photo fox

Really? I love learning about other faith traditions. I wish someone would invite me to a Hanukkah party. I'm catholic, and I know years ago interfaith marriage was a huge deal, but these days most people I know would just shrug and say, "at least he/she goes to church".

I think Matt Czuchry is just doing what a lot of the audience - especially the Rogan audience - is doing. He's trying to take Logan's character growth that we saw in the regular series and incorporate it with the writing for the revival, and come up with something that makes any kind of sense. If his interpretation of the writing doesn't match up with ASP's, then maybe she should have given him and Alexis (not to mention the audience!) some kind of backstory and motivation. By all accounts she didn't, so that's on her, IMO. I feel like she kind of left the two of them out to dry, and both of them played it as tender/star-crossed lovers, and now they're having to back-pedal in interviews. I feel like Alexis has done that, while Matt has been quicker to defend his acting and interpretation. (He seems overall more career-focused, so it doesn't surprise me that he's been more vocal. Or maybe he's just weary of playing apologist for showrunners after being on TGW for seven seasons. But he's definitely giving off a vibe.) Frankly, I think I would have vastly preferred a Rogan in the revival as written by MC, versus what we got. I think ASP was too tied to her Lorelai/Christopher = Rory/Logan "full circle" and her obstinance about S7, and both their characters suffered for it.

Y'all, just a friendly reminder to critique the show, not your fellow posters. Thanks!

Hi, guys, First of all, I want to thank everyone for keeping this conversation civil. It's great to see so many perspectives! Four things to keep in mind that I think will help keep the discussion on track (i.e. civil): Adoption is a personal subject for many people - birth families, adoptive families, and adopted children. Please remember that members of all three of these groups ARE reading your posts, even if they don't speak up. So please be sensitive to that. Don't call anyone out personally for their views. Everyone gets to have an opinion, even if you (or I, for that matter!) think that it's wrong. Sharing your own dissenting opinion is wonderful; asking civil questions is great; being rude is a no-go. If someone is consistently raising your blood pressure, don't forget that PTV has a handy "ignore" feature. If you don't know how to use it, my friend radishcake has a helpful post here that gives step-by-step instructions. Finally, if you feel that someone else is being rude, please report it, and don't engage. Cheers!

Well, yeah, I know one lock would keep out bears! But Kevin was just a little kid, and I thought they meant they put the extra locks on as kind of a "placebo effect" to make him feel safe. LOL at comparing Olivia to bears. Bears are nicer.

Thanks, @chessiegal, I had indeed forgotten that part! (Still not a fan of Luke's over-the-top (IMO) reaction, but it's more understandable. And still completely irritated with both Luke and Christopher for making such a scene with Rory. She was hardly a blushing virgin, as the whole town knew! But then again, Season 6 seemed to forget that Rory had already given her "precious gift" to Dean. lol)

I thought the three locks were because Kevin was afraid of bears. I don't think we were supposed to believe that Rebecca was really engaging the locks or literally worried about their physical safety. I thought it was just a symbolic thing.

So, @SlackerInc, if I'm reading your words correctly, you think the only acceptable outcomes to a pregnancy are abortion or kinship care? (Unless every last member of their bio family is dead, apparently.) If so, that's an extremely narrow view. You do realize that there are many women - even those who are pro-choice - who would never choose abortion for themselves? What, in your world, are women with that belief to do if they have an unwanted pregnancy? And what about children whose parents are unfit? Are they doomed to linger in foster care in the hopes that someday their parent(s) will magically get their act together? As for your apparent belief that all adoptions are motivated by financial concerns, and if only there were more services no one would ever give up a baby, that seems incredibly simplistic. There are many reasons beyond financial ones why a woman may choose to not raise her child, and may feel that her child would be "better off" with another family. Maybe she's very young and not emotionally ready to parent. Maybe she has mental illness or addiction issues. Maybe she and the father have a difficult relationship. Maybe she's concentrating on school or getting her career off the ground. Maybe she's simply not maternal and doesn't want to ever be a parent. My coworker and his wife adopted their son. His bio mom had a job and healthcare. But she also already had an older child with her baby's bio dad, who was unsupportive. (Not a criminal, but just kind of unstable.) She was working her way through college, and already felt like she was being pulled in every direction. So she decided the best choice for both of her children, and for herself, was to give the baby up for adoption. Additional social services could have eased some of her stress, but they couldn't give her kid a dad who was dependable. They couldn't give her the energy to take care of a toddler and an infant while going to school full time to build a steady future. In the end, had she chosen to raise her child, I'm sure she could have given her baby a good life. She could have slowed down her education. She could have sued the dad for child support. She could have squeezed more time out of her day, slept a little less. But she didn't want to, which was her choice to make. I respect that you're concerned that women are being forced by financial circumstances into making choices they don't want to make. It breaks my heart to think there are women who want their babies but can't support them. We need to do better as a society when it comes to supporting parents, especially those who are marginalized by age, race, education level, or financial situations. But part of that support, IMO, includes being accepting of their choices, whether it be adoption, kinship care, or single or coupled parenting. Families are built on love, not biology.

Ah, yes, I remember Christopher and Luke both pissing all over Rory to mark their territory. I guess I never really understood why that caused a problem between Luke and Lorelai. She didn't invite Chris, or encourage him. I think that was the beginning of the end for me and the L/L relationship. I hated the way Luke treated Lorelai that night. I think that's why I thought there had to be more than I remembered, because it seemed like everybody flipped out over nothing. Chris was an easily manipulated jerk. Emily was a shallow control freak. None of that was new. *shrug*

Serious question: what did Christopher actually DO? It's been so long ago that I honestly don't remember. I recall him (and Luke) freaking out about Rory and Logan, and the "you and me, we're through" ending, but I have no recollection of how they got to that ending.

From that article... Only, it's really not, whether you're talking about babies, or relationships, or Rory's career. Why does ASP persist in acting like 32-year-old Rory is fresh out of college?

Perhaps he shouldn't have posted a video on the Internet? (At least, it sounds like that's what happened?) I don't see his damage, honestly.

I don't see why it's not perfectly okay to say, "I want to have a child because I want to be a parent." Just because you can't produce one yourself, you have to provide extra altruistic reasons? Why? I totally agree that we should give new parents our support - I work with charities that advocate for everything from pumping rooms in schools, to on-campus child care at universities, to more generous family leave policies for moms AND dads. All of those things are SO necessary to help moms - especially young moms - build a better future while keeping their babies if that's what they want. But not everyone does, and for them, I think adoption is a beautiful and loving thing.

I haven't watched an episode of Survivor in YEARS, but I cheered at that ending. So often the hidden idol is anticlimactic, but that was awesome. ETA - looks like the young guy voted for Zeke, so it was anticlimactic after all. lol

I don't know how I feel about Rebecca "hiding the truth" from Randall, but she was under no moral obligation to get William to sign over his legal rights, just because she figured out who he was. He terminated those rights when he left the baby at the fire station. (Which, for the record, was absolutely the right thing to do and I don't judge him nearly as much as Randall does for doing it). When Randall was eight, 18, or 30, and William was apparently "clean", I can see the argument that Rebecca should have done something differently. But when she first met him when Randall was a baby, he was a drug addict who willingly gave up his kid (for the best). I have no problem with Rebecca not inviting that person to have a place in her child's future.

I officially no longer care if Olivia gets pie. I can't believe I was feeling sorry for her last week. What a witch. (Although there was definitely some truth in what she said to Kate.)

The guys recreate the dojo scene... http://www.justjared.com/2016/11/29/video-this-is-us-men-recreate-jack-randalls-push-up-scene/

Well, that's unfortunate.

Hi, all, Please take non-Kate weight loss talk to the Small Talk thread, or even start a new topic, if you're so inclined. But posts in this topic should be focused on Kate and/or Chrissy Metz. Cheers!

That makes sense. I thought I read somewhere that most people outside of the main credited four cast members just got the scenes they were in, but I may have misunderstood. Anyway, I went ahead and started a S2 speculation topic, if anyone wants to continue to discuss.

Do you think there will be another season? Do you hope there will be?

Agreed. I thought the same thing, about some of the goodbyes. Sukie, especially. What purpose was served by having her officially move away for good? They could have just as easily left the show with her being back taking over the kitchen at the Dragonfly. Instead she got a send-off, which makes it easy to justify her not returning. I've also been wondering if that explains why MC apparently read all four complete scripts including the last four words, when apparently very few people had that kind of access. It would make sense to me, if you were planning to have Logan be the dad, to make sure the actor was amenable to doing more (even if his availability is not locked in). "Rory's going to be pregnant at the end of the show. Are you going to be interested in reprising this role in another season?"

@Eyes High, I feel like there's some space between "business arrangement" and "open relationship", though. Logan's parents, for example - I don't think Shira was under the illusion that Mitchum was in love with her, but that doesn't mean she was okay with him cheating on her. I can see it as, "I don't love her, and she doesn't pretend to love me, but we have a mutually beneficial partnership, and I'm not going to flaunt my girlfriend in her face." It's still not great, but it's less "not great" than Odette thinking they're marrying for love, if that makes sense. But I agree - we simply aren't told, which is kind of crazy! We got zero insight into their relationship, or Rory and Logan's recent history. They had a great opportunity when Rory confessed to her mom to have Lorelei ask, "when/why/how did this happen?" But there wasn't time, because we had to have 20 minutes of the musical and 10 minutes of Rory and Lorelei mocking fat people at the pool. And Logan got literally no POV in four episodes. His only conversations were with Rory, and I'm not sure he even got an extended reaction shot. Frankly, it was a weird way to use a character and actor who was a regular at the end of the show (and supposedly one of ASP's favorites). I felt like MC did everything he could to elevate what was on the page, but there was precious little on that page to work with.

Just a gentle nudge to keep on topic, y'all. :-)

And sad, when they walked by the kids playing in the sprinkler/hydrant, and one if them said something like, "that looks fun, wish I could play..." I never thought the GG were perfect people, but these new incarnations are just mean.