Connect with us
Better Call Saul Better Call Saul

Editorials

Let’s Discuss Better Call Saul Season 6 – The First Half

AMC

Published

on


Better Call Saul is about to begin airing the second half of its final season. I originally intended to use the break as an opportunity to do an all-encompassing review piece on the first half of the season, and was initially excited to put my thoughts to words as I followed each episode week to week.

However, my excitement faded as I followed the social media chatter about the series. Part of what I love about live television is hopping online after the latest episodes and finding other enthusiasts to chat with. I learn a lot from these strangers; sometimes I don’t like a scene that they found engaging, and they help me see what I’m missing, or I find a line of dialogue inoffensive but through another’s perspective, learn that it could have been better. There are always those special episodes that everybody seems to come into agreement on, but on the average week, there are both good and bad things to be discussed.

The recent Better Call Saul discourse has not been like this, at least not from what I experienced for nearly two months. Instead of discussion, I mostly found an odd form of gatekeeping. If someone didn’t like how an episode played out or how a story was going, there seemed to be more attempts at proving the person wrong than there were attempts to see that other point of view and engage with it.

A large portion of the audience has been unsatisfied with some of this final season, and the overwhelming majority of replies I’ve seen has been unbecoming of genuine discussion. Instead, threads critiquing aspects of the show tend to follow with comments like this:

“Not every show needs explosions or action to be interesting.”

“The people complaining are the same people who binged through the show in two weeks so they could watch Better Call Saul cross over with Breaking Bad.”

“Not everyone has the attention span for Better Call Saul’s slower pace. It isn’t Breaking Bad, what did you expect?”

All three of the comments above refuse to engage with any actual criticism of the series. It’s all deflection and subtle jabs at the criticizer that they “just don’t get it.” I’ve been watching Better Call Saul from the beginning. I’ve routinely enjoyed it more than Breaking Bad precisely because of the way it uses relationships to push drama and not violence or explosions. “Chicanery” has stuck with me a good bit more than any Breaking Bad episode. But according to a large portion of Better Call Saul’s fanbase, my opinion can be dismissed because I think Better Call Saul Season 6 has terrible pacing.

Of course, not every discussion is like this, and sometimes if you scour the comments you’ll be able to come across a thread that actually engages with a criticism, but routinely the top comments, and even the top threads in general, reward dismissal of criticism. I’m not sure what has inspired this attitude towards dissenters, perhaps that’s research and an article for another time. Despite all of this, I’m hoping this article will encourage those who disagree with me to engage in a real discussion about both the flaws and successes of Season 6.

Now, time to dive into why Better Call Saul Season 6 has poor pacing.

What is pacing in storytelling? I like to think of pacing as “story momentum.” In general, pacing is a rollercoaster (a tired analogy but still a good one). You want a mix of ups and downs at the right places to maximize the emotional impact of your climax. Too many ups? The climax won’t feel strong enough or will get lost in the haze. Too many downs? The story may feel uneven when it suddenly reaches its climax, and the audience may not feel the story has “earned it.”

However, the rollercoaster ups DO NOT REPRESENT ACTION. They represent major story beats – plot reveals, character twists, emotional payoffs. The downs do not represent a lull in action; they represent areas of your story ripe for world building, exposition, and character development.

With this in mind, slow pacing is NOT poor pacing. I’ll repeat that periodically to try to cut off any reactionary retorts of “it doesn’t need explosions to be good, some of us LIKE taking time with the characters.” Slow paced shows can build tension and dread in unique ways, give us deeper insight into characters’ minds beyond their actions, and provide particularly powerful climaxes thanks to their careful approach to build up and anticipation. This does not, however, mean that every show (or every season) that utilizes a slow pace is automatically good. Season 6 of Better Call Saul, through its first seven episodes, in my opinion, has poor pacing. There are four areas in particular I want to explore to explain this perspective.

