S04.E12: Providence

[Athena]

Quote

Brianna confronts a violent figure from her past in an attempt to cope with her trauma. Roger befriends a fellow captive and endeavors to escape the Mohawk Village, while Fergus and Marsali plan a dangerous mission.

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.

[shelen]

Well, that was painful...

[cardigirl]

 Well, I am surprised that there are not more postings, seeing as there is a snowstorm on, I thought more people would be up early and watching.

I like Ric Rankin and I like Roger, but this episode felt pretty disjointed to me.  I'll have to rewatch to see if I like it more the second time around.  I'm guessing that we're not going to get much resolved by the end of this season, though. Cliffhangers will be: Brianna in labor,  Claire, Jamie and Ian with the Mohawk trying to rescue Roger, and Murtagh,  Fergus, and Marsali in peril on Fraser's Ridge. 

The story of the priest and his true love was kind of shocking.  And the music they played over Roger's run back to the village was (to me) kind of cliche. I love Adagio for Strings, but it has been used a lot.

I also felt like the 'visit' in prison should have been a bit more dramatic, but perhaps the book is not that dramatic either.

Still love Marsali and Fergus and would watch a series about them any day!

[areca]

Jesus Christ Rik Rankin.  That was some top tier acting across the board.  Fuuuuck.  The rest of the episode was semi-whatever, though was sort of "hmmm" about Lord John covering for the regulators.  You know he did it for Jamie though because Murtagh and Fergus are who they are.  But it really, really compromises him, and I'm not sure I like that.  

I also felt like the 'visit' in prison should have been a bit more dramatic, but perhaps the book is not that dramatic either.

I, for one, think it's waaaay more dramatic in the book.  I still don't understand why I don't loathe Steven Bonnett.  Maybe it's just the actor.

Anyway, one of the better episodes of the season for me.  I was riveted and it's been ultra-rare this season that's happened.

[IntrovertGal]

What a devastating episode! I was yelling at Roger not to turn back and save himself but I guess that's not in Roger's character, he is a good guy and while his mercy killing of the priest had devastating consequences (which he couldn't have anticipated), he at least ended the priest's suffering. Very powerful and moving stuff!

Fergus and Marsali were awesome as the husband and wife team who rescued Murtagh. More of their sweet relationship please! I'm much more invested in them than in Roger and Brianna.

Like cardigirl, I expected Brianna's prison visit to Bonnet to be more dramatic. And Bonnet totally freed himself and got away before the explosion right? So annoying that we are not rid of the raping bastard yet. He deserved to be burnt alive.

John Grey was being an awesome friend to Brianna, even though she really did not deserve it after how she treated him in the last episode. Still, I love that he is so noble and good and even covered for Fergus, Murtagh, etc. Brianna's little smile after John Grey lied to the policemen was great.

The middle part of the episode with Roger and the priest dragged a bit and I missed Jamie and Claire. I cannot believe that next week it's already the finale. Overall, this was a rather uneven season for me and definitely not my favourite. Still, there was good stuff in it and I'm not looking forward to Droughtlander.

[cardigirl]

I also meant to say that I thought Braeden Clarke, who plays the young Mohawk man, was excellent this episode. 

[NeenerNeener]

OK, so nobody who has watched the episode already thinks Bonnet died in the explosion at the jail. There's still a chance he'll get the ending he got in the book.  It's been so long since I read these books, in which one was Roger rescued from the hanging that ruined his vocal cords for singing? Was it the book that this season is (loosely) based on, or the next one?

It always surprises me when I watch the after-episode spots with the writers and they mention that they're actually filming "North Carolina/New York" in Scotland.

[AD55]

Haven't read any of the other comments, but wow. I loved this episode. And somebody give Richard Rankin an Emmy.

[GingerMarie]

Start to finish one of the best episodes of the series.  Not a fan of all the 'cliffhangers' will we have to wait for in Season 5.  I felt the scene in the prison with Brianna and SB was spot on.  She did not have to scream at him, hit him etc to get her point across.  Why let him think that the child would be a daily reminder of him and what he did.  Why give him that power.  LJG as always is great but he soon will have to pick a side.  Like the Civil War brother against brother.  F&M love them.  The scenes at the Indian village were beautiful and haunting at the same time.  We took their way of life away from them.  But like everything 'time marches on' with or without you.  ROGERl 'enough said'.  PEACE

[AD55]

All the time I was watching this episode, I was thinking of the Indigenous Peoples March and the abuse leveled at one of the leaders, a Vietnam Vet and keeper of the Sacred Pipe. It makes me so ashamed. 

I thought the acting was mostly amazing. Fergus and Marsali are wonderful. I love their relationship. The expression on the face of the priest's lover as he was tortured and that of the Mohawk man who loved her as he watched her walk into the flame were heartbreaking. As always, I loved Lord John in this episode. The actor playing the priest made me feel compassion toward him in a way that I don't recall experiencing when I read the book. I thought that Sophie was fine in her scenes. I think she suffers by comparison with the stellar cast that surrounds her, but she has definitely improved.

I disliked Maril Davis's (I think it was her) comment that Jamie's letter to Brianna is motivated primarily by his worry that she will be hurt if she seeks revenge. I don't believe that's fair to Jamie. Of course, he wants her to be safe, but I think he genuinely believes that she needs to find a way to let that natural impulse go to move on.

It's a very unpopular opinion I know, but I'm bored with Claire and Jamie's relationship after nearly 4 years. I'm glad to see the focus on other characters.

ETA: I was so bored by series 3 that I almost didn't watch this one. But I got intrigued reading the comments here and subscribed to Starz streaming. I'm glad I did--I'm mostly loving this season.

Edited January 20, 2019 by AD55

[Ziggy]

I'm very curious to see what they do next week.  They can't possibly finish the book ... can they?  It's been awhile since I read Drums, but I do remember that the Fiery Cross starts with that (infamous) Gathering, so I have a fairly good idea of how much they have not covered this season.

1 hour ago, NeenerNeener said:

It's been so long since I read these books, in which one was Roger rescued from the hanging that ruined his vocal cords for singing? Was it the book that this season is (loosely) based on, or the next one?

 

I'm pretty sure that was in the Fiery Cross.

[nodorothyparker]

This wouldn't have been a bad episode were I not conscious of the time ticking down throughout while thinking about how much story is now left with only one episode and what a rushed mess the finale is likely to be as a result.  But every season they do this and every season the result is the same.  We end up with a speed reader version of an ending that doesn't have time to hit any real emotional beats after meandering about and wasting what feels like the front half of the season on a lot of nothing happening.

Brianna visiting Bonnet in jail is never going to make much sense beyond the big gesture that books and movies always want to do in this situation.  I get that it gives her some feeling of closure before he's executed in light of Jamie's letter (although even that is undercut by the show decision to have Jamie sending Murtagh after Bonnet for a killing to be named later), but she's not new to this time period anymore.  They're all in the situation they're in because Bonnet already wriggled out of one date with the hangman and your family let him have access.  Why give him that further claim on you by naming him as father?  I admit my knowledge of how that bit of stupidity bears out over the next books colors my feelings on this.  I'll give the show jailbreak credit though for being better than the book version by making it about Murtagh and tying those stories together rather than a convoluted plot to free Bonnet that resulted in yet another hostage situation that required our characters to again be uncharacteristically stupid. 

I like that Fergus and Marsali are being given more to do to include them in the plotting, and the actors' playing off each other was really lovely.  Lord John is probably going to have some questions to answer later about the jailbreak occurring under his nose that he was supposedly none the wiser on, but if anybody can pull it off it's him.  Once again, we get evidence of the level of devotion he has for all things Fraser that often doesn't seem to be returned in full equal measure.

The writing for Roger was really terrific, especially in the lodge discussion, and the actor did good work with it in showing just how completely absurd his entire situation really is and his utter frustration with it and his own role in continuing it.  The dialogue nicely threaded the needle of him not blurting out the time travel element of the story while conveying the sheer lengths he had gone to to chase Brianna across time and space only to have been beaten and sold as a captive half a continent away to show for it.  Liked his comment at the end about returning to "the idiot hut."  The parallel between his and Brianna's story to that of the recalcitrant priest choosing to die over some theological hair splitting seemed a little too on the nose, but at least the tie-in makes it feel less like this randomly terrible thing that happens than it does on the page.  While Barber's Adagio for Strings is indeed a great piece of music, it's been used so much in so many TV and movie productions over the years that the hitting of those first strings signals you that something terrible is about to go down.  So it's not like anything that comes after that can ever be all that shocking.

There's just too much story left heading into the final episode.

[caws 727]

I feel like they will save Roger pretty quickly in the finale and give us a little of his walk about.  And just end with either the baby being born and Roger returning to River Run or them all going to the ridge. Save the Gathering for the next season. 

[AD55]

18 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

I'm very curious to see what they do next week.  They can't possibly finish the book ... can they?  It's been awhile since I read Drums, but I do remember that the Fiery Cross starts with that (infamous) Gathering, so I have a fairly good idea of how much they have not covered this season.

