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: This is the No Book Talk topic. No discussion of the books is allowed including saying "in the books..." Book readers are discouraged from posting and liking in this thread. Posts may be removed without warning.

[Glade]

That ending scene...was everything!  She actually made it back to him, after all that time!   It was also really emotional for me watching it tonight, because my long-term partner died suddenly three years ago today.

I love how they used Dark Shadows, and that episode where Victoria Winters had just gone back in time to be with her lover in the 1700's, was of course perfect; though also ominous, given how Viki's return is catastrophic.  But the 1795 flashback storyline of Dark Shadows has so many parallells with Outlander.  It was also so amusing to hear Roger summarize the plot of the EP.

I was frustrated, that with all that talk of not being able to come back, that Claire didn't even make a plan, like 'I'll come back to the stones six months (or a year) from now, meet me there.'  Which is of course what she should have done with Jaimie in the first place, plan a rendezvous back at the stones just in case he did live.   She should learn from that mistake!  But I guess she could just go back and get to a phone whenever; I can't imagine how hard that would be for Bree over the long years of her life if Claire really never surfaced again. When she turned 50,would she decide to go through the stones and look for her mother?

I really wanted Claire to throw a drink in Sandy's face or something; what she said was totally out of line, and Sandy might have been reminded that she had pursued a married professor of hers romantically!  I'm really glad Claire had that honest moment with Bree afterwards too; their scenes, and Bree x Roger, were all great.  I love B/R together.  I preferred Bree's S2 hair though; not because of the color, just the parting/style distracts me, and almost makes me ask if it could be a wig given that bit of stiffness on her hairline.

It's amusing that Claire actually made her own outfit; I had imagined her rummaging through costume/vintage clothing stores and trying to make do.  It's good that Jaime wasn't given half this episode, since we needed it to fill out the rest of Claire's life in Boston that didn't involve Frank.  I wish there wasn't a two week wait now!

[NeenerNeener]

There's a 2 week wait for the next episode? Arrrrrrggggghhhhh! Loved the touches of 1968: the Christmas tree decorations, Dark Shadows and A Charlie Brown Christmas. I was afraid they were going to end the episode on her walking through the front door of the print shop.

[Ziggy]

10 hours ago, NeenerNeener said:

I was afraid they were going to end the episode on her walking through the front door of the print shop.

Oh, me too!  And after she walked through and Jamie said something, I kind of expected the screen to go to black.  When they actually showed Jamie, I did a little happy dance!

Edited October 8, 2017 by Ziggy

[nara]

3 hours ago, Glade said:

That ending scene...was everything!  She actually made it back to him, after all that time!   It was also really emotional for me watching it tonight, because my long-term partner died suddenly three years ago today.

I was frustrated, that with all that talk of not being able to come back, that Claire didn't even make a plan, like 'I'll come back to the stones six months (or a year) from now, meet me there.'  Which is of course what she should have done with Jaimie in the first place, plan a rendezvous back at the stones just in case he did live.   She should learn from that mistake!  But I guess she could just go back and get to a phone whenever; I can't imagine how hard that would be for Bree over the long years of her life if Claire really never surfaced again. When she turned 50,would she decide to go through the stones and look for her mother?

I'm very sorry for your loss.

You are exactly right about the plan.  First of all, she should never have returned through the stones before Jamie died.  She should have gone to Lallybroch and waited a few days more.  She could have still had Ian and Fergus escort her to the stones if Jamie died.  Anyway, that's over and done.  This time, she could have been more thoughtful.  Could they have selected a place in Scotland that they knew was still standing in the 1960s, and had Claire carve a message to indicate that she arrived safely?  

**************

I thought this episode was interesting, despite the slow pace.  It gave the consideration to the idea of going back in time that was not given to the decision when Claire chose to stay with Jamie.

I cannot believe that Claire left Brianna on Christmas Day!  What?  Also, despite what Brianna said, it's pretty darn awful that she left Brianna in such a disrupted state--withdrawn from college, mourning Frank, confused about her identity.  I get that the story requires a return to Jamie while they are both youngish and hot, but that seems cold.  By the way, the first time she went through the stones was the day after Halloween.  Do we think she was trying to hit New Year's Day for this trip?  But I don't think that NYD has any particular mystical properties, right?  The winter solstice would have been better, no?  Or maybe this whole thing is irrelevant.

