Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Outlander - Episode 1.05 - Rent - Sneak Peek
Sign Up


    Enable Dark Mode!

  • What's HOT
  • Premiere Calendar
  • Ratings News
  • Movies
  • YouTube Channel
  • Submit Scoop
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • Privacy Policy
Get In Touch
 Join SpoilerTV
Support SpoilerTV
SpoilerTV.com is now available ad-free to for all premium subscribers. Thank you for considering becoming a SpoilerTV premium member!

SpoilerTV - TV Spoilers

Outlander - Episode 1.05 - Rent - Sneak Peek

2 Sept 2014

Share on Reddit


-
Sign Up for the SpoilerTV Newsletter where we talk all things TV!

15 comments:

  1. lsbloom4 September 2014 at 14:39

    Are they trying to make Claire irrational and annoying for some purpose? I don't get it. It doesn't make her seem smarter or stronger, just witchy, emotionally instead of factually driven, and irrational. Which are exactly characteristics we don't want associated with a "strong" female lead.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fluffy Bunny4 September 2014 at 15:01

    Looking forward to this episode. Loving the show so far!

    ReplyDelete
  3. miracle20124 September 2014 at 23:10

    A strong female can't be - or better say, as you wrote, shouldn't be emotional? And what's witchy or irrational about a character who cares about a baby that needs milk - and about the only source to get it from?

    If you don't want her to be emotional, you shouldn't want her to cry over her "actually dead" husband or to care about a thievish tanner boy she doesn't even know. Her whole life became an emotional roller coaster ride - at least at the beginning of her story, and we still are at the beginning where she tries to find her place in this strange world she stumbled into while at the same time she tries to get back where she came from.

    ReplyDelete
  4. lsbloom5 September 2014 at 07:26

    Being emotionally driven to the detriment of facts is a stereotypical attack against women and no it should have no place here. She was wrong with the boy and she's wrong now. She's always wrong, but at least in the books she isn't so aggressively silly about it.


    Thinking that she can and should underhandedly determine the governing structure of the Scottish highlands is absurd. She shouldn't yell at people for hunting. She shouldn't try to determine how people pay their rent. That is Claire assuming power in a situation in which she has no power. So it is irrational. And she is just being a b*tch not making a logical argument. A logical argument may have power, walking off a goat or fussing at people doesn't get you anywhere. What it does get you is a despicable stereotype of women.

    ReplyDelete
  5. miracle20125 September 2014 at 10:26

    No, she isn't wrong. Not in her 20th century way of thinking that fuels all her actions. It might be wrong in the 18th century, but that's exactly Claire's dilemma DG and Ron Moore are trying to explain to readers and viewers. Claire wouldn't be herself if her actions were different, and half of her story and character would be missing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. lsbloom5 September 2014 at 13:50

    She is wrong in assessing the situation and coming to a reasonable conclusion. She eats meat. Yelling at people hunting is stupid. She pays taxes. Even according to the show she believes in not skirting your duties to a governmental system. In this clip she's decided she's above all that. Moore is failing to demonstrate the danger of her environment by having Claire pursue her own goals without addressing the situation. In doing so, he's removing all dramatic stakes and making the show even more boring all the while presenting Claire as stupid. There are myriad options for showing a 20th century mentality making up vegetarianism--while disregarding Claire's 20th century fear of pathogens in gaping opens wounds--undermines it and injures the main character.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Journey865 September 2014 at 16:08

    But if you pay taxes in the 20th Century they do not take away the means for you to keep your child alive? This is what this is about, that the baby needs the goats milk, so why do mention vegetarianism? This has nothing to do with that it is just about the survival of a child. She is a nurse and has shown that her helping people is a strong instinct in her, like when she helped Jamie with his shoulder even if it might have been smarter to keep out her head down.
    And they are not hunting for food but for fun, they have farming to provide them with their meat. And the result of this "fun" was that someone died in her care so I think she is right to be upset.
    And what did she do with the boy that was so wrong? She asked Jamie for help, which he could easly have refused, and then they helped him in a way so that hardly anyone noticed. What exactly is your problem with that?

    ReplyDelete
  8. lsbloom6 September 2014 at 09:11

    There are a number of things you are addressing differently than I said them.
    1. The vegetarianism comes from her yelling at people for unfairly hunting boar en masse with guns. Which is also why as a nurse with 20 century germ theory, yelling at the guy with a gaping wound that it serves him right, is counter to her character not a demonstration of it. They would certainly have eaten the boar. And they hunt continually both in the actual 18th century and in the book.
    2. In the 20th century, we do in fact require you to pay taxes even if it means not feeding your family. That is at the heart of wanting to raise the minimum wage in the US. And modern landlords are even less responsible for their tenets' ability to eat now than they ever were then.
    3. Wanting to help the child is very admirable; however, how she's doing it only serves to make her look irrational, sneaky, and well frankly stupid. It is also, aggressive of her. And given that she should be in constant danger of being killed as a spy, her jumping out and being aggressively stupid, is frustrating for this viewer.
    4. I have no problem with her helping the boy on the sly with the nail. You've made that up. If she were trying to help this child on the sly it would make sense, her just barreling through fussing at people like a fish wife is my problem. As far as the boy goes, my problem is only in how badly the show presented it. The thing with the boy was presented as blase no big deal. She shouldn't have known what danger she was posing to Jamie prior to the request and she should have regretted it once she found out. She also should have regretted almost getting him killed at the Gathering but she blew that off and the show let it go as no big deal. Which means there are no stakes. There is only getting home to Frank and her being silly, a stereotypical annoying woman.

    ReplyDelete
  9. lsbloom6 September 2014 at 09:13

    Her character would be exactly the same without these things as they are not in the book and she was fully fledged there.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Journey867 September 2014 at 00:37

    1. I still don't see how that has anything to do with vegetarianism? She does not tell them that eating meat is wrong and he never mentions them hunting them en masse with guns? (Most of the men shown don't even have guns, they have bows and spears.) She just says that the boar is right to defend itself when being hunted. And I think that as a wartime nurse she has seen many people die so she knows how precious life is, so her being upset with them for risking injuries and even death for no good reason at all seems reasonable to me. And whether they end up eating the boar or not is not the point, people today hunt and eat their kill, that does not mean that it is a necessary means of survival. It is meant as entertainment for the gathering, so they are risking teir life for fun and I would call that stupid.

    And what does the germ theory have to do with anything in this situation?

    2. But she does not live in the US today? I have no idea about the tax system or rent policy in Great Britain at the time but even if it was similar to that of the US today, and I would doubt that, it would still not matter, because in no way is it indicated in this little sneak peek that their might not be an alternative way of paying the rent, so arguing about her respecting the need to pay rent seems kind of premature. I think to really make a judgment it would be required to watch the whole scene.

    3. How is she being sneaky? She is taking the goat in broad daylight in front of everybody? I admit it is not a smart move but she seems to be upset for some reason so again due to the lack of proper context I would not judge her actions
    only based on this little piece of information. So this viewer will only judge after knowing the complete context.

    4. I have not made that up. miracle2012 mentions her caring about the boy and in your next comment you said she was wrong with the boy.That is what I commented on. I might have read it differently than you intended but you could have been more clear about what exactly you meant that she was wrong
    about. Also what danger is it exactly that he was exposing himself to by helping the boy? Claire only states that it was a risk but what exactly would have happened if people had seen him remove the nail? I guess if you adopt a novel into a TV Show some details are always changed or dropped, so this might be such a case.Is this something that comes into play later on in the books? (I have not yet read themmyself.) And for the gathering: she did seem quite upset to me and it might be addressed again later so I'm not sure if she really just blew it off.

    As for her main concern being to return to her own time
    and her husband, I don't think it is fair to judge her for that. Imagine if you would be in the same situation would you not want to return as soon as possible? And I'm sorry of you see her a stereotypical annoying woman, I just don't, but to each their own I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  11. lsbloom8 September 2014 at 04:51

    It's a moot point. She was in idiot. The child didn't even need the goat's milk as the mother was still lactating. It was absurd. Claire was an obnoxious b all the time and no wonder no one liked her.

    ReplyDelete
  12. miracle20128 September 2014 at 13:37

    Hm, where do you know she was still lactating? Did she mention this? She said the child was hungry because they had to give their only goat they could get milk from for the baby for rent. I myself had to bring up both my kids by hand because I hadn't enough breast milk, and today we're lucky to get powdered milk in different variants. What do you think they used back then? And no, cow's or sheep's milk are no proper alternatives for babies.

    Journey86, the story with the boy nailed at the pillory has almost exactly been taken from the book, even same dialogue in parts.

    ReplyDelete
  13. lsbloom8 September 2014 at 14:39

    In the actual episode, they said the baby was teething and couldn't suckle. That means the milk was still available, the kid wouldn't take it. They didn't need a goat for milk, they had breast milk. And no I'm not stupid enough to think they had powdered milk, but thanks for the thought.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Journey8610 September 2014 at 19:57

    It was childish but I sort of understood why she did it. These women where nice to her and then she is literally ripped from them in an embarrassing situation so she is trying to get back at the men and help the women that have been nice to her. I thought the behaviour from the men (except Jamie) was ,
    while understandable, not helpful. Why should she be nice and have an favourable opinion of them if they treat her with contempt and exclude her. To me the behaviour from both sides is understandable but actually making the situation worse. I mean, look at how different she was acting with the women or Jamie.
    About the milk:if they don't need the goat milk than why do you think they even used it? Why mention that he baby is hungry because they had to give
    away the goat?
    Also I wouldn't say that no one likes her. The women seemed to like her in the end and I'm also pretty sure that a certain redhead does like her quite a lot actually! :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Journey8610 September 2014 at 20:05

    Thank you for letting me know! I'm looking forward to reading the book as soon as I have more time!

    ReplyDelete

NOTE: Name-calling, personal attacks, spamming, excessive self-promotion, condescending pomposity, general assiness, racism, sexism, any-other-ism, homophobia, acrophobia, and destructive (versus constructive) criticism will get you BANNED from the party.