Nitpicking

[clack]

ASP is under the impression being an insurance company VP makes you part of the social and financial elite. You get to live in a mansion, have servants, dispense millions to charity.

In reality, while it might still have some minor social cachet in Connecticut, financially it puts you about on the same level as a dentist.

The problem of having a two-person, husband-and-wife showrunning team is that there is no one to call you on your ignorance.

[chessiegal]

I dunno. I had a step-daughter who was an exec, no where near VP, for a major insurance company in Hartford in the early 80s and she was making 6 figures back then. 

[clack]

If we're talking average salary, an insurance company CEO makes 150 grand a year versus the dentist's 175,000.

I don't remember the details of Richard's financial recompense -- whether or not he received stock options, or whatever -- but I seem to recall that Richard's boss was the company's actual owner, and that there were more than one VP.

[junienmomo]

8 hours ago, clack said:

ASP is under the impression being an insurance company VP makes you part of the social and financial elite. You get to live in a mansion, have servants, dispense millions to charity.

In reality, while it might still have some minor social cachet in Connecticut, financially it puts you about on the same level as a dentist.

The problem of having a two-person, husband-and-wife showrunning team is that there is no one to call you on your ignorance.

^^^ So much this, clack.

We met Richard as he was being phased out of what must have been a smaller privately-held insurance company. That means he wouldn’t have been getting the raises the young hotshots were getting. Even today Hartford, CT insurance VPs earn around $250,000 before bonuses. And Richard really sucked at money management if he put his retirement at risk when he was so old.

About the building, the only mitigating factor could be Richard’s father’s foundation, which I would have presumed he had some role in after Trix died.

Simply a recent renovation of a building at Yale, the chemistry lab, cost $84 million and took years in this decade. No way a new astronomy center could have been executed in half a year back then.

If we seriously postulate that they could afford the building, a $250,000 trust fund for Rory would have been trivial and not worth thinking about, much less fighting about.

Gilmore money voodoo. Sheesh.

[marineg]

Trust funds are what piss me off the most in the show (& revival).

If we accept that they were these rich people, both Richard and Emily, who came from family money, independent of Richard's job, how in the world did they leave a small sum of money for LUKE of all people to develop his business, but there is no mention at any point that they left Rory and Lorelai any money. They actually show the opposite. Lorelai has to ask her mom to use Luke's "trust fund" to buy a new hotel, while Rory actively struggles with money, having none to spend on an actual apartment (even though she seems to be traveling to Europe every weekend for no apparent reason other than to have sex with her engaged lover).

On top of that, we can't really say they maybe didn't have that much money when Richard died because Emily spent an exorbitant amount in the revival. She starts by accidentally buying a huge painting of Richard, then having it remade in a normal size. She gets rid of all of possessions without a second thought. She then buys a house at twice its value, and talks about buying the house next door like it's nothing.

Edited March 21, 2019 by marineg

[clack]

Some nitpicks have a "because it's a TV show" explanation. Like why does Lorelai, who has financial struggles and who manages an inn which serves breakfast, spend time and money eating at Luke's diner each morning?

Because it's a TV show, and they need a way for Luke and Lorelai to interact at least once per episode. It doesn't make real life sense, but it does make storytelling sense.

But the wide variations in Richard's and Emily's wealth from episode to episode not only don't make real life sense, there is no need for it in the storytelling. Why not make Richard the owner of the insurance firm? He can then have both his job and his millions.

If ASP wants to keep the Digger drama, give Richard a partner. Richard can be co-owner.

[Anela]

On 3/16/2019 at 3:34 PM, Kohola3 said:

It was beyond ridiculous at times.  A building at Yale would run into the millions.  Emily looks into a time share on a jet. But they can't afford to go to Europe twice a year and fly first class.  I mean, come on.

I mentioned that in the facebook group once, and was told, "That's how the rich stay rich". Nope, not going with it. No way would Emily fly in Coach, and she'd probably sniff over business class, although it's been almost thirty years since we got our seats bumped up into business class, one of the few times that I flew. Lorelai was looking through those travel books, with expensive hotels from something like twenty years before, and her parents offered to pay for them to sleep in hotels as they travelled.

Geez, how many lines from this show are stuck in my head? I've just remembered Lorelai talking about her mother arguing with Jimmy Carter, because he had a better hotel room? "It wasn't Jimmy Carter... it was that insufferable Rosalynn." 

[Anela]

Also: was there any mention of Rory's building, when she returned to Yale, in the revival? I can't remember, and I watched it again, just before Christmas. 

[marineg]

There are so many things that weren't mentioned in the revival, and some that were mentioned too much. It was kind of a bad fanfic written to integrate everything people wanted to see without actually writing anything of substance.

[Taryn74]

1 hour ago, marineg said:

It was kind of a bad fanfic written to integrate everything people wanted to see without actually writing anything of substance.

Most accurate description I've seen yet!

[Keywestclubkid]

Nitpick for me lol Emily and her dislike of Luke ...in the first couple of seasons she is fine with the thought of Luke and her daughter being together ...making side comments how they are both fools for not realizing how perfect they are for each other to her later in the series actively trying to keep them apart and acting like just the thought of them together would be repulsive 

[Anela]

Coming here just to say that Chris was an ass. I was moderated in a different group, for saying that. He had times when he was good, but mostly, he was totally selfish, and he was an asshole to his daughter when she told him to stay away from her mother, when she was with Luke.

[Kohola3]

3 minutes ago, Anela said:

Coming here just to say that Chris was an ass. I was moderated in a different group, for saying that. He had times when he was good, but mostly, he was totally selfish, and he was an asshole to his daughter when she told him to stay away from her mother, when she was with Luke.

You are among like-minded posters here!  Not too many that would disagree.

[marineg]

Definitely. I don't understand rooting for Chris. I get the appeal and I don't think he is a genuine bad guy. But he is a coward and also goes for the easy things in life. He doesn't care about his kid most of the time, but when he just happens to be in the neighbourhood for work, it's easy to pop by and be a dad to Rory and husband-like to Lorelai. And then he leaves. It's the world according to Chris. It's like people only exist when he can actually see them.

Edited April 4, 2019 by marineg

[andromeda331]

5 hours ago, marineg said:

Definitely. I don't understand rooting for Chris. I get the appeal and I don't think he is a genuine bad guy. But he is a coward and also goes for the easy things in life. He doesn't care about his kid most of the time, but when he just happens to be in the neighbourhood for work, it's easy to pop by and be a dad to Rory and husband-like to Lorelai. And then he leaves. It's the world according to Chris. It's like people only exist when he can actually see them.

I really don't either. Yes, he is good looking. But he doesn't care about Rory. Its very obvious. He never once steps up and finally be a father to her. He never did anything her entire childhood. I know there's always the argument that Lorelai wouldn't let him do anything even if he tries. Why does he always get off the hook? If he really wanted to be a part of Rory's life all he had to do was get a lawyer and sue for joint custody. But he never did because he didn't care. He has zero interest in Rory unless its to benefits him with Lorelai or Sherry. 

[Katy M]

3 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I really don't either. Yes, he is good looking. But he doesn't care about Rory. Its very obvious. He never once steps up and finally be a father to her. He never did anything her entire childhood. I know there's always the argument that Lorelai wouldn't let him do anything even if he tries. Why does he always get off the hook? If he really wanted to be a part of Rory's life all he had to do was get a lawyer and sue for joint custody. But he never did because he didn't care. He has zero interest in Rory unless its to benefits him with Lorelai or Sherry. 

You know what would have been an interesting story.  If Chris (as a completely different person, I guess) had joined the military around the time when Rory was born. He would be supporting her and seeing her on leave and calling, but there would be a completely valid reason why he wasn't in her life as much.  Then at the beginning of the show when he comes back, he has just left the military and wants partial custody, but Lorelai is all like "NO! Rory's mine!!!  All mine!!!" and he sues for custody and then we get to watch Lorelai have to share custody and deal with that.  

Or, even if he were just pretty much the same Chris, but he had this great job on the west coast so they decided what would be easiest is for Rory just to spend holidays and a couple of weeks in the summer with him and then he moves back east and same scenario as above.

That would have made for some great drama with Lorelai, the control freak, Rory, the people pleaser who really wouldn't want to be caught in the middle, and her parents who just love Chris and don't understand Lorelai's problem

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

You know what would have been an interesting story.  If Chris (as a completely different person, I guess) had joined the military around the time when Rory was born. He would be supporting her and seeing her on leave and calling, but there would be a completely valid reason why he wasn't in her life as much.  Then at the beginning of the show when he comes back, he has just left the military and wants partial custody, but Lorelai is all like "NO! Rory's mine!!!  All mine!!!" and he sues for custody and then we get to watch Lorelai have to share custody and deal with that.  

