honestly, by the time we get to River Run and the Ridge I start having a very hard time keeping all of the side characters straight. Don't get me wrong, I like the more recent books too, but  I never cared as much about Duncan, or Jacosta, or Lizzie or the Bugs as much as I cared about Murtagh, Mrs Fitz, Master Raymond or Louise. I'm hoping that the Murtagh continuity will keep me into the story when he comes back. 

 

Claire and Frank, oh, Claire and Frank. I really wish there was a version between Frank the racist, kid-stealing, sexist adulterer and St Frank the Patient who is trapped in a loveless marriage and who can blame the poor man? We should be able to acknowledge that Claire has been having an emotional affair for 20+ years and Frank has not responded well to that. 

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

Are they doing Murtagh for Duncan, though? I mean, Duncan wasn't transported. He ran Jamie's smuggling business and travels with them to Jamaica. In fact, doesn't Duncan eventually captain the ship?

 

From what I can tell from Moore's comments, no, it's not a one-to-one switch-out.  He told Mashable that from the beginning, Murtagh was more important in the show than in the books. He was closer to Jamie & to Claire.  Remember, in the books, they never told him about her going through the stones.  So, due to being close to the two of them, they decided to keep him.  

[DittyDotDot]

4 minutes ago, toolazy said:

 

From what I can tell from Moore's comments, no, it's not a one-to-one switch-out.  He told Mashable that from the beginning, Murtagh was more important in the show than in the books. He was closer to Jamie & to Claire.  Remember, in the books, they never told him about her going through the stones.  So, due to being close to the two of them, they decided to keep him.  

I guess I wasn't clear in my question, I was wondering what lead people to assume there would be no Duncan since Murtagh was saved? I'm guessing, but not sure, there will still be a character of Duncan since they sent Murtagh on to the colonies already, but clearly that's not the impression others have.

Edited September 25, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Haleth]

I think it's just a guess, Ditty. I don't know if anyone really has any clue what Murtaugh's role will be.

[Petunia846]

20 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I guess I wasn't clear in my question, I was wondering what lead people to assume there would be no Duncan since Murtagh was saved? I'm guessing, but not sure, there will still be a character of Duncan since they sent Murtagh on to the colonies already, but clearly that's not the impression others have.

We have all just been theorizing for awhile about it. Way before even last season ended. We started by wishing and hoping, and then tried to figure out ways they could keep him around in order to rationalize our deep-seated fan desires. Replacing Duncan with Murtagh seemed the easiest and most logical way to us, but I think it seems like they're just keeping him in addition to everyone else. But we didn't know that until yesterday's episode. As Haleth said, no one really knows for sure.

[DittyDotDot]

38 minutes ago, Haleth said:

I think it's just a guess, Ditty. I don't know if anyone really has any clue what Murtaugh's role will be.

Got it, I thought I must have missed something.

[frame to frame]

I don't have a problem with the "we had an agreement" change. What makes me bristle is making Frank out to be almost entirely motivated by romantic love (and lack thereof). Instead of being chiefly motivated by the love for his child (or a desire to lead an intellectually/sexually fulfilling life), his relationship with Bree becomes almost incidental to his important life choices as opposed to the veritable center of them. Instead, his choices all seem to center around attaining a fulfilling romantic partner. This is underscored in that line where he asks Claire if she would have ever forgotten Jamie without Bree, and then looks saddened at her response -- this makes it appear as if he was with Claire because he was holding out hope for their finally becoming a full and whole couple eventually. Similarly, the change from many mistresses to one mistress makes it seem as if all Frank ever wanted was a loving partner, instead of sexual/intellectual fulfillment which, of course, simplifies a complex character down to being defined and motivated by a singular desire. It also damages Claire's character by proxy -- if Frank is the poor puppy dog who never got the chance to be loved (as opposed to a character with agency and competing desires and motivations), then Claire is the ultimate cause of that pain and suffering, whereas, again, it was a lot more nuanced in the book, and Claire definitely comes off worse for it.

Oh well it's over now. Let it go, oh...let it go.

[Nidratime]

Well, I'm guessing Frank and Claire's "agreement" didn't just happen over the last year of his life. Those separate beds made an appearance when Bree was still a little girl. In addition, Sandy looked pretty young, so I doubt Frank was carrying on with her for many years. My conclusion is that Sandy was the latest and the one he ultimately decided to be with which, oddly enough, coincided with Bree turning 18 -- free to travel without her mother's consent.

Frank would've been a lot happier if he had taken up Claire's offer of a divorce years ago. I don't for a minute think Claire would've kept Bree from Frank. In fact, I think she would've been grateful for his help since she probably would've still wanted to pursue a career. In addition, he would've been free to marry someone who loved him. Someone who may have also had children or would've been willing to adopt.

Frank was holding out for something Claire was never going to give. Then, he got comfortable seeing as Claire wasn't complaining about his unfaithfulness. It was easy to stay and have his cake and eat it too.

You know, I wonder if Sandy didn't purposely come to that door knowing about the celebration and that Claire would be there. It's a great way to get the ball ultimately rolling. Unfortunately, for her, it rolled the wrong way.

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

I still haven't decided how I feel about the Murtaugh change. I'll see how I feel after it all plays out I guess.

Regarding Lord John's hair: sometimes it looked lighter, especially his last scene. So who knows what color wig he even has. An even lighter color would have been nice though.

I didn't want to see more Frank, but it seems crazy how fast they blew through all of those years of Frank and Claire. I figured he'd die in the 4th episode. Oh well I guess.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Oh! I love David Berry as Lord John!!! Though I ??and ??at his "no fucks to give" attitude in later buiks, I liked him well enough. 

And with STARZ constantly airing Jamie's agonized cries of "Cllaaaaaairre!!!" I better DAMNED WELL see that scene in its entirety in a flashback!!

Oh, hello! 'Tis MURTAGH!!

And once again, on a purely shallow note, My ❤️ Went ??? at the way Sam/Jamie say..."So..."

Wot?

[Scarlett45]

@Nidratime I think your perception of the show timeline regard Frank's affairs are a little off. From the episode Claire makes the suggestion about the movie while she is still a medical student and Brianna is a little girl, (Frank states he is being discrete and mentions their agreement). The next scene of them is before her graduation party a few years later, Brianna is 10, and Sandy shows up at the door. We then have Brianna at 16 and then 18 at her highschool graduation (1966). Based on Frank and Claire's discussion he's still seeing the same woman who showed up at the door 8years before. Frank has been free to do as he pleased for at least the last decade. I was surprised that Claire said their was no adultery on her end- so she never excercised her right to see other people? (Speaking on the show here) So no I don't think Sandy showed up at the door to get the ball rolling, I think she didn't expect Claire to be there but I cannot believe she came in!

I do think Frank expected Claire to get over Jaime and pulled that stunt at the graduation party to embarrass her even unconsciously. Yes they had agreed to lead separate lives etc but it was her graduation party! Considering her as a friend and the mother of his child (not even as his wife) he couldn't have rescheduled Sandy for another night and celebrated with Claire and Brianna? Come on......

 

I thought the interactions between Jaime and LJG were very well done. I think the show runners told me everything they wanted me to know with what little time they had. When LJG put his hand on Jaime's hand, his sexual intentions were clear but I never got the impression he was a rapist like BJR (Although sex between a guard and a prisoner can never be truly consensual). Jaime's PTSD was visable although he remained composed. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by Scarlett45

[Nidratime]

I guess I'll have to watch it more than once! The years went by so fast, they all meshed in my head.

[mjforty]

On 9/24/2017 at 4:43 PM, dustoffmom said:

You bet I can believe it, I lived it!  As a child/high schooler of the 60's, when the style was long, center parted

it!  The times were very different.  I graduated in 1970 and I never, ever was permitted to wear pants to school!  Hose or knee socks under my skirts!

 

WHAT HAPPENED?  3/4 OF THIS REPLY WAS LOST!!!

Yes, but we're talking about Claire here.  Claire never cared about that kind of thing.  She was raised by a man who took her to obscure places on digs.  She never grew up with the pressures of following the latest fashion.  Claire is not the type to waste time straightening her hair simply because fashion dictates everyone have straight hair.

[WatchrTina]

1 hour ago, Scarlett45 said:

Based on Frank and Claire's discussion he's still seeing the same woman who showed up at the door 8years before.

I don't think we ever heard the name of the woman at the door.  For all we know, she could just have been his side-piece de jour while Sandy was merely the most recent in a long line of girlfriends who just happened to be "on deck" when the clock on Brianna's childhood ran out.  That would be in keeping with the books.  Furthermore, the fact that Claire gets her name wrong (calling her "Candy") suggests that she hasn't been a lurking presence in Claire's life for years now.

47 minutes ago, mjforty said:

Claire is not the type to waste time straightening her hair simply because fashion dictates everyone have straight hair.

