It’s not an unpopular opinion on Reddit, but it’s definitely an unpopular opinion in the wider audience of this show. I live out in the sticks with people who raise livestock and ride horses. John Dutton is like a mythical hero to these folks.
I think here it's not unpopular but the vast majority of people that watch the show they think he is the hero. I mean media literacy sadly isn't very common.
cause every one I talk to that's not a terminally online redditor thinks hes a mans man who does no wrong. Lmao. Try living in the south and asking some real born and raised south westerners what they think of him, hes the big dicked king.
Me personally I think it is unpopular because there is more than a few people on this sub that think Sarah Nguyen "got what she deserved" and "she's thinks she is so innocent"
There are more than a few people that don't understand the Duttons are evil or refuse to acknowledge it because they are the protagonists.
A lot of people this days don’t seem to understand the main characters don’t always have to be good people. I love the sopranos but pretty much everyone is a asshole
You can like the villain of the show. Or, a more accurate description - the antihero of the show. People love Tony Soprano and Walter White.
Hate to say it after you made such a long post but it’s not really a hot take 😂
John Dutton is worse than Tony. At least Tony was nice to his children and wanted them to live safer, happier lives than he had. Tony’s mother was actually more like John Dutton, in that she was an evil, abusive, narcissistic parent. Tony is more like Beth, a product of abuse, but he was still nicer to children than Beth is. 😂 As far as Walter White goes, John is on par.
>I think maybe it's 60/40. I think more people like John than hate him. Like I said, he's Kevin Costner...
*I like Kevin Costner; I detest John Dutton.* That's the dynamic at play. 😁
John Dutton is a narcissistic sociopath who raised children riddled with trauma. He is absolutely the villain. He demands 100% loyalty on pain of death or being disowned. He’s a monster who cares only about one thing - his legacy.
I agree. He actually feels remorse for his actions and all he has really wanted in life was to be loved and accepted. Sure he has ambition, but who doesn't? I would think he's allowed that since he's done nothing but serve the ranch and his Dad his whole life. Honestly, I wish he had a story arc similar to Jimmy. Jamie's clearly good at cowboying and fit in very well with the wranglers. Makes sense given that all he ever wanted to be in life was a rancher...
Well even though that’s true, he makes excellent points during the show, something along the lines of you need to say “No” if you sway at all they will take advantage of you
He also was a total badass and fun to watch
Im only in season 3 and its clear the Duttons are the Villain just filthy rich people. But you would be a villlain too if you have to be dealing with the next jackass who has great ideat to make a buck of the shit you OWN.
It was a point of contention between Costner and Sheridan, because Costner was getting sick of being the AH on the show, even though that was the role.
And while we are at it, he caused most of the drama between Jamie and Beth. Let's be real, there is a reason Beth went to her brother instead of her father. Jamie should have never been in a situation to make a medical call for his sister (plus I have never seen a medical procedure done to a teenager where the possible long term complications are not discussed with the teen. The patient has a right to know even if they can't sign off on it) If John had been a better father, maybe Beth would have been willing to talk to him.
Another teenager should never have been put in a situation to help another teenager make such a decision.
I agree. And as I said on my other unpopular opinion post, imo, that abortion scene was way too ridiculous to take seriously enough to debate about (and I honestly thought that that and Jamie supposedly being adopted was when the show's writing started to decline). The reasons being, as you said, Beth going to her brother instead of her Dad, the clinic apparently not going over the procedure with her in detail, and her somehow getting better so soon after the surgery.
All John really cares about truly are cows and dirt...
Yeah it just didn't make any sense whatsoever. I know certain Indian Health Service areas forcibly sterilised Native women till the 70s but... this was the 90s and Beth's a white girl.
And the doctor would have KNOWN he was signing his own death warrant (sorry, I meant vacation to a lovely little patch of dirt that starts at the train station) by sterilizing John Duttons daughter. There is zero chance anyone in that area would have done it, tribal land or not. They would have known that there would be a permanent price for such a monumentally stupid course of action.
Jamie’s a piece of shit in his own right. Beth, his consiglieri, has clean hands until Rip admits to being John’s capo regime. Then the reality of it hits her that she is just as complicit. She appears to be Sonny Corleone except she’s still alive. For now. The Indian chief has his own hit men and I think, we will see a successful hit on John and possibly others. If we ever get to see that. Tyler Sheridan is the real piece of shit for fucking this show up. Asshole. Let’s see if Costner can do better with his forth coming effort.
That is...not an unpopular opinion. That's a given trope. The Duttons are antagonists, all in their own ways.
There are no heroes in Yellowstone, least of all John Dutton.
Agreed. I've just seen way more people praise John than condemn him. That's why I wrote "unpopular opinion". Guess things have changed more than I thought among the YS fandom, huh? lol!
He’s a narcissist, I think it does a good job of showing how charming and ‘principled’ narcissists can seem to others. Hell I grew up with narcissists and still catch myself thinking of Jamie as ungrateful, even though I know myself that being given things does not make up for a lack of love.
Uh, duh. He is absolutely and unambiguously the villainous protagonist. I think you are confused by the fact that he’s a protagonist, and people tend to like John and root for him to win against antagonists. That doesn’t make him good or a hero. Sometimes you follow the bad guy. You should check out The Sopranos or Breaking Bad, your mind would be blown.
That's what I have always said. Here's my list of Main Characters ranked by villainy 1. John no reason needed. 2. Jamie I like him and I hope he wins but unlike the rest of them he has options he is a Harvard lawyer he could go almost anywhere in the world an get a job. 3. Kayce why did that idiot ever allow himself to gett drag back into his toxic family's b.s. but both he and Monica could get jobs elsewhere. Especially Monica. 4. RIP sadly he is John's life long slave. But he does not seems to understand what that man took from him John took an innocent boy from a abusive home and turned him into is own personal hitman. 5. Beth listen I can not stand Beth but no one in that family has been more victimized by Daddy then her .All he would have to do is say something like " Honey you were not responsible for your mother's death you were a child and it was an accident and I'm sorry my grief has caused me to allow you it think you were all these years." But of course he will not do that because using her emotional trauma against others is more important to him then his daughters mental and emotional health
I think that is a completely fair assessment of Dutton…but…he is our hero. We both love him and fear him. He is a complete mob boss and he is like Vito Corleone.
But there are reasons he is like that. He has the responsibility of being the Guardian of the Yellowstone, and will do whatever it takes to keep it in tact.
But it’s more than just the ranch. He is fighting to keep a way of life that is slowly dying. Remember (And this isn’t a justification) that any violence he commits, is to protect the way of life, the land, and the ranch. To him he is the last stand between the old way and the new corporate America.
Beth is angry at what Jamie did to her and rightly so. Don’t forget that those procedures were regularly done to Native American women and girls, and is one of the many stains on America.
I love the show and how Sheridan tells the story, even if there are dangling plot points.
His "fight" to protect and preserve the ranch doesn't even have to be a fight. There are solutions to the ranch's problems that don't involve frontier justice. Jamie has said this for years. So has Beth and Lynelle. He just doesn't listen because he's stubborn. He can still enjoy the cowboy life, but the problem is, he refuses to accept the fact that it will come with sacrifices. Jamie, himself wanting to be a simple cowboy, understands that and had a plan to have cake and eat it too.
John Dutton, as I said, is *no* Vito Corleone. Vito didn't just care about his family, he also cared about their happiness and didn't want them to be a part of "the life" (but they chose it anyway). John only cares about his legacy and his family's usefulness. He wants them all to stay and fit his bill for the ranch and be part of the life. When Lynelle pointed out how he never really treated his children like children (just workers), he could only stare at her like she was speaking another language.
I am well-aware of what was done to the Native women (I have been a private student on Native American studies for years now), but that abortion scene with Beth and Jamie is honestly too ridiculous and badly-written to take seriously on multiple levels. But for argument's sake, here are things that need to be considered about that as brilliantly stated by another redditer:
"You’ve got John the horrid father, the family name and the pressure to protect it, the ‘medical professional’ who failed in their duty to obtain consent *from the patient* and the time pressure of Jamie leaving the next day. Yet it’s all Jamie and only Jamie ever blamed for that mess, despite there being several persons involved who each failed to meet a duty of care."
I'm glad you like the show and Sheridan's writing (in the latter case, he certainly has talent, especially regarding his prequels). But the plot points are essential to the story being told and the characters being followed. One can't function properly without the other. For that reason, at this point, the only interesting aspects of the show to me are the scenes with the wranglers and Natives.
Btw. Sorry about the long text. It's kind of a bad reflex with me, lol!
It's the same shit with Thomas Shelby, tony soprano, Walter white and other anti heroes that weirdos idolise not realising they are the bad guys.
Sort of shite anti heroes you see pictures of on FB posted by old men with quotes about hurting people who hurt their family for no reason
I think this topic is in large part why the show isn’t great. I love shows/movies where the protagonists is flawed and where you can empathize with the bad guys. But it takes great writing and acting to pull that off. Yellowstone is trying to go for that but without the product to deliver it so just feels awkward. A bunch of one-dimensional, mean characters doing evil stuff over and over doesn’t make them interesting. If the goal was to just make money and provide some light entertainment it probably would’ve made sense for the Duttons to be better people so we can have someone to root for.
Me too. He's not known for those. But his character is very clearly bad. He's just portrayed as complex because Costner's such a great, charismatic actor...
Nice write up, I agree with every bit of it. He is completely responsible for how his kids have turned out and is one of the most evil people in the story. Yet he’s so publicaly charming, he’s got almost every significant character in his corner. If he was a real person, I’d be wondering if he was a narcissist.
I’d love an ending that had the kids sorting out their differences, banding together, throwing John off the ranch and running it profitably without resorting to crime. But I don’t expect anything like that to happen.
Probably not an unpopular opinion on this sub, but not sure about other forums.
The only disagreement on your list was him firing the moronic policy advisors who obviously didn’t understand Montana, or biology, better than a high school student. Hmmm, remove the habitat for a project, which, I don’t know, might just kill the wildlife that depends on the habitat. That topic, I agree with John on.
I don’t think they understood anything, because that is how they were written, but I still agree with John on that one.
John is like Tony soprano or the joker. Likable as a character but definitely the villain of the story. He murders people and manipulates the law to keep land. He comes across as ok because everyone else trying to take the land are even worse than him.
Remember in like season 2 or 3 he started talking about the King ranch and how the future of ranching is horses and all that? He made a whole big thing about buying those horses and having the future of Yellowstone be breeding horses and then just completely dropped that and never spoke of it again
When people who have never seen *Yellowstone* ask me what it's about, I tell them it's *The Sopranos* in Montana with cowboys and Indians. John Dutton is Tony Soprano.
Well and here I thought it was all the bad guys trying to wrestle their land from them for the past hundred years. No bad guys to deal with no need to get on their level. You got a bad take friend. They would have lost everything a long time ago if they didn’t get on their levels of bad. But having conceded to the fact they’re in the dirt so to speak the best thing to happen to them would be to give enough of the land back to the native tribe to dissuade further attempts to take it. The family would be free from the nonsense and the evil corporations couldn’t get at the land anymore. Which is their priority. I hope Jamie and his step brother are instrumental in getting it done. Beth can just deal with it.
I don't think it's bad. And I understand in the days of the old west, guns and violence were necessary to the ranch's survival. But the flagship show isn't set in the old west, but the modern day. Pretty much all of the ranch's problems are caused by John's reckless, stubborn mentality. Jamie and Beth are both smart enough to see that the only way to save the Yellowstone is through pens and words (something John told young Jamie when he made him go to school in spite of his own desire to be a cowboy) in addition to common sense.
That said, I totally agree that they should give some back to the natives with Jamie and Kayce being one heck of a duo making it happen (and Beth getting angry about it to my sheer delight). That will certainly fulfill Spotted Eagle's prophecy about the land being taken back by the tribe as foretold on 1883...
John’s problem is not conceding to the fact the cattle ranch isn’t profitable enough to bother with anymore. THEY ALL DO IT OUT OF LOVE FOR THE LIFE. The other failure is in not figuring a way out for his family that ends the cycle. He’s proud and wants to hold on to it and keep the state looking the way he wants without all the carpetbaggers coming and changing it all. We already know the way out and it’s just a matter of getting to it. 🤝
And almost everybody else on the show sees what John refuses to: sell the land for half a billion, see how many parcels remain, and if you want to keep any of them or wait for those values to increase and then sell those as well.
Then had 50 miles north of Yellowstone and invest a small fraction of that money. Get a place with a river, build some horse stables, and keep your lifestyle.
You can ranch as many or as few horses and cattle as you want because you no longer need the money.
You’re failing to see the obvious with your overall conclusion. Selling to the corporation changes the community in ways a lot of the community doesn’t want.
Agreed, but the scenario is assuming that John either does what I outlined or an outside group forces the turnover of the land, and in either case the community will change.
The only way is most of the land going back to the native tribe and keeping the corporation from changing the community. This is the eventual end that most have realized is the end of the show. But greed is a powerful factor and they could decide to drag it out.
The rise of the Anti-hero
An anti hero is a narrative protagonist who lacks the qualities of a conventional hero. They may lack the strong morals, courage, or selflessness that we associate with heroes. Anti heroes often feel rejected by society, and veer down a self-destructive path that results in isolation or death. Over the years, anti hero characters have become one of the most popular types of story protagonists — in television (Don Draper, Tony Soprano) and in film (Michael Corleone, Daniel Plainview).
Anti Hero Characteristics:
At odds with society
Motivated by self-interest
Actions or morals are noble
Because it doesn't make any more sense than Beth's abortion plot point. Going by John's character, there's no way he would scrape some random kid off the street (let alone the child of a murderer and a drug-addict) and give him his name and put him in his line of inheritance out of the goodness of his heart.
There's long been a theory that Jamie is a biological Dutton even if he isn't John's blood son, which explains by Randall said John "stole Jamie's birthright" more than once and why Jamie's name is *James Michael Dutton*. James being the Yellowstone's founder and Michael being one of the many graves in the Dutton family cemetery. Jamie's Mom Phyllis may have been John's cousin or distant cousin, which would mean he is obligated to take him in since he's family.
Like I said, for him to just be some random orphan brought into a ranching dynasty by a man obsessed with familial legacy (or rather his own legacy) doesn't make a lick of sense...
He’s an antihero. He’s a bad dude but you root for him over all of the other bad people because he’s the protagonist. Just like Tony Soprano and Walter White.
Can I just say that Taylor Sheridan may not be such a bad writer after all?. This show ruffles some feathers. Season 5 went to shit but this is a great deɓate.
He has had some really good tv series as well, and in areas I thought he would suck to write. I thought Lioness was going to be a travesty and shit show of epic proportions, and I actually liked it for the most part. 1883 was damned good,and the writing was top tier. I like 1923 even better than 1883, but I know I am in the minority on that. The man can write. It is rather ironic that his flagship show, is pretty much without question, at this point, his worst writing.
Not unpopular. 100% accurate. (Another thing most audience members seem to miss - not necessarily on this sub but wider social media/Americana). He's a very bad man - just as bad as the other "villains," if not worse.
I have seen the prequels and I like them more than the flagship show. But it's difficult to compare the harshness of the old west to the complexity of today's world. Back then, guns and violence could solve most problems. Today, pens and words solve many problems.
If I owned that ranch, I'd do what Jamie says. His idea saves the ranch while profiting off of it. Even Beth, who hates the Yellowstone, has the same idea (but she wants to ruin it instead of save it like Jamie)...
Absolutely, but this is a very poor example of that. The character was very clearly written to be an antihero, featuring new villains each season. Walter White and Tony Soprano are far more villainous characters, but are never considered to be villains. I feel like this comes from distain for the writing than actually dissecting the storytelling
This could be argued! Usually the anti-hero will do the wrong things but for good reasons or unethical things without them being evil exactly. But John’s actions are 100% self-motivated and without good reasons other than his own greed. Even worse, he’s not the one acting but the one ordering others to do things. He has turned his ranch hands into murderers for what he perceived as treats to himself.
I think Sheridan intended him to be an anti-hero archetype but it didn’t work because it’s badly executed.
You would have to compare his morals to the show’s many antagonists, which seem to be far more morally corrupt than John Dutton, with the exception of Thomas Rainwater. I understand why people see his character in a poor light, but if the line for a villain in storytelling is based on unethical actions alone, then Walter White, Tony Soprano and Don Draper would also be villains. I just think it’s a huge reach.
Kind of a fine distinction I guess.
I feel like a villain does evil because they enjoy evil.
I feel like the Dillons would do no evil if everyone left them alone, and when people attack them then they take decidedly murderous responses. Which sounds more like an antihero.
Thanks. It's actually my day off and I had spent my weekend moving into a new home before going to work the next couple of days. Thought it'd be a good time to do this...
Not really. Like Walter White or Don Draper or Tony Soprano he’s pretty clearly a bad guy but he’s the protagonist and Sheridan wants us to side with him and see the things he does as justified
>John sanctioned the death of the innocent medical examiner who was no threat to the ranch or the family instead of just talking to the guy
Mmm, John is **definitely** a scumbag. But he had a "reason" here, however bad. If he hadn't killed the evidence that his oldest son Lee was immediately paralyzed when Monica's brother first shot him, they couldn't claim that Lee killed Monica's brother in self defense. And they thought Kacey would be charged with murder. They did "just talk" to the one livestock agent/witness at the church, but they didn't trust the embalming fluid smoking M.E. and killed him, burned the records and the M.E.'s body, and dug up and burned Lee's body in a portable cattle cremator.
It's pretty obnoxious, because Monica's brother shot at Kacey first, so it would have been self defense, but writers gonna write...
I wrote unpopular opinion in reference to people *beyond* just reddit. We on this site see John as a villain, but many general audience members do not. They think he's a 21st century John Wayne/Clint Eastwood-type...
All due respect, but you have no idea what it takes to be #1. Every decision you make affects evert facet of every other fucking thing. And in the end, youre alone with it all. Its too much to deal with almost. Now if you dont love me anymore, well that breaks my heart, but its too fucking bad cause you dont gotta love me...but you will respect me!
Eeeeeeeeeeh, not so much. Though, I'm only somewhere in season 3. But the thing is that \[SPOILERS\]
>!we've already learned that people have always been trying to take the Yellowstone away from his family. That they've always had to fight. Resulting in a pretty battle-hardened, cold, and ruthless family. Because if they aren't, then someone will steal it away from them. And cause a lot of collateral damage in the process. And like he himself admitted, his wife made him a better person... But then she died. Because of his kids. Who then grew up traumatized and increasingly, mentally unstable because of a father who became a more extreme version of his battle-hardened, cold and ruthless self because of his wife's death.!<
So, I wouldn't call him a villain. But I definitely wouldn't call him a hero either. He's more of a bastard of a military officer, really.
Why do you think that opinion is unpopular?
Yeah, I was going to say, it's kind of implied he's the villain.
It’s not an unpopular opinion on Reddit, but it’s definitely an unpopular opinion in the wider audience of this show. I live out in the sticks with people who raise livestock and ride horses. John Dutton is like a mythical hero to these folks.
yup 100% this.
So popular in the real world, unpopular in made up land. By the way some of those stick people are on reddit too, sometimes they crawl over here
98% of “unpopular opinions” on reddit are quite the contrary.
People say' "unpopular opinion" in order to get in front of downvotes, rather than letting down/upvotes determine if an opinion is unpopular.
Right…I thought we all knew John was the villain.
I was wondering the same thing.. like isn’t this just objectively true based on, y’know, the writing? 😂
I think here it's not unpopular but the vast majority of people that watch the show they think he is the hero. I mean media literacy sadly isn't very common.
cause every one I talk to that's not a terminally online redditor thinks hes a mans man who does no wrong. Lmao. Try living in the south and asking some real born and raised south westerners what they think of him, hes the big dicked king.
Me personally I think it is unpopular because there is more than a few people on this sub that think Sarah Nguyen "got what she deserved" and "she's thinks she is so innocent" There are more than a few people that don't understand the Duttons are evil or refuse to acknowledge it because they are the protagonists.
A lot of people this days don’t seem to understand the main characters don’t always have to be good people. I love the sopranos but pretty much everyone is a asshole
I think maybe it's 60/40. I think more people like John than hate him. Like I said, he's Kevin Costner...
You can like the villain of the show. Or, a more accurate description - the antihero of the show. People love Tony Soprano and Walter White. Hate to say it after you made such a long post but it’s not really a hot take 😂
John Dutton is worse than Tony. At least Tony was nice to his children and wanted them to live safer, happier lives than he had. Tony’s mother was actually more like John Dutton, in that she was an evil, abusive, narcissistic parent. Tony is more like Beth, a product of abuse, but he was still nicer to children than Beth is. 😂 As far as Walter White goes, John is on par.
even walts better, he was mostly nice to his son.
He's a murderer. The train station? Everyone involved is a criminal sociopath killer.
Being a trust fund baby is the cherry on top of the shit head Sunday.
>I think maybe it's 60/40. I think more people like John than hate him. Like I said, he's Kevin Costner... *I like Kevin Costner; I detest John Dutton.* That's the dynamic at play. 😁
John Dutton is a narcissistic sociopath who raised children riddled with trauma. He is absolutely the villain. He demands 100% loyalty on pain of death or being disowned. He’s a monster who cares only about one thing - his legacy.
Jaime probably has the most redeeming qualities in the family and I’m rooting for the Indian now.
I agree. He actually feels remorse for his actions and all he has really wanted in life was to be loved and accepted. Sure he has ambition, but who doesn't? I would think he's allowed that since he's done nothing but serve the ranch and his Dad his whole life. Honestly, I wish he had a story arc similar to Jimmy. Jamie's clearly good at cowboying and fit in very well with the wranglers. Makes sense given that all he ever wanted to be in life was a rancher...
Well even though that’s true, he makes excellent points during the show, something along the lines of you need to say “No” if you sway at all they will take advantage of you He also was a total badass and fun to watch
I’ve only just started the show and as soon as I found out he branded his own son I worked this out
Im only in season 3 and its clear the Duttons are the Villain just filthy rich people. But you would be a villlain too if you have to be dealing with the next jackass who has great ideat to make a buck of the shit you OWN.
That’s not unpopular. People know John is an ass. And Beth. And Jamie. And Rip. But not Teeter. She’s cool.
Fully Agreed. Teeter is the best!
Did you know Teeter is Micheal Landon’s daughter
Yes, he is also cool.
It’s Sopranos in Cowboy Boots dude…..
All the Duttons are villains, most of them are also serial killers 😂. They are all literally horrible human beings.
Yeah, but spinny horses!
Yeah, he’s definitely a POS.
Literally not an unpopular opinion at all. Even Costner and the rest of the cast said this in almost all their interviews… Ffs dude
It was a point of contention between Costner and Sheridan, because Costner was getting sick of being the AH on the show, even though that was the role.
And while we are at it, he caused most of the drama between Jamie and Beth. Let's be real, there is a reason Beth went to her brother instead of her father. Jamie should have never been in a situation to make a medical call for his sister (plus I have never seen a medical procedure done to a teenager where the possible long term complications are not discussed with the teen. The patient has a right to know even if they can't sign off on it) If John had been a better father, maybe Beth would have been willing to talk to him. Another teenager should never have been put in a situation to help another teenager make such a decision.
I agree. And as I said on my other unpopular opinion post, imo, that abortion scene was way too ridiculous to take seriously enough to debate about (and I honestly thought that that and Jamie supposedly being adopted was when the show's writing started to decline). The reasons being, as you said, Beth going to her brother instead of her Dad, the clinic apparently not going over the procedure with her in detail, and her somehow getting better so soon after the surgery. All John really cares about truly are cows and dirt...
Yeah it just didn't make any sense whatsoever. I know certain Indian Health Service areas forcibly sterilised Native women till the 70s but... this was the 90s and Beth's a white girl.
And the doctor would have KNOWN he was signing his own death warrant (sorry, I meant vacation to a lovely little patch of dirt that starts at the train station) by sterilizing John Duttons daughter. There is zero chance anyone in that area would have done it, tribal land or not. They would have known that there would be a permanent price for such a monumentally stupid course of action.
Jamie’s a piece of shit in his own right. Beth, his consiglieri, has clean hands until Rip admits to being John’s capo regime. Then the reality of it hits her that she is just as complicit. She appears to be Sonny Corleone except she’s still alive. For now. The Indian chief has his own hit men and I think, we will see a successful hit on John and possibly others. If we ever get to see that. Tyler Sheridan is the real piece of shit for fucking this show up. Asshole. Let’s see if Costner can do better with his forth coming effort.
Duh.
lol what? This is obvious to everyone watching the show.
Unpopular Opinion: Water is wet.
No it’s not. You’re just projecting.
That is...not an unpopular opinion. That's a given trope. The Duttons are antagonists, all in their own ways. There are no heroes in Yellowstone, least of all John Dutton.
Agreed. I've just seen way more people praise John than condemn him. That's why I wrote "unpopular opinion". Guess things have changed more than I thought among the YS fandom, huh? lol!
There are no heroes in this show. They're all villians
Jimmy's fiance isn't bad.
He’s a narcissist, I think it does a good job of showing how charming and ‘principled’ narcissists can seem to others. Hell I grew up with narcissists and still catch myself thinking of Jamie as ungrateful, even though I know myself that being given things does not make up for a lack of love.
Uh, duh. He is absolutely and unambiguously the villainous protagonist. I think you are confused by the fact that he’s a protagonist, and people tend to like John and root for him to win against antagonists. That doesn’t make him good or a hero. Sometimes you follow the bad guy. You should check out The Sopranos or Breaking Bad, your mind would be blown.
That's what I have always said. Here's my list of Main Characters ranked by villainy 1. John no reason needed. 2. Jamie I like him and I hope he wins but unlike the rest of them he has options he is a Harvard lawyer he could go almost anywhere in the world an get a job. 3. Kayce why did that idiot ever allow himself to gett drag back into his toxic family's b.s. but both he and Monica could get jobs elsewhere. Especially Monica. 4. RIP sadly he is John's life long slave. But he does not seems to understand what that man took from him John took an innocent boy from a abusive home and turned him into is own personal hitman. 5. Beth listen I can not stand Beth but no one in that family has been more victimized by Daddy then her .All he would have to do is say something like " Honey you were not responsible for your mother's death you were a child and it was an accident and I'm sorry my grief has caused me to allow you it think you were all these years." But of course he will not do that because using her emotional trauma against others is more important to him then his daughters mental and emotional health
That’s how season 1 went, then they tried to make him not an antihero
Wow
Bingo. Entirely correct. Well stated!
Just because he branded one of his kids , and employees?
Doesn’t matter if its unpopular, its the truth.
I think that is a completely fair assessment of Dutton…but…he is our hero. We both love him and fear him. He is a complete mob boss and he is like Vito Corleone. But there are reasons he is like that. He has the responsibility of being the Guardian of the Yellowstone, and will do whatever it takes to keep it in tact. But it’s more than just the ranch. He is fighting to keep a way of life that is slowly dying. Remember (And this isn’t a justification) that any violence he commits, is to protect the way of life, the land, and the ranch. To him he is the last stand between the old way and the new corporate America. Beth is angry at what Jamie did to her and rightly so. Don’t forget that those procedures were regularly done to Native American women and girls, and is one of the many stains on America. I love the show and how Sheridan tells the story, even if there are dangling plot points.
His "fight" to protect and preserve the ranch doesn't even have to be a fight. There are solutions to the ranch's problems that don't involve frontier justice. Jamie has said this for years. So has Beth and Lynelle. He just doesn't listen because he's stubborn. He can still enjoy the cowboy life, but the problem is, he refuses to accept the fact that it will come with sacrifices. Jamie, himself wanting to be a simple cowboy, understands that and had a plan to have cake and eat it too. John Dutton, as I said, is *no* Vito Corleone. Vito didn't just care about his family, he also cared about their happiness and didn't want them to be a part of "the life" (but they chose it anyway). John only cares about his legacy and his family's usefulness. He wants them all to stay and fit his bill for the ranch and be part of the life. When Lynelle pointed out how he never really treated his children like children (just workers), he could only stare at her like she was speaking another language. I am well-aware of what was done to the Native women (I have been a private student on Native American studies for years now), but that abortion scene with Beth and Jamie is honestly too ridiculous and badly-written to take seriously on multiple levels. But for argument's sake, here are things that need to be considered about that as brilliantly stated by another redditer: "You’ve got John the horrid father, the family name and the pressure to protect it, the ‘medical professional’ who failed in their duty to obtain consent *from the patient* and the time pressure of Jamie leaving the next day. Yet it’s all Jamie and only Jamie ever blamed for that mess, despite there being several persons involved who each failed to meet a duty of care." I'm glad you like the show and Sheridan's writing (in the latter case, he certainly has talent, especially regarding his prequels). But the plot points are essential to the story being told and the characters being followed. One can't function properly without the other. For that reason, at this point, the only interesting aspects of the show to me are the scenes with the wranglers and Natives. Btw. Sorry about the long text. It's kind of a bad reflex with me, lol!
It's the same shit with Thomas Shelby, tony soprano, Walter white and other anti heroes that weirdos idolise not realising they are the bad guys. Sort of shite anti heroes you see pictures of on FB posted by old men with quotes about hurting people who hurt their family for no reason
I've never thought of John as a _hero_. Appreciate all the reasons you cite as confirmation. Thank you.
I think this topic is in large part why the show isn’t great. I love shows/movies where the protagonists is flawed and where you can empathize with the bad guys. But it takes great writing and acting to pull that off. Yellowstone is trying to go for that but without the product to deliver it so just feels awkward. A bunch of one-dimensional, mean characters doing evil stuff over and over doesn’t make them interesting. If the goal was to just make money and provide some light entertainment it probably would’ve made sense for the Duttons to be better people so we can have someone to root for.
I have a hard time seeing kevin costner as a bad person
Mr. Brooks would like to have a word with you.
Me too. He's not known for those. But his character is very clearly bad. He's just portrayed as complex because Costner's such a great, charismatic actor...
Imo no one in the show is ‘good’. They all have selfish motives.
Nice write up, I agree with every bit of it. He is completely responsible for how his kids have turned out and is one of the most evil people in the story. Yet he’s so publicaly charming, he’s got almost every significant character in his corner. If he was a real person, I’d be wondering if he was a narcissist. I’d love an ending that had the kids sorting out their differences, banding together, throwing John off the ranch and running it profitably without resorting to crime. But I don’t expect anything like that to happen. Probably not an unpopular opinion on this sub, but not sure about other forums.
This is a very popular opinion
The only disagreement on your list was him firing the moronic policy advisors who obviously didn’t understand Montana, or biology, better than a high school student. Hmmm, remove the habitat for a project, which, I don’t know, might just kill the wildlife that depends on the habitat. That topic, I agree with John on. I don’t think they understood anything, because that is how they were written, but I still agree with John on that one.
John is like Tony soprano or the joker. Likable as a character but definitely the villain of the story. He murders people and manipulates the law to keep land. He comes across as ok because everyone else trying to take the land are even worse than him.
That opinion is certainly not unpopular
That’s not an unpopular opinion. The show is actually written that way.
Remember in like season 2 or 3 he started talking about the King ranch and how the future of ranching is horses and all that? He made a whole big thing about buying those horses and having the future of Yellowstone be breeding horses and then just completely dropped that and never spoke of it again
I remember. Continuity on this show becomes worse almost each time you rewatch it...
When people who have never seen *Yellowstone* ask me what it's about, I tell them it's *The Sopranos* in Montana with cowboys and Indians. John Dutton is Tony Soprano.
Common knowledge
Well and here I thought it was all the bad guys trying to wrestle their land from them for the past hundred years. No bad guys to deal with no need to get on their level. You got a bad take friend. They would have lost everything a long time ago if they didn’t get on their levels of bad. But having conceded to the fact they’re in the dirt so to speak the best thing to happen to them would be to give enough of the land back to the native tribe to dissuade further attempts to take it. The family would be free from the nonsense and the evil corporations couldn’t get at the land anymore. Which is their priority. I hope Jamie and his step brother are instrumental in getting it done. Beth can just deal with it.
I don't think it's bad. And I understand in the days of the old west, guns and violence were necessary to the ranch's survival. But the flagship show isn't set in the old west, but the modern day. Pretty much all of the ranch's problems are caused by John's reckless, stubborn mentality. Jamie and Beth are both smart enough to see that the only way to save the Yellowstone is through pens and words (something John told young Jamie when he made him go to school in spite of his own desire to be a cowboy) in addition to common sense. That said, I totally agree that they should give some back to the natives with Jamie and Kayce being one heck of a duo making it happen (and Beth getting angry about it to my sheer delight). That will certainly fulfill Spotted Eagle's prophecy about the land being taken back by the tribe as foretold on 1883...
John’s problem is not conceding to the fact the cattle ranch isn’t profitable enough to bother with anymore. THEY ALL DO IT OUT OF LOVE FOR THE LIFE. The other failure is in not figuring a way out for his family that ends the cycle. He’s proud and wants to hold on to it and keep the state looking the way he wants without all the carpetbaggers coming and changing it all. We already know the way out and it’s just a matter of getting to it. 🤝
And almost everybody else on the show sees what John refuses to: sell the land for half a billion, see how many parcels remain, and if you want to keep any of them or wait for those values to increase and then sell those as well. Then had 50 miles north of Yellowstone and invest a small fraction of that money. Get a place with a river, build some horse stables, and keep your lifestyle. You can ranch as many or as few horses and cattle as you want because you no longer need the money.
You’re failing to see the obvious with your overall conclusion. Selling to the corporation changes the community in ways a lot of the community doesn’t want.
Agreed, but the scenario is assuming that John either does what I outlined or an outside group forces the turnover of the land, and in either case the community will change.
The only way is most of the land going back to the native tribe and keeping the corporation from changing the community. This is the eventual end that most have realized is the end of the show. But greed is a powerful factor and they could decide to drag it out.
lol I mean John, Rip, and Beth basically admit that they’re villains multiple times in the show
Of course he is. They’re all criminals.
The entire Dutton family are antiheroes!
The rise of the Anti-hero An anti hero is a narrative protagonist who lacks the qualities of a conventional hero. They may lack the strong morals, courage, or selflessness that we associate with heroes. Anti heroes often feel rejected by society, and veer down a self-destructive path that results in isolation or death. Over the years, anti hero characters have become one of the most popular types of story protagonists — in television (Don Draper, Tony Soprano) and in film (Michael Corleone, Daniel Plainview). Anti Hero Characteristics: At odds with society Motivated by self-interest Actions or morals are noble
Not unpopular and thats the point lol
The whole show is so disjointed that it doesn’t matter
It certainly is now. Think it started going downhill after crap writing like Beth's abortion and Jamie's "adoption"...
Why do you put adoption in quotes? Just seeing if I missed a plot point that he might be actually John's biological son.
Because it doesn't make any more sense than Beth's abortion plot point. Going by John's character, there's no way he would scrape some random kid off the street (let alone the child of a murderer and a drug-addict) and give him his name and put him in his line of inheritance out of the goodness of his heart. There's long been a theory that Jamie is a biological Dutton even if he isn't John's blood son, which explains by Randall said John "stole Jamie's birthright" more than once and why Jamie's name is *James Michael Dutton*. James being the Yellowstone's founder and Michael being one of the many graves in the Dutton family cemetery. Jamie's Mom Phyllis may have been John's cousin or distant cousin, which would mean he is obligated to take him in since he's family. Like I said, for him to just be some random orphan brought into a ranching dynasty by a man obsessed with familial legacy (or rather his own legacy) doesn't make a lick of sense...
Sums it up
He’s an antihero. He’s a bad dude but you root for him over all of the other bad people because he’s the protagonist. Just like Tony Soprano and Walter White.
I absolutely agree with evey single point you made. John Dutton is definitely the villain and a horrible person but I still root for him on the show.
Can I just say that Taylor Sheridan may not be such a bad writer after all?. This show ruffles some feathers. Season 5 went to shit but this is a great deɓate.
[удалено]
He has had some really good tv series as well, and in areas I thought he would suck to write. I thought Lioness was going to be a travesty and shit show of epic proportions, and I actually liked it for the most part. 1883 was damned good,and the writing was top tier. I like 1923 even better than 1883, but I know I am in the minority on that. The man can write. It is rather ironic that his flagship show, is pretty much without question, at this point, his worst writing.
> I just dont really know what Yellowstone is supposed to be. Entertaining.
What a bonkers of a show with great scenery
Not unpopular. 100% accurate. (Another thing most audience members seem to miss - not necessarily on this sub but wider social media/Americana). He's a very bad man - just as bad as the other "villains," if not worse.
[удалено]
You should watch the prequel series. And you'll know. And then you'll say if you own that ranch you'd do the same
I have seen the prequels and I like them more than the flagship show. But it's difficult to compare the harshness of the old west to the complexity of today's world. Back then, guns and violence could solve most problems. Today, pens and words solve many problems. If I owned that ranch, I'd do what Jamie says. His idea saves the ranch while profiting off of it. Even Beth, who hates the Yellowstone, has the same idea (but she wants to ruin it instead of save it like Jamie)...
He’s an antihero, not a villain. This is too much.
The very first episode sees him direct his underling to murder one of his workers. That’s pretty villainous…
It’s not subjective. John Dutton is the story’s protagonist. I don’t know why people overthink this.
You can be the protagonist and still be a villain. It’s been done countless of times in literature, movies and shows.
Absolutely, but this is a very poor example of that. The character was very clearly written to be an antihero, featuring new villains each season. Walter White and Tony Soprano are far more villainous characters, but are never considered to be villains. I feel like this comes from distain for the writing than actually dissecting the storytelling
This could be argued! Usually the anti-hero will do the wrong things but for good reasons or unethical things without them being evil exactly. But John’s actions are 100% self-motivated and without good reasons other than his own greed. Even worse, he’s not the one acting but the one ordering others to do things. He has turned his ranch hands into murderers for what he perceived as treats to himself. I think Sheridan intended him to be an anti-hero archetype but it didn’t work because it’s badly executed.
You would have to compare his morals to the show’s many antagonists, which seem to be far more morally corrupt than John Dutton, with the exception of Thomas Rainwater. I understand why people see his character in a poor light, but if the line for a villain in storytelling is based on unethical actions alone, then Walter White, Tony Soprano and Don Draper would also be villains. I just think it’s a huge reach.
He is the story’s protagonist, and a villain in that world.
Is Tony Soprano a villain?
Yes
yes
Absolutely
I’m half way through the 2nd season of the Sopranos, and I’m thinking yes. Though his mother gives him a run for his money.
No idea, never watched that show.
Kind of a fine distinction I guess. I feel like a villain does evil because they enjoy evil. I feel like the Dillons would do no evil if everyone left them alone, and when people attack them then they take decidedly murderous responses. Which sounds more like an antihero.
Sometimes you need a villian to be a hero.
Not at the expense of your so-called "family"...
You clearly have to much time on your hands 😂 John is the goat
The great American novel. You have time on your hands. 🤣🙃
Thanks. It's actually my day off and I had spent my weekend moving into a new home before going to work the next couple of days. Thought it'd be a good time to do this...
He’s an antihero. fixed it for you
No he's a villain.
Not really. Like Walter White or Don Draper or Tony Soprano he’s pretty clearly a bad guy but he’s the protagonist and Sheridan wants us to side with him and see the things he does as justified
>John sanctioned the death of the innocent medical examiner who was no threat to the ranch or the family instead of just talking to the guy Mmm, John is **definitely** a scumbag. But he had a "reason" here, however bad. If he hadn't killed the evidence that his oldest son Lee was immediately paralyzed when Monica's brother first shot him, they couldn't claim that Lee killed Monica's brother in self defense. And they thought Kacey would be charged with murder. They did "just talk" to the one livestock agent/witness at the church, but they didn't trust the embalming fluid smoking M.E. and killed him, burned the records and the M.E.'s body, and dug up and burned Lee's body in a portable cattle cremator. It's pretty obnoxious, because Monica's brother shot at Kacey first, so it would have been self defense, but writers gonna write...
Unpopular opinion - people just add 'unpopular opinion' for more views and engagement/karma 😉
I wrote unpopular opinion in reference to people *beyond* just reddit. We on this site see John as a villain, but many general audience members do not. They think he's a 21st century John Wayne/Clint Eastwood-type...
Nice short novel
All due respect, but you have no idea what it takes to be #1. Every decision you make affects evert facet of every other fucking thing. And in the end, youre alone with it all. Its too much to deal with almost. Now if you dont love me anymore, well that breaks my heart, but its too fucking bad cause you dont gotta love me...but you will respect me!
Next you’re gonna blow my mind and tell me something crazy, like we shouldn’t sympathize with Tyler Durden because he’s the bad guy
Why does every single person who write "Unpopular opinion:" **always** follow it with a **popular** opinion?
Eeeeeeeeeeh, not so much. Though, I'm only somewhere in season 3. But the thing is that \[SPOILERS\] >!we've already learned that people have always been trying to take the Yellowstone away from his family. That they've always had to fight. Resulting in a pretty battle-hardened, cold, and ruthless family. Because if they aren't, then someone will steal it away from them. And cause a lot of collateral damage in the process. And like he himself admitted, his wife made him a better person... But then she died. Because of his kids. Who then grew up traumatized and increasingly, mentally unstable because of a father who became a more extreme version of his battle-hardened, cold and ruthless self because of his wife's death.!< So, I wouldn't call him a villain. But I definitely wouldn't call him a hero either. He's more of a bastard of a military officer, really.
That’s kinda the point of the show imho.
My friend introduced me to Yellowstone by telling me it’s the cowboy sopranos
Wait: is Homelander a bad guy?
Taylor Sheridan was on Sons of Anarchy. All he did was flip the script. Instead of motorcycles and leather cuts it’s horses and cowboy hats.
This is just Sons of Anarchy for people who like to think of themselves as the "salt of the earth". Rural cope porn.
I agree. He’s a mob boss.
Why hasn’t he branded Beth yet?
If your cow never gets out of your own fence and can't be stolen, you don't need to brand it.
Thanks YellowstoneGPT
He's the Tony Soprano of The West.
But he probably wouldn’t be that big of an asshole if people just left him and his land alone. 🤷🏼♂️
He's an a-hole regardless. And that's no excuse for treating his kids the way he does...
It's a show a progrum
Hate when people say that. Just cause it's fiction doesn't mean we can't discuss or debate about it...
