[S02.E01: June / S02.E02: Unwomen]

Just finished s1 and the book, and working my way through s2. I'm with everyone on the "torture porn." I didn't mind the hanging fakeout too much. (Yes logically we know they're not going to kill that many Handmaids, but the Handmaid's terror in-universe sold it for me and they can't know for sure what this regime will do to them next). And the rock punishment seemed suiting. But I lost it when they started burning Alma's hand. At that point it felt like shock value. 

Also - were they going to do that to all the Handmaids? Or just Alma as a warning or maybe because they knew she was June's friend? 

On 6/3/2018 at 11:00 PM, BARISTA said:

She also ran to the entrance door when she heard someone approaching, that could have been anyone. Who knows how anyone would have acted in that situation, but the amount of silly risks irritated me while watching it. 

Ugh, June in the Boston Globe drove me crazy. Scraping that hammer around, turning on the lights, wandering around by the windows etc. A chilling and realistic part about last season was the constant tension in every scene and how unbelievably cautious everyone had to be. (At least most of the time).  Hope they don't lose that now. 

I was also confused at the choice to go through the Handmaid's punishments, take June back to the Waterfords and then have her escape. We now know that Nick was engineering her rescue, but it wasn't anything to do with her being taken at the end of s1 - that was all the Guardians and Aunt Lydia. His escape plan was after she got back. So how could Nick assure June that she was going to be ok at the end of last season? Did he mean that's 'it ok you're only going to be horrifically tortured?' Was he the one who got news to Aunt Lydia that she was pregnant, which then "saved" her? It would have made more sense for her escape to have happened before going back to the Waterfords. 

The second episode was miles better - imo, one of the best episodes in the whole show.

[All Episodes Talk: Lorelai and Rory and the People They Love]

6 hours ago, Katy M said:

Well, then that's just horrible.  I do love the scene with Emily, and in some ways I think it was more important for Rory to hear that she wasn't regretted by one of the parties that disapproved of the act that begat her, but Lorelei should have been there for her also.  No matter how you feel about Rory, nobody deserves that kind of treatment from their grandparents.  Her parents' sexual act was 100% no way her fault.  And, forgetting about Rory, I'm not sure how having sex is the appropriate response for being yelled at about having sex 17 years ago.

I absolutely love that Rory-Emily scene, it's one of my top scenes for both those characters. I think it revealed so many layers about both of them that we don't normally see. Rory, we're so used to seeing being adored and viewed as the golden child by her mother, grandparents and the town, that it was a totally different side to see her feeling unloved and unwanted and questioning herself because her other grandparents were so brutal and disparaging. The only other time we see that vulnerability in Rory is in regards to Chris, and how he's neglected her over the years.

@andromeda331 had a great post about storylines and aspects of characters that could have been expanded on, and I think that's an angle on Rory I'd liked to have seen more of. How much did Chris ignoring her impact her? Despite Lorelai's efforts did she feel unwanted or that she did something wrong that kept him away - is that why she tries to be so sweet all the time, avoids conflict and is passive-aggressive?  Not to mention how that impacts her relationship with her boyfriends. And how much did her knowing she was a "mistake" [while Lorelai adored her, Rory knows that had anyone had the choice beforehand, they wouldn't have decided for Lorelai to get pregnant in high school], the pressure from her grandparents to make up for all her mother's screw ups, and being aware of how much her mother sacrificed for her growing up, impact her behaviour and need to be perfect? How much of her go to Harvard/get good grades etc. was influenced by the immense pressure she was under? A lot of that stuff is running below the surface, but it would be nice to explore it more explicitly. I'd have been a hell of a lot more sympathetic towards Rory if her s6 breakdown or even revival screw ups were framed as a culmination of years of pressure from being the "great white hope of the Gilmore clan" and knowing Lorelai put her whole life into Rory's dreams. 

On the Emily side, the scene and Chris's parents gave us such a contrast of how she could have reacted to Rory. While she was horribly ashamed and angry with Lorelai, she never once turned her back on Lorelai or Rory, and always wanted them in her life. Emily can be so overbearing and holds Lorelai's pregnancy over her for so long, but putting her alongside the "that child is dead to me, I will never acknowledge it ever, it ruined our family line forever" Haydens, does illustrate that her attitude of embracing Lorelai and Rory, and wanting to take care of them in every way possible -- even if it's was controlling and over the top -- is 100x more sympathetic than others in her circle. 

(Side note, on "things that could have been expanded on", I've always speculated that - given how much Emily values family and commits her life to Lorelai and Rory - whether she would have liked more children but for some reason just wasn't able to have more. I mean the 2.5-ish kids is the average in America, and as a woman who expected her life to be managing her husband and children, I do wonder why she and Richard only ever had one child. And there is her fairly extreme reaction in flashbacks when Straub suggested an abortion. Obviously she could have just been someone who opposed abortion in general, but it wasn't just a "no way" it was "that's horrifying, how could you even suggest that" response - if she'd wanted more children but couldn't have them, that would explain why she wouldn't even consider getting rid of a future grandchild).

[All Episodes Talk: Lorelai and Rory and the People They Love]

17 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Why would the test be on a Saturday?  This wasn't the SATs or anything.  It was just a regular class test.  I could possibly believe that Chilton started a half hour to an hour later than SHH.  My high school started at 8:00.  I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that a school could start at 9:00, but then they would go until 3:30.  And Rory should be getting home in the dark in the winter.  I suppose SHH could be starting at 7, but then it should be dark when they're leaving.  Winter days are not overly long in New England. 

Dialogue from the episode at the parent-teacher evening:

LORELAI: So this AP test, what are we going to do about it huh?

MAX: Well the next test is scheduled for next month, um, the 25th, Saturday at 7:00 am. [Lorelai raises her hand] Ms. Gilmore?

LORELAI: Uh, where is the test?

MAX: It will be given here.

I don't know if that was the same test Rory took in the episode or one planned for later down the line but clearly Chilton does have some tests on weekends. And while Chilton seems to start later than SHH with all the time Rory has before school, it just seems at odds with their strict scheduling (like tests on weekends, compulsory extra-circulars and out-of-class projects) and that Rory doesn't seem to get out of school much later than the SHH kids. 

[Funny moments - what are your favorites?]

On 4/11/2017 at 1:54 PM, hippielamb said:

I adore them, they were so in sync. :) A funny Dave and Lane scene that always cracks me up is when they are plotting to meet up later. 

DAVE: Um, speaking of which, it’s 3:18. We’ll have the stuff packed by 3:40, what’s the situation?

LANE: At 3:40, my mom will be on her way to the yarn store for her bimonthly sew-a-thon with Lacey Schwartz and Bick Ho.

DAVE: The yarn store’s on Peach.

LANE: Plum.

DAVE: That cuts us off from our usually route to the interstate.

LANE: There’s a back road that circles around it, but it’s gonna be muddy from the rains.

DAVE: How about I have the guys take the usual route, I’ll go by foot on Peach, down the alley behind Al’s, over the fence, and they can pick me up a half a mile down by the Shell station.

 

Lane and Dave were one of the funniest and sweetest relationships on the whole show. He totally leapt all-in with Lane's crazy shenanigans and hiding from her mother. His scene where he read the whole Bible in one night as part of his effort to take Lane to the prom was hilarious as well. I really wished he'd stuck around, Zach was sweet but never seemed to click with Lane in the same way or be on her level. And tbh I'd find her eventual "banged up at 20 with twins" fate less depressing if she ended up with the guy who was set up as her soulmate (and was by far the best boyfriend on the show imo). 

On 4/12/2017 at 7:09 AM, Melancholy said:

Adam Brody (Dave) was cast on The OC which was a smash hit early on but it sort of collapsed. It wasn't a particularly good show but Adam was adorable and great in it. Adam Brody was actually cute and charming enough to pull my focus from legendary crushes of mine Rob Lowe and Aaron Eckhart in the underrated satire Thank You For Smoking. I don't get why I haven't seen Brody more since like 2010. I thought he'd blow up big since he seemed like he had the looks, acting talent, comedic chops, and personality to do so.

Yeah, the O.C was all over the place but he was great as Seth. I was kind of surprised he vanished as well, he felt a lot like a 2000's Dylan O'Brien (comedic timing, they look a lot alike, type cast as the snarky, geeky best friend role) and O'Brien has done really well after starting out on a teen drama. So it's sad Brody hasn't gone anywhere. 

[All Episodes Talk: Lorelai and Rory and the People They Love]

On 4/12/2017 at 3:05 AM, Katy M said:

The other weird thing is one other time, Lane was out waiting for the bus with Rory before school.  Now, Rory is running late and Lane is still at home.  If I had that much time left before I had to be out, no way I'm up and dressed just to wait with someone else for the bus.

I think Rory said it was a half hour to Hartford.  So, when does school start and when does it end?  For someone with an hour commute and tons of homework (which I suppose she could do at least some of on the bus), she seems to have plenty of free time, doesn't seem to have to get up that early and we've never seen her get home after dark or leave before light.  Amazing feat for winter in the north, I must say.

In the Deer Hunters episode I think they mentioned that the test would be on a Saturday morning - so Lane wouldn't have school that day. (But still got up oddly early anyway).

