S01.E08: Nothing Left To Lose

[CountryGirl]

The feud between Whitfield, Banner, and the Duttons reaches the point of no return. Spencer and Alexandra encounter a different kind of peril on their passenger ship home. Marshals track Teonna, who finds a rare respite of hope.

 

Airdate: February 25, 2023

[Libby]

I am totally frustrated. This show moves at such a slow pace. Spencer still didn't make it to Montana.

1923 is a good show, but the pacing makes it hard to watch.

The first season was basically introducing us to the characters and a war between the miner and the Duttons being started.

That's it. Eight episodes and that's all that happened.

[Snazzy Daisy]

So many cliffhangers. Everything continues to be in limbo. Spencer is nowhere near Montana, gets into a stupid fight and now separated from Alex. Whitfield’s unexpected move throws the Duttons into a deeper hole. Jack and Elizabeth lost their baby. The Rainwaters and Hank’s son are still on the run.

Why wasting so much times on BDSM with the prostitutes? Zane’s sexy time with his wife and their family discussion about the radio are irrelevant to their miscegenation plot.

In season 2, how many episode will it take for Spencer to finally reach Montana and for (pregnant) Alex to reunite with him?

Me after watching this episode… 

Edited February 26, 2023 by SnazzyDaisy
Spelling! 😣

[circumvent]

I haven't watched it yet but I read the summary and all I have to say for now is: meh

It looks like a waste of time with too much bravado and pointless fillers.

I disagree that 1923 is a good show. I think it is a bad show with one great actor (Mirren) and one very good actor (Ford. Two if you count Dalton, which I am not really a fan of), one interesting story that is badly explored (Teonna's), and no actual "origins" on the Dutton's which was what was promised. 

The rest is bad acting, women as objects, terrible scripts on things the writers don't know about and don't seem to have the curiosity to write about (Africa), and a lot of manly man being too macho and spilling too much testosterone on the screen. 

Sheridan is a grifter. He only cares about how much money he is making as he spins the bad scripts around, and he doesn't really care about the stories he is telling. I find this disrespectful to the audience, but not unique to him. Most TV shows are a version of this. I am not sure if I will be interested enough to watch a second season in one year. Maybe if Mirren and Ford decide to stay on. 

Prediction (if what Elsa said is correct): Spencer makes it to Montana, saves the day. Alex, pregnant, takes her time to start her journey and when she finally arrives in Montana, Spencer is gone after her. She will either be super pregnant or have the baby with her. A series of trial and error as attempts to reunite them happen and that's why Spencer doesn't get to see his child grow. He will die on the last episode. The next series will be a huge time jump. Or some variation of this. Point is, Alex and Spencer are done together.

 

[Libby]

Most TV series resolve at least one issue in a season then move on to other issues in the next season.

This season didn't resolve any of the outstanding problems. In fact, more problems were added with no forward progress on the problems that already existed.

Spencer and Alex are still traveling. Now they are separated on top of traveling.

No forward progress for the Duttons in Montana either. There were just more problems added to the mix - losing the baby, without clarifying if she can have more children, the ranch hand's wife being arrested and him being beaten, and the tax/money issues.

Teonna's story is almost too brutal to watch. The cousin, the grandmother, and Hank all dead with the priest and the cops showing no signs of stopping their brutality. The abuse just goes on and on and on with no end. Teonna is no closer to a safe situation than she was in episode one.

I don't think it's a satisfying story if the writer just keeps adding new problems without resolving any of the problems that were already there.

I think that a season finale should have some sense of closure. If the audience invests in an entire season, they should be rewarded with at least one issue from that season being resolved.

Edited February 26, 2023 by Libby

[Libby]

I am honestly starting to wonder if Taylor Sheridan has some kind of fetish where he likes to watch women getting beat up.

The Teonna abuse scenes and the prostitute scenes seem a little over the top to me.

Plus there was a couple of  similiar scenes in Yellowstone season five where two women were beating one another to a pulp. I'm starting to see a pattern with this issue in Sheridan's work.

The prostitute scenes this season, wasted time and added nothing to the story. Everyone already knew that the miner was a bad guy.

We saw the nun and Priest abusing Teonna about twenty more times than we needed in order to understand that Teonna was being severely abused at the school.

What is Taylor Sheridan's obsession with women being beat?

Edited February 26, 2023 by Libby

[tjcletzgo]

I’m so over Spencer and Alex. I don’t believe Taylor Sheridan wrote these two characters. It’s like a soap opera, one problem after another. Love HF and HM are awesome and I love Teonna. 1923 isn’t my favorite🤨🤨🤨

[circumvent]

56 minutes ago, Libby said:

I am honestly starting to wonder if Taylor Sheridan has some kind of fetish where he likes to watch women getting beat up

Since I don't know him, I cannot say he is a misogynist but it certainly looks like he has some tendencies. I mean, we judge people based on what they allow us to see. What he lets out is that he has a fetish with naked, skinny women being beaten and/or thrown in bed. 

How fast they forgot about Emma! Even Jack said Cara raised him. Did he forget he had a mother until like, yesterday? There was no indication that Emma was an absent parent, so that was awful

The doctor, so careful with his words 🙄: "she flushed the baby". There is a medical term, Mr. Doctor. It is miscarriage. So that you know. For the next woman you see after this traumatic event.

It has been pointed out that Beth in Yellowstone is definitely a descendant of Alex. I think she is Jacob, through and through. Ruthless, entitled and believes the Duttons are the center of the universe. 

I don't see the point of introducing yet another conflict, with new characters, on the last episode of a show that will only come back in a year. The story with Zane's wife and the racism of the state, while maybe true, don't tie with anything we have seen so far. Bad timing, useless filler.

It is incredible how Alex and Spencer find perfect clothing, plus hair and make up for Alex. She certainly got better rather quickly. I guess seeing her fancy friend made her realize that wasting herself away in a not-first class cabin does not suit her.

Aside: Spencer is NOT a good dancer. He was bouncing during the waltz. Not allowed. 

 

[Thalia]

2 hours ago, Libby said:

If the audience invests in an entire season, they should be rewarded with at least one issue from that season being resolved.

The only issue I saw resolved is the title.  I will assume, until told otherwise, that season 2's title will be "1924."  

[reggiejax]

I enjoy the show, and even without any real resolution to any of the plotlines, I did enjoy this episode 

And I wouldn't say nothing was resolved. I would say it was made abundantly clear that Arthur should have yielded.

I imagine as he fell into the water it was even clear to Arthur.

 

[Linda956]

I agree with others in this forum that the slow pace of this show is very frustrating.  Very little, if anything, was accomplished this season.  How long are they going to drag this out?  I doubt HF and HM are in this for the long haul, so we have maybe 2 more seasons tops.  My big problem with all these shows on the streaming services are that they mostly have 8 episodes per season.  Occasionally, you get shows like the Star Trek ones, The Mandalorian, etc. that will have 10 episodes.  This also seems to have taken hold with regards to shows on PBS like Masterpiece Theatre (All Creatures Great & Small, Sanditon, etc.) Sorry, but 6-8 episodes a season is nowhere near enough time to tell any kind of proper story.  You need at least 10-12. Frankly, I don't see Spencer ever getting home at this snail's pace.

[LadyIrony]

Well, at least it looks like there will be a Season 2, I was fearing that they would rush everything to some kind of half arsed conclusion. That said, all we got was more unnecessary filler and another cliffhanger, although I don't think it is really a cliffhanger at all. For one thing I am losing interest and secondly I think we all know that Spencer will eventually make it to Montana. 

Where to start with this mess of an ep! 

1/ Did we really need to see the hookers again, let alone watch them get whipped with the belt? Is there some purpose behind this torture porn? Is the brunette getting built into some kind of monster to be used later? 

2/ The town didn't already know about the white man and Indian living together and having kids? It took a peeping Tom to have them busted? Really?

3/ It seems counter productive pride is an integral part of the Dutton clan, better to not have a mortgage and have your enemy pay your land tax so he can claim your land when you can't pay later. Much better idea!

4/ How many people saw Alex's ex fiance going over the side of the ship during the duel? I didn't quite think it would be so comical though. 

Sheridan or whoever is writing these things needs to work on their pacing. 8 eps isn't much it needs to be tighter rather than waste so much time on animals being shot in Africa and people hiding in trees from leopards as well as the miserable scenes from the Religious school and the torture porn of hookers being whipped by belts. 

 

[bunnyblue]

1 hour ago, LadyIrony said:

How many people saw Alex's ex fiance going over the side of the ship during the duel? I didn't quite think it would be so comical though. 

That was completely unexpected and I literally laughed out loud and rewound to watch it again. The little twerp had it coming and I didn't feel an ounce of sympathy for him. I also laughed when Arthur slapped Spencer with his gloves and in response Spencer casually but forcefully kicked him in the gut.

Instead of Elizabeth's miscarriage clearing things up about the Dutton family tree, I suspect things have been muddied up even more. We didn't hear the doctor tell Elizabeth she couldn't have anymore children, so I feel that Jack & Elizabeth's conversation could be a misdirect by TS. And then there was Alex feeling queasy on the ship...was it seasickness or morning sickness? I believe TS still hasn't decided which couple will be the forebearers to Kevin Costner. 

I continue to be annoyed with how much credit James & Margaret get for the Dutton empire. Here we had Cara write to Spencer that "everything your parents fought so hard to build is being ripped from us". Argh!! James & Margaret spent 10 years on that land and built a shack. Then they died and Jacob & Cara had to ride to the rescue and spent 30 years making the family what it is. They were the ones who took James's dream and built it into an empire - Elsa said it in the season premiere. It's like TS doesn't pay any attention to what he writes in previous episodes and just goes for grand statements that barely make sense. 

This episode drove home just how old Jacob & Cara really are: first with Jacob having trouble with his hands and saying that he doesn't have much time since he's 78 years old, and then Cara looking so tired and defeated during the confrontation with Whitfield and at the end when she crumpled the letter. I'm watching this show primarily for Mirren and Ford, so the 2nd season better not be set past 1924 because I fear Jacob & Cara don't have much time left. I will be furious if TS pulls another 1883 and we only learn of Jacob & Cara's fate through flashbacks and Elsa's narration (like we did with James & Margaret). I'm all for continuing the Dutton storyline via Spencer & Jack but I require proper send offs for Jacob & Cara. 

Alex is a Countess in her own right? If she is the grandmother of John III, it's weird none of the modern day Duttons have never mentioned they come from British royalty. 

Thankfully the Rainwaters and Pete made it out of the finale alive. I rolled my eyes at how the marshals quickly deduced they are heading to the Comanche Reservation in Wyoming. I  hope Runs with Horses realizes he may be making things too obvious for their pursuers and changes course. I fully expect RWH to die protecting Teonna, and I strongly suspect Pete will die too. Even if he fathers Teonna's child, there has to be a reason why Thomas carries the Rainwater last name and is not Thomas Plenty Clouds.

Edited February 26, 2023 by bunnyblue

[Affogato]

24 minutes ago, bunnyblue said:

 

Instead of Elizabeth's miscarriage clearing things up about the Dutton family tree, I suspect things have been muddied up even more. We didn't hear the doctor tell Elizabeth she couldn't have anymore children, so I feel that Jack & Elizabeth's conversation could be a misdirect by TS. And then there was Alex feeling queasy on the ship...was it seasickness or morning sickness? I believe TS still hasn't decided which couple will be the forebearers to Kevin Costner.

Alex said to her friend "The family I'm starting" and there was a meaningful look, so I think Alex thinks she's pregnant. At least, we are supposed to think so.

The doctor wouldn't know if Elizabeth could or couldn't carry to term. People miscarry all the time. He didn't have an ultrasound in his back pocket, as it probably hadn't been invented, or at least put to that purpose. Jack is a good boy, though, and supportive.

I think it is delightful that Alexandra is actually entitled, which explains why she goes through the world as if it is her oyster. It is interesting that in the UK there are no counts, but a countess gets her title by marriage, although there are some Scottish Countesses where the title is passed down through the female line, according to this link: https://www.purewow.com/entertainment/what-is-a-countess.  Of course, none of this may mean anything.

I started to watch 1883 because of the contrast with the Gilded Age and this show is leaning into the many clashes between cultures and technology and ways of living. People in cities vs people on ranches; wood vs gas stoves; that lovely scene where Jacob can't park his horse because the hitching rails have been removed to make way for parked cars!  Alex's world and Spencers, the Jesuits and Teonna, that poor modern family and the crazy laws that make her an animal. I have to hand it to Sheridan for trying to show the world in that way, even if he isn't fully succeeding. Personally I'd rather have that story.

I can't imagine that Spencer doesn't follow Alex to London, any way he can, slowing his trip even further.

 

3 hours ago, circumvent said:

It has been pointed out that Beth in Yellowstone is definitely a descendant of Alex. I think she is Jacob, through and through. Ruthless, entitled and believes the Duttons are the center of the universe. 

 

 

I don't know Beth, but I've picked up some hints and this sounds like a solid insight.

[magdalene]

How can they keep Spencer and Alex apart? They are legally married and the marriage has been consummated. (Multiple times, smug smile.)

Everyone kept saying they would reunite with Spencer's family during the season finale. Instead the storyline is stalled on Contrivance BLVD.  I feel screwed over and nobody paid for my dinner first.

Someone on this production really gets off on hurting women.

[Affogato]

1 minute ago, magdalene said:

How can they keep Spencer and Alex apart? They are legally married and the marriage has been consummated. (Multiple times, smug smile.)

Everyone kept saying they would reunite with Spencer's family during the season finale. Instead the storyline is stalled on Contrivance BLVD.  I feel screwed over and nobody paid for my dinner first.

Someone on this production really gets off on hurting women.

I'd think they would have gotten a document of the marriage.

[circumvent]

10 hours ago, bunnyblue said:

Spencer casually but forcefully kicked him in the gut.

In the balls.

10 hours ago, bunnyblue said:

I continue to be annoyed with how much credit James & Margaret get for the Dutton empire.

Excellent point. They didn't even have to fight for the land. They appropriated the land, and after James dies Margaret couldn't even survive the winter. 10 winters and she had learnt nothing

 

9 hours ago, magdalene said:

How can they keep Spencer and Alex apart? They are legally married and the marriage has been consummated.

I think it was not explained but we can assume that the royals used their absolutist power to make sure they had Spencer out of the boat and Alex trapped there. Why they didn't have a document proving that they are married is just pathetic. Maybe the writers wanted that whole mess on the shop so badly, they ignored all reason.

[Haleth]

Well, that was grim.  That was the finale?  It seemed more like the set up to the finale.

I'm tired of Spencer's neverending voyage.  He must be the unluckiest man on the planet.  Writing him into a predicament every week is getting tedious.  That storyline needs to move a little faster and with less peril.

Teonna's story continues to be heartwrenching.  How the heck did the trackers find those bodies in such a big, open country?  They must be the luckiest people.  It's preposterous.

The Duttons falling into a financial crisis with Timothy Dalton was interesting but we know it goes nowhere.  The whole belting scene was gratuitous and offensive.  Yes, we get it; he's a bad guy.  Zane's family being torn apart was sad but not something an already crowded show needed.  The miscarriage was further confirmation that Spencer's and Alex's baby will be raised by Jack and Elizabeth.  It seems pretty clear.  At the rate it's taking him to get to Montana he'll never get to see his child grow up.  Maybe that's what Elsa meant; not that he died but that he spent the rest of his life trying unsuccessfully to get there.  (It could be a spin off.  A comedy.)

13 hours ago, bunnyblue said:

And then there was Alex feeling queasy on the ship...was it seasickness or morning sickness?

It did surprise me that the writers did not go with the cliche of having her throw up.

[Rapunzel]

 

15 hours ago, LadyIrony said:

2/ The town didn't already know about the white man and Indian living together and having kids? It took a peeping Tom to have them busted? Really?

