S04.E01: America the Beautiful

[nodorothyparker]

Quote

Claire and Jamie cross paths with Stephen Bonnet, a pirate and smuggler who enlists their help. Claire illuminates Jamie on some of America's history, leading him to wonder if it's possible for them to lay down roots.

Reminder: The is the book talk thread. This can include spoilers for ALL the books. If you wish to remain unspoiled for any of the books, please leave now and head to the No Book Talk episode thread.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Aaand we’re off!!

I just know I’m going to hate Bonnet as much as I did in the builks. For an Irishman he couldn’t even say Sláinte right!? The actor looks too young, for another thing. 

I was really hoping Rollo’s introduction would be just like the buik but alas it wasn’t.

I really liked the scene between Wee Ian and Jamie.

I’m bummed we didn’t get to see Jamie coming from the ocean to see Claire on the banks. Another lost opportunity for comedy gold. ???But their moment together was soooo good. The words and the touches.❤️❤️

Cherokee!!?? Why did they change the Nation? I’m sure it was the Mohawks.

It’s been awhile since I’ve read this one, but did the show change the circumstances of Claire swallowing her rings?

Edited November 4, 2018 by GHScorpiosRule

[areca]

I didn't like the episode.  There, I said it.  Sam and Catriona don't seem to have any chemistry anymore.  Sam's wigs are beyond terrible - so much so that every time he's on the screen I want to look away rather than become immersed in the episode.   The only good part was the last 3-4 minutes on the pole-barge.   That was some good Outlandering.

Also, I must shamefully admit that I felt for Steven Bonnett a little bit in the books, and I don't think that's going to change in the show unfortunately.  Actor's going to be a very pleasant surprise much like the man playing John Grey I suspect.

[nodorothyparker]

34 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

It’s been awhile since I’ve read this one, but did the show change the circumstances of Claire swallowing her rings?

It did.  I just doublechecked to be sure because that seems such an odd thing to change unless now that Tobias Menzies has moved on to other shows and Moore no longer has any need to center everything around him, they figure it will mean more to viewers that Claire lost Jamie's ring instead of Frank's.  

This episode had such an underwhelming paint by numbers quality about it.  I realize they have to burn through quite a few pages to set up where this season is going, so that's probably part of it.  Part of it too is how haphazardly they portrayed the decision by all of these characters to stay in the Colonies after just a few lines earlier they had been talking about selling gemstones to buy passage back to Scotland as a given.  Oh, there's another war coming, you say?  And we're throwing in a few lines to acknowledge that it's kind of a wild place with a lot of clashing cultures and politcs we'd be stepping in the middle of?  I'm sure we'll figure it out even if we never before entertained the possibility of making such a life altering move before this exact moment.

I'm mostly unfamiliar with the actor playing Bonnett, but he did a decent enough job of showing how disarmingly charming he could initially be even if I wanted to just throttle Claire for not noticing his all but red flag waving over his head that I'm taking undue interest in your jewelry seemingly five minutes after you watched me escape a hanging for being a thief.  Between that and the discordantly musically scored robbery at the end, how's that choice to voluntarily live in the past looking again for you, Claire?  We should probably take as a given any time Jamie makes some comment that he hopes she doesn't regret that choice that something horrible is about to immediately drop out of the sky on them.  Bonnett's actor in the long hair looks disconcertingly like Heath Ledger to me.

They do really need to do something about the wig they've got on Jamie.  Every single scene he was in, I was distracted by thinking he really needed to wash that terrible greasy looking mess on his head and then remembered again that's not even his own hair.

[cardigirl]

Are the books as melodramatic as this episode seemed to be? I’m glad the show is back, but felt the dialogue was somewhat forced. That ending shocked me though, and I know who Bonnet is. ? So I shouldn’t have been caught unaware. 

Loved that Jamie found a surgeon’s cabinet for Claire. Loved Rollo! Hope he gets more screen time.  Glad the show is back. Even with sometimes clunky dialogue and contrived situations, it really is one of the most beautiful shows on television. 

[melody16]

I LOVED it. Probably up there with season one for me. I thought Jamie and Claire's chemistry was on point. Not just the love scene but the scene where they talk about the governors offer and the medicine box were just lovely. Sam was excellent as Jamie. I loved the writing for Jamie and Sam's performance. They wrote him like JAMMF for once.

The Jamie and Ian scene was excellent. Bonnet was menacing and charming. I thought the story moved along relatively well and was a good set up for the season. The thermodynamics conversation being different from the book worked for me given that they just watched their friend die so of course death was on their minds. 

I also liked the change of Claire losing Jamie's ring. It makes more sense that Brianna would recognize Jamie's ring given that it's more unique. 

The deciding to stay in America was slightly abrupt. But it made sense. Jamie and Claire have nothing to go home to in Scotland and Jamie realized that he could be closer to his daughter by helping nurture the land where she will be born. 

Edited November 4, 2018 by melody16

[GHScorpiosRule]

Then there was Bonnet’s “Great!” after Jamie agreed to drop him off wherever. It sounded anachronistic. I didn’t go back to see when that particular phrase was used in the context we do today.

I was sad to lose Lesley so quickly.

And since Rollo is also a character in this series, I expect him not to be so passive like he was for most of the premiere. 

[Nidratime]

I saw the episode in New York and just watched it again this morning. The ending is still very powerful for me and will, no doubt, be controversial among viewers. I thought the juxtaposition of Ray Charles' rendition of America the Beautiful over the horrific violence aired without sound, is a perfect projection of the dual sides of America. There's vast riches to be tapped, openness, opportunity -- what did Bonnet say, "I believe in making my own luck"? -- the chance to forget the past and forge a new future but, on the other hand, there's the racism, the aggressive *opportunism* symbolized by the decimation of native populations, the push and pull between various groups, and the violence. The fact that Claire had a gun shoved in her face made the episode seem almost like something that could've jumped out of today's newspapers. So, yeah, having this episode air now seems somewhat current but -- considering how often we have gun violence in this country -- not exactly prophetic.

[Squirrely]

Anyone else catch Bonnet foreshadowing his own death with the nightmare talk? Stakit to droon! Maybe Bree won't mercy shoot him in the show. I never thought he deserved it. 

Edited November 4, 2018 by Squirrely
typo

[Squirrely]

Can someone help me out with what was said in the land conversion with Tryon? It's been awhile since I read Drums... I thought there was an issue with landowners being required to be Protestant, right? Were they just discussing rents in the show? I rewound it 3 times to try to understand what they were saying, but with the soft speaking and the accents, it was a struggle. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

18 minutes ago, Squirrely said:

Anyone else catch Bonnet foreshadowing his own death with the nightmare talk? Stakit to droon! Maybe Bree won't mercy shoot him in the show. I never thought he deserved it. 

Yes! And now I’m hoping he will suffersuffersuffer!!!

[areca]

Quote

Anyone else catch Bonnet foreshadowing his own death with the nightmare talk? Stakit to droon! 

That was from the book though I think he told Brianna about it while she was captive to him.

[FnkyChkn34]

1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

...Bonnett's actor in the long hair looks disconcertingly like Heath Ledger to me.

They do really need to do something about the wig they've got on Jamie.  Every single scene he was in, I was distracted by thinking he really needed to wash that terrible greasy looking mess on his head and then remembered again that's not even his own hair.

I was coming here to say both of these things.  The actor for Steven Bonnett definitely was giving me Heath Ledger vibes the entire episode.  At least in my opinion, there is a striking resemblance.

And yes, Jamie's wig is awful.  No one's hair looks all that great this season, now that I think about it.

This episode was just "meh" for me.  Not spectacular, but didn't hate it.  I'm thinking it'll get better as the season goes on, as usual.  

[FnkyChkn34]

20 minutes ago, Squirrely said:

Can someone help me out with what was said in the land conversion with Tryon? It's been awhile since I read Drums... I thought there was an issue with landowners being required to be Protestant, right? Were they just discussing rents in the show? I rewound it 3 times to try to understand what they were saying, but with the soft speaking and the accents, it was a struggle. 

I wasn't entirely paying attention the whole time, so I can't tell you the exact words, but I can tell you that I watch this show with the closed captioning on.  I'd miss way more if I didn't!

[nodorothyparker]

Didn't Tryon say essentially there's the law and then there's what's done?  I can't go back and look just now without starting something with my kids I'd really rather not, but it didn't really jump out at me because it's basically the same tack he took in the book.  Yes, the law says anyone he gives these huge tracts of land to is supposed to be Protestant, but as Jamie later points out, he needs men with leadership and military experience to permanently settle that land and take responsibility for it and he's willing to take a don't ask don't tell approach on the religion thing for someone who otherwise fits the bill.  I'll admit I didn't catch every word either because of the accents and it seemed like the sound was a bit off too in those scenes too.

I'm not someone who normally pays attention to wigs.  It's TV and making certain mental allowances for that, so as long as they don't have a character wearing a literal string mop on their head, it's not likely to even register with me that an actor is wearing one.  I often don't see it until other people point it out.  All that said, Jamie's wig is noticeably distractingly terrible.  He's not a minor character or one the camera isn't supposed to linger on anyway.  Are they seriously not seeing that their leading man looks like that?

[TheWereCow]

Well. Bonnet's just as charming, scheming, and reprehensible as he is in the books. Let's hope we don't have to wait until the end of the next season for his drowning dreams to come true. I'm not sure I can take multiple seasons of him. Even if Ed Speleers does look uncannily Ledgeresque.

Quote

Didn't Tryon say essentially there's the law and then there's what's done?

Yep. He'd overlook the quitrent for a certain soldier-farmer who could take on the Regulators (mount up).

Edited November 4, 2018 by TheWereCow

[Squirrely]

8 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

Didn't Tryon say essentially there's the law and then there's what's done?  I can't go back and look just now without starting something with my kids I'd really rather not, but it didn't really jump out at me because it's basically the same tack he took in the book.  Yes, the law says anyone he gives these huge tracts of land to is supposed to be Protestant, but as Jamie later points out, he needs men with leadership and military experience to permanently settle that land and take responsibility for it and he's willing to take a don't ask don't tell approach on the religion thing for someone who otherwise fits the bill.  I'll admit I didn't catch every word either because of the accents and it seemed like the sound was a bit off too in those scenes too.

 

I know in the book the aspect of Jamie being a Catholic is an important aspect, but I didnt hear it in the show. That's what I was asking. It seemed to be something about rents. I'll have to turn on the CC when I watch again. 

[morgan]

I watched early this morning and will rewatch later with my husband this afternoon.  Honestly I was iffy on this one.  I even ff through parts, knowing I would rewatch later.  Still far different than when I used to watch and watch and watch again!  I loved the first season so much, I’m not sure exactly what is missing for me.  Someone upthread mentioned them ticking off numbers of events. Not sure, maybe that’s it?  I loved Rollo, and am getting used to Ian still (love the actor, he’s doing a great job, just so different to my image of book Ian).

I thought the actor playing Bonnet (boo! Hiss) is doing a great job of balancing menace with charm.  And yes to the Heath Ledger shoutout!

Am curious to see how I react to the second viewing later.  Curious as to the reaction of my non book reader husband, too. He’s losing interest as it is so not sure he will last the season.  He keeps asking if Claire and Jamie just keep losing each other and finding each other and losing each other.  Lol.  It must seem like that without all of the book filler between lost and found! 

I’m so looking forward to them getting to Frasier’s Ridge!  I miss Scotland so much, maybe that will help having them find home and community again.  And I look forward to Roger and Bree.  Hoping Sophie has sharpened her skills.  Working with Rik should be like a master class.

There really is just so much book to tell.  Looking forward to seeing how it goes.

[GHScorpiosRule]

17 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

I’m not someone who normally pays attention to wigs.  It's TV and making certain mental allowances for that, so as long as they don't have a character wearing a literal string mop on their head, it's not likely to even register with me that an actor is wearing one.  I often don't see it until other people point it out.  All that said, Jamie's wig is noticeably distractingly terrible.  He's not a minor character or one the camera isn't supposed to linger on anyway.  Are they seriously not seeing that their leading man looks like that?

Same here. And I don’t understand why they put a wig on him anyway. Why can’t Sam just grow his own hair like he did in the first season? And since he’s 20 years older, his hair doesn’t need to be the darker red of his youth.

6 minutes ago, Squirrely said:

I know in the book the aspect of Jamie being a Catholic is an important aspect, but I didnt hear it in the show. That's what I was asking. It seemed to be something about rents. I'll have to turn on the CC when I watch again. 

Yes it was. And no, it wasn’t brought up in the episode. Not with the Tryon or with Claire when they were discussing it.

Edited November 4, 2018 by GHScorpiosRule

[Dust Bunny]

It was quite good. It stuck really close to the book.

I think what I like the most is the slower pace. There are more opportunities for small but vital character interactions. Earlier seasons had so much to cover, those moments were often lost.

The cold open was inspired. So haunting and beautiful. It plants a very important seed.

They did the caithris! An example how the small moments are so special.

I loved Young Ian’s PTSD. The writers continue to honor the effects. I’m sure we’ll see the same thing with Brianna’s rape.

Rollo is great! So glad we get 5 seasons of that pup.

I missed seeing Brianna and Roger, which surprised me. That makes me happy, since they’ll be so central soon.

Now comes my critique: Bonnet and the end. I loved Early Bonnet. He actually seemed kind of swashbuckling and shrewd. I got d’Artagnan vibes, which also happily surprised me, since we know Bonnet’s dark nature. I feel like the ending squandered that juxtaposition. I love the Ray Charles song, but having it play over that moment cheated the shock that it was Bonnet who was attacking them. The song would work if it was any random person who attacked Jamie, Claire, and Company. It would convey their dream has had a major reality check. Yet, I think having it play over Bonnet distracted from the well-nigh personal betrayal that it was Bonnet. Especially since Bonnet casts such a huge shadow for awhile. I think the choice was too clever for its own good.

Getting past that, it was a good episode. Already gives the feeling of the New World for Outlander.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Dust Bunny

[kimbers10]

I enjoyed the episode, but I'm hoping this won't be anywhere near the best episode for the season!! I think that there was just a lot to cover in an hour, and some of the passion and connections between characters seemed to get a little lost. Also, what the heck is it with the ring?? Why did they change it to Claire swallowing the silver ring that Jamie gave her, to making it so she swallowed the gold ring from Frank, and therefore lost Jamie's ring!? That was kind of a big thing for me in the books....so it really stood out for me that they had her lose Jamies ring...I mean, that is how Brianna ends up getting involved in the situation with Bonnet, and a lot happens because of her seeing the engraving on the gold ring from Frank to Claire....I guess Brianna knows what Jamie's ring looks like as well, but I just don't get why they changed it in the show...hopefully there is a reason for it later on!! I understand that they need to change things from the book to the show, but this just seems like a weird thing to change....bc fans of the books will most definitely notice it right away! 

Anyways, while I wasn't blown away by the first episode, I wasn't disappointed either, so I'm excited to watch the rest of the season!!

[Petunia846]

I heard Ron say in some interview that they switched to Jamie's ring because Frank's ring is just a plain gold band and there's no way Brianna would recognize that later on. (I personally still think Jamie's ring is the ugliest thing ever, so I wouldn't be terribly sad if it never came back and just got replaced by a decent, pretty ring.)

I liked it. Except, like in the book, I was wondering why the HELL Jamie was so amenable to Bonnet in the first place. No, Jamie, no. Ugggg.

Good start.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Petunia846

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

14 minutes ago, kimbers10 said:

Why did they change it to Claire swallowing the silver ring that Jamie gave her, to making it so she swallowed the gold ring from Frank, and therefore lost Jamie's ring!?

She tries to swallow both rings in the book and in the show. Claire didn't do anything different. They changed which ring got pried out of her mouth. My guess, which was confirmed in the post above, was that change was because there is nothing distinctive about Frank's show ring. In the book it has some engravings and Diana can describe it however she wants, but on the show it has only been shown as a plain, gold band. Jamie's ring, while not pretty to me, is distinctive. The ring change doesn't really change anything going forward. It's just more sad to me that she lost Jamie's ring rather than Frank's but that doesn't change the plot at all.

[heavysnaxx]

Well, call me the Laird of Arrr Ewe Kiddingh Meigh because I thought this episode was more than a wee bit absurd. And not in a fun, hot way. How can Claire and Jamie be more concerned about making the as-yet-unborn US a better place for Brianna -- who has always been perfectly FINE so why the worry? -- than their merry crew who are following their (inexplicable) lead by staying where a war will likely destroy their lives? It just seems so obvious: Sending Jamie and Claire back to live among kin and clan - the plausible option - would require more effort in telling their specific story than frontier-sex and a new political back-drop that they have no real connection to.

Edited November 4, 2018 by heavysnaxx

[GingerMarie]

Great start to Season 4.  I felt the reason behind J&C wanting to stay in America is that this is their new start.  Not in Scotland or France but America where a person can chart their own path.  As to why the rest of the crew wants to stay is simply because of Jamie.  I do have an issue as to why Jamie and crew did not have a weapon.  Found this rather odd in that even in the Highlands you always had a weapon with you.  Not sure why they felt America would be different.  Character development is spot on.  The ending was very powerful with the music playing instead of words.  Words were not needed.  The look of horror, betrayal, sadness and a will to survive was portrayed well by each character.  Enjoyed the start of the season and expect it will just get better.  PEACE

[GHScorpiosRule]

5 minutes ago, Rilla-my-Rilla said:

The  ring change doesn't really change anything going forward. It's just more sad to me that she lost Jamie's ring rather than Frank's but that doesn't change the plot at all.

Ah, but it does. I’m fuzzy on the details, but I do remember Jamie being pissed at Claire-for trying to retrieve Frank’s ring? And I don’t feel like checking. But I do remember them fighting about it!??

[Nidratime]

Quote

Sending Jamie and Claire back to live among kin and clan - the plausible option - would require more effort in telling their specific story than frontier-sex and a new political back-drop that they have no real connection to.

Well, as Diana has said, after Culloden, the Highland clan life was over, they were forbidden to wear the tartan, practice their culture, and many Scots left Scotland either "voluntarily" or forcibly. They went to America, Canada, Australia, etc. She even mentioned, during last month's Comic Con that something like a third of those who were involved in the American Revolution were from Scotland (although they certainly all weren't on the American side). We also know, from the show and books, that Jamie signed his inheritance over to Jenny's eldest son. So, Jamie can no longer be the laird he was meant to be. In America, he's free to build the type of life he might have led in Scotland.

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

8 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Ah, but it does. I’m fuzzy on the details, but I do remember Jamie being pissed at Claire-for trying to retrieve Frank’s ring? And I don’t feel like checking. But I do remember them fighting about it!??

Yeah, I guess I meant it doesn't really change Bree's plot. She sees the ring, wants to get it back, terrible things happen, she holds on to the ring, and then she gives it to Claire when she tells the detailed story about the terrible things that happened. All of those can happen with Jamie's ring. 

Mmmm. That does sound familiar. But in my mind, he was just upset in general that she tried to keep either ring instead of giving them up. But maybe he was just pissy about Frank's ring? I also don't feel like checking. ? We'll see what the show does I suppose!

[GHScorpiosRule]

12 minutes ago, Rilla-my-Rilla said:

Yeah, I guess I meant it doesn't really change Bree's plot. She sees the ring, wants to get it back, terrible things happen, she holds on to the ring, and then she gives it to Claire when she tells the detailed story about the terrible things that happened. All of those can happen with Jamie's ring. 

Ohhhh. Gotcha.

[Quickbeam]

I didn’t like the whole music over the robbery scene. It felt so contrived to me. I’d have rather heard dialogue. And the wigs are awful. Jamie’s and Claire’s too. I did love the surgeon’s chest. 

Overall, kind of a jumble. 

[nodorothyparker]

1 hour ago, GingerMarie said:

I do have an issue as to why Jamie and crew did not have a weapon.  Found this rather odd in that even in the Highlands you always had a weapon with you.  Not sure why they felt America would be different. 

The books are pretty consistent on the historical point that none of them were allowed weapons in the Highlands after the Rising as part of what were popularly known as the Dekilting and Disarming Acts.  So they're out of practice carrying them and considering that they washed up onshore with only their wreckage, they would to have had to spend money purchasing weapons.  Since they were planning on setting sail back for Scotland, where they legally wouldn't have been allowed to have them, almost immediately up until the point they seemingly randomly decided to stay, it wouldn't have made much sense to invest in them.  Beyond that, Claire's idealizing so heavily about the American dream even with the hanging that it was like they didn't have their guard up that Colonial America is not the settled America she remembers.

[GingerMarie]

3 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

The books are pretty consistent on the historical point that none of them were allowed weapons in the Highlands after the Rising as part of what were popularly known as the Dekilting and Disarmament Acts.  So they're out of practice carrying them and considering that they washed up onshore with only their wreckage, they would to have had to spend money purchasing weapons.  Since they were planning on setting sail back for Scotland, where they legally wouldn't have been allowed to have them, almost immediately up until the point they seemingly randomly decided to stay, it wouldn't have made much sense to invest in them.  Beyond that, Claire's idealizing so heavily about the American dream even with the hanging that it was like they didn't have their guard up that Colonial America is not the settled America she remembers.

Great point regarding the weapons.  And you are right, Claire is  romanticizing Colonial America.  

[Petunia846]

I also think they still didn't feel entirely comfortable with Jamie going back to Scotland after the warrant for his arrest last season. They mentioned how Lord John got it taken care of, but both of them still looked (rightfully) wary about that. I mean, Jamie was up to some pretty hinky business in Scotland before Ian got kidnapped, and there's just so much *history* there. Jenny and Ian still don't understand why Claire was gone, the print shop was burned, there's the matter of the second wife, and on and on I'm sure. At least in America Jamie hasn't been accused of killing someone.

[LoveLeigh]

8 hours ago, areca said:

I didn't like the episode.  There, I said it.  Sam and Catriona don't seem to have any chemistry anymore. 

I did not like this episode either. I actually turned it off after about 40 minutes in. Maybe the season is starting slowly and will move to a better place. But this episode for me was terrible and downright dull. 

[morgan]

Ok, finished my second viewing and I liked it much better.  Liked the American Dream conversation.  I agree Claire is romanticizing here, but in a way we all do it when we start a new and uncertain venture.  And yes, she knows the history as it was settled, not thinking fully on the real daily dangers they might face.

The ending on the boat still worked for me.  Catriona rocked it....was truly impressed.  There are some bits that seem awkward to me, but I loved the song in the tavern.  I agree with those saying it’s those small bits that make things special.

One thing that doesn’t work for me, as much as I loved it, was the sex scene.  It seemed incredibly implausible to me that Jamie would have let his guard down that night after being warned by Bonnet, a confessed theif, that the woods weren’t safe.  Again, a beautiful scene.  Just wish that line saying it wasn’t safe wasn’t there.  Maybe say it wasn’t safe on the river so be aware once they started on it?  And yes, I know Jamie said let’s find a safe place to stay the night, but how was that bit of woods he picked safe?  

Edited November 4, 2018 by morgan

[FnkyChkn34]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Ah, but it does. I’m fuzzy on the details, but I do remember Jamie being pissed at Claire-for trying to retrieve Frank’s ring? And I don’t feel like checking. But I do remember them fighting about it!??

Well, maybe that will eliminate one ridiculous, unnecessary fight for the show?  Since there's enough conflict already, we don't need it...

[dini]

I have to say, I was doing other things while this was on. 

Partially because I was just waiting for Stephen Bonnet to come back and rob them. 

I wasn't that bothered by the bad wigs, but IMO they just look too young. Jamie especially. 

And I was a bit distracted by how clean Stephen Bonnet was.  In the books he's pretty disgusting. Or maybe it's the way he was written.  Its been a while since I read that bit!

[morgan]

See I don’t think Claire and Jamie look too young.  I am probably Claire’s age in this, my husband is Jamie’s.  I actually thought they looked really good/age appropriate. Claire might even look a wee bit older than me.  Or maybe I’m just delusional ?

[dini]

Jamie is 47 and Claire is 51. I suspect you've used a bit more sunscreen than they have! 

I think that Jamie has had it rough, between Ardsmuir and his time in the cave.  I think he'd be a tiny bit more wrinkly! Claire looks like she had a few grey streaks put in her hair, but that's it.

She must have good genes. :)

[FnkyChkn34]

I can overlook the fact that they look young more than I can overlook their bad wigs... ;-)

[areca]

Why would the Scots have weapons in America?  It's still a British territory, and they're still forbidden weapons by the king, no?  Agreed on them needing to age the heck up, quickly.  It's not believable.  Just use a bit of glue to add some wrinkles in the forehead, some crows feet, and color Jamie's beard growth with a bit of silver scattered through.  A white mascara wand would take care of both their hair without terrible wigs and call it good.

Edited November 5, 2018 by areca

[Nidratime]

With this new season of Outlander all I keep thinking of is that exemplary mini-series, The Awakening Land

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076981/

[Scarlett45]

Hello my Outlander loving friends!! 

 

I like Jaime and Young Ian’s chat at the grave site. Jaime is a good uncle, and I appreciate that the writers allowed Young Ian to be vulernable and traumatized about what happened to him at the hands of Gellis. 

[ruby24]

I'm not sure whether it being Jamie's ring or Frank's ring would make Brianna's actions to retrieve it less absurd. This was the book where every decision she makes is just insane and I don't expect the show to be able to save her character, especially if they have her doing the same things. Frankly, Bree is a bad character and a really stupid person in the books. They'd have to change her a LOT on the show to make her likable, and unfortunately they've already cast someone who can't act, so I'm not expecting much. 

I was pretty much dreading this season from the start because of how much Bree there's going to have to be in it.

Edited November 5, 2018 by ruby24

[Nidratime]

Quote

I'm not sure whether it being Jamie's ring or Frank's ring would make Brianna's actions to retrieve it less absurd.

Jamie's ring is sentimental. It was made out of a key to his home and couldn't possibly mean anything to anyone not them. I could see how retrieving that ring would be far more meaningful than a gold wedding band. But, that's based only on the show and not what we know about the ring from the books.

[GingerMarie]

The character of Brianna has not been a failure as some people feel.  She was shown very little in Season 2 and 3 and she had a lot of things thrown at her.  Death of her Dad, learning of her mom's secret past, finding out she has a  different father.  She is a young woman dealing with a lot.  As Brianna matures her confidence will grow and this will translate in to a better actor.  She was a brat last season and I feel most people objected to her behavior that should not translate in to her being a bad actor.  PEACE

[WatchrTina]

I'm posting without reading anything.

HOLY SHIT!  That ending scene.  That was brutal.  And Ray Charles' American Beautiful paying over it?  Damn.

Off to watch a second time!

[ruby24]

42 minutes ago, GingerMarie said:

The character of Brianna has not been a failure as some people feel.  She was shown very little in Season 2 and 3 and she had a lot of things thrown at her.  Death of her Dad, learning of her mom's secret past, finding out she has a  different father.  She is a young woman dealing with a lot.  As Brianna matures her confidence will grow and this will translate in to a better actor.  She was a brat last season and I feel most people objected to her behavior that should not translate in to her being a bad actor.  PEACE

No, I'm definitely talking about her acting. Sorry. She can't act. She's uncomfortable in front of the camera, her accent is terrible and she can't emote or enunciate her lines well. 

[GingerMarie]

6 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

No, I'm definitely talking about her acting. Sorry. She can't act. She's uncomfortable in front of the camera, her accent is terrible and she can't emote or enunciate her lines well. 

Thanks for a different take on Brianna.  I truly hope she grows up as an actor this season. 

[CarpeFelis]

Ed Speleers makes a terrific villain, but he seems too young to play Bonnet.

Edited November 5, 2018 by CarpeFelis
typo