S01.E08: Nothing Left To Lose

[GiandujaPie]

I agree that it appears that nothing got resolved and they added more unnecessary complications on top of the ones they didn't resolve. In some ways, there is no suspense to any of the difficulties that the Duttons are facing because we already know that they end up winning the long-term battle for their land because Kevin Costner is still living in that house. There is suspense in how it happens but I agree that this is dragging on too long and it seems like Taylor Sheridan is making it up as he goes along. 

Not really sure what the Zane storyline with his Asian wife was supposed to accomplish. The actor was credited as a regular but he really didn't do much and then in the last episode we find out that he's actually married and has kids but it's an illegal marriage? What is the point of all this? Is this to show us why the current ranch hands on Yellowstone are not allowed to live in town and must be branded and debted to the Duttons and live on property? 

I also didn't understand why Alex felt the need to get all dressed up and go rub it in Arthur's face that she was now with a handsome stud. Completely immature and I wish Spencer had told her he wouldn't play that game. Why wouldn't they just lay low in their first class stateroom and just order room service? Alex is just another entitled rich girl who wants the fun of being "free" with her manly stud but also wants all of the trappings of the good life. Where were her parents? How was she able to access credit? Did they not disown her after she ran off and called off the wedding? 

Teonna's storyline also got no resolution and the brutality was hard to watch. 

I was impressed with Jack's wise words to Elizabeth after her miscarriage. He started off the season as a doofus but it turns out he may be the most immature  mature and wise of them all. (Edited - meant to say he was mature!)

I feel like these Yellowstone shows always start off strong but then they peter off and the endings are never satisfying or turn into ridiculousness. I liked 1883 for most of it, until the last few episodes of Elsa playing Prairie Indian Barbie, and I liked 1923 for most of it until the ridiculousness of the last few episodes. I liked the first couple of seasons of Yellowstone but it's become unwatchable for me because none of the characters are likable and the Duttons are so corrupt and always win. I'll give a second season of 1923 a shot but I'm not having high hopes. 

 

Edited February 28, 2023 by GiandujaPie

[circumvent]

2 minutes ago, GiandujaPie said:

there is no suspense to any of the difficulties that the Duttons are facing because we already know that they end up winning the long-term battle for their land because Kevin Costner is still living in that house. There is suspense in how it happens but I agree that this is dragging on too long and it seems like Taylor Sheridan is making it up as he goes along. 

Yes, that whole part of the show is being held together by Mirren and Ford's acting and nothing else. There is no story there. Imagine the character played by lesser actors. To "compensate", Sheridan decides to go all S&M, without the M, and have a character torture prostitutes, and we are given endless minutes of naked women being brutalized without any bearings of the main stories of the show.

I can run so many stories in my head that he could have written for that part, and that would add some interesting bits to the Dutton sage, even though we know they keep the ranch in the end. One, would be the threat of losing it because of the taxes be in the beginning, and the fight to recover it be the actual story; another, would be having Jacob fully aware of the fact he hasn't pid the taxes and having Cara be the one finding the solution for their problems. It would give those two more time, which would exponentially increase the quality of the show. Instead, we got the bullshit Africa stuff and the silly and unnecessary ship duel - it was like watching Wiley Coyote. 

I liked Jack too. He has shown some independent ideas in the last two episodes and they are much more humane, considering he is a Dutton. At least one more character that I like, to join Teonna who hasn't make me cringe yet.

I am with you on Yellowstone. I stopped watching after half of the second season, then dragged through another one. Gave up. 

Interesting fact: I just listened to a podcast about the train derail and subsequent explosion in Ohio. I found out that the breaks used in that train are still the same used in 1883, so also in 1923. The show came to my mind because it depicts well the modernisms and changes arriving in Montana, and here we have, 2023 and trains that run like we are in 1923. United States of WTF?

 

 

[Affogato]

4 hours ago, circumvent said:

. 

Interesting fact: I just listened to a podcast about the train derail and subsequent explosion in Ohio. I found out that the breaks used in that train are still the same used in 1883, so also in 1923. The show came to my mind because it depicts well the modernisms and changes arriving in Montana, and here we have, 2023 and trains that run like we are in 1923. United States of WTF?

That is interesting. Our infrastructure is old and needs to be replaced in general.   There is an article in the Guardian that there is a major chemical accident every two days in the US, indicating that possibly safety isn't a priority for us. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/25/revealed-us-chemical-accidents-one-every-two-days-average 

I don't think the prostitute scene was gratuitous. We saw that Dalton's character not only likes seeing people squirm, he likes corrupting them, that might be the word. He is perhaps looking to make Jacob go to extreme, damaging means to get money any way he can. It was a scene that is relevant to the story. He wants to bring Jacob down to his level before he destroys him.  The question is whether we could have learned this information some other way and if it would have the same impact. I think so. We don't know the prostitutes very well and don't anticipate they are going to be ongoing characters. If you look at some of the horrific things that happen in Teonna's story, ;those are much more impactful and justified, in my opinion, because her story is clearly a larger story and we have learned a lot of the background and why she is in that story. The prostitutes are just unlucky, so far.

[circumvent]

45 minutes ago, Affogato said:

I don't think the prostitute scene was gratuitous. We saw that Dalton's character not only likes seeing people squirm, he likes corrupting them, that might be the word.

I could be less annoyed by those scenes if they were not so explicit. Not because of the nudity, although I find it extremely sexist when young actresses who get what is a good part in a show that has major studio backing are pushed to accept that they need to be naked while the men keep their pants. It is not equal, it is objectifying. I find it annoying because it is cheap. If the idea is to have Dalton's character as this controlling, authoritarian, super ambitious and sociopathic person, the psychological torture would be much more efficient. I find it lazy when writers go on the explicit torture and/or sex scenes. It is much more interesting to show the intention and, in the case of sex, sensuality. The way most shows do, sex is equated to nudity, when sensuality doesn't need the clothes off. That's a Hollywood problem and I can only imagine how much it must have sucked for those two women to be standing naked in front to a crew of 20, 30 people, doing the scene over and over, just because Sheridan lacks creativity and sensibility. Many actresses have complained about that and the ones who have some power now make certain demands part of their contracts. Young, unknown ones don't have this luxury. What people like Sheridan do, I consider a form of abuse.

[sandwoman]

The Zane storyline made me think that Brian Geragthy had been promised a bigger storyline and that one-man-writer's-room Taylor Sheridan forgot to put it in until the final episode. It was so bizarre to suddenly introduce all those characters and that storyline in the last episode. Not to mention, I could barely remember who Zane was from episode to episode! All the prostitute scenes made me think that Sheridan was a big fan of Deadwood and then learned all the wrong lessons from the show on why it worked. 

My husband pointed out that there was no snow in the Teyona scenes. He was like "is this in a different timeline?" Maybe? But probably they just didn't think about it! 

Also: Didn't Alex and Spencer see her jilted fiance at the end of the last episode? But everyone was acting as if they were talking and interacting for the first time on the ship? Did they just stare at each other and say nothing?

All I kept thinking as I watched is that this is a bizarre show. The pacing is almost avant garde in how it refuses to adhere to any kind of traditional storytelling structure. Characters don't seem to always remember what just happened and plot just... happens. It's all circumstance but no rising action. It's like a tone poem of beautiful landscapes, attractive people, pointless suffering, and sudden long speeches where a character seems to explain themselves but explains nothing.  

[Cool Breeze]

I'm thinking Zane and his wife's miscegenation storyline will have greater impact in Season 2.  Timothy Dalton may use Mrs. Zane's incarceration as leverage to get Zane to spy on and/or turn against the Duttons.  That's the only thing I can think of that would make the Season finale introduction of Zane's family life at all meaningful or relevant.

[TOL]

On 2/26/2023 at 11:09 AM, SnazzyDaisy said:

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… 

 

I cannot tolerate the cruelty with the prostitutes.  We get it- he’s a bad guy.  A colossal waste of precious story time, and revolting.

[TOL]

On 2/27/2023 at 4:20 PM, CountryGirl said:

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. 

