S04.E04: Common Ground

[Nidratime]

Quote

But, you know, I'm still over here aggravated that a seemingly insignificant show-only change means kindly old Mrs. Graham was apparently sitting on information she really should have passed on to Claire at some point so she could make a fully informed choice.

Well, remember, this is the Reverend's research (for Frank) and not Mrs. Graham's. It's possible the Reverend did tell Frank and Frank promised to tell Claire, but didn't, thinking that she would never go back in the past. Then, of course, their marriage began to fall apart and he died abruptly. If Frank lived and they did divorce, I am guessing that information would've gotten to Claire, especially since I can't imagine Frank not knowing what Claire was planning to do and not tell her. Furthermore, you can imagine Claire thinking, if I go back, I can prevent it from happening.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Nidratime

[iMonrey]

I can't remember if they ever discussed this in the show, but can someone who has read the books tell me:

Have Claire and Jamie ever discussed the possibility of going back to Claire's time together? Did they ever think of trying that? Because it seems to me that would solve an awful lot of problems. Not only would Jamie get to meet his daughter but they would be spared the weekly tragedies and constant danger they find themselves suffering because of how primitive the times were. 

I don't even know how Brianna thinks she's going to be able to find her parents. Assuming she can travel back through the stones, and assuming she lands in the exact same time her parents are currently experiencing, she'll have to find some way to get to the Americas and search for her parents. No small task. It would be one thing if they were still living in Scotland or England but the Americas of the 1760?

[WInterfalls]

4 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I can't remember if they ever discussed this in the show, but can someone who has read the books tell me:

Have Claire and Jamie ever discussed the possibility of going back to Claire's time together? Did they ever think of trying that? Because it seems to me that would solve an awful lot of problems. Not only would Jamie get to meet his daughter but they would be spared the weekly tragedies and constant danger they find themselves suffering because of how primitive the times were. 

Not everyone can travel through the stones and Jamie cannot. When Roger and Bree first went to the standing stones they could hear them buzzing as could Claire when ever she has been near some sort of portal. Jamie has never heard the stones and at the end of the 2nd season when Claire is going back she asks him to go with her but he touches the stones and says he can't. If Claire goes back she does so alone. 

[Nidratime]

It's apparently genetic (I'm guessing). Either you carry the gene for time travel or not. I haven't read past book 4 (yet) but what interests me is if we ever find out whether it was Claire's mother, father, or both who had the gene. I also would like to know if there are any differences between those who have only one parent who can travel and those who have two.  Don't know if that's answered in later books, so I'll look forward to see if Gabaldon addresses that in book 5 or onward. 

[Atlanta]

We do find out that Roger's father can travel in the latest book. He also has the gene from Geillis (the son Geillis had also has it). I doubt Jamie would travel even if he could unless he could take Jenny & Co with him. 

[cardigirl]

On 11/25/2018 at 11:12 AM, GHScorpiosRule said:

I really like the Cherokee tribe and that one who first spoke English is really hawt.🥰🥰

 

https://ew.com/tv/2018/11/25/outlander-will-strongheart-assault-conviction/

This seems unfortunate, but I think he has cleaned up his act. 

[Wouldofshouldof]

I think there is a continuity error... JQM was known to the tribe, traded with them, etc.  He taught Jamie the respectful phrase to use when greeting them, but never mentioned that some of them speak English.  Are we to assume that they never spoke it in front of him?

[Biggie B]

I wondered as well about the use of English by some of the tribe members. It would've been helpful to have JQM mention that to Jamie - and for us viewers, it would've been interesting to know how they learned English. Was it from missionaries (were there even missionaries at that point in time in the US?), or what? Why would the Chief of the tribe not speak it - isn't he the most important person, the one who might have the most consistent contact with the settlers/other white people? I guess some of those details aren't really important to the story, but if JQM didn't know some of them spoke English, they might've thrown in one line from him to that effect, or at least a look of surprise from him. Still, the initial language barrier heightens the drama and the tension. 

What did everyone think of the elder woman's dream about Claire? The white raven - I liked that imagery.