Or, even if he were just pretty much the same Chris, but he had this great job on the west coast so they decided what would be easiest is for Rory just to spend holidays and a couple of weeks in the summer with him and then he moves back east and same scenario as above.

That would have made for some great drama with Lorelai, the control freak, Rory, the people pleaser who really wouldn't want to be caught in the middle, and her parents who just love Chris and don't understand Lorelai's problem

Both of those would have been great ideas. Being in the military explains why he's not around much. The military part could have explained more why Rory wanted to Christiane Amanpour, having a dad always going to different countries in the military but maybe not telling her too much about what he's doing there or play down any of the danger or seriousness of the situations which makes her want to find out more about what he's really doing. 

Or just had went the typical dad lives in another state route. Lots of kids live with their mother while visiting their dad in the summer for a few weeks or on breaks. It would have been interesting. Lorelai would still have primary custody and the primary parent. 

And it would at least explain why everyone in the show thinks Christopher is so wonderful. It really makes no sense that Emily and Richard go on forever about how great he is even though he hasn't done a single thing to support and raise Rory. Why Lorelai and Rory keep letting everything go no matter what Christopher does or why would Lorelai consider getting involved with him in season two or marrying him in season seven despite how badly he's treated Rory. And never gets called out for it. It would make more sense in those two scenarios. Then at least he has a job, a life, and part of Rory's life. 

[clack]

Real world considerations like budget and actor availability distorted Chris's portrayal.

I think that he was originally conceived as a romantic figure --  a rebel without a cause ( like Jess) who rejected his parent's wealth and privilege ( like Lorelai) so that he could travel the country on a motorcycle. But he's now changed, and is ready to become a more responsible father, and a plausible endgame romantic partner for Lorelai.

Does Lorelai choose her charming though flighty first love, or the irascible but responsible friend (Luke)? Style or substance?

Not much of a choice as things turned out, but as I said, that's because of real world cast considerations.

Lorelai was always going to ultimately reject Chris, but that rejection would have been much more powerful if Chris had been allowed to be a more sympathetic figure -- if actor availability had allowed him to become a steady presence in Rory's life.

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, clack said:

Real world considerations like budget and actor availability distorted Chris's portrayal.

I think that he was originally conceived as a romantic figure --  a rebel without a cause ( like Jess) who rejected his parent's wealth and privilege ( like Lorelai) so that he could travel the country on a motorcycle. But he's now changed, and is ready to become a more responsible father, and a plausible endgame romantic partner for Lorelai.

Does Lorelai choose her charming though flighty first love, or the irascible but responsible friend (Luke)? Style or substance?

Not much of a choice as things turned out, but as I said, that's because of real world cast considerations.

Lorelai was always going to ultimately reject Chris, but that rejection would have been much more powerful if Chris had been allowed to be a more sympathetic figure -- if actor availability had allowed him to become a steady presence in Rory's life.

Its possible that was the plan and the actor was busy different times during the airing. Like that one point when he was in a sitcom. But so many of their decisions with Christopher is puzzling. Like having him always coming around when he thinks he has a chance with Lorelai or when he wants to use Rory to impress Sherry. Later they mention that Christopher and Sherry are married but never mention whether or not Rory attended their wedding. I lean towards no because Christopher never makes her a priority or seems to think of her unless its something she can get him which is impress Lorelai or impress Sherry. Why did the phone calls to Rory have to start and end with Sherry? Why couldn't they just have him call off and on. Or start after Christopher Returns showing that he is trying. Even if they can't get the actor they can't have Rory on the phone talking with her dad? They show Christopher sending Lorelai a basket for graduating, but they couldn't have had him send Rory a basket? An envelope of cash? A book, necklace, or something? Him and Lorelai looking like they're heading towards getting serious at the end of season two. But instead of it happening because things are going south with Sherry why can't it just be him trying to be more involved with Rory? Making up for lost time. Trying to spend time with her? Why couldn't we have some of those scenes? That would make more sense as to why Lorelai might even still have some interest or a rival for Luke if we actually saw him taking an interest in their daughter. Why did they have him blaming Lorelai for keeping Rory from in the Haunted Leg when it was Rory's choice which she tells Christopher when she yells at him? He still blames Lorelai after Rory went upstairs insisting Rory couldn't possibly have gotten that mad at him on her own. Then they never bother to show us why Rory forgave him a few episodes later. They have Christopher go to Rory's dorm when his dad was dying and talk about how things were and how he wanted them to change. But then not have him do anything. Why would you do any of those things if you want Christopher to seen as a rival for Luke? Why would Lorelai want anything to do with him after any of those things? 

[clack]

The intended Lorelai/Christopher relationship arc, imo, was set up to be portraying Chris as an adolescent girl's romantic fantasy. Lorelai fell in love with when she was a teen, and part of her is still in love with him.

Her maturation, then, would be coming to realize that Chris -- charming, irresponsibile, well-meaning  but ultimately shallow -- isn't who she wants as a life partner. He's still an overgrown teenager,  and she needs an adult.

That arc doesn't quite work as the series played out, though. Lorelai would  never had married the Chris who failed to show at important events in Rory's life -- graduations, birthdays, etc. Chris wasn't in Thailand, he was a few hours away, in Boston.

The reason Chris wasn't at those events wasn't because ASP intended him to seen as a villain, but because of actor availability issues. These issues ruined the whole Lorelai/Chris arc.

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, clack said:

The intended Lorelai/Christopher relationship arc, imo, was set up to be portraying Chris as an adolescent girl's romantic fantasy. Lorelai fell in love with when she was a teen, and part of her is still in love with him.

Her maturation, then, would be coming to realize that Chris -- charming, irresponsibile, well-meaning  but ultimately shallow -- isn't who she wants as a life partner. He's still an overgrown teenager,  and she needs an adult.

That arc doesn't quite work as the series played out, though. Lorelai would  never had married the Chris who failed to show at important events in Rory's life -- graduations, birthdays, etc. Chris wasn't in Thailand, he was a few hours away, in Boston.

The reason Chris wasn't at those events wasn't because ASP intended him to seen as a villain, but because of actor availability issues. These issues ruined the whole Lorelai/Chris arc.

Then ASP should have gone with someone else or signed DS to a recurring role contract so she knew she'd have him for certain episodes. Even if she assumed or he told her he'd be free and wasn't then she should have re-casted or scrapped the storyline. It makes no sense to have such a big arc when you never know if the actor is free or not. I think the end of season two was suppose to be the Chris-Lorelai arc but he ended up getting a role I think the sitcom but it might have been something else which is why it ended up being so short. 

ETA looking at David Sutcliffe's credits he was really busy during that time. TV movies, guest spots, he was in six episodes of the Division and the sitcom I'm With Her. 

Edited April 6, 2019 by andromeda331

[marineg]

21 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Then ASP should have gone with someone else or signed DS to a recurring role contract so she knew she'd have him for certain episodes. Even if she assumed or he told her he'd be free and wasn't then she should have re-casted or scrapped the storyline. It makes no sense to have such a big arc when you never know if the actor is free or not. I think the end of season two was suppose to be the Chris-Lorelai arc but he ended up getting a role I think the sitcom but it might have been something else which is why it ended up being so short. 

ETA looking at David Sutcliffe's credits he was really busy during that time. TV movies, guest spots, he was in six episodes of the Division and the sitcom I'm With Her. 

There is no real excuse for that. I work in the TV business. That is not how you do things. You do not give someone the role of the main actress' father without having them commit.

[andromeda331]

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 9:52 AM, marineg said:

There is no real excuse for that. I work in the TV business. That is not how you do things. You do not give someone the role of the main actress' father without having them commit.

There really isn't. If the actor is unable to commit then you pick someone else. If he is sign him to a contract to make sure you have him for however long you need him. You don't pick someone for a big arc or big part of your story if you never know when he's free or not. Why didn't they lock that down? 

[chessiegal]

34 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

Why didn't they lock that down? 

Because ASP adores David Sutcliffe, and thinks she's the smartest person in the room, building, and universe. I'm sure she believes she did just fine with the situation.

[andromeda331]

12 minutes ago, chessiegal said:

Because ASP adores David Sutcliffe, and thinks she's the smartest person in the room, building, and universe. I'm sure she believes she did just fine with the situation.

Oh, I'm sure your right. 

[clack]

The Lorelai/Chris arc was set-up to be : Lorelai holds a torch for her 1st love, then sees through the romantic fantasy she has of him and discovers she's outgrown him. Chris is well-meaning and charming, but a bit weak and shallow.

