TV Yellowstone

Remove this Banner Ad

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,431
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Has anyone actually outsmarted anyone yet?

Every conflict is resolved through force of arms.

So what is the point of everything Beth and Jamie do in the first two seasons?

All their chitchat and bullshit, what difference does any of it make to anything in terms of the plot? You could remove those characters entirely and it would make no difference to the overall story.

As far as I can tell, Beth and Jamie have zero plot function in the first two seasons. These are supposedly central characters but neither of them have any impact on the overall dramatic arc of the first two seasons. Neither of these characters do anything that makes a difference to the direction of the story. Beth is tangentially involved but what is the point of Jamie as a character in the first two seasons? None of his screen time is relevant to any of the main plot points.

Jamie and Beth are both pointless characters in terms of the plot. Kayce's wife is also pointless. None of these characters does anything that makes a difference to the overall story.

This is bad writing.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,431
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Yellowstone is just entertainment, nothing else. You'll be debating the plot plausibility of the James Bond franchise next........
All TV shows are "just entertainment". What else would they be?

That said, a degree of implausibility is baked into James Bond. But Yellowstone wants to be taken seriously. That's what I find jarring about it, as well as the obviously bad writing.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,431
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
I just watched the episode in season 3 where Kayce lassoes a guy from horseback, throwing the rope through the open window of a moving truck and landing it neatly around the guy's neck.

This show is preposterous.
 

General Giant

Hall of Famer
Apr 12, 2012
41,729
35,263
AFL Club
GWS
I just watched the episode in season 3 where Kayce lassoes a guy from horseback, throwing the rope through the open window of a moving truck and landing it neatly around the guy's neck.

This show is preposterous.
So why are you watching it?
If you don’t like it in anyway I don’t understand why you would be watching it.
I don’t watch married at first sight nor do I visit the thread to bag it out.
Not like sport or wrestling where you have investment in it, nor a show like GOT or Walking Dead that got bad(in your opinion), after being great, over time.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

General Giant

Hall of Famer
Apr 12, 2012
41,729
35,263
AFL Club
GWS
Do you disagree with my assessments?
I enjoy the show and look forward to it continuing. Think the characters, action are all great.
Just thought I would ask the question as it’s not like a team you follow having a sh*t year or a show that you loved having a bad year, it’s a show you haven’t seemed to like from day dot.
I’ll just put you on ignore. Simpler that way.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,431
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
1636380595041.png


Bloody hell that was an intense start... I needed to catch my breathe and take it in... And then the opening credits rolled
Yes, the opening sequence was pretty good, reminiscent of Taylor Sheridan's best work in Hell or High Water. Everyone get to the bunkhouse.

Although it was weird how folks in the shoot-outs kept walking out from behind cover while being shot at. Seems like that would be shoot-out 101 not to do that.

And you have to say, whoever attacked the Duttons wasn't very effective. I'd be asking for my money back.

And also, Monica must be the most useless TV character since Walter White's missus on Breaking Bad. They should send her back to pretending to be a university professor.

But sure, a taut, suspenseful opening, well put together. But then WTF was the rest of that first episode?

On Mondays, I watch Succession and now I can watch Yellowstone afterward. But I can tell you, watching them in that order doesn't do Yellowstone's writing/dialogue any favours. Basically Yellowstone is at its best when none of the characters have to talk.

We get a weird flashback to 1883 that doesn't connect to anything, but I guess it sets up the spinoff. Then we jump forward a few weeks to Beth having a lengthy, pointless scene talking to a kid on a park bench. That's the first pointless scene featuring Beth in the opener, although I can only imagine that kid is going to come live on the ranch at some point. Another pointless scene is when she goes to see Jamie, who we're to believe hasn't taken any action since the violence targeting the Duttons. He's just been hanging out, business as usual. And then we have the scene at the bar where Beth gives a lecture about feminism. How much screen time do we need of this one character pointlessly speechifying? It doesn't drive the story at all. It has zero plot function. It's just scenery-chewing nonsense that is meant to raise the stakes but doesn't do that at all. Such scenes are very rare in Succession, but they're basically every second one in Yellowstone.

Surely, as a bare minimum, there needed to be at least one scene where one of the main characters explains directly to John Dutton what happened. Who died? What got destroyed? Who done it? A bunch of people got killed, but apparently no one who lives or works at Yellowstone. What are the odds? And they didn't ID any of the bodies? What have the police been doing in the interim? Didn't the ranchers lynch someone at the bunkhouse? They didn't get his name or ask who sent him? And no one is talking about that? They just go back to hanging out, playing poker in the bunkhouse, without anyone being like "remember how we lynched that guy a few weeks back?" I feel like that would still be kind of a big deal. I assume it was the bikers at this point because there's so much clumsy misdirection trying to suggest it was someone else.

Instead we get an hour of screen time and half of it is just Beth's ridiculous dialogue. And she drinks whiskey, so you know she's hardcore and totally off the rails. Because whiskey!

And what was going on with Jimmy? He fell off a horse but was still lying on the ground when Yellowstone was being attacked? That all happened at the same time? I don't get it.

The two laugh-out-loud moments were when the Native American chief from Twilight insists he wants the redneck tortured "according to tradition". And then when Kayce emerges from the trees in a ghillie suit. At that point, I thought we might get a callback to Season 1 where he kills people in totally unconnected scenarios for three episodes straight.

Finally, at the end, Rip goes out looking for street justice. But surely it wasn't Sawyer from Lost who ordered the attack. If he was indeed the main suspect, would he really be hanging out, fishing in the stream? And wouldn't you at least torture him for a bit to a) have it confirmed and b) get the names of the other folks? Doesn't seem very smart.

At its best, Yellowstone is very watchable. But it also trades that in far too often and far too willingly for dumb, talky melodrama.
 
Last edited:

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,431
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
1636386772415.png


So now I've seen episode 2 of the new season. This show is bizarre. It's like Downton Abbey meets Banshee.

Somehow in the time that's passed since episode 1, they've concluded it was "the militia"? Based on what? Pretty lucky that these militia didn't actually manage to kill anyone, innit? So everyone can just get back to buying horses, because that would definitely be top of the agenda after multiple assassination attempts on the entire family and the ranch. I guess that's also for the spinoff?

So two episodes in and no one has had a conversation with the police about the terrorist attack and the multiple assassination attempts. Wouldn't you ID the bodies and say "oh these guys have all got militia ties"? FMD, it's not the White Walkers.

The clumsy misdirection suggests to me that it was clearly the bikers.

Oh, and Jamie and his new daddy are now best buddies. That happened fast and entirely off-screen. It's convenient because it means none of that has to be developed plausibly. In 3 and a bit seasons, has Jamie had any function that impacted the plot? That may as well be a spinoff too. At the moment, the spinoffs are connected to the main show more directly than one of the main characters.

And we get another tedious scene of Beth speechifying and throwing her vodka at someone. I guess there's a quota per episode.

And what do you know, little Carter comes to live at the ranch. Couldn't see that coming. The cop helpfully delivers him but doesn't stick around to discuss who tried to murder the whole family. Why would he bother? As for little Carter, I guess they need a new Jimmy, after he fell off a horse at exactly the moment the ranch was attacked. Did I miss something there? So it's Yellowstone Junior High and we get nearly an entire episode devoted to this utterly fanciful turn of events. Rip is a serial killer who just knocked off someone by having a rattlesnake bite him in the face but sure, let's play happy families with some random teenager. Are we going to watch a whole season of Jimmy 2.0 with this kid learning lessons and Rip being further "redeemed" by becoming a father figure?

And it's party time at the bunkhouse again. Just sitting around, singing songs. And still no one is talking about how they lynched someone a few weeks ago? They move on quick at the Yellowstone.

Oh yeah, and Jacki Weaver has shown up. They're not talking about what happened to Sawyer from Lost? Wasn't he like a billionaire? No mention of him dying after getting bitten in the face by a rattlesnake? I feel like that would be on the local news.

Ah, that was all last episode. We've moved on already. Time to buy some horses and take in random teenagers.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad