The world Taylor Sheridan built—from Yellowstone to 1883, Mayor of Kingstown, and beyond—is facing its most critical test yet. And that test arrives in the form of Landman Season 2. As the highly anticipated second chapter looms, the buzz is not about the plot twists or the oil-soaked drama—it’s about a glaring absence and what it means for the series and the larger Sheridan universe.

Jon Hamm, who played the morally ambiguous Monty, is out. And with his exit, Landman is no longer just a show finding its footing—it’s a series teetering at a crossroads. Can it hold on to its soul without the character who anchored its entire emotional weight? Can Sheridan’s increasingly crowded creative empire still deliver when key players disappear without a trace?

Let’s drill deeper—because the absence of Monty is just the tip of the well.

The Sheridan Empire: Growth or Implosion?

Taylor Sheridan once seemed like a creative force of nature—his scripts sharp, his vision clear, and his shows consistently gripping. From the sweeping family saga of Yellowstone to the gritty frontier journey of 1883, Sheridan delivered a brand of storytelling that was intense, character-driven, and emotionally resonant.

But now, the very empire that made him a household name is beginning to show signs of fatigue.

Sheridan has prided himself on writing every episode of his shows, maintaining total creative control. Yet, as more series stack up on his slate—1923, Special Ops: Lioness, Lawmen: Bass Reeves, Landman, and still more to come—the cracks in that control are showing. Production delays, recastings, and tonal inconsistencies are becoming too frequent to ignore.

And Landman Season 2 might be the biggest red flag of them all.

From Maverick Vision to Corporate Machine?

Landman wasn’t just another Sheridan spin-off. It was meant to be something bolder—a grounded exploration of power, greed, and consequence set not on horseback but in the oil fields of West Texas. It was gritty, fresh, and promised to dig into real-world issues rather than mythologized ranch dynasties.

But as Season 2 approaches, it feels like Landman is losing its edge—and fast. With Hamm gone and familiar character tropes creeping back in, fans are beginning to ask the hard questions: Is Landman becoming just another cog in the expanding Sheridan machine?

There’s a troubling pattern emerging across Sheridan’s projects—recycled dialogue, predictable brooding men, slow-burn betrayals with familiar beats. What once felt like signature style now borders on self-parody. And Landman risks blending in, rather than standing out, if it doesn’t carve its own path soon.

Jon Hamm’s Exit: A Silent Earthquake

Let’s not sugarcoat it—Jon Hamm’s portrayal of Monty was Landman’s secret weapon. He wasn’t flashy or overly dramatic, but his presence grounded the chaos. Monty was quiet tension personified, delivering gravitas and mystery in equal measure. His character hinted at layers still to be revealed, conspiracies brewing beneath the surface, and a storm waiting to be unleashed.

Now he’s gone. And worse? No explanation, no send-off, not even a whisper of resolution.

Was this a bold narrative decision—or lazy writing? Fans are left in the dark, wondering if the writers simply dropped the storyline or miscalculated their emotional investment. Either way, the silence is deafening.

Monty mattered. He wasn’t a background character—he was the show’s pulse. His absence without narrative consequence risks more than just disappointment. It threatens to unravel the fragile emotional momentum Landman had been building since episode one.

Moore & Elliott: Can Star Power Save the Day?

Enter: Demi Moore and Sam Elliott. Two legends with undeniable presence. On paper, their arrival in Season 2 should be a game-changer. Moore, known for her commanding intensity and emotional nuance, could easily carry a storyline that leans into power struggles and manipulation. Elliott, with his gravelly drawl and quiet authority, feels tailor-made for a Sheridan universe grappling with moral complexity.

But here’s the danger: If Landman uses Moore and Elliott as nothing more than high-wattage distractions from narrative collapse, it won’t work. These actors can elevate a script—but they can’t rescue a hollow one.

The show’s success now hinges not just on performances, but on whether the writers rise to the occasion. Moore and Elliott need characters with dimension, contradictions, and agency—not just placeholders in a crumbling structure. Their presence must shape the direction of the story, not mask its weaknesses.

A Story Adrift Without Its Compass

Monty wasn’t the loudest character. He didn’t need to be. His tension, his restraint—that’s what made his storyline so compelling. Without him, Landman risks losing its emotional compass. And unless the writers leverage his absence with purpose—using it to shift dynamics, fuel conflict, or spark revelations—it will feel like a dropped plot thread, not a deliberate move.

This is a defining moment for the show. Either Monty’s vanishing becomes a powerful narrative spark—or it signals that Landman is losing sight of its own stakes.

And in a world where every scene is supposed to count, that kind of loss is fatal.

A Bigger Question: Has Sheridan Lost the Plot?

When Taylor Sheridan launched his empire, he did so with stories that broke the mold. He refused to play it safe, often choosing silence over exposition, consequence over cliché. But now, his increasingly formulaic storytelling raises a chilling question:

Is Sheridan stretching himself too thin?

You can only juggle so many storylines before one of them crashes to the floor. And for many, Landman feels like the first major drop.

Delays in 1923, off-screen chaos in Yellowstone, and now a core character’s disappearance from Landman with zero context—it’s not just bad luck. It’s a sign of a creative universe reaching its limit.

Can Landman Still Strike Oil?

There’s still hope. Demi Moore and Sam Elliott bring serious potential. The oil industry setting remains compelling. And Sheridan’s ability to build tension hasn’t entirely evaporated.

But if Landman wants to survive—and more importantly, matter—it needs to stop acting like just another extension of the Sheridan brand. It needs to reclaim the sharp, risky, character-first storytelling that made audiences care in the first place.

Monty’s absence must mean something. The new cast must deepen, not distract. And Sheridan must decide whether he wants to be prolific—or profound. Because he can’t be both forever.

The Verdict: Rebuild or Collapse?

Season 2 of Landman isn’t just about whether the show can go on without Jon Hamm. It’s about whether Taylor Sheridan’s empire still has room for fresh, essential storytelling—or if it’s become a sprawling oil rig pumping out stories on autopilot.

Audiences are smarter now. They’ve seen the pattern. They crave new frontiers, not just new faces.

So the question remains: Can Landman rise to the challenge—or will it be remembered as the show where the cracks in the empire finally broke wide open?

Only time—and Season 2—will tell.

💥 Stay tuned. The reckoning has just begun.