And in the end, we sort of get that disillusionment arc, but it's not sharply drawn. The show fumbles it's way through in a dramatically unsatisfying  manner.

[readster]

On 4/11/2019 at 2:22 PM, andromeda331 said:

There really isn't. If the actor is unable to commit then you pick someone else. If he is sign him to a contract to make sure you have him for however long you need him. You don't pick someone for a big arc or big part of your story if you never know when he's free or not. Why didn't they lock that down? 

Right and ASP was notorious for this with several side characters from Dean to Marty. They were busy with other commitments and then just threw them in when they had "free time" or "needed a paycheck". Not signing Chris S to the show was just a stupid decision. Plus her obsession with the character of Jess was too much at times. You can say what you will about Brenda Hampton and how bad she was with TV shows. But she knew WHEN to lock people down in contracts to use them. They chose when they were done.

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, readster said:

Right and ASP was notorious for this with several side characters from Dean to Marty. They were busy with other commitments and then just threw them in when they had "free time" or "needed a paycheck". Not signing Chris S to the show was just a stupid decision. Plus her obsession with the character of Jess was too much at times. You can say what you will about Brenda Hampton and how bad she was with TV shows. But she knew WHEN to lock people down in contracts to use them. They chose when they were done.

I don't think Dean had anything else going on while he was on the show.  But, I think he outlived his purpose.  They should have written him off after graduation with him going off to some small college somewhere.  Or (even though I don't think they should have gotten married), skip the scene at Luke's before the wedding, have Dean and Lindsay get married and have Rory have her sad moment about that (perfectly normal) and then they can move away and in theory live happily ever after.

I would have been so much happier with either of those endings.

[Kohola3]

32 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I don't think Dean had anything else going on while he was on the show.

Jared Padalecki had a number of roles in movies and TV episodes during the GG run.

Flight of the Phoenix 2004

New York Minute  2003

Cheaper by the Dozen 2003

Young MacGyver 2002

 A Ring of Endless Light 2001

 Close to Home 2001

 ER 2001 

Piece of Mind 2001

 2000Silent Witness (TV Movie) 
Sam

[marineg]

4 minutes ago, Kohola3 said:

Jared Padalecki had a number of roles in movies and TV episodes during the GG run.

That is honestly not that weird. TV filming leaves a quite some free time between two seasons for actors to film movies. Not unheard of at all.

[Katy M]

36 minutes ago, marineg said:

That is honestly not that weird. TV filming leaves a quite some free time between two seasons for actors to film movies. Not unheard of at all.

That and he was literally in one, maybe two, scenes in Cheaper by the Dozen, and I think his role in New York Minute was fairly small also.

I didn't really get any feeling that they were working around him on GG. 

Yes, his epi numbers went down after he and Rory broke up, but that just makes sense, and I don't think the break up was to accommodate his schedule.

[Taryn74]

3 hours ago, readster said:

Right and ASP was notorious for this with several side characters from Dean to Marty. They were busy with other commitments and then just threw them in when they had "free time" or "needed a paycheck".

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

I don't think Dean had anything else going on while he was on the show.  But, I think he outlived his purpose. 

I don't know if this is what Readster is referring to, but I'm pretty sure Dean's popping in during the Diorama episode and his really weird bitter rant to Luke ("she wants more than this and all you are is this") is because JP just happened to be free to film that episode.  I agree that he should have just disappeared after his wedding to Lindsey, and he definitely shouldn't have come back just to jab the needle into Luke for some bizarre reason that fans are still trying to figure out.

[Katy M]

2 minutes ago, Taryn74 said:

I don't know if this is what Readster is referring to, but I'm pretty sure Dean's popping in during the Diorama episode and his really weird bitter rant to Luke ("she wants more than this and all you are is this") is because JP just happened to be free to film that episode.  I agree that he should have just disappeared after his wedding to Lindsey, and he definitely shouldn't have come back just to jab the needle into Luke for some bizarre reason that fans are still trying to figure out.

I think after the affair they just didn't know what to do with him, and that was actually his last scene.  I think Dean deserved a better last scene, like saying goodbye to somebody or something.  For all we knew, he was just lurking in SH in the background for the rest of the series and we just didn't see him.   

Actually, if I can't change anything else, my ideal last scene for him would have been him apologizing to Lindsey and telling her he was leaving town.  And having her reply something to the effect that it wasn't OK that he cheated on her, but that they shouldn't have ever gotten married in the first place.  So, we could at least think they were moving on and had learned something. And, no, I'm not blaming Lindsay for dean cheating on her, but she could still have learned not to rush in next time.

[Taryn74]

45 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I think Dean deserved a better last scene, like saying goodbye to somebody or something.

If there is one thing I like about the Revival (and this may literally be the ONLY thing I like about the Revival, heh) it's that Dean actually got a good send-off, finally.  It's probably the only time in the entire series I truly liked Dean.

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, Taryn74 said:

If there is one thing I like about the Revival (and this may literally be the ONLY thing I like about the Revival, heh) it's that Dean actually got a good send-off, finally.  It's probably the only time in the entire series I truly liked Dean.

I liked him in season one but never thought they were soulmates or would be together forever. I figured they'd probably break up sometime in season two and really didn't mind. I did mind the dumbing down of Dean and bringing in Jess but still having Rory dating Dean even though she was clearly interested in Jess and dragging that out forever. They really didn't need to do that. Their high school kids I could see reasons why they'd break up without dumbing down Dean and bringing in someone else. They had different interests, went to different schools or even just the simple fall out of love. 

[andromeda331]

6 hours ago, readster said:

Right and ASP was notorious for this with several side characters from Dean to Marty. They were busy with other commitments and then just threw them in when they had "free time" or "needed a paycheck". Not signing Chris S to the show was just a stupid decision. Plus her obsession with the character of Jess was too much at times. You can say what you will about Brenda Hampton and how bad she was with TV shows. But she knew WHEN to lock people down in contracts to use them. They chose when they were done.

Oh definitely, they should have locked down DS with a contract. She was terrible at not letting characters go. I thought when Rory and Dean broke up in season three that would be the last we hear from him. But no they kept him through early season five. Why? He was now an ex. We didn't need to see after that. I did love Rory's and Dean's scene at the end of season three when she shows him the catalog. That was another great way to send off the character. Rory's going off to college and Dean's getting marrying and going to college. Bringing Marty back in season seven for that stupid storyline where Marty wants to lie about having known Rory before. They really made him look like an asshole which was unnecessary. Just like that later scene where Dean's bitter and makes the bitter and weird remark to Luke. They really didn't need to keep Dean or bring back Marty. 

[readster]

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

Oh definitely, they should have locked down DS with a contract. She was terrible at not letting characters go. I thought when Rory and Dean broke up in season three that would be the last we hear from him. But no they kept him through early season five. Why? He was now an ex. We didn't need to see after that. I did love Rory's and Dean's scene at the end of season three when she shows him the catalog. That was another great way to send off the character. Rory's going off to college and Dean's getting marrying and going to college. Bringing Marty back in season seven for that stupid storyline where Marty wants to lie about having known Rory before. They really made him look like an asshole which was unnecessary. Just like that later scene where Dean's bitter and makes the bitter and weird remark to Luke. They really didn't need to keep Dean or bring back Marty. 

Yeah Marty in season 7 was just so out of place and the new show runners basically said: "Well, he was free and we always liked the character." So, they turned him into some stupid asshole? Yeah, great writing there. 

[readster]

3 hours ago, Taryn74 said:

I don't know if this is what Readster is referring to, but I'm pretty sure Dean's popping in during the Diorama episode and his really weird bitter rant to Luke ("she wants more than this and all you are is this") is because JP just happened to be free to film that episode.  I agree that he should have just disappeared after his wedding to Lindsey, and he definitely shouldn't have come back just to jab the needle into Luke for some bizarre reason that fans are still trying to figure out.

That's what I was getting at. ASP was nortious for this, when one of her "pet actors" was free, she just threw them in for whatever reason. In her mind it was: "Well, I love the actor and this way they get a check to pay the bills, what a great idea!" Even the actors admitted on it was better to at least make money. Plus, even JP said that he never thought Supernatural would go on 15 years and he is already wonder what he is going to do now, he basically had 20 years of regular employment between the former WB and later CW and a few movies here and there. I'm pretty sure now he is hoping he can get his next job after next year. 

[Taryn74]

2 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Bringing Marty back in season seven for that stupid storyline where Marty wants to lie about having known Rory before. They really made him look like an asshole which was unnecessary.