She was Chinese. They said her last name was Chow when they arrested her and referenced the Anti-Miscegenation Act. The Anti-Miscegenation Act of 1909 made it illegal for caucasians to marry African Americans, Chinese, or Japanese, and penalized those who performed such marriages. It didn’t apply to Native Americans, though that was still looked down upon. 
 

I was also not a fan of the finale and knew Alex wanting to be seen in her pretty, over the top dress was going to cause more problems for Spencer (also, white really isn’t her color). Does she have any idea that a dress like that will be useless on the ranch? She is forever doing things and making choices that negatively impact Spencer. Can’t he see she would be a disaster and cause unimaginable problems if she got anywhere near Montana? I wish he would have just shrugged his shoulders and said “okay, whatever” when they told him she couldn’t go with him ashore. I was seriously hoping that the season would end with Spencer at least getting home and then next season (assuming we get one set in the same time period) would be about the land war. 
 

I thought the seasickness references were hinting at Alex being pregnant as well, especially when they made a point of her noting that she had never had it that badly before. 
 

I really liked Jack this episode. He is showing wisdom beyond his years and the way he treated Elizabeth was so sweet. He picked up a lot from Cara, I think. 
 

I’m beyond tired of the show’s need to drive home the misogyny. There is no need for any more whipping scenes - we definitely already know Whitfield is a sadist who likes power and submission. I would have hoped they would have used Timothy Dalton in a better way.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Rapunzel

[RedHawk]

21 hours ago, Libby said:

I am honestly starting to wonder if Taylor Sheridan has some kind of fetish where he likes to watch women getting beat up.

The Teonna abuse scenes and the prostitute scenes seem a little over the top to me.

I was sickened from the first by the over-the-top violence shown with the Indian girls. Yes, I know it happened but that doesn't mean I need to watch it depicted to that depth to believe it. 

The repeated scenes with the prostitutes are just more prolonged torture porn with no real point. They could easily have shown Dalton's character to be a sadist (or whatever) without two scenes. These things really turn me off the show. 

17 hours ago, bunnyblue said:

Alex is a Countess in her own right? If she is the grandmother of John III, it's weird none of the modern day Duttons have never mentioned they come from British royalty. 

I'm confused by this. When the ship's officer informed the captain of the impending duel, he said it's between "some American and the Earl of Sussex". Ok, so Alex's jilted fiancé (Arthur) is the Earl of Sussex. Then when the captain tells Spencer he will be removed from the boat, the captain refers to Alex as the Countess of Sussex, and her friend (Jennifer) says yes that's who she is. But how is Alex the Countess of Sussex? She didn't marry Arthur. The captain then says that the Earl of Sussex doubts the validity of the marriage and later we learn that the Earl is Arthur's father, not Arthur. So maybe the ship's officer was confused and Arthur was the son of the Earl of Sussex. 

I'm thinking that Sheridan did very little research on the British peerage and their titles. He likely used the Sussex title knowing many Americans would recognize it. The title of the Duke of Sussex lapsed in 1843 (according to Wikipedia) and QEII revived it in 2018 for Prince Harry. So Sheridan made an in-joke I guess (ha ha). But it still doesn't work that both Alex and her fiancé's family share the same title, not even if they are first cousins. I do predict that a timely death will mean that Alex inherits the money to save the Yellowstone.

Also, what a total idiot was Arthur. Jennifer seemed to be interested in him when she asked him to dance. She's eligible, attractive, and probably also titled. Arthur should have listened to his father's advice about being fortunate to get out of an unloving marriage and looked to the next lady in waiting. He certainly proved himself a foolish prat, so Alex was right in not wanting to marry him.

With all that's happened to them, I'm surprised that Spencer instead of thinking "put her back" wasn't thinking "this lady is bad luck and I need to shed her fast"!😉
 

16 hours ago, Affogato said:

I started to watch 1883 because of the contrast with the Gilded Age and this show is leaning into the many clashes between cultures and technology and ways of living. People in cities vs people on ranches; wood vs gas stoves; that lovely scene where Jacob can't park his horse because the hitching rails have been removed to make way for parked cars!  Alex's world and Spencers, the Jesuits and Teonna, that poor modern family and the crazy laws that make her an animal. I have to hand it to Sheridan for trying to show the world in that way, even if he isn't fully succeeding. Personally I'd rather have that story.

I, too, love the old and new ways clashing, very well illustrated by the horses vs cars, and the house Banner was given vs the Yellowstone ranch house which is also luxurious but doesn't have electricity.

16 hours ago, Affogato said:

I'd think they would have gotten a document of the marriage.

Spencer was aware that Alex would have a problem with immigration and that's the primary reason (besides love and sex and surviving together numerous close scrapes with death) he asked the captain to marry them right there. So duh, he certainly should have asked for a letter from the captain attesting to the marriage. And likely it would be there with the letters in the valise that Alexandra carried all the way through their adventures and spilled on the deck. So that would give her documentation when she follows Spencer to America. Right, Taylor Sheridan? Also, I think in those day especially a titled Brit would have no trouble waving a passport and swanning right through customs. They'd resolve the paperwork for her to stay in America by establishing the validity of the marriage, or even having a second one in Montana.

Edited February 27, 2023 by RedHawk
Correction

[debbie311]

I enjoy the scenes with Mirren and Ford, but the rest of the program - it's really hard for me to watch.  The continuous beating of the women - it's just too much.

The show is just so depressing. I want to see how it ends, but truthfully I am glad this season is done.  Maybe it's not for me.  When I watch "All Creatures Great and Small" I get a good feeling that stays with me. I know they are completely different programs and I know it's a choice.

[Thalia]

Let me begin by saying I liked the show, but the last two episodes left me disappointed.  I now wish I'd waited to watch until all 8 episodes had dropped.  Waiting a week (or weeks) for the next episode made the glacial pacing even more frustrating.  The show runners stretched three or four episodes worth of material (that's me be generous to Sheridan) into eight slow paced picture postcards interspersed with graphic violence.  I'm left with the impression that the show had a huge travel budget and By God! they were going to use the footage they shot in Africa and Europe. 

Spencer remains kind of an enigma, at least in my opinion.  For all the importance the show placed on his traumatic experience in the war, the show didn't spend that much time on what exactly happened or why he refused to go home.  And apart from the fact that he remains cool under pressure we don't know why he is Alderaan's the Yellowstone's Only Hope.  

I fast forwarded through all the entire season's display of torture porn against women.  Not my bag.  But as bad as the treatment of the young women at the school was it at least served a narrative function and moved Teanna from Point A to Point B in the story.  The prostitutes?  God.  I gather that Creighton now realizes he made a Big Oopsie in joining forces with Whipfield Whitfield, and we know that he does have at least a nascent conscience.  But we would have known that if all we saw was Whitfield follow that poor woman up the stairs.  

Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, I'm confused at the disappearance of Elsa's narration.  I wonder if it was removed post-production when they realized it wasn't really working.  ::shrug:: 

With that said, I like all of the Duttons, including its two newest members, Alex and Elizabeth.  I look forward to the next season to what will hopefully be a conclusion of the multiple storylines.   For example, maybe along with the washing machine they will get a septic tank and indoor plumbing.  Alex will like that.   

Edited February 27, 2023 by Thalia

[roughing it]

I hope Teonna's group, as they were stopped looking toward Wyoming, now turn back as they surmise that Wyoming is where the search party will go.  Also, that was absolutely the quickest courtship ever between Teonna and Pete.  Unbelievable!

[blackwing]

I'm going to start this post with a big SCREW YOU towards Taylor Sheridan.  My biggest issue... did he know/demand in advance that Paramount would give him at least two seasons of this show?  Given his power and track record, it seemed all but guaranteed.  But still.  He obviously wrote the show knowing that he wasn't going to resolve any of the major storylines.  I feel cheated.  We were promised a look at the Dutton origin story, and we got very little of that this season.

