S03.E06: A. Malcolm

[Cloudberryjam]

3 hours ago, Petunia846 said:

No, actually it's not how she wrote it. They skipped all the crying...the desperate, shaking tears, clutching at each other, tangled together on the floor when he wakes up after fainting, and more shaking and being unable to really speak and then more tears upon seeing the pictures of Bree. They even skipped the gasp when the pictures went from being in black and white to being in color and him seeing her red hair for the first time.

Yes!!! Thank u Petunia this is exactly what was missing!

[Dust Bunny]

Taking the photos as part of a broader discussion to the Book vs Show thread...

Edited October 22, 2017 by Dust Bunny

[dustoffmom]

I've watched twice this morning and my opinion did not change on the second viewing.  I disliked it.  Like most, I've been filled with such anticipation waiting for this episode and felt terribly let down.  Nearly all that led me to that feeling has already been discussed previously in this thread, but let me add that more even than the reunion the scene I have been so anxious for is the photo scene.  Since season one episode one, that's the one I most wanted to watch.  And.....they gave it an obligatory couple of minutes and then moved right on!  No wonder, no delight, no breathless tears, just a quick glance at them and now to confess Willie.  Not a single question about her, where is she, what is she doing, how is her life, nothing.  Boo Hiss!!  Book adult Fergus was described as yes, a hook, but more than that a simply gorgeous man.  Dark curling hair, snappy eyes, a rakish charm for days and whoever he was had none of those.  That is NOT Fergus in my head or on the page, the first major cast failure for me.  God only knows who they get for Marsali!   And that blond hair kid is surely not young Ian!!  He has a huge part later in the story and sorry, no way can I envision that boy fulfilling that role.  Again, I know I am in the minority but also I am not alone in feeling this way.  I feel cheated and so let down.  :(

[Ziggy]

3 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

The absolute worst though, as others have already said, has to be the complete underreaction to the pictures of Bree and immediately making the scene about Willie instead.

Thank you!  I think I was so surprised that he mentioned Willy that it wasn't until later that I said, wait, he didn't seem all that affected by seeing pictures of Bree!  Also, I was really disappointed when he talked about the picture of her in the bikini.  His reaction in the book was so much stronger.  It was just very underwhelming.  And I so wanted to love this episode!

[Dejana]

Hmmmm, Jamie telling Claire about Willie is a huge deviation, but since the writers decided to elevate Frank's behavior compared to the books at every turn, extending the courtesy to Jamie at least once isn't the worst thing. However, the focus of the scene ended up being more on Jamie than Claire, male-centeted as opposed to female-centered...this is a worrying trend throughout the season so far.

Edited October 22, 2017 by Dejana

[Nidratime]

I'm not disappointed. The show is not a direct replica of the books. And, I wasn't setting myself up to expect the same exact scenes. I can believe Jamie having a bit of a disconnect with the photos of someone he's never met. Notice he brings up Faith immediately, observing that Brianna has red hair just like her sister -- almost as if he's making the connection to Brianna through the baby he saw growing in his wife's belly and who they weeped over at her graveside. And, later Jamie does mention that he and Claire will live forever through their surviving daughter.

[Cloudberryjam]

3 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

What the hell was that?  For a reunion that's been hyped and hyped and then hyped some more, coming away from it feeling like "well, it was perfunctory enough in that they managed to do most of a greatest hits of the book scenes" doesn't quite cut it.  If I hadn't known better, I would have thought they hadn't seen each other since all of last summer.  Oh hey, Claire. It's you.  Haven't seen you in awhile.  But oh, they threw in some softcore from actors who aren't even going through the motions of pretending to be pushing 50, so it will be fine.

The absolute worst though, as others have already said, has to be the complete underreaction to the pictures of Bree and immediately making the scene about Willie instead.  Up until this moment, Bree at best was a hypothetical to Jamie.  He didn't know whether she had lived to be born or even if she was a son or a daughter.  Seeing her grow up in still life should have elicited ... something beyond a that's nice, oh, hey, did I mention I had another kid I have at least met while you were gone?  

This, 1000 times this.  I get that they were going for hesitancy, unsureness after 20 yrs, but isnt this supposed to be The Love That Transcends Both Space And Time???  After all their pain and misery the first 5 episodes, this tonal choice for the actual reunion was so odd to me.  Robot-sexbot Jamie and Claire. Bummer. 

[millahnna]

Grown up Fergus looks so much like the kid who played him younger I'm wondering if the actors aren't related. The slow pacing was almost too much for me, though.  Needed a good ten minutes cut out of it. 

[Nidratime]

One thing they were very successful with is portraying a different vibe between Jamie and Claire. I really felt like these two were not going to have the same exact relationship they once had. Also, I'll have to rewatch to see if Claire keeps her eyes open during their sex scenes. I did notice that they focused more on her face than on Jamie's.

ETA: I also noticed that Jamie doesn't tell Claire where his son is living, other than mentioning England. I'm guessing that will be the surprise for Claire in one of the latter episodes -- that Jamie entrusted his young son to Lord John.

Edited October 22, 2017 by Nidratime

[Ziggy]

My disappointment is not so much book vs show as I honestly felt underwhelmed.  The reunion was kind of blah.  Jamie looked through the pictures but didn't seem to really care too much.  Several events could have been humorous but weren't.  I was just kind of a snooze fest.

I did like the scenes about Jamie's side business - the guys that slept in the print shop, meeting and paying off someone, etc.  Intrigue!

I also like how Fergus tried to ask Jamie about Laoghaire.  Someone mentioned that there were other hints as well.  I will be watching for those when I do rewatch, which I plan to do sometime this week.

[Atlanta]

19 minutes ago, millahnna said:

Grown up Fergus looks so much like the kid who played him younger I'm wondering if the actors aren't related. The slow pacing was almost too much for me, though.  Needed a good ten minutes cut out of it. 

They do look like they could be big brother/little brother. 

Going to miss seeing Richard Rankin until next season.

[millahnna]

8 minutes ago, Atlanta said:

They do look like they could be big brother/little brother. 

 

Do you watch Doctor Who?  It hella made me think of Amy Pond, whose younger self was played by a cousin of the main actress. 

[Eureka]

2 hours ago, Dust Bunny said:

Taking the photos as part of a broader discussion to the Book vs Show thread...

