One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions

[Kohola3]

Quote

He's just a few notches above Dean and Max in the actually GOOD joke count, as far I'm concerned. 

Right there with you.  Chemistry or not (and I am one of the few who don't see it) Christopher was a big dud.

[cuddlingcrowley]

1 hour ago, Kohola3 said:

Chemistry or not (and I am one of the few who don't see it) Christopher was a big dud.

He certainly became that in the later seasons, imo. But none of Lorelai's guys can come close to competing with him during S1-S3. 

And I say that as someone who loves Max Medina TO DEATH, followed closely by Digger. How's that for unpopular opinion?

Edited October 28, 2016 by cuddlingcrowley

[katha]

I think the real tragedy of ASP not really knowing how to write romantic relationships (or only wanting to write dysfunctional ones...) is what it did to Lorelai and Luke. Once they got together, their awesome friendship didn't transition fully into that romance and it was a pity. Because I think both of them badly needed each other as friends. Luke could be a counterpoint to Lorelai's flights of fancy in discussions, his dry humour played well with her babbling, and he was dependable and supportive when Lorelai had problems. Sookie increasingly didn't offer that anymore and often demanded that Lorelai take on the burden of her issues as well, instead of helping her out, so I thought someone like Luke was really needed in her life. And Lorelai's pushiness and lightness of touch dragged Luke out of his curmudgeonhood (is that a word? LOL) to some degree and opened him up to the world, she was also generally very supportive of him during times of crisis.

[junienmomo]

4 hours ago, katha said:

I think the real tragedy of ASP not really knowing how to write romantic relationships (or only wanting to write dysfunctional ones...) is what it did to Lorelai and Luke. Once they got together, their awesome friendship didn't transition fully into that romance and it was a pity. Because I think both of them badly needed each other as friends. Luke could be a counterpoint to Lorelai's flights of fancy in discussions, his dry humour played well with her babbling, and he was dependable and supportive when Lorelai had problems. Sookie increasingly didn't offer that anymore and often demanded that Lorelai take on the burden of her issues as well, instead of helping her out, so I thought someone like Luke was really needed in her life. And Lorelai's pushiness and lightness of touch dragged Luke out of his curmudgeonhood (is that a word? LOL) to some degree and opened him up to the world, she was also generally very supportive of him during times of crisis.

Seeing as how they generally plotted out whole seasons at a time, the Palladinos go down in my book as deliberately writing these dysfunctional romances.

Daniel seemed to have a particularly cruel touch. He wrote 5.11, Women of Questionable Morals, in which Lorelai repeatedly and unnecessarily lies to Luke around the death of Christopher's father. He also wrote Vineyard Valentine.

[Kohola3]

Spoiler

Seeing as how they generally plotted out whole seasons at a time, the Palladinos go down in my book as deliberately writing these dysfunctional romances.

Makes one wonder about the state of the Palladino marriage.  Bet they never say "I love you" to each other or kiss each other in public since there was quite a dearth of that in GG.

[HeySandyStrange]

15 hours ago, Melancholy said:

A lot of folks say that even though Christopher was a bad father/flawed man/bad man, he was funny and charismatic. Well, I guess my UO is that Chris is among the least funny main characters. He got in a few good zingers but generally, his humor is very bland and it OVER plays with Lorelai's to the point that he's just lying there and admiring Lorelai's dialogue but not adding much to the discussion. He's just a few notches above Dean and Max in the actually GOOD joke count, as far I'm concerned. 

I agree and will add that, overall, Chris was a bland character to me, period. He's only a few notches above what the kids call "basic", yet he wanted to put down Max for being too bland for Lorelai. Some rock and roll knowledge and a motorcycle do not a rebel make. He just came off to me as an overgrown, over-privileged man child, from the beginning.

For that matter, Lorelai wasn't as edgy or unique as she wanted to believe. A lot of her "quirkiness" is her being neurotic or self-absorbed. I think definitely Chris and Lorelai had special snowflake syndrome, fostered ironically by their extremely privileged, indulgent upbringings they always badmouthed.

[amensisterfriend]

So after a brief hiatus, I'm sliding back into my nutty all-consuming obsession with this show. Um, I mean, my totally healthy fondness for it :) One thing that keeps striking me: to me Rory has clear character flaws from the beginning, even back in S1 when she was arguably at her most together and admirable. She's got a passivity that can morph into passive-aggression, lack of natural resilience, a determined emotional obliviousness that leads her to block out and ignore her emotions and sometimes the feelings of others as well, general lack of self-awareness, lives inside her head to the point where she's sometimes out of touch with reality, can be spoiled and entitled without realizing it, etc. She's also a somewhat neurotic control freak whose rigidity, anxiety and aversion to change often preclude her from being her best and happiest self.  So in my UO she's actually VERY flawed, though since so many characters on this show are so exaggeratedly flawed in glaring ways, I can see why Rory's don't always stand out as much by contrast :) Still, I never quite get the criticism that she's written as too perfect (though I certainly understand thinking that her relatives and hometown sometimes treated her as such!) and feel like her numerous flaws actually make her a far more compelling, relatable character to me than she would have been otherwise. And I just love and relate to Rory so much despite and because of her shortcomings. I think I even still love her through S5 and S6 for the most part, though she does test my staunch pro-Rory loyalty quite a lot during those seasons :) So to make a long story short (too late, haha), Rory will always be a special favorite of mine. I get why many don't like her and even actively DISlike her, but I just love her. I can't help myself :)  

Another UO that I've touched on before but is shameful and unpopular enough to reiterate: I actually prefer S6 to S5. I have major issues with both seasons, but S6 actually has more individual high points for me, some really interesting themes (even if, in typical GG fashion, they weren't explored with any real consistency or depth!), etc. LMHYBRO is actually one of my very favorite episodes of the whole series. Sad as it may be, that alone would elevate S6 over S5 for me :) And while we know I'm not a big fan of L/L's romance, most of my favorite L/L couple moments actually come in this season, not S5 (especially in 21itLN and the aforementioned LMHYBRO!) Granted, the worst L/L moments come in this season too, but I'm trying to focus on the positive ;) I'd also argue the very UO that my beloved Rory is no worse in S6 than she was in S5, and at times even a little better or at least more relatable to me. Anyway, my S6 defense can only go so far---large chunks of it still have me frantically pressing the fast forward button---but for whatever bizarre mixture of reasons, I actually prefer it to S5 overall. I have this bizarre aversion to S5...maybe because I somehow still EXPECT to like it and am more disappointed when I don't, while with S6 I expect to despise it and am always pleasantly surprised by even a few scenes and episodes that I genuinely enjoy?!  

[clack]

I experience GG characterizations with two minds : how the show wants us to perceive the characters, as opposed to how the characters actually come across.

So, Christopher. I think we are meant to see him as a basically good guy who has gone through a rootless, rebellious phase and is now becoming ready to settle down. A plausible endgame match for Lorelai.

How some of us actually see him : a shallow, irresponsible deadbeat dad.

[hippielamb]

5 hours ago, clack said:

I experience GG characterizations with two minds : how the show wants us to perceive the characters, as opposed to how the characters actually come across.

So, Christopher. I think we are meant to see him as a basically good guy who has gone through a rootless, rebellious phase and is now becoming ready to settle down. A plausible endgame match for Lorelai.

How some of us actually see him : a shallow, irresponsible deadbeat dad.

I think Dean is a perfect example of this. The writers wanted him to be the too good to be true perfect first boyfriend but a lot of fans see him differently. I honestly had no idea he was so disliked until reading these threads. Luke and Jess are also good examples of this. We are *supposed* to like Luke and sympathize with him, and while a large majority do, some of us take issue with his negativity and anger issues. I don't think the writers intended for Jess to be so beloved but he has legions of fans, either because they love the character or the actor. 

I think Chris is funny and witty, he's on Lorelai's level of pop culture references. So many of his lines could have easily been said by Lorelai herself (and a couple of times they have). Of her beaus, he's the most amusing though that's not saying much. None of the guys she has dated seemed to be that hilarious. I think Lorelai prefers to be the one that's "on", with her boyfriend being the straight man to her quips. I used to love watching Lauren interact with Craig Ferguson on his show. It's a pity we never got to see Lorelai trade jokes with someone suited for comedy.

Chris is constantly criticized for his lack of parental involvement, yet it's a blip on the screen for the characters. I doubt the writers wanted him to be judged so harshly for it. But like with Dean's arguably controlling nature, Luke's anger, and Jess' attitude, we can dislike the character for his flaws, or understand them. 

[Melancholy]

On October 28, 2016 at 11:56 AM, HeySandyStrange said:

I agree and will add that, overall, Chris was a bland character to me, period. He's only a few notches above what the kids call "basic", yet he wanted to put down Max for being too bland for Lorelai. Some rock and roll knowledge and a motorcycle do not a rebel make. He just came off to me as an overgrown, over-privileged man child, from the beginning.

For that matter, Lorelai wasn't as edgy or unique as she wanted to believe. A lot of her "quirkiness" is her being neurotic or self-absorbed. I think definitely Chris and Lorelai had special snowflake syndrome, fostered ironically by their extremely privileged, indulgent upbringings they always badmouthed.

I agree on Chris. I have mixed feelings on Lorelai. I don't think Lorelai was edgy or open-minded. She liked a very consumer-oriented, pop culture lifestyle in Small Town USA and she actually rigorously followed trends in her clothes, music, and habits. Her tastes were very Basic. That's fine. However, it was more annoying because she was so superior that her tastes were the ideal and even only way of operate and she was such a special snowflake to mainly follow trends but interject from weird kitch like Pippi Longstocking. That said, I do think Lorelai's *personality* was one-of-a-kind. She really was that witty and charismatic. She probably doesn't listen enough to be a great conversationalist but she was very entertaining in conversations. Her sense of fun is so infectious that she never seemed bland, even as she was touting idiotic hobbies and interests. Christopher never had any of this charm. He was just superior about how his Man Basic tastes make him a stud muffin and that's it. 

But yes, the irony is that Lorelai's cleverness and wit and charisma was absolutely inherited from her parents, especially Emily. Lorelai and Emily just chose a different aesthetic to express themselves and granted, Lorelai was a much happier person and that gives her big points when it comes to being exciting. 

Edited October 29, 2016 by Melancholy

[RachelKM]

On 10/25/2016 at 2:34 PM, CheeseBurgh said:

I think I am the only person that really dislikes Luke and Lorelai as a couple. I am actually dreading that part of the revival. They are an unhealthy couple and they just don't mesh to me. I don't get what is appealing about Luke's character as a romantic partner.

I feel the same.  I have said before, that I like their friendship, but not as a couple.  I don't find Luke at all appealing as a romantic partner.  And I actually think it isn't a good thing for Luke either.  He puts her on a pedestal and she near demands it.

However, even with that said, i didn't realize how L/L averse I was until I saw the trailer.  I don't know why.  I was almost certain it was going to be a thing, particularly where they left them at the end of the series.  But I had a visceral negative response to everything the indicated their relationship in the trailer.  I'm still going to watch (most likely), but perhaps not immediately upon the drop and likely as a slog.  At this point, I think I'm tuning in basically for nostalgia and Emily, particularly regarding Richard.

[amensisterfriend]

I'm the most sappy, nostalgic and sentimental person ever, but my super killjoy UO is that this revival just all feels so forced and almost pandering to me, a kind of sad attempt to resurrect a show that had long ago passed away peacefully and should be left to live on in reruns, fanfics and viewers' imaginations. And, honestly, the trailers have made me wish even more than before that they had just let the series end when it ended. It just feels 'off' somehow. They look and sound too different, and it's like everyone involved is trying too hard to emulate what made us love the show back then, but it's coming off inauthentic somehow. I really WANT to be psyched for the revival, but I'm just not...and I realize that I'm doing a disastrous job of explaining why in this post, but hopefully you guys get the gist :)

I think I am the only person that really dislikes Luke and Lorelai as a couple. I am actually dreading that part of the revival. They are an unhealthy couple and they just don't mesh to me. I don't get what is appealing about Luke's character as a romantic partner.

Haha---if you think you're alone here, you've clearly never read my posts ;) I think L/L have less chemistry, compatibility and connection as a romantic couple than literally nearly any other TV pairing I've ever seen, and I watch A LOT of TV. The writing, the acting and directing all combined to make them seem uncomfortable at best and downright miserable at worst. And, yeah, Luke is pretty much the furthest thing in the world from an ideal partner to me---brutish, temperamental, a poor communicator to the point of being deceptive, passive-aggressive, just plain aggressive, dull, perpetually bitter and angry and negative for pretty much NO reason, etc. I get that the classic curmudgeon with heart of gold type has a very wide appeal, but for me the writing and acting just make Luke seem way too joyless and easily angered over nothing. It's cool that he'll fix your appliances and build something for you a couple of times a year to show he cares, but on a day-to-day basis, I'd rather date almost any male GG love interest than Luke---and considering how relatively poorly I think of most of GG's male characters, that is saying A LOT :) 

However, even with that said, i didn't realize how L/L averse I was until I saw the trailer.  I don't know why.  I was almost certain it was going to be a thing, particularly where they left them at the end of the series.  But I had a visceral negative response to everything the indicated their relationship in the trailer.  I'm still going to watch (most likely), but perhaps not immediately upon the drop and likely as a slog.

I am right there with you!

Spoiler

 And the hints that L/L might once again be questioning their relationship and still not knowing if they're happy together or meant to be or whatever has me not knowing whether to laugh or cry. Like it is just RIDICULOUS by this point, and I'd feel that way even more if I WERE a fan of this couple than as someone who dislikes them. How can their ratio of happiness to angst/conflict be THIS out of proportion? Does anyone, LL fan or otherwise, still want to see them as pitifully dysfunctional as they were a decade ago?! 

[Kohola3]

Quote

I really WANT to be psyched for the revival, but I'm just not...and I realize that I'm doing a disastrous job of explaining why in this post, but hopefully you guys get the gist :)

I'm right there with you. I said from the get-go that the end product will not answer all questions nor fulfill everyone's fantasy. I think it would have been better to leave well enough alone.  This forum alone makes it abundantly clear that we have widely differing opinions so at least half of the group will be bitterly disappointed!

[JayInChicago]

Samsies. Amy shouldn't have topedoed the show in season 6 and should have wrapped it up in season 7.  Even with new showrunners, they should have just let Bon Voyage be the end.

I'll watch the new episodes of course. I don't think they are gonna be amazing or add much to the canon is all.

[timimouse]

I've been hesitant about the revival myself since the announcement and even less excited after the last trailer. The trailer makes the characters seem off to me. I'm now on the side of the fence where I think maybe they should've left well enough alone.

That being said, I will obviously still watch it. I have an exam on the 3rd of December, so the intention is to completely stay away from this forum until December 5th (as I will spend December 4th binge watching all 4 episodes). Wish me luck!

[Kohola3]

3 minutes ago, timimouse said:

as I will spend December 4th binge watching all 4 episodes

Are they dropping all 4 episodes on the same day?  Guess I must have missed that.

[timimouse]

1 minute ago, Kohola3 said:

Are they dropping all 4 episodes on the same day?  Guess I must have missed that.

I believe so.... I mean, I could be wrong, but I think I read that ASP wanted the episodes staggered and Netflix turned that down.

[chessiegal]

20 minutes ago, timimouse said:

I believe so.... I mean, I could be wrong, but I think I read that ASP wanted the episodes staggered and Netflix turned that down.

That's my understanding also. I'm going to try and discipline myself to watch 1 a day, but we'll see. :)

[Minneapple]

On 10/28/2016 at 7:12 AM, Kohola3 said:

  Reveal hidden contents

Seeing as how they generally plotted out whole seasons at a time, the Palladinos go down in my book as deliberately writing these dysfunctional romances.

Makes one wonder about the state of the Palladino marriage.  Bet they never say "I love you" to each other or kiss each other in public since there was quite a dearth of that in GG.

Even if they don't say I love you or kiss each other in public...who cares? It's their marriage and none of our business. 

Amy once said that things like saying "I love you" doesn't mean much, and I think she's right. TV shows in general make WAY WAY too much of saying those words. Luke telling Lorelai that she could pull sausages out of him is way more meaningful than any "I love you" or staged kiss. If Luke and Lorelai had more moments like that, then maybe I could have enjoyed them more as a couple.

I will have to avoid all social media on Black Friday until I finish watching the episodes. You know those last four words will trend at some point. 

[Kohola3]

Quote

You know those last four words will trend at some point. 

I know that dropping a whole season on one day can be a nightmare in avoiding spoilers.  Netflix did that with Longmire so I couldn't go anywhere near the forums or the Facebook pages lest I see something I didn't want to see.  It has been difficult as I am limiting my watches to one a week to draw out the joy as long as possible.

[cuddlingcrowley]

1 hour ago, timimouse said:

The trailer makes the characters seem off to me.

I feel the same. The trailer did next to nothing for me (except for the Rory/Jess scene). But, I'm not that worried. Frankly, I'm more worried about getting used to everyone's new apparances (some more dramatically changed than others...) than the writing. I'm sure once we get the full episodes things will work out nicely. If not, hey, we'll always have the original series.

Edited November 1, 2016 by cuddlingcrowley

[TimetravellingBW]

My main worry is that ASP still won't have learned from what went wrong in the original series. She doesn't seem like someone who takes criticism or advice very well, and the later seasons especially had a lot of issues that could seep into the revival. Not specific events/characters, just underlying trends of the show that almost all fans began to resent by the end: Relying on Luke/Lorelai on-off melodrama for stories, Rory being put on a pedestal and suffering no consequences for her actions, constantly resetting of the Lorelai/Emily antagonism rather than developing their relationship. Those were all pretty big, recurring issues - not fan disagreements like the Rory bf debate for instance - and it will be so frustrating if the revival falls back into them again rather than ASP having time to reflect and fix them. I don't worry the revival will throw in some big twists that will ruin everything, I just wonder if it will just be more of the same mistakes.

But despite that, with how poor the final seasons were I don't think the revival could be worse; so I am more excited than nervous which seems to be a rare opinion on this forum!

(Also I'm kind of holding onto hope that because ASP has a really clear end-point and cohesive storyline to work with now, rather than having to set things up for later seasons or keep the drama/angst going, she'll actually conclude some arcs like L/L and Emily/ Lorelai. In the original show she was clearly scared to change the status quo which was a big reasons things stalled so much). 

Edited November 1, 2016 by TimetravellingBW

[Melancholy]

1 hour ago, Minneapple said:

Even if they don't say I love you or kiss each other in public...who cares? It's their marriage and none of our business. 

Amy once said that things like saying "I love you" doesn't mean much, and I think she's right. TV shows in general make WAY WAY too much of saying those words. Luke telling Lorelai that she could pull sausages out of him is way more meaningful than any "I love you" or staged kiss. If Luke and Lorelai had more moments like that, then maybe I could have enjoyed them more as a couple.

I agree that the "I love you" stuff doesn't mean very much. I'm a hard-core Luke/Lorelai shipper and I didn't even want more schmoopy "I love you"/"No YOU'RE pretty" stuff, even though you'd think that any OTPer would want more of that. I like the pairing because they showed their love in actions and consistency instead of Very Pretty Flirting. But then, I don't easily ship TV romances as aspirational. I tend to like dark dysfunctional pairings. My few favorite "light happy pairings" still maintain edge with bickering and conflict (i.e. Luke/Lorelai, or heck Richard/Emily- even though I think Lorelai/Luke is sunnier and healthier.) However, I think that's an irony within the pairing where a bunch of the hard-core shippers didn't want any romantic schmoopiness but the non-shippers complain that there wasn't enough "I love yous" and physical affection and complimenting. 

Edited November 1, 2016 by Melancholy

[HeySandyStrange]

1 hour ago, TimetravellingBW said:

My main worry is that ASP still won't have learned from what went wrong in the original series. She doesn't seem like someone who takes criticism or advice very well, and the later seasons especially had a lot of issues that could seep into the revival. Not specific events/characters, just underlying trends of the show that almost all fans began to resent by the end: Relying on Luke/Lorelai on-off melodrama for stories, Rory being put on a pedestal and suffering no consequences for her actions, constantly resetting of the Lorelai/Emily antagonism rather than developing their relationship.

To be honest, I have the sneaking suspicion that ASP's favorite Mary Sues, Lorelai&Rory, will still be floundering in their total Mary Sueness in the Revival. ASP lacks the ability to "kill her darlings" or, in this case, give them actual character growth and lasting consequences for their crappy behavior and actions. She might surprise me, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'm mostly looking forward to catching up with the secondary characters, like Luke, Lane and her family, Mrs.Kim, Sookie, Jackson and their kids, Lulu&Kirk, Dean, Logan, Babette&Morey, Miss Patty, and the rest of the Star's Hollow craziness. That's really why I'm showing up for this Revival.

[Taryn74]

54 minutes ago, HeySandyStrange said:

I'm mostly looking forward to catching up with the secondary characters, like Luke, Lane and her family, Mrs.Kim, Sookie, Jackson and their kids, Lulu&Kirk, Dean, Logan, Babette&Morey, Miss Patty, and the rest of the Star's Hollow craziness. That's really why I'm showing up for this Revival.

You know, in a big way I think I have to agree.  I'm excited about the revival, don't get me wrong, but it's the secondary characters I find myself caring the most about to see where they're at now.  I'm interested to see where Rory's at with her life (though not surprised that the special snowflake is still floundering even in her early 30s, which call me heartless but good lord - at some point you've got to get your life together, hon) and I'm interested to see how things have been going for L/L (though the brief glimpse of Lorelai with the therapist screams Drama! to me and that will make me throw things) but I don't have a burning need to see how either of them is doing, if I'm honest.

[junienmomo]

2 hours ago, Melancholy said:

I agree that the "I love you" stuff doesn't mean very much. I'm a hard-core Luke/Lorelai shipper and I didn't even want more schmoopy "I love you"/"No YOU'RE pretty" stuff, even though you'd think that any OTPer would want more of that. I like the pairing because they showed their love in actions and consistency instead of Very Pretty Flirting. But then, I don't easily ship TV romances as aspirational. I tend to like dark dysfunctional pairings. My few favorite "light happy pairings" still maintain edge with bickering and conflict (i.e. Luke/Lorelai, or heck Richard/Emily- even though I think Lorelai/Luke is sunnier and healthier.) However, I think that's an irony within the pairing where a bunch of the hard-core shippers didn't want any romantic schmoopiness but the non-shippers complain that there wasn't enough "I love yous" and physical affection and complimenting. 

The banter of LL was always a critical component of my shipping the first tv couple I shipped since 1995's Elizabeth and Darcy in Pride and Prejudice. That doesn't mean there weren't huge holes in their relationship that needed patching, and part of that for me was each one saying ILY during a happy moment, not in the middle of strife. 

What I wanted more than anything was the end to the lying and hiding. They defined themselves as all in, which reads to me as feeling to be honest. After that I wanted a better end to season six. 

What I hope for from the revival is more closure from LL than the Bon Voyage kiss.  Banter, challenging each other, raising each other up in the LL way. There's five and a half seasons of history at doing that. 

I'm thrilled that Rory is searching, doing what Jess did a decade before on a much lower budget. She should have financial security from her trust fund and a rich daddy, and she's had the opportunity to try many aspects of journalism. I've got my fingers crossed that ASP is letting her grow, since she seems to be letting Emily grow. 

Lorelai I'm more concerned about. Maybe her character will reflect more of ASP's life experience since she flounced off GG. I only know what happened by reading IMDB, but a successful writer who had just one one-season show in that decade could well have examined her life. Or not, we know ASP wasn't really a person who did that sort of thing. 

[Melancholy]

21 hours ago, junienmomo said:

What I wanted more than anything was the end to the lying and hiding. They defined themselves as all in, which reads to me as feeling to be honest. After that I wanted a better end to season six.  

Well, I agree that the late-series dishonesty is the bothersome part of L/L because it....really had no place in the appeal of the ship. I like Luke/Lorelai where I didn't like other ships because L/L was so authentic in the S1-5.5. The bickering was part of the honesty. I can understand/empathize more with Luke's dishonesty/duplicitousness because of the "one in a million strangeness of finding out that you have a 12 year old kid" and the inherent agony/guilt of coming to terms with that as opposed to the pettiness of Lorelai needing to keep her Tequila night Chris secret for no reason other than "He's MY Chris and we have our clubhouse" crappy reasons. Or the duplicitousness of Lorelai running out of have sex with Chris right after an ultimatum when Luke reasonably thought they were still in a relationship. However, still, the dishonest all around does disturb the "all in" authentic appeal of the relationship in the first place. 

Edited November 2, 2016 by Melancholy

[readster]

I think everyone has pointed out the main UO with coming with the revival. I mean when they were showing the pieces with Taylor or Kirk I was like: "You guys are in your forties and approaching 70 and you are still acting like this? I mean, at what point has a new Selectman not been elected or Kirk did something really stupid that got him ran over after what we saw in the last two seasons. Of course, I could also see Kirk has kids with Lulu now and he has focused more on the kids or they are doing similar things and he has now toned it down because he has gotten payback. However, I agree, I don't want to see Rory still being the "special snowflake". Not really having a career that keeps you stable, that I can buy, been there myself until I was 30. Luke and Lorelai still not married and Richard now dead and Emily still having problems with Lorelai? Ummm... time to move on and I don't want Chris showing up and everyone going: "Well, he made a mistake at 16, we have to help him." He's in his mid 40s now and has so much money, one grown daughter and another that would be in middle school now. Anything else is his own damn fault and if Francine is still alive, I will be shocked since everyone else who treated Chris so special outside of Lorelai and Emily are now dead. 

[stillshimpy]

For me, Luke and Lorelai were primarily joyless in the way the series rendered them after they got together.  It's a shame because I had looked forward to them as a couple, but that went pretty much straight to hell.  I understand that as a choice: ASP did not view herself as writing a story about women finding love and that's a legitimate enough viewpoint.  Only, it's not like we got there by ourselves on any of these 'ships so when she gives interviews bawling people out for the Dean and Jess stuff and how it irritates her that all anyone can think of is Rory's love life...here's the thing:  Rory as an investigative journalist, let alone a war correspondent, didn't really ever read as realistic to me.  Rory just did not have that personality and it was odd to me that an introverted, book-lover was ASP's idea of the next Christianne Amanpour.  So they gave us something primarily unbelievable to root for in her future and then there was the parade of dudes.  It's kind of natural that people give a damn about what's for dessert when you fed them the boy parade for dinner. 

Basically, my unpopular opinion is that ASP can stick a drawer full of socks in it when it comes to that.  The gently bland goings-on of Season 7 was partially due to the amount of desperate boat-hole-patching the showrunner was left doing.  I don't know if ASP meant to burn the house down on her way out of the front door, but what a turgid, unpleasant mess she left in her wake.  

So I'm glad that ASP gets to come in and finish the story because....realistically, whereas I don't find her all that likable at times....it was her story.  I'm glad she is getting to finish it and particularly glad it is after she has had time (I hope and hope some more) to get out of the epic pouting, tantrum throwing, narrative choices that were made.   It can happen to anyone, truly, where they just lose all perspective and I think she did.  I don't know that she's necessarily learned anything from that time but hopefully, she's at least cooled off enough to not beat up her audience as a way of relieving her feelings.  

Anyway, I'm glad-ish that it is coming back but seeing as she was no longer at crossed swords with the CW, maybe she'll just write the story, sans romance or whatever it is that fuels her muse. 

Quote

My main worry is that ASP still won't have learned from what went wrong in the original series. She doesn't seem like someone who takes criticism or advice very well

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, she writes dialogue like no one else.  She's a different kind of person and doesn't exactly suffer from being a people pleaser from all gathered evidence if you get my drift, but there are a couple of clues that not much has changed:  Apparently she won't watch the seventh season which doesn't exactly bespeak a lot of emotional growth.   You have to at least read a synopsis (which she apparently did) but just flat out refuses to watch.  That's a shame as, whatever his personal failings, David Rosenthal pulled her narrative chestnuts out of the damned fire and saved the story from her lesser impulses.   Hell, it's thanks to DR that she ended up with her both of the main characters free and single.  If she didn't keep it that way, well then, that ball is solidly in ASP's fault-court.  She does clearly resent having to write romances -- and I get that, having a female lead and having everyone care about who she ends up with (exceptions to this as a desire taken as a given) -- pissed her off on the whole "hey, a woman is enough on her own, this is the story of a life journey, not the story of finding a dude" ....but again, we didn't map this shit out by ourselves.  

So here's my unpopular opinion:  Guys, I like her work.  I think that she adds a voice that I love hearing in entertainment, via her dialogue and that rythym that David Rosenthal ultimately proved only ASP can do.  That said, boy  I dislike her media personality.   

There are ways to be strong and your own person without shitting on other people's interests, or pursuits.  If you want to be a Hat-clad rebel, by all means, let me get the door for you, sister.  But it was actually a story from the casting directors, basically talking about how Amy is Amy and there is no one else like her that cemented my unpopular opinion.  That the first time they met Amy, she was wearing a  t-shirt that said, "I fucked your boyfriend last night" .   Okay, so that was getting close to twenty years ago.  People grow and change, here's hoping, but that's not being some bright star, or comet in the creative landscape, that's some weird hostility to her own gender.  Plus, anyone that thinks a t-shirt that says, in essence, "I attempted to emotionally injure you!! This means I don't care about making friends", well into her late thirties, is working a contrived personality pretty hard.  

So when word of the revival took the internet by storm, what I ended up hoping was that she had figured out how to balance that "fuck you, and your societal expectations" thing into something more mature, considered and hopefully, still sparkly.  

But man, that "I scold the romantics among us" interview the other day does not bode well.  

UO?  I think ASP is awesome and a monumental jerk at times, to this day, but I hope she is actually viewing this as an opportunity to finish her story while being kind to her fans.  

Edited November 4, 2016 by stillshimpy

[Taryn74]

I loved GG in spite of ASP, rather than because of.  I think that pretty much sums up how I feel about her as a person.

[stillshimpy]

Well, on the upside, it isn't like she's going to care if we like her or not.  She almost certainly has a t-shirt (and hat) that will tell us precisely that.  

[Taryn74]

2 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

Well, on the upside, it isn't like she's going to care if we like her or not.  She almost certainly has a t-shirt (and hat) that will tell us precisely that.  

And a couple of middle fingers to boot, heh.

[HeySandyStrange]

Quote

But man, that "I scold the romantics among us" interview the other day does not bode well.  

I have to kind of agree with ASP on that one, even though I'm sure she was her usual brash and blunt self.  The shipping in the GG fandom can be pretty annoying, at times. I'm constantly seeing threads/comments elsewhere about "Team Jess!Logan!Tristin!Dean!Marty!Luke!Chris!Max!Random guy number 8! Santa Claus! Every guy on Earth 'cause its Lorelai and Rory, dammit!" and honestly, I'm so over it. Rory's romantic life never interested me and even though I used to be a JavaJunkie, I'm not all that invested in Luke and Lorelai being together.  And frankly, ASP sucks at writing relationships well so I'd rather her focus on personal growth for Lorelai and Rory.

Quote

I loved GG in spite of ASP, rather than because of.  I think that pretty much sums up how I feel about her as a person.

ASP does do great dialogue and created some very vivid, sparling characters but yes, she got lucky with GG and the great cast she had. Frankly, she had many huge weaknesses as a writer (clichés, many flat characters with no purpose, little character growth) that where probably smoothed over a lot by the actors involved.

[stillshimpy]

Quote

I have to kind of agree with ASP on that one, even though I'm sure she was her usual brash and blunt self.

It's usually a mindset for which I have a veritable fuck-ton of sympathy too, because hell, freakin' yeah.   

However, it is a bit rich coming from the woman who wrote the stories that primarily revolved around guys, for Rory.  There weren't a ton of Rory stories that didn't contradict her life's ambition (Rory, socially awkward field correspondent?) , some brief academic struggle that invariably ended with Rory being the best of the best, in a rather unvarying manner.  

Dude, sometimes the only variety that Rory had came from the various changes in her personality, the stories of which were told through her romantic partners.  The evolution of Rory is best seen in material that almost always involves a guy.  That's because at least in Rory's stories outside dudes, they all conclude essentially the same way: whatever doubts Rory is experiencing, she will prevail and then surpass every known achievement.  The reason people are far more intrigued by Rory's love life than they are in Lorelai's in a lot of instances is....it's the vast, vast majority of the material that was shown.  I can absolutely support the spirit of the remark, and if I apply it to Lorelai?  ASP would have a great point.  Lorelai's evolution is central and her relationships peripheral.  In Rory's case though, that's the bulk of the story we were told and it isn't fair to fans to blame them for that. 

So to have the creator scold people about being fixated on that felt a little....unearned.  I'll go with unearned.  

Edited November 4, 2016 by stillshimpy

[HeySandyStrange]

1 hour ago, stillshimpy said:

However, it is a bit rich coming from the woman who wrote the stories that primarily revolved around guys, for Rory.  There weren't a ton of Rory stories that didn't contradict her life's ambition (Rory, socially awkward field correspondent?) , some brief academic struggle that invariably ended with Rory being the best of the best, in a rather unvarying manner.  

You ain't lying about that, which is why I stand by the opinion that for all her Fuck the Establishment attitude, ASP sure loved her clichés and had some very unprogressive ideas. I will admit, I started losing patience with Rory's stories because of the constant shipper element to everything attached to her. It is really a shame, because how awesome would've it been for Rory to actually question her dreams and realize how unrealistic they were? To gain some self-awareness about herself and the fact that she actually had legitimate flaws? To have her fail and learn to move on without having her triumph over everything? To question how much of her future goals were hers and how much they were actually Lorelai's unrealized dreams? I would've much rather preferred that to pretty much every relationship she had on the show.

[stillshimpy]

Or even just to realize that she had an unrealistic dream and then pick another that she would then kick actual ass in?  You know, in the manner of strong female characters?  I'm right there with you.  The better story for Rory, in my opinion, and the one ASP could have told that never would have fans focusing so on who she would end up with longterm, would have been to show someone who isn't crushed by the realization that something they thought was awesome, cool and fab at ten, wasn't actually interesting in the long run....and how that could be okay, too. 

If she wanted a journey of self-discovery for Rory, she could have told it and the guys could have been extras.  I would love to credit ASP with several of the things DR actually did in the last episodes of the series: Have Rory lose out completely on something she wanted (the fellowship), having shown she was counting on it by turning the job and then have her roll with that under the power of her own steam.   That's actually what the guy batting cleanup did, though.  

My only point being that it really couldn't have been that hard to figure out how to do if that goal was important to do.  She didn't even need to swing from the heels in terms of creativity.  Just....provide obstacle....have a few that are insurmountable and start over because that's how development works.  

If you(or one ....you know, general use of the word 'you' not specific...but I get tired of saying "one" over and over...feels stiff)  want to tell a story about a young woman growing up, then stop having the guys be the catalysts for that growth, just for starters. 

Edited November 4, 2016 by stillshimpy

[TimetravellingBW]

ASP's complaints that fans are focusing on Rory's romantic relationships rather than "whether she's won a Pulitzer" really annoyed me as well. Because while Gilmore Girls is better than a lot of shows at focusing on career/family/non-romantic aspects, she's the one who has pushed Rory's romances front and center a lot of the time. (Also, the online fandom has always disproportionately focused on shipping and relationships, it's a pain but the way things are).

2 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

However, it is a bit rich coming from the woman who wrote the stories that primarily revolved around guys, for Rory.  There weren't a ton of Rory stories that didn't contradict her life's ambition (Rory, socially awkward field correspondent?) , some brief academic struggle that invariably ended with Rory being the best of the best, in a rather unvarying manner.  

Dude, sometimes the only variety that Rory had came from the various changes in her personality, the stories of which were told through her romantic partners.  The evolution of Rory is best seen in material that almost always involves a guy.  That's because at least in Rory's stories outside dudes, they all conclude essentially the same way: whatever doubts Rory is experiencing, she will prevail and then surpass every known achievement.  

Yes to all of your posts on this. Imo these forums have been great in actually discussing Rory's career plans. (I'd guess her career/studies have been discussed just as much if not more than her relationships, and a lot of relationship talk has been about Jess/Logan/etc. as characters not just in the dating context). But the career discussion has always hit the exact same point: ASP/Rory have stuck with the "I'm going to be an international correspondent!" since day one and never changed. If they were a genuine question of "will she become a teacher, a publisher, an academic, an event coordinator, a features rather than investigative writer...." then it would be much more exciting. And we've all filled pages of professions she'd be better suited to and how she could move into them. But as everyone has said, by the end of the revival it's pretty much guaranteed that she's going to end up doing exactly what she always wanted and be amazing at it. (My guess is international corespondent for the NYT).  

If they at any point in the series, actually had Rory properly reassessing her study/job plans - not just taking a semester out and then going back to exactly the same thing - that would have been amazing. But instead ASP followed the same pattern over and over:  Rory struggled at Chilton --> became Valedictorian/Vice President. She struggled at Yale ---> Somehow managed to take a semester off and still graduate on time. She doubted her journalist abilities --> Became freaking head of the Yale Daily News. Wow. Much excitement. Much variation. The only deviation was her going to Yale instead of Harvard, and even then she got into every school she applied to so it's not like there was any tension. But with her relationships/guys there were twists and you didn't know where it was heading and those relationships usually prompted shifts in her behaviour. (E.g. Sleeping with Dean in s4, getting together with Logan in s5, Jess popping up in s6)

16 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

If she wanted a journey of self-discovery for Rory, she could have told it and the guys could have been extras.  I would love to credit ASP with several of the things DR actually did in the last episodes of the series: Have Rory lose out completely on something she wanted (the fellowship), having shown she was counting on it by turning the job and then have her roll with that under the power of her own steam.   That's actually what the guy batting cleanup did, though.  

Losing the fellowship was actually one of my favourite Rory moments of later seasons and it felt like DR really called out the pedestal Rory had been on for much of the series. (Rory acknowledging that she assumed she would get it and that was arrogant, Lorelai commenting that "what Rory wants, Rory gets" - it felt like a level of self-reflection and critique from the characters that ASP wouldn't allow). 

[Bumblebee Tights]

2 hours ago, stillshimpy said: 

Dude, sometimes the only variety that Rory had came from the various changes in her personality, the stories of which were told through her romantic partners.  The evolution of Rory is best seen in material that almost always involves a guy.

  

This is SO true.  Evidence of this: I often find that, when I'm discussing this show, people want to talk about Rory's relationships, and it's often through the lens of who she was in said relationship. This is especially true of Logan, who I've found many people dislike because they dislike the person Rory was when she was with him, and they don't think she belongs in his moneyed world.

I'll admit that I probably love the show because of ASP, and not in spite of her, just in the sense that the show and these characters would never have existed without her. It's also my ( I think commonly held) opinion that Lorelai is an author avatar, and I love Lorelai and think she is the soul of the show. That being said, I completely agree about disliking her public persona. Many of her comments don't sit right with me, the ones about not watching season seven foremost amongst them. I also can't help but feel that the second half of season 6 WAS her way of purposefully burning the building down on her way out. I even think I remember reading something about her being irritated that the network didn't like the troubadour (or maybe it was the fans?) and then, lo and behold, we get the dozens of troubadours in "Partings". It all just felt so incredibly mean spirited to me.

I'm actually cautiously optimistic about the revival at least as far as Rory is concerned. I enjoyed the trailer for the most part, and if nothing else, it looks like Amy may be looking to explore some of the larger themes in Rory's life being discussed above.

[hippielamb]

1 hour ago, Bumblebee Tights said:

This is SO true.  Evidence of this: I often find that, when I'm discussing this show, people want to talk about Rory's relationships, and it's often through the lens of who she was in said relationship. This is especially true of Logan, who I've found many people dislike because they dislike the person Rory was when she was with him, and they don't think she belongs in his moneyed world.

I'll admit that I probably love the show because of ASP, and not in spite of her, just in the sense that the show and these characters would never have existed without her. It's also my ( I think commonly held) opinion that Lorelai is an author avatar, and I love Lorelai and think she is the soul of the show. That being said, I completely agree about disliking her public persona. Many of her comments don't sit right with me, the ones about not watching season seven foremost amongst them. I also can't help but feel that the second half of season 6 WAS her way of purposefully burning the building down on her way out. I even think I remember reading something about her being irritated that the network didn't like the troubadour (or maybe it was the fans?) and then, lo and behold, we get the dozens of troubadours in "Partings". It all just felt so incredibly mean spirited to me.

I'm actually cautiously optimistic about the revival at least as far as Rory is concerned. I enjoyed the trailer for the most part, and if nothing else, it looks like Amy may be looking to explore some of the larger themes in Rory's life being discussed above.

I don't think she has a censor button, she says whatever she thinks without considering how it could be taken as offensive to some people. I'm kinda amazed that I love Lorelai yet ASP's public persona rubs me the wrong way. 

I wonder if the revival will be more cozy like season 1 was, or the dramafest of season 6. I'm hoping for less drama personally. 

[Bumblebee Tights]

17 hours ago, hippielamb said:

 I'm kinda amazed that I love Lorelai yet ASP's public persona rubs me the wrong way. 

I feel the same way.  I wonder if it could in part be attributed to Lauren Graham? She's so naturally charismatic, and she infuses Lorelai with such warmth and zest. I also think it's fair to say that if all I knew of Lorelai were things she's said in 'interviews' within the show..here I'm thinking of the interview she gave about the Dragonfly that turned into comparing Emily to Stalin, and the deposition she gave to Emily's lawyers when her maid was suing her..I probably wouldn't think very well of her. So maybe there are similarities to ASP there as well.

I am all for a cozy, low drama, focused mostly on the three generations of Gilmore women revival!

[txhorns79]

Quote

I don't think she has a censor button, she says whatever she thinks without considering how it could be taken as offensive to some people. I'm kinda amazed that I love Lorelai yet ASP's public persona rubs me the wrong way. 

In fairness, Lorelai goes through what I'd imagine would be a lot of rewrites before her words get on screen.  ASP doesn't have that luxury.        

[JAYJAY1979]

Im going to say that ASP leaving GG was the best decision...and i think DR made the final season way better then if ASP stayed.

He gave both Lorelei and Rory much needed growth...also made them both be held accountable...and the episode where the three generation of Gilmore women go on a road trip was awesome....and that Mia helped Loralei see that Emily wasnt embarrassed by her was something I dont think ASP would have done.

True, DR didnt write like ASP...but I still found the show enjoyable and funny...and dare i say less over the top and more realistic with a touch of whimsy...(i.e. the hay maze..and Lane's baby shower eith her being rolled to it in her bed).

[Bumblebee Tights]

On 11/4/2016 at 9:59 PM, hippielamb said:

 

2 hours ago, JAYJAY1979 said:

True, DR didnt write like ASP...but I still found the show enjoyable and funny...and dare i say less over the top and more realistic with a touch of whimsy...(i.e. the hay maze..and Lane's baby shower eith her being rolled to it in her bed).

Yeah, I agree, and I guess my UO is that season 7 is generally underrated. I'm actually of the opinion that the worst stretch of the show is the second half of season 6 through the first half of season 7.  Yes, the beginning of season 7 is hard to watch for me because:

1) It is jarring to adjust to the slower pace of DR's writing, and the pop culture references are particularly clunky in the first couple of episodes. I feel like you can also see the cast sort of struggling to adjust to this as well, as some of the acting seems a bit wooden and things just feel "off".

2) The mess leftover from the season 6 storylines. We're still effectively 'in' the same storylines that made season 6 so painful. The Lorelai/Luke stuff and the Christopher fallout is the worst, but there's also the Luke/Anna/April drama, and season 7 is certainly not at fault for pairing Rory with Logan (which I actually don't mind, but I know many do).

However, once the season 6 mess is "cleaned up" to the best of DR's ability, I think he was able to relax and find his footing, and the show drastically improves for me as a result. It's pretty clear cut for me, too, because the first episode I feel this way about is "I am Kayak..", which is the episode immediately following the end of the Lorelai/ Chris marriage.  The cold open of this episode, (where Lorelai shows up at Rory's dorm early in the a.m. and springs "going for a drive" on her so she can tell her about the split, then the car breaks down and the girls walk down the road arm in arm), feels in tone more like 'classic' GG then anything the show had done in season 6, or maybe even season 5. I feel similarly about all the episodes from "Kayak" through probably  "It's just like riding a bike". I actually particularly love the two episodes you referenced. I love Hay Bale Maze and I love Lane's baby shower. While it's true that DR was never really able to capture the ASP magic, I do feel that the show regained that cozy, early season GG feel in these episodes.

I am less warm and fuzzy about the last 2-3 episodes of the season, but I think that has more to do with the seemingly abrupt end then anything else.  And they did give us this beautiful moment:

"Mom, you've already given me everything I need."

Edited November 6, 2016 by Bumblebee Tights
No, autocorrect, that is not how I want to spell Lorelai

[AllyB]

I agree that a lot in the trailers for the movies seems fake and forced but I am looking forward to them. I always put up my Christmas decorations on the last Friday in November so I'm quite looking forward to sitting down in the glow of fairy lights with a box of chocolate covered florentines and a hot chocolate with a big splash of Irish cream and watching GG. I think I'll even light a fire for extra cosiness. It's going to be a great start to Christmas! If the acting/writing doesn't hit the right spot, I'll just have another boozey hot chocolate.

[Melancholy]

I'm also very much looking forward to the revival. It's not any surprise or sign of bad writing that a lot of characters didn't seem to grow or they're in a weird place. Whether Taylor and Kirk are older now makes now difference. Their bizarreness in the series wasn't a symptom of youth. It's just who they fundamentally *are*. I see no reason to have the same Taylor/Kirk. I think it's entirely right that Rory and Emily are in a unsettled, searching place for where they are in life. As a 27 year old close to Rory's age, a lot of us feel like we haven't figured out how to be full adults. And Rory is particularly challenged because she chose a competitive, particularly changing field that romanticizes/has a niche for being very transient. Of course, Emily lost a big part of her whole world and has to figure how to exist without Richard. That said, I'm kind of counting that Lorelai will be the settled, stable one here. I see why Rory and Emily are lost and on the precipice of dramatic storylines. However, Lorelai hasn't lost her husband/love of her life/entire job and life's mission in one and she's not just turning 30 and trying to break into a profession with its own upheavals. As far as I'm concerned, she should be in her "happy ending" stage of life between the Dragonfly and being with Luke long-term and with a great adult mother/daughter relationship with Rory. Of course, "happy endings" in real life are filled with work, challenges, and indecision. But still, if Lorelai is still in MELODRAMATIC MODE OF I WANT THE WHOLE PACKAGE, WHY CAN'T I HAVE THAT?!, I don't think she's ever going to figure anything out. In that case, we're not rooting for Lorelai as a heroine hoping that she builds the life that we wants but instead, feeling like she's incapable of happiness/stability/lasting growth. Plus, Emily/Rory were generally more stable in the series so I really want the reversal where Lorelai is more settled and grounded compared to her daughter and mother. 

I like the whole series, even though the whole series is flawed, which I think is an UO itself. The whole series has great dialogue and very pretty surroundings and this built in affection of the characters so I remain absorbed in their lives. It's always entertaining which means that it's always doing its first and main job, even though the plots can be infuriating especially in the later seasons. I also liked S7 more than S6. I agree that DR was stuck with S6's crappy stories. Although, it was interesting that he doubled down on Lorelai/Chris. I mean, it's entirely right and logical to double down on the Luke/April/Anna story. Luke got a daughter who he bonded with in S6- OF COURSE, they'd continue to bond and meld lives and there'd be a custody fight. There was no other way to continue the story. It was also entirely right and logical that Logan and Rory got more and more serious. S5-6 effectively that Rory really loved Logan in a permanent, committed way that transcended her puppy affection for Dean or infatuation with Jess.

Although, there was no law that Chris and Lorelai had to get married. Based on S6, it could have just been left as a one-night stand. DR made a choice to tell a story about Chris and Lorelai getting married, the Palladinos didn't make that choice for him. I mean, I get how DR would feel like it feels like a sloppy dropped storyline to have CHRIS be the guy in bed with Lorelai in Partings but next season, just have it be a one-night stand instead of a straight-up story about Chris's toxic particular role in Lorelai's life. But eh, if I was writing, I wouldn't have had Lorelai make such a big mistake as getting into a quickie, failure of a marriage on the final yardline. I would have had Chris and Lorelai date for awhile but then, break-up quickly for similar reasons as they did (Lorelai can't commit fully to him. Chris behaves badly when he's sensing a lack of commitment and it dredges up his past abandonment and Lorelai's inability to trust him enough to commit to him. And that's the vicious circle.). This would all happen by the first half of S7. The second half of S7 would build back up Luke/Lorelai and have them together as a couple for some eps. 

Edited November 6, 2016 by Melancholy

[txhorns79]

Quote

Although, there was no law that Chris and Lorelai had to get married. Based on S6, it could have just been left as a one-night stand. DR made a choice to tell a story about Chris and Lorelai getting married, the Palladinos didn't make that choice for him. I mean, I get how DR would feel like it feels like a sloppy dropped storyline to have CHRIS be the guy in bed with Lorelai in Partings but next season, just have it be a one-night stand instead of a straight-up story about Chris's toxic particular role in Lorelai's life.

I appreciated that they had Chris and Lorelai get married.  The series repeatedly held Chris out as a real possibility for Lorelai, and as such a source of friction between Lorelai and her parents.  This plotline served to resolve a lot of the shipping and propel the plot forward.  We saw that Chris and Lorelai did not make a great couple.  Emily and Richard got to see that Chris wasn't all that great with their daughter, and really, really was not able to offer support during a crisis (i.e. Richard's second heart attack.)  I thought that plotline was very beneficial in that sense.   

[cuddlingcrowley]

Quote

As far as I'm concerned, she should be in her "happy ending" stage of life between the Dragonfly and being with Luke long-term and with a great adult mother/daughter relationship with Rory. Of course, "happy endings" in real life are filled with work, challenges, and indecision. But still, if Lorelai is still in MELODRAMATIC MODE OF I WANT THE WHOLE PACKAGE, WHY CAN'T I HAVE THAT?!, I don't think she's ever going to figure anything out.

We're about the same age (I'm 26) and I agreed with much of your post, except the parts about Lorelai. 

Do people ever really have it all figured out? You said it yourself, ""happy endings" in real life are filled with work, challenges, and indecision". But I'd also go as far to say there's no such thing as a "happy ending." People change and grow through their entire lives.  

In the trailer, Lorelai wonders out loud that

Spoiler

she thought she knew exactly what she wanted and it's implied she's not so sure anymore.

 After much hard work, by the end of the series, Lorelai had got the guy she thought she wanted and the professional life she thought she wanted. And she has had the time to enjoy all that during the hiatus. So what if she's ready to move on to another phase in her life and explore new challenges? What's so melodramatic about wondering what else is out there, what's next for you?

Edited November 6, 2016 by cuddlingcrowley

[Melancholy]

58 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I appreciated that they had Chris and Lorelai get married.  The series repeatedly held Chris out as a real possibility for Lorelai, and as such a source of friction between Lorelai and her parents.  This plotline served to resolve a lot of the shipping and propel the plot forward.  We saw that Chris and Lorelai did not make a great couple.  Emily and Richard got to see that Chris wasn't all that great with their daughter, and really, really was not able to offer support during a crisis (i.e. Richard's second heart attack.)  I thought that plotline was very beneficial in that sense.   

I see that value. However, I think it created bigger problems where Lorelai came off so badly on the final yardline (and far behind most of the other characters who demonstrated growth in S7 like Rory, Logan, Luke, Richard, Emily, Zack, Lane, Mrs. Kim, and Paris) and the final ending where she ended up with Luke felt so slap-dash and hurried. I thought one of the few heartwarming parts of S6 is that Lorelai didn't NEED to have a failed marriage with Christopher to get her parents to give up on that dream. I think in the revival, the dynamic between Lorelai/Luke and Emily (since Richard is dead) will just be more of You've Been Gilmored where Lorelai's parents accept Luke as part of the family but just always with overbearing, classist overtones that will never be exorcised.

cuddlingcrowley, for me, it depends on the state of the melodrama. Lorelai could be at a cross-roads in a way that convinces me that Lorelai has demonstrated an ability to have a long-term heathy adult relationship but now she's moving onto new challenges. However, I think the former has to be proven to some degree because Lorelai constantly failed at that in the series. I actually love Lorelai despite her many flaws so I've written a post-series ending in my head where she and Luke figured out how to have a good long-term romantic relationship and blend their lives. However, the revival indicates that she didn't and like, she's been pouting and unhappy ALL THIS TIME because she and Luke never got married and had kids, a wedding in the last installment will just infuriate me and convince me that this'll just be the substance of Lorelai's romantic life till the end. 

[hippielamb]

23 hours ago, Bumblebee Tights said:

I feel the same way.  I wonder if it could in part be attributed to Lauren Graham? She's so naturally charismatic, and she infuses Lorelai with such warmth and zest. I also think it's fair to say that if all I knew of Lorelai were things she's said in 'interviews' within the show..here I'm thinking of the interview she gave about the Dragonfly that turned into comparing Emily to Stalin, and the deposition she gave to Emily's lawyers when her maid was suing her..I probably wouldn't think very well of her. So maybe there are similarities to ASP there as well.

I am all for a cozy, low drama, focused mostly on the three generations of Gilmore women revival!

I think so, she brings a quirky warmth to Lorelai. I've seen Lauren in several roles and she always manages to make each character sympathetic in some way.

There's a lot about Lorelai I can personally relate to. I was a young mom with an unreliable ex, and I have more of a sibling relationship with my eldest. The Rory and Lorelai relationship is why I continue to watch this show. The things I love and can relate to Lorelai about, are absent from ASP's life. Funny that she apparently thought up the major relationship of this show on the fly. 

Me too! I am hoping for the focus to be on the Gilmore family, with some town quirkiness thrown in for fun. 

 

21 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

In fairness, Lorelai goes through what I'd imagine would be a lot of rewrites before her words get on screen.  ASP doesn't have that luxury.        

Ha true. Lorelai herself often says things that could be taken as offensive. I think because she's one of the protagonists and it is usually done for comic effect that I don't take issue with it. I have often thought if this show was told from Emily or Luke's perspective, Lorelai would not be such a sympathetic character. 

 

4 hours ago, Melancholy said:

Although, there was no law that Chris and Lorelai had to get married. Based on S6, it could have just been left as a one-night stand. DR made a choice to tell a story about Chris and Lorelai getting married, the Palladinos didn't make that choice for him. I mean, I get how DR would feel like it feels like a sloppy dropped storyline to have CHRIS be the guy in bed with Lorelai in Partings but next season, just have it be a one-night stand instead of a straight-up story about Chris's toxic particular role in Lorelai's life. But eh, if I was writing, I wouldn't have had Lorelai make such a big mistake as getting into a quickie, failure of a marriage on the final yardline. I would have had Chris and Lorelai date for awhile but then, break-up quickly for similar reasons as they did (Lorelai can't commit fully to him. Chris behaves badly when he's sensing a lack of commitment and it dredges up his past abandonment and Lorelai's inability to trust him enough to commit to him. And that's the vicious circle.). This would all happen by the first half of S7. The second half of S7 would build back up Luke/Lorelai and have them together as a couple for some eps. 

I think DR didn't want to get Luke and Lorelai back together until the end. (I also think that was Amy's original plan. The way she wrote them is season 5-6 felt like she was saying they weren't ready to be together.) It saved the writers from having to reconcile the issues and hurt on both sides. We see them kiss in the finale and have to assume everything is fixed.

Chris has always been the road not taken for Lorelai. Something always prevents them from being together. I think it was important for Lorelai's story that she be with Chris for awhile, otherwise he would always be the what if guy. Also, from his first introduction on te show they have had the marriage thing be an issue. I am biased obviously because I like seeing them together but I do think it was done for Lorelai to let go of her "whole package" dream. 

[txhorns79]

Quote

I think DR didn't want to get Luke and Lorelai back together until the end. (I also think that was Amy's original plan. The way she wrote them is season 5-6 felt like she was saying they weren't ready to be together.)

I felt like it was more that she was saying she didn't know what to do with them now that they were together.