S04.E04: Common Ground

[taanja]

20 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

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

It would also be self defense and defense of others if Jaime had killed a real bear. Just saying. Switching it to a human was ... an odd choice.  My original post was because someone speculated they changed the bear into a human dressed as a bear so there wouldn't be an uproar over killing an animal.

I put forth the proposition that killing a human being is ...maybe worse...??? than killing an animal? self defense or not.

[toolazy]

21 hours ago, taanja said:

It would also be self defense and defense of others if Jaime had killed a real bear. Just saying. Switching it to a human was ... an odd choice.  My original post was because someone speculated they changed the bear into a human dressed as a bear so there wouldn't be an uproar over killing an animal.

I put forth the proposition that killing a human being is ...maybe worse...??? than killing an animal? self defense or not.

The logistics (finding a trained bear, CGI, etc) around having Jamie fight a real bear were too complicated and fraught with peril, so they changed it.

[GHScorpiosRule]

23 hours ago, taanja said:

It would also be self defense and defense of others if Jaime had killed a real bear.

Actually, Self-defense/Defense of Others is a defense used in courts. My point being that Jamie didn't kill that man for shits and giggles. He was defending himself. Not to mention, he'd tried to kill John Quincy. He wasn't an innocent. 

[TaurusRose]

On 11/30/2018 at 11:49 AM, nodorothyparker said:

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."

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.

I don’t know if I can explain my reasons well enough to satisfy people who don’t share my feelings. All I can say is I will always care about the safety of a loyal and trusting animal first in situations that call for it and make no apologies for it. So yeah, I’m still mad about the dead wolves and dragon in GOT.

[TaurusRose]

On 12/3/2018 at 5:32 PM, 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? 

Why when said person was trying to kill him? 

[taanja]

On 12/8/2018 at 12:17 PM, taurusrose said:

Why when said person was trying to kill him? 

This whole post goes back to someone saying it was better to have a human dressed up as a bear and Jaime killing it than to have a real bear and Jaime killing the real bear -- cuz people would be in an uproar against animal cruelty.

I put forth the proposition that killing a person was worse than killing an animal.

[Nidratime]

Quote

 

This whole post goes back to someone saying it was better to have a human dressed up as a bear and Jaime killing it than to have a real bear and Jaime killing the real bear -- cuz people would be in an uproar against animal cruelty.

I put forth the proposition that killing a person was worse than killing an animal.

 

Since, I think, I was the person who mentioned that, I never suggested that it was worse or better killing one or the other. My point was that some people tend to feel more distress seeing animals (or innocent children for that matter) killed in a story than they tend to do with regard to fully cognizant adults who may or may not have the ability to either 1) use their wiles to protect themselves and/or 2) be aware of whether their actions led to such a horrific result. This is not saying that it's more acceptable to kill adults but only the fact that children and animals are more often blameless victims -- and in the case of animals just reacting naturally -- than they are active participants in consequences or outcomes. For instance, a bull charging at someone waving a cape at them. Do we blame the bull for charging at and possibly trying to gore a person who is teasing them so they can murder the animal for "sport"?

[Kim0820]

On 11/26/2018 at 1:53 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?

When Claire went to the stones just before the Battle of Culloden, she asked him to go with her.  He said he didn't belong there.  I think he could not run from Culloden like that, in his mind.  Then there is the idea he is one who cannot travel, since he didn't hear the buzzing and touched the stone without effect, so as to have it so that Claire has to go back and stay back to be with him.  The author doesn't want a quiet life for them, obviously loving to write all the wild adventures that are more believable/possible in the 18th century.  

Then even so, she could change it later if she thinks of a good wild adventure to take place in the future.  I had the idea maybe Jamie suffers some ill that Claire cannot fix in the 18th but knows she can in the 20th.  Jamie freaked out enough about the injection that more than that could be funny.  And having to keep Jamie from getting into fights.  And make him 20th century clothes and cut his hair to 20th century style.  It would have to be comic is my guess.   

On 11/26/2018 at 4:08 PM, 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?

Yes, I can only surmise the English speaker wasn't with them the first two times?  And I missed why they did their first two visits.  What did they want?  Were they just warning the settlers of the bear-man?  I had a feeling they were not really hostile because of the way they went away without harming anyone or anything both times.  And JQM maybe didn't know about the English speaker, so maybe it was a recent arrival, someone who had been away and then returned.