Thanks, I will go there and read. Seems many of us are not happy with those changes. And thing is, wouldn’t have taken much more time to change the delivery.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Did I want to also see Jamie breaking down and have that scene as it was in the buik? Yes. Did I dislike or hate what actually made it to the screen? No.

Although we didn’t see Jamie break down, what I saw was Jamie picking up the picture of Baby Bree, then look up and off into the distance, as if he was trying to contain his emotions, then look back down, and rub his thumb over it. Then he was just still. Then he went through the others. And then he told Claire about Willie. I didn’t see it as him “choosing” Willie over Claire.

I will admit to being confused why their love scenes continue to be described as “soft core porn,” when we haven’t seen Jamie and  Claire like this since ”The Wedding.” And I think they did a good job of showing the awkwardness with the bumping of noses, the self conscious laughter. But I guess we see everything through our own prisms.

And yes, Claire’s eyes were open at all times.

Edited October 22, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[theschnauzers]

I have to comment about excessive emotion, or the seeming lack of it. Jamie and Claire are not excessively visibly emotional characters, and what was shown by Sam and Cait throughout the episode seemed right to me. A lot of feeling was conveyed throughout the episode, without requiring the histrionics one might need to see if this had been a stage production. I believe the right balance was struck by Matt Roberts, the writer, the director, and Sam and Cait throughout, and helped make this the truly outstanding episode I believe it to be.

Edited October 22, 2017 by theschnauzers

[WatchrTina]

THE GOOD

Loved the structure – opening the episode with a pre-credits scene that takes us right up to where the last episode ended.

Ooooh, you wicked, tricksy, false show-runners – trolling the unsullied by making them think Madame Jeanne is Jamie’s “woman”.  Shame on you.  I hope it worked.

That entire long walk of Jamie’s to the print shop through the streets of olde Edinburgh is completely unnecessary and totally wonderful.  What a fantastic way to pull us (the viewers) into Jamie’s 18th century life.

They accomplish SO much in that brief scene in the print shop when Jamie first arrives.  The way he pulls out his dirk at the first whiff of something amiss speaks volumes as to the kind of life he is now leading (and it’s a wonderful contrast to the  “pride of place” actions we saw just moments earlier as he polishes his sign a bit and proprietorially checks the ledger at the front desk and the proofs hanging on the wire.)

Ooooh, look at Sam working that 18th century press like a champion.  Nicely done.  They talk in the afterword about teaching him how to use it.

The final two credits being printed on the printing press was perfect!

Jamie & Claire’s first kiss is EVERYTHING.  And so is the interruption “I QUIT!” that follows.  That’s only the first of MANY interruptions and I love the way this episode (like “The Wedding”) blends in splashes of humor amid the overall romantic tone of the episode.  It’s straight from the book so all credit really goes to Diana but the show-runners were smart enough to keep it.

The introduction of adult Fergus is wonderful.  Perfect casting!  He made me laugh with his cheerful acknowledgment of how grown-up and handsome he is now.

Gosh I love the way Sam and Cait played the scene when they first enter the bedroom at the brothel.  Claire doesn’t want to judge Jamie but can’t help herself.  And Jamie really doesn’t want to be judged.  There is so much rich subtext to their conversation as they slowly, painstakingly work their way to each other.

Aaaaand then Pauline knocks on the door and cock-blocks Jamie AGAIN.  I laugh every time I watch that moment and then I laugh again when he locks the door.

That slow undressing scene was everything.  I don’t like to say much about the sex scenes (they speak for themselves) but damn that was a sexy build-up they choreographed.

“Christ.  Claire.  You’re the most beautiful woman I’ve ever seen.”  Dear men everywhere -- say this WHENEVER the opportunity presents itself.   This is right up there with Jamie taking a step back on his wedding night after Claire takes off her shift (to get a better view, ye ken.)  You CANNOT go wrong with either of those moves.  Feel free to use them in combination.

Aaaaaaand then Jamie nearly breaks Claire’s nose with his head.  I just LOVE the way the show-runners are messing with us – injecting moments of humor and all-too-human reality into a very, very sexy reunion.  The echoes of their wedding night are SO clear.  (Like when Jamie encounters the zipper and asks “Where are the laces?”  You just KNOW he’s recollecting how long it took to undo her corset on their wedding night.)

Wow.  That sex scene.  I needed a cigarette afterward.  And I don’t smoke.  I laughed with joy throughout the whole thing.  Then I imagined the show-runners wanting to reach out to the people who complained there wasn’t enough sex in Season 2 to say “So . . . how you like me now?”

Jamie says “I’m not a saint Sassenach but I’m not a pimp either.”  At first I scoffed at Jamie’s the use of that word – thinking it was anachronistic – but according to the Merriam-Webster online the first known use of the word was 1701.  Nicely played writers, nicely played.

Hey look.  It’s the knee-high boots from Paris.  How did Jamie manage to hang on to those all these years?  Okay, we’ll pretend it’s a new pair of boots in exactly same style.  LOVE those boots. <<waves gratefully at Terry Dresbach>>

Oh look, it’s John Bell as Wee Ian.  What a great character introduction.  You can just see the confusion playing on his face when Claire introduces herself.  Of course HE knows (as we know) about Jamie’s 2nd marriage.  I do wonder if the non-readers will pick up on all these hints.  I missed seeing the temper tantrum Book!Wee Ian throws when he learns that Jamie’s  “whore” is well acquainted with Ian senior.  But I understand the need to simplify some of the comedy of errors that happens in the book.

I laughed out loud at the looks on the whores’ faces when Madam Jeanne discovers “Madame Malcolm” in their company.  What a wonderful comic scene.  Which leads to . . .

Mood whiplash!  Danger Danger Danger!  This show LOVES doing that to us.  But I can’t complain – I signed up for it and sometimes it goes in the other direction, from drama to comedy (like at the end of 305.)  That being said, I dread someone dragging the term “Rapelander” out into the light again.  Claire’s only been in the past of a day and she’s already being threatened with sexual assault.  Sigh.  Here we go.

 

THE BAD

Geordie and Wee Ian looked too much alike, with their matching bad hair.  I guarantee someone is going to confuse those two characters.

