|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through August 26, 2014 | Jasper | 25 | 1 | 08-25-14 11:32 pm |
| Archive through September 21, 2014 | Heckagirl631 | 25 | 1 | 09-21-14 10:03 am |
| Archive through March 03, 2015 | Teachmichigan | 25 | 1 | 03-03-15 12:17 pm |
| Archive through April 13, 2015 | Mameblanche | 25 | 1 | 04-13-15 12:58 pm |
| Archive through April 27, 2015 | Mameblanche | 25 | 1 | 04-27-15 2:55 am |
| Archive through May 31, 2015 | Snoopsmom | 25 | 1 | 05-31-15 12:25 am |
| Archive through April 18, 2016 | Babyjaxmom | 25 | 1 | 04-18-16 1:32 am |
| Archive through June 13, 2016 | Sanfranjoshfan | 25 | 1 | 06-13-16 4:14 am |
| Archive through September 16, 2017 | Babyjaxmom | 25 | 1 | 09-16-17 2:35 am |
| Archive through November 05, 2017 | Heckagirl631 | 25 | 1 | 11-05-17 8:29 am |
| Archive through November 13, 2018 | Mack | 25 | 1 | 11-13-18 3:50 am |
| Archive through December 31, 2018 | Babyjaxmom | 25 | 1 | 12-31-18 7:23 am |
| Archive through February 23, 2020 | Heckagirl631 | 25 | 1 | 02-23-20 12:41 pm |
| Archive through April 27, 2020 | Denecee | 25 | 1 | 04-27-20 6:53 am |
| Archive through May 19, 2020 | Babyjaxmom | 25 | 1 | 05-19-20 3:30 am |
| Archive through July 26, 2023 | Heckagirl631 | 25 | 1 | 07-26-23 7:51 am |
| Archive through December 22, 2024 | Jimmer | 25 | 1 | 12-22-24 4:13 pm |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Monday, December 23, 2024 - 2:00 am 
I kind of like that they’ve made Jamie frustrating. Always inherently sexist, really, and overly protective, but why wouldn’t he be, considering the times and every experience around him. And he usually tries to understand, and does often change his mind with time.
But still, frustrating Jamie is… frustrating.
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Saturday, January 11, 2025 - 5:37 am
No episode this week  .
|
Heckagirl631
Member
09-08-2010
| Friday, January 17, 2025 - 6:43 pm
What a way to end this part of the series. Don't remember that from the books either.
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Saturday, January 18, 2025 - 1:34 am
It seems to me the timing doesn’t work out. Say the mother was 16 when she had the oldest daughter, who’s probably meant to be 17… was the birth really 34 years ago, surely not? Even if she was just the mother of the youngest sister, that would still make it 30 years ago.
Also William and Jane… half siblings?!
Or did I get confused about what they were saying?
|
Teachmichigan
Member
07-21-2001
| Saturday, January 18, 2025 - 1:04 pm
Faith, if she is indeed Jane & Frannie's mom (this is not following the books), would have been 18 when Jane was born. Jane would be William's half-niece (so WAY eeewwww on the sleeping together factor).
The only thing that is the same in the books is that Frannie did have a locket with the name Faith on it.
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Sunday, January 19, 2025 - 1:49 am
I had no idea so much time had passed since Faith’s birth. That’s the trouble with keeping the original actors (not that there’d be any better option) they only look in their 40s at most.
|
Jimmer
Board Administrator
08-29-2000
| Sunday, January 19, 2025 - 5:35 pm
One of my mild issues with the TV show is that everyone and everything looks far too good to be realistic.
|
Sanfranjoshfan
Member
09-16-2000
| Sunday, January 19, 2025 - 11:59 pm
"I had no idea so much time had passed since Faith’s birth. "
Seems to me any time/age issue could chalked up to a quick trip through the stones. Maybe Faith was taken several years back (or forward) when she was still a baby?
It seems likely to me because they're changing events in time now, right? Wasn't Jamie's Da supposed to have been dead? Or was it the 1968 witch that was supposed to have died? Or did they just not realize they were in the wrong year yet?
Wasn't that a painting (portrait) of Jane on the wall that Brianna was looking at shortly before her conversation with Jamie's daddy? I thought it was obviously Jane the second I saw it but the painting was never explained or ever even brought up again, so who knows?
Time machines (or time rocks) can heal all continuity mistakes.
