S04.E08: Wilmington

[toolazy]

7 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

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?

He is still officially the showrunner but I think Maril Davis and Matt Roberts are way more involved in the day-to-day decisions. And it shows.

[ruby24]

4 minutes ago, toolazy said:

He is still officially the showrunner but I think Maril Davis and Matt Roberts are way more involved in the day-to-day decisions. And it shows.

It really does! When did that start? Was it last season? Because I definitely feel like there's been a shift in tone from the first two seasons, starting in Season 3. I don't think I like it, to be honest. One of the things that distinguished the show for me was its ability to go there in this dangerous 1700's world- there was more of a pulpy, explicit, passionate (yes, passionate- the sex scenes in these last two seasons have not measured up to the first two either) feeling to the show that seems gone now. I'm sensing a more cowardly, tepid approach coming from these new writers. There was a raw energy in the first couple seasons that's been neutered.

Edited December 24, 2018 by ruby24

[areca]

Pretty much everything I loved about the show is gone to be honest.   If it was the showrunner leaving, he needs to come back.  It doesn't feel the same, at all.  And it's not the plot/books.

Edited December 24, 2018 by areca

[ruby24]

I read the interview with Maril Davis on this episode, and I honestly cannot imagine Ron Moore saying out loud whether they need to show all the rapes in Diana's books. She came across to me as someone who was afraid of the content she's adapting.

The feeling of Outlander when it started was a raw, intense, yes sometimes shocking experience (not just rape but violence as well- the scene I couldn't watch in the first season was the whipping of Jamie in Black Jack's monologue/flashback). And you know what- yes, some of those scenes in the first season were actually worse than what was on the page, but it added up to an overall tone that made the show truly visceral and unique, in my opinion.

Now? It feels like they're blandly following the books step by step and actually watering them down. 

[Megan]

Like the big nerd I am, I was most excited when Washington mentioned his work as a surveyor. My 7th Great Grandfather William Crawford was friends with Washington and did surveying work with/for him.Years later Crawford got burned at the stake in Ohio.

The whole Bonnet, Jem and the Roger misunderstandings are my least favorite in the books.

Edited December 24, 2018 by Megan

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

43 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

When did that start? Was it last season?

I'm pretty sure Ron was still the main day to day guy last season. He was pretty excited to do all the ship stuff and he was still doing the after episode talking bits last season too. I think Toni Graphia is also one of the ones that took on more show running responsibility too along with Matt Roberts and Maril Davis. I'm 99% sure this is the first season where Ron stepped back from being the main, on the ground show runner.

Also, this season is the last season that Terry, Ron's wife, will be doing the costumes. So Ron mostly left after season 3 (he basically seems to be the show runner in name only now)  and Terry will be gone after season 4.

Edited December 24, 2018 by Rilla-my-Rilla
I spelled Terry's name wrong.

[Squirrely]

Germaine! I was giddy with the way the episode opened, though I'm still wondering when they're going to come live on the Ridge. 

I was also uncomfortable watching the de-virginizing of Bree. It's difficult not to think of her as a child, I guess, even though she is clearly an adult. I skimmed through their sex scenes in the books too. At least Roger probably gave her a big O in the show, there. Maybe she won't have to film a masturbation scene next season. Haha.

I'm really not looking forward to the tired sitcom trope of great misunderstandings that is to come. Drums is such a mixture of fantastic writing and awful, awful writing. You just know we're going to get a full episode of Mohawk torture when the time could be better spent. Ugh. 

[Nidratime]

When Ron Moore was more hands on with the show, people complained about him! The complaint I remembered the most was that Moore favored Frank over Jamie. That he spent more time with Frank than the book called for, not showing all his faults, and diminishing Jamie. So, apparently, no matter who runs the show, there are going to be people unhappy with decisions that are made.

[CSI Tink]

2 hours ago, Moxie Cat said:

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!

 

I said the same thing!  I had my fingers crossed Ian Kahn was going to appear as GW. This was actually the first time I was sad at the casting choices.  

[Cdh20]

7 hours ago, iMonrey said:

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.  

I have to agree with this. I would liked to have seen more relationship development with them, but maybe it wouldn't have helped. I do think the author wants us to think they are the next Jamie/Claire, but they are NOT. I hope they get some happy time eventually?

[aemom]

3 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

THE GOOD

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.

Spoiler

When Marsali was saying that it made me so sad thinking about Henri-Christian in the future.

[aemom]

Also, I think that the major problem with Sophie is that she is not used to performing with an American accent, so she spends so much effort focusing on getting it right, that her overall performance suffers. Perhaps as she becomes more comfortable with it, we will see her performances improve. 

[Ziggy]

5 hours ago, Moxie Cat said:

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!

I was just thinking that!!!  Simon Harrison did a fine job, but I just couldn't help but think it would have been great if they had gotten Ian Kahn.  Turn was great, but there were just times we couldn't believe they weren't caught!

6 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

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.

I thought the "bed" looked like an air mattress (lol).  I just assumed that was the tavern where Brianna was staying.

[Haleth]

18 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

That Washington wasn’t aware of wars outside the Colonies? When there was a huge influx of Scots? Made me 😒😒and 🙄🙄.

I think he said that about a war because Jamie mistakenly called him General.

17 hours ago, AuntieMame said:

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. 

I don't know if you've read ahead and don't want to comment ahead but 

Spoiler

paternity is established (as best as could be done 200 yrs ago) when it's noticed the baby has the same birthmark (I think?) as Roger.

I hated everyone involved in the series of misunderstandings yet to come, but mostly Bree.  If any one of them had asked questions instead of blowing up and acting impulsively it all could have been avoided.  As annoying as it was to read it will be even more frustrating to watch.  Use your words, people!

[Pestilentia]

21 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

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.

To clarify, 'twas Bonnet, not Black Jack Randall.

Jamie killed Black Jack at Culloden.

[morgan]

5 minutes ago, Pestilentia said:

To clarify, 'twas Bonnet, not Black Jack Randall.

Jamie killed Black Jack at Culloden.

I’m guessing she was referencing Fergus’ rape by Randall back in season 2.  

[caws 727]

10 hours ago, ruby24 said:

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.

Don’t count you chickens...they still need her to recount what happened to Claire. So we may get some visual via flashback. Ugh. 

[nodorothyparker]

2 hours ago, morgan said:

I’m guessing she was referencing Fergus’ rape by Randall back in season 2.  

Yep.  For all the talk about the show holding back now, that was the point where it really should have but proved it wasn't capable of even basic restraint.  Perhaps if it had figured it out then or the writers had sat down early on and acknowledged the books as a whole have a huge problem of going to the sexual assault well over and over and over again and we need to start weeding out the ones that could be written around because it looks even worse on TV to have them stacked seemingly one on top of another, the reviews of this episode wouldn't again be full of Rapelander complaints now.

[ElTVaddict]

On 12/23/2018 at 6:14 AM, caws 727 said:

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??  

 

  Reveal hidden contents

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....

 

I am not a book reader, (well actually I am reading now but so far behind).  I do not and cannot at this point hate Roger. I just don't understand the argument, even if I try to see it from their time.

I was hoping that Roger would have been able to intervene before it happened.

Can someone please tell me which book this season is from?

Edited December 24, 2018 by ElTVaddict
Did not finish my comment.

[WatchrTina]

1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

Perhaps if it had figured it out then or the writers had sat down early on and acknowledged the books as a whole have a huge problem of going to the sexual assault well over and over and over again and we need to start weeding out the ones that could be written around because it looks even worse on TV to have them stacked seemingly one on top of another, the reviews of this episode wouldn't again be full of Rapelander complaints now.

This reminded me that I used to look for and post links to the reiviews of the episode.  So (full of misgivings) I went looking.  First stop, The New York Times. . . Oh dear.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/23/arts/television/outlander-season-4-episode-8-wilmington-brianna.html

Yeah, Roger does NOT come off well in this review and the reviewer takes issue with the need for ANOTHER sexual assault scene.  As a reader, I know why (plot-wise) that scene HAS to happen but I can appreciate how a non-reader viewer might be infuriated.  On the other hand, I do have to challenge the reviewer when s/he says:

Quote

Moments after their reunion embrace, Roger’s manhandling her in the street and repeating his demand that she marry him before he’ll bed her. 

Now hold on there Bucko!  Roger does "manhandle" her a wee bit in the street (and she manhandles him right back) but as a reader I know that's happening solely so that Lizzie can witness it.  When he "grabs" her the second time it's with enthusiasm and joy and she's a willing participant (as in "let's get off the street and get somewhere private so we can snog!")  And THEN -- let's be clear about this -- Roger does NOT repeat his demand that she marry him before he'll bed her.  SHE reminds him of that and she only reminds him of that because she wants to tell him that now she WILL marry him.  He followed her 200 years into the past for goodness sake!  That's one hell of a statement of devotion. So while Roger does not come out of this episode smelling like a rose I hope we can all agree that he did not "demand" (again) that Brianna marry him.  She did that willingly, joyfully, and of her own free will.

Here are the three bullet points that ended the review.  They added some desperately needed levity to the whole thing.

Quote

• I appreciated the moment of Jamie silently panicking that by throwing George Washington under the stagecoach, he’s messed up the entire Revolutionary War.

• There was a wild imbalance of tension in this episode. (Not great news for a romance when you’re excited when they cut away from the pillow talk to a hernia surgery.)

• I hope Fergus and Marsali have a monthly whist party where nothing much happens. They deserve low-stakes friends.

 

Next stop: the AV Club:

https://tv.avclub.com/roger-and-brianna-fall-into-old-patterns-in-a-punitive-1831291558

Oh.  Dear.  It's pretty much all about the rape too.  Read it yourself but here's the wrap-up:

Quote

The Jamie and Claire developments unfortunately take a backseat to Roger and Brianna, who technically harness the episode’s weightier and more emotionally driven beats but in a way that exposes some of the shoddy character development that has been happening on their side of the narrative. It should be more thrilling that their worlds are about to collide, but it’s hard to get behind that when Roger and Brianna almost seem like they exist on a different show entirely right now.

 

Then I went to the "Den of Geek" review and when I hit the phrase, "Can we all agree that Roger is the worst?"  I just had to stop reading.

<sigh>

Edited December 24, 2018 by WatchrTina

[WatchrTina]

14 minutes ago, ElTVaddict said:

Can someone please tell me which book this season is from?

Season 4 = book 4 in the Outlander series, "Drums of Autumn"

[Thalia]

On 12/23/2018 at 5:11 AM, Petunia846 said:

Was I the only one squicked out by seeing "the kids" naked?

No!  I was really surprised when I said, in my mind, Brianna's just a baby!  Jamie's  baby girl!  LOL.  I wondered if others felt the same way.  Roger didn't bother me, but I realize you're correct.  We did meet Roger as a wee boy at the Reverend's house. 

I couldn't watch the Bonnet-Brianna scenes.  I started with the fast forward from the moment she said "where did you get that ring?", until when he handed it to her like it was for "services rendered."  [shudder]  

Loved, loved, loved Murtaugh's response to Fergus' statement, "he's at the theater." 

[nodorothyparker]

1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

Roger does "manhandle" her a wee bit in the street (and she manhandles him right back) but as a reader I know that's happening solely so that Lizzie can witness it.

And there's the problem in a nutshell.  I only know Roger is better than he's coming off in the show because I've read the books and know he's a pretty good guy completely out of his element trying gamely to play along with some pretty extraordinary circumstances.  I know what comes next.  Without that, and the show can't be so heavily dependent on that book knowledge to explain itself or it fails as a separate entity, he's looking like a real jerk to the casual viewer and to Lizzie, who only knows that she saw Roger grabbing on Brianna and then the next time she sees her, she's banged up and bleeding.  I agree with the NY Times reviewer that neither Brianna nor Roger individually or as a couple are developed well enough at this point of the telling to be carrying this story or expecting us to immediately understand where they're coming from.  Both the books and the show are at fault there.

The problem with Brianna's rape at this point of the story isn't just the rape itself, which we as book readers know the rest of the plot of this book hinges on in the who's the daddy sweepstakes.  It's everything that came before it.  Jamie and Black Jack are a core part of who Jamie is going forward.  It informs so much of his eventual friendship with Lord John.  But in that first season we also had to sit through not one but two separate sexual assault attempts on Claire in a single episode.  Black Jack grotesquely tried to rape Jenny.  Season two gave us Mary Hawkins and Fergus.  Season three gave us Ian.  Had all of those been restructured or pared back to show us other ways the 18th century could be horrible without going to the same well over and over and over again, we wouldn't now be at the point where everyone's greeting this terrible thing that happened to Brianna with an exhausted and exasperated "Again?"

[Trixieagogo]

So many good points here about Wilmington.  I must add another.  Roger, the historian, doesn't know it's dangerous for Bree to be with no escort in this time period?  So he just leaves her? <eye roll>  There are no cooler heads prevailing with these two.  And as to their fight: I really do find stubbornness for stubborn's sake a weak way to drive a plot.  That said, of course I'm going to keep watching. 

[Future Cat Lady]

The main problem is that Diana Gabaldon has no imagination and a rape fetish. She seems to think that raping a character is one of the only way to create drama. Those rapes do have major consequences on the continuing stories, but that in itself is the problem. She could've thought of something else to create conflict. And by adapting the books as a tv show, this problem is exacerbated. They have to cut a lot of the fat and keep the major plotlines. A lot of those plotlines revolves around the repercussions of the different rapes. It's impossible to cut Jamie and Brianna's rapes. 

In Brianna and Roger's case, they already have many internal problems. They didn't need some external forces to keep them apart. They are very capable of doing that themselves. 

[AuntieMame]

Can someone please explain how Roger's manhandling of Bree can be hand waved away as necessary so that Lizzie can witness it, thus ultimately giving Jaime misleading information, leading to Roger's banishment and to all of his feels about his property being sullied by another man. 

i don't blame Roger for this, I blame Gabaldon. I've tried more than once to read the entire series and I always bogged down because of the subtext of sexism and sadism. I've consciously tried to ignore it. Outlander has so many things I love in terms of genre: time travel, a good historical setting that is well researched, in theory an interesting and independent heroine, even a good love story. Again in theory because often even Jaime and Claire don't rise above tropes of sexual and romantic passion. An exploration of what passion is and how the physical and emotional blends and obsesses us so fully would be welcome for example. 

Newly beguiled by the beauty of the series, I made a note to try again, determined that I would be swept away by the epic saga and determined to ignore the problematic aspects of character, plot and underlying assumptions about sex and women. But I just can't do it; even as a twenty two year old reader many moons ago, the rapes of Outlander struck me as wrong even though I couldn't analyze as easily. I'll stop beating this horse when I post, but I'm trying so hard to like the books, even trying to judge them by their own merits as higher class romance novels and I'm still having trouble. 

I think of Anya Setons Green Darkness which did a time travelesque story with some ugly sexual psychology and was true to the time represented and the time it was written in (i.e. Not politically correct or aware in the way we think) and that book isn't as disturbing. In the last few days, I put down Fiery Cross and breezed through the first two Poldark novels and noticed similar material dealt with very differently. Not do I want or expect people to be perfect saints or independent of their cultures. But there is something deeply disturbing that strands through these novels, especially the way Jaime's rape and Claire's cure are written and the through line of that to Jaime's offer to Lord John. As a romantic hero, Jaime is objectified too. If any of this was even examined a little bit I could cope better, but Outlander is completely unreconstituted and unexamined. An exploration of sexual passion would be nice and how and why Jaime and Claire get the passionate and the quotidian for example. An experiment I'm sure many of us have tried and failed.

I've had similar issues with Song of Ice and Fire and the constant castration and rapes, but that hasn't brought me up short in terms of finishing the books in the same way Outlander has. 

Like I said, I will drop this now and stick to specific episode, character and book developments, but I'm having trouble with the books...again and I've been trying a reread/read this season. 

I read that the costumer will leave after this season and I'm disappointed. I thought she was doing brilliant work. I'm an embroiderer and Raymond's vest was an amazing piece of work. Better in some ways even than the lovely wedding dress. 

I liked Lizzie and that Brianna rescued her. I don't blame Lizzie for her misinformation either. 

Edited December 24, 2018 by AuntieMame
Because the autocorrect on my kindle is insane.

[virginia blue]

I hate every element of the Stephen Bonnet plotline from beginning to end, none more so than the rape and the ridiculous shenanigans that follow in its aftermath. I had hoped against hope that somehow the writers and showrunner would find a way around including it, but I reluctantly concede that it is just too essential to the plot. I almost feel bad for the writers since they must have known that the reaction to yet another sexual assault would be overwhelmingly negative. I give them credit for handling the rape with as much restraint as possible. 

Where I do fault them is the complete underdevelopment of Brianna and Roger's relationship to the point where I, a book reader, was actually surprised she accepted his marriage proposal so quickly. The last time we saw Bree and Roger together, he reacted extremely negatively to her very reasonable feeling that she wasn't ready to get married. Nothing we have been shown since then indicates that she regrets that decision or her feelings have changed -- I don't think Brianna has even said the word "Roger" in any of the intervening episodes. Show Brianna has not been written as the kind of person who would be swept off her feet by a romantic gesture, so her accepting his proposal and the subsequent love scene felt very unearned to me. (And add me to the list of people surprised and slightly put off by the fact that the scene was so graphic -- for some reason I didn't think the show would go there with those two characters.)

I think Sophie Skelton has really grown in the role and gave a great performance. I do suspect she struggles with the accent and that sometimes leads to a flat affect, but she has gotten a lot better and last night in particular she was exceptional. I think Bree is a deceptively difficult character to play. Especially in the early books her actions are more often than not plot-driven rather than character-driven, so it can be hard to understand what motivates her. 

[Cdh20]

21 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

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.

The whole show has had a theme about raising kids that aren’t biologically yours- from Colum with Hamish, Roger with his uncle, Jamie & Claire taking in Fergus, heck Jamie was so desperate to raise kids because he missed Bri, Faith, & Willie( Fergus was grown by this time)- that he married crazy Laoghaire! Also Murtagh loving Jamie & being a father figure because he loved Ellen, & John loving Willie because he loves Jamie. Everyone, not just Frank was in on this theme! Surely Roger is going to be ok with this?

[iMonrey]

Quote

So, apparently, no matter who runs the show, there are going to be people unhappy with decisions that are made.

I'm sure that's true about any adaptation. I, for one, preferred the way they handled this thing with Brianna by having it offscreen and focusing on tavern patrons who did nothing. I could barely get through the second half of Season 1 because it was like watching torture porn, and I almost didn't come back for Season 2 and beyond because of it. Maybe some feel the visceral shock the violence gives the show a unique perspective but I found it too graphic and too prolonged. 

[vesperholly]

On 12/23/2018 at 10:02 AM, nodorothyparker said:

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.

This is entirely a problem with Sophie Skelton. She's a total mannequin and I had to laugh when the featurette called her a hothead. She just seems whiny.

Richard Rankin was in The Crimson Field with Oona Chaplin as his love interest and they were both steamy. I believe his acting as Roger but I just get no feeling from Brianna whatsoever.

[ruby24]

35 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I'm sure that's true about any adaptation. I, for one, preferred the way they handled this thing with Brianna by having it offscreen and focusing on tavern patrons who did nothing. I could barely get through the second half of Season 1 because it was like watching torture porn, and I almost didn't come back for Season 2 and beyond because of it. Maybe some feel the visceral shock the violence gives the show a unique perspective but I found it too graphic and too prolonged. 

I can understand that too. I do believe that the visceral, sometimes shocking nature of the show in the first couple of seasons gave it a more unique tone, but on the other hand, that's definitely not for everyone. It really felt like there was a threat of danger and violence around every corner, which was nerve-wracking.

Maybe this is better after all, I don't know. I do think though, that the passion conveyed is much less, especially the scenes between Jamie and Claire the last two seasons. It feels to me like they've been watered down somewhat (book Jamie and Claire never really did- although I've seen people argue that in itself is unrealistic, the idea that they would still be that passionate as older people and after all this time together). It kinda goes with the softening of the show in general- I get the impression that it's a response to criticism about there being too much violence, so my guess is it won't return to the way it used to be.

Edited December 24, 2018 by ruby24

[toolazy]

5 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

This reminded me that I used to look for and post links to the reiviews of the episode.  So (full of misgivings) I went looking.  First stop, The New York Times. . . Oh dear.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/23/arts/television/outlander-season-4-episode-8-wilmington-brianna.html

Yeah, Roger does NOT come off well in this review and the reviewer takes issue with the need for ANOTHER sexual assault scene.  As a reader, I know why (plot-wise) that scene HAS to happen but I can appreciate how a non-reader viewer might be infuriated.  On the other hand, I do have to challenge the reviewer when s/he says:

Now hold on there Bucko!  Roger does "manhandle" her a wee bit in the street (and she manhandles him right back) but as a reader I know that's happening solely so that Lizzie can witness it.  When he "grabs" her the second time it's with enthusiasm and joy and she's a willing participant (as in "let's get off the street and get somewhere private so we can snog!")  And THEN -- let's be clear about this -- Roger does NOT repeat his demand that she marry him before he'll bed her.  SHE reminds him of that and she only reminds him of that because she wants to tell him that now she WILL marry him.  He followed her 200 years into the past for goodness sake!  That's one hell of a statement of devotion. So while Roger does not come out of this episode smelling like a rose I hope we can all agree that he did not "demand" (again) that Brianna marry him.  She did that willingly, joyfully, and of her own free will.

Here are the three bullet points that ended the review.  They added some desperately needed levity to the whole thing.

 

Next stop: the AV Club:

https://tv.avclub.com/roger-and-brianna-fall-into-old-patterns-in-a-punitive-1831291558

Oh.  Dear.  It's pretty much all about the rape too.  Read it yourself but here's the wrap-up:

 

Then I went to the "Den of Geek" review and when I hit the phrase, "Can we all agree that Roger is the worst?"  I just had to stop reading.

<sigh>

The AV Club reviewer regularly misses the point. She's really kind of terrible.

[nodorothyparker]

The AV Club reviewer does often seem to focus entirely on the wrong things to the point that I don't always feel like we're watching the same show. 

 

2 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

Everyone, not just Frank was in on this theme! Surely Roger is going to be ok with this?

I'm talking about three main characters in three specific instances.  Even book Jamie, when contemplating our upcoming story of Brianna and Roger and what he was asking of Frank has to admit he's not so sure as he previously would have thought that he so readily could have immediately accepted it without any reservation or resentment.

Roger will come around, because as we're agreeing here despite how he's coming off right now he is a fundamentally good guy.  But he's about to be on the receiving end of some pretty terrible assholishness from Jamie and Ian who because of the aforementioned misunderstanding think he's Brianna's rapist.   And when the facts are finally laid out, he's still being confronted by the angry father demanding that he answer RIGHT NOW that he's willing to give up his entire life in his own time to live among the same people who treated him so badly to raise a child who might very well be that of his wife's rapist.  Also remember that none of these people would even have found each other and thus he wouldn't be there in the first place if he hadn't done most of the heavy lifting to find Jamie for them, which the show made even more pronounced with Claire and Brianna being so passively willing to just give up on.  I'm actually at least a little sympathetic to Roger that he needs a minute to get his head around all this while everyone's screaming what a worthless coward he is at him.

[WatchrTina]

On December 24, 2018 at 12:43 PM, AuntieMame said:

Can someone please explain how Roger's manhandling of Bree can be hand waved away as necessary so that Lizzie can witness it, thus ultimately giving Jaime misleading information, leading to Roger's banishment and to all of his feels about his property being sullied by another man. 

I'll start with the last part first.  You talk about Jamie's "feels" about his "property" being sullied by another man.  I don't agree with that characterization of Book!Jamie but this is probably not the place to have that debate.   And we really can't talk about TV!Jamie's reaction to the rape yet since we haven't seen anything.

As for the first part of your question -- from a plot perspective, yes Lizzie does need to witness that argument so that she can give Jamie mistaken information about who it was who hurt Brianna and thus set up the situation that we know is coming where Roger suffers a terrible punishment for something he did not do (he did NOT rape Brianna.)

As for the execution of that required scene -- Lizzy is shown seeing Roger and Bree have a brief argument through a window (no sound).  Let's be clear that Roger does not strike Brianna or or shake her or do anything else inexcusable.  (And now I regret that I said Roger "manhandles her a wee bit" in my post above.)  He grabs her at one point and he's got an angry look on his face.  Bree returns the angry look with interest as she shakes him off.  Then that 30 seconds of mutual snarling evolves into "I love you (you idiot)" and Roger seizes the hand of a very willing Brianna to pull her into a secluded place for a bit of a snog.  But that's not what Lizzie sees.  She sees her mistress -- who (I presume) has never ONCE mentioned Roger -- seemingly grabbed by an angry stranger and dragged off.  Lizzie's not an idiot but she does deliver a very odd line when she calls Roger "the man of wanton morals".  I assume that clunky line is included to give the tiniest insight into Lizzie's mind-set.  We already know that the whole reason that Lizzie is with Brianna is that her father sent her to American as an indentured servant to protect her from a man with scurrilous intentions.  So it's likely that Lizzie is pre-disposed to read Brianna and Roger's body language and think the worst.  Where another person would see a lovers' quarrel, Lizzie sees an assault. 

20 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

And when the facts are finally laid out, he's still being confronted by the angry father demanding that he answer RIGHT NOW that he's willing to give up his entire life in his own time to live among the same people who treated him so badly to raise a child who might very well be that of his wife's rapist. 

Oooh I want to get in on this but I think it's off-topic for this thread.  Meet me in the speculation thread?

Edited December 25, 2018 by WatchrTina

[AuntieMame]

I meant Rogers feels about Brianna sullied by rape and a child of uncertain paternity. Note to self, make certain that pronouns refer back to names and proper nouns. Sorry about that. Rogers weeks away and staying at the stone circle ruminating on the injury done to “him” rather than Brianna just, just, irks me to no end. 

I actually have no problem exploring rape and the darker emotions but let’s explore them. Not use them as plot devices. Uncertain paternity, especially when one possibility is a rapist is difficult on the mother too. The joy of birth and the deep live mothers feel for their infant helps some, but not forever. 

I guess this is a very sensitive subject for me as I know two women and their now adult children who were the product of rape. There isn’t a hundred percent happy ending to that story no matter what is done and seeing this used so glibly is a bit difficult. 

I have to be careful too because I just read Drums of Autumn very recently so Lizzie’s inventory of the smells and bodily fluids on his mistress’s small clothes is fresh in my mind which in addition to all the other problematic subtext in the books is adding to my annoyance with DoA. I agree that Lizzie is probably traumatized by the man trying to buy her indenture for nefarious purposes. And that does make her part of the misunderstanding relatable. But Bri, Roger and Jaime not practicing any communication? Even Claire not saying at any point how kind and helpful Roger had always been? 

As others have mentioned, I wish they’d made Brianna tall as she was in the books. It would have been interesting to see the reaction of 18th century people. 

I forgot to mention, I like the medical stuff, I always have and that is one of the things that kept me going with the books. It is one of the ways I might make myself useful should I ever find myself stranded in the foreign land of the past. 

Even a bit of knowledge would be helpful. In one of the Poldark books, they make reference to an eye treatment where the physician near strangles the patient to force blood to the head and then places leeches behind the ears. Phwoar! 

[Haleth]

The only trouble I had with the sex scene was that we could see Sophie's ribs. Give that girl a PB&J sandwich!

The thing I love most about this part of the story is how Jamie and Clare gather a family that is not related by blood. It shouldn't matter whose DNA runs in heir bodies, family is defined by love. 

Edited December 24, 2018 by Haleth

[Lady Iris]

That was one episode of emotional whiplash. I was happy for Bree and Roger’s reunion, touched by their ceremony, was squicked out seeing Bree’s nudity and realistic love scene then bearing witness to an aural depiction of graphic rape. I’m not a book reader but I was instantly dreading the idea of a “who’s the baby daddy” storyline bec why would an author pass up that goldmine of drama *insert eyeroll* 

[Eureka]

20 hours ago, AEMom said:

  Reveal hidden contents

When Marsali was saying that it made me so sad thinking about Henri-Christian in the future.

That is the first thing I thought of too.

[Cdh20]

4 hours ago, Lady Iris said:

That was one episode of emotional whiplash. I was happy for Bree and Roger’s reunion, touched by their ceremony, was squicked out seeing Bree’s nudity and realistic love scene then bearing witness to an aural depiction of graphic rape. I’m not a book reader but I was instantly dreading the idea of a “who’s the baby daddy” storyline bec why would an author pass up that goldmine of drama *insert eyeroll* 

Non of us needed to have read the book to see where this was going!

[domina89]

On 12/24/2018 at 12:20 AM, AEMom said:

Also, I think that the major problem with Sophie is that she is not used to performing with an American accent, so she spends so much effort focusing on getting it right, that her overall performance suffers. Perhaps as she becomes more comfortable with it, we will see her performances improve. 

This is one thing that really bothers me. Both Frank and Claire have British accents. During Brianna's formative language years, I would think she would have mimicked her parents' way of speaking. I have two friends IRL who are American with British parents and they both have British accents- not as strong as their parents, granted, but certainly not what I consider "American."

[aemom]

8 minutes ago, domina89 said:

This is one thing that really bothers me. Both Frank and Claire have British accents. During Brianna's formative language years, I would think she would have mimicked her parents' way of speaking. I have two friends IRL who are American with British parents and they both have British accents- not as strong as their parents, granted, but certainly not what I consider "American."

Actually my next door neighbors are from England, and their kids were born here.  Both their kids have Canadian accents. I know other people where this happened as well. 

So I really think that it depends on the person and possibly how much they're exposed to the accent as a very small child: Were they raised at home by a parent or did they spend much of their day at daycare for example. 

[AuntieMame]

I rewatched the episode last night. Is anyone else finding the difference in Rogers looks without his beard so striking that he looks like a different person? 

As for Roger and Bree, the first scene reminded me that I originally found Rogers courtship very sweet. And then we had that terrible scene between them in the hotel which made them both look bad. 

There isn’t anything wrong with I’m not ready to make the serious commitment of marriage yet, but let’s take our courtship to the next level, but somehow Bree looked unreasonable saying this and Rogers “Hiw dare you even think about sleeping with me and losing your virginity?” was more than cringeworthy. 

If the Fanning guy’s hernia was causing that much pain? He was already in terrible shape. Many people live with hernias for months to years. I’m not saying this is a great idea but often they’re chronic rather than acute. I’m so grateful for modern medicine. I’m surprised Claire doesn’t get more pushback and trouble for her knowledge and skill. 

[areca]

On 12/24/2018 at 6:45 PM, Haleth said:

The only trouble I had with the sex scene was that we could see Sophie's ribs. Give that girl a PB&J sandwich!

 

Seeing ribs is not an indicator of ill health.  Rather quite the opposite, unless you see them at the clavicle.  I thought Sophie was beautiful.

Edited December 26, 2018 by areca

[Haleth]

4 hours ago, areca said:

Seeing ribs is not an indicator of ill health.  Rather quite the opposite, unless you see them at the clavicle.  I thought Sophie was beautiful.

I didn’t say she was unhealthy, just thin. 

[Petunia846]

On 12/23/2018 at 11:11 PM, Nidratime said:

When Ron Moore was more hands on with the show, people complained about him! The complaint I remembered the most was that Moore favored Frank over Jamie. That he spent more time with Frank than the book called for, not showing all his faults, and diminishing Jamie. So, apparently, no matter who runs the show, there are going to be people unhappy with decisions that are made.

Yeah, I've always thought Ron did more to muck up the show than he helped anything. I think the bigger issue is changes in the writers' room.

On 12/25/2018 at 8:45 AM, AEMom said:

Actually my next door neighbors are from England, and their kids were born here.  Both their kids have Canadian accents. I know other people where this happened as well. 

So I really think that it depends on the person and possibly how much they're exposed to the accent as a very small child: Were they raised at home by a parent or did they spend much of their day at daycare for example. 

Yeah, language acquisition research shows that children pick up accents from their peers, not their parents. I see it all the time at work.

[iMonrey]

Quote

I rewatched the episode last night. Is anyone else finding the difference in Rogers looks without his beard so striking that he looks like a different person? 

Yes, and I think he looks much better without the beard. 

[Pingaponga]

I don't find Sophie that bad of an actress, but I find her voice very distracting.  I know Brianna has an American accent, but I find Sophie's accent to be "flat".  I can't pinpoint what's wrong with it, and maybe it's just that compared to all of the gorgeous Scottish and English accents hers really stands out, but it just seems "flat" compared to everyone else.  (I'm Canadian, not American, so maybe that's why?)

Regarding all the comments about Frank's willingness to raise a child that wasn't his...am I remembering correctly that at some point Frank told Claire he knew he couldn't father children himself, which is why he accepted Brianna as his own?  Or was this something that happened in another book I read?

[Ziggy]

3 minutes ago, Pingaponga said:

I don't find Sophie that bad of an actress, but I find her voice very distracting.  I know Brianna has an American accent, but I find Sophie's accent to be "flat".  I can't pinpoint what's wrong with it, and maybe it's just that compared to all of the gorgeous Scottish and English accents hers really stands out, but it just seems "flat" compared to everyone else.  (I'm Canadian, not American, so maybe that's why?)

I've often wondered if her accent is part of the reason she is criticized, especially by Americans.  I just wondered if her accent is just so ordinary compared to the English and Scottish accents.  I think she's doing a wonderful mid-western accent, accept for the word "anything."  She doesn't not say that word correctly (according to me, a midwesterner).

I actually wonder if that's why this season's theme song is just not my favorite.  The first season we had the bagpipes, season two including a verse in French and then back to Scotland and season three had a Caribbean theme.  Those all felt fancy or exotic to me.  Now the music is just too ordinary.  It's very well done!!!  I just feel like it's nothing special.

[bettername2come]

On 12/24/2018 at 12:20 AM, AEMom said:

Also, I think that the major problem with Sophie is that she is not used to performing with an American accent, so she spends so much effort focusing on getting it right, that her overall performance suffers. Perhaps as she becomes more comfortable with it, we will see her performances improve. 

I agree. I did like that her real accent came through on the pronunciation of "anything." I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but it does seem that being raised by two English parents, they would have influenced her pronunciation somewhat, so Sophie probably could worry less about the accent because anywhere between American and English would be completely justifiable.

[Cdh20]

1 hour ago, Pingaponga said:

I don't find Sophie that bad of an actress, but I find her voice very distracting.  I know Brianna has an American accent, but I find Sophie's accent to be "flat".  I can't pinpoint what's wrong with it, and maybe it's just that compared to all of the gorgeous Scottish and English accents hers really stands out, but it just seems "flat" compared to everyone else.  (I'm Canadian, not American, so maybe that's why?)

Regarding all the comments about Frank's willingness to raise a child that wasn't his...am I remembering correctly that at some point Frank told Claire he knew he couldn't father children himself, which is why he accepted Brianna as his own?  Or was this something that happened in another book I read?

Yes, in epi 201 Frank revealed to Reverend Wakefield that he was unable to father children, so taking back already pregnant Claire was his only chance to be a father, & he took it.