Well, I'm an inflexible, a very inflexible follower of American shows as well as being a movie viewer, and speaking of which, currently I watch Ronald D. Moore's hit production "Outlander" ,which's an adaptation of the namesake novel series written by Diana Gabaldon. It tells the story of the romance between a Scottish warrior (named Jamie Frazer - played by Sam Heughan) , and a wartime nurse (Claire Randall - portrayed by Catriona Balfe) who's inscrutably tranported from 1945 to 1743 via mystical monoliths those stand in an area at Craigh Na Dun, upon visiting Scotland with her husband Frank (Tobias Menzies)..... Before Outlander, one of Mr Moore's previous tv shows was "Battlastar Galactica" , and for the series (BSG) , he (Mr Moore) assembled a great team of actors&actresses. There was a SPLENDID harmony among the show's players, and, well, it won't be exaggerated if I'd defined them (the show's actors&actresses) as being the "dream cast". In the series, I was mostly liking Michael Hogan's ,Edward James Olmos' and Katee Sackhoff's performances. Mr Hogan was portraying the hot tempered but highly charismatic Colonel Saul Tigh, while Mr Olmos was putting in performance of the calm mannered Admiral of BSG who was equilibrating Col. Tigh's peevishness with his cold blood, and Ms Sackhoff was playing the reckless, skilled viper pilot Starbuck. There were some parts those were taking place between Adm. Adama&Apollo (Jamie Bamber) which were depending on their father&son relationship. Both Mr Olmos'&Mr Bamber's performances in those scenes were increasing the (show's) drama effect , and after the series (BSG) ended , each of the actors&actresses went their seperate ways. And as with Battlestar Galactica, Mr Moore generated a refulgent set of players for Outlander. In the series, César Domboy (who portrays Fergus Frazer) is one of the actors who atracts attention with his aspect. He's extremely handsome, he appears younger, much younger than his age, and weak hair would've suited him a lot (and he would've been even more handsome with weak hair and beard). The show's tracks, performed by Bear Mc Creary, are so remarkable and give a great soul to the story. Mr Moore also worked with Mr Mc Creary in Battlestar Galactica, and I think without the very tracks he'd composed, the show (BSG) would appear so hollow, so lifeless (well, I have the soundtrack albums of both Outlander&BSG) .And I also like the series' (Outlander's) opening song (The Skye Boat Song - sang by Raya Yaybrough) so much, such that, sometimes I listen it two times before I start the show .In each season, a diffent version of it (the song) plays. Right now, I'm following Outlander from far backwards of States; I've recently started the sixth season and in S5, the (opening) song was sounding like a church choir. Since I greatly adore the culture of Christianity, I like "that" version of it (the song) too ..... In the finale of S4, Young Ian (John Well) willingly offers himself to stay with the Mohawks in exchange for Roger's release, and the Mohawks except it. After the (4th) season ends, Ian doesn't appear until the eighth episode of the fifth season. In the very episode, he (Ian) shows with his new Mohawk image ; he shaves his head in the semblance of Mohawks, and he appears very cool with it. So, it means that Cobra Kai's Eli wasn't the only teenager in a tv show who'd tried the Mohawk style .In the show, Ian and Jamie have a very strong bond ; Ian is a loyal companion for Jamie. The relationship between Ian&Jamie is more like a father&son connection than an uncle&nephew tie ; Jamie's like a concerned father for Ian, and Jamie also has an illegitimate son named William who shows in S4 E6 ("Blood of My Blood") .In the episode ; Jamie greatly fathers to William by taking him to fishing&hunting. As in his daughter Brianna, Jamie takes care of William too. Instead of portraying a highland warrior and a romantic husband, Mr Heughan also plays a caring father..... The secret of the show's massive success lies in its being adapted from a novel series and a highly-renowned producer such as Ronald D. Moore's making it. He (Mr. Moore) is a complete mastermind, and as I've mentioned above, he'd performed a superb casting. In my humble opinion ; among the show's players, Sophie Skelton (who plays Jamie&Claire's daughter Brianna "Bree" Frazer) has the best performance. After a certain point in the show, the aptitude in her role-playing "distinctively" comes-to-the-forefront of the show. The way she acts, the way she interacts with other players.....She reminds me of the actresses of the golden age of Hollywood ; she has a spellbinding aura and she's full of life. As