Taylor Sheridan has earned a reputation as one of the most skilled writers in the modern television landscape, thanks to his work on hits like Yellowstone and 1883. His ability to craft gritty, high-stakes narratives set against the backdrop of the American frontier has earned him both critical acclaim and a dedicated fan base. However, his latest project, Landman, has raised some eyebrows. While the show has its merits, one specific narrative choice feels so lazy that it makes even Yellowstone‘s more outlandish plotlines seem well-thought-out in comparison.
In this article, we’ll explore what went wrong with Sheridan’s decision in Landman, why it stands out as a weak spot in an otherwise strong writer’s career, and how it impacts the show as a whole.
The Strong Foundation of Landman
Before diving into what went wrong, let’s acknowledge what Landman gets right. On paper, Landman had all the ingredients for success: complex characters, a gritty setting, and a narrative that explores the world of land deals, corporate greed, and the oil industry. The show features intense conflict, morally ambiguous characters, and the kinds of high-stakes situations Sheridan fans have come to expect from his work.
The story, which centers on the exploitation of land and resources in the American West, is ripe for exploration. Sheridan’s focus on the intersection of power, money, and environment seemed poised to deliver a gripping tale about corporate manipulation and the consequences of unchecked greed. Much like Yellowstone, Landman offered an opportunity to dive deep into the moral gray areas of its characters and explore the personal and societal costs of the pursuit of wealth.
However, despite the strong themes and initial promise, one crucial narrative decision in Landman undermines the entire show. The plot decision in question feels almost like an afterthought, a lazy move that leaves viewers wondering why such a talented writer like Sheridan chose this route.
A Decision That Feels Lazy and Uninspired
So, what exactly went wrong? In Landman, there is a pivotal plot twist that seems to serve as little more than a cheap plot device. The twist is so out of place and poorly executed that it feels like Sheridan was more concerned with surprising the audience than crafting a believable or compelling narrative. It’s a moment that undermines the show’s previous careful buildup and fails to resonate emotionally with viewers.
Instead of leaning into the complexity of the characters and their relationships, Sheridan opts for an easy, clichéd plotline that adds little to the overall story. This decision feels like a missed opportunity to explore the deeper themes of the show. Rather than enhancing the narrative, it feels like a forced attempt at drama that falls flat.
This moment, in essence, is lazy. It’s a narrative shortcut, a plot contrivance that detracts from the show’s otherwise well-crafted themes. And when compared to the meticulous care Sheridan has shown in Yellowstone and other projects, it’s jarring to see such a weak decision take center stage in Landman.
Why Does This Moment Stand Out?
Sheridan is known for his mastery of tension. From the oppressive atmosphere of Yellowstone to the slow-burn suspense in Sicario, his storytelling is usually marked by tight pacing, carefully constructed reveals, and a sense of inevitability. The success of Yellowstone is largely due to the careful buildup of each storyline, where seemingly small actions or decisions snowball into significant consequences. Fans of Sheridan’s work are used to thinking critically about the decisions made by his characters and how these decisions shape the outcome of the story.
In Landman, however, this decision feels out of place. It disrupts the pacing of the show and, more importantly, it undermines the narrative’s integrity. The twist feels like it’s there simply for shock value, with little regard for how it fits into the larger story. It doesn’t add depth to the characters or provide meaningful commentary on the themes of the show. Instead, it feels like a clumsy attempt to create drama, something that’s beneath the standard of writing Sheridan has set in his previous works.
When the twist happens, it’s not just the story that feels forced—it’s the characters. The motivations that drive them become unclear, and the emotional stakes of the story fall flat. Viewers are left questioning why these characters are making decisions that feel out of step with their established personalities and motivations. It’s as if the characters are acting according to the needs of the plot, rather than out of genuine personal or emotional reasons.
Comparing Landman with Yellowstone: A Missed Opportunity
One of the things that makes Yellowstone so compelling is its complex characters and their nuanced decision-making. Even when the show dives into some over-the-top plotlines, the emotional core of the story remains intact. The characters’ choices feel motivated by their individual goals, fears, and desires, rather than dictated by the whims of the plot.
In contrast, the lazy decision in Landman feels like it was designed to move the plot forward without regard for the emotional and logical consistency of the characters. In this sense, it mirrors some of the more outlandish moments from Yellowstone, but without the same level of emotional weight. For instance, while Yellowstone sometimes leans into over-the-top scenarios, the stakes are always clear, and the characters’ actions are grounded in their personalities and motivations. In Landman, however, the twist simply feels like an artificial way to inject drama into a storyline that was already strong enough on its own.
In many ways, Landman suffers from the opposite problem of Yellowstone. While Sheridan often uses the dramatic and sometimes unbelievable moments in Yellowstone to highlight the deeper emotional journeys of the characters, Landman squanders its opportunity to do something similar. The twist in Landman doesn’t feel like it’s building toward anything meaningful, and instead, it undermines the rich narrative groundwork laid out earlier in the show.
The Impact on the Overall Story
At the end of the day, the lazy decision in Landman affects the entire show. The plot twist derails the emotional momentum that had been carefully built up, making it harder for viewers to invest in the characters and their journeys. It also detracts from the show’s central themes, which revolve around the complex relationships between land, power, and morality. Instead of diving deeper into these issues, the twist feels like a shallow way to introduce conflict.
This decision also creates a larger issue for the show: it raises doubts about the quality of the storytelling. When such a major plot point feels like a cheap trick, it becomes harder to trust that the rest of the narrative will hold up. Fans of Taylor Sheridan’s previous works expect more from him, and this lazy decision leaves a bad taste that lingers throughout the rest of the series.
Conclusion: A Missed Opportunity for Sheridan’s Landman
Taylor Sheridan has proven time and time again that he is a master of building tension and creating complex characters and storylines. Yellowstone, Sicario, and Hell or High Water all showcase his ability to craft gripping narratives that keep audiences on the edge of their seats. However, in Landman, one lazy narrative decision feels like a significant misstep.
While the show starts strong with its exploration of land, power, and corporate greed, the plot twist that derails the story leaves much to be desired. It feels lazy, forced, and unearned—qualities that are rare in Sheridan’s work. By relying on this cheap plot device, Landman fails to reach its full potential, leaving viewers disappointed.
Despite this flaw, Landman still offers glimpses of the storytelling brilliance Sheridan is known for. But as it stands, this one decision in the show serves as a reminder that even the best storytellers can sometimes stumble.