I'm pretty sure that was in the Fiery Cross.

I speculate that they rush through Roger's rescue and Ian's sacrifice, Roger is left standing in the woods looking gobsmacked after C&J's revelation and Jamie's tongue lashing, they cut to Claire arriving in the nick of to deliver Brianna's baby followed by a cut to Fraser's ridge. We get a bit of Roger at the stones cursing himself once again for a fool and his stumbling into the cabin to proclaim his devotion to Bree and the unnamed child. It's way too much plot for one episode, but I bet they cram it all in in typically clumsy fashion.

Whenever I watch an episode of Poldark, I am stunned at how much they manage to pack into one episode and still keep the pacing spot on. I have no idea how they do it, but I wish Debbie Horsfield would take time out of her busy schedule to visit the Outlander writers room.

[mrsjoe]

Thank goodness we spent almost a whole episode of Brianna recovering from a fall in Scotland, not even showing the Murrays, so that we can just fly through these last two episodes. I thought we would at least get Claire and Jamie with the Mohawk today, seeing as that happens before the fire, and I figured the after intro clip was the Mohawk sampling Jamie’s whiskey. Unless we discover next episode that’s why the barrels were near the fire? That would be frustrating. The preview makes it seem next week will be a rescue mission instead of a negotiation, but we know Ian will end up staying, so I  am thinking that’s a fake out. 

Wonder if Roger will baptize the baby. I assume it will be the baby’s uncle who asks, but how would he know that Roger is “son of priest”? Maybe they’ll not waste time on that next week? 

I'm not sure my feelings on the Steven Bonnet escape not being corrupt soldiers and instead the result of Fergus’s Murtagh rescue team conveniently dropping keys.

[Ziggy]

Why did Lord John recognize Fergus?  Didn't they meet just the one time, in Jamaica?  I think I need to just accept this as a Gabaldonian coincidence, because I do not believe he would ever remember Fergus under real world circumstances.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well. Based on everyone’s comments, another episode without Jamie and Claire? I’ll just wait until next week and just watch the last two episodes at the same time. I have no interest in episodes that don’t have them in it.

This explains the dream I had with Jamie and Claire last night.

[Ziggy]

48 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

another episode without Jamie and Claire?

That's true, but the episode was about 3/4 through by the time I realized it.  So while I did miss them, I still really enjoyed the episode.

I thought it was an excellent episode!  I know earlier I complained that I didn't think they'd be able to finish the book, but I think I had similar feelings about Season 3.  Honestly, I don't have complaints about the pacing, I just wish they had more than 13 episodes to tell the story.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Ziggy

[cardigirl]

44 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Well. Based on everyone’s comments, another episode without Jamie and Claire? I’ll just wait until next week and just watch the last two episodes at the same time. I have no interest in episodes that don’t have them in it.

This explains the dream I had with Jamie and Claire last night.

Based on the novels' directions I feel you may continue to be disappointed as the series continues.

Just finished rewatching, and now I LOVED IT and it is one of my favorite episodes of the series.  Right up there with the first and last episodes of season 2.  Give everyone all the awards!  

Edited January 20, 2019 by cardigirl

[GHScorpiosRule]

Just now, cardigirl said:

Based on the novels' directions I feel you may be more disappointed as the series continues.

I’ve read the series, and Jamie and Claire were still a major part of them, and if Sam and Cait are relegated to guest stars, then they’ll lose me as a viewer. Because no WAY can Sophie carry this show.

[AheadofStraight]

It may just be the horrendous mood I'm in today but I could barely get through this episode and fast forwarded through many parts of it, particularly Brianna. Since there are so many positive comments on it, maybe I'll give it another go later. I did think Rik was amazing. 

Edited January 20, 2019 by AheadofStraight
Typo

[AD55]

2 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

While Barber's Adagio for Strings is indeed a great piece of music, it's been used so much in so many TV and movie productions over the years that the hitting of those first strings signals you that something terrible is about to go down.  So it's not like anything that comes after that can ever be all that shocking.

At least it wasn't Jeff Buckley's cover of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah," but I also wish they'd chosen something else. I'm glad they opted for music rather than the priest's screams of agony, though.

[Hannah Lee]

Add me to those who think Fergus and Marsali are more compelling to watch than Brianna and Roger.   They are just delightful.  I know they had more of the 'caper' plot line this episode, but all through this season they have been one of the highlights for me.   Roger's scenes were well shot and acted and I loved seeing more of the Mohawk at home, I would have rather spent more time there, then multiple episodes of Roger's walk through the Eastern US.  But it was tragic how people clinging to dogmatic approaches, or inserting themselves into other's business,  led to so much unnecessary pain and suffering.   

Brianna's scenes were the low spot of the episode for me, not sure whether it was the acting (Sophie seemed very flat again after doing much better last episode), or my distaste for the whole "have to face my attacker/inadvertently let him escape" plot.  I know people process trauma differently, and some people may benefit from that kind of confrontation, but that situation/scene just didn't work for me for a whole host of reasons.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Hannah Lee

[GeorgieNY]

I’m so surprised by all of the posters who loved this episode. I was so bored. I said out loud (to no one) this is BORING. I’m so bored! The end with the fire was devastating but the entire middle of Rogers captivity just dragged and dragged. And I still just think Sophie is not a good actor. 

[Quickbeam]

Richard Rankin was amazing, so expressive. Sophie drags down every scene she is in. It’s like she hangs off of the skill of all the other better actors. I’m never going to come around to liking her as a casting choice.

 

Tha actor playing the priest was really eye catching. I had no opinion on him from the book but whew, a handsome man. Did justice to the part. 

[LoveLeigh]

15 minutes ago, GeorgieNY said:

And I still just think Sophie is not a good actor. 

Sophie seems so present day to me, in her manner of speech and deportment. She does not even seem like a girl of the 1960s. I almost expect her to take out a cell phone and start texting. 

5 minutes ago, Quickbeam said:

Sophie drags down every scene she is in. It’s like she hangs off of the skill of all the other better actors. I’m never going to come around to liking her as a casting choice.

Ditto.

Edited January 20, 2019 by DakotaLavender

[Noneofyourbusiness]

Why didn't the priest just convince them to get another priest to do the baptism since he couldn't?

[Noneofyourbusiness]

Of course, that's the kind of plot hole created by adaptation, since the rationale is a bit different in the book.

[ruby24]

In the book, didn't Bonnet save Bree's life by dragging her out of the exploding building? And then he gives her a gemstone, right? I had a feeling they weren't going to let that happen on the show. 

[Nidratime]

Quote

The story of the priest and his true love was kind of shocking.  And the music they played over Roger's run back to the village was (to me) kind of cliche. I love Adagio for Strings, but it has been used a lot.

I love that piece of music and when it popped up, I knew people were going to comment on how much it's used. However, that was a powerful scene that surprisingly went on and on, not letting us off the hook and so, my emotional connection to the music in combination with the tragedy we were forced to witness made me tear up. I felt so sad for everyone, although for one moment I did wonder if the Native American man was going to toss the baby in after them. In any event, I read this book long ago and I can't remember how it ends at all. So, I'm not sitting here thinking about how much they have left to fit in. They, no doubt, will cut out stuff just as they added plot by keeping Murtagh alive and making him a part of the action.

I definitely wouldn't have visited Bonnet if I were Bree, but that was in the book, so....

 

Quote

Whenever I watch an episode of Poldark, I am stunned at how much they manage to pack into one episode and still keep the pacing spot on. I have no idea how they do it, but I wish Debbie Horsfield would take time out of her busy schedule to visit the Outlander writers room.

The Poldark books are much shorter and don't require jumping all over the world and different time periods, so not an easy comparison, show-wise. Frankly, I prefer the 1970's adaptation. The current one has cut out too much of the community around the Poldarks, including Jud, for crying out loud! For what it needs to cover, I think Poldark spends too much time with shots of people riding along the shore and staring out at the sea.

[Gachnar31]

Woof. I didn't think this show was capable of making something more boring than "The Search," but today they proved me wrong. That was brutally boring. 

Claire didn't have a line, but we spent so. much. time. on the priest. The actor did a great job with the role, but I just really don't care about Roger, and the poor guy was stuck in Roger's story, so...I was mostly just waiting for his scenes to end but they just went on and on.

I did enjoy the Wilmington stuff, and Lord John remains the greatest. 

[Nidratime]

Ooh, wanted to add, this episode reminded me of last season's Heaven and Earth in that, in one episode, it introduces a new character(s), gives them a relationship with a main character, and then makes us (or me) care about the person just before the person dies. In this case, it was two people.

Also, I saw someone make a very neat comment on another board. They said that it's interesting that this episode gives us another child that will be raised by a father not their own, i.e., the Native American/French baby and what might be her new parent. It's an Outlander theme!

[shelen]

I know Sophie's acting is inconsistent and often flat, but you know what they say, if you want to improve your game, you play against a better player.

All the other actors are so much better and, hopefully, it will raise her game.

Personally I think she got cast because somebody lost a bet.

[Nidratime]

For those of you who commented on the use of Adagio for Strings.

Why Outlander used the saddest song ever to end the penultimate episode

https://ew.com/tv/2019/01/20/outlander-providence-episode-sad-song-adagio-for-strings/

[Squirrely]

That fucking priest had more screen time and a more detailed story than Young Ian -a main character of Drums, and quite entertaining with it- had the whole season! How are we supposed to miss someone who was barely there? 

Richard Rankin was amazing, though. That's some of the best acting I've seen in this series, and there have been some pretty amazing scenes among the filler bullshit. 

The show runners really piss me off. They're either going to cram 3 episodes of material into 1, or leave us hanging and be even more off pace next season, which they clearly can't afford to do. It's not like the books get smaller as we go and a lot happens in The Fiery Cross. 

[Scarlett45]

8 hours ago, Quickbeam said:

Richard Rankin was amazing, so expressive. Sophie drags down every scene she is in. It’s like she hangs off of the skill of all the other better actors. I’m never going to come around to liking her as a casting choice.

 

Tha actor playing the priest was really eye catching. I had no opinion on him from the book but whew, a handsome man. Did justice to the part. 

Yes I agree. The actors portraying Marsali and Fergus are such a joy as well. (I will look them up)

My heart must be black as night, who would leave their infant child and climb onto a funeral pyre?!! The man didn’t feel staying alive to be with you was worth it- crying at his death is perfectly understandable. Committing suicide by FIRE Is asinine. Roger told him the truth- either recommitting to the priesthood OR being a husband/father was better than allowing himself to be tortured. 

[LadyBrochTuarach]

Bloody hell. 

I dont even know where to start. 

 

 

Where the hell is Wee Ian’s story line? Have the writers forgotten he existed? Jeez! It’s like the entire season “Ian’s off hunting.” For eff sakes. As someone mentioned, how can we miss a character we never saw? 

 

Priest Alexandre’s acting was spot on. He was so great and I was sucked into his storyline. Although I was right alongside Roger calling him an idiot! Also, he was eye catching. I’ll be googling him shortly. The captivity dragged on a bit but I could live with it, IF we were 3 episodes behind where we are now! What the heck show writers?! All the filler BS in the front half of the season, dragged out scenes with Bree, Murtagh storyline being made up and shoved in (I’m not sure how he’s going to escape being a wanted man this time), and now you give us NO Jamie and Claire, and try and cram a HUGE chunk of story into the last two episodes? You have got to be joking. “Ha, just kidding, there are actually 4 episodes left, but they all star Bree from front to back!” 

Fuck sakes. 

 

12 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I’ve read the series, and Jamie and Claire were still a major part of them, and if Sam and Cait are relegated to guest stars, then they’ll lose me as a viewer. Because no WAY can Sophie carry this show.

I do agree with this and want to high five you. I’m feeling for Sam and Cait who carried this damn show from season 1, made it amazing, and are now being shoved aside because someone decided the story doesn’t need to be about Jamie and Claire anymore. I’d be pissed. 

 

Sophie is hit and miss for me. Some episodes she does well, and some she doesn’t. I wish that she would have had some more training with her accent so that she isn’t so focused on it during her scenes. I think she may do surprisingly well if she didn’t have to do the American accent. Look, they’ve changed so much in this show already, and make stuff up, they could have let her keep some of her natural accent. 

 

I was all for Murtagh returning when the change was made last season, but now I’m disliking it. I hope they make it better next season, and worthwhile. Or I may have to hop on the “Murtagh should have died at Culloden” train. Does that make me a horrible person? I don’t know. 

 

My sister in law who only read the first book keeps asking me stuff as episodes go on. I’ve gotten to the point that I’m saying I have no damn idea anymore, instead of trying to beat around the bush with an answer that doesn’t give stuff away. Because I actually don’t know. I can’t even tell her Murtagh doesn’t survive in the books, or she’ll never watch Outlander with me again! She’s so bored with the season. When I reminded her this morning that it’s on tonight (we watch together and record the episodes so we can skip commercials, thank goodness for technology 😬) and she LITERALLY responded “do we have to?” I just about hit the floor laughing. 

 

I’m forgetting what Jamie and Claire look like. Maybe we’ll be graced with a guest appearance next episode. 😑🙄

Aside from Bree scenes, I liked this episode. I think it was quite strong. I was also okay with the music choice. I think it’s emotionally impactful, and evoked a lot of feels that I haven’t had in a Outlander yet this season. Except the one scene Sam and Cait got last episode. 

I remain forever and ever in love with Fergus and Marsali. And the baby just hanging out in a bassinet balanced on the back of the wagon. Priceless. That is all. 

3 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

 

My heart must be black as night, who would leave their infant child and climb onto a funeral pyre?!! The man didn’t feel staying alive to be with you was worth it- crying at his death is perfectly understandable. Committing suicide by FIRE Is asinine. Roger told him the truth- either recommitting to the priesthood OR being a husband/father was better than allowing himself to be tortured. 

Oh, this. So much this. One would think you would stay with your child in life, the one thing that you have of the person you loved. No, I’ll leave my child behind to be cared for by the people who are torturing the man I love, and burn in the fire along with the man who couldn’t make a sacrifice for us to be a family. Does this happen in the book? I don’t recall. I didn’t reread before the season aired as I didn’t want it to ruin tv watching for me as it did last year, but now I’m definitely going back to read the ending so that I can have taken peace of mind and Jamie/Claire time. 

 

One last thing. The opening credit I thought was the men drinking Jamie’s whiskey at Ian's wedding. I was so looking forward to it as I wanted to see wee Ian again. Did anyone else think it was that as well? 

[tennisgurl]

Oh, we were so close to getting rid of that Bonnet, and letting his nasty ass go up in flames. So close! But now, everyone will have to deal with the fact that letting this asshole run free. Again!

There were a lot of good things in this episode, and Roger had a great showing throughout. Richard Rankin was amazingly compelling, especially when he was ranting about looking out for number one now, and his combination of frustration with the priest and with himself for getting himself into this awful situation in the first place, and his horror over what is now his life, and what he has to look forward to now. And yet, he still went back to mercy kill the priest, because he is a good guy, and no matter how many speeches he gives about how much he needs to look out for himself from now on, that hasn't changed. Poor Roger, it just keeps getting worse and worse, and he gets more and more trauma he gets to deal with. And the guy who played the priest was really good. And underneath the blood and grime, he was clearly VERY attractive. 

My main issue with the episode is that it was kind of dull, especially as we get close to the end of the season. I mean, we made some progress with the plot, mostly involving the jail, but I missed seeing Jamie and Claire and Young Ian, and it feels like we are just slowly moving towards the finale, without a whole lot of plot happening. Like, we only have so much time left, guys, can we move on a little bit?! I know that a lot of this happened in the book as well, but it felt like we spent a lot of time twiddling our thumbs this season, when we missed out on a lot of good stuff.

I thought that the sort of show down with Bree and Bonnet was pretty dramatic, but I think it really should have felt bigger, or more intense. Normally I like Sophie's acting just fine (especially her body language and facial expressions), but I was a bit let down here. I just didnt feel her conflicting emotions here, she just read as rather bored when she was talking to Bonnet. I know I cant compare Bonnet and Bree to Jamie and Randall, but the way that Jamie would look at him was just so...full of emotions. Like he was about to boil over with rage, fear, and determination to end this fucker, even if he couldn't do it right then. Bree just acted like this was a gross guy she didnt want to be around, like a guy who smells really bad on the subway. 

The ending was cliche, but I admit to being caught up in the drama of it all. The acting of everyone was really great, and the imagine of the healer woman crawling on her dying lover and them both going up in flame was a very powerful imagine. Granted, when it was over, I was like "wow, that baby just got orphaned for reasons that could have been super easily avoided if her dad had just found another priest or made some stuff up, or if her mom hadn't killed herself dramatically", but it was still quite poetically tragic. 

 Fergus and Marsali are such couple goals. I love them so much. And the actors have great, fun chemistry together. I totally buy them as a couple that love being together, and getting into adventures as a family. 

Lord John is such a good friend, helping Bree try to get closure, and even covering for her family, even if it means lying to his own countrymen, and technically committing treason. Which is certainly for Jamie, as he would do anything for Jamie, but I dont think he would have hung Bree out to dry either.  I wonder if that will end up coming back to bite him later? Bonnet might end up getting caught, and could try to bargain for his life with information that Bree and Lord John knew the people breaking into jail, so obviously were covering for them. 

[Pestilentia]

7 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

Committing suicide by FIRE Is asinine.

And yet the custom of a widow's self immolation has existed for ages across many cultures- Sati/suttee. 

For me I thought this episode wasted an awful lot of time on Roger inside that lovely leaf hut when there is so much to yet get through. 

I just did not care about Priest man and his ridiculous "ethics."

11 hours ago, shelen said:

Personally I think she got cast because somebody lost a bet.