much as I like her acting, I also find her very comely, she has a very charming smile, and she even becomes more, much more enchanting when she ties back her hair. In the 8th episode of the 5th season, she sang Pete Seeger's song "Clementine", and showed that she has a captivating voice as well as she has an extraordinary beauty .....All in all , Outlander is a brilliant production, I love watching it, but I shall like it more if I see Cylon robots strolling around in the show ..... The ones who follow my topics shall probably recall ; in one of my previous threads, I'd told that while I'd been studying in university, I'd decided to enlist for service to serve in the army, and after my military mission ended, I carried over my (university) education from the point I left it. And it wasn't long after I finished the soldiery (which lasted for 1,5 year) when Mr. Moore led off the remake of Battlestar Galactica in Sci-Fi Channel. While the show was airing, I was continuing university, and many of the students in our class were watching BSG .In the evenings, I was sitting in the cafe with my friends in my social circle (from my classroom) and exchanging opinions about the show's ending. We were brainstorming ; ENDLESSLY brainstorming , and at the end of one of our debates , we "even" came down to BSG crew's finding earth in its medieval age and encountering Jesus Christ. Well, it might sound as a bizarre theory, but there were strong signs in the story which would steer the show's characters to the messenger of the monotheist belief. Firstly ; the Cylon race believes in one true god while the people of the 12 colonies are worshipping idols. And in the second place ; the Cylons "consistently" claim that they'd been created not by humans, but by god. They have an inflexible belief in god, and there "must" be a source to their faith. After the Cylon war ends, both humans&Cylons make an armistice which lasts for 40 years. Cylons are a race who continually , steadily take themselves to a higher standard, and during the time of the 40 years long ceasefire, they (the Cylons) might have come to the technological level to chart the galaxy, therefore finding earth must have been a cushy number for them. Furthermore ; ghost-like images of Number Six&Gaius Baltar always show during the series, Number Six makes herself appear only to Dr. Baltar, and they may have been the future versions of our engaging duo (i.e. Dr. Baltar&Number Six) .Upon both the Cylons'&BSG crew's finding earth, Baltar&N. Six anywise manage to travel back in time, steer for anytime&anywhere they want to go and show themselves to anyone they choose , which might've explained how N. Six bursts into sight beside Gaius Baltar..... Well ; I also have a hunch about Outlander's finale, but it didn't come as a result of brainstorming with my fellowred (I haven't told it to any of my friends yet ) , therefore the theory's patent belongs completely to me .....In the show's pilot episode, Claire&Frank furtively observe a druid ceremony in the area of monoliths (at Craigh Na Dun) , which takes place at midnight. In the morning of the following day, Claire returns to the very locale (where the Druids'd performed their ceremony) to pick up the flowers those spring up under one of the standing stones which she's wrapped up in. Right after she plucks one of the flowers, she touches an obelisk and finds herself in the 18th century Scotland. Upon her time travel ; she's found by the highlanders, taken to Castle Leoch by them, and falls for a Scotsman named Jamie Frazer. Before long, a relationship occurs between them and they marry. Jamie&Claire are both good personas, they're beneficient, but the affair they have becomes-a-"selfish"-one over time. Since Claire-is-not-meant to be in the year 1743 , her coupledom with Jamie begins to change the course of certain events in history, and after a while , they (Claire&Jamie) also realize it, but as long as their relationship works out all right , they don't care about it. There're some-key-occurances-which Mr. Moore emplaces to the show those-indicate-that-Claire's time-travelling (to the 18th century) was inconvenient. One of them is Jamie's affection with Ms. Fitzgibbon's grandaughter Laoghaire MacKenzie (portrayed by Nell Hudson). In the show's beginning , Jamie finds Laoghaire attractive , but after Claire's introduced to Clan MacKenzie , she begins flirting with Jamie , drives a wedge between Jamie&Laoghaire and ends their relationship. In the 7th episode of the 4th season ("Down the Rabbit Hole") , after Laoghaire takes Brianna in her house to cure her , she tells her (Brianna) that she could've stayed in her residence until