One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions

[dustylil]

2 hours ago, Smad said:

Also Luke has the added difficulty of how/if April is even willing to fit him into her life, not made any easier by Anna's lunacy. Also does Lorelai not think that Luke might want April at their wedding (like she wanted Rory) and for that to even occur he needed a stable relationship with the girl?

It wasn't made any less difficult by Luke's conduct involving April either. And I am not talking about the ridiculousness of Luke's birthday party plans. Were children's parties unknown in Stars Hollow? 

 It took him a number of weeks to  decide that he  even wanted to be in the child's life after the DNA test results were made known. And although Luke thought he might quickly become a wallflower once April was exposed to Lorelai's vivacious personality, why did he not tell his daughter he was planning to marry? It's not as if he could rely on the diner's gossipy customers to keep that bit of information quiet. And then in Philadelphia when he was cornered and  finally got around to telling April about Lorelai, he did it with as much enthusiasm as if he were discussing an upcoming root canal. April and her father had now been acquainted for about four months at this point in time. She might well wonder - Why hadn't he told her sooner? Was he ashamed of her? Would she ever actually get to meet this Lorelai? Did his fiancée not like children? Would she still  get to see her father after he was married? It was not as if she could discuss her concerns with her mother. Luke was clearly a sensitive - if not forbidden - subject in the Nardini home.

Much attention has been given - and reasonably so - to Lorelai's thoughts and feelings about not only not being informed about April, but also about not being allowed to get to know her. I wish some attention had been given to April's perspective concerning finding and getting to know her father in those early months. I believe Luke could have handled things far better.

[cuddlingcrowley]

Quote

My UO is that I think Luke had a right to figure out how to be a parent to April on his own terms rather than relying on Lorelai's opinions, including when and how to fit April into their lives. He was of course wrong to keep secrets and wrong in the way he went about it.  Although Lorelai also could have handled the situation much better. 

I completely agree Luke had every right to have the space he needed to figure out his relationship with April before worrying about how to tacke it as a couple. And I would agree Lorelai should have handled it better if her defensiveness and insecurity weren't direct results from Luke's actions, such as keeping it from her for two months while they were engaged to be married nonetheless, or deciding not to let Lorelai so much as be in the same room as the child without talking to her about it beforehand.

[hippielamb]

10 hours ago, AllyB said:

I'm part way through season 7 now and after a really rough start, I'm actually enjoying it. Lorelai and Chris are actually a really good couple at the moment. I especially like them together in The Great Stink. The way they are having an argument about Gigi's trip to Paris and first Lorelai is upset when Chris reacts badly to her opinion as she loved that Chris, unlike Luke, was open to her parenting advice. Then she realises why he is upset and makes the effort to take him aside and maturely explain. Chris is still mad but within a few minutes of thinking it over he maturely talks to her, tells her she is right and makes knew plans that she helped him form. Even outside of their great natural chemistry their relationship works so well and is wonderful compared to season 5 and 6 with Luke. It seems insane that in just a few more episodes it all ends badly.

It's almost as if the writers/producers remembered that they had to break them up in order for her to reconcile with Luke. 

I have a fondness for early season 7 because we get to see how Lorelai and Chris are in a day to day life together. I love French Twist because they are so happy together. One of my favourite scenes is at the end of the pickle episode when they are in the car with Rory. It just makes me smile. I also like the hints that Christopher has grown up in ways that Lorelai hasn't. He puts back her sugary cereal when she's not looking and is interested in the astronomy lecture at Yale which she wants to mock. I am glad they end the series in a good place. I wish they had ended up together but the fact that they are still close after everything is enough for me. 

5 hours ago, Taryn74 said:

My people!  I'm beginning to have an irrational hatred of Dave, probably because so many people adore him and I don't understand why.

I didn't love Dave, something about the actor's speech or delivey I find annoying. I do like that the character was similar to Lane in not only their music interests but also that he understood her need to hide things from her mother. He was a nice contrast to Henry who didn't really get why she had a secret life. 

 

4 hours ago, shron17 said:

 My UO is that I think Luke had a right to figure out how to be a parent to April on his own terms rather than relying on Lorelai's opinions, including when and how to fit April into their lives.  He was of course wrong to keep secrets and wrong in the way he went about it.  Although Lorelai also could have handled the situation much better.  E.g. if as in the example above with Chris, Lorelai tried to figure out what was going on with Luke by talking to him about it and then acted maturely, it all probably would have gone much better.  Another UO is that I really hate Lorelai going to talk to Anna without discussing it with Luke.  Wouldn't a more mature response have been to tell Luke she was involved now and he needed to introduce her to Anna properly so they could all discuss the situation, and then go from there?  It was his daughter and his right to make decisions on things concerning her and her mother, or at least to know if Lorelai was planning to contact either of them directly.

That's interesting. I can never figure out why finding out he has a kid sends Luke's life into a spiral. Anna said they were fine. I understand he wanted to know his daughter but his reaction to it seemed exaggerated. Of course everything on this show is magnified so maybe that fits in with it. I do agree Lorelai crossed a line in speaking with Anna. That's the mother of his child and she shouldn't have done that. It's in character for Luke to not want Lorelai's input, remember how he was when Jess showed up. 

[dustylil]

19 minutes ago, hippielamb said:

I can never figure out why finding out he has a kid sends Luke's life into a spiral

Me, as well. If he had been married, engaged or in some form of committed relationship, then OK. He had strayed and been caught out. Or if he been a member of a religious community with expectations of  celibacy and broke those vows, that too I could understand. But he was in none of those situations. So why the spiral and why go to Liz - of all people - for guidance?The only thing that made any logical sense to me was that prior to this,  he genuinely did not know where babies came from :)

[Taryn74]

27 minutes ago, hippielamb said:

I do like that the character was similar to Lane in not only their music interests but also that he understood her need to hide things from her mother. He was a nice contrast to Henry who didn't really get why she had a secret life. 

 

LOL and that's actually one of the things that I sincerely dislike about Dave and, in contrast, really like about Zach.

[Smad]

1 hour ago, dustylil said:

Me, as well. If he had been married, engaged or in some form of committed relationship, then OK. He had strayed and been caught out. Or if he been a member of a religious community with expectations of  celibacy and broke those vows, that too I could understand. But he was in none of those situations. So why the spiral and why go to Liz - of all people - for guidance?The only thing that made any logical sense to me was that prior to this,  he genuinely did not know where babies came from :)

That's why I went off the L/L train. Luke would never have been lobotomized to such a digree if he hadn't been with Lorelai. 2 years in a relationship with the woman and he was made dumber, often times grumpier and got anger management problems added on top. If ASP couldn't write the relationship so both stay true to who they were then she should have fought the network harder and not put them together.

[readster]

15 hours ago, Smad said:

That's why I went off the L/L train. Luke would never have been lobotomized to such a digree if he hadn't been with Lorelai. 2 years in a relationship with the woman and he was made dumber, often times grumpier and got anger management problems added on top. If ASP couldn't write the relationship so both stay true to who they were then she should have fought the network harder and not put them together.

I think what was even worst is that AS-P said at one point she just threw her hands up and worked on figuring out how to break them up. Because she was in such a "I need to avoid the Moonlighting Curse" crap she spouted off since season 1. AS-P wanted to keep them who they were, but at the same time, also didn't know how to write them as a couple. Hence, Luke went to the extreme on his demeanors and Lorelai became a half whit most of the time. I think it was amazing that even with Christopher and Lorelai, AS-P wrote them as that high school couple that never moved on. Unlike in season 7 when Chris was written to enjoy the stuff that Lorelai hated or mocked and Rory liked that her dad actually enjoyed the stuff she loved. Then the writers wanted to make Luke actually have a nice balance of dad to April and still be the character we all knew and loved back in seasons 1-4. 

  Yet, the entire thing was: "We can't write a couple, so screw it and let's make them become morons who have to break up." "The audience and fans will thank us in the end." However, we didn't and said that shows still have this problem and I'll take Castle as the most recent example of writers and creators just not trying and thinking it's smarter to put some stupid contrive plot to break characters up that makes no sense and has them acting so out of character, you think it was a completely different show. Then they go: "Why are you cancelling us?" Well duh! Or with the entire April Gate story: "Duh.... you said you didn't like kids, now kiss my ass and jump when I tell you to." 

Edited May 24, 2016 by readster

[hippielamb]

21 hours ago, Taryn74 said:

 

LOL and that's actually one of the things that I sincerely dislike about Dave and, in contrast, really like about Zach.

Lol different strokes, Taryn74. I liked Dave's sneakiness. I can really sympathize with teenaged Lane. I didn't have her floorboards set-up but there were a lot of things I liked and did that my guardians would not have approved of. Dave's apparent ease with lying made me wonder what his home life was like. In that speech he gives to Mrs Kim he makes it sound like he's a goodie two shoes. Unless that was all a lie! I can't help it, I like that teenaged Lane has somebody who gets her. Rory can't fully appreciate what it's like for Lane because her home life is so different.

I don't dislike Zack but he seemed more afraid of Mrs Kim and wouldn't want to deceive her. Zack ended up being a supportive partner to Lane and that endeared him to me. I liked that he respected her decision to wait to have sex until they were married, went along with the wacky fake wedding, and generally did what he could to make Lane happy.

 

4 hours ago, readster said:

I think what was even worst is that AS-P said at one point she just threw her hands up and worked on figuring out how to break them up. Because she was in such a "I need to avoid the Moonlighting Curse" crap she spouted off since season 1. AS-P wanted to keep them who they were, but at the same time, also didn't know how to write them as a couple.

Did she not want to put them together until the end? If so, that makes sense of why they are portrayed as lacking warmth. I don't know many behind the scenes details, sorry if this has already been explained. 

[Smad]

4 hours ago, hippielamb said:

Did she not want to put them together until the end? If so, that makes sense of why they are portrayed as lacking warmth. I don't know many behind the scenes details, sorry if this has already been explained. 

You can gladly go into the L/L thread where this has been discussed at length. But the short of it is she didn't want to put them together (either ever or until the end of the show). The ratings were dropping in S4 so the network forced her hand. And if you know anything about ASP, being forced to do something really doesn't sit well with her.

[txhorns79]

Quote

That's interesting. I can never figure out why finding out he has a kid sends Luke's life into a spiral. Anna said they were fine. I understand he wanted to know his daughter but his reaction to it seemed exaggerated.

I don't think it was approached this way, but I would think it would be utterly devastating to find out I had a child who was kept from me for over a decade for no good reason.  I would have missed so much, all for nothing.  And then, of course, I'd have to go to jail because I would have murdered Anna, leaving me a husk of a person, rocking back and forth in my jail cell muttering "You hated kids..."

[FictionLover]

3 minutes ago, Smad said:

You can gladly go into the L/L thread where this has been discussed at length. But the short of it is she didn't want to put them together (either ever or until the end of the show). The ratings were dropping in S4 so the network forced her hand. And if you know anything about ASP, being forced to do something really doesn't sit well with her.

Is this a fact or speculation?  I didn't watch it during it's original run so I never heard any of the talk back then. Interviews with SP sound like they were suppose to get married.

[txhorns79]

Quote

The ratings were dropping in S4 so the network forced her hand. And if you know anything about ASP, being forced to do something really doesn't sit well with her.

I had heard that Rory losing her virginity was due to pressure from the network, but I hadn't heard that Luke and Lorelai got together for that reason.  I kind of roll my eyes at the idea that ASP doesn't like being "forced" to do a storyline.  If she didn't want to take direction from a network, then the easiest thing to do was not take their money.     

[Leonana]

3 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I had heard that Rory losing her virginity was due to pressure from the network, but I hadn't heard that Luke and Lorelai got together for that reason.  I kind of roll my eyes at the idea that ASP doesn't like being "forced" to do a storyline.  If she didn't want to take direction from a network, then the easiest thing to do was not take their money.     

On the Gilmore Guys podcasts, they have interviewed some of the writers and cast of Gilmore Girls, and it's been mentioned more than once that scripts were given to the actors at the last minute. The supposition of those being interviewed was that ASP didn't want the networks to have time to mess with the scripts.

Of course, that's not proof that she was forced to put Luke and Lorelai together, but she did have to deal with some network control.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Leonana

[AllyB]

8 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I don't think it was approached this way, but I would think it would be utterly devastating to find out I had a child who was kept from me for over a decade for no good reason.  I would have missed so much, all for nothing.  And then, of course, I'd have to go to jail because I would have murdered Anna, leaving me a husk of a person, rocking back and forth in my jail cell muttering "You hated kids..."

I agree. It's biologically impossible for me to be in that position but if I was it would destroy me. I have a 3 year old and the thought of missing this period of his life because of a few comments I made in the past is devastating. And as well as that, to know that a former partner had such low regard for me that they would choose to parent alone, both practically and financially, rather than let me know that we had a child would be awful too.

[dustylil]

1. 5 hours ago, AllyB said:

It's biologically impossible for me to be in that position but if I was it would destroy me. I have a 3 year old and the thought of missing this period of his life because of a few comments I made in the past is devastating. And as well as that, to know that a former partner had such low regard for me that they would choose to parent alone, both practically and financially, rather than let me know that we had a child would be awful too

I agree. I believe that would be the first reaction of most people. But I would think  after the initial shock, anger and pain, they would recognize the gift of a bright and healthy child into their lives and embrace it. Then continue on with their  plans and ambitions, rather than become emotionally paralyzed. And on a related note, they would be considerably more proactive in their use of birth control.

[jah1986]

My UO is I plan on watching the new episodes on Netflix, but I have no desire to binge watch the entire series or even a few episodes again. I started to watch the first episode and just couldn't get through it.

[txhorns79]

Quote

I agree. I believe that would be the first reaction of most people. But I would think  after the initial shock, anger and pain, they would recognize the gift of a bright and healthy child into their lives and embrace it.  Then continue on with their  plans and ambitions, rather than become emotionally paralyzed.

I think eventually someone may be able to get to the point where they move on from the shock, anger and pain, but it seems very unrealistic to expect that would have happened within the timeline we saw on the show, particularly given that Anna did not appear to have any real understanding of the seriousness of what she had done, and the overall unstable nature of the situation.  As far as I recall, I don't think Anna or Luke ever formalized anything with regards to April until a Judge did it for them.        

Edited May 25, 2016 by txhorns79

[readster]

28 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I think eventually someone may be able to get to the point where they move on from the shock, anger and pain, but it seems very unrealistic to expect that would have happened within the timeline we saw on the show, particularly given that Anna did not appear to have any real understanding of the seriousness of what she had done, and the overall unstable nature of the situation.  As far as I recall, I don't think Anna or Luke ever formalized anything with regards to April until a Judge did it for them.        

