One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions

[dustylil]

If Christopher had always kept in touch with Lorelai and Rory even if he couldn't be bothered to support his elder child, than I might be inclined to view his haplessness more sympathetically (well, less unkindly anyway). But he didn't even do that. So I do find the timing of the start of the weekly phone call suspect.

 

As to Lorelai enabling him, what real choice did she have? Sue him? He barely worked until Rory was a teenager. Refuse to have anything to do with him? She did want Rory  growing up to think her father cared for her. If she could spin the little bit of attention he gave Rory into something far more, all the more power to her. It was one of the myths  of childhood - like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy - that Rory could soon figure out for herself.

 

He may have been viewed as becoming an adult with Sherry, but did he? He clearly misled her above his involvement with Rory. What else did he lie about?  They did break up after only several months -  only to get together because she was pregnant. And then broke up for good when Gigi was a toddler. Lorelai may well have dodged a bullet at the end of the second season.

Edited November 18, 2015 by dustylil

[readster]

 

He may have been viewed as becoming an adult with Sherry, but did he? He clearly misled her above his involvement with Rory. What else did he lie about?  They did break up after only several months -  only to get together because she was pregnant. And then broke up for good when Gigi was a toddler. Lorelai may well have dodged a bullet at the end of the second season.

 

 I agree with that, Richard even agreed that Chris doing the right for Sherry and the baby was noble and at that point he gave up on Chris, Lorelai and Rory being one big happy family at that point while Emily didn't. Emily approved of Max because he was a teacher, from a good family and was teaching at Chilton. Hence, she had no problem with them and if things would have worked out differently, I could have seen Emily right there and then letting go of that fantasy with Chris. My biggest problem with Chris is not only his falling into success but how much enabling of his behavior by everyone except for Rory and Luke. It got so old, I mean Straub still blamed Lore and Rory for him dropping out of school and everything. He dropped out because he just couldn't do it. He wasn't supporting Lorelai or Rory  at that point in his life. He had his calls but really, nothing was directly effecting him during his college days. In fact, he even confessed to Lore that he would of most likely dropped out because he hated it and it wasn't for him. I could of have seen that scenario playing out and Straub telling him to grow a pair and get through it and not to let the family down. Christopher was not a bad guy but sadly he didn't learn from his mistakes and still was clueless on things. It was like when at Rory's Yale graduation when Lorelai told him about Logan's proposal, he was upset that Logan asked Lorelai instead of him. He didn't get it, that Logan didn't have a relationship with him and after their marriage ending. He felt more right asking Lorelai because of their relationship and Logan's relationship with Lorelai. Yet, Christopher's reaction was: "But I'm her dad."

[Smad]

I actually disagree with this. And I disagree with the notion that Christopher showed an interest in Rory when he wanted an in with Lorelai, too. Chris just struck me as immature, kind of clueless and not having it all together, and Lorelai enabled him. I don't think he was a bad guy though.

Well we all see things differently, that's the beauty about things. Otherwise discussion boards would be useless. Why did he come to SH in Season 1? Sure 'Chritopher Returns' tells us he wanted to visit Rory. But the real reason gets exposed at the end of that episode. He had gone belly up financially and looking to Lorelai to fix it for him, hence his marriage proposal. The reason for the visit wasn't Rory. The increased contact in S2 was only to make an impression on his new girlfriend. After Rory's accident at the end of S2 he 'played' concerned father but we find out his relationship with Sherry is on the rocks. Is he really there out of concern for Rory or sniffing around Lorelai again? Guess the answer is in the S3 premiere where he crashed Emily's FND under the guise of accusing Lorelai of keeping his daughter from him but really by the end of his ranting we find out it's because he doesn't get booty from Lorelai anymore. In S5 his daughter explicitely tells him to stay away from Lorelai. Not only that but after his father's death Chris was all regretful about his non-relationship with Rory. Well that lasted for all of what....2 episodes? He made an ass of himself in WBB trying to ruin Lorelai's current relationship and showing yet again who his real priority is. He did exactly what Rory asked him not to do. And then instead of apologizing to Lorelai and Luke he used the backdoor entry of Rory again by downplaying the event and outright lying about it (misunderstanding my ass).

 

Once we get past S5 my memory is blurry. Must be all the bleach I used. Only thing regarding Chris I remember from that time is inherit money, set up GiGi, buy Lorelai a castle and ...*crickets*

[Minneapple]

He had gone belly up financially and looking to Lorelai to fix it for him, hence his marriage proposal. 

I didn't think he wanted her to fix it. I thought the marriage proposal was just another clumsy, immature move from Chris. He wanted to fix things but was completely unprepared to do so.

I also disagree that the increased presence in Rory's life in season 2 was him trying to impress Sherry. I mean he didn't drag Sherry to the coming out ball to show her what a great father he was.

As to Lorelai enabling him, what real choice did she have?

Well, you listed them. She wouldn't have sued because she never cared about the money. She could have told him, get your act together and be a father or stay away from Rory. But her allowing him to come in and out of their lives enabled him instead. I mean it makes sense -- she wanted him and Rory to have a relationship, plus she had her own unresolved issues with him.

[takalotti]

I don't think Chris was looking for Lorelai to fix his financial problems. But I do think that when he experienced his business failure, he turned to Lorelai to see if he could find relationship success with her just to feel better. He wanted to be with her so he could avoid feeling shitty about the financial stuff. Very immature.

[shron17]

I honestly don't think Luke was cut out for a romantic relationship, like with anyone.

 

 

I agree with this, and think Luke even knew this.  But it doesn't mean he wouldn't have made a great partner and co-parent for Lorelai.  Much better than Christopher ever was.  Romance isn't a requirement for a good marriage and probably wasn't high on the list of things Lorelai wanted in her future. 

[readster]

I agree with this, and think Luke even knew this.  But it doesn't mean he wouldn't have made a great partner and co-parent for Lorelai.  Much better than Christopher ever was.  Romance isn't a requirement for a good marriage and probably wasn't high on the list of things Lorelai wanted in her future. 

Plus, Luke had his charms in romance like the portable skating rink or making dinner. He just wasn't over the top, chocolate/flowers take her on exotic trips and to hell with money. He was a very good father figure and he was willing to give people 2nd, 3rd, 4th and even 5th chances (He never murdered Kirk or Taylor like the rest of us would have). Luke was a good guy but he didn't like surprises and he wasn't good at dealing with life altering issues. Even with talks with Liz, when their parents died, Luke knew what he had to do since he was now the "man of the house" but he had to process it. When we told the main factor when he decided to change his father's hardware story into the diner. He thought about it for months before even proposing the idea and even asking his sister if it was a good idea. He wasn't good at split second decisions outside of Lorelai's proposal. He was always taken back and instead of trying to ask for help or deal with the root of the problem. He let it fester until it blew up ie: April, Anna, Nicole and Christopher.

