‘King of the Hill’ Showrunner Saladin K. Patterson Talks the Show’s Politics and Why Now Is the Right Time for a Revival

It’s been eight years since the first official report of a King of the Hill revival. Now, the wait is finally over. As of today, the king — that is, Hank Hill — has returned. 

Both he and the show haven’t missed a beat either. The revival gives off the same slice-of-life vibes as the original, but also finds enough new material to make exploring the updated status quo worthwhile. This mix of new and old is also reflected behind the scenes. The show’s original creators, Greg Daniels and Mike Judge, have returned, while showrunning duties have been handed off to Saladin K. Patterson, the man behind the recent Wonder Years reboot. 

I recently spoke to Patterson about remaking King of the Hill for a new generation and world, how Hank functions in the current political climate and the ways the revival navigates the deaths of so many core cast members.

Why do you think now was the right time to bring the show back?

It happened over a period of years. It first came up with Mike and Greg. They did a table read with the original cast back in 2017 for Sketchfest, and they said the reception by the fans and the audience was so strong, they realized, “Hey, there’s still an appetite for this show.”

That’s when they first started having their own conversations about bringing it back. And there were some ups and downs. At first, 20th Century Fox wasn’t interested, but they became more interested over time. And to answer that “why now?” question, I think it was pretty brilliant of them to come up with the backstory of Hank and Peggy having gone away and Hank having gone to Aramco (in Saudi Arabia) to work there as a propane and propane accessories consultant. So, we have a situation where you have a character that has such a strong point-of-view that so many people relate to, and now putting him in a situation where he's coming back and things are a little different now.

When they first met with me to talk to me about coming aboard as showrunner, I was just finishing up The Wonder Years, which was the re-imagining I’d done for ABC, so I was already in that mindset of some of the things that you do and don’t do when you’re revisiting a beloved property. I had the experience that could then apply to this.

Also, to get back to the “why now?” of it all, in the original series, Hank Hill always represented the very common-sense middle ground. Whether it leaned left or right, it was always the common-sense middle ground that was built on respect, listening before you speak, doing what was right and doing the thing that’s going to be the least hurtful.  Now, if we brought Hank back to this current day, Hank’s middle ground isn’t the middle anymore. The extreme has moved so far that Hank’s middle ground looks like the other side to them. And so, that’s an interesting situation to put a relatable character into because you’re going to have a large section of your fan base that still relates to Hank and still wants to relate to Hank because Hank’s the guy that usually makes the most sense, but now they’re going to see, “Oh my goodness, this point-of-view doesn’t represent the middle anymore because the world around us has changed so much.”

That felt like an opportunity to create some good conversations around “What has happened? Why have we shifted so much?” I’m not really talking as much from a political point-of-view, because King of the Hill, historically, was never as political a show as people try to project onto it. It was always more about the social commentary, and it was always more cultural because it was based on the characters and the relationships and what it’s like to raise a family or to be neighbors. That’s more cultural, and we wanted to stick there. Still, where it does overlap, we wanted to take the opportunity to be a part of the conversation now. It felt like things have changed so much to where TV needs the point-of-view of a main character that’s going to maybe point people toward the middle.

Speaking politically, where were the lines when you were writing this season? Like, what felt too political versus what felt right?

That line moved depending on who was talking and depending on our own personal experiences. For Mike, that line was about not being mean — not coming across as mean to anyone on the left or the right. For Greg, that line probably had more to do with what’s really represented in real life — if we can point to someone in real life who acts like this, then that may have validated the representation in the show. For me, that line was, “What do we want to say about this? What part of the conversation do we want to be in?” Still, the show is never going to be about whatever that thing is. The show’s always going to be about our main characters with relatable stories. Regardless of what side of the aisle you fall on, you can relate to the real-life experiences that these animated characters are having. 

