S01.E6: One Ocean Closer to Destiny

[LoveLeigh]

Quote

In the wake of the tugboat crash, the next step in Spencer and Alexandra's fate is revealed. Cara and McDowell begin hiring new Livestock Officers. Teonna covers her tracks as Marshalls come looking. Jacob gains strength.

Air Date: Feb 12, 2023

This is such a beautiful episode. I am happy this had a pathway to what can develop as so many interesting and more beautiful episodes in this series. 

Edited February 12, 2023 by LoveLeigh

[Snazzy Daisy]

Quote

“It’s not vengeance. It’s preservation. I do it for the child of a child I will never meet. I do it for the land.”

- Jacob Dutton

I love this episode. No Banner Creighton. No Donald Whitfield. No Father Renaud. No narration. Spencer and Alex are rescued. Yay!

But there are other a**holes - the sheriff who kills Teonna’s grandmother and the guy who came in for the Livestock Agent’s interview.

I cannot wait for Hank’s son to meet “Joe”. ☺️

Cara using her leverage as Jacob’s nurse and telling him that they’ll be easing into a modern life. She wants a generator, a washing machine and a motorcar. Jacob gets to decide which one they will buy first. Great ploy, Cara! 👏🏻 

We see Alex coughing while Captain Shipley pouring her a drink. Will she catch what Lucca had??!

Spencer and Alex exchanging their vows - a great shot that captures its simplicity. 😘

Edited February 12, 2023 by SnazzyDaisy

[Libby]

I expected more to happen in this episode. Nothing really happened to move the story along. I was disappointed. Spencer isn't any closer to home, Teonna is in the same place that she was last week, and nothing happened at the ranch. There was no progression at all in this episode. Since we are so close to the end of the season, I thought that every episode would push the story forward. Not this one...

[Thalia]

I agree with posters above:  1)  the episode itself was beautifully shot and acted (by Ford, Mirren, and Patrick at least.) 2) absolutely nothing happened to propel us to the season finale.  Pardon the analogy, pun, whatever, it did nothing but tread water while showing us gorgeous scenery.  

Given Jacob's continued recovery, by the time Spencer arrives, all tanned and pretty, why will the Duttons need another "leader?"  I also didn't understand why Zane was confused about the amount of time it would take for Spencer to travel home.  I went back and looked at episode 4.  He was the one who mailed the letter for Cara.  Zane knew it was mailed to Africa.  Did he think think it caught up to Spencer in Dubuque?  The other oddity in the story was the wedding night, which was filmed and talked about after as if Alex came a virgin to the marital bed.   

No narration!  Elsa:  "No matter the outcome, Spencer knew this was his final tug boat ride.  My family has had an ill-fated history with ships.  Duttons embarked on the Titanic, the Lusitania, the Andrea Doria, and in 1620, Goody Priscilla Dutton sealed her destiny by choosing to travel to the New World on the Speedwell." 

The pace continues to bug.  However, 1923 is by far the most beautiful show on television and I should probably settle in and just enjoy the cinematography, the love story between Spencer and Alex, and the scenery chewing magic that comes from Dame Helen and Han Solo.

I just need to accept that not much is going to happen between now and the last ten minutes of episode 8, which will end on a mother of a cliffhanger.  Much as Oberleutnant Otto von Dutton accepted his death upon the Bismarck.

Edited February 12, 2023 by Thalia

[bunnyblue]

Captain Benjen Stark pointed out to Spencer & Alex that it takes months for an immigrant to gain entry into the US, so how were they planning on getting Alex to Montana post-haste even before their tugboat capsized? Somehow I don't think Spencer ever planned on leaving her in some immigrant entry point while he hightailed it to Montana...so plot hole? Of course they got lucky in that they found a ship captain who, not only rescued them, could marry them thus enabling Alex to bypass immigration laws. 

I'm not all swoony over the Spencer/Alex relationship, but them getting married at sea after escaping death for a 3rd time was romantic and seems like a story that deserves to be passed down through generations of Duttons. Hell, even their hand-me-down wedding rings seem like the perfect heirlooms to pass down - not that any of the current rich-ass spoiled Duttons would ever appreciate them. But it would be a nice Easter egg to see the rings make an appearance in a future Yellowstone episode...that is if Alex & Spencer are the direct ancestors. Otherwise, they'll probably be forgotten like Jacob & Cara - who did more for the Dutton empire than James & Margaret but it's only great-great-grandpa Tim McGraw who ever gets credit or mentioned.

Given the mystery of which branch of the Dutton family tree will spawn Kevin Costner, I couldn't help but notice the anvils dropped in this episode. First there was expectant parents Jack & Elizabeth being happy & lovey-dovey only for the camera to linger on Elizabeth's gunshot wound. And then there was the entire final scene between Spencer & Alex, but specifically Alex saying she'll follow Spencer anywhere even if it leads to death. Dun dun dun. One of these couples is doomed, and the suspense is driving me crazy. 

RIP Teonna's grandmother. That poor family...first the cousin and now the grandma are dead. I fear what will happen to Teonna's father because that has to be the next stop for the agents that are hunting her. Hell, I'm afraid something terrible will happen to Hank too and I can't bear to watch that play out. 

 

8 hours ago, SnazzyDaisy said:

Cara using her leverage as Jacob’s nurse and telling him that they’ll be easing into a modern life. She wants a generator, a washing machine and a motorcar. Jacob gets to decide which one they will buy first. Great ploy, Cara!

I absolutely adore all their scenes and their relationship, and I particularly loved this bit of humor. After all the crap she's had to endure as a rancher's wife, Cara deserves modern conveniences to make her final years easier. Jacob is being dragged into the 20th century kicking and screaming it seems. A motorcar? He'd probably have a fit if he saw the modern-day Dutton's park a helicopter on his front lawn. 

6 hours ago, Thalia said:

I also didn't understand why Zane was confused about the amount of time it would take for Spencer to travel home.  I went back and looked at episode 4.  He was the one who mailed the letter for Cara.  Zane knew it was mailed to Africa. 

Yeah, Zane's reaction was strange. It was either because the writers forgot what they wrote 2 episodes ago OR Zane is a traitor working for Bronn & Timothy Dalton. If it's the latter then his odd reaction to Spencer's imminent return (and the hell he will raise) makes a bit more sense. 

Edited February 12, 2023 by bunnyblue

[circumvent]

The episode was boring. Yes, Sheridan brought up his best Nicholas Spark romance and Alex and Spencer are now married but the episode was a doozy. 

I am not sure Elizabeth is pregnant. Maybe she doesn't get her period because of the injury she had, and maybe nausea is a side effect of whatever is happening. It is a cheap twist but since it is Sheridan writing the plots, cheap is the main course. I think it is possible that Alex is already pregnant - another cheap subplot -  and that Spencer will die before the kid is all grown up. That would still fit with what Elsa said and what the article mentioned about Jack. Besides, Sheridan would not kill one of his pillars so soon. Jack is expendable as a character at this point. He might be the one who dies. obliterating that branch of the tree.

I wish we could see more of Teonna's story. It is so much more interesting, and it would be nice to have a break from the skinny-blonde overload on the screen. 

Peeve: after a whole day and half the night in that boat, under the sun, salty water and all, all that Spencer and Alex got was a nice tan? No blisters, no messy hair, nothing? The hair and make up people could at least made it a little more convincing. Alex's hair looked fabulous, her skin was golden and apparently they never dehydrated, since they didn't have to rest, they didn't feel super dizzy or even weak. Their thoughts were coherent and they were asking for alcohol, which would make the dehydration worse. But I guess love conquers all ills 🙄

I hate all the characters (except for Teonna, for now) but watching Ford and Mirren has been the only reason to keep watching this show. They are really carrying the whole shipwreck on thier backs

[LoveLeigh]

7 hours ago, circumvent said:

The episode was boring. Yes, Sheridan brought up his best Nicholas Spark romance and Alex and Spencer are now married but the episode was a doozy. 

I am not sure Elizabeth is pregnant. Maybe she doesn't get her period because of the injury she had, and maybe nausea is a side effect of whatever is happening. It is a cheap twist but since it is Sheridan writing the plots, cheap is the main course. I think it is possible that Alex is already pregnant - another cheap subplot -  and that Spencer will die before the kid is all grown up. That would still fit with what Elsa said and what the article mentioned about Jack. Besides, Sheridan would not kill one of his pillars so soon. Jack is expendable as a character at this point. He might be the one who dies. obliterating that branch of the tree.

I wish we could see more of Teonna's story. It is so much more interesting, and it would be nice to have a break from the skinny-blonde overload on the screen. 

Peeve: after a whole day and half the night in that boat, under the sun, salty water and all, all that Spencer and Alex got was a nice tan? No blisters, no messy hair, nothing? The hair and make up people could at least made it a little more convincing. Alex's hair looked fabulous, her skin was golden and apparently they never dehydrated, since they didn't have to rest, they didn't feel super dizzy or even weak. Their thoughts were coherent and they were asking for alcohol, which would make the dehydration worse. But I guess love conquers all ills 🙄

I hate all the characters (except for Teonna, for now) but watching Ford and Mirren has been the only reason to keep watching this show. They are really carrying the whole shipwreck on thier backs

I watch the show under an umbrella of total make believe, I do not view it as political historical commentary and get triggered to get angry because of the skinny blonde overload. This is not an authentic documentary. I love seeing Spencer and Alex on my screen. They are so romantic together and I adore my total suspension of disbelief. 

I stopped watching Tulsa King because I hated it after episode 3. It was for me a snoozefest. I don't stick around to watch shows that raise my blood pressure. Even though I like Sylvester Stallone, I never watch any show because of the actors who are in it, so Harrison Ford and Helen Mirren matter not in the least to me. I am drawn to a story, and actually unknowns make the tales more believable. Great acting can never carry any film if the plot itself is not interesting. 

[blackwing]

I almost fell asleep for the last 10 minutes.  I know it was supposed to be this beautiful destiny under the moonlight, but when Alexandra was droning on and on, I actually wanted a shark to leap up and eat her.  This actress was going for her Emmy and I just wanted to hit the mute button.  So incredibly boring.

Best part of the episode by far was Dame Helen Mirren.  Loved every bit of her in this episode.  Her forcefulness and take charge attitude at the livestock commission office.  And above all, talking with Jacob.  The "Don't you turn your back on me" speech should be Mirren's Emmy-reel submission and I think she is fully deserving of a win.

On 2/12/2023 at 9:43 AM, Libby said:

I expected more to happen in this episode. Nothing really happened to move the story along. I was disappointed. Spencer isn't any closer to home, Teonna is in the same place that she was last week, and nothing happened at the ranch. There was no progression at all in this episode. Since we are so close to the end of the season, I thought that every episode would push the story forward. Not this one...

Yep, absolutely nothing happened in this episode other than Spencer is slightly closer to home than he was before.  The sheriff says he is going to arrest Creighton, but we didn't see any end result.  Jacob goes off to kill Creighton himself but comes back instead (having apparently not done so) and thanks Cara for saving his life.

16 hours ago, WatcherUatl10 said:

I am still captivated by all scenes Spencer and Alex. I half-expected a "Queen of the World" moment when they went up top. The actors convey a longing that cannot be simply scripted and/or directed. When they look at each other I truly believe that they see only each other. That's rare.

Mileage varies, because after they got rescued, I thought it was a complete snoozefest. And once again, terrible writing by Taylor Sheridan.  How did they survive?  How many days were they adrift?  How can they survive without water?  Did they eat?  We didn't see them eating or drinking.  How did the gun survive, how was the powder not wet?  I don't think whatever was storing his gunpowder would be completely watertight in 1923.  Asusming his gun was ok, I was expecting him to kill a shark and they would have shark sushi or something for sustenance.  There wasn't much indication of exactly where they were.  I assumed they were somewhere off the east coast of Africa and travelling north to the Suez Canal.  How long were they adrift, how long had they been travelling?  No more than 18 hours before they got hit.  How much longer were they adrift before getting rescued?  Was it just one day?  It seems like there was some kind of lighthouse, were they that close to land?  Would have been nice if there was some kind of indication of where and when they were.

I haven't been as critical of Brandon Sklenar as others have been, but when I look at him, I think he could be replaced by an automaton and it wouldn't make a difference.  I look at the Alexandra actress and I just see overacting.  

[Affogato]

6 hours ago, circumvent said:

The episode was boring. Yes, Sheridan brought up his best Nicholas Spark romance and Alex and Spencer are now married but the episode was a doozy. 

I am not sure Elizabeth is pregnant. Maybe she doesn't get her period because of the injury she had, and maybe nausea is a side effect of whatever is happening. It is a cheap twist but since it is Sheridan writing the plots, cheap is the main course. I think it is possible that Alex is already pregnant - another cheap subplot -  and that Spencer will die before the kid is all grown up. That would still fit with what Elsa said and what the article mentioned about Jack. Besides, Sheridan would not kill one of his pillars so soon. Jack is expendable as a character at this point. He might be the one who dies. obliterating that branch of the tree.

I wish we could see more of Teonna's story. It is so much more interesting, and it would be nice to have a break from the skinny-blonde overload on the screen. 

Peeve: after a whole day and half the night in that boat, under the sun, salty water and all, all that Spencer and Alex got was a nice tan? No blisters, no messy hair, nothing? The hair and make up people could at least made it a little more convincing. Alex's hair looked fabulous, her skin was golden and apparently they never dehydrated, since they didn't have to rest, they didn't feel super dizzy or even weak. Their thoughts were coherent and they were asking for alcohol, which would make the dehydration worse. But I guess love conquers all ills 🙄

I hate all the characters (except for Teonna, for now) but watching Ford and Mirren has been the only reason to keep watching this show. They are really carrying the whole shipwreck on thier backs

I didn't think it was boring. For one thing watching Helen Mirrin and Harrison Ford play off each other, just watching their reactions when the other was talking, was worth the entire episode. It really fleshes out their characters as well, I feel like I am getting to know them and understand why they react the way they do.

I did think Alex was a bit of an Elsa in this episode, and I'm beginning to think we won't get much actual character building for her. She seems to throw herself into experiences like a small over protected child and be Taylor-made for men to put on a pedestal. Look at how uninhibited and wild she is! The wedding was romantic, though, and the lack of physical repercussions from their ordeal was noticeable and annoying.

The sheriff cutting off Cara and hiring the guy was amazing, we saw one of her limits.

Teonna's story is potentially interesting, because I have a feeling the actors would not participate if it didn't follow some sort of realistic historic portrayal. In general I would find a lot of this more interesting if I could trust the history of it, or at least (setting aside small bits of steamship scheduling) I could trust that that was how they would live. the grandmother's death was sudden and horrific.

I very much agree that Elizabeth may not be pregnant. She was, I think, shot in the ovary and this might cause nausea, pain and other symptoms, even if the injury healed. I don't know what sort of medical treatment she would have received for this, she didn't seem to go to a hospital.  I don't dislike her, so I hope she doesn't die of it, but her current symptoms could easily be based on the aftermath of the injury.  I agree that Alex could in fact be pregnant, they seem to go at it like crazed mink.

I think that the Jacob/Cara scenes forwarded the story a bit. We learned their motivations and what they are doing, and the wedding and general survival will serve to get the Spencer contingent to the ranch faster. this must be a two season show, at least, because I can't think how they could resolve it in two more episodes.

[blackwing]

10 minutes ago, Affogato said:

I think that the Jacob/Cara scenes forwarded the story a bit. We learned their motivations and what they are doing, and the wedding and general survival will serve to get the Spencer contingent to the ranch faster. this must be a two season show, at least, because I can't think how they could resolve it in two more episodes.

They already announced a renewal for Season 2.  But I recall a similar thing happening with "1883".  With just a few episodes left, there was the feeling of "how are they going to resolve everything in time, they are nowhere near Montana".  Then they announced a renewal for Season 2.  And then they neatly resolved everything and said that when they meant a renewal, they just meant a continuation of the story in another series (this one, "1923").  Pffftttt.

This time, once again, they did announce a Season 2 for "1923."  And there's only two episodes left (I think).  It seems weird to me that even for someone as bad at writing as Taylor Sheridan is, that he would leave open plots without fully knowing whether the show would be guaranteed another season.  You would think that he would want to resolve everything just in case he or the network changes their mind.  But it appears he has so much power over Paramount that he can pretty much dictate whatever he wants.

The presence of Ford and Mirren make me think that a Season 2 is very likely.  But I'm still hoping that the plots get resolved.  I want Spencer to make it home by season's end, and I would like for there to be some definitive confirmation about who is the grandfather of Kevin Costner.  I will be supremely annoyed if we don't find out.

Looks to me that it's more and more likely to be Spencer.  Alexandra is probably already pregnant.  Elizabeth thinks she is pregnant just because she missed her period once and because "there are other things" and I guess she just KNOWS.  But I'm thinking there is some medical issue going on.  Either an ectopic pregnancy or something else.  Queen "Bloody" Mary Tudor had a huge tumor that made her think she was pregnant when she was not.  I'm thinking maybe something similar is happening with Elizabeth.

[RedDelicious]

We also feel the Jake/Elizabeth characters are pretty useless, and we don't really care for the actors who play them either.

Our prediction is that:

Spoiler

Elizabeth will not survive the pregnancy, whether by miscarriage or by ectopic pregnancy due to one ovary likely having been obliterated by the bullet and the surviving ovary/tube not functioning properly. Jake will seek to avenge Elizabeth's death by going after Bannon and will meet his own fate in the process.

Spencer will return home with a pregnant Alex and will seek to rebuild the Dutton family through their offspring. 

I really want Teonna's grandmother to survive hitting her head on the woodstove. I know it's not likely but that's what I'm hoping for.

[Biggie B]

2 hours ago, blackwing said:

How can they survive without water?  Did they eat?  We didn't see them eating or drinking. 

Spencer dove back under the tug and retrieved a large jug, from which he and Alix both drank. I wasn't paying rapt attention but I don't think they were stranded for more than a day. Spencer had sent out an SOS distress call on the radio before the tug turned over and he was quite certain the message had been received. But I, too, wondered how his rifle was functional - perhaps it was somewhere that the water didn't reach once the tug was upside down. 

[circumvent]

2 hours ago, LoveLeigh said:

I watch the show under an umbrella of total make believe, I do not view it as political historical commentary and get triggered to get angry because of the skinny blonde overload.

See, this doesn't fly with me. If it is total make believe, then it is fantasy. Then there is no OMG, the leopard. They could just make that completely make believe too. They could have a whale save them. Make believe. That's why I don't get this declarations. It is only make believe to the extent that personal preferences go. Now, if you say you are good at suspending disbelief, than it is a different story. I guess people like Sheridan count on this audience. He will throw an  "eye candy"  - male, for sure, the majority of viewers are women - and then ignore the common sense that guides life. At the same time, the "make believe" uses beautiful yet pointless imagery ad nauseam. The story doesn't matter anymore. Whatever happens becomes "great" as long as the eye candy avatar of masculinity has his screen time. All is forgiven. Sheridan throws an indigenous woman in there for, I don't know, credibility? Well, her story is not make believe at all. But he needs her, he needs the other pillar of TV endurance: social issues. Some people will be satisfied with that. I am not one of those. I don't watch TV for Nicholas Sparks feel-good-after-crying-a-lot stories of love and hope.

 

2 hours ago, Affogato said:

For one thing watching Helen Mirrin and Harrison Ford play off each other, just watching their reactions when the other was talking, was worth the entire episode.

They are more or less keeping this shipwreck afloat (pun intended). But that cannot sustain television series or shows. The medium is a writers' medium. It wasn't worthy for me. I had to endure the whole episode of nothing to have a little taste of something. They cannot do miracles with bad writing either. I wonder what Mr. Eye Candy will do to level himself to those two old timers. His "hotness" will do nothing in an exchange with Mirren or Ford. 

[RedDelicious]

Maybe we will see Spencer “come alive” when he returns home and stops running from his inner demons, with the help of his beloved by his side. He has the potential to live his life with purpose as opposed to merely existing and surviving by way of his military skills.

[domina89]

On 2/12/2023 at 10:09 AM, SnazzyDaisy said:

We see Alex coughing while Captain Shipley pouring her a drink. Will she catch what Lucca had??!

Good catch.  I hope not but you know a character never coughs or faints for no reason on a series.  

[mythoughtis]

No Elsa finally!  I think this may  be the first episode that we haven’t heard her in since 1883 began.   Most likely because we are now stuck with Alex, a reincarnation of Elsa. Especially the  impulsive behavior. I look at her and I see spoiled rich girl  

A generator, washing machine and a car.  Cara thought this out very well.  

 

[LoveLeigh]

7 hours ago, circumvent said:

See, this doesn't fly with me. If it is total make believe, then it is fantasy. Then there is no OMG, the leopard. They could just make that completely make believe too. They could have a whale save them. Make believe. That's why I don't get this declarations. It is only make believe to the extent that personal preferences go. Now, if you say you are good at suspending disbelief, than it is a different story. I guess people like Sheridan count on this audience. He will throw an  "eye candy"  - male, for sure, the majority of viewers are women - and then ignore the common sense that guides life. At the same time, the "make believe" uses beautiful yet pointless imagery ad nauseam. The story doesn't matter anymore. Whatever happens becomes "great" as long as the eye candy avatar of masculinity has his screen time. All is forgiven. Sheridan throws an indigenous woman in there for, I don't know, credibility? Well, her story is not make believe at all. But he needs her, he needs the other pillar of TV endurance: social issues. Some people will be satisfied with that. I am not one of those. I don't watch TV for Nicholas Sparks feel-good-after-crying-a-lot stories of love and hope.

 

They are more or less keeping this shipwreck afloat (pun intended). But that cannot sustain television series or shows. The medium is a writers' medium. It wasn't worthy for me. I had to endure the whole episode of nothing to have a little taste of something. They cannot do miracles with bad writing either. I wonder what Mr. Eye Candy will do to level himself to those two old timers. His "hotness" will do nothing in an exchange with Mirren or Ford. 

Yes it is make believe... total fantasy.  Taylor Sheridan is not making a documentary so he does not have to be historically correct or appease a need for political correctness. It is all fantasy. It is similar to the films of long ago: Valley of the Dolls or A Summer Place. Total melodrama.

And yes, I am loving the "eye candy" and the romance between Spencer and Alex. Loving it. I love "Nicholas Sparks" stuff... I also love Harold Robbins, Jacqueline Susann, Fred Mustard Stewart and Sidney Sheldon. If you don't like it, why watch it? 

I think these days viewers watch this stuff so they can complain about the lack of political correctness and virtue signal. But I am transgender (female to male) and still love men so that makes me a gay male. And my 23 and me came back and validated I am mostly Ashkenazi Jewish with ancestral roots in Africa and I just discovered I have a whole family of African American relatives in Atlanta..... and hot damn I am loving 1923!

It's TV... not meant to be a platform for a political candidate to be challenged so he is not elected.  

[circumvent]

4 hours ago, LoveLeigh said:

It's TV... not meant to be a platform for a political candidate to be challenged so he is not elected. 

What? Confused now.

I don't post here with the intention of changing people's minds. I don't even know anyone here. We are all, as far as I can tell, anonymous, so there is no agenda, just opinions.

You like the visuals and what not, great! enjoy. That doesn't mean we cannot debate, as in expressing disagreements about why we might enjoy or hate the show, deconstruct the bullshit and inaccuracies, or simply not care. It is all about opinions. To me, the writing is very, very important. Historical accuracy too. I think pop culture has an important role to play in educating people, at least to make people curious. Americans desperately need that because we are not even curious about stuff anymore. We just accept whatever we are told as true (as far it is to elevate us) and go on yelling: WE ARE THE GREATEST GREAT PEOPLE OF ALL TIMES DON'T TELL ME ANYTHING TRUE BECAUSE WE ARE THE BESTEST OF THE BEST!!!!! But that's my opinion

Plus, Sheridan is a terrible writer. Good cinematographer, bad, bad writer

[LoveLeigh]

9 minutes ago, circumvent said:

WE ARE THE GREATEST GREAT PEOPLE OF ALL TIMES DON'T TELL ME ANYTHING TRUE BECAUSE WE ARE THE BESTEST OF THE BEST!!!!! But that's my opinion

 

There it is right there.... what does this TV show have to do with Americans' level of collective self esteem? Midnight Cowboy, Taxi Driver, Leaving Las Vegas, Barfly, and Psycho are a few examples that were films about total losers. I did not view them through a broad lens and draw conclusions about how Americans are portrayed. Those films are about a small section of people and their stories were interesting as fictional films. Even The Godfather presents a small section of a population, and I do not think anybody draws great conclusions with a broad brushstroke. It is for entertainment purposes.  