“I can touch you now.”  Alas, that wonderful line is forever ruined for me by “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” (Voldemort says it to Harry at a climactic moment.) Couldn’t they have changed the wording of that line just a bit?

“God’s tooth!  It’s no even noon!” announces Geordie.  Literally moments later Jamie recollects a 1:00pm meeting that he’s late for.  Shortly after that Jamie and Claire arrive at Madam Jeanne’s brothel and given the darkness outside, the full house inside, and the meal they are served, it is clearly evening.  The passage of time in the episode is really wonky.

Why why WHY did they cut the line “She sent you this” followed by Claire kissing Jamie’s cheek.  THAT’s how he finds out that Brianna knows about him.  Without that line and that kiss, Jamie’s saying “She knows? [meaning “She knows about me?”] is a pretty big logical leap.  I LOVE that moment in the books.  Why on earth did they change it?  It would have been so easy (and better) to have kept it as written.

As much as I love Jamie in his glasses, and while I understand that the show-runners wanted something visible to mark the passage of time (especially since Sam still looks as buff and braw as he did the first time we saw him by the fire in ep 101) I can’t help calling out his saying “For years I had the eyes of a hawk but my sight is not what it once was.”  I wish he’d said he could still see like a hawk when looking at things at a distance but now he needs glasses to read.  Otherwise his being selected for a sharp-shooter regiment during the American Revolution makes no sense.  Oh well, it’s a nit, I know.

Claire really needs to work on her response to the question “Where have you been.”  I know Book!Claire has a “glass face” and is terribly ineffectual at lying but this is one lie she really needs to rehearse.

Hmmm.  Twice in this episode Jamie and Claire refer to things that happened in the book but did NOT happen in the show.  First when they reprise the line “Don’t be afraid.  There’s two of us now” and then when Claire “reminds” Jamie of how he took her hand on their wedding night and said that it would easier if they touched.  Yes Claire, I DO recall that, because I’ve read the books.  But TV!Jamie won’t recall that because it didn’t happen on screen (grumble, grumble.)

Claire tells Jamie “You won’t lose me.  Not unless you do something immoral.”  WTF?  That is SO out of character for her.  It is also contradicted later when she says “I will never leave you again.”  I suppose we are supposed to think she’s joking around – they had been teasing with her trying to guess how Jamie REALLY makes his living (guesses that included kidnapping and highway robbery).  But still, that line was a false note in my book and I have a bad feeling they put it in in service of Claire’s temper-tantrum later in the story when she finds out about Laoghaire and DOES leave him.

 

THE UGLY

I thought that was a lot of unnecessary and unrealistic nudity in the scene where Jamie & Claire arrive at the brothel.  The depiction of the Paris brothel in season 2 was a lot more realistic in my opinion.  That scene of naked people lounging about looked like a depiction of Roman orgy, not something I could imagine happening in the “public” rooms of a brothel in 1768 Edinburgh – a city populated with “Papists” and uptight protestants like Geordie.  I presume it was done to heighten the shock to Claire but for me it was over-the-top and took me out of the episode.

When Claire untied Jamie’s stock (neck scarf) I had a PTSD-flashback to her untying and re-tying Black Jack’s stock in in ep 108.  Stop it brain!  Stop it!  But then she opened Jamie’s collar and I had a flashback to that scene in 103 when she checks his wound and they have eye-sex.  Ahhhhh.  That is a balm to my soul.

 

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

The “riff raff” in the opening scene call Jamie “Mac Dubh”, just like the men of Ardsmuir.  But all the men of Ardsmuir were transported to America in the show.  Why would his smuggling cronies have adopted that nick-name for him?  In the show it was implied that it was a sign of respect so it would seem out-of-character for Jamie to have asked to be called that.  I’m hoping this means that someone on Jamie’s smuggling crew will be revealed to have also been at Ardsmuir and not transported for some reason. In the book that role was filled by Duncan and he was not transported due to his having only one hand – the other having been amputated.  But I think Murtagh is going to fill Duncan’s role in books 4 and after. So if there is no “Duncan” in the TVverse, who told the men to call Jamie “Mac Dubh”?

I can’t figure out what Jamie is thinking when (after at first being shy about taking off his wet trousers in front of Claire) he says “Aye, we are [married].”  During my first my viewing I had assumed that, at that moment, he was thinking “Oh, shit!” recollecting Laoghaire, but later on he tells Fergus that he had not even thought about “that” until Fergus alluded to it.  So I’m not clear what that look on Jamie’s face is in that moment.  Maybe he’s just reacting with sheer wonderment at the realization that they ARE still married.

BTW, was anyone else impressed at how quickly he got his trousers off?  What happened to his shoes & stockings?  Did they fall into the same costume-plot-hole-of-convenience as Claire’s belt and watch did in the very first episode?

Hmmmmm.  That’s a pretty big hint they gave to the non-readers when Fergus and Jamie have their whispered conversation and Jamie mentions consulting with Ned Gowan.  I wonder if they’ll catch that.

 

OTHER

On behalf of all curly-haired women can I just say that when Claire takes her hair down and we see it in all its natural glory – and compare it to the straightened-to-death-bouffant she was sporting in the 1960’s – well, my heart bleeds for her in sympathy.  (I had curly/frizzy hair in humid south Louisiana in high school the late 1970’s when everyone was trying to emulate Farrah Fawcett Major’s lion-like “shag” hair-do.)  Oh the hours, days, nay YEARS Boston!Claire must have lost trying to straighten those curls.

I let out a little cheer every time they showed us Jamie’s bare arse (and it happened a LOT).  Does that make me a bad person?

[Nidratime]

Quote

Wow.  That sex scene.  I needed a cigarette afterward.  And I don’t smoke.  I laughed with joy throughout the whole thing.  Then I imagined the show-runners wanting to reach out to the people who complained there wasn’t enough sex in Season 2 to say “So . . . how you like me now?”

I was thinking about the extra minutes of this episode and the extra long sex scene and all the viewer complaints last season of how we didn't see as much of Claire and Jamie's intimate moments. The writers obviously were thinking of the fans when they added that and instead they're going to be slapped with how Jamie didn't fall to pieces over the photographs of Bree and how Ian didn't accuse Claire of being a whore in a screwball scene where everyone was running into their room.