[GHScorpiosRule]

31 minutes ago, Wouldofshouldof said:

I think there is a continuity error... JQM was known to the tribe, traded with them, etc.  He taught Jamie the respectful phrase to use when greeting them, but never mentioned that some of them speak English.  Are we to assume that they never spoke it in front of him?

That was my thinking. And I think that those being able to speak English is for the show, because I don't recall them doing so in the buiks. Then again, in the buiks, the tribe/Nation was Mohawks.

11 minutes ago, Biggie B said:

 

What did everyone think of the elder woman's dream about Claire? The white raven - I liked that imagery.

That I do remember from the buik.

[Nidratime]

Are we sure the Native Americans who kept pushing back at Claire and Jamie are the same ones JQM knows? After all, in episode 3, JQM took Ian with him to trade with a village of Native Americans -- the name of which escapes me. Ian didn't seem to recognize any of these particular people that showed up either, and for their part, they seemed like they weren't all that eager to mix with settlers.  That being said, it did appear that a few of the younger members of the tribe spoke some English, so who knows where they picked that up. 

[iMonrey]

Well they had guns too, so clearly they are trading with white settlers. They would need to have some mastery of the language in order to do so. I'm not sure what the laws were back then about selling or trading guns to native Americans but they got their hands on them somehow.

[theschnauzers]

Don’t forget that many native Americans fought in the French and Indian wars of the 1750s against the British so knowledge and possession of rifles, horses, and knowledge of European languages were a consequence of those conflicts. In the books as I recall there were bands of at least three main tribes in the southern Appalachian and the Blue Ridge mountains and the Piedmont, including both the Mohawks and the Cherokees. And the tribes were just as likely to trade weapons among themselves as with the European traders.

[Moxie Cat]

27 minutes ago, theschnauzers said:

Don’t forget that many native Americans fought in the French and Indian wars of the 1750s against the British so knowledge and possession of rifles, horses, and knowledge of European languages were a consequence of those conflicts.

Yes, when he spoke English, I had a flashback to Last of the Mohicans, which would have been a few years earlier. Native Americans learned English because it helped them with trading and military alliances with "the white man." I didn't find it strange, or that they kept it a secret to freak out the Frasers if they needed to. But I do find it odd that JQA didn't know.

At least there was no "Magwa" third person dialogue!

Also - something that I don't think has been mentioned: Claire's pants! Love it! You do you in the middle of nowhere, Auntie Claire!

Edited November 27, 2018 by Moxie Cat

[GingerMarie]

4 hours ago, Biggie B said:

 

What did everyone think of the elder woman's dream about Claire? The white raven - I liked that imagery.

I am going back to watch  that part again because I believe there is a lot of information in that dream about Claire.  Especially when she something along the lines of 'all her hair is white' and how wise she is as a healer.  When she talked about 'the death' not being her fault just have to wonder if it is Claire trying to keep the peace between the settlers and Indians.  At some point you have to pick a side.  

I do like the speculation on Ms. Graham and the Rev.  It seems to me that Ms. Graham could have been given this information by the Rev well after Claire made the decision to let go of the past as Ms. Graham wanted her to do.  Would not be surprised at all that Frank had a lot of information he held onto.  

[Biggie B]

5 minutes ago, Moxie Cat said:

Also - something that I don't think has been mentioned: Claire's pants! Love it! You do you in the middle of nowhere, Auntie Claire!

I loved seeing her in pants. About time. Hauling logs and chopping wood in a bustle seems highly impractical and uncomfortable.

[tennisgurl]

The costume people were just having a grand old time this week! We not only get Claire in a super cute working around the homestead outfit, with super fab pants, we also get the wonderfully detailed outfits for the Cherokee, with all of these beautiful tribal outfits, with lots of bits and pieces of more European style clothes and accessories. I liked how they worked the bear fight into a bear man, and thats how the Frasiers become friends with the local Native Americans, I thought it all tied together really well. Plus, Jamie got a super cool new nickname, so thats a win for everyone. 

