S03.E13: Eye of the Storm

[Athena]

Quote

Claire is forced to play a game of cat and mouse with an old adversary as she searches for Young Ian. The Frasers race through the jungles of Jamaica to prevent the unthinkable.

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

[ElectricBoogaloo]

I've been watching The Crown, so I'm living for these high class put downs! I was laughing my ass off when John told Leonard that he didn't earn the title captain and that he had no authority on the island to arrest Jamie without a warrant or an affidavit. But after all that, no goodbye "I not so secretly love you" hug between John and Jamie? Well, a girl can dream.

Willoughby + Margaret = true love in Martinique! I can't say I'm too broken up about her brother being killed since he was a selfish, abusive, exploitive asshole.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying things but why didn't Claire and Jamie consider putting an ad in the paper warning Brianna that Geillis was coming after her? She knows which newspapers they searched when they were looking for Jamie so surely she could have found a way to contact her that way. If I went time traveling and thought I might never see my daughter again, I might consider picking a newspaper and a date every year to leave an "I'm okay and I miss you!" message before going through the stones. Not that I'm in any way criticizing Claire for killing Geillis. I enjoyed having her around to cause trouble, but of course Claire would do anything to protect her daughter.

It wasn't very practical for Jamie to let Hercules go because he could accuse Jamie and Claire of murdering Geillis. I guess that doesn't matter now that they're gone.

I know I'm not watching this show for realism, but there was a huge storm raging, Claire got knocked overboard, and by the time Jamie dove overboard, cut her loose, and brought her to the surface, the sea was totally calm?

I laughed a little that Claire's cover story when she returned to Scotland was that she went to America after Culloden and now they're in America!

[BitterApple]

I thought this was a really good finale, aside from Claire Doing Something Ridiculously Dangerous And Stupid, by going onto the deck of a ship being tossed around in a storm. I know it was just plot fodder for the eventual "Oh No One Of Them Is Going To Die...Oh Wait, They're Saved!" trope that has become a staple of the show, but for a doctor she has absolutely zero sense.

I'd love to know what the original shipping routes were from the Islands to Europe. Did they hug the American coastline and then cross further North? I'm just curious as to why they'd be so close to the coastline of Georgia that Jaime and Claire were able to drift in to shore before drowning or being eaten by sharks. 

Margaret's brother dying didn't bother me either. He was an abusive asshole. Geillis dying wasn't a shock because I'd already predicted she was the woman in the cave, but I thought her scenes in Jamaica were very powerful and well done, and I'll miss her on the show (crazy as she was, lol). For a brief second, I thought Claire was going to pass out in the pool and accidentally send herself back to the 60s.

And on to the biggest mind fuck of the whole episode, what the hell was Margaret talking about when she called Jaime and Claire her parents? Was she channeling Brianna? That scene was creepy, confusing and fascinating all at the same time.

And on to America! The Francophile in me was hoping we'd get the French Revolution, but looks like they're going the Colonial route instead. Bring on Season 4!

Edited December 10, 2017 by BitterApple

[MelinaBallerina]

10 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I know I'm not watching this show for realism, but there was a huge storm raging, Claire got knocked overboard, and by the time Jamie dove overboard, cut her loose, and brought her to the surface, the sea was totally calm?

 

Well, they did pull back the view through the clouds to show that they were in the eye of the hurricane.  It is calm there.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

I thought, what a weird, cold opening.  Until the end.  Then it made sense.  

Kind of odd choice for an episode title though, because the 'eye of the storm' is the calmest part.  That's where you're actually safe.  Unless it was to foretell that Jamie and Claire would be safe despite all the tossings and turnings.  

Thank you, Lord John, for knowing and adhering to the proper legal prerequisites for arresting a person and depriving them of their liberty.  Glad to see someone with a lick of sense on this show.  (Just when I was wondering why the hell Claire didn't go straight to LJ instead of back to the hotel to change and go off on her own hair brained scheme.)

Now, speaking of Claire - if that had been me and Gellis said something about 'we're friends, aren't we?' I'd have said, well then, as my friend, where the hell is my nephew, because I know you've got him, bitch.  But that's just me.  Oh, and I'd have done it while close enough to her with a knife in my hand.  

Damn, Claire is so stupid.  Just spill it all to Gellis.  You know you can trust her: the woman who murdered multiple husbands and who you suspect of kidnapping your nephew and lying to you about that.  Right.  So just go ahead and tell her everything about Brianna.  I'm sure that's perfectly safe.  And then believing that she was retiring to her quarters.  At least Jamie brought a weapon.  

I kind of love the escaped slave putting on Margaret's brother's wig.  

So...they're worried about Gellis going through time to kill Brianna, but they got time to stop and kiss passionately.  Cause that's what I would totally do in that moment.  

Aw.  So glad to see Ian finally safe with Jamie.  I really liked when Claire connected what she'd done to Gellis while saving Ian to the skeleton she saw in the past-future.  

I think it would have been lovely to see Claire put her arm around Ian when Jamie was holding them both.  

Georgia, huh?  I'd have thought they'd wash up on the Forida coast from their trajectory.  

Spoiler

I can't say I'm terribly excited about it since they're not supposed to film in America at all.  

[Glade]

Well, three rapists died this season; BJR, Geillis, and Lady Geneva; the world is better without them. Yet I do wish we got more Geillis, for instance if she showed up alive in S2 Paris like the writers had once planned (in which case she may not have been able to say she never met any time-travelers, if Master Raymond was one as well?) But in the end she was a delusional serial rapist/killer who unlike Claire fully embraced the slave trade and like BJR, gave in to her darker impulses with the taste of power.

I was very piqued that Claire actually stopped to not only change clothes but also let her hair down on the way to Geillis' house. I really hope that the 'batsuit' is swiftly abandoned at the start of S4.

I wondered, since Jaimie couldn't hear the bees/pass through the stones, what would happen if he just fell into the portal; would it function as a normal pool for him? Or Geillis' servant, for that matter? Her skeleton certainly laid in that cave for a long time without being disturbed. It was a satisfying twist that the stones in the jungle above could only be accessed via the pool in the cave. And seeing the Jamaican's perform a very similar ritual to the ancient celtic dance she saw reenacted in Inverness was very powerful. How many other stone circles are there in the world?

I was surprised when Geillis' story ended at the halfway mark. I had also wondered if we'd get a scene showing us what Bree/Roger were up to in 1968, like how we saw Frank in the S1 mid-season finale. But instead we were waiting to see how Claire died in the first moments of the episode. I was not very convinced by all the green-screen ship action.

