S04.E03: The False Bride

[Athena]

Quote

Jamie and Claire search for a place to call home; meanwhile, in the 20th century, Brianna and Roger's romance heats up and then fizzles during a road trip that winds up highlighting their differences.

 

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]

Well. This was a weird episode. 

We finally got to see the prig in Show!Roger that was revealed in buik!Roger. And that was in Dragonfly in Amber. I was wondering if we would.

That said, I was bored with the 1970 scenes, and just wanted more of 1767 and Jamie and Claire. I am so enjoying these quiet and intimate moments with them.

The dancing just looked like country dancing Do-Si-Dos I learned in elementary school. Though it could be that that was passed down from Scottish dancing.

I’m still quite confused with the title of the episode, though. And Matt didn’t do a good job of explaining it to me.

[Dust Bunny]

Clarence! I heard that bray and knew that our mule friend was about to make his appearance.

I really enjoyed this episode. The only buzzkill was a Roger and Brianna’s fight. I love Roger, but he came across as really possessive, just assuming Brianna was his. That scene didn’t play well, but I don’t think it was meant to. 

I enjoyed seeing Ernie. He always struck me as a book character I wish we’d get more of. No idea why.

They sure handled the “Young Ian Is A Man” thing quickly. I got whiplash from Jamie’s 180 in that scene.

I really loved the parallel narratives and cinematography. There were some wonderful transitions. 

Circa 1970 DQ product placement. Not an obvious choice, but it works. The festival scenes were well done. There was an intimacy amongst the clans and shared culture in the 20th century that I think is really instructive for the building of community in Fraser’s Ridge in the 18th century.

I guess we should enjoy Richard Rankin’s beautiful singing voice while we can. :(

Ah, Fraser’s Ridge. That scene was perfect. Understated and lovely.

But mostly... Clarence.

[Quickbeam]

Loved the 1970s scenes. That’s my era and it felt so genuine. Loved Roger, the actor really works it. Still can’t stand Sophie as Brianna.

[GingerMarie]

Auntie Jocasta called Claire out, which I loved.  Most have been complaining that Claire always gets what she wants when she wants it.  This episode she finally started thinking about Jamie.  Not to say that Claire is selfish etc.  But she does have a way with getting what she wants.  I disagree about the Roger/Brianna scenes.  They paced it well and packed a lot into this episode.  Roger loves Brianna and I believe she loves him but is still finding herself.  BTW I feel she should have already done that but OH well.  Roger was hurt and he said things that were hurtful to Brianna.  She did the same.  That is what happens in a relationship.  As Dust Bunny commented the scene played as it should.  It was not pleasing to anyone and I know I did not enjoy Roger getting rejected and Brianna not understanding why he does not get it.   Fiona was great.   I am very happy she moved on from her crush on Roger and is now married.  Brianna's acting has improved.   I don't think we are going to ever see a Brianna that does not take everything so serious.  She reminds me of Jenny.  All in all a very solid episode.  PEACE

[theschnauzers]

There was a clearly shown parallel shown in one transition where Roger and Bri are driving to the festival and then we see Claire, Jamie, Ian, etc all on the trail that would become that highway in the future.....check its the same mountains in the background.

As I understood Matt Roberts’ explanation, the episode title comes from the name of the song Roger sang solo with the guitar.

The episode had to condense a lot of book with this episode. Although I have to admit I don’t recall the bit about the strawberries being the French origin of the Fraser name.

And the 1970 date at the beginning of the episode in Inverness correctly corresponded to 1768/69 in Colonial North Carolina. The writers are being careful with the time stamps as it will get complicated now that the other time travelers besides Gillis have been introduced.

Edited November 18, 2018 by theschnauzers

[Petunia846]

The bit with the skull and the shoes and the ghost is my favorite part of this book, and well...it was better in the book. Oh well. Not sure why they moved it so far forward in the narrative. I guess we'll have to wait until the whole season has played out to know about the structure.

I actually enjoyed the Brianna/Roger stuff more than I did the Claire/Jamie stuff this week. For some reason the Claire/Jamie scenes felt kind of forced. Maybe I'm just in a bad mood this morning. One thing though is that I just don't buy their Scottish forests where they're filming as being North Carolina. I live near the mountains on the Tennessee side, and it's just not dense enough. Or something. Wrong trees. That mossy area Claire walked through was beautiful but totally wrong. I don't know. It all still looks like Scotland to me, so it doesn't feel right. The 1970s Scottish festival was great, though. My alma mater (which was founded by a Scot) hosts a Scottish festival every summer and it's fun to go to.

[morgan]

I loved it!  Loved the 1970 bits and the 1700 bits.  Some of my favorite bits from the book are when Roger comes to Boston and they go to the Highland games in New Hampshire so at first I was miffed with the changes, but in the end I liked the symmetry of them going to North Carolina, traveling the road Jamie and Claire are on.  I love Roger even when he is being so very possessive and knowing what he wants.  And oh how I love that Rik can sing!  I love how much Sophie has grown as an actress.  She is doing Bree justice!  He strong will and also her confusion.  

Loved the bit with the ghost and the shoes.  I thought it was well handled

Frasiers Ridge!!!!!!  I’m so excited to finally get here.  I loved all of it with Jamie and Claire.  Welcome home.  

Ian and Rollo, and JQM. 

For me there really wasn’t any bad.well, maybe Jamie’s wig.but I can get past that.

im really hoping they bookend the calling is the clans like the book did. Another favorite of mine. I do wish they had had Brianna stand for Fraser but understood why they didn’t. 

Edited November 18, 2018 by morgan

[GHScorpiosRule]

8 hours ago, GingerMarie said:

 

Auntie Jocasta called Claire out, which I loved.  Most have been complaining that Claire always gets what she wants when she wants it.

 

Called her out for what, exactly? Claire didn’t demand that Jamie give up Lallybroch and become a printer. Jamie chose to do that himself, to protect Lallybroch and the latter to continue his own rebellion after Culloden and his years at Ardsmuir and Hellwater.

Jamie is not a child.

8 hours ago, theschnauzers said:

 

As I understood Matt Roberts’ explanation, the episode title comes from the name of the song Roger sang solo with the guitar.

The episode had to condense a lot of book with this episode. Although I have to admit I don’t recall the bit about the strawberries being the French origin of the Fraser name.

And the 1970 date at the beginning of the episode in Inverness correctly corresponded to 1768/69 in Colonial North Carolina. The writers are being careful with the time stamps as it will get complicated now that the other time travelers besides Gillis have been introduced.

 

Right, but the titles usually have meaning/apply to the plot, and this one didn’t.

I guess I missed the tag last night, because I thought it was 1767 like we saw in the premiere. And it seems Jamie and Claire were only at River Run for two days or so.

Edited November 18, 2018 by GHScorpiosRule

[GHScorpiosRule]

5 hours ago, Petunia846 said:

The bit with the skull and the shoes and the ghost is my favorite part of this book, and well...it was better in the book. Oh well. Not sure why they moved it so far forward in the narrative. I guess we'll have to wait until the whole season has played out to know about the structure.

<snip>

One thing though is that I just don't buy their Scottish forests where they're filming as being North Carolina. I live near the mountains on the Tennessee side, and it's just not dense enough. Or something. Wrong trees. That mossy area Claire walked through was beautiful but totally wrong. I don't know. It all still looks like Scotland to me, so it doesn't feel right. 

Thank you! I thought Claire discovering the skull happened later.

It still looked beautiful to me. And I’m just going to hand wave away things like this as I e has to for other shows that get where I live all wrong when they’re filming in the same country.

[Ziggy]

9 hours ago, GingerMarie said:

Roger loves Brianna and I believe she loves him but is still finding herself.  BTW I feel she should have already done that but OH well.  Roger was hurt and he said things that were hurtful to Brianna.  She did the same.  That is what happens in a relationship ... I did not enjoy Roger getting rejected and Brianna not understanding why he does not get it.

I hear ya!  That last part was really difficult to watch.  They are both so in love with each other and yet so insecure.  It makes the hurtful things hurt so much more.

I don't think it's unreasonable for Brianna to be having a difficult time knowing what she wants.  If I remember correctly from the books, she stumbled over herself trying to tell him how she felt and it wasn't until they talked later that she was able to help him see what she was going through.  He just knows what he wants and doesn't realize that her not knowing right now is not the same thing as her saying she will never want to marry him.

It's easy for me (who's been married awhile) to say it's worth waiting for, but when you're waiting for the other person to realize it, it's really hard!

[GingerMarie]

47 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Called her out for what, exactly? Claire didn’t demand that Jamie give up Lallybroch and become a printer. Jamie chose to do that himself, to protect Lallybroch and the latter to continue his own rebellion after Culloden and his years at Ardsmuir and Hellwater.

Jamie is not a child.

Right, but the titles usually have meaning/apply to the plot, and this one didn’t.

I guess I missed the tag last night, because I thought it was 1767 like we saw in the premiere. And it seems Jamie and Claire were only at River Run for two days or so.

I am not suggesting Jamie is a child but Claire has influence over him that no one else has or understands, except Aunt Jocasta.  For the first time in a very long time he was offered a 'true start over'. And yes, strings are always attached.  Jamie wanted this opportunity but he knew Claire could not live with it.  So yes, Aunt Jocasta did call Claire out.  She was spot on in her assessment of Claire.  Whenever Claire says "I beg your pardon" you know the other person is telling things to Claire she does not want to hear.  Remember Sandy?

[Petunia846]

41 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Thank you! I thought Claire discovering the skull happened later.

Yeah, part of me even wonders if it's even from a later book? I can't recall, but in the book she's coming back from helping some neighbors with a birth, falls off the horse, stays under the tree in the storm, finds the skull, etc, etc. But the ghost takes her shoes to the cabin where Jamie and Ian are. They're not expecting her home, but Rolo starts barking like a maddog and they follow Rolo, who follows the scent of the shoes or ghost or something, and then find Claire. Most of the scene here is good, it just didn't make much sense that the ghost took the shoes to a random stream, then Jamie happened to find the footprints and follow them to the shoes at that random stream and then Claire noticed the footprints and followed them to where Jamie was just chillin' with her shoes. Maybe if he had made a camp for the night and the ghost left the shoes there and then Claire followed them to Jamie's camp, but meh. Then they just brush off the weirdness of a ghost moving her shoes pretty darn quickly and get on with things. *shrug*

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, GingerMarie said:

I am not suggesting Jamie is a child but Claire has influence over him that no one else has or understands, except Aunt Jocasta.  For the first time in a very long time he was offered a 'true start over'. And yes, strings are always attached.  Jamie wanted this opportunity but he knew Claire could not live with it.  So yes, Aunt Jocasta did call Claire out.  She was spot on in her assessment of Claire.  Whenever Claire says "I beg your pardon" you know the other person is telling things to Claire she does not want to hear.  Remember Sandy?

We’ll just have to agree to disagree. First because Jocasta doesn’t know Jamie. Just as Claire said-she hasn’t seen Jamie since he was a boy. She has no idea of what kind of man he is.

And while Jamie knows Claire can’t live with owning slaves, neither can Jamie, who was an indentured servant while at Hellwater. Pretty much being owned by others himself. Something he told Claire.

Edited November 18, 2018 by GHScorpiosRule

[nodorothyparker]

A solid enough episode in moving all our characters from Point A to B if not the most exciting they've ever done.  They're really ticking off a lot of plot points quickly to try to move this along.  The change of Ian deciding on his own that he's going to stay and further that he'll be writing his own letters, thank you very much, was nicely done although I agree with whoever said Jamie's shift in attitude about it nearly made my head spin.  John Bell definitely wasn't what I envisioned for Ian, but I'm increasingly liking how he's handling the role and giving us real flashes of the book character's sensibilities.  His line that he'd been set upon by pirates - twice! - kidnapped, thrown into a pit, and sailed through a hurricane, so maybe he's old enough to know what he's doing made me snort.  Yes, Ian, you just summed up life in close proximity to Claire and Jamie's orbit.

I'm as surprised as anyone to realize I liked the Roger-Brianna scenes a lot more here than I ever did in the book.  There, it was mostly something to skim through as she labored to put into words just what a number being Claire and Jamie and Frank's daughter had done to her between witnessing the unhappy marriage close up and then Claire gushing about her True Love 4 Ever fairy tale before disappearing likely forever for that fairy tale to leave her to live with it.  But here, you could really see it.  Ric Rankin was doing nice work showing his hurt and confusion with being the one person who does stand some chance of understanding it but still not really understanding it because his own feelings are involved.