But so with you on Rory's schedule driving me crazy. She seems to have time to chat with Lorelai at home, have a cooked breakfast at Luke's and hang out with her friends all before her 30+ minute bus ride. She must be getting up at like 5am to get all of that done. Any normal high school student would roll out of bed 15 minutes before the bus was due. Especially as Rory and Lorelai allegedly hate early mornings! 

And half the time you've got Lane, Jess and Dean leaving for school at the same time Rory is - even though Stars Hollow High is a 3 minute walk away. And I can't believe the super-academic, rigorous Chilton starts like an hour later than SHH. 

[Gilmore Girls in the Media]

1 hour ago, Kohola3 said:

I know I would not if ASP did the writing.  

Maybe the mods can do a poll.  I tried but wasn't successful.  It would be interesting to see how may yays/nays we'd see.

1 hour ago, FictionLover said:

I agree. They give tribute to the revival for the millions of new subscribers at the end of November, but how many would come back for another season knowing what we got the first time?

Exactly, I've no doubt the revival was a success for Netflix financially but that was based on the hype of the original series, not the revival itself. Feedback for AYITL has been mixed to horribly negative. So while more optimistic fans might still watch the first few episodes, it's going to be way less than the numbers for the revival, and if the quality/characterization/writing is as crap as last year then there's going to be a big drop off.  

I'd be way more hopeful if someone else other than ASP was writing it. Hell, at this point I'd be more excited about the writers from s7 coming back, they had a lot of missteps but at least they don't actively enjoy pissing off their audience and telling them they're interpreting the show "wrong." Even if ASP does come back, Netflix needs to be a lot more hands on with/executive meddling to counterbalance her and Dan's....lesser impulses. (Like y'know, maybe suggesting that a 20 minute musical isn't the best of ideas).  

On 3/8/2017 at 2:41 PM, moonb said:

I don't know how additional episodes could provide enough drama to be watchable without the writing getting really sloppy and manufactured, and the AYITL rightly got enough of that criticism. Lorelai's gone through a bit of growth, but she is what she is, and grandma!Lorelai won't be too different from MomLorelai. Would her storyline be "Lorelai and Luke have communication problems, Part the Infinite?"  Emily's arc also ended in a good place for her, dramatically speaking.  Not that good TV characters have to be under a certain age....it's just that Emily's and Lorelai/Luke's storylines seem finished, and Lorelai dealing with, say, her mother's slow decline after her father's sudden death would be awfully heavy for a show like GG.  Which leaves Rory, the baby, and Logan/maybe Jess for the focal point in another years-long Lorelai/Christopher timing dance. Personally, straightening out Rory's life wouldn't be enough for another series for me.  Rory is best as an ensemble character, imo.

That basically sums up all of my worries about what s2 would look like. Two of the biggest ongoing arcs of the show - the Luke/Lorelai Will They Or Won't They and the Emily/Lorelai struggle - are concluded, and I have zero interest in them ruining that to add more drama. (I don't want to see L/L split up yet again so Luke can pine for a while and pull some undeserved romantic gesture to get her back. Or Emily and Lorelai having another screaming match about Lorelai running away at age 16 Just Let. It. Go). 

And yep, while Rory's story has been left totally wide open she's so unlikable now I can't get behind her being the main focus of the show. (And her character always played second fiddle to much stronger personalities anyway). And hardly anyone's excited about the pregnancy plot. Plus as discussed above, it doesn't look like Milo will be coming back so that eliminates possibilities of a Jess/Rory romance. Given Jess is still pretty popular and one of the few characters not ruined by the revival, losing him isn't going to help with getting viewers. And good luck trying to hype people up about Logan now.  

I mean maybe if they gave more stories to secondary characters? But Bonnie and Melissa won't be coming back as regulars, so no Paris or Sookie. Lane, Michel and Kirk are about the only hopefuls, but that's not enough for a whole show.

The revival was designed to be a one-time thing - it was amazing they got so many returning cast members as it was - ASP had the chance to conclude everything well and she blew it. (For the fans anyway). They needed to tie up the loose ends and fix the screw ups from the original series, not open up a whole new mess of problems. Unless ASP drastically changes her outlook - unlikely given she had 10 years to look back on the original show and doubled down on the least popular aspects - a s2 is only going to make things worse imo.

[All Episodes Talk: Lorelai and Rory and the People They Love]

On 14 March 2017 at 5:19 AM, qtpye said:

I think Paris was introduced to be a foil to Rory.  We all are supposed to have said, isn't Rory the most wonderful person ever, especially compared to this nut case?  However, the actor and  early writing really brought out something in Paris.  She was a true force of nature...good and bad.

Rory's ultimate problem imo was she was so passive. A lot of characters could be frustrating and unlikable but were strong-willed and proactive so whether you liked their behaviour or not, they were at least engaging.

Lorelai, Emily and Paris are the most obvious examples: They did some not-so-nice things and were seriously flawed but carried it off with the force of their personality. (Lorelai may be self-absorbed and stubborn, but she achieved a lot and was interesting because of it, Paris is totally ruthless but you root for her because she works so damn hard). Whereas Rory came across as rather weak and insipid and rarely made her own decisions. Her flaws were less easy to forgive because she's not compelling outside of them.

It's interesting to me that she surrounds herself with much stronger characters (like her mother and grandmother, sticking with Paris, her relationships with Jess and Logan) and basically feeds off them. I think it's why so many people blame or praise Jess or Logan for her actions - her behaviour is so dictated by whoever she's with. With Lorelai and SH she played the perfect daughter, with Paris and Chilton she got more competitive and driven, with her grandparents and Logan she was spoiled and comfortable with the elite lifestyle. I struggle to recall times she was driven by some internal strength rather than reacting to others. Maybe academics in early seasons, but it was partly competing with Paris and her journalism/Harvard dreams seemed heavily influenced by Lorelai. About the only thing she seems passionate about on her own is reading and literature. 

Honestly it's fascinating that she inherited so much from Christopher after all: A similarly weak character who never really figured out what he wanted or how to get it, spent years wandering aimlessly and clung to Lorelai's much stronger personality since he was young. Rory ends up more "like father, like daughter" than like her mother. (Which puts her final scene with Chris in a rather different light, albeit probably not on purpose, as ASP wants us to believe Rory is Lorelai 2.0). 

[All Episodes Talk: Lorelai and Rory and the People They Love]

On 3/10/2017 at 1:55 PM, voiceover said:

Ugh.  Getting ready to turn off "Blame Booze & Melville", as it opens up a series of plot lines I deplore: Sookie's demand that Jackson get a vasectomy (both ends of that plot made you wonder if they EVER communicated) and Rory's meltdown after Mitchum's evaluation.  

A lot of noise was made about this being her first big rejection, but -- IIRC -- there was Italian opera after the Shakespeare test and the "Drop my class" eps.  For a child of divorce, she never seemed to gain any resiliency.   I mostly couldn't stand Paris as a character, but she was a lot tougher than Rory -- the one & only thing I liked about her.

Funnily enough I didn't mind Rory's early break downs, because they felt like reasonable reactions for what she was going through and she pulled herself together afterwards. A lot of teenagers would crack at the teasing and workload she dealt with at Chilton and most students have some meltdown or other during their first year of college. Rory's struggles humanized her more than if everything had gone perfectly, and she was sympathetic because she pulled herself up again. But with Mitchum her reaction was totally out of proportion and she didn't learn from it. Maybe if she'd struggled more during s5 (Mitchum, her classes, YDN fitting in with Logan's friends) and built her to her dropping out to reevaluate her life. Instead it was: Things are fine --> Receives one piece of criticism  --> Commits a felony/drop out completely --> Lazes around being adored by Logan's friend and the DAR with no introspection for months. 

5 hours ago, Iknewyoucoulddoit said:

There are probably better examples than Rory being eagerly handed the editorship of Yale Daily News despite not even indicating an interest in it and not having been on campus the entire previous semester while she was off living like a celebutante and DAR-ing, but that might be the one that bothers me the most. I haven't watched that episode in years, but I recall staff memebers all but pleading for her to take the position.

Does anyone else ever feel like they need reminders about why they love this show since there's so much about it that is all too worthy of criticism? I read the posts here and the media critiques pointing out how the revival magnified serious issues with the show and its characters that were present all along and I suddenly have trouble recalling why it's supposedly one of my favorite shows!     

The YDN editorship and Vice-President were the two biggest examples of Rory getting things she didn't deserve or even aim for. Her academic achievements we at least see her working for and wanting very badly, so I don't resent them. (Though Paris should have got Valedictorian). But too many other things just fall into her lap. 

Bahaha, I complain about GG so much I have to ask if I ever enjoyed it. But honestly, I wouldn't still be dissecting the characters and trying to fix everything if the show hadn't been good in the first place.  It's a sign of how great the early seasons were (mostly 1-4) that I still care about the characters and am invested in their stories even after years of terrible writing. There are a lot of shows that didn't end develop nearly as badly but I gave up on out of disinterest. GG may drive me crazy, but it's still got wonderfully complex characters and my early love keeps me going :D

On 3/10/2017 at 4:15 AM, TwirlyGirly said:

I've always been Team Luke for Lorelai, and Team Jess for Rory, even though I really can't stand Lorelai (and like Luke), and while I used to like Rory (at least more than Lorelai), her character in the revival really changed my opinion of her. I've always liked Jess.

The reason for both choices is Luke was obviously always in love with Lorelai, and Jess with Rory. IMO, they were the only two men in their lives that could successfully handle their behavior and call them on it, consistently. Which made Lorelai and Rory better people when they had those men in their lives. Both Lorelai and Rory became so used to adoration from everyone they met, which allowed them to get away with making poor choices and treating others badly, so they needed Luke and Jess to bring them back to reality and force them to face their behavior.

That's always why I come back to Luke and Jess as well: They brought out the best in Lorelai and Rory. While Lorelai was self-absorbed with whoever she dated and bossed Luke around, he was good at keeping her grounded, called her out on her bullshit and actually enjoyed snarking with her. (Keeping Lorelai on her toes is pretty essential if you want to date her).  And on the flipside she was good for him, got him to lighten up and not isolate himself. With the exception of the s6 toxic mess and their flat dynamic in the revival, it's obvious they enjoy the whole "Lorelai babbles and Luke grumps about it" routine and it works for them. Imo the two most telling exchanges about their relationship are Luke building her an ice rink because he doesn't like seeing her sad even though he's Mr Grumpy Grumps, and Lorelai sending Luke off camping only for him to admit he likes her dragging him along to her shenanigans. They're not perfect but imo they're very compatible and enjoy being together, even if they bicker on the surface. 

With Jess, there's a pattern of him bringing out the best in Rory, especially when she's at her lowest. (Triggering her returning to Yale,  breaking her writers block etc.) I might be in a minority here, but think he had a positive impact on her in s2 and 3, even when their actual relationship was a mess. Unlike literally everyone else in her life, he wasn't blind to her flaws and called her out on them. (E.g. questioning whether she's too sheltered to be a foreign correspondent, pointing out she was in the wrong for kissing him and running). At the same time he was still supportive and truly believed she was capable of achieving her goals and unlike Dean wasn't threatened by having such an intelligent girlfriend (there was a lot of tension from Dean about her Harvard plan, while Jess stepped back and let her make that call herself). Basically Jess managed to rare feat of being realistic about Rory's strengths and weaknesses, but not turning on her whenever she screwed up.  Too many people in her life idolized her and then couldn't deal with it when she failed (Lorelai, Richard & Emily, Stars Hollow residents). 

I also think it was important that Rory first began bucking expectations because of Jess. Her remaining friends with him over everyone's objections and standing up to Lorelai over the car crash, was pretty significant in learning to become her own person separate from her mom.  Yes it was uncomfortable for Rory at the time and she didn't deal with it well, but it was necessary. And unlike her rebellious, "finding myself" period with Logan, her choices regarding Jess weren't destructive or impacting her life negatively. She was still focused on school and hobbies, didn't change herself for him, kept close relationships with her family and friends, and was secure in herself. The worst Jess-related consequence was missing Lorelai's graduation (which wouldn't have happened if she'd picked literally any other day to rebel and see him) and the break up with Dean. (And tbh that split was always going to happen, whether it was because of Jess, her leaving for college or meeting another more compatible guy down the line). 

[All Episodes Talk: Lorelai and Rory and the People They Love]

On 07/03/2017 at 6:30 AM, qtpye said:

Hey, if Logan does not marry Odette, then how the heck is he going to be the next Earl of Grantham?

Oh, wait...wrong show and century and country.

Bahahaha. I don't even want to imagine what would come out if ASP and Julian Fellowes co-wrote a show. 

On 07/03/2017 at 3:37 AM, RoyRogersMcFreely said:

I think the "force of nature" thing could work if we're supposed to look at it through the context of that scene. Which is Chris was never there and never really got to know who Rory is. He's only ever saw her as an extension of Lorelai and just assumes since Lorelai raised her then surely she's a force of nature. Like, this is how disconnected he is to his kid to this day. It's probably not what Amy is going for, but if I just look at it like he's supposed to be wrong, it works for me.

I would have thought the scene was highlighting how little Chris knew Rory and just saw her as a Lorelai clone, if not for headmaster Charleston making similar comments. (His "you've always been internally stronger than everyone else" compliment and comparing her to Lorelai). The show really wants us to believe Rory is this driven, empowered heroine whose genius and talent just isn't ~appreciated properly~ 

(To be fair on Charleston, high school Rory was more independent and happier to go against the flow compared to most Chilton students, and he watched her go up against bullying, isolation and catching up years worth of schooling to top her class. So that comment about 16/17 year old Rory lines up - but not for 32 year old Rory). 

Ultimately both men's comments and comparisons with Lorelai were obviously driving towards the "full circle, like mother like daughter" ending. We're meant to believe Rory is Lorelai 2.0 in order to justify her ending up in exactly the same situation as her mother and implied to deal with it in the same way. (Her "can't ever quit you" relationship with Logan, seemingly not wanting to tell the father and raise the baby alone).

Unfortunately Rory is much limper and weaker than Lorelai ever was, and revival Rory would be much more likely to turn up at Logan's demanding a house, full time nanny and private jet to support them rather than run away to raise her baby in a potting shed. (And as covered a lot here, trying to fit Logan/Rory into the Lorelai/Chris mould of being unable to either quit or commit to each other didn't work or mesh with their character arcs in the OS). 

On 09/03/2017 at 5:23 AM, txhorns79 said:

I viewed Logan more in Season 7 as getting out of the family business, but not really losing the perks of being a Huntzberger.  He still had money, he still had the connections and still appeared to be living a very upper class lifestyle.  So there was some growth, but not so substantial that he was actually on his own, so to speak, like Lorelai was when she walked away from her parents. 

I agree that Logan's "rebellion" against his parents didn't match up to Lorelai's. Logan bitched about them a lot but never made the total clean break and truly survived on his own like Lorelai did. Maybe if DR had written a s8, but as it is he just whined a lot through s5/6, had a brief burst of independence in s7, and was back with the family in the revival.

Lorelai - for all her faults- completely walked away, abandoned all the luxuries of her upbringing, survived on her own merits, worked incredibly hard for years and built a life for her and her daughter. Logan never achieved that. I'd say he's more comparable to Chris, or even Tristan-type behaviour, where he'll rebel in small, petty ways and complain but it comes down to it, doesn't manage to truly seperate himself and make a life of his own. And in the GG's world, a lot of rich kids resent their parents/lifestyle but Lorelai is the exception in actually walking the talk and accepting the consequences of leaving that life. (Yes she later came back for Rory's tuition but that was for her daughter not her and she absolutely intended to pay it back. I have to give props to everything she achieved on her own before that). 

[Gilmore Girls in the Media]

1 hour ago, FictionLover said:

Oh no!

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/tv/gilmore-girls-could-return-for-another-run-netflix-teases/ar-AAnNmjs?li=BBoPJKU

9 minutes ago, lulu1960 said:

I was wondering how long it would take for people to not like the idea. I for one would watch.

Oh god, I'd watch because I couldn't help myself but it wouldn't be a hopeful experience. It makes me so sad because I've actually given up on a happy ending for the characters, particularly Rory. The revival had so many hopes and opportunities, and squandered literally all of them. Emily is the only character that developed, it was nice Lorelai and Luke got married but they were so lackluster for the rest of it, Rory - as discussed enough - was a total mess, and secondary characters like Lane, Paris, Logan and Jess either weren't given storylines or left hanging. I just can't go into another revival hoping anything will get concluded when chances are it will only get worse. (Luke and Lorelai split up again? Rory rehashes the L/L/C triangle with Logan and Jess? Emily and Lorelai start fighting again? Ughhhh. For ASP the characters being happy = death of the show, so it's only ever going to be melodrama. Just give it to the fans now). 

That said, if I heard someone else was writing another GG season I might actually feel optimistic....

[A Year In The Life: What Would You Change?]

8 hours ago, Allie56 said:

Exactly! What about Rory's life is good? Even her relationship with Lorelai is tainted by repeatedly lying about visiting Didi in London. Homeless, hapless, jobless, unprofessional, untrusted by (the admittedly unhinged and unpredictable) Naomi Schropshire, unwanted by Sandee Says, unfaithful to her boyfriend, and, to top it all off, going commando. I actually really liked Naomi, which might be an unpopular opinion, and I thought she'd make an amazing memoir. I would read the crap out of that book. It was just another example of Rory being unsatisfied with the options before her. Naomi Schropshire? Rory's bored and annoyed and happy to be rid of her. Sandee Says? They should be happy she deigned to visit their office. The thirtysomething gang? A bunch of losers she can't hang out with. Chilton? She considered grad school, but that, too, is just not what she envisioned for herself. People have done - and continue to do - much worse jobs to keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables. I really want to love Rory, but as so many recent articles have discussed, she's kind of awful in my opinion. 

And to add to the bow discussion, ASP says life doesn't have a bow on it, but this show has the Life and Death Brigade and a magical tango club and choreographed strutting down magical avenues and young men with enough money to easily buy up businesses and inns on drunken whims. BUT NO BOWS, PEOPLE! I BEG YOU! NO BOWS!

I found Naomi hilarious as well, I get why she was so difficult to work with and the memoir may never get written but she was a really entertaining character. But yeah, the problem was Rory was so apathetic about about so many opportunities. Stopping working with Naomi on it's own was understandable but it was part of a pattern of Rory refusing to make an effort with anything: Sandee Says, grad school, Chilton, the thirty-something gang, the Lines piece, she even seemed to get tired of the Gazette. And a lot of those were chances other people would kill for.

And seriously ASP, GG is a show made for pretty bow tying and happy endings: In the OS Rory was practically the town princess, and achieved an unrealistic number of goals from Ivy League acceptances, student VP and editor of the YDN. And Lorelai did a riches-to-rags-to-riches fairytale story (complete with questionable finances, home ownership and business success), and lived in a town that is literally referred to as living in a snow globe. Not to mention ASP's take on how the elites apparently live in the stratified social classes of 19th century Europe. This was never a show that was gritty and serious - it wan an idealized, romanticized version of life. You can't turn around at the last minute and change your mind. Know your audience, or for that matter know your freaking genre. 

2 hours ago, junienmomo said:

I won't reiterate all of the very good insights in the previous messages, with which I heartily agree, but I will add the following: 

• ASP tied the biggest friggin' bow around Rory herself by giving her easy access to millions of dollars. Her own minor trust fund, daddy Christopher, Emily, who would do anything for her granddaughter. It just makes me see even more clearly how lacking in perspective and initiative Rory is. Her baby will lack for nothing except perhaps a mother with common sense.
• For all that the Wild thing didn't make sense, as well as the Richard anecdote problem, it was an epiphany for me to hear Lorelai talk about being ostracized for being loud and weird. That told me a lot about her character and the reasons she didn't want to remain in Hartford.

That bit really stuck out to me too and I wish they'd explored it more in the original series. Framing Lorelai as something of a weirdo and misfit growing up totally changes my perception of her and makes her much more sympathetic. Based on the OS it seemed like she'd been just as popular and adored growing up as she was as an adult in Stars Hollow. (The episode where she hung out with the Chilton mom's and they fawned over her comes to mind).  It felt like she chose not to fit into that upper class life rather than not being able to. But Lorelai growing up being teased and looked down upon by her peers because she's "loud and weird" utterly changes that. It makes her finding a home and friends with the weirdos in Stars Hollow much more heartwarming and her discomfort with her parent's world more about insecurity rather than petulance. 

[All Episodes Talk: Lorelai and Rory and the People They Love]

On 3/1/2017 at 3:55 AM, Melancholy said:

However, I would say that GG paints cheating particularly unsympathetically for me, with the exception of S2-3 Rory/Jess and to a lesser extent, Rory's side of her affair with Dean. GG is not a show of bodice ripping sexy passion so it's not like people are slaves to passion. I do believe Lorelai/Christopher and Rory/Logan loved each other but it's superficial love, never tested by "for better or for worse." GG is determinantly not angsty so I don't usually feel like people are acting out sexually because of huge "big time legitimate pain"/Buffy. Rory has that a little in the Revival but it was glossed over. And while I like to say that Rory was acting out sexually over big pain over Richard's death and her flailing career, that's not a Logan/Rory friendly shipper analysis. 

On 3/3/2017 at 9:33 PM, andromeda331 said:

I agree. I'm not a fan of cheating. But there were ways to make Logan and Rory sympathetic and they chose none of them. Reading through this thread there have been a lot of really good suggestions. I mean, Logan could have come to Richard's funeral or ran into Rory in London when she was having a real hard time dealing with the loss of the grandfather she loved which lead to sex and now they have an emotional connection again. Maybe Logan was engaged to Odette but after running into Rory, maybe he's not so sure anymore after all he loved Rory enough to propose and to run into her now and she's single. Or maybe he fell back into his family's business whether he caved, or was unable to make it on his own and pressured to marry Odette but seeing Rory reminds him of how hard he worked in season seven to become his own person. For Rory maybe she broke down when running to Logan and has ended up depending on him since Richard's death and since then keeps going back to Logan because he was there for her when Richard had his heart attack years ago, or maybe with her non-existence career she wonders how things would have gone if she married him and moved to San Francisco working for one of the city's newspapers. Or she just broke up with Paul who's just another of string of relationships that went nowhere or it was long term relationship that just ended.   There were a lot of different options they could have done.

On 3/3/2017 at 6:47 AM, Sweet Tee said:

Infidelity can be done in an interesting way in fiction.  At least in fiction, we know the whole story and can get an idea of where everyone is coming from.  This is just not one of those cases.  This is Rory being a serial cheater and Logan not dumping his fiance because....I don't even know, because he "has" to marry her, I guess.  Neither of them come across as sympathetic to me.  I don't care that we don't know Odette.  

Exactly. The biggest problem with the cheating and why I have zero sympathy for Rory and Logan is there was no justification or even exploration of why they were having an affair. While cheating is problematic, good writers can still make the characters sympathetic if they explain why they're acting this way. ASP could have at least provided a perspective and understandable motivation for their actions. But there was no insight from either of them. And as said, GG isn't a show where the audience will buy wild passion as enough justification for cheating.

Any of @andromeda331's suggestions would be good: Tie Rory's motivation with losing Richard and needing security, tie Logan's perspective to how he ended up trapped back with his family and Rory reminds him of wanting to be independent again. They even could have excluded Paul and Odette altogether, but - if they wanted to justify why Rory and Logan weren't properly "together" or compatible long term - made it clear they were using each other as coping methods and escapism. Using the other to avoid dealing with their issues (Rory's grief and career, Logan's job and family). It could have ended with a genuinely heartwarming situation where they acknowledge they can't use each other as outlets anymore but push each other to move on and change their situations. But that's too mature for ASP. 

On 3/2/2017 at 2:39 AM, Kohola3 said:

This isn't Merry Olde England where the royals in arranged marriages all had lovers on the side.  You're engaged (arranged or not which was a ludicrous premise anyway) but still have a sexual relationship with someone else, - it is cheating.  And immoral.

On 3/4/2017 at 2:40 AM, Iknewyoucoulddoit said:

Right? Even in the Palldinos' bizarre alternate universe where a lot of their points about money and class division harken back to a bygone era Amy Palladino wasn't alive for, this makes no sense. Zero. Unless maybe Logan knocked Odette up too? That Huntzberger sperm does seem to be very determined, lol, and it's not like the Palladinos are above using yet another contrived unplanned pregnancy as a key plot point.  

On 3/3/2017 at 5:49 AM, dubbel zout said:

I don't agree that infidelity is always wrong, but it sure was here. And I don't like that it was written in a way that I think we're supposed to sympathize with the cheaters. "Logan is trapped!" "Rory and Logan are in love!" "This is the only way they can be together!" Spare me. I get that Logan grew up with certain expectations and it can be difficult to break away from all of them, especially when they're tied to money, but he's not completely stupid. He has a Yale degree and lots of connections. I'm sure Mitchell Huntzberger has enough people who hate him that they'd hire Logan simply to stick it to Mitchell. As long as Logan could be productive, I don't see where he wouldn't sign on.

But instead we get woe-is-me-I-have-to-toe-the-family-line Logan.

Yes to all of this. The only justification we do get for why Rory and Logan "have" to cheat is the bizarre *dynastic plan* line. Which as everyone has pointed out, does not work in a 21st century setting. It feels like some kind of Tudor Court/Game of Thrones/Titanic/Medieval Romance mash up. These forced marriages just don't exist these days, not even in the elite circles. The most Mitchum could do is cut Logan off, but as @dubbel zout pointed out there are still ways for Logan to get around that - like getting an actual job. And it would be x10 easier for him than normal people thanks to his background and position. 

Even in the original series, I could never buy Logan's *there's one door and I'm being pushed through it* spiel. He could easily have found a way out. He was at college and seemed to have access to an almost unlimited supply of Huntzberger money. Instead of throwing it at crazy-expensive LDB events, he could have saved money and used the four+ years of College to explore what kind of career he wanted to go into, and used his families' connections to break into it. (Like, y'know what normal people go to college for). That way if he graduated and announced "hey Dad, I'm going to be a writer/firefighter/gardener/accountant/toy shop owner/IT specialist rather than go into the family business" and Mitchum still cut him off, he'd have a career and savings to fall back on, and could live his own life. (Hell, he could probably put a deposit on an apartment with Huntzberger leftover change or the cost of just one the LDB events. Even if his parents withheld his trust fund/allowance he could have been in a much better financial situation than 90% of his peers if he planned in advance).

Instead he did nothing for 5 years except waste money partying, getting drunk and crashing yachts and then complained he was being forced into a job. You can't have it both ways Logan: If you want to be a normal "free" person then you'd have to get a job anyway (and one probably a lot harder than a cushy position at Daddy's company). Or if you're going to live off your family fortune then yeah you're dependent on your parents. (Granted Mitchum was a major ass and horrible to Logan, but given Logan showed no initiative in doing something with his life it's not surprising Mitchum was trying to control his future). 

I know it wouldn't have been entertaining for the show to go into the details of Logan's financial situation "Oh look, an episode where Logan sets up a separate bank account" but the problem was Logan's "entrapment" fell apart on a practical, logical level. 

On 3/2/2017 at 4:34 AM, Lady Calypso said:

I pretty much echo other people's thoughts about the cheating being bad, but I will add in one more point: just because the revival treats the cheating as no big deal, just because Paul's used as a punchline and as more of a funny joke than an actual person, and just because Odette is used as a Macguffin and is merely there as a disservice to Logan and Logan/Rory, it doesn't make the cheating any less wrong. We need to be better than ASP and DP here. It may just be a show, but it is supposed to be mirroring real life, societal norms and societal expectations and at the end of the day, Logan/Rory are cheaters. They can downplay it all they want, but it's not a good lesson to teach viewers that cheating is alright as long as the two people are in love.

On 3/2/2017 at 5:31 AM, deaja said:

I don't think anyone thinks it is her job to teach viewers lessons. But it does change how viewers see the characters and in many cases, it makes them like them less.  Now, some very unlikable characters on this show (cough... Paris Geller) are the most entertaining.  But Rory doesn't fall in that category for me either.

While it's not ASP's job to teach lessons, I think there's something to be said for not taking ASP and DP's messages lying down but calling them out for romanticizing poor behaviour. (Cheating, fat-shaming, racism etc.) And because it's a show that mirrors reality we do bring in society's values and standards when judging the characters. 

[A Year In The Life: What Would You Change?]

7 hours ago, Allie56 said:

I definitely agree that a certain level of bow-tying needed to happen. Also, burn the hats. 

I also think that it's a bit, I don't know, condescending that she felt the need to say she couldn't tie a bow on the show because life isn't like that. We know that. Even the lives of the Gilmore girls were never totally perfect. I think she just totally overestimated the amount of drama that Rory needed avoid what ASP calls "tying a bow" and what the rest of us call "creating enough conflict to build a storyline." Rory's life isn't a wide open field. It's a complete and utter shit show. Pick a lane! She doesn't have a home, or she feels like a sell out, or she can't find love, or Richard's death causes a bit of an existential spiral, or her career has stalled. Don't choose ALL OF THE ABOVE and add cheating, fat shaming, and gross entitlement to the mix. 

A lot of people have complained about the Stars Hollow musical taking up tons of unnecessary time, and I agree, but I felt that way about the Wild storyline as well. It was uncharacteristic of Lorelai to go on any sort of hike, let alone a MASSIVE undertaking like that. Hiking gear is expensive, so she dropped hundreds and hundreds of dollars and traveled across the country only to drop the whole thing immediately, after we've wasted precious time watching her struggle with her pack and bond with other hikers. It's all in service of LG's beautiful monologue about Richard and Luke's anguished declaration of love, but you could get to that point with her leaving Luke mid-argument and coming across a beautiful hill while driving around. 

I wish that, instead of Lorelai telling her horribly inappropriate sex story at her father's funeral, she just hadn't been able to say anything about him at all. That she couldn't talk about good memories with her father because she couldn't accept that he was gone, and that inability to verbalize happy memories was what drove a wedge between Lorelai and Emily. I hated the bad taste that Lorelai's stories of her father's cruelty left in my mouth. I mean, we all know that Richard was not a perfect father but he and Lorelai shared quite a few precious moments on the show. I didn't really need them to invent horrible childhood memories. 

Ugh, so with you on the "life isn't like that" condescending front and - aside from being hugely hypocritical given GG has always been an idealized, shiny version of the world - it's not like life doesn't come together in some ways. People reach satisfying stages of their careers, they settle down into steady relationships and overcome personal baggage. 

But like you said Rory's life was a mess on every front and none of it pulled together: By the end she still had no career, no relationship answers and hadn't learned from her mistakes. ASP could have brought her to a somewhat conclusive point and still left some ambiguity. Rory could have given up on journalism, started a new career teaching at Chilton/writing her book and settled down permanently near Stars Hollow (fulfilling the "life isn't perfect/go the way we want" quota) and still had the shock pregnancy ending. That way fans at least got answers to part of her life. 

Alternatively, they could have cut out the pregnancy ending but still left her relationship status ambiguous. They could have had more explicit Rory/Jess hints: Have scenes with them reminiscing, hanging out, talking about books, the actors playing it more romantically, Rory gazing at Jess etc. before he had his longing look. (Bonus: It makes Jess look less pathetic and isn't as out of the blue). End with them dancing together at Luke and Lorelai's wedding or something, so it's more obvious. That way the show still ends on a question mark for Rory, she doesn't just neatly end up with a guy with her life all tied up but it's at least a more hopeful ending on the relationship front. (And doesn't end with her bogged down in cheating drama with an engaged guy). Preferably this version of events would involve some guilt and reform on Rory's end. 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who disliked the Wild storyline! It was disconnected from GG world and out of character. Yes Lorelai's story about Richard was beautiful and it was good getting some insight with her talking to the other women but the process was inorganic. (Right down to her being a book  rather than movie person). Jeez, if Lorelai was going to go on some journey of self-discovery it would be a roadtrip of the best coffee places across America. (Idk, she tries all these different coffees and realizes that Luke's coffee is the only stuff she wants and that's her big realization moment?? Super corny, but at least in character and relates to the show). And I felt disconnected from her big monologue about standing still because it was to these random women we never met. I didn't care about those lives and them bonding with Lorelai. It would make more sense in a conversation to a known character - Michel, Emily, Rory, Sookie, Lane, hell even Kirk. 

I agree Lorelai not being able to say anything about Richard would have been better than her awkward stories. (Which didn't really fit their relationship or the back story anyway). And imo Lorelai would have been more sympathetic if she didn't spend ages trying to escape saying anything. She could have literally just woken up as Emily asked her for a story, was disconcerted, on the spot and couldn't think of anything. Instead she spent 5 minutes trying to sneak away when she had time to think of something.  (Plus the scene gave the audience 5 minutes to remember things she could say and get annoyed). Not being able to produce something in 20 seconds is understandable - a few minutes not so much. It made Lorelai look horrible that she had the energy to plot her escape but not pull up a memory of her father. And her "mistake" seemed more deliberate and actively anti her parents.

[All Episodes Talk: Lorelai and Rory and the People They Love]

2 hours ago, hippielamb said:

What did he lie about? I honestly don't remember. He was always straightforward with Rory. The cheating thing seems to really bother people. I just can't get too bothered by it. 

It's implicit, As you said Logan was a cheater - and therefore a liar as well. He lied to his future wife about the fact he was sleeping with another woman. That's a pretty major lie in my book, I don't know about anyone else. 

Yes, it's possible Logan and Odette had some open relationship system but nothing indicated that was the case. (Logan was going to put Rory up in a hotel with all the connotations of having a secret mistress, was uncomfortable when his Dad found them and went out onto the balcony to avoid Odette while he was on the phone with Rory). That's continual dishonest and underhand behaviour. I really don't see how being "straightforward" with Rory about the terms of their sex matters when he's that dishonest to the woman he's promised to spend the rest of his life with. 

Honestly, I can't not get bothered about it. Sure the impact of empathizing with Odette is lessened because we never see her. But she still exists in universe. Logan and Rory are still cheaters and liars and acting horribly, just because they have more screentime and are known characters doesn't cancel out the wrongness of their actions imo. It might mean we cut them more slack or try to understand their perspective more than an objective situation with two unknowns, but they're still doing a despicable thing.

Yes Rory and Logan are fictional so their actions obviously aren't as serious as real people's (as discussed here, you do go easier on fictional characters than in real life). But the show is still based in a realistic setting and in-universe holds up standards on honesty, cheating etc. This isn't some GoT's universe with totally different morality and outlook, GG norms are similar to RL society and expected behaviour. 

I"m actually curious how bad other people find the cheating. For me cheating and lying is a massive line to cross in terms of being a good or sympathetic person and people that do it - even if they're fictional - I'll judge harshly. Especially in the context of Rory and Logan with no understandable motivation. But maybe other people see it differently? 

[All Episodes Talk: Lorelai and Rory and the People They Love]

6 hours ago, whateverhappened said:

The following is all just my opinion and how I saw Rogan. Definitely not claiming any of the people who perceived them differently are wrong because it's all very subjective. 

Rogan had some great scenes, but overall I thought their Season 6 relationship was a bit of a mess. To me it read like the Palladinos couldn't decide how they wanted the audience to perceive Logan or even how much longer they wanted him on the show and he - and Rory x Logan as a couple - was inconsistent as a result. They may have ended the season in love, but their relationship was hardly idyllic throughout that season. Didn't they break up at least twice in a relatively short span of time? That's hardly the model of a stable and healthy relationship. I don't doubt that they loved each other, but the writing often gave me the impression that we were supposed to conclude Logan's excessive partying and general high society lifestyle was diverting Rory from the person she used to be and was ideally meant to become. That was a theme throughout and what I saw as the purpose of Jess's visit that season - not to revive a Rory and Jess romance but as a wakeup call to Rory and using Jess a stand-in for the very large portion of the audience who disliked Logan and/or the person Rory had become during their time together. I'm definitely not blaming Logan for any of Rory's choices, but I'm just saying that I don't think of S6 Rogan as written to be a relationship we were supposed to view as "end game" or even very healthy. And to me they were definitely not an ideal romance novel couple despite having some individual romantic moments. In romance novels, the idea is that despite obstacles, the two characters clearly make each other happier and better and are meant to be happily ever after. I really like some of Rogan's scenes in S5 and S6 but didn't get the sense that the Palldinos wanted us to see Logan and Rory in that happily ever after romance novel way at all, more just as a love that was often enjoyable at the time but not ultimately meant to be. My money would have been on the Palladinos not planning to make Rogan endgame or even keeping them together through most of season 7 unless we're talking in a casual way so that they could make him the father of the baby Rory was supposed to have at age 22 because FULL CIRCLE and all that nonsense. Since the Palldinos write nearly everyone with money as elitist and frivolous at best and a downright terrible human being at worst, it's tough for me to believe they intended Logan to be the one for Rory longer term.

I do love a lot of their season 7 moments, but then David Rosenthal was a lot better at writing sweet romantic scenes and happy couples in general. I would have been very interesting to see how he would have written LL. Surely as at least a little happier, more connected and affectionate than the Palladinos did? Maybe that's just wishful thinking! 

Yes to all of this. I never bought that Logan was meant to be Rory's end game precisely because their early relationship was so uneven, Rory wasn't her best self with him and he so much represented her grandparents/wealthy world while Rory seemed to need to find a way between the two sides of her. And while they were a happy couple in Season 7 there still wasn't any *they're end game/soulmates/meant to be together* indications. It was just a healthy relationship that's rarely seen on GG and largely due to DR's writing. (In contrast LL weren't always written as happy or healthy but the show constantly hinted they'd be End Game for most of the series).

So imo Logan and Rogan fans were screwed over because Logan's character reverted to pre-s7 (pre-s6 even) and because the Rory/Logan relationship was much unhealthier and more toxic than s7. However even s7 never gave any guarantee or justification that they'd end up together. They had a good college-aged relationship but that didn't promise they'd be together forever or in the revival a decade later.  Even taking into account s7, Rory/Logan not ending up together made complete sense on a lot of levels and for a lot of reasons. But the way it happened - Logan's characterization and their behaviour together didn't make sense in the context of s7. 

Basically the revival was inconsistent not because Rogan didn't end up together but because Rory and Logan's dynamic was butchered. They could have not ended up together without their relationship being so horrible

14 hours ago, hippielamb said:

Or, the Rory/Logan in season 7 was OOC from what we saw in season 6. Their relationship makes more sense in the revival if you go from season 6. It makes it hard though because they are elements of season 7 that I enjoy, and I don't want to erase them. Not just Rory and Logan but of Lorelai's story too. 

9 hours ago, tarotx said:

Season 7 isn't OOC except for they were allowed some growth. But for Amy to have her full circle ending, Logan needed to be a trapped soul never released from his family and Rory had to end single, pregnant and unsure about the future. So not only her love life had to be rough, all parts did.

7 hours ago, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

What about S7 made them OOC? They were deeply in love and Logan was begging her to ask him to stay when S6 ended. So the Revival is still a head scratcher even if you don't factor in S7. 

Logan's development between s6 and s7 makes a lot more sense than Logan's development between s7 and the revival. Even in s5 and s6 Logan made sweeping changes in his life to accommodate Rory ("Ok, I'll be your boyfriend! All other girls gone!") and grand romantic gestures to woo her. That was present in s7. (As a whole I side-eye the whole "pure, perfect girl tames the wild playboy" thing but that's how Logan was written for all three seasons). Revival Logan is a liar and a cheater - something he wasn't even in earlier seasons - and lost all his development.

(Again, I still don't think s7 Logan/Rory were set up to be end game and I'm not actually a huge Logan fan. I still have issues with some of his overall behaviour in the OS, even under DR. But he was the worst of the worst in the revival with no justification why). 

4 hours ago, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

For that to be the case, Rory's choices would be due to Logan and his lifestyle which would be blame shifting IMO. I am not saying you are, but giving reasons of why I disagree if it was the show's intentions. Rory went through one "bad" period while she was with Logan. I put it in quotation marks because aside from the boat stealing, I don't agree with most that her dropping out of school was a bad idea, or that she was on a spiral whilst out of school. As I posted above, she was productive during that time. 

If that period was a low point, she was still with Logan when got past it. So if we are attributing the bad to him, it is only fair to to do the same for when she's thriving. 

You are right, I forgot to add that to their similarities.

So they both got kicked out of prep schools.That just means they come from the same background like I assume most boys who attend prep schools. It still doesn't parallel how they relate to Rory/Lorelai.

6 hours ago, whateverhappened said:

As I specifically said, I'm not blaming Logan for Rory's choices. But some people and relationships just don't bring out our best or truest selves. It's rarely anyone's fault, just a fact of human interaction. I was theorizing based on most of what they wrote that the Palldinos had that view of Rogan, that they wrote Logan x Rory as feeling strongly for each other and even benefiting from being together short term but ultimately weren't end game for reasons I've already talked about. We can agree to disagree on that. No one really knows what strange notions are swirling around under Amy Palldino's bizarre hats anyway. 

Yes to this too. Sometimes you're just not a good or best version of yourself around certain people. That's not on them, that's just the dynamic. And imo Rory was never her best self around Logan. She was on a downhill spiral in terms of entitlement and lacking any backbone through s5 and 6. In s6 yes she was "productive" in doing court ordered community service and admittedly the DAR which was an actual job, but she wasn't figuring out her life or making a plan or considering new career options. She was living off her grandparents and Logan and at odds with her mom. That's not a good state. And even in s7, imo she still wasn't "thriving" (as a person rather than study/job) the way she was in early seasons.  As most fans comment - she was much more likable, down to earth, hard-working, dorky, humble and appealing in early seasons. She was better in s7 and her relationship with Logan was healthy, but Rory herself was still fairly entitled and out of sync with her earlier character. I also got the impression Rory and Logan were a pair who loved each other, and eventually had a good relationship at that stage of their life but it would eventually run its course/they were incompatible long term.

I always saw the Chris/Logan parallel as super obvious, even before they met.. (And their conversation wasn't just "we both went to prep school" they talked about similar interests in technology, gaming (I think) and rebelling against their parents/being expelled. It wasn't very subtle). Logan ended up being a lot more dependable than Chris regarding Rory but their personalities/interests were very similar. 

6 hours ago, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

ht Rory imitated the kiss between her and Jess in season 6. Because she is accused of using Jess to get back at Logan as if she went there purposely to kiss him when in reality he kisses her. She responded for a whole second before pulling back. He then he got mad and she had to apologize to him for not being into him. The hell? That scene was a reminder that Jess doesn't like being turned down. 

The kiss looked pretty mutual imo and - more importantly - only happened after Jess asked if Rory had sorted things and she told him it was "all fixed." Which was an incredibly blatant "are you still with the guy?" Rory chose to imply she wasn't with Logan anymore and - as Jess pointed out - turned up alone, acting like she was single. Rory 100% led Jess on there and he was right to be pissed off. That's a crappy thing to do, especially to a guy whose been hung up on you for years.  If Rory didn't want Jess to think she was into him then freaking mention you're still with your boyfriend when he asks. 

[One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions]

On 2/25/2017 at 9:48 AM, Katy M said:

I had never really thought about it, but you're probably right.  The only character from the show I can think of off the top of my head that I would like to know personally is Lane.  Maybe Tana and Marty.

Same, Lane you could have an actual conversation with rather than listening to monologues about herself. Season 6 onwards Jess I'd hang out with, now he can talk in more than one syllable he'd be good to chat about books with. But being friends in RL with everyone else...Nope. Definitely not with the people they ended up as by the revival. 

[All Episodes Talk: Lorelai and Rory and the People They Love]

45 minutes ago, deaja said:

Thank you both for your concern! :) My Logan-loving heartbtook wuite the beating. :)

There was a super cute Tumblr post of a Jess fan arguing Logan deserved better writing and a Logan fan replied saying Jess deserved more screentime http://burningthegallows.tumblr.com/post/153758063668/hisgirlinthewhitedress-fyeahjessmariano-dear 

I'm glad post-revival that there hasn't been that many ship wars, character bashing or Jess/Logan fights. (At least not that I've seen). Even people who weren't fans of Logan/Rory have agreed their behaviour was ooc after s7. Everyone's been pretty united in "all three characters deserved better."

1 hour ago, ghoulina said:

I was never a Rory/Logan fan during the original run. I surprised myself by being happy to see them together in revival. That happiness didn't last long. 

It's a weird situation because on one hand Rory/Logan fans got to see their couple together romantically and confirmation they still have feelings for each other, but Logan's character and their dynamic was butchered. On the flipside Rory/Jess fans didn't get any sweet or romantic moments (except the bizarre look through the window) and Rory doesn't seem interested in Jess anymore, but Jess at least emerged with his character and development intact, and was the "good influence" in Rory's life. So everyone loses?

[All Episodes Talk: Lorelai and Rory and the People They Love]

I'm pretty much where @Winter Rose is. I liked Rory/Jess in the original show (though I only converted after Jess's s6 transformation) but I don't think current shallow, spoiled Rory is good for him. If there was any original s1-4 Rory left or she refound the sweet, bookish version of herself I'd like them to end up together, but it would have to come from Rory. She should be the one throwing longing looks through windows and pursuing him because she's rejected Jess so many times and it's sad he's still hung up on her. (I understand why she pushed him away in s4, he had behaved awfully and ditched her - but he didn't deserve her playing with him in s6). They'd need to break this "Jess is always pining and never feels good enough for Rory" thing, because that may have made sense in high school when she was this high-flying golden girl and he was seemingly heading nowhere, but in the revival Jess is a nice, fairly successful and emotionally-together guy while Rory is a serial cheater (and unemployed and knocked up to boot). So if they got together it should happen after Rory's got herself together and appreciated him. 

If there was a s2 AYITL and Rory was still just as terrible, I'd be open to them introducing other love interests/stories for Jess and leaving Rory behind. At this point I care more about Jess's happiness than Rory's, which is pretty sad. But I'm grateful that the revival didn't tarnish Jess's character development and he was one of the few characters who actually grew up in the past 10 years. 

I really feel for Rory/Logan fans who were given a matured Logan and fairly healthy Rory/Logan relationship in s7 only for them to be toxic, selfish cheaters in the revival. In the OS I loathed Logan initially but did appreciate he'd developed into a good guy by s7, even if I didn't think he was compatible with Rory. Post-revival the initial issues with him in s5/6 (his arrogance, need to be in control, how he treated those "below" him, the way he treated women, the person Rory was around him) all came back 10 times worse. And for me that's not a big deal because I never cared much about Logan but regressing his character so much is pretty unfair for Logan fans. 

[S01.E04: Fall]

6 hours ago, Bringonthedrama said:

Same here. The witnesses should have been Rory for Lorelai and Jess for Luke, or if 'just a few loved ones/family', then Emily and Rory (Gilmore Girls!) for Lorelai and April and Jess for Luke. Sookie, not Michel, was the one to encourage Lorelai and Luke's relationship. It was weird to see him there because Michel and Luke never liked each other (Luke makes a semi-snide comment about him in the Revival) and Lane had worked at Luke's but they were not shown to be close, i.e. Luke mentoring Lane to start her own restaurant. She was Rory's friend.  I also don't believe Luke would get married for real without his nephew and/or his daughter there, after the fuss Luke has made about being there for his sister and Jess. demanding that Jess show up for Liz's wedding, and the desire to be a real dad to April.  

I felt the same and why the wedding ultimately fell flat to me. Melissa/Sookie not being there I can understand given the difficulties getting her and that in-universe she wasn't around much but missing Jess (and Emily & April) was ridiculous and clearly due to poor planning on the writers part. I felt like I was watching a feature of what actors they could pull together for an appearance rather than the characters celebrating Luke and Lorelai's wedding. I just sat there thinking "huh guess Keiko Agena wasn't busy that day then." 

[One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions]

On 2/13/2017 at 9:40 AM, KatWay said:

I definitely think we were meant to feel sorry for Lindsey there. To be honest, their marriage always seemed like a plot device to me, because...why would Dean marry this girl straight out of high school when he'd spoken of going to college. Instead he was stuck working in construction. And did Lindsey not want to do anything other than being an 18-year old housewife? To a guy who was obviously still at least a little hung up on his ex? They hadn't even dated for very long. Not to mention she was upset about the long hours he was working, but since they were playing house how else would they have afforded that?

The Dean-Lindsay set up always seemed bizarre to me as well. I can just about buy them getting married - there are young couples who rush into stupid things when they're "in love." (Especially in small towns or conservative/church circles). But Lindsay becoming a houswife and not studying or working at all while Dean worked 3 jobs? And everyone around them thinking that was totally normal? That was just weird. In the 1950's women might go straight from high school into "being a wife" but in 2004 young women do something - college, a job - not just cook and clean. Sure once they had kids or were a bit older Lindsay choosing to become a stay at home mother/wife would make sense but not at 18. Did Dean and Lindsay's parents not say anything? It felt like another case of ASP writing like the show was set 60 years in the past.

(Edit: I'm not trying to imply that stay at home wives are in some way lazy or not "achieving" anything worthwhile, but I find it odd that Lindsay was only 18 and seemingly had no activity in her life beyond waiting for her low-paid husband to get home every night).

On 2/13/2017 at 10:03 AM, whateverhappened said:

Has anyone here ever watched Parks & Recreation? It's a different type of show, but it includes some stuff about community, female empowerment, and getting along with people despite differences in personality, class, background and so on that reminds me a little of Gilmore Girls. It's possible that everything reminds me of Gilmore Girls, lol. I'm bringing it up because there's something about Andy x April that reminds me of Lorelai x Luke - an energetic, extroverted, sociable, fun loving and flightier person paired with a more reclusive, introverted, moodier, cynical yet very loyal and caring partner. There are some differences, and on Parks it's the female who's the introverted cynic, but the discussion here about LL sticks with me while I rewatch Parks because Parks did a much better job of showing how a couple's differences can be complemetary, how two very different people can balance out each other's flaws, challenge each other to change a little in positive ways and may turn out not to be that different beneath the surface. April x Andy connected beautifully despite their differences and their relationship was filled with passion and fun. They have realistic conflicts but never break up, learn to communicate and always clearly adore each other. Their differences become an asset in their relationship rather than a liability. It reaffirms how wonderfully I think LL could have been written, though I'm fast developing the opinion that the Palladinos are just not very adept at writing romance. I get why the general fan sentiment is against Daniel R., but I thought during his one season with the show he wrote and directed romance in a way that allowed couples to have moments of sweetness and fun and to show more affection than we got for most of the rest of the series.

I love Parks and Rec - it actually usurped GG as my second favourite comedy. (Friends still reigns supreme). I hadn't thought of the parallels with GG but now you mention them I can see it: Quirky small town setting, energizer bunny/super capable female lead and lots of positive female friendship.

And yep Parks and Rec managed to nail the bouncy-extroverted x cynical-introvert pairing not once but twice with Andy/April and then Leslie/Ben.  And in both cases they showed the realistic clashes between such couples and how they strengthened each other (April helped Andy get his life together and Leslie pulled Ben out of his cynicism and isolation). And the two couples didn't feel like repeats because they had depths beyond extrovert/introvert, with similarities that attracted the two halves to each other. Andy/April were immature and carefree while Ben/Leslie were workaholic nerds.

A lot of the strengths and difficulties in their differences could have been explored with Luke and Lorelai: Would Lorelai help Luke get out more and relax, would Luke help Lorelai feel she didn't have to put her "always witty, always engaging" Lorelai act on, would they struggle with Lorelai wanted to go out and Luke wanted to stay in? (I actually liked that one episode where they negotiated over bedtimes and adapting to each other's lifestyles).

Super importantly Parks and Rec invested as much in A/A and L/B's post get-together dynamic as they did in the "will they or won't they" stage. I really wish that once Luke and Lorelai were together the writers had explored their lives/dynamic as a couple rather than breaking up and getting back together again.  I agree that D.R did that better in s7 as seen with Logan/Rory in s7 which honestly was one of the healthiest relationships on the show even though s5-6 Logan/Rory were so toxic. Like a lot of writers ASP is scared to change the status quo and commit to a permanent relationship so keeps adding drama and break ups for the sake of it.

10 hours ago, Taryn74 said:

I would have paid money to see Paris lay into her.  One of my big wishes for the revival would have been to see Paris let Rory know that her "secret relationship" wasn't so secret because they weren't exactly discreet and people aren't stupid.  And then to call her a dipsh*t.

Guuuuuhhhhhh.

Argh, that would have been amazing. No one gives tough love talks better than Paris.

[GG Fantasy]

19 hours ago, hippielamb said:

Lol Lorelai is the Sirius of Stars Hollow.

I see Chris as a Ravenclaw too. He is smart and interested in astronomy. He was very keen on the Yale lectures, and the girls bought him a telescope. I think if it's a subject he is curious about, he will pay attention. If it's boring, he tunes out. He doesn't have Lorelai's bravery, so Gryffindor is out, and he's not overly ambitious so not a Slytherin. He takes the easy way out, so not a Hufflepuff. He and Rory are similar in many ways, that I see them both as Ravenclaws.

Dean, as much as I like him fits as a muggle in love with a witch. 

Lorelai being Sirius is literally so perfect, I love the parallel. I'd agree Chris would go in Ravenclaw - he is witty and intelligent (although in a way that he skates by on his brain rather than applying himself) and he just fails on all the other house's traits. 

[GG Fantasy]

Ooh I love Hogwarts sortings! 

I'd agree with all your sortings @Bumblebee Tights, Emily to be is definitely a Slytherin: Ambitious about her place in society, cunning in how she manipulates people, fiercely protective of those in her circle. 

I was always on the fence about Logan with Slytherin vs. Gryffindor but your reasoning persuades me he's more Gryffindor and I agree with @whateverhappened that he's not ambitious, he just sees his wealth and status as a way to have fun and enjoy life rather than about status itself. He can be domineering and likes attention but those are also Gryffindor tendencies.

Imo ultimately Paris is a Slytherin, though she has a lot of Ravenclaw traits - she's intelligent and studious but doesn't love learning for learning's sake like pure Ravenclaw Rory and Jess. She see's life as a competition and learning/knowledge is one way to win it, and for bonus points she enjoys it. She has a great mind but wants to use it to conquer the world - totally wired like a Slytherin. 

Richard is so hard: I feel like he's more Slytherin in a work context (backstabbing Jason, starting his own company) but Ravenclaw in his leisure time (reading, Yale, his talks with Rory). It's hard to know what's more dominant, he doesn't care about social status as much as Emily does and often just wants to retreat into his intellectual world (Ravenclaw). But also doesn't appreciate feeling undermined and unimportant, see: when the company was pushing him out or when he was "retired." (Slytherin). 

Lorelai I'd agree has a lot of Slytherin and Gryffindor traits but is slightly more Gryffindor - ultimately she's more brave and daring than cunning but her Slytherin traits crop up a lot around her Slytherin-ish parents especially Emily.

Lane I can never decide with Hufflepuff vs. Gryffindor.

[All Episodes Talk: Lorelai and Rory and the People They Love]

3 hours ago, Taryn74 said:

Truly.