Oh lorrrrrd I had blocked that storyline out. Poor Marty!

[marineg]

I agree with everything said here today except this:

16 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I liked [Dean] in season one

I never liked him. One example that automatically jumps to mind for me is S01E09, Rory's Dance. 
First of all, he was never interested in going to the dance; Rory kind of had to insist they go, and even then he complained that he had to wear a suit... what did he expect?
When Rory was scared of going, instead of encouraging her to go like he knew she wanted, he just did nothing.
Then he gets into a fight with Tristan, calling him "Dristan" and saying things like "Are you seriously trying to act tough? You're wearing a tie for God's sake" and "I'm not fighting you. It'd be like fighting an accountant. I'll call you when I need my taxes done."
And finally with favorite Dean line ever: "You don't want to fight me Tristin! [...]'Cause I'll kill you, idiot!"
That whole fight went from Dean behaving like a 8 year old with his comebacks, to him being in a gang or something. Who does he think he is? And I mean that literally. Does he think he is some kind of rebel by not going to dances or wearing ties, honking at his gf instead of actually picking up her up at the door, threatening to kill other 16yo...?

Edited April 16, 2019 by marineg

[Taryn74]

2 hours ago, marineg said:

I agree with everything said here today except this:

6 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I liked [Dean] in season one

I never liked him.

Same!

[Katy M]

15 hours ago, marineg said:

And finally with favorite Dean line ever: "You don't want to fight me Tristin! [...]'Cause I'll kill you, idiot!"
That whole fight went from Dean behaving like a 8 year old with his comebacks, to him being in a gang or something. Who does he think he is? And I mean that literally. Does he think he is some kind of rebel by not going to dances or wearing ties, honking at his gf instead of actually picking up her up at the door, threatening to kill other 16yo...?

I thought that line was stupid as well.  but, then someone else pointed out that Dean was saying that to Tristan because he was significantly bigger and just pointing out a fact.  Not threatening him.

[Taryn74]

4 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I thought that line was stupid as well.  but, then someone else pointed out that Dean was saying that to Tristan because he was significantly bigger and just pointing out a fact.  Not threatening him.

Eh, sorry, but no. I'm not buying that explanation at all. It's not like Tristan was the size of a ten year old up against a much older, much tougher Dean. And regardless, saying "because I'll kill you" DOES come across as a threat no matter how one tries to spin it and would be taken as such, especially in the heat of the moment.

I guess things were different enough even 19 years ago, but today if a kid at a school function said that, they would not only be escorted out of the event, it might even have repercussions beyond that. My oldest son has a hot temper and we've had to warn him many times to watch what he says even "jokingly" because of no-tolerance policies.

[Katy M]

20 minutes ago, Taryn74 said:

Eh, sorry, but no. I'm not buying that explanation at all. It's not like Tristan was the size of a ten year old up against a much older, much tougher Dean. And regardless, saying "because I'll kill you" DOES come across as a threat no matter how one tries to spin it and would be taken as such, especially in the heat of the moment.

I guess things were different enough even 19 years ago, but today if a kid at a school function said that, they would not only be escorted out of the event, it might even have repercussions beyond that. My oldest son has a hot temper and we've had to warn him many times to watch what he says even "jokingly" because of no-tolerance policies.

To me Tristan comes off much worse.  He's the one trying to pick a fight with Dean. He's the one trying to disrupt the date after Rory has already made it clear she's not interested in him.  Dean refuses to fight him and insults him.  Frankly, he had it coming.

[Taryn74]

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

To me Tristan comes off much worse.  He's the one trying to pick a fight with Dean. He's the one trying to disrupt the date after Rory has already made it clear she's not interested in him.  Dean refuses to fight him and insults him.  Frankly, he had it coming.

Oh, I agree, Tristan was a total jerk at the dance.  Not to mention I'm not really sure why he was so obsessed with Rory anyway, and his "pulling her pigtails" method of trying to get her attention was outdated by about a century.  In reality he and Dean would both have been escorted out for fighting even though they didn't actually come to blows, and Rory probably would have been asked to leave as well.  Ha, the stupid Puffs initiation was a bigger deal than her date getting into a fight at the school dance.

I just know that in the real world, Dean would have probably gotten treated more harshly for "threatening" Tristan like he did.  Geez, I remember one time my boys got into a fight at home and because the youngest ended up with a black eye, not only did they get called into the office at school separately to make sure their stories matched up, I got a phone call from both the school and the local police about it.  They don't mess around with this shiz anymore.