If it starts there, then we take the onus off of some of that stuff we worried about because it’s not about trying to win a political point or prove something, it’s about showing characters people can relate to. Then, when those characters are in situations that are wrapped with this cultural stuff now, you have people saying, “Okay, I’m not on a side anymore. I’m really kind of experiencing this with these characters. Let’s see where they go with it.”

Maybe you could even surprise people and be like, “You know what? I wouldn’t have thought I felt that way, but seeing Hank feel that way, maybe there’s something to feeling that way.” That made us stay away from doing “the immigration episode” or “the gun control episode.” Now, do we have episodes that have guns in it? Yes. Do we have episodes that have people who may be immigrants in it? Yes, but the guns are in the episodes because our characters would have them, and the conversations about immigration are in the episode because Bobby works at a restaurant where you would use people who may be immigrants. Doing that helped us ground it, and it helped us avoid anything that’s going to feel gratuitous or preachy.

Why was the time-jump in the show necessary? Why not pick up where you left off?

I know Mike and Greg thought about doing it the traditional way and picking up where we left off. I think it goes back to “What makes this special enough to where people are going to want to see it as opposed to just going back to the 250 episodes of the original?” You really have to have a compelling reason to make people want to watch these. Giving them something new was important, especially with a character like Bobby. Seeing Bobby as an adult felt like a great opportunity. People always wondered what Bobby Hill as an adult would be like, so it felt like an opportunity to really explore that.

We wanted people to see that Bobby grew into an adult who has part Hank Hill and part Peggy Hill in him. They still have comedic conflict because the parents of twentysomethings have a hard time seeing their children as adults, but Hank has to see some stuff in Bobby that he’s proud of, and Peggy as well.

How was it decided that Bobby would be a chef and not a stand-up comedian?

A lot of people online have been like, “Oh, we always thought Bobby was going to be a stand-up.” And I’ll say this, the way we addressed him becoming a chef also speaks to who we saw Bobby being as a 12-year-old and 13-year-old with his love of food and things like that. The way I’ve been explaining to people is that, the type of chef and restaurant owner he is still has him entertaining people. He’s not doing prop comedy, but he’s certainly using props in his kitchen. This was a way to give people all of the things that they thought Bobby would be able to do. He’s entertaining. He’s engaging with people. He’s cooking. He’s being funny. He’s being caring. All those things still feel true to Bobby as a chef.

When you were figuring out the new status quo for everyone, what had to change and what had to stay the same?

I mean, Hank’s point-of-view of the world had to stay the same — common sense and following the rules. If you follow the rules and trust the rules, then things will end up the way they’re supposed to end up. Peggy thinking she’s much better at things than she really is had to stay the same. Dale representing the fringe extremists didn’t have to stay the same because it’s more interesting that we touched upon the fact that real life has run way past Dale in terms of absurdity.

The way Arlen is represented felt like it shouldn’t stay the same either because times have changed. The writing staff took a field trip to Dallas before we started to get an idea of what living in Dallas was like — what the restaurants were like, what the schools were like, where people socialize, all those sorts of things — because it’s important for us to really authentically represent things. So if we’re going to age the characters and age the town, we have to really see what has changed in the last 10 to 15 years in Dallas.

That’s why you see, in the first episode, Hank getting frustrated because his routine way of going home to the alley is now interrupted by the city planners who have stepped in to make more efficient traffic flow by creating one-way routes and bike lanes to be more green. That’s not about railing against being progressive, it’s about “I can’t go home the way I should.”

For the other characters, it was important for us that they stayed true to who they are. Still, giving Boomhauer a long-term girlfriend and making him a father figure, that felt like a good change because we didn’t want him in leopard-print underwear as a man in his 50s. Sure, people like that still exist, but it felt like that needed to change, and it was nice to give him a little bit of growth. With the Souphanousinphones, there’s a big change in their relationship because their daughter’s a grown-up and they’ve put so much of themselves into who Connie was going to be. Now Connie’s an adult, and they have to look at themselves and say, “Who are we?” That felt like a real-life situation a lot of couples find themselves in. 

And look, this isn’t the show itself, but who voiced the characters needed to change in terms of the casting of ethnic characters. We knew that we needed to change who was going to voice Kahn and who was going to voice Joseph.

How was the decision made to send Hank to Saudi Arabia? Was it to set him behind the culture a bit when he returns?

It’s interesting that you point to setting him behind because I won’t necessarily try to claim that we were such big geniuses where we kind of knew all the implications. I do think Greg and Mike chose that because it felt like an interesting thing that the character would’ve done. That Aramco base in Saudi Arabia is trying to capture a slice of Americana that doesn’t exist here anymore. It’s built up like a 1950s kind of neighborhood development. So, Hank was there, and having always been an old-fashioned character, that felt like something that would resonate with him. It’s almost like you put Hank in a time machine to the past and then had him skip forward to the present.

Was there any particular episode where you felt like the show was really clicking along in a good way?

The first episode, obviously, had a lot of housekeeping to do to catch up the audience. That was necessary because of what we were trying to do. The first couple episodes after that deal with establishing who Bobby is in this restaurant and how Hank feels about it and how Hank feels about Bobby cooking with charcoal and not propane. The TaskRabbit episode felt like a good way to show how Hank, who’s always had a job, would deal with this new phase of life where he’s now retired. Those episodes, in a certain way, are housekeeping episodes, though I still think they’re good episodes.

Once we get to the episodes with Bobby finding a new girlfriend and who she is and how that’s a new type of woman for him, and then Hank discovering that Bill has gone to the Black side of town and has been working in a Black barbershop and that Bill has created a fake life that he wished he had — which is really just stealing Hank’s life — those episodes start to feel like we’re now moving into what a new revival of King of the Hill can do that no other show can.

Also, Hank visiting the manosphere in a way that taps into that toxic masculinity that’s very unique to now. “Masculinity” shouldn’t be a bad word to Hank, but in today’s society, because you have toxic masculinity, it’s a bad word to some people depending on how it’s being used. So, that felt like that’s a point-of-view that no other show could do because no other show has Hank Hill. Those episodes start to feel like we’re now shifting into a gear that belongs solely to us.

Obviously you guys had challenges with some cast members passing away, especially Johnny Hardwick.

Losing Johnny was a big challenge. It was hard, first of all, because the cast was such a family. Then we had the task of also trying to figure out, “Well, how does the family business move forward?” We had to consider a lot of things, but what felt the most loving and respectful was taking someone like Toby Huss — who loved Johnny and who Johnny loved — and have him step into the role of Dale. 

And, as Mike would say, in the original run, they all had fun doing each other’s characters sometimes — they would see who could do a Hank or who could do a Peggy. Toby’s just a master of voices, so we played around with different options and landed on Toby, which felt like the best thing to do.

Did you guys consider killing off Dale?

We talked about it. Plus, the ancillary question to this one is how to handle Luanne and Lucky because of Brittany Murphy’s passing. The analogy I’ve been using as a sports fan is that, sometimes there’s a player whose accomplishments mean so much that the best thing you can do for them is to hang up their jersey in the rafters and retire that number because no one else deserves to wear it. It felt like that was best for Luanne and Lucky in the passing of Brittany and Tom Petty.

But Dale is such an integral part of the show, and we’re on the field and we’ve still got to win the game, so it felt like we needed somebody to sub in, but sub in in a way that’s still going to be the most honorable and respectful to Johnny, who really defined that character.

And, of course, most recently, there was Jonathan Joss’ murder.

Jonathan Joss' passing obviously was tragic for different reasons. I’m very grateful he was such a kind and empathetic soul. I’m very grateful that he was able to complete this first season with us, and the fans who watch it will see that the season-ending episode serves as a good tribute to Jonathan and his legacy with the show.