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Monday, January 20, 2025 - 3:15 am
After Teach said the timing was correct I went back and tried to work it out for myself. The biggest tell that it is correct is Brianna, who was born after Faith, is now in her 30s.
What threw it so far off for me, was that after Claire went back to the future (1949) to safely have Brianna, Jamie and Claire actually spent 20 years apart (1747-1766) because Claire assumed Jamie would have died in the war. I don't remember much of the Claire story, but we know that much time passed because of how old Brianna was. In the past, that period was when Jamie gets William's mother pregnant, then marries Laoghaire out of duty, then becomes a printer.
And Claire and Jamie's current time (s7e16) is... 1779 (I had to look that up!). So we've followed their story about 36 years. They met in 1743, Faith was born (supposedly stillborn but maybe not) in 1745, Bree was born in 1949, which was 1747 in old money. William was born in 1756. So in the current (Claire/Jamie) past Bree is 32, and Faith would be 34, if she did survive (which makes it logical for her to have had a 17 year old daughter in Jane).
I'm not sure what you mean about them changing events in time. The side story with Roger is a little out of time, but I don't think it has changed any past events except the return of his (Roger's) father. When Roger jumped back in time to try and find Jemmy, he actually locked on to the time period his father was in, which was 1739 (spoilers if you're not up to date on these last few episodes). So we found out Roger's father was also a time traveller, and had previously jumped back to about five years before the first Jamie/Claire time period we saw, which was 1743.
That's why we saw Jamie's dad alive, as he still was in 1739, and if we'd have seen Jamie then he'd have been in France at university. Anyway, that time period will be gone soon, I assume, as at the end of it Brianna and the children met Roger there, and they decided to go to Claire and Jamie's time. I don't think any other time periods were changed in significant ways (and they cleverly made it so that when Roger's father was returned to the future (1940s London during the Blitz) he materialises in a tube station during a blackout, which was where Roger's mother died. We can assume - I assume - that Roger's father died the same way, which is why Roger didn't suddenly remember a past with his father.
I am not sure about the Jane portrait. I presume it will be explained next season...
|
Sanfranjoshfan
Member
09-16-2000
| Monday, January 20, 2025 - 12:34 pm
But didn't Jamie (at some point in S07 Part 2) say something to Claire about how, when some battle they affected, saved a number of soldiers allowing them to survive instead of die...and that it could have caused changes? And Didn't Claire say something about how they were still there and alive so the changes must have been insignificant? My first thought was that if they changed even a tiny thing (and if it never affected the Frasers) it meant that changes were possible...and a lot of things could've changed that she'd never know about. Butterfly affect.
That made me wonder about other "changes" that could've taken place.
Btw, I did watch ALL of S07 Part 2 yesterday so I have no idea which ep in Part 2 that conversation was in.
Yes, I confused the assumptions that the travelers made with what was really happening because they didn't know when they were. I was living in their mistake at that point. 
My last option to explain the perceived "changes" was actually my quicky "fix" to explain a answer to my questions...when I asked:
"Or did they just not realize they were in the wrong year yet? "
Anyhow I just looked around online and found several people saying that's the way time travel works in Outlander...that the past cannot be changed. Period. And I assume all those fans have read all the books and watched the episodes many times, I'm sure they are top internet experts on this show so I just backed away slowly...
|
Sanfranjoshfan
Member
09-16-2000
| Monday, January 20, 2025 - 2:03 pm
Btw.....When I said "top internet experts" I was definitely NOT referring to any of OUR experts here!
|
Jimmer
Board Administrator
08-29-2000
| Monday, January 20, 2025 - 3:35 pm
I think that the general consensus seems to be that since they have been unsuccessful at changing history when they tried to change it, it can’t be changed. That seems like a bit of a leap to me but there you have it. I don’t recall if the author has commented on her definitive position on this, if she has one.
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Tuesday, January 21, 2025 - 1:58 am
We don’t know for sure they didn’t change anything though. The two things I remember they’ve focused on are the burning house (and Claire and Jamie’s supposed death) and Roger’s dad.
For the burning house (the one at the ridge), Bree and Roger found out from old newspapers that Claire and Jamie died in the fire in their house. When they went to save them, what happened was it looked like Claire and Jamie died in the fire, but they didn’t. So it would still have been reported in the newspapers that way, the newspaper wouldn’t have changed, but that doesn’t mean Claire and Jamie’s future in the past didn’t.
Suggestions that their future did change are that Roger, in the current time zone (I think it was 1970s at the time), didn’t find any records of Jamie Frazier in anything about the upcoming war, yet he commanded several troops in what we’ve seen this season. Could be that for some reason those records were lost (but always there), or it could be that in the timeline that existed before Roger and Bree went back to stop the fire, that was not Jamie’s future.
Similar with Roger’s dad. Roger’s original history was that his mum died in the underground in the blitz, and his dad died in a plane in the war. After Roger gave his dad the info to focus on his wife and baby son when he returned through the stones, the dad appeared holding baby/toddler Roger in the underground. It could have been possible that Roger’s dad originally had time off during the blitz, even though he was a fighter pilot (?!?!) but what that scene suggested to me was that in the new version of the future, Roger’s dad died in the underground, not in a plane, but around the same time, so Roger’s future, where he didn’t know either parent and grew up with his uncle the Reverend, remains the same.
Actually more evidence that things changed: Roger’s dad, in 1739, only appeared to have been there a few days. He was still disoriented and struggling to find food. As time runs at the same speed in the past and future, and we assume that the dad’s “death” in the original timeline was when he passed over the stones the first time, then a few days later, in the original timeline, he would definitely not have been in the underground with baby Roger, I.e. he couldn’t have been on leave. So his death in the underground was his story changed, even though Roger’s history never changed as he was too young to remember it, and no one else knew the dad had rematerialised, so would have only later heard from the military of his death (actually disappearance through the stones).
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Tuesday, January 21, 2025 - 2:10 am
On Sanfran’s post, yes, I remember Claire saying about changing the past when they saved people. Seems very unlikely to me they didn’t change something. New babies born from soldiers they saved, or babies not born from soldiers they killed. They might not know it, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
It’s also possible (in this fiction) that the world self-corrects somehow, such as the soldiers they save get (metaphorically) hit by a bus the next day, the soldiers they killed were originally going to get hit by a bus the next day, so it all works out.
We don’t know which way it works as they haven’t given us enough info yet.
Btw, in my earlier post, I wasn’t saying they didn’t change anything, I thought you were saying that the answer to me not realizing that so many years has passed, was that actually that many years hadn’t passed, it was just a result of a time jump when they passed through the stones. I might have misunderstood. But in reality I was just wrong, and that many years had passed.
|
Sanfranjoshfan
Member
09-16-2000
| Tuesday, January 21, 2025 - 11:24 am
"I thought you were saying that the answer to me not realizing that so many years has passed...<snip>...was just a result of a time jump when they passed through the stones."
That's pretty much what I meant...I figured if time travel is as easy as it is in Outlander, people could travel to the past and future several times thus being basically the same age in several different time periods, depending on how long they remained in any specific era.
I suppose that Claire could even bump into elderly Claire and have a nice chat someday....or maybe they already have and she doesn't remember it for some time-travel-excuse like it happened when she was incapacitated (wounded, illness...) and forgot about it until after her future self went back in time to say "hi" to her younger self decades later.
I still wonder about an early scene I saw (in the first episode, I think). My memory is murky on it, it was something like in the 40s, Claire and her husband were somewhere (on holiday?) and the hubby was looking up at Claire in a window on the second floor(?) of a building (hotel?) at night. As he stood, there a man walked by and brushed against him and he turned and the viewers saw a man fading away into nothingness while standing near the hubby. I don't remember seeing the face of the fading man.
I could have the characters mixed up, or the time, or any number things...but I have always wondered who the fading man was and the story behind his brief appearance (according to my memory of that ep...that aired a decade ago).
Does anyone else here remember ANY of this scene?...or have I just become a doddering and delusional old man? (I'm living my 75th year at the moment).
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Tuesday, January 21, 2025 - 11:52 am
I can't remember that exact scene, but in the first few episodes we definitely saw a man in full 1740s style tartans, looking up from a fountain or something in the square, up into the window where 1940s Claire was. He sounds like the same man as your man. And it hasn't been resolved as far as I remember.
Ok, just googled that and your memory and my memory combined are what happened. The Scotsman was looking up at Claire, and Frank (the husband) passed by the Scotsman in the square, then turned round to look back and he was gone.
