S04.E13: Man of Worth

[Noneofyourbusiness]

11 minutes ago, taurusrose said:

I love Ian and his parting scene with Jamie and Claire was very, very moving.  Well done by all. Will we ever see him again?

Yes. He returns near the end of the fifth book. He's been married to a Mohawk woman named Wakyo'teyehsnonhsa, but they broke up after the strain caused to their relationship by several miscarriages. When she appears in the seventh book, she has remarried to man named Ahkote'ohskennonton and has three children: an infant girl, a girl of about three, and a boy of about five who may be Ian's.

Ian marries a Quaker woman named Rachel Hunter whose brother is a surgeon for the revolutionaries and they have a son.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Noneofyourbusiness

[Cdh20]

17 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Can we all just take a moment to appreciate how Sam Heughan is the king of the single tear? (Sigh.)

Really-how can he do that? Does he do it in every take? 

 

Plus he was extra pretty tonight!

Edited January 28, 2019 by Cdh20

[Cdh20]

17 hours ago, anamika said:

I intermittently watched season one, skipped two and three and am now watching season 4. Enjoyed the season.

Don't you want to know what happened in season 2 & 3? Oh you probably read the books,  right?

I have a funny story about this-my mom was here for a few weeks in the fall, so she watched season 1 (up until epi 13 I think), & when she went home I told her to catch up on Netflix, before season 4, which she did NOT! So she starts drving season 4, & after the first episode, she calls & is  "WTH-they've been married for 24 yrs? What did I miss?" Sheesh, mom, you have no idea! 

15 hours ago, Ziggy said:

Murtagh and Jocasta :-)  (Can't believe the writers thought no one would see that coming.)

We all saw that coming!

[Glaze Crazy]

On second watch (well I noticed it on first watch but failed to comment on it) I think they made a mistake in the last scene with the order from Governor Tryon to Jamie. He reads it as "hunt down and kill the fugitive Murtagh Fitzgibbons." I really doubt that the Crown or the Governor would send out a direct order to one citizen to kill another British citizen without bringing that person in to appear before the courts for trial. Even if Murtagh had already been sentenced to death, (like Bonnet, who was also cooling his heels in gaol and waiting at the behest of the legal system to act on his previous sentence) which I don't think Murtagh had been in the courts, unless I missed that minor detail. Even so, if he was under a death sentence it isn't up to a regular citizen, even militia, to carry that out outside of judicial oversight. I think that order from the Governor should have been more in the lines of "capture and return to justice." Either way they would have still had their conflict of interests cliffhanger for the next season.

[Noneofyourbusiness]

1 hour ago, Glaze Crazy said:

which I don't think Murtagh had been in the courts, unless I missed that minor detail.

You did not.

[Haleth]

I truly laughed out loud when the Murtagh/Jocasta scene cut from her throwing a drink in his face to them in bed.  Good for them!  Murtagh's comment that the whisky tasted like a woman was both cheesy and sexy.  And yes, Jamie and Claire caught the vibe that something was going on between them.

Loved the back story re Otter Tooth and that we saw him in the 20th c.  Loved that Roger got to beat the crap out of Jamie until he was exhausted.  "You cost me a lad I love." [sic]  Really, Jamie?  Shall we look back to how the whole incident began? 

I definitely got misty when Bree and Roger ran to each other, something else that was cheesy but well placed.  Like other posters I haven't gotten an epic romance vibe between them, mostly because I cannot stand Bree.

20 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

How did Roger even know to look for Brianna at River Run?

Claire, Jamie, and Roger had a lot of time to talk on the way back.  I don't know where they parted, but I would guess it was Wilmington, not far from RR.

Wow, the nonreaders are really pissed about trading Ian for Roger.  

[aemom]

10 hours ago, Biggie B said:

I didn't realize the Native American man in the opening scene was Otter Tooth. 

Same here.  It's rather late when I watch, so sometimes I miss the subtleties.

 

10 hours ago, Biggie B said:

I'm considering re-reading some of the books, it's been so long. But I sort of enjoy watching not remembering everything as well. It's sort of liberating - I can just let the show wash over me. 

It's been 16 years since I read the first 5 books (all that existed at the time) and then I've read each one since.  But I've read each only once, so I remember the important plot points, but not all the details.  Maybe I will pick some of them up again.

[WatchrTina]

On 1/28/2019 at 7:11 AM, Haleth said:

"You cost me a lad I love." [sic]  Really, Jamie?  Shall we look back to how the whole incident began? 

In Jamie's mind the whole incident began when Roger walked away from his newly hand-fasted wife -- Jamie's daughter -- on their wedding night and she subsequently fell into the clutches of a rapist.  So while I'm sure Jamie is consumed with regret at having mistaken Roger for Bonnet, he still feels the root cause of all this woe -- the assault on his daughter and the loss of a beloved nephew -- is this complete stranger who wedded and bedded his daughter and then walked away from her.  Jamie remembers HIS wedding night, you know.  I imagine he remembers the wonder and awe and all-consuming passion he felt for Claire on that night and then looks at Roger and thinks "You walked away from your bride on your wedding night?  What kind of man ARE you?"  

In the episode Roger clarifies that Brianna sent him away and that he DID try to come back. That's going to help Jamie's opinion of him.  He's acquainted with fiery-tempered women ye ken AND he's experienced the frustration being prevented from returning to the woman he loves (when the soldiers grabbed him in Season 1 -- during an episode when he was strong-armed into riding with criminals -- not unlike Roger being forced back onto Bonnet's ship).  

Eventually someone is going to tell Jamie why Roger and Brianna fought on their wedding night.  I'm pretty sure that when Jamie finds out that it was all over a lie-of-omission -- that Roger withheld the information he'd discovered about the fire at Fraser's Ridge in order to protect Brianna -- and that the first thing Brianna did we SHE found the information was to go off half-cocked and travel back in time by herself -- well, I think when Jamie learns all that, it's going to shift his opinion of Roger even more.  Jamie may be the King of Men but he's still an 18th century man with 18th century notions about protecting women and it's going to be clear to him that Roger withholding that information was done to protect Brianna, which is an instinct he can understand and approve of.  (He will, no doubt, keep that opinion to himself, lest he incur the wrath of the two 20th century women he is living with.  But he'll think better of Roger when he understands that part of the story.)

