Jump to content

Y&R Discussion: Week of April 30th


Recommended Posts

  • Members

At this point since the whole Jill and Katherine storyline was messed up from the very beginning, I don't even know who I would truly want to see as Jill's son.. I would rather it NOT be Cane or Adrian...it would be a double TWIST if they turned around and made Michael Jill's son....that would be a mess there on that level too, but it would be somewhat believable based on the actual accurate age....

I wish they wouldn't have even gone that route in Katherine stealing a baby and trading it for cash..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Billy is NOT a Chancellor.

Katherine's only a Chancellor by marriage which makes Billy (and Mackenzie) both SHEPARDS.

It also isn't to say that the CI CEO shouldn't be a woman, but just that all of The Chancellor Heirs (thus far) have been male.

And Katherine can refer to Jill's 'bio' son as "real" all she wants but she (as well as just about everyone else on the show) is bein written HORRIBLY OOC so whatever she says (especially under LML) ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

And just cause Phillip (and/or Nina) isn't mentioned often (lately) doesn't mean they don't exist.

Also, Phillip actually has a greater claim wrt CI than Brock, Mackenzie & Billy simply by virtue of bearin Phillip's surname as well as bein the one that's been consistently groomed to eventually become CI's CEO.

Especially since Billy's main focus is, was, always has been & always will be Jabot & cause Mackenzie's never been really business focused anyway.

That's part of the reason why the Phillip retcon (and the Amber addition) is so stupid cause there's enough story to last YEARS with Jill bein torn between both Billy and Phillip.

Throw in Mackenzie & Katie & the story practically writes itself.

It wouldn't work cause Michael's way too old.

Amen.

At the very least they could've made them twins to minimize the damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

When has all this grooming taken place? For all we know Philip IV is on his way to taking holy orders and taking a vow of poverty. We know almost nothing about him at this point. Philip does not have a greater claim just because he has a particular surname. I have no idea why you would think that. He's not a relative by blood or adoption. He's got as much right to Chancellor as Kay chooses to give him.

Billy sure seemed to have his eye on CI last time he was back, but since he's off in Hong Kong (one of the world's gambling capitals, I guess that's not an issue for now), so I guess we won't have a Billy/Cane(Adrian) face off anytime soon.

The whole point is Kay is the one who inherited from Philip. She can give the money to whoever she wants to and make whomever she wants to the CEO of CI. As far as I'm concerned the woman's family is as important as the man's, so I don't think any of Philip's descendents real or faux are more entitled than Kay's whether you want to call them Chancellors, Shepherds or Fosters.

I have to agree that making Kay a baby snatcher was a mistake. If anything I wish they had given Philip III a twin. Still lame, but at least it wouldn't have messed things up as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Jill & Katherine were both(especially Jill) groomin Phillip to be The Chancellor Heir prior to Phillip prior to his move to & durin his return from LA.

We also know plenty about Phillip (despite his absence) too.

And actually Phillip does have a greater legal claim due to his surname then both Billy & Mackenzie.

Also despite the retcon he still is related to The Chancellors via the law (several times over) whether Kay and/or Jill likes it or not.

Billy didn't have his eye on CI.

He had his eye on & wanted to move up the ranks of JABOT.

And Katherine?

Didn't inherit anything from Phillip.

Everything she has she snatched from Jill & Phillip.

So while she may be the owner of The Chancellor Estate & family business, she'd have a HELLUVA lawsuit if she (or Jill) ever attempted to disinherit Phillip.

Plus like it or not, Phillip's descendents do have more of a right & claim to CI than Billy & Mackenzie.

Just like Jack, Ashley, Billy, Traci, Keemo, Colleen, Abby & Kyle have wrt Jabot as opposed to The Baldwin-Fishers.

Makin Katherine a babysnatcher sucks.

And what makes it even worse is the complete lack of remorse & self righteous indignance she's exhibited in the aftermath too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This sums it up and Phillip IV's importance can't be debated, IMO. For almost 15 years he was being groomed as the Chancellor heir and there is no way at 21 Jill and Katherine would stop loving him and disinherit him. Had Jill neglected her grandson I can understand, but she went to great links to stay involved in his life despite her dislike of Nina and the fact that Nina had remarried.

And regardless of Latham's crappy "Phillip is alive!" story, Phillip IV and Billy are actually needed! That younger set needs a jolt as does the Chancellor family and these two could fix this. Billy is also an Abbott which gives Jack a much needed family member. Moving on to Paul, you can bring on Heather (also needed) and the occasional appearance from Mary and the Williams family is back!

Taking this easy steps to boost the various core families would make more sense than bringing in a ton of unconnected newbies to showcase Latham's plot driven writing. I'm no genius, but even I could do a better job writing the show than this hack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Well, Claire did rig Rick's test results, but it was to flunk. They actually managed to get his correct results back after they were thrown into Cedar's furnace...I think? Everyone knew Claire changed them and Rick passed so that rewrite never made sense.   I agree. Pratt always seems "edgy" on screen (and her Locker Room interview prooved that it came from her personality.) I liked Claire causeing trouble and love Meta ringing her beads. Its just too bad that Abby left and they kinda just forgot Claire existed. 
    • Oh so they did sleep together. The retcon was just the medical boards? That makes sense. I think Susan Pratt, while a good actress, was just an unlikeable presence onscreen and soaps wrote to that most of the time. There was some potential for more with her when she returned in that stint, as Pratt was at least interesting to watch and caused some conflict for the stifled Bauers. Instead of pairing her with Alan and then disappearing I might have had her hook up with Danny. I think there was a lot of flirtation with Bolger's Philip, but they never crossed the line.
    • I haven't seen Melchior in the role, but it would be astounding if she's worse than Linn. Her rivalry with Stephanie was sidelined IMO because Linn was one of the few actors who didn't have chemistry with, nor raise her game, when paired with Susan Flannery. To be fair, she did show some signs of life in scenes opposite Darlene Connelly, but way too little too late. It feels like Bell finally woke up after the Thorne switchover and sidelined the Kristin character with Mick to 1 or 2 appearances a week. As a result, the show improved by leaps and bounds after she was inexplicably at the center of the show for most of 1989. Margo is so much more enjoyable when not tied to that albatross. Even Clarke is watchable with less Kristin interaction. She can't exit stage left soon enough. As for the new Thorne, I agree that Norcross feels like a Forrester a lot more than Thrachta, even if the latter is a better actor.
    • The cast said that scenes were filmed over a few weeks, with a preplanned hiatus in the middle, and it was all out of order.  I would *guess* that they used Chandler when they could get him? They also had to work around Leo Howard getting married around the time these episodes were filmed, but I guess they worked it out since Tate appeared.
    • Maybe there was a scheduling conflict or something. He still has the full time 9-5 in Atlanta, right? Julie was there. Idk if Maggie’s gonna be a part of it though 
    • At this point, the best nonpaywall coverage of Los Angeles (and anything political)  is in...the Tennessee Holler https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social And as always, emptywheel continues to be consistent https://bsky.app/profile/emptywheel.bsky.social
    • Today Monday was the start of people arriving at the funeral, but the service hasn't started yet.  I know this is the nonspoiler thread but I think it's okay to say (in nonspecific terms) that the funeral episodes span a few days.  I won't detail it more here. Just sayin' keep watching.
    • Why am I only now hearing about what happened in L.A., lol?
    • While I agree that Reeves is Jennifer, I honestly do prefer Cady McClain in the role, as I feel she had/has a wider range of acting capabilities than I feel Reeves has. It's the strength of an actor, ultimately, for me, regardless of how I feel about Reeves' political/social views (which I widely disagree with). Plus, not to mention, they costumed Reeves like an old-fashioned frumpy farm/Moron wife, while McClain had some fashion-forward moments.
    • Wait - so no Will, Jack, or Jen at John's funeral? That’s just weird. What was the point of bringing them back then? Did Julie and Maggie even show up? I mean, seriously.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy