Silo: Season 2 Review

A spoiler warning graphic.

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Silo Seasons 1 & 2.

In 2023, I awarded Silo’s first season the highly-coveted Trekking with Dennis Award for best TV show of the year. It beat off Star Trek: Picard’s third season – which was, in hindsight, probably that show’s best offering. If you know me, you’ll know I’m a Trekkie and a big fan of Jean-Luc Picard – so Silo must’ve been pretty darn good, then! It’s no exaggeration to say that I was really excited for Season 2 and the continuation of this engaging sci-fi mystery story.

It can be difficult to render judgement on the middle part of a fully-serialised story, so that’s a big caveat to everything we’re going to talk about. With Silo confirmed to be returning for two more seasons, we may look back at Season 2 with that context and revise some of these talking points and criticisms – and I wanted to be clear about that. With that out of the way, here’s the headline: Silo Season 2 was good but not great. One side of the story was a thrilling, enigmatic mystery populated by a wonderful cast of characters. The other felt like an overblown video game side-quest, complete with unnecessary stumbling blocks that seemed to exist only to slow things down, and was padded out with a handful of very barebones, one-dimensional characters.

In short, Season 2’s good side was let down by its less-good side.

Still frame from Silo Season 2 (2024-25) showing Juliette after her arrival in the second silo.
Juliette in the second silo.

So… which side is which? Unfortunately, I found Juliette’s story this time to be the weaker one. And that’s such a shame, because Rebecca Ferguson – who also gets an executive producer credit for Silo – has put in a fantastic performance across both seasons of the show. Last season, Juliette was at the centre of the story, unravelling the mysteries of the silo piece by piece. But this time, she was isolated from most of the rest of the cast, trapped in her own little narrative box. And that box, for me at least, felt like it was mostly comprised of unnecessary hurdles to a story that was almost instantly a “back-and-forth” that aimed to shuffle Juliette right back to the first silo.

On the other side of things, the story of the rebellion in the Down Deep, complete with double- and triple-crosses, as well as Sims’ scheming and Bernard and Lukas trying to uncover more of the silo’s secrets… that was all fantastic. These characters, who we met last time and have more of a foundation to build on, all felt real, their actions seemed to flow naturally from the circumstances they were in, and it was a truly gripping and fascinating mystery with stakes. Given that we know the world immediately outside the silo is still deadly and toxic, the danger to everyone was communicated well – and having gotten invested in these characters and their world, that gave this side of the story a lot more weight.

Still frame from Silo Season 2 (2024-25) showing a crowd of rebels.
Sheriff Billings, Knox, Shirley, and Deputy Hank.

Stepping back from the moment-to-moment narrative beats, Silo has constructed a world that feels – to me, at least – like a dark mirror of the United States. Leaders are left to rely on increasingly unclear instructions left for them by the nameless “founders,” communicated through a legal document that, for many in the silo, has taken on the status of scripture. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the term “American civil religion.” It’s a theory in American Studies/sociology that posits many Americans view documents like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as akin to scripture, with some of the founding fathers elevated to the positions of prophets. It’s an interesting idea, and one far too complex to detail in a few sentences. Whether you buy into it or not in the real world, Silo is definitely drawing on similar themes and concepts for its depiction of its underground society.

Silo also holds up a mirror to our modern-day surveillance society. Cameras are everywhere in the underground city: in people’s homes, in common areas, and workplaces. And spying on the citizens are a hidden group who seem to exist outside of the official heirachy and structure of the government, reporting directly to the mayor. As a metaphor for CCTV, facial recognition, and even online surveillance by the likes of the NSA, you could hardly get more explicit!

Still frame from Silo Season 2 (2024-25) showing Mayor Hollins in the surveillance room.
The hidden camera room in the silo.

Both of these feel pretty timely. Silo goes to town with the idea of governments spying on their citizens – without their consent or knowledge. The dangers of such a sophisticated spyware network are obvious, including the ease with which someone could use that knowledge to become a dictator or autocrat, and we get to see that through Bernard’s characterisation. I read Bernard as someone who is out of his depth, but tries to use the immense power at his fingertips to retain – or regain – control of the situation as it begins to spiral. Again, there are real-world parallels there.

Silo also wants to reflect a class divide: the “Up Toppers” and “Down Deepers” representing the upper and working classes respectively. Becuase the action in Season 2 mostly focused on the mechanics and engineers on the lower levels, I don’t think we got as much of a look at the way society differs on the upper levels of the silo. We caught glimpses of it when we saw the larger, better-furnished apartments of people like Bernard and Judge Meadows, but with fewer characters in focus there was perhaps less of this in Season 2 than there had been in Season 1. The class war angle was interesting, though – and another place where Silo was clearly drawing on real-world issues for inspiration.

Still frame from Silo: An Inside Look showing one of the sets build to represent the silo.
Behind-the-scenes during production on Silo.

Juliette’s dramatic exit from the silo at the end of Season 1 left her friends and former allies on edge. By refusing to clean the camera and walking out of sight, she inadvertently left people believing that the world outside is safe – and we know that it isn’t. Arriving at a nearby abandoned silo, Juliette comes to learn the potential consequences of this: the rest of the citizens will rebel and try to break out, resulting in their deaths. This kicks off her story of… needing to immediately get back to her original silo.

I gotta be honest: I already felt this was a pretty weak setup. Having survived when survival seemed impossible and escaped from tyranny… all Juliette is left with is “I need to go back right now,” seeking to save her friends. As the setup for what was ultimately a slow storyline that seemed to spin its wheels too much, I was underwhelmed from almost the first episode. Then, things seemed to plod along, with Juliette teasing tiny pieces of information out of the mysterious sole survivor of this silo… only to belatedly learn that there were several other younger survivors, too. She apparently didn’t notice them or their settlement while exploring.

Still frame from Silo Season 2 (2024-25) showing Juliette talking to Solo through the vault door.
The locked door to Solo’s vault.

These younger survivors were pretty uninteresting, and their storyline came too late in the season to give most of them any real depth or interest. Audrey, whose sole defining trait seemed to be that she wanted to take revenge for the death of her parents, instantly gave up on that. And the others – Eater/Hope and Rick – got even less background than that. I struggled to believe that these characters had really been living their whole lives in the ruins of this silo, trying and failing to break into Solo’s vault and scratching together whatever food they could.

Silo just didn’t give these characters enough depth, and what little story was afforded them seemed to evaporate pretty quickly. For no other reason than “maybe don’t,” Audrey abandoned her apparent lifelong mission to seek revenge for the death of her parents, and for no other reason than “maybe open the door though,” Solo abandoned his lifelong mission to keep the door to the vault sealed. It wasn’t even clear that Solo knew anyone else was still alive inside the silo – which might’ve been useful information. Had Audrey and Rick ever visited the vault door? If so, why’d they leave their parents’ corpses unburied? And how did their settlement have power when it was explained that only the IT department – at least one level below – had its own power source and the rest of the silo’s power was out? There are a few too many contrivances, cut-down moments, and characters lacking depth on this side of the story for my liking.

Still frame from Silo Season 2 (2024-25) showing Audrey, Rick, Eater/Hope, and their baby.
I felt these characters lacked any real depth or interest.

And that’s part of what gives it a “video game side-quest” feel. Every time Juliette seemed to get close to her new goal of returning to her original silo… something would get in the way. First it was finding a replacement suit. Then it was Solo holding her suit hostage until she activated an underwater pump. Then it was the kids kidnapping Solo. Then it was Juliette and Eater/Hope having to search for the code to get into the vault… it just went on and on. Solo had potential as an interesting character, and there were moments of that on this side of the story. But even before the kids emerged from hiding, the action in this second silo was really grinding along at far too slow a pace.

Speaking of the second silo… I’m afraid I was a tad underwhelmed by the setting, if I’m being honest. Do you know the term “bottle show?” It was originally coined in the 1960s to describe episodes of a television series made cheaply by recycling sets that have already been built, using only a handful of characters, and that are heavy on dialogue. Fans of the Star Trek franchise are very familiar with “bottle shows,” and parts of this side of Silo felt, to me, just like that. The sets were redressed to add vines and other obvious symptoms of decay, but they were otherwise identical… and for such an expensive series (Silo reportedly costs $30-$40 million per episode) the end result felt pretty cheap.

Still frame from Silo Season 2 (2024-25) showing Juliette walking through a field of dead bodies to reach the second silo.
Juliette arrives at a second, identical silo.

In-universe, there’s a good reason for silos looking identical. Or at least, I assume there is. But watching the show as a viewer… the fact that Juliette escaped one silo only to land in another, basically-identical silo didn’t quite sit right. And while the second silo did a good job of conveying how wrong things could go and what the stakes were for Juliette’s friends if she couldn’t fix the mistake she inadvertently made, the visuals most of the time were unimpressive. The only exception were this silo’s flooded levels, which were genuinely interesting to see – not to mention tense!

As I said at the beginning: this is the middle of Silo’s story. There are two seasons to come after this, and if the characters we met in the second silo feature in a big way, getting more development in the process, it’s not impossible to think we could revisit their introductions and look upon it a bit more kindly. But despite a wonderful performance from Rebecca Ferguson, I felt she was hampered rather than helped by the writing and the way her side of the story was structured in Season 2.

Still frame from Silo Season 2 (2024-25) showing Juliette's face illuminated by a torch.
Rebecca Ferguson plays Juliette Nichols in Silo.

Juliette’s evolving relationship with Solo definitely had its moments, though. Solo losing his temper and shouting at Juliette – and her cowering, afraid to look at him – definitely had uncomfortable echoes of real-world abusive relationships, as did his decision to hold her captive by denying her access to her suit. This metaphor was, perhaps, a little deeper, but it was there. Solo’s childishness masked that side of his character, but he can be quick to anger and manipulative. There was definitely an uncomfortable side to him – even if it was understandable how the traumatic life he’d led might’ve left him in that position.

We need to hop over to the original silo, though! That was the side of the story that I found much more engaging.

On the lower levels, there were double-crosses, triple-crosses, and multiple characters all working toward different ends to fit different agendas. No one – not even Bernard, spying from up top – knew everything, and that left Silo to be a truly engaging series. Even when Juliette’s story seemed to be spinning its wheels or distracted with another side-quest, there were fun characters and mysteries back in the original silo to keep the show on the rails.

Still frame from Silo Season 2 (2024-25) showing Walker, Shirley, and other conspirators in the Down Deep.
The conspirators gather…

I have to be honest: going into Season 1 in 2023, I really did not expect much from Common. I’d seen him in Hell on Wheels – a series starring Strange New Worlds’ Anson Mount – a few years ago, but many musicians try their hand at acting and don’t really leave much of an impression. I was pleasantly surprised with his performance in Season 1 as the scheming Robert Sims, and Common excelled again in Season 2. Sims’ story expanded to include his wife this time, and they worked exceptionally well together as they tried to play both sides of the burgeoning rebellion to try to elevate their position in the silo’s heirachy.

Sims turned out to have more nuance in Season 2 than he did last time. After trying repeatedly to convince Bernard to let him in on the secrets of the silo and being spurned every time, ultimately being consigned to the important-sounding but powerless role of judge, Sims began scheming more overtly. The final rug-pull that it would be Camille, not Robert, who would be let in on the silo’s secrets by its AI controller… that was a fun and genuinely unexpected twist.

Still frame from Silo Season 2 (2024-25) showing Sims using a computer terminal.
Robert Sims.

Unlike Juliette’s disconnected sequence of objectives in the second silo, Bernard and Lukas’ attempts to figure out the mysterious code unfolded in a much more natural-feeling way. I can see some folks making similar criticisms as I did of Juliette’s story, because Lukas seemed to run into several dead ends before progressing. But this code-breaking story – and the subsequent revelation of the hidden vault with its library and advanced computers – felt a lot more interesting, and I was much more engaged with both Lukas as a character and the consequences of this storyline.

Knox, Shirley, and Walker made for a fun trio – and the additions of both Sheriff Billings and Dr Nichols (Juliette’s father) added a lot to the character dynamics on this side of the story. The only criticism I have, really, is that I never bought Walker’s fake betrayal of her friends, seeming to sell them out to Bernard in exchange for Carla’s safety. I had in my notes words to the effect of “this doesn’t feel like a realistic turn for her character,” so the ultimate reveal that she was double-double-crossing Bernard wasn’t as big as perhaps Silo’s writers wanted it to be. There was still a very real sense that the story could’ve gone the other way… but all that would’ve done is spoiled her characterisation! In that sense it was still a twist, but one that wasn’t built on the strongest foundations.

Still frame from Silo Season 2 (2024-25) showing a close-up of Walker.
Walker played double-agent in Season 2.

So Silo leaves us on a cliffhanger! What will happen to Juliette and Bernard – and will Juliette’s firefighter suit prove to be the difference in that burning decontamination chamber? What did the AI say to Lukas, and why did Bernard react by falling into such a depression? If Meadows was given the same information, why did she not communicate it to Bernard all those years ago? And what will become of the rebels – will some still try to break out, even after Juliette’s message?

Season 3 better hurry up and get here, that’s all I can say!

Seasons 3 and 4 are actually already in production; filming began in October, and both seasons will be produced back-to-back. I haven’t read the novel series that Silo is based on, but apparently there will be longer flashback sequences to the congressman and reporter we met in the Season 2 epilogue. I’m certainly curious to find out who they are and what their connection is to the silo.

Still frame from Silo Season 2 (2024-25) showing Mayor Bernard Hollins.
What more does Bernard know?

I stand by what I said at the beginning: Silo’s second season had one incredibly strong and entertaining storyline… and one noticeably weaker one. I hope that Seasons 3 and 4 can do more with the second silo and the characters we met there; it might re-frame my thoughts on the way they were introduced and their arcs this time. However… part of me also hopes that, now Juliette is back, there won’t be a need to revisit these less-interesting characters or waste as much time on them going forward.

Silo continues to be mysterious, and I really can’t predict what’s gonna happen next. Bernard hinted at knowing more – he claims to know who is responsible for building the silo, but not why. And whatever Lukas told him in the final episode seems to have utterly destroyed his faith in the project – so what could that mean for the world outside? Is the entire world toxic, or – as Solo and Juliette seemed to be on the verge of discovering – is something within the silo itself poisoning the air in its immediate vicinity, trapping people inside? If so… why? What purpose could that serve? The fact that I have so many questions that I want answered is, quite frankly, an indication of how invested in the story I am and how much of a good time I’m having!

Still frame from Silo Season 2 (2024-25) showing jets of fire.
Season 2 ended on a firey cliffhanger!

So that was Silo Season 2.

I really can’t wait to find out what’s coming next – and I hope we’ll see Season 3 within the next twelve months or so. Some made-for-streaming shows take a long time in between seasons, but with production on the next chapter of Silo already well underway, I think there’s hope that we might see it at the tail end of 2025 or early in 2026. I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed, anyway.

When Season 3 premieres, I’ll do my best to review it here on the website – so I hope you’ll stay tuned for that. Silo was my favourite TV series of 2023… will its second season repeat that feat this year? There’s still a long way to go and a lot of exciting TV coming our way, but if you swing by in late December, you’ll find out.


Silo Seasons 1 and 2 are available to stream now on Apple TV+. Silo is the copyright of Apple Studios, AMC, and Apple TV+. This review contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

How Sega and the Dreamcast offer a valuable lesson for streaming platforms

In 2001 I was bitterly disappointed by the failure of the Dreamcast – a console I’d only owned for about a year and had hoped would carry me through to the next generation of home consoles. For a variety of reasons that essentially boil down to mismanagement, worse-than-expected sales, and some pretty tough competition, Sega found itself on the verge of bankruptcy. The company responded not only by ending development on the Dreamcast, but by closing its hardware division altogether.

At the time, Sega seemed to be at the pinnacle of the games industry. For much of the 1990s, the company had been a dominant force in home video game consoles alongside Nintendo, and as the new millennium approached there were few outward signs of that changing. It was a massive shock to see Sega collapse in such spectacular fashion in 2001, not only to me but to millions of players and games industry watchers around the world.

The Sega Dreamcast failed in 2001.

Thinking about what happened from a business perspective, a demise like this was inevitable in the early 2000s. Both Sony and Microsoft were arriving in the home console market with powerful machines offering features like the ability to play DVDs – something that the Dreamcast couldn’t do – but at a fundamental level the market was simply overcrowded. There just wasn’t room for four competing home consoles. At least one was destined for the chopping block – and unfortunately for Sega, it was their machine that wouldn’t survive.

But the rapid demise of the Dreamcast wasn’t the end of Sega – not by a long shot. The company switched its focus from making hardware to simply making games, and over the next few years re-established itself with a new identity as a developer and publisher. In the twenty years since the Dreamcast failed, Sega has published a number of successful titles, snapped up several successful development studios – such as Creative Assembly, Relic Entertainment, and Amplitude Studios – and has even teamed up with old rival Nintendo on a number of occasions!

The end of the Dreamcast was not the end of Sega.

I can’t properly express how profoundly odd it was to first see Super Mario and Sega’s mascot Sonic the Hedgehog together in the same game! The old rivalry from the ’90s would’ve made something like that impossible – yet it became possible because Sega recognised its limitations and changed its way of doing business. The board abandoned a longstanding business model because it was leading the company to ruin, and even though it does feel strange to see fan-favourite Sega characters crop up on the Nintendo Switch or even in PlayStation games, Sega’s willingness to change quite literally saved the company.

From a creative point of view, Sega’s move away from hardware opened up the company to many new possibilities. The company has been able to broaden its horizons, publishing different games on different systems, no longer bound to a single piece of hardware. Strategy games have been published for PC, party games on the Nintendo Wii and Switch, and a whole range of other titles on Xbox, PlayStation, handheld consoles, and even mobile. The company has been involved in the creation of a far broader range of titles than it ever had been before.

Sega’s mascot Sonic now regularly appears alongside old foe Super Mario.

So how does all of this relate to streaming?

We’re very much in the grip of the “streaming wars” right now. Big platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Disney+ are battling for subscribers’ cash, but there’s a whole second tier of streaming platforms fighting amongst themselves for a chance to break into the upper echelons of the market. The likes of HBO Max, Paramount+, Apple TV+, Peacock, BritBox, and even YouTube Premium are all engaged in this scrap.

But the streaming market in 2021 is very much like the video game console market was in 2001: overcrowded. Not all of these second-tier platforms will survive – indeed, it’s possible that none of them will. Many of the companies who own and manage these lower-level streaming platforms are unwilling to share too many details about them, but we can make some reasonable estimates based on what data is available, and it isn’t good news. Some of these streaming platforms have simply never been profitable, and their owners are being propped up by other sources of income, pumping money into a loss-making streaming platform in the hopes that it’ll become profitable at some nebulous future date.

There are a lot of streaming platforms in 2021.

To continue the analogy, the likes of Paramount+ are modern-day Dreamcasts in a market where Netflix, Amazon, and Disney+ are already the Nintendo, Xbox, and PlayStation. Breaking into the top tier of the streaming market realistically means one of the big three needs to be dethroned, and while that isn’t impossible, it doesn’t seem likely in the short-to-medium term at least.

Why did streaming appeal to viewers in the first place? That question is fundamental to understanding why launching a new platform is so incredibly difficult, and it’s one that too many corporate executives seem not to have considered. They make the incredibly basic mistake of assuming that streaming is a question of convenience; that folks wanted to watch shows on their own schedule rather than at a set time on a set channel. That isn’t what attracted most people to streaming.

Too many corporate leaders fundamentally misunderstand streaming.

Convenience has been available to viewers since the late 1970s. Betamax and VHS allowed folks to record television programmes and watch them later more than forty years ago, as well as to purchase films and even whole seasons of television shows to watch “on demand.” DVD box sets kicked this into a higher gear in the early-mid 2000s. Speaking for myself, I owned a number of episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation on VHS in the 1990s, and later bought the entire series on DVD. I had more than enough DVDs by the mid-2000s that I’d never need to sign up for any streaming platform ever – I could watch a DVD every day of the year and never run out of different things to watch!

To get back on topic, what attracted people to streaming was the low cost. A cable or satellite subscription is easily four or five times the price of Netflix, so cutting the cord and going digital was a new way for many people to save money in the early 2010s. As more broadcasters and film studios began licensing their content to Netflix, the value of the deal got better and better, and the value of cable or satellite seemed ever worse in comparison.

Streaming isn’t about convenience – that’s been available for decades.
(Pictured: a 1975 Sony Betamax cabinet)

But in 2021, in order to watch even just a handful of the most popular television shows, people are once again being forced to spend cable or satellite-scale money. Just sticking to sci-fi and fantasy, three of the biggest shows in recent years have been The Mandalorian, The Expanse, and The Witcher. To watch all three shows, folks would need to sign up for three different streaming platforms – which would cost a total of £25.97 per month in the UK; approximately $36 in the United States.

The overabundance of streaming platforms is actually eroding the streaming platform model, making it unaffordable for far too many people. We have a great recent example of this: the mess last week which embroiled Star Trek: Discovery. When ViacomCBS cancelled their contract with Netflix, Discovery’s fourth season was to be unavailable outside of North America. Star Trek fans revolted, promising to boycott Paramount+ if and when the streaming platform arrived in their region. The damage done by the Discovery Season 4 debacle pushed many viewers back into the waiting arms of the only real competitor and the biggest danger to all streaming platforms: piracy.

Calls to boycott Paramount+ abounded in the wake of the Star Trek: Discovery Season 4 mess.

The streaming market does not exist in a vacuum, with platforms jostling for position solely against one another. It exists in a much bigger digital environment, one which includes piracy. It’s incredibly easy to either stream or download any television episode or any film, even with incredibly limited technological know-how, and that has always represented a major threat to the viability of streaming platforms. Though there are ethical concerns, such as the need for artists and creators to get paid for their creations, that isn’t the issue. You can shout at me until you’re blue in the face that people shouldn’t pirate a film or television show – and in the vast majority of cases I’ll agree wholeheartedly. The issue isn’t that people should or shouldn’t engage in piracy – the issue is that people are engaged in piracy, and there really isn’t a practical or viable method of stopping them – at least, no such method has been invented thus far.

As more and more streaming platforms try to make a go of it in an already-overcrowded market, more and more viewers are drifting back to piracy. 2020 was a bit of an outlier in some respects due to lockdowns, but it was also the biggest year on record for film and television piracy. 2021 may well eclipse 2020’s stats and prove to have been bigger still.

The overcrowded streaming market makes piracy look ever more appealing to many viewers.

Part of the driving force is that people are simply unwilling to sign up to a streaming platform to watch one or two shows. One of the original appeals of a service like Netflix was that there was a huge range of content all in one place – whether you wanted a documentary, an Oscar-winning film, or an obscure television show from the 1980s, Netflix had you covered. Now, more and more companies are pulling their content and trying to build their own platforms around that content – and many viewers either can’t or won’t pay for it.

Some companies are trying to push streaming platforms that aren’t commercially viable and will never be commercially viable. Those companies need to take a look at Sega and the Dreamcast, and instead of trying to chase the Netflix model ten years too late and with far too little original content, follow the Sega model instead. Drop the hardware and focus on the software – or in this case, drop the platform and focus on making shows.

Some streaming platforms will not survive – and their corporate owners would be well-advised to realise that sooner rather than later.

The Star Trek franchise offers an interesting example of how this can work. Star Trek: Discovery was originally available on Netflix outside of the United States. But Star Trek: Picard and Star Trek: Lower Decks went to Amazon Prime Video instead – showing how this model of creating a television show and selling it either to the highest bidder or to whichever platform seems like the best fit for the genre can and does work.

Moves like this feel inevitable for several of these second-tier streaming platforms. There’s a hard ceiling on the amount of money folks are willing to spend, so unless streaming platforms can find a way to cut costs and become more competitively priced, the only possible outcome by the end of the “streaming wars” will be the permanent closure of several of these platforms. Companies running these platforms should consider other options, because blindly chasing the streaming model will lead to financial ruin. Sega had the foresight in 2001 to jump out of an overcrowded market and abandon a failing business model. In the two decades since the company has refocused its efforts and found renewed success. This represents a great model for streaming platforms to follow.

All films, television series, and video games mentioned above are the copyright of their respective owner, studio, developer, broadcaster, publisher, distributor, etc. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.