The more I think about it, the better this story seems to me. I mean, like some others of have said, Y&R used to have some good campy, over-the-top stuff, and that's something that's really been missing a lot lately. That's really why I couldn't stand the show for most of 2005, because it was missing the "fun" that used to be there.

And it would make sense for Katherine to have switched Jill's baby back then, it does.

I guess my upset at the storyline mainly stems from Phillip III's memory. Just a few years ago, when Katherine was drinking again, Thom Bierdz made an appearance as Phillip III in a dream sequence, trying to get Katherine to stop drinking. Why would Katherine feel so connected to him if she knew that he wasn't the REAL Phillip III?

I think, from an outsider standpoint, why I'm so miffed about this is because they could have chosen something else to re-ignite this feud. Instead of bringing on another Phillip III, why not use Phillip IV? They seem to want someone else for Colleen, Lily and all the younger folks to interact with. This character could potentially be the same age(or slightly older) as this younger set of characters.

When anyone rewrites hsitory (especially hsitory that viewers saw by way of a baby switch, a paternity switch, or a gruesome on-screen death), it totally invalidates what viewers have seen before. Will the memory of the "fake" Phillip III even matter after they find the first one? What happens to Phillip IV? Does he not receive his trust fund because he technically isn't a Chancellor?

I think if rewriting history can be avoided, it should be. In this case, I don't find it completely necessary. But, then again, you guys watch Y&R WAY more than I do, so I suppose it makes sense to you guys.

I think it's a perfect part for Dan Gauthier.

When anyone rewrites hsitory (especially hsitory that viewers saw by way of a baby switch, a paternity switch, or a gruesome on-screen death), it totally invalidates what viewers have seen before. Will the memory of the "fake" Phillip III even matter after they find the first one? What happens to Phillip IV? Does he not receive his trust fund because he technically isn't a Chancellor?

I think if rewriting history can be avoided, it should be. In this case, I don't find it completely necessary. But, then again, you guys watch Y&R WAY more than I do, so I suppose it makes sense to you guys.

Well, it wouldn't necessarily make sense to someone who has only watched for a few years or so and only know the show in its current form. I've been an off-and-on watcher since approximately 1993 (watched frequently with the grandmas until about '99 and then started watching on my own in '03), so I know that Katherine and Jill could not stand each other for a very long time, therefore I'd understand how and why Katherine would switch Jill's baby.

I do agree, though, that if history doesn't have to be rewritten, then it shouldn't be. And usually, there's no real reason for history to HAVE to be rewritten.

I watched part of the 1975 episode that's on YouTube today, and wouldn't it be just a fricken TREAT if Julianna McCarthy would return as Liz Foster, Jill's mom? I mean, I loved it when she showed up for Kay's intervention in 2004, and she's really good in the first segment of this 1975 episode and it'd make sense for her to return during this storyline.

I always wonder what would have happened had the show stayed focused on the Brookses and the Fosters...

Edited December 26, 200618 yr by All My Shadows

Speaking of campy storylines . . .

Let's not forget that before JER ever made Vivian bury Carly alive on DAYS, Lauren Fenmore was buried alive on Y&R!

Speaking of campy storylines . . .

Let's not forget that before JER ever made Vivian bury Carly alive on DAYS, Lauren Fenmore was buried alive on Y&R!

Oh I LOVED that storyline with Lauren!

OY VEY.

I was just watching a clip of Kay and Jill fighting in an attic with rats, throwing boxes at each other, etc., but people act like Y&R is so prim and proper when that has NEVER been the case.

Nobody said it was "prim and proper," but it always had a high quality standard in which viewers knew at the end of the day Y&R would deliver the goods. Besides Kay Alden turned the Kay/Jill stuff into a camp fest. But it was still enjoyable.

When anyone rewrites hsitory (especially hsitory that viewers saw by way of a baby switch, a paternity switch, or a gruesome on-screen death), it totally invalidates what viewers have seen before. Will the memory of the "fake" Phillip III even matter after they find the first one? What happens to Phillip IV? Does he not receive his trust fund because he technically isn't a Chancellor?

You raise some good questions with your post. It depresses me to think that Nina's son wouldn't really be Jill's Grandson, and to think that the memory of the "fake" Phillip could be totally forgotten seems like a waste in a way. Going through with this story will cut any family ties Nina and Phillip IV have in Genoa City, unless Flo is still around somewhere ....

I think if rewriting history can be avoided, it should be. In this case, I don't find it completely necessary. But, then again, you guys watch Y&R WAY more than I do, so I suppose it makes sense to you guys.

It doesn't make sense to me, I'm all for using a show's history to further current stories; but there are some stories that shouldn't be re-written or changed......IMHO

Man if they brought Nina back for this story, I would absolutely go crazy! Nina is one of my all-time favorite soap character!

Edited December 27, 200618 yr by DruRocks

Nina.....*sigh* Tricia Cast was my first TV crush, besides Bubba on "Mama's Family."

NINA, WE LOVE YOU AND WANT YOU BACK!

I'm only a casual Y&R viewer but this spoiler really doesn't bother me. I think there's a difference between rewriting history and filling it in. The Maryanne Carruthers [!@#$%^&*] on GL couldn't have happened. It didn't work in the timeframe. Katherine drunkenly swapping Phillip at birth could very easily have happened and it makes sense as far as motivation is concerned. I actually think this is one of Latham's smarter moves.

It rips apart the Katherine/Jill truce and gives the chance to have a biological Chancellor back on the show for them to squabble over. It's not like Latham's dragged the original Phillip out of the grave and made up some contrived [!@#$%^&*] about him being in a coma, Katherine sending him off to Switzerland for years etc etc.

The story does also give a perfect "in" for Nina and Phillip but whether they'll go there I don't know.

I doubt Latham even knows who Nina is.

I've got to agree with you there. A naive part of me hopes that she has a root round the archives before she does this story because if she fleshes it out it really could mend a lot of the damage that the mother/daughter story did.

I should add that until Jeanne Cooper comes out and beats the story down, I don't think there's much to be concerned about. She won't play [!@#$%^&*] willingly.

If Jill and Kay look for the real Phillip, maybe Nina will look for her son, too, the one stolen by Rose DeVille.

A naive part of me hopes that she has a root round the archives before she does this story because if she fleshes it out it really could mend a lot of the damage that the mother/daughter story did.

Word. But unfortunately I doubt it, unless she asks Ed Scott or someone who has been with the show for years. The reason why the mother/daughter thing went over bad was the aftermath. Nothing was fleshed out, and there was no angst, nothing. I wouldn't mind the magnificent Juliana McCarthy (Jill's REAL mama) coming back too.

I should add that until Jeanne Cooper comes out and beats the story down, I don't think there's much to be concerned about. She won't play [!@#$%^&*] willingly.

LoL, yep Jeanne is one of a kind.

If Jill and Kay look for the real Phillip, maybe Nina will look for her son, too, the one stolen by Rose DeVille.

I wish Rose Deville woul come back. Love me some Darlene Conley! If Nina comes back she deserves a big and fun story, because her last few months on the show was lame.