NumberCruncher

As an American I can definitely hear Stephen's Canadian accent when he says certain words...not so much with Emily. I don't know if that's because of where they both grew up (i.e. Toronto vs. Vancouver). Western Canadians sound more like people from the Western U.S. than their equivalents in the East, IMO.

I have been fairly quiet about Arrow lately because honestly the show has pretty much lost my viewership this season. I just don't really care anymore. I still read the threads here because I find them quite amusing and they confirm to me that my decision to sideline the show was the correct one. I did, however, want to delurk to basically say that all the things that dudebro blogger just wrote about are exactly why I stopped watching. I'm glad he's enjoying it but I think Arrow is the shallowest it has ever been sidelining long-time characters, making everything about how cool the fights can be while ignoring any and all character development, rehashing the same tired plotlines from prior seasons, etc. It's in a word...boring. Why watch season 5 at all? We've already seen ample characters coming back from the dead, Oliver boinking questionable women, new masked characters boring us to tears, weaksauce villains, and now If anything, S5 only proves that they've run out of cliched tropes. It's not a wonder why the ratings have stagnated. Now back to lurk status.

Cosigned. I'm not the least bit shy of stating my preference for the adaptation N&S over any of the P&P adaptations. It really is that great. I love the book, but I'm actually glad they changed the ending to what we see because besides being wildly swoonworthy it's a lot more interesting than the rather anti-climatic ending from the book, IMO. I guess I don't find the train scene terribly anachronistic especially since we're constantly shown Margaret saying and doing things that were perceived as inappropriate for a young lady of gentility at that time all throughout the book/series--especially when it came to men. In the TV series she was getting into trouble for talking so casually about marriage with a single man, grabbing onto John during the riot, being seen in public at night alone with a strange man, etc., so to me, the train scene doesn't seem so out-of-character to someone like her. *shrugs*

I don't get the big deal either. Omnia Paratus translates to "ready for anything" which is a pretty cool motto to choose as far as tattoos go.

This movie cannot come out fast enough. Is it wrong that I'm about a thousand times more excited for this Batman movie than any other Batman movie WB has released lately?

I absolutely LOVE that Dunkirk scene in Atonement--it's a cinematic masterpiece right down to the haunting soundtrack. Honestly I don't think Americans are as ignorant regarding the European beginnings of WWII as a lot of people seem to think so I don't see this failing with American audiences purely due to subject matter. Look at Schindler's List--that story had virtually nothing to do with U.S. involvement in the war, had no American actors to speak of, and it was a huge hit. People in the U.S. may not know all the ins and outs of Dunkirk but I don't buy the argument that they think WWII started at Pearl Harbor either. War buffs will love the movie if it's good. As for the foreign cast that's also not necessarily indicative of failure. From a TV standpoint, look how well Band of Brothers did on HBO led by a then unknown-to-American-audiences Damian Lewis. BoB is still regarded as one of the classic war miniseries--it also starred a very mixed, smaller-named American/British cast. Also, despite being centered around an American G.I.'s story, Hacksaw Ridge has recently done quite well at the box office despite starring an English actor in the title role (with a fair number of British/Australian supporting players) so there's precedent for good war stories being popular with American audiences despite having international casts.

The OJ trial and the media circus surrounding it was just one big "WTF?" that I hope the U.S. never has to endure again. From a purely television standpoint, I blame it for the rise of 24-7 reality TV, the tabloidization of cable news, and to a lesser extent, the destruction of original daytime TV programming.

Really? I loved Voltron as a kid. My entire neighborhood would gather to watch it at my friend's house before we got on the bus to go to school in the mornings. Happy memories there, LOL.

I like "Ace" as well. I didn't find it condescending since it was really meant to be a term of endearment rather than a statement about Rory's journalistic skills.

Basically that GG should turn Rory's pregnancy into a political statement should there be additional episodes. I get the reasoning but is this show really the platform to do it? I never got the impression that people watched GG as an answer to heavy social issues.

Oh I agree with you. When I said there were inconsistencies I meant in ASP's writing, not in Alexis's and Matt's performances. They were shown to be in love in both the original episodes and the revival (I know the latter is debatable to some). However, your point is still valid that there was still an inconsistency even if we disregard S7 because ASP left Logan and Rory together relationship-wise at the end of S6 despite being physically separated. The revival hinted that their Vegas arrangement hadn't been going on all 9 years so something broke them up but apparently the Palladinos were too lazy to write an explanation so it's all guess work. It doesn't surprise me since Amy hates the whole Rory's relationships subject but it definitely makes for a frustrating viewing experience trying to make sense of all the plot holes.

I basically agree with your assessment, @photo fox, but I also fall back on the previously discussed point that regardless of ASP's inability to write adequate character motivation in the revival she still didn't protest how the actors interpreted and portrayed it as she was directing their scenes. I don't know if that amounts to her simply being a subpar director in addition to being a questionable screenwriter or whether she intended the characters to come off as still being in love with each other. Regardless it has definitely created a whole slew of inconsistencies between the original series (even in those seasons she wrote) and the revival. As you say Matt has plenty of practice being as diplomatic as possible when it comes to crappy storylines for his characters on both TGW and GG. He genuinely seems thankful and deferential to any showrunner who gives him career opportunities so even if Matt really took issue with the writing for his character he likely wouldn't say so. Come to think of it, I've never seen the man be anything but happy in interviews. Could all be for show or maybe he's just that nice. Either way it's smart.

Yeah, I've never understood everything that gets ignored regarding Logan's treatment of Rory and what was canonically portrayed on the show. He didn't just give her stuff. He was shown throughout his active seasons as caring for both Rory and her success. While he was definitely a flawed character in the revival, Logan was also a pretty damn good boyfriend to her back in the original series. Just adding to your above list Logan also: Was shown multiple times providing input on Rory's written works when asked so as to help her writing skills to improve Encouraged Rory not just to take the first reporter job offered to her right out of college and instead try for what he knew she really wanted (i.e. the NY Times fellowship) Gladly stepped in to help when Rory and the rest of the staff when they were struggling to get the Yale Daily News issued Was constantly cheerleading Rory whenever she put down her abilities both in school and as she tried to enter the career world Flew back and forth to/from London to see her while they were separated during her last year of Yale. Was shown as making sure Rory was emotionally comfortable before engaging in sexual relations Sought Lorelai's permission to marry Rory knowing that would be important to her I, too, am not trying to sell Logan as a favorite or make people Rory/Logan shippers (because frankly I don't care what people like or don't) but can we at least acknowledge real plot points as they were portrayed on our TV screens? Their relationship was hardly perfect and there were plenty of stupid mistakes made all around but there was also a hell of a lot more good there than I think a lot of people are willing to admit for whatever reason or another.

That's your interpretation but that doesn't mean Matt can't have his too. And yes, even Matt acknowledges that it was a mutual goodbye. No one was disputing that. The characters have said goodbye multiple times before and they still ended up right back into bed together so anything is possible. If Rory keeps the baby and the Palladinos reveal it is Logan's then who knows if the goodbye will, in fact, stick should more episodes appear. We simply don't know at this point.

Ditto. Luke and Lorelai sneaking off in the middle of the night under the noses of the nosy townspeople was all kinds of perfect to me. It's one of the few details in the revival that I actually enjoyed.

These are exactly my same thoughts on the matter. Matt and Alexis played their roles beyond just a simple friends with benefits arrangement. You could see the hesitation on both of their faces in the LDB and goodbye scenes. I highly doubt ASP would have allowed that to happen if she meant it to be a meaningless fling. She held all the power over how the actors are portrayed as the director so even if by some nefarious means Matt and Alexis tried to go beyond the Palladino's script and add feelings that weren't there, Dan and Amy both had the power to veto what the actors were doing. They simply didn't choose to do so and therefore I can only conclude that they were completely okay with it.

There could be multiple reasons stopping them. Maybe Logan figures since Rory rejected him once she would again. Maybe Logan is trying to spare Rory from his family's ire. In Rory's case, maybe she's projecting her issues with Christopher onto Logan and is using her mom's history to dissuade her. Or maybe she saw how Richard and Emily treated someone they saw as less-than-worthy of their daughter's love (Luke) and didn't want to find herself in the same situation with the Huntzbergers.

We really don't know where ASP intended to go here. She did make the Logan/Christopher parallel but at what point does that end? The story cuts off as to what happens next so the audience is left to decide. Does Logan indeed turn into someone unreliable like Christopher or will he go a different direction? We simply don't know at this point. Does Logan love Odette? We really weren't given enough information to draw that conclusion other than a vague statement about a family dynasty. We literally got zero insight into how Logan feels about her. Also, people are going to see different things re: the Rory and Logan relationship. You keep saying they didn't love each other and that's certainly your opinion, but that doesn't mean a lot of other posters didn't see love between them in the revival. Whether they are long-term/end game is clearly up for debate, but I do think the way Matt and Alexis played their scenes did leave the impression there was something to it beyond just a simple Vegas arrangement. If it bothers people that Matt keeps making what they consider fantastical statements then so be it, but I suspect he's basing his opinion on the fact that he actually played Logan in a committed relationship with Rory for almost 3 seasons. Whether ASP acknowledges it or not, Matt did see his character propose to Rory in S7 so, rejected proposal or not, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe Logan to still be in love with her. After all, Rory even wanted to continue their relationship after she rejected marrying him. Looking at how S6 ends, ASP herself had Rory and Logan professing their love for each other as they were saying goodbye so again there's at least some justification behind Matt's statement that Logan considers Rory his soulmate. Whether ASP believes the soulmate argument is anybody's guess because she has literally never addressed that. She was on record as making certain statements back in the day that Rory and Logan could end up married and happy if they ever got past their individual issues but who knows if she still feels that way? The point is that it's not completely out in left field that Logan and Rory did and do still love each other even if they can't be together. That's left up to the audience to decide.

Yeah, I'm not really getting the arguments that there's no love there between Rory and Logan--whether it be romantic or just good friends--and that he was just using her. As disturbing as their sexual exploits came off, you can't ignore that they knew everything about each other's lives so clearly it wasn't just about sex. It was established that he was her go-to person whenever anything was happening in her life. He also seemed very aware of what was going on in Rory and Lorelai's relationship and knew the ins and outs of Rory's plans to write the book. That tells me that at a minimum they were good friends and that they cared for each other even if it doesn't mean theirs was a love for the ages. I also agree on the actor availability thing. It's not as if any of Rory's actor boyfriends had a ton of time to film as it was. JP, MV, and MC were all working on TV shows at the time of GG filming so I really don't think that affected ASP's storyline plans all that much. In Matt's case, I seem to recall he was the first of the guys to sign on (someone can correct me if I'm wrong there) so that would have very much still been in the middle of filming The Good Wife. The other thing that leads me to believe the Rory/Logan thing was ASP's plan all along is her insistence on sticking to her last four words. In theory, had the show ended when it originally was supposed to, she would have had Rory pregnant in S7 or S8. If that's the case, it would make sense that she would have had the Rory/Logan relationship continue since he was her last serious boyfriend. Add to that ASP's hard on for her Logan/Christopher parallel and you can see why she chose to go the direction she did in the revival.

Yep. This is why I'm not terribly keen on getting another season. ASP has basically already told us how it would end...we are our parents both in our life circumstances and relationships. I think I already watched that once.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of any showrunner who tells me I'm watching their show wrong (and ASP is hardly alone in this regard). As a viewer, I'm going to interpret the show as I see it play out on my screen. It's not the viewer's fault if things are not spelled out exactly how an EP/writer imagines them. If they leave plot holes and missing character motivations to be filled in then the audience is going to fill them. If I see OOC moments then I'm going to acknowledge them as such. If there's a whole season that the showrunner decides not to watch that doesn't mean it didn't happen...etc., etc.

Oh I agree with you. I'm quite displeased that she is ignoring S7 because the continuity errors are glaring but I'm just saying that the Logan gunshy argument ends up being wishful fan thinking because ASP didn't approach the revival from a place where he had propsed to Rory. Of course it would have been nice for ASP to at least provided some character thoughts and motivations but apparently that had to be sacrificed so she could shove unnecessary musical numbers into the show and twist the plot to get to her contrived ending to make sense.

Exactly. Marc just doesn't get it so people's attempts to sway him are futile. They might as well just beat their heads against a brick wall...it's probably less painful in the end. You can't persuade the unpersuadable. If people were truly smart about their dissatisfaction they would show him the apathy he's so keen on avoiding.

Exactly. People are free to fanwank just about any conclusion they want but for me the Wookie baby daddy theory just really makes no sense on its face. I also don't think we would have gotten the Rory/Christopher scene at the end discussing Lorelai's single motherhood if we weren't to make an educated guess Logan is the father since ASP keeps bringing up the Logan/Christopher parallel so much.

Yeah, there's no way it's the Wookie's baby. That would mean Rory missed at least 2-3 menstrual periods, thought nothing of it, and then decided drinking champagne with the LDB would be totally cool. I get Rory's kind of a dunce in the revival but I highly doubt she's that stupid.