I’ll start with the simplest – Lalo Salamanca and Gus. Lalo’s storyline reaches a peak at the end of Season 5 after the Gus’ failed assassination attempt, and this new peak led to some real momentum for Lalo’s Season 6 storyline as he headed out to search for evidence against Gus. How would Lalo react to this new situation, and how will this betrayal affect him?

Lalo was absent from the following episode of the season, which I feel was a great storytelling choice because it let us see how Lalo’s mere continued existence affects Gus. Gus is on high alert, fearful that Lalo is coming after him, showing us a slightly different side of Gus, and this works. It provides a small lull from the momentum while keeping Lalo’s plot dangling in the mirror, giving the story a sense of weight and inevitability.

But then Lalo remains absent, and Gus remains fearful. There are no further character aspects being explored for several episodes.  This isn’t “slow pacing,” this is a halt. The rollercoaster has stopped because the characters have stopped. No progress is made in Gus’ or Lalo’s stories.

Some may say that Gus hiding a gun in the lab or Lalo discovering the lab’s existence is story progress, but I disagree – it’s plot. We already know Gus is paranoid and prepared, and while it is essential that we see Gus hiding the gun in the lab (or at least, I assume it’s essential, but only time will tell), it doesn’t actually move the story of Gus’ paranoia or fear forward. It’s not bad that we see this plot develop, but what did we learn about Gus through this plot that was new? Why couldn’t this have happened in the same timeframe that we saw Gus’ paranoia earlier in the season? Or perhaps an alternate version where we actually focus in on how Gus’ fear of Lalo is affecting his work at Los Pollos Hermanos, and therefore threatening his cover? That would have been something new, a new storyline that doesn’t move the plot forward at all, and would maintain the wonderful slow pace the show can excel at.

Lalo’s storyline suffers in the same way. When Lalo finally reappears in Germany, nothing new has been learned about him since he disappeared. The plot moves along and he finds a clue to lead him to the lab, but his interrogation of Werner’s man Casper? Absolutely useless in terms of the story. The audience gains nothing from seeing Lalo interact with Casper. The episode doesn’t even show the interrogation; the show just assumes in the next episode that the audience will believe Lalo got what information he needed – which already could have been assumed when Lalo found Werner’s ruler.

Perhaps one would argue that by showing Lalo’s journey, it legitimizes the lengths he’s willing to go to take down Gus, and it leaves us without the ability to question how he discovered the lab (remember when Bruce Wayne suddenly got back to Gotham in The Dark Knight Rises with no explanation and everyone talked about it for years?). Showing Lalo go after Casper avoids that pitfall. However, I disagree that this is necessary in this scenario. I’m happy to hear a counterpoint, but for me, the hunt for Casper is just an extra, action-packed episode of material that doesn’t materialize into something new, and to reiterate, pace-wise it doesn’t matter that Lalo gets an action scene here because action scenes are not necessarily story momentum. (Also, now that I’m thinking of it, Lalo totally pulls a Bruce Wayne and just randomly gets to Germany and back with no explanation as to how, so why is that information unnecessary but the Casper stuff is???).

Next is Mike, and this one is short and sweet. Why oh why oh why are we seeing Mike watch over his granddaughter and make small cutesy talk with her about stars? We have seen sweet scene after sweet scene of Mike and his family – is there really nothing else to this man? Why is this repeated? I wish the pace of Nacho’s storyline at the start of the season would have been slower, as extending his time even just one more episode might have provided Mike with a bit more to work with. Perhaps then we could have avoided this retread, as scenes that provide us information we already know halt the beautiful slow burn Better Call Saul has provided.

On the other hand, Howard’s scenes halt the momentum to show us information we DON’T need, and unnecessary information can be just as damaging to your pace as repeated information. When Howard’s wife snubs his crafted-with-love latte, I felt a huge wave of disappointment. All I saw from that scene was an over-the-top attempt at garnering Howard some sympathy before his demise. It was clear and shameless audience manipulation, and I am comfortable committing to this stance because of the lack of context. We don’t actually know enough about Howard’s situation for this sympathy to be gained naturally, so the scene has to go out of its way to tell us how we should feel. Howard’s wife snubs him, but what if Howard was a huge jerk to her? What if she is dismissing him this way because of something awful she did? How can I feel bad for Howard without knowing what exactly happened?