I also really liked the flashbacks/forwards from Bree and Roger in 1971, and the Frasiers in the 1700s. Its so interesting seeing what is happening to Jaime and Claire, and then seeing bits and pieces of it in the future through articles and letters and recordings. Its something I've always loved about studying history, trying to find the actual lives of people using the artifacts that we have, and try to figure out what life was like beyond the letters and obituaries and artifacts. Its something I like about the series in general, the connections between the past, present, and future, and the way that various people in different time periods and cultures all affect each other. So I am guessing that either Bree found out what happens to Jamie and Claire on her own, or Roger lets her know later, catching us up with their jaunt to the past. 

Marsali and Claire having a nice moment was really sweet, especially as they've had a complicated relationship in the past. I cant wait for her and Fergus to join them on Frasiers Ridge later on! And, with them looking for Highlanders to join them, maybe some old friends can join us...

Also thought the conversation between Claire and Young Ian about knitting was really cute, I love their relationship so much, they have so much warmth between them. Young Ian has grown up so much, while also keeping his boyish excitement, like his gleeful reaction to seeing lions, or his "Bear Killer? Thats so awesome, Uncle Jamie!" tone when he heard Jamie's cool new nickname. And him asking her about her knitting in Boston, and him being surprised at the idea of just going to a store to buy socks and blankets, is another nice reminder that, oh yeah, Claire is from the future, even if she is pretty used to the past by now. 

I liked the Bree and Roger scenes as well, and its nice to see the side of Roger that I like, not the controlling jerk side that we saw last week. It is really funny to think that Roger and Bree could have walked on same paths that Brees parents are walking around in the 1700s. 

[aemom]

6 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

Also thought the conversation between Claire and Young Ian about knitting was really cute, I love their relationship so much, they have so much warmth between them. Young Ian has grown up so much, while also keeping his boyish excitement, like his gleeful reaction to seeing lions, or his "Bear Killer? Thats so awesome, Uncle Jamie!" tone when he heard Jamie's cool new nickname. And him asking her about her knitting in Boston, and him being surprised at the idea of just going to a store to buy socks and blankets, is another nice reminder that, oh yeah, Claire is from the future, even if she is pretty used to the past by now. 

I also enjoyed their conversation, but I'm pretty sure that Ian knows nothing about Claire's time travelling.  Even in the future books, there is a conversation with Claire and Jenny where Jenny thinks that she knows that something is up with Claire in some way, but really doesn't talk about it at all because what she doesn't know won't hurt her kind of thing.

[nodorothyparker]

The knitting conversation was lifted almost word for word from the book, except that it was between Jamie and Claire, with the necessary tweaks to make it work between Claire and Ian instead.  Claire won't confirm to Ian that she's a time traveler from the future for another whole book yet, although we know from things he says that he's already deduced there's something about her that is beyond "normal."

[Atlanta]

1 hour ago, AEMom said:

I also enjoyed their conversation, but I'm pretty sure that Ian knows nothing about Claire's time travelling.  Even in the future books, there is a conversation with Claire and Jenny where Jenny thinks that she knows that something is up with Claire in some way, but really doesn't talk about it at all because what she doesn't know won't hurt her kind of thing.

I think Ian is told at some point in a later book and Claire tells Jenny in the most recent book, IIRC. Rereading "Drums of Autumn" now, but it's been awhile since I read the others.

[FnkyChkn34]

On 11/26/2018 at 10:14 AM, MartyQui said:

Again, they missed the boat on Boston...the street that they showed is Acorn Street on Beacon Hill, one of the most photographed streets in the country, and not somewhere an undergrad at MIT would be living.  There must be stock footage of MIT around that they could have used.  Ugh.

Frank died and Claire left - I always assumed, if it wasn't said outright, that Bree inherited the house. 

[Hannah Lee]

1 hour ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Frank died and Claire left - I always assumed, if it wasn't said outright, that Bree inherited the house. 

Before she goes back to Jamie, Claire gives Bree some paperwork and tells her the bank accounts and the house all in her name now.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Native Americans learned English because it helped them with trading and military alliances with "the white man." I didn't find it strange, or that they kept it a secret to freak out the Frasers if they needed to. 

Well I found it strange that when they came to their camp site and threw the border poles at them they didn't speak English to them. If they are trying to convey a message, conveying it in a language you know they don't understand isn't very efficient.

[Haleth]

29 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Well I found it strange that when they came to their camp site and threw the border poles at them they didn't speak English to them. If they are trying to convey a message, conveying it in a language you know they don't understand isn't very efficient.

It's pretty intimidating though and the message was understood. 

[Cdh20]

5 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

The knitting conversation was lifted almost word for word from the book, except that it was between Jamie and Claire, with the necessary tweaks to make it work between Claire and Ian instead.  Claire won't confirm to Ian that she's a time traveler from the future for another whole book yet, although we know from things he says that he's already deduced there's something about her that is beyond "normal."

I have not read as far as this book, but I am happy to know that eventually they share that bit of info about Claire with more people! I was surprised they didn't tell Jenny & Ian last season.

[ruby24]

Sophie's acting, man. I don't know how they're going to handle some of the big stuff she has to do soon. Her scene partners have to carry the entire scene when she's in it. Roger outacted her over the phone and he wasn't even in the same room. The woodenness- It was like she was staring at a blank wall, devoid of emotion.

[taanja]

On 11/25/2018 at 7:39 PM, Nidratime said:

Considering the complaints they're getting about CGI-ing the background of sets, I think they're better off not trying to do it by CGI only to have people complain about it. Besides, there's so many groups that are against showing animals being killed, whether CGI or not.

So it's better/more acceptable to kill a human being than an animal? 

[taanja]

On 11/26/2018 at 12:53 PM, iMonrey said:

I can't remember if they ever discussed this in the show, but can someone who has read the books tell me:

Have Claire and Jamie ever discussed the possibility of going back to Claire's time together? Did they ever think of trying that? Because it seems to me that would solve an awful lot of problems. Not only would Jamie get to meet his daughter but they would be spared the weekly tragedies and constant danger they find themselves suffering because of how primitive the times were. 

I don't even know how Brianna thinks she's going to be able to find her parents. Assuming she can travel back through the stones, and assuming she lands in the exact same time her parents are currently experiencing, she'll have to find some way to get to the Americas and search for her parents. No small task. It would be one thing if they were still living in Scotland or England but the Americas of the 1760?

Thank you!!!!!!! Thank you!! Like a voice of reason in the wilderness! I have wondered from the beginning-- why not both go to Clair's time? I'm thinking Jaime would adjust pretty damn quick to life in the 20th century. Plus-- RUNNING WATER/INDOOR PLUMBING! Electricity! Telephones! Airplanes! Automobiles!

Edited November 27, 2018 by taanja

[Sew Sumi]

Jamie can't time-travel.

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, Cdh20 said:

I have not read as far as this book, but I am happy to know that eventually they share that bit of info about Claire with more people! I was surprised they didn't tell Jenny & Ian last season.

As I recall, they told Jenny & all of Jenny's kids about it when they were at Lallybroch when Ian was dying.  That would be book 7.  However, I had the impression that no one really believed her but she had to try to convince Michael not to stay in France for more than another 10 years or so.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

3 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Well I found it strange that when they came to their camp site and threw the border poles at them they didn't speak English to them. If they are trying to convey a message, conveying it in a language you know they don't understand isn't very efficient.

 

2 hours ago, Haleth said:

It's pretty intimidating though and the message was understood. 

And they did it because they weren't sure if they could trust Jamie. But after he killed the shunned Native, Jamie had earned their trust, so they revealed they could speak English. At least, that's my take on it.

1 hour ago, taanja said:

Thank you!!!!!!! Thank you!! Like a voice of reason in the wilderness! I have wondered from the beginning-- why not both go to Clair's time? I'm thinking Jaime would adjust pretty damn quick to life in the 20th century. Plus-- RUNNING WATER/INDOOR PLUMBING! Electricity! Telephones! Airplanes! Automobiles!

As has been stated up thread, Jamie can't time travel. And he tried, but he couldn't hear the buzzing that Claire, Roger and Brianna could hear when near the Stones.