ETA:  The other thing Jamie feels guilty about is the fact that Roger was key to Claire's being able to find Jamie in the past.  Roger is the one who discovered that Jamie survived Culloden.  And then he found the Robert Burns quote that led Claire to the print shop.  Poor Jamie.  Of all the men in the world to mistake for Bonnet (of all the men in the world for him to be furious with for leaving his daughter unprotected) it had to be the historian who was responsible for reuniting Jamie with Claire?  Poor Jamie.  No wonder he let Roger hit him.

Edited January 31, 2019 by WatchrTina

[DietCokeJunkie]

1 hour ago, Haleth said:

 

I truly laughed out loud when the Murtagh/Jocasta scene cut from her throwing a drink in his face to them in bed.  Good for them!  Murtagh's comment that the whisky tasted like a woman was both cheesy and sexy. 

 

He said that the whisky tasted like home. I never watch without subtitles, lol  

[nodorothyparker]

1 hour ago, Haleth said:

Claire, Jamie, and Roger had a lot of time to talk on the way back.  I don't know where they parted, but I would guess it was Wilmington, not far from RR.

No, actually they didn't.  Or at least their book counterparts didn't.  Book Roger and Jamie stormed off in separate directions right after Jamie called Roger a coward in that argument with Roger spending the next couple of months on his own wandering around and revisiting the stones while he tried to decide to either stay or go.  The show scene was staged similarly enough that I assumed it ended the same way.  By the time they'll all meet up again, everybody's made it back to the Ridge.  We're apparently not supposed to think about how that's the only fixed spot Roger would even know to look for Bree.

The more I think about this season, the more a waste it seems to have brought Murtagh with his knowledge of the existence of time travel back onto the canvas with now multiple time travelers if they're just never going to mention it.  With everything else the show wasted time on, it would have been nice to see him asking Claire and Bree if they know anything at all about the War of Regulation and if it leads to anything.  Especially with Bree having been born and raised an American who studied history.  No, the book characters don't know a whole lot of anything useful that isn't more Boston or New England specific, but it feels implausible that Murtagh wouldn't be asking or that it wouldn't be figuring into the discussions they're all having as Murtagh and Jamie each get respectively deeper in or that Bree wouldn't want to tell kindly old Murtagh that he'll be on the winning side this time if he can just be careful and stay under the radar a little longer now.  Other than Claire briefly discussing the coming revolution with  Jamie early in the season and squeeing like a fangirl over meeting George Washington, they've acted like they have no foreknowledge at all.

 

13 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Jamie may be the King of Men but he's still an 18th century many with 18th century notions about protecting women and it's going to be clear to him that Roger withholding that information was done to protect Brianna, which is an instinct he can understand and approve of.

That's exactly how book Jamie responded when he was told about it.  Claire was mad about it, but Jamie wasn't.

[Noneofyourbusiness]

15 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

In the episode Roger clarifies that Brianna sent him away

Which was clearly a test when she said it. I hate watching characters miss obvious signals.

[WatchrTina]

17 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

By the time they'll all meet up again, everybody's made it back to the Ridge.  We're apparently not supposed to think about how that's the only fixed spot Roger would even know to look for Bree.

I think Roger finding his way to Riverrun is a lot more plausible than his finding his way to the cabin on Fraser's Ridge.  Riverrun is on a major river and lots of people can tell him how to get there since it has been there for along time and is well-known in the area.  (I'm just going to assume that before he leaves he'll have been told the name of the estate where Brianna has gone to have her baby.)  Far fewer people could tell him how to find "Fraser's Ridge" which has only been named that for a year, much less find a cabin in the midst of that huge tract of land.  So Roger making his way to Riverrun on his own doesn't ring false to me at all, even if (as in the book) he parted company with Jamie and Claire fairly early on the trip back from New York. 

17 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

The more I think about this season, the more a waste it seems to have brought Murtagh with his knowledge of the existence of time travel back onto the canvas with now multiple time travelers if they're just never going to mention it.

I've speculated that one of the reasons Murtagh came to visit the cabin the first time was precisely to ask those kinds of questions.  He's never going to stop siding with the regulators now that he knows that side wins.  But they might be able to convince him to lay low for the next five years or so until the main revolution heats up (I think we're in 1770 or 1771 now.)  That being said, I don't think even history major Brianna is going to be of much help with information about a motley band of regulators in North Carolina, nor the militia formed to fight them.  She may remember the names and dates of major battles in the American Revolution and the lead characters therein, but I find it perfectly plausible that her and Roger's fore-knowledge isn't going to be of much use in the small conflicts and shifting allegiances they need to navigate over the next five years.  

Which was clearly a test when she said it. I hate watching characters miss obvious signals.

He passed the test.  He came back.  But Bonnet grabbed him before he could reach Brianna.  He did leave a message for her.  It's not clear to me if she ever received it.  I wonder if the message was given to Lizzy and Lizzy never passed it on?  That would be par for the course.

Edited January 28, 2019 by WatchrTina

[Cdh20]

15 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

 

The more I think about this season, the more a waste it seems to have brought Murtagh with his knowledge of the existence of time travel back onto the canvas with now multiple time travelers if they're just never going to mention it.  With everything else the show wasted time on, it would have been nice to see him asking Claire and Bree if they know anything at all about the War of Regulation and if it leads to anything.  Especially with Bree having been born and raised an American who studied history.  No, the book characters don't know a whole lot of anything useful that isn't more Boston or New England specific, but it feels implausible that Murtagh wouldn't be asking or that it wouldn't be figuring into the discussions they're all having as Murtagh and Jamie each get respectively deeper in or that Bree wouldn't want to tell kindly old Murtagh that he'll be on the winning side this time if he can just be careful and stay under the radar a little longer now.  Other than Claire briefly discussing the coming revolution with  Jamie early in the season and squeeing like a fangirl over meeting George Washington, they've acted like they have no foreknowledge at all.

 

 

 I hope that next season they will spend some time talking about the future events. 

Can we also assume that some relationships will need some work: Bree & Jamie, Bree & Roger, Roger & Jamie?

[Thalia]

17 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

Murtagh with his knowledge of the existence of time travel back onto the canvas with now multiple time travelers if they're just never going to mention it.  With everything else the show wasted time on, it would have been nice to see him asking Claire and Bree if they know anything at all about the War of Regulation and if it leads to anything.  Especially with Bree having been born and raised an American who studied history.  No, the book characters don't know a whole lot of anything useful that isn't more Boston or New England specific, but it feels implausible that Murtagh wouldn't be asking or that it wouldn't be figuring into the discussions they're all having as Murtagh and Jamie each get respectively deeper in or that Bree wouldn't want to tell kindly old Murtagh that he'll be on the winning side this time if he can just be careful and stay under the radar a little longer now. 

Oh yeah, this.  I tried to tell myself that they told Murtagh about the Spirit of 76 and all that, but... there was a scene last night where Bree said something like, "so you're going back to the regulators?"  It was phrased in such a way that she could have been intimating, "you know they are captured to a man, drawn and quartered, and the cause of a British attack on the Scottish in America that makes Culloden look like a wee skirmish, right?  Btw, we're still part of the British empire, and we don't get to keep any money at all, it all goes to our queen."  Tell the man about No Taxation Without Representation and Yorktown!  And, oh yeah, the 13th amendment while you're at it! 

Noneofyourbusiness, I better go re-read the last book.  I don't remember Ian and Rachel having a baby at all.  I believe you!  It just wasn't my favorite book. 

[AD55]

26 minutes ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

Which was clearly a test when she said it. I hate watching characters miss obvious signals.

Because his traveling through time and working his way across the ocean not knowing for sure he would find her were evidently not sufficient indications of his commitment and love. 

13 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I think Roger finding his way to Riverrun is a lot more plausible than his finding his way to the cabin on Fraser's Ridge.  Riverrun is on a major river and lots of people can tell him how to get there since it has been there for along time and is well-known in the area.  (I'm just going to assume that before he leaves he'll have been told the name of the estate where Brianna has gone to have her baby.)  Far fewer people could tell him how to find "Fraser's Ridge" which has only been named that for a year, much less find a cabin in the midst of that huge tract of land.  So Roger making his way to Riverrun on his own doesn't ring false to me at all, even if (as in the book) he parted company with Jamie and Claire fairly early on the trip back from New York. 

 

Except Roger was almost to Fraser's Ridge when he was attacked by Jamie and Ian, not that I buy for a moment that he would have been able to find his way back there, or even to the stones, on his own while half out of his head with an infection and probably starving (How did he find food, by the way? Did he survive on roots and berries? Did Jamie and Claire give him a musket and a crash course on how to use it? In the book that's Brianna's job.). Anyhoo, that scenario struck me as absurd when I read the book, but perhaps I am projecting. I'm capable of losing my way in a strange house.

Edited January 28, 2019 by AD55

[nodorothyparker]

On 1/28/2019 at 10:00 AM, WatchrTina said:

I think Roger finding his way to Riverrun is a lot more plausible than his finding his way to the cabin on Fraser's Ridge.  Riverrun is on a major river and lots of people can tell him how to get there since it has been there for along time and is well-known in the area.

I would think so too if he even knows the name River Run.  Or that a woman named Jocasta Cameron who is a MacKenzie by birth is Jamie's aunt.  I realize it's a minor quibble in the grand scheme of things, but it still bugs when I can't easily connect the dots on how a character knows something.  It's kind of like how after Jamie reunited with Murtagh we were all asking how he and Jocasta managed to live in the same general part of North Carolina all those years and apparently never once touched base.  We discussed plenty of perfectly plausible explanations for it and in the end, no, it probably really doesn't matter all that much in the larger story, but you'd still like to know.  It's always a bit of a sign of weakness in writing to me if I'm spending time thinking about this instead of what they chose to focus on.

On 1/28/2019 at 10:00 AM, WatchrTina said:

I don't think even history major Brianna is going to be of much help with information about a motley band of regulators in North Carolina, nor the militia formed to fight them.  She may remember the names and dates of major battles in the American Revolution and the lead characters therein, but I find it perfectly plausible that her and Roger's fore-knowledge isn't going to be of much use in the small conflicts and shifting allegiances they need to navigate over the next five years.  

You're right that their book counterparts really don't know much of anything useful on that front, almost comically so at times.  But it still seems like something that would be a natural subject of conversation in their specific situation.  From here going forward, we get repeated mentions of book Jamie asking these questions of each of the three time travelers in the family as he tries to figure out how to respond to each summons from Tryron or various political happenings.  That's one of my consistent criticisms of this season that includes the Great Misunderstanding, that characters aren't having conversations natural to their extraordinary circumstances.  If you didn't know any better, Murtagh might as well have thought that Brianna was away at school before she showed up in Wilmington.

[Noneofyourbusiness]

13 minutes ago, Thalia said:

Noneofyourbusiness, I better go re-read the last book.  I don't remember Ian and Rachel having a baby at all.  I believe you!  It just wasn't my favorite book. 

They haven't given him a Christian name yet and are calling him "Oggy".

[TaurusRose]

20 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

Murtagh and Jocasta having a fling doesn't bother me.  If the show turned it into a serious relationship or tried to plug Murtagh into the Duncan Innes role, it would.  Because Murtagh spent a lot of years not being free.  I did like that he reminded Jocasta this episode that he didn't come to America of his own free choice.  Unless the show is trying to make Murtagh pretty situational about what he takes issue with, which would feel even more out of character after having smartly plugged him in as a composite Regulator nursing all those old grievances against the British, I would be inclined to think there's no way he could have a long running or permanent entanglement with someone who owns other people.