Quote

I wish he’d said he could still see like a hawk when looking at things at a distance but now he needs glasses to read.  Otherwise his being selected for a sharp-shooter regiment during the American Revolution makes no sense.  Oh well, it’s a nit, I know.  

Well, needing glasses to read things up close doesn't mean your distant sight is bad. I know that from experience.

[Hybiscus]

The "riff raff" was Lesley & Hayes from Ardsmuir.  They're the two who checked the traps while Jamie escaped.  I too wondered how they Came to be in Edinburgh after supposedly being sent to the colonies.

[Atlanta]

I think the powers-that-be thought we only cared about them reuniting physically rather than the more complicated stuff. 

[Nidratime]

The Madame of the brothel seems to have a thing for Jamie in the show version and who can blame her.

I loved how they had Jamie printing the credits for the writer and director. Very clever.

Quote

I think the powers-that-be thought we only cared about them reuniting physically rather than the more complicated stuff. 

You don't think that's complicated? Their reuniting is the show.

[thesparkinside]

Hm, I'm still undecided on how I feel about the episode overall. It's was spot-on for me, that's for sure. I'm just not sure whether the positive outweighs the negative.

The cold opening was wonderful, especially Jamie frowning at the sign and cleaning something off it. That's a simple scene that conveys a lot about Jamie's life and about Jamie as a character. It was great to see the moments leading up to Claire's appearance, since it gives us a little more context on why he was so surprised--he'd just been going about his usual business, ya know? Printing sedition and whatnot, as you do, and all of a sudden, he hears Claire's voice.

I wish they'd done a better job conveying character so quickly and easily in other scenes. It felt a bit disjointed and some things did not quite connect, things that have been pointed out: Madame Jeanne being hostile, Jamie seemingly thinking of his marriage to Loaghaire but later saying he hadn't thought of it before, the fact that he told Claire about Willie but not about said marriage to L, that moment when they'd been "telling each other all about their past" [paraphrasing]over dinner but then he tells her about Ardsmuir as if he'd skipped that part of his life maybe . . . small things, yes, but one does notice them.

I can almost give the writers a pass for having Jamie tell Claire about Willie but not Laoghaire because he did kind of start to tell her twice, and she said, basically, "It can wait." It kind of looked like an "Oh, thank God" look on his face. Okay. Fine, I guess. And I don't mind him telling her right off. I was kind of glad, even if I didn't buy it entirely on a character level.

I know that the dropping in of information happened across in several times and places, and it was a bit madcap, but in the show it seemed even less connected, maybe because there wasn't that madcap-ness as a background to make it all seem like one long, silly scene. In this episode, it just felt like random bit of info followed by random bit of info.

The intro of Young Ian, for instance, just seemed like a strange, disposable interlude. He just kind of pops in, says, "Oh, are you a whore?" She says, "No, I'm your long-lost aunt." He's like, "Oh, cool. Well, bye." And I honestly DID think that Geordie was Ian for a minute when he first walked in.

I admit to being somewhat prudish, but I did feel the sex scenes were a bit too Sex Scene, ya know? They're like LOOK IT'S A SEX SCENE. SO MUCH SEX. Or maybe it was just me. I did like the infusion of humor. I was especially put off by that conversation that seemed to go on forever with Claire's boobies just hanging out there, and the camera just kind of focusing on her naked torso. Geez. Did they have to frame the conversation that way?

I was a bit disappointed by Fergus's reunion with Milady. They're just walking down the street, and there he is. Now, how it was handled worked fine, but I wish they'd kept the part with him meeting her in the brothel and her mistaking him for a customer! A big part of Fergus's character is his roguishness. The way they did it worked, though--the comment about him growing up to be handsome was lovely, and the actor works for me. I'm wondering if we'll get him recommending a girl for Young Ian in another episode, lol.

Those are all the negative things. Like I said, I liked the infusions of humor. I REALLY liked the cover story of her going to America. It still has massive flaws as a lie, but it's better than France, because one didn't just "drop by" Scotland if one had relocated to, say, Boston, so it's plausible that she'd gone there and never written or come back. I liked the awkwardness melting into familiarity for Jamie and Claire. Glad the Yi Tien Cho/Mr. Willoughby stuff was handled better.

I'm still a bit ambivalent, but I'd say maybe 6.5 out of 10 overall, and 9 out of 10 for certain parts of it. I don't know that any parts of it NAILED it for me.

[Atlanta]

I guess YMMV. Just my opinion, Nidratime.

Quote

I admit to being somewhat prudish, but I did feel the sex scenes were a bit too Sex Scene, ya know? They're like LOOK IT'S A SEX SCENE. SO MUCH SEX. Or maybe it was just me. I did like the infusion of humor. I was especially put off by that conversation that seemed to go on forever with Claire's boobies just hanging out there, and the camera just kind of focusing on her naked torso. Geez. Did they have to frame the conversation that way?

I liked the humor and awkwardness, but it seemed a bit OTT. I don't watch the show for butts and boobs, but for the story. I know that's prob not a popular opinion. I read "Big Little Lies" years ago and don't get me started on the assassination of Maddie's character and I got tired of seeing Nicole Kidman's rear and chest every. single. ep. At least it seemed that. 

Edited October 22, 2017 by Atlanta

[Nidratime]

I'm not surprised that Fergus would be the first one to bring up to Jamie, through hinting, the marriage to Laoghaire, since he would've been attuned to that family being enamored of Marsali. Fergus would've thought of her first.

[katville]

Gabaldon explains it in the book why Jamie did not tell Claire that he was married to Laoghair and I think it holds true here too. He was desperate for her to stay and he did not want to tell her anything that possibly might make her go away. I hope they play that scene when she finds out similar to the book because I thought it was very powerful and could be why they did not go super heavy on the emotions in this episode. They could be saving it for that fight. I think they hit the right beats here -- Jamie and Claire are tentative and unsure and don't want to do anything to upset the other one. 

[Atlanta]

IMO, it seemed more important to catch up on the last 20 years rather than jumping into bed. I know they were awkward and he was hiding Leg Hair. Jenny must have been on the 1700s version of crack to set that match up.

[GHScorpiosRule]

10 minutes ago, Atlanta said:

IMO, it seemed more important to catch up on the last 20 years rather than jumping into bed. I know they were awkward and he was hiding Leg Hair. Jenny must have been on the 1700s version of crack to set that match up.

They did catch up on the last 20 years. It just wasn’t shown in scene by scene, but in a voice over by Claire while they were eating dinner.

Same thing happened and was done in ”The Wedding”, when Claire asked Jamie to tell her about his family. In both, after those conversations they had sex/made love.

Though I’m not a fan of Gabaldon’s writing, I do love the emotional and character beats. Maybe if the premium channels had 22 episodes per season, we could get everything we want, but they don’t. I’ve learned that from the past two seasons. But they give me enough that I am happy. But I also understand what makes me happy won’t make those that are die hard fans of the buiks happy.

At this point, I think the writers are doing the best they can and Sam and Cait are doing an EXCELLENT JOB of conveying Jamie and Claire’s love, and Sex is a BIG part of that relationship.

[WatchrTina]

Random thought upon repeated viewing:

When Madam Jeanne catches Claire having breakfast with the whores she says something to the effect of "Did no one bring you breakfast?" Claire looked a bit awkward at that which I didn't understand because in the book no one DID bring her breakfast (or clothes) so she was required to go in search of sustenance in naught but a bed sheet.  But in the TV show -- someone DID bring breakfast to their room and were sent away because Jamie & Claire were busy "getting busy."  So THAT"S why Claire looks a bit abashed when Madam asks "Did no one bring you breakfast?" and then declares her intention to punish the neglectful maid.

Edited October 24, 2017 by WatchrTina

[Scarlett45]

I did not like the end scene either. I know Claire has a personality flaw of just saying whatever is on her mind, irrespective of the danger, but in 2017, with access to 911 and cell phones if I saw a strange man rummaging through my hotel room, and he didn't leave when I told him too but instead told me to sit down on the bed, I'd run the other direction. I don't like these constant threats of rape and danger to Claire's person. 

 

Yeah they didnt age Jaime at all (save the mention of his reading glasses), but I notice the actor does move a little more deliberately and carefully. Knowing how old Sam actually is I would think he was sore rather than older- the actors can only do so much if the makeup and hair people don't do any aging techniques. 

[Glaze Crazy]

First, the praise. Another excellent performance by Caitriona Balfe and Sam Heughan. They both bring their "A" game to the material they are given, as usual. Liked the look of grown-up Fergus, but the character is somewhere around age 30 and the Cesar Domboy looks about age 20. But then again, I guess it can be hand-waved since neither Caitriona or Sam look the age of their characters at this point in the story either. The new "Outlander," now with older characters that don't appear to have aged! I also like the look of the actor for wee Ian. I was actually trying to imagine him in NA style clothing with Mohawk style hair, a wolf, a bow and arrows and facial tats. Yeah, what he looks like now isn't what he's going to be looking like in a couple seasons. LOL.

For the rest, I'm among the "torn" book readers here. Overall it was...OK. Some of it was really good. I really liked the cold open from Jamie's POV. TPTB definitely tried to appease book readers by trying to include what they thought were the "important" stuff, but I totally agree with this:

12 hours ago, BryroseA said:

Also, whoa did some of Jaime’s direct-from-the-book lines to Claire about her body, her breast, her hair come off WAY cheesier out loud than on the page. I cringed a bit a few times.

Sometimes the book dialogue, although I smile when I recognize it, does fall a little flat if not outright goofy out loud. This is also true inside the books, sometimes. Even these excellent actors can't make some of this dialogue sound decent. TPTB are professional writers, I wish they could make more of an attempt to fix some of the bigger clunkers at the risk of possibly "offending" a book fan or two.

But, then there is this, where the book did it better:

12 hours ago, Petunia846 said:

No, actually it's not how she wrote it. They skipped all the crying...the desperate, shaking tears, clutching at each other, tangled together on the floor when he wakes up after fainting, and more shaking and being unable to really speak and then more tears upon seeing the pictures of Bree. They even skipped the gasp when the pictures went from being in black and white to being in color and him seeing her red hair for the first time.

 

I suspect the photographs scene will be the big miss for the series vs. books, at least for many book readers. I'm in the camp of: it should have been more emotional. Just the idea of "photographs", exact likenesses of people and things should have been more overwhelming from Jamie's POV. These magical things placed in his hands, that he has no idea what to think of the actual idea of them, never mind seeing his child for the first time in 20 years, captured in several different phases of her life, should have been more...more. I agree with several posters that it looked like he just flipped through them like they were vacation photos he was being polite about and not that he was seeing his 20 years lost-to-him child grow up, in a sense. At first viewing I was OK with Jamie telling Claire about Willie but after more thought and another watch of the episode I think it did take away from what should have been him and Claire bonding over their shared child's life story. He could have left any mention of his other child for another time. It's not like that kid is going to pop into the shop for tea with his dad or anything. Jamie has said he never expects to see Willie again so that bit of background info could have waited for another time. The secret he DID keep from mentioning is the one that's going to ultimately bite him in his (nicely shaped ;-) ) ass sooner than Willie's existence.

NoDorothyParker hit several different nails right on their heads, for me, with her post.

11 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

This episode is a terrific example in how in tweaking one thing to fix something from the page that doesn't quite work, you end up with a butterfly effect of following scenes that then become nonsensical.  I'm as happy as anybody that the showrunners wisely opted to make Willoughby less of a caricature, but now we have Jamie deliberately taking Claire to a brothel for no other reason than he apparently lives there, knowing full well the respectability of it and the questions that's going to open up.  While it's silly that Claire's dress is immediately ripped in the tavern scuffle that didn't happen here, now there's no reason for her to be gallivanting around a whorehouse in her shift being mistaken for being one of the working girls.   I know she's been gone awhile, but are we really supposed to think she's forgotten all sense of decorum and how people are in this time period?  That's before you even get to the prerequisite "you've been back in the past for 5 minutes already so let's throw in your first threat of sexual violence to remind you why this was a bad idea in the first place" ending.

