S03.E13: Eye of the Storm

[ganesh]

1 hour ago, StrictTime said:

 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. 

I like how this is qualified with unlimited texting and data. Because you have multiple options of communicating with people and they still can't show up at the same time. You could literally facetime as you're walking to the destination and it still won't work. 

[nara]

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

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.

I don't think there was time for her to think of that idea between finding out that Brianna was at risk and the showdown in the cave.  I do agree with everyone who has said that there should have been a plan (like advertising in a specific newspaper every year on a certain date) to let Brianna know she was okay.

On 12/10/2017 at 0:51 PM, BitterApple said:

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!

I think she was channeling Brianna, so I think the prophecy may still be in play.

An episode or 2 ago, I posted about which revolution they would get involved in.  Now, it's looking more and more like the American Revolution.  In fact, I think that Claire will somehow be the cause of the Revolution..

On 12/10/2017 at 5:38 PM, RulerofallIsurvey said:

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.)

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 that Claire did not have the same relationship with John as did Jamie.  She would not have that immediate trust in him to go to him.

I also loved the wig thing!

I actually was thinking they'd better kiss one last time in case she gets drawn back to the future.  Was happy when they did that.

I was glad to see Claire make the connection with the skeleton.  Someone on the board had predicted it was Claire's skull, which might also have been interesting.  I wonder what progress Joe made with that skeleton.

 

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

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

No way, our girl not only can't stay out of trouble, but she's likely to be the cause.  Perhaps she inadvertently suggests to people that they should dump the tea in the harbor.

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

I thought this episode was very visually beautiful.  I hope they submit it for a Emmy for cinematography (or whatever the equivalent is for television).  I especially liked the dance scene.  Just after I was thinking about how it reminded me of the ladies in the first episode, they intertwined the images.  Beautiful.  I though the storm was a bit CGI-ish, but still beautiful.  I liked the underwater scene, despite agreeing with people on the issues of the water being so clear, when it had just been so turbulent.

I enjoyed Geillis's interpretation of events--that Claire was always after her!  Interesting way of looking at things, and cannot say I blame her.  I wish she hadn't died because I felt like the threat to Brianna should have lasted longer.

So what's the deal with the prophecy?  I wonder if the Scottish king will turn out to be an American president with Scottish ancestry.  Brianna would likely still be alive in our present day, but perhaps the prophecy is meant to come true after our present.  If Diana Gabaldon had not written these books years ago, I would swear they were keeping current with the recent Scottish independence vote and one that may come again in the future.  I hope they don't just drop the prophecy.

I actually fast forwarded the love scene--boring and anticlimactic (no pun intended--okay, maybe a little).

My wishes for the new season:  a plot for Fergus and Marsali, return of Murtagh, Mrs. Fitz immigrates to America and sets up a B & B, we get to see the look on Laoghaire's face when Jamie and Claire pay her off and are officially done with her, we find out what's up with Brianna and Roger, John Grey finds love (very discreetly) and stops mooning over Jamie., Jamie and Willie reunite, Ian apprentices with someone in a relatively safe and stable occupation and stays out of trouble.

[BusyOctober]

So even though Geillis is dead, and maybe the dumbass prophecy is dead too.  But, without risking spoilers, does anyone understand WTF Geillis thought would be accomplished if she managed to kill Baby Brianna?  How would the death of a non-royal American citizen baby affect the line of succession in the UK?  If Brianna died...then...???? I am no expert on the British KIngs and Queens and the intricacies of their lineage, but I am certain if Brianne were killed in 1948, it wouldn’t have changed King George VI or his daughter’s (eventual) reigns. Wouldn’t some Scottish plot had to have been hatched as far back as the nieces and nephews of any Stuart’s left way back in the 1700’s? Or are we supposed to just take it on face value that had Geillis been successful, the Windsor’s never would have ascended?  I can only suspend belief so long!

[DittyDotDot]

14 minutes ago, BusyOctober said:

So even though Geillis is dead, and maybe the dumbass prophecy is dead too.  But, without risking spoilers, does anyone understand WTF Geillis thought would be accomplished if she managed to kill Baby Brianna?  How would the death of a non-royal American citizen baby affect the line of succession in the UK?  If Brianna died...then...???? I am no expert on the British KIngs and Queens and the intricacies of their lineage, but I am certain if Brianne were killed in 1948, it wouldn’t have changed King George VI or his daughter’s (eventual) reigns. Wouldn’t some Scottish plot had to have been hatched as far back as the nieces and nephews of any Stuart’s left way back in the 1700’s? Or are we supposed to just take it on face value that had Geillis been successful, the Windsor’s never would have ascended?  I can only suspend belief so long!

I think first and foremost one needs to remember that Gellis is a loon and doesn't really think rationally. But, secondly, it's a prophecy which usually are vague and somewhat nonsensical enough to lead crazy people down crazy paths. 

[ganesh]

I really wish they spent at least one more episode in Jamaica because they set up essentially a brand new cast of characters and brought in the prophecy. From what I got out of it was that after 20+ years in the past, Gellis was just nuts and was going with whatever. Kill Brianna? nbd she's already killed. 

I don't know why they bothered to include the daughter if she wasn't going to factor into the time travel plot. She and Frank in the 1960s were essentially props. 

I heard Gellis left her car radio on that one time and that's why she's crazy.

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, ganesh said:

I heard Gellis left her car radio on that one time and that's why she's crazy.

See, I heard it the other way. ;)

[RulerofallIsurvey]

On 12/22/2017 at 6:50 PM, nara said:

I think that Claire did not have the same relationship with John as did Jamie.  She would not have that immediate trust in him to go to him.

I don't think it should have mattered that Claire didn't have as much trust in LJ as did Jamie.  I'm not saying that Claire should have just immediately trusted him, like Jamie did, to help her as a friend, because no, she didn't know him.  But rather, she know that Jamie trusted him and she also knew that LJ was the new governor of the island.  As the governor, Claire would have known (being the educated woman she is) that LJ would have the highest level of legal and civil authority on the island- and been immediately able to stop an illegal arrest (or at least delay it until she thought of something else).  IMO, knowing those two things: 1. That Jamie trusted (or at least thought well of) LJ and 2. He was the governor should have been enough to have her to straight to him upon Jamie's arrest, expected that he would follow the law, which is what he essentially did.   That's what I meant by wondering why Claire didn't go straight to him. 