But I realize the show may surprise me on this.  People of the time did manage to spout lots of revolutionary rhetoric about liberty and freedom while owning or condoning slavery, and while "modern woman" Brianna's not really been in a position to even be as strident about it as Claire was on her initial visit to River Run she's been portrayed as almost painfully indifferent on the entire subject.

2

This.  This really bugs the fuck out of me.

[TaurusRose]

20 hours ago, ruby24 said:

I also wonder what they're going to do about the Jocasta/Ulysses thing. I assumed they would have Murtaugh take the place of Duncan as far as the Jocasta marriage went, but that was portrayed in the book as a friendship/arrangement, because of her longstanding relationship with Ulysses, that was revealed later. (And then Duncan's thing with Phaedre- that's hard to imagine being replaced with Murtagh, isn't it?)

I don't know- it could be that they don't want to include the Phaedre/Ulysses stuff altogether, because it's uncomfortable subject matter due to the slave/master situation. In the book it's portrayed as mutual between both couples, but we all know that's a controversial issue now and that any sexual relationship between slaves and masters is considered rape. So they may not want to go there. 

I wish they had had Jame and Claire there for the birth, like they were in the book. 

3

Oh, please.  It did happen.  Do we want more whitewashing of history? The fact that the white masters had the upper hand in all situations involving their captives forced into slavery doesn't change the fact that there was plenty of rape in addition to the occasional mutual feelings coupling. The indifference to slavery and the destruction of Native Americans is one of the things that bugs the crap out of me with Outlander, but apparently, the source material wasn't concerned with it, so there you go.

[Nidratime]

Quote

(I'm just going to assume that before he leaves he'll have been told the name of the estate where Brianna has gone to have her baby.)

Maybe I'm making this up in my head, but I thought Claire told Roger that Brianna was with her great aunt at River Run. Even if she didn't exactly say the name of the estate, I'm sure she mentioned Jocasta. I'll have to re-watch to make sure I'm correct. Either way, he'd be able to find the estate or Jocasta through word of mouth.

On another topic, regarding Jamie telling Jenny about Ian, he doesn't have to be totally truthful about the reasons behind why Ian is with the Mohawk, but I'm sure Jenny already knows that Ian's been hanging with Indian tribes, since he *has been,* and that there are friendly Native Americans with whom they trade. Jamie could just say, they were trading with the Mohawk, the Mohawk asked Ian to stay and he decided to spend some time with them. ;-) Of course, Ian would have to be apprised of this explanation, in case he gets the chance to write to his mother himself. (The only problem I can see with this plan right now is that Jamie and Claire have no idea how Ian is being treated and that Ian managed to run their gauntlet and is not going to be treated like a slave.)

Quote

The indifference to slavery and the destruction of Native Americans is one of the things that bugs the crap out of me with Outlander, but apparently, the source material wasn't concerned with it, so there you go.

I can't recall everything that happened in the books, especially since I only read up to Drums of Autumn but, in terms of the show, we haven't seen total indifference. Certainly Claire wasn't indifferent. And, just last night, there was a whole subplot about how the Native Americans were going to be, basically, interned on reservations if not entirely wiped out. Let alone, other comments sprinkled in the dialogue via Claire over the season.

By the way, when typing of Drums of Autumn (or even thinking the title in my head) have other people found themselves beginning to say, "Drums of August," which is close to the actual title of the book "Guns of August" about WWI? I swear that happens to me all the time.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Nidratime

[Auntie Anxiety]

Of all the actors in the world, where did they find the guy who plays Roger? He has zero sex appeal and negative chemistry with Bree. He makes me wonder what Bree could have possibly seen in him. 

[CABINET]

33 minutes ago, Auntie Anxiety said:

Of all the actors in the world, where did they find the guy who plays Roger? He has zero sex appeal and negative chemistry with Bree. He makes me wonder what Bree could have possibly seen in him. 

To be fair to Richard Rankin I think they way he has been presented to us and the way they have dressed him since the very beginning really (although this season has been far worse) have seriously diminished him.

I'm far from happy that Sam hasn't really been given Jamie's true character.  There are so many times where Jamie's plans and solutions to problems are given to Claire in this production that I really feel for him.   He must have thought, when cast in this role, that he was going to get to play a seriously impressive character, a brave, intelligent, funny, well educated individual but instead he is mostly, after the first few episodes, reduced to good looking brawn. 

Richard has been similarly badly served, in my opinion. 

[Nidratime]

Quote

Of all the actors in the world, where did they find the guy who plays Roger? He has zero sex appeal and negative chemistry with Bree.

I was thrilled when Richard Rankin was cast. He's been on my radar for a while, both as an actor and a fine looking young man. (Young for me, anyway.) And, if you've been watching his interviews, he's very funny and very charming.

[aemom]

1 hour ago, Auntie Anxiety said:

Of all the actors in the world, where did they find the guy who plays Roger? He has zero sex appeal and negative chemistry with Bree. He makes me wonder what Bree could have possibly seen in him. 

I think that the problem is Sophie Skelton (Bree).  She does not have anywhere near the acting talent of the the rest of the cast and as a result, it affects her ability to generate chemistry with Richard Rankin (Roger).

[AD55]

1 hour ago, taurusrose said:

Oh, please.  It did happen.  Do we want more whitewashing of history? The fact that the white masters had the upper hand in all situations involving their captives forced into slavery doesn't change the fact that there was plenty of rape in addition to the occasional mutual feelings coupling. The indifference to slavery and the destruction of Native Americans is one of the things that bugs the crap out of me with Outlander, but apparently, the source material wasn't concerned with it, so there you go.

It's not "whitewashing" history to point out that by definition there can never be consensual sex between an enslaved person and his or her "master." Slave owners didn't have "the upper hand." They had the power to kill, rape, maim, and sell the people they "owned." Someone up thread said that DG justifies the relationship between Ulysses and Jocasta by including the detail that Jocasta signed manumission papers for Ulysses.  A convenient contrivance used to avoid addressing the fact that Jocasta has all the power. The show, at least, provides information on just how difficult it was to free a slave in NC in the eighteenth century.  I don't recall if DG includes that context. 

[toolazy]

3 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

 

He passed the test.  He came back.  But Bonnet grabbed him before he could reach Brianna.  He did leave a message for her.  It's not clear to me if she ever received it.  I wonder if the message was given to Lizzy and Lizzy never passed it on?  That would be par for the course.

Yes, she did. The tavern owner gave her his message and told her that he was going to be on the Gloriana.  She went to the docks and the boat was already gone.

[mrsjoe]

I don’t think they did a good enough job conveying what Roger was going through to make him not seem like a jerk for second guessing returning the Bree. In the book, he’s in terrible pain, still hates Jamie, deeply in regret about many of his choices, etc. the show seemed to portray it as a “hot showers might be more important to him than Bree” thing. It’s especially annoying when in the after clip, they mentioned the writers had to talk about if Roger was not redeemable. They really made some bad choices along the way with Roger due to the whole time constraint.

This episode leads me to believe that those who are thinking Sophie’s main problem is concentrating on the accent all the time. It seemed like when she was not speaking, her acting Improved drastically. And I guess she can’t be blamed by the oddness of quietly laying there waiting after childbirth to even know the gender of her baby or see him. Were the writers trying to convey depression mixed with exhaustion? I can’t imagine popping the baby out, not even looking at him and then everyone running out of the room while I just sat there quietly, and I’ve given birth three times. So weird.

[Nidratime]

Quote

And I guess she can’t be blamed by the oddness of quietly laying there waiting after childbirth to even know the gender of her baby or see him. Were the writers trying to convey depression mixed with exhaustion? I can’t imagine popping the baby out, not even looking at him and then everyone running out of the room while I just sat there quietly, and I’ve given birth three times. So weird.

I got the impression she had the baby and kind of fainted or something. Everything went black and then we next see her laying in bed asking about the baby. 

[ruby24]

The moment where Bree runs to Roger would have been more effective if anyone cared about Brianna/Roger or if they had even a smidge of chemistry. It's just not there. It's nothing. Unfortunately.

They made such a huge mistake with Sophie Skelton. I think most problems would be non-existent if we only had an actress who could make you care about this character who has such a big role. The next time she'll play such a big part is in Season 7, but hopefully they'll know to make her as minimal as possible over the next two.

[Biggie B]

21 minutes ago, mrsjoe said:

And I guess she can’t be blamed by the oddness of quietly laying there waiting after childbirth to even know the gender of her baby or see him. Were the writers trying to convey depression mixed with exhaustion? I can’t imagine popping the baby out, not even looking at him and then everyone running out of the room while I just sat there quietly, and I’ve given birth three times. So weird.

[As I was typing this, I see that Nidratime wrote the same thing. ] I got the impression that Bree was not just lying there quietly, but rather, was not awake. She may have passed out from exhaustion or the like, and then come around shortly thereafter. That happened to me when I had my son - I didn't see him immediately, as I lost consciousness (and not from anything bad happening - I just simply passed out!). So that's what I thought happened here - that Bree had the baby, who was then taken away and cleaned up and then returned once Bree was awake. Just today, DG posted on Facebook the excerpt of the book when Bree gives birth, and both Jamie and Claire are there, and Bree is very much awake and alert immediately afterwards, and even asks if she should put him to her breast. A totally different experience than what we saw in the episode.

[WatchrTina]

2 hours ago, Nidratime said:

Quote

Of all the actors in the world, where did they find the guy who plays Roger? He has zero sex appeal and negative chemistry with Bree.

I was thrilled when Richard Rankin was cast. He's been on my radar for a while, both as an actor and a fine looking young man. (Young for me, anyway.) And, if you've been watching his interviews, he's very funny and very charming.

Ditto.  I just love Richard Rankin.  I think he's doing a great job in the role and he is absolutely adorable (I'm too old to crush on him).  They didn't do him any favors with the costuming this season (eek, those sailor culottes!) but I'm hoping that was deliberately done so that he can be depicted in an even more heroic and favorable light in future seasons (complete with more flattering costuming.)

I have similar hopes for Ian.  The actor who plays him has had to play younger than his actual age and he's been depicted as trouble-prone and somewhat of a goofball.  I can't wait to see what this actor can do with new-and-improved Mohawk Ian when he turns up again.  Alas that won't be for a while but in the meantime I hope he hits the gym HARD.  (Sam can give his some tips.)  All the better to signal Ian's transformation during his time with the Mohawk.

12 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

The moment where Bree runs to Roger would have been more effective if anyone cared about Brianna/Roger

For the record, I care.  And I don't think I'm alone in that.

Edited January 28, 2019 by WatchrTina

[Biggie B]

Because I can't recall most of the stuff in the books, what happened to Lord John? Right before Bree was about to give birth, we're told he was away on some business, but was expected back soon. Fast forward two months, Bree has given birth and then Jamie and Claire return and then Roger returns as well. So there's a gap of time from the baby's birth to Jamie and Claire's return, when Bree and Lord John could've been married, since during those two months, no one knew if Jamie/Claire/Roger or any combo thereof would ever be seen again. I guess Lord John was still away? Also - just as Bree actually had the baby, Jocasta made a comment about the baby's date of birth being properly recorded to reflect being born in wedlock, or something to that effect. How would that have worked, if Lord John was away when the baby was born? Was Jocasta willing to lie and say they'd gotten married before he left, and thus making Bree a married woman when she had the baby? It's all a moot point now, since Roger has returned, but let's say he never came back. What was the plan to ensure that the child was legitimate? Again, I can't recall if or how this was addressed in the books, so apologies for asking. Obviously, it's a good thing Bree didn't marry Lord John - she would've been her half-brother's stepmother!!!! 

I was not familiar with Richard Rankin before this show, but I do think he's quite attractive (especially without the beard) and I think he's doing a fine job with the character, even when that character is behaving like a jerk. I thought that when he and Bree were back in the 20th century, he was a sweet, dorky nerd at first (before the ill-fated marriage proposal), and during their time together in Boston, it seemed to me that he was truly smitten with Bree in a shy yet sweet way. Am I invested in them as a couple? Well, I do recall very clearly from the books that the two of them are rock-solid and of course go on to have another child and go through all sorts of challenges - so even if the characters right now aren't selling it to us, knowing that they will be together through thick and thin for the rest of the current books, I can overlook whatever seems lacking in their relationship right now.

[GHScorpiosRule]

On 1/27/2019 at 1:09 PM, nodorothyparker said:

I thought it went on a little long too, but I did like that beat at the end where it was clear Jamie was just letting Roger wear himself out and then held him in his arms for a moment.  You could almost see Jamie thinking that he understood Roger had just come out of this horribly long traumatizing ordeal and needed that small comfort.  I also like that they didn't have to write dialogue to get that point across.

The big swelling music run to each other would probably bother me less if at any point the show had been able to sell me Roger and Bree's amazing love or at least that they have any chemistry.  Instead we've gotten most of a season of the characters separately telling other characters no really, we do so have it.  That really falls under one of those classic show don't tell rules for TV.   I can see the idea that it was as much about Roger needing something from someone who cared about him after all this time as anything as that plays into my earlier point about his scene with Jamie.  If he's made the decision to give up his whole life in the future to live among this family going forward, he needs to be feeling accepted and cared about.

As far as I'm concerned, having both Claire and Jaime in an episode is NECESSARY and makes the episode BETTER. At least I had that small voice over of Jamie's in "Providence" and seeing him riding on horseback.

I won't lie. I'm beyond frustrated that we had to lose both Claire/Cait and Jamie/Sam for two episodes this season. And the argument that it was to let us get to know new and other characters doesn't wash with me. Because we have had the since the beginning. Meeting new characters in seasons two and three, didn't require keeping Claire and Jamie out of said episodes. So I did a good 'bout of fast forwarding scenes I just was not interested in.

UGH. Show trying to sell me that Brianna and Roger have this epic love with her running toward him. BLEAGH. Not even close to a scintilla of the love that exists between Claire and Jamie.

23 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

 

At first I scoffed that the lead female Mohawk character would able to get men to follow her. I assumed that native American tribes were as patriarchal as other societies of that era and I didn’t get any sense that she was a medicine woman or had particularly high status within the tribe that would allow her to lead an insurrection like that.  But on second viewing I heard her say that she is the granddaughter of a chief (the one who was chief when Otter Tooth showed up) so I can fan-wank that she IS one of the keepers of flame of the warning from Otter Tooth and that she did have sufficient status to lead men in that time and that place.

<snip>

I do not understand why Jamie looks cheerful as he talks about having to tell Jenny about Ian’s decision to stay.  I recollect that as being one of the hardest letters he ever has to write (in the book) and on screen it feels like their tearful leave-taking JUST HAPPENED.  I would have expected Jamie to still look sad at that point.  I think the writers wanted Roger to have something to react to an Jamie's cheerfulness is what provokes him into attacking Jamie.  But that moment rang false to me.

 

 

 

From what I can recall, Native American Tribes are very matriarchal, Even though their chiefs and shamans were men. 

Things I didn't like: No scene or dialogue between Jamie and Brianna, that she has forgiven him. Or any hug. OR, that Jamie doesn't even hold his grandson!

 

Jamie's nonchalant attitude about losing Wee Ian to the Mohawks I put on whoever wrote that shit. It's like they can't read what they've written. It's just as Gabaldon writing Jamie being "sheepish" when he tells Claire he sold Roger to the Mohawks in the buik

And I love that instead of a slave, Wee Ian has been adopted into the tribe--because he proved his worth. And him yipping just like them at the end. I'm going to miss him, as we won't see Wee Ian again until...when again?

Edited January 28, 2019 by GHScorpiosRule

[Biggie B]

2 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

And I love that instead of a slave, Wee Ian has been adopted into the tribe--because he proved his worth. And him yipping just like them at the end.

That scene was the first time since this show began that I cried. Even now, typing about it, I am choking up. It was a marvelous, bittersweet moment, beautifully delivered by the actor.

[Hannah Lee]

40 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

The moment where Bree runs to Roger would have been more effective if anyone cared about Brianna/Roger or if they had even a smidge of chemistry. It's just not there. It's nothing. Unfortunately.

They made such a huge mistake with Sophie Skelton. I think most problems would be non-existent if we only had an actress who could make you care about this character who has such a big role. The next time she'll play such a big part is in Season 7, but hopefully they'll know to make her as minimal as possible over the next two.

I'm beginning to agree with most of this.   Though, TBH, that scene was one of the few where I started to feel some emotion for the two of them together, and get swept up in it even though my logical brain had all kinds of questions.  And then what marred it for me is the fact that in the background of those reunion shots, there were slaves clearly visible, working.   So just when I was starting to feel a little tug of my heartstrings for this couple I was like, "Do any of these people care about the slavery all around them?"  And it made me think how Brianna has never been shown to be even the least bit uncomfortable with that....no, her warmly grabbing Phaedra's forearm like they are dear friends doesn't really count.  And that completely pulled me out of the moment.

On a side note, while I know they were pressed for time this episode, but the episode would have been stronger if they had added quick scenes, or even a line of dialogue to indicate what happened to the Mohawk who was banished (or even that Claire and Jamie felt any guilt that their actions had led to that), where Roger has been (book readers know, but non-book readers don't) how he knew to go to River Run, that Jamie got to hold his grandson, that Brianna had forgiven Jamie and come to understand him more.  Those were all emotional beats that were missing, or niggling "wait, what?" moments that didn't have to be there.

Also, I hope in Season 5, the show doesn't limit the time-travel aspects of the show to events when characters are actively traveling or thinking about it.  Little things like Claire and Brianna reminiscing about indoor plumbing were good, but there were many opportunities for Murtaugh and Jamie to be conferring with Claire and Brianna about events or experiences.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Hannah Lee

[LadyBrochTuarach]

55 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

I got the impression she had the baby and kind of fainted or something. Everything went black and then we next see her laying in bed asking about the baby. 

Similar to when Claire was put under having Bree (tv version anyways) and wakes up asking about her baby. Maybe they wanted the parallel? 

[Nidratime]

The way I see things regarding the relationship of Bree and Roger, as opposed to Jamie and Claire, Frank and Claire, Ian and Jenny, Fergus and Marsali, etc. is that just like individuals, relationships have their own personalities and what works for one couple, may not work for another. Some couples are more openly passionate with each other, some are more argumentative, some work better with a little space/freedom, some have to be together constantly, etc.

Bree and Roger, thus far, are the type that tend to operate with teasing, testing, and outright arguing between them. Even in the 20th Century, they were butting heads over things. That didn't mean they couldn't make it work. In fact, it might be something that works for them, that stimulates them, while another couple would simply call it quits if they weren't seeing eye to eye on most things. 

[ruby24]

46 minutes ago, Hannah Lee said:

I'm beginning to agree with most of this.   Though, TBH, that scene was one of the few where I started to feel some emotion for the two of them together, and get swept up in it even though my logical brain had all kinds of questions.  And then what marred it for me is the fact that in the background of those reunion shots, there were slaves clearly visible, working.   So just when I was starting to feel a little tug of my heartstrings for this couple I was like, "Do any of these people care about the slavery all around them?"  And it made me think how Brianna has never been shown to be even the least bit uncomfortable with that....no, her warmly grabbing Phaedra's forearm like they are dear friends doesn't really count.  And that completely pulled me out of the moment.

 

I saw someone else comment on this about Brianna as well, and I just have to say- this is exactly how she is in the book. She doesn't care at all. She doesn't even seem to have a second thought about it (unlike Claire, who isn't so much better, but is at least uncomfortable with it in the books, which is why she doesn't want to live at River Run). I'm pretty sure the only mention of Bree's thoughts on slavery in this book was a quick line where she thinks about how easy it was for her to get accustomed to being waited on and brought everything, and that she was surprised she didn't feel guilty about it.

So, yup. That's 1960's American-raised Brianna's attitude towards seeing slavery up close. Surprise that she didn't feel the guilt she thought she would. Kinda shameful, frankly. I actually did think they'd show her to at least be uncomfortable with it on the show.

And in the next book it's even worse, because there's a part where Brianna doesn't understand why Jocasta's slaves would run away because they're so well-treated, and that poor white people at this time actually live worse than them. 

Edited January 28, 2019 by ruby24

[aemom]

10 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

I saw someone else comment on this about Brianna as well, and I just have to say- this is exactly how she is in the book. She doesn't care at all. She doesn't even seem to have a second thought about it (unlike Claire, who isn't so much better, but is at least uncomfortable with it in the books, which is why she doesn't want to live at River Run). I'm pretty sure the only mention of Bree's thoughts on slavery in this book was a quick line where she thinks about how easy it was for her to get accustomed to being waited on and brought everything, and that she was surprised she didn't feel guilty about it.

Yeah, not kidding. So, yup. That's 1960's American-raised Brianna's attitude towards seeing slavery up close. Surprise that she didn't feel the guilt she thought she would. Kinda shameful, frankly. I actually did think they'd show her to at least be uncomfortable with it on the show.

And in the next book it's even worse, because there's a part where Brianna doesn't understand why Jocasta's slaves would run away because they're so well-treated, and that poor white people at this time actually live worse than them. 

Bree has never been the most likable character in the books.  I'm honestly surprised that DG wrote her that way, because she's not intended to be a villian (like Black Jack or Bonnet), so wouldn't you want your readers to like her for the most part?

Then you get an actress who is really not up to snuff, and then it makes it just that much worse.

[ruby24]

Yeah. Although, to be fair, I guess I should mention that Roger doesn't seem to care either. I don't think there's a single mention of what he thinks about slavery one way or the other in any of the books, from what I remember. She does have him give an annoying speech at one point trying to explain the civil rights movement, where he says that the people in it think they're fighting for a cause, but "most normal, middle-class people" just want it to  go away so they can live their lives. I remember raising my eyebrow at that remark- Roger the historian, doesn't even describe people indifferent to the civil rights movement as what they are (white people), they're just "middle-class" people? Ummm. That's a definite code word.

It's shit like that that makes me question Diana Gabaldon herself, to be honest. I feel like those must be her views creeping in.

Edited January 28, 2019 by ruby24

[TaurusRose]

3 hours ago, AD55 said:

It's not "whitewashing" history to point out that by definition there can never be consensual sex between an enslaved person and his or her "master." Slave owners didn't have "the upper hand." They had the power to kill, rape, maim, and sell the people they "owned." Someone up thread said that DG justifies the relationship between Ulysses and Jocasta by including the detail that Jocasta signed manumission papers for Ulysses.  A convenient contrivance used to avoid addressing the fact that Jocasta has all the power. The show, at least, provides information on just how difficult it was to free a slave in NC in the eighteenth century.  I don't recall if DG includes that context. 

The fact that slave owners had the power to maim, rape, kill, etc. is the very definition of “upper hand” in my book.

[Cdh20]

2 hours ago, Hannah Lee said:

I'm beginning to agree with most of this.   Though, TBH, that scene was one of the few where I started to feel some emotion for the two of them together, and get swept up in it even though my logical brain had all kinds of questions.  And then what marred it for me is the fact that in the background of those reunion shots, there were slaves clearly visible, working.   So just when I was starting to feel a little tug of my heartstrings for this couple I was like, "Do any of these people care about the slavery all around them?"  And it made me think how Brianna has never been shown to be even the least bit uncomfortable with that....no, her warmly grabbing Phaedra's forearm like they are dear friends doesn't really count.  And that completely pulled me out of the moment.

On a side note, while I know they were pressed for time this episode, but the episode would have been stronger if they had added quick scenes, or even a line of dialogue to indicate what happened to the Mohawk who was banished (or even that Claire and Jamie felt any guilt that their actions had led to that), where Roger has been (book readers know, but non-book readers don't) how he knew to go to River Run, that Jamie got to hold his grandson, that Brianna had forgiven Jamie and come to understand him more.  Those were all emotional beats that were missing, or niggling "wait, what?" moments that didn't have to be there.

