S03.E05: Freedom & Whisky

[Duke2801]

49 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?  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.

Oh right - yes.  I was moreso alluding to the fact that Claire now seems to be able to travel whenever and wherever she pleases, at will.  As if the stones are now a time machine that she can program: "Edinburg, 1785 (guessing on the year- can't recall exactly)."  Yet, prior to that, she makes a big deal of saying to Brianna that she might never see her again because, well, she just can't predict what the stones will do! 

As others have mentioned, perhaps the "how and why" is explained more thoroughly in the books.  But, as a viewer, these inconsistencies just seemed off to me.  Not a huge deal by any means, and I still enjoy the show immensely.  Just an observation on my part.  

[ganesh]

I figured that Claire ended up at the stones again when she went through, and not through the stones and boom she's in Edinburg. There's still a lot that could have gone wrong from reappearing at the stones and then making her way to the print shop. She's still a woman in the woods traveling alone. 

These seemed to be fixable inconsistencies, which is the real bother. 

[cam3150]

So, this is not episode specific but it is is regarding the time travel element of the show. I'm not sure where else to ask so I am asking here.

There was a lot of talk in prior threads about who can hear the buzzing at the stones and who can't, and what that means. It was mentioned that Jaime didn't indicate that he could hear the buzzing, and even said specifically that he could not hear it. The theory is that only those who can pass through the stones can hear it.

 

It's been a long time since I've seen the first episode but, didn't Frank see "someone" staring up at Claire  from the street one night and wasn't that someone assumed to be Jaime?  Or am I crazy? 

 

What happened to that? It has never been mentioned again and that time period would have been BEFORE Jaime and Claire even met.  Presumably I suppose it will be addressed at a later date but I have always wondered about it and, given where the story is now, it doesn't seem to fit in anywhere for it to even be addressed. 

 

That scene would negate the theory that  Jaime can't pass through the stones right?  It seems to mean he goes through the stones to...what? Check on her?  If that's the case, why would he go to a time before they met? Wouldn't he be more interested to see how she was doing during their time apart?  Or am I interpreting this scene all wrong? This whole scene is perplexing to me and I have really been thinking about it a lot lately.  I really wonder if this was in the books or if  was just something thrown in to the show for dramatic effect.  I guess I will find out if I ever actually read the books. 

 

As an aside, I personally think he was lying to Claire about not being able to hear the buzzing, just in his desperation to get her to go "home" to safety. I especially think this after re-watching it a few times. To me he just seems....insincere in his answer to her, like he's trying to placate her or re-focus her on the task at hand.  

Edited October 10, 2017 by cam3150

[ganesh]

I don't think you can go forward through the stones though. I think it's only back from your starting point. In the first season when Claire first went to the lord's house for the banquet the bard sang a song about someone who went through the stones, but it also seemed to describe the past. 

[greekmom]

On 10/8/2017 at 4:21 AM, 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'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!

Ditto.  Sandy only had Frank's versions of events which are one sided. There are two sides to every story.  Sandy was the one that stayed in the relationship with Frank despite the fact that he was married. She didn't have to.  

[dustoffmom]

16 minutes ago, greekmom said:

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.

As a child who came of age in the 60's I can say her hair is exactly the style back then.  Center parted, board straight.  Much to the distress of those like me cursed at that time with naturally curly, frizzy hair!!

[ganesh]

I mean, it's not like we didn't know Claire wasn't going to find Jamie. I'm fine with the stones being magical and taking people to their destiny. That's in line what the overall show is kind of about. I'd love it to be more scifi and have people figuring out how they work, but it was never going to be that kind of show, and it wouldn't be fair for me to complain about it. They just shouldn't have bothered to have Roger try to reason any of it out. I mean, it's about Claire having the faith that Jamie is her destiny and that the stones will take her to him. 

I'd like to know why Gellis 'chose' the year she went to too. She only was some weird lady in the woods who did abortions when Claire met her, and she had been around for a while. But again, then you split hairs on how the stones are actually working and I would have to concede it misses the point of the show. 

On the other hand, it don't see the problem if Claire ended up back 'earlier', and had to wait for Jamie to show up at the print shop. I was hoping from Jamie's pov that Claire had been flitting back and forth acting on scant records in the present looking for him. I do hope the stones have more significance going forward, but I don't see them becoming actually central to the story. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

3 hours ago, cam3150 said:

It's been a long time since I've seen the first episode but, didn't Frank see "someone" staring up at Claire  from the street one night and wasn't that someone assumed to be Jaime?  Or am I crazy? 

Well, i can't say for sure if you're crazy ;) but yes: in S1, Frank encountered a 'highlander' staring up at Claire in the hotel room window as she brushed her hair.  I'm pretty sure it's presumed to be Jamie, or his spirit - since he seemed to disappear into thin air when Frank turned around to look at him.  

As for whatever happened to with it - nothing so far.  And with Frank dead now, I don't know if it will ever be brought up again.  

3 hours ago, cam3150 said:

I really wonder if this was in the books or if  was just something thrown in to the show for dramatic effect.  I guess I will find out if I ever actually read the books. 

FYI - there is an "Ask the Bookreaders" thread for things like this, so you don't have to actually read the books if you don't want to.  

1 hour ago, Glade said:

Thankfully when she passed through the stones this time she didn't end up in 12th century Scotland, as that wouldn't have been much fun.

Aw, why not?  (I wouldn't think 18th century Scotland would be fun either.)  Maybe she'd meet another hot Highlander Laird to marry!

[cam3150]

18 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Well, i can't say for sure if you're crazy ;) but yes: in S1, Frank encountered a 'highlander' staring up at Claire in the hotel room window as she brushed her hair.  I'm pretty sure it's presumed to be Jamie, or his spirit - since he seemed to disappear into thin air when Frank turned around to look at him.  

As for whatever happened to with it - nothing so far.  And with Frank dead now, I don't know if it will ever be brought up again.  

FYI - there is an "Ask the Bookreaders" thread for things like this, so you don't have to actually read the books if you don't want to.  

 

Haha, sometimes I wonder.

Thanks for the "Ask the Bookreaders" info, I had noticed it  but wasn't sure what it was about.  I am so afraid of being spoiled that I have never ventured in to any threads related to the books.  Though I actually do want to read the books.  Their sheer volume is just so daunting but I can get them for free with Kindle Unlimited so that's what I am going to do.  My plan at this point is to read up to wherever this season ends by the time S4 airs and then keep up with it that way, reading each book after the corresponding season.  I don't want to know in advance what's going to happen on the show.

I always had this imagining of Frank one day seeing a photo of Jaime or, somehow meeting him, and then saying, "It's you!" or whatever., a la Jack & Desmond on Lost  I forgot that the person / spirit seemed to disappear. So odd.  I'll have to go watch it again but it sure seems like there won't be any answer or resolution to it at this point.    

Edited October 10, 2017 by cam3150

[cam3150]

50 minutes ago, ganesh said:

They just shouldn't have bothered to have Roger try to reason any of it out. I mean, it's about Claire having the faith that Jamie is her destiny and that the stones will take her to him. 

I can see why this scene was there, even if the show itself is not about the science of time travel. It would be completely understandable to wonder how it works, if the timelines are the same, or how you know you're going to end up in the right place.  I can see why they would need to at least try and determine that both time periods are moving at the same speed.  Though, how she was able to go back to exactly the right year, I have no idea.  Like you said, I guess it's just a destiny / faith thing.

[GHScorpiosRule]

7 minutes ago, cam3150 said:

Thanks for the "Ask the Bookreaders" info, I had noticed it  but wasn't sure what it was about.  I am so afraid of being spoiled that I have never ventured in to any threads related to the books. 

No worries; any and all answers from the buiks are spoiler-tagged, so if you really want to know, all you have to do is click on them; but you won't be spoiled about everything else, because, ALL the answers are spoiler-tagged.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

9 minutes ago, cam3150 said:

Thanks for the "Ask the Bookreaders" info, I had noticed it  but wasn't sure what it was about.

You might want to read the very first post in the thread by the mod - it outlines some rules.  I think most things are spoiler tagged, so you won't get spoiled if you really don't want to.  

ETA: What @GHScorpiosRule rule just posted while I was typing!

[taanja]

22 hours ago, AAEBoiler said:

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. :-)

There weren't that many channels to choose from.

[Pallas]

In 1968, A Charlie Brown Christmas was broadcast on December 8th. But as noted elsewhere, the Dark Shadows clip was -- truly and remarkably -- from the December 23, 1968 episode.

[Iguessnot]

It will be good to get back to Scotland because I've found the modern day scenes rather awkward. Dr. Claire was somehow less convincing than Doogie Howser; the scenes with Dr. Joe Abernathy were also off. I really enjoy all scenes with Roger but it will be a blessed day if I never have to see Bree again. People complained about her acting last season, but it didn't bother me for some reason. However these last two episodes have been ghastly. Last episode she was just barely able to plow through the script. In this episode, in the scene with the professor warning her about her failing grades, I feared she was going to ravish him. I couldn't be sure it wasn't a sexual harassment scene until it was over. This actress is a loon. I also wanted to tell her to shut up during Dark Shadows. There was no Tivo, rentals or reruns.

[Pixel]

22 hours ago, Duke2801 said:

As others have mentioned, perhaps the "how and why" is explained more thoroughly in the books.  But, as a viewer, these inconsistencies just seemed off to me.  Not a huge deal by any means, and I still enjoy the show immensely.  Just an observation on my part.  

I don't feel like time travel is ever adequately explained or handled in any show I've ever watched that does it, so I gave up trying years ago!

[areca]

On 10/8/2017 at 4:33 PM, Archery said:

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. 

Of course she does.  She goes the library, selects a microfiche of something that clearly existed in the timeframe she needs with the qualities she needed and then she goes to there and places the ad.  Of course, she would then have to check the microfiched version to check and see if she made it and then everything goes to hell.  The technology was well and available and had been for a century by 1968.

Edited October 12, 2017 by areca

[kieyra]

The actress playing Brianna is still teeth-grindingly bad. I don't understand how she got cast in this show, it's like she's reading lines off a menu board.

[Athena]

Posts have been removed from this thread because the discussion was being steered by spoiled posters. Even if you are not revealing spoilers, book posters have knowledge that can affect interpretation of the show. The show should stand alone to non book walkers. While we have been lenient about certain book posters answering questions, any speculation or clarification posts will be removed without warning.

[ganesh]

2 hours ago, areca said:

Of course she does.  She goes the library, selects a microfiche of something that clearly existed in the timeframe she needs with the qualities she needed and then she goes to there and places the ad. 

Joking aside, when was Western Union founded? She could leave a telegram with them. 

The fact that they found Jamie through his *print shop*, and it didn't occur to anyone that Claire could possibly leave a message is silly. She could post something every year at xmas or something. Or go carve something in a tree near the stones when she reappears so they can check on it. 

Edited October 12, 2017 by ganesh

[ElectricBoogaloo]

I don't know if it's because Brianna had a lot more lines in this episode, but I noticed her accent slipping a lot more often this week.

I rolled my eyes when Brianna's professor asked her what could possibly be going on in her life that would cause her grades to slip. Uh, her father aka your former colleague just died a few months ago. But that couldn't possibly be the reason why she's distracted and not doing well in school this semester. So is she going to become an architect? She seemed way too into the Gothic revival arches in the cloisters.

I had to laugh when she just loudly said to Roger that she's the daughter of an eighteenth century highlander while other people were strolling past them. Maybe yell that a little louder for anyone who didn't hear you, Brianna!

I was questioning the whole fellowship that was set up in Frank's name. A fellowship means giving money to someone. Where is the funding for that coming from?

Brianna gave Claire a topaz necklace to go through the stones. Claire said that each time she went through, she lost a gemstone. So if she ever wants to come back, shouldn't she take one more gem with her?

While part of me wants Brianna to meet Jamie, I can totally understand Claire not wanting her daughter to deal with the dangerous bullshit that women had to endure back in the 18th century.

I wish we had seen more of Claire's friendship with Joe. I enjoyed the very little that we saw but it left me wanting to see more. They had such an easy unforced friendship.

If I had been separated from the love of my life for twenty years, you can bet your ass I wouldn't have wasted any time rubbing the sign in front of his shop. I would have run up the stairs and flung open the door as fast as humanly possible!

On 10/8/2017 at 5:28 AM, 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. 

Ha, I was thinking the same thing. Suddenly the show took a turn and I was like wait, what is happening here with the forensic anthropology? I was expecting Bones to pop up. I'm guessing that the skeleton will make another appearance later in the series because it seemed too pointed a scene to be totally random. Joe said the skeleton was found in a cave in the Caribbean so I guess if she and Jamie end up somewhere tropical, I'll be looking at every white lady as the possible murder victim.

On 10/10/2017 at 11:44 AM, greekmom said:

Sandy only had Frank's versions of events which are one sided. There are two sides to every story.  Sandy was the one that stayed in the relationship with Frank despite the fact that he was married. She didn't have to.  

On top of that, why was it Claire's fault that Frank stayed? She offered to divorce him and he was the one who said no. In my mind, that puts the blame squarely on Frank for staying, regardless of what his reason was. It would have been one thing if Frank had been begging her for a divorce and she kept saying no, but he had the option and he chose to stay. That isn't Claire's fault at all.

I'm curious as to just how much Frank told Sandy about Claire, Brianna, and Jamie. It would have been easy to tell her most of the truth, just leaving out the time travel part. I also wonder if he told her that he stayed married to Claire in order to be part of Brianna's life. I don't fault him for that, but again I think that Claire is not to blame for that.

I'm glad that Brianna knows who Sandy is now. Not that I want her to hate Frank but I wanted her to know that both of her parents were flawed. After learning about Jamie, it would have been easy for her to cast Claire as the bad guy in the marriage and Frank as the saint. Knowing that he had a girlfriend for most of Brianna's life means that Bree won't see him as Saint Daddy. I know it was common back then (and hell, it's still pretty common now) but now that we know Sandy was Frank's student, he fell a few more points for me. You couldn't find a girlfriend who was your own age and who you weren't in a position of power over?

Edited October 12, 2017 by ElectricBoogaloo

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I rolled my eyes when Brianna's professor asked her what could possibly be going on in her life that would cause her grades to slip. Uh, her father aka your former colleague just died a few months ago.

Just to clarify, and this was in the show, Frank had been dead for two years by this time. Brianna's grades had been slipping due to finding out that Frank wasn't her biological father, and that her mom did indeed go back in time.

[toolazy]

3 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

 

Brianna gave Claire a topaz necklace to go through the stones. Claire said that each time she went through, she lost a gemstone. So if she ever wants to come back, shouldn't she take one more gem with her?

 

 Because that one would have been destroyed as well? 

[TaurusRose]

On 10/10/2017 at 3:36 PM, ganesh said:

I mean, it's not like we didn't know Claire wasn't going to find Jamie. I'm fine with the stones being magical and taking people to their destiny. 

I believe Claire came through the stones in the exact same place she had gone through them when she left. She traveled from the stones to Edinburgh. She had money to pay her way. It doesn’t begin to make sense to me that it would work any other way.

22 hours ago, kieyra said:

The actress playing Brianna is still teeth-grindingly bad. I don't understand how she got cast in this show, it's like she's reading lines off a menu board.

I thought she was a little better this time.

[cam3150]

1 hour ago, taurusrose said:

I believe Claire came through the stones in the exact same place she had gone through them when she left. She traveled from the stones to Edinburgh. She had money to pay her way. It doesn’t begin to make sense to me that it would work any other way.

I thought she was a little better this time.

The actress sounds exactly like another actress to me and I can't  figure out who. I almost had it a couple of times but just couldn't place it. I even thought maybe she was reminding me of herself so I looked up her IMDB but I've never seen anything she's been in before. 

[Ziggy]

On 10/10/2017 at 10:25 AM, 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?

I think Roger meant that if their theory about the passage of time was correct, if Claire went through the stones that day, they article would have been 1 year old.  So it's very possible Jamie would still be the printer A Malcolm.

[ganesh]

That's a big if though, given that they have evidence to the contrary with Gellis. 

12 hours ago, taurusrose said:

I believe Claire came through the stones in the exact same place she had gone through them when she left. She traveled from the stones to Edinburgh. She had money to pay her way. It doesn’t begin to make sense to me that it would work any other way.

I don't think anyone is arguing that, although again a woman by herself in the woods is risky. The point is there was no guarantee she would travel to the time she wanted, which is why I said they shouldn't have bothered explaining the flow of time, and just had Claire say I'll risk it. 

My point being why did they take her 200 years back in the first place? Because her destiny is with Jamie. That's a good enough reason. 

[Archery]

I guess I would have found it unsatisfying if three intelligent, practical people had not made any attempt to find an in-universe explanation for how it all worked, even if there IS no explanation.

[ganesh]

No, I agree, but what they wrote for it was just poor imo. I think they half assed it and fell flat imo. 

[nara]

Maybe time travel has some relationship to what is on your mind at the time. Gillian was passionate about Scottish freedom and I think even mentioned Culloden at the rally. Perhaps that steered her towards a time when she could Be involved in Scottish freedom and Culloden. Claire was learning about BJR in 1945 so maybe time travel took her to a time when she would meet him. This time she was focused on Jamie so it her to him. It still seems risky IMO.  I guess the lesson would be not to think about Vlad the impaler or Nero when going through time.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, nara said:

I guess the lesson would be not to think about Vlad the impaler or Nero when going through time.

Geez, I'd hate to think where I'd end up the way my mind jumps around!  Lol.  I'd probably get stuck in some eternal loop.  

[ganesh]

2 hours ago, nara said:

Maybe time travel has some relationship to what is on your mind at the time.

Yes, that's what I was saying by the stones are just magical and take you where your destiny lies. I can roll with it. 

[riverheightsnancy]

I was disappointed that we didn't see Claire go through the stones. Even if it was a long shot, from a distance, just a few seconds, I really wanted that. I always found the Pagan ladies dancing in the rising sun to be one of my favorite scenes. I was somewhat hoping to see Claire in the sunrise going through. Someone up-thread mentioned about Claire going through the stones any time. Maybe, you will only hear the noise if you are wearing a gemstone? We know that the time travel "uses" a gem in some way and it is gone when you arrive. If you aren't wearing one, I suspect that you cannot go through and may not hear the noise either. Very interested to see the next episode and for the 2 to catch-up with each other. I wonder what Jamie's first words will be to Claire? 

[ganesh]

"Can you help me up?"

[riverheightsnancy]

Hoping it will be something profound. Not sure what to expect.  probably will be "Claire!?" ha

[RulerofallIsurvey]

7 hours ago, riverheightsnancy said:

Hoping it will be something profound. Not sure what to expect.  probably will be "Claire!?" ha

And she'll probably say "On your feet, soldier" - and that will supposed to be cute and romantic and so "Jamie and Claire" and I'll just be rolling my eyes.  

[Daisy]

On 10/9/2017 at 1:02 PM, Nidratime said:

Eight more.

eight? YAY!

man. i was so excited to tuck in... then i realised. down week :( what a crapper. 

[Bina]

It's so minor, but driving me crazy - when Roger gets out of the taxi in Boston, the driver tells him the fare is 50 pounds. Pounds?! Glaring error or did I miss something? 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

13 hours ago, Bina said:

It's so minor, but driving me crazy - when Roger gets out of the taxi in Boston, the driver tells him the fare is 50 pounds. Pounds?! Glaring error or did I miss something? 

Okay, I had to go back and check - with subtitles to make sure.  Roger's talking about this being either a daft or brilliant decision he's made (to come to Boston without calling in advance) and the taxi driver replies, "Uh-huh, yeah.  $2.50, pal."  Maybe you thought the '50, pal' sounded like '50 pounds'?

[aliferous85]

The one thing that bothered me is that technically, the stones only work at certain points in the year (aka when the veil between worlds is supposed to be thin enough). I didn't think Christmas/New Years would count though. I think it's probably also a combination of gemstones + wishful thinking to get to the right point in time.

Well, I'm glad Brianna was grief stricken for all of five minutes after losing her mother possibly forever.

[DittyDotDot]

4 hours ago, aliferous85 said:

The one thing that bothered me is that technically, the stones only work at certain points in the year (aka when the veil between worlds is supposed to be thin enough). I didn't think Christmas/New Years would count though. I think it's probably also a combination of gemstones + wishful thinking to get to the right point in time.

Christmas is close to the Winter Solstice which would be one of the Sun Feasts and when the stones should work. I actually wonder if the stones work any time of the year if you know how to use them, but it's the Sun Feasts when they work all on their own? 

Edited November 11, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[ganesh]

How did they work if Claire went through before Collodeon? They didn't really say? Does that mean Brianna can go through? 

[aliferous85]

I think they worked the first time around because it was (nearly) Samhain. And because the townfolk sacrificed enough chickens for them to work.

There was that ballad in season 1 that described someone going through and returning, I assume that person also just happened to be there at the right moment.

Perhaps it's the stones themselves who choose who they let through. Might explain why only Claire but not say any random person passing by them.

[ganesh]

Ha ha chickens. 

10 minutes ago, aliferous85 said:

There was that ballad in season 1 that described someone going through and returning, I assume that person also just happened to be there at the right moment.

YES. I found this so interesting and was really hoping we'd get bits and pieces of stone lore along the way. 

I don't think anyone can go through because Claire 'hears' the stones and Jamie didn't, but that's really all we knew. Would Claire be related to the guy in the ballad in some way?  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

On 11/11/2017 at 2:37 PM, ganesh said:

Would Claire be related to the guy in the ballad in some way?  

I think that would be really cool if she were. 

[toolazy]

On 6/15/2019 at 9:53 AM, Pegasaurus said:

Re-watching the whole series.  I love the 1960's era clothes, hair styles, make-up, etc. I see Diana G. was born in 1952, same as me.  That's why the era looks so authentic.  I remember the 60's look very well.

I thought "omg" when Claire walked into the office w/ Joe and asked him if he thought she was sexually attractive.  If that was today, he'd better get to the authorities quickly.  And video the exchange to clear himself.  But then he kindly answered "you're a skinny white woman with a nice ass"!  Haha - how would that go down in our society in 2019?  Not well, I think!

They are friends, not just colleagues, so I think it would be fine - even today.

[Blakeston]

Did anyone else find it odd that Joe said Claire had "too much hair?" Her hairstyle isn't particularly long or large.

I could see someone saying that about Brianna. Now there's someone with a lot of hair.

[Camera One]

Alternate ending...  CLAIRE:  Oh no, this book Roger gave me doesn't cover the Roman invasion of England!

I normally like slower episodes and character exploration, but this down-in-the-dumps Claire routine was already boring several episodes ago, and it felt very dragged out.  

It finally gained momentum forty minutes in, with Claire actually making preparations and sewing her superhero costume.  Time would have been better spent showing her taking surgical tools and penicillin.  Bringing a weapon would be good too, as well as reading up on history of the 1760s (because you just know they are going to try their "hardest" to stop the American Revolution or something).  What's the rush that she had to leave and stay up late sewing her costume?  She should have had to wait until some sort of Pagan holiday, as mentioned by others above.  Or at least have that conversation about timing.  They should also have had a conversation about Breanna going back with Claire.

The fact that nobody even mentioned the unpredictability of the stones bothered me too.  They should have been worried.  They also seemed so certain Claire would travel back, when she could very well be back the following week and begging for her job back.  

Quote

On 10/8/2017 at 3:21 PM, RulerofallIsurvey said:

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.  

I was really disappointed it just jumped to Claire arriving in Edinburgh.  Getting to Edinburgh would have been a challenge in itself.  It was nice to see Claire seeing Jaime for the first time in 22 years, but I would have rather they waited.  They keep skipping the interesting stuff.

And did she visit the hairstylist when she landed in England and asked for the early modern period look?  Claire and Jaime both look exactly the same two decades later.  They should patent their skin care routine.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Camera One

[gingerella]

So. I am busting over this episode and I have to say before anything else, I LOVED this episode, all of it, even the bits that could have been better fleshed out! I loved the slower pace and having us just in Boston nearly the entire episode. It gave me a chance to understand some important relationships, like Claire/Joe and Claire/Brianna. And I really appreciate how the editors weave the same theme music throughout every important scene, yet each time it's slightly different, such a nice detail/touch.

Boston 1968

Claire & Joe:

I loved watching the friendship between Claire and Joe in more detail and what a gem this man is! He's like Claire's Murtagh, sort of, but then Roger is more of that role because he knows what's what with Claire and Jamie. But still, Joe is a faithful friend and colleague, and I loved the scene where Claire insists on finishing one more bit of removal on a patient before closing and Joe's just watching her like, "Girl! You are crazy, and I'm here for it, but DAMN, that was risky business!"  I loved so many of Joe's comments in this episode - "Fuck fate!" "I've watched you life a half-life for 15 years...If you have a second change at love, you should take it." But what I wish happened was that Claire told Joe the truth about the time travel stuff. I know, he'd look at her like she was crazy, but she could have given him some sort of proof, the articles about her coming back from the Fairies, Brianna witnessing someone go through the Stones whilst they were in Scotland last summer, etc. Would Joe have understood? Maybe not because it sounds crazy, but he DID witness her ability to hone in on otherworldly things when she said that the skull was a woman and that she was killed. Joe's expression was incredulous, but you could see that Claire has some sort of 'Clairvoyant' abilities (and yes that was on purpose, it was just sitting there waiting to be said!). I kept wondering what Joe would think reading her resignation letter, it seemed so out of character for her, so I hope we get to see what she told him.

Brianna:

So Brianna isn't coping well with the whole 'my mother time traveled through Stones in Scotland and met my bio dad in the 1700s then came back here to have me' story?! Girl....GIRL! Get some therapy. Oh wait, you can't because if you tell this story to a therapist they'll think you're off your rocker'. I feel for Brianna, she's got a lot on her plate right now, and we get to see a bit more of her and I can start to understand her a bit better. The actress playing her isn't better per se, but I get her character a bit more now. I'm still wondering if what throws me off when she speaks is that she has a very American accent and it plays oddly against all the lovely Scottish lilts and burrs? I loved the Christmas scenes and wondered if this was originally aired during/near the holiday season. It's such a cozy time, and yet Brianna is all alone in that big house most of the time, and her remembering Frank as her daddy, that was a bit gut wrenching. Say what you will about Frank, he desperately wanted a child and he probably doted on Brianna and she loved him dearly. You can feel her sense of loss and almost a betrayal that she's been obsessed with Jamie and lost sight of the man who raised her. And when she tells Claire that Frank must have hated her on some level because she looks so much like another man's child, one can't help but wonder what Frank really did feel about that, because let's face it, you have this redheaded child and neither you nor your wife are redheads - it had to come up a lot over her childhood, not just the day she was born. So I wonder if we will ever hear what Frank thought of that, or if Frank is gone now in the series. I imagine people pop up here and there all the time given how the time back and forth has played out thus far.

Roger:

When Roger got out of the cab I shouted in my head, ROGER!!! I was so excited that he took a chance, he of the reserved Scottish persona, good for him. I was a little taken aback though that Brianna wasn't more warm with him when she saw him at her doorstep, but it was nice to see them reconnect again and that their spark is still there, Brianna/Roger = Claire/Jamie, but circa 1960's...Though if you think about that, it's pretty weird if this is end game, that Claire's daughter gets together with a relative of Jamie's...what are the odds of that happening? It leads me more to thinking that none of the Stone's stuff is chance, instead it's destiny and nobody can really change that. When Roger - a dog with a bone, I knew he wouldn't give up the search, if only for Brianna's sake - gave Claire the article and pointed out that the references to the Burns poem had to have come from someone with knowledge of the future because the poem had been written 21 years in the future, I got chills, and then when he showed her the name, Alexander Malcomb, I silently cheered to myself, and then thought it was a good thing that Jamie had so many damn names to use, given his past! Loved Roger watching Dark Shadows when Brianna came home, that was a perfect nod to the times - I never watched it because it scared the shit out of me, I used to hate going into my friend's house after school because her mother watched it and Barnabus scared the living daylights out of me! Anyway, when Roger is waxing prosaically about the hallowed archways and what conversations have happened there over history, Brianna's reaction made me think she's destined to be an architect, not a historian, but she said something about it being her Scottish heritage and I've no idea what that even means. Jamie was no architect, that's for sure. And I appreciated the convo between them when Roger says, "Everybody needs to know their history" and Brianna retorts, "It changes depending on who tells it...history can't be trusted..." So very true, especially right now with the push back in the US with some states outlawing the teaching of correct black history, and the fact that the Queen has sent William and Kate to Scotland to make nice immediately following the vote for another succession vote for Scotland. Obvious timing much? I think not!