Right on all points. I agree with others, that kind of revelation would shake me to my soul, but at the same time. There would have been some choice words with Anna instead of how Luke went around with it. Luke didn't do anything until Anna said they were moving away to care for her terminally ill mother. Which was more bullshit of how much control they gave Anna. Not the fact that him acting and not telling anyone else but only Liz about April. The fact that the revelation was found out completely by accident and Luke handled that even worst. Then the entire Lorelei ultimatum followed by the pain that was Christopher coming back as a result. It was April telling her father: "grandma is dying and mom wants to pack up everything move there until she dies." Then Luke finally told Anna: "She's my daughter too." "You don't always get your way." Which is what he should have said since day 1. He let Anna get away with everything. I was on Anna's side when Lorelei yelled at Anna about things, but Lore was in the wrong there. Even worst, Lorelei would have acted like Anna if their roles were reversed. Of course, Lorelei always left the door open, Anna took words way to literally from others and figured she knew better than everyone. Why I hated her character, she put Emily shenanigans to shame. At least Emily had a warp POV. Anna was more of crazy woman. 

[FictionLover]

16 minutes ago, readster said:

Right on all points. I agree with others, that kind of revelation would shake me to my soul, but at the same time. There would have been some choice words with Anna instead of how Luke went around with it. Luke didn't do anything until Anna said they were moving away to care for her terminally ill mother. Which was more bullshit of how much control they gave Anna. Not the fact that him acting and not telling anyone else but only Liz about April. The fact that the revelation was found out completely by accident and Luke handled that even worst. Then the entire Lorelei ultimatum followed by the pain that was Christopher coming back as a result. It was April telling her father: "grandma is dying and mom wants to pack up everything move there until she dies." Then Luke finally told Anna: "She's my daughter too." "You don't always get your way." Which is what he should have said since day 1. He let Anna get away with everything. I was on Anna's side when Lorelei yelled at Anna about things, but Lore was in the wrong there. Even worst, Lorelei would have acted like Anna if their roles were reversed. Of course, Lorelei always left the door open, Anna took words way to literally from others and figured she knew better than everyone. Why I hated her character, she put Emily shenanigans to shame. At least Emily had a warp POV. Anna was more of crazy woman. 

When did Lorelai yell at Anna?  She talked to her but I don't recall any harsh words.

[txhorns79]

Quote

When did Lorelai yell at Anna?  She talked to her but I don't recall any harsh words.

Yeah, all I remember is them having a conversation.  I think the only thing Lorelai may have done wrong in that situation was going to Anna without telling Luke.  It really wasn't her place, even if she had good intentions.   

[shron17]

1 hour ago, txhorns79 said:

I think eventually someone may be able to get to the point where they move on from the shock, anger and pain, but it seems very unrealistic to expect that would have happened within the timeline we saw on the show, particularly given that Anna did not appear to have any real understanding of the seriousness of what she had done, and the overall unstable nature of the situation.  As far as I recall, I don't think Anna or Luke ever formalized anything with regards to April until a Judge did it for them.        

I agree, but also think it's not up to anyone else how long a person needs to handle something like that.  Each situation and each person is unique.  But I do think Lorelai had the right to decide how to handle the rift with Rory, which Luke acknowledged:

Quote

And I know you don't want my opinion on this, but you're both being dumb, and you should be talking. There. I won't say anything more about any of this again ever.

And that Luke had the same right to handle his situation in the way he thought best.  We never saw Lorelai ask how he was doing with it once--only Jess.  She was more focused on offering her help, which was great, but it would have been nice for her to ask what he needed rather than deciding for him and then being hurt when he didn't accept what she thought he needed. 

[dustylil]

1 hour ago, readster said:

I agree with others, that kind of revelation would shake me to my soul, but at the same time. There would have been some choice words with Anna instead of how Luke went around with it. Luke didn't do anything until Anna said they were moving away to care for her terminally ill mother

And that was a full year after he learned about April. I have known couples who were told they could not have children, grieved, had an unexpected pregnancy and  adjusted to parenthood in less time.

Lorelai spent most of her conversation with Anna apologizing for her own conduct and expressing her understanding of her point of view, one single mother to another. There was no yelling. And while Lorelai  should not have gone to see her, as she felt it was her actions that caused the problem, she saw  it as her responsibility to make amends.  It was not as if Luke himself always respected boundaries when it came to the personal matters of Lorelai and Rory.

[Smad]

1 hour ago, shron17 said:

She was more focused on offering her help, which was great, but it would have been nice for her to ask what he needed rather than deciding for him and then being hurt when he didn't accept what she thought he needed. 

Are you suggesting that people actually talk to each other? On this show?

[shron17]

1 minute ago, Smad said:

Are you suggesting that people actually talk to each other? On this show?

Sure.  Just that, and maybe the realization that everything that happens in Luke's life isn't about her.  I can dream...

[txhorns79]

Quote

I agree, but also think it's not up to anyone else how long a person needs to handle something like that.  Each situation and each person is unique.

That's very true.  There's no one "right" way to handle something like that.  It's a volatile situation on the best day.   

Though I think this is the first time I've seen Luke's situation compared to that of an infertile couple suddenly becoming pregnant.  I don't really understand the connection, but it's always interesting to see the things people throw out there. 

[Viqutorious]

18 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I had heard that Rory losing her virginity was due to pressure from the network, but I hadn't heard that Luke and Lorelai got together for that reason.  I kind of roll my eyes at the idea that ASP doesn't like being "forced" to do a storyline.  If she didn't want to take direction from a network, then the easiest thing to do was not take their money.     

Here is the quote from ASP regarding Rory's virginity at ATX.

Quote

Amy Sherman-Palladino remembers that the decision of when to have Rory lose her virginity was a bigger deal than the decision of when to let Luke and Lorelai be together. “At the time, everybody on TV was just f*cking. I’m all for a bunch of little whores running around. We weren’t trying to make a statement. We were trying to play the truth of who she was. I didn’t want her to get drunk at a party and be like, ‘Woo, what happened?’ The studio was finally like, ‘Seriously, she should have sex. What’s the deal, is she like a nun?'”

Here is a link to that quote.

http://ww2.kqed.org/pop/2015/06/08/gilmore-girls-everything-you-missed-at-the-atx-festival-reunion/

[dustylil]

55 minutes ago, CheeseBurgh said:

The studio was finally like, ‘Seriously, she should have sex. What’s the deal, is she like a nun?'”

And from this they decided it should be in an adulterous relationship. Sheesh. Another option  of course would have been for Asher  Fleming to have had an older brother.

[cuddlingcrowley]

Quote

Another option  of course would have been for Asher  Fleming to have had an older brother.

I honest would rather they'd given us that over revisiting the Dean/Rory relationship.

[cuddlingcrowley]

Quote

Another option  of course would have been for Asher  Fleming to have had an older brother.

I honest would rather they'd given us that over revisiting the Dean/Rory relationship.

 

[cuddlingcrowley]

Quote

Another option  of course would have been for Asher  Fleming to have had an older brother.

I honest would rather they'd given us that over revisiting the Dean/Rory relationship.

[cuddlingcrowley]

Quote

Another option  of course would have been for Asher  Fleming to have had an older brother.

I honest would rather they'd given us that over revisiting the Dean/Rory relationship.

 

[hippielamb]

20 hours ago, Smad said:

You can gladly go into the L/L thread where this has been discussed at length. But the short of it is she didn't want to put them together (either ever or until the end of the show). The ratings were dropping in S4 so the network forced her hand. And if you know anything about ASP, being forced to do something really doesn't sit well with her.

Thanks for the explanation, Smad. I figured Amy wanted to put them together at the end. I didn't know about the network interference.
It reminds me of Louis C.K. staying with FX because they give him a lot of creative control on his show. He's willing to sacrifice money to do it his way. 

20 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I think it would be utterly devastating to find out I had a child who was kept from me for over a decade for no good reason.  I would have missed so much, all for nothing.  And then, of course, I'd have to go to jail because I would have murdered Anna, leaving me a husk of a person, rocking back and forth in my jail cell muttering "You hated kids..."

Fair enough. Strange that the first time we see Luke challenge Anna is when she is threatening to move away with April. He doesn't show any anger at not being told until then. Which is weird. This guy gets mad about everything. 

I have known two separate guys who found out this little bombshell. Neither one of them acted like it was going to change everything in their lives. Both of their main concerns was what was required of them (money, time, etc.) But I should say neither kid was almost a teenager when they found out, they were children. Maybe that makes a difference. 

The thing I think of when the April storyline comes along is what had Anna told her daughter about her Dad before that? She had to have given a reason why he wasn't in contact. I don't believe that April wasn't curious until she was 12. That's ridiculous. Little kids 4,5,6 start asking questions when they notice something different in their lives than the other kids. 

4 hours ago, dustylil said:

Lorelai spent most of her conversation with Anna apologizing for her own conduct and expressing her understanding of her point of view, one single mother to another. There was no yelling. And while Lorelai  should not have gone to see her, as she felt it was her actions that caused the problem, she saw  it as her responsibility to make amends.  It was not as if Luke himself always respected boundaries when it came to the personal matters of Lorelai and Rory.

Lol that's true. I think Lorelai was out of line (and I can defend her on almost anything). It's a pet peeve of mine when someone butts in to a family relationship like that. It irked me when Luke did it, and it irked me when Lorelai did it too. If Anna had gone off on her I wouldn't have blamed her one bit. 

[dustylil]

12 minutes ago, hippielamb said:

I don't believe that April wasn't curious until she was 12. That's ridiculous. Little kids 4,5,6 start asking questions when they notice something different in their lives than the other kids. 

True. But young children can also sense when their questions are both unwelcome and unlikely to be answered.

[txhorns79]

Quote

I have known two separate guys who found out this little bombshell. Neither one of them acted like it was going to change everything in their lives. Both of their main concerns was what was required of them (money, time, etc.) But I should say neither kid was almost a teenager when they found out, they were children. Maybe that makes a difference. 

I would think if you intend to be actively involved in the child's life and be a parent, it really is going to change everything.  I know it sounds cliche, but, particularly if they are younger, it can take over your life. 

[JaggedLilPill]

Oy with the poodles already.

Kidding of course, but man, this just reminds me of why I hated the latter half of season 6 and mostly all of season 7. 

I'm sorry that ASP (and let's be real, many EP's/showrunners) feel that the death knell of any show is "the" couple getting together, but that's not the fault of your fans. That shows a lack of creativity and skill on your part. The whole April storyline would have been much better had it not been for the sole purpose of splitting up Luke and Lorelai. 

And yet...

Sigh.

I don't know. I'll never believe that Lorelai would be silent for that long and that Luke would be that dense about what he was doing. It's one thing to get to know your kid, but I cringe every time Lor hears the message about coming to the diner after April leaves. That's harsh. It felt more like I was watching Lorelai be Luke's mistress, waiting for his wife to be out of town and then she could sneak by the diner after. So stupid.

Which is why I didn't have a big problem with Lorelai going to Anna. Yes, she should have gone to Luke first, but I saw it as her apologizing for her part in the party. But then Anna telling Lorelai that she couldn't be in April's life until they were married is really when shit starts to hit the fan, since Luke won't talk to her about how much time he needs and now she knows she can't have any involvement. Which, is the stupidest logic ever. I guess Anna never heard of divorce. There are plenty of unmarried couples who have been together forever who are extremely more stable than a couple who's been married for a few years. 

I just wish Luke and Lorelai could have actually, you know, talked. But this is ASP we're talking about here, so...

[FictionLover]

21 hours ago, Smad said:

You can gladly go into the L/L thread where this has been discussed at length. But the short of it is she didn't want to put them together (either ever or until the end of the show). The ratings were dropping in S4 so the network forced her hand. And if you know anything about ASP, being forced to do something really doesn't sit well with her.

So this should probably be in the revival or L/L thread but the conversation is here.  If the revival is ASP chance to set things right and tell her story the way she intended, then Luke and Lorelai won't end up together if this quote is true. 

[shron17]

3 hours ago, JaggedLilPill said:

Which is why I didn't have a big problem with Lorelai going to Anna. Yes, she should have gone to Luke first, but I saw it as her apologizing for her part in the party. But then Anna telling Lorelai that she couldn't be in April's life until they were married is really when shit starts to hit the fan, since Luke won't talk to her about how much time he needs and now she knows she can't have any involvement. Which, is the stupidest logic ever. I guess Anna never heard of divorce. There are plenty of unmarried couples who have been together forever who are extremely more stable than a couple who's been married for a few years. 

But that's just the thing.  She needed to go with Luke as a united front, and as a mom Lorelai would have known that.  Would she have been receptive if Sherry had come to see her about Rory without Christopher?  If Lorelai had tried talking to Luke about taking her to meet Anna after the party, I think she could have convinced him.  As it was, Lorelai going directly to Anna prompted her to make decisions without Luke's input, decisions that weren't just hers to make.  And yeah, I wish they'd just talked too.  That part felt contrived.

2 hours ago, FictionLover said:

So this should probably be in the revival or L/L thread but the conversation is here.  If the revival is ASP chance to set things right and tell her story the way she intended, then Luke and Lorelai won't end up together if this quote is true. 

It's not true.  I've seen Amy, Dan and Lauren say more than once Luke and Lorelai were intended to end up together, not since the beginning, but sometime along the way as their chemistry was noticed and the friendship developed. When the network specified she get them together together by the end of season 4 Amy just had to change up the progression.  And I don't think the long lost daughter story was decided on until late season 5/early season 6.

Edited May 26, 2016 by shron17

[dustylil]

2 hours ago, shron17 said:

She needed to go with Luke as a united front, and as a mom Lorelai would have known that.  Would she have been receptive if Sherry had come to see her about Rory without Christopher?

Do we know if Luke even discussed with Anna that he was planning to marry? I know he mumbled something about a fiancée to April in Philadelphia. And I think we can safely assume April would have mentioned this news to her mother. But was there any indication that Luke had told Anna about Lorelai and Rory and  moving out of the diner to a real house? I  really couldn't tell from that conversation in the shop  how much Anna knew - I thought Ms Nardini was being somewhat cagey.

I am not sure the situations of Luke and Lorelai can be compared to that of Christopher and Sherry. Christopher - in  a rare moment of common sense or  perhaps having been compelled to do so by Sherry - introduced Sherry  to Rory and Lorelai at the same time. The three women did have something of a relationship. Luke, on the other hand,  had separate linkages to Lorelai, April and Anna and did his best to make sure those ties rarely, if ever, overlapped. There was no reason for Lorelai and Anna to trust one another just as there was no reason for Lorelai and Sherry not to. And yes, Lorelai was reluctant to have Rory spend part of the Christmas holidays with Sherry and Christopher but she did in the end convey the invitation and let Rory decide. And she did  overall encourage Rory to maintain ties with her father and his girlfriend.

Now if Sherry had contacted Lorelai without  Christopher's knowledge and without having previously been introduced to her to apologize to her for some apparent misdeed, I can see Lorelai being initially annoyed  but then appreciative of the apology. She also would have been ticked off with Christopher for putting both women in an awkward position. But I can't see her becoming enraged and making threats. She was secure in her role as Rory's mother. She only got angry if she thought Rory was in danger - however  irrational those thoughts might have been.

[shron17]

51 minutes ago, dustylil said:

I am not sure the situations of Luke and Lorelai can be compared to that of Christopher and Sherry.

I don't see why not.  Sherry was Christopher's girlfriend and Lorelai was Luke's girfriend/fiancee.  Yes, Luke should have introduced Lorelai and Anna before, but the problem after April's birthday party gave Lorelai the perfect reason to encourage him to do so.  For all we know, this could have been something Luke wanted to discuss when he next saw her, after she got done making up emergency staff meetings and getting people to lie about her whereabouts in order to avoid him.  

Quote

Now if Sherry had contacted Lorelai without  Christopher's knowledge and without having previously been introduced to her to apologize to her for some apparent misdeed, I can see Lorelai being initially annoyed  but then appreciative of the apology. She also would have been ticked off with Christopher for putting both women in an awkward position. But I can't see her becoming enraged and making threats.

Anna was mad at Luke about the party, not Lorelai, so there was no reason for her to feel the need to apologize for a misdeed, especially without involving Luke. I can't imagine that in a similar situation where Lorelai had a problem with something that Christopher did that she would be much more receptive to someone she didn't know showing up out of the blue to apologize on his behalf.  Anna was defensive and blunt, but I wouldn't go so far to say that she became enraged or made threats.

[txhorns79]

Quote

There was no reason for Lorelai and Anna to trust one another just as there was no reason for Lorelai and Sherry not to.

Didn't Sherry go on to have a separate conversation with Lorelai in her kitchen, without Chris' knowledge (He remained in the other room, and I think he said she told him after the fact what they had discussed, which indicated he didn't know she was going to have that conversation), that ended up weirding Lorelai out?  So it would seem that while it wasn't the exact same situation, Sherry did pull a kind of ambush on Lorelai, like Lorelai did with Anna. 

Quote

Anna was defensive and blunt, but I wouldn't go so far to say that she became enraged or made threats.

I agree.  I don't remember her acting in that manner at all with Lorelai.  I think she and Lorelai had a polite conversation. 

Edited May 26, 2016 by txhorns79

[Smad]

10 hours ago, shron17 said:

 And I don't think the long lost daughter story was decided on until late season 5/early season 6.

Didn't ASP once say that the whole LLD was supposed to be about infidelity? No one would believe that serial monogamist Luke would cheat on Lorelai. Instead of him sleeping with another woman he betrayed Lorelai with a female child? Wasn't that what the story was supposed to be about? So it's not even about Luke learning to be a parent or whatever the point of April was, she was just introduced so Luke could 'cheat' on Lorelai. For the record I find that not just disturbing but disgusting. I've always thought a boy would have been better suited in Luke's storyline because of Jess, kind of like him not maiking the same mistakes he did with Jess with another boy. But you can't exactly tell a 'cheating' storyline with a male child. Urgh.

[shron17]

38 minutes ago, Smad said:

Didn't ASP once say that the whole LLD was supposed to be about infidelity? No one would believe that serial monogamist Luke would cheat on Lorelai. Instead of him sleeping with another woman he betrayed Lorelai with a female child? Wasn't that what the story was supposed to be about? So it's not even about Luke learning to be a parent or whatever the point of April was, she was just introduced so Luke could 'cheat' on Lorelai. For the record I find that not just disturbing but disgusting. I've always thought a boy would have been better suited in Luke's storyline because of Jess, kind of like him not maiking the same mistakes he did with Jess with another boy. But you can't exactly tell a 'cheating' storyline with a male child. Urgh.

While I did hear the LLD was because no one would believe Luke would cheat on Lorelai, I think the purpose was so Lorelai would feel shut out of Luke's life rather than mimicking an actual betrayal. My guess is they used a daughter instead of a son because it made Luke a little more overwhelmed and out of his element and made Lorelai a little more miffed that she wasn't involved.  

[readster]

51 minutes ago, shron17 said:

While I did hear the LLD was because no one would believe Luke would cheat on Lorelai, I think the purpose was so Lorelai would feel shut out of Luke's life rather than mimicking an actual betrayal. My guess is they used a daughter instead of a son because it made Luke a little more overwhelmed and out of his element and made Lorelai a little more miffed that she wasn't involved.  

Yeah, that's how I saw it too. I mean Luke telling Lorelai he didn't want her doing the party because he felt she would do it so much better than him (which she ended up doing). I got that Luke didn't know how to really be a parent around a girl full time. I mean he had been involved with Jess (a boy). While he was in Rory's life a lot growing up, it wasn't like he was taking her community events, planning birthdays, ect. However, I felt like it made Luke seem more like an idiot. First, he only told Liz about April about finding out. When April said who she was to Lorelai, he basically went into panic mode and even April didn't know about Lore was engaged to her dad. It came across not only forced, but also made Luke seem like he didn't know how to think like a normal person. It was about secret this and secret that and Anna might makes things even more hard even though she caused this mess in the first place thinking Luke would hate kids and even worst having Luke think in that moment that he probably would have been a bad dad. Which even made less sense and I can't believe Soctt Patterson didn't say to change that line. To something like: "I'm sure I would have been shock, but who knows how I would have acted or been a good dad or not." "You robbed me of that Anna!" "You were still selfish then just like were during our relationship." Because then you would have had a hurt Luke but also calling out that Anna had always been like that and why their relationship didn't work. 

