By Trey Alessio
Sources: Paramount Network/HBO
(contains some spoilers)
Yellowstone had its (somewhat) series finale a few weeks ago, so I think it’s finally time to discuss something that’s been on my mind for a while now.
Yellowstone shares many of the same elements as Succession, but, in my opinion, one show far outweighs the other in terms of impact and overall quality. I’ve had this thought for awhile, but I think I’ve finally pinpointed the reasoning. I sincerely think HBO’s Succession is one of the top-3 greatest shows of all-time, and while Yellowstone started out great and had the makings of being a classic, I think Paramount Network’s Yellowstone ultimately plateaued because of a few things. So why did Succession leave a mark while Yellowstone fizzled out? Let’s break it down.
I have a little background in screenwriting and filmmaking, so my brain immediately asks the question, “how did these shows get made in 2018?” Both shows focus on a group of wealthy, white families. If I’m being completely honest, both shows primarily focus on wealthy, white men. Yes, Yellowstone has Beth and Succession has Shiv, but you get my point, right? Hollywood has rightfully pushed for more diversity, and, in a lot of ways, is making good strides toward making more films and shows with people of color having their fair share of representation. However, in 2018, two of the most popular shows focused on wealthy, white families. I think there are key differences in how these families are portrayed in the different shows.
Yellowstone had its (somewhat) series finale a few weeks ago, so I think it’s finally time to discuss something that’s been on my mind for a while now.
Yellowstone shares many of the same elements as Succession, but, in my opinion, one show far outweighs the other in terms of impact and overall quality. I’ve had this thought for awhile, but I think I’ve finally pinpointed the reasoning. I sincerely think HBO’s Succession is one of the top-3 greatest shows of all-time, and while Yellowstone started out great and had the makings of being a classic, I think Paramount Network’s Yellowstone ultimately plateaued because of a few things. So why did Succession leave a mark while Yellowstone fizzled out? Let’s break it down.
I have a little background in screenwriting and filmmaking, so my brain immediately asks the question, “how did these shows get made in 2018?” Both shows focus on a group of wealthy, white families. If I’m being completely honest, both shows primarily focus on wealthy, white men. Yes, Yellowstone has Beth and Succession has Shiv, but you get my point, right? Hollywood has rightfully pushed for more diversity, and, in a lot of ways, is making good strides toward making more films and shows with people of color having their fair share of representation. However, in 2018, two of the most popular shows focused on wealthy, white families. I think there are key differences in how these families are portrayed in the different shows.
Source: HBO
In Succession, the creators aren’t afraid of owning how fucked up the characters truly are. It’s almost like they are saying, “here’s what you get when you allow incompetency, nepotism, immorality and lack of diversity to run a multi-billion-dollar media corporation that directly affects the lives of millions of people.” The show has a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor because it feels like the portrayal of the characters is making fun of how out-of-touch they are. However, in reality, it strikes a different chord because it feels like all of this could be real. Whereas, in Yellowstone, it feels like the creators want to paint the characters as good people.
If we peel back all the layers, both Succession and Yellowstone are shows about families trying to keep their businesses running in order to preserve their legacies. In both shows, the father is the glue of the family and the foundation for the show. Logan Roy is the head of a media conglomerate, and each of his kids want to take over the family business. John Dutton is the head of a major ranch, and each of his kids want to take over the family business. Also, spoiler alert, but both fathers die in each show’s final season. Obviously, both shows have twists and turns, but at their core, Succession and Yellowstone are essentially the same show. I think the key difference in execution falls on this differing portrayal with the families in Succession and Yellowstone.
Spoiler alert here… For example, on episode 8 of season 4 entitled “America Decides” of Succession, we see the Roy family, with the power of their pseudo-Fox News TV station behind them, essentially pick the next president on election night by manipulating the polls on ATN. While we roll our eyes and laugh at the chaos that ensues beforehand with Tom, Greg, Kendall, Roman, etc., we’re left with a knot in the pit of our stomach because it feels like this behind-the-scenes process could be our reality.
If we peel back all the layers, both Succession and Yellowstone are shows about families trying to keep their businesses running in order to preserve their legacies. In both shows, the father is the glue of the family and the foundation for the show. Logan Roy is the head of a media conglomerate, and each of his kids want to take over the family business. John Dutton is the head of a major ranch, and each of his kids want to take over the family business. Also, spoiler alert, but both fathers die in each show’s final season. Obviously, both shows have twists and turns, but at their core, Succession and Yellowstone are essentially the same show. I think the key difference in execution falls on this differing portrayal with the families in Succession and Yellowstone.
Spoiler alert here… For example, on episode 8 of season 4 entitled “America Decides” of Succession, we see the Roy family, with the power of their pseudo-Fox News TV station behind them, essentially pick the next president on election night by manipulating the polls on ATN. While we roll our eyes and laugh at the chaos that ensues beforehand with Tom, Greg, Kendall, Roman, etc., we’re left with a knot in the pit of our stomach because it feels like this behind-the-scenes process could be our reality.
Source: Paramount Network
On Yellowstone, I can’t think of an equivalent event to Succession’s “America Decides” episode that packs the same punch. Another spoiler alert here… One could argue that John Dutton scheming his way to get elected as the governor of Montana with his sole intention of doing what’s best for his ranch rather than what may be the best for the people of Montana could potentially compare to the Roy family picking Succession’s version of Trump as their president with the intention of boosting up their news station ATN, but it didn’t hit me with the same level of relevancy. I think the reason Yellowstone’s event didn’t hit the same as Succession was simply because, in the end, John Dutton and ultimately the Yellowstone creators painted his anti-tourism agenda to stop the construction of a massive airport as what’s best for Montana.
Now, it’s not my intention to get all political with this blog article, but I think I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out how Yellowstone leans a little more conservative in its approach while Succession leans a little more liberal in its approach. The latter is ironic because the Roy’s are definitely conservative and their news station ATN feels like Fox News, but the show’s approach again feels satirical in nature–almost as if the creators are making fun of the characters in Succession who may or may not remind us of people in real life. I also think there’s something to be said about each show and the general audience it attracts. I don’t have any evidence to back this up, but I would bet the majority of Yellowstone’s audience is more conservative than Succession’s audience. I'm not here to say what side I think is right in this blog article (you can probably tell which way I lean based on this, and that's okay). I just want to lay out the foundation for my overall argument.
Now, maybe there is some validity to John Dutton wanting to preserve Montana’s traditional, non-tourist way of life, but ultimately I think the overarching feeling that the Dutton’s and the members of their ranch are good people–when in reality they’re not–is the true reason the Yellowstone plateaued.
More spoilers… Rip Wheeler sent multiple people to the train station, but by the end of the show, I got the feeling the creators wanted to paint him as a good man who held down the Yellowstone ranch for the Dutton’s. Meanwhile, Kendall Roy relapsed, drove under the influence and eventually killed the passenger by driving the car into a body of water. At the end of the show, when Kendall learns he won’t be the CEO of Waystar Royco, I got the feeling the creators accurately portrayed a broken man who’s been through the ringer by his own accord. Never once did I think he was a good guy. Were there some things throughout the show that I could relate to with Kendall? Yes. But, ultimately, I think the Rip-Kendall comparison serves as a microcosm for both shows that illustrates the difference in execution for the portrayal of each shows' characters. Succession stuck the landing with its characters, which is why I consider it a top-3 show of all-time. Yellowstone lost its way, which is why I think it fizzled out.
Now, it’s not my intention to get all political with this blog article, but I think I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out how Yellowstone leans a little more conservative in its approach while Succession leans a little more liberal in its approach. The latter is ironic because the Roy’s are definitely conservative and their news station ATN feels like Fox News, but the show’s approach again feels satirical in nature–almost as if the creators are making fun of the characters in Succession who may or may not remind us of people in real life. I also think there’s something to be said about each show and the general audience it attracts. I don’t have any evidence to back this up, but I would bet the majority of Yellowstone’s audience is more conservative than Succession’s audience. I'm not here to say what side I think is right in this blog article (you can probably tell which way I lean based on this, and that's okay). I just want to lay out the foundation for my overall argument.
Now, maybe there is some validity to John Dutton wanting to preserve Montana’s traditional, non-tourist way of life, but ultimately I think the overarching feeling that the Dutton’s and the members of their ranch are good people–when in reality they’re not–is the true reason the Yellowstone plateaued.
More spoilers… Rip Wheeler sent multiple people to the train station, but by the end of the show, I got the feeling the creators wanted to paint him as a good man who held down the Yellowstone ranch for the Dutton’s. Meanwhile, Kendall Roy relapsed, drove under the influence and eventually killed the passenger by driving the car into a body of water. At the end of the show, when Kendall learns he won’t be the CEO of Waystar Royco, I got the feeling the creators accurately portrayed a broken man who’s been through the ringer by his own accord. Never once did I think he was a good guy. Were there some things throughout the show that I could relate to with Kendall? Yes. But, ultimately, I think the Rip-Kendall comparison serves as a microcosm for both shows that illustrates the difference in execution for the portrayal of each shows' characters. Succession stuck the landing with its characters, which is why I consider it a top-3 show of all-time. Yellowstone lost its way, which is why I think it fizzled out.
Sources: Paramount Network/HBO
More spoilers… To be fair, I did really appreciate the story choice Yellowstone made with selling the ranch to the Native Americans in the finale. I thought the finale suffered from some overall pacing issues, but I thought the choice to sell the Yellowstone ranch to Thomas Rainwater and his people was smart. If I’m being honest, I genuinely would’ve liked for the show to explore the conflict between the Dutton’s and the Native Americans more throughout the show. It was touched on but not in great detail. If I’m being honest, I think Yellowstone would’ve felt more relevant and probably would’ve packed more of a punch if there was a heavier focus on the Dutton’s and the Native Americans.
I think Yellowstone may have gotten lost in all the spinoffs, which could’ve also led to the initial show eventually losing its way. It also kind of felt like Yellowstone may have tried to milk it out for one or two seasons too many–especially with the behind-the-scenes contract stuff with Kevin Costner and the choice to kill off John Dutton off-screen in the beginning of the final episodes. The show may have benefited from only doing three or four seasons instead of five. Unfortunately, everything just felt kind of messy in the end.
On the other hand, Succession got in, told its story with its unique characters, made its impact and got out with four seasons. The structure of Succession was also perfect. Spoilers, spoilers, spoilers… Logan Roy pimped out Kendall in season one by letting him think he was going to be heir to his throne. Logan pimped out Roman in season two, and Logan pimped out Shiv in season three. Season four wrapped up the story with Logan’s death and eventually gave us the answer to the question on all of our minds throughout the show: who will take over as CEO of Waystar Royco? I think the decision to pass the torch to Tom Wambsgans was great. My takeaway from the decision to make Tom CEO was the creators' way of saying, “while a giant conglomerate may give the illusion that it wants to make systemic changes from a corrupt past, history ultimately repeats, nothing really changes and we accept it as a society.” I think Waystar wants people to think it’s making a change for the better by going with a perceived outsider as its new leader, but with Tom’s ties to Shiv Roy, I’m left asking the question, “will there be that much of a change with how a company that directly affects millions is run?” It’s dark and kind of scary when you view it on a societal level, but I really think that's the brilliance of Succession.
I think Yellowstone may have gotten lost in all the spinoffs, which could’ve also led to the initial show eventually losing its way. It also kind of felt like Yellowstone may have tried to milk it out for one or two seasons too many–especially with the behind-the-scenes contract stuff with Kevin Costner and the choice to kill off John Dutton off-screen in the beginning of the final episodes. The show may have benefited from only doing three or four seasons instead of five. Unfortunately, everything just felt kind of messy in the end.
On the other hand, Succession got in, told its story with its unique characters, made its impact and got out with four seasons. The structure of Succession was also perfect. Spoilers, spoilers, spoilers… Logan Roy pimped out Kendall in season one by letting him think he was going to be heir to his throne. Logan pimped out Roman in season two, and Logan pimped out Shiv in season three. Season four wrapped up the story with Logan’s death and eventually gave us the answer to the question on all of our minds throughout the show: who will take over as CEO of Waystar Royco? I think the decision to pass the torch to Tom Wambsgans was great. My takeaway from the decision to make Tom CEO was the creators' way of saying, “while a giant conglomerate may give the illusion that it wants to make systemic changes from a corrupt past, history ultimately repeats, nothing really changes and we accept it as a society.” I think Waystar wants people to think it’s making a change for the better by going with a perceived outsider as its new leader, but with Tom’s ties to Shiv Roy, I’m left asking the question, “will there be that much of a change with how a company that directly affects millions is run?” It’s dark and kind of scary when you view it on a societal level, but I really think that's the brilliance of Succession.
Source: HBO
In conclusion, both shows had major similarities, but Succession outweighed Yellowstone in quality and impact because of its honesty in showing how messed up its characters were.
RSS Feed