Jocasta knocking Claire down a peg by letting her know exactly how she saw things was a nice follow through to Jenny having similar sentiments last season.  As much as Claire revels in her own opinions and her "forthright nature" she doesn't always like it much when it's turned back on her, and you could see in what Jocasta was saying how she and Jenny and probably much of the family sees her in leading Jamie around from one bad situation to another.  Yes, Jamie's a grown man with free will and as we've seen manages to get in plenty of trouble on his own, but those tendencies tend to ramp up to 11 whenever Claire and her opinions are involved.  That's obvious even from being around them just for a short time.  From Jocasta's perspective, Jamie is forgoing a much easier path to becoming a man of prominence and influence to go running off into the wilderness to likely squander himself on his wife's say-so.

Shows are so rarely shot where they're actually set that I rarely give it much thought as long as it looks plausible.  The country is beautiful and that's enough for me for now, even with my husband sitting next to me furiously googling whether they have bald eagles in Scotland.  Claire carrying around the skull like it was Wilson from Castaway and then excitedly exclaiming that it must be a time traveler like her while pointedly not dwelling on the fact that the trip to the wayback obviously hadn't turned out so well for him just going by the cleaving marks in it was a hoot.

[GHScorpiosRule]

4 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

Shows are so rarely shot where they're actually set that I rarely give it much thought as long as it looks plausible.  The country is beautiful and that's enough for me for now, even with my husband sitting next to me furiously googling whether they have bald eagles in Scotland.

Okay, the bolded made me ??because I was thinking the same thing!??

[rxpert14]

44 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

Jocasta knocking Claire down a peg by letting her know exactly how she saw things was a nice follow through to Jenny having similar sentiments last season.  As much as Claire revels in her own opinions and her "forthright nature" she doesn't always like it much when it's turned back on her, and you could see in what Jocasta was saying how she and Jenny and probably much of the family sees her in leading Jamie around from one bad situation to another.  Yes, Jamie's a grown man with free will and as we've seen manages to get in plenty of trouble on his own, but those tendencies tend to ramp up to 11 whenever Claire and her opinions are involved.  That's obvious even from being around them just for a short time.  From Jocasta's perspective, Jamie is forgoing a much easier path to becoming a man of prominence and influence to go running off into the wilderness to likely squander himself on his wife's say-so.

It seems I'm in the minority (as usual) in that I really liked Claire letting Jocasta know that she knew very little about Claire (or Jamie for that matter) based on spending about 2 days with them. I'm glad Claire defended herself and defended the decision she and Jamie made together to leave RR. Trying to guilt Claire into being the reason Jamie declined Jocasta's offer is a total Mackenzie move. I'm with Claire on this one.

 

I do wish Claire and Jocasta's relationship was less strained. While there were opposing opinions in the book, there was still an affection between them. 

[melody16]

Loved this one! The music was just beautiful all around. Sophie Skelton was the standout of this episode to me. She has improved so much and I thought she was excellent especially in the argument scene with Roger. I was very impressed and it gives me a lot of hope that she can handle the rest of the season, especialy when she and Jamie meet.

Roger is one of my favorite characters in the books and this is not one of his finest moments. I'm glad they didnt shy away from portraying him as a prig. 

The Jamie and Claire material was ok but a little choppy although it's odd to me that the ring has not been mentioned yet. I like that Jamie is so curious about his daughter. Also, Jamie falling in love with Frasers Ridge was abrupt but Sam sold it. Jamie and Jocasta's goodbye scene was also very touching. 

[DietCokeJunkie]

Did it look to anyone else like Claire unzipped her boots when she took them off in the forest? I thought she had been very careful about hiding the zipper in her corset before she returned to the 18th century, so why would she have zippers in her boots? It bothered me the whole rest of the episode. 

[CarpeFelis]

1 hour ago, rxpert14 said:

It seems I'm in the minority (as usual) in that I really liked Claire letting Jocasta know that she knew very little about Claire (or Jamie for that matter) based on spending about 2 days with them. I'm glad Claire defended herself and defended the decision she and Jamie made together to leave RR. Trying to guilt Claire into being the reason Jamie declined Jocasta's offer is a total Mackenzie move. I'm with Claire on this one.

 

I do wish Claire and Jocasta's relationship was less strained. While there were opposing opinions in the book, there was still an affection between them. 

