I follow Valentine's reviews because they seem to be the harshest of this show and I like to see what the weak points of the show are, but I'm noticing in this review more than in others, that this is someone who has not read the books. Her predictions for Otter Tooth for example - those of who have read the books are probably smirking at that. As for the rest - DOA is my least favorite of the series, so I may be benefitting from low expectations, but I do think there are some interesting conversations to be had here that Valentine doesn't even touch on: What do we do in the 21st century with a story that takes place during times of injustice (e.g. slavery, genocide of native americans), but is not actually about that history? Is it even possible to tell those kinds of stories any more? Perhaps not. Complaints about the lack of action or conflict in the show - is it possible to tell the story of a relationship? Just the relationship? That's really the magic of the next several books, but maybe it doesn't translate to the screen. Book 5 in particular is just a major deep dive into the back stories of these characters. Will that be "boring"? It isn't when you're reading it. And then finally, while I know Outlander loyalists don't want to "go there", something will have to be done with Sophie Skelton. Bri's character is hard to play and incredibly important, but I suspect Skelton would find even less challenging source material difficult to pull off.
2
@JH The reviewer (or anyone else watching the series). Should not have to read the books for the story to make sense. Also regarding the character Brianna - in this book she was a shrill airhead and complete idiot at times. I imagine the screenwriters and Sophie Skelton herself are having a difficult time trying to get a feel for her personality, and have decided to make her "nicer" and less boneheaded. If she behaved on screen like the book Bree, the show would lose most of the audience.
4
For those who weren't born in 1968--I, like Brianna, was 20 then. There were mostly men like Roger and many young women who were willing to have sex with men they didn't intend to marry. It was the beginning of the sexual revolution, but not everybody enlisted in the "army of lovers." Roger was brought up in Scotland--perhaps it was a bit more conservative when it came to women's rights. He acted like a jerk, but so did many others, so I view his behavior as quite realistic.
7
This season has been awful so far. The show loses its magic whenever it leaves Scotland, but Season 4 is particularly bad.
There's absolutely no chemistry between Roger and Brianna, and their story is just not compelling. Even Claire and Jamie seem to have lost their spark. What a disappointment.
4
Agree on no chemistry between Brianna and Roger. I was so hoping they would recast Brianna. No such luck.
4
@anne
I couldn't agree more. The story lost all its luster at this point in the books, as well, and was very hard for me to finish. I just didn't care about the characters anymore once they reached America.
2
Stick-in-the-mud Roger is about 10 years older than Brianna, an early baby boomer. He was from the Silent Generation. Brianna was raised in progressive Boston. Stranger things have happened (and those who have read the books will know what happened, I didn't and don't), but I can't see this going well.
For some reason he has morphed from a likable guy to someone who needs a good lesson in equal rights for women. I am not liking him now.
I did, however, like Otter-Tooth, and am looking forward to learning more about him.
8
I am so sick of Ms. Valentine harping on the “central question” of why Jamie and Claire are in America, which she charges Ms. Gabaldon and the show runners with answering. There is no central question. This is the story. Let it go.
12
I agree with your criticism JJ. I am not enjoying these reviews at all. They are badly written and do not make sense.
4
@JJ Not to mention that she's wrong. The central question is not WHY are they in America. They landed there on accident. They stay there for reasons any nitwit could understand - a new beginning. The central question of the season is: What kind of life will this couple create for themselves at this point in their lives and marriage. Again, I don't think everyone who watches the show needs to have read the books, but this critic seems to SO FREQUENTLY pronounce on "the point", "the central question", "the primary problem", that it might help her to have some idea of where the story is going so she understands whether she is even close to being on point with her critiques.
5
Why do people watch Outlander? Because they want see social commentary, confront the burning issues like slavery and destruction of Native Americans culture or because they want to escape from the harsh reality into fantasy world with some great characters, passable story and strong cast. I am definitely in the second group, Expecting that this show is going to deal in depth with very serious societal issues is just beyond my understanding. I think the producers in fact have given more attention to issues than they should have - they should kept them like in books (present,seriously taken but on back -burner) avoiding to fall into trap of justifying choices of 1760 and 1960 characters by the standards of 21 century (Yes Claire left in 1968 while we still watched scores of Indians being killed in Hollywood movies by brave settlers and cowboys). If we come to the point that Jaime is judged for taking Native Indians land, why are we still celebrating Pilgrims, American revolution, and all other things that gave birth to America? All of them either caused or built on the consequences of settling America. I do not think American society is at that point yet or will ever need to be, but it is at the point when it is more important to make a comment, show you are on a right side, than provide objective critique of fantasy TV show. If nothing we should give Outlander a credit for creating debate it never aspired to do.
20
I decided after watching S2 that I’ll just enjoy the ride. I find the story interesting despite all the rest. I too noticed Claire’s zipped boots. Wouldn’t others notice as well? Why are they always treated like royalty no matter where they show up and where do they get all their clothes? The wigs still irk, and aging Claire while Jamie stays the same. The best wig was Jamie’s at the governors ball. I just wanted to take a big bite out of him. Distinguished, a bit older, reserved about his chemistry with Claire. Omg.
9
@Mc Someone noticed Claire's corset zipper last season.......she explained it was "from France".
3
@Mc the zipped boots are very ones she time traveled in from 1968 to the printshop, onto the Artemis, surviving her 'swim' to Santo Domingo, and survived the eye of the storm that landed them in America. These boots were made for walking and then some !!
9
Richard Rankin's singing of the traditional Scottish folk song “I Once Loved a Lass” was really beautiful. Same with the rest of the music, costumes, and cinematography in this episode. The screenwriters have done a great job too, considering how contrived the original "Drums of Autumn" book becomes at this point. I could barely finish it. It will be interesting to see how they adapt it in the rest of the season.
10
My god the reviewer...three episodes and three bad reviews on Rotten Tomatoes...what is the point in watching the show. So negative and spiteful, critics like you are the reason why quality shows get cancelled. Most of your critisism does not even make any sense and is definitely not backed up by your writing.
15
100% agree with this comment.
7
Two words: Zipper boots.
7
@Angela They complement the zipper corset (which she still had as of episode 1 of this season).
3
@Angela Yes! I saw that! She couldn't have had them unless they were packed in the lining of the "Batsuit!"
1
@Gwen I just assumed those were the shoes she wore when she went back to the 18th century, and she's been wearing them ever since Edinburgh.
7
Ms . Valentine and the commenters are applying 21st century concepts to an 18th century world. In the novel Jaimie and Claire settle on land the British crown had given the Governor of NC, Tryon, a right to convey to settlers. The Native Americans lived on land to the west of the land grant. The story of the European settlers' response to Native Americans is heart-rending, but it's hard to see how, given the Europeans' attitudes of the time, it could've been otherwise. All life requires compromise--to expect moral purity if the characters isn't realistic. They have made compromises throughout the story.
28
Thanks for pointing out the direct hypocrisy of the Frasers in taking the Cherokee land. After all of her posturing about being on the side of the underdog, Claire agrees to stay in North Carolina and take some Native American land. Jamie suggests going to a town that has already been settled, but Claire is having none of it, all of a sudden.
Gabaldon's transfer of her protagonists to North America was always one of the things I disliked about this series. She turned the books into a chronicle of the lead-up to the American Revolution and the beginnings of European expansion westward across the continent. Scottish culture takes a back seat to historical developments in America, and the books lose the veil of fantasy that helped make the first book so unusual and so beloved. And now we're back to Brianna and Roger, who would be the least interesting, most annoying couple in the literary world if it weren't for their time traveling genes. Sigh. Thanks, however, to other commenters who point out that Ian and Roger will pay for their masculine arrogance. Yet, what "sin" has Brianna committed? Because she also winds up paying. Or are we merely supposed to see her as a victim?
7
@Allison Unfortunately the actors cast as Roger and Brianna have zero charisma and no particular spark between them. I also find Roger's costumes depressing and strangely disconnected from the time in which he is living. In 1970, men grew their hair long and definitely did not wear sweater vests.
17
Roger is probably my favorite character in the books. The actor is appealing too, though neither of them much resemble the characters in the books physically. I also don’t really need 21st century sensibilities imposed upon a TV show set in the 1770s.
9
Agreed that Roger and Brianna have no spark. But I think the mane playing Roger is a far better actor than the woman playing Brianna.
7
I don’t understand it.
The appeal of this show has always been Claire’s and Jamie’s steadfastness against moral compromises. In previous seasons, the stickier the situation, the more steadfast they became.
Fight against the entire clan to uphold the rights of women to not be burned at the stake? Check. Fight the entire Paris establishment and against the dirty political shenanigans of prominent politicians and even the king? Check. Fight against the entire British army, over and over and over again?? Check, check, check.
But I guess fighting to save the lives of slaves or not stealing land from Native Americans is a bridge too far.
I don’t know if I can keep watching. I’m so over young Ian’s lecherous and lascivious obsession with “Indian women” and so far, I don’t recognize or particularly like Claire and Jamie very much. No wonder Rollo can’t bring himself to look anyone in the eye! I’d be ashamed of hanging out with this motley crew as well.
7
@Max: As far as the current iteration of Jamie and Claire goes, I chalked up their recent unwillingness to fight to the difference between being 28 and being 48.
12
@Max You've forgotten that Jamie and Claire did save the life of one slave in Jamaica. And this is not the last you will see of Jocasta's slaves.
You need to wait for this season to play out, instead of expecting everything to be to your liking in each single episode.
8
Rollo!! <3
4
...and of the skull Claire found that had fillings from a later time? Who could that be?
3
@marty That was Otter Tooth , the spirit indian who when he turned away from Claire, showed his skull injury in all it's bloody glory to her. So the good Doctor is holding her 'patients' skull and gets to see a 'living' version of him at the same time!! If you're not a book reader- all will be explained later in the series!
3
@marty He's known as Otter-Tooth. There are magic stones in the United States as well as Scotland. Hopefully Brianna won't have to travel across the sead and back to meet up with Claire.
2
Some books travel well into the subsequent decades. This series, in parts, has the occasional stumble, but it rights itself in the end. The ending of this episode can come off a bit cringe-worthy, in its ride-off-into-the-sunset corniness, but in every scene throughout lurks a foreshadowing. Pay attention to the choices they make. They will all pay for them in spades. Eyes especially on Ian and Roger.
16
My major takeaway from this episode involved atmosphere not acting. The scene with the wicker horse ablaze, then darkness. The lightning storm above the forest, pan out to the valley, and then up close and drenched. Left in the dark. Caught out in a storm. Separated. Alone. It’s visceral.
18