Instead, we get an announcement of a season 2, towards the end of this one.  Given what happened with 1883, I am skeptical.  Why couldn't we have gotten a true season 2 of 1883?  After all of the unresolved and new plots in the last two episodes, we had better get an actual season 2 of 1923.  But when would it even be?  In two years?  Have they already started filming?  Mirren and Ford aren't getting any younger.

Sheridan better better better not do what he did with 1883 and decide that the second season of 1923 really means "1963" and just never show us what happens.  And there's a lot that didn't happen.

Spencer still hasn't gotten home.  We still don't know for sure who is Kevin Costner's grandfather.  We still have very little idea how the Duttons came to build their empire.  Teonna is on her endless trek somewhere.

We did get one cryptic clue about the house, when Whitfield asked Jacob if the house was inspired by the lodge in Yellowstone National Park, and Jacob said "other way around".  I'm assuming that's a reference to what is generally considered the "main" lodge in Yellowstone, the Old Faithful Inn, which was built in 1903-4.  So Jacob got to Boseman in 1894 and it was he that built the family house.  I'm still trying to figure out how and where he got the money for it.

The whole bit about Whitfield paying the property taxes seemed a bit modern to me.  My understanding is that if you don't pay your property taxes, the county will put a lien on your house.  Someone can step in and pay the taxes for you.  Then you get a notice that your taxes have been sold and you need to redeem them.  Otherwise the payer can ask for a deed and become the owner of your house.  I get that it was 1923, but if Whitfield did in fact pay for the property taxes, then some notice should have been given to Jacob and he should have been given the opportunity to pay them.  But since Kevin Costner is currently in the house, we know that Whitfield isn't going to get it.

On 2/26/2023 at 10:39 AM, circumvent said:

I disagree that 1923 is a good show. I think it is a bad show with one great actor (Mirren) and one very good actor (Ford. Two if you count Dalton, which I am not really a fan of), one interesting story that is badly explored (Teonna's), and no actual "origins" on the Dutton's which was what was promised. 

The rest is bad acting, women as objects, terrible scripts on things the writers don't know about and don't seem to have the curiosity to write about (Africa), and a lot of manly man being too macho and spilling too much testosterone on the screen. 

Sheridan is a grifter. He only cares about how much money he is making as he spins the bad scripts around, and he doesn't really care about the stories he is telling. I find this disrespectful to the audience, but not unique to him. Most TV shows are a version of this. I am not sure if I will be interested enough to watch a second season in one year. Maybe if Mirren and Ford decide to stay on. 

Prediction (if what Elsa said is correct): Spencer makes it to Montana, saves the day. Alex, pregnant, takes her time to start her journey and when she finally arrives in Montana, Spencer is gone after her. She will either be super pregnant or have the baby with her. A series of trial and error as attempts to reunite them happen and that's why Spencer doesn't get to see his child grow. He will die on the last episode. The next series will be a huge time jump. Or some variation of this. Point is, Alex and Spencer are done together.

 

Yep.  This entire show (and his entire TV empire) is just simply all about the money to Sheridan.  He doesn't care about putting out a good product, he just cares about how many shows he can have simultaneously and how much money he earns.  I would not at all be surprised if Paramount Plus gets renamed SheridanTV eventually.

23 hours ago, Libby said:

Most TV series resolve at least one issue in a season then move on to other issues in the next season.

This season didn't resolve any of the outstanding problems. In fact, more problems were added with no forward progress on the problems that already existed.

Spencer and Alex are still traveling. Now they are separated on top of traveling.

No forward progress for the Duttons in Montana either. There were just more problems added to the mix - losing the baby, without clarifying if she can have more children, the ranch hand's wife being arrested and him being beaten, and the tax/money issues.

Teonna's story is almost too brutal to watch. The cousin, the grandmother, and Hank all dead with the priest and the cops showing no signs of stopping their brutality. The abuse just goes on and on and on with no end. Teonna is no closer to a safe situation than she was in episode one.

I don't think it's a satisfying story if the writer just keeps adding new problems without resolving any of the problems that were already there.

I think that a season finale should have some sense of closure. If the audience invests in an entire season, they should be rewarded with at least one issue from that season being resolved.

Hear, hear!  Agree with all of the above.  Why did we have to introduce new storylines?  Why did it have to take until episode 8 to introduce a new storyline for Zane?  I know the actor has some semi-recognition, but I don't care at all for him and I don't see why we are supposed to care about Zane as opposed to any of the other nameless ranchhands that work for Jacob.  When Zane was with his family, he played Zane the same way he played the psycho creep Ronald Pergman on "Big Sky" when he was with his girlfriend and her kid.

When we were introduced to his wife who is of Chinese descent, the entire thing seemed way too modern to me.  It could very well be she is third generation American (maybe her grandfather came to the U.S. around the time of the gold rush or to work on the railroad) which explains the lack of accent, but she would have been more aware of these anti-miscegenation laws and perhaps Zane would have asked Jacob if they could live on a house on the Dutton property.  Did Alice and the kids never venture into town?  The kids clearly look mixed race.

And why would Whitfield/Creighton care enough about a random Dutton ranchhand to follow him home?  This whole storyline is unnecessary.

21 hours ago, reggiejax said:

I enjoy the show, and even without any real resolution to any of the plotlines, I did enjoy this episode 

And I wouldn't say nothing was resolved. I would say it was made abundantly clear that Arthur should have yielded.

I imagine as he fell into the water it was even clear to Arthur.

Truly well deserved.  But even this was an unnecessary, his storyline was resolved when Alexandra left him.  Why did he have to get brought back in the last two episodes just to cause trouble?  It's beyond ridiculous that we are expected to believe that after weeks apart, that he ends up at the exact same cafe in Sicily that Alex and Spencer are at.  Or that they choose to take the exact same ship to London.

I thought the ship captain that married Alex and Spencer had told them to find a ship taking them to Galveston.  What happened to Galveston?  Why would they go to London instead?  Surely there would have been some ships travelling direct from Italy to the United States?

We didn't see a body, I would not at all be surprised if Arthur was somehow rescued and it is revealed that he is the grandfather of Silver Hair over on the next season of Yellowstone proper.  This would help to explain why she has such enmity against the Duttons.

18 hours ago, bunnyblue said:

That was completely unexpected and I literally laughed out loud and rewound to watch it again. The little twerp had it coming and I didn't feel an ounce of sympathy for him. I also laughed when Arthur slapped Spencer with his gloves and in response Spencer casually but forcefully kicked him in the gut.

Instead of Elizabeth's miscarriage clearing things up about the Dutton family tree, I suspect things have been muddied up even more. We didn't hear the doctor tell Elizabeth she couldn't have anymore children, so I feel that Jack & Elizabeth's conversation could be a misdirect by TS. And then there was Alex feeling queasy on the ship...was it seasickness or morning sickness? I believe TS still hasn't decided which couple will be the forebearers to Kevin Costner. 

I continue to be annoyed with how much credit James & Margaret get for the Dutton empire. Here we had Cara write to Spencer that "everything your parents fought so hard to build is being ripped from us". Argh!! James & Margaret spent 10 years on that land and built a shack. Then they died and Jacob & Cara had to ride to the rescue and spent 30 years making the family what it is. They were the ones who took James's dream and built it into an empire - Elsa said it in the season premiere. It's like TS doesn't pay any attention to what he writes in previous episodes and just goes for grand statements that barely make sense. 

This episode drove home just how old Jacob & Cara really are: first with Jacob having trouble with his hands and saying that he doesn't have much time since he's 78 years old, and then Cara looking so tired and defeated during the confrontation with Whitfield and at the end when she crumpled the letter. I'm watching this show primarily for Mirren and Ford, so the 2nd season better not be set past 1924 because I fear Jacob & Cara don't have much time left. I will be furious if TS pulls another 1883 and we only learn of Jacob & Cara's fate through flashbacks and Elsa's narration (like we did with James & Margaret). I'm all for continuing the Dutton storyline via Spencer & Jack but I require proper send offs for Jacob & Cara. 

