S03.E05: Freedom & Whisky

[LadyBrochTuarach]

Just finished the episode (I'm behind, I know, I know) and a few quick notes, and I'll come back after I've had a decent sleep and can mull it over more thoroughly. 

 

1. Que the tears. GEEZ. I've lost track of how much Kleenex I burnt through this episode. 

2. Sophie is getting better, I could live with her this episode. Especially since I loved how they had her interactions with Claire and Roger. I was happy to see the developments in their relationships. 

3. I miss Claire and Rogers chat in Scotland, when they've gone for the boat ride on the lake. That was great, and I like that it touched on the time travel aspect. 

4. Agree with most that they should have shown the difficulty and danger of going through the stones (considering this is a major factor when

Spoiler

Roger, Buck, Bree, Jem, and Mandy go through later on. Which hopefully will be explained in more detail in "Bees."

Because it leaves a lot of blanks) or it does for me, anyways. The gemstone incorporation was clever, I liked that. 

5. Jamie's hair ? Please bring the loose, flowy, fabulous, curls back!!! 

6. Agree with almost everyone about Sandy. BUGGER OFF SANDY. I'm sure there's a cliff for you to walk off somehwere. 

7. Print shop. ? Thank goodness for the last 5 minutes, I ugly cried, and laughed at the same time. There's our Claire!!! Yay!! I thought we lost her in the future somewhere. ?

 

2 hours ago, Grashka said:

So....I've been reading No Book Talk thread for episode 5 and I was struck by one of the posters complaining about the lack of purpose of these 20 years apart and the first 5 episodes since " they didn't give us any character development anyway" (I think they mean mainly Claire?). I was struck by it because the first 1/3 or so of "Voyager" for me was mainly about the character development of Jamie and Claire, and the things they went through that will influence many of their choices down the road for the remaining of the books (like Jamie the leader of the Scots on the Ridge or the decision he made regarding Jocasta's offer of inheritance - for example). But I'm a book reader and can mentally fill any gaps that didn't translate from the book to screen, but how is that for non - book readers? I assume some of them are confused? For Jamie's story, the important part that seems sort of glossed over in the show was his role in Ardsmuir Prison  - the bond he had with those men, why did they love him, and what it meant for him. That was the precise moment when he embraced his fate as a leader - but i'm not sure how Jamie's internal struggle about it could have been translated into screen and where all the nuances of his relationship with John Grey would fit? And now Ardsmuir men are going to pop up as Jamie's posse and I bet some non - book readers will be verra confused again.

Then there is Claire. I think the writers took not the best route with her character in the first four episodes , focusing almost solely on her marriage to Frank which robbed her somehow of her agency - even of her determination for finding Jamie (in the show it looks like Roger's achievement with Brianna's help). But I also think the writers didn't have an easy task with Claire's part of the story (before Frank's death), which is very intimate and internalized in that section of "Voyager".

In other words, I wonder if it had not been actually the hardest book to adapt so far, and not book 2 as they have claimed.

The lack of character development resonates with Clair for me. I thought she was written in a very poor light and flat characterization in the first 4 episodes. I would have preferred more Jamie in Ardsmuir, and I felt it would have lent more to the story, and his development. So I'm with you on that. 

Also agree, Voyageur I think will be the hardest as there is Just. So. Much. Happening. I hope we don't lose details and ground in the next few episodes because of the wasted time in the first four. 

 

Overall I enjoyed the episode. I'll be back later??

Edited October 9, 2017 by LadyBrochTuarach

[DittyDotDot]

8 hours ago, Dejana said:

Weird to think of someone handling their own skeleton but it's perfectly possible in this crazy time travel universe! I know that's not what's going on, but it's not a bad theory if you didn't know what happens.

Yeah, I trying to remember what I made of the bones scene in the book. I think by the end of it I figured it was Geillis, but at the beginning of it I think I may have wondered if Claire was handling her own bones too. But, then again, I was already spoiled that they would be going to the Caribbean at some point, so that might have influenced me too. But, I knew we'd see Geillis again at some point because I had already figured her to be the White Witch who left the treasure on the seal island. I just can't remember now... .

Anyway, I'm glad they kept that in, I thought they might get rid of because it's not really necessary going forward and just might confuse some folks, but I always loved it.

3 hours ago, Grashka said:

So....I've been reading No Book Talk thread for episode 5 and I was struck by one of the posters complaining about the lack of purpose of these 20 years apart and the first 5 episodes since " they didn't give us any character development anyway" (I think they mean mainly Claire?). I was struck by it because the first 1/3 or so of "Voyager" for me was mainly about the character development of Jamie and Claire, and the things they went through that will influence many of their choices down the road for the remaining of the books (like Jamie the leader of the Scots on the Ridge or the decision he made regarding Jocasta's offer of inheritance - for example). But I'm a book reader and can mentally fill any gaps that didn't translate from the book to screen, but how is that for non - book readers? I assume some of them are confused? For Jamie's story, the important part that seems sort of glossed over in the show was his role in Ardsmuir Prison  - the bond he had with those men, why did they love him, and what it meant for him. That was the precise moment when he embraced his fate as a leader - but i'm not sure how Jamie's internal struggle about it could have been translated into screen and where all the nuances of his relationship with John Grey would fit? And now Ardsmuir men are going to pop up as Jamie's posse and I bet some non - book readers will be verra confused again.

Then there is Claire. I think the writers took not the best route with her character in the first four episodes , focusing almost solely on her marriage to Frank which robbed her somehow of her agency - even of her determination for finding Jamie (in the show it looks like Roger's achievement with Brianna's help). But I also think the writers didn't have an easy task with Claire's part of the story (before Frank's death), which is very intimate and internalized in that section of "Voyager".

In other words, I wonder if it had not been actually the hardest book to adapt so far, and not book 2 as they have claimed.

I think I said this somewhere else before S2 aired, I think Dragonfly in Amber has a lot of plot to condense into one season and Voyager has a lot of character to condense into one season. I think they both have their challenges for adaption, but I'd think Voyager would be harder simply due to the 20 years you need to cover--which could be a whole season on it's own--and then also cram in a season's worth of plot as well. I still think I might not have limited myself to one season per book if I was Moore.

1 hour ago, LadyBrochTuarach said:

4. Agree with most that they should have shown the difficulty and danger of going through the stones (considering this is a major factor when

  Hide contents

Roger, Buck, Bree, Jem, and Mandy go through later on. Which hopefully will be explained in more detail in "Bees."

Because it leaves a lot of blanks) or it does for me, anyways. The gemstone incorporation was clever, I liked that. 

I've mentioned before that travel through the stones wasn't really shown to be dangerous until the later books. I understand them not addressing it sooner because Claire wasn't aware that it got more difficult until her third time through the stones--the first time was fairly easy, the second she was pregnant and not in good health both mentally and physically, but the third was when she realized it would probably kill her if she did it again, but she doesn't mention that until, I think, The Fiery Cross--but now would've been a good time to bring this up. However, Geillis is quite amazed Claire was able to successfully travel three times, so maybe they'll address this issue later in the season?

Edited October 9, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Juliegirlj]

Batman soundtrack??! Have TPTB lost their flipping minds?! 

[Bort]

5 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I think I said this somewhere else before S2 aired, I think Dragonfly in Amber has a lot of plot to condense into one season and Voyager has a lot of character to condense into one season. I think they both have their challenges for adaption, but I'd think Voyager would be harder simply due to the 20 years you need to cover--which could be a whole season on it's own--and then also cram in a season's worth of plot as well. I still think I might not have limited myself to one season per book if I was Moore.

If they were adapting a book series that had fewer books and was actually finished, I think Moore would have probably expanded a few of them. However, there are NINE books, Gabaldon isn't even done with the series and who knows if STARZ is even going be interested in going a full nine/ten seasons (doubtful). I don't think Moore had the luxury, he has to fit each book into one season and that's all he's got.

The thing with the bones was probably my favorite plot payoff from the book. It's so random early on, but then it totally makes sense at the end.

[sacrebleu]

Quote

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

uh... my bad. I have a work event Sunday evening and couldn't watch it live.  Rob's just doing me a favor : ) 

[DittyDotDot]

37 minutes ago, kariyaki said:

If they were adapting a book series that had fewer books and was actually finished, I think Moore would have probably expanded a few of them. However, there are NINE books, Gabaldon isn't even done with the series and who knows if STARZ is even going be interested in going a full nine/ten seasons (doubtful). I don't think Moore had the luxury, he has to fit each book into one season and that's all he's got.

Oh, I understand the dilemmas and issues nor do I think these decisions were made lightly, I just think it's smarter to leave yourself open to possibilities rather than limit them. 

With most TV shows, by the time you get to S3, you should already have an audience and have established the universe and characters enough that you can start to pay off your story and relationships you've spent the previous two years establishing. But, with this story, everything changes in S3--I mean everything changes from book to book, but the biggest shift happens in book three, IMO. So, I think this was one they may have wanted to take a little more time with.

Personally, I'm amazed they've been able to do as much as they have. And, I think they've done a good job, myself, I'm just more interested in how they adapt the books than anything so tend to be analyzing it from that perspective.

[DittyDotDot]

10 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

STARZ put out a link to the reunion scene for those who feel the need to just watch it over and over and over.

https://www.starz.com/videos/embed/4ffdc74d-a539-4ee1-a653-e14abb8d694c?footer=false&cid=1037382

ETA:  note, it cuts out before he faints. That's too bad.  That faint and the answering look on Claire's face cracks me up every time.

Okay, I haven't seen the episode yet--I kinda prefer to read the comments first and try to match it up to my recollection of the books before I watch the show--but I did watch this clip. I'm kinda disappointed they didn't do the touching thing. I realize with the way they had set up the print shop on two levels like that it really couldn't be done, but I loved how in the book Jamie was conversing with this "apparition" until the moment she touches him and realizes she's real. The fainting is a great payoff to all that build up. 

Ah well, somethings just don't translate to screen in the same way, I guess.

[Eureka]

9 hours ago, kariyaki said:

You sure about Comcast? Because that's what I have and I'm able to watch it early. I don't wait til midnight, but I watched the episode Sunday morning OnDemand when I woke up.

It's available on Comcast On Demand earlier in the day on Sundays. Most of the time that's how/when I watch.

[Ziggy]

4 hours ago, Grashka said:

For Jamie's story, the important part that seems sort of glossed over in the show was his role in Ardsmuir Prison  - the bond he had with those men, why did they love him, and what it meant for him.

Then there is Claire. I think the writers took not the best route with her character in the first four episodes , focusing almost solely on her marriage to Frank which robbed her somehow of her agency

In other words, I wonder if it had not been actually the hardest book to adapt so far, and not book 2 as they have claimed.

I know you're right.  But I also know that much of what we, as book readers (especially if we've read all the books), are remember is so much more than just what we read in voyager.  So much of what I remember about Claire's story was no in the first few chapters of Voyager.  Rather, it was told at some other point in the book, either as Claire thinking and reflecting or in a story she told Jamie.  I know that Jamie's role at Ardsmuir is crucial to the story later, but much of that was told to the readers in book 5-7, as more people joined them on the the ridge.

So, much of what I know about their time apart, I didn't know about when I read Voyager the first time.

But you might remember Voyager better than I do.  I only read it twice.  I realize I'm on a message board with people who have read it 10 or more times :-)

[Ziggy]

1 hour ago, kariyaki said:

The thing with the bones was probably my favorite plot payoff from the book. It's so random early on, but then it totally makes sense at the end.

Am I the only one who read Voyager and never thought about the bones again once that scene with Joe was over?  It wasn't until years later when I started reading message boards online that I realized anyone thought the bone scene was anything more than just a conversation with Claire and Joe (that happened to have bones in it).

[aemom]

33 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

Am I the only one who read Voyager and never thought about the bones again once that scene with Joe was over?  It wasn't until years later when I started reading message boards online that I realized anyone thought the bone scene was anything more than just a conversation with Claire and Joe (that happened to have bones in it).

I read the first 5 books (which was all there was at the time) 15 years ago when I was on maternity leave with #2. There was a lot going on in my life at the time and the books were a good escape for me especially during endless breastfeeding.  I don't even remember the scene with the bones. I'm glad for this board because you always remind me of things I've forgotten or are unsure of.

20 hours ago, Quickbeam said:

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

Assuming that they were allowed to book an actual US actress, I suspect that nudity might have been an issue. I recall that DAW never appeared topless on True Blood, and based on the upcoming Outlander story lines, I am guessing that the role of Brianna probably requires nudity from the actress. But I totally agree that DAW would have been great.

I was also thrilled that we got a taste of the print shop reunion, but bummed that we have to wait 2 weeks.

Edited October 9, 2017 by AEMom
Typo

[LadyArcadia]

56 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

Am I the only one who read Voyager and never thought about the bones again once that scene with Joe was over?  It wasn't until years later when I started reading message boards online that I realized anyone thought the bone scene was anything more than just a conversation with Claire and Joe (that happened to have bones in it).

I'm sure others missed it too. I remember not thinking twice about it until I got to the end of the book and went, "Wait a min......what........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHH! NO WAY!"

It was such a cool revelation in the books.

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, Ziggy said:

I know you're right.  But I also know that much of what we, as book readers (especially if we've read all the books), are remember is so much more than just what we read in voyager.  So much of what I remember about Claire's story was no in the first few chapters of Voyager.  Rather, it was told at some other point in the book, either as Claire thinking and reflecting or in a story she told Jamie.  I know that Jamie's role at Ardsmuir is crucial to the story later, but much of that was told to the readers in book 5-7, as more people joined them on the the ridge.

So, much of what I know about their time apart, I didn't know about when I read Voyager the first time.

But you might remember Voyager better than I do.  I only read it twice.  I realize I'm on a message board with people who have read it 10 or more times :-)

That's how I remember it too, Ziggy. A lot of what we learn is doled out over many books. Especially Claire's side of things. As I recall, Claire's part in the early parts of Voyager was mostly looking for Jamie and told very little of what her life was like for that 20 years. There were a few things, like her deciding to go back to medical school, her meeting Joe and Franks' death, but I think the bulk of Claire's 20 years was told in Claire telling Jamie after they came back together.  

1 hour ago, Ziggy said:

Am I the only one who read Voyager and never thought about the bones again once that scene with Joe was over?  It wasn't until years later when I started reading message boards online that I realized anyone thought the bone scene was anything more than just a conversation with Claire and Joe (that happened to have bones in it).

I remember thinking there was something to the bones when I read the book, but couldn't remember what it was I was thinking. Then I remembered I was commenting on the books here as I was reading. I don't still don't remember what I thought at the time I first read the passage, but by the time I was 70 percent in, I apparently had it figured out that those bones belonged to Geillis:

On 8/30/2015 at 10:28 AM, DittyDotDot said:

I'm now 70 percent in and just wanting them to find young Ian and explain to me how Geillis's bones were in left in a cave in Jamaica--I'm assuming those were her bones anyway--and explain how she managed to leave that "treasure" on the island of the seals. She was the white witch, correct? Let's get on with it!

[Nidratime]

Quote

Batman soundtrack??! Have TPTB lost their flipping minds?! 

I actually like that they're interjecting 60's music and media during this part of the show. It's something the TV show can do that a book can't do as successfully. The settings, the costumes, the cultural & news references, the music.... It gives us a sense of place and time in a series that jumps all over the place, especially this season.

And, funny enough, it's a cultural "item" and it's place "out of time" that ultimately leads Claire back to Jamie. The fact that bits of a Robert Burns poem ends up in a news pamphlet decades before the poem existed, is one of the final clues that they know Jamie is alive and where he might be. Now, does this mean -- years later -- Robert Burns heard those snippets and was inspired to write a poem. ;-)

[sas616]

10 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I wasn’t able to watch the premiere, and when I was rewatching season one on demand yesterday, waiting for midnight, the most current episode still wasn’t available. ?‍♀️

I checked after watching this episode on Amazon.

Could it be your area?  I have Comcast and watch On Demand at midnight.  There was a problem with the premiere--I don't think it showed up until later in the on Sunday.  But since then, it's always there at midnight.

[toolazy]

3 hours ago, Juliegirlj said:

Batman soundtrack??! Have TPTB lost their flipping minds?! 

What's the problem with it?

[DittyDotDot]

8 minutes ago, Grashka said:

I think in the first two or three books the stones are shown as scary - Claire feels both drawn to them and frightened in their presence - she doesn't want Jamie anywhere near to them in "Outlander". She is hysterical when she hears their sound (roar) toward the end of "Voyager" when Jamie is leading her and Ian away from the cave. But to be honest, I don't remember if any of the first three books describes the passage as lethal - very brutal, yes, bit not sure about lethal. The full "glory" of the stones and horrific aspects of the travel is revealed in "Drums of Autumn" though - when Roger does his research on them and their victims, when he is set on fire upon his first attempt at traveling and when Claire tells Jamie that not everyone passes through - the roar she heard was coming from these who got stuck between the times forever.

I remember commenting here when reading Outlander that I didn't understand some comments about traveling through the stones being difficult. As I recall, it was described on the show exactly as Claire had described it in the book--the feeling of waking up in the middle of a car crash. I never got the sense the traveling was difficult until Geillis mentions that not everyone survives. But even then, Claire doesn't say anything about it being a harrowing experience for her. It wasn't until she mentions that she felt like another trip through the stones would kill her in The Fiery Cross that I realized it had been a difficult journey for her. Even though Roger's first attempt was frightening, once he figured out what he did wrong, it didn't seem like he had any issues; Nor did it seem like Brianna had any issues with the traveling.

I always thought Claire was scared of the stones not because the travel itself was difficult, but since she didn't fully understand how they worked, she didn't want to be near them and risk accidentally pulled back through time again. 

So, for me, the notion that the journey itself was scary was built up much later in the series. I'm fine with that and I think it makes sense as a book reader given that they know so little about how the stones work, but it would seem the show had a really good opportunity to seed that in here with Claire returning. But, like I said, maybe they'll establish it later in the season with Geillis to make it clear that this was it for Claire; there was no going back through the stones to see Brianna again.

[lianau]

8 hours ago, Grashka said:

 For Jamie's story, the important part that seems sort of glossed over in the show was his role in Ardsmuir Prison  - the bond he had with those men, why did they love him, and what it meant for him. That was the precise moment when he embraced his fate as a leader - but i'm not sure how Jamie's internal struggle about it could have been translated into screen and where all the nuances of his relationship with John Grey would fit? And now Ardsmuir men are going to pop up as Jamie's posse and I bet some non - book readers will be verra confused again.

 

I think that is down to Murtagh's survival in the show .  They made it look like Jamie mostly interacted and cared for Murtagh  and the rest of the inmates were just there as background filler inmates .

[Nidratime]

Quote

I think that is down to Murtagh's survival in the show .  They made it look like Jamie mostly interacted and cared for Murtagh  and the rest of the inmates were just there as background filler inmates .

Well, we heard that the inmates had a special, deferential name for Jamie and that they looked to him as their leader. They helped him escape to follow up on the white witch story. They listened intently to his descriptions of his meals with the head of the prison. They didn't seem to resent Jamie getting that special treatment, but they also recognized that he was the only one constantly chained up and, when he did speak with the prison head, he championed their needs. So, we did see something of what was going on there.

[iMonrey]

Somebody who has read the books needs to tell me if Roger was watching Dark Shadows in the books.

From Day 1, this story has reminded me of the Dark Shadows story with Victoria Winters time traveling back to the 1700s. Cast members played their own ancestors, she found her true love in the past, she returned to her own time then went back to the past again to be with her true love. The similarities are obvious.

So if Diana Gabaldon did in fact watch Dark Shadows as a child I wonder if she was influenced by that storyline when she wrote Outlander. I really had a good chuckle when they showed Roger watching the show and referencing Victoria. The scene they showed even had two characters discussing Victoria returning to the past to be with her love. Very meta.

[Nidratime]

I don't recall Roger watching Dark Shadows in the books. Diana never mentioned being influenced by that show. So, I'm guessing the Dark Shadows similarities are something the production/writing staff picked up on. Diana does mention being influenced by Dr. Who and especially an episode featuring a kilted Scotsman who accompanied the Dr. in his travels for a time.

ETA: I have heard of Dark Shadows. ;-) And, I loved that show! Coolest weekday afternoon paranormal, spooky, soap opera ever.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Nidratime

[FnkyChkn34]

18 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Somebody who has read the books needs to tell me if Roger was watching Dark Shadows in the books.

From Day 1, this story has reminded me of the Dark Shadows story with Victoria Winters time traveling back to the 1700s. Cast members played their own ancestors, she found her true love in the past, she returned to her own time then went back to the past again to be with her true love. The similarities are obvious.

So if Diana Gabaldon did in fact watch Dark Shadows as a child I wonder if she was influenced by that storyline when she wrote Outlander. I really had a good chuckle when they showed Roger watching the show and referencing Victoria. The scene they showed even had two characters discussing Victoria returning to the past to be with her love. Very meta.

I can't recall any references to watching TV in the books except for when they watch the moon landing.  I've never heard of Dark Shadows until watching this episode.

[GHScorpiosRule]

6 hours ago, Juliegirlj said:

Batman soundtrack??! Have TPTB lost their flipping minds?! 

It was 1968- The Adam West Batman show was on the air during that time and I found it appropriate and funny and loved how the show included it as they referred to Claire’s dress as the Batsuit.

3 hours ago, toolazy said:

What's the problem with it?

I had no problem with it and sang and wiggled along with the opening credits of the song!??

Edited October 9, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[AheadofStraight]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

Somebody who has read the books needs to tell me if Roger was watching Dark Shadows in the books.

From Day 1, this story has reminded me of the Dark Shadows story with Victoria Winters time traveling back to the 1700s. Cast members played their own ancestors, she found her true love in the past, she returned to her own time then went back to the past again to be with her true love. The similarities are obvious.

So if Diana Gabaldon did in fact watch Dark Shadows as a child I wonder if she was influenced by that storyline when she wrote Outlander. I really had a good chuckle when they showed Roger watching the show and referencing Victoria. The scene they showed even had two characters discussing Victoria returning to the past to be with her love. Very meta.

In the script annotations, Toni shared an interesting story:

I called this clip Doctor Who on the podcast! Forgive me, I got it mixed up with Diana being inspired by a ten-part serial of Doctor Who called “The War Games.” Originally, this was actually going to be a clip of one of those episodes, but we realized that they didn’t air until the Spring of 1969. Anyway, we looked this up and used the episode of Dark Shadows (Season 11, Episode 651) which aired on the actual day that this scene would take place—December 23, 1968. It’s about a woman going back in time to the 18th century! No lie! Sometimes the universe lines up!

[Nidratime]

Wow, that's amazing. Can't wait to listen to the podcast later on.

[mledawn]

20 hours ago, mrsjoe said:

Yeah, I'm with everyone. I get why it was in there, but it still felt a bit too much "poor poor Frank". I always felt the books were pretty clear that Frank wouldn't have been faithful no matter how much Claire had loved him and put into their marriage...

 

THIS. I got this from the books as well. Since I love Tobias, I like how they tamed Frank down in the series because he was a more sympathetic character. In the books, when Frank and Claire head to Scotland for their second honeymoon, he insists he wouldn't care if she was unfaithful. I saw that as him setting the table for his own revelations, or what ended up happening in Boston with the many liaisons BookFrank had. In the show, that discussion seems to be genuine foreshadowing of his reaction to Claire coming back to him, pregnant. TVFrank appears to have had a steady relationship with Sandy only, and by most in-show accounts still loved Claire.

[Atlanta]

18 minutes ago, AheadofStraight said:

In the script annotations, Toni shared an interesting story:

I called this clip Doctor Who on the podcast! Forgive me, I got it mixed up with Diana being inspired by a ten-part serial of Doctor Who called “The War Games.” Originally, this was actually going to be a clip of one of those episodes, but we realized that they didn’t air until the Spring of 1969. Anyway, we looked this up and used the episode of Dark Shadows (Season 11, Episode 651) which aired on the actual day that this scene would take place—December 23, 1968. It’s about a woman going back in time to the 18th century! No lie! Sometimes the universe lines up!

Cue the Twilight Zone theme song!

[JennyMominFL]

2 hours ago, Nidratime said:

I don't recall Roger watching Dark Shadows in the books. Diana never mentioned being influenced by that show. So, I'm guessing the Dark Shadows similarities are something the production/writing staff picked up on. Diana does mention being influenced by Dr. Who and especially an episode featuring a kilted Scotsman who accompanied the Dr. in his travels for a time.

ETA: I have heard of Dark Shadows. ;-) And, I loved that show! Coolest weekday afternoon paranormal, spooky, soap opera ever.

That's my friend Frazer Hines. He played Jamie McCrimmon  with the 2nd  Doctor. He  first meets the Doctor and travels through time at Culloden in the episode The HIghlanders.. Diana took his First name(Frazer, although changed to S)  and his character's  name Jamie, to get Jamie Fraser. Jamie on Doctor Who is an 18th century Highlander who travels in time. He's still the Doctors longest running male companion.  Frazer Hines had a small part in Outlander season 1 as the warden.  I was actually  with him a  few days before he filmed but he had to keep it a secret.  At the end of the War Games, the Doctor is forced to regenerate and his companions have their memories erased and they are dropped back into their original timeline. Jamie is dropped right into the middle of the Battle of Culloden, which is probably what she saw.

They could have show episode 8 of the Invasion. It did air that week.. But then DW was not airing in the USA at all in 68

Edited October 9, 2017 by JennyMominFL

[LadyBrochTuarach]

6 hours ago, LadyArcadia said:

I'm sure others missed it too. I remember not thinking twice about it until I got to the end of the book and went, "Wait a min......what........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHH! NO WAY!"

It was such a cool revelation in the books.

I missed it too, I realized at the same time Claire does, once they're on the ship and nearly sunk. 

[LadyBrochTuarach]

8 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

 

I've mentioned before that travel through the stones wasn't really shown to be dangerous until the later books. I understand them not addressing it sooner because Claire wasn't aware that it got more difficult until her third time through the stones--the first time was fairly easy, the second she was pregnant and not in good health both mentally and physically, but the third was when she realized it would probably kill her if she did it again, but she doesn't mention that until, I think, The Fiery Cross--but now would've been a good time to bring this up. However, Geillis is quite amazed Claire was able to successfully travel three times, so maybe they'll address this issue later in the season?

I feel like they'll probably do this in flashback when she talks to Jamie. Or the second possibility is when she talks to Geillis about it later on, near the end of Voyageur. 

When theyre going into the caves to save Ian, pretty sure Claire says something along the lines of she'll die if she goes through again, to Jamie. 

[LadyBrochTuarach]

22 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

THE GOOD

Everything is better with Roger.  This episode drags until that yellow cab appears and the soundtrack kicks into . . . is that Otis Redding?  And then . . . Roger!  I actually cheered out loud – especially since, as a reader, it was wholly unexpected to me.

Aaaand then the music fades, we hear sounds of fighting and we see Roger's “Oh shit” face – the same one we saw the last time he walked in on a Claire/Brianna argument.  But it’s okay!  Because everything is better with Roger.

When Roger says to Claire “Can I pour you a whiskey?” I thought at first that that was bad writing.  He’s the guest -- it’s Claire’s place to offer it to him.  But then he said “I have some news” and I realized what he was about to tell Claire and it made PERFECT sense that he would side-step the norms of etiquette in order to ensure she had a dram of whiskey down her before he dropped his bomb-shell.

“How can help?  What can I do?”  Oh Roger.  That was EXACTLY the right thing to say.  I know Jamie is our “King of Men” but Roger – he’s a right prince that one is.

“Thank you for a lovely dinner.  I think I’ll retire now.  I’m a bit jetlagged.” Oh what a brilliant bit of writing that was.  He’s SO disappointed by her reaction but maintaining the obligatory stiff upper lip rather than letting his feelings show.  I just LOVE Roger.

When Claire is looking at the bones and learning the woman was “decapitated with a dull blade” she unconsciously puts here hand to her throat – the hand wearing Jamie’s wedding ring – so it’s in plain view when Joe asks again about Claire’s “man in Scotland.”

I liked Joe telling Claire that people knew she and Frank were not “Ozzy and Harriet” and his encouraging her not miss out on a second chance with the man she “never stopped” loving.  I know some people aren’t too happy with Claire’s declaration (to Roger) that she wished he hadn’t told her what he’d found nor are they happy with the scene where Sandy confronts Claire at the reception.  But I think I support the writer’s decision to show us that Claire’s decision to go back was not easily made and those interaction (with Joe and Sandy) help us to understand how Claire changes her mind and reaches the decision to leave Brianna and risk everything for a chance to reclaim the love of her life.  The scene after the reception where Claire reaffirms how much she loves Brianna and Brianna essentially give Claire permission to go back is, I think, all part of a carefully planned set of scenes to ensure that we, the viewers, don’t think Claire is cavalier in abandoning her daughter.  I wonder if they heard some comments to that effect when Claire blithely announced in the season 2 finale “I can go back.” 

“History can’t be trusted.”  Whooo boy there was a lot going on in that cloister scene.  Brianna can be forgiven (by me) for that declaration given all she’s just learned about the lies in her own personal history but damn, what a slap in the face to Roger-the-historian, especially given the very personal story he shared about his own personal history. I think this was the writers’ way of signaling a fundamental difference in how Roger and Brianna operate in the world and I expect that difference in their perspectives will be a source of recurring conflict and (hopefully) humor in the future.

They FINALLY addressed the issue of gemstones and why the stone was missing from Jamie’s father’s ring in episode 201 and why it wasn’t in Claire’s bodice where she had tucked it away. Yay!  The bit about her “jeweled” watch from the first trip through the stone circle was a bit of clever ret-conning too.  I had always hand-waved away the fact that the watch just disappeared but now they have established that a trip through time burns up gemstones and can even rip the item right off of Claire.

OMG, the Batman theme over the sewing montage was hysterical.  I gather (based on the “Inside the Episode”) that that is an inside joke.  They started referring to the outfit Claire makes as the bat suit because of the implicit “utility belt” of all the hidden pockets and, apparently, that nomenclature worked its way into the episode.

Claire asking to “borrow” Brianna’s blouse made me think of that wedding tradition – “Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue.”  In a way, Claire's journey is like a wedding – a breaking of ties with one family to establish a new life with one’s chosen life-partner.  So I’m glad she had something borrowed from Brianna to bless her journey.

The way Roger gazes at Brianna while she’s opening her gift is adorable.  Jamie is still the undefeated champion of the sexy smolder but Roger gives good puppy-dog eyes.  And the kiss that followed was very sweet.  I’m glad that Roger & Bree got a nice closing moment like that (since I assume that’s the last we’ll see of them this season.)

The step over the puddle and across time reprising the step off the plane and onto the dock in France in first episode of season 2 was perfection. How funny to learn (from the “Inside the Episode”) that it was actually a work-around due to their wanting to avoid having to go back to the stone circle.

Ending with Jamie fainting and Claire’s startled expression was genius.  How wonderful to leave us laughing after such an emotional episode.

 

THE BAD

Sandy at the reception.  Words fail me.  Oh wait, no they don’t.  Fuck off Sandy!

 

THE UGLY

I get that the surgery scene was intended to show what a good surgeon Claire was and how she was cool under pressure but . . . ew.

Ye gads, what is Brianna wearing in the scene where Roger arrives?  A forest green top and olive green pants?  Seriously?  And the forest green shirt blends into the forest green paint on the wall.  WTH?  I feel certain this is one of those times when the clothing changed color under the studio lights because I feel confident that Terry would NEVER deliberately put those two colors together.

That yellow robe.  ‘Nuf said.

 

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Joe says, of the skeleton, “There were artifacts found with her.”  Ooooh, what do you suppose he means?  Not the gemstones – Jamie & Claire took those.

 

OTHER

The title card FREAKED me out because I thought it signaled that they were jumping back in time to Brianna’s first Christmas.  I thought for a moment that all those behind–the-scenes moments we’ve heard about commemorating Tobias’ last day were a gigantic con.  I was relieved that was NOT the case, though, on a certain level, I wasn’t wrong.  Frank’s photo and mentions of Frank were all over this episode.  I hope the ladies of the online “Tobias’ Tribe” were gratified by that.

I heartily regret not having whiskey in the house for this episode. 

THIS POST. This is everything that ran through my head throughout this episode. 

 

The title card threw me too, and funny enough my first thought was "not more Frank!?!? Again!?" But then thank goodness we didn't end up back there.  But then we did with the whole Sandy crap. Was I the only one who wanted Claire to smack her across the face with her bag? Another poster mentioned it I think, but Sandy hasn't aged well ? Which I can live with! 

 

Brianna's color choices for her outfits are a bit of a head shake for me. I know they're trying to stick with the time period, and maybe certain colours don't translate in screen. You think they would catch that while filming though, no? I loved seeing her in the tartan prints, that was lovely! It suits her :) 

 

I was a bit irked we didn't see Claire's travel through the stones, and how she felt it was painful and felt it was a near death experience. BUT I can live with that, because I also loved the puddle transition, and the symbolism behind it. I thought it was beautifully played and translated wonderfully to screen. 

 

I like your wedding analogy, very very much! Old, new, borrowed, and blue. Good pick up! it gives me a new appreciation for that scene, even more so than before. At first I was taken aback by the Batman theme, but then I giggled and went with it. I love that Claire makes her own costume. I think that was a refreshing change from the books, as well as Claire leaving Bree in Boston with Roger. For me it foreshadows for their relationship later on, especially with the beginning of new traditions. 

[ihartcoffee]

Bri brings up that Frank saw Jamie when he looked at Bri. Didn't Claire see Black Jack when she looked at Frank?   That had to be an issue for Claire.  

[Glaze Crazy]

I think the bones scene in the book also implied that Claire has some sort of 6th sense or empathetic ability when it comes to healing people. When Joe hands her the skull he says something along the lines of "I want to see if you can do it with just the bones." She then goes on to "sense" that the person was "surprised" (that she was killed, I guess) and that she didn't want to die. Joe goes on to mention to the man who brought the box of bones that Claire has this ability to just feel things about her patients. I'm also guessing this will also tie into her "blue light/aura" connection mentioned about several other characters over the series and novella(s) (At least the one novella so far, "The Space Between.")

 

 

9 hours ago, kariyaki said:

I However, there are NINE books, Gabaldon isn't even done with the series and who knows if STARZ is even going be interested in going a full nine/ten seasons (doubtful).

Really? I thought this series was a big deal for Starz and I personally can't see them just dropping it, unless it really tanks at some point. Especially since the well of source material is so deep.  I bet HBO wishes they had more of GRRM's actual writing to work from with their big deal show.

[Thalia]

On October 8, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Atlanta said:

I wished they would have included Joe and Claire talking romance novels. Hee! That's when they started to become BFFs.

I've been re-reading parts of VOY as the show has gone on, and I find the deviations between book/screen that I've most missed have involved Joe.  Joe and Claire had some fun scenes -- the romance novel "meet cute" (yes, I know they already knew each other, but as Atlanta says, this was the start of their BFF status); Joe's paternal/generational complaints about Lenny aka Muhammad Ishamel Shabazz the third; the way Joe knew that Claire would be able to read the bones and the subsequent freak out of the grad student who delivered them; and finally Joe's promise to look after Bree.  But I understand time constraints.  It is easy to think of a few things they could have shown instead of the Frank Memorial, tho.  

Finally, I was 8 years old in December 1968, and I can remember Apollo 8.  I also remember having fishnet hose.   I loved Bree's.  

Edited October 10, 2017 by Thalia

[GHScorpiosRule]

Hee! I’ve done the same! I pulled out Voyager but skipped right over to the printshop scenes! I must admit the show left out Claire eating peanut butter and jelly and the plastic wrap getting away from her, was a wee disappointing, but I liked how they had Claire return to 1766. And they also changed “Book Maker” to “Publisher” in the show from the buik. Again, something I didn’t mind. But I want Jamie having to leave because he forgot about Willoughby, to be shown in 3x07. But I do want to see Geordie come in, see Jamie in just his linen shirt, QUIT in affronted outrage with the line “it’s not even NOON yet!”

And then we get EVERYTHING AND NOTHING BUT ❤️???❤️JamieandClaire❤️???❤️

From the preview, we’re getting Jamie asking Claire if he can sleep with her, which was strrreight from the buik!!!???

Edited October 9, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[Tif]

On 10/8/2017 at 1:06 PM, Tanner said:

Sadly, the biggest goof for me was when Bree suggested they watch A Charlie Brown  when it was first broadcast in 1970.

Nope, first airing was Dec 9th, 1965 on CBS.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Really? I thought this series was a big deal for Starz and I personally can't see them just dropping it, unless it really tanks at some point. Especially since the well of source material is so deep. 

I'm sure it gets more expensive every year. I have only read the first book but from what I understand eventually the story evolves beyond Claire and Jamie? I imagine the TV show will end with their story.

[TaurusRose]

5 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I can't recall any references to watching TV in the books except for when they watch the moon landing.  I've never heard of Dark Shadows until watching this episode.

Dark Shadows?!  Best daytime soap ever.  I can remember me and my gang all rushing home after school to watch it, then talking about it incessantly the next day.  LOL

[Glaze Crazy]

52 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I'm sure it gets more expensive every year. I have only read the first book but from what I understand eventually the story evolves beyond Claire and Jamie? I imagine the TV show will end with their story.

The books continue to be at least 80% (or more) focused on Claire and Jamie's life together as they move forward. The additional storylines/characters are mostly looked at and followed in the way that they are peripheral to Claire and Jamie, whether they are aware of it or not within their adventures.  I don't know about any budget limitations that would end it, but there isn't any kind of dragon CGI-type work needed for this story. Probably just locations, sets and costumes that need to be located or generated. I guess we will probably find out after season 4 is underway.

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

I'm sure it gets more expensive every year. I have only read the first book but from what I understand eventually the story evolves beyond Claire and Jamie? I imagine the TV show will end with their story.

Actually, the books will end with Jamie & Claire's story, according to Diana Gabaldon.

[WatchrTina]

20 hours ago, Aquamarine said:

I noticed on the print shop sign that there is a Freemasonry square and compass symbol.  I'm wondering if this is foreshadowing.   

Oooooooh, nice catch.  This is the book-talk thread so I can confirm that yes, Book!Jamie IS a Freemason (even though he is a Catholic and my understanding is that those two things were usually mutually exclusive.)  There was actually a Masonic "lodge" that existed within the confines of Ardsmuir prison and since the rituals require a certain number of members, the Masons incarcerated with Jamie decided to initiate him along with a number of other prisoners so that they would have a quorum.  If memory serves, even some of the Redcoats participated in the meetings.  Hey, that would explain those two redcoats in episode 303 who tell Jamie what is going on with the prison when they are hauling him to be tied behind John's horse.  I always thought that was an unrealistic moment so now I'm going to make it part of my head-canon that they whispered that information to him out of their desire to aid a "brother.  At any rate, it makes perfect sense that the printer "Alexander Malcom" would utilize every advantage he could think of to make his new venture a success, so including a Masonic symbol on his sign was very smart.

I always thought that the Ardsmuir Masonic lodge was one of the odder decisions by Diana.  I think she had an intention for Jamie's being a Mason to arise later on as a plot point.  It is mentioned in a fairly minor way in future books but it never comes into play to the degree I was expecting.  Maybe in book 9 . . .

5 hours ago, JennyMominFL said:

Diana took his First name(Frazer, although changed to S)  and his character's  name Jamie, to get Jamie Fraser.

Actually I heard that Diana only took the name Jamie from the Doctor Who episode.  She never saw the credits.  So years later when she found out the Jamie character in Doctor Who was played by an actor whose first name was Frazer, it surprised and delighted her.

Edited October 10, 2017 by WatchrTina

[dustoffmom]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

I'm sure it gets more expensive every year. I have only read the first book but from what I understand eventually the story evolves beyond Claire and Jamie? I imagine the TV show will end with their story.

Well, she is writing the 9th book now and their story has not ended yet!  LOL

[JennyMominFL]

1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

t

Actually I heard that Diana only took the name Jamie from the Doctor Who episode.  She never saw the credits.  So years later when she found out the Jamie character in Doctor Who was played by an actor whose first name was Frazer, it surprised and delighted her.

Yeah, I think you may be right about that. I think i've heard that too

[LadyBrochTuarach]

3 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Hee! I’ve done the same! I pulled out Voyager but skipped right over to the printshop scenes! I must admit the show left out Claire eating peanut butter and jelly and the plastic wrap getting away from her, was a wee disappointing, but I liked how they had Claire return to 1766. And they also changed “Book Maker” to “Publisher” in the show from the buik. Again, something I didn’t mind. But I want Jamie having to leave because he forgot about Willoughby, to be shown in 3x07. But I do want to see Geordie come in, see Jamie in just his linen shirt, QUIT in affronted outrage with the line “it’s not even NOON yet!”

And then we get EVERYTHING AND NOTHING BUT ❤️???❤️JamieandClaire❤️???❤️

From the preview, we’re getting Jamie asking Claire if he can sleep with her, which was strrreight from the buik!!!???

 

I loved that scene with the peanut butter and jelly sandwich too, and am sad they left it out. But since they gave us that beautiful last 5 minutes of wondrousness that is Jamie and Claire, I'll forgive them! Haha! 

 

The Geordie line is priceless, I can't wait for it! 

 

I haven't seen the preview! Off to watch...??

[koboldin]

1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

Oooooooh, nice catch.  This is the book-talk thread so I can confirm that yes, Book!Jamie IS a Freemason (even though he is a Catholic and my understanding is that those two things were usually mutually exclusive.)  There was actually a Masonic "lodge" that existed within the confines of Ardsmuir prison and since the rituals require a certain number of members, the Masons incarcerated with Jamie decided to initiate him along with a number of other prisoners so that they would have a quorum.  If memory serves, even some of the Redcoats participated in the meetings.  Hey, that would explain those two redcoats in episode 303 who tell Jamie what is going on with the prison when they are hauling him to be tied behind John's horse.  I always thought that was an unrealistic moment so now I'm going to make it part of my head-canon that they whispered that information to him out of their desire to aid a "brother.  At any rate, it makes perfect sense that the printer "Alexander Malcom" would utilize every advantage he could think of to make his new venture a success, so including a Masonic symbol on his sign was very smart.

I always thought that the Ardsmuir Masonic lodge was one of the odder decisions by Diana.  I think she had an intention for Jamie's being a Mason to arise later on as a plot point.  It is mentioned in a fairly minor way in future books but it never comes into play to the degree I was expecting.  Maybe in book 9 . . .

That caught me by surprise when I read it, too. As a Catholic, I know a bit about the social group walls between fraternities - the Masons being one of the most insistent on excluding. And there was a Papal Ban against joining Freemasonry in 1738!

[Nidratime]

This freemason stuff was in Voyager? Where?

[GHScorpiosRule]

3 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

This freemason stuff was in Voyager? Where?

I think when Jamie was in Ardsmuir-Chapter 7?

[toolazy]

6 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

This freemason stuff was in Voyager? Where?

Spoiler

It comes up when J&C are having dinner at Jared's while they're waiting to catch the boat to rescue Ian.  

[LadyBrochTuarach]

1 hour ago, Nidratime said:

This freemason stuff was in Voyager? Where?

What they ^ said. It also comes up in a two later books. Lots of info in the spoiler, don't read it if you don't want to know, obviously ?

Spoiler

It comes up again, maybe in book 5? Or 6? I don't recall fully. Roger recognizes the Freemason portion of his handshake with Thomas Christie. Roger and Jamie chat about freemasonry afterwards. 

Christie is coming to settle on Fraser's Ridge, but Roger talks to him instead of Jamie. Jamie was poisoned by the snake I think and couldn't see anyone. Hopefully I'm not mixing up his injuries. 

Also when they're back in the future, Roger attends a Freemason lodge, while they're living at Lallybroch.

Edited October 10, 2017 by LadyBrochTuarach

[MedievalGirl]

Facebook reminded me that a year ago yesterday I had the pieces of an 18th century style bodice spread all over my dining room table. I laughed until I coughed at the Batman sewing montage. 
Deborah Ann Woll I doing great on Daredevil. I wouldn't have it any other way. Love her character.

What was I going to say about the show? The 20th century pieces seemed to slide into place. I loved ever conversation between Bree and Claire. 
Whoever said "Roger makes everything better", I think I need that on a t-shirt.