|
Post by Melifeather on Sept 22, 2017 21:09:24 GMT
I can see how some people would find Jaime attractive, but he looks like a cartoon character to me. He looks like Zorn. I'm barely into season 2, so you're way ahead of me with the Claire development. It's an interesting show. I liked Jaime's sworn man, Murtagh better than Jaime. He seems more interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Ser Duncan on Sept 23, 2017 1:39:17 GMT
Got forced to watch this by my wife, and ended up caught in the storytelling of it. I felt for Frank the whole time, even if he's a ponce. it did seem as if she had an exponential leap back to her old clever and fearless self in the last few scenes of Season Two, so I'm holding out hope for the old Claire to come back Me too! She was nearly inconsequential in series 2. Didn't like her much at all. The witch was much more interesting. Claire's got some ground to cover. I liked Jaime's sworn man, Murtagh better than Jaime. He seems more interesting. I think all the secondary characters in Jacobean Scotland are more interesting than shirtless Jamie. Even annoy Bonny Prince Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by Melifeather on Sept 24, 2017 20:02:48 GMT
I felt for Frank the whole time, even if he's a ponce. I have been rooting for Frank too, but I'm only on season 2. My opinion may change!
|
|
|
Post by Ser Duncan on Sept 24, 2017 21:51:24 GMT
I have been rooting for Frank too, but I'm only on season 2. My opinion may change! Is there a third series? I thought Frank's acceptance of Claire's child touching, but then he seems to grow distant and a bit surly. Not that he hasn't reason for it, after all he's raising someone else's kid. Just knowing he'll never produce an heir to the Randal name is enough to crack his self esteem. Then knowing his wife would gladly leave him again for the other love of her life, well that's a bit much to take with a stiff upper lip, so I forgive him a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Melifeather on Sept 25, 2017 0:45:51 GMT
Yes, there is a third.
|
|
|
Post by Melifeather on Sept 25, 2017 17:11:32 GMT
I'm actually enjoying the story line in season 2 leading into the battle of Culloden.
|
|
|
Outlander
Sept 26, 2017 1:30:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by Melifeather on Sept 26, 2017 1:30:52 GMT
The historical civil war is heartbreaking. The Scottish Jacobites were treated very harshly after their defeat...slaughtered, starved, or froze to death. Horrendous.
|
|
|
Post by Melifeather on Sept 26, 2017 4:38:20 GMT
Just finished season 2 finale. I really loved it! I like the way they treat time travel in the story. Hard to explain other than it's treated as "real". No corny special effects.
The part I didn't catch, or maybe they didn't explain, is how Roger Wakefield from 1968 is related to Geillis Duncan and Dougal MacKenzie. I did find it humorous that before Geillis is the be burned at the stake she says, "guess I'm going to a fucking barbecue!" and then when Roger is with Brianna and Claire at the stones and they smell Geillis's dead husband's burning corpse Roger says, "it smells like a fucking barbecue!"
|
|
|
Post by Weasel Pie on Sept 26, 2017 13:25:05 GMT
The part I didn't catch, or maybe they didn't explain, is how Roger Wakefield from 1968 is related to Geillis Duncan and Dougal MacKenzie. I did find it humorous that before Geillis is the be burned at the stake she says, "guess I'm going to a fucking barbecue!" and then when Roger is with Brianna and Claire at the stones and they smell Geillis's dead husband's burning corpse Roger says, "it smells like a fucking barbecue!" lol, I didn't catch that! I'm guessing as they dig more into what happened to Jamie they'll find out more about Roger? Since Jamie killed his ggggggrandfather (?) and all. I think there's a lot to come for Roger. I also don't get how Frank Randall, the descendant of Alex Randall's baby with Mary looks exactly like his brother Black Jack? Think I missed something there too.
|
|
|
Post by Ser Duncan on Sept 26, 2017 14:37:01 GMT
The part I didn't catch, or maybe they didn't explain, is how Roger Wakefield from 1968 is related to Geillis Duncan and Dougal MacKenzie. Roger is actually a MacKenzie. He's only adopted the Wakefield last name since he was orphaned during the second world war. So basically the child Geillis has ends up being his great x? grandparent. In other words, if Geillis hadn't had that child, Dougal would've been heirless and Roger wouldn't be alive at the same time as his great x? grandmother Geillis.
|
|
|
Post by Ser Duncan on Sept 26, 2017 14:45:02 GMT
I also don't get how Frank Randall, the descendant of Alex Randall's baby with Mary looks exactly like his brother Black Jack? Think I missed something there too. I think it's probably a directorial choice to use Toby for both characters. It makes Claire's love for Frank come into question and paves the way for her to fall in love with Jamie. Had Black Jack only a family resemblance it wouldn't be hard for Claire to hate him, but to have a man that looks like her husband but is tormented and twisted by his denial of his own sexuality repulses Claire (something she's never felt for Frank) and brings in a new dynamic to their relationship when she returns.
|
|
|
Post by Melifeather on Sept 26, 2017 15:42:10 GMT
I also don't get how Frank Randall, the descendant of Alex Randall's baby with Mary looks exactly like his brother Black Jack? Think I missed something there too. I think it's amazing they found two actors to play Jack and Alex that look so much like brothers! I had to google them both to see if the actors were brothers in real life. I imagine that "the seed is strong" and Frank has the family characteristics. Roger is actually a MacKenzie. He's only adopted the Wakefield last name since he was orphaned during the second world war. So basically the child Geillis has ends up being his great x? grandparent. In other words, if Geillis hadn't had that child, Dougal would've been heirless and Roger wouldn't be alive at the same time as his great x? grandmother Geillis. I get that part, but don't you think it's quite a leap? How would Claire even get curious about Roger's lineage enough to look up his family tree, and then deduce that because he's an orphan that he's a descendant of another orphan? I think the tv show made it seem as if Roger himself is a time traveler and that HE is Geillis and Dougall's orphan son! I have a feeling that the Rev Wakefield and his wife are from the past, that they are the people that adopted Geillis and Dougall's son and took him to the future through the stones to protect him. I think it's probably a directorial choice to use Toby for both characters. It makes Claire's love for Frank come into question and paves the way for her to fall in love with Jamie. Had Black Jack only a family resemblance it wouldn't be hard for Claire to hate him, but to have a man that looks like her husband but is tormented and twisted by his denial of his own sexuality repulses Claire (something she's never felt for Frank) and brings in a new dynamic to their relationship when she returns. I like this explanation and I think it's spot on. His uncanny likeness to Jack Randall turns off Claire and she cannot help but make the association.
|
|
|
Post by Ser Duncan on Sept 26, 2017 17:30:57 GMT
I get that part, but don't you think it's quite a leap? How would Claire even get curious about Roger's lineage enough to look up his family tree, and then deduce that because he's an orphan that he's a descendant of another orphan? I think the tv show made it seem as if Roger himself is a time traveler and that HE is Geillis and Dougall's orphan son! I have a feeling that the Rev Wakefield and his wife are from the past, that they are the people that adopted Geillis and Dougall's son and took him to the future through the stones to protect him. Yeah, I do think it's a leap, but one that somehow will tie back to something important. I've not read the books, so that's just my impression. I'll agree with you as well that there's a strong possibility that Roger actually is Geillis Duncan's son. Dougal somehow managed for her not to burn as a witch after she gave birth to her son. There's also the strange coincidence of Roger's 'father' having disappeared from his airplane close to some standing stones on Samhain. So if both Geillis and his father can travel, I think the odds of Roger being the child Geillis bore are quite high.
|
|
|
Post by Melifeather on Sept 26, 2017 19:38:35 GMT
I get that part, but don't you think it's quite a leap? How would Claire even get curious about Roger's lineage enough to look up his family tree, and then deduce that because he's an orphan that he's a descendant of another orphan? I think the tv show made it seem as if Roger himself is a time traveler and that HE is Geillis and Dougall's orphan son! I have a feeling that the Rev Wakefield and his wife are from the past, that they are the people that adopted Geillis and Dougall's son and took him to the future through the stones to protect him. Yeah, I do think it's a leap, but one that somehow will tie back to something important. I've not read the books, so that's just my impression. I'll agree with you as well that there's a strong possibility that Roger actually is Geillis Duncan's son. Dougal somehow managed for her not to burn as a witch after she gave birth to her son. There's also the strange coincidence of Roger's 'father' having disappeared from his airplane close to some standing stones on Samhain. So if both Geillis and his father can travel, I think the odds of Roger being the child Geillis bore are quite high. I am thinking that the "pilot father" story is just that, a story made up by Rev Wakefield and his wife. Claire searches out the Rev's wife time after time and I think it's because she senses/knows her from the past. Jaime likely told the Rev and his wife to take the orphan to the stones when the English were coming after the Jacobite Scotts. When Frank is visiting the Rev and little Roger comes in the room, the camera settled on his cute little face for a long time, so I think he's significant to the story and a link to the past.
|
|
|
Post by Melifeather on Sept 27, 2017 2:26:18 GMT
I'm caught up to date! Frank's accident was very sad.
|
|