If you google using similar phrasing about the Scotsman looking up from a fountain at Claire, all the replies will instantly give away what/who/why is was (from the books, I presume) so only google if you want to know. Kind of a big spoiler about one thing if you think too much about it, so I suggest you don't.
|
Sanfranjoshfan
Member
09-16-2000
| Tuesday, January 21, 2025 - 12:21 pm
I did.
Don't read this if you do not want some spoiling!
Spoiler
Click below to view spoiler | | I have always assumed the Frazers live out the rest of their lives in the past. Too bad it was just a fleeting hint of the show's love story that apparently had no influence on the plot. |
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Tuesday, January 21, 2025 - 12:30 pm
On them jumping around in time, Jane was not alive in 1939, which is where her portrait is (in Jamie's dad's house). So something extra time travelly must happen at some point.
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Tuesday, January 21, 2025 - 12:35 pm
I'm not sure what I thought, I like the idea of them living in not so dangerous times and did wonder.
|
Sanfranjoshfan
Member
09-16-2000
| Tuesday, January 21, 2025 - 12:43 pm
I thought Brianna was seeing that painting in the past when she met Jamie's Da in the mid 1700s.
But anyhow, Jane not being alive in 1939 doesn't have anything to do with her portrait because that painting could just be very old. Mona Lisa isn't alive in 2025, but her portrait is!
Btw, some online fans are saying that the painting of Jane at Lollybroch(sp?) is NOT Jane because the woman in the painting did not have red hair.
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Tuesday, January 21, 2025 - 1:33 pm
Sorry, I should have written 1739! In the finale, Bree and the kids met Roger in 1739, before the main story started in 1743.
Yes, it's that time, in Lallybroch in 1739, where Bree saw the portrait of Jane. So that's why it's a bit kooky, Jane wasn't actually born until 1761 or so.
(And yes, if it wasn't actually Jane that would solve a lot of puzzles..!)
|
Sanfranjoshfan
Member
09-16-2000
| Tuesday, January 21, 2025 - 2:18 pm
"Yes, it's that time, in Lallybroch in 1739, where Bree saw the portrait of Jane. So that's why it's a bit kooky, Jane wasn't actually born until 1761 or so."
Got it. That makes perfect sense.
I still think Outlander's time travel can fix ANY time/date issue, though. IF that was Jane in the painting and IF she was somehow saved from her own attempted suicide, she could've been on the run and whisked away to 1739 to hide out....and have her portrait painted.
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Tuesday, January 21, 2025 - 2:25 pm
I'm just waiting for one of them to be their own grandparent ;).
|
Sanfranjoshfan
Member
09-16-2000
| Tuesday, January 21, 2025 - 2:32 pm
I think I'm stuck on Jane's journey because they made it a big point to the viewers that her body was "unfindable". The scene with the sister wanting to find her among the unmarked graves in that graveyard was just pointless. The sister just lost her only family, was on the run from evil brothel people and she was already as broken and depressed as possible....why would the writers dump more loss on her for no real reason?
Maybe Jane was never in that graveyard.
I have also speculated that the little girl was really Jane's daughter, not her sister. No reason....just for a new twist.
This is JUST my own speculation...and we all know I tend over-speculate a lot.
|
Sanfranjoshfan
Member
09-16-2000
| Tuesday, January 21, 2025 - 2:38 pm
"I'm just waiting for one of them to be their own grandparent ;)."
Well, that's quite possible, even without time travel:
https://www.facebook.com/raystevensmusic1707/videos/ray-stevens-im-my-own-grandpa-live-on-cabaray-nashville/775849881123762/
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Wednesday, January 22, 2025 - 1:24 am
Lol, that’s one way to do it!
I took that as a nod to the war dead, who are in unmarked graves on fields of battle. It could be a thing, I didn’t think of that, but not sure why anyone would want to cover up her death, except maybe William, but he was too distraught for it to be him. Or, oh, except a time traveler of course..!
|
Jimmer
Board Administrator
08-29-2000
| Wednesday, January 22, 2025 - 7:10 pm
I'm just waiting for one of them to be their own grandparent ;).
I’ll put this in a spoiler because I’m confused by what is shown in the TV show vs. the books though this hasn’t been specifically stated in the books.
There is a lot of speculation that
Spoiler
Click below to view spoiler | | Claire is a descendant of Fergus and Marsali. |
But maybe you all knew that. I’m a little out of the loop.
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Thursday, January 23, 2025 - 2:04 am
Jimmer, there’s a new spin off of this show (I expect you know) which is about Claire’s parents in WW1. If that’s true in the show, it would definitely make the flashbacks more interesting from the start.
|
Teachmichigan
Member
07-21-2001
| Sunday, January 26, 2025 - 8:40 pm
The portrait is of Ellen - Brian's wife. I thought it looked like Jane but knowing the books and then the conversation between Brian and Brianna that is happening in 1739, it's Ellen.
Jane is alive some 40 years later (1778 is the Battle of Monmouth) and she died by suicide. Just as presented. The lack of a specific grave was just because she was not allowed to be in a "consecrated" grade as suicide is a mortal sin. She's not a time traveler and it's still pure speculation that she's even related to Claire via Faith.
IMHO - I think Matt B Roberts & Toni Graphia are pulling another one of their "we thought it would be fun"* ideas in order to 1 - create a cliffhanger that even book readers didn't see coming and 2 - create a way to tie the original show in with the new show that is coming - Blood of My Blood - about Jamie's parents and Claire's parents. I'll honestly be really surprised and actually a bit pissed if they create a world where Faith lived. As if it's not bad enough that Jamie and Claire were separated 20 years and Jamie never got to raise ANY of his biological children, having Faith LIVE and be apart from both parents just seems even more cruel.
*These two can be amazing writers together but they sometimes veer out of the books into ridiculousness. Example: MBR's overuse of the black and white reel after Roger was hanged. That entire episode made me nuts. Use it once maybe twice, but it appears EIGHT times in under an hour. SOOOO annoying.
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Monday, January 27, 2025 - 2:10 am
It definitely seems like it was meant to be Ellen… but why did they choose to make her look like Jane, during the Jane episodes? Maybe they are just playing with us.
If Faith isn’t the girls’ mother, they will have to find some other reason for the girls (and their mother) knowing the song. So they must have crossed paths at sometime with Claire, or maybe Bree, or Bree’s daughter, or possibly another time traveler…
|
Sanfranjoshfan
Member
09-16-2000
| Monday, January 27, 2025 - 12:55 pm
Could Jane's daughter actually be Faith?
That's not a serious hypothesis, but it does point out, to me at least, that with time travel being a lot more frequent than we suspected, it could be a viable option.
The daughter=Faith notion is a good way for Claire to get back the 20 year experience of raising her and Jamie's daughter that she was deprived of.
Like I said, not a serious option, but that's where my brain went! I'm not going to try and figure this family lineage out anymore...it's too exhausting and there are way too many time loopholes available.
I'll just stick to the "you can't change history" rule. Think about this...what if any changes they've made are actually representing the real history of what happened? Maybe their "changes" are really just a "restoration".
Or more likely, maybe it's not.
It's a complicated character driven show about lovers over time, not a complicated sci-fi puzzle, which is where my head tends to go.
----
Thanks for that explanation, Teachmichigan. It all makes logical sense. And my attempt to decipher an unfinished timeline is impossible. I'll just try to remain in the place/time that Jamie and Claire are in. I'm lost on the twists and turns of the journey, but I can accept it's destination, whatever it is. Even if the show ends exactly where it started, it would just mean that J&C took the scenic route through their lives instead of the easier, more boring one. They'll still be together...if the scene of Jamie at the water fountain in Claire's original time is accurate.
|
Teachmichigan
Member
07-21-2001
| Friday, January 31, 2025 - 5:53 pm
SanFran - I agree the time travel can make your head spin, but the one thing that has been true all along is that both time periods are progressing at the same rate, just 202 years apart. With that premise, Frannie is too young to be Faith.
|
Sanfranjoshfan
Member
09-16-2000
| Friday, January 31, 2025 - 7:58 pm
Teachmichigan, I love time travel stories but this show has a bit of wiggle room in their "rules" that I don't want to try and figure it out anymore. I'm fine with just trusting that they're where (and when) they say they are. How they got to a particular time and place doesn't really matter, really. I mean...magic is magic, right?
I guess I'm just more used to a time travel story in a sci-fi context rather than a period love story. I can just enjoy the love story...with some time travel on the side.
|
Teachmichigan
Member
07-21-2001
| Tuesday, February 04, 2025 - 6:59 pm
That's basically how I watch/read it as well. Bit of time travel to get people where they need to be, but the story of Jamie & Claire is the main thing.
|
|
|
|