she recovers. Laoghaire treats her so well, everything goes smoothly until Brianna tells her that she was Claire&Jamie's daughter. At the "instant" she (Bree) reveals her lineage to Laoghaire, her (Laoghaire's) manners begin to change "at a moment's notice" , and while she (Laoghaire) was so good to Brianna , her behaviors worsen in a trice. Since Laoghaire has a grudge against Brianna's mother, and since she thinks that Claire was a witch, she imprisons Bree in her house to have her arrested and executed as being a charmeress.....In the scenario, by changing Laoghaire's attitudes "at a stroke" , Mr Moore automatically-makes-the -audiences go "There's something out of place here. Ok, Laoghaire's actions for Brianna turns 180 degrees opposite while she's so positive to Bree , but beyond that, there's 'one thing' else which causes this inconvenience , and that thing is Claire's time travel. Her time travelling to 18th century is the very source of this situation. She doesn't belong there, and she shouldn't come to that timeline in the beginning"..... The second-token-about-the improperness of Claire's time travel is her (Claire's) relationship with her 20th century husband Frank. After she returns to her time (the 20th century) through the monoliths , she (who's presumed dead after 2 years of disappearance) reunites with Frank. Claire tells him about her story of time travel, her relationship with Jamie, and that she was pregnant to Jamie's offspring. Since Frank loves Claire so much, he comprehends the affair she'd lived (with Jamie) , and accepts to raise the baby together with her (Claire). Frank is so polite to Claire , and she means world to him (Frank) , but Claire doesn't return to her time as the person she used to be before the time travel. Despite Frank's kindness and patience for her, she can't forget Jamie and treats uncordially to Frank. In the very script, Mr Moore gives-the-signal-of the misfit of Claire's time travel to the viewers. He (Mr. Moore) implicitly makes them (the viewers) think "Frank is a very good man , he's so fond of his wife , and Claire pretends disregardfully to him. Instead of her behaviors for Frank , there's 'something else' which's incongruent here , and that's Claire's time travel. She musn't have gone to 18th century Scotland at the very first place ; by time travelling , she broke down the flawless going of events and make a crack in the glass"..... Now, in the two examples above , why had I written that Mr Moore was slightly-making-the-audience feel that Claire's time travel was wrong? .Because, at the series' finale ; Claire shall prevent all of them (her travelling to past, her love affair with Jamie and her pregnance to Bree) from happening. And how could she ever prevent "all of them" from occuring with "one" move? .The answer to that question-lies-in-the "zero point". She (Claire) shall put everything back on track by getting the kinks ironed out-at-the-zero point , and that "zero point" is-the-flowers-those grow under one of the obelisks. She'll steer for the standing stones to extirpate the flowers , for to begin with , (in the pilot episode) if she hadn't gone to the area of the monoliths to pick the flowers , she wouldn't time travel and none of those things would happen. But above , I've mentioned that Jamie&Claire had been putting their relationship above everything , and they hadn't been caring about the timeline being changed because of their romance. So, there-MUST-be-something that motivates-Claire-to-"destroy" the flowers , and also make-Jamie-to-support her decision, ain't I right? My guess at that point is ; something so bad shall befall upon them , but what could be that horrible aftermath to lead both Jamie&Claire to erase everything? .Well, I think it shall be the loss of someone both (Jamie&Claire) hold dear. And I assume that "someone" will be Brianna. She (Brianna) shall somehow die , and Claire'll tell to Jamie that all of the things they'd lived was a mistake from the beginning. In order to prevent everything from happening, Claire shall decide to go to the obelisks and wipe off the flowers. Since saddening so much to Brianna's death , Jamie shall agree with her on that , for if-Claire-effaces-the flowers , she won't go to the domain of the monoliths to take them in 1945 (in S1 E1) , therefore she won't time travel to 1743 , her affair with Jamie won't happen and Brianna will not born. In fact ; Mr. Moore gradually-gives-the-signs of Brianna's death to the show's viewers. In S4 E8 ("Wilmington") , when Brianna and Roger are reunited in 18th century , they wed by handfasting , and right after their wedlock , they make love. Everthing goes so blotless , so pretty , and Mr. Moore might've ended the very episode that way. But in the chapter's finale , when Brianna claims her mother's (Claire's) wedding ring from Stephen Bonnet , she's fiercely raped by him.....Mr. Moore could've finished-the-episode-in the positive manner ; they (Roger&Bree) would've handfasted , they'd've made love , and the episode would've ended , but he (Mr. Moore) chose to put its (the episode's) athmosphere into reverse by concluding it with adding the rape scene ; with tipping the scale against Brianna's favor. Mr. Moore is very clever , for in the episode ; he-makes-the-audiences get used to the smooth setting by showing Bree&Roger's reunion and handfasting , than he turns it (the setting) "completely" upside down by making Brianna encountering with such a vile man as Stephen. I think Mr. Moore finishes the very chapter in the most negative style "on purpose" ; he-warns-the-viewers about not attaching the character (Brianna) too much , and he-wants-to-say "Don't warm to Brianna one hundred percent , for she's going to die in the series' finale , prepare yourselves for the outcome"..... And the second cue I'd-noticed-about-Brianna's potential mortem is put to the last episode of the 5th season (namely ; "Never My Love"). In the very chapter , after Claire's abducted by thugs and tied to a nearby tree , she begins to fantasize a vision from 20th century ; in which the show's main characters gather at Jamie&Claire's house for thanksgiving. At the part , when I see those characters (whom I used to watch in their 1700s image) with modern-day clothes , they appeared so different to me .Everyone sits to the meal table except Roger&Brianna , who're absent in the triclinium. While they're chatting (on the table) , the doorbell rings and Claire opens the door. Everybody expect Bree&Roger , but instead of them , two policemen stand in front of the door and tell Claire that Roger&Brianna had died in a car accident along with their children , which's a strong-prognostication-indicating-the probable demise of Bree.....Anyway , as I've mentioned before , Claire shall decide to head for the monoliths (to destroy the flowers) , but before she rips off the flowers , Jamie shall "probably" ask for a last favor (to Claire) prior to everything be erased , and that last favor shall be seeing Claire as she was in the day they first met. Claire will except it , and since time passes likewise in both sides of the timeline (in both 18th and 20th century) , she (Claire) shall give Jamie a certain time to time travel (via the stones) preparatory to her extirpating the flowers. Than ; Jamie shall wend his way towards the obelisks , when he arrives the area (of the very stones) , he'll touch one of them and the monolith shall directly send him to the year 1945 ; the year when Claire firstly visited Scotland with his 20th century husband Frank (in other saying ; Jamie-shall-travel-to the show's pilot episode ). Right after Jamie finds himself in 1945 , he shall head towards the town where Claire (i.e. the younger-self of Claire) resides. It shall be dark&rainy when he arrives there , and in the town square , he shall see Claire while she's combing her hairs in front of the window of the bathroom (of the hotel room she stays). While Jamie's staring at her under the rain , someone with an umbrella will approach to him , and that someone'll be (yeah , you've guessed it right! ) none other than Frank. He (Frank) shall say (to Jamie) "Excuse me. Can I help you with something?" , and in the meantime , in the 18th century , Claire shall demount the flowers. Since time proceeds-in-sync-with the 20th century ; at-the-instant-Claire extinguishes the flowers , the timeline shall change and a new/second reality shall begin in which she hadn't time travelled to 18th century Scotland in 1945 (meaning ; in the pilot episode). And since-she-prevents-her 1945-self from travelling to 1743 , a chain-reaction-shall-occur which'll result with a massive change in the timeline : She won't time travel , she won't meet with Jamie , no relationship between them (Jamie&Claire) whatsoever shall happen and Brianna shall never born. I mean ; if you don't pull the first domino stone and don't topple it , the ones (d. stones) in front of it will not fall , too. And by plucking the flowers , Claire shall intervene in the first domino stone , therefore ; two centuries later (in 1945) , Claire shall visit Scotland with her husband (namely Frank) , they'll (Claire&Frank) head over to the monoliths , (they'll) oversee the ritual of the Druids , but since-the-flowers-were destroyed in the past (by the other-Claire) , Claire will-not-see-any flowers