I think we have to be careful how far down a rabbit hole we go when we watch fictional shows. The writers do not owe us any level of authenticity or political correctness in pieces with scenes that are clearly fiction. They do not have to cast Alex as a heavy brunette to satisfy some level of not being viewed as "body shaming" or giving elevated status to blondes when they select who will play her. Alex can be a skinny blonde. It doesn't bother me at all. 

[Rapunzel]

Based on Alexandra being fairly shocked that there was no electricity at the ranch, and even worse, no indoor plumbing, I don’t see her lasting too long there. She has annoyed me from the start and her spoiled, entitled upbringing show up in some form or another in every episode. When they were up in the  tree with the lion and she kept screaming I was so wishing Spencer would slap her to calm her down (not advocating violence against women, just something to get her out of her state of shock and calm down/STFU). She was just as awful in this episode when they were stuck on the overturned tug boat. She nearly got Spencer killed because she decided to try and help? Why did she get in the water when he told her to stay put? She is positively useless in a crisis - how is she going to help in the “war for the ranch?” I’m sure she’ll spend most of her time trying to decide what one would wear to a battle over land and what would match the carriage best and no doubt she’ll be ticked that she won’t get Spencer’s complete undivided attention - unless he doesn’t fight, in which case, what good is he? Do they make it back to the Yellowstone with Alex very close to giving to birth and then she either decides she can’t handle “roughing it” and leaves or perhaps she has the kid and they both get killed right away as Spencer is stupidly trying to look after her and her appalling lack of awareness about anything but herself? Given that the other women in Spencer’s life were strong and knew how to handle themselves under pressure even better than most of the men, him being with this “delicate flower” who will be useless in all aspects of ranch life (I doubt she can even light the stove or boil water) just doesn’t seem to bode well for a long lasting or happy relationship.

[circumvent]

1 hour ago, LoveLeigh said:

The writers do not owe us any level of authenticity or political correctness in pieces with scenes that are clearly fiction.

That's where you are missing the point. I would be able to appreciate a WELL TOLD and WELL WRITTEN story without any political correctness in it. This show doesn't have much of it anyway. The Duttons are entitled white people who believe they cannot lose the land they stole. My problem is that the story is badly written. The writers do owe us that, absolutely. 

As for Alex, I don't care how she looks. I just think it was a bad casting choice to cast two skinny blondes because I find it boring, a cliche, overused because it is the safe bet. That's is a production failure, in my opinion, evidence that Sheridan doesn't care about the story he is telling, only about how much money and success he will get. TV to me is about stories well told, a rarity these days

 

24 minutes ago, Rapunzel said:

Based on Alexandra being fairly shocked that there was no electricity at the ranch, and even worse, no indoor plumbing, I don’t see her lasting too long there.

Or they will use another cliche and make her the true hero of the story, the one who rises up and saves the day. 

[Haleth]

Omigosh, Helen Mirren and Harrison Ford were superb in their scenes together.  Master class.  From conflict to playfulness I believed every minute.

Hello Joseph Mawle!  Is there any show that he is not in?

The actors who play Spencer and Alex continue to sizzle.  This was the episode for romantic couples.  Happy Valentine's Day, y'all!

Alex is lucky that by the time they get to Montana there will be electricity at the ranch.  Cara negotiated for her new fangled appliances.  Maybe indoor plumbing is next.

I loved this episode and am enjoying this show more than 1883 and infinitely more than Yellowstone.  I guess another season will depend on if Helen and Harrison want to continue to do television.

[blackwing]

10 hours ago, LoveLeigh said:

I think these days viewers watch this stuff so they can complain about the lack of political correctness and virtue signal. 

It's TV... not meant to be a platform for a political candidate to be challenged so he is not elected.  

I'm not really sure what this is supposed to mean... complaining about the lack of political correctness and virtue signalling.  Which political candidates are we meant to be talking about?  On the show or IRL?  I'm lost.

3 hours ago, Rapunzel said:

Based on Alexandra being fairly shocked that there was no electricity at the ranch, and even worse, no indoor plumbing, I don’t see her lasting too long there. She has annoyed me from the start and her spoiled, entitled upbringing show up in some form or another in every episode. When they were up in the  tree with the lion and she kept screaming I was so wishing Spencer would slap her to calm her down (not advocating violence against women, just something to get her out of her state of shock and calm down/STFU). She was just as awful in this episode when they were stuck on the overturned tug boat. She nearly got Spencer killed because she decided to try and help? Why did she get in the water when he told her to stay put? She is positively useless in a crisis - how is she going to help in the “war for the ranch?” I’m sure she’ll spend most of her time trying to decide what one would wear to a battle over land and what would match the carriage best and no doubt she’ll be ticked that she won’t get Spencer’s complete undivided attention - unless he doesn’t fight, in which case, what good is he? Do they make it back to the Yellowstone with Alex very close to giving to birth and then she either decides she can’t handle “roughing it” and leaves or perhaps she has the kid and they both get killed right away as Spencer is stupidly trying to look after her and her appalling lack of awareness about anything but herself? Given that the other women in Spencer’s life were strong and knew how to handle themselves under pressure even better than most of the men, him being with this “delicate flower” who will be useless in all aspects of ranch life (I doubt she can even light the stove or boil water) just doesn’t seem to bode well for a long lasting or happy relationship.

I agree completely.  For me, she has become the Elsa of "1923".  Too much focus on her, too much emphasis on viewing the show through her eyes, a fish out of water who took a chance on love but has no idea what she is getting into.  She does seem to be thoroughly useless.  She was in Africa because she was on holiday with her wealthy fiance, and by all accounts, she seems to have been raised as a spoiled rich young woman.  She takes one glance at Spencer and his brooding and decides she's going to chuck it all away for this man she doesn't know, because, oh, she's such a free spirit.  

He tells her to stay on top of the overturned boat.  She doesn't.  Not sure why.  I think she thought she was trying to be helpful by retrieving the life preserver?  How was that going to help?  It was attached by a string to the boat, and she was already on top of the boat.

Spencer is going home to help his family.  I don't know what she is going to do.  I'm not even sure how old she is supposed to be.  She teased him for being much older than her.  Is she supposed to be 22?  She looks older than 22 but I wouldn't be surprised if she's being written as 22.  I see Cara telling her what to do and I forsee her being thoroughly useless.  Even Elizabeth helps out at the ranch.

2 hours ago, circumvent said:

I would be able to appreciate a WELL TOLD and WELL WRITTEN story without any political correctness in it. This show doesn't have much of it anyway. The Duttons are entitled white people who believe they cannot lose the land they stole. My problem is that the story is badly written. The writers do owe us that, absolutely. 

As for Alex, I don't care how she looks. I just think it was a bad casting choice to cast two skinny blondes because I find it boring, a cliche, overused because it is the safe bet. That's is a production failure, in my opinion, evidence that Sheridan doesn't care about the story he is telling, only about how much money and success he will get. TV to me is about stories well told, a rarity these days

I agree, I don't care that Alexandra is skinny blonde, I care more that I think the actress is terrible.  Taylor Sheridan must be obsessed with skinny blondes.  It started with Elsa on "1883" where she ate the entire show with her bad acting and bad accent.  Then this show.  WAY TOO MANY skinny blondes.  Every single woman on this show with the exception of Mirren, the Native American girls, and possibly the nuns, for some reason had to be blonde.  To the point where I had issues telling them apart.  The married blonde woman Spencer flirted with who was mauled and killed, Alexandra, Emma, Elizabeth, even Elizabeth's mom who showed up for two minutes had to be blonde.

I also completely agree that the writing for this show is terrible.  There's not enough backstory.  "1883" ended with James and Margaret making it to Montana, but Sheridan is so fixated on having as many shows as possible that he failed viewers by not giving us more of their story.  As it is, we have no idea how it is they came to acquire the land.  Did they in fact steal it from the Native Americans?  If so, how?  Did the Native Americans fight them and try to claim it back?  How did James and Margaret defend the land?  Or did they buy the land?  With what money?  Was there some kind of agreement?  Who built the enormous house?  Surely James and Margaret didn't do it themselves.  What workforce did they hire?  How did they acquire the cattle?  Did they buy the land and cattle from the Native Americans or did they just appropriate the cattle?

These are the questions I was hoping to have answered, and so far, neither show has explained anything.  We are just supposed to accept the fact that in 40 years, the Duttons are king and have this huge successful operation.

 

[LoveLeigh]

3 hours ago, circumvent said:

 The Duttons are entitled white people who believe they cannot lose the land they stole.

All actually who settled here could have lost the land they stole from the Cusabo, and Catawba and from the Rappahannock and the Chickahominy. Why are only the Duttons selected for that form of denigration and persecution?

Again, I suggest viewing the story from an entertainment point of view because the Duttons are not even real. If you choose to view it through a political eye, well go after real people who live in real life like the Duttons because criticizing fake people who do not even exist is to me like analyzing the film Superman. Seriously, how dare they show him bending steel with his bare hands! Are they trying to subliminally indicate that he has white strength? 

[LoveLeigh]

15 minutes ago, blackwing said:

These are the questions I was hoping to have answered, and so far, neither show has explained anything.  We are just supposed to accept the fact that in 40 years, the Duttons are king and have this huge successful operation.

I accept it... because it is a fake story the same as Valley of the Dolls or Taxi Driver. What abut Citizen Kane (OK they gave us some back story in it)? Who cares how those fake characters got so crazy. These are not authentic documentaries and the stories do not have to make sense or connect dots. They are movies and movies are not real. 

By the way how did Carrie in Homeland ever get HER job? What a kook she was. 

[circumvent]

12 minutes ago, blackwing said:

I also completely agree that the writing for this show is terrible.  There's not enough backstory.  "1883" ended with James and Margaret making it to Montana, but Sheridan is so fixated on having as many shows as possible that he failed viewers by not giving us more of their story.  As it is, we have no idea how it is they came to acquire the land.  Did they in fact steal it from the Native Americans?  If so, how?  Did the Native Americans fight them and try to claim it back?  How did James and Margaret defend the land?  Or did they buy the land?  With what money?  Was there some kind of agreement?  Who built the enormous house?  Surely James and Margaret didn't do it themselves.  What workforce did they hire?  How did they acquire the cattle?  Did they buy the land and cattle from the Native Americans or did they just appropriate the cattle?

I don't know how the dealings with the Indigenous peoples were doing at that time. In 1883 they were already decimated, and thrown is reservations - I think - so they didn't have much to bargain with (they did, but the laws would probably prevent them from having a fair share of anything) but if they did, what did they get in return for the land. Earlier in the colonization the Indians, as they were called, believed that the white man could help them defeat the adversaries in disputes so they would bargain away their land, with an agreement that they would be left alone in their culture and still be able to raise crops without destroying the soil and raise animals they needed for survival. We know how that ended up. So by 1883 they had learnt the white man's way and could apply that, to a certain extent, to their benefit. But the laws caught up with their self-determination, meaning that the laws were created to once again quashed their culture.

You are right, there is so much more that could be an interesting and exciting story, and even include that little "annoying detail", waht was it? Oh, historical accuracy. Good writing doesn't have to become a documentary , or devoid of emotional moments and romance. There is so much happening in real life that doesn't have to be turned into an empty tale

[blackwing]

6 minutes ago, LoveLeigh said:

I accept it... because it is a fake story the same as Valley of the Dolls or Taxi Driver. What abut Citizen Kane (OK they gave us some back story in it)? Who cares how those fake characters got so crazy. These are not authentic documentaries and the stories do not have to make sense or connect dots. They are movies and movies are not real. 

I acknowledge that these are all invented stories and therefore we should just accept that things are the way they are... but for the fact that both "1883" and "1923" are billed as "A Yellowstone Origin Story".  Per interviews with Sheridan, these two series were created so viewers could learn the origins of the modern-day Dutton family and so we can see where they came from.  The entire point of these two series is to provide backstory on the origins of the Duttons.  If we just get plopped at the start of "1923" with the entire ranching operation and the huge house already established, well, then that really deprives us of a whole lot of the "origin story".  I for one find it extremely hard to believe that in the 40 years since James and Margaret arrived that nobody has ever challenged the Duttons until now in 1923.  If there were other contenders to the land, surely Jacob and Cara would have referenced their earlier battles.

[circumvent]

7 minutes ago, LoveLeigh said:

All actually who settled here could have lost the land they stole from the Cusabo, and Catawba and from the Rappahannock and the Chickahominy. Why are only the Duttons selected for that form of denigration and persecution?

Again, I suggest viewing the story from an entertainment point of view because the Duttons are not even real. If you choose to view it through a political eye, well go after real people who live in real life like the Duttons because criticizing fake people who do not even exist is to me like analyzing the film Superman. Seriously, how dare they show him bending steel with his bare hands! Are they trying to subliminally indicate that he has white strength? 

Hold on! I thought you were saying it is only TV! 

But seriously, my point was about the story, the writing of the show. Historical facts or not, the story is badly written. Even if Spencer arrives with all his broodiness and starts saying how they need to respect the natives of the land, how his family can fight for the land that is now theirs and still recognize that they are not the ethical owners of it. Whatever Sheridan writes, at this point I can only imagine it will be bad.

You are contradicting yourself there. They are not real, they are BADLY WRITTEN characters. That's the point: The writing. Do I think TV should have historical accuracy? Yes. Do I think this fictional piece of TV is good? No. Complete fantasy, or with accurate stories, it is bad TV. I watch it as fiction, as bad fiction. Like I said, Sheridan should have stuck with cinematography and left the writing to actual writers. He is aspiring to be one and failing, imo

As an example: When Hank and Teonna were burning the books, Hank said they shouldn't burn the bible because the while man's god would be mad and send revenge, or something like that. You have two fictional characters actually talking in an historical accurate way. There is no conflict between accuracy and fiction. The issue is, again, the writing. At that short moment, it was good. 

2 minutes ago, blackwing said:

I acknowledge that these are all invented stories and therefore we should just accept that things are the way they are... but for the fact that both "1883" and "1923" are billed as "A Yellowstone Origin Story".  Per interviews with Sheridan, these two series were created so viewers could learn the origins of the modern-day Dutton family and so we can see where they came from.  The entire point of these two series is to provide backstory on the origins of the Duttons.  If we just get plopped at the start of "1923" with the entire ranching operation and the huge house already established, well, then that really deprives us of a whole lot of the "origin story".  I for one find it extremely hard to believe that in the 40 years since James and Margaret arrived that nobody has ever challenged the Duttons until now in 1923.  If there were other contenders to the land, surely Jacob and Cara would have referenced their earlier battles.

Exactly. Sheridan is not only a bad writer, he is also bad at spinning his views. Total failure. He is giving us an "origin story" without the origins. 

[Snazzy Daisy]

...Charming vs Cloying...

 

1923 Recap: What’s in a Name?

Quote

Eventually, in the cloak of night, they venture out to the bow of the ship, where they deliver big romantic speeches as I desperately try to stay on Alex’s side. There’s a fine line between charming and cloying. As it’s her wedding night — a night that is definitionally cheesy — I suppose I’m inclined to give her a pass as she likens the love between them to the constancy of a shadow. She hasn’t slept much. She’s delirious.

Vulture | Amanda Whiting 

 

 

[RedDelicious]

This concept of Alexandra being entitled and spoiled...how would we know that if we didn't already know she came from a wealthy background and was supposed to marry another wealthy peer? She certainly doesn't seem to care much whether she's in clean clothes or sleeping in a clean bed or even eating food that an unclean man had stuck his fingers into. None of that seems to phase her. She's reacting appropriately to situations she's never been in before, like screaming and being frightened. How else do you figure it out and learn from your mistakes? It's perfectly fine to dislike her character but it seems stupid and unfair to base that dislike in the fact that she comes from privilege. 

Other characters on the show have evaluated her based on her looks which is not fair. For this reason alone I think she will prove she can hold her own. She's adapted to many different environments so far. It was 1923. Times were different for women. She couldn't even vote yet. I think she's got a lot of pluck and a mind of her own and I like that.

[circumvent]

2 minutes ago, RedDelicious said:

This concept of Alexandra being entitled and spoiled...how would we know that if we didn't already know she came from a wealthy background and was supposed to marry another wealthy peer? She certainly doesn't seem to care much whether she's in clean clothes or sleeping in a clean bed or even eating food that an unclean man had stuck his fingers into. None of that seems to phase her. She's reacting appropriately to situations she's never been in before, like screaming and being frightened. How else do you figure it out and learn from your mistakes? It's perfectly fine to dislike her character but it seems stupid and unfair to base that dislike in the fact that she comes from privilege. 

Other characters on the show have evaluated her based on her looks which is not fair. For this reason alone I think she will prove she can hold her own. She's adapted to many different environments so far. It was 1923. Times were different for women. She couldn't even vote yet. I think she's got a lot of pluck and a mind of her own and I like that.

someone that was not form a privileged background, a Brit, would not be in Africa exploiting the colonies. That's a historical fact. I know, I know, this is fiction but we can extrapolate based on reality, right? A factory worker in England would be in the factory, working.

The fact that she is in dirty clothes, adapting and reacting is the definition of someone who has privileges and don't mind extreme adventures because they know they can always come back to the comforts of their origins. Now, I can suspend disbelief and go with the "she is so adaptable, really special". I wouldn't mind that. In fact, I already mentioned that I think one of the possibilities for the show, based on what we herd from Elsa, and pure speculation, is that Spencer eventually dies and she is the one leading the ranch. I don't mind this type of stories but it is more than fair, since all we have is possibilities base on the world we exist, to say that she is privileged 

As for her being skinny and blonde I guess it is already clear that the problem is not with her looks, it is with the production choices that, to me, make the whole thing boring. No body shaming, just uncreative choices. As mentioned, Sheridan seems to be a little obsessed with this particular looks. I don't know, I don't watch Yellowstone anymore and don't remember the female character in that show. 

 

[RedDelicious]

37 minutes ago, circumvent said:

someone that was not form a privileged background, a Brit, would not be in Africa exploiting the colonies. That's a historical fact. I know, I know, this is fiction but we can extrapolate based on reality, right? A factory worker in England would be in the factory, working.

The fact that she is in dirty clothes, adapting and reacting is the definition of someone who has privileges and don't mind extreme adventures because they know they can always come back to the comforts of their origins. Now, I can suspend disbelief and go with the "she is so adaptable, really special". I wouldn't mind that.

Is that not still true today? People who have the interest and can afford to do so can go on safari. People who cannot afford to take such trips do not.

I don't see it that way. You either have the wherewithal to adapt to what life throws at you or you do not. If you have comfort to go home to at night, you're fortunate. I don't think it is fair to judge her because she came from privilege. ETA: We wouldn't know that she did if we weren't shown her backstory. She could have just as easily been a waitress in the bar where she met Spencer. And either way, she left that life behind in Africa. 

Edited February 14, 2023 by RedDelicious

[Libby]

I love the Yellowstone universe and have enjoyed all three shows. 1923 is my favorite of the three.

My only fault with the show, is the slow pace. I wish that the story moved forward a little quicker.

If I didn't like the writing and I didn't like the characters, I wouldn't watch the show.

[circumvent]

56 minutes ago, RedDelicious said:

Is that not still true today? People who have the interest and can afford to do so can go on safari. People who cannot afford to take such trips do not.

I don't see it that way. You either have the wherewithal to adapt to what life throws at you or you do not. If you have comfort to go home to at night, you're fortunate. I don't think it is fair to judge her because she came from privilege. ETA: We wouldn't know that she did if we weren't shown her backstory. She could have just as easily been a waitress in the bar where she met Spencer. And either way, she left that life behind in Africa. 

Privilege doesn't mean that a person cannot adapt. One is fate, where the person fell in their life. The other is personality. 

It is true, people who can afford to travel do so, some cannot do it. But the context of the show, 1923, is an era when British people would go to the colonies out of a sense of it was their backyard. It is different today. Safaris are businesses that, in theory at least, support the locals and the country where it happens. In 1923 it was a type of resort to the rich and connected. Alex was in that trip because she had the right connections, that we can infer by knowing history, since we were not given her story.

51 minutes ago, Libby said:

If I didn't like the writing and I didn't like the characters, I wouldn't watch the show.

But that's why god created hate watching 

[RedDelicious]

37 minutes ago, circumvent said:

One is fate, where the person fell in their life. The other is personality. 

It is perfectly acceptable and expected to dislike a character for their personality. What I said above and the point I am making is it isn't fair to dislike or judge her because she comes from privilege. One is certainly entitled to do so, but it is no more fair to judge her for being wealthy than it is to judge someone else for being poor. Wealthy isn't her identity, just like poor isn't a poor person's identity.

Bottom line is I don't see her as behaving like a spoiled little rich girl. She could just as easily be poor. She could have been a waitress in the hotel bar, serving the guests of the hotel. We wouldn't know if they hadn't shown us that she was actually a guest herself. She's there because she is a character in a story, rich or poor.

Edited February 14, 2023 by RedDelicious

[LoveLeigh]

13 hours ago, circumvent said:

Hold on! I thought you were saying it is only TV! 

But seriously, my point was about the story, the writing of the show. Historical facts or not, the story is badly written. Even if Spencer arrives with all his broodiness and starts saying how they need to respect the natives of the land, how his family can fight for the land that is now theirs and still recognize that they are not the ethical owners of it. Whatever Sheridan writes, at this point I can only imagine it will be bad.

You are contradicting yourself there. They are not real, they are BADLY WRITTEN characters. That's the point: The writing. Do I think TV should have historical accuracy? Yes. Do I think this fictional piece of TV is good? No. Complete fantasy, or with accurate stories, it is bad TV. I watch it as fiction, as bad fiction. Like I said, Sheridan should have stuck with cinematography and left the writing to actual writers. He is aspiring to be one and failing, imo

As an example: When Hank and Teonna were burning the books, Hank said they shouldn't burn the bible because the while man's god would be mad and send revenge, or something like that. You have two fictional characters actually talking in an historical accurate way. There is no conflict between accuracy and fiction. The issue is, again, the writing. At that short moment, it was good. 

Exactly. Sheridan is not only a bad writer, he is also bad at spinning his views. Total failure. He is giving us an "origin story" without the origins. 

Well I love love love love 1923. If I nitpicked at it because I hated it, I would label myself a masochist and glutton for punishment and my goal is to enjoy what I continue to watch on TV, not get a high blood pressure attack and sit all angry and mad like I am being trolled by a TV show and have to reach for a Xanax.

And just like that, my participation in this so called "debate" is over because I also do not intend to get triggered here either. Enjoy the conversation with others, circumvent.... I am not a "hate watcher." I will not waste time analyzing a piece of fiction as if it is a story in the newspaper. It is not the story of Lord Gordon White and his wife, Sita. 

ETA: I want to BE Alex... just to have Spencer for ONE NIGHT. Yum yum yum. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by LoveLeigh

[circumvent]

2 hours ago, RedDelicious said:

It is perfectly acceptable and expected to dislike a character for their personality. What I said above and the point I am making is it isn't fair to dislike or judge her because she comes from privilege. One is certainly entitled to do so, but it is no more fair to judge her for being wealthy than it is to judge someone else for being poor. Wealthy isn't her identity, just like poor isn't a poor person's identity.

I dislike every character in the show and I am not judging the character. I am just pointing out that it is pretty obvious, for what we were told, that she comes from privilege. It is a neutral observation, I don't care if she lives, dies, has children, conquers the west or goes back to GB because Montana is too hard. I really don't care about the character.

2 hours ago, RedDelicious said:

Bottom line is I don't see her as behaving like a spoiled little rich girl. She could just as easily be poor. She could have been a waitress in the hotel bar, serving the guests of the hotel. We wouldn't know if they hadn't shown us that she was actually a guest herself. She's there because she is a character in a story, rich or poor.

If you don't see her as spoiled, that's fine too. People have different perspectives. But no, based on what we were told and what we saw she definitely has privileges and was not a servant by any stretch of the imagination. Poor, is another story. The bourgeoisie has a hard time letting go of habits, and it was even more pronounced in past centuries. One can imagine her being poor because the family is decadent, but she still behaves as a person of means. Very common in the class. In any case, it would be all imagination. She could be Cinderella. But that's not what we were told or shown. We can safely infer that she is privileged. Anything else is a guess of wishful thinking. But really, I don't care at all. My opinion about the writing of the show will not change because she might be a poor servant that got a job as an opportunity to travel. I don't think Sheridan is as interested in having a back story for her either. 

 

37 minutes ago, LoveLeigh said:

I am not a "hate watcher.

Well, hate watching is kind of an art. It actually helps me to vent and release all that may cause those things you listed. I can hate a fictional character, or a terrible piece of fiction, and not be impatient  to real people in my life, or yell at traffic and feel my blood boil. I can hate watch a show, then laugh about it and go to bed relaxed. Better than Xanax! It is total release and no hurt to anyone. Definitely not for everyone but it works for me

[sandwoman]

Thoughts on the most recent episode that we finally watched last night:

- All that build-up and no shark fight?! Booo! I wonder if it got cut or they ran out of SFX money for the shark attack

- Spencer and Alex better get to freaking Yellowstone next episode! But I know they probably won't get there until the finale at this point. It wouldn't bother me if it was a longer season but there's only supposed to be 8 episodes! Why are we moving so slow?!

- I really wanted Cara to point out to Jacob that if there wasn't cities, they'd be no market for the cattle that he keeps. 

- prequel problems - We know the Duttons keep the ranch because present day Duttons have it. So. That makes things less tense imo.

- I missed my mustache twirling villain who doesn't actually have a mustache. Bring back Timothy Dalton! I want to see him and Harrison meet! Forget this lovey dovey stuff I want to see two old men face off! (I really do!) 

- I keep forgetting the Sherriff is Robert Patrick and everytime I remember, it amuses me a lot. 

- I find Jack and Elizabeth so so boring. And did her mom die or just drive off East? She said last episode she was an orphan, but I don't remember her mom dying? I know it's just the nature of tv shows but she looks so anachronistic to me, more so than Alex. I'm ready for one of them to become evil or die tragically. 

- The timeline on this show is very confusing. This is the problem with a single writer working without a writer's room. It wouldn't bother me normally Except that they keep referring to "time running out". When? Why? NEED MORE CONTEXT!

- My husband and I are kind of viewing the show mostly as camp at this point but it's fun for us to laugh at it together!

[Rapunzel]

3 hours ago, circumvent said:

If you don't see her as spoiled, that's fine too. People have different perspectives. But no, based on what we were told and what we saw she definitely has privileges and was not a servant by any stretch of the imagination. Poor, is another story. The bourgeoisie has a hard time letting go of habits, and it was even more pronounced in past centuries. One can imagine her being poor because the family is decadent, but she still behaves as a person of means. Very common in the class. In any case, it would be all imagination. She could be Cinderella. But that's not what we were told or shown. We can safely infer that she is privileged. Anything else is a guess of wishful thinking. But really, I don't care at all. My opinion about the writing of the show will not change because she might be a poor servant that got a job as an opportunity to travel. I don't think Sheridan is as interested in having a back story for her either. 

I agree. One scene that stands out to me in this episode where she clearly demonstrates her entitled behavior is when the captain of the ship that rescues them offers them a drink. Spencer drinks his one glass and Alex repeatedly downs hers and then just holds her glass up above her shoulder with her back to the captain just expecting a refill. She does this more than once. Not once does she bother to so much as look at him, ask “mind if I have another?” or ever even say “thank you.” She treated the captain of the ship that saved her incapable, reckless, self absorbed behind worse than a hotel waiter. 
 

I have seen plenty of wealthy characters at least have manners and show themselves to be useful in a crisis. She isn’t even capable of following basic instructions from the expert in dangerous situations, the man she supposedly loves, and nearly gets them killed more than once. 

Her clothes never look dirty, and she sure seems to like her silk nighties and camisoles, especially as she repeatedly asks Spencer to “ravish her” and seems to think life is just one long holiday full of sex on the beach. I wouldn’t be surprised if she gets angry at Spencer for dragging her off to the ranch (which lacks luxuries that she thinks are necessities, is shocked that everyone in the family pitches in - it’s not just cowboys and servants doing the work) instead of taking her on a proper honeymoon full of more “ravaging” in some pristine locale, never mind that she essentially had her honeymoon before the marriage but she still clearly didn’t want Spencer to be working as it took his focus off of her. 
 

[CrystalBlue]

Different strokes for different folks.  Thankfully the debate of what kind of show 1923 is and the right or wrong way to watch is over.  Everyone can continue watching as they wish 😜.

8 hours ago, SnazzyDaisy said:

...Charming vs Cloying...

 

1923 Recap: What’s in a Name?

 

 

Stephen King weighed in.  Wowza! 🤩

[mythoughtis]

7 hours ago, RedDelicious said:

She's there because she is a character in a story, rich or poor

That’s correct- she’s on the screen as a character. What we know about her is what Taylor  Sheridan has written and what the actress has portrayed.  I don’t care about the actress.  I dislike the character as she has been written and portrayed. Taylor writes women as saints or sinners.    She’s been portrayed as a British woman whose society engagement party was in Africa, and the entire group went  on safari.  One that she  impulsively left to run off with a man she knew nothing about without the benefit of marriage.    She lived with this man  she knew nothing about and began traveling to America with him without one thought of what she would do on Ellis  Island for months.  He solved  that problem for her.

In addition to earlier comments about her  treatment of  the captain, she accepted his late  wife’s ring without acknowledging his loss, his sacrifice on giving it to her.  She didn’t even thank him.   I see her as a spoiled rich girl because that’s how Sheridan has written her. He didn’t write her as a waitress just as he didn’t write Elsa as a hard working pioneer woman 

Edited February 15, 2023 by mythoughtis

[RedDelicious]

I guess what it really boils down to for me is I don’t resent Alex for being blonde, rich and thin 🤷🏼‍♀️ I like the show, and that’s enough.

Edited February 15, 2023 by RedDelicious

[CountryGirl]

While Helen and Harrison continue to be my main reasons to watch and I would love to get a prequel on them in their younger years, I'm very much enjoying this show for what it is. That includes the Perils of Spencer and Alex (often because of something silly Alex does), which yes, can be a bit much, but who cares when the couple is this gorgeous and the chemistry rivals that of Cara and Jacob? I'm also incredibly interested in Teonna's storyline and love the budding surrogate father-daughter relationship between her and Hank. Also? Michael Greyeyes. Need I say more?

I appreciate getting some sense of life in the 1920s while recognizing that it's through an obviously fictional lens. I love seeing the female characters, Cara, Alex, and Teonna (I'm eh on Elizabeth for the moment) being in the foreground vs relegated to the background aka props for the men. 

I knew I recognized the Captain. Hello again, Uncle Benjen! I will admit to tearing up a bit when he pulled out his late wife's ring (from a chain around his neck) to give to Alex. 😢 

 

Their wedding was beautiful in its simplicity (I loved not hearing any dialogue) and that shot you shared, @SnazzyDaisy, was gorgeous. One of my favorite shots in a series that is, if nothing else, one of the most visually stunning I have ever seen.

I really, truly hope we will get another season and not the bait and switch of 1883. I'd watch most of these actors and characters carry on for as long as we have them. 

[blackwing]

14 hours ago, sandwoman said:

Thoughts on the most recent episode that we finally watched last night:

- All that build-up and no shark fight?! Booo! I wonder if it got cut or they ran out of SFX money for the shark attack

- Spencer and Alex better get to freaking Yellowstone next episode! But I know they probably won't get there until the finale at this point. It wouldn't bother me if it was a longer season but there's only supposed to be 8 episodes! Why are we moving so slow?!

- prequel problems - We know the Duttons keep the ranch because present day Duttons have it. So. That makes things less tense imo.

- I find Jack and Elizabeth so so boring. And did her mom die or just drive off East? She said last episode she was an orphan, but I don't remember her mom dying? I know it's just the nature of tv shows but she looks so anachronistic to me, more so than Alex. I'm ready for one of them to become evil or die tragically. 

- The timeline on this show is very confusing. This is the problem with a single writer working without a writer's room. It wouldn't bother me normally Except that they keep referring to "time running out". When? Why? NEED MORE CONTEXT!

Yes, as with "Yellowstone" and "1883", the pacing is terrible on Taylor's shows.  He thinks he is a great storyteller and writer and he really isn't.  He would do much better to just let others write the shows.

The exact same problem happened in "1883", I think with two episodes to go they were somewhere near Kansas and it seemed like there was no way they would get to Montana by what ended up being the series finale.  

As you mention, the issue with being a prequel is that we know that the Duttons have survived.  Ordinarily I would say that's OK, since seeing the journey is still important, except the poor writing isn't really giving us the full journey.

