MovieChat Forums > Yellowstone (2018) Discussion > Jamie’s story arc.

Jamie’s story arc.

posted 2 years ago by sunshine62 (249)
13 replies | jump to latest

Sorry but I have to get a few things off my chest.

a. Was it necessary to have Jamie begging for his life on his knees?

Why are the writers so intent in making Jamie seem less than a jellyfish.. and Beth this Uber tough badass gal?

B. I was hoping that Jamie would kill his bio logical father but not to save his life after Beth’s threats but when he found out he was the one that organised the attack against his family.

C. Last scene with Beth and Dutton.

Dutton says despite everything he can’t help loving Jamie because he raised him ..that statement does not reflect his actions though.

… he had no problems letting Beth abuse Jamie verbally and even physically for years .. never thought to step in and put a stop to it.

When Jamie in season 1 wanted to persue a political carrier , his father initially was okay with it but when Jamie spent too much time campaigning ( so he was not 24/7 at Duttons disposal) Dutton wanted him to withdraw despite he knew how much it meant to Jamie to be doing something for himself for the first time.

Then once again Dutton interfered with Jamie’s political aspirations convincing the outgoing governor to support his candidacy instead of Jamie’s ( which she promised to support).

Dutton didn’t even have the decency to inform Jamie that he had been ousted.

D. Dutton thought Beth went to kill Jamie and instead of stopping her , he just waited till she got back and then asked with watery eyes .. tell me if I have one less son ??

And he had no problems when Beth said: he’s ours now.

Obviously, he knew that meant she did something to Jamie to have him now in the palm of her/ their hands.

So the whole scene with Dutton saying he cared for Jamie …. didn’t make sense to me.

Personally , I’m sick of Beth and her never ending grudge towards Jamie.

Let’s face it she was no scared penniless teen that got pregnant with fucked up parents and now where to turn.

She had an option.. go to her rich father and have the baby or instead of burdening poor Jamie , who was just a teen too, talk to Rip the father ..instead, to him she lied and said she wasn’t pregnant.

I might have heard wrong but it sounded like she even blamed Jamie for having the abortion and not only for the sterilisation, when she was threatening Jamie in his office.

How I wished Jamie had put a bullet in her head instead.

[–] strntz (10974) 2 years ago

This depends on what they do to wrap up the show. Personally, I think they are pumping up Beth's evilness (against Jamie particularly) to torch her in the series finale - give the people what they want.

It's possible for John to love Jamie and still tolerate Beth's abuse of him. Jamie is a man, and men like John expect them to be able to fight their own battles. Sure, the governor's endorsement scene was brutal for Jamie, but who knows how people who have lived with that kind of power and wealth think. He not only wanted Jamie not to run for governor, he wanted to send him a message at the same time. From a viewer standpoint, it added more fuel to the fire of whether Jamie would flip and go with his bio dad and his baby mama.

We can't forget that there is no character in this whole show who isn't guilty of some evilness, cruelty, or murder. Kayce might be the only mostly decent character on the ranch, while Mo seems to be a stand-up guy with the NAs, but this is a show with very few good guys.

[–] sunshine62 (249) 2 years ago

@ to strntz.

Okay , you have made a valid point ..a man like Dutton definitely would expect Jamie to stand up for himself.. it is still odd John never questioned Beth over her abusive behaviour towards Jamie , though.

**Kayce might be the only mostly decent character on the ranch**

@. Dutton , Kayce and Rip are violent and murders .. but just because John Dutton is a powerful man they get away with all the violence.

The scene where he enters the bar .. all Dutton knew was that a robbery was in progress … he had no idea how many were in there , their position , how they were armed.. the sheriff had no chance

Only later do they find out these so called “robbers” were members of the milizia.

Dutton’s methods are really Far West Style.

Most probably you are right ….the writers are pumping up Beth’s evilness to torch her in the next season finale.. Which is fine with me .. I’m sick of her antics and feeling sorry for her self.

… just wish they hadn’t made Jamie look even more pathetic than he already was..

I mean was it really necessary to have Jamie on his knees begging.?

I find it hard to even look at Jamie now.

[–] Goliard (1413) 2 years ago

"We can't forget that there is no character in this whole show who isn't guilty of some evilness, cruelty, or murder."

Definitely:
Ryan
Tate
Teeter
Avery
Colby
"Cowboy"
Jimmie's new girl (forget her name)

Arguably not guilty:
Caroline Warner
Kayce
Walker
Jimmie
Carter

Boom.

[–] strntz (10974) 2 years ago

Well, I was referring to the main characters that appear in the promo pic, so I shouldn't have said "whole" show. The rest of them can disappear from the show or recast and no one would care. Even Walker disappeared and came back to the show.

I'm not completely sure about Kayce. In another thread i commented that probably Kayce and Mo were the only main characters who might be redeemable or have some innate morality about them, but both of them have done questionable things.

[–] Goliard (1413) 2 years ago

I put Kayce in my "arguably" pile as well, but now I'm trying to figure out why. . .can't really think of any "evilness, cruelty or murder" he's engaged in. He came close with Walker, but just couldn't do it.

As far as the rest, yeah: I was replying to your "no character in the whole show" remark. Even so, none of the unbranded cowboys (or Tate!) can be lumped into that category, either. The show *is* decidedly dark, and filled with terrible people, but there are certainly bright spots.

[–] strntz (10974) 2 years ago

Kayce beat and dumped that guy in the cattle barrier under ground because he kept blocking the cattle crossing. Did he have a good reason? LOL, yes I guess but he went farther with the cruelty than I would have.

Most of the other cowboys were there when they tortured and lynched those two goons who trampled Teeter and her boyfriend. Frontier justice certainly but illegal. Those things are what make this show so good: we all fantasize about, say, grabbing a mass shooter and dragging him to the nearest tree and stringing them up, but we know that can't happen. Living vicariously through these cowboys is satisfying.

[–] Goliard (1413) 2 years ago

"Kayce beat and dumped that guy in the cattle barrier under ground because he kept blocking the cattle crossing. Did he have a good reason? LOL, yes I guess but he went farther with the cruelty than I would have."
I'm agreeing w/you. . .like I said, this is why he's in a grayzone for me. He DEFINITELY doesn't deserve the "evil, cruelty, murder" tag, tho.

"Most of the other cowboys were there when they tortured and lynched those two goons who trampled Teeter and her boyfriend. Frontier justice certainly but illegal."
Those two deserved that and worse. Again, "evil, cruelty murder" just doesn't apply here. The fact that it's "illegal" has no currency. At one point it was ILLEGAL to marry outside your race. It was LEGAL to beat your wife with a mop handle. RIGHT NOW in Montana, it is ILLEGAL for married women to go fishing alone on Sundays. No, I'm not joking: that's a law, on the books. Bottom line: as they say on the show: "There's the Law, and then there's what's Right."
Those cowboys did what was Right.

[–] strntz (10974) 2 years ago

I agree that scum deserved it and indeed, was armchair rooting for payback for what they did to Teeter and Landon, but in most folk's book, it still qualifies as murder, frontier justice or not. Still counts as murder everywhere in the U.S. anyway.

One can also make a solid case for evil and cruelty when they resorted to vivisection and carved that large hank of flesh off that cowboy before they hung him. If John wanted that brand back, they certainly could have cut it off him after they he was dead.

[–] GordonGartrelle (1267) 2 years ago

The fact that it was allowed for Beth to throw a tantrum at dinner table and everyone is just like, "Well, she's a girl with PMS." Is just such shitting writing from day one.

[–] dponzi (133) 2 years ago

"How I wished Jamie had put a bullet in her head instead."

I say that just about every episode. God, I hate her. I love Kelly Rielly, but Beth is a miserable POS. Actually, they all are but there is nothing redeemable about her.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

What's with all the love for Jamie and hate for Beth. Gosh Yellowstone is one of only of a couple of shows that isn't WOKE. So you liberals who don't like the show don't watch it. Simple. Plus if you didn't really know they're playing a character.

[–] strntz (10974) 2 years ago

I don't think political ideologies have much effect on what characters are supported. Most of my friends and family are conservatives and opinions are split between the two. Personally, I think they're both nuts.

[–] dponzi (133) 2 years ago

LOL...I'm about as far from "liberal" as anyone can get. This has nothing to do with ideology, I just think Beth is a POS. BTW, I don't have any love for Jamie either. ALSO, read again what I said about Kelly Rielly. I know Beth is just a character.