On 12/22/2017 at 6:50 PM, nara said:

No way, our girl not only can't stay out of trouble, but she's likely to be the cause.  Perhaps she inadvertently suggests to people that they should dump the tea in the harbor.

No doubt!  Or she accidentally knocks a crate of tea into the harbor and it's taken completely out of context.  :)

On 12/22/2017 at 6:50 PM, nara said:

My wishes for the new season:  1.a plot for Fergus and Marsali, 2. return of Murtagh, 3. Mrs. Fitz immigrates to America and sets up a B & B, 4. we get to see the look on Laoghaire's face when Jamie and Claire pay her off and are officially done with her, 5.we find out what's up with Brianna and Roger, 6.John Grey finds love (very discreetly) and stops mooning over Jamie., 7.Jamie and Willie reunite, 8.Ian apprentices with someone in a relatively safe and stable occupation and stays out of trouble.

I added the numbers to keep them straight (in my head at least) :)

1. I'd be okay with less Marsali - and Fergus as an adult is not very interesting to me either, so pass on this one.

2. Yes!

3. Another yes!  And LOL!

4. Heck yeah!

5. Yup!

6. Aww...I'd be okay with that too.

7. Hm...not sure about this one.  I guess it's only a matter of time (depends on how many years are covered next season) and the circumstances. 

8. LOL!  But then he might not be on the show and I want to see him around more!  I like young Ian!  Besides, if he hangs around his Auntie Claire at all...(see above).

[foxfreakinmulder]

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 5:44 AM, terrymct said:

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.

So stupid! That rigging would have pulled her down so fast, because it's weighs a ton there is no way Jamie would've been able to free her as it's dragging her to the bottom or find her in waves like that. NO WAY! And she was dead, Jamie didn't do anything to revive her once he brought her up but all he has to do when they are on land is kiss her on the cheek and she's alive. And how long was Jamie laying there before the little girl pokes him with a stick? I don't know if it's his acting or what but on the beach when Jamie thought Claire was dead he didn't show much emotion and all he says is "if you're dead, I'm going to kill you" what a dumb thing to say. 

Of course Claire tells everyone else to stay below and let the experience crew work the deck but she has to be up top and all she does is yell Jamie over and over.

Now they're in America, so is Claire going to get kidnapped by Indians because we know they will get separated somehow and Jamie will have to save her. They are going to be involved in the history that's taking place in America somehow, either with the underground railroad or Claire being British could be a spy for Washington. I don't understand why they wouldn't just try to find passage back instead of staying though.

 

 

 

[parrotfeathers]

21 hours ago, foxfreakinmulder said:

So stupid! That rigging would have pulled her down so fast, because it's weighs a ton there is no way Jamie would've been able to free her as it's dragging her to the bottom or find her in waves like that. NO WAY! And she was dead, Jamie didn't do anything to revive her once he brought her up but all he has to do when they are on land is kiss her on the cheek and she's alive. And how long was Jamie laying there before the little girl pokes him with a stick? I don't know if it's his acting or what but on the beach when Jamie thought Claire was dead he didn't show much emotion and all he says is "if you're dead, I'm going to kill you" what a dumb thing to say. 

Of course Claire tells everyone else to stay below and let the experience crew work the deck but she has to be up top and all she does is yell Jamie over and over.

Now they're in America, so is Claire going to get kidnapped by Indians because we know they will get separated somehow and Jamie will have to save her. They are going to be involved in the history that's taking place in America somehow, either with the underground railroad or Claire being British could be a spy for Washington. I don't understand why they wouldn't just try to find passage back instead of staying though.

 

 

 

Reminds me of those romance novels by Victoria Holt and Kathleen Woodiwiss (she was considered very scandalous--one of the first novels that ever mentioned a man's "member").

[Cdh20]

22 hours ago, foxfreakinmulder said:

So stupid! That rigging would have pulled her down so fast, because it's weighs a ton there is no way Jamie would've been able to free her as it's dragging her to the bottom or find her in waves like that. NO WAY! And she was dead, Jamie didn't do anything to revive her once he brought her up but all he has to do when they are on land is kiss her on the cheek and she's alive. 

 

 

 

 

This is a show that includes time travel, but this is where you draw the line on believability? 🤔🤣🤣🤣

[foxfreakinmulder]

13 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

This is a show that includes time travel, but this is where you draw the line on believability? 🤔🤣🤣🤣

I know, what am I thinking, lol!

[parrotfeathers]

On 1/3/2020 at 11:05 PM, Cdh20 said:

but this is where you draw the line on believability? 🤔🤣🤣🤣

That a man could really love a woman as he does her when she does nothing but continues to bring trouble and strife whenever she shows up?  Gosh I think of how peaceful the 20 years may have been for him while she was gone!

[Cdh20]

9 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

That a man could really love a woman as he does her when she does nothing but continues to bring trouble and strife whenever she shows up?  Gosh I think of how peaceful the 20 years may have been for him while she was gone!

This is exactly what my husband says- Jamie should have enjoyed his 20 years. 

[Cdh20]

On 1/5/2020 at 6:01 AM, parrotfeathers said:

That a man could really love a woman as he does her when she does nothing but continues to bring trouble and strife whenever she shows up?  Gosh I think of how peaceful the 20 years may have been for him while she was gone!

Of course  the part I love is that a man does love one woman unconditionally forever.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Cdh20

[Camera One]

It's strange how they introduced Geillis as a villain and the whole prophesy and Brianna being in danger, and basically threw it out to sea in the very next episode.

I don't understand why they had to make Geillis into a full-out psycho lunatic.  I can understand her motivations for killing her previous husbands, but randomly capturing young men and killing them after seduction?  Why? 