Of course, ASP's fantasy world is kind of strange. Heh.

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, Taryn74 said:

Oh, I agree, Tristan was a total jerk at the dance.  Not to mention I'm not really sure why he was so obsessed with Rory anyway, and his "pulling her pigtails" method of trying to get her attention was outdated by about a century.  In reality he and Dean would both have been escorted out for fighting even though they didn't actually come to blows, and Rory probably would have been asked to leave as well.  Ha, the stupid Puffs initiation was a bigger deal than her date getting into a fight at the school dance.

I just know that in the real world, Dean would have probably gotten treated more harshly for "threatening" Tristan like he did.  Geez, I remember one time my boys got into a fight at home and because the youngest ended up with a black eye, not only did they get called into the office at school separately to make sure their stories matched up, I got a phone call from both the school and the local police about it.  They don't mess around with this shiz anymore.

Of course, ASP's fantasy world is kind of strange. Heh.

The only guess I have is Rory because is the only girl not interested in him. She's not interested in him, not fawning over him and has made it clear that she doesn't like him. He's never had that before and he can't handle it or understand it. Every girl wants to date him even Paris who you'd think wouldn't buy his crap. He's used to getting any girl he wants and now for once there's one who's not interested. Then when he gives her the pleasure of asking her to that dance, she turns him down. Him, in his mind who would turn him down. And she shows up at the dance with someone else. Yeah, Tristian was an asshole and I don't really mind Dean's I'll kill you remark. Tristian's been being a jerk to Rory since she arrived in school, won't leave her alone, won't accept she's not interested, and tries to ruin the dance for her and Dean and tries to pick a fight. Which Dean at first tries to ignore. But Tristian won't stop. I'm fine with what Dean said, I would have been happy if he beat up Tristian. Tristian was an asshole, always able to get away with being an asshole and for once someone was standing up to him. Well, two people. 

[Katy M]

I think it also might also just be because she's new.  Paris said she had been in the same class with Tristan since kindergarten.  If all those kids were going up through the same private schools, Rory might be the first new girl there in a few years.  Tristan may have already dated all the girls at the school that he wanted to.

[readster]

On 4/16/2019 at 4:31 PM, Katy M said:

I think it also might also just be because she's new.  Paris said she had been in the same class with Tristan since kindergarten.  If all those kids were going up through the same private schools, Rory might be the first new girl there in a few years.  Tristan may have already dated all the girls at the school that he wanted to.

Funny thing is now, if Tristan tried doing what he did now in 2019, he be in the office for "violating personal space". You get students that call out teachers for high fiving them these days. 

[huahaha]

I haven't seen the original episodes in years, but one scene is bugging me out of nowhere. In what universe do the parents of tweenage girls (like April) allow the birthday girl's recently estranged father to host an impromptu sleepover??

And assuming they were ok with that, who isn't relieved that a grown woman was there to chaperone after all?

The Anna and April plots made no sense generally, but ASP was not living on the planet for this one. Men are run off the playground for watching their own kids. Ain't nobody giving an unknown dude free reign overnight with a pack of girls.

[marineg]

2 hours ago, huahaha said:

I haven't seen the original episodes in years, but one scene is bugging me out of nowhere. In what universe do the parents of tweenage girls (like April) allow the birthday girl's recently estranged father to host an impromptu sleepover??

And assuming they were ok with that, who isn't relieved that a grown woman was there to chaperone after all?

The Anna and April plots made no sense generally, but ASP was not living on the planet for this one. Men are run off the playground for watching their own kids. Ain't nobody giving an unknown dude free reign overnight with a pack of girls.

Thank you. Not to be weird, but my parents always warned me when I went on sleepovers not to find myself alone with the girl's father. They would always make sure both parents were at home. Sure, most people aren't freaks, but when you don't know them, do you want to tempt fate?

And I agree. If they said yes to Luke, a man who has be a "part time" father (he probably only had her visit and rarely stay at her place before the whole Anna's mom is sick thing) in what world would Lorelai, a 36 year old woman with a 20 year old daughter be weird? Did they expect the girls to sleep in the same room as Luke? Did they expect him to sleep in the restaurant while the girls were upstairs? Why would the presence of an adult woman to make sure the girls are safe and don't misbehave be so weird?