This took me out of the story because the scene was so meticulously designed to garner sympathy for the man without doing any of the real work to set Howard up to earn it in this context. Howard has earned enough sympathy through the rest of the show already – we don’t NEED more, and if the writers felt Howard needed more then they should have worked Howard’s personal life into the story more naturally in the past. Remember when Howard was devastated from Chuck’s death in Season 4? That was great! New facets of the man were revealed while complicating his relationship with Jimmy. It pushed him forward to make specific decisions, and continues to influence his perspective on things (even being alluded to in his final scene). Does the reveal of a failing marriage do any of that for Howard? What does it accomplish?

What particularly bothers me about this is that the show had a perfect opportunity to have its cake and eat it, too, without resorting to blatant audience manipulation. Part of what makes Howard’s demise so harsh and affecting is Jimmy and Kim’s lack of foresight. They never considered anything beyond their personal perspective regarding Howard, and I feel the reveal would have worked much better (and more naturally) if we learned about his marriage issues at the same time Jimmy and Kim did. Giving the audience secret insight into Howard’s life that Jimmy and Kim didn’t have undercut the moment he told them, because we can’t react alongside Jimmy and Kim. We also would only have had Howard’s perspective to rely on, with no risk of being influenced by a wife who is so incredibly detached from her husband that the only explanations are that she’s totally heartless or Howard did something to deserve it.

Perhaps she’ll be important moving forward, and the real purpose of the scene was to establish that Howard’s wife now knows about Jimmy’s involvement, but throwing this scene in just for sympathy and establishing future plot-points is closer to strapping on the seatbelt than it is to moving smoothly around a couple of turns. It’s clunky, and while potentially establishing plot, the scene of Howard’s failing marriage does nothing to change his character and does little to shift audience perspective of him in a way that couldn’t have been accomplished just as effectively, if not more effectively, with less scenes dedicated to it. And who knows, maybe those scenes could have been used to give Mike a slow, character based scene that doesn’t involve loving his granddaughter.

And finally…the scheme. The plot of Jimmy and Kim’s scheme is fine (if personally a bit uninteresting to me, which isn’t a flaw), but the execution fails in two ways that hurt the pace of the season.

First, and a clear running theme of the season – Jimmy and Kim do not develop much as characters during each of the meticulous steps of the scheme that we see. Sometimes a lack of development can be good pacing, such as in Season 4, where Jimmy’s lack of development is the point of the story. That isn’t the point of the Season 6 story, though, and Jimmy and Kim’s characters stand still for multiple episodes while the scheme is being put into action. For those who feel that seeing all of these actions take place over multiple episodes (instead of one or two) serves the story, I ask which parts of these characters changed or grew during these scenes? What character attributes that may be examined moving forward (such as their arrogance) are being reinforced in a way that could only be achieved by seeing so many steps over so many episodes?

Second, the scheme is hidden from the audience. I can see why this decision was made, particularly after hearing from those involved with the show that they feel, “[If the plan goes wrong, you should explain it first. If it goes right, you don’t need to.]” I agree with this theory to an extent, but each story is different and requires different approaches. In this case, because the scheme against Howard lasts for so long, the lack of information ends up creating a lack of tension, and tension is particularly important to maintain when telling a slow-burn story like this.

If we don’t know what the plan is, we don’t know what needs to go right nor what can go wrong. This can be fun and beneficial at first, as trying to get the audience to piece together the scheme is a great way to increase engagement. Personally, I’ve never been all that into figuring out plots like this, as I’m more interested in how plots affect the people involved. Not knowing what can go wrong leaves me guessing at what’s happening instead of feeling dread or panic with the characters, and as the story continues with no clear sense of stakes, trying to piece the puzzle together just isn’t enough. Eventually, it passes the point of intrigue in not knowing what can go wrong because we don’t even know what happens when things go wrong. What will the consequences to Jimmy and Kim be if they fail? Will they end up in prison? Get someone hurt? What are the stakes? Without these stakes, there is little story within this plot. We have Jimmy reluctantly asking Kim about the plan, Kim’s amazing question to Jimmy, “You think we’re wicked?”and then a long halt before Kim eventually turns her car around.

And Kim turning around and abandoning all pretenses that she’s doing any of this for the greater good – excellent. Kim and Jimmy literally getting off to Howard’s demise (one of the grossest things I’ve ever seen) – excellent. The result of this scheme is one of my favorite stories the series has ever told, and it seems most fans agree. In fact, I saw a ton of posts from both sides praising the climax of the story.

And yet, of course, I saw lots of posts about how all the naysayers were wrong and this is what happens when you trust the show. I disagree. Better Call Saul did not justify its pacing choices with the the mid-season finale, and therefore, the pacing issues in the first half of the season remain. How you get somewhere matters just as much as where you end up, and I fully believe the first six episodes could have built to this climax even better than it did.

Not everyone agrees, but a lot of people do; many who are fans of the slow-paced, character based show that is Better Call Saul and are trying to hold the series up to the standards they personally feel it isn’t meeting. The first half of Season 6 is poorly paced. Disagree with me, argue with me, and let’s discuss, because I love Better Call Saul.

 

(P.S. Despite the disappointing discussion surrounding Better Call Saul, the memes have been absolutely top tier. I haven’t seen so many creative and uniquely specific killer jokes about a series since the 00’s.)


Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Only Murders in the Building

Only Murders in the Building Season 2 – Who is the Killer? We’re Logging Every Clue on the Murder Board

Published

on

Who Is the Killer on 'Only Murders in the Building' Season 2?

Only Murders in the Building season 2 carries the torch of the first season, putting a unique spin on the murder mystery genre.

The killer, who is most likely also the person framing Mabel, Charles, and Oliver (who are all persons of interest) likely won’t be revealed until the final episode, but we’re creating an online murder board to keep track of all suspects and possible clues hinting at this person’s identity.

Join us — and the characters who attempt to solve the whodunnit on their podcast via new weekly episodes that air every Tuesday on Hulu– as we theorize who is responsible for the latest murder at the Arconia!

*Cue the theme song*

 

Victim: Bunny Folger

Her Last Words: 14 and Savage

Cause of Death: 8 stabs wounds

Murder Weapon: A knife that was found in Charles’ apartment and a knitting needle

Place of Death: Mabel’s apartment

 

 

Possible Suspects

 

Alice Banks

Played by Cara Delevigne, Alice slides into Mabel’s DM’s shortly after she lands the front page of the tabloids as “Bloody Mabel.” The art artist collective owner invites Mabel to a gallery opening in an attempt to cozy up to her and get her to open up. Maybe she just sees past Mabel’s flaws, but considering the whole mystery hinges on a missing painting by the artist Rose Cooper (who also died a mysterious death), we simply cannot rule it out. Maybe she wants the painting… maybe she wants Mabel. Honestly, maybe Rose was Alice’s mom who was murdered by Charles’ dad, her lover, and Alice is trying to get revenge on him by getting close to Mabel.

Alice admits that she’s been lying about her rich upbringing, so it begs the question — what else is she lying about? And when Mabel sees her reenacting Bunny’s murder in the name of “art,” it definitely comes off as obsessive, even if she isn’t the killer. 

 

Amy Schumer

Amy Schumer is playing an exaggerated version of herself who just moved into Sting’s former penthouse. She’s a fan of the podcast — almost to an obsessive point — who wants the rights to it so she can turn it into a streaming service series and channel her inner Jan. You need a murder mystery in order to have a successful podcast… and then a show, I’m just saying. Plus, I have to believe that there’s a reason the series included her character! 

 

Uma Heller

I’m sorry to do this to you Uma, but there’s no one that knew Bunny better than her best friend. She not only knew about the painting, but she knew its worth. Maybe jealousy got the best of her?