Elizabeth's mom went home to where they came from, which was somewhere out East.  I think when Elizabeth said she was an orphan, she just meant that she had no one around anymore.  Her mom all but said that if Elizabeth didn't go with her, that she was dead to her.

14 hours ago, Rapunzel said:

I agree. One scene that stands out to me in this episode where she clearly demonstrates her entitled behavior is when the captain of the ship that rescues them offers them a drink. Spencer drinks his one glass and Alex repeatedly downs hers and then just holds her glass up above her shoulder with her back to the captain just expecting a refill. She does this more than once. Not once does she bother to so much as look at him, ask “mind if I have another?” or ever even say “thank you.” She treated the captain of the ship that saved her incapable, reckless, self absorbed behind worse than a hotel waiter. 

I have seen plenty of wealthy characters at least have manners and show themselves to be useful in a crisis. She isn’t even capable of following basic instructions from the expert in dangerous situations, the man she supposedly loves, and nearly gets them killed more than once. 

13 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

That’s correct- she’s on the screen as a character. What we know about her is what Taylor  Sheridan has written and what the actress has portrayed.  I don’t care about the actress.  I dislike the character as she has been written and portrayed. Taylor writes women as saints or sinners.    She’s been portrayed as a British woman whose society engagement party was in Africa, and the entire group went  on safari.  One that she  impulsively left to run off with a man she knew nothing about without the benefit of marriage.    She lived with this man  she knew nothing about and began traveling to America with him without one thought of what she would do on Ellis  Island for months.  He solved  that problem for her.

In addition to earlier comments about her  treatment of  the captain, she accepted his late  wife’s ring without acknowledging his loss, his sacrifice on giving it to her.  She didn’t even thank him.   I see her as a spoiled rich girl because that’s how Sheridan has written her. He didn’t write her as a waitress just as he didn’t write Elsa as a hard working pioneer woman 

Yes, I agree with the comments that she is spoiled and entitled.  She clearly comes from a life of privilege, and I have to wonder how she envisions her future life with Spencer is going to turn out.  He said at one point "my parents are gonna love you" and she said "mine are going to hate you".  I thought it was interesting that he considers Jacob and Cara to be his parents, but then considered that he was born in about 1885, his dad died in 1893, and his mom died in 1894.  Jacob and Cara more or less raised him.  There was another point where she said the lights on the shore looked like London.  Seems like she still has her mind on London.  But it seems she will never go back there.  In her fantasy world, she is still the rich socialite daughter who sails around the world.

I see that people are saying that the captain giving her his wife's ring was such a beautiful moment, but I just thought it was terrible.  She should have refused the ring and just make do with the smallest ring in the box which she could have worn on her middle finger or thumb until they can get a new one.  I kept waiting for her to protest that it was too much of a gift or that she was honored to wear it or... something.  But nope, she just looked wide eyed and took it like the spoiled princess she is, like it was her blessed fate that was written in the stars to be there to take this man's wife's ring.

I get that this is the way she is written.  The holding out the glass for more whiskey was eye-rolling.  I know I was supposed to think "oh you poor thing, so shell-shocked from your brush with death, you are so entitled to as much whiskey as you want".  

I do think that Taylor Sheridan would benefit from having more writers on staff.  I don't know what the process is, if he consults with anyone or if this is all him.  It'd be interesting to learn what kind of direction the actress is receiving.  "No that's not spoiled enough, you're a mighty rich woman, you're used to people waiting on you, hold that glass with more bored malaise and like you deserve more!"  Are these her choices or are they being made for her?

[circumvent]

22 minutes ago, blackwing said:

I see that people are saying that the captain giving her his wife's ring was such a beautiful moment, but I just thought it was terrible.  She should have refused the ring and just make do with the smallest ring in the box which she could have worn on her middle finger or thumb until they can get a new one.

Good point. She could also said no to the ring and asked for a chain so she could wear it around her neck, like the captain does. 

And as I read this I remembered thinking that the ring Spencer chose was a bit too tight, or that was my impression.

24 minutes ago, blackwing said:

I do think that Taylor Sheridan would benefit from having more writers on staff.

100%. I think that he believes that images will speak for itself. He is a good cinematographer and he writes the stories with an eye on the visual he wants, not worrying too much with what is said. Interesting, though, is how the dialogues between Ford and Mirren don't need a lot of visual. They can act. Specially Mirren. Ford is a good actor but I don't think he is great on his own. He benefits from good partnership. I also don't think that the lines they are given are exceptional or well written. It is the exchange that makes it good. Sheridan should be very, very grateful for the work the actors are putting in to make it seem like he wrote something unique

I would love to see how the directors do their job. When actors are not good, a good director can use the camera to disguise or to enhance other things and leave the acting on the background. With some of these actors, the visual is great so we can ignore the bad - kind of

[LoveLeigh]

2 hours ago, blackwing said:

Yes, I agree with the comments that she is spoiled and entitled.  She clearly comes from a life of privilege...

And I say to that: so what? She is a spoiled rich young girl who ran off with a hot guy and of course she will act like who she is. She owes nobody any explanations for her obnoxious behavior. There are many offensive characters in TV shows and Alex is who she is. If Spencer gets tired of her, he will run. Taylor Sheridan is allowed to craft a character that is totally flawed in today's culture but back then there were many nauseating bitches just like her. So hate her. There are many characters in fictional pieces I despised. I hate Beth on Yellowstone. She literally gives me rage migraines. So maybe Alex actually is Beth's great grandmother. Make sense? 

Edited February 15, 2023 by LoveLeigh

[CountryGirl]

Yes, Alex is spoiled, self-centered, entitled, and naive. Not unlike Elsa, who also worked my last nerve, but yet, I like Alex and I liked Elsa (probably at a table for one LOL).

It's a bit anachronistic for me to think Alex should act horribly differently than she is, given the times, her upbringing and social status pre-Spencer. That she set off for parts unknown with Spencer (first in Africa, later in their "are we there yet?" current trek to the states), even with Spencer as a guide, actually shows a bit of growth on her part. Her going after the life preserver was ultimately short-sighted but she was thinking that it could help them and if hadn't been so risky to obtain, she very well could have been right as most folks wouldn't dream of chucking a life preserver/vest/boat, et al. 

As for the rest, well, assuming she doesn't contract TB and die, leaving Spencer alone and bitter the rest of his days (or some such trope), Cara, who doesn't suffer fools gladly, will toughen her up soon enough. I'm looking forward to those scenes. 

[Affogato]

1 hour ago, LoveLeigh said:

And I say to that: so what? She is a spoiled rich young girl who ran off with a hot guy and of course she will act like who she is. She owes nobody any explanations for her obnoxious behavior. There are many offensive characters in TV shows and Alex is who she is. If Spencer gets tired of her, he will run. Taylor Sheridan is allowed to craft a character that is totally flawed in today's culture but back then there were many nauseating bitches just like her. So hate her. There are many characters in fictional pieces I despised. I hate Beth on Yellowstone. She literally gives me rage migraines. So maybe Alex actually is Beth's great grandmother. Make sense? 

I don't know about Beth, since I don't watch that show. I believe that Alex is not the person most people here think she is, I think she may not know much about wild animals or making her own butter, but I think she will be open to learning and like we have seen with other things, look on it as an adventure. I also think she will help Cara in bringing the ranch into the 20th century.

I'm not sure where ignorance and enthusiasm qualify as 'nauseating bitch', I'm fairly sure she will do well at the ranch.

[Affogato]

I remember walking out of the movie theater, after watching Braveheart. Went three blocks, turned into the public library. Big WTF. Now it was legitimately entertaining and I've never wanted to see it again. I do think that movies and tv rewrite history for all of the people who don't turn into the library, and that ultimately that is not a good thing. We don't learn from our past, with enslaved peoples, with the first nations, or with women, if we never actually get to learn what actually happened, and I feel that can be a problem.

I remember reading an article about how, in Japan, they don't like a lot of American movies, I think the article was specifically Westerns, because of the poor portrayal of history, and they look on us as very ignorant.

They are probably right.

Hire an expert to look at the scripts, look over the props.

[roughing it]

1 hour ago, LoveLeigh said:

I hate Beth on Yellowstone.

You and me both!  There is a distinct difference however - while they both come from wealth and privilege, Alex doesn't seem horrible to others (that we've seen), whereas Beth embraces her wealth and uses it to be entirely nasty to everyone she is around.