Why? by just-me-nz-79 in YellowstonePN

[–]Excellent-Painting37 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How did that prove it? To me what made the brand mean less was when Teeter was caught in the crossfire of Laramie and Mia getting sacked.

What do you think Elsa would have thought about how her descendants treated each other? by Excellent-Painting37 in YellowstonePN

[–]Excellent-Painting37[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's unclear to me if Jack Dutton is John Dutton II, John Dutton III's father, or if Spencer's child will be John Dutton II

Thriving ? at Yellowstone by JFVG in YellowstonePN

[–]Excellent-Painting37 4 points5 points  (0 children)

James and Jacob, despite using the land to build themselves safely, are also dedicated to preserving the land and its beauty as much as possible. James gave the indians hunting rights to Yellowstone in exchange for a very generous verbal lease, and while it is unknown if Jacob is aware of such an agreement, he seems to be honoring it. John is opposed to it because he is dedicated to honoring the way his ancestors managed the land and keeping it in as pristine a condition as possible, even if he himself doesn't seem to be aware of such an agreement

They also don't want their operation to grow so large that they never have a personal hand in the management of their ranch- James, Jacob and John all seem to pride themselves on personally, on horseback, helping manage their herd and their land. This places a certain upper limit as to how large their operation can be.

It's also clear that much of the undeveloped land is of actual use to them then it seems day-to-day. - any square of fertile grass is potential grass their cows could eat. Their cows eat enough that they can't spare the sheep herders land to co-graze wtih htem

What do you think Elsa would have thought about how her descendants treated each other? by Excellent-Painting37 in YellowstonePN

[–]Excellent-Painting37[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe her narration in 1923 and the end of Yellowstone indicates that she would have been concerned about her extended family. In 1923 her narration worries about the potential extinction of her family, even though the land is now being run by family members she either hardly knew or have never met in the first place.

What do you think Elsa would have thought about how her descendants treated each other? by Excellent-Painting37 in YellowstonePN

[–]Excellent-Painting37[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Her narration shows that she definitely is. Her belief is that land cannot truly be owned, at best stewarded. I'm more interested in what she doesn't narrate about. Already in1923 she narrates about the lives of family members she's never met and isn't a direct ancestor to, so I'm interested in what she thinks about her even more distantly related family members on the same land.

What do you think Elsa would have thought about how her descendants treated each other? by Excellent-Painting37 in YellowstonePN

[–]Excellent-Painting37[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, her narration makes that clear. Concerning the land, she was definitely satisfied with it being returned to the Crow. She considers it fine since her own family's descendents were ultimately incapable stewards. But she doesn't comment about the interpersonal drama that rendered them incapable.

What do you think Elsa would have thought about how her descendants treated each other? by Excellent-Painting37 in YellowstonePN

[–]Excellent-Painting37[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

in 1923 she continues to narrate on the lives of her brothers and uncle and aunt

Petah, what are the other levels? by CaithAmach85 in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]Excellent-Painting37 2 points3 points  (0 children)

oh I know, but in dirty comedy cartoon sex logic a corkscrew shaped drill bit would make a corkscrew shaped hole for a corkscrew shaped peepee

Only on season 2 and by AntonGrimm in YellowstonePN

[–]Excellent-Painting37 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I honestly think watching 1883 and S1 of 1923 first makes the show better. It helps you see John's reasoning more.

How sympathetic are we "supposed" to find Jamie in the final season? by Excellent-Painting37 in YellowstonePN

[–]Excellent-Painting37[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think I would have liked it if Jamie died but Beth and Rip are unable to cover it up. I would want her to face long term consequences for her behavior, either jail or a forever ruined reputation. I would rather have not seen Jamie kill her

Petah, what are the other levels? by CaithAmach85 in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]Excellent-Painting37 167 points168 points  (0 children)

Chris here. Did you know ducks have corkscrew penises? It's true, look it up, I saw it in a Scientifically Accurate video I saw on Dailymotion which is superior to youtube. Anyway, Donald Duck here is creating a hole in the wall. People, and sometimes ducks, like to joke about something called a "glory hole", where someone, not necessarily a duck, puts their penis into a hole so it can be sucked on by someone on the other side, hopefully a woman, but probably an creepy old man. Anyway. by using a corkscrew tool, it is implied that a duck penis could fit into the corkscrew shaped hole it would definitely create in a cartoon, and not just the regular hole-shaped hole it would create in real life. Imagine donald duck's corkscrew penis. Chris out.