LOL.  Roger was lured by junk TV and junk food, just like every immigrant to America! (My friends and I joked about how we all gained weight after moving to the US.) Step away from the Hohos, Roger!

So, it looks like Brianna might be more of an engineer than an historian (first she fixed the car and then she was fascinated by construction).  I hope she goes back to school to study that.  I wonder if we will continue to follow her story of that was the end of Brianna.  Are we to assume that she and Roger get together?

I'm glad that Frank was not so easily forgotten. I was kinda hoping Sandy was pregnant, but I don't know if that would have been good because Frank's line would live on or bad because Frank wouldn't be there to see the child.

What was up with the skeleton that Joe had?  It kinda felt like CSI Outlander.  I wonder if that skeleton is Claire in the past-future.  It wouldn't surprise me if Claire got murdered--she's constantly getting into trouble.  If not, then it was kinda random.   I was hoping that Claire would tell Joe about her story, but I guess he wouldn't believe her.

Of course, Claire is brilliant at arts and crafts too!  But at least they gave us a reason for that.  BTW, her making Brianna's costumes is further evidence that she was not a distant parent (referring to a convo from a previous episode thread).  I absolutely loved the Batman references.  Glad they moved on from Wizard of Oz, as brilliant as that movie is.

I was surprised that we didn't revisit the stones, but the puddle transition was nice too.  I didn't realize that she would actually see Jamie this episode, so that was a lovely gift.  His reaction was well done too.  I literally burst out laughing when he fainted.  I was certainly not expecting that!  But it was awesome, compared to expected romantic reunion.

[cam3150]

This episode!!  I'm still processing/ recovering emotionally but...that was perfection!!! I fully expected them seeing each other for the first time wouldn't take place until next week so what a wonderful surprise :).

That ending - ha!  I literally laughed out loud.  Considering I'd spent most of the episode in tears it was a welcome relief. I was almost shaking as Claire made her way into the print shop. Then, when I heard Jaime's voice, It was over. I was a blubbering mess. 

I loved all of Claire's preparations, especially her asking Joe if she's still sexually attractive. That was another laugh out loud scene for me, particularly his reply. I think that would be a very valid concern for most women, or anyone, after not seeing the love of your life for 20 years. 

I have many more thoughts but I'm just too scattered right now :). Suffice it to say, I loved this episode. It's one of my favorites of the series. 

I hope we haven't seen the last of Bree & Roger. I've really grown to like them. I also hope Jaime still goes by Jaime, at least to Claire. I'm not sure I can change my train of thought to think of him as Alexander. It doesn't fit him somehow. 

ETA - I was disappointed to not see Claire back at the stones but I liked the way they did it. This show does the transitions between time periods really well. 

[areca]

7 hours ago, Glade said:

I was frustrated, that with all that talk of not being able to come back, that Claire didn't even make a plan, like 'I'll come back to the stones six months (or a year) from now, meet me there.' 

Or how about "Look for an ad in the personals section saying that I am well of the XXXX newspaper for details about whether or not I made it and if I found him."  Or "I will write a diary and self-publish it."  Of course the minute you do that, then you start messing with things and perhaps everyone goes *poof* in a probabilities bubble.

[Archery]

True, areca, but Claire has no way of knowing that the means of communication will be available to her in the past, or that it will survive continuously to the present. For example she could identify a publishing house that exist both in 1765 and 1968, but who can tell if any particular publication survives throughout all those years.  She doesn't even know for certain that she'll survive the trip, or that she won't be eaten by wolves the first day.  I don't see how she could make a definite plan.

[MYOS]

I too thought "Why didn't they make an appointment to meet at the stones for Mid Summer's holiday or Next Christmas...? Why did they not agree on a code to communicate she was ok and well? Poor Brianna, if she was to never ever meet her mother again! (I assume they'll see each other again but they wouldn't know).

I loved the preparations for time travel.

I'd have taken more than a few scalpels and penicilin. Painkillers and small books about useful stuff like using plants, and more than one top, an extra bra, and insulated underclothes, plus very good, comfortable boots... didn't she get through the stones with her blanket before? Surely she could get through the stones with a bit more than her clothes.

But I LOVED the Batman music as Claire was sewing her cape :D

And the many secret pockets were a great idea, too. 

The last scene was good, too. I thought they'd stop as she looks at the sign!

[Glade]

10 minutes ago, MYOS said:

Surely she could get through the stones with a bit more than her clothes.

True, she probably could have strapped a duffel bag to her body with more stuff, but maybe all the secret pockets she sowed into her clothes was because she was afraid of possibly being robbed or detained by redcoats in which case she'd lose all of it (and I guess she'd also need an 18th century style of luggage.)

9 hours ago, nara said:

I'm very sorry for your loss.

You are exactly right about the plan.  First of all, she should never have returned through the stones before Jamie died.  She should have gone to Lallybroch and waited a few days more.  She could have still had Ian and Fergus escort her to the stones if Jamie died.  Anyway, that's over and done.  This time, she could have been more thoughtful.  Could they have selected a place in Scotland that they knew was still standing in the 1960s, and had Claire carve a message to indicate that she arrived safely?  

Thanks Nara. And yes, Lallybroch itself probably would have been a good place to leave a message--carving the date she reunited with Jaime into some wall for instance (being careful though to make sure that Claire wouldn't have already seen it when she visited the ruins in 1968.)  It's complex, but they could have at least brainstormed ideas.

Quote

Or how about "Look for an ad in the personals section saying that I am well of the XXXX newspaper for details about whether or not I made it and if I found him."

Lol I know what you meant, but an XXX personal ad from the 18th century would be very appropriate for Outlander.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Nice episode, if a little slow in spots.  I was also surprised they actually showed Jamie this episode.   I thought for certain, the screen would fade to black as soon as Claire walked through the printshop door.  When that didn't happen, I figured we wouldn't even see Jamie turn around.  I was so pleasantly surprised when he did!

9 hours ago, nara said:

Could they have selected a place in Scotland that they knew was still standing in the 1960s, and had Claire carve a message to indicate that she arrived safely?  

I was also thinking of how Claire could have made some plan to let Brianna know she arrived safely in the 18th century.  I like your idea!  Something carved in wood or stone should stand the test of time.   I also really wish we'd actually seen Claire arrive in the past this time - and manage to find transportation in a coach to Edinborough, was it? versus her running on foot from gunfire and being abducted by Murtaugh her initial trip back.  

Speaking of Brianna - a random thought I had about her name while watching the episode.  I know she's named after Jamie's father.  But did Frank know that?  Frank insisted Claire leave the past behind (which is presumably why she left the pearls with Mrs. Graham.)  But she didn't quite do that by naming the child after Jamie's father.  And yes, I know she promised Jamie - but it still seems a strange dichotomy to me.  

9 hours ago, nara said:

Do we think she was trying to hit New Year's Day for this trip?  But I don't think that NYD has any particular mystical properties, right?  The winter solstice would have been better, no?  Or maybe this whole thing is irrelevant.

Was it actually Christmas Day when Claire left?  I couldn't really tell.  I thought it could have been a few days after.  I thought she didn't start making her dress until Christmas, but I probably just don't remember correctly.  A quick Google search for Pagan Holidays, yielded a list that included MidWinter, or Yule, from Dec 20-23.  So is it possible Claire actually went back before Christmas Day to hit this time?  But, as you said, maybe it doesn't even matter.  

I like that they at least mentioned Gellis' notebook about her research into time travel.  I would have liked to have more of that.  I don't remember Claire losing a jeweled watch in S1 when she went through.  Interesting.  I guess she lost the topaz stone this time.  

I'm really glad we saw Claire making her own outfit for the past.  That makes much more sense than trying to buy something era-appropriate.  

13 hours ago, Glade said:

I really wanted Claire to throw a drink in Sandy's face or something; what she said was totally out of line, and Sandy might have been reminded that she had pursued a married professor of hers romantically! 

I felt the same way at first when that scene started.  But by the end of Sandy's speech, I think she hit the nail pretty head on: that Claire wouldn't quite 'let go' of Frank even though she didn't totally want him either.  

9 hours ago, nara said:

What was up with the skeleton that Joe had?  It kinda felt like CSI Outlander.  I wonder if that skeleton is Claire in the past-future.  It wouldn't surprise me if Claire got murdered--she's constantly getting into trouble.  If not, then it was kinda random.   I was hoping that Claire would tell Joe about her story, but I guess he wouldn't believe her.