That was a lovely moment at the end, when Jaime confidently gave out his real name; not using a pseudonym like he did all season, as well as for much of season 1. Lord John hasn't been in Jaimaica for more then a few months, but I hope he'll apply for a transfer if C/J are going to stay put in America. I'd also love to see him in his own spinoff series.

On reflection, I think this season was really great; it had to cover so much ground, and become something completely different by it's end; naturally there was some awkwardness, but things certainly paid off in the end, and I'm excited to see these characters move forward next autumn. But no Jaime, do NOT grow a beard.

[BitterApple]

My fear for Lord John is that we'll somehow see him during the American Revolution, only he'll be on the wrong side of the war. Maybe Jaime will finally repay him by saving his life for once? And will we finally get a long-awaited reunion with Murtagh? Please, Outlander, make it happen. I also can't wait to see the opening credits for S4.

[jcin617]

Whatever you do Claire, just stay out of the Revolution's way!

[ganesh]

All of that with the time travel and 200 y/o baby and then Gellis just dies? What a let down. Ooh, it's the skeleton Claire saw before she went back, and it amounted to nothing. And now they're in America so the slate is totally wiped clean? Claire needs to do absolutely nothing and the rebels win the war. I watched this show every Sunday night this season as appointment television. What a waste of time this season was. 

[Swiss]

  Season three is barely over and I already miss Lord John...sigh.    The scene where Jamie and Claire were clinging to the wooden remains of their ship reminded me so much of Jack and Rose on Titanic!!

[LoveIsJoy]

I don’t understand the timeline. If Gellis was killed in the 1700s, and Clare witnessed proof of her bones in 1960, then how was Gellis also alive in the 1960s for Claire and Brianna to meet?  Gellis was alive in Ireland and dead in a Boston laboratory—at the same time??  Shades of Schrödinger's cat thought experiment?

I guess I don’t get time travel.

Each episode has gotten increasingly unbelievable, and is beginning to feel like a poorly written Harlequin romance book.  I can suspend disbelief to enjoy a show to some extent, but when every plot point is so conveniently contrived to save the couple from the latest, so-called cliffhanger, it’s redundant and boring.

Makes me sad because I used to love this show.

[terrymct]

WTF was that?

Gelis could have been a fun villain.  Why bring her back to kill her off so fast?  That doll with the blood pumping out of the neck was badly done.  Was the actress playing Gelis wearing that ugly wig so that she might match the body better?  The body had bright colored hair, while the actress' wig was not.  This episode was a muddled mess. 

Who were the black people having the ceremony with the clarvoyant sister?  The Maroons, escaped slaves who lived free in the mountains of Jamaica?  Were they Gelis' slaves?  I really don't think slaves were allowed such large and obvious signs of their African religion.   

The clarvoyant sister is now a real clarvoyant even without the three sapphires around?  Why?  How?  Why was she channeling Brianna?  What happens to the 200 yr old baby prophesy now that the only person on the show who currently cares to any degree about a Scot on the throne is dead?  Does that just drop?

What happened to the man that Claire owned?  Did she free him to live with the Maroons?  Or was she taking him on the ship?  

Mr Willoughby was badly written this week.  That speech he gave, while the intent was good, was really poorly done and poorly delivered.

Claire nearly chops Gelis' head off, seems a little broken up for a moment about doing that, but forgets being upset when the opportunity to schtupp Jamie presents itself?   It was ridiculous that Claire *just* *happens* to see Gelis' skeleton when it's being studied in the 1960's. 

The silliest thing of all.  Claire is washed overboard in a storm and is tangled in part of the ship's rigging and is sinking.  Jamie notices she's gone and *just* *happens* to be able to swim down to her in crystal clear water so he can see her and *just* *happens* to be able to easily cut her free.  Freakin ridiculous.  Then, they surface in the eye of a hurricane and managed to find some floating wood...then are able to ride out a hurricane successfully floating on that wood...and *just* *happen* to wash up on a beach near to where the people on the ship ended up.  Absolutely stupid.

[ganesh]

I don't get why they did such a great job setting up the society in Jamaica just to leave it in the next episode. 

Washing up on the Georgia coast is a fairly hard reset. Clearly, killing off Gellis eliminated any threat to Brianna unless the brother decides to take up the independent Scotland cause but he's never shown any interest. 

Going to America also gets rid of any racing against time suspense. 

[toolazy]

4 hours ago, ganesh said:

I don't get why they did such a great job setting up the society in Jamaica just to leave it in the next episode. 

Washing up on the Georgia coast is a fairly hard reset. Clearly, killing off Gellis eliminated any threat to Brianna unless the brother decides to take up the independent Scotland cause but he's never shown any interest. 

Going to America also gets rid of any racing against time suspense. 

The brother is dead, if you mean Margaret's brother.

[ganesh]

The guy who came up with the 200 y/o baby that was talking to Gellis. 

[toolazy]

22 minutes ago, ganesh said:

The guy who came up with the 200 y/o baby that was talking to Gellis. 

He's dead.  Yi Tien Cho broke his neck. 

[TaurusRose]

On 12/10/2017 at 6:50 AM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I've been watching The Crown, so I'm living for these high class put downs! I was laughing my ass off when John told Leonard that he didn't earn the title captain and that he had no authority on the island to arrest Jamie without a warrant or an affidavit. 

I know! Right?  ???

[BitterApple]

8 hours ago, LoveIsJoy said:

I don’t understand the timeline. If Gellis was killed in the 1700s, and Clare witnessed proof of her bones in 1960, then how was Gellis also alive in the 1960s for Claire and Brianna to meet?  Gellis was alive in Ireland and dead in a Boston laboratory—at the same time??  Shades of Schrödinger's cat thought experiment?

 

I don't get it either. My understanding is Geillis only went through the stones once. So assuming her timeline is running parallel with Claire's, how did Geillis manage to spend the 20 year gap in Jamaica while Claire was in Boston yet she's a skeleton in a lab in 1960 and alive in 1968? Claire's journey has always been linear. She's either in the past or the present, the same amount of time passes in both worlds and there's no overlaps. Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't compute.

Part of me wants to Google to find some answers, but the last time I did that I accidentally came across spoilers, so I'm going to have to stay confused, lol.

Edited December 11, 2017 by BitterApple

[ganesh]

It should be a closed loop. She went through the stones into the past when we saw her in the S2 finale, lived in Scotland/Ireland/Jamaica, died, and her remains were discovered at some point and transferred to Boston.  She still is born in 19-whenever, grows up, and goes through the stones. She's not technically alive and dead at the same time. 

I know it's not a scifi show, but I wish there was something more about the stones. Gellis clearly knew a lot about them. A tv character's lack of obvious curiosity on any show really irks me. When Gellis dropped she was from the future, I would have millions of questions, especially if I basically just tripped and fell through the stones and ended up 200 years in the past, and here you have someone who actually did it with purpose. 

Does it really matter though? It appears they've ended that plot to have Jamie and Claire separated and reunited multiple times in Georgia now. 

Unless Gellis isn't really dead! It seems odd that they'd have a prophecy essentially about Brianna and then just wrap the whole thing up the next episode. I remember on social media there was a huge deal when the casting for the role of Brianna was announced. The fanfare strikes me as odd for someone who was only in a handful of episodes. 

Edited December 11, 2017 by ganesh

[FnkyChkn34]

31 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

I don't get it either. My understanding is Geillis only went through the stones once. So assuming her timeline is running parallel with Claire's, how did Geillis manage to spend the 20 year gap in Jamaica while Claire was in Boston yet she's a skeleton in a lab in 1960 and alive in 1968? Claire's journey has always been linear. She's either in the past or the present, the same amount of time passes in both worlds and there's no overlaps. Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't compute.

Part of me wants to Google to find some answers, but the last time I did that I accidentally came across spoilers, so I'm going to have to stay confused, lol.

I agree, I don't think the time travel element of this show is fully flushed out.  I think we're all free to come to our own conclusions about how it "works."  

[ganesh]

And I'm totally fine with the stones being a kind of magic that just takes you to your destiny. I'd rather it be left at that. When you throw in Roger saying something factually baseless like 'time flows at the same rate' or having Gellis' bones show up, which is shorthand in any time travel story that you're operating on a closed loop, then it just unravels. Because the act of finding Gellis' bones in Boston means she's fated to die in that cave, and she has to, to close the loop. On the other hand, they're showing Claire mucking about in time, in real time, so maybe not closed loop. Like the French guy in S2 only died because Claire was there. 

It would have been more dramatic to me if they found Jamie was alive but weren't sure if Claire went through that she'd end up in the right time, but Claire was like, 'it's our destiny to be together. I'll find him.' 

I know nothing of the books, but it sounds like they aren't that good to me if you're interested in anything beyond Claire+Jamie TRULURVE4EVA (and a day). 

[Otherkate]

2 hours ago, ganesh said:

Unless Gellis isn't really dead! It seems odd that they'd have a prophecy essentially about Brianna and then just wrap the whole thing up the next episode. I remember on social media there was a huge deal when the casting for the role of Brianna was announced. The fanfare strikes me as odd for someone who was only in a handful of episodes. 

Well, if that's the case, I sure wish they had gotten a better actress to play Brianna. She stands out in this show and not in a good way.

I didn't like this episode as much as the previous one, but I was entertained enough. I had no idea what was going on with the dancing ceremony at all, as in why was it happening in the first place. The only real issue I had with this episode was the ridiculous scene in the water where Jamie SOMEHOW manages to dive down and find Claire in that water in the middle of a hurricane. And then takes the time to make out with her or something. Absurd. Almost took me out of the whole thing, but I recovered. 

Loved the revolutionary drums in the ending music!

[BitterApple]

With Geillis dead and nobody left to care about the prophecy, I'm trying to picture a future storyline for Brianna. She could presumably make an attempt to go through the stones because she's curious about her father and misses her mother, but I can't envision a scenario where her presence is an absolute necessity. 

[Hyla]

17 hours ago, LoveIsJoy said:

Each episode has gotten increasingly unbelievable, and is beginning to feel like a poorly written Harlequin romance book.  I can suspend disbelief to enjoy a show to some extent, but when every plot point is so conveniently contrived to save the couple from the latest, so-called cliffhanger, it’s redundant and boring.

I haven't much cared for the silly, convoluted plot this 2nd half of the season either. I've felt irritated with the show presenting one disjointed  contrivance after another in place of a cohesive story so that I'm not sure what genre it's supposed to be this season. The unlikely existence of a treasure box to drive Ian's kidnapping and the voyage to recover him, all of the moments of separation-danger-reunion, the cringworthy addition of a prophecy that makes no sense and a villain who was supposed to have been killed off in the first season popping up just so the hero of the piece can kill her again all just seem thrown in and half-thought out just so they can keep making episodes.

That said, I still like the costumes, props and scenery and have been watching for stand alone scenes (since they're usually well-acted), and to find out where the characters end up. I do still like the characters and the overall story, and I'm still a fan of the central love story, even though I've been frustrated with the events and plot holes of the last few episodes.

6 hours ago, Otherkate said:

Loved the revolutionary drums in the ending music!

I will forgive this show if the point of the Caribbean adventure was only to relocate the characters to colonial shores in time for the American Revolution! I was a huge fan of Turn! so the fife and drums made me very excited for Season 4 (it would be especially interesting to see the war from a Southern state's perspective, should they stay in Georgia). I don't want to get my hopes up too high, because I don't know what the original story is. I will look past repetitive arrests and captures and violent personal attacks that threaten the lead couple if they can also tell a story that gets into the stakes of the Revolution (and if they get to meet Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington!)

6 hours ago, Otherkate said:

The only real issue I had with this episode was the ridiculous scene in the water where Jamie SOMEHOW manages to dive down and find Claire in that water in the middle of a hurricane. And then takes the time to make out with her or something. Absurd. Almost took me out of the whole thing, but I recovered. 

I actually liked the surreal underwater rescue scene, and I'm not sure why that scene and the beach scene worked for me since they were just as absurdly unrealistic as any of the lineup of lead couple in peril scenes that came before.

They were both beautifully shot, and neither was rushed, and that may have been part of it. But, I think it was more that the story suddenly seemed like a fairy tale with the rescue, when it didn't before, and I could accept it as believable as long as I understood the story in that context. Also, Jamie and Claire so happy to be washed up alive on the beach and Jamie making it sound like Georgia was some foreign land only spoken of in legends seemed fairy tale like as well.

I know the other scenes that I've complained about were also about imperiling the couple and then reuniting them. Maybe it was because those last two scenes were so pretty or maybe just because they marked the end of the season. Either way they set me up to look forward to season 4 and I hadn't been until then.

[Hyla]

2 hours ago, BitterApple said:

With Geillis dead and nobody left to care about the prophecy, I'm trying to picture a future storyline for Brianna. She could presumably make an attempt to go through the stones because she's curious about her father and misses her mother, but I can't envision a scenario where her presence is an absolute necessity. 

It's just as much a storyline driver for Brianna to decide to go looking for her missing mother and try to meet her father as it was for Claire and Jamie and company to sail out to Jamaica to save Ian at all costs. And just as likely to lead to all kinds of side adventures and coincidental meetings no matter how necessary her being there is to the overall plot.