Oh I don't know -- Claire took pride in how she looked.  She went to the trouble of designing clothes in Paris that were more in keeping with her taste (clean lines and the Dior "new look") rather than just accept what her dressmakers said was au courant.  And in Voyager we know she is concerned about her appearance -- she even warns Brianna (in her farewell letter) not to gain weight and when she arrives back in the past she can't help but compare herself to a young woman she meets, noting with some satisfaction that she (Claire) looks to be the younger of the two even though she is really significantly older.  I remember my mother going to the hairdresser in the early 1960s and coming home with the standard bouffant 'do that Claire was sporting.  That's just what you did. I don't think it is at all out of character for Claire to be dressing and wearing her hair in the style of the time.

[theschnauzers]

1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

Oh I don't know -- Claire took pride in how she looked.  She went to the trouble of designing clothes in Paris that were more in keeping with her taste (clean lines and the Dior "new look") rather than just accept what her dressmakers said was au courant.  And in Voyager we know she is concerned about her appearance -- she even warns Brianna (in her farewell letter) not to gain weight and when she arrives back in the past she can't help but compare herself to a young woman she meets, noting with some satisfaction that she (Claire) looks to be the younger of the two even though she is really significantly older.  I remember my mother going to the hairdresser in the early 1960s and coming home with the standard bouffant 'do that Claire was sporting.  That's just what you did. I don't think it is at all out of character for Claire to be dressing and wearing her hair in the style of the time.

Let's not overlook how influential Jackie Kennedy was during and after JFK's tenure as President on women's hair and fashion, both in the U.S., the U.K., and elsewhere. It was a phenomenon that hasn't been seen before and she was also an influence on interior decoration as well after she led a renovation of the public rooms and furnishings of the White House. Given that Claire was living in JFK's hometown and went to Harvard, it would be hard to imagine she wouldn't had been influenced by all of that.

[Ziggy]

On 9/24/2017 at 11:31 AM, CC70 said:

I don't think we're going to be that lucky on the flogging. In the opening sequence you can see someone handing the tartan over to what looks like LJG hand. So I think we're in for a flash back.  :(

Sadly, you could be right.  But there are times a clip ends up in the theme song and never gets used.  There was a shot last season (of Clair driving) that I could never find.  I guess that's pretty minor compared to the tartan.

[MelinaBallerina]

On 9/24/2017 at 5:00 PM, nodorothyparker said:

I found the whole thing very rushed too.  The book doesn't elaborate a ton on it but the prisoners have been doing the renovating work so it doesn't come as a complete surprise as John explains it.  And John does explain it, as where as well Jamie will be going, before they ever leave the prison.  Here, we get basically a line or two after what we're told is three days on the road about how Jamie is the only prisoner who committed treason and will thus be subject to different treatment, which I can already guess now is not going to be sufficient explanation for my husband when we watch it later.  "Wait, didn't they kill all the Scots after the battle in the first episode because they were all considered guilty of treason?  But now only Jamie is?  What about the rest of them then?"  And on and on.

Jamie is the only officer that was in the prison.  The rest of the men were just rank and file.

[nodorothyparker]

Yes, we know that.  But the show didn't do a particularly good job of making that distinction.  Particularly not when it opened its season showing everyone who had fought being killed for being traitors, even young boys.

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, Grashka said:

Just in response to the posts regarding the lack of flogging scene (despite of a piece of tartan appearing in the opening credits) - STARZ outlandercommunity is posting scripts of season 3 episodes after their premiere, and they already posted the one for "All Debts Paid". Apparently show variation of the flogging scene was in the script, but they have either not filmed it, or edited it out. Anyway, Murtagh was about to get flogged for that piece of tartan, which of course urged Jamie to intervene. Here is that passage from the script and the following conversation between Jamie and John. All credits to Madam Outlander on tumblr.

 

https://tara-58.tumblr.com/post/165756494615/madam-outlander-episode-3x03-script-credit

 

Personally, I would like to see this scene - not bloody, and establishes something important between Jamie and John. Albeit very different from the tartan incident in the book, and its significance for the relationship between the two men.

I wouldn't be surprised if the episode ran long and they had to trim these things out. It was a lot to get done in one itty bitty episode

1 hour ago, Ziggy said:

Sadly, you could be right.  But there are times a clip ends up in the theme song and never gets used.  There was a shot last season (of Clair driving) that I could never find.  I guess that's pretty minor compared to the tartan.

I also remember a clip of Roger playing with his airplane last season that wasn't in the episode proper.