Claire & Brianna & Roger Trip Prep:

The run in with Candy/Sandy was...bullshit. That bitch had no right to say anything to Claire, BUT, what I got from the scene once I put my disgust for her aside, was that she felt for Frank the way Claire feels for Jamie, and that is a sad thing for both Frandy/Crank (I prefer the latter if anyone cares). Combine that with the hitting over the head Joe quote re: the Apollo Moon Walk, "How do you take a trip like that and come back..." I felt a bit like Wyle E. Coyote, I get it Show, I get it. But it was all leading to Claire realizing that she had to at least try to go back to Jamie.

I enjoyed and appreciated seeing a softer side to both Claire and Brianna and their shared understanding of one another now that everything is on the table. When Brianna said, "I'm more YOU than either of my fathers...If I turn out to be half the woman you are, I'll be fine!" Well, that's about the best a parent can hope to hear no matter the situation, time travel or not, right? And when Brianna said, "You know who doesn't know me? Jamie! You owe it to him to tell him all about me....You gave up Jamie for me, now I have to give him back to you.." I mean, that's just heart rendering writing right there and I wont lie, I was a wee bit bleary-eyed...

Claire doubting her own desirability now that she's 20 years older hit close to home, I know that feeling as of late and it's hard to grapple with. What she didn't know though, was that Jamie might not look all that anymore, I mean, he might wanna do something about those bangs...(Elaine Benis tm), just sayin'! But again, Joe came to her rescue, I'm glad we got more Joe this episode, but I want more now! I'm not minding the 1960's scenes now that Frank is gone.

I was wondering how she was going to deal with the clothing situation so the whole Bat Suit sequence was very amusing and gave a much needed lightness to an otherwise heavy situation. The Batman theme music just was the icing on that scene's cake! Again, those details really add nuance and depth to this Show. And the Christmas gifts like the antique coins was perfection of details!

Boston 1968 to Edinburgh 1766:

I love the 'mirror' scenes that we've seen so far in 3.5 seasons, and the scene that starts with Claire stepping into a puddle from a cab at Boston airport and cuts to her stepping into a puddle in 1766 Edinburgh was once again a great device to time jump. A mirror sister scene to the scene where Claire arrives in Boston with Frank 20 years earlier, and steps onto the tarmac only to reach out and be pulled on shore by Jamie at Le Havre. I'm a big fan of these scenes, I think it gives a certain continuity that's sort of a foundation or ballast to a story that involves time travel and thus demands a suspension of reality. Do I wish I'd seen how Claire got to the Stones again? Yes, I would have, and perhaps that's in the books but there wasn't time for it in the show? I'd like to think that she flew to Scotland and made her way to Inverness and to the Rev.'s place and made a plan with Fiona that she'd leave her suitcase there, then change into her Bat Suit and have Fiona drive her to the Stones for her departure. In my head that is more satisfying to know, but again, perhaps it's in the books. I also wish she'd made a plan with someone like Fiona like, I'm going to leave x item next to this stone, come back tomorrow or in x hours and if you see this here, you will know I made it through.  Or, as others have said upthread, albeit several years ago, why didn't Claire, Brianna and Roger make a plan for Claire to send a message back to them somehow, so they'd know she'd found Jamie and all was well (or as well as can be in this story, which seems to have constant issues to battle!). Roger knows how to research history and he could have found a way for them to plan a signal for her to them. That makes no sense, especially since she isn't allowing Roger or Brianna to come with her to the Stones. Again, maybe it's in the books, I don't know.

I was sort of shocked at how quickly we get Claire back to Jamie, to be honest. I assume in the books it feels longer and there is more detail...but in the Show, I figured we'd get to this point at the end of this season or beginning of the next so yeah and surprise to me! But I didn't expect them to physically see one another this episode! I kept checking throughout at what time we were at in the episode thinking, okay, we're at 36 minutes so I guess we're about to switch to Jamie now? Nope! Then when Claire stepped out of the coach I thought we'd go to credits but nope! Then after she asked the boy directions to Alexander Malcomb's, but nope. Then when saw the sign, nope. Then when she touched the sign, nope. When she reached for the door, nope again! When she walked INTO the shop, but nope. When she heard his voice, ahhh nope again. When she looked down on him from upstairs, hard no! So when he turned to see her and then fainted straight away, I squealed like a schoolgirl, but honestly I didn't expect this to happen so quickly. Maybe the showrunners didn't know how many seasons they'd get so they wanted to speed up the Claire/Jamie story reunite story line, I don't know.