[ruby24]

I was always curious how Jamie (or anyone from that time) would take to the 20th century, but after Book 7, when it happens with Roger's relative (I forget his name now), I have a feeling it'd be kind of underwhelming. That guy didn't seem to be bowled over by modern life at all! I don't know if DG just doesn't really know how an 18th century person would react to the 20th century, so he basically just...doesn't, but nothing about the 1980s seemed to faze that dude any. I guess Jamie'd be the same. Which is sort of unrealistic to me- dropping someone into a future where there's cars, TV, phones, appliances, baths/showers/toilets, stores, and a completely new way of life for people would be a lot more shocking to the senses of an 18th century man than going into the past, where we have a reference at least. I just think DG didn't know how to write it.

[WatchrTina]

Well, being a reader got in the way for me a bit this time.  I didn't like the native Americans being unfriendly because in the book the locals (Tuscarora right?) get along well with Jamie and Claire.  But now that I've gotten to the end of the episode, I have to say I applaud what they (the show-runners) did.  They heightened the tension around whether or not Jamie, Claire and Ian would make a go of it out in the wilderness.  The hostile neighbors coupled with the loss of their store of meat had to make you wonder if staying put was a good idea. As such, Jamie's earning the respect of the local tribe is even more significant in the TV version than in the book.

I did wonder a bit at Jamie's hauling that body to their camp.  How did he know where it was?  And why not use a travois (platform dragged behind a horse to carry loads)?  But if I hand-wave away Jamie somehow knowing where their camp was and having the super-human strength to haul a body all the way there (though they did comment on the cabin being close to the border with Indian lands) -- well if I overlook all that I have to admit that his dragging the body into the camp made for a nice dramatic moment.  One could interpret his action as respectful -- returning a dead body to its people.  But since he actually killed the guy it's easy to imagine a much less favorable outcome to that meeting.  Still, I like it -- he earned the locals' respect with a significant act (as opposed to doing it by sharing bear meat like he did in the book.)

I did not love the writing in this episode. There were several moments that made me cringe.  I hate it when TV makes me cringe and Outlander has NEVER done that to me before. I didn't notice who wrote this episode but here's hoping they do better in their next effort.

 

On 11/25/2018 at 7:15 AM, Petunia846 said:

I know Terry basically retired from the show, but she still did this season, right? I'd be really interested in hearing her talk about the research and development of the Cherokee costumes. I was fascinated by the mix of Western garments in with what we think of as more native dress. Especially in the title card, I think it was, you see a Cherokee man wearing that metal necklace thing that British soldiers wear. (Oh, I went to look up the name of it (a gorget), and found on wikipedia: "The British Empire awarded gorgets to chiefs of American Indian tribes both as tokens of goodwill and a badge of their high status." So much to learn.)

Terry tweeted on this topic several times today, including a number of pictures of gorgets.

ETA: I was reading the Vulture interview with Sam on this episode (link in the Media thread) and it reminded me of something.  The edit of the episode inter-cuts the neighboring Indians holding a ritual with Jamie's fight with the shunned bear-man.  I can well imagine a non-reader to have assumed that the bear-man had been sent by the tribe to attack the settlers and that their ritual was intended to aid him in that effort in some mystical way. If that's what they had been doing, then Jamie's dragging the body into their camp would have been even more bad-ass.  But since I've read the book and I knew they were destined to become friends to Jamie & Claire, I chose to think that the ritual was actually a curse on the bear-man, meant to weaken him, and that by conducting the ritual they aided Jamie in the fight.

Edited November 28, 2018 by WatchrTina

[Nidratime]

Quote

I did not love the writing in this episode. There were several moments that made me cringe.  I hate it when TV makes me cringe and Outlander has NEVER done that to me before. I didn't notice who wrote this episode but here's hoping they do better in their next effort.

You'll be happy to know that the writer of this episode posted that this was her last episode for the show. (She also wrote "First Wife" last season.) She's off to write for another show.

[Cdh20]

On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 12:16 PM, Nidratime said:

It's apparently genetic (I'm guessing). Either you carry the gene for time travel or not. I haven't read past book 4 (yet) but what interests me is if we ever find out whether it was Claire's mother, father, or both who had the gene. I also would like to know if there are any differences between those who have only one parent who can travel and those who have two.  Don't know if that's answered in later books, so I'll look forward to see if Gabaldon addresses that in book 5 or onward. 

I am interested in Claire's parents too! I hope we do learn about that.

[taanja]

17 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

ETA: I was reading the Vulture interview with Sam on this episode (link in the Media thread) and it reminded me of something.  The edit of the episode inter-cuts the neighboring Indians holding a ritual with Jamie's fight with the shunned bear-man.  I can well imagine a non-reader to have assumed that the bear-man had been sent by the tribe to attack the settlers and that their ritual was intended to aid him in that effort in some mystical way. If that's what they had been doing, then Jamie's dragging the body into their camp would have been even more bad-ass.  But since I've read the book and I knew they were destined to become friends to Jamie & Claire, I chose to think that the ritual was actually a curse on the bear-man, meant to weaken him, and that by conducting the ritual they aided Jamie in the fight.

That is exactly what I thought! I thought the ritual was sending the bear man to kill Jamie and the rest.

So the books state that Jaime can't "time travel" because he can't hear the buzzing? in the stones?

Hm? The show does NOT do a good job explaining the rules and regulations of time travel. Maybe the books do a better job? Because a s a viewer I wonder every ep why the hell they don't just go to more modern times and avoid all the violence and terror they seem to encounter on a regular basis. hell! I would PAY to see Jamie encounter the modern world! And to watch Claire show him the wonders of modern technology! 

[GHScorpiosRule]

5 minutes ago, taanja said:

So the books state that Jaime can't "time travel" because he can't hear the buzzing? in the stones?

Hm? The show does NOT do a good job explaining the rules and regulations of time travel. Maybe the books do a better job? Because a s a viewer I wonder every ep why the hell they don't just go to more modern times and avoid all the violence and terror they seem to encounter on a regular basis. hell! I would PAY to see Jamie encounter the modern world! And to watch Claire show him the wonders of modern technology! 

Not just the buiks, but the show stated and showed that as well. At the end of season two, before Claire touched the stones to go back, she asked Jamie if he could hear the buzzing. He laid his hand on the stones and nothing happened. He didn't get swooped in or whatever like Claire did.  And he told her he couldn't hear anything.

Edited November 28, 2018 by GHScorpiosRule

[taanja]

2 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Not just the buiks, but the show stated and showed that as well. At the end of season two, before Claire touched the stones to go back, she asked Jamie if he could hear the buzzing. He laid his hand on the stones and nothing happened. He didn't get swooped in or whatever like Claire did.  And he told her he couldn't hear anything.

I guess as a viewer I figured he didn't want it badly enough-- or something -- not that he absolutely positively can NOT time travel.

But the show doesn't really explain how the time travel aspect works. It appears as if it's just accidental.
Even when Claire chose to go back after 20 years -- she didn't seem certain she would be able to go back to the exact right time and place -- kind of like she was winging it-  and she just got lucky.

I remember when she was at the water puddle thingy with Geillis -- she told Jaime if she gets sucked in (weird huh?) she might not be able to come back. Why? It didn't make sense.

[WInterfalls]

16 minutes ago, taanja said:

Hm? The show does NOT do a good job explaining the rules and regulations of time travel. Maybe the books do a better job? Because a s a viewer I wonder every ep why the hell they don't just go to more modern times and avoid all the violence and terror they seem to encounter on a regular basis. hell! I would PAY to see Jamie encounter the modern world! And to watch Claire show him the wonders of modern technology! 

The show has addressed it some but I agree not particularly well. What they really haven't shown is how dangerous travelling through the stones can be. Every time Claire travels it is much harder on her. When she returns to Jamie in the third book she is certain that another trip would kill her. Also people sometimes get lost in time during the trips or just show up dead at the stones. I often see stuff like why doesn't Claire just pop over to visit Bri and come back. The answer is because it is super dangerous to do that. 