in the area. Since the flowers don't exit , she won't return there the following day , so she won't time travel. But if she doesn't travel back in time , a question-comes-to-mind as to who'll rip off the flowers? If Claire'll not time travel , she won't interact with Jamie , Brianna will not come into being , and since she (Brianna) doesn't dwell , she won't die , so-no-one-will destroy the flowers. I mean, there-MUST-be-a "repulsive factor" that makes Claire to efface the flowers ; and that repulsive factor is the "sub-reality" : At-the-moment-Claire wipes the flowers out , a new reality begins (in which the 1945-Claire hadn't time travelled to 18th century Scotland) and it becomes the "main" reality. The reality that includes the 1945-Claire's going to past shall be vanished , but-it-will-not "completely" be erased. It's much like deleting folders from your computer's desktop menu. After you wipe the folders away , they no longer appear in the desktop , but they don't "totally" be erased. They (the folders) always remain somewhere within the computer's memory , and effect its (computer's) performance. And as with the computer instance ; when Claire demounts the flowers , she'll alter the timeline , her action will generate a "spickandspan reality" (which'll become the "main" reality) , and the events we'd seen untill that point along the show-shall-become-the "sub-reality". Two centuries after the flowers are destroyed (by Claire) ; in 1945 , Claire&Frank shall visit Scotland , and (since the flowers are dispelled) Claire will not time travel to past. BUT ; the sub-reality (in which Claire goes to 18th century) will "always" exit , and it-will-effect-the main reality. (In the sub-reality) Claire shall come to Scotland with Frank after the second World War (in 1945) , she shall go to the area of the obelisks to pick the flowers , she'll travel to past , the scots will find her , they'll take her to Castle Leoch , she'll meet Jamie , an affair shall occur between them (Jamie&Claire) , Claire'll become pregnant to her daughter (Bree) , and after Brianna's death , she'll be off to the standing stones to cut up the flowers in order to block her 1945-self (her S1 E1-self ) from time travelling. She'll succeed in her goal ; the 1945-Claire won't time travel , but in the "sub reality" , she will go to the area of the obelisks to take the flowers and travel to 202 years ago (to the 18th century). She'll be introduced to Jamie , and as long as their coupling continues , it (their romance and Claire's being in that very timeline) shall alter some historical events , but there's a certain "loop" , and that very loop will never change. In fact ; the show's BIGGEST surprise will-be-making-the viewers realize that from the pilot episode to the finale , everything they (the viewers) watched was just "one" of the-repeating-parts-of the loop : Claire'll come to Scotland (in '45) , she'll time travel , go through all those events (her meeting with Jamie , their affair , Brianna's birth&death) , she'll destroy the flowers and thus , kickstart a brand new reality (in which the flowers do not exit in 1945) .But since the "sub-reality" wasn't completely deleted (and since the flowers exit in the sub-reality) , the 1945-Claire will visit the stones to pluck the flowers (in the pilot episode) , she'll time travel to 2 centuries ago (to 1743) , she'll become acquinted with Jamie , and the loop shall continue over and over and over..... In fact ; in the '84-made sci-fic classic "The Terminator" , the movie's director James Cameron also displays same kind of that loop to the viewers. The film opens with showing a scene from a highly-dystopic future in which there's an ongoing conflict between humans and machines. The humans are led by John Connor , who can't be catched&slayed by the killer robots of Skynet. When the humans win the war over the machines , Skynet devises an insidous plan and sends a Terminator back in time ; to the year 1984 to assassinate Sarah Connor before she gives birth to his son (i.e. John Connor) who would become the leader of the resistant against the machines. On the heels of Skynet's attempt (to destroy Sarah) , John Connor sends his right hand soldier Kyle Reese to the same exact time in order to protect his mother. After Reese time travels to '84 , he finds Sarah , teams up with her , and while they're (Sarah&Kreeze) making a life-or-death struggle against the Terminator , they fall for each other. Towards the movie's finale , they defeat the assassin cyborg through hell and high water. At the film's last scene , when Sarah appears pregnant , it's revealed to the audiences that Reese was John's father , and John sends Reese to '84 with knowing it (that his father was his most thrusted man) , for (in the film's finale) Sarah records a tape message for John to inform him as to his father's identity..... In the story , it comes as a surprise to the onlookers when Mr. Cameron exposes that Reese was John's father , and everything we'd watched throught the film was-one-of-the "phases" of a loop. What I'm saying is ; right after the movie ends , Sarah will give birth to John , the machines'll rise&declare war on humankind , a destructive battle (between humans&machines) shall occur , the humans (under the leadership of John Connor) shall overcome the machines , but on the brink of the resistance's victory , Skynet shall send a Terminator through time (to '84) to kill Sarah in order to prevent John's existence , and in the next breath , John'll send Reeze to the past , he (Reeze) shall find Sarah , he&Sarah scramble against the lethal cyborg , a love relationship shall occur between them , Sarah'll conceive to John , they'll outstare the Terminator , so in the last scene , Sarah (who's now pregnant to John) shall drive her jeep towards the sunset , than , after the last picture , John will born , and the loop shall go on and on and on.....But, different from Outlander , there's-only-"one"-reality in The Terminator ; there's no second/sub-reality in the story (and I'm just talking about the "first" Terminator movie , I'm excepting the sequels)..... Now , let's return to Outlander.....In my presumed-finale , at-the-very-moment when Claire effaces the flowers , (in order to alter the timeline) in 18th century , it-shall-effect-Jamie ; who'd time travelled to 1945 to see Claire in her younger self. Right-after-Claire-destroys the flowers , she shall vanish away due to the change in the timeline. Since-time-passes-simultaneously in both 18th&20th centuries , just-as-Claire-dispels the flowers , Jamie shall disappear (as well as Claire) while he's gazing at the '45-Claire at the town square (in the pilot episode). Frank'll draw near to Jamie to talk to him , Jamie shall evanesce , and at that instant the electricity will be cut out. When I watched the first episode , I thought that it (the surging out) was because of Jamie's disappearance. Ok ; it's "related with" his disappearance , but it's-not-"only"-about his evanishing , there's a bigger , much bigger force at work here , and that "much bigger force" is the COLOSSAL change in the timeline. When Claire-wipes-the-flowers out , she prevents a LOT of things from happening , she alters many , "too many" historical events , and that MASSIVE variance "somehow"-effects-the-flow of electricity in the vicinity. In the pilot episode , Mr. Moore begins-to-draw-a circle , and I think he shall-complete-the-very circle by coming back to-that-very-scene ; in which Jamie begazes at Claire (at the town square) under the rain in 1945............... Well ; those were my predictions for Outlander's finale. Since the series' theme includes the notion of time travel ; since the (show's) story is complicated , I tried to be as comprehensible as possible to the readers while I was writing my guessings. But please keep in mind that I'm watching the episodes of S6 right now , I'm backwards of States , and I've made my guessings depending on the chapters I'd watched thus far , which means there's a possibility that I might've been mistaken about the show's ending (I also didn't read D. Gabaldon's novel series of Outlander). So to be honest ; I hope I'm mistaken about the very finale , for I like happy endings , and the outcome I'd estimated was a sad aftermath .I mean ; the show's athmosphere is also very suitable for an elating ending , the audiences (including me ) won't find it strange if the characters (Jamie&Claire and Roger&Bree) live happily ever after in the finale ..... Outlander is a must-see , a MUST-SEE production for each and every tv show viewer ; and it includes so many styles in its fabric such as romance , fantasy , adventure , science fiction , drama. The (series') shootings are made in very beautifull environments , so the onlookers are able to see so many screenshots those involve fascinating sceneries. The show's storyline has a very strong , very consolidated infrastructure , and when it combines with an excellent "team-play" of actors/actresses , a brilliant production comes down the pike. As I've told before ; Sophie Skelton is the actress who takes my attention most among the show's players , and as I've told before , her acting evokes me the actresses of old Hollywood. In today's tv show&movie sector , not every actor/actress has that standard. And please don't get me wrong , the actors&actresses of Hollywood are SPLENDID players , afterall , they're "international" talents , but performing as bouncily , as radiately as the old actors&actresses is a great prerogative. When I watch a classic movie (that includes the players of Hollwood's Golden Age) , I see a spellbinding acting which's quite distinguishable when I compare it to the present era actors&actresses. I mean , a Yul Brner never came. A Clark Gable never came. A Judy Garland , an Elizabeth Taylor , a James Coburn never came.....And there're "so many" players I may give as an example , those I've written are the ones who instantly flashed through my mind. A few of today's performers have the privilage to catch uo to their degree , and IMHO , Ms Skelton is among those few. In the show , she's (Ms. Skelton) also very compatible with the players around her ; she performs great duos with both Ed Speleers (who portrays the villanous Stephen Bonnet) and Richard Rankin. In the 10th episode of S5 ("Mercy Shall Follow Me") , when Bree's held captive in Stephen Bonnet's residence , he (Stephen) asks Brianna to teach him the ways of being a gentleman , and she does so. During the time Brianna stays in his (Stephen's) house , Stephen acts as a decent person , but in the breakfast , when she (Brianna) tells him that she wanted to leave Stephen's house , it pisses him off. Stephen's manners suddenly change , and he begins to make love with an another lady who's situated in the sitting room in front of Brianna in a manner of saying "All this time I tried to be a gentleman , I tried to make an impression of a polite man on you , were those all for hearing your desire to leave this place? Ok , here's what I am , I'm a wicked person , I don't understand from the rules of courtesy , I make love with women whenever I wish to , and I want you to watch it". Well , in fact , despite all the evilness/obscenity he'd committed , Stephen isn't "pure" evil , there's a good in him , and Brianna sees it over the course of the time she stays in his residence. As well as she hates him , she also "pities" Stephen , that's why she shoots him in the head when he's condemned to death and chained to a pole in the lake to be left for drawning. By killing Stephen , she saves him from the painfull death.....Along the episode , Ms. Skelton displays a great collabotation of acting with Mr. Speleers , as with Mr. Rankin in general. In the real life , I'm sure Mr. Speleers is nothing like Stephen Bonnet .I mean ; the beauty in his heart and the decency in his character had obviously reflected his style of portrayal ; for he's resplendent during the show in terms of acting. Much like Mr. Speleers ; Mr. Rankin and Ms. Skelton are also doing their parts so well. The goodness in their souls , their ethics and the properness in their behaviours don't only able them to perform efficiently , but also able them to reach the standard of making a healty , beautifull and "normal" conversation with their audiences..... Nowadays , Netflix adds the best and most popular shows of America to its fabric. Before joining Netflix , Outlander was airing in Starz channel , now , the show's passed to the very platform. And much like Outlander , Cobra Kai was firstly airing in the now-defunct platform YouTube Red , but after the show's (CK's) second season , it adjourned to Netflix. And while I was mentioning Cobra Kai , it conjured up me the advertisement I'd watched a few weeks ago ; which was including Ralph Macchio&Jackie Chan. It (the promo) was about the new Karate Kid movie , and in the very production , Mr. Macchio&Mr. Chan shall team up to train a teenager in the style of martial arts.....Oh my god!!! Oh. My. God!!! I'm already excited to see the film .It (the picture) will not only unite the two big names (i.e. Mr. Macchio&Mr.Chan) , but it shall also intersect the two different Karate Kid universes and "automatically" make the 2010-released remake "The Karate Kid" (which stars Jackie Chan&Jaden Smith) the fifth movie in the KK serials. In the very promotion , I saw Mr Macchio remaining beard , and he appears VEEEEEEERRRRRRRYYYYYYY CHARISMATIC with that image .............................. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I knelt before my electric guitar , opened my hands and prayed to the god of rock 'n' roll. He answered my prayer and told me to salute Brianna Frazer with a track which also enlightened my soul : Don't Lie To Me - Dokken
Not reading something the size of Diana’s books unless I’m reading one of Diana’s books and I ain’t read one of Diana’s books since pausing about 100 pgs into Outlander 5 and I ain’t reading all this cause I don’t want spoilers.