[Guest]

I started to really not like Rory from about the middle of S4 on.  I can't quite figure out why exactly -- having to drop a class, oh, boo, hoo, poor baby, falling for Dean's BS about the state his marriage, what a dumb shit, unless like Lorelai said, she wasn't ready and she knew it, the short hair -- she was just so "special," not as in eating the paste, but everybody always went out of their way for her.  The older she got, the more it started to grate.  By the time we got to the Valentine's weekend at Martha's Vineyard, I actively despised her.  

 

There were  a lot of moments that I didn't like her earlier on and ones that upon seeing how spoiled she turned out by mid-season 4 that I look back on as examples of her brattiness (much like Dean's possessiveness seems like a red flag more once you see later seasons).  But when I really started disliking her was "Die Jerk." There is no way she didn't realize she was insulting the ballerina so for her to get all doe-eyed about someone thinking she was mean turned me to dislike.

I don't really think it is out of character that Sherry planned for Gigi and then left her. I think it was written that she wanted a child but then once she realized how overwhelming it is, she wanted to go back to her career. However, I hate the way Sherry and her friends were written overall. You can have a career and be ambitious. But that means you have no clue about babies and childbirth.  Um, no. Many many women juggle both.  There is no 30something woman, child-free or not, who would describe someone going into labor as "She messed up, but she's still our Sherry." And then "You have school. You can reschedule that, right?"

[33kaitykaity]

But when I really started disliking her was "Die Jerk." There is no way she didn't realize she was insulting the ballerina so for her to get all doe-eyed about someone thinking she was mean turned me to dislike.

That would be a good moment to pin it on actually, more specific than anything I can come up with.  Actually, another thing that bothered me that just occurred to me was Alexis' inability to act/cry.  The scene in the therapist's office when she came back to school and then the one when she left and she conned Richard into helping her by falling into Grandpa's arms were just so not-well-acted that I just thought no, no, no, no, no, no, no.  No.  

[Minneapple]

I don't think Chris was looking for Lorelai to fix his financial problems. But I do think that when he experienced his business failure, he turned to Lorelai to see if he could find relationship success with her just to feel better. He wanted to be with her so he could avoid feeling shitty about the financial stuff. Very immature.

Now this reasoning I can get behind for Chris' behavior toward Lorelai.

The way Rory turned to Dean when she was floundering at school was a very similar situation. At the end of season four, she's been academically knocked off her pedestal, she's been rejected by boys. She turned to what felt familiar and comfortable.

[dustylil]

Once we get past S5 my memory is blurry. Must be all the bleach I used. Only thing regarding Chris I remember from that time is inherit money, set up GiGi, buy Lorelai a castle and ...*crickets

 

Here's one. Rory - then in her early twenties - had moved in with Logan earlier that day but hadn't gotten around to telling Lorelai about it.  Christopher dropped by for a visit. Rory asked him not to mention the issue to her mother because she wanted to speak to Lorelai about it herself later that same day. Christopher agreed to her request. Within hours, as soon as he returned from New Haven, he called Lorelai to spill the beans.

Now if Rory had waited some weeks to tell her mother, then I could understand Christopher breaking her confidence. Although, courtesy would suggest he tell Rory of his plan first. But Rory did inform Lorelai that very day - as she said she would - only to find Christopher had already told her.

Certainly not  a big issue in the grand scheme of things, but evidence of how little giving his word to his daughter meant to him.

[readster]

Here's one. Rory - then in her early twenties - had moved in with Logan earlier that day but hadn't gotten around to telling Lorelai about it.  Christopher dropped by for a visit. Rory asked him not to mention the issue to her mother because she wanted to speak to Lorelai about it herself later that same day. Christopher agreed to her request. Within hours, as soon as he returned from New Haven, he called Lorelai to spill the beans.

Now if Rory had waited some weeks to tell her mother, then I could understand Christopher breaking her confidence. Although, courtesy would suggest he tell Rory of his plan first. But Rory did inform Lorelai that very day - as she said she would - only to find Christopher had already told her.

Certainly not  a big issue in the grand scheme of things, but evidence of how little giving his word to his daughter meant to him.

Christopher was like that. You tell him one thing and he go blowing the secret shortly afterwards. Plus, if Rory wouldn't have seen him, then things would have been fine. Chris acted like he had to be a concerned dad at that moment when he didn't show he was to begin with. He wasn't sure of the decision but he wasn't going: "Rory, that's completely a stupid idea!" Same with Chris telling Luke that that Lorelai and Luke were together for now and that like always, she would come back to him. If Emily wouldn't have forced to talk to Chris like he was a horse who had to mate with a Philly because of his "background". He would have stayed where he was before Wedding Bell Blues (I hate the episode with a passion). Chris never seem to get it, like any time. "Guess we have to get married now." after Rory was born. "I would have dropped out of school anyhow even if it wasn't for you." after the disaster in Season 1 with his parents and the Gilmores. "I don't know what to do, I worked, Sherry was at home with GiGi." "Lorelai and I belong together, always have." He never stopped to think in all seven seasons how much stupidity came out of his mouth and never learned to shut up or to move on with his life. He was charming, good looking, he owned a motorcycle and a truck at one time but in the end, he was a moron.

[Eyes High]

As for Luke. Well, I liked his friendship with Lorelai but hated their romantic relationship. I honestly don't think Luke was cut out for a romantic relationship, like with anyone. 

 

I don't know. I agree that there are some people who are just not cut out for romantic relationships and are happier off being single for whatever reason. Absent things like a genuine lack of opportunity, struggling with one's sexuality, big personality problems (selfishness, entitlement), or untreated mental health issues (crippling social anxiety, depression, etc.), usually good-looking single people are single because they prefer it that way. However, it's hard to know whether Luke is among the category of people who are awful at romantic relationships because they're born loners and would never be truly happy partnered up (and those people exist!), no matter how hard they try, or the category of people who do long for a romantic connection but whose personal issues--and whether or not Luke suffers from depression, he definitely could use some counseling--get in the way of forming those deeper relationships.