Claire revealing the baby and everything to Geillis all at once, and then Geillis acting on it immediately was very rushed.  It would have been more interesting to see Claire and Jaime connecting the dots over a few episodes. 

The whole idea of how killing Brianna would lead to a Scottish King was too far-fetched as well... Geillis should have had a more specific historical goal in mind, and that would provide a more focused storyline for Season 4.  They could have had Dougal back in flashback and he set in motion a plot that Geillis could be working towards.   I expected another major shift in the show for the next season introduced in this finale, but basically, it's just a travelogue of the 1700s at this point.

I mean, I do want to see pre-colonial America given the beautiful cinematography and costuming of this show, but there's no longer any narrative drive.

I half expected Claire to fall into the pool, go back to the 1960s, and come back in 20 years when she and Jaime are both 70 and walking with canes but not looking a day over 40.

The comparison between the Scottish dance at the stones and the Jamaican dance near the West Indies stones were cool, though.   Maybe stones could exist near Boston and that's where Brianna and her parents can "connect" again.  

At this point, I am hoping that after America, they spend half a season in "Canada" too.  

[Cdh20]

5 hours ago, Camera One said:

It's strange how they introduced Geillis as a villain and the whole prophesy and Brianna being in danger, and basically threw it out to sea in the very next episode.

I don't understand why they had to make Geillis into a full-out psycho lunatic.  I can understand her motivations for killing her previous husbands, but randomly capturing young men and killing them after seduction?  Why? 

Claire revealing the baby and everything to Geillis all at once, and then Geillis acting on it immediately was very rushed.  It would have been more interesting to see Claire and Jaime connecting the dots over a few episodes. 

The whole idea of how killing Brianna would lead to a Scottish King was too far-fetched as well... Geillis should have had a more specific historical goal in mind, and that would provide a more focused storyline for Season 4.  They could have had Dougal back in flashback and he set in motion a plot that Geillis could be working towards.   I expected another major shift in the show for the next season introduced in this finale, but basically, it's just a travelogue of the 1700s at this point.

I mean, I do want to see pre-colonial America given the beautiful cinematography and costuming of this show, but there's no longer any narrative drive.

I half expected Claire to fall into the pool, go back to the 1960s, and come back in 20 years when she and Jaime are both 70 and walking with canes but not looking a day over 40.

The comparison between the Scottish dance at the stones and the Jamaican dance near the West Indies stones were cool, though.   Maybe stones could exist near Boston and that's where Brianna and her parents can "connect" again.  

At this point, I am hoping that after America, they spend half a season in "Canada" too.  

As a Canadian I would wholeheartedly enjoy that! 

[Beeyago]

10 hours ago, Camera One said:

I don't understand why they had to make Geillis into a full-out psycho lunatic.

Agreed. I think I did a lot of fast forwarding through this episode. I did absolutely love the ending though. That was good. Realizing they’d landed in the colonies, and then the sweeping shot of the coast was worth the price of admission.

 

10 hours ago, Camera One said:

and come back in 20 years when she and Jaime are both 70 and walking with canes but not looking a day over 40.

😂😂😂

Edited April 2, 2021 by Beeyago

[gingerella]

Ai yi yi, I just... I don't know where to begin here. Do I start with a screedy rant on all the coinkydink things that happened that were too ridiculous to believe? Or do I just accept them as it's a time travel story and well, who the hell knows what coinkydinks live in time travel? Not me, obviously!

Overall, this was less pleasurable and satisfying than The Bakra, but not nearly as sucky as the rest of the second half of S03, so I suppose that's saying something?! Let's get on with this then, shall we?

Overall Random Thoughts (in no particular order):

* Jamaica looks more like South Carolina to me, with all those wide dirt avenues of what looks like Live Oaks, not very rainforest to me at all.

* Marsali has chutzpah, I like her now, go figure!

* How did Claire leave a note in her room at The Black Cat Inn about Jamie being arrested if she was in a coach headed to Rose Hall when Jamie was arrested, and continued on to Rose Hall from there? What.The.Fuck?

* Claire is still wearing the Bat Suit, other than that one time Mamacita laundered it for her, it must stink to high heaven!

Bits I Actually Liked, Like, A Lot!

* Fergus is a smart little bastard, going to Lord John to save Jamie! That was a brilliant move, and the interrogation of LEFtenent Idiot was masterful. That was a very satisfying scene, and the sort I'd like to see more of to be honest. Thankfully, Jamie didn't offer himself up as payment again, who knows how many times Lord John could refuse...? The banter and friendship between John and Jamie seems on par as being as real as the relationship between Jamie and Claire, and I quite like that because it adds another dimension to Jamie. He knows John could have had his way with him, but he respects Jamie too much to take advantage of him. Though one cannot help but think, if Jamie switched teams, he'd probably have a quieter and more peacefully enjoyable life in the companionship of Lord John than what he's experienced with Claire!

* Annnd we get another 'Mirror Scene', this time with Claire holding the bloody machete that she's just killed Geillis with, standing there shaking, looking at it, the same way she was standing there shaking as she looked at her bloody hands after she killed that red coat deserter who tried to rape her when she and Jamie were enjoying some honeymoon nooky on a hilltop in Scotland in S01. LOVE these mirror scenes!

* I liked the sexy talk between Jamie and Claire back onboard the Artemis, we didn't need the graphic boning again, this was more fun and it made me think these two would be very, very adept at phone sex were they to live now...

Things That Made Me Laugh (not necessarily in a good way though):

* "Head towards the drumming" , Yeah, because that's always a good sign, frenzied drumming in the jungle whilst being chased or chasing a bat shit crazy witch! Unless it's Jamaica's version of the Midnight Welcome Wagon for newcomers...

*Young Ian is getting quite an eye-opening life education on the road with Uncle Jamie and Auntie Claire, isn't he?!? No way is that kid ever going to Lallybroch again!

* Going home to Scotland. Yeah, that's never been a good idea friends, yes Scotland is beautiful, and the accents are delightful as are the men in kilts (see what I did there?), but nothing good happens for Jamie and Claire in Scotland, will they never learn? And not for nothing but IF Lord John had Jamie's warrant withdrawn I'd want hard copy proof before setting sail for Scotland again.

* On the Artemis, when they leave Jamaica and Jamie is cleaning his face with soap and water, is that the first time we've ever seen him actually bathe in three seasons?! I think it is! Whoa.

Stuff That Just Did Not Work For Me:

* Jamie opens the window after their sexy times and proclaims that the weather is turning, and next thing we know they're in a full blown hurricane. Seriously show runners?! That? was the WORST CGI storm I think I've ever seen, like, ever! It was so bad it was on par with the equally really bad, no good, awful CGI that was the GoT's White Walkers. I'm shocked they did such a lame over the top job on that, so bad that it went from unbelievable to ridiculously stupid. THEN, as if that wasn't bad enough, Claire gets swept overboard and Jamie leaps in after her - even though he didn't see WHERE she went overboard - and he is able to hold his breath long enough, and in absolutely clear water, to find Claire, KISS HER, then cut her ropes and swim to the surface with her, and ALL without helping her spit out the water she likely took into her lungs in the meantime. And they just HAPPEN to be able to hold on to part of the broken mast and it's sunshine and calm seas, and they float to a nice sandy beach, as does the Artemis apparently. What the hell happened to the story telling in this show? Are the books this bad? Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ! This is utter bollocks!

* I'm a bit put out that we get invested in Brianna and Roger and then never get them again for the entire second half of S03, what the hell is that all about?! Their presence makes the story more dimensional, if you will, just having this time travel thing in one time period and have so much shit not making any sense gave the second half of the season an unpleasant two dimensional quality that made it very difficult to hand wave the nonsense away.

Things That Made Me Think:

* So Geillis never met another time traveler except Claire? That's interesting because it feels like Claire has met several: Geillis, Master Raymond, and possibly others we're not sure about yet. So why would Geillis only have met Claire? My theory tags on to Claire's theory - she tells Geillis that she didn't need a sacrifice because she thinks that the Stones call one from the other side. Which is sort of what I've been theorizing but my theory is the Stones themselves call the person to them, for purposes sometimes unclear to the traveler - like Claire. I think Geillis' ability to travel through the Stones comes from forcing herself through and that's why she needs the sacrifice for her travel, whereas Claire is being called by the Stones and doesn't require any voodoo witchery to pass through them. Does that make sense? So if that's so, then it has to be Jamie calling her through the Stones, which is sort of true if we believe that it's his ghost standing outside her hotel room in Inverness in the 1940's, but where does the loop start? Because if Jamie is calling her back to him to start that loop over again in the 1940's, then it's sort of like there's no 'Start' to this thing, if you get my meaning. Is it then more Jamie's story because he's meant to try to stop the Rebellion, or is it more Claire's story because she's called through the Stones to help Jamie? Is Claire's existence meant to change the lives of a group of people in the 1700's, and if so why? I have Questions, dammit!

* When I first saw the Slaves walking down the road, when Claire's coach had to stop for them, I thought it felt like they were the escaped slaves going to a ceremony but why would they be walking on what was clearly a road out in the open, rather than being in the jungle, more hidden. Then I thought maybe they were slaves from Rose Hall and thus they felt comfortable walking down that road, but I felt they were going to a ceremony. So when we see Claire and Jamie come to the drumming/dance circle it was all just a bit too much of a caricature of what 'native drumming blood drinking ceremonies' would look like from the eyes of a white show runner who has zero understanding of such things. I found it really culturally offensive and even though this aired a few years prior to the BLM movement being more known, it still feels very cartoony and I am embarrassed for the show runners that they shot this this way. They didn't need to fetishize 'native rituals' like that IMO.

* The flashbacks that Claire has watching the fire dancing and remembering the dancing at Craigh na dun didn't jive for me, there was too much difference between the two dances and situations. If the slaves had been dancing amongst the stones then it would have made more sense but they weren't, they were dancing in a straw enclosure weren't they? You couldn't see the Stones from there so it was another WTF moment. 

* I was very glad to see Yi Tien Cho there with Margaret and learn that they were in love and would be going to live in Martinique, good for them, bad for us though because I loved Willoughby's character so much. I don't think we shall see him again, alas! Glad Margaret's brother was finally killed too, what a creep he was.

* The Hum...Once again Claire hears it but Jamie cannot. Why? I want to understand why - is it simply that people from the past cannot move forward? Because if that's true then how does Jamie or his spirit/ghost find Claire at the beginning of this Story in the 1940's?

*Geillis was well and truly crazy and I have nothing more to add that hasn't already been said upthread. But I quite liked that it was Claire that killed her, and now we know why Claire knew the skeleton was a murder victim, because SHE was the murderer. I liked that tie in, and that it wasn't Margaret but Geillis who died in the Abandawe cave. But man, when Jamie is trying to untie Young Ian and Claire is being pulled by the Stones to jump into the pool, I was yelling in my head, "JAMIE! FOR FUCK'S SAKE, PUT DOWN THE KNIFE AND GO GET CLAIRE ALREADY, IAN CAN WAIT A MINUTE!" Jeez. And Young Ian, who seems feisty at times but a bit dim, is the only smart one of the three of them to think to take the gem stones that Geillis laid out, Go Ian! And not for nothing but I'd have torched Geillis to be sure she was good and dead.

* So at the end, that little girl reminded me of Joanie a bit, didn't she? Anyway, after they find out they're in Georgia, in America, they hug and Jamie cries. I didn't get why though. Was he sad they weren't going to be going to Scotland any time soon? Or was it because they were now in America, where Brianna is born? Or was it because he could start anew there? And...no shot of the Artemis beached on the shore in that very expensive pan up shot? Really? Was it too expensive to do that after they'd blown their budget on that really shitty CGI?

FAREWELL WILLOUGHBY, God gave us a rare secondary character, and we hardly knew ye, but we loved ye well!

Edited July 4, 2021 by gingerella

[Camera One]

22 hours ago, gingerella said:

* "Head towards the drumming" , Yeah, because that's always a good sign, frenzied drumming in the jungle whilst being chased or chasing a bat shit crazy witch! Unless it's Jamaica's version of the Midnight Welcome Wagon for newcomers...

If the slaves had been dancing amongst the stones then it would have made more sense but they weren't, they were dancing in a straw enclosure weren't they? You couldn't see the Stones from there so it was another WTF moment. 

Yes, this part was confusing to me.  I wasn't sure how anyone knew where they were going.

Quote

Going home to Scotland. Yeah, that's never been a good idea friends, yes Scotland is beautiful, and the accents are delightful as are the men in kilts (see what I did there?), but nothing good happens for Jamie and Claire in Scotland, will they never learn? 

Nothing good happens to them anywhere, though.  LOL.

[Anothermi]

Sorry to leave you hanging @gingerella. Stuff came up. 

I agree that this episode was better than most in the second half of this Season, but The Bakra was definitively the best of that bunch. 

The show seems to have miscalculated how many episodes they would need? We got half an episode wrapping up The Bakra—which only took 30 min—so they tacked on a prelude-to-Season-4 to fill out the rest? They were very distinct and different stories.  There is a clunkiness  about this adaptation that surprises me. I can't figure out if the book(s) are just too difficult to capture or the show runners just don't have their fingers on the pulse of the narrative?

In no particular order:

Geillis was too batshit crazy to continue, so wrapping up the mystery of the skeleton-in-the-cave was satisfying enough for me. I missed the mirroring you spotted, Ging, so good catch. I don't think Claire had a premonition about her part in the death of the skeleton Joe was examining. He was the one who revealed to her how the mystery woman was murdered. It was after she almost decapitated Geillis that she realized how her actions in the past would  become visible in the future. Killing someone is enough to make anyone stand there shaking, but knowing she'd already seen the outcome—and how long Geillis had lain there in the cave—has got to be more debilitating. Would "echos" be a good word to describe that experience?

Mr. Willoughby! Wah!

We had better get Murtagh back if they are moving Willoughby to Martinique!!!  One or the other MUST be present, show. Do you hear me? Don't get me wrong. I'm happy for both Margaret and Willoughby—and I hope they get to come back at some point—even for a cameo. Their stories where wrapped up neatly in a bow for us. Lovely. But now there is a void and Jamie needs a BFF.

On 7/4/2021 at 12:30 PM, gingerella said:

Marsali has chutzpah, I like her now, go figure!

Yes! And marriage seems to agree with her. She's looking more attractive too.  I think I've completely adjusted to the new Fergus. You can't be a cherub all your life. People will start laughing at you. 

On 7/4/2021 at 12:30 PM, gingerella said:

How did Claire leave a note in her room at The Black Cat Inn about Jamie being arrested if she was in a coach headed to Rose Hall when Jamie was arrested, and continued on to Rose Hall from there? What.The.Fuck?

I think we were supposed to deduce that when Jamie told her to "Go. Find Young Ian" that he meant her to prepare first and then continue their quest for Ian—not wait for Jamie to be freed. Claire does a lot of stupid things—but going home to change (into her stinky clothes), giving Fergus the job of saving Jamie and thinking over a wee spec of a plan was not among them. I assume that she set off to Rose Hall while it was still dark that same evening. Fergus and Marsali were still in their fancy dress when they found the note that same night.  The show just thought we'd prefer to see Claire happily being dead instead of all that prep business. 🙄

(I won't go into Claire's stupidities as they have become a feature of her role now.)

On 7/4/2021 at 12:30 PM, gingerella said:

Going home to Scotland. Yeah, that's never been a good idea friends, yes Scotland is beautiful, and the accents are delightful as are the men in kilts (see what I did there?), but nothing good happens for Jamie and Claire in Scotland, will they never learn? And not for nothing but IF Lord John had Jamie's warrant withdrawn I'd want hard copy proof before setting sail for Scotland again.

Jamie was determined to fulfill his vow to get Young Ian back to Jenny. And Claire states that Lord John had the warrant withdrawn. A hard copy of that would have been a good protection, but by the end of their miraculous ordeal-at-sea it would have been just so much pulp. Here is the scene on ship just before Jamie 'doesn't shave his beard' 😉:

CLAIRE: It was very generous of Lord John to use his influence to withdraw the warrant.

JAMIE: Aye... it'll be good to return to Scotland, Sassenach. Mm... Be nice to be home. Aye. Ah... we'll, uh... we'll return Ian straight to Jenny.

CLAIRE: He might not want to go back, - after all this adventure.

JAMIE:  [chuckles] I dinna care if he wants to or not. I'll deliver him to Lallybroch if I must stuff him into a hogshead.

All I can say is that this show has something against Jenny and Ian! Haven't they suffered enough due to Jamie's actions? Now "fate" is meddling in their reunion with their youngest son. When will Jenny get a reward for everything she's done for her brother?!  Jamie's first job in the new world needs to be to get a quill and some paper and sent off a letter to Lallybroch on the next ship out.

The best part of this episode goes to Lord John. That was a great scene! And Jamie managed to keep himself from saying anything—although you could see he really wanted to. It seems that little tidbit—provided to Claire by the guy on the Porpoise who had been employed by Jamie's nemesis in A. Malcolm—that "Captain Leonard" was ambitious and looking to improve his prospects, was all the show planned to give us regarding his motivation. But Lord John pointed out for us that "Captain" Leonard was clearly not qualified for either the promotion he got due to the typhoid fever nor the one he was hoping to get by capturing Jamie. 

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by Anothermi
grammar

[SassAndSnacks]

On 7/4/2021 at 3:30 PM, gingerella said:

Annnd we get another 'Mirror Scene', this time with Claire holding the bloody machete that she's just killed Geillis with, standing there shaking, looking at it, the same way she was standing there shaking as she looked at her bloody hands after she killed that red coat deserter who tried to rape her when she and Jamie were enjoying some honeymoon nooky on a hilltop in Scotland in S01. LOVE these mirror scenes!

Thought of you upon my rewatch of this one.  There is also a mirror scene with Claire in the coach bustling to Rose Hall to find/save Young Ian.  This is similar to the scene in Season II where she is racing to Bois de Boulogne to stop Jamie's duel.  

On 7/4/2021 at 3:30 PM, gingerella said:

and he is able to hold his breath long enough, and in absolutely clear water, to find Claire, KISS HER, then cut her ropes and swim to the surface with her, and ALL without helping her spit out the water she likely took into her lungs in the meantime.

That's actually my favorite part of the entire episode.  Which I guess says how weak I feel this season FINALE (ya know, usually the episode in a series that is typically very strong and keeps people wanting more so they tune in next season) really was.  

On 7/4/2021 at 3:30 PM, gingerella said:

Anyway, after they find out they're in Georgia, in America, they hug and Jamie cries. I didn't get why though. Was he sad they weren't going to be going to Scotland any time soon? Or was it because they were now in America, where Brianna is born? Or was it because he could start anew there? 

Show did a very bad job at explaining this plot point.  In the full story, Jamie is desperate to know where they landed because he is uncertain if he can give his real name.  When he finds out they are in Georgia, he is able to say that he is Jamie Fraser, not Alexander Malcolm or Alexander MacKenzie or Jamie Roy or Mac Dubh or any of his other aliases.  In America, he can safely be Jamie Fraser and not live in fear of a price on his head or the uncertainty of a pardon.  His name is so important to him and he can be Jamie Fraser again.  

On 7/5/2021 at 7:18 PM, Anothermi said:

The show seems to have miscalculated how many episodes they would need? We got half an episode wrapping up The Bakra—which only took 30 min—so they tacked on a prelude-to-Season-4 to fill out the rest? They were very distinct and different stories.  There is a clunkiness  about this adaptation that surprises me.

I think this is a really good observation.  I feel like the show lost its point of view and forgot what story they were telling us in Season 3.  The first half, the Scotland part anyway, was so strong, and then we had this great reunion, and then it really sputtered.  There was so much filler - Claire doing a lobotomy, Claire traipsing around a desert isle, the whole plague ship - that I'm sure I could have lived without.  Trust me, as an ardent book reader, there is A LOT of content and not all of it is good (see list immediately preceding), but there is a firm weave on the narrative throughout.  The show has typically done a good job of narrowing things and focusing points that contribute to the larger story, but they really lost it here.  

On 7/5/2021 at 7:18 PM, Anothermi said:

(I won't go into Claire's stupidities as they have become a feature of her role now.)

Agree, and it is so disappointing to me.  

 

Overall, I love that they are in America now, but I'm not a fan of the route they took to get there.  

[gingerella]

On 7/6/2021 at 6:36 PM, SassAndSnacks said:

On 7/4/2021 at 12:30 PM, gingerella said:

Annnd we get another 'Mirror Scene', this time with Claire holding the bloody machete that she's just killed Geillis with, standing there shaking, looking at it, the same way she was standing there shaking as she looked at her bloody hands after she killed that red coat deserter who tried to rape her when she and Jamie were enjoying some honeymoon nooky on a hilltop in Scotland in S01. LOVE these mirror scenes!

Thought of you upon my rewatch of this one.  There is also a mirror scene with Claire in the coach bustling to Rose Hall to find/save Young Ian.  This is similar to the scene in Season II where she is racing to Bois de Boulogne to stop Jamie's duel.  

Thank for this Sass! How could I have missed that? I felt like there was a note of familiarity with that coach scene but the France scene didn't come to mind, good catch!

On 7/6/2021 at 6:36 PM, SassAndSnacks said:

On 7/4/2021 at 12:30 PM, gingerella said:

Anyway, after they find out they're in Georgia, in America, they hug and Jamie cries. I didn't get why though. Was he sad they weren't going to be going to Scotland any time soon? Or was it because they were now in America, where Brianna is born? Or was it because he could start anew there? 

Show did a very bad job at explaining this plot point.  In the full story, Jamie is desperate to know where they landed because he is uncertain if he can give his real name.  When he finds out they are in Georgia, he is able to say that he is Jamie Fraser, not Alexander Malcolm or Alexander MacKenzie or Jamie Roy or Mac Dubh or any of his other aliases.  In America, he can safely be Jamie Fraser and not live in fear of a price on his head or the uncertainty of a pardon.  His name is so important to him and he can be Jamie Fraser again.  

Ah ha, so it's about starting over, but this time as James Fraser, without hiding his identity. But...weren't the Colonies still under British rule at that point and couldn't someone have arrested him and brought him back to England to stand trial? Or am I getting ahead of myself and we're in for more of this shite in the coming seasons?!?

On 7/6/2021 at 6:36 PM, SassAndSnacks said:

Overall, I love that they are in America now, but I'm not a fan of the route they took to get there.  

My jury's still out on this one because I love Scotland and the episodes where the story is there seem richer than the other seasons - ie: Scotland epis are overall better than France or Caribbean epis.

On 7/5/2021 at 4:18 PM, Anothermi said:

I agree that this episode was better than most in the second half of this Season, but The Bakra was definitively the best of that bunch. 

The show seems to have miscalculated how many episodes they would need? We got half an episode wrapping up The Bakra—which only took 30 min—so they tacked on a prelude-to-Season-4 to fill out the rest? They were very distinct and different stories.  There is a clunkiness  about this adaptation that surprises me. I can't figure out if the book(s) are just too difficult to capture or the show runners just don't have their fingers on the pulse of the narrative?

This is such a great point Anothermi. The Bakra could have been one episode with some breathing room in it, like showing us what Fergus and Marsali, and Willoughby and Margaret were up to, or where Jamie was taken when Leftenant Stupid Boy arrested him. There was enough fodder right there to fill up the rest and not rush the next ship mishap. I would have preferred another interaction with Lord John and maybe some resolution about what happened to Claire's slave - was he okay, did he safely make it to his people up country? All that could have been another epi, along with what was the fallout from Geillis' death? Did her manservant run away to join his people upcountry, did any of her staff remain? I want to know why her main henchman was so loyal to someone so obviously demented. Did anyone free the boys left in Geillis's Boy Prison? I guess we'll never know now...