7 hours ago, Otherkate said:

Well, if that's the case, I sure wish they had gotten a better actress to play Brianna. She stands out in this show and not in a good way.

I think I must be one of the only fans who likes the actress who plays Brianna. I tend to find something compelling about an American accent as delivered by a native English speaker. There's something repressed or intense in it maybe? Besides that I thought she did a good job playing a 19 year old presenting as stoic and unflappable but still letting signs that she was struggling with a life and sense of self in upheaval come through. During the Christmas episode I was thinking Claire shouldn't have left her. She may say she's all grown up and doesn't need her mother anymore, but she has unresolved stuff causing her to fail out of school and I think she still does.

I think realizing she actually wasn't ready to say good-bye to her mother might be what would compel her to attempt a trip through the stones. That and of course there has to be a scene where she meets her 18th century father!

[Hyla]

9 hours ago, ganesh said:

Because the act of finding Gellis' bones in Boston means she's fated to die in that cave, and she has to, to close the loop. On the other hand, they're showing Claire mucking about in time, in real time, so maybe not closed loop. Like the French guy in S2 only died because Claire was there. 

I love time travel stories and agree this series so far seems to be closed loop time travel. Which is so tragic because so much effort was spent on trying to prevent/win the Jacobite Revolution and everything the involved characters did just ended up causing what they were trying to prevent!

If Geillis had been wandering around caves in Jamaica looking for stone circles in the 20th century say, she could have stumbled over her own bones!

Likewise, Claire on her second honeymoon with Frank in Scotland could have found her name in some report written by Black Jack Randall even though she hadn't met him yet.

She also could have read a historical account of St. Germaine? dying of poisoning without having any idea she would one day go back in time and give him the poison.

If they do go on to play in the Revolutionary War (and I hope they do!) I will no longer be worried they will mess everything up for the Americans. I'll know everything they do contributes to how history eventually works out.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

8 hours ago, Hyla said:

I will forgive this show if the point of the Caribbean adventure was only to relocate the characters to colonial shores in time for the American Revolution! I was a huge fan of Turn! so the fife and drums made me very excited for Season 4 (it would be especially interesting to see the war from a Southern state's perspective, should they stay in Georgia). I don't want to get my hopes up too high, because I don't know what the original story is. I will look past repetitive arrests and captures and violent personal attacks that threaten the lead couple if they can also tell a story that gets into the stakes of the Revolution (and if they get to meet Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington!)

I would think that the constant threat of Claire being raped would be much less likely in the colonies than in the highlands/brothels of Scotland.  I hope so anyway.  On the other hand, this show doesn't have a good track record with that so far, so I don't see them giving up their go-to plot device so easily. 

And I would love it if we actually got historical figures such as those you mentioned - and maybe Thomas Jefferson,Thomas Paine (who came over on a ship infected with Typhoid fever!), and Patrick Henry - on the show!

That being said:

On 12/10/2017 at 9:02 PM, jcin617 said:

Whatever you do Claire, just stay out of the Revolution's way!

Lord, just don't tell me she decides they need to try and stop it!  For...reasons.

7 hours ago, Hyla said:

If they do go on to play in the Revolutionary War (and I hope they do!) I will no longer be worried they will mess everything up for the Americans. I'll know everything they do contributes to how history eventually works out.

Oh...I don't know.  If what ever they do somehow contributes to the American Revolution's success, that might be too Mary Sue/Marty Stu for me if it comes across as those poor, stupid Americans wouldn't ever have succeeded had it not been for Claire's wonderful doctoring knowledge and Jamie's incredible leadership. 

8 hours ago, Hyla said:

I think I must be one of the only fans who likes the actress who plays Brianna.

I think she's just fine.  I certainly don't have the dislike for her I see from a lot of other folks.  She grew on me much more during her scenes this season.  She didn't seem as stilted as she did at the end of S1. 

7 hours ago, Hyla said:

If Geillis had been wandering around caves in Jamaica looking for stone circles in the 20th century say, she could have stumbled over her own bones!

Likewise, Claire on her second honeymoon with Frank in Scotland could have found her name in some report written by Black Jack Randall even though she hadn't met him yet.

She also could have read a historical account of St. Germaine? dying of poisoning without having any idea she would one day go back in time and give him the poison.

Missed opportunities!  I would have liked some of these.  Since we seem to get a lot of crazy coincidences anyway - why not actually tie them to the story a little better. 

[Juliegirlj]

Soooo disappointed!! Even the acting has declined. ( Catriona was fabulous) Wouldn't Jamie be devastated if he thought Claire had drowned? The comment he made to her was just stupid " if you're dead I'll kill you"..... 

The sex talk?! Stupid. I get the fore play dirty talk, but, get on w' it!! 

The whole episode seemed sloppy and rushed. 

Guess all good things must come to an end. 

[ganesh]

13 hours ago, BitterApple said:

With Geillis dead and nobody left to care about the prophecy, I'm trying to picture a future storyline for Brianna. She could presumably make an attempt to go through the stones because she's curious about her father and misses her mother, but I can't envision a scenario where her presence is an absolute necessity. 

I can't either. Which was why '200 y/o baby' was such a huge deal. Is there anyone left who cares about the prophecy?

10 hours ago, Hyla said:

It's just as much a storyline driver for Brianna to decide to go looking for her missing mother and try to meet her father as it was for Claire and Jamie and company to sail out to Jamaica to save Ian at all costs.

Is it? When Claire left Brianna, it was like "bye forever". Her suddenly being all, "I miss my mother I'm going back" doesn't seem consistent. However, she may find a newspaper article or something of Claire's untimely death and decide to go back to save her, which I could buy. 

In Claire's present, her and Jamie essentially are responsible for Ian being kidnapped, and they know Jenny will beat them into next week, so I'd say it's much more of a driver.

Since they're in America now, you know they will meet up again with Merdaugh. 

10 hours ago, Hyla said:

I love time travel stories and agree this series so far seems to be closed loop time travel. Which is so tragic because so much effort was spent on trying to prevent/win the Jacobite Revolution and everything the involved characters did just ended up causing what they were trying to prevent!

With Gellis, it seems like they were going for the closed time loop, but I was saying that based on the previous events that they weren't consistent in that regard. 

They want to keep this going until a season 5 and beyond? What was life expectancy back then? Because it seems like they're pushing it. 

[Bort]

24 minutes ago, ganesh said:

They want to keep this going until a season 5 and beyond? What was life expectancy back then? Because it seems like they're pushing it. 

Life expectancy being low was mostly about children not making it to adulthood. Throw in young adults that died in war, childbirth, etc, and yeah, it was low. But basically, if one made it to adulthood, they'd live a pretty long time.

[ganesh]

Claire and Jamie aren't really living a life of leisure though. 

[BitterApple]

Plot armour will guarantee neither Claire nor Jaime falls victim to any of the calamities that usually killed people in those days, but I imagine there won't be any significant time jumps next season. I can see the show runners advancing things a few years to fall in line with history, but I don't think we'll get a 15 or 20 year leap the way we did with S3.  

Edited December 12, 2017 by BitterApple

[RulerofallIsurvey]

1 hour ago, BitterApple said:

Plot armour will guarantee neither Claire nor Jaime falls victim to any of the calamities that usually killed people in those days, but I imagine there won't be any significant time jumps next season. I can see the show runners advancing things a few years to fall in line with history, but I don't think we'll get a 15 or 20 year leap the way we did with S3.  

Well, Claire has had 20th century vaccinations, so that should keep her safe from things like small pox outbreaks, etc. like she didn't get Typhoid fever this season.  Jamie has no such insurance - except that his wife is a miracle worker!

[ganesh]

No, I doubt they'll be in real mortal danger. I was thinking more people might think it's strange that they're so older than the average age. 

[Hyla]

9 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I would think that the constant threat of Claire being raped would be much less likely in the colonies than in the highlands/brothels of Scotland.  I hope so anyway.  On the other hand, this show doesn't have a good track record with that so far, so I don't see them giving up their go-to plot device so easily. 

I was worried about Jamie, Ian, Fergus and Marsali too. This show is equal opportunity in torturing it's characters in the worst ways. Maybe considering where they are they will explore other sources of danger and drama next season.

9 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

And I would love it if we actually got historical figures such as those you mentioned - and maybe Thomas Jefferson,Thomas Paine (who came over on a ship infected with Typhoid fever!), and Patrick Henry - on the show!

Oh, definitely Thomas Paine! And I hope Jamie goes back into printing, deciding that the better weapon is the written word. And Common Sense and other seditious materials should definitely play a huge role as they meet people and have another chance to bring a nation out from under British rule (successfully this time).

9 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Lord, just don't tell me she decides they need to try and stop it!  For...reasons.

I wonder if she might decide she can improve on the movement. Wouldn't America be better if they'd abolished slavery in the beginning or respected Native American land rights or listened to Abigail Adams and enshrined equal rights for woman in the constitution?

9 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Oh...I don't know.  If what ever they do somehow contributes to the American Revolution's success, that might be too Mary Sue/Marty Stu for me if it comes across as those poor, stupid Americans wouldn't ever have succeeded had it not been for Claire's wonderful doctoring knowledge and Jamie's incredible leadership. 

I don't mean that I want to watch them being essential to the winning of the war. I just mean the outcome is set so no matter how much trouble they get into they aren't going to change things. For instance if Claire distracts Jamie while he's trying to haul cannon up a slope and they end up losing one the battle would have already been recorded as having been won or lost with the exact number of cannon they end up with. So, their actions contribute to what happens but not necessarily good or significant things.

9 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Missed opportunities!  I would have liked some of these.  Since we seem to get a lot of crazy coincidences anyway - why not actually tie them to the story a little better. 

Since they showed in the very first episode of season 2 that Claire and Jamie were unable to change the outcome of the Rising, it might have been interesting to drop hints along they way that history was going along exactly as Claire knew it had, and all their attempts were doomed because they were in a closed loop.

6 hours ago, ganesh said:

I can't either. Which was why '200 y/o baby' was such a huge deal. Is there anyone left who cares about the prophecy?

I hope not! It was an incredibly stupid prophecy. The only reason Geillis can possibly care about the idea of a new Scottish king after everything she failed to change so far is because she is insane. She's from 1968, she knows there never was another rising that went anywhere and she knows monarchies lose all significance in the 20th century. Was she going to drag Brianna back to the 18th century to kill her? And the sacrifice would inspire Charles Stuart to try to take Scotland again? What was Geillis doing in Jamaica anyway? If she's so interested in the Stuart line she should be in France or Italy.

6 hours ago, ganesh said:

Is it? When Claire left Brianna, it was like "bye forever". Her suddenly being all, "I miss my mother I'm going back" doesn't seem consistent. However, she may find a newspaper article or something of Claire's untimely death and decide to go back to save her, which I could buy. 

It's consistent enough for me that while Claire thought it was good-bye forever Brianna may not want to live out the rest of her life without trying to see her mother again. Besides that, she knows the location of a time travelling portal! Why wouldn't she want to try that out at least once, even if she didn't have someone she wanted to visit?

I'd also buy she saw her mother's name in Revolutionary War era documents and thinking she's going to interfere too much with history goes back to prevent her from doing so.

6 hours ago, ganesh said:

Since they're in America now, you know they will meet up again with Merdaugh. 

I hope so! Though he'd have to have survived into his 70's in order for that to happen. Maybe he met an Ellen and they'll meet his kids?

6 hours ago, ganesh said:

With Gellis, it seems like they were going for the closed time loop, but I was saying that based on the previous events that they weren't consistent in that regard. 

Have they ever shown that Claire was able to change history? They've shown she had a role to play impacting history, but nothing to say she had altered events away from her timeline. Proof to me would be if Frank or the Reverend Wakefield had mentioned the Duke of Sandringham being murdered and beheaded in his own home by a notorious Scottish outlaw before she went back. That event at least seemed to have been a direct consequence of Claire's having gone back to the 18th Century. Other things, like St. Germaine poisoning might have been inevitable - the king would have just had someone else in the poisoner's role.

3 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Well, Claire has had 20th century vaccinations, so that should keep her safe from things like small pox outbreaks, etc. like she didn't get Typhoid fever this season.  Jamie has no such insurance - except that his wife is a miracle worker!

I trust the plot armor mentioned above to keep Jamie safely with Claire until the end if the series. It's the theme of the show they always save each other, the more last minute the better!

[ganesh]

2 minutes ago, Hyla said:

Since they showed in the very first episode of season 2 that Claire and Jamie were unable to change the outcome of the Rising, it might have been interesting to drop hints along they way that history was going along exactly as Claire knew it had, and all their attempts were doomed because they were in a closed loop.

I'm not so confident the show is saying that it's all a closed loop though. Where's the drama then? There's no reason for them to do literally anything. 

3 minutes ago, Hyla said:

What was Geillis doing in Jamaica anyway? If she's so interested in the Stuart line she should be in France or Italy.

That begs the question then why did they have the plot at all where Brianna was specifically mentioned? 