Edited November 28, 2018 by WInterfalls

[taanja]

7 minutes ago, WInterfalls said:

The show has addressed it some but I agree not particularly well. What they really haven't shown is how dangerous travelling through the stones can be. Every time Claire travels it is mach harder on her. When she returns to Jamie in the third book she is certain that another trip would kill her. Also people sometimes get lost in time during the trips or just show up dead at the stones. I often see stuff like why doesn't Claire just pop over to visit Bri and come back. The answer is because it is super dangerous to do that. 

Even weirder!

No the show doesn't show or tell the viewer anything like that!

I love reading the book readers thread! You all know so much that I -- as a viewer -- am not seeing/ or being told --- that is some very important information!

Edited November 28, 2018 by taanja

[Ziggy]

4 hours ago, taanja said:

Even weirder!

No the show doesn't show or tell the viewer anything like that!

I love reading the book readers thread! You all know so much that I -- as a viewer -- am not seeing/ or being told --- that is some very important information!

Honestly, the book doesn't say very much, either.  There are several times when Claire talks about it being dangerous and another trip might kill her.  We read more about Geillis' theories (some of which are crazy - like you need there to be blood), and Claire says she thinks it's important to focus on a person to help you "steer."  We also hear more about the gemstones.  In the show that wasn't focused on quite as much (and you could easily miss Claire and Bree's conversation about it).

We don't know exactly how Geillis was able to travel further back in time than Claire did.  We don't really know how Claire was able to find Jamie in the correct year (other than to assume that Claire always travels exactly 202 years).  The characters have a few theories, but that's about it.

Maybe it will all be explained by the end of the series.

[LadyBrochTuarach]

On 2018-11-27 at 1:19 PM, taanja said:

So it's better/more acceptable to kill a human being than an animal? 

I can’t figure out how to also quote what you commented on, maybe being on my mobile it’s not allowing me. 

I’m happy someone else commented on this. It’s been bothering me for 5 whole days. I’ve been thinking about coming back to mention this, and I’m happy I’m not the only one who caught it. I just wasn’t sure what to say, exactly. Any death is obviously sad, but I doubt they made the choice to change the scene from the book because they didn’t want to show an animal death onscreen. Shaking my head over here. 

 

I’ve been reading the thread more than commenting this season, but hope to pop in more often. 

 

Also loved Claires pants! My friend just couldn’t wrap her head around it, but I think it was a nice tie to her personality. Plus, it’s just Claire, Jamie, and Ian. So I doubt either of them really cared she was wearing pants! 

 

Good news about the writer @Nidratime, I’m glad to hear this. I feel like it was an episode with a lot of potential, all the elements were there. There was just something missing and I couldn’t pin point it. 

[morgan]

I didn’t get the impression it was more acceptable to kill a human vs an animal onscreen.  Don’t forget the boar hunt from season one!  I just think logistically changing the bear to a violent/murderous man was easier.  And I think the whole connection with what happens later in the season probably worked for the writers as well.  Just like the symmetry of having Roger and Bree head to the Highland games in NC instead of the Highland games in NH.  

[Ziggy]

11 hours ago, LadyBrochTuarach said:

I can’t figure out how to also quote what you commented on, maybe being on my mobile it’s not allowing me. 

@NidratimeI’m happy someone else commented on this. It’s been bothering me for 5 whole days. I’ve been thinking about coming back to mention this, and I’m happy I’m not the only one who caught it. I just wasn’t sure what to say, exactly. Any death is obviously sad, but I doubt they made the choice to change the scene from the book because they didn’t want to show an animal death onscreen. Shaking my head over here.

I've been thinking about this alot, too, because having Jamie kill a person dressed up like a bear just sounds silly.  Then again, having Jamie kill an actual bear in the book also sounds a bit ridiculous.  I wonder if it was asking just a little bit too much.  Jamie is good at so many things, but is he really capable of fighting a bear?

[WatchrTina]

3 hours ago, morgan said:

I didn’t get the impression it was more acceptable to kill a human vs an animal onscreen.  Don’t forget the boar hunt from season one!  I just think logistically changing the bear to a violent/murderous man was easier. 

