?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
May 11 2016 @ 11:04 pm
DP: Untimely Resurrection (205)  
Quick Recap:
Jamie returns home from the bastille to find Claire waiting up for him with Fergus who just passed out. After carrying Fergus to bed Jamie tells Claire how Duverney got them all out except Alex Randall who has been dismissed from Sandringham's service and is being held for the rape of Mary. Jamie asks for details about their attack and when Claire tells him they mistook her for someone named La Dame Blanche. Jamie is shocked and tells Claire he spread the rumor to stop Charles from tossing whores at him.

Murtagh is distraught about failing to protect Claire and Mary and Jamie charges him with finding those responsible and Murtagh plans to lay vengeance at Jamie's feet.

[Read More...]Claire checks on Mary, reassuring her the rape wasn't her fault and she doesn't think she'll have a baby. Mary asks that Claire deliver a letter to the bastille which will exonerate Alex of her attack. Claire briefly considering burning the letter but does the right thing in the end.

Charles stops by Jamie's work to inform him that his mysterious financial backers have pulled out of the whole rebellion thing but he's got a beat on 10,000 pounds sterling by going into business with St. Germain. Jamie's not keen on this and less so when Charles tell him he'll actually be the one dealing with St. German.

After helping Alex gain his freedom, Claire convinces him a life with him wouldn't be good for Mary. Alex is so in love he actually believes breaking Mary's heart is the solution. Claire feels bad but she wants to ensure Frank's existence.

Jamie goes to the royal stud farm with Sandringham while Claire and Annalise take a stroll through the gardens. Sandringham is surprised Jamie has thrown in with Charles who he's not impressed with but Jamie isn't giving up much. Meanwhile, Annalise and Claire are discussing Jamie and things seem tense but get so much worse when Annalise points out a man is starring at her.

Randall waxes poetic about finding Claire there and how the universe is bringing them together. Annalise runs off to find Jamie though Claire just wants to get away but can't when King Louis appears. The King chats with Claire and mocks Randall eventually getting his on his knees to beg for the release of his brother from the bastille. This is highly amusing to both Jamie and Claire. Claire asks the King for leave because she's not feeling well and the King grants her and Jamie leave with concern.

After the King leaves, Jamie goes back to Randall and arranges a duel where he plans to kill Randall. While Jamie and Murtagh work out the details of the duel, Claire goes to the bastille and swears out a charge that Randall was the one that attacked Mary and her in the street effectively preventing the duel.

Jamie is furious and Murtagh's not happy either but Claire tells Murtagh this is between Jamie and she and kicks him out. Claire tells Jamie that Mary and Jack are Frank's ancestors and if he kills Randall, Frank will not exist. Jamie nearly considers this but Jamie can't get past Randall making him "play his whore".

Claire tells Jamie he owes her a life and she is calling in the debt which upsets Jamie greatly. Jamie does agree to wait a year to kill Randall but as Claire goes to thank Jamie he tells her not to touch him. Her request and broken something between them.


Poll #2044511 What did you think of this episode?

How many kilts would you give Untimely Resurrection?

1 - Not a fan, ya ken?
0(0.0%)
2 - It was Outlander.
1(9.1%)
3 - I liked it fine.
0(0.0%)
4 - Really good.
7(63.6%)
5 - Bloody awesome.
3(27.3%)


Now Let's Discuss (and ignore the books):

  1. Jamie has told people Claire is La Dame Blanche (a white witch) even though it hasn't been long since Claire was tried as a witch. Poor judgment on his part or do you think it is a difference of country, beliefs and circumstances which will prevent Claire from being taken up as a witch?

  2. How do you feel about Jamie previously and other's voicing Mary shouldn't talk about being raped because it will ruin her reputation?

  3. Do you feel Charles Stuart is rather insecure in his beliefs about his ability to lead a rising?

  4. How did you feel about Claire talking Alex out of going to Mary and her intentions to keep them apart?

  5. Do you think Claire as a time traveler has influenced things like taking Mary going to the Hospital, ending up raped in the alley, and being separated from Alex? Would Mary have simply married the Viscount or ended up with Jack? Would she even know Alex? Let's contemplate time travel?

  6. What did you think of Jamie's christening gift for their child and the fact it has been in his family for a while?

  7. Claire is convinced she must save Frank. Do you think it is just because she feels so owes him or that she may never come back in time without Frank in her life? Do you think this is the only reason Claire doesn't want Jamie to kill Randall?

  8. Thoughts on King Louis humiliating Jack Randall?

  9. Did you think Claire preventing the duel was selfish or horrible or do you think she is justified in trying to prevent Frank from being erased from history?


Feel free to pose anything else you wish to discuss from this episode or my review/recap. No spoilers please!

Noteworthy:
Where are the viewers going? I'm not overly concerned because Outlander is still doing better this season than the first season but 1.13 million viewers? We are going down. You can see the progression of ratings at OW's Season Two page under the Episode Info tab.



Next Week On Outlander:


 
 
 
siobhan63siobhan63 on May 12th, 2016 12:28 pm (UTC)
Sorry I didn't comment on the episode 4 recap -- last week was just one of those weeks and I just couldn't get into a headspace for replying. And this week, I'm just going to ramble a bit about the season thus far rather than this particular episode.

This weekend, after I watched ep. 5, I also made a point of rewatching episodes 2, 3 and 4. I had already watched ep. 1 two or three times, so didn't feel a need to rewatch it -- besides, most of it is quite separate from the following episodes as it takes place in the future (or what would have been Claire's actual time had she not gone through the stones, in 1948).

My first impression of episode 2, you might recall, had been that it felt really rushed, that they were trying to cram too much into one episode and speeding up events too much. After watching subsequent episodes, I better understood how and why they were doing it the way they did, which is why I wanted to rewatch 2, 3 and 4 to see if I still felt the same way. I have to say that things felt more fluid on second viewing. The writers/producers are essentially keeping all the main events from the book, but condensing when they happen by sort of merging them. By that I mean, they'll take two key things that happen in the book at two separate times/events, but have them happen at one event. Book two is quite complex, so I totally get that they've had to do this sort of thing (and it will be even worse or more of a challenge with the adaptation of book 3, which is almost 3 separate stories in one).

I am still on the fence about how they've handled a couple of key events, however. The first was the meeting of Alex Randall. In the book, Jamie and Claire meet him together, and Jamie almost kills him on the spot because he looks so much like BJR, they at first think it is BJR. The casting for Alex was done very well -- the actor does resemble Tobias Menzies somewhat, and even his voice and way of speaking is similar to Tobias when he's playing BJR. In the show, however, only Claire meets him at first, and she doesn't seem to see any physical resemblance at all. She only reacts (but not that much) when the Duke of Sandringham informs her that Alex is BJR's brother, and then reacts more when Alex informs her that BJR isn't dead. I was somewhat disappointed with how that was done. And still am.

The second one involves the meeting of BJR with Claire and Jamie in ep.5. I will say that I totally LOVED how it unfolded in the show. It happened very differently in the book, but I'm OK with that. There is just one thing from the book that they dropped which I wish they had kept in. [Spoiler (click to open)]In the book, when BJR sees Jamie for the first time since Wentworth, he says his name, very softly, almost reverently -- "Jamie", and Jamie turns on him and forbids him to EVER utter his name again. And ever the (very warped) gentleman, BJR keeps that promise. When they see him again back in Scotland later in the book, he never once refers to Jamie by name. I think that scene was quite key to both understanding Jamie and BJR -- Jamie didn't want BJR to feel he had the right to personalize their "relationship", and Jack, out of whatever warped respect he has for Jamie, respected that.

The acting, as with last season, has been stellar. Caitriona and Tobias in ep. 1 were outstanding. Cait and Sam have had some incredible moments in other episodes, in particular 4 and 5. The fight at the end of ep. 5 was so painful.

The casting for the myriad of new characters has been spot-on. The sets, costumes, etc., just stunning. I am looking forward to the show moving back to Scotland.

So to sum up, I guess, I think the writers, producers, etc. have done a stellar job in adapting a very complex story. I don't know why the decision was made to have only 13 episodes this season when the first had 16 -- had they had the luxury of those 3 extra episodes, I'm sure slightly different decisions would have been made. But given that they had only 13 episodes to tell this story, I think they've done a stellar job thus far.

Jill aka Jo: SPN: Bike wheeesireesanwar on May 12th, 2016 05:33 pm (UTC)
Believe me I understand. I've been having a lot of those weeks lately.

I have noticed they've combine things and while it isn't the book at all... I'm still loving it. The book is just totally separate for me. I love it and it is there but this is the show and I'm loving it even if some of the recent episodes have lacked something. This episode; however, was fantastic.

I actually think Laurence Dobiesz looks quite a bit like Tobias enough that it makes you think twice about any relation in real life (though I'm positive they aren't). But I really agree. I wanted more surprise out of Alex's appearance and there just wasn't.

[Spoiler (click to open)]I know exactly what you are talking about. I loved that moment when Jamie tells him never to say his name and BJR complies. But in France BJR is at the disadvantage because he's safe there and in the King's favor. I do wish they'd left that in but the way they played it made it next to impossible though it could still come up.

However, I adored the whole scene with BJR basically getting dressed down by King Louis and ending up on his knees. Gosh how I wish it had been worse than that but I loved how amused Jamie and Claire were.

I think Sam is doing amazingly well this season. He's had a lot to deal with. Jamie is far more important this time around and he's knocking out of the park to use a baseball reference.

Me too!

So do I and I'm excited about the new writer. Richard Kahan wrote episode 5 and he did a brilliant job.

siobhan63siobhan63 on May 12th, 2016 12:29 pm (UTC)
My first post was too long so this is part 2 of what I wanted to say:

Now, to address the issue of time travel you raised in your recap... Ah temporal paradoxes! As a sci-fi fan, I've read more than a few novels dealing with time travel, and watched more than a few shows that also dealt with the topic. I know part of me, when I was watching Claire and Jamie's argument at the end of ep. 5, was thinking "The hell with Frank! You made your choice, Claire, so what if Frank never comes to be?" But then the sci-fi part of my brain clicked in. If Frank doesn't exist, then Jamie and Claire never come to be either. Why? Because if Frank never exists, Claire never marries him and never ends up in Scotland on a second honeymoon. If that doesn't happen, she doesn't fall through the stones and never meets Jamie. Therefore, for there to be the great Jamie and Claire love story, you need to have Frank. Oddly, I don't think Diana ever posits that point in any of the novels, unless I'm forgetting something. The same sort of holds true for the events in the past that they are trying to change. You sort of have to assume that Claire and Jamie always tried to change events leading up to Culloden, but Culloden happens despite of (or because of?) their efforts. Does that make sense? Since Claire goes through the stones, you have to assume that she was always part of those historical events. If I had more caffeine in me, I could probably explain that a bit better! Temporal paradoxes do my head in!

As for viewship numbers. Do you have any info on how that is collected/what they include? Are they just the Saturday night viewing numbers? Do they include people who are downloading it via the Starz app? Who PVR it and watch it later? Anyway, this season is VERY different both in tone and complexity to season 1, so it could be that a lot of the non-book readers have been a bit put off by that reality. Anyone looking for a season that was going to be mostly a rerun of the wedding episode (meaning lots of hot Claire-Jamie romantic stuff) was going to be sorely disappointed. Book readers knew what to expect. I have seen comments on some review columns from viewers complaining that there are too many new characters and they don't understand the politics and are losing interest. But they are in the minority. And if they think this season doesn't have enough romantic Jamie-Claire stuff, season three is going to be even harder on them [Spoiler (click to open)]given that for a big chunk of that story, Jamie and Claire are apart for 20 years.
Jill aka Jo: BBT: Hit Me Amysireesanwar on May 12th, 2016 05:41 pm (UTC)
I think you are forgetting something because DG does have Claire point that out. If she hadn't married Frank and gone to the standing stones she never would have meet Jamie though I suspect she would have ended up there at some point anyway. But we don't know that. According to what we do know it is her second honeymoon with Frank that leads her to Jamie. So saving Frank's life is important.

I like to think of it this way... maybe Claire and Jamie were always supposed to do what they did. Maybe not. But I think Roger explained it best when he said that time will happen. They could change something major and yet events would play out to make what big things such as Culloden come to pass. Maybe if they killed Charles, James (his father) simply would take up the mantle. Or they just wouldn't succeed. Roger later tells them the big things just can't be changed because of all the working parts. There is more than just a few things at work and Jamie and Claire can't control it all.

I think they are mostly counting the viewing of the episode off of Starz's channel. I could be wrong. It may include app viewers.

People don't get the politics? Really. I think they are fairly simple. I mean there are more characters but Jamie and Claire have explained things over and over. It isn't that hard to figure out. But I think once things get back to Scotland it will be less confusing.

Very true about a third season.
siobhan63siobhan63 on May 12th, 2016 12:33 pm (UTC)
Also, here is a piece from Variety wherein Tobias and Sam talk about the Jamie-BJR "reunion". It's quite interesting. (Full of spoilers for ep. 5 so don't read if you've not watched it yet.)

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/outlander-recap-season-2-episode-5-jack-randall-jamie-meet-claire-fight-frank-1201768727/
Jill aka Josireesanwar on May 12th, 2016 05:42 pm (UTC)
Thanks.