Indeed.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Pestilentia

[cardigirl]

3 hours ago, LadyBrochTuarach said:

My sister in law who only read the first book keeps asking me stuff as episodes go on. I’ve gotten to the point that I’m saying I have no damn idea anymore, instead of trying to beat around the bush with an answer that doesn’t give stuff away. Because I actually don’t know. I can’t even tell her Murtagh doesn’t survive in the books, or she’ll never watch Outlander with me again! She’s so bored with the season. When I reminded her this morning that it’s on tonight (we watch together and record the episodes so we can skip commercials, thank goodness for technology 😬) and she LITERALLY responded “do we have to?” I just about hit the floor laughing. 

Do you not have access to on demand? You don’t have to ‘record’ the episodes, and can watch as soon after midnight as you want to, Sunday morning. 

[CABINET]

I have just joined this forum because I am so angry with this episode and it is comforting to know that there are others out there who found it boring and a waste of what little remaining time they have - just one more episode.

They did this in series three as well, although there I was very grateful for the time they took with the first four episodes, which I loved.  Nonetheless the end of the series was a hot mess with everything being so rushed.

Why did they waste so much time earlier on with Bree staggering around in the highlands and then Roger being dragged behind a horse (way to keep your new merchandise in good condition so you can get the best value out of him) only to keep in this horrible plotline with the priest.

I couldn't agree more with those who have said "why have we seen so little of Ian".  

When I think how much I loved the first two series it makes me very sad.

I love Jamie and Claire (well let's be honest I love Jamie and quite like Claire) so why are they missing in action from this episode and that one earlier in the season.

[LadyAmalthea]

18 hours ago, Ziggy said:

Why did Lord John recognize Fergus?  Didn't they meet just the one time, in Jamaica?  I think I need to just accept this as a Gabaldonian coincidence, because I do not believe he would ever remember Fergus under real world circumstances.

I didn’t even recognise Lord John in the scene until Fergus called him by name!

 

The Idiot Hut indeed, it’s hard to muster much sympathy for the Priest and his Completely Avoidable Death. I found Roger’s speech utterly self serving, likely far more than I was meant to, but kudos to Rankin - very well acted.  

[Scarlett45]

1 hour ago, Pestilentia said:

And yet the custom of a widow's self immolation has existed for ages across many cultures- Sati/suttee. 

For me I thought this episode wasted an awful lot of time on Roger inside that lovely leaf hut when there is so much to yet get through. 

I just did not care about Priest man and his ridiculous "ethics."

Indeed.

 

Yes I’m familiar with sati. I still think it’s asinine, but when one feels a cultural pressure or duty to perform the ritual, I have empathy, to willingly place yourself on a funeral pyre when your lover has been deemed a traitor and leave your infant behind is asinine.

There were no indications that her community would expect her to do this  

Why would she do such a thing?!!!

(Bolding mine) Yes I agree his ethics were ridiculous.

 

4 hours ago, LadyBrochTuarach said:

Oh, this. So much this. One would think you would stay with your child in life, the one thing that you have of the person you loved. No, I’ll leave my child behind to be cared for by the people who are torturing the man I love, and burn in the fire along with the man who couldn’t make a sacrifice for us to be a family.

Yes!!! I understand grief makes people do all sorts of things, but suicide by fire is excruciatingly painful. It’s not as if she had a cultural pressure or duty to do such and not performing the ritual would have social consequence for her baby.

It wasn’t romantic to me it was tragic (which I think the show runners conveyed in Roger’s face). 

[Nidratime]

Quote

I love Jamie and Claire (well let's be honest I love Jamie and quite like Claire) so why are they missing in action from this episode and that one earlier in the season.

Over time, the books build a community around Jamie and Claire of people connected to them and the show is following suit. In order to care about those people you have to spend time on them, tell their stories.  Jamie and Claire are still the glue that binds everyone together. But they can't possibly be everywhere, in every scene. At this stage of the story, as it's being adapted, Jamie, Claire, and Ian are hunting for Roger. Nothing important happens until they get to him, so why spend TV time just showing them trekking towards New York? And, why would they bother doing so if Roger was so unimportant we didn't see what he was going through?  Besides, after over four years of being in every episode, I'm guessing Caitriona and Sam are grateful for some time off.

I'm glad I can't remember every detail of the books because I'm not looking for every plot detail and making myself unhappy when every box isn't checked.

[Haleth]

I didn't realize that Jamie and Claire were missing until the end of the episode.  Getting more time with Fergus and Marsali was a pleasure and I've always loved Roger.  

I don't recall too many details from the end of the book but I can see how the writers can get the Roger/Ian/Mohawk resolution in plus the baby's birth.  Save all of the angst between Bree and Roger for next season.  Surely the Day that Never Ends can be cut down to one episode so the rest of Drums can carry over to next season.

[Nidratime]

Yes, if *anything* I do want them to cut down the first part of The Fiery Cross. It's a major stumbling block for many readers. *I* stopped reading the books because of it. I'm hoping to try again, via listening to the CDs, so I can actually get past it and continue the story. I'm happy this show is pushing me to do it because I hear that some of the books after that are pretty good. So, yeah.... Whatever is crucial at the end of this current book that doesn't get transferred to screen could surely be incorporated into the first part of next season. After all, this is an adaptation, not a carbon copy.

[cardigirl]

Perhaps it's this forum, which developed soon after Television Without Pity, which was full of snark, but since the beginning of season 2 I read a lot of complaining against the showrunners about how they are not doing this show correctly.  Not enough sex, too much sex, not enough naked Jamie, too much Frank, on and on and on.  Every season has had much to recommend it, in my view. This is one of the most beautiful shows on television, the way it is filmed, lighted and costumed. It's like watching a movie every week. I enjoy it as such.

I miss the recaps they used to write for the episodes. The writer of recaps for this site for the first season was excellent and always pointed out things that made me laugh (or smirk) about the logic (or lack thereof) of the story line.  I have a couple of friends I discuss the show with who have not read the books, and they are always disappointed that Jamie and Claire are not in the episodes more.  I don't know what to tell them other than that the books cover a lot of time and many characters, and that we're probably going to be following those stories as much as Jamie and Claire in the future.

Perhaps the show should have ended with the reunion in the print shop.

Edited January 21, 2019 by cardigirl

[CABINET]

42 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

Over time, the books build a community around Jamie and Claire of people connected to them and the show is following suit. In order to care about those people you have to spend time on them, tell their stories.  Jamie and Claire are still the glue that binds everyone together. But they can't possibly be everywhere, in every scene. At this stage of the story, as it's being adapted, Jamie, Claire, and Ian are hunting for Roger. Nothing important happens until they get to him, so why spend TV time just showing them trekking towards New York? And, why would they bother doing so if Roger was so unimportant we didn't see what he was going through?  Besides, after over four years of being in every episode, I'm guessing Caitriona and Sam are grateful for some time off.

I'm glad I can't remember every detail of the books because I'm not looking for every plot detail and making myself unhappy when every box isn't checked.

Who is asking to see more trekking towards New York?

In the book Jamie, Claire and Ian were there during the incident with the priest.  Jamie had met Roger and was worrying about Claire and her wellbeing.  They had been negotiating with the Mohawk.  We could have had that couldn't we?

[areca]

6 hours ago, LadyBrochTuarach said:

I do agree with this and want to high five you. I’m feeling for Sam and Cait who carried this damn show from season 1, made it amazing, and are now being shoved aside because someone decided the story doesn’t need to be about Jamie and Claire anymore. I’d be pissed. 

The books in the end are ALL ABOUT Bree and Roger.  They've been the main characters for quite some time.  Rik Rankin was great casting, but not casting Bree properly will destroy the series.  Cat and Sam have no right to be angry at all if they didn't read the source material and know what they were signing on for.

[Nidratime]

Quote

In the book Jamie, Claire and Ian were there during the incident with the priest.  Jamie had met Roger and was worrying about Claire and her wellbeing.  They had been negotiating with the Mohawk.  We could have had that couldn't we?

I honestly can't remember what happened in the book, but of course, I've just watched the episode. It's fresh in my mind, and I think it would've been a shame if we watered down the impact of Roger, the Priest, and the Native American woman by interjecting the whole gang and took the focus off of him, robbing him of his moment. To me, it really highlighted the kind of man Roger is and the struggle he's been going through since the 20th Century. And, I thought his closing line was perfect. In a sense -- although he didn't literally allow himself to be burned in a fire based on his faith or throw himself into the pyre with his lover -- he symbolically did the same thing. He followed the woman he loved into the abyss,and off and on he's been struggling with that decision. He advises the priest to just take the easy way out. Baptize the kid or run off with the woman and give up his calling. But Roger didn't take his own advice. He followed Brianna to the past, he hesitated to touch the stones and leave the 18th Century after his horrendous experiences, and he went back to give the priest a faster death despite knowing he was condemning himself to continued servitude. Based upon his own estimation, *he* is as big an idiot as the Father.

Idiot hut, indeed.