Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Athena

S04.E08: Wilmington

Recommended Posts

Quote

Roger's diligent search for Brianna pays off when he finds her in Wilmington, but their romantic reunion comes to an abrupt halt when she discovered pertinent information that he intentionally kept from her.

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.

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the actors did well, but I’m so sad now. 

9 minutes ago, toolazy said:

That was everything I'd feared it would be.

Tells me nothing. What do you mean? 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, cardigirl said:

I thought the actors did well, but I’m so sad now. 

Tells me nothing. What do you mean? 

I hate this part of the book like poison and I've been dreading the events of this and upcoming episodes. I was hoping that maybe the show would do it better but no luck so far.

Edited by toolazy
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, toolazy said:

I hate this part of the book like poison and I've been dreading the events of this and upcoming episodes. I was hoping that maybe the show would do it better but no luck so far.

Oh, well I was hoping they were going to soften some of it as well, but it looks like they are not. 😔

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm just glad we didn't have to actually watch the rape. Just knowing that a room full of people could hear it and still do nothing to stop it was horrific enough, especially since it was moved to the tavern/rooming house (instead of the ship) and there were women, albeit women who were victims of a sort also,  in that place who could hear it too.

That fight between Roger and Brianna is still dumb, just like it was in the book. But these two actions had to be achieved somehow so that the major stuff for the rest of this season and beyond has it's setup. Oh well, sigh.

Good to see Fergus and Murtagh meeting up at last.  But, and I noticed it last week too, isn't Murtagh's last name Fraser, with Fitzgibbons being one of his middle names? IIRC, from the books, Fitzgibbons is his mother's maiden name and how he is related to Mrs. Fitz from the first season.

Awesome use of the "distraction" surgery they skipped at River Run and instead applied in this episode. Good way to also get the Governor more it their pocket if he's impressed by Claire's medical abilities along with his assumption that Jamie supports his politics.

Interesting that they tossed George Washington in at this point but I suppose it's a good thread to start laying down, in case they eventually get to the later books. That Washington will know Jamie from Tryon's sponsorship at this point will probably be an interesting dilemma later for the two characters, if they choose to follow that through.

Edited by Glaze Crazy
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Ah. I can't believe it didn't occur to me that the rape would happen offscreen. I guess it's because the show has done explicit rape scenes before, and this one was so brutal and explicit in the book (the most brutal rape of the entire series in my opinion, the way it happens on the page), that I assumed they had to do it onscreen.

BUT I'd also been wondering this whole time how on earth Sophie Skelton was going to handle such a difficult, harrowing scene, and of course the answer is, make it happen offscreen so she doesn't have to (for the most part). None of the forced oral sex, no "Leroy," no stripping her naked, etc.

I'd be interested in hearing more about their approach in adapting this one, why they chose to do it this way. I just wonder if it's because they didn't want to put Sophie Skelton through too much or if she couldn't handle it as an actress (not that they'd admit to that of course) or if they genuinely thought the stuff that happens with Bonnet in the book was too brutal to be shown (maybe too exploitative). 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Glaze Crazy said:

Good to see Fergus and Murtagh meeting up at last.  But, and I noticed it last week too, isn't Murtagh's last name Fraser, with Fitzgibbons being one of his middle names? IIRC, from the books, Fitzgibbons is his mother's maiden name and how he is related to Mrs. Fitz from the first season.

Maybe he's making use of it as a secret name, like Jamie used Alexander Malcolm.

Was I the only one squicked out by seeing "the kids" naked? Obviously they're grown ups, but it felt so weird. I have no problem with the scenes with Jamie and Claire, but for some reason I didn't want to see Roger and Bree like that. So awkward.

Good episode overall. Leaves you with a stone in the pit of your stomach though. I almost with I hadn't watched this week, and waited until the next episode is out so I could just go straight into that.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

The rape was brutal and I am glad they did it the way they did.  Outlander has shown so many awful rapes onscreen, that this showed a new aspect to the horror.  Staying on the people who did nothing as she screamed for help was a good choice.  

Poor Roger and Bree.  

I hate what is to come....

eta, I was bummed that Brianna didn’t tell Roger that she thought she needed to focus on him in order to return through the stones.  They really seem to like to gloss over the complications regarding time travel!

Edited by morgan
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

The non book readers are going to REALLY hate Roger now....

I'm wondering how they are going to fit SO much more plot into the rest of the season....I feel like there is just way too much to cram into how many more episodes? 4??  

 

Spoiler

Glad we got a snippet of "you have a message for me lass?" in the preview for next week....I will refrain from flipping a table....

ETA: I'm wondering, since both Jamie & Claire are in Wilmington - if they will combine the meeting of her and Jamie with Brianna and Claire reuniting as well - would save on time if they do it there instead of traveling back to Frasers Ridge...I could see Claire being in the vicinity when Brianna comes across Jamie and scream her name and then them hug and Jamie looking shocked and putting it together...she could then immediately meet Ian (who is supposedly meeting up with them) and Murtagh and Fergus/Marsali....

Edited by caws 727
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think they will all meet up in Wilmington, but I do hope Bree and Jamie have their first meeting alone.  I love that they have that moment together.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ruby24 said:

I'd be interested in hearing more about their approach in adapting this one, why they chose to do it this way. I just wonder if it's because they didn't want to put Sophie Skelton through too much or if she couldn't handle it as an actress (not that they'd admit to that of course) or if they genuinely thought the stuff that happens with Bonnet in the book was too brutal to be shown (maybe too exploitative). 

The last, according to the featurette.

1 hour ago, Petunia846 said:

Obviously they're grown ups,

Especially Roger, who's 28, seven years older than Brianna. Unless that itself squicks you.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

Especially Roger, who's 28, seven years older than Brianna. Unless that itself squicks you

No, it's just that they're the younger generation and we've known them since they (the characters) were kids. It's also new, so I'm sure I'll get used to it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I fast forward through the sex scenes on this show now and have done so since season 1; they make me uncomfortable for the actors. Roger and Brianna’s was particularly uncomfortable to watch, so I hit the fast forward button as soon as he removed her dressing gown. 

I read through book 7 of the series, so I knew Bonnet would rape Brianna, but it’s been so many years since I read the book this season is based on that I had forgotten all the details. I enjoy watching the show from this perspective though, knowing major plot points but not the details. 

Edited by Fallacy · Reason: Spelling
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

This is the part of the book where everyone goes running off half-cocked like dumbasses not asking basic questions or talking to each other at all like normal people, so I guess short of restructuring entirely to not make all of our characters look like blithering idiots and assholes, this is what we're going to get.   As happens every season, I see the back half is about to collapse in on itself in its usual mess of pacing with the amount of ground still left to cover over five episodes.

I love that Roger and Brianna can wander into somebody's barn? stable? and find everything properly appointed with lit lanterns and a suitable fur-covered spot to leisurely have sex and not once worry that the owner of it or anyone else might walk in.  Because the show these past two seasons has made Claire and Brianna so curiously passive and uninvolved in the hunt for Jamie that they probably never would have bothered to find him at all without Roger continually pushing the issue and finally practically talking Claire into it, it now has to ramp up his asshole factor to make any of what comes next not make all of the Frasers look like the absolute worst people ever.  Seriously, Roger.  All you had to do was tell her that you were trying to figure out how to tell her but that she impulsively ran off before you could do it.  That's still more or less true and it saves you this entire stupid fight, which now that the show has skipped mentioning that he also needs to go off to chase down some gemstones for their return trip means she has no idea if he's ever coming back and it makes no sense at all to wait around to see if he does before making the solo return trip when they know time is an issue.  Beyond that, the drawn out sex scene brought the actors' painful lack of chemistry front and center.  Individually, they're not actually bad, but together, a show that's otherwise been mostly spot on really missed the boat on this pairing.

The less said about the rape the better, although I suppose the show at least deserves credit this time for finally finally! figuring out how to show some restraint.  What we got was disturbing enough, but at least this time we didn't have to watch Black Jack thrusting away into a child.

I'm as amused as anyone they threw Washington into the mix this early, but it works out okay letting Tryon think he's the early revolutionary in their midst, and he and Jamie will know each other and be on the same side later anyway.  Of course Claire can't resist showing off her muddled surface level knowledge of American history.  Hee.

Yay for the Fergus-Murtagh meetup, however brief.  I don't know if it's because we're off the book for this story or in spite of it, but that's the story I'm really interested in heading into the back stretch of the season.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

Seriously, Roger.  All you had to do was tell her that you were trying to figure out to tell her but that she impulsively ran off before you could do it.  That's still more or less true and it saves you this entire stupid fight, which now that the show has skipped mentioning that he also needs to go off to chase down some gemstones for their return trip means she has no idea if he's ever coming back and it makes no sense at all to wait around to see if he does before making the solo return trip when they know time is an issue.

Right!?!  In the book, Roger sat on that information for months, I think.  In the show, we don't get a clear sense of how much time passed, but it seemed like he called her pretty quickly, just not soon enough.

9 hours ago, Glaze Crazy said:

I'm just glad we didn't have to actually watch the rape. Just knowing that a room full of people could hear it and still do nothing to stop it was horrific enough, especially since it was moved to the tavern/rooming house (instead of the ship) and there were women, albeit women who were victims of a sort also,  in that place who could hear it too.

I was thinking the same thing.  I thought the way they handled it was very powerful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The way they staged the rape made me think immediately of real situations where women were attacked and no one came to their aid. Remember the famous Kitty Genovese story? She was murdered in an alley in Queens, New York. Many people heard and saw the attack and no one responded. And then there was the attack that happened at a bar in New Bedford, Mass., that was dramatized in the movie, The Accused. A woman was raped by drunken patrons while onlookers cheered it on.

ETA: I absolutely cackled when George and Martha Washington showed up! And then George says to Jamie, "is there a war I don't know about?" And then, in the carriage, when that other "friend" of the governor's pointed out that the Washingtons left the theater early and could've alerted the regulators. LOL! Never trust a Virginian!

Edited by Nidratime
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Have not read any comments "yet" so here it goes.  I loved this episode.  Sure there are some things I wish would have been done differently but all in all a strong showing by everyone.  Marsali and Fergus look happy and their baby is a little chunk.  I was a little disappointed with Murtagh seeing Fergus for the first time in over 20 years.  I thought after the threat was over they would have at least hugged each other.  I know that was not really the kind of relationship they had in the past but still.. Now I am sounding like the child Brianna and Roger act like.  Oh my they both act like babies.  I love you, no I love you more, well now I don't love you, I don't love you either.  I think they were equal in the fact they both were pretty bratty.  Their 'first' time and then the rape one will always wonder ' who is the father'?  I am still pretty shocked that Roger would leave Brianna alone.  Jamie and Claire, it was good to see them again.  I think their chemistry is great.  I know some of the posters do not like her take charge moments.  But she has done this since Season 1.  Great set up for the next episode. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

 

I love that Roger and Brianna can wander into somebody's barn? stable? and find everything properly appointed with lit lanterns and a suitable fur-covered spot to leisurely have sex and not once worry ...

I read somewhere else that the barn was supposed to be a place Roger had rented to stay in Wilmington...guess there was no room for him at the inn :) #Christmasjokes

Agree that Roger and Bree have no chemistry. The handfasting part was nice, though. Sophie is doing better, but I have such a hard time getting behind Bree n Roger as a believable couple, and from now on they have a lot of plotlines...

Bonnet is so despicable and Ed Speleers is so riveting in this role...

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, they don't have chemistry at all. It was tough to watch such an extended, explicit sex scene with them, because the contrast with the Jamie/Claire scenes is SO obvious. Although I know why they had to do it, considering what was coming. But I wonder if they won't do any more of those with them.

Actor chemistry is so important with shows that are primarily about romance, and with these passionate scenes essential to the plot. I really wish they had tried harder with casting Brianna, knowing she was going to have such a big role down the line. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree. I very much enjoyed the chemistry between Brianna and Roger. I knew that Brianna was going to encounter Bonnet, and go from being very happy to not happy at all and that colored my enjoyment of the scene. I’m not looking forward to the rest of Roger’s journey this season. 

Edited by cardigirl
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Buik! Brianna and Roger bored me and I had no interest in them except when they were in scenes with Jamie and Claire. Show!Brianna and Roger are the same. And I’m trying to give Sophie a chance, but 99% of her talking is still flat, wooden and with no affect whatsoever. There’s no range of emotions that I can hear or see in her performance. I can’t believe they couldn’t have found someone better. The sound of her voice is just so grating.

I enjoyed this episode for bringing back Jamie and Claire. To the point where I won’t say anything about that thing on Sam’s head.

And to see Fergus and Marsali.

I don’t know if it’s previous mini series’ of Washington that I’ve watched, specifically loving the late great and wonderful Patty Duke’s portrayal of Martha, but I found this show’s Martha to be very up in the instep and SNOBBY. That Washington wasn’t aware of wars outside the Colonies? When there was a huge influx of Scots? Made me 😒😒and 🙄🙄.

At least we got some realism with the male surgeon being horrified and insulted by Claire conducting surgery.

As for next week, I find it difficult to believe that

Jamie doesn’t recognize Brianna since Claire showed pictures of her as a teenager and young adult. And she looks the same, so his calling her “lass” with no recognition is so mind numbingly STOOPID

.🤬🤬🤬😒😒

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Well, regarding what you wrote in your spoiler area:

Spoiler

I don't have a problem at all with Jamie not immediately recognizing Brianna -- if that is, indeed, who he's talking to. There are a number of times, when I've seen someone out of context, not at all expecting to see them where I do, and I can't immediately place them and it takes a few moments or more to figure it out. Jamie may have looked at the photos plenty of times, but no way, no how, was he ever expecting to see Brianna in 1700's North Carolina. Plus, she's a couple of years older, all done up and styled in 1700's clothing and possibly standing in shadows. We just don't know yet. I'm not going to pre-judge.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

Well, regarding what you wrote in your spoiler area:

  Hide contents

I don't have a problem at all with Jamie not immediately recognizing Brianna -- if that is, indeed, who he's talking to. There are a number of times, when I've seen someone out of context, not at all expecting to see them where I do, and I can't immediately place them and it takes a few moments or more to figure it out. Jamie may have looked at the photos plenty of times, but no way, no how, was he ever expecting to see Brianna in 1700's North Carolina. Plus, she's a couple of years older, all done up and styled in 1700's clothing and possibly standing in shadows. We just don't know yet. I'm not going to pre-judge.

Well I have no problem judging and if I’m wrong, I’ll happily eat Crow.

And EGADS, But I can’t stand Lizzie. “Wanton Morals?” 😒😒😒 And she does look more like her dad’s wife than daughter. Are they just getting lazy with the casting?? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I recently read the book that this season draws from and hated not only the rape but everyone's sexism and idiocy surrounding the rape, questions of paternity, everybody's responses to the questions of paternity and Rogers behavior was a response to miscommunication at screwball comedy levels. As nodorothyparker points out, it is contrived idiocy from start to finish to put conflict into the plot but it doesn't read or watch well. 

I'm going to offer an unpopular opinion here and say that Gabaldon is recycling plot elements (husband raising a child not his own because of love and honor, even though his feelings are mixed) in not very clever ways. First Frank raising Brianna, though his ambivalence is about Claire rather than Brianna, then Lord John raising Jaime's child, and this is about his unrequited love for Jaime and secondarily his wish to conform to society by keeping his bisexuality secret. I never got the feeling in either the books or the show that John cared much about William beyond his connection to Jaime. And finally Roger getting ready to raise a child that may or may not actually be his and his ambivalence is all about the child. Based on what I've read of Fiery Cross so far,  that conflict isn't going aanywhere anytime soon. The through line here is that the men's feelings are primary and sacrosanct. And of course that Jaime is perfect and everyone wants him, but that is a different issue. 

I think some of this might be the reason he taken decades long breaks with this series when generally a complex series with multiple brick like mass market paperbacks is equivalent to a ticket to heaven as far as I'm concerned. 

Finally, if I were Roger, with all that is to come in the next episodes, I would be angry at how I was treated and that nobody asked any sensible questions. Isn't Jaime vaunted for his leadership skills as former  laird and military leader and defacto laird of Fraser's Ridge? Isn't one of the marks of leadership that you try to determine the facts of the situation before flying off the handle to assault and banishment to slavery? Doesn't the fact that Roger travelled through time at least get him a hearing? I know that a lot of what I'm referring to hasn't yet happened but the reunion, hand-fasting and rape are the first domino that sets up the cluster that is the rest of the reunion and book. I too wonder how they're going to get through all of it in five episodes.  

If I were Roger, I would have serious questions about joining this family, especially in the intense interdependence people needed in earlier centuries. I also hate how the question of paternity haunts Roger but not Brianna. Briannas qualms seem to end with birth but how realistic is that? A possible rape baby isn't an issue that just disappears for the mother. 

What is it with Gabaldon and these explicit, terrible rapes? And she is salacious about it too. I saw Gabaldon and the cast interviewed where she told Sam Heugen how much she was looking forward to seeing him raped, disfigured, bloodied and humiliated. It was kind of creepy and promoted another break from the books and series for me. 

I've adored time travel novels my entire life and I always thought Claire and Jaime as a romantic passion that we all hope for but rarely get but somehow a lot of the trappings of these novels raise very mixed feelings in me. I was glad to read here that others had issues with the contrived nature of the last third of Drums of Autumn and the anticipated rest of the season. I'm glad we didn't have to see all of the rape of Brianna. It was an especially nasty and realistic rape. Worst of all when Bonnett tosses the coin at Brianna as if that made up for it. Realistic and brutal and this makes me question Brianna's resolved feelings about paternity after birth. IRL, I'm not sure if would be so easy. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, ring not coin. My squick and horror is with Bonnett saying "I pay for my pleasures, did you think I wouldn't?" This line just made me shudder with the nasty realism. If it was all to get the ring into Bri's hands than double squick.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, AuntieMame said:

Ok, ring not coin. My squick and horror is with Bonnett saying "I pay for my pleasures, did you think I wouldn't?" This line just made me shudder with the nasty realism. If it was all to get the ring into Bri's hands than double squick.

It was. She recognized the ring and wanted to buy it from him, but he wasn’t having it. He told her, right before he raped her, that was how she would get it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Bonnet is so despicable and Ed Speleers is so riveting in this role...

Well he's no Jimmy the footman from Downton Abbey, that's for sure. And that's all I have to say about the matter, except I hope someone will tell me he gets killed real guid, as Ian would say, and soon.

I thought it was kind of unlikely anyone would recognize Brianna from the sketch Roger was showing around, even if they had seen her. It's a fairly good likeness but the coloring and hair style would throw anyone who had merely passed her by. Then I thought how funny it would be if he went around showing people a photograph. Guess he can't do that!

I got a kick out of Claire bringing up cherry tree-chopping to George Washington then getting the side eye from everyone, although when they dispersed and Jamie took her aside I expect him to ask "what was that about?"

With all the candles and open fire it's a wonder buildings weren't burning down left and right back then.

Brianna and Roger really are toxic together, I have to say. If this is going to be their typical dynamic - and it seems to be developing into a pattern now - then I'd prefer them to remain apart. I don't know if Gabaldon was going for the star-crossed thing and saw them as another Jamie and Claire but their relationship is exhausting to watch.  

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

Looks like Jamie is stumbling upon becoming a spy. I hope the Governor doesn't catch on. (This is reminding me a little of that AMC series Turn: Washington's Spies.)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, AuntieMame said:

I'm going to offer an unpopular opinion here and say that Gabaldon is recycling plot elements (husband raising a child not his own because of love and honor, even though his feelings are mixed) in not very clever ways. First Frank raising Brianna, though his ambivalence is about Claire rather than Brianna, then Lord John raising Jaime's child, and this is about his unrequited love for Jaime and secondarily his wish to conform to society by keeping his bisexuality secret. I never got the feeling in either the books or the show that John cared much about William beyond his connection to Jaime. And finally Roger getting ready to raise a child that may or may not actually be his and his ambivalence is all about the child. Based on what I've read of Fiery Cross so far,  that conflict isn't going aanywhere anytime soon. The through line here is that the men's feelings are primary and sacrosanct.

I wouldn't call that an unpopular opinion as much as statement of fact.  Gabaldon is recycling the plot to make a drawn out allegory in the Bree and Roger story about a marriage for love vs. one of duty and obligation as exemplified for Bree by Claire and Jamie vs. Claire and Frank.  Claire dropping the paternity bomb and "I mostly stiff upper lipped it with the man you called Daddy while your bio father, ooh baby" before disappearing for what they think is forever to chase that one big True Love 4 Eva really messed with Bree's head on that.  There's also the nice side bit in there that Jamie thinks he knows how it was and has made peace with Claire resuming her marriage to another man who raised his daughter and being forced to confront that no, it wasn't quite so neat and easy as he made it out to be.  Ironically, of Frank, Jamie, and Roger, the much maligned Frank is the only one of three who doesn't at least hesitate on the love a woman, love her child regardless of DNA question.

Roger doesn't help matters At All by not introducing himself like a normal human being might when meeting his in-laws for the first time, but yeah, he's on the receiving end of a lot of outright asshatery and stupidity from those same in-laws to the point that it's hard to fault him too much for not immediately jumping up and down to answer RIGHT NOW whether he's just fine with throwing away his entire life in his own time to become one of them.  Like you I was really hoping the show would figure out how to tweak the final third of this book to make characters we otherwise love look less downright stupid and terrible, but the handfasting, barn sex, storming off sequence sets all of what comes next in motion, so that ship has probably sailed.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, Roger waffles for SO long on not loving/wanting to be a father to Jem because he might not be his kid- I really hope they leave that stuff out of the show. It is strange that Frank was the only man who didn't hesitate about loving/raising a child as his, that he knew wasn't. It seems like such a huge issue for everyone else.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Petunia846 said:

Was I the only one squicked out by seeing "the kids" naked? Obviously they're grown ups, but it felt so weird. I have no problem with the scenes with Jamie and Claire, but for some reason I didn't want to see Roger and Bree like that. So awkward.

Oh thank goodness, I thought it was just me.  I felt like a voyeur!  I never felt that way during Jamie/Claire love scenes.  Why IS that?

7 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

I love that Roger and Brianna can wander into somebody's barn? stable? and find everything properly appointed with lit lanterns and a suitable fur-covered spot to leisurely have sex and not once worry that the owner of it or anyone else might walk i

Yep, that made no sense. I vaguely recall that they were in somebody's shed when they made their hand-fast vows and consummated them, but I don't recall a cheery fire.  (And in that day and age who would leave a fire burning untended unless they were planning on coming right back?) 

 

I'm not gonna lie -- this was rough to watch.  The cutting back and forth between the Brianna/Roger reunion and the tension at the play gave me emotional whiplash and that was before the argument and well before the rape.  I'm exhausted.  I always watch these more than once so, here I go again but . . . I'm kind of dreading it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

If Claire hadn't done that hernia surgery, this is what that guy had to look forward to:

Doctors used to literally ‘blow smoke up your ass’ with 18th Century medical treatment

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/doctors-used-to-literally-blow-smoke-up-your-ass-with-18th-century-medical-treatment/

Well that’s just what that male surgeon said-all he needed was tobacco up his arse!😆😆

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Er, for folks who don't want to be spoiled...

Spoiler

Roger left to find gemstones so they could go back to safety in the modern time. IIRC, they'd leave word to C and J about fire to warn them. Jemmy's paternity is figured out in a later book due to a trait that he and Roger share. Roger is not a douche canoe.  He and Jamie do become close later. Yes, I'm tired of DG using rape as a plot point just like I'm tired of Emily Giffin using infidelity the same way (I've stopped reading EG). brianna kills Bonnet.

We do meet George later and Claire comments on his bad breath. LOL

Edited by Atlanta
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Nidratime said:

Looks like Jamie is stumbling upon becoming a spy. I hope the Governor doesn't catch on. (This is reminding me a little of that AMC series Turn: Washington's Spies.)

True, but Jamie would’ve been better at it than Abraham. 

Edited by Ziggy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Wowza! That sex scene between Brianna and Roger was VERRA realistic. I don’t know much about the topic, but how do they prevent the actual act while filming?  Because that just felt like watching 2 people actually having sex. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, caws 727 said:

The non book readers are going to REALLY hate Roger now....

 

Not at all. I thought the fight was stupid and contrived. I find more fault with Bree in that situation than Roger. That said, I liked their handfasting ceremony and the lovemaking following it. I’m not sure why one would feel icky or whatever, but I thought the actors did a good job portraying their respective characters.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

THE GOOD

The Brianna/Roger reunion moment was nice.  So was the hand-fasting.

Marsali talking to Claire about how loving a child means living in dread of anything bad happening to them was a nice foreshadowing of what was about to happen to Claire’s child.

I always love it when Claire goes into bossy-doctor mode (and I love that the hernia-surgery-at-the-dinner-party scene in the book made it into the show, albeit under different circumstances.)

 

THE BAD

How the HELL did Fergus find Murtagh and his men?  That plot point beggared belief.

The “storeroom” where Brianna and Roger hook up is too good to be true what with it’s fireplace and soft lighting from lanterns and a convenient “bed” of whatever that was.

I am NOT blaming the victim here but why did Brianna go into that tavern?  Given how upset she was with Roger I assumed she would walk straight back to wherever she and Lizzy were staying.  Why would she go into a public house?  That made NO sense plot-wise.

 

THE UGLY

The rape – made so much worse by the complete indifference of the people who hear it happening.  

What the hell kind of tavern WAS that?  In the book no one comes to Brianna's aid because the rape takes place on Bonnet's ship and there is no one there to hear except the criminals who work for him (who presume she's a prostitute.)  Is it realistic that that everyone in that tavern would just ignore her cries for help?  And if it IS that kind of place, then I say again -- what was Brianna doing there?  Where was she headed when Bonnet grabs her by the arm? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, DietCokeJunkie said:

Wowza! That sex scene between Brianna and Roger was VERRA realistic. I don’t know much about the topic, but how do they prevent the actual act while filming?  Because that just felt like watching 2 people actually having sex. 

They aren't totally naked, for one thing. 

Share this post


Link to post

@WatchrTina seems like Brianna was just in a tavern. I can believe no one came to her aid. Brianna knows she’s in the past but she is still a woman from the 1970s- a woman in the 70s could expect to go out in public to a bar and not be raped in a public establishment (although it happened). Women in this time did NOT ago out alone unless they absolutely had to (servants on an errand etc). Women had no value. @Nidratime pointed out that this happens to women TODAY!

3 hours ago, ruby24 said:

Yeah, Roger waffles for SO long on not loving/wanting to be a father to Jem because he might not be his kid- I really hope they leave that stuff out of the show. It is strange that Frank was the only man who didn't hesitate about loving/raising a child as his, that he knew wasn't. It seems like such a huge issue for everyone else.

Yeah Roger is.....I’m not a fan of his right now. He is such a prick. Yes he did follow Brianna but he’s one of those “love is possession type dudes” and I cannot get beyond that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, iMonrey said:

And that's all I have to say about the matter, except I hope someone will tell me he gets killed real guid, as Ian would say

Spoiler tagging because I can’t recall exactly,

But aye, he does get killed 

GUID! Though I hope they deviate from the buik and not let whoever it was that spared his suffering from being prolonged as he SAE MOOCH Deserved.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I’ve always been put off by the rapes in this series and this was predictably awful. However for me the episode highlight was Claire’s command of the room during the surgery. You can see the wheels turning in the men’s mind about allowing her to perform the surgery. It was very well done. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Ziggy said:

True, but Jamie would’ve better at it than Abraham

Wouldn't take much. I loved Turn but they didn't do a very good job showing how the real Abraham spearheaded that spy ring.

Wish they could have gotten Ian Kahn to play Washington here too - I got really used to him!

Every episode with Brianna, I find myself trying to talk myself into thinking that Sophie isn't THAT bad....but it sucks I have to even do that. Now I don't know if she's gotten better or if I just want so badly to believe she has for the sake of the show.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

 

I am NOT blaming the victim here but why did Brianna go into that tavern?  Given how upset she was with Roger I assumed she would walk straight back to wherever she and Lizzy were staying.  Why would she go into a public house?  That made NO sense plot-wise.

 

THE UGLY

The rape – made so much worse by the complete indifference of the people who hear it happening.  

What the hell kind of tavern WAS that?  In the book no one comes to Brianna's aid because the rape takes place on Bonnet's ship and there is no one there to hear except the criminals who work for him (who presume she's a prostitute.)  Is it realistic that that everyone in that tavern would just ignore her cries for help?  And if it IS that kind of place, then I say again -- what was Brianna doing there?  Where was she headed when Bonnet grabs her by the arm? 

I think her rooms were above the tavern. Lizzie came down looking for her, Roger was sitting in there drinking when he overheard her asking about passage to Cross Creek. She didn’t wander in, she had to go through there to get to her room. 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting. Sophie Skelton said in an interview that they did film the rape scene and it was disappointing to her that they decided to go a different way and left it on the cutting room floor. She thinks it was important for people to see it.

Just out of curiosity, is Ron Moore still the showrunner or is someone else in charge right now? I know they have some new writers. I feel like there's an increasing awareness or maybe a self-consciousness in attempting to water down some of the brutality and sexual violence. Is this a response to criticism of being too graphic in the past?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×