One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions

[Melancholy]

I feel like Luke/Lorelai in the Revival will particularly benefit from rewatching for me. I think there was a lot of subtle skill deployed in showing them happy but not 100% resolved and perfect because that's impossible. On further consideration, I like how much sting is taken out of their fight in Summer by Lorelai helping Luke in the diner through the fight and Luke leaving in half a huff/half a rush to get the Dragonfly muffins baked. Or how Christopher or April or past drama never comes up when they were arguing about secrets because while these issues may reverberate with present day questions (like paying for April), these issues are no longer a gaping wound of mistrust between them. 

[tarotx]

I don't think it was becase Matt was more available. He had to do table reads on Skype and film in and out of Filming for and doing stuff for the end of The Good Wife. I think Logan was used because ASP had Logan set up to be Rory's Christopher. 

Logan had a life in London. Odette and Rory came to him. Meaning Logan didn't need to have Rory as a side piece since he was engaged and side pieces could be found anywhere. He wanted Rory in his life. It seems being an in and out piece is what she wanted. Rory had both Paul and Logan in and out of her life. She's the one who is aimless with no set idea of how she wants her life. Now I don't think Logan came out smelling like roses but Rory called him whenever she needed to talk to someone and he took her call even with Odette there. They seemed to have mini L&DB adventure type romance but a friendship as well. 

I originally had this quoting a post? Something went wrong. Maybe it's in the wrong section. I'll figure out later....

Edited December 2, 2016 by tarotx

[NumberCruncher]

37 minutes ago, tarotx said:

I don't think it was becase Matt was more available. He had to do table reads on Skype and film in and out of Filming for and doing stuff for the end of The Good Wife. I think Logan was used because ASP had Logan set up to be Rory's Christopher. 

Logan had a life in London. Odette and Rory came to him. Meaning Logan didn't need to have Rory as a side piece since he was engaged and side pieces could be found anywhere. He wanted Rory in his life. It seems being an in and out piece is what she wanted. Rory had both Paul and Logan in and out of her life. She's the one who is aimless with no set idea of how she wants her life. Now I don't think Logan came out smelling like roses but Rory called him whenever she needed to talk to someone and he took her call even with Odette there. They seemed to have mini L&DB adventure type romance but a friendship as well. 

Yeah, I'm not really getting the arguments that there's no love there between Rory and Logan--whether it be romantic or just good friends--and that he was just using her.  As disturbing as their sexual exploits came off, you can't ignore that they knew everything about each other's lives so clearly it wasn't just about sex.  It was established that he was her go-to person whenever anything was happening in her life.  He also seemed very aware of what was going on in Rory and Lorelai's relationship and knew the ins and outs of Rory's plans to write the book.  That tells me that at a minimum they were good friends and that they cared for each other even if it doesn't mean theirs was a love for the ages.

I also agree on the actor availability thing.  It's not as if any of Rory's actor boyfriends had a ton of time to film as it was.  JP, MV, and MC were all working on TV shows at the time of GG filming so I really don't think that affected ASP's storyline plans all that much.  In Matt's case, I seem to recall he was the first of the guys to sign on (someone can correct me if I'm wrong there) so that would have very much still been in the middle of filming The Good Wife.  The other thing that leads me to believe the Rory/Logan thing was ASP's plan all along is her insistence on sticking to her last four words.  In theory, had the show ended when it originally was supposed to, she would have had Rory pregnant in S7 or S8.  If that's the case, it would make sense that she would have had the Rory/Logan relationship continue since he was her last serious boyfriend.  Add to that ASP's hard on for her Logan/Christopher parallel and you can see why she chose to go the direction she did in the revival.

Edited December 2, 2016 by NumberCruncher

[MaiSoCalled]

I didn't think this was an unpopular opinion, but based on interviews and comments from fans (friends as well as online), it seems that this is.

I think Logan has to be the father. From a storytelling perspective, he is the only option that makes sense. Paul was barely there, the Wookie was in Spring, and we didn't see or hear about anyone else. We saw Rory and Logan's last night together and it was magical. (Love it or hate it - Rory loved her night with the LDB)

i was shocked to read an interview with ASP where she deliberately didn't answer the question. The entire cast is playing coy and that baffles me, because it seems so obvious. 

Also, I completely understand why Rory and Logan had to be cheaters in this series. Many fans, including me, loved them in the original. ASP had to show that they were bad for each other, and making them cheaters was the easiest solution. I went from a Rory/Logan shipper to a Rory/new guy we haven't met (or maybe Jess) shipper because of this. I think ASP wanted to sink the Rory/Logan ship, and mutual infidelity was a simple way to show that they're toxic for one another.

[CalamityBoPeep]

13 minutes ago, MaiSoCalled said:

I didn't think this was an unpopular opinion, but based on interviews and comments from fans (friends as well as online), it seems that this is.

I think Logan has to be the father. From a storytelling perspective, he is the only option that makes sense. Paul was barely there, the Wookie was in Spring, and we didn't see or hear about anyone else. We saw Rory and Logan's last night together and it was magical. (Love it or hate it - Rory loved her night with the LDB)

i was shocked to read an interview with ASP where she deliberately didn't answer the question. The entire cast is playing coy and that baffles me, because it seems so obvious. 

Also, I completely understand why Rory and Logan had to be cheaters in this series. Many fans, including me, loved them in the original. ASP had to show that they were bad for each other, and making them cheaters was the easiest solution. I went from a Rory/Logan shipper to a Rory/new guy we haven't met (or maybe Jess) shipper because of this. I think ASP wanted to sink the Rory/Logan ship, and mutual infidelity was a simple way to show that they're toxic for one another.

I'm grasping at straws when I hope it's not Logan, but I grasp them with the full awareness that I'm doing so. LOL So, it's a fully conscious desperation to avoid the oncoming train wreck of a redundant story line. We've already seen that story. Anything to throw a wrench into it, to force ASP to think outside the box.

Wow. That's a hella mixing of metaphors. Sorry to be so cliche, y'all!

And to toss one more big straw in there.... baby Gilmore could be a result of an unseen one-night stand with a guy played by.... dun dun dun.... Vincent Kartheiser! Bet AB could work up some chemistry with him... ;-) Grab that straw! You know you want to! Join me! (I am not a crackpot! ;-) )

[Melancholy]

Lol. The Revival should have cast Kartheiser like Mad Men cast Alexis Bledel. Actually, I thought about what pop culture the Revival would allude to from the last 10 years before it aired and I really thought there'd be a Mad Men allusion. I guess it's my bias talking. (Heck, I was also expecting a Parks & Rec reference even though I think that show was so overrated.) Although I was particularly ticked at The Wire allusions because it's the tonal opposite of GG. 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Melancholy

[MaiSoCalled]

49 minutes ago, CalamityBoPeep said:

And to toss one more big straw in there.... baby Gilmore could be a result of an unseen one-night stand with a guy played by.... dun dun dun.... Vincent Kartheiser! Bet AB could work up some chemistry with him... ;-)

Forget Jess, this is who I want for Rory! Single mother Rory finds herself connecting with a new Stars Hollow resident, played by Vincent Kartheiser! Maybe he buys the bookstore.

This is my new head cannon for who Rory ends up with. 

Edited December 2, 2016 by MaiSoCalled
Typos!

[absnow54]

And to toss one more big straw in there.... baby Gilmore could be a result of an unseen one-night stand with a guy played by.... dun dun dun.... Vincent Kartheiser! Bet AB could work up some chemistry with him... ;-)

If there scenes from Mad Men are any indication, I'd say no.

The only other option is that Rory is a surrogate for Paris, but it makes no sense in the narrative given her conversation with Christopher. But given the introduction to the surrogacy plot, the next six words would be, "I'm having your and Luke's baby." and I want to erase that statement from the ether.

[txhorns79]

Quote

If there scenes from Mad Men are any indication, I'd say no.

Yeah, they don't really light up the room with their chemistry on that show.  Though I'm honestly going to say that is more Alexis' fault.  Her acting isn't really all that great on Mad Men.   

[Aloeonatable]

Quote

Meaning Logan didn't need to have Rory as a side piece since he was engaged and side pieces could be found anywhere. He wanted Rory in his life.

Side piece, or mistress, take your pick. I acknowledge that he cared for her, but not enough. He may have wanted to continue to see her, but on his terms while married to someone else. IMO there is no way you can convince me that he loved her. Their relationship would be based on dishonesty. 

[HeySandyStrange]

22 minutes ago, Aloeonatable said:

Side piece, or mistress, take your pick. I acknowledge that he cared for her, but not enough. He may have wanted to continue to see her, but on his terms while married to someone else. IMO there is no way you can convince me that he loved her. Their relationship would be based on dishonesty.

I wasn't feeling the love either. Truthfully, if Rory and/or Logan were in love, what was really stopping them from being together? I doubt Logan was being forced at gun point to marry Odette, and even if his family wasn't keen on Rory, she is still a Gilmore. I think their little affair was nothing more then escapism on both sides. The care about each other but I think both of them realized how different their goals and outlooks are. Logan looked perfectly happy with his place in the world and I don't think Rory would be happy as a society wife. Any more then Logan would want to "slum" it with Rory. I think, deep down, they both knew at this point their relationship had no legs. Though yeah, Logan would've been fine having his cake and eating it to. Doesn't amount to love, though.

[FictionLover]

7 hours ago, absnow54 said:

The only other option is that Rory is a surrogate for Paris, but it makes no sense in the narrative given her conversation with Christopher. But given the introduction to the surrogacy plot, the next six words would be, "I'm having your and Luke's baby." and I want to erase that statement from the ether.

When Rory was talking to her dad I thought it was for her book, so if they decide that she is a surrogate for Paris that could easily be explained away.

[JayInChicago]

Can people stop saying side-piece? It's so horrible.

[nolieblue]

4 hours ago, Aloeonatable said:

Side piece, or mistress, take your pick. I acknowledge that he cared for her, but not enough. He may have wanted to continue to see her, but on his terms while married to someone else. IMO there is no way you can convince me that he loved her. Their relationship would be based on dishonesty. 

I agree - he didn't love her enough to go against his family and endanger his nice comfortable existence. 

[junienmomo]

2 hours ago, JayInChicago said:

Can people stop saying side-piece? It's so horrible.

Don't forget Logan was also hers. She had a boyfriend acknowledged by her family. And later a Wookie.

(Can't quite get over the Wookie thing. Heehee. A Wookie on the side. A Wookie interlude. A side-Wookie.)

[Frelling Tralk]

3 hours ago, junienmomo said:

Don't forget Logan was also hers. She had a boyfriend acknowledged by her family. And later a Wookie.

(Can't quite get over the Wookie thing. Heehee. A Wookie on the side. A Wookie interlude. A side-Wookie.)

Yep, I don't think the power inbalance there is as extreme as gets implied with Logan wanting Rory as his 'side piece', they were both involved with other people. I never got the impression that Rory was any more desperate then Logan was to change their arrangement for a more permanent committment, it came across as a mutual agreement for casual sex whenever Rory happened to be in London.

Obviously Rory was being forced to face up to the fact that Logan getting married was going to change things for them, and that she was going to end up as the mistress if she didn't break things off, hence their arrangement needing to come to its end. (It came across to me that the engagement was a more recent development at least, in 'Winter' Rory is shrugging off the possibility of finding other girls things in the apartment, without any mention of the fiancé specifically).

Edited December 3, 2016 by Frelling Tralk

[Crs97]

Did I miss something?  He proposed in season seven and she rejected him.  How did we get back to his not wanting to go against his family for her?  They begrudgingly accepted her and knew he was proposing, didn't they?

Personally, I got the feeling she was the one pushing for it all to be casual and "what happens in London."  I wonder if he would have dumped Odette if Rory had indicated she wanted more.

[braziliangirl]

Rory and Logan - sometimes is hard to let go of someone but it's harder to let go of what you once were. I took their thing as a misguided attempt to hold on to a piece of themselves that they're not anymore. And that's a good thing. People change, evolve. But it's also kind of sad. Rory has to let go of the vision of being Christiane Amanpour, being the role model and, you know, the girl everyone puts on a pedestal. And Logan has to let go of the idea that he's not like his father.

Edited December 3, 2016 by braziliangirl

[Aloeonatable]

Was it ever established how long Rory and Logan had been sleeping together? Was it a recent thing or something that had been going on for the past 10 years? 

[JayInChicago]

I don't believe the reviv gave any clues about length the arrangement had been going on.

and I would love to know if ASP considers the proposal canonical. I really think she disregards season 7, except perhaps for L/L reconciling, which I guess she would have done had she been at the helm. 

Edited December 3, 2016 by JayInChicago

[cuddlingcrowley]

9 hours ago, Crs97 said:

Did I miss something?  He proposed in season seven and she rejected him.  How did we get back to his not wanting to go against his family for her?  

Personally, besides the "the Dynastic plan" line, I believe there's nothing in Revival to indicate that Logan is in some sort of arranged marriage deal.  Quite the opposite, I'd say. IMO, he's living exactly the life he wants and Rory is perfectly aware of it.

Remember Rory calling Logan out on having so much options and his desperate rant about being trapped and not being given a option, but one option, back in season 6? Remember Rory's indignation about not being good enough and Logan reassuring her? That's how those characters acted when Rory was looked down because of her status and when Logan was forced into a life he didn't want. We had absolutely nothing of the sort in the revival between these two. There's almost zero conflict over whether Logan might chose Rory over Odette. From either side!

The revival starts with them being very happy with their casual arrangement. When Rory's life starts to fall apart she hints to Logan she might want more, he immediately tries to figure out a way to maintain her as side piece.  He wants to continue having his cake and eat it too. He's not interested in anything else. Same thing during their goodbye scene, with him ofering Rory the house. There's no argument about how he might get disowned if he doesn't marry a suitable girl or whatever. ASP could easily have came up with some sob to justify him not fighting for Rory and chosing her. But nope. Nada. 

Now I get a lot of fans interpret that "the Dynastic plan" line as THE sob story but frankly, I don't buy it, It's a blink and you miss moment that has no backing in the four episodes.

IMO, it was the equivalent of Christopher telling Rory she was supposed to be raised by her mother alone because that's how things were meant to be (or whatever were the exact words). I think Logan meant that him ending up with a girl more suited to his lifestyle is actually the way things were always meant to turn out.

Edited December 3, 2016 by cuddlingcrowley

[Crs97]

5 hours ago, braziliangirl said:

And Logan has to let go of the idea that he's not like his father.

Actually, I think he might have to accept the idea that he is like his father.

[readster]

3 hours ago, Crs97 said:

Actually, I think he might have to accept the idea that he is like his father.

Oh yes. From what we gather, Shira was a shot gun wedding because she didn't really have the track record and everyone knew it. Also, why Emily and Richard had a hard time believing that she would tear into Rory about "not having it" when she came from a much more questionable background. Add into the fact that Logan's grandfather wasn't the most honest guy either and apparently Mitchum was similar too. Why he basically showed up at the restaurant out of the blue and basically was like: "you realize this isn't going to work right?" Before just slipping away after his little "talk". Shows that Logan did become like his father from both his empire to how he thought he could have his cake and eat it too. He just saw that in the end, Rory couldn't do that and he let her go. The problem was, having a baby now thrown in the mix (if it his baby) put him like Christopher, but I see him where he goes: "No, I'm supporting and showing up for this kid." 

[junienmomo]

1 hour ago, readster said:

From what we gather, Shira was a shot gun wedding because she didn't really have the track record and everyone knew it. Also, why Emily and Richard had a hard time believing that she would tear into Rory about "not having it" when she came from a much more questionable background.

Huh. I'm actually liking Shira a little more now. She's not good enough to be part of the DAR society but her family's money certainly is, so she gets invited and sucked up to everywhere. I don't actually blame her so much for showing up and making a bunch of snobby biddies squirm for the check. I wonder how much Emily's put down of Shira cost Rory's first charity event. 

[ZuluQueenOfDwarves]

Shira may have had the power, but what we saw of her indicated she had no idea how to wield it. I doubt it occurred to her to stop payment on a check, or drop a few hints to indicate that Emily Gilmore was persona non grata among the society set. Emily hit her where it hurt, and she never retaliated. 

[readster]

9 minutes ago, ZuluQueenOfDwarves said:

Shira may have had the power, but what we saw of her indicated she had no idea how to wield it. I doubt it occurred to her to stop payment on a check, or drop a few hints to indicate that Emily Gilmore was persona non grata among the society set. Emily hit her where it hurt, and she never retaliated. 

Exactly, also I think that Shira basically grew into a role where everyone acted like they were high and mighty, so she did too. I mean why not? She had the money, she was a Huntzburger and she never had a public opinion on others. She kept things behind close doors and people who didn't know her background never called her out on it. Shira calling Rory "not good enough" because she was an opps by two people who didn't get married and then live the rich and entitled life from day 1 wasn't enough. Even though while she was from a rich family, she basically threw things around, slept with people and landed Mithcum by seeing her stick turn pink and then deciding to be the good little rich wife. While Mitchum slept around and did what he pleased and built his empire. So, hence why Richard then lost it when he realized that Mitchum would say that Rory didn't have it when his money and business decisions got him to where he was. Instead of offering advice or actually letting Rory do work or improved he basically just gave her the critique and she crumbled and basically was right since Rory was still acting like that 32. 

[hippielamb]

On Saturday, December 03, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Frelling Tralk said:

Yep, I don't think the power inbalance there is as extreme as gets implied with Logan wanting Rory as his 'side piece', they were both involved with other people. I never got the impression that Rory was any more desperate then Logan was to change their arrangement for a more permanent committment, it came across as a mutual agreement for casual sex whenever Rory happened to be in London.

Obviously Rory was being forced to face up to the fact that Logan getting married was going to change things for them, and that she was going to end up as the mistress if she didn't break things off, hence their arrangement needing to come to its end. (It came across to me that the engagement was a more recent development at least, in 'Winter' Rory is shrugging off the possibility of finding other girls things in the apartment, without any mention of the fiancé specifically).

This is why I don't get the criticism about Logan. Rory had a boyfriend of two years and was having a no strings relationship with her ex. I have zero judgement for either of them. I certainly don't see Logan as a villain or manipulator. They were honest with each other. Not so honest with their other relationships, but whatever. I do wonder what Odette knows, but since we only get Rory's viewpoint, it's hard to know what's going on with Odette and Logan.

On Saturday, December 03, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Aloeonatable said:

Was it ever established how long Rory and Logan had been sleeping together? Was it a recent thing or something that had been going on for the past 10 years? 

I think it was more recent. He said that he saw her in Barcelona, maybe that's when it began? It's very vague. However, I was talking to a friend and she was convinced that they were saying it had been going on all this time. I disagreed mainly because there is a temporary feel to it. And, I strongly doubt Rory would be in a casual relationship for 10 years and not tell Lorelai about it. 

[tarotx]

For me the Vegas agreement probably is recent. At least after Rory started dating Paul and Logan was surely already dating Odette. Which is both bad but understanable at the same time. I guess cause even with this being a recent agreement, Rory and Logan have this feel of a long history. But most of the show feels like it's kind of set just a few years out of college, not the 10 years. My headcanon is, Rory and Logan probably hooked up here and there and she could call him whenever she needed to vent about life. (It might be one of the reasons Rory never had what she considered a hook up before the Wookie). Rory losing her apartment and needing somewhere to stay left them open to a more formal version of what they were doing already. 

I feel like Rory and Logan keep coming together even though neither are able to do what would need to happen for them to be a true couple.  Logan would have to remove himself not just from his family but from the life he has grown up living and what he's been groomed to live. I always understood Logan's parents pov even while thinking they were ick people. Even if ASP accepted s7, I always felt California could just be a change of location but the people Logan would mingle with would be the same type of people. Rory would need to change to fit in. It's why I love the No to the proposal. No matter how much Rory is a Gilmore, she grew up in whimsical Stars Hollow and sheltered in her mother's shadow but adored for the same reason. Rory would have to be more confident, outgoing and present herself more socially artful. Logan and Rory are just too different to change for the other. No matter how much they love being together and learning and experiencing life together, change is difficult. It's why they fell in love in college and through the magical and mystery of the LDB. The real world was at a distance. And they kept it so with this Vegas romance.

Edited December 4, 2016 by tarotx

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

3 hours ago, tarotx said:

For me the Vegas agreement probably is recent. At least after Rory started dating Paul and Logan was surely already dating Odette. Which is both bad but understanding at the same time. I guess cause even with this being a recent agreement, Rory and Logan have this feel of a long history. But most of the show feels like it's kind of set just a few years out of college, not the 10 years. My headcanon is, Rory and Logan probably hooked up here and there and she could call him whenever she needed to vent about life. (It might be one of the reasons Rory never had what she considered a hook up before the Wookie). Rory losing her apartment and needing somewhere to stay left them open to a more formal version of what they were doing already. 

I feel like Rory and Logan keep coming together even though neither are able to do what would need to happen for them to be a true couple.  Logan would have to remove himself not just from his family but from the life he has grown up living and what he's been groomed to live. I always understood Logan's parents pov even while thinking they were ick people. Even if ASP accepted s7, I always felt California could just be a change of location but the people Logan would mingle with would be the same type of people. Rory would need to change to fit in. It's why I love the No to the proposal. No matter how much Rory is a Gilmore, she grew up in whimsical Stars Hollow and sheltered in her mother's shadow but adored for the same reason. Rory would have to be more confident, outgoing and present herself more socially artful. Logan and Rory are just too different to change for the other. No matter how much they love being together and learning and experiencing life together, change is difficult. It's why they fell in love in college and through the magical and mystery of the LDB. The real world was at a distance. And they kept it so with this Vegas romance.

I don't think Logan had to remove himself from his family or lifestyle to be with Rory. Mitchum had been okay with their relationship and his only issue with Logan was that he grew up and become more responsible. Logan tells Rory he was proud when he announced he's walking away from the family company.

I also don't see Rory as belonging one world, Stars Hallow or Emily and Richard's world. Actually if I were to place in one, I'd say she belonged more to the richer side because that's how she come unto herself. Her college years and even HS, being that she went to a prestigious one and rubbed shoulders with the kids from that other wold. She spent most of her college years with Logan and their group of friends, yes Logan adopted her Doyle and Paris as much as she did his stupid friends. University is where most people make life long connections. Logan's world was Rory's world, it didn't mean she didn't belong to Stars Hallow either.

There was too much left to the imagination in the revival but their past is undeniable. Logan more than any guy from her past had the biggest impact on her life and she his. The cheating aside, I'd buy it if 20 years from now they were still hooking up. It won't be a manifestation of self destruction as some have categorized it because they weren't toxic for each other. Rory grounded Logan and Logan brought out a more outgoing girl in Rory. 

[tarotx]

6 minutes ago, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

I don't think Logan had to remove himself from his family or lifestyle to be with Rory. Mitchum had been okay with their relationship and his only issue with Logan was that he grew up and become more responsible. Logan tells Rory he was proud when he announced he's walking away from the family company.

I also don't see Rory as belonging one world, Stars Hallow or Emily and Richard's world. Actually if I were to place in one, I'd say she belonged more to the richer side because that's how she come unto herself. Her college years and even HS, being that she went to a prestigious one and rubbed shoulders with the kids from that other wold. She spent most of her college years with Logan and their group of friends, yes Logan adopted her Doyle and Paris as much as she did his stupid friends. University is where most people make life long connections. Logan's world was Rory's world, it didn't mean she didn't belong to Stars Hallow either.

There was too much left to the imagination in the revival but their past is undeniable. Logan more than any guy from her past had the biggest impact on her life and she his. The cheating aside, I'd buy it if 20 years from now they were still hooking up. It won't be a manifestation of self destruction as some have categorized it because they weren't toxic for each other. Rory grounded Logan and Logan brought out a more outgoing girl in Rory. 

4

Most of what I feel about Logan and Rory is based on where ASP has them in the Revival and looking back to see how it all fits and making the revival fit with the OS. I'm rewatching season 5 right now. I think Rory can project herself to fit in but not if she's herself. The quirky people in Rory's life (even Logan&his close friends) are nothing-nothing like the grown-ups of those in the rich society. I do wish ASP would have allowed these characters to have more of the best of themselves instead of chunks of the negative. 

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

1 hour ago, tarotx said:

Most of what I feel about Logan and Rory is based on where ASP has them in the Revival and looking back to see how it all fits and making the revival fit with the OS. I'm rewatching season 5 right now. I think Rory can project herself to fit in but not if she's herself. The quirky people in Rory's life (even Logan&his close friends) are nothing-nothing like the grown-ups of those in the rich society. I do wish ASP would have allowed these characters to have more of the best of themselves instead of chunks of the negative. 

I am taking into account Rory's whole life in my assertion that she doesn't belong in one word more than she does the other. It would ring  equally true to me if she had ended up Manhattan as much as settling in Stars Hallows to write and raise her child.

I am having a hard time placing this worldly woman who had the privilege of growing up in two different worlds into just one of them. Life is not that black and white and Rory like everyone else is able to fit into different situations. She was raised to be just that.

[muessigkeit]

I was debating posting this in the nitpicking thread, but I guess the general consensus being that Lauren Graham is the best actress in the universe makes this an unpopular opinion: It really bugs me that I can never tell when Lorelai is supposed to be drunk because LG plays drunk Lorelai the exact same way as sober Lorelai. She doesn't add a "drunk" layer to her performance at all and it really takes away from scenes in which she's supposed to be so drunk that her judgement is impaired. Her excuse for not being able to come up with a nice story to tell at Richard's funeral that she hadn't eaten in two days and "drank [her] weight in single malt scotch" fell completely flat, because she seemed absolutely fine in the "Let's all tell a story about Richard" scene.

[starri]

2 minutes ago, muessigkeit said:

I guess the general consensus being that Lauren Graham is the best actress in the universe makes this an unpopular opinion:

People think that?

She's not a great actress.  I'm not sure she's even a particularly good actress.  She is, however, an appealing actress.

But watch her for five minutes on a talk show, you realize she's basically playing herself.  And her schtick plays a lot differently at almost-50 as it did when she was barely-30.

[amensisterfriend]

I've always felt like LG is actually kind of overrated as an actress. I think she was a very good fit for this particular role, but in every other role I either find her performance really unmemorable or so Lorelai-esque that it makes me think she has really limited range. And, yes, she is so annoying in talk shows! It's like she's trying SO very hard to be cutesy and adorable and comes across as weirdly manic and a little ditzy and...oh, wow, maybe LG *IS* very similar to Lorelai! ;) 

[junienmomo]

My two cents of UO about acting is I'm not at all blown away by Kelly Bishop and Ed Hermann. 

They are good actors and had many years more experience than anyone except Sally Struthers, but they haven't been considered to be the tops in the character actor groups. 

It was a good cast. Not a great cast, but good enough to create an enjoyable experience. I'm ok with that.

[muessigkeit]

36 minutes ago, starri said:

People think that?

She's not a great actress.  I'm not sure she's even a particularly good actress.  She is, however, an appealing actress.

But watch her for five minutes on a talk show, you realize she's basically playing herself.  And her schtick plays a lot differently at almost-50 as it did when she was barely-30.

People do. Basically every reviewer I've read in the last weeks made it a point to say that they hope she'll finally get Emmy recognition. Personally I'd agree that basically playing yourself and being able to talk really quickly doesn't necessarily mean you're a great actor, but I haven't watched her in enough other stuff to form a solid opinion.

[starri]

1 minute ago, muessigkeit said:

Basically every reviewer I've read in the last weeks made it a point to say that they hope she'll finally get Emmy recognition

Dwah?

Maybe it was just the quality of the material she was given, but that's insane.  There are way too many actresses doing outstanding work for me to want to see her rewarded for this dross.  I'm going to be really disappointed if Netflix focuses on her in their awards push.

[Kohola3]

18 minutes ago, junienmomo said:

They are good actors and had many years more experience than anyone except Sally Struthers, but they haven't been considered to be the tops in the character actor groups. 

Well, Edward Hermann won an Emmy and was nominated 4 or 5 additional times for different roles.  I loved him in Eleanor and Franklin. Kelly Bishop was nominated 7 times, all for GG, won once.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Kohola3
While one and won sound the same, they are totally different!

[Crs97]

Kelly Bishop has a Tony from A Chorus Line as well.  I love Edward Hermann and will stop to watch him on my television.  YMMV

[Sweet Tee]

Quote

Basically every reviewer I've read in the last weeks made it a point to say that they hope she'll finally get Emmy recognition

Oh, no, no, no.  She didn't do anything award worthy.  I give her credit for making Lorelai a lot more likeable than she would be on paper.  And she's perfectly serviceable in the role.  I think the whole cast is fine.  But, none of them are great actors.  Kelly Bishop is the best of the bunch.  Though watching Liza Weil on GG and then on HTGAWM is pretty impressive to me. 

[Taryn74]

1 hour ago, starri said:

you realize she's basically playing herself.  And her schtick plays a lot differently at almost-50 as it did when she was barely-30.

Yeah, this.  When she was pulling the "hot mom" card with the park ranger?  I was like oh, honey.  Now you're just embarrassing yourself.  :/

 

1 hour ago, muessigkeit said:

Basically every reviewer I've read in the last weeks made it a point to say that they hope she'll finally get Emmy recognition.

LMAO.  Ohhhhkay.  I......honestly have no words for that.

[muessigkeit]

20 minutes ago, Sweet Tee said:

Though watching Liza Weil on GG and then on HTGAWM is pretty impressive to me.

Now there's an underrated actress. She's great in HTGAWM and Bonnie and Paris are like night and day and nothing like Liza in interviews.

Also since we're talking about unpopular opinions: Bonnie >>> Paris

Edited December 5, 2016 by muessigkeit

[starri]

Just now, muessigkeit said:

Also since we're talking about unpopular opinions: Bonnie >>> Paris

Yes.

[hippielamb]

4 hours ago, amensisterfriend said:

And, yes, she is so annoying in talk shows! It's like she's trying SO very hard to be cutesy and adorable and comes across as weirdly manic and a little ditzy and...oh, wow, maybe LG *IS* very similar to Lorelai! ;) 

Aww. See, I like that about her. Different strokes... I agree there is a similarity between her talk show persona and at certain times with Lorelai. I like it when Lorelai is upbeat and giddy so her talk show appearances are fun for me to watch. 

2 hours ago, muessigkeit said:

Now there's an underrated actress. She's great in HTGAWM and Bonnie and Paris are like night and day and nothing like Liza in interviews.

Also since we're talking about unpopular opinions: Bonnie >>> Paris

Love Bonbon. Seriously. Whenever someone is mean to her (*cough Annalise cough*), I feel protective. Definitely don't feel that way about Paris. I did like seeing her fit back into her Paris role. 

[junienmomo]

5 hours ago, Kohola3 said:

Well, Edward Hermann won an Emmy and was nominated 4 or 5 additional times for different roles.  I loved him in Eleanor and Franklin. Kelly Bishop was nominated 7 times, all for GG, won once.

Emmys and Golden Globes are mainstream TV awards. Kelly had no nominations in either. Ed had one win, Sally had two wins and almost twice as many nominations. 

But my point is, all three actors are in the middle of the pack compared to their competition in the years GG ran. They're fine actors, but not the highest tier. They outshone the rest of the GG cast, but weren't the tops in the whole group of TV actors during their GG time.

[Viqutorious]

The woman who played Francine is a really good actress, she was on Shameless for 2 years, it took me 4 episodes to figure out it was her.

I think Lauren, Kelly and Ed are/were all very good actors, they played both comedic and dramatic well. I think that would be hard to do.

On the other hand, I don't think  Scott Peterson is not a good actor and I find it distracting.

[amensisterfriend]

On the other hand, I don't think  Scott Peterson is not a good actor and I find it distracting.

Yeah, I think his acting ranges from mediocre to worse than mediocre. I actually think SP is more to blame for my not liking Luke or Luke/Lorelai than the writing (though the writing is certainly not blameless there, lol!) As others have said, even by the usual slightly over the top GG standards, SP's performance seems devoid of any nuance to me. He can't seem to rein himself in, and lord knows ASP is not known for her ability to rein in either her actors or herself ;) To me it's especially important to be able to give a nuanced, slightly more restrained performance when you're playing a character like Luke, because there's a thin, tricky line between 'lovably grump curmudgeon with heart of gold' and 'guy who legitimately seems to have an anger management problem, issues controlling his temper and some sort of mood disorder that requires treatment.' SP goes so over the top with some of Luke's temper tantrums and scenes where he's angry, jealous, or even just exasperated that it makes it really hard for me to like and sympathize with the character. And instead of seeming like he's playfully sparring with Lorelai, he too often comes across as very genuinely angry, annoyed and baffled by her. Some of the writing for Luke would be problematic for me no matter who played him, but overall I would like him and his relationship with Lorelai more if played by a different actor, especially one who LG seemed to have chemistry with. Obviously I am in an extreme minority here, but at least I'm in the right thread :) 

[amensisterfriend]

Oh, and I totally forgot about the UO that I initially came here to vent! I think ASP is so dreadful when it comes to depicting anything related to finances, socioeconomic class etc. that I honestly wish she had stopped even trying. I sort of wish she'd pretended most of these characters are of more or less the same 'class' and that money wasn't a particular issue throughout the series. (I know that sounds bizarre but, if you think about it, many series actually ignore socioeconomic class differences, practical financial concerns, etc.) I realize that would be taking away a fairly major part of GG, but for me it was a poorly done aspect of the show that I wouldn't miss. You could certainly have a lot of tension between Lorelai and her parents without it being in any way related to class. (Even lots of NON-rich people resent their parents for various reasons unrelated to debutante balls, ASP!) As I've rambled elsewhere, many of ASP's weirdly bitter ideas about class difference and general "the rich are fundamentally DIFFERENT from the rest of us!" seem to hail directly from Regency-era England and seem so unrelatably exaggerated for most of us living in this century who know and interact with people of all different backgrounds and levels of financial success. Not to mention increasingly tone deaf and in poor taste these days---for instance, don't get me started on the running 'joke' about how Emily treats her maids. She seemed to fall into stale, eye-rolling cliches: nearly every rich person is super haughty, snotty, materialistic, carefree but frivolous and lacking real depth! Nearly every middle class/working class guy (Luke, Jess, Jackson, even Marty) is cranky and kind of bitter but with a heart of gold! But the worst was the wild inconsistency regarding how money does or doesn't generate stress, open or block various opportunities, etc: Lorelai and Rory would give lip service to feeling financially strapped a couple times per season, but outside of Lorelai once cutting coupons (*GASP*---the horror, you guys!!!) and Rory working, like, one freaking shift at a card swiping job (during which she whined over the phone in lieu of doing said job anyway), they were always able to dress, eat, buy elaborate gifts and just generally live like people who were very financially secure. (Plus, their worries never exactly elicited much sympathy from me given that Emily, Richard, Christopher, Logan etc. were all gazillionaires ready to throw money their way at any time. Even Luke seemed to have SEVERAL thousands of dollars on hand to loan to friends without expectation of repayment, because in ASP's world we ALL have savings accounts like that, lol.)

A dramedy about how class differences can cause tension, misunderstandings and even inform certain aspects of our personalities could have been interesting, but for me ASP just has too many outdated, exaggerated and inaccurate/inconsistent notions of that stuff to have pulled it off.

The list of stuff she DOES pull off really well is actually depressingly short, IMO...I think I'm starting to agree more and more with the UO that aside from some surface cleverness (some of which isn't even all that clever, just spoken rapidly!), ASP is just not that great a writer. (Or director, showrunner or selector of hats...)    

Edited December 7, 2016 by amensisterfriend

[themoon411]

I have three unpopular opinions.

#1 In the original series I enjoyed lanes story more than the story of any of the gilmore girls. In the later seasons I liked that she had her own plots that were not connected with the main characters. I wish this was a more popular opinion, because I would love
a spin off.

#2 I did not feel that  Lorelai's relationship with rory  was unique or unmotherly . I've known plenty of people, myself included, that did not have restrictive parents. In fact, I felt Lorelai was slightly more restrictive than some parents I know. For example, the fact that rory had a curfew. Yes Lorelai didn't have a lot of rules, but she didn't need those rules. It's not like rory needed any external motivation to study or not drink alcohol.

Also, just because Lorelai liked hanging out with her  daughter and sharing  interests with her, doesn't make her any less mom like, if anything it makes her a better mom. Being a mother isn't just setting rules and meeting needs, it's also having a relationship with a kid that can easily transition to adulthood. I think the problem with the show is it compared Lorelai's  parenting skills to emily and Mrs. Kim, two very extreme parents! I believe that your average American parent of a well behaved kid would have a similar relationship

#3 I think Emily's change of personality in the revival isn't refreshing but troublesome. Not caring what people think, especially after spending a lifetime of caring, are the first hints of dementia.

[HeySandyStrange]

7 minutes ago, themoon411 said:

1 In the original series I enjoyed lanes story more than the story of any of the gilmore girls. In the later seasons I liked that she had her own plots that were not connected with the main characters. I wish this was a more popular opinion, because I would love
a spin off.

I will sit at this table with you! I found Lane to be a very sympathetic and appealing character, definitely more then Rory as the years went on. I actually would've liked her to get some more fleshing out and/or storylines, though I did enjoy the separate storylines she did have. I also liked her relationship with Mrs.Kim and the fact that it evolved quite a bit over the course of the series, instead of staying static or going in circles (Lorelai/Emily, Lorelai/Rory).