Milk Carton Gang Update:

So we've located the Scottish pearls that belonged to Ellen Fraser last episode, and in this episode we learn why Claire lost the amethyst that was in Jamie's father's ring when she landed back at the Stones the end of S02. Two very satisfying tidbits that were hanging out there in limbo...Hey GoTs showrunners, that's how to do missing things!

 

Edited May 24, 2021 by gingerella

[Anothermi]

Exceedingly glad to be back out from behind the looking glass. Time is back to progressing at it's normal pace. 

We get very little of Jamie but that's fine because we get enough to keep us up to date since he left Helwater. But when they rushed through Claire's life experiences the last couple of episodes I ended up being annoyed with her. No. Make that with the story tellers. There has got to be a better way to deal with long-but-non-plot-related passages of time . (OK. I'll quit carping about that. This is a new, improved episode we are dealing with now.)

I like that it is set just a short time after Claire and Brianna returned from Inverness—or within the same year at least. And that Roger arriving with the news that Jamie is alive—and working as a printer in Edinburgh—sets off the important (as well as trivial) issues that are addressed in this show. Good on you, Roger, for risking the trip. You're right up there with Murtagh in my books right now. (Please, show, bring Murtagh back!)

I loved that Claire worried about how she looked and if she would still be attractive to Jamie. (Even if that falls under my idea of trivial issues.) At the start, I'd thought the show had gotten rid of the grey in her hair—that was so prominent at Rev Wakefield's funeral—because I couldn't see it, but then we got a scene where Claire exposed it by taking out the clip and then dyed it! (What is she going to use in 1765? Bootblack?)

Under the heading of important issues:

Brianna's difficulty processing the information about her real father that she had been dumped with in a very short space of time—and the concerned History Professor who had unwittingly fuelled Brianna's newly skeptical view of written history and further de-stabilized her world. But, perhaps my favourite scene with respect to Brianna, was the tour she gave Roger of the Robinson Cloisters. He was all about the history the walls had been party to while Brianna was all about the architecture and the physics and the math that go into creating it. She did not get that from Frank! But we also saw her torn between her love for Frank based on her lived experience of him and the reality of his relationship with her mother—and not being her biological father. This scene showed me that Brianna took history because of Frank—despite her more mechanical inclinations (which we first saw when she fixed the car problem in Scotland). 

My next favourite scene was between Brianna and Claire. Brianna expressed the very real confusion between her place in her own life before knowing about Jamie and what her place is now that she does know. Did Frank not really love her?—because she looked like his rival? Did Claire not love her because Brianna was the reason she had to leave Jamie? Those fears needed to be addressed and I am satisfied with how they handled that. (Even at twenty, there is still a small child in all of us.)

I also appreciated using the first moon orbit (Apollo 8) as a touchstone for Claire to view her own travel to another world and back. You can not be unchanged! Nicely done!

And along the same lines, I appreciated the time given to Professor Sandy Travers to tell Claire the effect she had on Sandy's own great love story—just as Claire was given the opportunity to re-join her own. I hope Claire experienced just a little of Jamie's trademark empathy when/if she thought about Sandy after that. Also interesting was the difference between how Sandy Travers viewed Frank—he would have hated all the fuss—and Claire's—he would have quite enjoyed it. I don't see one being wrong and one right. It just shows the difference in their experience of him. 

Sandy's research subject sounded very contemporary for 1968—the effect of Colonial english on autochthonous languages—AKA indigenous languages. Frank had reason to be proud of her. She was no bimbo.

Other stuff:

• We finally know what happened to Claire's watch—the jewelled watch—that Claire was wearing when she first went through the stones. And to the gem in Jamie's father's ring as well. (Two more milk-carton-search campaigns wrapped up successfully!)
• The depth of the friendship between Claire and Joe—even if we don't know how it came to be formed. Still to learn? Why Joe calls Claire “Lady Jane”?
• The mystery of the skeleton of the white woman murdered in a cave in the Caribbean. And will I remember this episode when it becomes relevant again? 
• The lovely, precise timing of the sounds of Claire's sewing <snip, scissors drop> with the beginning instrumental lines of the Batman theme.
• The echo of Jamie's plan for keeping his loved ones safe after Culloden in Claire's plan for Brianna after she returns to Jamie through the stones. Deed to house? - check. Bank Accounts? - check. Resignation? - check. Appropriate clothes? - check. (It's almost as if they took my advice from the preceding episodes. 😉
• The gift of Jamie's mother's pearls to Brianna as the final touch of the plan. In case they never see each other again. 
• The callback to a step initiated in the present ending in a landing in the past just like in Season Two. (first one being a plane to a boat, second from a taxi into a puddle to a horse drawn coach into another puddle!) 

And lastly? If somebody's got to faint from surprise? I'm glad they switched the trope about and made it Jamie. Sent me off from this episode with a chuckle.