Lol!  CSI: Outlander.  I also wondered if the skeleton was Past-Future Claire.  Didn't he say the woman was in her early 40's though?  For some reason, I was thinking Claire was mid to late 40's, so it's probably not her.  It was pretty random though.  I suspect we'll see it again.  I also kept expecting Claire to tell Joe the entire story.  I realize he probably wouldn't believe her at first, but maybe she could have shown him the copy of the deed of sassine as proof and he would have accepted that.  Oh well, it probably doesn't really matter.  I don't like that Joe was just a convenient plot tool for Claire - first, so she wasn't the only 'outsider' in her med school class and this episode so that he could be the man to boost her self confidence and tell her she was still a sexually attractive woman.  

I especially liked Roger this episode.  I think both he and Brianna seemed a little more fleshed out as characters in their own right (not just as foils for Claire like Joe).  I don't know how they managed to get those old coins for Claire from an antique shop in Scotland when they were in Boston before they knew Claire was going actually going back to the past.  Maybe they bought them when Bree and Claire were still in Scotland.  It was also nice to see some bit about preparation for Claire being gone as far as Brianna's welfare: like putting the house in her name and her name on the checking/savings accounts.  But what about future income?  The house in nice, but the electric bill still has to be paid.  I guess I'll have to assume they got a nice life insurance settlement from Frank on which Brianna will be able to live for while - at least until she's through college herself and gets a job to support her self.  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Also - just wanted to say that I really loved all of Claire's 1960's outfits, including her pajamas with matching robe (mainly the light blue set she wore last episode in Scotland).  So elegant!

[cam3150]

3 hours ago, MYOS said:

I too thought "Why didn't they make an appointment to meet at the stones for Mid Summer's holiday or Next Christmas...? Why did they not agree on a code to communicate she was ok and well? Poor Brianna, if she was to never ever meet her mother again! (I assume they'll see each other again but they wouldn't know).

I loved the preparations for time travel.

I'd have taken more than a few scalpels and penicilin. Painkillers and small books about useful stuff like using plants, and more than one top, an extra bra, and insulated underclothes, plus very good, comfortable boots... didn't she get through the stones with her blanket before? Surely she could get through the stones with a bit more than her clothes.

 

If I remember right, there was a brief scene in ep 1 of this season where Jaime is at the stones right after she disappeared and he picks up Claire's shawl / blanket. So apparently you don't make it through with whatever you're holding, just whatever happens to be on your person. 

I hope Claire brought Jaime some photos of Brianna. On that note, you'd think Brianna would have wanted to maybe send along a letter or some kind of token for Claire to give to her real Father. I'd want to do that, even if I'd never met him, even if I even resented him. Maybe she did and we just haven't seen it yet. 

Edited October 9, 2017 by cam3150

[TaurusRose]

Really enjoyed this episode, especially Jamie’s reaction to seeing Claire in the flesh. LOL  I’m so glad they didn’t make us wait to see them in the same room again, especially since we have to wait two weeks for the next episode. 

[jcin617]

3 hours ago, cam3150 said:

If I remember right, there was a brief scene in ep 1 of this season where Jaime is at the stones right after she disappeared and he picks up Claire's shawl / blanket. So apparently you don't make it through with whatever you're holding, just whatever happens to be on your person. 

I hope Claire brought Jaime some photos of Brianna. On that note, you'd think Brianna would have wanted to maybe send along a letter or some kind of token for Claire to give to her real Father. 

I was going to say, those are pretty strict portals to be all “If you holding it, no, but if it’s in your pockets, then ok.”  But then it’s like “time travel stones” so whatever the rules are I’ll just go with it.

When Claire was packing I said the same thing, “Bring a photo!”

Also:  why is there a two week gap?

Edited October 9, 2017 by jcin617

[paulusar]

Nara, Frank can't have children. So he couldn't have got his girlfriend pregnant. He couldn't get Claire pregnant so part of him was glad that someone else did so he could be a father.

[toolazy]

4 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

 

I felt the same way at first when that scene started.  But by the end of Sandy's speech, I think she hit the nail pretty head on: that Claire wouldn't quite 'let go' of Frank even though she didn't totally want him either.  

 

The purpose of that scene was to drive home the idea of wasted time and opportunities. It's one of the things that made her begin to consider going back.  

[Daisy]

Like everyone else, I started checking the time plus the run time, and I'm like. omg, she's going to stop at the stones, no wait she's in Edinburgh (and honestly, Claire already looks more "at home" than she did in Boston like she completely and utterly fits in) - then it's omg, she's at the shop.. okay now fade to black, no wait! she's at the door - okay please don't fade the black now... OMG, she spoke to Jaime... okay it's still running, OH LOOK JAIME SEES HER AND...

dies of laughter because Jaime fainted. I loved it. like. holy crap, i need to hold myself, and then.. okay no i can't handle it down I go, and Claire's like EEP!. 

Even as a true hard romance novel fan - that was the perfect way to end it, because I think in my mind I did have this whole swelling thing in my head. but this was better. 

I am hoping there is something re: Briana in Claire's batman costume. I did think about a contingency plan, but then I remember what Claire said last week about chasing ghosts. Maybe they decided not to, so Briana didn't constantly track down things about her (and Jaime). just have the belief that She/Jaime found each other and lived happily ever after. because i have this feeling, that Claire was never going to go back. I think she would have found her way to Lallybrock and stay there, because as i said, even in those five minutes Claire felt like she belonged a LOT more than she did in 4 episodes of of this season in Boston. (even with Joe. even with Brianna). 

[nara]

46 minutes ago, paulusar said:

Nara, Frank can't have children. So he couldn't have got his girlfriend pregnant. He couldn't get Claire pregnant so part of him was glad that someone else did so he could be a father.

I know, but I was still sort of hoping that it was not completely no-go for him, but rather a combo of Frank and Claire together that didn't work for pregnancy.

[ganesh]

11 hours ago, areca said:

Or how about "Look for an ad in the personals section saying that I am well of the XXXX newspaper for details about whether or not I made it and if I found him." 

I know. They clearly found evidence of Jamie through his printing, which good for him, but to not even think of something like that. I tend to think that the author kind of ran out of story once Claire went back through to 'modern day'. I mean, we got next to nothing for 20 years. Claire didn't raise the daughter, we know nothing about her, nor why I should care about she and Roger. They had all these meaningful scenes that just came out of nowhere. I feel like the show was just telling me things. They had some memorial for Frank. Ok, that's nice. I know nothing of what he's done for 20 years. We have this great friendship with Claire and her doctor friend and nothing to know about them. Although, "skinny white broad, too much hair, great ass" has got to be the best line in the show. 

Then the whole point of Claire going back, and there's no scene of here actually at the stones? No hesitation? 

6 hours ago, Archery said:

 I don't see how she could make a definite plan.

That doesn't mean she couldn't make an attempt though. Clearly, with Jamie's publishing company making its way to Roger in 1968, Claire could have published something through there as well. It's not that it would have worked or not, it's that she didn't even think of it. 

I'm kind of calling bs on Claire "making costumes for Brianna" because from little the show has actually shown, she seemed checked out as a parent. 

4 hours ago, cam3150 said:

On that note, you'd think Brianna would have wanted to maybe send along a letter or some kind of token for Claire to give to her real Father.

Really. They made a big show of Claire preparing. Maybe Brianna slipped something in a secret pocket where Claire wasn't looking. 

When they were lingering on the back of Jamie's head, I thought he was going to be disfigured or something when he turned around. Or half blind (which wouldn't make sense if he's a printer). You know what I mean. Though I applaud Jamie's effort at promoting literacy by being a printer. Of course, we won't see anything about that and they'll just tell us. 

Why wait the 20 years if they weren't really going to give us any character development? Just have Claire go back in a couple of weeks.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, toolazy said:

The purpose of that scene was to drive home the idea of wasted time and opportunities. It's one of the things that made her begin to consider going back.  

Oh yes, I understood the purpose of the scene.  After all, it was all about Claire.  Practically everything this episode was all about Claire.  That doesn't mean that I can't still think Sandy had a good point.  :)  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

32 minutes ago, ganesh said:

They had some memorial for Frank. Ok, that's nice. I know nothing of what he's done for 20 years.