[Hyla]

11 minutes ago, ganesh said:

I'm not so confident the show is saying that it's all a closed loop though. Where's the drama then? There's no reason for them to do literally anything. 

The characters don't know it's a closed loop, so they're still risking everything with the goal of changing history. And they still have free will so what they do still has an impact, just not necessarily the intended one.

I thought for sure that truth telling tea was going to be used on Claire and it was going to come out that she and Jamie had  worked to defund Prince Charlie's cause at the same time Geillis was diverting funds from her wealthy Scottish husband - so both their efforts cancelled each other out. Also, I thought the showdown that resulted in Geillis's murder would be triggered by Claire, having drunk the tea, telling her all about how Dougal really died!

There's still drama, just not of the kind that requires the authors to come up with an alternate timeline when the character's succeed in changing the past.

11 minutes ago, ganesh said:

That begs the question then why did they have the plot at all where Brianna was specifically mentioned? 

I think just to reference a character who'd have some resonance with the viewer and to raise the stakes so Claire would have a believable reason to kill Geillis. The prophecy, the gemstones and the treasure box were all WTF plot points to me.

[ganesh]

21 minutes ago, Hyla said:

The characters don't know it's a closed loop, so they're still risking everything with the goal of changing history. And they still have free will so what they do still has an impact, just not necessarily the intended one.

By definition, if it's a closed loop, then no, what they do doesn't have an impact. Do they know that it's not a closed loop? Or is it? Because I'm skeptical the show/author put nearly as much thought into this. Claire clearly (heh) flashbacked to the bones before killing Gellis and put two and two together. I'd venture she is smart enough to figure that out.

I thought in S2 that the Scots won a battle they weren't supposed to because they figured out the secret path through the fog to ambush the Brits. Or they won it in a way that was different than the 'original'. 

It's way way more interesting if it's not a closed loop and they need to stop being bulls in so many china shops and not screw up the American Revolution. 

21 minutes ago, Hyla said:

I think just to reference a character who'd have some resonance with the viewer and to raise the stakes so Claire would have a believable reason to kill Geillis. The prophecy, the gemstones and the treasure box were all WTF plot points to me.

I have zero resonance with the daughter. They skipped over any character development with her and Frank and then it was just like 'bye Felicia!' Maybe if the Jamaica plot was a 2 parter it would have been more dramatic, but it seemed like a half hour's worth of 'uh oh! Gellis is going back! Oh she's dead and it's all over now ok.'

Given what needed to be accomplished narratively, I think I would have produced the season much differently. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by ganesh

[Hyla]

3 hours ago, ganesh said:

By definition, if it's a closed loop, then no, what they do doesn't have an impact. Do they know that it's not a closed loop? Or is it? Because I'm skeptical the show/author put nearly as much thought into this. Claire clearly (heh) flashbacked to the bones before killing Gellis and put two and two together. I'd venture she is smart enough to figure that out.

I'd say Claire's going back in time had an impact on Jamie and other people who met her. Everything she did in the past changed things from what they would have been otherwise. Claire just isn't aware of a timeline where she didn't already impact history.

Instead of thinking of it as closed loop, I wonder if Claire would think of it as fate or destiny. I would hope after her experience that she would go and read some science fiction. 

3 hours ago, ganesh said:

I thought in S2 that the Scots won a battle they weren't supposed to because they figured out the secret path through the fog to ambush the Brits. Or they won it in a way that was different than the 'original'. 

I don't think Claire remembered enough about the details of the battles to be of any help at all. I think the big victory was Prestopans, but Claire had always remembered that as a victory. She may have played a role in helping to get the local who knew the path through the bog to the high command, but he may have found his way there anyway.

I read some online summaries of how the real life battles were supposed to have played out after season two. What would have been really helpful for Claire to have remembered was the outcome of the planned ambush on the eve of Culloden. If she had just told Jamie to go with Prince Charlie's half of the ambush that night maybe they wouldn't have gotten lost and retreated back to Culloden Moor.

3 hours ago, ganesh said:

It's way way more interesting if it's not a closed loop and they need to stop being bulls in so many china shops and not screw up the American Revolution.

It is more interesting if there is the danger that they might harm the cause or if there's the implication that their presence is needed to save it. Maybe they aren't committed to the closed loop model, but they also haven't shown where time travelling has changed history by presenting any alternative timelines.

3 hours ago, ganesh said:

I have zero resonance with the daughter. They skipped over any character development with her and Frank and then it was just like 'bye Felicia!' Maybe if the Jamaica plot was a 2 parter it would have been more dramatic, but it seemed like a half hour's worth of 'uh oh! Gellis is going back! Oh she's dead and it's all over now ok.'

Even if the actress playing Brianna had never been introduced, using Claire and Jamie's daughter and the reason they were separated for 20 years as the prophesied victim is a way to justify Claire killing Geillis to the viewers.

It was a quick intro to Geillis and her evil plan just to resolve it so soon. I wonder if a build up earlier in the arc would have worked better.  

3 hours ago, ganesh said:

Given what needed to be accomplished narratively, I think I would have produced the season much differently. 

Me too. Also I would have changed scenes to make Claire less enragingly stupid. Especially the episodes where Claire jumps off the British ship and does not swim towards the port lights the goat lady was pointing to and the one where she tells everyone to stay below then goes out to stagger across the deck trying to get Jamie's attention when he's obviously busy steering the ship. 

[terrymct]

On 12/12/2017 at 2:02 AM, Hyla said:

I haven't much cared for the silly, convoluted plot this 2nd half of the season either. I've felt irritated with the show presenting one disjointed  contrivance after another in place of a cohesive story so that I'm not sure what genre it's supposed to be this season. The unlikely existence of a treasure box to drive Ian's kidnapping and the voyage to recover him, all of the moments of separation-danger-reunion, the cringworthy addition of a prophecy that makes no sense and a villain who was supposed to have been killed off in the first season popping up just so the hero of the piece can kill her again all just seem thrown in and half-thought out just so they can keep making episodes.

 

I think part of the problem is that originally the show was a somewhat deep dive into the culture and history of a specific point in time, Scotland immediately before the Battle of Culloden and the start of the decline/demise of the strong clan system.   There were issues with the story, particularly the dastardliness of Black Jack and the potential of someone getting raped every few minutes, but it was good because we were figuring out an interesting place and time looking over the shoulder of a person who was as new to it all as we were.  Starting with the trip to France, it's fallen apart bit by bit.   Sure, there was a rich guy who paid for Claire to have a fantastic wardroom and somehow Claire and Jamie managed to pretty much immediately get to Versailles.  It got sillier and sillier after that until were traveling across geographies and cultures like someone waterskiing behind a boat driven by a drunk.  The only think that really is consistent is that Claire and Jamie keep getting separated, moon over each other, are reunited, bone each other, do something stupid, then get separated again.  Wash, rinse, repeat.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

13 hours ago, Hyla said:

I was worried about Jamie, Ian, Fergus and Marsali too. This show is equal opportunity in torturing it's characters in the worst ways.

Well, I'm not so worried about Marsali.  I don't like her, so the show can kill her off and I'd be fine.  ;)  I guess I'd fee bad for Fergus though.  But who knows?  Maybe he'd find someone nicer. 

Quote

Maybe considering where they are they will explore other sources of danger and drama next season.

Oh, good God.  There's going to be Indian attacks, aren't there?  Those heathen Native American savages...That is probably not going to come off well at all.

13 hours ago, Hyla said:

Oh, definitely Thomas Paine! And I hope Jamie goes back into printing, deciding that the better weapon is the written word. And Common Sense and other seditious materials should definitely play a huge role as they meet people and have another chance to bring a nation out from under British rule (successfully this time).

And Jamie is older now - even if he doesn't look it.  It's a lot easier for a mature man to fight with words versus the sword and musket.

13 hours ago, Hyla said:

I wonder if she might decide she can improve on the movement. Wouldn't America be better if they'd abolished slavery in the beginning or respected Native American land rights or listened to Abigail Adams and enshrined equal rights for woman in the constitution?

I'm sure Claire will think she knows so much better.  I just wonder if it will turn out as well as her foray into the slave market in Jamaica. 

13 hours ago, Hyla said:

I don't mean that I want to watch them being essential to the winning of the war. I just mean the outcome is set so no matter how much trouble they get into they aren't going to change things. For instance if Claire distracts Jamie while he's trying to haul cannon up a slope and they end up losing one the battle would have already been recorded as having been won or lost with the exact number of cannon they end up with. So, their actions contribute to what happens but not necessarily good or significant things.

But I don't trust the show not to make them essential - even in small way - to the winning of the war.  Like with perhaps meeting Thomas Paine: no doubt he'll get the idea for Common Sense from Jamie and/or Claire!  (gag).  It's those kinds of things I don't want to see. 

1 hour ago, terrymct said:

I think part of the problem is that originally the show was a somewhat deep dive into the culture and history of a specific point in time, Scotland immediately before the Battle of Culloden and the start of the decline/demise of the strong clan system.   There were issues with the story, particularly the dastardliness of Black Jack and the potential of someone getting raped every few minutes, but it was good because we were figuring out an interesting place and time looking over the shoulder of a person who was as new to it all as we were.

I agree with this.  Although I think the France interlude still held together pretty well, everything after that fell apart because the story really hasn't spent enough time in any one spot to really delve into the culture and let the audience experience it from an outsider's point of view, like we did with Scotland of the past in Season 1. 

With that in mind, maybe landing in the colonies is a good thing - as long as they don't hop on a ship right away and end up blown off course in Africa.  If they can take some time to really delve into the culture and history of per-Revolutionary war America, it would be interesting, at least for me. 

18 hours ago, ganesh said:

No, I doubt they'll be in real mortal danger. I was thinking more people might think it's strange that they're so older than the average age. 

I don't really think they're older than the 'average age' though.  They're only in their 40's right?

[ganesh]

28 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Those heathen Native American savages...That is probably not going to come off well at all.

Not with Claire there. She will make peace. 

 

29 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I agree with this.  Although I think the France interlude still held together pretty well, everything after that fell apart because the story really hasn't spent enough time in any one spot to really delve into the culture and let the audience experience it from an outsider's point of view, like we did with Scotland of the past in Season 1. 

I thought that's what they were going for by setting up Jamaica. They certainly started well there and then it was over. 

[tennisgurl]

And Jamie and Claire's world tour continues! I ended up quite enjoying our trip to Jamaica, but heading to Revolutionary War Georgia should be a good time. I will miss Jamaica though. I really liked when Claire flashed from the people in Jamaica dancing to the women in Scotland doing a dance by the stones. I enjoy when the show makes call backs to the various cultures she meets, it seems really mystical and elegant. Scotland is still my favorite, but I admit that I like seeing all these places and people and cultures, even if its just for a bit.

As for time travel...whenever I watch time travel shows or movies, I just keep saying "Timey Whimey..." over and over. Its time travel, I just go with the time flow. 

Of course, Claire and Jaime cant do anything without some new debacle. If its not one thing, its another with them. At least they're together, and we can go five minutes without them screaming each others names next season. Maybe. Just dont get involved in the war, guys! You dont need more drama! Of course, Jaime might see this as another chance to beat up some British guys, so this might just be calling his name. 

One British guy that Jaime would be happy to see? Lord John. His high class insults were a thing of beauty, and his shade at the navy. "Well in the ARMY we have more traditional standards..." He really is a great friend, I hope we see him again. And hopefully it wont be awkward if they end up on different sides of the same war. 

Sad that Gellis is dead, she was fun to have around. Lady had grown a serious case of the crazy eyes. 

[ganesh]

What would be better is if Jamie and Claire did their own version of the underground railroad and Lord John was their point man in Jamaica. They've already established freemen live on the island.

I really don't see the interest in Jamie and Claire being in the thick of the revolution tbh. I wouldn't call bs on it because Jamie I can buy saying, "I couldn't win independence for Scotland, but I can help here." I think there's more narrative freedom staying on the outer edges of it. 

Unless Claire decides to run the spy ring and is the unnamed source. Because they were not good spies on Turn!

[abc123baby]

5 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I don't really think they're older than the 'average age' though.  They're only in their 40's right?

Claire is 50 when she returns, Jamie is 45.   When they first meet in the beginning of season one, we learn she is 27 and he is 22.  She stayed 3 years before returning to Frank through the stones (30) and then returns 20 years later.  Further, we know she revealed to Murtaugh she was born in at least 1918 and she returns in 1968.  That confirms her age.   

Edited December 13, 2017 by abc123baby
typo

[Hyla]

10 hours ago, terrymct said:

 

I think part of the problem is that originally the show was a somewhat deep dive into the culture and history of a specific point in time, Scotland immediately before the Battle of Culloden and the start of the decline/demise of the strong clan system.   There were issues with the story, particularly the dastardliness of Black Jack and the potential of someone getting raped every few minutes, but it was good because we were figuring out an interesting place and time looking over the shoulder of a person who was as new to it all as we were.

That's so true! The first half of season one was very well put together. It was gorgeous and immersive and was competently telling the story it was trying to tell. The show never really achieved that quality again in later arcs. 