The absolute worst though, as others have already said, has to be the complete underreaction to the pictures of Bree and immediately making the scene about Willie instead.  Up until this moment, Bree at best was a hypothetical to Jamie.  He didn't know whether she had lived to be born or even if she was a son or a daughter.  Seeing her grow up in still life should have elicited ... something beyond a that's nice, oh, hey, did I mention I had another kid I have at least met while you were gone?  While we can discuss for days what Jamie should or shouldn't have told Claire in those first heady days of her return, I never found it implausible that Willie would be an entirely separate subject that he wouldn't be quick to bring up.  He's so incredibly compartmentalized about what aside from losing Claire has to be the most painful thing in his life that he hasn't even told the sister he has clear boundary issues with.  He doesn't fully know Claire anymore and despite what he may say, can't fully trust that she won't disappear on him again.  We know this is his justification for not immediately coming clean about the Laoghaire marriage, which was at least nicely alluded to in his talk with Fergus about needing to speak to Ned Gowan.  So to just throw out Here's Willie! here clearly undermines what has happened to his character in Claire's absence or his motivations.

The episode did do a really nice job of conveying just how messy and almost seedy Jamie's life in Edinburgh in, compared to the laird of the manor/possible heir to the castle he was when Claire originally knew him.  The chemistry between the two actors, is of course, always lovely.

Not having (book) Claire left upstairs with no clothes, her (book) dress having been sent down to the seamstress for repair, due to the (book) foot chase through Edinburgh that didn't happen on screen also left me wondering why she didn't just put her perfectly fine (screen) dress back on before going downstairs to seek some breakfast. In a brothel. And yes to the ridiculousness of that whole "Caligula" scene in the front parlor of the brothel when Jamie comes in with Claire that first evening. That was unnecessary and very gratuitous. Just having some painted ladies sitting around entertaining men in a standard type brothel scene would have been enough to get the message across what this place was.

3 hours ago, Hybiscus said:

The "riff raff" was Lesley & Hayes from Ardsmuir.  They're the two who checked the traps while Jamie escaped.  I too wondered how they Came to be in Edinburgh after supposedly being sent to the colonies.

You know, if this is supposed to be a couple of men from Ardsmuir, now back in Scotland from their indendure/transportation to The Colonies, TPTB might have just backed themselves into a corner IRT Murtaugh, who went to the same fate as these two men should have. If these "riff raff" had the means to return, where is Murtaugh? (unless he shows up next episode as part of the smuggling crew, which I don't expect him to) Murtaugh still has family in Scotland with Jenny and Ian, and he knew Jamie was probably still on the Isle of Britain somewhere. This will also be a big ol' plot hole if they do indeed leave him in The Colonies, with his Scotland family having no idea of his fate. Especially since Jamie knows he was transported in the first place. I would think, if Jamie knows that the indenture periods were completed, he would have made every effort to find out where Murtaugh went, contacted him and tried to get him to come back, if he could. This dumb thing, if TPTB try and write it like Jamie doesn't know Murtaugh's final fate while others have come back, might just be their biggest gaff in the character arc of the Fraser family overall.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Glaze Crazy

[TaurusRose]

4 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

I did not like the end scene either. I know Claire has a personality flaw of just saying whatever is on her mind, irrespective of the danger, but in 2017, with access to 911 and cell phones if I saw a strange man rummaging through my hotel room, and he didn't leave when I told him too but instead told me to sit down on the bed, I'd run the other direction. I don't like these constant threats of rape and danger to Claire's person. 

 

Yeah they didnt age Jaime at all (save the mention of his reading glasses), but I notice the actor does move a little more deliberately and carefully. Knowing how old Sam actually is I would think he was sore rather than older- the actors can only do so much if the makeup and hair people don't do any aging techniques. 

Claire is a moron. She challenges when she should retreat. I’m really not bothered about her almost getting raped because she’s reckless. How hard is it to stay in the room and LOCK the door? And if failing that, running out of a room with a strange man ransacking it?  Regarding Jamie’s aging, in addition to the glasses and the way he carried himself, I thought his facial hair was tinged with gray.

[Atlanta]

43 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

They did catch up on the last 20 years. It just wasn’t shown in scene by scene, but in a voice over by Claire while they were eating dinner.

Rewatched the ep, but totally missed that. 

PS: I love GH and the Scorpios.

@taurusrose , I expected her to poach him with a fireplace poker. Claire is a BA and survivor. 

[SandyToes]

Like many others, I could have used two minutes more on the photograph scene and  maybe two less minutes of "mmmmphmmm."  The photo scene was soooo powerful in the book.  I'm one of those that appreciate changes from the book, just to keep it interesting for ME, but I think we were all short-changed in this scene.

The only other thing I fixate on is the fires in the fireplaces and the candles.  Jamie left fires and candles burning overnight in the shop? Or does he return after a lunch break?   And the fires and candles in his room at the brothel?  Already lit or did Pauline make a SPEEDY beeline up to light them all?  Silly me. Allowing practicality to get in the way! 

And as mentioned by many, the humor  - Geordie, the bumping of noses, the interruptions, all those little "real life" things  and tidbits from the book.

I thought Young Ian really resembled "Jenny."  Facial expressions, etc.  As if they are really related.  I'm one of the few that didn't gel with Fergus - the younger version was so round-faced and amazing. Hoping Older Fergus grows on  me. 

I also appreciate that they toned down the cartoon aspects of Willoughby.  I really don't like all his business in the books, but some of it is really important later on, so see the need to include him.

There is just so much left in this book to cover. Just don't see how they will fit it all in. 

Edited October 23, 2017 by SandyToes

[TaurusRose]

1 minute ago, Atlanta said:

Rewatched the ep, but totally missed that. 

PS: I love GH and the Scorpios.

@taurusrose , I expected her to poach him with a fireplace poker. Claire is a BA and survivor. 

I expect her to get away unscathed, but damn! How about not putting herself in sketchy situations in the first place just once and a while?

[dbell1]

Echoing what a lot of people are saying about the photos. Bree is his daughter with the love of his life, and that random flipping through photos scene was not right. However mentioning Faith was a lovely moment.

Loved the dual look at how Jamie and Claire got back together. Very nice.

Why is Claire being blamed for walking into her room? Should she have known someone was in there? And her first instinct is to protect Jamie's secrets.

Hooray for Willoughby being rewritten as a real person and not a cartoon character.

Hi young Ian, you're not what I expected. Neither are you Fergus.

Loved how Jamie was reluctant to leave Claire, and hesitant around her. The awkwardness was spot on.

[Atlanta]

So bummed she didn't give him the kiss on the cheek from B.