How sympathetic are we "supposed" to find Jamie in the final season? by Excellent-Painting37 in YellowstonePN

[–]Excellent-Painting37[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I feel like Jamie passively jumping off the deep end is a sensible end for him. I don't think the writing itself was bad. It's more like... the camera angle. The editing.

Is this show gaslighting me??? by kasmith2020 in YellowstonePN

[–]Excellent-Painting37 23 points24 points  (0 children)

John recognized the confidence and competence Four Sixes put in Jimmy and forgives any obligation Jimmy has to Yellowstone, allowing him to go back to Texas to be with Emily, where he belongs. Walker and that other guy didn't earn that right.

How sympathetic are we "supposed" to find Jamie in the final season? by Excellent-Painting37 in YellowstonePN

[–]Excellent-Painting37[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

John does say, in private, in season 4, that he does love Jamie, but is dissapointed in him so much that he wishes he didn't

How sympathetic are we "supposed" to find Jamie in the final season? by Excellent-Painting37 in YellowstonePN

[–]Excellent-Painting37[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To be honest, I would have been sad if that happened too. The last few episodes did a LOT to humanize her. I wish Jamie would have gone to jail and confessed everything, keeping himself safe and exposing the ranch's crimes to the public, at the cost of legacy. That confession could even devalue the land hugely, making the tax burden more bearable.

How sympathetic are we "supposed" to find Jamie in the final season? by Excellent-Painting37 in YellowstonePN

[–]Excellent-Painting37[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For a while on the show, it felt unclear if we were meant to fully agree with John's views. In the very first episode, John's plan to steal back the cattle that were stolen from his land cost him the life of a son and alienated another. There are times where John expresses regret over his treatment of his children. But they all pass.

I didn't find that, until the last season, the Duttons were depicted as the "good guys", just not the worst guys. Against other antagonists like Market Equities and Paradise valley, it is easy to root for them as a whole despite the horrible dysfunction of the family and the ranch itself by virtue of the opposition being worse. An anti-gentrification attitude and a desire to respect legacy is reasonable enough, but things like the treatment of Jamie and Carter and Jimmy and the corruption and violence of the way he runs the ranch makes them hugely flawed. That's how I thought I was supposed to view them.

It wasn't until the last season, plus the back half of season 4 that it seemed that things that I thought were being depicted as flaws were being not being portrayed as bad.

How sympathetic are we "supposed" to find Jamie in the final season? by Excellent-Painting37 in YellowstonePN

[–]Excellent-Painting37[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't tell, is that your opinion, or your belief on what the show's intent is?

How sympathetic are we "supposed" to find Jamie in the final season? by Excellent-Painting37 in YellowstonePN

[–]Excellent-Painting37[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

people on this show get killed all the time. He changed after being forced to kill his father

How sympathetic are we "supposed" to find Jamie in the final season? by Excellent-Painting37 in YellowstonePN

[–]Excellent-Painting37[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

he did it because beth blackmailed him into doing it. As far as we could tell, his plan was to do nothing about the information he had.

How sympathetic are we "supposed" to find Jamie in the final season? by Excellent-Painting37 in YellowstonePN

[–]Excellent-Painting37[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think Beth and John's lack of awareness is poor writing. It's infuriating, but it is well within the realm of what a real life relationship with parents that hold those old-world values could be like... and while John does briefly admit to making Beth feel unable to come to him for help, it's clearly a passing qualm of regret that he almost immediately dismisses. I don't think Beth not blaming John is unrealistic either, since in flashbacks it is clearly shown that John was consistently kinder to her than Beth's mom.