He 'contributed a lot' to Harvard.  What ever that means.  I agree.  They made a point of saying what Sandy's research or fellowship was in - linguistics something, I didn't pay that much attention, but they told us at least - but nothing about what this great contribution to Harvard was, other than some vague 'European studies'.  What does that even mean?  Frank was a historian.  I'm sure he concentrated on a specific time period - most do, I think.  Now I'm wondering if Sandy's research is important later in the story, since they made a point of mentioning it.  I hope not.  For as much as I don't hate Frank as it seems a lot of other people do, I'm not sure I want to see or hear more of Sandy either.  (And every time I type her name, I hear the Grease song in my head.)  

[sashabear21]

Maybe I need a rewatch of previous seasons, but I don't get the jump from Brianna being bored in a freshman level history class to "I love engineering and the way things are built and that must be my Frazier blood!".  Have we ever seen Jamie build anything? We've seen him taking care of horses, making battle plans, doing political intrigue, fighting BJR, and being a Scottie McHottie, but all the sudden it's like he invented 18th century plumbing or something. It's cool if Brianna wants to maybe leave Harvard and go to MIT, but that whole thing was a little weird. I love that Claire's taking penicillin and scalpels to the 18th century like a badass! I wish she could have taken Joe with her because I love their friendship.  I like Roger a lot as a character, and sucks for him to get stuck in so much of the Randall women drama.  

[mjforty]

I find it ironic that the history professor rambles on about the other two riders not mentioned in Longfellow’s poem when there was actually another rider, a girl, 16 years of age named Sybil Ludington.  Ms. Ludington rode twice the distance of Revere, through New York and Connecticut to warn the militia about the British Invasion.  During her successful ride, she had to fight off a highwayman using only a stick. 

As for women being admitted to Harvard, it’s not as cut and dried as has been stated.  Here’s the timeline:  

1879: Radcliffe founded
1943: Radcliffe women able to attend Harvard classes
1963: Radcliffe students begin receiving Harvard diplomas signed by the presidents of both colleges
1970: Joint commencements, some joint dorms
1972: Full co-ed dorms
1977: Women completely at Harvard, diplomas still signed by both presidents
1999: No more 'Radcliffe' on diplomas

So at the time the show was depicting, Brianna would have been a student at Radcliffe but her diploma would have said she graduates from Harvard so I’m not sure what the difference would be.  Also, the first woman hired as a faculty member at Harvard was 1939, so it would have been possible for Frank’s mistress to be a faculty member, especially with Frank as her mentor and sponsor since it appears that Frank was a big deal in the history department.

[Juliegirlj]

Does Roger have a drinking problem? 

Batman theme song??! Give me a fricken break. 

Leave your only daughter on Christmas with no plans to ever see her again. Claire is awful. 

Apparently it was too expensive to film at the stones again so they used the puddle analogy. Clever. 

[honeydo7]

As a new viewer to the Outlander, I'm  wondering if the next episode reuniting Claire & Jamie....... is the series finale?

[ganesh]

I hope it's interesting. In S2, what I liked was Claire and Jamie racing against history to avoid the destruction of the Scottish way of life. Now she's returned to spend the rest of her life with him. Ok, that's great. I hope it's interesting because I really just haven't been as engaged as I was last season. 

I guess it's because all the swooping around in time hasn't given us a chance to know any of the new characters. I mean, Claire has this wonderful friendship with the doctor and all we know is that he thinks she has a great ass. 

[Daisy]

3 hours ago, Juliegirlj said:

Does Roger have a drinking problem? 

Batman theme song??! Give me a fricken break. 

Leave your only daughter on Christmas with no plans to ever see her again. Claire is awful. 

Apparently it was too expensive to film at the stones again so they used the puddle analogy. Clever. 

Daughter says she's grown up, and tells her mother to go live her life as she plans to do. 
how does that make Claire awful? they had christmas together. 

2 hours ago, honeydo7 said:

As a new viewer to the Outlander, I'm  wondering if the next episode reuniting Claire & Jamie....... is the series finale?

nope. :) we have 5 more episodes to go (I'm pretty sure)

[toolazy]

2 hours ago, honeydo7 said:

As a new viewer to the Outlander, I'm  wondering if the next episode reuniting Claire & Jamie....... is the series finale?

It's just the beginning. 

[Jadzia]

Perhaps I am confused from the way the 1960s timeline has been jumping around in this show, but I had a hard time understanding both Brianna and Claire's motivations in this episode. Didn't we just see Claire trying to find Jamie so she could go back to him? And Brianna was helping out, wasn't she? But now Brianna is all distraught over her father not being her father and resentful of Jamie? And Claire didn't think she wanted to know where Jamie was now when Roger first told her? I didn't think their change of heart from when they were last in Scotland made any sense.

Aside from the ending, I thought this was a really boring episode and seemed like mostly filler.

[Nidratime]

Quote

nope. :) we have 5 more episodes to go (I'm pretty sure)

Eight more.

[ganesh]

I hoping there's some reason to stay interested in the 20th century. Would Claire be able to go back and forth now? 

[taanja]

Oh I loved it! I loved seeing Claire's house all decked out for Xmas.

 and haha! I used to run home after school to watch Dark Shadows. That show rocked! and I loved the batman music. So 60's!

I also really appreciated that it was an Ep almost entirely about Claire and daughter. She made her dress out of raincoat material! Ha! I bet when she was in Scotland before and wearing all that wool that gets all wet she was wishing for some raincoats!

Anyway-- so she's back in olden days and Jamie fainted when he saw her? hm? I must say he hasn't aged in 20 years. At least Claire had to dye her grey hair but Jamie? hasn't got a single grey hair huh? after years in prison and such? Okaaay.

[AAEBoiler]

On 10/8/2017 at 7:05 AM, NeenerNeener said:

and A Charlie Brown Christmas

That actually threw me out of the moment. While the show is period-appropriate, television Christmas specials are always shown weeks in advance of Christmas and it's not like they had a VHS player to watch a tape. Lazy writing is what that was.

[elocs]

It was too funny when Jamie fainted when seeing it was Claire.  I wonder why Claire did not make any plans to let Brianna know through a book or some other writings how things went for her so that Brianna would know in the future since they made a discovery about Jamie through a historical writing.

[zoey1996]

I was disappointed that they spoke of Brianna' s "real" father.  Frank was her real father, in that he loved her and raised her as his own.  Jamie's the bio-dad, in contemporary parlance.  As an adopted child and the grandmother of an adopted child, I'm sensitive to the language used to describe parents.

I thought Sandy was way out of line to speak to Claire in that manner at the dedication.  What she said needed to be said, but wrong time, wrong place.  Glad it didn't devolve into a catfight, a la Dynasty, though.

Really liked the puddle transition.

[taanja]

16 hours ago, paulusar said:

Nara, Frank can't have children. So he couldn't have got his girlfriend pregnant. He couldn't get Claire pregnant so part of him was glad that someone else did so he could be a father.

Did the show tell us this? Did they make that clear? I don't remember

[taanja]

1 hour ago, AAEBoiler said:

That actually threw me out of the moment. While the show is period-appropriate, television Christmas specials are always shown weeks in advance of Christmas and it's not like they had a VHS player to watch a tape. Lazy writing is what that was.

Nope. Maybe now days they do that but when Charlie Brown first came out---it ran either on or right around Christmas. Same with Rudolf and The Little Drummer Boy. Now they milk them for all their worth-- in the 60's (Yes I was alive then) it was different.

[Glade]

3 hours ago, Nidratime said:

Eight more.

And the show is already filming season 4; so there's no end in sight!

[RulerofallIsurvey]

FYI - I just discovered that Dark Shadows is included with an Amazon Prime membership. For those who might want to see the episode Roger was watching in this episode, it's Season 11, episode 651.  I might have to start bingeing....

[TaurusRose]

10 hours ago, Juliegirlj said:

Does Roger have a drinking problem? 

Batman theme song??! Give me a fricken break. 

Leave your only daughter on Christmas with no plans to ever see her again. Claire is awful. 

Apparently it was too expensive to film at the stones again so they used the puddle analogy. Clever. 

1

1. Why are you asking that question?

2. Hilarious.

3. Already addressed by another poster.

4. Agreed.

4 hours ago, zoey1996 said:

I was disappointed that they spoke of Brianna' s "real" father.  Frank was her real father, in that he loved her and raised her as his own.  Jamie's the bio-dad, in contemporary parlance.  As an adopted child and the grandmother of an adopted child, I'm sensitive to the language used to describe parents.

 

That would have been the terminology used during the '60s.

[zoey1996]

I was born in the 50's, and I always considered my adoptive parents my real parents.  I don't know about what others may have said.

[Chyna]

I just watched the episode tonight, so I knew about the two-week break. And then I felt like big chunks of the episode were kind of dry, so as it got closer to the end, I was prepared to be annoyed at the cliffhanger--but the fact that we got to see them see each other, and then the faint? Brilliant. Loved. It. Dying for the next episode though!

[Adira]

So I LOVED this episode and I'm sooooooo glad they actually showed us Claire and Jamie reuniting, even if they aren't getting into the meat of it until the next episode.

But I am also disappointed that NO ONE addressed how the stones work and the fact we know Geillis ended up further back in time when she went through the stones in 1968 than when Claire went through the stones in 1945.  Seems like a huge plot hole that they just decided to conveniently ignore!

[ganesh]

Why bother to have Gellis then in the first place? 

[AAEBoiler]

17 hours ago, taanja said:

Nope. Maybe now days they do that but when Charlie Brown first came out---it ran either on or right around Christmas. Same with Rudolf and The Little Drummer Boy. Now they milk them for all their worth-- in the 60's (Yes I was alive then) it was different.

It premiered on December 9th in 1965 so I have a hard time seeing networks scheduling it on Christmas Eve in a "simpler" time when TV ratings were not as prevalent/important as they are today. But, I was only a toddler in the late-60's so I have no conclusive proof nor old TV Guide's to thumb through. :-)

[Duke2801]

Fantastic ending!  I legitimately LOL-ed at Jamie fainting.  

Although the "rational" part of me is all "Wait, what? So she can apparently now decide exactly where and when she wants to go through the stones now? Ok then!"   But the romantic and 'shipper in me is all - "Yessss - reunited and it feels so good!"  

I did have to laugh at the "nicer" depiction of Edinburgh in the late 1700s.  We just took a trip to Edinburgh 2 weeks ago and, according to our guide on the walking tour we took of the Royal Mile, it was not such a pleasant place to be back then. At that time, Edinburgh was one of the most overcrowded and insanitary towns in Europe. People basically got rid of their waste by dumping it into the streets at night at a certain time - so the streets would literally be lined with human feces and urine 

 

Quote

Does Roger have a drinking problem? 

Um... idk.  Does Claire?  Does Bri?  Does Joe Abernathy?  I ask because we have not been given an indication of any of these character's predilection for booze, including Roger.  

Edited October 10, 2017 by Duke2801

[Pixel]

1 hour ago, Duke2801 said:

Although the "rational" part of me is all "Wait, what? So she can apparently now decide exactly where and when she wants to go through the stones now? Ok then!"   But the romantic and 'shipper in me is all - "Yessss - reunited and it feels so good!"

I get all confused on the timey-wimey stuff so I don't even try, but didn't they sort of address this talking about how Roger and Brianna had researched this and if she went at the time they designated, Jamie's timeline would only be one year behind theirs relatively speaking, so Claire would have "aged" only one year ahead of Jamie?  I thought they threw this in to explain how they could be sure she wouldn't end up going back to a Jamie who was now too far apart in age from where Claire was currently.

I don't know - I just got the impression from this that we were supposed to believe that the timelines worked slightly differently in both times and that they had to research to pick the right time for her to go.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Pixel

[toolazy]

10 minutes ago, Pixel said:

I get all confused on the timey-wimey stuff so I don't even try, but didn't they sort of address this talking about how Roger and Brianna had researched this and if she went at the time they designated, Jamie's timeline would only be one year behind theirs relatively speaking, so Claire would have "aged" only one year ahead of Jamie? 

No.  They extrapolated from Claire's previous experience that time moves at the same rate in the past as it does in the present.  They knew that Claire wound up 203 years in the past before and made the assumption that if she went back now, she would still be 203 years in the past, 20 years having elapsed in both centuries.

[ganesh]

That doesn't explain Gellis though, which Claire met first in the past and then saw go through the stones in 1968. That's the point of contention. It was only speculation on their part that time flowed the same.

I honestly don't care because of course Claire was going to find Jamie, and this isn't a time travel story, but it's just an egregious error to have Gellis' situation. To be fair, this might have been explained in the books, but as it stands on the show, it bugs. 

It could be as simple as if you wish really hard enough, you'll end up where you need to be. Again, though, then don't have Roger say something so ridiculous that was obviously contradicted. Not to mention they showed both Jamie's and Claire's plots moving at different rates of time anyway.