While I agree that the episode seemed to be all over the place, I'm not heading for the lifeboats just yet.
Issue One: Michael's plotline for the episode seemed like a long (too long) set-up for things to come. We didn't know any of these people (save Jeff, who seemed tossed in simply to remind us he's still around), and Michael's success or failure really would not have bothered me one way or the other. In other words, viewers had no "stake" in his caper, so it fell flat. I'm going to assume this was a dry run for something bigger later in the season. It has shades of Ben Gibson's plotline in his final season of Knots Landing, where the evil woman controlling him starts him out with small tasks, then eventually manipulates him into trying to kill a core cast member. I'm just wondering which one it will be. She and her goons may have messed with/rewrote the contract that Max Van Kirk signed that allowed the sale of C-A (she had it in her possession, then seemed perfectly okay with giving it back without demanding money). It would seem that Fallon might be the target, which would be...problematic since Michael wants to marry her. If it voids the sale of C-A to the Van Kirks, then I'm okay with it, since the "family company" not being the family's company is just...wrong.
Issue Two: Paraguay...really? The story would have been pretty much the same if they'd claimed that the homes were being built in Tennessee or Kentucky, so there has to be some unseen (thus far) significance to sending Steven and Co. to the Southern hemisphere--and sending him back. A simple trip to Appalachia would not have forced the eye-rolling scenario of them all finding each other so easily after traveling so far. I knew the producers would not be able to resist the "plush tent" thing with masseurs, etc. because that seems to be their obsession, but it pushed an already hard-to-believe scenario right over the edge. I was briefly having flashbacks to another Knots plot---Paige and Michael in Sant Tecla, but even Santa Tecla was a multi-episode event. This one-and-done trip to "Paraguay" (with north Georgia standing in) had to be setting up something bad happening to Steven in a land far, far away, making it harder for them to find him/save him/keep him safe/whatever.
Issue Three: I love you/I hate you/I love you again/until I hate you again: Blake's mood swings remind me of a toddler. It's not just this episode, of course, but it really was showcased here with his behavior toward Anders. He tosses things, he insults Anders in front of the staff (those slams in front of the guy interviewing for Anders's job were hilarious, but still...) and changes his mind (between burning hatred and total devotion) in the span of a commercial break. We saw him do this with Celia/Cristal too, but it wasn't as odd when you consider they'd only just gotten married. Blake and Anders go back decades, but Blake can't act like a grown-up? It's hard to invest in Blake's feelings (that is, sympathize) when they change on a dime. When he's in a "hate you" mood he really enjoys 'hating' on people. The hatred comes so easily for him that when he changes his mind and claims he loves the person again, I tend to think "...until I find another excuse to rake you over the coals".
Issue Four: Where are we headed? By the fourth episode, we should have a good grasp of what they're planning for the season. Instead, I have even less grasp of the direction of the series than I did before I watched this episode. The de-emphasis on what should be a momentous event--the sale of the family company--leads me to believe they don't plan on making the sale actually occur (or at least make it stick). If the Van Kirks were meant to be a permanent addition, they would not have been written like that. The jettisoning of Melissa, Steven's "de-fathering" of her baby, and his paternity reveal all scream "They're getting rid of him". The only thing they didn't do to sever all ties was making him and Sam break up somehow. Yet...if they wanted to get rid of Steven for some reason, they could have just killed him in the fire. So all I can imagine is that they're going to recast. Similarly, I'm not seeing the long-term value of Kirby. So far she's just a spoiled brat who sulks around all day. This episode, more than many, seemed to be tossing everything out there and hoping some of it sticks to the wall. I can count on one hand the number of plots that currently make me think "Oh, I wonder what they plan for him/her/this?" There ought to be more things going on that makes the viewer want to tune back in for answers to their questions.
