Outlander: Waiting for April [SPOILERS: First Season]

[Corvinus85]

On 9/14/2017 at 7:09 PM, Martini Sigil said:

Also... I would have loved to slap the snot out of that condescending Harvard jizzbucket 

Not to start a political debate here, but between that guy and the doctor teaching the anatomy class, I kept thinking Is this where we want to take America back?

Anyway, I do find the pacing slow, in the context of what we know from last season, but still it is great to see 18th century Scotland again, and I do feel sorry for Frank at this stage. I hope he doesn't turn into a douche.

[Mladen]

The marriage between Frank and Claire continues to baffle and amaze me. I simply don't get it. 

[Astromech]

49 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

Not to start a political debate here, but between that guy and the doctor teaching the anatomy class, I kept thinking Is this where we want to take America back?

Anyway, I do find the pacing slow, in the context of what we know from last season, but still it is great to see 18th century Scotland again, and I do feel sorry for Frank at this stage. I hope he doesn't turn into a douche.

Tobias Menzies never plays a douche.

The episode was ok. Mainly the Scotland parts. Poor Fergus. I did get a bit of a chuckle at Frank and Claire's "look at me" love scene.

[Martini Sigil]

2 hours ago, Risto said:

The marriage between Frank and Claire continues to baffle and amaze me. I simply don't get it. 

They were married before the war, and were promptly separated into their respective roles in the army...the show begins with them --after being fundamentally changed by the war-- trying to get re-acquainted with one another... The thing is, as baffling as their relationship seems to us now, we never knew the Claire and Frank who got married before the war

[Mladen]

3 hours ago, Astromech said:

Tobias Menzies never plays a douche.

The episode was ok. Mainly the Scotland parts. Poor Fergus. I did get a bit of a chuckle at Frank and Claire's "look at me" love scene.

Really? I have seen him in "The Night Manager", "Rome"... Wait, was that irony? Damn, I am stupid.

I had Harry Potter/Dumbledore kind of vibe  

47 minutes ago, Martini Sigil said:

They were married before the war, and were promptly separated into their respective roles in the army...the show begins with them --after being fundamentally changed by the war-- trying to get re-acquainted with one another... The thing is, as baffling as their relationship seems to us now, we never knew the Claire and Frank who got married before the war

Yes, I understand all of that. But, for the love of God, I have no idea WHY they are still together. 

[Martini Sigil]

1 hour ago, Risto said:

Yes, I understand all of that. But, for the love of God, I have no idea WHY they are still together. 

Oh... now I understand your query.... beats the hell out of me. 

[Astromech]

1 hour ago, Risto said:

Really? I have seen him in "The Night Manager", "Rome"... Wait, was that irony? Damn, I am stupid.

I had Harry Potter/Dumbledore kind of vibe  

Yes, I understand all of that. But, for the love of God, I have no idea WHY they are still together. 

Haha, I was thinking of his role as Edmure Tully on GOT.

[princess_snow]

7 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Latest episode was ok.  There was nothing really wrong with it.  It's still a beautiful show and as a book reader it was exciting to see some favorite passages come to the screen.  But the show just isn't as exciting when we already know where the path is taking us.  Part of me thinks much of what's going on here could happen in flashbacks so we can have more forward movement with the 'present' day story (I mean present day in the past?  In the future?  I don't know, but 20 years from where both Jamie and Claire are right now).  We already know Claire will be at the rocks again and that she'll likely go back and we know the basics of her life up to this point.  So going backwards to get back to that spot....it's a weird pacing choice.

I enjoyed the episode enough, and visually its really well done. I have a lot of empathy for Frank.

As you said it is a weird pacing choice. Vastly different from last season.

[Theda Baratheon]

On 18/09/2017 at 7:04 PM, Risto said:

The marriage between Frank and Claire continues to baffle and amaze me. I simply don't get it. 

What isn't to get? Sorry not trying to sound combative lol just asking so I can give my opinion. 

[Theda Baratheon]

Got a driving lesson in a sec but will give my view on this episode better when I get back. 

I'm really enjoying it thus far and think the two of them leading separate lives is being handled very well. 

[Mladen]

1 hour ago, Theda Baratheon said:

What isn't to get? Sorry not trying to sound combative lol just asking so I can give my opinion. 

I don't get why, in God's name, haven't they gotten a divorce? I mean, it's 1950s America, it is not like they can't divorce. It baffles me that they are still together. I feel bad for Frank, but then again, I am not sure how much he insisted on them staying together.

[Theda Baratheon]

1 hour ago, Risto said:

I don't get why, in God's name, haven't they gotten a divorce? I mean, it's 1950s America, it is not like they can't divorce. It baffles me that they are still together. I feel bad for Frank, but then again, I am not sure how much he insisted on them staying together.

I mean, it's not like they can't divorce but I'm sure there is a HUGE amount of couples in the 50s who weren't that happy who didn't divorce. Divorce was a huge social stigma and they had history and had made a promise together to raise a child. I think it makes perfect sense to me; this is the 50s lol, not 2017. 

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

29 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

I mean, it's not like they can't divorce but I'm sure there is a HUGE amount of couples in the 50s who weren't that happy who didn't divorce. Divorce was a huge social stigma and they had history and had made a promise together to raise a child. I think it makes perfect sense to me; this is the 50s lol, not 2017. 

Yes, it makes sense to me too.  And it's not just the 50's but early 50's, divorce laws were complicated. It wasn't until 1969 that a person could even get a no-fault divorce.  While the divorce rate may have been raising, and around 25%, divorce laws were fairly strict and greatly favored the man, especially in terms of support.  

From Clare's POV,  she was new to America, not a citizen, not employed, and with no means of support.  She has no living family. Any spousal support would have been minimum, and she could have lost custody of the baby too.

Why Frank stayed with her is a different issue. She was a status symbol (like the other woman had mentioned in the previous episode), but Frank also wanted a family*. He cares about how his reputation too.  His wife returns to him after several years of being missing and he would have been viewed a total cad to have abandoned her. I think he really did love her when they married, and maybe even so after the war. They had such a short time together though and then several more years of separation, he tried very hard to still love her when she first came back (I always felt he was in love with the idea of her).  *it's been a while since I read the books, but I think it is hinted that he may have had some sort of fertility issue

[Theda Baratheon]

Oh yeah; that's the main gist of it really. 

Claire has NO ONE in this world and time except Frank and her baby and Drank CAN'T have children and views this as the last chance he has to raise a child. I mean, he could divorce Claire and try and find another woman to raise a child with...but why??? He loves Claire - they have history together and he loves Brianna. 

[Mladen]

3 hours ago, Theda Baratheon said:

I mean, it's not like they can't divorce but I'm sure there is a HUGE amount of couples in the 50s who weren't that happy who didn't divorce. Divorce was a huge social stigma and they had history and had made a promise together to raise a child. I think it makes perfect sense to me; this is the 50s lol, not 2017. 

Well, divorce did exist in 1950s, it wasn't THAT new concept. Yes, you have a point about couples staying together. I just find it sad that Frank was stuck with the woman who doesn't love him and who can't even look at him. That said, again, I have no idea whether this is something he really pushed for. If he did, well, he made his own bed.

IDK, but those separate beds really made an impact. It felt so sad.

[Dr. Pepper]

Frank wasn't "stuck" with anyone.  He chooses to stay.  Claire isn't a witch who used a secret potion to force him to stay.  

[Theda Baratheon]

4 hours ago, Risto said:

Well, divorce did exist in 1950s, it wasn't THAT new concept. Yes, you have a point about couples staying together. I just find it sad that Frank was stuck with the woman who doesn't love him and who can't even look at him. That said, again, I have no idea whether this is something he really pushed for. If he did, well, he made his own bed.

IDK, but those separate beds really made an impact. It felt so sad.

Have to agree with Dr P - He wasn't forced into this situation - he chose it. He wanted to raise a child. 

[Mladen]

2 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Frank wasn't "stuck" with anyone.  He chooses to stay.  Claire isn't a witch who used a secret potion to force him to stay.  

I don't think anyone actually argued that.

16 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

Have to agree with Dr P - He wasn't forced into this situation - he chose it. He wanted to raise a child. 

Yes, that is correct. There was something so sad in that scene and yet beautiful. I don't believe he was stuck or was forced, but I am partially baffled by his decision to stay if the damage to their marriage (or at least the sexual component of their marriage) was damaged beyond repair. And I truly liked how Claire talked to him about the professor and colleagues. There is intimacy, but not one a husband and wife should have. Or the one she had with Jaime.

[Corvinus85]

57 minutes ago, Risto said:

I don't think anyone actually argued that.

Yes, that is correct. There was something so sad in that scene and yet beautiful. I don't believe he was stuck or was forced, but I am partially baffled by his decision to stay if the damage to their marriage (or at least the sexual component of their marriage) was damaged beyond repair. And I truly liked how Claire talked to him about the professor and colleagues. There is intimacy, but not one a husband and wife should have. Or the one she had with Jaime.

There might be a bit of Black Jack in Frank. Something that was shown back in season 1 with his outbursts. But in this case it may be that Frank is obsessed with Claire, like Black Jack was with Jamie, but his moral code, which Jack completely lacked, is keeping him from doing anything aggressive towards Claire.

[Dr. Pepper]

4 hours ago, Risto said:

I don't think anyone actually argued that.

 

Um, you did, several times.  Here's an example....

9 hours ago, Risto said:

Well, divorce did exist in 1950s, it wasn't THAT new concept. Yes, you have a point about couples staying together. I just find it sad that Frank was stuck with the woman who doesn't love him and who can't even look at him. That said, again, I have no idea whether this is something he really pushed for. If he did, well, he made his own bed.

IDK, but those separate beds really made an impact. It felt so sad.

He's not stuck with her.  There are no laws forcing him to stay.  Claire hasn't poisoned him.  He chose.  This was his choice.  It's both of their choices.  They have both chosen to stay in this relationship where clearly both of them are experiencing some levels of unhappiness.