 

I can only say ditto 

[Affogato]

On 2/28/2023 at 4:38 PM, circumvent said:

I could be less annoyed by those scenes if they were not so explicit. Not because of the nudity, although I find it extremely sexist when young actresses who get what is a good part in a show that has major studio backing are pushed to accept that they need to be naked while the men keep their pants. It is not equal, it is objectifying. I find it annoying because it is cheap. If the idea is to have Dalton's character as this controlling, authoritarian, super ambitious and sociopathic person, the psychological torture would be much more efficient. I find it lazy when writers go on the explicit torture and/or sex scenes. It is much more interesting to show the intention and, in the case of sex, sensuality. The way most shows do, sex is equated to nudity, when sensuality doesn't need the clothes off. That's a Hollywood problem and I can only imagine how much it must have sucked for those two women to be standing naked in front to a crew of 20, 30 people, doing the scene over and over, just because Sheridan lacks creativity and sensibility. Many actresses have complained about that and the ones who have some power now make certain demands part of their contracts. Young, unknown ones don't have this luxury. What people like Sheridan do, I consider a form of abuse.

Still not gratuitous. It served the story. Other things could have done as well or better. I suspect be was thinking in tropes of the old west and likes naked girls. But you aren’t wrong. 

[circumvent]

The plot serves the story. The images don't have to be so on our face. It is crass, it is not even close to good or artistic. Subtlety is for good writers, so I guess it fits the pattern. Art and Sheridan are like oil and water

[Affogato]

16 hours ago, circumvent said:

The plot serves the story. The images don't have to be so on our face. It is crass, it is not even close to good or artistic. Subtlety is for good writers, so I guess it fits the pattern. Art and Sheridan are like oil and water

It is simpler. I suspect Sheridan's stories are popular because they are old fashioned television shows.  they are not '50s Westerns, but '70s Westerns. There is sympathy for indigenous populations. Laws forbidding interracial marriages are not ignored and there is painful violence, so we see that they were wrong. Women are included, but they are not exactly sure what to do with them (and, in fact, Elsa and Alex are kind of early '70s women). The older actors fit in with this, and attract a crowd that may watch this with nostalgia. At the time a movie would show the prostitutes breasts, and while I don't think most television would have, it seems like a logical insert and, he might reason, shows women in one of the positions they actually held in the 'old west'. It doesn't, in fairness to Sheridan, show that they are well treated. 

I also have some general issues with the appellation "bad writers/bad writing". The writing is serviceable to good, in my opinion. I would prefer more historical detail and explanation, but that is a different style of writing.  Clearly the show is moving things slowly to fill some anticipated amount of time with story (and might move faster if he thought he'd be cancelled), again that is less bad writing than a choice.  I don't necessarily agree with all the sentiments expressed, but I don't require that, and frankly there are good writers that I think are good writers and think are fairly evil. I also really like a number of vulgar and crass artworks. Shakespeare is vulgar and crass, as well as highly poetic.

I am not arguing with what I believe is your core thesis. Everyone should be able to decide if they go naked in a film or tv show, and yes, of course, newer actors will be less willing to say they do not want to go naked. There will absolutely be regrets, either way.

Yes, of course, these scenes were often mishandled and people who have been producing, directing  for a long time are going to perpetuate any problems. They are going to automatically do what they have been doing and be surprised when people object.

So the examination of scenes like this, are they necessary, was casting handled well, is absolutely a good thing. We don't know if Taylor Sheridan sees that women who are not big names are treated respectfully, at least I don't know. I hope he does, and if he doesn't I hope he is called on it , and in public.

There, that is what I was trying to say.

 

[circumvent]

26 minutes ago, Affogato said:

I suspect Sheridan's stories are popular because they are old fashioned television shows. 

I guess it is even simpler than that. Setting aside this forum, which I see as a place to snark and kind of deconstruct shows - for the most part, at least - most fans are swooning over actors, specially their looks, and applauding the "extremes" - as in nudity, sex scenes, and violence (anything that goes a step further is lauded as "groundbreaking", even if pointless, damaging or crass). That is all because the American audience is not sophisticated enough to understand nuance. We are still OK with women's objectification, so the producers keep showing us women being the object of lust, for example. It does't help that our society is so uptight about sex, they go bananas when a breast is shown as if breasts are sexual organs. We like easy, simplistic, silly plots; we like to feed our completely distorted perception that 'Murica is da best! We don't even understand the difference between sexual and sensual, between violence and gore. Basically, we are a bunch of children who need validation and don't like to being taught more elaborate and nuanced concepts. We are the blissful ignorant. 

Sheridan (like Shonda Rhymes) know that and are masterful at exploiting that. They have this huge power and use it only for their own gain and glory. I am a firm believer that entertainment, mass media, plays a pivotal role in educating people who might not have access to actual information (education in the US is a joke, it all falls on individuals to use the resources and absorb all the available, badly used, well of knowledge). But I know I am an outlier. I was also not educated in this country and it pains me to see how shallow/proud ingnorant most people who follow shows are. There is close to ZERO concept of critical thinking. 

 

[Affogato]

3 hours ago, circumvent said:

I guess it is even simpler than that. Setting aside this forum, which I see as a place to snark and kind of deconstruct shows - for the most part, at least - most fans are swooning over actors, specially their looks, and applauding the "extremes" - as in nudity, sex scenes, and violence (anything that goes a step further is lauded as "groundbreaking", even if pointless, damaging or crass). That is all because the American audience is not sophisticated enough to understand nuance. We are still OK with women's objectification, so the producers keep showing us women being the object of lust, for example. It does't help that our society is so uptight about sex, they go bananas when a breast is shown as if breasts are sexual organs. We like easy, simplistic, silly plots; we like to feed our completely distorted perception that 'Murica is da best! We don't even understand the difference between sexual and sensual, between violence and gore. Basically, we are a bunch of children who need validation and don't like to being taught more elaborate and nuanced concepts. We are the blissful ignorant. 

Sheridan (like Shonda Rhymes) know that and are masterful at exploiting that. They have this huge power and use it only for their own gain and glory. I am a firm believer that entertainment, mass media, plays a pivotal role in educating people who might not have access to actual information (education in the US is a joke, it all falls on individuals to use the resources and absorb all the available, badly used, well of knowledge). But I know I am an outlier. I was also not educated in this country and it pains me to see how shallow/proud ingnorant most people who follow shows are. There is close to ZERO concept of critical thinking. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law

Sturgeon's law (or Sturgeon's revelation) is an adage stating "ninety percent of everything is crap". It was coined by Theodore Sturgeon, an American science fiction author and critic, and was inspired by his observation that, while science fiction was often derided for its low quality by critics, most work in other fields was low-quality too, and so science fiction was thus no different.[1]

Yeah, life sucks and then you die.

I watched a lot of Roger Corman growing up and I can hardly say I dislike exploitation. (Nor can I say I also like high brow movies).  I think it is a necessary and important part of entertaining and getting the attention of people, even intelligent and well read people. It is also fun. Because a movie or television show uses exploitation it does not mean a person or animal or noble idea is being ill used or damaged.

Also, I like naked people as much as the next person. Not unhappy people forced to do something they don't want to do, of course, but that is a different issue.

As near as I can tell misinformation and the internet have dispelled the idea that the rest of the world is less gullible and better at critical thinking than the US.  It is generally a problem, I think. I too would wish that historical and scientific shows would pay attention to detail, but if something is popular enough people will write books on 'the science of star trek' and people will learn from those books and go into science. First, you need to get someone's attention.

 

[Kip Hackman]

Nothing really resolved, Spencer nowhere near Montana.

[pasdetrois]

Those scenes ruined the last episode for me. Entirely gratuitous.

[CountryGirl]

Time to move on from what is becoming a circular and repetitive argument as well as increasingly off-topic. Additionally, please be mindful of the site's civility role when you post or respond to a post. It is okay to snipe at the show, but not your fellow posters. Posts have been removed. 

[iMonrey]

I just finished this. I did not see the point of Teonna's story, at all. It was completely disconnected from the Dutton story and an endless series of torture porn. How many times did we watch someone beat the crap out of this kid?

Also, wasn't Pete Hank's son? He had zero reaction to his father being dead.

I agree the lack of resolution to any story made this a frustrating season finale. I did enjoy parts of it but whenever it switched over to the Teonna story I just groaned.

I never watched Yellowstone past the first episode, is there some character on there descended from Teonna? Maybe that's what I'm missing.

[CrystalBlue]

Yes, Teonna's story ties in with Yellowstone the series, as she is evidently an ancestor of Rainwater.

[yanksno1]

On 3/27/2023 at 5:21 PM, CrystalBlue said:

Yes, Teonna's story ties in with Yellowstone the series, as she is evidently an ancestor of Rainwater.

Did we know that inside 1923 (without knowing about it in the media)? I think that's what was kinda frustrating about that arc, not knowing the whole connection. I also kept wondering what the point of it was, but at least now I know the tie in.

It was renewed for Season 2 right? Think I read that somewhere after finishing this ep. Knowing what happened to 1883 being only one season I think played out I was kinda expecting that to happen to this show too. So while watching Ep 3 was def the highlight of the season, I kept wanting things to speed up and they never did haha. But at least now we hopefully we'll get a conclusion to these story lines in Season 2 if not longer depending how long they're gonna take this show.

[millennium]

I thoroughly enjoyed Arthur being tossed overboard.  If only he could have taken Alex with him. 

I pegged Sheridan as a misogynist/sadist in the previous episodes.  My opinion hasn't changed.   Those scenes with the prostitutes (and before that with Teonna) make me feel like I'm in the presence of something diseased, as I used to feel while being subjected to Joffrey's excesses in Game of Thrones.   Timothy Dalton doesn't have too many big roles left.   It's a shame he sullied his career with this.

A pity Spencer didn't come to his senses and tell Arthur, "You know what?  You can have her.   My family's in trouble and I don't have time for this."

The "eyes everywhere" device is getting old, especially the guy with the red beard.

I agree with all the complaints that this show wastes precious time on needless, prolonged scenes.

 

Edited April 30, 2023 by millennium

[blackwing]

On 4/16/2023 at 10:17 PM, yanksno1 said:

Did we know that inside 1923 (without knowing about it in the media)? I think that's what was kinda frustrating about that arc, not knowing the whole connection. I also kept wondering what the point of it was, but at least now I know the tie in.

I think midway through, she said her last name was Rainwater.  Thus giving her a tie to current day Thomas Rainwater.  

Even knowing she was a Rainwater, I think they spent absolutely zero effort in connecting her story to the Dutton family story.  She might as well have been on a completely different show.  Her story didn't interact at all with any of the Dutton characters.

[Tyro49]

Why didn't Spencer tell the Captain the name of the ship they were married on and the name of the captain who married them? And shouldn't that captain have given them some sort of certificate?

[Tyro49]

Final comments: 1883, as historically inaccurate as I believe it to be, at least came to some sort of conclusion: the survivors reached their destinations. I know some viewers wanted to follow the characters through a new season or two, but it did have an ending. 1923, in comparison, simply stopped. Absolutely nothing was resolved, everything was left hanging. In fact, new unresolved issues were introduced in the last episode. The only real decision made was by Spencer deciding to head home, but even that was left unresolved. The fact that everyone says he is the only hope for saving the ranch is for him to return means he has to, though I still don't see how that can resolve anything. Maybe the Duttons do lose the ranch, only to recover it again later.

I hope we find out.

[sashabear21]

By the time Spencer actually gets to the ranch, he’ll have a tale of woe longer than the excuses I used to have for being late to work in my early 20’s, “there was a train, and then a car accident, and then I found a stray puppy I had to take to the shelter and then bam out of nowhere there was a biker riot in the middle of the street!” 
 

Someone should have told Taylor that just because he has an actor who was in Game of Thrones doesn’t mean he has to re-enact scenes from that show. Although if this means that all the safari stuff culminates in Spencer riding in on a dragon to save the ranch, then I will take back everything I said! 

Awww, Teonna and Pete, let that poor girl have some happiness! 

[LoveLeigh]

Is there a section here for discussing Lawmen: Bass Reeves?

[CountryGirl]

4 hours ago, LoveLeigh said:

Is there a section here for discussing Lawmen: Bass Reeves?

This is a separate show and has a thread here: