S03.E05: Freedom & Whisky

[Athena]

Quote

As Brianna grapples with the life-changing revelations of the past summer, Claire must help her come to terms with the fact that she is truly her father's daughter – her 18th century Highlander father. To complicate matters further, Roger brings news that forces Claire and Brianna to face an impossible choice.

Reminder: The is the book talk thread. This can include spoilers for ALL the books. If you wish to remain unspoiled for any of the books, please leave now and head to the No Book Talk episode thread.

[toolazy]

Okay, I wasn't expecting that.  Not that I'm complaining or anything.   I swear, this show. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

8 minutes ago, toolazy said:

Okay, I wasn't expecting that.  Not that I'm complaining or anything.   I swear, this show. 

And I’m  glad we got that! Because that last minute was worth sitting through an otherwise BORING!!!!! episode!

Good GOD-Sam has to dye his hair red every three weeks and yet the show insists on putting him in god awful wigs. At least that hair in a tail looked like a red Brillo pad!

But that slow turn, looking up to see Claire, then falling in a dead faint, with Claire’s gasp of oh no! had me ?????

I’m sure I’ll have more coherent thoughts later.

Edited October 8, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[toolazy]

I wasn't bored for a second.  I finally got all of the Claire-Roger-Bree interactions I've wanted all season and I didn't really know what they were going to do.  It's rare that I come to an episode of Outlander with only the barest idea of what will happen, so that part was amazing.  

How gorgeous is Catrioina Balfe without all that crap on her face?  When she gets to take the mask off, she's just freaking stunning.  I'm not sorry to say goodbye to Mrs. Claire Robinson. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I know I was confused when they talked about the bones in the buik but were those bones Claire and Joe discussing Geillis’s bones?

Since I don’t care for Bree at all, that explains my boredom. And honestly, all I care about is Jamie and Claire, so I’m glad to say goodbye to the future. Hopefully for the rest of the season.

Can’t wait to see Wee Ian! But a big Giant BOO! having to wait two weeks!??

[toolazy]

8 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I know I was confused when they talked about the bones in the buik but were those bones Claire and Joe discussing Geillis’s bones?

 

Yes. Whose bones could it be otherwise?  

.

 

It was pretty obvious that Wil Johnson isn't American. His accent was way worse than Sophie Skelton's. 

Edited October 8, 2017 by toolazy

[Dust Bunny]

1 hour ago, toolazy said:

Okay, I wasn't expecting that.  Not that I'm complaining or anything.   I swear, this show. 

Agreed. I kept anticipating the screen was going to go black, and it kept going. That was awesome. And I really like the height differential, requiring Jamie/Sam to look up. Not only was that an interesting use of space, it would definitely contribute to getting dizzy and fainting.

I loved how they used the puddle prologue. It created a seamless transition.

I'm sold on Roger and Bree. This one episode created a solid foundation for next season and on. 

I totally envisioned Cait taking an ax to Lotte's neck in a couple months. It'll be fun to see Geillis go so dark that Claire will have to do that.

This was a lovely episode. I expected a bit of filler, but it never felt like that. Peaceful, like Claire said. I almost wished it were Christmas here. I bet it will be a nice episode to rewatch in December.

Oh - and hey - when did Claire go through the stones? It seemed like she left Boston on Christmas Eve. I guess when she escaped Culloden, it wasn't on a feast day. Still, it seems like this detail was completely ignored. Maybe by showing us part of the print shop scene, they think we wouldn't notice.

Fair enough.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Dust Bunny

[maryle]

I am new to this board but I do love this deason better than the last and really loved this episode! I will say I like Rodger and Bree well enough so I guess it help for tonight! 

I was also ready for a focus on Claire and for the first time this year I think I really felt her point of view and how much her experience make her incapable to really reinvest in her modern life cause her hearth stay in another siecle. Sophie for me was better tonight they did show a bit spoil but still likeable with Rodger and Claire! I loved that she really encourage Claire to go! 

I absolute loved yhe last 5 minutes with Claire open the door, first hearing Jamie and looking at him! And there he turned....

Great episode next episode will be better!!

[theschnauzers]

52 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I know I was confused when they talked about the bones in the buik but were those bones Claire and Joe discussing Geillis’s bones?

If we take Joe’s response that Claire was off by 50 years to mean they’re 200years, that would be my guess. Not to overlook Bree’s reference to Gellis’ notebookss in the episode concerning the gemstones, there were a lot of Easter eggs in this episode. I’m definitely going to have to rewatch after I get up.

[Cloudberryjam]

Welp, it was worth having to sit through that Frank tribute for that payoff!!!!!!!!!!! Also thought they would fade out at the door, but then when it kept going i got the chills big time, then the waterworks!!! Hooooraaaaayyyyy!!! Soooo sooo happy!!

Also cool:

Geilis' bones (is Claire somehow psychic re the bones?) 

Love Roger so twas great they filled out that relationship a bit

Joe was great

I dont even remeber what else bc the first 50 min was a crazy hot mess with the Frank stuff and Briannas bad acting and the Batman stuff, but then BAM!!! 

We are back!! 

So glad we didnt have to wait 2 wks for PRINTSHOP!!!!!!!!!!

ETA: the props and set design for 60's holiday stuff were on point

Edited October 8, 2017 by Cloudberryjam

[Glaze Crazy]

Kudos to TPTB for not going for what I expected, and what would have been frustrating, breaking off this episode and fading to black after the shop bell rings. I appreciate I could laugh a bit at them going all the way up to the faint and Claire's face reacting to it.

After I got past the rearranging (from the book) of the end of the search for Jamie and moving the action to Boston for the prep to go back, I think they were very successful is setting up a lot of stuff for the rest of this season. I have given up trying to figure out whether one needs to pass through the stones on the exact feast day or just close enough. I think the only time it was an exact day was Claire's first time through and possibly Gillian's first time through also. Culloden was only close enough to Spring Equinox and apparently a day or two past Christmas was close enough to Winter Solstice. They did add the new gemstone for Claire as gifted from Brianna, so they are keeping the gemstone theory going, at least. My only quibble is, if Claire was using raincoat material for her cape to go back, because "It's Scotland" (rainy) why did she not put a damn hood on that waterproof cape? Missed that obvious helpful bit of covering.

Looking forward to the big reveal of the previous owner of those bones Joe was inspecting and how she ended up there.  I also liked them showing how Brianna made the choice to change her University Major and that she's already shown a penchant for the mechanical and logical vs. history and literature, which might not always be exactly what happened. This theme has been touched on by DG a couple of times in the books, especially when she's writing from Roger's POV in the past. Glad for all the additional interactions between Roger and Brianna to set the ground work for them going forward.

I did like the glimpses into Claire's surgical career and her friendship with Joe. But I was hoping we would see her tell Joe the whole story about Jamie and where she was going. I know from the next book that he does know where she went when he talks to Roger on a phone call. Just about everyone had to make some mention, even inadvertently, about time wasted over the years and coming back to earth after being in outer space. The girlfriend got it wrong though, since she knew Frank stayed in the marriage mostly for Brianna, at least by the time he was stepping out with her anyway. Her blaming Claire for it was a bit much since she also wasted how-ever many years waiting around for a married man.

Loved the use of "Dark Shadows" which had their own time-shift storyline. That was me, just like Roger, sitting on the couch after school, watching that show. LOL.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Glaze Crazy

[lianau]

3 minutes ago, Glaze Crazy said:

Looking forward to the big reveal of the previous owner of those bones Joe was inspecting and how she ended up there.  

I'm looking forward to the theories from the non readers as to what the bones are doing there . I hope they'll discuss it .

[ruby24]

Loved that ending! Now they're torturing us with a two week break! BOO

I really like Roger and I still cannot stand Sophie Skelton as Brianna. My god, some of her delivery is just SO awful, I get taken out of her scenes with people. So glad we're back in the past now.

[Cloudberryjam]

I loved Catroina's expression when she first sees Jamie from the balcony...

I hope Sam H did not injure himself falling like that! 

I wonder if non book ppl will think Jamie had a heart attack?! 

What will Claire do when the Miss Clairol grows out? :) 

[Petunia846]

So many tears! And not just at the end.

I'm sure everyone will speak more eloquently about a lot of the great bits and pieces, but one thing I noticed, was in the costuming. At first, at the start of the episode, Bree was wearing tartan fabrics. Her skirt at school, and later that coat at the ceremony for Frank. Then later, after she decides to go back, Claire's costume gets some tartan. She had a skirt while she was talking to Bree, and then the coat she wore when she was leaving was kind of plaid-ish. I thought that was a nice addition.

I actually don't really like where they ended the episode. I wish it had been on the bell like everyone was predicting.

I personally thought Sophie did a great job, but I almost always feel that way.

[Ziggy]

4 hours ago, Glaze Crazy said:

Kudos to TPTB for not going for what I expected, and what would have been frustrating, breaking off this episode and fading to black after the shop bell rings. I appreciate I could laugh a bit at them going all the way up to the faint and Claire's face reacting to it.

I'm going to have to re-watch this because I was a bit distracted.  I kept wondering, is this the moment they'll fade to black?  I thought it would be the bell, then I thought it would be her walking in, then maybe after we hear Jamie's voice ... but we actually got to see Jamie faint!  It was perfect!!!

[morgan]

I thought it was a good episode.  Pretty much what I expected/hoped with the focus on Claire/Roger/Bree.  Miss the Jessica McClintock dress and the awful one Bree wears with all the fake jewels if Claire chickens out of going.  Loved all the Joe interaction and the inclusion of bones, bummed that we didn’t see her telling Joe about what really happened.  I also have no doubt we could still see that in a flashback or reference of some kind.  

Love the bit about the Harvard architecture...a nice nod to Bree’s future as an engineer as well as a wink to those of us familiar with Harvard.  Such a building does not exist on that campus and couldn’t look less like it.  Lol.  

Lastly loved that it didn’t end with the bell.  I expected it to end with her hand on the door or a bell as she walked in...part of me even wished it had.  But oh what a treat for it to end as it did.  LOVED IT!  I can’t wait to see the extended episode in a couple of weeks.

Edited October 8, 2017 by morgan

[Petunia846]

42 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

I'm going to have to re-watch this because I was a bit distracted.  I kept wondering, is this the moment they'll fade to black?  I thought it would be the bell, then I thought it would be her walking in, then maybe after we hear Jamie's voice ... but we actually got to see Jamie faint!  It was perfect!!!

Yes, me too. Is this is? This? Now? No wait, now? Oh, oh, okay...nope. Ahhh!

[nodorothyparker]

I know we're not supposed to care about the 50-odd minutes that came before the big walk into the swelling music of the print shop ending because hey, they gave us that,  But right now I'm mostly just underwhelmed.

It's not terrible TV, but most of that hour felt emotionally manipulative trying to force us to feel things about Claire's story they haven't really managed to pull off all season thus far.  Having a confrontation with Frank's longtime mistress/Joan Crawford look alike in a public reception surrounded by all of his colleagues, really?  I get that it was supposed to be a cautionary parallel to Claire about not trying to go back to Jamie while there was still time, but it read hamfisted.  Part of this I know is my own frustration that show Claire has been written as blithely willing to end her search after hitting one historical record dead end to insist on living that "half life" that has all the other characters feeling so bad for her.  But luckily for everyone, it's Roger to the rescue to save her from herself.  It's yet another of those examples some of us have talked about about framing so much of Claire's story through what Frank feels or wants and now what Roger decided on his own to do because apparently Claire or even Bree couldn't possibly have those feelings or agency to look for the supposed love of her life or a father.  The first half of this season has really done Claire as a character no favors.

It came as Claire practically had one foot out the door, but I did like the looks we got at her friendship with Joe and the career we're told to which she's devoted so much of the last 20 years of her life.  I could have done without the lingering shots of some person's open gut, but nice touch throwing in the seeming nonsequitur CSI: Outlander bit with Gellis's skeleton.  I've always wondered in the book if Claire ever later thought about the time element absurdity of that moment after she'd chopped Gellis down like a redwood.  Roger watching Dark Shadows with its own time travel storyline did make me laugh.

As always the costuming and set pieces were fun to look at, although that's kind of my measure of how I know an episode isn't fully holding my attention when I'm spending more time noticing and thinking about them than the story.

[areca]

5 hours ago, lianau said:

I'm looking forward to the theories from the non readers as to what the bones are doing there . I hope they'll discuss it .

It's only because of the books that anyone knows.  They won't even think twice about it.

[Cramps]

One addition I liked was that TV Claire seemed to have a lot more concerns about abandoning her daughter, a daughter who'd just lost her father, than book Claire did. 

[ihartcoffee]

My heart was pounding when she walked in the print shop!   Can't wait to see them catch up. I liked the episode, I don't watch as anxious in the morning it seems,  and this season appeals to me more than the last. 

[morgan]

I always thought Claire hated to leaves Bree.  But she was also someone who grew up without her parents, and grew up fast and independent.  She had Uncle Lamb of course, but I always think she was fairly independent then and was off to war at a young age.  So she would miss Bree but I figured part of her deeply understood Bree wouldn’t be around, she would be off living her own life.  

[morgan]

Another thought about the ending.  Catrionna really sold the look she was giving Jamie as she looked down on him.  It was similar to the one at the end of season 2 when she was staring into the sunrise as she said she has to go back.  That was so hokey I groaned.  The print shop was what that should have been.  And I loved her expression when he fainted!

Edited October 8, 2017 by morgan

[ihartcoffee]

Grrrrrr, 2 weeks until the next episode!?  Why?  What is interrupting the show at such a pivotal moment?  What could be more important?  

I'm so glad they showed more of the print shop than I thought they would.  I haven't read the books in a while,  doesn't he think he's imagining her being there?  His mind can't believe it?  He definitely hasn't forgot about her.  

[morgan]

2 minutes ago, ihartcoffee said:

Grrrrrr, 2 weeks until the next episode!?  Why?  What is interrupting the show at such a pivotal moment?  What could be more important?  

I'm so glad they showed more of the print shop than I thought they would.  I haven't read the books in a while,  doesn't he think he's imagining her being there?  His mind can't believe it?  He definitely hasn't forgot about her.  

Yes, he has “seen” her over the years but her speaking (if I remember right) is what causes him to faint.  I’ve been trying not to re-read until after the season is over but I may have to read that passage again.  

[Dust Bunny]

37 minutes ago, morgan said:

Yes, he has “seen” her over the years but her speaking (if I remember right) is what causes him to faint.  I’ve been trying not to re-read until after the season is over but I may have to read that passage again.  

In the show, yes, apparently. In the book, Jamie fainted because Claire touched his broken nose. I always thought touch was the sense that most connected them (and not just sex). So I really liked that, in the book. No complaints here, though. In two weeks, I’m sure we’ll see a lot of touching, like that timeless hug on the floor.

[morgan]

7 minutes ago, Dust Bunny said:

In the show, yes, apparently. In the book, Jamie fainted because Claire touched his broken nose. I always thought touch was the sense that most connected them (and not just sex). So I really liked that, in the book. No complaints here, though. In two weeks, I’m sure we’ll see a lot of touching, like that timeless hug on the floor.

That’s right!  Now I remember 

[nodorothyparker]

The more I think about it, the more aggravating reducing any role Bree might have in finding her heritage becomes.  The actress was better if still somewhat uneven through much of this episode and we can see that she's struggling with the accent.  Does the show not care if we don't like her or empathize with her?  Her first scene listening to the professor read Longfellow's "Paul Revere's Ride," which amusingly does make a brief appearance in one of the later books, should have been an epiphany moment about history not always being a neat accurate list of names and dates to go by but that they needed to branch out their search to other possible sources.  Book Bree is at least with Roger as they're finding this stuff and we can presume taking an active part in looking for it and coming to terms with it.  Instead, here Roger's doing all the hunting solo and he and Claire initially don't even think she needs to be told.  And this is after the show also took a hard whiff on Bree being the first to correctly understand the story of the Dunbonnet, which also sets up the book bit I like of Claire telling Jamie that he became quite the Highland legend and his obvious amusement at it.

It may not seem like it matters so much now, but all of this also makes Jamie look even worse heading into his first meeting with Roger or subsequent events in DOA.  If not for Roger, the show versions of his wife and daughter probably never would have bothered looking for him at all.

[morgan]

Yes I missed Bree and Roger working together to look for Jamie.  But I still miss the fact that Claire “knew” Jamie died at Culloden for certain so she only asked Roger for help finding others she knew in the book DIA.  

As for the scene with Bree in class, I get what the snow was going for...how history is often inaccurate and subjective.  But that Longfellow/Revere stuff is 3rd grade stuff.  Didn’t we all learn about Dawes and Prescott and the myth or Revere then?  And this was supposed to be a lecture hall in Harvard?  I know I’m being nit picky but that made me roll my eyes a bit and almost look past the point.  

[lovetowrite73]

No, no, no, HELL NO to that conversation between Claire and Sandy. That just goes to show that Frank used his own version of what was going on to tell Sandy. Sandy doesn't get to blame Claire for Frank staying in that marriage. That was Frank's choice and his alone. I wish that scene wasn't in the episode.

[Bort]

32 minutes ago, morgan said:

As for the scene with Bree in class, I get what the snow was going for...how history is often inaccurate and subjective.  But that Longfellow/Revere stuff is 3rd grade stuff.  Didn’t we all learn about Dawes and Prescott and the myth or Revere then?  And this was supposed to be a lecture hall in Harvard?  I know I’m being nit picky but that made me roll my eyes a bit and almost look past the point.  

I think it might depend on where you grow up. As I grew up in Texas, with its own rich and bloody history, you pretty much get the basics on other stuff. I don't think my school got too detailed in the American Revolution. I remember learning about Paul Revere, but not so much the other guys. However, Brianna grew up in Boston, where I imagine that yes, they would have learned every single detail available from the first grade on.

I get that the point of the Sandy conversation was to hammer home to Claire how much one wishes they had a second chance with their love (which Sandy does not, but Claire does) but holy crap was that an inappropriate place for Sandy to dredge that shit up. Not to mention that it didn't even appear that Frank told her the truth about why he stayed with Claire. Sandy seemed to be under the impression that Claire refused to let him go, which was so not the case. Claire gave him an out that day Sandy showed up at their house, and who knows how many more times. I would've felt sorry for her that Frank was never truly honest with her if it weren't for the fact that she had been involved with a married man in the first place. So it's her own damn fault for wasting her life on Frank.

[nodorothyparker]

I vaguely remember encountering the Longfellow poem in either junior high or high school English, but I grew up in Illinois where everything is Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln all the time and the American Revolution was mostly Washington and Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence and the Boston Tea Party.  As they're in Boston though, I could see the professor using the example as a jumping off point not for the facts themselves but for the larger point of how we remember and misremember history.

[areca]

14 minutes ago, kariyaki said:

I think it might depend on where you grow up. As I grew up in Texas, with its own rich and bloody history, you pretty much get the basics on other stuff. I don't think my school got too detailed in the American Revolution. I remember learning about Paul Revere, but not so much the other guys. However, Brianna grew up in Boston, where I imagine that yes, they would have learned every single detail available from the first grade on.

I remember the other guys, but only by name, not details.  The whole thing wasn't really very much covered at all beyond "There was a warning and the colonists kicked ass."  I think you're right about where you grew up.  I grew up in Michigan - I can tell you all kinds of things about the French and Indian war - from the French side - but the specifics of the War for Independence?  Notsomuch.  Most of the streets and places in my hometown had French or Indian names - no British at all.

Edited October 8, 2017 by areca

[Bort]

12 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

I vaguely remember encountering the Longfellow poem in either junior high or high school English, but I grew up in Illinois where everything is Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln all the time and the American Revolution was mostly Washington and Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence and the Boston Tea Party.  As they're in Boston though, I could see the professor using the example as a jumping off point not for the facts themselves but for the larger point of how we remember and misremember history.

That's a good point, the professor might just be trying to make a point. And also, it being Harvard, I would bet there's a good mix of students from all over the country who grew up somewhere else and didn't know the finer points of the Revere ride. Brianna probably knew it, but most of the other people in her class... possibly not.

6 minutes ago, areca said:

I remember the other guys, but the whole thing wasn't really very much covered at all.  I think you're right about where you grew up.  I grew up in Michigan - I can tell you all kinds of things about the French and Indian war - from the French side - but the specifics of the War for Independence?  Notsomuch.  Most of the streets and places in my hometown had French or Indian names - no British at all.

A lot of the names of streets and places here in Texas are named after the Texas Revolution -- or have Mexican origins.

[thesparkinside]

It was an okay episode. Like everyone else, I kept expecting it to fade to black as Claire was approaching the print shop, then walking into the print shop, then hearing the bell ring . . . 

I was also expecting them to maybe cut back to the 18th c. at least once, though I realized about halfway through that we weren't going to be doing that. I was bummed, because I didn't find the bulk of the episode very interesting. It was a lot of Briana-Claire-Roger, which was good in some respects. We needed to establish that dynamic and those characters. BUT, instead of cramming all that into one episode like they did, they should've minimized the Frank stuff and distributed more of Brianna-Claire-Roger and their search over the last four episodes. It felt like all those disjointed bits with Claire, Frank, and young Bree were only there as filler so that Claire and Jamie could move together through time at the same pace. The focus on Frank and Claire really wasn't handled well, IMO, and made both Frank and Claire look terrible.

The writers would have been better served, I think, to have 1968 as a frame, with our Scooby Gang uncovering history and getting to know one another, with their clues leading us back into the 18th c., where Jamie is living the story their uncovering. (For example, they find a record of Jamie in prison--cut to Jamie in prison.) Instead, they committed themselves to two years here, two years there, meaning they had to spend a lot of time filling in gaps in Claire's story that, frankly, didn't need to be filled in. What the writers chose to do wasn't awful, but I thought it could have been much better. The 18th c. stuff was so much more effective than the 20th c. stuff.

I do love Roger, though. That's a major bright spot.

With respect to Sophie Skelton and Wil Johnson - I don't mind that they're British actors playing Americans, but . . . why not just get American actors? They got French actors to play French characters. Surely there are either American ex-pats or actors who are willing to get on a plane. I dunno; maybe they auditioned Brits and Americans, and these two were the best. They're doing fine. Sophie was better this episode. Wil/Joe has been fine with me all along.

[Quickbeam]

The actor playing Roger is going to save the Brianna/Roger bits for me. He’s really solid while she is still dreadful. I loved the ending, I had thought they were going to make us wait. 

[morgan]

19 minutes ago, kariyaki said:

I think it might depend on where you grow up. As I grew up in Texas, with its own rich and bloody history, you pretty much get the basics on other stuff. I don't think my school got too detailed in the American Revolution. I remember learning about Paul Revere, but not so much the other guys. However, Brianna grew up in Boston, where I imagine that yes, they would have learned every single detail available from the first grade on.

I get that the point of the Sandy conversation was to hammer home to Claire how much one wishes they had a second chance with their love (which Sandy does not, but Claire does) but holy crap was that an inappropriate place for Sandy to dredge that shit up. Not to mention that it didn't even appear that Frank told her the truth about why he stayed with Claire. Sandy seemed to be under the impression that Claire refused to let him go, which was so not the case. Claire gave him an out that day Sandy showed up at their house, and who knows how many more times. I would've felt sorry for her that Frank was never truly honest with her if it weren't for the fact that she had been involved with a married man in the first place. So it's her own damn fault for wasting her life on Frank.

I grew up in California but am raising my kids in MA.  They definitely know the background and I knew it when they were learning it.  Maybe I’m just a history nerd, always liked it in school so maybe I learned it on my own?  Who knows.  I know I am being nit picky on it.  

 

I agree about the Sandy stuff!

[areca]

5 minutes ago, Quickbeam said:

The actor playing Roger is going to save the Brianna/Roger bits for me. He’s really solid while she is still dreadful. I loved the ending, I had thought they were going to make us wait. 

She was marginally less dreadful this time around.  But yes he's going to have to carry it until or if she gets it together.  I too have absolutely no idea why they didn't just hire an American.  I am certain there was an American actor who would have looked more like Sam and been better than Sophie struggling with the material and accent.

[thesparkinside]

Oh, yeah, the Sandy stuff was awful. *Why* did Claire stand there and take it? Why didn't she say that Frank had wanted to stay int he marriage? He did! Maybe it was for Bree's sake, but does it matter? Claire should have said something.

And, yeah, not everyone will learn about Paul Revere's ride being mostly a myth. It depends on where you live and who taught you. Also keep in mind, lots of people are taught things but then forget them. Even at Harvard, I'm sure lots of students aren't as well-versed in history as they could/should be.

[Bort]

22 minutes ago, thesparkinside said:

Oh, yeah, the Sandy stuff was awful. *Why* did Claire stand there and take it? Why didn't she say that Frank had wanted to stay int he marriage? He did! Maybe it was for Bree's sake, but does it matter? Claire should have said something.

First watching the scene, I wanted Claire to set her right but since I had the chance to think about it, I like how Claire handled it. She said nothing and walked away.

A: they wanted her to be introspective about getting another chance, that was essentially the gist of the scene. B: Maybe Claire actually had the tact that Sandy didn't, so chose not to discuss it in an inappropriate setting. It wouldn't have made a difference anyway, I doubt Sandy would've believed her.

[AheadofStraight]

I loved the ending even though he fainted before she touched him. Maybe I loved it so much because I expected to not get anything this week. I still don't see any aging in Jamie? Sam said they gave him gray hair and a forehead prosthetic but I just don't see it. It looked like the same funky hair from last episode.

Not much to say about the other stuff that hasn't already been said. Did hate the Sandy stuff and the show continuing to give Frank a tongue bath...?

[morgan]

22 minutes ago, kariyaki said:

First watching the scene, I wanted Claire to set her right but since I had the chance to think about it, I like how Claire handled it. She said nothing and walked away.

A: they wanted her to be introspective about getting another chance, that was essentially the gist of the scene. B: Maybe Claire actually had the tact that Sandy didn't, so chose not to discuss it in an inappropriate setting. It wouldn't have made a difference anyway, I doubt Sandy would've believed her.

Exactly.  At the end of the day history is subjective to a point.  Frank’s history, Claire’s history, and Sandy’s history (where they overlap) is all the same and all different.  They would each tell the story differently and believe in their heart they were right.  As much as I hated and thought it inappropriate that Sandy said that where she did, I see it as the show hammering home that point like they did with Bree in the history class.  And definitely hammer home lost time and the gift it is to have the choice to change things.

Edited October 8, 2017 by morgan

[Petunia846]

It's funny, I didn't even hardly notice the discussion of Paul Revere, because I was excited about how Bree was doodling architectural drawings in her notebook instead of listening. I thought that was the point of the scene.

[morgan]

6 minutes ago, Petunia846 said:

It's funny, I didn't even hardly notice the discussion of Paul Revere, because I was excited about how Bree was doodling architectural drawings in her notebook instead of listening. I thought that was the point of the scene.

I thought it hit both points beautifully

[ElsieH]

48 minutes ago, areca said:

She was marginally less dreadful this time around.  But yes he's going to have to carry it until or if she gets it together.  I too have absolutely no idea why they didn't just hire an American.  I am certain there was an American actor who would have looked more like Sam and been better than Sophie struggling with the material and accent.

I always thought that girl who played Jessica on True Blood would have been perfect. She might be too old though, but she had the blue eyes and was a really good actor, even when that show got a little ridiculous. I know she was on some other super hero show though. But I agree, I am sure there is some American out there who would have been better.

 

So I have a question. Did Harvard have female students in 1968? I remember this being brought up in the S2 finale when Claire said Bree was at Harvard. And even if they did, would they have had a female professor? It also bugged me that the history professor said, I'll see you after the break, when aren't most college classes just one semester? Although these are just small things that didn't really ruin it for me. I actually liked the whole episode quite a bit, and I even thought Sophie was better in this one. I do wish they would have emphasized how terrible going through the stones is though. I have a friend who wondered why Claire wouldn't just zip back to the 20th century for penicillin and medical supplies when she ran out. They don't make it seem like it was nearly as terrible as in the books, to the point of her thinking it would kill her every time.

[Quickbeam]

7 minutes ago, ElsieH said:

I always thought that girl who played Jessica on True Blood would have been perfect. 

Deborah Ann Woll....she’d have been fantastic!!! Sigh. 

[morgan]

10 minutes ago, ElsieH said:

 

 

So I have a question. Did Harvard have female students in 1968? I remember this being brought up in the S2 finale when Claire said Bree was at Harvard. And even if they did, would they have had a female professor? It also bugged me that the history professor said, I'll see you after the break, when aren't most college classes just one semester? Although these are just small things that didn't really ruin it for me. I actually liked the whole episode quite a bit, and I even thought Sophie was better in this one. I do wish they would have emphasized how terrible going through the stones is though. I have a friend who wondered why Claire wouldn't just zip back to the 20th century for penicillin and medical supplies when she ran out. They don't make it seem like it was nearly as terrible as in the books, to the point of her thinking it would kill her every time.

I was wondering that too.  I loved Love Story when I was a teen and I think Jenny went to Radcliffe not Harvard, that Harvard was still closed to women.  But I also wondered if some classes at Harvard were open to Radcliffe students?  

Much like the books I do find myself whistling past some things in the show.  

Edited October 8, 2017 by morgan

[lianau]

22 minutes ago, Petunia846 said:

It's funny, I didn't even hardly notice the discussion of Paul Revere, because I was excited about how Bree was doodling architectural drawings in her notebook instead of listening. I thought that was the point of the scene.

I think it was both . Highlighting the flexibility of history (winner gets to make history ) and Brianna eventually changing careers into something more static and predictable 

[Dejana]

54 minutes ago, ElsieH said:

So I have a question. Did Harvard have female students in 1968? I remember this being brought up in the S2 finale when Claire said Bree was at Harvard. And even if they did, would they have had a female professor? It also bugged me that the history professor said, I'll see you after the break, when aren't most college classes just one semester? Although these are just small things that didn't really ruin it for me.

 

A quick glance at Wikipedia says Radcliffe and Harvard students had been attending the same classes for decades at that point. Previously, Harvard professors would lecture male students at Harvard and re-teach the same material to female students over at Radcliffe: 

Quote

During World War II, declines in male enrollment at Harvard and heightened sensitivity about the use of resources called for a new, more efficient arrangement concerning faculty time. Under the leadership of President Comstock, Radcliffe and Harvard signed an agreement that for the first time allowed Radcliffe and Harvard students to attend the same classes in the Harvard Yard, officially beginning joint instruction in 1943. 

Quote

At the time both Harvard and Radcliffe were adamant in telling the press that this arrangement was "joint instruction" but not "coeducation." Reacting to the agreement, Harvard President James Bryant Conant famously stated that "Harvard was not coeducational in theory, only in practice." Indeed, Radcliffe continued to maintain a separate admissions office which, by general acknowledgement, was more stringent in its academic requirements of applicants than Harvard's. Most extra-curricular activities at the two colleges remained separate.

Quote

The Radcliffe Graduate School merged with Harvard's in 1963, and from that year onward Radcliffe undergraduates received Harvard University diplomas signed by the presidents of Radcliffe and Harvard. (Harvard students' diplomas were signed only by the president of Harvard.) Many Radcliffe and Harvard student groups combined during the decade, and joint commencement exercises between the two institutions began in 1970.

The schools entered into a "non-merger merger" in 1977 and a full merger in 1999.

 

I think shows that film in the UK might get tax breaks based on the percentage of cast/crew is British, and even with other actors from Europe, the visa issues might be less of a hindrance (for now) in comparison to hiring Americans. The series isn't an indie project but Outlander doesn't have a limitless budget compared to projects like the Marvel/DECU/Harry Potter movies or even Game of Thrones.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Dejana