If you are a fan of the Outlander series by Diana Gabaldon

Totally agree the end scene was particularly well done! I really liked Isobel much more than I did in the books. That is a good thing. I feel she will be a good mother to Willie as long as she can be.

Great episode. Iā€™m truly enjoying this season much more than lady. The only thing that havenā€™t done a good job with is growing the relationship between LJG and Jamie. If I hadnā€™t read the books, I wouldnā€™t have understood the depth of understanding and intellectual affection between these 2 men. Yes, they "show " us that they have become friendly, but I wouldnā€™t feel it if I hadnā€™t known. Great job with Geneva, she did an outstanding job, too.

So Iā€™m guessing next week will build up to and stop just short of the print shop scene?

The one things that bugs me is that theyā€™re not aging Claire, except for a few streaks in her hair. Jaime hasnā€™t been shown yet 20+ years down the line but his circumstances should age him even more. Thereā€™s nothing to be afraid of in making her look how a 50 year old woman would look in 1968! Sheā€™s always looked about 30.

Well, even in the book Claireā€™s own assessment of her age had her still looking quite young. Right before she found Jamie at the print shop, she engaged a young mother in conversation to see how she compared age-wise and she felt she looked younger than an old looking 29 or 30 year old.

According to the events in the book, she should be 48, right? Wasnā€™t she was 28 when she went back through the stones? Or was that when she arrived in 18th century? I doubt they will make her look 48-50. We are a youth obsessed culture and Catriona is only 39 or 40 IIRC.

Jamie was surprised because people ā€œagedā€ so much and he thought he was younger than him (who was 23 then).

Yes, I remember her looking younger than a much younger woman when she returns to Scotland. But having central heat, dental care, and nutrition will do a lot for you! Iā€™m sure she had some laugh lines in 1968 but they are just giving us artistic hair streaking. Itā€™s cheap.

The author was rather proud of how she turned the usual romance formulas on their head - having the woman be older and more sexually experienced than the man, and having them still look and feel sexy at very ā€œoldā€ ages for the genre. They shouldnā€™t sell this idea short.

Thereā€™s a lot of aging to come if they stay with this series. Iā€™m OK with how itā€™s been so far. Interested to see older Jamie though. Itā€™s been more than 10 years already and other than facial hair changes and a ponytail or not, Iā€™m not seeing anything.

He was 21 when he and Claire met right? They spent 3 years together. So heā€™ll only be, what, 41-44? Sam Heughan is 37. So is Catriona Balfe.

I donā€™t think they need a ton of aging, they were already playing much younger characters.

I canā€™t recall Diana writing much about Claireā€™s aging other than some gray, and Claireā€™s own self image, stretch marks from birth, stuff we wonā€™t see (unless they give that print shop upstairs scene the time it deserves!)

I think he was 23. (I just re finished book 1)

Jamie was born on May 1, 1721, in ā€œearly Mayā€ of 1743 he met Claire (who was born October 20, 1918). So he had just turned 22.

Claire showed up in 1743 but it was 1945/6 when she went through.

I always thought the time difference was 200 years but it seems itā€™s 202-3 years. Weird.

http://www.dgabaldon.de/html/timeline_1e.html

5/1/1721-Jamieā€™s birthday

10/20/1918-Claire is born;

5/2/1946 (5/2/1743)-Claire goes through the stones; she is 27 years old; Jamie is 22.

4/16/1746 (April 1948)-Claire returns to the future; she is 29 years old; Jamie is 24, almost 25;

11/1/1766 (11/1/1968) Claire returns to Edinburgh after a 20 year separation;
Claire is 50 years old; Jamie is 45 years old;

From Diana Gabaldonā€™s timeline.

http://www.dgabaldon.de/html/timeline_1e.html

Interesting aside - in the US edition books she goes back in 1945 but in the UK editions it is 1946.

I remember picking up Outlander in a book store back in 1992. It had not come out in paperback and the hardcover seemed such an expense on my new college graduate salary. I bought it anyway and quickly became obsessed and would sneak reading at my desk at work. I though it original and compelling and in 1992 thought touching on the homosexual aspects of these very manly men was cutting edge. I still do. She did such a good job drawing these characters. I, in fact, adored the series and waited impatiently for each new edition. Up until aboutā€¦The Fiery Cross where things seemed to go off track and the story line just seemed convoluted. But I, of course, have read them all.

I have enjoyed the screen adaption so far. And must admit to having been very excited to see one of my favorite books brought to life. I love Sam Heughan as Jamie, Caitiona Balfe as Claire just is ehhh, IMO. And Tobias Menzies was just plain outstanding. I admit, I am less interested in the story once they reunite. And do not much care for the character line of Brianna, but love Roger.

I think given the tremendous amount of information and nuisance contained in these books, the screenplay has done as good a job as possible to distill it all down into manageable 1 hour episode.

Do I have this right? The re-union episode doesnā€™t air next week, but it is an ā€œextendedā€ episode?

Ok, I actually shed a few tears watching this. Very well done, IMO.

I donā€™t think I could leave my daughter under these circumstances. I canā€™t imagine saying goodbye FOREVER.

I was surprised they showed the scene in the print shop in this episode. I figured it would come in the next one. What a teaser!!!

Iā€™ve read all of the books and watched the previous seasonsā€™ DVDs with Netflix. I donā€™t have a subscription to Starz, I donā€™t have cable at all, but do have Amazon Prime. Iā€™m willing to pay something to watch the current season, but Iā€™m not sure how it works. Is Starz like Netflix, so I could watch the whole season if I subscribed? Or have I missed the chance to watch the earlier episodes from this season if I paid now? (Also, from the previews, Brianna should be six inches taller! :slight_smile: )

If you have Amazon Prime you can pay extra each month and see all of STARZ shows all seasons plus you get to see outlander early! I get to see it at 11pm Sat night instead of Sunday.

I loved the episode. Didnā€™t love Jaimeā€™s hair but so glad we got the teaser and it didnā€™t stop at the bell!

I couldnā€™t understand why Claire didnā€™t make a plan thatā€™d let Brianna know she arrived safely (print something from that same print shop thatā€™d be a code) and why they didnā€™t decide to meet at the stones for Midsummerā€™s or something.
Loved the Batman song when Claire was making her cape. :slight_smile:
For the last scene I for sure thought theyā€™d stop as she entered because, cliffhanger.

In the books, sheā€™s 6ā€™0" right?

I saw an interview where she says she is 5ā€™8". I would have guessed 5ā€™6".

Yeah, Bree was to have inherited two main physical traits from her father, his red hair and his height. It will take away one of the classic lines in a later book. It also makes her less imposing to people who first meet her than I remember from the books. I kind of imagined a young Brook Shields type actress (with red hair of course). Perhaps the actress will grow into her role. I havenā€™t been as convinced of the casting of the characters as I was in the earlier two years, especially year 1.