 

Nina Lin

We don’t know much about Nina other than the fact that she’s the New Board President. Howard says she has wanted the gig for a long time, which gives her motive. And he also warned the trio not to be fooled by her “maternal glow,” comparing her vibe to Rosemary’s Baby instead.

We learn a bit more about Nina in the third episode as she gets into a heated altercation with Bunny. Nina and Bunny seemed to be on good terms with the former training the latter and passing on her Board President wisdom and duties. Nina seemed like a star pupil worthy of taking on the title, but when Bunny suddenly had a change of heart during her “retirement party,” things got pretty ugly between the women. Nina told Bunny the only reason she was Board President was because of her mother. She called her a “selfish, self-important, stuck in the past relic,” which is, well, harsh. When Bunny told the “power-hungry baby bumpy bitch” that she wouldn’t let her “get away with this,” Nina seemingly threatened back with “I won’t let you stop me.” The altercation happened mere hours before Bunny was accosted in her home.

On the fourth episode, we find out that Nina was hoping to modernize the Arconia with some kind of space pod, a plan Bunny would never agree to. However, when she goes into labor later in the episode, she mourns Bunny’s death hoping that she was around to meet her future child. She then tells Charles to find the murderer and give her a few minutes alone with them! There’s always the possibility that she’s acting, but a woman in labor strikes me as someone who will tell the truth. 

 

Jarred

Nina’s baby daddy is kind of at the top of our list of suspects. He has a stake in modernizing the Arconia, he gains from removing Bunny and making Nina the Board President, and he would have all the blueprints to the Arconia, which means there’s a possibility he knew about the tunnels. 

He also seems to come from wealth, so there’s a chance he could’ve been an art fanatic and wanted the artwork from Bunny. Who knows, maybe he was even Bunny’s secret child who came back to get what was his and when she refused, he decided to kill her.

 

Leonora Folger

Killing your own daughter is certainly cruel, but crazier things have happened. Leonora wasn’t really phased by her daughter’s passing, but she was very interested in finding her painting. She even came with the original bill of sale in order to retrieve her prized possession. Yes, she’s technically blind and can’t cut a piece of cheese to save her life, but it could’ve all been an act. And there’s also the whole affair with Charles’ father that she casually mentioned after informing Charles that she knew exactly who he was this whole time. She clearly knows way more than she’s leading on. 

 

Cinda Canning

If she’s devious enough to blatantly steal a podcast, she’s not above murder. A murder suspect has to benefit from the crime, and Cinda sure does! By giving the Arconia another murder victim, she deepens the mystery and secures herself a compelling season.

 

Ursula

I don’t ever want to think badly of Ursula, but she was really suspicious when angrily throwing out a random box of documents and looking around to make sure there weren’t any witnesses. What’s she trying to hide? This couldn’t have been a routine dump.

 

Rose Cooper

Yes, she supposedly went missing in the ’50s and is believed to be dead, but no one ever found a body. There could be so many unknown twists and turns about her identity that we have yet to discover. What’s her true connection to all of this? Or is Rose Cooper actually Leonora?

 

Oscar

Mabel’s sort-of ex. What happened to him? Why are they moments away from the friend zone? Are we to just believe the streamer couldn’t get him back this season, or is there another reason he’s staying away… I don’t know, maybe like framing your girlfriend and her friends for murder?

 

Oliver

While I don’t actually think that Oliver has what it takes to kill Bunny, the truth is that he had a deep hate for her, at one point even calling her a witch. Furthermore, he did mention that Bunny would “die at the Arconia,” so he’s slightly suspicious. It could also be why he’s gunning for the team to revitalize the podcast and clear their names. Of course, he was also on the rooftop celebrating his podcast success with Mabel and Charles, so the odds of him being the killer are slim.

 

Lester

Bunny was a lot to handle, so it’s safe to say that as Board President, she harped on Lester quite a lot. We saw a brief scene where she called him “useless” as she belittled his work ethic and even said she would have him fired. 

 

Howard

Howard is a longtime Arconia resident who could definitely know about the secret passages. He strikes me as an allergy sufferer, and Lucy, who laid eyes on the hooded killer recalled them sneezing as they made their getaway through the tunnels. Howard also tried to divert attention to Nina by saying she has a violent streak and explaining that she will “cut a b**ch.” It’s possible that he’s the brains behind the whole operation because he wanted to get rid of Bunny.

 

Detective Kreps

We know one thing for sure — he’s definitely Glitter Man. Okay, maybe we’re not certain of it, but the glitter on his neck seems to indicate as much, though, it’s possible he also just came into contact with the Glitter Man. Either way, GM seems to be working with the killer, so this puts a huge question mark above Kreps, a man we’re supposed to be able to trust. Shady law enforcement, who would have thought? Who is Kreps working for? Why? And why did he want Bunny killed/Mabel, Charles, and Oliver framed? 

 

Jonathan

The new sub-letter on Howard’s floor arrives at a questionable time. We also find out that he’s allergic to Howard’s cat as he experiences a sneezing fit. Is it possible that he’s the murderer even if he wasn’t the one chasing Lucy through the secret tunnel during the blackout. We can’t rule him out just yet. 

 

READ ALSO:

Only Murders in the Building Season 2 Premiere Review – Bloody Mabel

Only Murders in the Building Review – Framed (2×02)

Only Murders in the Building Review – The Last Day of Bunny Folger (2×03)

Only Murders in the Building Review – Here’s Looking At You (2×04)


Continue Reading

Hulu

Internet Reacts to ‘Prey,’ Hulu’s Most-Watched Movie

Published

on

Internet Reacts to Hulu's Hit Movie 'Prey'

Hulu’s new action-thriller, Prey, a prequel to Predator, has been deemed a breakout hit.

The film starring Roswell, New Mexico’s Amber Midthunder as Naru is set in the world of the Comanche Nation 300 years ago, centuries prior to the 1987 original film. 

Naru is a fierce warrior who “has been raised in the shadow of some of the most legendary hunters who roam the Great Plains.”

When danger lurks nearby, she aims to protect her people from the prey that ends up being an evolved alien predator.

People have loved the film so much, that according to Variety, it’s Hulu’s most viewed project — among TV and movies — logging the most viewing hours ever in the first three days.

Disney opted to forgo a theatrical release, choosing a streaming release on August 5, but based on the reviews and comments from fans, they may want to rethink that strategy. Turns out, plenty of viewers would pay to watch it on the big-screen again… it was that good!

Here’s what the internet is saying about it:

https://twitter.com/bloodybluntspod/status/1555746536318832640?s=20&t=I8Q6M2O5PACyPujOLqcY8A

https://twitter.com/nightwaynes/status/1555756197755641856?s=20&t=I8Q6M2O5PACyPujOLqcY8A

https://twitter.com/DDNumeroUno/status/1555381320003358725?s=20&t=I8Q6M2O5PACyPujOLqcY8A


Continue Reading

Big Sky

Everything We Know About ‘Big Sky’ Season 3

Published

on

Everything We Know About Big Sky Seas 3

ABC’s Big Sky was a breakout hit when it first premiered in 2020, but since then, it’s become a fan-favorite drama as we follow the brilliant detective work and crime solving of Jenny Hoyt (Katherine Winnick) and Cassie Dewell (Kylie Bunbury). 

The serial has found success with its mystery-of-the-season format. It’s not entirely a procedural, but adding a new case each season allows the series to capitalize on the familiarity of old characters while enticing fans with brand-new cases and a rotating cast of players that bring mischief and chaos to the otherwise picturesque town. 

Season 3, specifically, is getting quite an upgrade with some heavy Hollywood hitters! 

And as the premiere date inches closer, we’re breaking down everything there is to know about Big Sky Season 3.

 

What Will the Show Be Titled?

Big Sky is being dubbed Big Sky: Deadly Trails to reflect the season’s theme! 

 

Who Will Appear on Big Sky Season 3?

The season will see the regular cast return.

  • Katheryn Winnick as Jenny Hoyt, an ex-cop turned deputy detective
  • Kylie Bunbury as Cassie Dewell, the private detective running the show at Dewell & Hoyt investigation agency
  • Dedee Pfeiffer as Denise Brisbane, an employee of D&H that provides comedic relief mostly 
  • Jesse James Keitel as Jerrie, an employee of D&H and Ronald Pergman’s previous victim
  • Omar Metwally as Mark Lindor, a deputy marshal and Cassie’s significant other
  • J. Anthony Pena as Deputy Poppernak, Jenny’s partner in the sheriff’s office who also serves as the right-hand/comedic relief. He was upped to series regular this season
  • Jamie-Lynn Sigler as Tonya, a local waitress-turned-crime associate (and Ren’s right-hand woman) who has been upped to series regular this season

Possibly returning:

  • Logan Marshall-Green as Travis Stone, Jenny’s on-again-off-again working undercover to avenge his former lover
  • Janina Gavankar as Ren Bhullar, the daughter of a drug lord who is expanding business into Montana. Her storyline wrapped up but it’s possible she’ll be around considering Jamie-Lynn Sigler was upper to series regular for the season
  • Anja Savcic as Scarlet Leyendecker, Ronald Pergman’s girlfriend who did the right thing by giving Phoebe over. Her storyline felt wrapped up, but Scarlet has a way of popping up again and again as a recurring mystery
Big Sky Season Finale Review Catch a Few Fish Season 2 Episode 18

BIG SKY – ÒCatch a Few FishÓ Ð In a struggle between head and heart, final resolutions are made as Jenny works to find Travis before he reaches a dangerous point of no return; meanwhile, Ren and Jag find a new familial bond and decide together how to handle their father now that heÕs crossed a serious line. After receiving a startling surprise from Scarlett, Cassie changes the course of her quest for justice forever. Later, with Tubb out of commission for the time being, a new sheriff comes to town; and after getting fully acquainted with Cassie and Jenny, it seems like he may just stick around for a while É on the season two finale of ÒBig Sky,Ó THURSDAY, MAY 19 (10:01-11:00 p.m. EDT), on ABC. (ABC/Anna Kooris)
KATHERYN WINNICK, JENSEN ACKLES

Any New Faces Coming to Town?

Helena, Montana definitely seems like a popular place to spend your time as this season will welcome some famous stars who will be involved in the deadly new mystery occupying Jenny and Cassie’s time.

 

Reba McEntire as Sunny Barnes,  a “successful backcountry outfitter with a secret history of missing customers.”

Jensen Ackles as Beau, the freshly appointed sheriff after sheriff Tubbs’ shooting. We met him in the Big Sky Season 2 finale

Henry Ian Cusack as a tech exec named Avery

Luke Mitchell as play Sunny’s son Cormac

Anirudh Pisharody comes on vacation from New York with his girlfriend looking for a wilderness adventure

Madalyn Horcher the other half of the young couple from NY looking for a good time in the wild

Seth Gabel as Walter, a recluse living in the woods

Rosanna Arquette as Virginia “Gigi” Cessna, Jenny Hoy’s charismatic and fast-talking mother. “She’s a world-class scam artist who used childhood Jenny in her grifts, much to present-day Jenny’s resentment. Gigi has an uncanny ability to charm her way into people’s lives and then disappear without a trace. When she returns to Helena to pull her latest con, Jenny catches onto her and mother-daughter must work through their difficult relationship.”

 

What Can We Expect?

The official description via the ABC press site notes: Reba McEntire and Jensen Ackles step into the world of “Big Sky” on its new night, bringing with them a new mystery to unravel as the mercurial matriarch of an established local family and the new sheriff in town, respectively.

 

Big Sky Season 3 Trailer

 

When Does Big Sky Season 3 Premiere?

The crime thriller will be moving to a new night — Wednesday. It will premiere on September 21, 2022 at 10 p.m. ET on ABC. 

 


Continue Reading

Trending