I enjoyed the time in France for the exploration of that culture and the new characters introduced. But, all the shenanigans to stop the rebellion didn't work for me and they had lost me plot wise during the second half when they were trying to win a war they had already crippled and that they had to have known was doomed to failure. 

8 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Well, I'm not so worried about Marsali.  I don't like her, so the show can kill her off and I'd be fine.  ;)  I guess I'd fee bad for Fergus though.  But who knows?  Maybe he'd find someone nicer. 

She's been awful to Claire and she left her sweet little sister to live alone with their crazy mother, but I do admire how fearlessly she stood up to her stead-father.  And the casting is amazing in how much she looks like Leoghaire.

8 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Oh, good God.  There's going to be Indian attacks, aren't there?  Those heathen Native American savages...That is probably not going to come off well at all.

I can't imagine them resisting the temptation. I don't know how historically accurate raids on coastal towns by wild Indians would be at this stage of colonization, but, I don't imagine that would stop them!

I found this episode's dance scene stereotypically dubious in that they felt they had to incorporate the frenzied murder of a chicken and some guy who showed up looking for his sister. They don't seem to be afraid of controversial depictions of minorities if drama or interesting visuals can be made.

8 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I'm sure Claire will think she knows so much better.  I just wonder if it will turn out as well as her foray into the slave market in Jamaica.

If her persuasion skills are yelling in people's faces and hitting them with her parasol until they see and do things her way, then she will be just as successful. 

8 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

But I don't trust the show not to make them essential - even in small way - to the winning of the war.  Like with perhaps meeting Thomas Paine: no doubt he'll get the idea for Common Sense from Jamie and/or Claire!  (gag).  It's those kinds of things I don't want to see. 

Ugh, I don't want to either! But, I would like a scene where they are reading Common Sense and debating the issues of the day as they figure out where they fit into the movement. 

4 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

One British guy that Jaime would be happy to see? Lord John. His high class insults were a thing of beauty, and his shade at the navy. "Well in the ARMY we have more traditional standards..." He really is a great friend, I hope we see him again. And hopefully it wont be awkward if they end up on different sides of the same war. 

No! I want to see Lord John again, but I don't want to see him and Jamie face off across a battlefield with echoes of his last fight with BJR. (I have to confess, Claire has been irritating me with all her humorless agitating and suicidally stupid decisions - in that scene I really was preferring Jamie and kind, calm, rational John Grey as the power couple.)

4 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

Sad that Gellis is dead, she was fun to have around. Lady had grown a serious case of the crazy eyes. 

Geillis made a much more interesting villain than equal opportunist rapist BJR. It's a shame she won't be showing up again with even more out there prophesies.

3 hours ago, ganesh said:

Unless Claire decides to run the spy ring and is the unnamed source. Because they were not good spies on Turn!

They were all terrible spies in Turn! - it was an insult to the real-life Culper Ring. But, I was in love with that show as a period piece set during one of my favorite eras. I could see Setauket as a real place and I liked the characters and their soap opera level dramas.

3 hours ago, abc123baby said:

Claire is 50 when she returns, Jamie is 45.   When they first meet in the beginning of season one, we learn she is 27 and he is 22.  She stayed 3 years before returning to Frank through the stones (30) and then returns 20 years later.  Further, we know she revealed to Murtaugh she was born in at least 1918 and she returns in 1968.  That confirms her age.   

Thanks for working that out! Doesn't she also travel from 1968 to about 1765? So, she'll be 60 when the Revolution hits and Jamie will be 55. Murtaugh, if he's still around will be at least 20 years older than that. (Still want him to show up though!)

[BitterApple]

22 hours ago, Hyla said:

Thanks for working that out! Doesn't she also travel from 1968 to about 1765? So, she'll be 60 when the Revolution hits and Jamie will be 55. Murtaugh, if he's still around will be at least 20 years older than that. (Still want him to show up though!)

That brings up an interesting conundrum. What are the showrunners going to have Jaime, Claire & Co. do for ten years in America until the Revolutionary War hits? That's an awful lot of time to fill. As you note, Jaime will be in his mid-50's, which is a bit long in the tooth to be fighting on the battlefield. Even though Claire will be a "young" 60 relative to the time period, they're both getting past the stage where they can be running around putting themselves in dangerous situations and fighting their way out of it. Of course, it's going to happen anyways, because plot and fantasy and all, but it will start to become more and more ludicrous as the series goes on. 

[ganesh]

I'm calling underground railroad to Jamaica.

[StrictTime]

Well, this episode did it for me.  I took this series off my DVR list.  The first season was intriguing, the time travel, Scotland,  and the fish-out-of-water story for Claire.  The Paris season had all those beautiful costumes (swoon!), but the plot was starting to be forgotten and boring.  Last season was excruciating for many reasons, including casting decisions and Jaime and Claire being separated the whole time.  This season was absolutely nonsensical.  SO MANY PLOT HOLES and !amazing! coincidences.  And not even gorgeous costumes or set decoration for eye candy.  Half the season occurred in a variety of disease-ridden ships, for God’s sake.  I deleted this episode as soon as Margaret’s brother just happened to show up at the slave camp to join his sister and her Chinese lover, who also happened to be there, along with Jaime and Claire hiding in the grass (lolololol).  I have a $600 cell phone and unlimited texting/data and can’t get two of my friends to meet up with me at the same time.  It is too much to be borne. 

[jqdeco]

1 hour ago, StrictTime said:

Well, this episode did it for me.  I took this series off my DVR list.  The first season was intriguing, the time travel, Scotland,  and the fish-out-of-water story for Claire.  The Paris season had all those beautiful costumes (swoon!), but the plot was starting to be forgotten and boring.  Last season was excruciating for many reasons, including casting decisions and Jaime and Claire being separated the whole time.  This season was absolutely nonsensical.  SO MANY PLOT HOLES and !amazing! coincidences.  And not even gorgeous costumes or set decoration for eye candy.  Half the season occurred in a variety of disease-ridden ships, for God’s sake.  I deleted this episode as soon as Margaret’s brother just happened to show up at the slave camp to join his sister and her Chinese lover, who also happened to be there, along with Jaime and Claire hiding in the grass (lolololol).  I have a $600 cell phone and unlimited texting/data and can’t get two of my friends to meet up with me at the same time.  It is too much to be borne. 

LOL, to true about not being able to get friends to meet up at the same time, even with all of our technology.  I forgive the plot holes and coincidences and all the other problems with this show and instead watch it for the pretty.  Jamie (who has ruined me for all real life men), music, costumes, and scenery.  Plus the romance and sex between Jamie and Claire.  I do agree that the first season was the best.  I am on my fourth viewing of it.