I agree.  I assumed that the decision to change that scene had to do -- in part -- with the difficulty of realistically filming a man killing a bear with nothing but a knife.  I understand that such a scene was filmed in the movie The Revenant, but movies (especially Leonardo DiCaprio movies) have much more time and money to add realistic CGI effects. TV shows with multiple episodes to film have to spend their special effect dollars more judiciously.  So the decision to substitute a madman for the bear was (in my opinion) a good idea from a production/budgeting point of view.  But more importantly it also helped fill a narrative need.  When the writers convert a VERY BIG BOOK into episodic television one of the challenges is to make each episode stand on its own with its own story arc (conflict/rising action, climax, denouement). If all that had happened in this episode was Jamie building a cabin, suddenly killing a bear, and then meeting some friendly Indians who had been tracking the bear (which is what happens in the book), there would not have been much of an arc.  Making the local natives less-than-pleased with the arrival of the Frasers improved the story and, let's face it, is probably more realistic.  Furthermore we readers (and anyone who knows history) know that not every encounter between Native Americans and white settlers go well, so this episode does a nice job of setting the stage for future conflicts.

[nodorothyparker]

I know I've read somewhere (but now can't remember where or I'd link it) that I was right in thinking it was primarily a budget/logistics issue.  It's why the entire scene was shot the way it was at night interspersed with the Natives doing their thing so it wouldn't be so immediately obvious that Jamie was fighting a crazy guy rather than the bear he thought he was tracking.  TV is a different medium than books and sometimes what can be done in one either doesn't work or becomes too much of an unwieldy headache in another.  I accept that as someone who enjoys both mediums.  All things considered, it came off pretty well. 

I'm always at least a little fascinated by the idea that watching humans/zombies/white walkers/what have you die is less objectionable than watching the death of a trained animal you know with modern production codes probably survived just fine if it's not entirely a CGI creation incapable of suffering or even discomfort but it pops up all the time.  I watch a number of shows that have fairly high kill counts, sometimes with fairly gruesome results, yet invariably the first question is always is the dog/dragon/tiger/etc., okay?  I mean I love my cats as much as anyone, but I'm never not aware of the disclaimer that "no animals were harmed in the filming of this episode."

1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

Making the local natives less-than-pleased with the arrival of the Frasers improved the story and, let's face it, is probably more realistic.  Furthermore we readers (and anyone who knows history) know that not every encounter between Native Americans and white settlers go well, so this episode does a nice job of setting the stage for future conflicts.

Some of the reviews and comments on those reviews on this particular point have been interesting to say the least.  I too thought it probably fairly realistic for two groups of people who have heard much about the other and had likely built some idea upon that in their heads and have reason to be at least initially wary.

[taanja]

On 11/30/2018 at 9:54 AM, Ziggy said:

I've been thinking about this alot, too, because having Jamie kill a person dressed up like a bear just sounds silly.  Then again, having Jamie kill an actual bear in the book also sounds a bit ridiculous.  I wonder if it was asking just a little bit too much.  Jamie is good at so many things, but is he really capable of fighting a bear?

My several great grandfather is in the history books as killing a grizzly bear bare handed (no gun only a knife)- so yes---  it can and was done.

Edited December 3, 2018 by taanja

[Nidratime]

Was he in the history books for killing the bear? ;-)

[Ziggy]

1 hour ago, taanja said:

My several great grandfather is in the history books as killing a grizzly bear bare handed (no gun only a knife)- so yes---  it can and was done.

I have no doubt it was done (Good for him, by the way.  That's awesome!).  But I do think it makes Jamie larger than life.  It just makes him a bit too perfect.  I thought it was nice that the way the show handled it made him a bit more human.

[taanja]

46 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

I have no doubt it was done (Good for him, by the way.  That's awesome!).  But I do think it makes Jamie larger than life.  It just makes him a bit too perfect.  I thought it was nice that the way the show handled it made him a bit more human.

I actually objected to the killing of a human person -- but hey! He was "dead" to the natives so I guess he was already dead? 

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 hours ago, taanja said:

I actually objected to the killing of a human person -- but hey! He was "dead" to the natives so I guess he was already dead? 

It was self defense and in defense of others. So no objection from me.