[theschnauzers]

On Fergus, when Claire left just before Culloden, he was about age 10. So with the reunion, Fergus is now about 30. I wouldn’t expect hm to have kept the Cherub look any more than Willie Ransom will as an adult.

[lianau]

11 hours ago, Petunia846 said:

This so much. It's not even a case when they can fall back on "well, it was in the book..." because it's not. It's like, did you learn nothing from the commentary and critique on previous seasons?

I was already not feeling it, but that ending is what led to my rather inarticulate (though quite succinct) first post in this thread.

My favorite part of this episode is Jamie's glasses, but I'm sad that he's embarrassed by them.

You could probably  construct a rape attempt out of the situation  with the future Creme de Menthe guy who Claire had pegged as a tax collector and who got killed by Mr Willoughby 

 

1 hour ago, Glaze Crazy said:

You know, if this is supposed to be a couple of men from Ardsmuir, now back in Scotland from their indendure/transportation to The Colonies, TPTB might have just backed themselves into a corner IRT Murtaugh, who went to the same fate as these two men should have. If these "riff raff" had the means to return, where is Murtaugh? (unless he shows up next episode as part of the smuggling crew, which I don't expect him to) Murtaugh still has family in Scotland with Jenny and Ian, and he knew Jamie was probably still on the Isle of Britain somewhere. This will also be a big ol' plot hole if they do indeed leave him in The Colonies, with his Scotland family having no idea of his fate. Especially since Jamie knows he was transported in the first place. I would think, if Jamie knows that the indenture periods were completed, he would have made every effort to find out where Murtaugh went, contacted him and tried to get him to come back, if he could. This dumb thing, if TPTB try and write it like Jamie doesn't know Murtaugh's final fate while others have come back, might just be their biggest gaff in the character arc of the Fraser family overall.

I still hate that they kept Murtagh alive , it doesn't make any sense and if they really have some Ardsmuir guys back in Scotland it's even worse . Someone up thread identified them as Leslie and Hayes but if this Hayes is Gavin Hayes than who are they going to hang in Season 4 when Bonnet escapes his execution ? I hope they don't  use  Murtagh for that role . 

[Cloudberryjam]

Anyone have thoughts about why they would have Jamie say “its very fine to see you again Claire” in the scene after hes changed his pants? 

Is this in the book? Is he supposed to be in shock? I am seriously wondering no snark intended. I am trying to understand these choices.  It just seemed such a formal, distant thing to say (and i guess Sams delivery seemed formal to me)...

[BryroseA]

5 hours ago, Cloudberryjam said:

Anyone have thoughts about why they would have Jamie say “its very fine to see you again Claire” in the scene after hes changed his pants? 

Is this in the book? Is he supposed to be in shock? I am seriously wondering no snark intended. I am trying to understand these choices.  It just seemed such a formal, distant thing to say (and i guess Sams delivery seemed formal to me)...

Yes, that line is in the book. On the page, it marks the moment when they swing away from the wild emotion of reunion to the more embarrassed awkwardness of haven’t-seen-each other-in-twenty-years. The line didn’t work as well in the episode, IMO, because it wasn’t preceded by a giant cry-fest on the floor. 

 

Buik:

“Given a moment to recover from the shock of seeing each other, we were both stricken now with shyness. I saw his shoulders straighten and then he turned around to face me. The hysterical laughter had left us, and the tears, though his face still showed the marks of so much sudden feeling, and I knew mine did, too. “It’s verra fine to see ye, Claire,” he said softly. “I thought I never … well.” He shrugged slightly, as though to ease the tightness of the linen shirt across his shoulders. He swallowed, then met my eyes directly.”

[Haleth]

In general I enjoyed the episode, but I'm with those of you who felt let down by the photo scene.  Jamie didn't seem moved enough by the images of his daughter.  Then he immediately started talking about Willie, as if being present for the childhood of his son (that he could not acknowledge) was a substitute for not having his daughter.  He hasn't seen Willie in years-- why was it so important to mention this child at that moment to Claire?  It was clumsy.  

13 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Claire tells Jamie “You won’t lose me.  Not unless you do something immoral.”  WTF?  That is SO out of character for her.  It is also contradicted later when she says “I will never leave you again.”  I suppose we are supposed to think she’s joking around – they had been teasing with her trying to guess how Jamie REALLY makes his living (guesses that included kidnapping and highway robbery).  But still, that line was a false note in my book and I have a bad feeling they put it in in service of Claire’s temper-tantrum later in the story when she finds out about Laoghaire and DOES leave him.

Well, bigamy is immoral.  :D

I'd been dreading the intro to Willoughby.  Thank goodness the show writers understood the problems with the character as written in the book.

[Amers]

Well, he also brought up Faith so maybe it was his way of connecting all 3 of his children to the moment. Faith had hair like Bre. And so maybe he wanted Claire to know about his other child, which is consistent with his character because he seems to love all his children very much. I didn't mind bringing up Willy at all. But I do think he could have fallen to pieces over Bre a bit more. 

[Kata01]

8 minutes ago, Haleth said:

In general I enjoyed the episode, but I'm with those of you who felt let down by the photo scene.  Jamie didn't seem moved enough by the images of his daughter.  Then he immediately started talking about Willie, as if being present for the childhood of his son (that he could not acknowledge) was a substitute for not having his daughter.  He hasn't seen Willie in years-- why was it so important to mention this child at that moment to Claire?  It was clumsy.  

In rewatch last night, I found the transition from Bree’s photos to the Willie reveal extremely clumsy as well. They talk about Bree- “She was a good sleeper.” “She has red hair.” “She’s wearing a bikini.” 

Then when Claire asks Jamie what Willie is like, he lights up and his tone changes- He’s “braw! spoiled! strong!” etc etc etc

That, for me, is what made the scene with Bree’s photos fall flat. No - she’s “stubborn! fiery! passionate!” etc for her. The conversation regarding Bree was all the banalities, a marked contrast to the one about Willie. Very unbalanced. Breaks my heart for Bree. 

[Nidratime]

Quote

Then when Claire asks Jamie what Willie is like, he lights up and his tone changes- He’s “braw! spoiled! strong!” etc etc etc

That is the child he knows, the one he helped raise.