  Instead, it was they just broke up, opps Anna found out she was pregnant, but during one dinner date she immediately assumed Luke hated kids. Because given the long established GG history, Luke was constantly running to the city to help Liz with Jess and was a father figure to him during that time. So, really, that didn't speak anything to Anna that Luke would have stepped up and been a dad? I still hate the story to this day, it was take your stupid pills and ignore everything that was established with Luke just so AS-P could break up L/L. 

[readster]

16 hours ago, cuddlingcrowley said:

I honest would rather they'd given us that over revisiting the Dean/Rory relationship.

I also don't think the story would have been on the table if Jared's previous TV shows wouldn't have crashed and burned. They would have had to try something else, and I could even seen it being Jess she slept with given Milo was free from projects at the time too. Which, I think would have set better with fans. Then having the fact that Rory had moved on with her life and Jess hadn't cause them to break up again, would have been much better and also more in character for both and would have lead to Logan a lot cleaner. I also like how the studio execs logic was, yet all other shows that were doing that had characters: getting pregnant, disappearing, in illegal relationships, being told they would burn in hell, getting insects with infection diseases in their no-no parts, or some other big drama. 

  There was nothing on any TV show on the previous WB, NBC, Fox or ABC where a character in that age range was having the message: "Sex is bad!" "Don't do it!" So, to then have the GG team do Rory losing it this way was so out of character and just wrong. Then you go down the road a year later with Richard and Emily finding out that Rory and Logan were having sex. Acted like it something they believe would never happen, especially under their own roof. Just screamed: "What planet are you from?" to them. I have yet to see a show from drama to comedy ever treat sex as something that is just part of life and doesn't immediately destroy your life.

[shron17]

41 minutes ago, readster said:

I also don't think the story would have been on the table if Jared's previous TV shows wouldn't have crashed and burned. They would have had to try something else, and I could even seen it being Jess she slept with given Milo was free from projects at the time too. Which, I think would have set better with fans. Then having the fact that Rory had moved on with her life and Jess hadn't cause them to break up again, would have been much better and also more in character for both and would have lead to Logan a lot cleaner. I also like how the studio execs logic was, yet all other shows that were doing that had characters: getting pregnant, disappearing, in illegal relationships, being told they would burn in hell, getting insects with infection diseases in their no-no parts, or some other big drama. 

I think I would preferred Jess also.  Even if it was just Rory getting all caught up in their love story when he showed up at her dorm room but then sending him packing the next morning.  It was likely a combination of Jared being free and not being able to find Rory's new college boyfriend in time for the end of season 4.  

[Smad]

1 hour ago, readster said:

Which even made less sense and I can't believe Soctt Patterson didn't say to change that line. To something like: "I'm sure I would have been shock, but who knows how I would have acted or been a good dad or not." "You robbed me of that Anna!" "You were still selfish then just like were during our relationship." Because then you would have had a hurt Luke but also calling out that Anna had always been like that and why their relationship didn't work.

Yeah because that would go over well with ASP. Lauren Graham didn't like the 'I have the good kid.' comment either and that still was in the episode. And it's been said people weren't allowed input into anything regarding the scripts. I think it was Jackson Douglas who mentioned in the GG podcast that someone once changed 'can't' to 'can not' (or vice versa) until they were eventually shot down by ASP. So if people can't even change such simple things what makes you think they could possibly have any input regarding full sentences? Besides ASP had decided on the big Luke assasination that Season so the chances were lower that Scott could change anything.

1 hour ago, readster said:

There was nothing on any TV show on the previous WB, NBC, Fox or ABC where a character in that age range was having the message: "Sex is bad!" "Don't do it!"

Does Buffy ring a bell? Or Angel? Sex is always bad, bad, bad.

[solotrek]

2 hours ago, readster said:

I have yet to see a show from drama to comedy ever treat sex as something that is just part of life and doesn't immediately destroy your life.

Friday Night Lights.

[readster]

31 minutes ago, solotrek said:

Friday Night Lights.

How very true. Forgot about that show. 

[dustylil]

2 hours ago, readster said:

Then you go down the road a year later with Richard and Emily finding out that Rory and Logan were having sex. Acted like it something they believe would never happen, especially under their own roof. Just screamed: "What planet are you from?"

Actually, of all the nonsense about sex in the series,  I found this to be totally believable - given their experience with Lorelai more than twenty years earlier and their inability to come to terms with all that ensued after it.

[txhorns79]

Quote

Acted like it something they believe would never happen, especially under their own roof. Just screamed: "What planet are you from?" to them.

In fairness to Richard and Emily, at least in terms of their own house, it does seem pretty disrespectful of Rory to be bringing Logan back to their place for sex.  If I remember right, she was sneaking Logan in, so that meant she knew what they would have thought about the situation.