On 7/5/2021 at 4:18 PM, Anothermi said:

I don't think Claire had a premonition about her part in the death of the skeleton Joe was examining. He was the one who revealed to her how the mystery woman was murdered. It was after she almost decapitated Geillis that she realized how her actions in the past would  become visible in the future. Killing someone is enough to make anyone stand there shaking, but knowing she'd already seen the outcome—and how long Geillis had lain there in the cave—has got to be more debilitating. Would "echos" be a good word to describe that experience?

I remember that scene with Joe differently. I just looked it up and it goes like this:

Claire: "He sent you over a 150 year old murder victim"

Joe: "You're only off by about 50 years...Horace is looking for a cause of death, what makes you think she was murdered?"

Claire: "I don't know."

The talk some more and Joe picks up two vertebrae and says:

Joe: "You were right."

Claire: "Broken neck?"

Joe: "More than that, bones not just cracked...somebody tried to cut this lady's head clean off with a dull blade...How did you know?" (Claire is looking very uncomfortable while he's saying this)

Claire: "She just...felt like it."

Claire intuited that the person was murdered, and Joe didn't know at that point, then he picked up the vertebrae that had been severed when Claire cuts Geillis' throat and then he confirms it was a murder and here's how. It's not that important, but my point is, Claire knew it was a murder victim and her body language said she was very creeped out, but she didn't know why. See, we could have had THAT scene recalled during a fuller episode just on resolving the Bakra situation. I think it would have been interesting to tell Jamie that this follows Claire into the future, and she actually sees and handles Geillis' skull 200 years later, just before she comes back to Jamie. This is another one of those things where I cannot tell where there is a beginning. What I mean is this - Jamie's ghost/spirit comes to her in 1945 Scotland and ostensibly wills her back to the Stones so she can come through and be united with him. But when she goes back to Jamie this last time, let's just say she stays in his time until they both die. Where did the time travel loop begin? Because in 1945 she has no knowledge of him or the Stones or time travel or any of it. But she goes through and starts this life with him, going back and forth through the Stones, but how did it START? I'm totally fucking confused how this all started the first time, if that makes sense. Because it had to happen before for Jamie to know to come to 1945 Claire, right? I feel like a dog chasing its tail!

Edited July 9, 2021 by gingerella

[Pallas]

21 hours ago, gingerella said:

Because it had to happen before for Jamie to know to come to 1945 Claire, right? I feel like a dog chasing its tail!

Nothing has to have happened before. Jamie will (likely) die in the 18th century, with the knowledge of the exact date in the 20th century that Claire will first step back in time. The question is more, what about Claire? Could she become a ghost, two hundred years before she was born?  

And you're right that the question raised here is, What does it mean that Claire intuited that the skeleton had died violently? This is the only time -- from what we've seen so far, anyway -- that 20th century Claire received a "post-monition" of something from her 18th century life. She didn't, for example, connect in the same way to the dragonfly in amber she saw in the modern-day Culloden exhibit. She had no presentiment that Jamie survived Culloden. Then again, she's a doctor who grew up on digs: bones R her.

[gingerella]

12 minutes ago, Pallas said:

Nothing has to have happened before. Jamie will (likely) die in the 18th century, with the knowledge of the exact date in the 20th century that Claire will first step back in time. The question is more, what about Claire? Could she become a ghost, two hundred years before she was born?  

And you're right that the question raised here is, What does it mean that Claire intuited that the skeleton had died violently? This is the only time -- from what we've seen so far, anyway -- that 20th century Claire received a "post-monition" of something from her 18th century life. She didn't, for example, connect in the same way to the dragonfly in amber she saw in the modern-day Culloden exhibit. She had no presentiment that Jamie survived Culloden. Then again, she's a doctor who grew up on digs: bones R her.

Let's take the second para first because it's easier!  I was going to argue that 1700s Claire already knew she'd killed Geillis, whereas 1960's Claire had no knowledge of Jamie's demise or survival after Culloden. Not sure that makes a difference but in my mind it does. In one instance, Claire knew what had happened firsthand, in the other she did not.

Now as to the first para, in which...TIME TRAVEL IS A BITCH... Show seems to strongly hint that Jamie cannot travel through time, I would guess because one can only travel backwards through time in order to go back and forth? Anyway, if that's so, the yes, he will die in the 18th century knowing the exact date of Claire's birth, and when she travels back through the Stones to the 1740's. But where I am stuck is how did this all begin? There has to be a beginning for this to be on what seems to be a loop, yes? In order for Jamie to come to Inverness 1940's and stand outside Claire's window, he has to have had a life with her already in the 1700's. So if he's essentially 'coming back' in spirit to draw her to the Stones to basically re-live their live together, then this is a loop that keeps on replaying, but when did it begin? Your above, Pallas, isn't scratching this itch for me, and I don't think there is a scratch for it, but it vexes me so...

[Pallas]

But 1968 Claire couldn't know she had killed Geillis, because she hadn't done it yet. It wasn't yet her past. Claire in 1968 Boston is months younger than Claire in 1767 Jamaica. Claire only ages forward; she only lives forward. In Boston, she hasn't yet gone back in time and killed Geillis: she can't remember what her older self has yet to do.  

If the figure Frank saw was really as non-corporeal as Frank felt it to be, then it's more of a ghost than a time-traveler. We don't yet know for sure that it's a ghost, or Jamie's ghost, or what role it plays in Claire's story.  

[gingerella]

56 minutes ago, Pallas said:

But 1968 Claire couldn't know she had killed Geillis, because she hadn't done it yet. It wasn't yet her past. Claire in 1968 Boston is months younger than Claire in 1767 Jamaica. Claire only ages forward; she only lives forward. In Boston, she hasn't yet gone back in time and killed Geillis: she can't remember what her older self has yet to do.  

If the figure Frank saw was really as non-corporeal as Frank felt it to be, then it's more of a ghost than a time-traveler. We don't yet know for sure that it's a ghost, or Jamie's ghost, or what role it plays in Claire's story.  

I hear what you're saying @Pallas, but to me, the reason Claire has a premonition about the skeleton is because at some point - even if it's in her 'future going back' she witnesses that murder firsthand and by herself no less. Whereas she never witnessed Jamie surviving Culloden firsthand, so she had no idea he lived. Am I even making sense, or no?

WRT to Jamie's spirit or ghost, it has to be him because once we're this deep into the story, if we go back and look at that scene, it's definitely Jamie even though we've not met him yet. We do know that it's a holiday when the spirits and ghosts are allowed to come out to play - and they engage in both good and evil activities - but it still doesn't scratch my itch to understand HOW and WHEN this loop began. See, this is why I never got into Dr. Who. This shit makes me crazy because I'm trying to make sense of something that is nonsensical!

[Cdh20]

14 hours ago, gingerella said:

I hear what you're saying @Pallas, but to me, the reason Claire has a premonition about the skeleton is because at some point - even if it's in her 'future going back' she witnesses that murder firsthand and by herself no less. Whereas she never witnessed Jamie surviving Culloden firsthand, so she had no idea he lived. Am I even making sense, or no?

WRT to Jamie's spirit or ghost, it has to be him because once we're this deep into the story, if we go back and look at that scene, it's definitely Jamie even though we've not met him yet. We do know that it's a holiday when the spirits and ghosts are allowed to come out to play - and they engage in both good and evil activities - but it still doesn't scratch my itch to understand HOW and WHEN this loop began. See, this is why I never got into Dr. Who. This shit makes me crazy because I'm trying to make sense of something that is nonsensical!

The supernatural elements of this show are not the highlights, it’s draw is the characters. Don’t drive yourself crazy, the author has yet to reveal the story behind Jamie as a ghost! 

[gingerella]

On 7/9/2021 at 9:19 AM, Cdh20 said:

The supernatural elements of this show are not the highlights, it’s draw is the characters. Don’t drive yourself crazy, the author has yet to reveal the story behind Jamie as a ghost! 

Thanks for this! I've received the same advice from my fellow watchers and if I remove the ghost/spirit/whatever from the picture it makes the issue I'm having sort of disappear, thankfully.

Before heading into S04, I did a quick re-watch skim of the first and last episode of S02 & S03, and I cannot believe where we were at the beginning of each season and where we ended each season. S02 started with arriving in France and all that balderdash of thwarting Culloden and ended up sending Claire back to her original time on the day of Culloden. But what surprised me even more, was that we began S03 with Jamie not knowing if he was alive or dead on the battle field at Culloden, went through the trials and tribulations of Jamie wandering around like a half dead man and Claire and Frank at each other's throats, were reunited in the 1760's, and then everything went to shit and we had 'Outlander: Pirates of the Caribbean Edition' and all the BS that brought with it. It shocked me to see how far we'd fallen from the beginning of S03!

[Camera One]

9 hours ago, gingerella said:

Before heading into S04, I did a quick re-watch skim of the first and last episode of S02 & S03, and I cannot believe where we were at the beginning of each season and where we ended each season. S02 started with arriving in France and all that balderdash of thwarting Culloden and ended up sending Claire back to her original time on the day of Culloden. But what surprised me even more, was that we began S03 with Jamie not knowing if he was alive or dead on the battle field at Culloden, went through the trials and tribulations of Jamie wandering around like a half dead man and Claire and Frank at each other's throats, were reunited in the 1760's, and then everything went to shit and we had 'Outlander: Pirates of the Caribbean Edition' and all the BS that brought with it. It shocked me to see how far we'd fallen from the beginning of S03!

Yes, this season really covered a lot. 

Season 2 (Episode 1-12) was basically one long flashback showing how Claire ended up back in the 1940s, covering the 2 years leading up to Culloden.

Then, the Season 2 finale jumped to the 1960s, and the first half of Season 3 (basically 5 episodes) was one long flashback, covering 20 years in two places, so naturally it felt super rushed.  

The second half of Season 3 (8 episodes) was finally back to real-time.  But of course the plot was just frenetic and all over the place - literally... 2 episodes in Edinburgh, 1 episode at Lallybroch precipitating 2 episodes at sea, 1 episode on a desert island, and 2 episodes in the Caribbean.  

Edited July 13, 2021 by Camera One

[Maisiesmom]

Hello again, I'm back! I burned through season 2 and 3 at an amazing pace and now am starting season 4. Lots of stuff happened, some good (bye, CBJ may you never some back, ya slimy bastard!) and some bad. I have questions, tho, like does Claire EVER listen to what Jamie tells her to do? He tells her to stay put, no, she takes off. I did like Commander? John (you know, the cute gay one). He seemed to really like Jamie (and who wouldn't LOL) and was kind to him with helping my man Murtaugh (Where is he, anyway?? I miss him!) And where do these guys come up with $$? First they are broke, then they have $$, then they are broke again. How can they afford new clothes and stuff? The 3rd season was getting rather soap operaish, like when Clair jumped ship and ended up on a Caribbean island. Having been to the Caribbean I was amazed there weren't a line of fancy resorts up and down the beach (just kidding) and that wacko preacher who talked to the coconut reminded me of "Wilson". But at least they helped her and she did get to Jamaica But all this lost and found and lost and found was starting to bore me. And I hope they give Sam some better wigs to wear, or let him grow his own hair out. Why are all the Brits such pompous dickheads? Anyway, I like the new Fergus and Young Ian sure had some bad luck. I hope things improve once they settle in America. Will watch more tonight after getting caught up on housework (I blew stuff off because I wanted to keep watching-binge watching can really slow ya down!) Feel free to catch me up, if you want. Toodles!

[Noneofyourbusiness]

18 hours ago, Maisiesmom said:

I did like Commander? John (you know, the cute gay one). He seemed to really like Jamie (and who wouldn't LOL) and was kind to him with helping my man Murtaugh

Lord John Grey. He has his own spinoff books.