Ugh I'm glad I'm not alone on hating that dress, the shape and colour is terrible on her. Someone like Paris with more muted colouring can pull off that grey-green but not Rory/Alexis, I don't know what the costume department was thinking. Just stick her in a clear blue or pink. (I'm still sad we never saw that original LDB dress again, she looked stunning. I think Logan may have better dress sense than Rory). 

[All Episodes Talk: Lorelai and Rory and the People They Love]

On 1/29/2017 at 6:12 PM, tarotx said:

Rory wasn't telling Logan stuff. Again. He was unamused and didn't understand it. It meant trouble was on the horizon the other times it happened. I don't think Logan owed Rory lying to people. I mean Rory had the right to be mad at him and she was but she brought this on herself. And she doesn't deal with her feelings. She puts them aside after Logan apologizes and goes spends Christmas in London with him. Logan did confess to being a bit Jealous in the moment. Later Rory does confess right away when she has a crush on the TA because of what happened with Marty. And Logan Apologises again.

The whole situation was awkward because Rory and Marty lied to Lucy and Rory didn't tell Logan until she was forced too. There was no need to lie here.  Marty was just not in a good space because he still had a crush on Rory and was lying to his girlfriend. 

On 1/29/2017 at 7:47 AM, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

Logan was under no obligation to continue the lie. He was unhappy with it before Marty acted like a jerk. And yes, Marty was being a jerk. Being poor doesn't negate his actions  ... or whatever curve he's graded on. 

 That whole thing was no one but Marty's fault. Rory shouldn't have gone along with it, not for as long as she did. And Logan certainly didn't have to play along. 

I totally agree Marty shouldn't have lied in the first place and Rory shouldn't have gone along with it. I don't blame Logan for not being comfortable about it. However, I have issue with Logan outing them for several reasons

1) He didn't do it because he felt bad for Lucy or it was the right thing to do - he did it because he was angry about Marty's "trust fund" comment and wanted to reassert dominance over the situation. (As @Kohola3 said it was a show of power on his part to humiliate Marty). When you look at the conversation it's incredibly obvious Logan set up the situation to expose them due to Marty's comment: 

MARTY: Hey, I'm just waiting for that trust fund to kick in. [Rory's napkin falls on the floor] I got it. There.

RORY: Thanks.

LOGAN: [Pauses] So how did you two meet?

[Lucy tells her story]

LUCY: I can't believe I don't even know this. How did you two meet?

LOGAN: Actually, Marty introduced us.

Watching the scene, Logan clearly brought up the "how did you meet" to maneuver the conversation round to how he and Rory met so he was the innocent party in having to tell the truth. (He later comments that it was a direct question and he just gave an answer because had no choice. Which is horribly manipulative. Also he could have just told the story about Finn trying to find a girl at her dorm room). Marty's comment was rude but given Logan spent their past interactions passively-aggressively bullying him and putting him down I'm not going to frame Marty as the totally evil guy for making one jab. (Granted he should have got over it by now but hey, Logan this is what happens when you're a bully, people lash out. And how was Marty meant to know Logan had changed?)

2) In wanting to one up Marty and punish Rory he showed zero care for the one innocent person in the situation: Lucy. Rather than forcing Rory to talk to her sensitively, he put his own ego before the perfectly innocent girlfriend.

3) He revealed the truth in the most hurtful way possible and phrased it to give Mary and Rory's friendship far greater implications that it had.

LOGAN: I'm sorry. I can't be a part of this.

LUCY: A part of what?

RORY: Logan.

LOGAN: They've known each other since freshman year.

LUCY: I don't understand.

LOGAN: Rory and Marty, they used to hang out all the time at Branford and watch "Duck Soup."

They knew each other in freshman year, the last time they hung out was in sophomore year - don't make it sound like they've been carrying on this friendship since then. And referencing cutesy movie nights is just twisting the knife. If Logan wanted to reveal the truth gently to Lucy he could have just said they used to be friends a few years ago.

Logan wasn't acting out of genuine moral care for Lucy, he was acting out of spite.

On that note:

On 1/30/2017 at 10:19 AM, Ambrosefolly said:

I'm I allowed to bring up things that happened during the current revival? Since I don't know

  Hide contents

Logan's moral superiority about lying to a  girl kind of goes out the window knowing in 2016 he is cheating on his fiancee with his college girlfriend. Does it count as lying when he fails to mention that he has been sleeping with his ex while he is on some "business trip." It doesn't make it any better that it is some arranged marriage, especially if Rory is now pregnant with Logan's first child. Not only that, he doesn't seem to have much of a problem  with Rory lying to some unsuspecting sap, because it largely benefits him. And no, I don't give a shit that they are still "in love" and they are/were basically using these people. But hey, Rory and Marty no fessing up to a non sexual relationship that ended 2 years ago is way worse or at least on the same level. And you know that ASP will write things ending better for Logan one way or another than the show did for Marty. 

 

2

 

So I guess only alpha assholes are the only ones that are allowed to be manipulative and even liars and the nice guys are supposed to always be striving for sainthood . 

I guess it was a lot harder for Logan keep his mouth shut 24 hours after meeting Lucy face to face and seeing Marty for the first in nearly 2 years than it was to let Rory know that he had slept with two of the bridesmaids she would be interacting with at his sister's wedding while they were on a break, that Rory had no idea they were on until she was informed by his sister. 

That's such a good point about Logan's general view on being honest in relationships. While he did get better in s7 (when ASP wasn't writing him) when you take in the whole context of his character - asserting power over Marty and Rory in s5, his dishonesty regarding their break in s6, his cheating in the revival - he's the last person to stand on moral superiority. 

The more you break down Logan's actions the more worrying his dominance gets. I used to think his proposal ultimatum (I have a life planned for us! Say yes or everything's over!) was out of character but I'm reconsidering. He continually shows he needs control and most of their relationship is only ok because Rory goes along with him. Even his big romantic gesture (the coffee cart, saving the YDN, his heartfelt "I didn't cheat" speech, going to Lorelai) are when he's lost control and Rory's annoyed. And then things return to the status quo with a happy Logan because he got his way.

[All Episodes Talk: Lorelai and Rory and the People They Love]

43 minutes ago, Taryn74 said:

That's why I HATE the whole dinner fiasco.  If Logan had really wanted to be kind and gracious and not embarrass Marty he should have said everyone's dinner was on him that night, as soon as Colin brought up the price.  

Colin:  Okay. I got it. Everybody owes seventy-five bucks. Pony up, please, so we can get the hell out of here.

Logan could have easily jumped in at that point with:  Oh, hey, did I forget to mention, dinner's on me tonight?  Let me take care of this and we can head to (wherever).

Pointing out - publicly - that you're going to generously pay for the one person whom you know can't afford to pay for himself, is neither kind nor gracious.  It's humiliating.

And while we're on the topic, this also really bugs me -

Logan:  Come on, Marty. If you’re going to be hanging with Ace like this, it’s time I get to know you without a waiter’s uniform on. 

Last I checked, Marty was friends with Rory long before you came on the scene, jackhole.

Ugh, I was just looking at the transcript as well and Logan is worse than I remembered - like you said, acting like Marty is the new guy in being friends with Rory and also deliberately making comments about his waiters uniform. Any normal person would have said "hey, you're friends with Rory so it would be nice to get to know you." Instead Logan made a point of reminding Marty that he's essentially Logan's servant (Logan's words from before) and Logan is being gracious enough to allow him to be in presence outside of work.

In fact that entire exchange with Logan turning up makes him look like a controlling douche:

LOGAN: Just rolled in.

RORY: So, how was it? Was it fun?

LOGAN: No, very dull. Let’s not talk about it. We’re all going to China 
Palace for food. Grab your coat, let’s go.

RORY: Oh, um. I can’t.

LOGAN: What? Sure you can. Come on. I missed you, let me buy you a fortune cookie.

RORY: I kind of have company.

LOGAN: Really, anyone I know? [He looks in over Rory’s shoulder. Marty stands up.] Hey, Marty, good to see you.

MARTY: Uh, yeah. You too.

LOGAN: Well, you come too. The more the merrier.

RORY: Oh, well –

LOGAN: Come on, Marty. If you’re going to be hanging with Ace like this, it’s time I get to know you without a waiter’s uniform on. Let’s go. Car’s waiting outside. [He leaves.]

Logan doesn't for a second consider what Rory or Marty want to do, if they have plans or don't want to come. He orders them to come with him and then leaves expecting them to obey his command. (Which unfortunately they do). Who does that? Don't people normally call or text with "hey going out tonight, want to come?" or if friends do turn up at your door would at least be like "hey, I know it's last minute but want to grab dinner?" Especially as it wasn't Logan just wanting to hang with Rory, it was dragging her along to pre-organized plans with his friends. (Also, how on earth did Rory find this attractive or acceptable?) 

Plus with the bill issue it's obvious Colin was dividing it equally between everyone rather than people paying for the individual items they ordered. Which is tale as old as time in awkwardness regarding different wealth. (FRIENDS did that great episode on it and in college almost everyone I know has a "pay for what you ordered" approach because hey, we're students). But it just shows how out of touch and self-absorbed the LDB/Logan/Finn/Colin bunch are that they unilaterally decide to make everyone pay $75 and wouldn't even consider people who aren't/can't spend that much on dinner. Marty presumably ordered the cheapest thing on the menu and that's why he was so surprised when Colin announced payment. He footed the bill for whatever overpriced things everyone else ate.