 

Speaking purely anecdotally--i.e. talking out of my ass--my observation has been that the longer people stay single, the more set in their ways they become and the less interested they are in rearranging their life to accommodate another person with his or her own preferences, routines, habits, possessions, pets, children, etc. This can also present a significant obstacle for people who do wish to enter into a serious, committed relationship but have great difficulties in coping with the dramatic disruption to their lives that that relationship represents. This can sometimes lead to a vicious cycle where people who have been unhappily single for a long time when faced with a viable romantic relationship are unable to adjust and wind up sabotaging it in favour of the familiar status quo of singledom.

 

I agree with this, and think Luke even knew this.  But it doesn't mean he wouldn't have made a great partner and co-parent for Lorelai.  Much better than Christopher ever was.  Romance isn't a requirement for a good marriage and probably wasn't high on the list of things Lorelai wanted in her future. 

 

I think the other poster was using "romantic relationship" to distinguish those relationships from other relationships (friendships, family relationships, etc.). Luke does appear to be able to have functional non-romantic relationships, despite his issues. It's just that he's a disaster as a romantic partner.

 

I don't think Lorelai prioritized "romance" to the exclusion of everything else--and if she ever did, I would have thought the Max and Chris fiascos would have cured her of that--but I don't think she would be happy in the long run with someone who on the whole had little appreciation for fun or whimsy. I'd have to think that in the long run, Lorelai would tire of someone who tolerated her irreverence and quirky sense of humour, as Luke seemed to do, rather than reveling in it, and that Luke in his turn would resent Lorelai's unending need to poke fun.

 

He was a very good father figure and he was willing to give people 2nd, 3rd, 4th and even 5th chances (He never murdered Kirk or Taylor like the rest of us would have).  (...) He let it fester until it blew up ie: April, Anna, Nicole and Christopher.

 

I think you've unintentionally identified the problem; Luke's good quality (tolerance) is actually a cunningly disguised bad quality (passive-aggressive resentfulness and letting things fester). He's not a Big Lebowski Dude type who lets things slide with no ill will because he's just that mellow. He "tolerates" situations or people that he doesn't like and quietly marinates in anger until he explodes in an inappropriate outburst. He does tolerate people past most others' endurance--the multiple chances--but he does it while seething with resentment. He then explodes in anger at the perceived or real slight against him when a straw breaks the proverbial camel's back. A mentally healthy person would firmly draw boundaries at the outset and communicate their concerns, rather than grudgingly going along with whatever imposition and ranting about it later on. 

 

Luke would have benefited more than anyone in the show from drawing clear boundaries, although it's pretty clear why he didn't do so with Lorelai (he was attracted to her, as annoyed as he was by it). I think if he'd drawn better boundaries with Lorelai, though, he probably would have wound up permanently expelling her from the diner. He would have drawn a line, she would have gleefully jumped over it to see what kind of reaction it would get, he would have banned her, and that would have been that.

 

I will confess that I prefer fictional romances which develop in situations where characters respect each other's boundaries, because it seems that so often in television/film the refusal to respect personal boundaries is romanticized or eroticized: X says "Don't touch me," Y storms over to X and kisses X passionately, etc. An inability to take "No" for an answer is a red flag, not a sign of true love. Lorelai's pushiness with Luke and overruling his grumpy objections in the early seasons were never cute to me.

 

Actually, another thing that bothered me that just occurred to me was Alexis' inability to act/cry.  

 

It would have worked if Rory had been a character with very little emotional affect, like Temperance on Bones (another character played by an actress with very limited gifts), which would have disguised a multitude of acting deficiencies. As it is, it didn't work at all.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Eyes High

[dustylil]

it is out of character that Sherry planned for Gigi and then left her. I think it was written that she wanted a child but then once she realized how overwhelming it is, she wanted to go back to her career

 

 

I

don't know what to do, I worked, Sherry was at home with GiGi

 

Sherry didn't put her career on hold to be at home with Gigi. She  worked and they had staff. When Christopher called Lorelai in Season 5 because Gigi was crying and fretful, he did so in part because he couldn't get hold of the nanny. And it was the nanny who gave him Sherry's Happy Trails note.

Edited November 19, 2015 by dustylil

[Guest]

Good point, dustylil. I should have said "focused on her career" as she never left it.  I think she probably felt Gigi was holding her back from some advancement and wanted to return to focusing on her career.

[Guest]

Last night I was watching part of Season 6 (apparently, I hate myself) and I think when Jess comes to visit Rory and Logan gets jealous, Rory was to blame for that.  Overall, I think the show goes way too far with having the guys be jealous, angry people to show their love. However, I don't think that was the case this time. Logan went a little too far in his sarcasm to Jess, but I think his anger was justified.  His serious girlfriend made plans to go out with an old boyfriend while he was out of town without even mentioning them to him.  I think most people would be upset by that, male or female.

[shron17]

I think the other poster was using "romantic relationship" to distinguish those relationships from other relationships (friendships, family relationships, etc.). Luke does appear to be able to have functional non-romantic relationships, despite his issues. It's just that he's a disaster as a romantic partner.

 

Yes, I know.  But besides the romantic piece, I  think Luke would be a much better "romantic" partner and co-parent in a committed relationship.  The most important reason I think this is because he has the ability to focus on what the other person needs without funneling it through his own opinions and experiences.  Even in the most maligned episode, AVV, after Lorelai reacted to the grumpy way Luke was acting he turned on a dime and improved his behavior when he realized it was bothering her.  When April was upset about moving to NM he responded with positive comments about it to her instead of focusing on how it would affect him, and initially went to Anna with ideas of how to make it easier for April.  Despite all of the legitimate reasons Luke had to be resentful of Liz he was able to move past it to be happy when she got married and even talked Jess into being there for her.

 

He "tolerates" situations or people that he doesn't like and quietly marinates in anger until he explodes in an inappropriate outburst. He does tolerate people past most others' endurance--the multiple chances--but he does it while seething with resentment.

 

To me, this sounds much more like Christopher than Luke.  Compare the way each responded when Lorelai wanted to keep her house.  Even with his inheritance, Christopher never suggested seeing if they could add more room when he and Gigi moved in.  And once Luke gave up the Twickham House he wasn't resentful and never threw it back in Lorelai's face after the decision was made the way Chris did.  

Edited November 19, 2015 by shron17

[pawneerangers]

This is my new favorite thread here because otherwise I really would think I'm the only one who doesn't like Luke. I will admit that I am biased because of people I know but angry "curmudgeon" who hates life and trashes the stuff you enjoy and care about sounds a lot more adorable until you have to be with one. I laughed so hard at the post about how you couldn't even go out for dinner with Luke without him complaining nonstop the entire time about having to leave the house to drive to the restaurant, spend money on gas, the food,  the customers, the service, your choice to order unhealthy items from the menu, the price, the length of time it took them to get their coats and drive home, and so on. Of course if he weren't constantly ranting while Lorelai is babbling about nothing I don't know what they would talk to each other about because they are on different planets and don't have any connection at all. 

 

I'm not saying Luke is a bad person underneath but even though he fixes and builds things and acts like a normal person a few times a year, that doesn't change that he would still be incredibly depressing and nervewracking to have to spend your life with. And there is nothing about his background or life in Stars Hollow that makes it seem like he has any reason to be this miserable, bitter and rageful about every little thing. Unless like people above me said he has a psychiatric diagnosis.

In that episode where he totally loses his mind at that nice old woman who has to go to a nursing home I really thought someone should insist that he get help, and I thought that a few other times too. But then if it's legitimate issues he should be adult enough to try to help and change himself by now and he never thinks he needs to change at all. Someone else said it wasn't even until the last season that he ever says he's sorry for anything even though he had a lot to apologize for by then. I think we're supposed to think not that he has a real condition but that those angry parts of his personality and how he can never control his anger and be happy are manly and cute. The writers have some ideas about men and relationships that are a little bit awful if you think about them too hard which we're obviously not supposed to do. . At least with jess who I also have issues with and think was a bad boyfriend, he was a punk teenager who had been passed along to some uncle he barely knew by his flakey and ridiculous mom and never had a relationship with his dad so when he's rude and angry it makes a little bit more sense.

 

And it also bugs me that Luke never tries to suppress his rage and misery even when basic decency and politeness would dictate that he do so but when it comes to having to really communicate with people suddenly he's not all manly man direct and is actually a passive and almost deceitful wimp who says nothing and waits for women to reach their breaking points and leave him so that he's not the bad guy for breaking up with them instead.

 

Maybe this is just how the role was acted instead of how they wanted the character to be but his reactions to certain things are alarming. Some people found Dean scary but Luke was just as bad and maybe worse. He's a brute and a joy vampire in that he sucks happiness from everyone and everything. I think i stole that description from someone else here but I can't quote other posts right now so i'm sorry for taking it! 

 

Not to say Lorelai is perfect. She's got major issues too and is super annoying and immature in a different way and she lacks self control. But sometimes on other shows damaged characters who are broken in different ways can bring out each other's better parts and find happiness. Like Andy and April from Parks and Rec. I'm not saying everyone likes them or the show but those are two people with a lot of flaws who seem very different but underneath do have important stuff in common and understand each other. They don't just tolerate each other's differences but actually appreciate them. They make each other so much happier. I admit maybe that's partly because the actors had good chemistry and the actors who play Luke and Lorelai are uncomfortable to even watch together. But the point is the opposites thing can work, it just doesn't ever seem to with Luke and Lorelai. They remind me of this miserable couple I once knew who my friend described as looking desperately for the emergency exits from the minute they entered. Not because they were afraid of how much they loved each other but because they both knew they didn't fit but didn't want to admit it. 

 

Some of this reminds me of why i have an unpopular love for Logan. You all are right about how the smirk can be annoying and that the show went over the top sometimes with his partying and rich playboy thing but he was also one of the only guys on the show who wasn't angry and depressing almost all the time and wasn't always throwing a tantrum. By that point in the series with so much Luke, Jess, Dean and knowing you were supposed to hate Christopher it was just nice to see a character who didn't seem to need professional treatment for emotional issues.  

 

I agree with the post above me about how Luke probably wasn't cut out for a relationship. They certainly didn't seem to make him any happier. But I think the same about Lorelai. Both characters were happier to me when they weren't dating. Rory though I see as a relationship person. I don't know why i still think that even after most of her relationships were as bad as Lorelai's! 

Edited November 19, 2015 by pawneerangers

[amensisterfriend]

I'm not saying Luke is a bad person underneath but even though he fixes and builds things and acts like a normal person a few times a year, that doesn't change that he would still be incredibly depressing and nervewracking to have to spend your life with. And there is nothing about his background or life in Stars Hollow that makes it seem like he has any reason to be this miserable, bitter and rageful about every little thing

 

I agree completely. The comparison you make later on points to why I (perhaps unfairly!) am more forgiving of Jess's relentless negativity and surliness than Luke's. The latter is far younger and, when we first meet him, the product of far worse circumstances. Luke does have a good heart underneath, but that's little consolation for the fact that on a day-to-day basis he's kind of an infectiously, boring, boorish miserable jerk.

 

 

 

In that episode where he totally loses his mind at that nice old woman who has to go to a nursing home I really thought someone should insist that he get help, and I thought that a few other times too.

 

That's in But Not as Cute as Pushkin, which was actually my very first episode! Weirdly enough, I actually liked the Luke/Lorelai dynamic when I first watched that episode, but now I cringe my way through large parts of it and agree that Luke being borderline verbally abusive to this nursing home-bound elderly woman is absolutely horrendous. I wish I could go recapture the mild to moderate fondness for their relationship that I had when first seeing Pushkin, because since then it's proved awfully elusive! 

 

 

 

I think we're supposed to think not that he has a real condition but that those angry parts of his personality and how he can never control his anger and be happy are manly and cute. The writers have some ideas about men and relationships that are a little bit awful if you think about them too hard which we're obviously not supposed to do. .

 

You're not alone on that one---a few of us have said similar things :) And, just in general, I've found nearly all aspects of this show hold up better when you don't think about them too hard! Granted, that's no doubt true for many other shows and works of fiction in general, but it does seem especially true of GG. 

 

 

 

And it also bugs me that Luke never tries to suppress his rage and misery even when basic decency and politeness would dictate that he do so but when it comes to having to really communicate with people suddenly he's not all manly man direct and is actually a passive and almost deceitful wimp who says nothing and waits for women to reach their breaking points and leave him so that he's not the bad guy for breaking up with them instead.

 

Ugh. Yes. This. Like if you're going to rant and rage, at least be similarly direct about stuff that actually matters! And the above pattern you described was evident with Rachel, Nicole and Lorelai IMO...so, sadly, it's one of the best examples of consistent characterization that the oft-erratic writers gave us ;) 

 

 

 

Maybe this is just how the role was acted instead of how they wanted the character to be but his reactions to certain things are alarming. Some people found Dean scary but Luke was just as bad and maybe worse.

 

I have the UO that while Jess is the one most often compared to Luke for various reasons, Luke is actually A LOT like Dean to me.

 

 

 

They remind me of this miserable couple I once knew who my friend described as looking desperately for the emergency exits from the minute they entered. Not because they were afraid of how much they loved each other but because they both knew they didn't fit but didn't want to admit it.

 

This is a really apt description of the L/L relationship, IMO, and I feel like characters like Sookie even made similar observations. I do, however, think that the writers want us to believe it's because they're scared of real, lasting love or...something. Too bad the actors couldn't even sell me on a strong romantic attraction or basic compatibility, let alone a deep soulmate-y love! 

Edited November 19, 2015 by amensisterfriend

[JayInChicago]

 

April and Andy

 

Yes!  I've also thought about how Parks n Rec April and Luke had a lot of similarities, and Andy and Lorelai less so, but I could still see some like boundless enthusiasm for certain topics and a kind of spirited way of life--well, particularly later seasons Andy. April is a negative person but it doesn't really impact Andy much at all because he's pretty oblivious and we buy that he's oblivious and/or just finds it loveable and charming. Lorelai doesn't gel with Luke's crochety ways quite in the same way. Maybe Andy's dumbness tempers April's negativity and makes them a better suited match. Lorelai is too smart not to notice what a drain Luke can be.

[amensisterfriend]

Yes!  I've also thought about how Parks n Rec April and Luke had a lot of similarities, and Andy and Lorelai less so, but I could still see some like boundless enthusiasm for certain topics and a kind of spirited way of life--well, particularly later seasons Andy.

 

Exactly. Plus, as pawneeranger alluded to, April and Andy are surface opposites who actually do have a surprising amount of commonality: They're both creative, both follow their hearts and instincts over what they 'should' do, both like to role play to liven up reality, and a few other similarities that are probably too show specific to get into here :) Most importantly (to me!), despite their differences in personality and affect, they actually have really similar ideas about how to spend their free time, how they approach life, etc. Luke and Lorelai have literally almost nothing in common other than both residing in the same town and, like the vast majority of the population, both having some somewhat nutty and eccentric relatives. April and Andy are also IMO a really good example of how differences can be complementary: she grounds Andy and talks some reason into him when needed, while he gives her a lightheartedness and joy that she otherwise lacks. Before they got together, I had high hopes that Luke and Lorelai's differences could also be depicted as complementary rather than just incompatible, but that dream crashed and burned!

 

 

 

April is a negative person but it doesn't really impact Andy much at all because he's pretty oblivious and we buy that he's oblivious and/or just finds it loveable and charming. Lorelai doesn't gel with Luke's crochety ways quite in the same way. Maybe Andy's dumbness tempers April's negativity and makes them a better suited match. Lorelai is too smart not to notice what a drain Luke can be.

 

Ha! The key distinction for me is that Andy and April seem to either view each other's differences as assets or, as you noted, cheerfully (and/or obliviously?!) accept them. By contrast, Luke and Lorelai seem so baffled and irritated by each other that it's like, hello, did you NOT know each other for a million years prior to dating and therefore not know what you were getting into?!  Does the fact that, for example, Lorelai is scattered and overly talkative and impulsive come as an unwelcome shock?!

 

The other key (for me, obviously!) is that for all of her many, many faults, Parks and Rec's April is actually amazing at not taking her negativity directly out on Andy. Without magically transforming her, Andy's personality and the love she feels for him actually bring out a sweeter, more patient and supportive side of her---you know, by April standards ;) Even when she's complaining about something, she's generally very loving and affectionate towards him (physically and, more importantly, otherwise!) and tends to make it pretty clear throughout their relationship that she's very happy with Andy even when she's annoyed at most everything else. I don't know whether it's the acting or writing, but Luke often came off as annoyed WITH Lorelai, not just around her, as if she was on that list of things that were forever driving him up on the proverbial wall. And, yes, Lorelai is annoying, but as others have said...don't choose to date her if you're irritated around her far more often than not! And she in turn seemed to have her enthusiasm dimmed and squashed when she was around him, while Andy was even more enthusiastic around April because he was so goofily in love with her and determined to always see the best in her. And with Luke/Lorelai, there wasn't really much of that warmth and affection to remind us that they adored each other despite occasional appearances to the contrary :) 

 

 Parks and Rec also did a great job of showing that couples CAN still be fun, silly, attracted to each other, interesting, showing affection and attraction etc. even after dating and marrying (Andy/April and Leslie/Ben in particular), while Gilmore Girls tended to do well depicting the buildup to romances and breakups but not much that came in between :)  

Edited November 19, 2015 by amensisterfriend

[Eyes High]

At least with jess who I also have issues with and think was a bad boyfriend, he was a punk teenager who had been passed along to some uncle he barely knew by his flakey and ridiculous mom and never had a relationship with his dad so when he's rude and angry it makes a little bit more sense.

 

I agree with the post above me about how Luke probably wasn't cut out for a relationship. They certainly didn't seem to make him any happier. But I think the same about Lorelai. Both characters were happier to me when they weren't dating. Rory though I see as a relationship person. I don't know why i still think that even after most of her relationships were as bad as Lorelai's! 

 

I agree that Luke and Lorelai seemed happier when they weren't in relationships (overall, not just with each other). In my observation, people who are as particular, stubborn, and set in their ways as Luke and Lorelai don't tend to be happy in serious, committed relationships, as too many concessions and adjustments have to be made. 

 

As for Jess, there are some promising indications that he grew out of his teenage assholery. He puts up with a lot of ridiculousness from Logan before ditching out and mostly avoids rising to the bait despite considerable goading. He's mellow but polite with Luke even when Luke insults the artwork at the gallery. (In fact, his response to Luke's negativity is perfect: "I have some sculpture over here you're really going to hate.") He is unhappy but takes it in stride when he realizes that Rory is still with Logan despite coming to Philly alone to see him; he even shrugs off her apology ("It is what it is."). All in all, he seems to have grown up. 

Edited November 19, 2015 by Eyes High

[JayInChicago]

I dunno--first season Luke had some real moments. I'm not sure why or how they got away from that Luke. He was still the "meat will kill ya" diner owner guy. They had a much more playful dynamic. 

 

There are glimpses of that later too. Like Luke keeping the horoscope in his wallet for so many years, and needing a self help tape to get him to realize he had fallen in love with Lorelai. I actually do buy that he loves her. I also buy that he is a very flawed person. But christ they didn't need to hammer his absolute killjoy nature quite so much. really took the fun out of the character and out of their romance.

[Sara2009]

All of this Luke talk reminds me of my recent UO:

Overall Scott Patterson didn't impress me as an actor. He had his moments, but he was nothing special most of the time IMO.

[amensisterfriend]

Overall Scott Patterson didn't impress me as an actor. He had his moments, but he was nothing special most of the time IMO.

 

I'll take it a step (giant leap?!) further and say that I think he's just as responsible as the writing for my relative dislike of the character. As many have said, he really overplays the anger beyond what I'd imagine the scripts intended. Plus, I just happen not to find him appealing, for lack of a better of putting it. It's not just physically (though I don't!), but his general mannerisms and affect just made Luke less likable and interesting for me than he might have been if played by another actor. 

[JayInChicago]

I really hate the Luke-grouch-walk. Like the way he holds his body. Stiff tall shoulders yet kind of hunched at the same time. Was that direction, or acting?  who can say.

[JayInChicago]

oh by the way, not to "live blog", loll 4 ever, but I'm watching A Vineyard Valentine right now. I'm a masochist.

I do agree with Luke that it *is* weird to stay in other people's houses.

ok--hit the "i've never had lobster before" part

done.  was luke just saying that as a moment of class war or something?  A culinarily inclined 40ish New Englander has never had lobster.  uh, what. no

Edited November 20, 2015 by JayInChicago

[Aloeonatable]

 

Some of this reminds me of why i have an unpopular love for Logan. You all are right about how the smirk can be annoying and that the show went over the top sometimes with his partying and rich playboy thing but he was also one of the only guys on the show who wasn't angry and depressing almost all the time and wasn't always throwing a tantrum. By that point in the series with so much Luke, Jess, Dean and knowing you were supposed to hate Christopher it was just nice to see a character who didn't seem to need professional treatment for emotional issues.

 

Oh but Logan had his own set of issues. The drinking (and I don't think this was typical college behavior), the casual sex, the running away from his problems. As for not having a temper he would so have engaged in a fight with Jess had Jess taken his bait. He was kicked out of several prep schools and had been in trouble with the law which his parents had to pay a lot of money to bail him out. Hardly a model citizen and not much different that many of the other male characters.

 

 

However, I don't think that was the case this time. Logan went a little too far in his sarcasm to Jess, but I think his anger was justified.  His serious girlfriend made plans to go out with an old boyfriend while he was out of town without even mentioning them to him.  I think most people would be upset by that, male or female.

 

Logan was out of town when Rory and Jess planned their dinner. He just shows up without a call and invites himself, which to me was rude. If he trusted Rory, then he shouldn't have been upset. He was a jerk.

[dustylil]

but he was also one of the only guys on the show who wasn't angry and depressing almost all the time and wasn't always throwing a tantrum

 

That's because he was too busy whining about his family having expectations of him in exchange for a life of considerable luxury and privilege. Understandable perhaps in an adolescent. Not so much for a man in his twenties.

[FictionLover]

In my opinion, the Gilmore Girls always saw Luke's grumpiness and rants as funny and endearing and knew he was truly a kind-hearted person. Luke's character was over the top, just as all the other Star's Hollow citizens.

[timimouse]

All of this Luke talk reminds me of my recent UO:

Overall Scott Patterson didn't impress me as an actor. He had his moments, but he was nothing special most of the time IMO.

 

THIS. The more I watch (and re-watch and re-watch), I think that if somebody softer had played the character, he would've been more likeable. I definitely also agree that in the earlier seasons, he wasn't as angry. My first sign was when he got arrested for beating the crap out of Nicole's lovers' vehicle. Yes he was hurt and angry but personally, I think people who can control their anger wouldn't go vandalising other people's property.

[dustylil]

I think people who can control their anger wouldn't go vandalising other people's property

 

Or their own property for that matter - like Richard's response to Emily going on a date.

[JayInChicago]

In my opinion, the Gilmore Girls always saw Luke's grumpiness and rants as funny and endearing and knew he was truly a kind-hearted person. Luke's character was over the top, just as all the other Star's Hollow citizens.

 

Yep, this is pretty much where they started Luke. He was the (mostly) all bark no bite curmudgeon who gets on Taylor's nerves as much as Taylor gets on his, and who makes fun of the Stars Hollow reenactment guys who wait in the cold all night for a battle that didn't happen, only to give them hot drinks, made to order. But by season 4-5 I wager he kind of turned a corner where he just seemed bitter a lot of the time, and sometimes over the top angry. 

 

A late episode, like Vinyard Valentine, has a truly miserable Luke who is really not charming.

[Taryn74]

I guess I hold the unpopular opinion, heh, that I actually *like* being around grumpy, curmudgeonly people - because you always know where you stand with them.  They're not going to be nice to you just because.  If they're nice to you, it's because they genuinely like you and you don't annoy them too much.  I find that kind of honesty refreshing.

 

There's an elderly German/Jewish man at our church who's like that, and I just adore him.  I'm one of the only people that can get away with telling him "I know you don't like hugs but I'm giving you one anyway."  >.<  He actually lived in Nazi Germany as a young child (his German mother was able to hide him because he didn't look Jewish) and has the most fascinating - and heartbreaking - stories.  I love to chat with him, but not everyone can be around him, you know?  He's just one of those people.

 

I definitely think they could have toned Luke down at times.  Physically throwing people out of the diner, yelling at the lady in Pushkin - IMO they were deliberately going for over-the-top there because it was supposed to be funny.  Only it was pretty much the opposite of that.

 

I just can't forget the guy that baked a coffee cake for a 16 yo's birthday breakfast and had a table with balloons waiting on her.  Or the guy that told his customers the food was free and to lock up when they were finished so he could drive his friend to the hospital to see her dad.  That's the real Luke to me, not the weirdo throwing people out the door.

[Minneapple]

I just can't forget the guy that baked a coffee cake for a 16 yo's birthday breakfast and had a table with balloons waiting on her.  Or the guy that told his customers the food was free and to lock up when they were finished so he could drive his friend to the hospital to see her dad.  That's the real Luke to me, not the weirdo throwing people out the door.

 

He can be both. That's what makes a three-dimensional character.

[Kohola3]

I will always love kinder and gentler Luke before ASP stabbed him to death with her increasingly idiotic character assassination scripts.  

 

I just can't forget the guy that baked a coffee cake for a 16 yo's birthday breakfast and had a table with balloons waiting on her.  Or the guy that told his customers the food was free and to lock up when they were finished so he could drive his friend to the hospital to see her dad.

 

And the man who made the Santa burger and took in his sister's kid, no questions asked and was (rightly) Jess's sole defender in the auto accident debacle and who came out sit with the row of little brides just because Lorelai asked him to.  I suspend belief of the ranting, raving Luke in later episodes because they were just damned poor writing by the ASP group.

[FictionLover]

I agree,Koloha3. As miserable as Vineyard Valentine was to watch, so was the whole last half of season 6. Pod Luke and Lorelai were both written so incredibly OOC.

[readster]

I will always love kinder and gentler Luke before ASP stabbed him to death with her increasingly idiotic character assassination scripts.  

 

And the man who made the Santa burger and took in his sister's kid, no questions asked and was (rightly) Jess's sole defender in the auto accident debacle and who came out sit with the row of little brides just because Lorelai asked him to.  I suspend belief of the ranting, raving Luke in later episodes because they were just damned poor writing by the ASP group.

Exactly! Then you had to do his major out of character attitude, the lost lost daughter stupidity he did. Trying to tell us that he was apparently "irresponsible" in his early to mid 20s. I mean come on! Season 6 wasn't just Luke and Lorelai being way out of character but everyone was. Richard and Emily, Christopher, Sookie (which was unforgivable), Jackson. I could go on not to mention how extreme both Taylor and Kirk were. I mean, anyone doing what they did would have been arrested or someone would have done a hit and run. Season was AS-P throwing things against the wall and seeing what stuck and when none of it did, she went: "Its the Moonlighting Curse, you can't write a show with main characters in a relationship. Give me money or I'm leaving! Waaaaa!"

[Melancholy]

Yes, I feel like it's an increasingly unpopular opinion to love Luke. However, I really do. His grumpy personality could be OTT- usually sparked by Lorelai-angst (not reasonable) or Taylor/the town imposing on Luke in a beyond-ridiculous manner that most people wouldn't stand for, even though many wouldn't quite react with the full force of Luke's temper. However to tag on, bringing the Reenactors free cocoa because he felt sorry for them staying out in the cold even if he thought the tradition was stupid, finding all of Kirk's rotten eggs, putting up with being Emily's errand boy during Richard's heart-attack even after his ugly break-up with Lorelai that aggravated all of the classist prejudice that the Gilmores (especially Emily) threw at him, hell, I love how he immediate dived into being April's father, despite the obstacles, because he has this craving to nurture and make things better. I think he's just darling- even if he's verrrrry rough around the edges and flawed. 

[Guest]

I think early seasons Luke had a good mix of grumpy with anger tendencies and kind-hearted.  In Season 4, he vandalized Sock Guy's car but he also helped Kirk find the last 12 eggs.  (Just two examples that come to mind)  I got the feeling when he and Lorelai broke up, we were supposed to think it was funny as he threw people out of the diner. But it failed for most of us, it seems.  And then in Season 6, we got Pod Luke, so the whole thing seems off.

[Eyes High]

Logan went a little too far in his sarcasm to Jess, but I think his anger was justified.  His serious girlfriend made plans to go out with an old boyfriend while he was out of town without even mentioning them to him.  I think most people would be upset by that, male or female.

 

Even if his anger at Rory was justified--which is doubtful, since he should have trusted her--the manner in which he expressed that anger was completely unacceptable and make him look horrible. Whatever his beef was, it was with Rory, not Jess, and he treated Jess like garbage in a misguided attempt to puff himself up. He invited himself on their outing, insulted Jess at length, clearly attempted to pick a fight with him by provoking him, and made Rory extremely uncomfortable on purpose. Someone of Logan's breeding would be exquisitely versed in etiquette, so he knew full well how awful he was being, but he didn't care. (He and Emily, another person extremely well-trained in manners and etiquette who is appallingly rude, have that in common.)

 

A gentleman or even a good guy with a shred of self-control would have warmly introduced himself to Jess, told Rory to enjoy herself on her outing and call him later, and raised his concerns with Rory's actions privately later on. Not only would that have been the right thing to do, it would have been the smart thing to do: it would have had the bonus of making him appear so secure in his relationship that he trusts Rory enough to go on an outing with an ex-boyfriend. Instead, he just made himself look a rude, immature asshole who's so insecure in his relationship that he has to make a big display of possessiveness and attempt to tear down his rival. He also unintentionally acknowledged Jess as a threat to his relationship, whereas if he'd behaved with a little more dignity and grace he could have communicated to Jess how secure his relationship with Rory was. Not a good look.

 

Oh but Logan had his own set of issues. The drinking (and I don't think this was typical college behavior), the casual sex...

Is a preference for casual sex really an "issue"? I know it was framed as such in the weirdly conservative world of Gilmore Girls where Logan's preference for casual sex was a tendency Rory "cured" him of, but I dunno. For someone like Logan--young, handsome, rich, partier--a preference for casual sex is not at all surprising. I suppose casual sex can be an "issue" if you're unsafe, callous or cruel in the way you go about it, or if you have sex addiction issues or something like that, but sleeping around isn't of itself proof of some deeper character issues, and it wasn't in Logan's case, either, in my opinion, even if the writers seemed to think otherwise.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Eyes High

[JayInChicago]

Is a preference for casual sex really an "issue"?

 

I think with Logan in particular the Honor's bridesmaids situation (Bridesmaids Revisited) -- now correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while since I watched it -- he had sex with multiple of Honor's bridesmaids in a rather short amount of time. While he thought he and Rory were broken up and she didn't think so. And Logan heaped disdain on the personalities and intelligence of those young women. That doesn't paint a very great picture of how he thinks of himself, or women. 

 

While obviously social circles can get a little 'webbed' ala the L Word, it also seems a bit weird to have sex with one's own sister's close associates. I don't know if it's less weird or more weird in the 1% er set.

[Eyes High]

I think with Logan in particular the Honor's bridesmaids situation (Bridesmaids Revisited) -- now correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while since I watched it -- he had sex with multiple of Honor's bridesmaids in a rather short amount of time. While he thought he and Rory were broken up and she didn't think so.

 

I checked the transcript, and there were three girls that he hooked up with while he thought he and Rory were broken up: Walker at Thanksgiving and Claude at Christmas after too much spiked eggnog, whom he had once dated "eons ago." There was a third girl, Alexandra, with whom he "messed around," but it wasn't clear when it happened, since she had a boyfriend, Liam, but said that "Officially, nothing happened" (which could have meant either that she cheated with Liam during the relevant timeframe, or that now that she's coupled up, she's pretending that she never had a sexual past prior to her relationship with him).

 

And Logan heaped disdain on the personalities and intelligence of those young women. That doesn't paint a very great picture of how he thinks of himself, or women.

 

He really does. He refers to them as "moronic bridesmaids": "Blondie, Bubbles, Four Nose Jobs, and Charm McGee." Rory gets awesome when she calls him out on his "cover" later on, though, chastising him for "pretending all those girls were worthless idiots." When Logan sputters that they are worthless idiots for running off their mouths, she again awesomely defends them and refuses to let him off the hook: "It's not their fault."

 

...Man, Logan is such a piece of shit. I do like the reminder that late-series Rory can be awesome sometimes.

 

The annoying thing is that Logan claims to have known them forever, so by insulting their appearance, intelligence and personalities, while admitting he slept with them, he's insulting his own taste in companions. 

 

While obviously social circles can get a little 'webbed' ala the L Word, it also seems a bit weird to have sex with one's own sister's close associates. I don't know if it's less weird or more weird in the 1% er set.

 

I'm not a member of that 1% set, but I always got the sense that the social circles were pretty small and incestuous. It didn't surprise me at all that Logan and Honor had the same set of female friends.

[amensisterfriend]

I agree wholeheartedly that Luke's character devolved in later seasons, especially when it comes to moving from excessively but amusingly (and maybe self-protectively?!) negative to flat out 'OMG, please get this man some medication and anger management therapy, stat!' And I'm actually always surprised all over again by how much more appealing, interesting, likable, sharp and smart he seemed in s1 compared to subsequent seasons. I actually like him a lot through most of that first season. What the heck happened to THAT guy?!

 

But I guess my UO even among fans who are similarly 'meh' (or worse) on Luke is that I do think there were definite anger/mood issues before he got arrested for damaging Nicole's car. (And suddenly making Nicole a cheater and therefore allowing Luke to be the wronged victim in their relationship drives me nuts anyway, because Luke was extremely passive aggressive throughout and was clearly just waiting and hoping she'd break up with him so that he didn't have to view himself as the bad guy...but, as usual, I digress :)) Even back in S1, Luke put Dean in a headlock for daring to walk within 50 feet of his diner after breaking up with Rory. And I get that that scene was played for laughs and to clumsily illustrate that Luke is protective of Rory. But...a grown man going out of his way to pick a fight with an adolescent and getting physical with him with no provocation whatsoever? Seriously?! He's lucky that Dean's parents were apparently not too litigious ;) I can only imagine how well that would have gone over in the town I grew up in! 

 

That's the tricky line that a 'dramedy' like GG walks---they're forever exaggerating their characters' flaws and reactions for (not always entirely successful!) comedic effect, but they're also still banking on you still liking and rooting for these people and taking their struggles, triumphs and relationships with one another seriously no matter how frequently and extremely said flaws manifest themselves. It can be done, but it's not easy, and GG often fails at maintaining that balance IMO. And it's certainly not just Luke whose flaws were so frequent and extreme to the point where it was hard for me to still like him and think he'd be a good guy to be in a  relationship with. (Honestly, I'd really need to triple my antidepressant dosage beforehand before dating a guy like Luke!) In fact, you could argue that a REALLY high percentage of these characters were pretty problematic. Even Paris, for example, who I enjoy tremendously as a fictional character, would have me sprinting in the opposite direction if I encountered her in real life. But I think Luke is often singled out when we chat about this stuff because 1) He's arguably the most adored character by fans, so anyone who doesn't share that sentiment does feel "unpopular" and tries to figure out why they can't embrace him and excuse his many missteps as easily as most do and 2) the show itself almost never acknowledges Luke's pervasive bitterness and chronic anger to be flaws, while they definitely make it clear that Paris is crazy, Lorelai is yammering, immature and impulsive to a fault,  Emily is snotty and elitist, Jess is rude and manages to alienate an entire town, etc. But other than belatedly acknowledging in S7 that Luke could have handled the April situation differently (gee, you think?!), they never seem to view Luke's flaws as real, legitimate flaws. And I guess my unpopular opinion is that I do, and can't NOT see them as pretty serious and damaging to my overall opinion of Luke no matter how much I wish I could just enjoy and root for him despite his shortcomings.  

 

This show and its characters are so much more lovable for me when I don't examine them too closely, though, so maybe I should stop rambling about the show until one day I finally regain the urge to watch it :) 

 

 

As for Logan..yeah, the bridesmaid thing grosses me out, though for some reason stealing a trinket and allowing a maid to take the fall always disturbs me more! 

[Guest]

On a more shallow note, my UO is that Luke isn't very good looking. He's average.  

[amensisterfriend]

For some reason I don't find Luke attractive AT ALL, deaja! I guess we're at a table for two then, though just to be safe we should probably get that table at Al's Pancake World rather than Luke's ;) The perpetual scowl and killjoy negativity certainly doesn't help matters, but even if Luke were a smiley, affable guy with a zest for life, his looks just don't do it for me. The body, the terrible hair, the facial expressions, the way he walks and talks...he just doesn't appeal to me at all. We all have different types, and he's just very much not mine. 

[photo fox]

Table for three! I wouldn't even call him average. Partially due to looks, but mostly due to his schlumpy-ness and constant hangdog expression.

[solotrek]

He was kicked out of several prep schools and had been in trouble with the law which his parents had to pay a lot of money to bail him out.

 

Can I just say that I thought it was incredibly weird that Christopher decided that Logan was "alright" because of him getting kicked out of a ton of prep schools? I think that told me a lot more about Christopher than it did about Logan.

[dustylil]

I don't find Luke attractive AT ALL

 

I did think  he was better looking in GG than when he was sponge-worthy.

[HeySandyStrange]

 

Yes, I feel like it's an increasingly unpopular opinion to love Luke. However, I really do. His grumpy personality could be OTT- usually sparked by Lorelai-angst (not reasonable) or Taylor/the town imposing on Luke in a beyond-ridiculous manner that most people wouldn't stand for, even though many wouldn't quite react with the full force of Luke's temper.

 

I guess I'll sit at your table on that. In fact, I will go further and say that between Luke and Lorelai, I prefer Luke as a character and if he was a real person I'd rather have him as a friend. I have had experience with Lorelai-types in my life. While they can be fun and exciting to be around, they can also be very self-centered, entitled, and be emotionally draining. I'd rather deal with Luke's grumpiness, because at least he was usually upfront about it in the beginning before the show descended into exaggeration land.

 

 

On a more shallow note, my UO is that Luke isn't very good looking. He's average.

 

IMO none of the guys on the show were heartthrobs.