Elon has been harsh with Jacob at times for not falling exactly into line with him so it's not hard to see that he would have issues with Izaiah who totally went into another direction.

11 hours ago, Cheap21 said:

Have they? It seems pretty obvious to me. Izaiah is a contrariarian and rebels to be different. Elon is a very strict by the book parent that had a vision for his sons, which the older two fell in line with but thats not Izaiah's ministry so he lashed out against that. This dynamic is very common and I dont think there's anything deeper than clashing personalities and two individuals that are hard headed and suck at communicating

I hear you, but I need more than "clashing personalities," especially because we've been told that white man Joey saved Izaiah.

"They just don't get along" is not enough for me.

11 minutes ago, ranger1rg said:

I hear you, but I need more than "clashing personalities," especially because we've been told that white man Joey saved Izaiah.

"They just don't get along" is not enough for me.

I dont know what to tell you or what you expect then. I dont think there was a big moment that caused them to fall out. From we can tell they've always been at odds at least going back to his teen years

as for Joey, he didnt control or pass judgement on Izaiah. He gave him the autonomy to explore things for himself. He saw something in him and when he realized he could be the cause of ruining his life by using him in his business, he encouraged him to take a different path which is something Elon was not doing. He wanted him in some aspect of law enforcement and looked down upon him bc he was wasting his life getting mixed up with the wrong crowd, being a criminal which directly putting them in opposition as a family of law enforcements. Elon likely also resented the shame he'd put him in as the Chief of Police to have a hoodlum son that could easily end up in jail and knowing his personality, he said things that cant easily be taken back

I finished up with this week's episodes and I must say, it was a really strong week. The scenes with June and Samantha, Lynette upping the ante with her blackmail towards Hayley, Leslie vs. Darlene, love in the afternoon with Martin & Smitty and my favorite, the argument between Nicole and Vanessa.

Of course the Scooby Doo gang (Jacob/Smitty/Grayson) is laughable but I still find it entertaining.

I hope we get a renewal announcement this week regarding the shows future (multi-year renewal 🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾).

Monday's episode was interesting, at least the concept more so than the on-screen drama. I applaud the ambition, and I agree with others that the execution didn't land, in part because Jacob and Naomi are not a strong enough couple to carry a standalone episode at this time.

It also reminded me of something that's occurred to me a few times over the past year: I think Jacob and Naomi should have met on-screen in the first week(s) of the show, instead of being happily married from the outset. Jacob could have debuted as the arresting officer when Dani shot up the wedding on his first day as detective, with Naomi jumping in to defend her mother. The two could have butted heads and slowly fallen for each other in the process (instead of having a C-story married-couple-fight about the whole incident and quickly making up). Most of the "flashbacks" they recreated this week could have easily fit into the drama of the show in real time.

I find both characters likeable, for the most part, and I don't think the actors are bad per se, but they are among the less experienced cast members. Maybe having some sort of arc to play in the beginning would have helped them find their footing. And Jacob being introduced as an outsider learning about the Duprees' drama would have allowed for more natural exposition as he questioned witnesses about the history between Bill, Dani, Hayley, etc., which would have helped the show overall. Relatedly, this actor has at times struggled more so than some of the seasoned veterans with those extended scenes of the characters reminding each other in detail of backstory they all supposedly experienced in real time (also with the "Rashad" scenes, but that's another story).

While I'm on the subject of Jacob, I think one of the biggest holes in the dynamics of his family that they're attempting to build up is the fact that we've already established the father is running an inherently corrupt department. As far as class conflict, whatever the chief of police's official salary might be (and I agree they've definitely kept the jurisdiction ambiguous), he has to be making even more under the table. Does Darlene know this? Did she think he was really in danger from criminals he was trying to bring to justice all those times when he was allegedly doing undercover work that she keeps talking about, or did she know he was probably off collecting bags or whatever? Is she actually supposed to have the moral high ground?

And if the foreshadowing about Jacob in danger leads somewhere, it will be a real letdown for me if it's because of this stupid plasma story, instead of something they've laid the groundwork for from the beginning: Jacob getting too close to the truth about his father. I commented a few weeks ago that the plasma story is a poor substitute for the earned climax of the Hayley/Bill poisoning story, but I should have added that Joey hiring a corrupt cop to murder Doug is also much more worthy fodder for Jacob to be investigating.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by DeliaIrisFan

On 4/11/2026 at 5:13 AM, DramatistDreamer said:

I've said from Day 1 that the Plasma ring story was shallow without much logic or depth but some posters thought it would land somewhere.

I guess you’re referring to @Broderick who theorized the Plasma story was a long-term arc to put Nicole in danger and eventually reunite her with Ted. Not sure if you’re caught up with the show, but so far everything points towards Broderick being right again (he was right about Nicole having the BRCA gene). Nobody has ever implied that the Plasma angle itself would have been logical or profound…

As for this week’s shows, I was shocked at Dana and Marcel’s conversation. 5 minutes after introducing Darlene, the writers were already discussing another character whom we’ve never seen (Sheila). I swear they spent 5 minutes discussing Sheila and Darlene’s relationship, how they get along and all. Who cares?!? Will these writers ever be able to tell stories with the characters they already have on canvas? Not to mention that this week another invisible character resurfaced: Madison’s mother is driving story lol. It’s embarrassing.

About the only other thing I can say about this week is that I agree Friday was the strongest episode. I felt badly for both June and Samantha, and that scene was earned. I also felt for Nicole earlier in the week, but that was more because Vanessa is a terrible friend and completely delusional than it was due to any real character development. As others have said, Vanessa and Joey's scenes feel like I've accidentally changed the channel to GH, and that is not a good thing.

Hopefully some of the new plot twists will lead to something more compelling next week, although probably not the "will Smitty be caught breaking into his beloved mother-in-law's computer to see an org chart" cliffhanger (there's a joke in there somewhere about how many detectives and investigative reporters it takes to change a lightbulb). It would at least been semi fun if the cliffhanger had been that Ashley discovered Jacob and Smitty in the stairwell, and suspected they were having a clandestine affair.

Along the lines of what I said earlier about Jacob and Naomi's trajectory, Martin and Smitty are another couple who might have benefited from having their love story play out on screen in real time. The conversations that would have led to given their respective professions would have also helped with the exposition problem (and, in particular, the problem with actors who are earlier in their careers not being well served with pages and pages of exposition that the characters have no reason to be explaining to each other).

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by DeliaIrisFan

52 minutes ago, Aback said:

As for this week’s shows, I was shocked at Dana and Marcel’s conversation. 5 minutes after introducing Darlene, the writers were already discussing another character whom we’ve never seen (Sheila). I swear they spent 5 minutes discussing Sheila and Darlene’s relationship, how they get along and all. Who cares?!? Will these writers ever be able to tell stories with the characters they already have on canvas? Not to mention that this week another invisible character resurfaced: Madison’s mother is driving story lol. It’s embarrassing.

Agree with this completely. Adding extra characters without resolving any current storylines/situations is not good.

1 minute ago, ranger1rg said:

  56 minutes ago, Aback said:

As for this week’s shows, I was shocked at Dana and Marcel’s conversation. 5 minutes after introducing Darlene, the writers were already discussing another character whom we’ve never seen (Sheila). I swear they spent 5 minutes discussing Sheila and Darlene’s relationship, how they get along and all. Who cares?!? Will these writers ever be able to tell stories with the characters they already have on canvas? Not to mention that this week another invisible character resurfaced: Madison’s mother is driving story lol. It’s embarrassing.

previously mentioned: “sheila” is marcel’s boat.

and ita re madison’s mother — too much telling, not enough showing has been a problem since the beginning.

On 4/10/2026 at 5:51 PM, DramatistDreamer said:

Especially since Laura lost her mom, she would be particularly vulnerable where having a possible mother figure re-entering her life is concerned. Not that Darlene would be consciously exploiting that and perhaps she really does genuinely become close to Laura. Soaps used to have these types of relationships where people weren't related by blood but there was a pseduo familial or a multi-generational relationship between two characters.

Sorry for double post/quoting - I forgot to mention that this reminded me BTG has that kind of dynamic with Nicole, Anita and that other recurring character (the sanctimonious woman) who act like mother figures to Laura (those 5 times a year we see her).

1 hour ago, ranger1rg said:

Agree with this completely. Adding extra characters without resolving any current storylines/situations is not good.

2 hours ago, Aback said:

As for this week’s shows, I was shocked at Dana and Marcel’s conversation. 5 minutes after introducing Darlene, the writers were already discussing another character whom we’ve never seen (Sheila). I swear they spent 5 minutes discussing Sheila and Darlene’s relationship, how they get along and all. Who cares?!? Will these writers ever be able to tell stories with the characters they already have on canvas? Not to mention that this week another invisible character resurfaced: Madison’s mother is driving story lol. It’s embarrassing.

They've been talking about Marcel's wife for as long as we've known him so they arent adding extra characters into the mix. I like the convo bc it provided much needed context as to why Darlene hates Leslie. It extends beyond what she did to Nicole, whom she isnt close to. Leslie is sleeping with the husband of her good friend which and knowing this makes me look at their interactions a bit differently bc its personal for her. She sees history repeating itself again. Leslie could have redeemed herself and tried to do better but she's not and thats what Darlene has going through her head. And of course she's projecting and putting that onto Eva as she feels she hasnt changed either

2 hours ago, wonderwoman1951 said:

previously mentioned: “sheila” is marcel’s boat.

Oh wow. I'm behind on the storylines and had wondered who posters were referring to. A boat!