After 1923's Season 2 Finale, I Can't Stop Thinking About A 1944 Theory I Have About Elizabeth And The Dutton Family
After not getting confirmation about the Dutton family tree in 1923, I've been thinking a lot about why. This has led to a whole bunch of theorizing on my end, and I've come to the conclusion that this lack of verification comes down to the role Michelle Randolph's Elizabeth could play in the upcoming Yellowstone show, 1944.
Now, before we get into this theory, let's get the facts straight first. In the penultimate episode of 1923's second season, Jack Dutton died, making Elizabeth a widow. She, as far as we know, is also pregnant. So, when she left the Dutton ranch in the Season 2 finale, she was single and with child. Therefore, the door is open when it comes to the role she and her kid will play in the Dutton lineage and the ongoing mystery about which couple from this show are the grandparents of Kevin Costner's John Dutton.
So, I – like the naive viewer I was – had assumed that Alex naming her baby John right before her death was confirmation that she and Spencer were the grandparents of Yellowstone's John Dutton. However, three of the four 1923 cast members involved in this mystery basically told me, 'Not so fast.'
Michelle Randolph specifically told me 'confidently' that this birth didn't confirm anything. In an interview with CinemaBlend, she said:
Is the door is still open? I don't know. And so, like, you can't confirm then, like, it could go either way. I feel like everyone has their own theory, but I can confidently say that it's not confirmed.
This statement led me to think two things:
Elizabeth could also name her baby John, after Jack's dad.
Elizabeth could return to the Yellowstone with her kid in 1944.
While it feels a bit silly for two babies who are born around the same time in the same family to be named John, it's not illogical. Spencer and Elizabeth have deep connections to John (he was Spencer's brother and Elizabeth's father-in-law), so it'd make sense for them to both want to use his name.
Also, Elizabeth didn't have her baby in Montana (as far as we know); she left before that could happen. Therefore, it's plausible that she never thought she'd come back and then decided to name her son John, seeing as the likelihood of her kid meeting Spencer and Alex's kid would be low.
Now, with this door about lineage still wide open, I think Elizabeth could return to the ranch with her child, meaning there could be two Johns. Maybe she is passionate about them learning where their father came from. Maybe she wants them to be connected to the Duttons. Maybe she wants them to fight for their right to the ranch.
All or none of that could happen. However, I do think it's possible that Randolph's character could return in 1944 with her kid named John to play a pivotal role in the Yellowstone's future.
So, we have the wrinkle that Elizabeth could return to the ranch with her John. However, I think it could get more complex than that. At the end of 1923 (which you can stream with a Paramount+ subscription), Elsa's voiceover tells us exactly how Spencer lived out the rest of his life after Alex died.
Specifically, she mentioned that he never remarried, but he had another child with a fellow widow, explaining:
Spencer never remarried. Took the comfort of a widow, made another boy, refused to marry her. Then, one day, the widow was gone.
Now, again, Elizabeth having a baby with Spencer feels unlikely.
However, think about it for a second. Elizabeth is really the only person who could possibly understand what Spencer went through, and they both faced insurmountable loss at the end of Season 2. It's possible they simply decided to be together out of comfort and convenience, not love. Maybe they make a choice to raise their kids together, but it ultimately doesn't work out.
That would also put another Dutton in the next generation who has a claim to the land, and it adds an interesting level of complexity to the family tree. And that, my friends, is what leads me to the wildest part of this theory about Elizabeth.
I'm of the opinion that it'd be epic if 1944 focused on a conflict within the family instead of the Duttons dealing with an outside adversary. While I realize that Jamie made this kind of civil war-like conflict present in Yellowstone, there was always also an outside source working even harder to take the family down. In this new show, I want it to be fully Dutton vs. Dutton, and I think Elizabeth is the key to making this happen.
I think it's totally possible she'll come back with her son (who would likely be in his 20s in 1944), and they'll want the land that Jack died protecting. If her child is indeed named John, I think this kind of conflict would become even more likely, seeing as one of them will have to become the sole patriarch who eventually passes down the land to Kevin Costner's John.
Also, if there are three kids in the mix, all of whom have a claim to the land, it'd be fascinating to see how they pick who gets it. If my theory about the widow being Elizabeth is right, that adds even more reason for tension, because she will disappear at some point.
On top of all that, there was a line said by Jacob right before Spencer killed Whitfield in the Season 2 finale that seemed to imply that tourism or outside business would not be an issue for the Duttons for at least a generation. He said:
I plan on making such an example of you that it will be 50 years before one of your kind dares to enter this valley again.
So, if that's true, what kind of enemy could they possibly face? Someone within the family seems like a great answer.
Overall, I think Elizabeth coming back and either her or her kid/kids trying to stake claim on the land against Spencer and Alex's son would be a great concept for a TV show. It'd also be a fascinating continuation of 1923 that bridges the gap between that generation of Duttons and Yellowstone's.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
3 hours ago
- New York Times
A Letter to the Future
A few weeks ago, a reader of The Morning told me about a project she runs wherein people write letters to their future selves and send them to her. Five years later, she mails the letters back to them. She recently opened her own letter from 2020, written during lockdown, and was struck by how much she and the world had changed. A transmission across the years from younger you to older you: What would you say? What feels essential to report from this moment in time, about your life and the world? There's this scene in the 1992 Nora Ephron movie 'This Is My Life,' in which Julie Kavner, playing a mother, says goodbye to her young daughters before going on a trip. She gives them journals, encouraging them to take notes instead of writing letters. 'Letter writing is ridiculous,' she says. 'Nothing ever arrives within a week, and someone else ends up with what you should have: a record of your life.' I wondered, as I considered writing a letter to future me, why not just keep a journal and look back on what I've written five years from now? A letter is different from a journal entry, I reasoned. In a letter, you address another person. You're making sure your thoughts are legible to them, explaining things that you wouldn't need to explain to your journal. And a journal — or at least my journal — tends to be an exercise in immediacy, a way of getting down what happened today, what's on my mind in this instant. In a letter that attempted to capture my experience of being alive right now, I'd pull back, take a wide view and present the situation as more of an offering than a regurgitation. I'd try to convey something essential about who I am, what I believe and hold dear. I recall an assignment in sixth grade in which we were directed to make a list of 100 things we hoped to accomplish before we graduated high school. Our teacher promised to send them to us when we turned 18. I never received mine and have often wondered what I wrote. (I can only recollect that I put down that I wanted to dance with Patrick Swayze, and I believe I copied that lofty aspiration from my friend Tracy. Neither of us accomplished this.) I know that I would have feared that me at 18 would find me at 11 babyish. There's that same type of fear in writing to me five years from now: I want me in 2030 to look back and think my priorities and preoccupations worthwhile. I'm an adult now, and I want to believe that the gist of who I am is to some extent indelible, not so different from who I will be in the future, but there's a small part of me that hopes that future me is going to be wiser and more evolved, and it makes me almost embarrassed to be me today. My friend Sara writes a letter to herself every year on her birthday, but she doesn't open them. I asked her for advice. 'I tend to kind of graze over various areas of my life, internal and external,' she said. 'Who did I hang out with? Who did I wish I spent more time with? What was my favorite beverage? What smell couldn't I get enough of? What made me really sad? What lit me up?' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
We've finally got a look at Blade's abilities after 162 days of waiting, and players have immediately connected the dots—'Oh, his ult is just Vergil'
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. It's finally time. After 162 days, Marvel Rivals has revealed Blade's abilities and ultimate, and it's certainly worth the wait. The second hero to join in Season 3, Blade will add one more hero to the Duelist roster alongside Phoenix. Blade's character reveal trailer shows just how scary this Duelist is going to be. With his titanium sword, Blade can both deflect incoming projectile damage and even some abilities like Mantis' sleep dart, and then perform a rapid "slice and dice" attack on enemies once he's closed the distance. Watching Blade literally slice through the competition, chewing up enemies and spitting them out in seconds, is absolutely terrifying. I always joke that any new character joining Marvel Rivals will be busted just because of NetEase's approach of releasing first and balancing later. But seeing Blade kill Luna Snow and Hela in seconds brings home just how strong this new hero is going to be. And that's not even taking into account his ultimate ability, A Thousand Cuts. When it comes to using his ultimate, it looks like Blade can leap into the sky or just dash across the ground and leave a trail of red cuts in his path that will slice apart any enemy left in its wake in seconds. When I first saw it, I thought, "oh god, that looks like Morgott's cursed-blood slice attack," but I have been playing way too much Elden Ring Nightreign recently. Others, however, too, one look at it and sat up in their chairs pointing and whistling at the screen, "Oh, his ult is just Vergil." marvelrivals from r/marvelrivals/comments/1mdefdr/bury_the_light_deep_within A Thousand Cuts isn't just Blade's ultimate—it also resembles an attack Vergil can do with the Yamato sword in Devil May Cry, which also has the term A Thousand Cuts as its description. And Blade's attack looks just as cool as Vergil's, so cool in fact that many players—myself included—have accepted that we're never going to get a chance to play Blade because of how popular he'll likely be. "I'm never going to get to play Blade, am I?" RapperwithNumberName says. "At least he looks sick as hell." Blade is a long-awaited vampire hunter, acidic blade-wielding badass with an aggressive kit, deathly cool ultimate, and oh yeah, he's a Duelist, the most popular class in Marvel Rivals. So, best of luck to everyone wanting to try this new hero out when he releases on August 8—you'll need it.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Gearbox's Randy Pitchford celebrates Borderlands 4 going gold by explaining what that means: "The moment we're done is about as monumental as anything we experience in our lives"
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Borderlands 4 has officially gone gold, Gearbox has announced, and just in case you don't know exactly what that means, let studio head Randy Pitchford put his reading glasses on, lean back in his creaky wooden rocking chair, and tell you the origin story behind the phrase. Alternatively, if you're short on time, I can just tell you real quick: it means the game's done, theoretically anyway. These days, developers continue working on games up to and through release, fixing bugs and working on future content releases. But, essentially, it means Gearbox has a master copy of the game that's, again theoretically, ready for launch. Back in the days of the disc, though, things were different. "For videogame development, where a lot of emotion and creativity from a group of hardcore devs working together on a team, the moment we're done is about as monumental as anything we experience in our lives," Pitchford said, prefacing a tweet thread with some insights into the process of securing that coveted gold certification clearing the way for launch. "So, when is the exact *moment* that a video game is 'done'?" As Pitchford explained, back when games were still only released on physical discs and sold in stores, but recent enough that information largely traveled via the internet instead of magazines and retail endcaps, devs would send those physical discs often by mail to press, tech companies, and most importantly, first-party hardware companies like PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo for certification. "When we were ready, we'd submit a build of the game as a candidate to be the 'final' version," Pitchford said. "The 1st party would receive the game and make master discs that they would run through their tests and, hopefully, approve it for licensing and manufacturing. "When the first parties approved the build, they would create a new master copy of that software to be sent to the physical media manufacturer to be replicated onto the discs that would be packaged and sold to customers," Pitchford said. "Those master discs were literally gold colored." So there you have it. In case you hadn't already heard the origin story a thousand times, the phrase "gone gold" is from back in the day when there were actual gold-colored discs. Thanks, Randy. "Today, the process doesn't involve burning builds onto gold colored discs the way it once did," he added. "But, we still use the term 'gone gold' to describe the *moment* the game is finished. Today 'Gone Gold' means that the video game has been approved for launch on all platforms." Borderlands 4 boss confirms "there will be a download, even for physical copies" on Switch 2, which will "mostly" run at 30 FPS "with some dips"
