One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions

[amensisterfriend]

I like Lane well enough---she was never a particularly well-defined or compelling character to me, but she was kind and had a certain tendency to be overly enthusiastic/passionate which I relate to! I can totally see why many love her. I think I came to love her scenes less primarily because I have this irrational dislike of Zach, but that's not Lane's fault :) 

Quote

 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).

YES! This. Now that I think about it, their parent/child relationship may have been the best depicted on the show--there were complex conflicts during which I actually understood where both were coming from just as I could see why each would see the other as wrong. And, as you pointed out, there was actually clear and consistent progress after Lane and Mama Kim hit their 'bottom' in mid-S4/S5. They weren't suddenly idyllic and free of any tension, but there was actual growth in their relationship as opposed the 'throw in a conflict but then revert everything to exactly the same without either character learning or growing or even pretending to change in any way' thing she favored with Lorelai/Rory and the exasperating, exhausting "two steps forward, five steps back---usually by the end of the same episode" dance she did with Emily/Lorelai. 

Mama Kim was always one of my very favorite minor characters. Like most GG characters, I'm not sure I'd like to be in her company much in real life, but I found her really smart, entertaining, amusing, and even sympathetic and touching sometimes. 

Edited December 7, 2016 by amensisterfriend

[Kohola3]

45 minutes ago, themoon411 said:

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.

Right there with you on that one.  It was just way too extreme a change to be at all believable or fitting.  From firing a maid a week to having total gibberish-speaking strangers taking over your home and sleeping on your furniture?  Just another over-the-top ASP load of BS.

[HeySandyStrange]

22 minutes ago, amensisterfriend said:

I like Lane well enough---she was never a particularly well-defined or compelling character to me, but she was kind and had a certain tendency to be overly enthusiastic/passionate which I relate to! I can totally see why many love her. I think I came to love her scenes less primarily because I have this irrational dislike of Zach, but that's not Lane's fault :) 

Even though I'm kind of one of the few people who learned to like Zach, I do think she had so much more potential as a character then they gave her. I get that Lane didn't have the last name Gilmore, so she was never going to be fleshed out well, but there are so many places I would've liked to seen her go. Her dropping out of college would've been the perfect opening to have her do something, outside of the band, as far as continuing school/job-training. And I would've preferred her end the show without necessarily being married w/kids just to show that every non-Rory girl didn't need a man. I give a lot of credit to Keiko Agena, she definitely brought a sparkle to a role that might've fallen flat in the hands of a less capable or charismatic actress.

[ChlcGirl]

26 minutes ago, themoon411 said:

#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
 

I'm going to need to disagree with your number two point.  I always find it disturbing when parents are more interested in being pals with their kids than parents.  It seems really inappropriate.  Children need peers their own age, not to be sounding boards for moms and dads.  They don't need to hear about mom's struggles at work or worried about how dad is going to pay the bills that month.  And they most definitely don't need to hear about Mom and Dad's romantic lives.

My parents had to get married at 18, so I truly get the parent/children in the same generation thing, but my mother NEVER strived to be my buddy.  In fact, when I was 14 or so and moaning about how close X and her mother were, my mother looked at me and said, "I don't need to be your friend right now.  I NEED to be your mother.  We can be friends the whole rest of your life."  And, she was right.  I credit almost all of my best qualities to her being an Emily when I was growing up.

[Lady Calypso]

5 minutes ago, HeySandyStrange said:

Even though I'm kind of one of the few people who learned to like Zach, I do think she had so much more potential as a character then they gave her. I get that Lane didn't have the last name Gilmore, so she was never going to be fleshed out well, but there are so many places I would've liked to seen her go. Her dropping out of college would've been the perfect opening to have her do something, outside of the band, as far as continuing school/job-training. And I would've preferred her end the show without necessarily being married w/kids just to show that every non-Rory girl didn't need a man. I give a lot of credit to Keiko Agena, she definitely brought a sparkle to a role that might've fallen flat in the hands of a less capable or charismatic actress.

I agree. Lane did become underused in a way. I know she technically had her own storylines, but her friendship with Rory started going away as soon as Rory left to college. It's so realistic for it to happen, but it still sucked when we got so few Lane/Rory scenes by season 7. Lives drift and change and I think they headed that way with Lane/Rory, but because Rory's one of the main girls, they kept Lane in her inner circle as much as they could. It's just with Rory being out of Stars Hollow for the most part, Lane's story wasn't as fleshed out. Lane stuck around in Stars Hollow and led a simpler life than what she dreamed of. I'm just disappointed that Lane didn't get to leave Stars Hollow to explore herself and her life outside of what her mother wanted her to be. I wish Zach/Lane had waited one more season to have kids so they could have been a rockstar married couple. 

Actually, my dream storyline for Lane starting in season 4 that she would have been in Stars Hollow while she figured out what she wanted to do with her life. Maybe she would have travelled a bit (they could have had her do this off screen since Lane was not in every single episode) before deciding to give college a try. Season 5 would have led her to leave Stars Hollow to go to college to pursue music but I would have been fine if she realized that it wasn't what she wanted. Maybe she could have even joined Rory at Yale for a year, since I just read up that Yale has a good music program. Then, season 6 could have led her back to Stars Hollow if ASP really wanted Lane to live a simple life. 

I guess I just thought Lane should have been giving more time to explore herself. She was really led to live by her mother's expectations for years and as soon as she finally found a way to break free and chose her own path, she was already sticking in Stars Hollow, then marrying Zach, and then having kids. She got an off screen music tour....kind of. We never got to see her find herself before marrying Zach and having her kids. I ended up not hating her and Zach together, nor did I mind the idea of kids, but I think it was way too soon and Lane needed to be her own person before being someone else's. That's the issue with Lane's so-called growth throughout the series.

[themoon411]

2 hours ago, ChlcGirl said:

I'm going to need to disagree with your number two point.  I always find it disturbing when parents are more interested in being pals with their kids than parents.  It seems really inappropriate.  Children need peers their own age, not to be sounding boards for moms and dads.  They don't need to hear about mom's struggles at work or worried about how dad is going to pay the bills that month.  And they most definitely don't need to hear about Mom and Dad's romantic lives.

My parents had to get married at 18, so I truly get the parent/children in the same generation thing, but my mother NEVER strived to be my buddy.  In fact, when I was 14 or so and moaning about how close X and her mother were, my mother looked at me and said, "I don't need to be your friend right now.  I NEED to be your mother.  We can be friends the whole rest of your life."  And, she was right.  I credit almost all of my best qualities to her being an Emily when I was growing up.

The thing is, I think Lorelai was a mom and not a friend. She didn't share her romantic life with her, in fact they made it a point to show how freaked out she was about max and rory bonding. They also showed her not telling rory about talking to max again. She tried to hide her money troubles from rory. Yes, rory knew they needed to get termites out, there was no way Lorelai could have hid that, but Lorelai went out of her way to not share details about how the bank was refusing her loans and so forth. Lorelai never shared with rory her issues with Skokie when it came to being business partners. Even when rory was an adult in college, Lorelai tried to hide her troubles from her. Even though she didn't always succeed and sometimes over shared, she tried to keep her adult life seperate from rory.

Their friendship consisted of watching movies together, shopping, gossiping about harmless things, and just enjoying each other's company. I don't see anything unmotherly about that. It's just a different style of parenting.

Also, in the episode where Lorelai and Emily go to the spa, and Lorelai tells emily that her relationship with rory is different because they were friends first, rang untrue to me. It was different because Lorelai parenting style was more lax and she didn't care about the small details. They had a good relationship because Lorelai didn't try to control the minutia of rory's life. Both emily and Ms Kim tried to control too many details in their kids lives. They wanted their kids to dress a certain way, like certain things, be involved in specific activities. This was what created the clash. Lorelai not enforcing those type of rules on rory doesn't mean she viewed her as a friend!

[ChlcGirl]

1 hour ago, themoon411 said:

The thing is, I think Lorelai was a mom and not a friend. She didn't share her romantic life with her, in fact they made it a point to show how freaked out she was about max and rory bonding. They also showed her not telling rory about talking to max again. She tried to hide her money troubles from rory. Yes, rory knew they needed to get termites out, there was no way Lorelai could have hid that, but Lorelai went out of her way to not share details about how the bank was refusing her loans and so forth. Lorelai never shared with rory her issues with Skokie when it came to being business partners. Even when rory was an adult in college, Lorelai tried to hide her troubles from her. Even though she didn't always succeed and sometimes over shared, she tried to keep her adult life seperate from rory.

Their friendship consisted of watching movies together, shopping, gossiping about harmless things, and just enjoying each other's company. I don't see anything unmotherly about that. It's just a different style of parenting.

Also, in the episode where Lorelai and Emily go to the spa, and Lorelai tells emily that her relationship with rory is different because they were friends first, rang untrue to me. It was different because Lorelai parenting style was more lax and she didn't care about the small details. They had a good relationship because Lorelai didn't try to control the minutia of rory's life. Both emily and Ms Kim tried to control too many details in their kids lives. They wanted their kids to dress a certain way, like certain things, be involved in specific activities. This was what created the clash. Lorelai not enforcing those type of rules on rory doesn't mean she viewed her as a friend!

If we are going by what was said in the show, both Lorelai and Rory said many times that they were each other's best friends.  Rory even brought up their "freakishly close" relationship with Headmaster Charleston.  They couldn't even spend Rory's first night at Yale apart.  Lorelai hung out there much MUCH longer than was normal.

Sixteen year old Rory knew when Lorelai had sex with Chris, knew about his proposal in season 1.  Knew about the sex and planned relationship between them in season 2.  Lorelai talked to Rory about Luke.  And went to tell her how her dates went (with Max, Alex, Peyton/John Hamm).  Also, Lorelai expected Rory to share the info of her first kiss with Dean before anyone else.  All really inappropriate stuff to be discussing with your 16/17 year old daughter.  Hell, she even wanted to know when Rory was planning to bone for the first time, and I don't think it was because she wanted to talk about safe sex.  She just wanted to know like a girlfriend would.

And I would say that Rory knew an awful lot about Lorelai's money issues (whenever AS-P and DP needed her to have them that is!)  She knew her mother couldn't afford Chilton.  She knew her mother couldn't afford the inn and Yale.  She knew her mother had no way of paying for the termites - Lorelai talked about how many places had turned her down for the loan, which led to Rory announcing it to Emily. She also knew her mother was having financial troubles when she was doing the inn - they went window shopping because neither could afford to buy clothes?

I could go on but I'm actually too tired to type any longer :)

[junienmomo]

9 hours ago, Kohola3 said:

Right there with you on that one.  It was just way too extreme a change to be at all believable or fitting.  From firing a maid a week to having total gibberish-speaking strangers taking over your home and sleeping on your furniture?  Just another over-the-top ASP load of BS.

Table for three please. 

Add to the list her manipulative behavior with the therapist and the absolute cruelty in her words surrounding Lorelai's relationship with Luke.  I know Lorelai was supposed to be searching at that time, but her dishrag personality w.r.t. Emily during that phase was too absurd for a fifty year old woman, as was Emily's claiming ANYTHING about how Lorelai should live her life at that age. 

[themoon411]

17 hours ago, ChlcGirl said:

If we are going by what was said in the show, both Lorelai and Rory said many times that they were each other's best friends.  Rory even brought up their "freakishly close" relationship with Headmaster Charleston.  They couldn't even spend Rory's first night at Yale apart.  Lorelai hung out there much MUCH longer than was normal.

Sixteen year old Rory knew when Lorelai had sex with Chris, knew about his proposal in season 1.  Knew about the sex and planned relationship between them in season 2.  Lorelai talked to Rory about Luke.  And went to tell her how her dates went (with Max, Alex, Peyton/John Hamm).  Also, Lorelai expected Rory to share the info of her first kiss with Dean before anyone else.  All really inappropriate stuff to be discussing with your 16/17 year old daughter.  Hell, she even wanted to know when Rory was planning to bone for the first time, and I don't think it was because she wanted to talk about safe sex.  She just wanted to know like a girlfriend would.

And I would say that Rory knew an awful lot about Lorelai's money issues (whenever AS-P and DP needed her to have them that is!)  She knew her mother couldn't afford Chilton.  She knew her mother couldn't afford the inn and Yale.  She knew her mother had no way of paying for the termites - Lorelai talked about how many places had turned her down for the loan, which led to Rory announcing it to Emily. She also knew her mother was having financial troubles when she was doing the inn - they went window shopping because neither could afford to buy clothes?

I could go on but I'm actually too tired to type any longer :)

I agree that the show said multiple times that they were friends first. That’s why I said  that my “unpopular opinion” was that they actually were much more mother daughter like J.

The first time Chris came over, Lorelai never told Rory they had sex. I believe she asked Lorelai (either where they disappeared too , or why they were giggling , I don’t remember ) and Lorelai replied with (either nothing or nowhere), and Rory made a face and said “okaaay”. You could argue that Lorelai should have taken more steps to hide that, but she certainly wasn’t sharing details with her the way a friend would. Even her talk with Rory later about how Chris isn’t ready to take them on, was like a mother not wanting to get her daughters hopes up.

In season two, when Lorelai told Rory about her plans to be with Chris, she didn’t mention having sex with him. Plus, she also told her parents about it, with whom she never shared personal information. I think this was a case of her being excited about her dream scenario coming true, and counting her chickens before her eggs hatched, so to speak.

She never shared important relationship details or concerns about Max or Alex with Rory, she would just mention fluffy details. Now I agree with you about Luke, but by the time Lorelai was dating Luke, Rory was almost 20 and had been living away from home for almost a year.

I believe that the reason Lorelai wanted to know when Rory was ready to have sex, was so she could discuss things like safe sex and how sex can affect your emotions. I don’t think we would have seen such a talk because that would give the show too much of a after school special feel. Also, Lorelai did not react like a friend when Rory told her she was thinking about having sex with jess.

I agree with you about the Dean kiss, that Lorelai was only interested in that from the friend perspective. However, when it occurred, Rory shared the details with Lane, while not telling Lorelai. I think it proves that at the end of the day, Rory still thought of Lorelai as a mom.

Lorelai never actually shared her money problems with her, it was more like her not actively trying to hide it. Rory was 16, not 6, and also very smart. When she had concerns, Lorelai would truthfully address them, but she didn’t actually complain to Rory about financial issues. In fact, if you remember, in the first episode, Lorelai hid the fact that she loaned money for Chilton. Rory only found out when she heard the grandparents yelling about it.

In conclusion, this show had many shades of grey, and while you can’t put the Lorelai and Rory relationship exclusively in the mother/daughter box, for the most part their relationship felt mother/daughter to me. You could say that there were too many friendship vibes for your liking, but that still doesn’t make their relationship unique (like the show tried to sell us). In fact, in your first comment, you mentioned that you knew people who were close and friendly to their parents, and while you may not agree with that approach, it’s a common enough approach to where the words special and different do not need to be used to describe it.

[hippielamb]

On Wednesday, December 07, 2016 at 3:07 PM, themoon411 said:

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.

I love Lane a lot. She's probably my favourite character outside of the Gilmore family. It's great to read so many young women who identified with teenage Rory. Lane's teenage struggles and early adulthood were much more relatable to me than anything Rory did. I would have loved to see her story during the end of the finale to where she is in the revival. 

Agree completely about Lorelai's parenting. She doesn't do anything unmom-like in my opinion. She has a close bond with her kid and acts more democratic (er, mostly) but so do many other parents. 

[txhorns79]

Quote

I love Lane a lot. She's probably my favourite character outside of the Gilmore family. It's great to read so many young women who identified with teenage Rory. Lane's teenage struggles and early adulthood were much more relatable to me than anything Rory did. I would have loved to see her story during the end of the finale to where she is in the revival. 

I liked Lane's relationship with her mother, and how despite the fact it was very much a secondary plotline, both characters grew and eventually ended up having a much healthier relationship than the one they had when the show started.   

 

Quote

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 key is that until a certain age, being a parent is about setting rules and meeting needs.  It's nice to have a relationship with your child that can transition into adulthood, but that's a secondary issue, and shouldn't be a real consideration if your kid needs a parent, rather than a friend.  I think the problem with Lorelai was that she appeared to value having a friendship with her daughter over her role as a parent, and had difficulty establishing boundaries, so she could be a parent when she needed to be.  She also substantially benefited from having a daughter who pretty much was a rule follower, and didn't try to make waves.    

[themoon411]

3 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I liked Lane's relationship with her mother, and how despite the fact it was very much a secondary plotline, both characters grew and eventually ended up having a much healthier relationship than the one they had when the show started.   

 

I think the key is that until a certain age, being a parent is about setting rules and meeting needs.  It's nice to have a relationship with your child that can transition into adulthood, but that's a secondary issue, and shouldn't be a real consideration if your kid needs a parent, rather than a friend.  I think the problem with Lorelai was that she appeared to value having a friendship with her daughter over her role as a parent, and had difficulty establishing boundaries, so she could be a parent when she needed to be.  She also substantially benefited from having a daughter who pretty much was a rule follower, and didn't try to make waves.    

I agree that setting rules and meeting needs is the most important thing when kids are younger. Unfortunately  ( or fortunatly) we do not know what kind of mother Lorelai was when rory was a kid. However, once the kid reaches middle to late teens, I would argue that having a good relationship with their kid should be the primary goal of a parent. At age 16, a kid only has a few more years left at home, and if the only reason they follow rules is because they fear parental consequences,  then they will break those rules the moment they are out the door. A good parent will help the kid understand why those rules exsist, because after all your raising an adult.

Also, 50% of teens have sex and plenty drink alcohol. The best way to ensure that kid has protected sex and doesn't drink and drive is valuing a close relationship over rule setting. Yes, having a 16 year old ask for BC or calling to be picked because they are inebriated is less than ideal, but it's better than having them get pregnant or drive drunk. In order to achieve this, a parent has to focus more on their relationship with the kid than parental role.

Also I agree with you 100% that rory was an easy kid to parent!

[amensisterfriend]

I have one that is really unpopular even by my usual standards: While Emily is a really compelling, interesting character, I never quite got why she's absolved for being so nasty, hypercritical, elitist, snobby and often downright mean while Lorelai and Rory are excoriated (often justifiably, but still!) for every flaw. And as deeply, irritatingly flawed as Lorelai and Rory are, Emily can be more pointedly cruel than Lorelai and Rory combined. It seems especially true after this revival: Emily's flaws are either dismissed or twisted into something positive (like said meanness being perceived as admirable ''sass" and strength). Even before this revival, though, I feel like Emily gets a free pass or even praise for words and actions that other characters would be raked over the coals for.

And as long as I'm probably making myself even more unpopular here than my Luke and LL-related opinions do, I may as well as add that I also disagree about Lorelai being mostly at fault in her relationship with Emily.  Is Lorelai immature, overly dramatic and all too prone to perpetuating their endless dance of dysfunction? Absolutely. But I'm virtually alone in nearly always getting where Lorelai is coming from during their many (many, many, MANY!) conflicts and often even agree with her. It is REALLY difficult to have a close relative like Emily in one's life. She judges and belittles her at every opportunity, seems to use criticism in lieu of any actual warmth or affection, has very rigid, narrowminded expectations that Lorelai is forever punished for not fulfilling, and can be unbelievably petty, manipulative, spiteful etc. And that's not even getting into stuff like her blatant, underhanded scheme to split up a then-happy Lorelai from Luke. Regardless of how I personally feel about LL, that was appalling---and, frankly, something Lorelai forgave her mother for more readily than I would have. 

It also seems like a typically AS_P-esque falsse dichotomy that every parent has to be either overly strict, rigid, distant, cold, judgmental etc (Emily/Richard, the Huntzbergers, Paris's parents, Mama Kim for part of the series) OR BFFs without boundaries (Lorelai/Rory). (Or not there at all, haha). In real life, most parents I know are very much in between those extremes! 

Again, I'm not intending to depict Lorelai as some sort of innocent victim here---she's very, very flawed (often maddeningly so, lol) both in general and in her relationship with her mother in particular. But there seems to be a general 'Emily is the absolute BEST and everyone else with the last name Gilmore is the absolute worst!' sentiment around the internet, and for me Emily, while in possession of some good qualities, is every bit as problematic as her daughter and granddaughter for pretty much the entire series, and at times even MORE problematic. 

Edited December 9, 2016 by amensisterfriend

[limecoke]

I don't particularly think Lorelei was a terrible mother though I do agree that "my kid is my BFF" probably isn't a good parenting technique.  Good example is Rory's first night in the dorm at Yale.  She couldn't make it through that night without her Mommy.  That's weird and disturbing.  

But she most definitely was a bad mother where food was involved.  Luke was right...their diet was terrible.  Coffee, PopTarts, Burgers, TaterTots, ice cream and candy.  That stuff catches up with you when you get older and according to "A Year in the Life", nothing had changed.  At least Luke was doing the majority of the cooking so it was bound to be better.

Strangely, Mrs. Kim might have ended up being the best example of parenting in the entire show.  She was over the top but in the end, was generally reasonable and usually came around. You knew she loved Lane fiercely and protectively and Lane knew it too and was always respectful.   She was just as charming in AYITL, in her short moment of screen time.  (How funny was it when we finally got a glimpse of Mr. Kim.  Who knew?)

I never understood why the show changed Lane's love interest from Dave to Zach.  Maybe the actor just didn't want to do the show anymore.  I loved the character of Dave and he suited Lane very well.  I never warmed to Zach but he won me over a bit when he respected Lane's decision to not have sex before he married her.  He neither mocked her nor dumped her which is impressive. Quite a contrast to Rory who hopped into bed with a married man without a second thought about his wife or any consequences.

Where Emily/Richard as parents is concerned, I think they were products of their own upbringing.  They simply repeated the mistakes their own parents made.  Richard was devoted to his mother, as we saw when he was grieving her, but she was still a cold, demanding woman.  The cycle was hard to break but Lorelei broke it big time and her mother and father were simply disappointed and bewildered and it translated into anger.  I don't give Emily a pass but there was slow, agonizing growth in the original series that culminated in AYITL.  Lorelei bears some of the blame for refusing to forgive while expecting forgiveness.  It works both ways.  They end up making another deal in the end, much as they did in the pilot episode.  Emily gives Lorelei the money but expects something in return.  In real life, two weeks on Nantucket in the summer seems like a very small price to pay.  There was almost a "wink, wink" quality to that scene.  I liked it. 

Edited December 9, 2016 by limecoke

[Kohola3]

Quote

But I'm virtually alone in nearly always getting where Lorelai is coming from during their many (many, many, MANY!) conflicts and often even agree with her.

Nope, not alone.  There were a number of times that Lorelai approached her mother only to be rebuffed.  You can only get drop-kicked so many times before you just stop trying;  I certainly don't have the patience for it.  If there is an issue and I make the first, second, and third moves and don't get a response, I'm done.  I don't see pursuing a toxic relationship even with a family member.  And Emily was so characteristically horrible to Luke that she lost me at the beginning and never won me back even when she was vulnerable.

5 minutes ago, limecoke said:

I never understood why the show changed Lane's love interest from Dave to Zach.

The actor left to do another series.

[Melancholy]

Luke wasn't perfect at parenting but he was in the in between spot in how he parented Jess and April even as he managed them differently largely because they were very different kids.  He was the authoritative parent style as opposed to permissive, authoritarian, or uninvolved. He would skate to permissive or authoritarian at times in dealing with a particular challenge like controlling Jess by taking his car (authoritarian) or still spending the day with April after she lied/snuck out to see him after lecturing her not to do that while custody is being worked out (permissive). But generally, he always had an eye towards balancing freedom with structure. 

Edited December 9, 2016 by Melancholy

[pennben]

My take, from reading interviews, is that Kelly Bishop would agree with you. She talks about how she loves to play these 'nasty women' and includes Emily in that description. She too is surprised with the notion that people like Emily. 

Edited December 9, 2016 by pennben

[junienmomo]

1 hour ago, amensisterfriend said:

It is REALLY difficult to have a close relative like Emily in one's life. She judges and belittles her at every opportunity, seems to use criticism in lieu of any actual warmth or affection, has very rigid, narrowminded expectations that Lorelai is forever punished for not fulfilling, and can be unbelievably petty, manipulative, spiteful etc

Yes!

The fundamental thing I still haven't understood is why Emily insists on demanding adult Lorelai live according to Emily's standards, and why Lorelai didn't put her foot down anrefuse to take that treatment. 

[junienmomo]

1 hour ago, limecoke said:

They end up making another deal in the end, much as they did in the pilot episode.  Emily gives Lorelei the money but expects something in return.  In real life, two weeks on Nantucket in the summer seems like a very small price to pay.  There was almost a "wink, wink" quality to that scene.  I liked it. 

There was another financial fallacy. Did Richard leave a trust to Luke and the rest to Emily, with Lorelai getting nothing? She has no capital, savings or track record for a loan after nearly fifteen years as an inn owner? She probably could even have gone back to Mike Armstrong to see if he'd invest.

[amensisterfriend]

Quote

There was another financial fallacy.

On GG?! NEVER! You must have the wrong show. ;) 

[Melancholy]

42 minutes ago, junienmomo said:

There was another financial fallacy. Did Richard leave a trust to Luke and the rest to Emily, with Lorelai getting nothing? She has no capital, savings or track record for a loan after nearly fifteen years as an inn owner? She probably could even have gone back to Mike Armstrong to see if he'd invest.

I think Lorelai wanted the bequest outright instead of an interest loan with a bank or Mike Armstrong. I'd rather have money outright than an interest and penalty based loan with a bank. I believe Lorelai has cash in the bank by the Revival even though she didn't in the OS. See her offer to help pay for April. I happen to think that while Emily is hella flawed, she has enough good qualities to keep around and she's Lorelai's *mother*. The parent/child bond is elemental and important enough that it should be prioritized over a lot. You all may disagree and argue Lorelai should trash thr relationship but clearly Lorelai didn't feel that way. But as long as Lorelai is in a relationship with Emily and there's money on the table to build a business, it makes sense for Lorelai to ask for it almost in exchange for continuing the relationship she already has with her mother. Just more structured.

Yes, it sounds like Richard didn't leave Lorelai or Rory money. It's like he left most of his fortune to Emily and some money to Luke to franchise the diner. That wasn't a good decision. The Revival makes that clear in how Lorelai and Emily ultimately changed the conditions. But it was a clear choice- not a writing fallacy. Richard clearly expected Lorelai and Rory to inherit the bulk of the estate from Emily when she passed. Somehow Richard got it into his head that the family fortunes could be even greater improved if Luke franchised. It's not clear why he thought that way. Possibly Sexism that it was on Luke to be the most lucrative as the male in the family. Possibly Richard having a self confirming bias that since he thought up franchising back in S5, it was a great idea and Richard wasn't going to question it. Possibly a belief that fast food diners better lend themselves to building a franchise empire than Lorelai's little Stars Hallow destination Inn. Maybe Richard particularly liked Luke's Diner- it was my favorite business in the series. But Richards assumption to leave the bequest to Luke had to be canonically altered. 

Edited December 9, 2016 by Melancholy

[tarotx]

1 hour ago, junienmomo said:

There was another financial fallacy. Did Richard leave a trust to Luke and the rest to Emily, with Lorelai getting nothing? She has no capital, savings or track record for a loan after nearly fifteen years as an inn owner? She probably could even have gone back to Mike Armstrong to see if he'd invest.

 

It does seem Richard only left money to Luke and the rest to Emily. I'm not sure why he would do that except he must have been mad at Lorelai&Rory at the end and changed his will. As for Lorelai and a loan, I think the issue here was that she wasn't going to be able to get a loan quick enough for the Nuns liking. 

[snarktini]

3 hours ago, tarotx said:

It does seem Richard only left money to Luke and the rest to Emily. I'm not sure why he would do that except he must have been mad at Lorelai&Rory at the end and changed his will. As for Lorelai and a loan, I think the issue here was that she wasn't going to be able to get a loan quick enough for the Nuns liking. 

He may not have been mad at them...when my grandfather died, the entire trust & estate went to my grandmother. Not a penny passed through to his only child (my dad) or the grandkids. (And he did like us!)

Edited December 10, 2016 by snarktini

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

The financial problems that arises makes no sense when you think about it. I am rewatching S5 now and it is one the things that s glaring. Rory went through a period of being broke without any explanation other than she couldn't find a job (in a jokey way) She was stingy with her cell phone minutes, brought home laundry and Lorelai gives her 20s for gas. Was she not getting an allowance from her parents, grandparents? By then Lorelai was successful enough to provide sufficiently for Rory so that bugged.

Another thing and I'm not sure it belongs to the UP thread, but the adults in Rory's life left her to hang at a pivotal moment in her life. She was going through a crises at the end of S5 and though she's been accused of crumbling at just one criticism, it was because she took it to heart and realized the truth in what Mitchum was saying. It was a moment of realization that she's been fighting for future that she might not be suitable for at all. Instead of Lorelai listening to her worries and helping her work through this difficult time, she responded by shutting her out. For MONTHS. I am sorry but that was cruel of Lorelai. She should've known that the girl she raised won't drop out of school if something wasn't seriously wrong and that is not the time to punish her. And she did it in the worst way possible. It was her way or the high way and because Rory loved her mother, she went back to school to pursue the career her mother preferred for her. 

Edited December 14, 2016 by Deputy Deputy CoS

[hippielamb]

9 hours ago, amensisterfriend said:

And as long as I'm probably making myself even more unpopular here than my Luke and LL-related opinions do, I may as well as add that I also disagree about Lorelai being mostly at fault in her relationship with Emily.  Is Lorelai immature, overly dramatic and all too prone to perpetuating their endless dance of dysfunction? Absolutely. But I'm virtually alone in nearly always getting where Lorelai is coming from during their many (many, many, MANY!) conflicts and often even agree with her. It is REALLY difficult to have a close relative like Emily in one's life. She judges and belittles her at every opportunity, seems to use criticism in lieu of any actual warmth or affection, has very rigid, narrowminded expectations that Lorelai is forever punished for not fulfilling, and can be unbelievably petty, manipulative, spiteful etc. And that's not even getting into stuff like her blatant, underhanded scheme to split up a then-happy Lorelai from Luke. Regardless of how I personally feel about LL, that was appalling---and, frankly, something Lorelai forgave her mother for more readily than I would have. 

Definitely not alone. I tend to side with Lorelai in her battles with Emily. In the 1st season Emily gets on my last nerve. Partly this is how the story is told. Lorelai is one of the protagonists, and Emily is sometimes written as an antagonist. There's only a couple of times I can defend Emily and it is an effort to examine what's going on behind the surface with her. I think in reality they should have remained cordial but not forced a relationship as they can be very toxic together. That goes against one of the big themes of the show but in real life I think that would be the more plausible and healthy solution.

6 hours ago, Melancholy said:

Yes, it sounds like Richard didn't leave Lorelai or Rory money. It's like he left most of his fortune to Emily and some money to Luke to franchise the diner. That wasn't a good decision. The Revival makes that clear in how Lorelai and Emily ultimately changed the conditions. But it was a clear choice- not a writing fallacy. Richard clearly expected Lorelai and Rory to inherit the bulk of the estate from Emily when she passed. Somehow Richard got it into his head that the family fortunes could be even greater improved if Luke franchised. It's not clear why he thought that way. Possibly Sexism that it was on Luke to be the most lucrative as the male in the family. Possibly Richard having a self confirming bias that since he thought up franchising back in S5, it was a great idea and Richard wasn't going to question it. Possibly a belief that fast food diners better lend themselves to building a franchise empire than Lorelai's little Stars Hallow destination Inn. Maybe Richard particularly liked Luke's Diner- it was my favorite business in the series. But Richards assumption to leave the bequest to Luke had to be canonically altered. 

I think it's the old fashioned idea of making sure Luke had enough capital to take care of Lorelai. He may not have thought that a diner owner's salary could provide. There's also the classism that if Luke had a franchise, he would be more respectable in Richard and Emily's social circle. I adore Richard but he did have some outdated ideas about marriage, family, etc. I think that he thought he was doing what was best for Lorelai. Emily shares this same attitude in her life insurance conversation with Luke. Reminding him to get his affairs in order so Lorelai doesn't suffer financially. 

2 hours ago, snarktini said:

He may not have been mad at them...when my grandfather died, the entire trust & estate went to my grandmother. Not a penny passed through to his only child (my dad) or the grandkids. (And he did like us!)

It makes sense that Richard left the bulk of his estate to Emily. Lorelai has shown many times that she rejects their money (except when they are bailing her out of some financial burden lol). Rory's education was paid for and she has/had the trust fund. It's not that uncommon for a husband to leave his estate to his wife. 

[readster]

Quote

 Richard but he did have some outdated ideas about marriage, family, etc. I think that he thought he was doing what was best for Lorelai. Emily shares this same attitude in her life insurance conversation with Luke. Reminding him to get his affairs in order so Lorelai doesn't suffer financially. 

That's what drove me crazy through the series and then why I was so happy when Emily called everyone on it in Fall. How the need for tradition and keeping the "rich" happy was not only outdated, but was dying out. I really would have loved an appearance of Shira with a reflection by Emily how women like her got in because they "changed" their ways but still were crap. Yes, some people get caught in this mindset that their children need to be taken care of, even after they are grown, their own children are grown and gone. Had a co-worker who is close to 60 and his wife's parents are still alive in their late 80s and they still are going: "Is he still going to have a job since he's a teacher?" I mean it just gets to a point, you need to think that your children can be fine without you. 

[jeansheridan]

21 hours ago, pennben said:

My take, from reading interviews, is that Kelly Bishop would agree with you. She talks about how she loves to play these 'nasty women' and includes Emily in that description. She too is surprised with the notion that people like Emily. 

I just rewatched the first season after 15 years and I was surprised at how cutting Emily really was in those early shows.  I like Kelly Bishop and she reminds me of  my mom in her style (the pulled together look, not the fussiness over silly rules).  I think she was always good at showing the hurt under her snappiness and I liked that she was often cool when another tv mother would too sweet.  Her coolness gave weight to Lorelei's objections to her parents.  

And and I don't think her lifestyle change is a sign of dementia!  Good grief a widow can make some changes in her life.  She's totally sharp and funny.  It kills me that older people aren't seen as being capable of change.  Plus, how big was this change?  She moved into a house she had visited for years in a community she knew really well.

So my Unpopular Opinion (perhaps listed above) is Lauren Graham's fillers.  Or something.  Something was off with her face for this series.  I get she's older.  Older is fine!  Everyone ages.  But her face looked numb when she's always been an actress with a very expressive face.  I found it so distracting I could barely watch her which was unavoidable.

 I know she's at that hard time in her life, late forties is tough on skin and hormones.  And then when Kelly Bishop, Scott Patterson, Liza Weil and Alexis Blesdale come back looking almost the same from eight years ago, it has to be hard.  I just wish someone had stopped her.

[jeansheridan]

On 11/28/2016 at 10:51 AM, Taryn74 said:

I'm beginning to think it's a UO that I didn't feel Sookie was "off" at all during the revival.  Her voice was a bit deeper, but as far as characterization I thought she was spot on.

Oh I think she was perfect and I was happy she did the cameo.  It took me a bit after seeing Bridesmaids to realize that was the same actress as Sookie.  She really played the "best friend" role well in that she added a great deal of humor and intelligence but didn't upstage Lauren Graham.  And that happened in Fall too.  She was great.  A very unpretentious, un-meta performance.  I may not like her comedies much but she's a proper actress with a well-balanced ego.  

And I will add that both Milo and Jared were totally fine in their few scenes.  No winking about their current projects and very sweet.  I always liked Dean (I never watched beyond season two).  As a first boyfriend in season one I thought he was pretty adorable.  And he's kind of dishy man still.  that hair!  

[HeySandyStrange]

2 hours ago, jeansheridan said:

And I will add that both Milo and Jared were totally fine in their few scenes.  No winking about their current projects and very sweet.  I always liked Dean (I never watched beyond season two).  As a first boyfriend in season one I thought he was pretty adorable.  And he's kind of dishy man still.  that hair!  

Dean aka Jared went from very cute teen to a handsome ass man to me. Then again I always found him to be one of the best looking of the boys/men/love interests on the show.

I also really liked what I saw Jess. No more huge chip on his shoulder or bitter edge. I think both of the former "losers" evolved a lot. Which is funny, because before the revival I said I'd get a laugh if Dean and Jess where doing better as people then Rory and Logan. They both definitely win the adult award over the two spoiled brats.

[pennben]

4 hours ago, jeansheridan said:

 

So my Unpopular Opinion (perhaps listed above) is Lauren Graham's fillers.  Or something.  Something was off with her face for this series.  I get she's older.  Older is fine!  Everyone ages.  But her face looked numb when she's always been an actress with a very expressive face.  I found it so distracting I could barely watch her which was unavoidable.

 I know she's at that hard time in her life, late forties is tough on skin and hormones.  And then when Kelly Bishop, Scott Patterson, Liza Weil and Alexis Blesdale come back looking almost the same from eight years ago, it has to be hard.  I just wish someone had stopped her.

For what it is worth, in her new book that came out last week, Graham talks about her concerns about actresses as they age having plastic surgery and how it can effect their expressiveness/ability to act. She said for those reasons she doesn't think she would ever have anything done. The clear implication being that she has to date not had work done to date.  

[Aloeonatable]

1 hour ago, pennben said:

For what it is worth, in her new book that came out last week, Graham talks about her concerns about actresses as they age having plastic surgery and how it can effect their expressiveness/ability to act. She said for those reasons she doesn't think she would ever have anything done. The clear implication being that she has to date not had work done to date.  

Back in the day it was reported that she did use botox. I can't believe that she hasn't had some work done, as she looked different to me. She also looked heavier, which I guess can change her face too.

[Kohola3]

Quote

But her face looked numb when she's always been an actress with a very expressive face.  I found it so distracting I could barely watch her which was unavoidable.

No matter what she says now, it was reported that she was already having work done during the original recipe series.  I, too, was totally distracted with the changes and the "rigidity" of her face.  With that said, I certainly sympathize with what actresses of a certain age must do to get roles.  It's horrible and sexist.

[jeansheridan]

I'm finally watching Parenthood and that was only a few years ago and she's a bit heavier (again, no judging--it happens and she's lovely of course) but her face still moves.  I mean look at Kelly Bishop.  She's probably had work done (someone said she's 70!  Because if so, she looks amazing) but her face looks like her own face.  I don't mean to belabor it.  It just bums me that an intelligent, gifted actress can't get work if she doesn't use Botox.  And I do think it's Botox because her face looks more mobile in some episodes and scenes.   Botox wears off, doesn't it?  

[cuddlingcrowley]

4 hours ago, pennben said:

For what it is worth, in her new book that came out last week, Graham talks about her concerns about actresses as they age having plastic surgery and how it can effect their expressiveness/ability to act. She said for those reasons she doesn't think she would ever have anything done. The clear implication being that she has to date not had work done to date.  

Ha! More like she's talking from her own experience. I don't judge, her face, her choices. But I dare someone to watch season 7, especially the first half, and not notice she obviously had something done. Whatever she had done for the revival was nowhere near as bad.

I was more bothered by whatever was going on with Alexis's mouth/cheek/jaw situation making her unable to smile properly.

[timimouse]

So, I finally watched all the revival episodes and I don't think most of my opinions are unpopular... maybe besides wishing that it had never happened.

My biggest critique however would have to be the Logan/Rory relationship. But this is where the opinion becomes unpopular. I didn't even dislike the illicit nature of the relationship as much as I hate the way Rory STILL  puts Logan on this pedestal, 10 years later! For example, I don't believe that she was so keen on writing the book about Naomi whats-her-face because it was actually an interesting story to tell, but rather because it would've meant spending even more time in London - thus spending more time with Logan. I also don't think that she was okay with the whole "Vegas" definition of what she had with Logan, but it's what he was offering and she would rather have that than nothing at all. The problem I foresee with this, is the pregnancy (side note - I actually had no problems with the final four words... Great way to end things). I don't see her becoming this mature woman and mother and making the tough decisions as to what is best for her child. I see her weakness for Logan continuing to dictate the decisions that she makes. While I'm not so keen on the Chris/Logan and Lorelai/Rory parallels that are being drawn*, I do think that in this situation, Logan is her "Christopher" - the man that she loves and has a baby for but the timing just isn't right for them. Does that mean that Rory will now spend the next 22-years wondering "what if" with Logan? Losing out on potential great loves because she couldn't let go of a man she met in college? I know everybody has their "one" that screws with their head and is like a drug you can't quit... but there comes a point where we have to grow up and see what is not good for us and let that shit go. That is real maturity. Logan has never been particularly good for Rory. This is not coming from someone who blames him for her bad choices and mistakes. I don't think he forced her to do anything. I think she did those things as attempts to impress / keep him. Which makes him bad for her. And I really wished that 10 years later, she would've realised that.

* I read in another thread about the parallels between Rory/Christopher and Lorelai/Logan which I think is much more fitting.

Second unpopular opinion - I do NOT want a second season of "A Year in the Life". I didn't even fully enjoy this one. LOVED Emily's story. But I found too much time was spent on unnecessary crap - SH the Musical** & LDB to name a few. The thing is, those hijinks were fine in the original series because they didn't take up much time. But to spend (what felt like) 5-10 mins on these scenes just felt pointless. I would've much preferred to see more deep conversations between certain characters - eg Luke & Jess, April & Luke, April & Lorelai, Lorelai & Luke just to name a few.

** How was Miss Patty not a bigger part of the musical? 

Lastly, I have a question. Were we supposed to just pick and choose what we remember from season 7? Rumour has it that ASP never watched the final season (which I find highly unbelievable as it would just be human nature to want to see what was done with your show), however, she acknowledged the existence of Steve and Kwan yet ignored anything pertaining to Logan including all his (unbelievable) character growth and the fact that Logan was supposed to have nothing to do with his father's company or money. Right. -_-

[Minneapple]

Botox does wear off, and it's not really the same as plastic surgery. I thought it looked like Lauren got cheek fillers, but maybe it was just the weight gain. Not that she looks bad at all. She looks great in fact.

I believe her if she says she hasn't had plastic surgery done. 

[cuddlingcrowley]

54 minutes ago, Minneapple said:

Botox does wear off, and it's not really the same as plastic surgery. I thought it looked like Lauren got cheek fillers, but maybe it was just the weight gain. Not that she looks bad at all. She looks great in fact.

I believe her if she says she hasn't had plastic surgery done.

LG is using Kylie Jenner logic in her book, then, but point taken. 

[Kohola3]

Quote

So, I finally watched all the revival episodes and I don't think most of my opinions are unpopular... maybe besides wishing that it had never happened.

My UO as well.  And I sure as heck don't want to see a second revival.  That would permanently kill what little interest I have left.

[peggy06]

On 12/5/2016 at 4:34 PM, muessigkeit said:

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.

I watched 3 seasons of Parenthood, and found her to be Lorelai with a meaner script.

[hippielamb]

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 9:31 AM, readster said:

That's what drove me crazy through the series and then why I was so happy when Emily called everyone on it in Fall. How the need for tradition and keeping the "rich" happy was not only outdated, but was dying out. I really would have loved an appearance of Shira with a reflection by Emily how women like her got in because they "changed" their ways but still were crap. Yes, some people get caught in this mindset that their children need to be taken care of, even after they are grown, their own children are grown and gone. Had a co-worker who is close to 60 and his wife's parents are still alive in their late 80s and they still are going: "Is he still going to have a job since he's a teacher?" I mean it just gets to a point, you need to think that your children can be fine without you. 

It goes with that generation, I think. My father was of that same age and he was always worried about how I would support my family, even though similar to Luke I have a successful business. It's not as impressive as being a lawyer or doctor but it's a good living. 

 

13 hours ago, timimouse said:

Lastly, I have a question. Were we supposed to just pick and choose what we remember from season 7? Rumour has it that ASP never watched the final season (which I find highly unbelievable as it would just be human nature to want to see what was done with your show), however, she acknowledged the existence of Steve and Kwan yet ignored anything pertaining to Logan including all his (unbelievable) character growth and the fact that Logan was supposed to have nothing to do with his father's company or money. Right. -_-

It seems Amy ignored a lot of character growth, and taking relationships to a higher level. Lorelai and her parents, Rory and Logan, Lane and her mother, the list goes on. Every time I think of something that feels a little off in the revival, I remember that I'm comparing it to season 7 characters/relationships. I for one will not ignore season 7. It happened, there are parts I enjoyed, and parts that make me want to scream. It's canon, whether she likes it or not. Just like this revival is canon, even though some wish it wasn't. 

44 minutes ago, peggy06 said:

I watched 3 seasons of Parenthood, and found her to be Lorelai with a meaner script.

Or a worse mother. Oy. I went into it loving Lauren and expecting to love her character but Sarah made some parental decisions that made me cringe. 

[amensisterfriend]

Oy. I went into it loving Lauren and expecting to love her character but Sarah made some parental decisions that made me cringe.

I know, right?! I felt like her Parenthood character had all of Lorelai's worst flaws and pretty much none of her strengths.  

So I realize there is far deeper and more insightful Rory/Logan analysis going on and more substantive issues to comment on, especially in the wake of the revival, but my UO is that I just cannot STAND how he calls her Ace. It's a small, silly thing to care about, but for some reason it drives me crazy. (I know, I know--that's a short trip :)) I get that some think it's endearing, and I'm usually a nickname fan myself. But the Ace thing...it's this feeble attempt at cuteness but is somehow just so forced and makes Logan come across as even more condescending.  And it's a name far better suited to a puppy than a person. 

[starri]

26 minutes ago, amensisterfriend said:

I just cannot STAND how he calls her Ace. It's a small, silly thing to care about, but for some reason it drives me crazy. (I know, I know--that's a short trip :)) I get that some think it's endearing, and I'm usually a nickname fan myself. But the Ace thing...it's this feeble attempt at cuteness but is somehow just so forced and makes Logan come across as even more condescending.  And it's a name far better suited to a puppy than a person. 

There is only one Ace.

I fucking hate it.  It's not just failing at being cute, it's fucking patronizing.

[JayInChicago]

I like the way he says Ace. It's definitely kind of a dumb nickname but Matt says it with warmth.

[Kohola3]

Big ditto on hating Ace. Just reinforces his supercilious attitude.

[Melancholy]

I think Ace is cute. It feels very old school journalism. The nickname that I hate is Christopher's "Lore" for Lorelai. It's not original. Lorelai doesn't need to be shortened. Its a very pretty name. The nickname lowers the stature of the name to inferior names like Lori or Lauren. I get how one person can have their own specific pet name geared to the personality of the person being nicknamed. However I feel like if you're the ONE person shortening a person's name, you're doing it wrong. It clearly wasn't a name calling for abbreviation.

It just feels like part and parcel of Christopher's laziness that he can't be bothered to say the next two syllables or something. 

Edited December 13, 2016 by Melancholy

[Kohola3]

Yep, hated Lor as well.  But then I pretty much hated anything related to Christopher.

[amensisterfriend]

I always get this unwanted image of Logan patronizingly patting Rory on the head while he calls her Ace. "What a cute little would-be reporter you are! Good girl!" 

But that's probably because of my UO that unlike many here, I don't feel that Matt C elevates the writing for Logan-his performance actually makes the character worse for me. He's always smirking and just kind of oozes smugness, smarmy insincerity and condescension. He doesn't make Logan come across as remotely "charming" to me like he's clearly supposed to---just phony and patronizing. I actually prefer the idea of Rory/Logan on paper to onscreen due in large part to Matt C and his (again, IMUO) relative lack of chemistry with AB, especially during the original series. That's just me, though. I can see why others would find the actor a lot more appealing than I do.  

Edited December 13, 2016 by amensisterfriend

[Kohola3]

Quote

I can see why others would find the actor a lot more appealing than I do.  

THIS!  I feel exactly the same.  Smirky, smarmy, smug-face.

[starri]

50 minutes ago, Kohola3 said:

THIS!  I feel exactly the same.  Smirky, smarmy, smug-face.

That you want to punch.

[tarotx]

I love the Ace Nickname. I find it retro and cute. Matt can do both the sweet charming Logan and the smarmy Logan but imo he's rarely the Smarmy version though there have been some extra smarmy moments.