I can imagine he still feels the loss and possibly some guilt over not knowing his daughter, over another man raising her, and raising her well. I'm sure a part of his stoicism about it is having to come to terms with the idea *finally* -- because the pictures he now has seen is evidence of that. Before that, she was just a thought in his heart and head and he could push away that he couldn't raise or even meet her.

[Kata01]

39 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

That is the child he knows, the one he helped raise.

I can imagine he still feels the loss and possibly some guilt over not knowing his daughter, over another man raising her, and raising her well. I'm sure a part of his stoicism about it is having to come to terms with the idea *finally* -- because the pictures he now has seen is evidence of that. Before that, she was just a thought in his heart and head and he could push away that he couldn't raise or even meet her.

Right. And Bree is the child Claire knows. My point of why the transition from Bree to Willie failed for me is the difference in description and tone between the two. Bree is the “good sleeper wearing the bikini” vs Willie the “braw!! strong!!” The conversation regarding Bree is superficiality of appearance/banality vs Willie, which is his depth/character/soul.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Kata01

[aemom]

I was also a bit disappointed in the reunion.  I was expecting more.  It was too subdued for me.  The sex was passionate, but their conversations weren't and should have been. 

When Jamie was speaking to Fergus, I got the impression that when he said "I hadn't thought of that" or something to that effect, that he wasn't referring to the fact that he was married to Laoghaire, but the fact that because he was already married to Claire, that his marriage to Laoghaire might be invalid - and that's why he wanted to speak to Ned.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Okay, another nitpick. It has tae do with the cold opening--like WHY did Jamie need Madame Jeanne to dress him? or tie his cravat? I'm sure Jamie kens how to dress himself. Since show has decided to make her look like a jealous manipulative shrew, I certainly didn't need tae see that. Unless of course it was Roberts's idea to pull a Gotcha! on the unsullied.

And as fer Jamie's hair. Yes, yes, I can't ignore that. I would have much preferred he have either his Culloden hair or end of season one hair. This raggedy mess isn't doing it for me.

And while it seems that Jamie doesn't look older, Ron Moore said they did gray up his hair, though due to the coloring, it's more difficult to see, than in Claire's. Also, Sam mentioned in one of the interviews, they added a prosthetic to his brow, to make it look more lined or furrowed. So while he doesn't look like a decrepit 46 year old, who should look 10 years older just based on everything he's been through, he doesn't look as young as when we saw him in the first season. And as has been stated upthread, even buik Jamie and Claire look younger than their years.

Oh, and thanks @kariyaki! Turns out my Infinity/Comcast does release this at midnight! I was watching "Freedom and Whisky" so I could immediately watch "A. Malcolm" and the pop up asked if I wanted to watch the next episode.

[WatchrTina]

1 hour ago, Amers said:

Well, he also brought up Faith so maybe it was his way of connecting all 3 of his children to the moment. Faith had hair like Bre. And so maybe he wanted Claire to know about his other child, which is consistent with his character because he seems to love all his children very much.

I woke up thinking about this moment and I'm with AMERS.  I think the writers thought it was a very organic for Jamie to see the photos of Bree, then to think of the first child he and Claire lost, and then that would naturally make him think of the other child he has lost.  I think the writers thought that progression was both natural and depicted something of the unique and special relationship between Jamie and Claire in that he admits he hasn't told anyone about Willie, not even Jenny.  But Claire, he could tell.  Claire seems to interpret it that way too.  She's not put off or disappointed by his reaction. (She hasna read the buik in which he "goes quietly to pieces" over Bree's photos ye ken).  I'm going to try to hold on to that interpretation -- that seeing Bree for the first time overwhelmed him with grief and longing for all the children he "lost" and that Claire, who knows him so well, totally gets that that is what he is feeling and is not offended at all by him telling her about his son.  For all she knew, he could be married with a living wife (one he actually loved) and a half-dozen children and she had girded her loins to the possibility of finding THAT out.  So learning of one bastard son, a child he never expects to see again, fathered on a woman who died in childbirth (and who he did not love) -- well that's probably a relief.

Yeah I'm going to stomp all over that wee bit of my mind that felt like he was saying "Thanks for telling me about my daughter but let me tell you about my SON." <<stomp, stomp, stomp>>

22 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Okay, another nitpick. It has tae do with the cold opening--like WHY did Jamie need Madame Jeanne to dress him? or tie his cravat? I'm sure Jamie kens how to dress himself. Since show has decided to make her look like a jealous manipulative shrew, I certainly didn't need tae see that. Unless of course it was Roberts's idea to pull a Gotcha! on the unsullied.

You answered your own question.  I TOTALLY think they were trolling the unsullied.

Edited October 23, 2017 by WatchrTina

[Biggie B]

Quote

Why is Claire being blamed for walking into her room? Should she have known someone was in there?

She shouldn't have been out of the room in the first place. Jamie told her not to go anywhere (which, sure, Claire could've interpreted as not to go outside the brothel itself). The intruder might've broken into the room regardless, but at least if Claire had stayed in there with the door locked, that might've deterred the guy. But I get why she left the room - she was hungry and probably a little curious. I do find it very tiresome that men want to rape Claire the moment they see her. I understand full well that women were in danger so much of the time in that era and that many (not all) men were completely out of control in that respect...and that the omnipresent threat of being raped and killed serves to heighten and intensify the drama of the story, as well as providing ample opportunities for Jamie to rescue Claire or for Claire to demonstrate her cunning, but it wears thin to me after a while. 

 

[GHScorpiosRule]

33 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

You answered your own question.  I TOTALLY think they were trolling the unsullied.

That doesn't sound like something Matt Roberts would do. From all the interviews, they try very hard to make it so that those who haven't read the buiks, can also understand what is going on. And well, let's just say I didn't like this choice. Or the directing choice to make Madame Jeanne come off like a jealous, cunning, manipulative, disbelieving shrew.

[nodorothyparker]

Madame Jeanne is skeptical enough when book Jamie shows up at her brothel door with a woman he suddenly introduces as his wife too.  Because it's not a place a man would ever think to take a respectable married woman, if that's who she really is.  I'm not reading any particular jealousy or much of anything else into that. 

Claire's out roaming around a freaking brothel in her shift even though she has a still perfectly intact dress.  It's actually not unreasonable for whatever man she comes across to assume from that that she's one of the working girls.  There's that butterfly effect of changing some details but not reflecting how they should have changed what came after.