Alex is a Countess in her own right? If she is the grandmother of John III, it's weird none of the modern day Duttons have never mentioned they come from British royalty. 

I rewound the scene of him sailing overboard many times.  As well as the scene of him prissily slapping Spencer in the face with his glove and Spencer immediately kicking him in the balls.  As well as the fight where he would do his fancy swordplay and Spencer just punches or kicks him.

I think the anvils are more than clear that Jack and Elizabeth will raise Spencer and Alex's baby as their own.  Jack already said something last episode, and now this episode where Jack says their purpose will be to provide a home for someone else's child.  If this does NOT happen, then Sheridan's writing is even shittier than I thought, because no writer would drop this many anvils and then have it not come to fruition.

 

1 hour ago, RedHawk said:

I'm confused by this. When the ship's officer informed the captain of the impending duel, he said it's between "some American and the Earl of Sussex". Ok, so Alex's jilted fiancé (Arthur) is the Earl of Sussex. Then when the captain tells Spencer he will be removed from the boat, the captain refers to Alex as the Countess of Sussex, and her friend (Jennifer) says yes that's who she is. But how is Alex the Countess of Sussex? She didn't marry Arthur. The captain then says that the Earl of Sussex doubts the validity of the marriage and later we learn that the Earl is Arthur's father, not Arthur. So maybe the ship's officer was confused and Arthur was the son of the Earl of Sussex. 

I'm thinking that Sheridan did very little research on the British peerage and their titles. He likely used the Sussex title knowing many Americans would recognize it. The title of the Duke of Sussex lapsed in 1843 (according to Wikipedia) and QEII revived it in 2018 for Prince Harry. So Sheridan made an in-joke I guess (ha ha). But it still doesn't work that both Alex and her fiancé's family share the same title, not even if they are first cousins. I do predict that a timely death will mean that Alex inherits the money to save the Yellowstone.

I was greatly confused by this as well.  I got the impression immediately that the Earl of Sussex was Arthur's father.  As the son and the heir of the Earl, Arthur would have some kind of courtesy lesser title like Baron Frockmorton.  He certainly wouldn't be called the Earl himself.  And the wife of the Earl is the Countess.  The wife of a Baron would be called a Baroness.  So to call Alex the Countess of Sussex is completely wrong, since 1) the Earl and Countess are very much alive and haven't abdicated their positions, and 2) she and Arthur never got married.  Also, why use the Sussex title, just to cause titillation because of Harry and Meghan?

Thoroughly shit writing from Taylor Sheridan.  Someone with a basic knowledge of "Downton Abbey" would be able to recognise all of the wrong things about these statements.  Does he not have ANY staff to do research or any editors/proofers to prevent these kinds of things from making it to the air?

[RedHawk]

3 minutes ago, blackwing said:

I'm going to start this post with a big SCREW YOU towards Taylor Sheridan.  My biggest issue... did he know/demand in advance that Paramount would give him at least two seasons of this show?  Given his power and track record, it seemed all but guaranteed.  But still.  He obviously wrote the show knowing that he wasn't going to resolve any of the major storylines.  I feel cheated.  We were promised a look at the Dutton origin story, and we got very little of that this season.

Instead, we get an announcement of a season 2, towards the end of this one.  Given what happened with 1883, I am skeptical.  Why couldn't we have gotten a true season 2 of 1883?  After all of the unresolved and new plots in the last two episodes, we had better get an actual season 2 of 1923.  But when would it even be?  In two years?  Have they already started filming?  Mirren and Ford aren't getting any younger.

Sheridan better better better not do what he did with 1883 and decide that the second season of 1923 really means "1963" and just never show us what happens.  And there's a lot that didn't happen.

Spencer still hasn't gotten home.  We still don't know for sure who is Kevin Costner's grandfather.  We still have very little idea how the Duttons came to build their empire.  Teonna is on her endless trek somewhere.

We did get one cryptic clue about the house, when Whitfield asked Jacob if the house was inspired by the lodge in Yellowstone National Park, and Jacob said "other way around".  I'm assuming that's a reference to what is generally considered the "main" lodge in Yellowstone, the Old Faithful Inn, which was built in 1903-4.  So Jacob got to Boseman in 1894 and it was he that built the family house.  I'm still trying to figure out how and where he got the money for it.

The whole bit about Whitfield paying the property taxes seemed a bit modern to me.  My understanding is that if you don't pay your property taxes, the county will put a lien on your house.  Someone can step in and pay the taxes for you.  Then you get a notice that your taxes have been sold and you need to redeem them.  Otherwise the payer can ask for a deed and become the owner of your house.  I get that it was 1923, but if Whitfield did in fact pay for the property taxes, then some notice should have been given to Jacob and he should have been given the opportunity to pay them.  But since Kevin Costner is currently in the house, we know that Whitfield isn't going to get it.

Yep.  This entire show (and his entire TV empire) is just simply all about the money to Sheridan.  He doesn't care about putting out a good product, he just cares about how many shows he can have simultaneously and how much money he earns.  I would not at all be surprised if Paramount Plus gets renamed SheridanTV eventually.

Hear, hear!  Agree with all of the above.  Why did we have to introduce new storylines?  Why did it have to take until episode 8 to introduce a new storyline for Zane?  I know the actor has some semi-recognition, but I don't care at all for him and I don't see why we are supposed to care about Zane as opposed to any of the other nameless ranchhands that work for Jacob.  When Zane was with his family, he played Zane the same way he played the psycho creep Ronald Pergman on "Big Sky" when he was with his girlfriend and her kid.

When we were introduced to his wife who is of Chinese descent, the entire thing seemed way too modern to me.  It could very well be she is third generation American (maybe her grandfather came to the U.S. around the time of the gold rush or to work on the railroad) which explains the lack of accent, but she would have been more aware of these anti-miscegenation laws and perhaps Zane would have asked Jacob if they could live on a house on the Dutton property.  Did Alice and the kids never venture into town?  The kids clearly look mixed race.

And why would Whitfield/Creighton care enough about a random Dutton ranchhand to follow him home?  This whole storyline is unnecessary.

Truly well deserved.  But even this was an unnecessary, his storyline was resolved when Alexandra left him.  Why did he have to get brought back in the last two episodes just to cause trouble?  It's beyond ridiculous that we are expected to believe that after weeks apart, that he ends up at the exact same cafe in Sicily that Alex and Spencer are at.  Or that they choose to take the exact same ship to London.

I thought the ship captain that married Alex and Spencer had told them to find a ship taking them to Galveston.  What happened to Galveston?  Why would they go to London instead?  Surely there would have been some ships travelling direct from Italy to the United States?

We didn't see a body, I would not at all be surprised if Arthur was somehow rescued and it is revealed that he is the grandfather of Silver Hair over on the next season of Yellowstone proper.  This would help to explain why she has such enmity against the Duttons.

I rewound the scene of him sailing overboard many times.  As well as the scene of him prissily slapping Spencer in the face with his glove and Spencer immediately kicking him in the balls.  As well as the fight where he would do his fancy swordplay and Spencer just punches or kicks him.

I think the anvils are more than clear that Jack and Elizabeth will raise Spencer and Alex's baby as their own.  Jack already said something last episode, and now this episode where Jack says their purpose will be to provide a home for someone else's child.  If this does NOT happen, then Sheridan's writing is even shittier than I thought, because no writer would drop this many anvils and then have it not come to fruition.

 

I was greatly confused by this as well.  I got the impression immediately that the Earl of Sussex was Arthur's father.  As the son and the heir of the Earl, Arthur would have some kind of courtesy lesser title like Baron Frockmorton.  He certainly wouldn't be called the Earl himself.  And the wife of the Earl is the Countess.  The wife of a Baron would be called a Baroness.  So to call Alex the Countess of Sussex is completely wrong, since 1) the Earl and Countess are very much alive and haven't abdicated their positions, and 2) she and Arthur never got married.  Also, why use the Sussex title, just to cause titillation because of Harry and Meghan?

Thoroughly shit writing from Taylor Sheridan.  Someone with a basic knowledge of "Downton Abbey" would be able to recognise all of the wrong things about these statements.  Does he not have ANY staff to do research or any editors/proofers to prevent these kinds of things from making it to the air?

Exactly. Sheridan could have made up a fictitious title for Alex, like the "Countess of Darlton" or something. And yes, the son of the Earl does not also have the title Earl, he is known by a lesser title until he inherits his father's title. So I can wave away that the ship's officer got the facts wrong, it was the Earl's son not the Earl who was dueling, but the error of Alex's "Sussex" title is just dumb.

[Affogato]

12 minutes ago, blackwing said:

 

I was greatly confused by this as well.  I got the impression immediately that the Earl of Sussex was Arthur's father.  As the son and the heir of the Earl, Arthur would have some kind of courtesy lesser title like Baron Frockmorton.  He certainly wouldn't be called the Earl himself.  And the wife of the Earl is the Countess.  The wife of a Baron would be called a Baroness.  So to call Alex the Countess of Sussex is completely wrong, since 1) the Earl and Countess are very much alive and haven't abdicated their positions, and 2) she and Arthur never got married.  Also, why use the Sussex title, just to cause titillation because of Harry and Meghan?

Thoroughly shit writing from Taylor Sheridan.  Someone with a basic knowledge of "Downton Abbey" would be able to recognise all of the wrong things about these statements.  Does he not have ANY staff to do research or any editors/proofers to prevent these kinds of things from making it to the air?

It is  more confusing becaue their aren't British countesses, although there are apparently stand alone Scottish countesses. If Alex is one of these, then Beth may have some claim on the title, if she is descendant

[blackwing]

1 hour ago, Thalia said:

Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, I'm confused at the disappearance of Elsa's narration.  I wonder if it was removed post-production when they realized it wasn't really working.  ::shrug:: 

Yes, that was very strange... she's like this omniscient narrator for the first half and then just disappears.  Even though it made no sense that she would be the one narrating, because, you know, SHE'S DEAD.  Cara should have been the voiceovers.  I feel like Taylor Sheridan is obsessed with this Elsa actress and wanted to keep her around him for a little bit longer.

It made no sense that the season finale wouldn't close with her awful narration.  I think every episode in "1883" was like that.  

Assuming there is an actual second season, I'm wondering if Sheridan is realising that many people like Spencer, and Spencer isn't going to die after all, and we will have to pretend that Stupid Ghost Elsa never made her stupid pronouncements.

[RedHawk]

2 hours ago, Affogato said:

It is  more confusing becaue their aren't British countesses, although there are apparently stand alone Scottish countesses. If Alex is one of these, then Beth may have some claim on the title, if she is descendant

Yes, there aren't standalone English countesses, that stuck in my craw also. Sheridan wanted to do a big reveal "She's got a title!" but we already knew from the first that she was from a wealthy family when she told her friend that the marriage to Arthur was just a real estate transaction. Then when Alex mentioned "you don't need cash when you can get credit" to buy Spencer a suit it was pretty clear that she was going to use her name which would have been all that was needed to charge merchandise on a British luxury liner. Then all Sheridan had to do was have the captain say to Spencer, "You're saying that the daughter of the Earl of XYG is your wife?" and Jennifer confirm, yes, Alex is an Earl's daughter. 

Edited February 27, 2023 by RedHawk

[blackwing]

5 minutes ago, Affogato said:

It is  more confusing becaue their aren't British countesses, although there are apparently stand alone Scottish countesses. If Alex is one of these, then Beth may have some claim on the title, if she is descendant

The wife of an Earl is a Countess.  That guy referred to Alexandra as the "Countess of Sussex", which is Arthur's family seat.  He was referring to her as the wife of Arthur.  Not as a countess in her own right.  It's very unlikely she has her own title in her own right.  Notwithstanding the fact that even if her parents had a title to pass on to her... they are still alive.  And under primogeniture laws that existed then (thank you again Downton Abbery), a woman wouldn't have been eligible to inherit a title.

[Affogato]

1 hour ago, Thalia said:

 

Spencer remains kind of an enigma, at least in my opinion.  For all the importance the show placed on his traumatic experience in the war, the show didn't spend that much time on what exactly happened or why he refused to go home.  And apart from the fact that he remains cool under pressure we don't know why he is Alderaan's the Yellowstone's Only Hope.  

 

This seems just a real old trope. Spencer is a mama's boy. He is avoiding Cara's letters and he doesn't want to go home because then he will have to face her with the bad things he did in the war. Which would make them real to him. His PTSD is that easy, romantic hero ptsd that makes him brood and be overprotective of women, which they must allow,  and will not make him curl up into a ball when he hears gunfire, be filled with anger, strike out in his sleep, become nonfunctional, require medication to sleep, drink heavily, or any of the other things that would interfere with him being a perfect boyfriend, husband and father.

I think he is Cara's only hope because, mama's boy, but also because she feels she needs a man to back her up. I think Jacob was military, right? and they value that, too.

[Affogato]

2 minutes ago, blackwing said:

The wife of an Earl is a Countess.  That guy referred to Alexandra as the "Countess of Sussex", which is Arthur's family seat.  He was referring to her as the wife of Arthur.  Not as a countess in her own right.  It's very unlikely she has her own title in her own right.  Notwithstanding the fact that even if her parents had a title to pass on to her... they are still alive.  And under primogeniture laws that existed then (thank you again Downton Abbery), a woman wouldn't have been eligible to inherit a title.

 She is not Arthur's wife, although he would still claim her as his fiance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peerages_inherited_by_women

Many harken back many centuries! It would be fun if he had found one for Alex.

[RedHawk]

Another thing about Alex's title reveal. If she was still carrying her passport, and I imagine it was in her one brown valise that made it all the way to the Majestic with her, then it would indicate to U.S. immigration officers that she was a British peer, or daughter of a peer (Lady XYZ), and they would wave her into the U.S. as a visitor with a stay limit at least, if not as a immigrant intending to reside permanently. Only immigrants of lower status had to "wait months" for entry. A wealthy Brit certainly would not. Sheridan is playing loose with the facts, but it did make for a nice "married at sea" story.

Edited February 27, 2023 by RedHawk

[Affogato]

Just now, RedHawk said:

Another thing about Alex's title reveal. If she was still carrying her passport, and I imagine it was in her one brown valise that made it all the way to the Majestic with her, then it would indicate to U.S. immigration officers that she was a British peer, or daughter of a peer, and they would wave her into the U.S. as a visitor with a stay limit at least, if not as a immigrant intending to reside permanently. Only immigrants of lower status had to "wait months" for entry. A wealthy Brit certainly would not. Sheridan is playing loose with the facts, but it did make for a nice "married at sea" story.

In fairness to that story, she hadn't told Spencer anything about being titled. He might have assumed she was rich, I suppose, but she walked away from that.

[blackwing]

2 minutes ago, Affogato said:

 She is not Arthur's wife, although he would still claim her as his fiance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peerages_inherited_by_women

Many harken back many centuries! It would be fun if he had found one for Alex.

I'm aware that she is not Arthur's wife.  That's why I've been criticising the writing around this particular segment.

However, another angle might be that perhaps she and Arthur actually did in fact get legally married.  Maybe that explains why when the captain referred to Alex as the "Countess of Sussex", Jennifer was pretty much like "yes, say yes".  Maybe Arthur and Alex got married in secret and then there was going to be some big formal wedding in Africa.

Then she would actually be Arthur's widow, and maybe the parents give her money because of that.

But this would be giving Sheridan too much credit.  As it is, this whole business of her being a countess (whether in her own right, or as married to Arthur) is yet another unnecessary plot element introduced in the waning episodes of the season.

 

 

[RedHawk]

28 minutes ago, Affogato said:

In fairness to that story, she hadn't told Spencer anything about being titled. He might have assumed she was rich, I suppose, but she walked away from that.

They were discussing how to avoid her having to "wait months" to be allowed into the U.S. All she had to do was say, "Darling, I have my passport and I'm a titled British aristocrat, I can easily gain entrance." The fictitious difficulty with immigration served the plot so it bothered me less that the title duplication. Maybe she wanted to "leave it all behind" and not have him ever know she had a title, but once she arrived in the U.S. it would be dumb not to just hand them her passport.

Edited February 27, 2023 by RedHawk
Spelling

[RedHawk]

20 minutes ago, blackwing said:

I'm aware that she is not Arthur's wife.  That's why I've been criticising the writing around this particular segment.

However, another angle might be that perhaps she and Arthur actually did in fact get legally married.  Maybe that explains why when the captain referred to Alex as the "Countess of Sussex", Jennifer was pretty much like "yes, say yes".  Maybe Arthur and Alex got married in secret and then there was going to be some big formal wedding in Africa.

Then she would actually be Arthur's widow, and maybe the parents give her money because of that.

But this would be giving Sheridan too much credit.  As it is, this whole business of her being a countess (whether in her own right, or as married to Arthur) is yet another unnecessary plot element introduced in the waning episodes of the season.

I also thought perhaps they had already married and I what I thought was the "engagement party" was instead the first night of their big honeymoon trip with family. But nothing in this episode indicated they were already married and thus Alex committed bigamy.

I was coming up with thoughts of a previous marriage Alex had not revealed to Spencer, like maybe a titled husband who died in WWI or from the flu pandemic. Maybe in a wild twist it was Arthur's elder brother. And the father we think is the Earl is a Prince ("a Prince in the line of succession") so the dead elder son who left Alex a titled widow was indeed styled as an Earl. Otherwise she couldn't be the Countess of Sussex if Arthur's father still carries the Earl of Sussex. Fun to speculate but none of it fits. 

Sheridan could just have called her "Lady Whoever" to indicate that she's from an aristocratic family. 

Edited February 27, 2023 by RedHawk
Added more wild speculation

[RedHawk]

13 minutes ago, Affogato said:

In fairness to that story, she hadn't told Spencer anything about being titled. He might have assumed she was rich, I suppose, but she walked away from that.

She walked away from it until she wanted credit to buy a fashionable outfit, shoes, and accessories and have her hair styled in the ship's salon. 😉 (After all she'd been through, I didn't blame her.) I see they also managed to book 1st class accommodations. Maybe he won them in a poker game.

[barshi50]

One thing I'm wondering about (well, one of many things) They showed Aunt Cara's letters spill out on the deck from Alex's valise. They looked o=perfectly fine as Alex read the address of Bozeman Montana on them. Why weren't these ruined when the tugboat capsized? Is her case waterproof or something?

[Affogato]

30 minutes ago, barshi50 said:

One thing I'm wondering about (well, one of many things) They showed Aunt Cara's letters spill out on the deck from Alex's valise. They looked o=perfectly fine as Alex read the address of Bozeman Montana on them. Why weren't these ruined when the tugboat capsized? Is her case waterproof or something?

Oil cloth!  

I should be clearer. I see no reason why the letters, and her passport, and a marriage certificate, would not be double or triple wrapped against water damage. In a valise, leather which is weather resistant, and surrounded by clothing, they could have survived. There was some time spent traveling and she could have purchased a few outfits and another valise that was not water damaged, and Spencer the same. It is unclear how much money they had, since they didn't seem to have enough to get transportation on a seaworthy vessel, but it is possible she had some item of jewelery or something that she was able to trade to outfit them later, or that she was able to draw credit on whatever her family name actually is.

Taylor Sheridan needs an editor.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Affogato

[mythoughtis]

20 hours ago, bunnyblue said:

Alex is a Countess in her own right?

This was a stupid mistake on the entire production’s fault.   Surely someone on that entire cast and  crew has  read a historical romance novel.  As said by another commenter, a Countess is the wife of an Earl. That is Arthur’s Father.  Alex wasn’t married to Arthur - even Arthur’s  father didn’t dispute  that.  Nor would a countess  have been locked in her stateroom.  Where was she going to go anyway- she’s at sea. 
I was surprised that Alex’s friend went to the Captain and then to her.  I didn’t get that vibe from her during her discussion when she saw Alex at the rail earlier. 

Since when would Whitfield  be able to inquire about, let alone pay taxes on someone else’s property when they weren’t technically overdue yet?  
 

As Zane’s wife was being driven off, an older Chinese woman went up onto the porch of the house.  Other houses were shown on the street.  So it could be that Zane’s home is in a Chinese neighborhood and that is how they have escaped detection for their marriage.  I didn’t realize he was the actor that played Ronald.  I’m glad I didn’t because it would have negatively impacted my view of Zane and I like Zane.  

I did like Jack’s discussion with  Emma. Nice to see a likable Dutton male in addition to Kacey.  We didn’t see enough of John or Lee to  know if they were  likable or not. 

1 hour ago, Affogato said:

although there are apparently stand alone Scottish countesses.

They would have different ‘of’ names than a British countess.  So not the  Sussex title.  This was recently discussed  somewhere  regarding the various titles that William and Kate hold in England, Wales, and Scotland. 
 

one last thing- this Earl wrinkly was never mentioned I. All the previous episodes.  Don’t you think it would have come up? 

Edited February 27, 2023 by mythoughtis

[LadyIrony]

6 hours ago, Rapunzel said:

She was Chinese. They said her last name was Chow when they arrested her and referenced the Anti-Miscegenation Act. The Anti-Miscegenation Act of 1909 made it illegal for caucasians to marry African Americans, Chinese, or Japanese, and penalized those who performed such marriages. It didn’t apply to Native Americans, though that was still looked down upon. 

I was also not a fan of the finale and knew Alex wanting to be seen in her pretty, over the top dress was going to cause more problems for Spencer (also, white really isn’t her color). Does she have any idea that a dress like that will be useless on the ranch? She is forever doing things and making choices that negatively impact Spencer. Can’t he see she would be a disaster and cause unimaginable problems if she got anywhere near Montana? I wish he would have just shrugged his shoulders and said “okay, whatever” when they told him she couldn’t go with him ashore. I was seriously hoping that the season would end with Spencer at least getting home and then next season (assuming we get one set in the same time period) would be about the land war. 
 

I thought the seasickness references were hinting at Alex being pregnant as well, especially when they made a point of her noting that she had never had it that badly before. 
 

I really liked Jack this episode. He is showing wisdom beyond his years and the way he treated Elizabeth was so sweet. He picked up a lot from Cara, I think. 
 

I’m beyond tired of the show’s need to drive home the misogyny. There is no need for any more whipping scenes - we definitely already know Whitfield is a sadist who likes power and submission. I would have hoped they would have used Timothy Dalton in a better way.

Looks like I missed something along the way, I thought the actress looked Asian but also figured as they have used Asian's before to play Native American's that it was just down to casting. I still find it hard to believe no one already knew about the marriage. 

Alex is a liability for Spencer and her own family. She is impulsive and wants the best of Royal life as well as the freedom of life with Spencer. I find 1920's female fashions to be terrible as they take away from a woman's shape and the hairstyles are very boyish. 

I am wondering when Alex finally realizes she will have to fit in and do more than play damsel in distress. 

I think the duel was over the top. I doubt the father would allow his son to place himself in so much danger. He could have controlled him better. Back then it was all about saving face and if they really wanted Spencer dead they could have "arranged" it to happen quite easily. 

 

 

 

[circumvent]

2 hours ago, blackwing said:

The whole bit about Whitfield paying the property taxes seemed a bit modern to me.  My understanding is that if you don't pay your property taxes, the county will put a lien on your house.  Someone can step in and pay the taxes for you.  Then you get a notice that your taxes have been sold and you need to redeem them.  Otherwise the payer can ask for a deed and become the owner of your house.  I get that it was 1923, but if Whitfield did in fact pay for the property taxes, then some notice should have been given to Jacob and he should have been given the opportunity to pay them.  But since Kevin Costner is currently in the house, we know that Whitfield isn't going to get it.

I was confused about that too but I don't know tax law and the history of it. Still, pointless because we know the ranch stays with the Duttons and I, for one, am not interested in conflicts that I know the outcome of. That's the problem with huge ego: Sheridan believes he is so good, whatever goes in his head will make people go bananas about.

2 hours ago, blackwing said:

When we were introduced to his wife who is of Chinese descent, the entire thing seemed way too modern to me.  It could very well be she is third generation American (maybe her grandfather came to the U.S. around the time of the gold rush or to work on the railroad) which explains the lack of accent, but she would have been more aware of these anti-miscegenation laws and perhaps Zane would have asked Jacob if they could live on a house on the Dutton property.  Did Alice and the kids never venture into town?  The kids clearly look mixed race.

And why would Whitfield/Creighton care enough about a random Dutton ranchhand to follow him home?  This whole storyline is unnecessary.

I was also annoyed by the waste of time. If there is a law that they are breaking, they would be more careful. People talk, and they would be alert to a child saying that she saw a monster outside the window. We were given nothing to justify the importance of Zane to the Duttons. He might be but we were not given that backstory. All of a sudden, the wife is arrested. Season end. I don't think I will remember that in one year from now. 

[CountryGirl]

As much as the plot contrivances have grated, which my fellow preverts have covered so eloquently, I really do hope the show returns for a second season.

#1 - Helen and Harrison because duh. 😉

#2 - Spencer and Alex (yes, she's a bit Flapper Barbie ala Prairie Barbie Elsa, but I still like her) - they are the swoony romance novel couple comfort food to me.

#3 - Teonna - insta-chemistry with Pete although I'll still never forgive show for killing off Hank/Michael Greyeyes - she is so deserving of a happy ending after the hell she's been through and I'm sure yet to come. I'm going to need those who harmed her to get their comeuppance. 

#4 Jack and Elizabeth - they have really grown on me as a couple, less flashy than Spencer and Alex but no less compelling (last week's scenes of her learning to bake with Cara were some of my faves).

#5 - In addition to a well-deserved vengeance arc for Teonna, I'm going to need Banner and Never Need To See the Torture Porn Again Whitfield to get what's coming to them. 

 

[blackwing]

2 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

As Zane’s wife was being driven off, an older Chinese woman went up onto the porch of the house.  Other houses were shown on the street.  So it could be that Zane’s home is in a Chinese neighborhood and that is how they have escaped detection for their marriage.  I didn’t realize he was the actor that played Ronald.  I’m glad I didn’t because it would have negatively impacted my view of Zane and I like Zane.  

one last thing- this Earl wrinkly was never mentioned I. All the previous episodes.  Don’t you think it would have come up? 

Besides my irritation that this new plot line was introduced in the season finale, I was annoyed at the implausibility of it.  It's true that he could live in the Chinatown area of Bozeman.  But what about the children?  If Alice is taking them into town, they clearly don't look 100% Chinese, and there would be questions.  Are we expected to believe that these children never ever leave the house?  What kind of life is that?

The fact that Alex is either born into or married into nobility is a wrinkle of the "Taylor Sheridan thinks he is awesome because it's such a SHOCKING reveal in the season finale" variety.  Pfffttt.

2 hours ago, circumvent said:

I was also annoyed by the waste of time. If there is a law that they are breaking, they would be more careful. People talk, and they would be alert to a child saying that she saw a monster outside the window. We were given nothing to justify the importance of Zane to the Duttons. He might be but we were not given that backstory. All of a sudden, the wife is arrested. Season end. I don't think I will remember that in one year from now. 

Fully agree.  If it was common knowledge that interracial marriages were against the law, the family (and the community around them) would have been a lot more careful.  Zane would have made certain he wasn't followed.  The community would be on the alert that the marriage wouldn't be approved, and they would have devised some kind of warning system to protect them.  Zane would have always made sure all the shutters in his house were closed.  I get that Zane is supposed to be the right hand man and the Rip Wheeler of "1923", but he sure doesn't seem like he's particularly capable.

2 hours ago, LadyIrony said:

I think the duel was over the top. I doubt the father would allow his son to place himself in so much danger. He could have controlled him better. Back then it was all about saving face and if they really wanted Spencer dead they could have "arranged" it to happen quite easily. 

I think the father truly thought that his son was the better man and that his education and refinement would make him prevail.  The father did tell Arthur that it was over, and to let it go.  But Arthur was stubborn.  Also, the father still thinks all of this is Alex's fault.  He barked at her about what a good job she had done of destroying his family.  When really the blame should land on himself and Arthur.  Why would Arthur want to keep trying to claim her when she clearly didn't want him?

Also, and this part is annoying me as well... last episode ended with Arthur seeing them in the Sicily cafe and ominously intoning "Alexandra".  What happened?  Did they talk?  If so, did he seem ok with it?  They both clearly didn't think they were going to see each other again, as no further plans seemed to have been made to communicate.  Alexandra groaned when she realised that they were on the same ship, which, if I remember correctly, wasn't departing for four days after the time at the cafe for "pasta and wine".  Again, shit writing to just have the scene at the cafe and then absolutely nothing mentioned about it. 

 

[Artsda]

Wow he still didn't reach Montana.  I guess Alex will first. 

[LadyIrony]

3 hours ago, blackwing said:

I think the father truly thought that his son was the better man and that his education and refinement would make him prevail.  The father did tell Arthur that it was over, and to let it go.  But Arthur was stubborn.  Also, the father still thinks all of this is Alex's fault.  He barked at her about what a good job she had done of destroying his family.  When really the blame should land on himself and Arthur.  Why would Arthur want to keep trying to claim her when she clearly didn't want him?

Also, and this part is annoying me as well... last episode ended with Arthur seeing them in the Sicily cafe and ominously intoning "Alexandra".  What happened?  Did they talk?  If so, did he seem ok with it?  They both clearly didn't think they were going to see each other again, as no further plans seemed to have been made to communicate.  Alexandra groaned when she realised that they were on the same ship, which, if I remember correctly, wasn't departing for four days after the time at the cafe for "pasta and wine".  Again, shit writing to just have the scene at the cafe and then absolutely nothing mentioned about it. 

Arthur probably could have  bested a lot of "Gentlemen" in a sword fight, his upbringing would have insisted on him being taught sword skills from a young age. The problem is Spencer, possibly in an attempt to avoid killing him barely used his sword and stopped Arthur from using his as well. Spencer turned it into more a street fight which would have caught Arthur by mistake which in turn made him more angry and led to him being thrown overboard. 

I think Arthur was more upset that his pride had been hurt, that Alex rejected him for a commoner. Why would he insult her if he still wanted her back? He just wanted to draw Spencer into a fight. 

I thought that not having a connection between the cafe reunion and then just following up later on the ship was odd too. I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have spoken at all during that time but then again what would they really have to say to each other anyway? 

3 hours ago, Artsda said:

Wow he still didn't reach Montana.  I guess Alex will first. 

I know it's 1923 and travel was slow but Spencer really is going home the longest possible way he can find. Alex probably will arrive in Montana first and then have to win over the Dutton's before Spencer finally arrives. Which is another problem, we know that he will eventually get there, otherwise it will be the anti climax of the ages, so why draw it out for so long given the story is not about how he gets home but what he does when he arrives?

[rhygirl720]

so many cliches... so little time.

I think Sheridan missed a real opportunity here, Whitfield should be twirling his moustache and tying prostitutes to train tracks.

Alex, next time listen to the girl, she's clearly smarter.

British nobility is looking pretty foolish here.

Spencer and Alex would most certainly have a marriage license. I mean seriously.

Jack is now my favorite Dutton. That is all.

Sheridan needs an editor. If you are going to do eight episode seasons you need to have a lot less threads.

 

[RedDelicious]

Hey at least they switched to consummate from ravage 🙃

Interesting coincidence that modern day Monica’s real life last name is Chow. 

[CountryGirl]

This scene with Jack and Elizabeth, after their heartbreaking loss, was so sweet.

[CountryGirl]

And because that scene of Lord Pompous getting tossed overboard never gets old: