Yellowstone Backed Itself Into a Corner And Has to Kill John Off Now
It was an awful weekend for any fan of Yellowstone that had hopes that Kevin Costner would make amends with series creator Taylor Sheridan.
First, Costner and Sheridan (along with most of the principal cast) were mysteriously absent from the PaleyFest Q&A session they were supposed to headline.
Then, Paramount confirmed rumors that Matthew McConaughey is committed to a Yellowstone spin-off, leaving the future of Costner very much in question.
Costner has reportedly been clashing with Sheridan over shooting demands for the remainder of season five.
Yellowstone is currently in the middle of a hiatus after concluding the first half of the season in February. Now, with shooting delays seriously jeopardizing the show's future, it appears Yellowstone has finally backed itself into a corner it cannot escape.
The only solution is to kill off John Dutton now and do so as cleanly as possible. It’s apparent that Coster is no longer interested or committed to the role. Why, then, should the writers and producers of Yellowstone continue to force it? Rather, it makes sense to axe John completely and finally move forward.
After all, Yellowstone has been hinting at John’s demise for several seasons. Furthermore, the mid-season finale culminated with his adopted son, Jamie (Wes Bentley), plotting to murder him with his new fling, Sarah Atwood (Dawn Olivieri).
Whether Jamie will actually go through with the threat has yet to be determined, but doesn’t it make sense to eliminate John before things outside the set of Yellowstone get any messier?
The cast and crew were supposed to resume filming in March or April. Now, considering the delays (and news that McConaughey will replace Costner), the future of John Dutton is doubtful.
Accordingly, shall Costner refuse to return, there are ways to navigate around the dilemma.
The rest of the Dutton clan (Rip, Beth, Kayce, Monica, and Jamie) have all been foreshadowed to have a claim to the property once John passes away. Therefore, killing John now would allow the TV series to expand on what happens to the property after the patriarch is gone, and who ultimately takes over control.
John inevitably put these siblings at odds with each other, and now it must play out for audiences to feel like they were rewarded with a worthwhile conclusion. Does John’s death help or hinder the family? Do they find healing and become closer because of the loss, or does it pull them further apart and make each family member more ruthless in their own pursuits of the land?
When you think about it, removing John Dutton from Yellowstone may not be the worst idea, after all. It may just be the fresh take the show badly needed.