I wondered about that. It’s been quite a while since I read the books, but I seem to remember Claire and Jocasta having a much better relationship than this. Can’t say I blame Claire for defending herself here - especially after Jocasta’s very manipulative public announcement that she was making Jamie heir to River Run.

[heavysnaxx]

12 minutes ago, DietCokeJunkie said:

Did it look to anyone else like Claire unzipped her boots when she took them off in the forest? I thought she had been very careful about hiding the zipper in her corset before she returned to the 18th century, so why would she have zippers in her boots? It bothered me the whole rest of the episode. 

She sure did and I had the very same reaction. And how did she conceal the boots and the corset from the household slaves like Phaedra who would have been expected to launder their dirty clothes and clean their boots? It's like an 18th century Tootsie situation, when Dustin Hoffman had to unexpectedly share a bedroom with Jessica Lange.

I'm waiting for her to stumble across some long-buried Hammer pants and not know they're evidence of time-travelers from 1990-ish.

[CarpeFelis]

At some point when the scene switched to Roger and Brianna, didn’t it say 1971? But when they’re arguing she says “It’s 1970”. I thought that was an odd little continuity error.

[nodorothyparker]

18 minutes ago, DietCokeJunkie said:

Did it look to anyone else like Claire unzipped her boots when she took them off in the forest? I thought she had been very careful about hiding the zipper in her corset before she returned to the 18th century, so why would she have zippers in her boots? It bothered me the whole rest of the episode. 

I can buy that she wore zippered boots into the wayback, thinking that with long skirts no one would be likely to get a good enough look at them to ask any questions.  You're right that it completely ignores that any variant of housemaid might at some point see them and wonder WTH they're looking at, but the books by this point were similarly blase about it.  Somewhat harder to buy is that those same boots are still in good wearable shape after jumping into the ocean a first time, her near death march across the island, and being swept out to sea in a hurricane.

Just the thought of her squishing her way across ground wet enough to leave those footprints in in her stocking feet had me doing a full body shudder.  You know that first step was seriously unpleasant.

[Eureka]

29 minutes ago, DietCokeJunkie said:

Did it look to anyone else like Claire unzipped her boots when she took them off in the forest? I thought she had been very careful about hiding the zipper in her corset before she returned to the 18th century, so why would she have zippers in her boots? It bothered me the whole rest of the episode. 

I noticed that too and I just figured she had worn them on her way back through and still had them. I imagine you only had one or two pairs of shoes unless you were rich. I don’t know how many people would look too closely at her shoes on a regular basis.

[morgan]

Well obviously, the boots are from France!  

[CarpeFelis]

2 minutes ago, morgan said:

Well obviously, the boots are from France!  

And now I can’t help imagining the Coneheads showing up...

[heavysnaxx]

4 minutes ago, morgan said:

Well obviously, the boots are from France!  

The Coneheads were Jacobites, posing as French yeast-activated liquid merchants. Obviously.

Edited November 18, 2018 by heavysnaxx

[Squirrely]

14 hours ago, theschnauzers said:

 

The episode had to condense a lot of book with this episode. Although I have to admit I don’t recall the bit about the strawberries being the French origin of the Fraser name.

That part played out very closely to the book. I'm glad they kept it in the show. It was a nice little plot point for Jamie to feel like he was home again.

 

I'm amazed there's any criticism of Claire being immovable on the point of River Run! I wouldn't care if it was only her decision and she had a Veruca Salt tantrum in the drawing room (though I do wish Jamie's line about living as a slave and never being able to own one had made it to an episode)! We are talking about owning slaves. Humans owning other humans and forcing them into lives of brutality. It doesn't matter how she's acted in the past or how she'll act in the future or what Jocasta thinks of her. I see the flip side anyway. Jocasta is pissy that she didn't get her way despite her Mackenzian method of naming Jamie in front of all those people without so much as a prior discussion. 

I am still a but confused as to why they changed things so much with Jamie and Claire's decisions on where to live, and with regards to Ian. We still got to Fraser's Ridge with the same outcome. Why make it so muddled? I'm hoping there is an actual reason for that. 

I am very relieved that the Bree and Roger scenes were condensed. Some changes are for the better! 

[heavysnaxx]

When Claire rode off as thunder rumbled and promptly got lost, I thought, "You know, that's the kind of thinking that reminds me of Jerri Blank," who is, in her own way, a kind of time traveler. She doesn't travel THROUGH stones as much as BE stoned but there it is.

When Claire woke up, all I could hear was a Jerri voice-over, saying, "So who hasn't woken up wet and filthy under a tree, clutching a human skull, just to find somebody stole your shoes and you've been ghosted yet again by a guy whose name you'll never know?"

[rwlevin]

I just do not like the actress who plays Brianna. First, she's too short. Second, she's bad at hiding her accent. Third, she's just a bad actress. She takes me out of every scene she's in, which is sad because I like Roger.

[Atlanta]

Still digesting the ep, but Sophie has improved SO much. Roger's heartbreak was so real to me. So glad they cast an actor who can sing. Viva the Thrush! Is anyone else envious of SK's skin?

Ah, Jacosta, you are a MacKenzie through and through. :D As others have said, their relationship wasn't so strained in the books.

[Duke2801]

5 hours ago, Ziggy said:

I hear ya!  That last part was really difficult to watch.  They are both so in love with each other and yet so insecure.  It makes the hurtful things hurt so much more.

 

Really? I don’t get the impression that Brianna is “so in love” with Roger at all—far from the way that he is with her, anyway.  I think she likes him and cares about him, but a woman who is “really in love” does not respond to an admission of love and a proposal the way that she did.

 

 Maybe book Brianna gave a different perspective (I’ve only read the first book) but I have major doubts that this Brianna we’re seeing on the show does. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, Squirrely said:

(though I do wish Jamie's line about living as a slave and never being able to own one had made it to an episode)! We are talking about owning slaves. 

He did. It was in the previous episode. Or maybe it was in the premiere. But he did say it.

[Ziggy]

6 hours ago, Petunia846 said:

Yeah, part of me even wonders if it's even from a later book? I can't recall, but in the book she's coming back from helping some neighbors with a birth, falls off the horse, stays under the tree in the storm, finds the skull, etc, etc. But the ghost takes her shoes to the cabin where Jamie and Ian are. They're not expecting her home, but Rolo starts barking like a maddog and they follow Rolo, who follows the scent of the shoes or ghost or something, and then find Claire. Most of the scene here is good, it just didn't make much sense that the ghost took the shoes to a random stream, then Jamie happened to find the footprints and follow them to the shoes at that random stream and then Claire noticed the footprints and followed them to where Jamie was just chillin' with her shoes. Maybe if he had made a camp for the night and the ghost left the shoes there and then Claire followed them to Jamie's camp, but meh. Then they just brush off the weirdness of a ghost moving her shoes pretty darn quickly and get on with things. *shrug*

It was in this book, just later (after they built the first cabin).  I don’t mind them moving that scene, but I didn’t think the shoes part made any more sense in the book than in the show. Finding the skull was the part that I found important.

[Nidratime]

Aha! I thought I saw Claire unzip her boots! Boy they sure have held up, unless she brought a second pair with her.

The one moment I giggled was when Roger was addressing the deer head on the wall. Can't remember what he said exactly (I'll listen more closely when I watch again) but it was right before Brianna tossed her blouse on his antlers.

Loved that they switched up where the Scottish gathering was being held and had Bree and Roger travel along the same route that Claire and Jamie did two centuries earlier.

Rankin's singing and playing was great. Talented guy.

Finally, even though the ghostly apparition and the moving of the boots does not happen at that particular time in the books, I thought it was done well and continues to highlight that we're not only dealing with hard realities -- like lawlessness on the roads and slavery -- but with fantastical characters and events. Sometimes we can forget the latter when we spend episodes and scenes with none of that happening.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Nidratime

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, Nidratime said:

The one moment I giggled was when Roger was addressing the deer head on the wall. Can't remember what he said exactly --

He said how the deer was now half of what it used to be.

[Ziggy]

2 hours ago, DietCokeJunkie said:

Did it look to anyone else like Claire unzipped her boots when she took them off in the forest? I thought she had been very careful about hiding the zipper in her corset before she returned to the 18th century, so why would she have zippers in her boots? It bothered me the whole rest of the episode. 

Those were absolutely zipper boots. I realize no one was around when she took them off, but I still found it very strange.

[Ziggy]

20 hours ago, Duke2801 said:

Really? I don’t get the impression that Brianna is “so in love” with Roger at all—far from the way that he is with her, anyway.  I think she likes him and cares about him, but a woman who is “really in love” does not respond to an admission of love and a proposal the way that she did.

 

 Maybe book Brianna gave a different perspective (I’ve only read the first book) but I have major doubts that this Brianna we’re seeing on the show does. 

I can’t imagine Brianna being able to show her feelings any better than she did given how messed up she has to be right now.

I'm one of those crazy people who read the books and has always liked Brianna and empathized with her. It seems like most fans just think she’s a spoiled brat. I think she’s been through a lot emotionally and her behavior is completely understandable. 

I also think Sophie is nailing it as Bree, but I’ve know for awhile that I hold a minority opinion.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Ziggy

[Eureka]

1 hour ago, Duke2801 said:

Really? I don’t get the impression that Brianna is “so in love” with Roger at all—far from the way that he is with her, anyway.  I think she likes him and cares about him, but a woman who is “really in love” does not respond to an admission of love and a proposal the way that she did.

 

 Maybe book Brianna gave a different perspective (I’ve only read the first book) but I have major doubts that this Brianna we’re seeing on the show does. 

Book Bri always annoyed me and show Bri is too in this respect. In the later books she didn’t annoy me quite as much so we’ll have to see what they do with her.

[Nidratime]

Quote

I'm one of those crazy people who read the books and has always liked Brianna and empathize with her. It seems like most fans just think she’s a spoiled brat. I think she’s been through a lot emotionally and her behavior is completely understandable. 

"Knowing" that your mother has gone back 200 years to be with your biological father has to be insane. I mean, I know that Brianna has accepted the "reality" of it, but it's still crazy and I can understand her concern over whether her mother "made it" to the past and not that she ran off and is living in Paris somewhere painting in a garret, downing great wine and cheese. Honestly, until Bree goes back herself, it's gotta be still unbelievable.

[nodorothyparker]

42 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

"Knowing" that your mother has gone back 200 years to be with your biological father has to be insane. I mean, I know that Brianna has accepted the "reality" of it, but it's still crazy and I can understand her concern over whether her mother "made it" to the past and not that she ran off and is living in Paris somewhere painting in a garret, downing great wine and cheese. Honestly, until Bree goes back herself, it's gotta be still unbelievable.

That.  She's barely had time to digest the news that oh, the man who raised you and was your primary caregiver your entire life was not your biological father I've been pining for all these years but Frank was nice too, I guess, before Claire's out the door to go off chasing that never before mentioned One True Love 4 Eva.  That's why even when I don't especially like Bree I can see why she is the way she is.  And it's not like Claire can call her up to let her know that is in fact where she went or that everything worked out okay and that they're together.  Bree hopes that's what happened but at this point she doesn't really know.  There's also the reality that the circle of people she can even try to talk about it with is a grand total of two, one of whom is pressuring her with a sudden all or nothing marriage proposal.

[Squirrely]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

He did. It was in the previous episode. Or maybe it was in the premiere. But he did say it.

Thanks! Guess I missed it. 

 

 

I like book Brianna. I was so excited to see her come to life until I saw Sophie act. I agree that she seems to have improved some, so I'm going to be optimistic for now. I truly think it's the fact that she concentrates on the accent. The show runners screwed up by not casting an American. It's not like they have a score of Americans faking Scottish accents, for which I am thankful even when I struggle to understand, so they could have done us Americans the same favor. 

I started welling up a bit, imagining her meeting Jamie, knowing that we are closer. They better not screw it up! 

[Nidratime]

Did anyone notice that in Roger's song there was a lyric about strawberries?

[ruby24]

2 minutes ago, Squirrely said:

Thanks! Guess I missed it. 

 

 

I like book Brianna. I was so excited to see her come to life until I saw Sophie act. I agree that she seems to have improved some, so I'm going to be optimistic for now. I truly think it's the fact that she concentrates on the accent. The show runners screwed up by not casting an American. It's not like they have a score of Americans faking Scottish accents, for which I am thankful even when I struggle to understand, so they could have done us Americans the same favor. 

I started welling up a bit, imagining her meeting Jamie, knowing that we are closer. They better not screw it up! 

I read that they're actually obligated to cast actors from the UK in series regular roles for this show. Something in the production contract, apparently. If true, that explains why they didn't cast an American actress.

I think her accent has improved some. She's always going to be somewhat wooden, but I'm trying to get over it the best I can, because I just don't want to be distracted by it in scenes she's in.

[Scarlett45]

I’m watching the show now and had I been in Brianna’s shoes I would’ve wanted to slap Roger too. (Violence isn’t okay so I’m not condoning what she did). 

What a “slut shaming” PRICK! They BARELY just started dating, and he thinks she owes him a commitment to marry?! Had he said that he wasn’t comfortable having sex unless they were committed that would’ve been one thing, but he was a total ass in that scene. Because he loves HER he has to have his way or they cannot be together at all. 

Nothing she said to him was out of line. He’s acting like a pouting child. Why can’t they just date for a while. People dated in 1970!

Edited November 19, 2018 by Scarlett45

[Scarlett45]

8 hours ago, Ziggy said:

I hear ya!  That last part was really difficult to watch.  They are both so in love with each other and yet so insecure.  It makes the hurtful things hurt so much more.

I don't think it's unreasonable for Brianna to be having a difficult time knowing what she wants.  If I remember correctly from the books, she stumbled over herself trying to tell him how she felt and it wasn't until they talked later that she was able to help him see what she was going through.  He just knows what he wants and doesn't realize that her not knowing right now is not the same thing as her saying she will never want to marry him.

It's easy for me (who's been married awhile) to say it's worth waiting for, but when you're waiting for the other person to realize it, it's really hard!

Perhaps I wasn’t watching closely enough, but what did Brianna say to Rodger than was hurtful? I only heard him try to slut shame her for initiating sex but dare not wanting to commit to marriage when they JUST got together. I sensed SO much misogyny and sexism is that scene, I appreciated Brianna calling him out on it. 

 

I know it’s 1970 not 2018 but Brianna, being raised by both Claire and Frank grew up in a pretty progressive household, I’m glad he couldn’t bully her into accepting his proposal. 

[heavysnaxx]

11 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

Perhaps I wasn’t watching closely enough, but what did Brianna say to Rodger than was hurtful? I only heard him try to slut shame her for initiating sex but dare not wanting to commit to marriage when they JUST got together. I sensed SO much misogyny and sexism is that scene, I appreciated Brianna calling him out on it. 

 

I know it’s 1970 not 2018 but Brianna, being raised by both Claire and Frank grew up in a pretty progressive household, I’m glad he couldn’t bully her into accepting his proposal. 

Brianna clobbered him right across the face. That's not progressive and makes her the The Biggest Loser, full stop. I'm totally on board with thinking he was being an ass but upsetting her doesn't qualify as bullying her, IMO.

[Scarlett45]

4 minutes ago, heavysnaxx said:

Brianna clobbered him right across the face. That's not progressive and makes her the The Biggest Loser, full stop. I'm totally on board with thinking he was being an ass but upsetting her doesn't qualify as bullying her, IMO.

I don’t agree with violence, so the slap was not okay (although I get why she wanted to do such a thing, that doesn’t make doing it okay); but his comments about having her on her back were crude & uncalled for, as well as saying if she didn’t want to marry him then NO sex then (with a foot stomp) was trying to bully her to get his way. 

It was just so gross. If some man spoke to me that way he would never get a chance to have sex with me again in life. 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Scarlett45

[heavysnaxx]

4 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

I don’t agree with violence, so the slap was not okay (although I get why she wanted to do such a thing, that doesn’t make doing it okay); but his comments about having her on her back were crude & uncalled for, as well as saying if she didn’t want to marry him then NO sex then (with a foot stomp) was trying to bully her to get his way. 

It was just so gross. If some man spoke to me that way he would never get a chance to have sex with me again in life. 

Granted, it's all YMMV but it really didn't seem like all that of a "brutal" fight (certainly by Outlander standards, heh). Seriously, I think taking the turn downward to the physical is a big deal and that's on Brianna. Both of them had just taken a different emotional leap - Brianna showed herself as DTF and Rodger bared his heart -- and they both behaved badly toward the other.

I truly agree Rodger was being sexist. But it seems unfair to discount the risk-taking he had just done, just as much as Brianna had.

[GHScorpiosRule]

At the risk of being nitpicky, there is no d in Roger’s name.

And Show decided to, for whatever reasons, not reveal that Roger was a prudish prig when we first met him in Dragonfly in Amber. Maybe because I’ve read the buik, his behavior wasn’t surprising.