Also, I hope in Season 5, the show doesn't limit the time-travel aspects of the show to events when characters are actively traveling or thinking about it.  Little things like Claire and Brianna reminiscing about indoor plumbing were good, but there were many opportunities for Murtaugh and Jamie to be conferring with Claire and Brianna about events or experiences.

I always love conversations between Jamie & Claire about future things, or when she uses words he doesn't know, it's a small thing in a big show, but I love those moments. Brianna did it when she arrived at the ridge (looking at the view), & talked about Daniel Boone. 

[domina89]

2 hours ago, ruby24 said:

The moment where Bree runs to Roger would have been more effective if anyone cared about Brianna/Roger or if they had even a smidge of chemistry. It's just not there. It's nothing. Unfortunately.

They made such a huge mistake with Sophie Skelton. I think most problems would be non-existent if we only had an actress who could make you care about this character who has such a big role. The next time she'll play such a big part is in Season 7, but hopefully they'll know to make her as minimal as possible over the next two.

This.  I've tried to care about Roger and Bree.  I really have.  I. Just. Don't.  I was more moved by the priest and his self-immolating lover than the reuniting of Roger & Bree.  That's pretty sad.

I'm reading each book ahead of the season so I'm glad to know it will be a while before they give Roger and Bree the heavy lifting on the show.  Maybe RR & SS can spend some time together outside of work and try to develop some kind of chemistry.  I guess it is too much to hope for that they will just bite the bullet and recast SS this late in the series.

Edited January 28, 2019 by domina89

[toolazy]

1 minute ago, domina89 said:

This.  I've tried to care about Roger and Bree.  I really have.  I. Just. Don't.  I was more moved by the priest and his self-immolating lover than the reuniting of Roger & Bree.  That's pretty sad.

I'm reading each book ahead of the season so I'm glad to know it will be a while before they give Roger and Bree the heavy lifting on the show.  Maybe they can spend some time together outside of work and try to develop some kind of chemistry.  I guess it is too much to hope for that they will just bite the bullet and recast SS this late in the series.

The weird thing is that they actually have chemistry outside of work.  In interviews and things, they're both adorable. 

[Cdh20]

3 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Ditto.  I just love Richard Rankin.  I think he's doing a great job in the role and he is absolutely adorable (I'm too old to crush on him).

 

3 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

I was thrilled when Richard Rankin was cast. He's been on my radar for a while, both as an actor and a fine looking young man. (Young for me, anyway.) And, if you've been watching his interviews, he's very funny and very charming.

The beauty of a celebrity (or character) crush is that no one is too old or too young!

[CountryGirl]

I loved the finale although it's back to Droughtlander again (sniff!)

While I loved seeing Ian come into his own as they young man he is, it was so verra hard to say goodbye, you ken?

Sam just killed me here:

And when he and Auntie Claire said their "goodbyes":

I was bummed that Jamie and Claire missed Jem's birth but I love seeing Bree fall instantly in love with her sweet little boy.

I, too, saw the Murtagh/Jocasta hookup coming from a mile away, but I loved seeing them together and Duncan and Maria have loads of chemistry.

Also there's that wee matter of Murtagh, shirtless, his hair unbound...yum...yum...

I'd delay breakfast, too, Jo.

And later, when the pack of redcoats deliver Tyron's ominous request to Jaime, Jocasta is not exactly hiding her feelings when she tells him:

Uh huh...

Murtagh and Bree with the baby:

While I haven't always loved their storyline, I still 'ship Roger and Bree and thought they sold their reunion. The pure joy on Bree's face speaks volumes. 

And then this:

Awww...

As I said, a great finale and I can't wait to see what next season brings.

[GHScorpiosRule]

43 minutes ago, CountryGirl said:

I loved the finale although it's back to Droughtlander again (sniff!)

While I loved seeing Ian come into his own as they young man he is, it was so verra hard to say goodbye, you ken?

Sam just killed me here:

And when he and Auntie Claire said their "goodbyes":

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These scenes had me BAWLING!!!!! Sam is just so, so, so, verra, verra guid! Thanks for these!

[AD55]

19 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Ditto.  I just love Richard Rankin.  I think he's doing a great job in the role and he is absolutely adorable (I'm too old to crush on him).  They didn't do him any favors with the costuming this season (eek, those sailor culottes!) but I'm hoping that was deliberately done so that he can be depicted in an even more heroic and favorable light in future seasons (complete with more flattering costuming.)

I have similar hopes for Ian.  The actor who plays him has had to play younger than his actual age and he's been depicted as trouble-prone and somewhat of a goofball.  I can't wait to see what this actor can do with new-and-improved Mohawk Ian when he turns up again.  Alas that won't be for a while but in the meantime I hope he hits the gym HARD.  (Sam can give his some tips.)  All the better to signal Ian's transformation during his time with the Mohawk.

For the record, I care.  And I don't think I'm alone in that.

 

I also love Richard Rankin and care about Roger and Brianna, though I do wish they'd cast someone else as Brianna.

Edited January 29, 2019 by AD55

[iMonrey]

Quote

I didn't realize the Native American man in the opening scene was Otter Tooth. 

I didn't either. I also totally forgot he was supposed to be a time traveler. So spoil me: do we find out later who he is? Or is that it? 

I didn't mind the "running into each other's arms" scene of Brianna and Roger (although I rolled my eyes a little) but Brianna must have bionic eyes to recognize Roger riding towards the house at that distance. I sure as hell wouldn't be able to tell who it was from that far away.

Overall I really enjoyed the season but I thought the finale was just a tad lackluster in terms of where they left us. Jamie ordered to capture and kill Murtagh? Meh. Doesn't quite have the same emotional punch the previous three season enders had.

[Glaze Crazy]

31 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I didn't either. I also totally forgot he was supposed to be a time traveler. So spoil me: do we find out later who he is? Or is that it? 

 

In the books, yes, we learn more about how and why he was there. Don't know if the show will follow through on his backstory though.