S04.E01: America the Beautiful

[virginia blue]

4 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

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.

One thing I liked about this episode was that none of the disastrously bad decisions were shown to be Claire’s fault. It’s often easy to blame her when things go wrong but in this case it’s all Jamie, from the decision to bury his friend in consecrated ground to the choice to protect Bonnet. She may have idealized colonial America but Jamie’s decisions weren’t dependent on that.

[WatchrTina]

GENERAL

I hate Stephen “Fooking” Bonnet with the white-hot passion of a thousand suns.

 

THE GOOD

Sam did a great job with the hanging scene.  Jamie’s promised (forced) smile for Hayes before the hanging was good but the pained expression when he turned back to Hayes’ corpse was heart-breaking.

I loved when all the people in the bar joined in the singing of the lament.  It was a very clear signal of the large proportion of Scots in the area.

I do not recall any reference in the book to Ian having PTSD from his experience with Geillis but makes perfect sense that he would so I was glad to see it.  I also was glad to hear Jamie make oblique reference to his own past experience with rape and to get a sense that Jamie has made some progress in laying those particular demons to rest. 

I like that they established that Stephen Fooking Bonnet has a morbid fear of drowning. I don’t recall that from the book.

The sex scene in the woods was very nice and much better than the book.  The book love-scene, which takes place on a river-side hot rock while Rollo bobs for fish in the river, always gave me anxiety that someone was watching them. That being said, I had anxiety during the TV love scene too because I was afraid Stephen Fooking Bonnet was still in the area.

And it can’t be said often enough – Sam & Cait are very, very pretty people and when they get their kit off . . . damn.

Having re-watched much of season 3 earlier today (including Claire promising to give Marsali some guidance on how to prevent pregnancy) I thought there was some good, subtle acting going on when Claire hears the baby news.

The medicine box! Yay! (Did you notice it had a drawer marked “Bitter Cascara”?)  I was so glad it didn’t get ransacked like in the book.

The final scene was brutal, the choice of Ray Charles’ “America the Beautiful” as overlay was smack-you-in-the-face discordant, and I think it really worked. At first it was jarring (I found myself thinking “where is that piano music coming from?”) But then I got it.

 

THE BAD

It’s not really “bad” --  it’s just a fact of life that TV shows can’t shoot scenes in the dark. Part of what is so creepy about the graveyard scene in the book is that they are sneaking around in nearly pitch black. In a TV show, alas, there must be light. It robs the scene of a large part of the chills you get in the book.

I also felt the episode suffered from having to set so much up.  It sort of hop-scotched along from plot point to plot point, ticking all the necessary boxes to remind the viewer (after a year of waiting) where we are in the story.  Then, after all those minor ups and downs we get a huge, catastrophic final scene.  I think I understand why the episode had to be the way it was but narratively that was sub-optimal.

The guards at that hanging really sucked at their job.

I complemented the sex scene above but the editing of it was weird.  Unless I’m mistaken they inserted the same shot more than once (presumably to make it last longer) and as a result there are continuity gaffs in where Jamie’s arms are.

 

THE UGLY

If I never have to see Stephen Fooking Bonnet stick his finger in Claire’s mouth again, that will suit me just fine.

Farewell Lesley. We barely knew you.  I wondered why they kept you around and now I know -- it was just so we could see Bonnet brutally murder you (in case we didn’t already really REALLY hate the little shit.)

 

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

I think I know what they were going for with the opening scene of aboriginal Americans from the distant past building stone cairns in a circle (reminiscent of the monolithic stone circles of Britain) but does that have any basis in fact?  Are there any ruins to suggest such a thing existed?  Or did they have them built out of small stones as a visual clue as to why the stone circles in American disappeared over time?

 

QUOTES

Stephen Bonnet:  “I’ve always been partial to rings.

Stephen Bonnet:  “I won’t bother you again.  You have my word.”

Me (as a reader – in response to both):  “Fuck you!”

 

Jamie:  “Nothing is lost Sassencach. Only changed.

Claire:  “That’s the second law of Thermodynamics.”

Jamie:  “No, that’s faith.

 

Claire (to Jamie):  “This ring is all I need”

Me:  “Curse you Stephen Bonnet!”

Edited November 5, 2018 by WatchrTina

[mledawn]

I didn't read this book so I wasn't sure on the characters but Bonnet's robbery and ring theft was blatantly foreshadowed in the episode. I turned to my husband and said "He's coming back to rob them and he's stealing her rings. Plus, he knows about the gemstones because he was in the trailer". When it all happened at the end, he rolled his eyes. I'm glad Claire's medicine box wasn't damaged, though.

There was inconsistency with the wigs - during the sex scene I noticed Claire's hair had no grey streaks. Jamie's bad bangs were a distraction.

Also a distraction was Fergus singing along in the pub. Fergus was picked up in France, when would he have learned the song?

Someone upthread mentioned they thought the aboriginal people in the book were Mohawk but I think that's probably not true. North Carolina is too far south for Mohawks, Cherokee makes more sense.

Not my favourite opener, but definitely set out plot points for a few episodes/the season.

Edited November 5, 2018 by mledawn
forgot about Claire's medicine chest

[WatchrTina]

5 minutes ago, mledawn said:

Fergus was picked up in France, when would he have learned the song?

Fergus has lived among Scots for most of his life now (he was 10 or 11 when Jamie "adopted" him.)  It makes sense to me that he would have picked up a fair amount of the Gaelic.  Furthermore, the way that song goes is that one person sings a verse (in tribute to the recently deceased) and then everyone joins in on the chorus.  It seems reasonable that Fergus would have been present at other funerals and learned that chorus.

[Lady Iris]

Non-book reader here. That last scene was a big gut punch for me. I could tell that Bonnett guy was being set up to return but I didn’t know how. TV violence doesn’t generally bother me but that scene really weighed heavily on me. 

Was Ian knocked out? I couldn’t see what happened to him. 

[rwlevin]

Bonnet gets worse. Much worse.

[Haleth]

Ray Charles?  Really, show?

I'll add more later, but I'm just happy Outlander is back!  Yay!

[GHScorpiosRule]

12 hours ago, dini said:

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. :)

Maybe in real life.  But Gabaldon has written Claire to look years younger than she is. And despite the tough, rough life he’s led, again, Gabaldon has written Jamie to be a King of Men.” It’s how she wrote them.

[SoTheresThat]

Really, really did not like the song over the ending scene.  Love the song.  Love Ray Charles.  The scene was great with music over, but that song just didn't work.  Many years ago, General Hospital did a gun battle scene with "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" played over it.  That cheesy soap opera did it so much better than Ron Moore did here.

I'll pile on about the wigs.  They are so, so bad.  I've still never gotten over Jamie's Bastille beard.  And I agree that Claire and Jamie look too young.  It will really be pronounced once Brianna and Roger are in scenes with them.  Come on hair and makeup, y'all are slacking.

I'm trying hard to like the show, but it moves so slowly.  But it is beautiful to look at and I love seeing the books come to life.  I didn't even add Starz to my cable until Saturday afternoon after I got a coupon code for a promotional price.  Was just going to wait and hope the DVD's came to my library.  Hope the season gets better.

Is it wrong that I love show Stephen Bonnet?

Does anyone know where they're filming?  Is the plantation they use for River Run a real plantation home?

Edited November 5, 2018 by SoTheresThat

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, SoTheresThat said:

Does anyone know where they're filming?  Is the plantation they use for River Run a real plantation home?

All I know is that they’re filming in Scotland and had to build a lot of the buildings according to Matt Roberts.

[BitterApple]

3 hours ago, Lady Iris said:

Non-book reader here. That last scene was a big gut punch for me. I could tell that Bonnett guy was being set up to return but I didn’t know how. TV violence doesn’t generally bother me but that scene really weighed heavily on me. 

Was Ian knocked out? I couldn’t see what happened to him. 

I'm a non-book reader and figured it out early on as well. Bonnett came across as a con artist the second he opened his mouth. I'm surprised Jamie got suckered in so easily.

The use of the Ray Charles song seems to be a "loved it" or "hated it" debate on other forums. Personally I'm in the latter camp. I love his rendition, but I hate when the show uses modern music for the 18th century. I understand they were going for irony, but it would've been much better to let the scene play out and use the song for the ending credits.

Best part of the night was seeing everyone back on screen and the dog.

Worst part(s) of the night were the wigs and horrible CGI during the river scenes. 

[Squirrely]

33 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

I'm a non-book reader and figured it out early on as well. Bonnett came across as a con artist the second he opened his mouth. I'm surprised Jamie got suckered in so easily.

In the book, he is even more reluctant to help, and he acknowledges that the British weren't always wrong in who they arrested and sentenced to death. But at the same time, you have to remember the lifelong pain and suffering his family has been dealt by England. It would have been very tough to be in his shoes at that moment. 

[Nidratime]

Quote

The use of the Ray Charles song seems to be a "loved it" or "hated it" debate on other forums. Personally I'm in the latter camp. I love his rendition, but I hate when the show uses modern music for the 18th century. I understand they were going for irony, but it would've been much better to let the scene play out and use the song for the ending credits.

If my memory serves, at NYC Comic Con, the panel was asked about the choice to use this song to dramatize the end of the episode, and Ron and Maril said that their initial decision was to use an instrumental version of the song rather than the famous Ray Charles version. However, they watched it with the Charles version and decided that if they were going to go there, i.e., use this more "modern," -- it's over a hundred years old -- iconic song, they should just "go for it" and use the version that most modern day viewers would be familiar with. I think Ron especially liked the boldness of it.

[Pfunksbn]

I agree with y'all saying that everyone's looking a little too young. In the books, there is a lot of talk about Claire looking so young compared to the 18th century folk because she lived most of her life in the 20th century, with better nutrition, hygiene, etc. Obviously, they need Jamie to still be amazing looking, but seriously, I don't think graying up Sam H is going to detract from his looks one bit. And LOTS of men get better looking with age! That said, I noticed his hair looking really dirty, but didn't realize it was a wig. 

Bonnet looking like Heath Ledger was a serious distraction for me, to the point where it kept taking me out of the show. 

While I was watching, I at first took the Ray Charles song as similar to what they did in the first season (ep 1?) with the 1940s music. A song she knew that was from her time, something that connected her to her previous life. But I googled and Charles' version of that song was not recorded until 1972 and Claire returned to Jamie in '68 or '69, I think? So she would not have known it, at least not that particular version. But I still liked it. On the surface, the song is a description of the physical beauty and majesty of America's landscape, which in the 1700s would have been absolutely incredible to see. Jamie and Claire are heading into an 'untamed' land full of promise and opportunity. (Putting aside manifest destiny for a moment). There is THAT side of America, the shiny American Dream side, and then there is the brutal reality side, full of violence and greed. From the Governor on down to the petty thieves, there is the law, and then there is what is done, right? Putting the pretty, patriotic song (that is *roughly* from the timeframe of Claire's last stint in the 20th C) over the brutal robbery worked for me. If one wanted to make the song work a little better, one could say that Brianna for sure would know the song, and couple that with Jamie's line about wanting to stay in the colonies to make America a better place for her. It's a little bit of a stretch, but I wouldn't get mad about it.

Of course, Rollo stole the show. Can we have a spin-off that is all from Rollo's POV? I would watch that show.

[Nidratime]

Quote

Of course, Rollo stole the show. Can we have a spin-off that is all from Rollo's POV? I would watch that show.

The first episode of the Rollo version of the show would be titled, "Squirrel!"

[toolazy]

I think that the Ray Charles song at the end of the episode was freaking brilliant.  I'm not sure any other version of that song would have wielded the irony hammer quite as well as that one.  Before I saw the fan reactions, I thought that maybe the irony hammer was a bit too big, too on the nose, but enough people seem to have completely missed the point of it that I guess not.  

I was dreading that particular scene because it's a part of the books that I hate.  I expected to simply endure it as it played out but holy freaking shit!  I was sobbing by the end of it.  And without that music? Not nearly as much emotional whammy. 

As for the ring:  the producers pointed out, rightly, that a simple gold band was not nearly distinctive enough to capture Brianna's notice.. There is no way someone simply walking by would be able to read, much less decipher, an inscription on the inside of a ring on a table inside of a dark tavern.  This is an example of the show taking something that was really kind of eye-rolling in the book and making it more plausible.

The first episode gives me kind of high hopes about the rest of the season.  

[taanja]

I am not a book reader but I don't mind being spoiled.

I liked this ep! I really liked the character Bonnet. Oh yeah. He is charming and dangerous and despicable and clever all rolled up into one.

That scene at the end was really powerful!!!  I loved the music playing "America the Beautiful" as all the violence and atrocities were taking place. And Bonnet got Jamie's ring? I always forget the rings are supposed to be important but they made a point of talking about them when Claire was tending to Bonnet's wound. I did quite like that scene. I can tell he is going to be a very compelling character.

I thought it was a good start to the season. I am interested in seeing how this all plays out.

I have a feeling that the talk of circles will come back -- like everything coming full circle. All the little ironies and coincidences of life. 

Oh and I have to say-- wig? The actor that plays Jamie is wearing a wig? I didn't notice but I tend to not notice that stuff. Otherwise I really liked all the costumes. 

[toolazy]

It's always Claire's wigs that bother me. I think I'm so used to seeing Sam Heughan with terrible hair that I barely notice, but Claire's wigs at the end of last season were horrendous. 

[Otherkate]

I honestly can not remember ever noticing Jamie's wig the way I did in this episode. I couldn't even listen to what he was saying half the time!

[hertolo]

I really have to pay better attention to the Wigs, since well I didn't notice it...

I belong to the side that really loved the juxtaposition in the end scene with the music. To me, it was less a "let's put modern music over it for irony", but more a reaction to Claire's romanticizing of colonial North America throughout the episode. In this form, it served a narrative purpose of reminding us viewers that all that patriotic mysticism is really just invented afterward. One of the main jobs of historians by the way is to slowly chip away at all these preconceptions and that's why I believe this song here serves especially well in contrasting the text of a pristine land of opportunity with robbers and uncertainty and no infrastructure at all.

Lastly, the discussion between Cherokee and Mohawks seems moot since the opening scene you are referring to had 2000 BC as an indication of time, no?  So that's about 3500 years before those nations would have existed. (To be honest, I am not sure on the migration patterns on the American continent, but that are enough years to be sure that those natives would have been totally different). If I missed another reference to the natives in this episode, I am sorry for my tone :-)-

[BitterApple]

Have the books ever explained how Gabaldon's version of time travel works? Are there parallel timelines, closed loops etc.? Because how could anything Jamie and Claire do in America in 1767 benefit Briana who's already alive and well in 1968? I get a headache trying to make sense of it.

[Haleth]

4 hours ago, BitterApple said:

horrible CGI during the river scenes.

I didn't really pay attention to the bad wigs, but the bad CGI on the river was really glaring.  As was the use of a nighttime filter for the graveyard scene when it was obvious they were filming in bright daylight.

Other than those couple of nitpicks I loved it.  Loved the opening with the Native American spirit circles since the show pointed out the African dancers doing the same in the Caribbean last season. 

Lots of set up for things to come.

[Sew Sumi]

@BitterApple, you'll see how that plays out later this season.

[GHScorpiosRule]

34 minutes ago, hertolo said:

 

Lastly, the discussion between Cherokee and Mohawks seems moot since the opening scene you are referring to had 2000 BC as an indication of time, no?  So that's about 3500 years before those nations would have existed. (To be honest, I am not sure on the migration patterns on the American continent, but that are enough years to be sure that those natives would have been totally different). If I missed another reference to the natives in this episode, I am sorry for my tone :-)-

Actually the opening scene had nothing to do with me questioning why the show made the change from Mohawks to Cherokee. It’s stated in the buiks it’s the Mohawks. Cherokee is never mentioned. It’s the

Mohawks that Wee Ian goes to stay with, not

Cherokee. And one of the British officers mentioned Cherokee, which is changed from the source material.

[iMonrey]

I haven't read any of the books past the first one but I've kept up with the TV show. I have to say, it's a real downer too much of the time. Can't Jamie and Claire ever get a break? It's one tragedy after another with these two. Has it maybe occurred to them that fate is trying to tell them they shouldn't be together? One of them is either getting arrested, or getting whipped, or getting the crap beaten out of them, or getting raped . . . you get the picture. Enough already. I was so hoping this American part of their journey would be quieter somehow. Can I get just one season where things go well for them? No. Right off the bat they lose all their money and Jamie gets the crap beaten out of him, again.

Honestly, maybe this narrative works better in a book where the melodrama is more essential, but on a TV show the pattern is becoming very tiresome and frustrating. I still enjoy the story and the characters but I'm sick to death of them always ending up on the losing side. They need a win!

[Petunia846]

5 hours ago, Nidratime said:

I think Ron especially liked the boldness of it.

Ron is always wrong.

I have a question. In the episode I'm pretty sure that Claire told Jamie that the next war would be in 7 years. Is that the war that Jamie fights in in MOBY? Is that the Revolutionary War? (I'm sorry, it's been so long since I've read the books now.) So if all that is true, is that the same timeline as in the books, or have they shortened things? 7 years doesn't feel like much time for all the things that happen in the later books. Are they condensing things so they can have fewer seasons? Anyone notice?

[GHScorpiosRule]

6 minutes ago, Petunia846 said:

Ron is always wrong.

I have a question. In the episode I'm pretty sure that Claire told Jamie that the next war would be in 7 years. Is that the war that Jamie fights in in MOBY? Is that the Revolutionary War? (I'm sorry, it's been so long since I've read the books now.) So if all that is true, is that the same timeline as in the books, or have they shortened things? 7 years doesn't feel like much time for all the things that happen in the later books. Are they condensing things so they can have fewer seasons? Anyone notice?

Yes, he is. Just as he was wrong about why/how he changed Claire’s Witch Trial. And other things.

Well the tag stated it’s 1767. And I do believe Jamie fought in the Revolution. We didn’t gain our freedom right away, but in 1776. And I reaalllllly dinna feel like confirming the dates or if Jamie just fought in the prelude to the actual Revolution.

[virginia blue]

8 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Yes, he is. Just as he was wrong about why/how he changed Claire’s Witch Trial. And other things.

Well the tag stated it’s 1767. And I do believe Jamie fought in the Revolution. We didn’t gain our freedom right away, but in 1776. And I reaalllllly dinna feel like confirming the dates or if Jamie just fought in the prelude to the actual Revolution.

The first military engagement of the Revolutionary War was the battle of Lexington and Concord, which took place in 1775. Claire would be familiar with the history, having lived for so many years in Massachusetts. I don’t recall which book it’s in but Jamie fights in the Battles of Saratoga, which happened in 1777.

[Lady Iris]

Just had a thought, given Claire's knowledge of history, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to pack up and move somewhere that isn't going to have known upcoming wars? Like...Canada?

[nodorothyparker]

The colonists tried their very best to drag Canada into the war too though, at one point invading Quebec.  And the British used it as a staging ground for invading from the north.

Part of what's so hilarious about Claire as a time traveler is that she remembers some basic historical stuff, but often not the context or details.  She's not a historian like Frank.  I love the bit in one of the later books when she admits that a lot of her knowledge of the American Revolution is from helping an elementary school-aged Bree with her homework, so some of what she remembers comes straight from coloring sheets or fill in the blank school worksheets.  There's also the problem that she never thought they'd end up in America in the first place.  She tells Jamie at one point that before she returned this time she tried to read up on Scottish, English, and even French history to be more helpful but never bothered with anything colonial because why would they ever go there?

[Haleth]

32 minutes ago, Lady Iris said:

Just had a thought, given Claire's knowledge of history, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to pack up and move somewhere that isn't going to have known upcoming wars? Like...Canada?

Spoiler

That's why they settle wayyyy out in the mountains of NC.  They hoped it would be remote enough to go unnoticed.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Haleth

[Cdh20]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

I haven't read any of the books past the first one but I've kept up with the TV show. I have to say, it's a real downer too much of the time. Can't Jamie and Claire ever get a break? It's one tragedy after another with these two. Has it maybe occurred to them that fate is trying to tell them they shouldn't be together? One of them is either getting arrested, or getting whipped, or getting the crap beaten out of them, or getting raped . . . you get the picture. Enough already. I was so hoping this American part of their journey would be quieter somehow. Can I get just one season where things go well for them? No. Right off the bat they lose all their money and Jamie gets the crap beaten out of him, again.

Honestly, maybe this narrative works better in a book where the melodrama is more essential, but on a TV show the pattern is becoming very tiresome and frustrating. I still enjoy the story and the characters but I'm sick to death of them always ending up on the losing side. They need a win!

I watched with a group of women & my hubby, & we had a conversation about how there is drama/something aweful almost every episode. Us women think we want the Wedding every episode, but my hubby reminded us that would not make for an engaging tv show at all. Is he right? Or are we?

[toolazy]

52 minutes ago, Lady Iris said:

Just had a thought, given Claire's knowledge of history, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to pack up and move somewhere that isn't going to have known upcoming wars? Like...Canada?

North Carolina wasn't really a hotbed of revolutionary activity. 

[Annj]

Well, the first episode had a hard act to follow. Last season we all held our breath as Claire traveled back thru the stones to Jamie.

 

I was more than a little bothered by the way they threw one of my favorite scenes hastily together sooner than its appearance in Drums of Autumn. 

 

I am am talking about the heartbreakingly beautiful moment where Jamie tells Claire that he loved her even when he was dead. 

 

In the book it is a much more drawn out moment. Claire fears Jamie’s death because she has already seen his headstone in Scotland. He lovingly reassured her. It is one of the most romantic passages in all the books, IMO.

 

And “where’s the heat????!!!” Is it bugging anyone else that the sweltering heat plays such a part at the opening of the story, but in the show it must’ve been chilly weather when they filmed the Carolinas in Scotland.

 

Everyone is bundled in coats and shawls. In the book they are dripping sweat. And that was what made the missing “rock love scene” so amazing. There was a sexual tension building between Claire and Jamie, even in the graveyard! Morbid, I know, but there was a build up nonetheless. 

 

Claire needs more foreplay people!!

 

And I am confused about when the attack happens in the book. It was definitely out of place. 

 

Not sure I liked the Ray Charles song overlay. Kind of strange. 

 

Heellllo, Bonnet did remind me of Heath Ledger. He sounded like a much sturdier fellow in the book. But I like the choice of actor. Better than the goofy young Ian.

 

Sorry, I have read the books, so can’t help but compare. It was done well enough & thrilled Droutlander is over, but it always bugs me a little how some things are left out (for times sake) and other things might be added. 

 

Things were kind of dumbed up. I too watched prior episodes leading up to this. Like when Claire beheads Geillis and has a flash back (or forward?) to when Dr. Joe shows her the female scull/remains. 

 

Leave some of it for viewers to figure out! Read the books everyone. They are fantastic.

 

Jamie’s hair always bugs me.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Annj
Misspellings

[toolazy]

23 minutes ago, Annj said:

Well, the first episode had a hard act to follow. Last season we all held our breath as Claire traveled back thru the stones to Jamie.

 

I was more than a little bothered by the way they threw one of my favorite scenes hastily together sooner than its appearance in Drums of Autumn. 

 

I am am talking about the heartbreakingly beautiful moment where Jamie tells Claire that he loved her even when he was dead. 

 

In the book it is a much more drawn out moment. Claire fears Jamie’s death because she has already seen his headstone in Scotland. He lovingly reassured her. It is one of the most romantic passages in all the books, IMO.[/quote]

 

The bit with the headstone was omitted with the show so it wouldn't make sense to bring it up now.

 

23 minutes ago, Annj said:

 

And “where’s the heat????!!!” Is it bugging anyone else that the sweltering heat plays such a part at the opening of the story, but in the show it must’ve been chilly weather when they filmed the Carolinas in Scotland.

 

Everyone is bundled in coats and shawls. In the book they are dripping sweat. And that was what made the missing “rock love scene” so amazing. There was a sexual tension building between Claire and Jamie, even in the graveyard! Morbid, I know, but there was a build up nonetheless. [/quote]

 

The producers have said that they aren't going to make the cast pretend that it's sweltering when they're actually filming outside in winter.  Maril Davis basically said that they are ignoring weather as much as they can. 

 

23 minutes ago, Annj said:

 

 

And I am confused about when the attack happens in the book. It was definitely out of place. [/quote]

 

The attack happens in the book on the boat going to River Run, so it's not out of place. 

 

 

23 minutes ago, Annj said:

 

[qtpye]

3 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I haven't read any of the books past the first one but I've kept up with the TV show. I have to say, it's a real downer too much of the time. Can't Jamie and Claire ever get a break? It's one tragedy after another with these two. Has it maybe occurred to them that fate is trying to tell them they shouldn't be together? One of them is either getting arrested, or getting whipped, or getting the crap beaten out of them, or getting raped . . . you get the picture. Enough already. I was so hoping this American part of their journey would be quieter somehow. Can I get just one season where things go well for them? No. Right off the bat they lose all their money and Jamie gets the crap beaten out of him, again.

Honestly, maybe this narrative works better in a book where the melodrama is more essential, but on a TV show the pattern is becoming very tiresome and frustrating. I still enjoy the story and the characters but I'm sick to death of them always ending up on the losing side. They need a win!

 

1 hour ago, Cdh20 said:

I watched with a group of women & my hubby, & we had a conversation about how there is drama/something aweful almost every episode. Us women think we want the Wedding every episode, but my hubby reminded us that would not make for an engaging tv show at all. Is he right? Or are we?

Sometimes I feel like as Outlander Fans, we are not allowed to have nice things.

[WatchrTina]

12 hours ago, toolazy said:

I was dreading that particular scene [the attack on the barge] because it's a part of the books that I hate.  I expected to simply endure it as it played out but holy freaking shit!  I was sobbing by the end of it. 

So was Claire and THAT really packed an emotional punch.  When is the last time we saw Claire sobbing?  Have we ever seen that?  We've seen her almost mad with grief when baby Faith died and after she went back through the stones.  We've seen her weep over Frank's dead body.  We've seen her shocked and nearly catatonic after the rape.  But I don't think we've ever seen Claire full-on sobbing before.  Cait knocked it out of the park.

Edited November 6, 2018 by WatchrTina

[SandyToes]

3 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I haven't read any of the books past the first one but I've kept up with the TV show. I have to say, it's a real downer too much of the time. Can't Jamie and Claire ever get a break? It's one tragedy after another with these two. Has it maybe occurred to them that fate is trying to tell them they shouldn't be together? One of them is either getting arrested, or getting whipped, or getting the crap beaten out of them, or getting raped . . . you get the picture. Enough already. I was so hoping this American part of their journey would be quieter somehow. Can I get just one season where things go well for them? No. Right off the bat they lose all their money and Jamie gets the crap beaten out of him, again.

Honestly, maybe this narrative works better in a book where the melodrama is more essential, but on a TV show the pattern is becoming very tiresome and frustrating. I still enjoy the story and the characters but I'm sick to death of them always ending up on the losing side. They need a win!

I had this same experience. I zoomed through the first three books (loved the third - the reunion - sigh), and just could NOT get into the fourth for the reasons you stated.  I'd start it, then abandon it.  Many times. I think it was actually not until the TV show started that I finally read it.  Worth reading, to get to the next one, IMO.

I'm on the "didn't care for the final song" side of the fence.   I understand the reasoning, and agree that it absolutely is a  reality slap in the face but something about it just felt off. Didn't mind the "silent" scenes, and was glad for once to NOT have to listen to another attack/fight. I thought it was all beautifully choreographed, and Claire's anguish at seeing the ring was heartbreaking.  Switching the rings is a good example of a positive change.

I also LIKE that there are changes from the books.  Keeps things a little fresher for me, and offers surprises.  If I need the book details, I can read the books.  I also wondered if they would be combining things from the next book as well. Hmmmm....

And I'm absolutely on board for the Rollo Show!!  Woof!

[iMonrey]

Quote

I watched with a group of women & my hubby, & we had a conversation about how there is drama/something aweful almost every episode. Us women think we want the Wedding every episode, but my hubby reminded us that would not make for an engaging tv show at all. Is he right? Or are we?

Claire and Jamie don't need to have a tragedy every single episode. There can be drama without it being a major loss for this couple every single time. 

[rwlevin]

6 hours ago, BitterApple said:

 

Have the books ever explained how Gabaldon's version of time travel works? Are there parallel timelines, closed loops etc.? Because how could anything Jamie and Claire do in America in 1767 benefit Briana who's already alive and well in 1968? I get a headache trying to make sense of it.

 

Part of the fun is the characters are figuring out how time travel works as the story goes on. However, the way the story goes, things can’t really be changed and everything that has happened happens, IE Bonnie Prince Charlie and his rebellion. Then you think things like maiming Black Jack Randall will mean that Claire’s hubby will never be born but then it turns out he was never the father in the first place.

 

For example:

There will be a scene later this season or next where based on a newspaper clip everyone assumes Claire and Jamie are going to die but then it turns out the clip was actually the culmination of two separate mistakes and they were never in danger at all. So they thought they changed history but they actually didn’t.

 

so in summary, yeah closed loops

[TarotQueen]

I thought it was a fairly solid opening episode.  Bonnett does look like Heath Ledger, but I never saw that similarity back when Speelers on Dowton Abbey so I think it’s the hair.

Seems like everyone has a distinct feeling on this but count me in the hate for Ray Charles “America the Beautiful” being used as it was.  I found the anachronism jarring, not charming.

Do the sets look kind of cheap compared to prior seasons to anyone else?  Like backdrops where they used to have actual real places, especially outside.  It’s not a big problem to me as a viewer but I am wondering if their budget is tightening and what that might mean for the implications of the show.

[WatchrTina]

2 minutes ago, TarotQueen said:

Do the sets look kind of cheap compared to prior seasons to anyone else?

I didn't notice anything like that but you are not the first person to have commented on spotting that a backdrop was used for the traveling-by-barge scenes.  That makes sense -- filming on an actual barge in a river would be something of a nightmare for the crew.  Remember that all the ship scenes last year were also on a ship set with faux backgrounds.  But once they get off the river and in to more settled surroundings I assume the indoor sets will be just as lovely and immersive as ever. 

[sas616]

6 hours ago, Haleth said:

I didn't really pay attention to the bad wigs, but the bad CGI on the river was really glaring.  As was the use of a nighttime filter for the graveyard scene when it was obvious they were filming in bright daylight.

Other than those couple of nitpicks I loved it.  Loved the opening with the Native American spirit circles since the show pointed out the African dancers doing the same in the Caribbean last season. 

Lots of set up for things to come.

Agree about the CGI on the river scene.  Hope that isn't an example of what's to come since Ron has said they had to use a lot of CGI this season.  

Pretty sure the graveyard scene was filmed at night.   I recall seeing pictures of Sam and John during the filming and it was sure looked like a night shoot.  

[Nidratime]

Quote

Seems like everyone has a distinct feeling on this but count me in the hate for Ray Charles “America the Beautiful” being used as it was.  I found the anachronism jarring, not charming.

As someone who appreciated the use of that version of the song, I wouldn't say I thought it was charming and I don't think I've seen people who also appreciated it saying that exactly. Speaking for myself, I found it powerful and ironic and impactful. The promise of America -- especially the myth of America -- juxtaposed against the reality of both light and dark. Hope and sorrow. The promise to escape past hardship with unfettered violence and opportunism. In fact, I found the end almost poignantly sad.

[BitterApple]

35 minutes ago, rwlevin said:

Part of the fun is the characters are figuring out how time travel works as the story goes on. However, the way the story goes, things can’t really be changed and everything that has happened happens, IE Bonnie Prince Charlie and his rebellion. Then you think things like maiming Black Jack Randall will mean that Claire’s hubby will never be born but then it turns out he was never the father in the first place.

 

For example:

 

  Hide contents

There will be a scene later this season or next where based on a newspaper clip everyone assumes Claire and Jamie are going to die but then it turns out the clip was actually the culmination of two separate mistakes and they were never in danger at all. So they thought they changed history but they actually didn’t.

 

 

so in summary, yeah closed loops

That's what I figured, thanks for the response!

I've seen comments about the sets on Facebook. I don't think the town square was too bad, but the CGI on the riverboat was painfully obvious, as was the shot of Claire and Jaime from behind as they looked out over the Blue Ridge Mountains.

[Clawdette]

To summarize, I:

- love, love that our show has come to sit a spell. 

- hate, hate the wig, the faux river set, and the anachronistic music

Carry on

[lianau]

3 hours ago, rwlevin said:

Part of the fun is the characters are figuring out how time travel works as the story goes on. However, the way the story goes, things can’t really be changed and everything that has happened happens, IE Bonnie Prince Charlie and his rebellion. Then you think things like maiming Black Jack Randall will mean that Claire’s hubby will never be born but then it turns out he was never the father in the first place.

 

For example:

 

  Hide contents

There will be a scene later this season or next where based on a newspaper clip everyone assumes Claire and Jamie are going to die but then it turns out the clip was actually the culmination of two separate mistakes and they were never in danger at all. So they thought they changed history but they actually didn’t.

 

 

so in summary, yeah closed loops

I think it interesting to speculate that Jamie and Claire trying to prevent the uprising is what actually doomed its success in the end . That if they had done nothing Charlie would have succeeded .

[SimonSeymour]

10 hours ago, BitterApple said:

Have the books ever explained how Gabaldon's version of time travel works? Are there parallel timelines, closed loops etc.? Because how could anything Jamie and Claire do in America in 1767 benefit Briana who's already alive and well in 1968? I get a headache trying to make sense of it.

I only read the first book, but I thought the same thing. I even said aloud to my husband who wasn’t really watching, “do the writers not understand how time travel works? Surely all of them have seen Back to the Future!” 

[LadyBrochTuarach]

On 2018-11-04 at 9:13 PM, WatchrTina said:

GENERAL

I hate Stephen “Fooking” Bonnet with the white-hot passion of a thousand suns.

 

QUOTES

Stephen Bonnet:  “I’ve always been partial to rings.

Stephen Bonnet:  “I won’t bother you again.  You have my word.”

Me (as a reader – in response to both):  “Fuck you!”

Ah! These things. 

My response was the same: my sister in law is my witness. I had two consecutive “Fuck you!” Shout outs to Bonnet at both of those lines. 

[hertolo]

10 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Actually the opening scene had nothing to do with me questioning why the show made the change from Mohawks to Cherokee. It’s stated in the buiks it’s the Mohawks. Cherokee is never mentioned. It’s the

  Reveal hidden contents

Mohawks that Wee Ian goes to stay with, not

Cherokee. And one of the British officers mentioned Cherokee, which is changed from the source material.

Ah, ok, I must have overheard that comment then. There was a lot of talking and setting up in my defense though. Thanks for the correction.