One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions

[FozzyBear]

Very true. I think Lorelai would have reacted very badly if Christopher did anything that would threaten Lorelai's preferred role of sole parent to Rory. I don't pretend that Christopher was some kind of prince. He wasn't a good father to Rory. However, I do think the writers were never entirely sure what to do with him. He can't be an active parent to his daughter because it undermines the premise of the series, but they clearly want to make his presence acceptable to the characters so they keep bringing him back.

I agree. They tried to sort of split the difference with Chris and it made for a character who didn't make much sense. I think this became an issue with back stories in general. Star's Hallow had an almost Storybrook effect. It existed in its own bubble and the more Star's Hallow characters almost didn't have backgrounds. They just sprang up one day, fully formed, when the exiled Princess Lorilie came to town with the savior child Rory, and all worked together to cast a magical protection spell until Rory came of age and was sent to save the human world of Heartford. Or something like that. Anyway, the characters that came into Star's Hallow needed some sort of background story and honestly, it wasn't the shows strongest point. Lor's past with her parents was very inconsistent, how well they knew Rory before the events of the show never made much sense, what happened between Chris and Lor for the first 16 years of Rory's life changed depending on how the show felt about Chris. Back stories always had sort of a make it up as you go along vibe.

[readster]

I'm on the floor laughing at this FozzyBear. Great comparison because I agree, there was way, way too inconsistence with the characters and a lot of missing backstory. We got Luke and Liz's story, they were townies, their father owned the local hardware store, Luke learned from his dad and Liz was the rebel and Luke was always having to be the big brother. Then both their parents died it seems right after they both finished high school. Luke decided to use his dad's business and turned it into his diner, Liz got married and moved out of town and of course we know the rest. Same with Ms. Patty, local, loved danced, opened her own dance studio. Nothing really else needed but from Taylor to Babett, it was like, these people just magically appeared one day, had these attitudes and back drops and no one questioned it. It was like Mr. Kim, what was that story? Lane was raised by a harpy of a mother, who then turns out hid her life style from her own mother who could magically fly to the US. When the Kims seem to have left Korea long before Lane was even thought of to "have a better life." Yet, Grandma Kim comes in a limo, we find out she is pretty wealthy and so forth and we find out she seems to be a pretty nice woman but she's a traditionalist. So, you are trying to tell us Mrs. Kim became a shrewd, converted Christian who told all people who walked into her store: "Buy something or get the hell out!" 

  I grew up in a small town but not in the bubble that was Stars Hollow and there was a woman like Mrs. Kim. You know how long she stayed in business? Less than a year because people didn't want to go shopping there any more. Not because the prices were high or the fact it sold stuff you could find at Kmart or Walmart but because as soon as you walked in, she looked at you like Mrs. Kim going: "You better buy something and if that child of yours even thinks of touching the greetings cards, I'll cut you!" I remember when Lorelai and Sookie were in the store once and Sookie said something along the lines of: "Why is she like this?" and Lorelai says: "She missed her calling as a nun." It was like what Gypsy said about why the do what Taylor wants: "He's our Papa Doc!" Which was basically: "He commands, we obey." 

Edited January 31, 2015 by readster

[Aloeonatable]

I'm enjoying all your posts!

 

While GG dealt with real emotions, real life issues and problems, they often did it with humor that bordered on the ridiculous. Quirky was applied to almost every character, main or supporting. 

[Kohola3]

When the Kims seem to have left Korea long before Lane was even thought of to "have a better life."

 

And don't forget the mysterious and apparently invisible Mr. Kim.  He's referenced but doesn't sleep in the same bed as Mrs. Kim and doesn't materialize to walk his only child down the aisle.  What the hell is THAT all about?

[FozzyBear]

Honestly though, in regards to Chris, I don't know how anyone could come up with a consistent character that served the purposes that the show wanted him to. If the show had been picking up when Rory was still a young child (6 or 7 maybe) you could have had Chris re-enter her life without it showing major character flaws on his part. He was 16, maybe he didn't want to keep the baby but Lor did, he tried for a while but he and Lor fight, he's a kid and didn't know what to do, his parents pull some strings and get him into college far away to get him away from the situation, he's gone and graduated and grown up and comes back to own up to his mistakes and be a part of Rory's life. I think you could have sold that type of story without having to make Chris a bad guy, but we pick up 16 years later. He's had 16 years to wrap his head around being a father and he still hasn't really done it. That sort of says some not great things about a person. But the show wants the "will they, won't they" story between Lor and Chris and it's just not the type of show to pair Lor with a total asshole so Chris's past involvement with Rory and the reason's for it and how good a Dad he is change dramatically depending on if the show wants us to be rooting for Lorilie/Chris or not.

[readster]

And don't forget the mysterious and apparently invisible Mr. Kim.  He's referenced but doesn't sleep in the same bed as Mrs. Kim and doesn't materialize to walk his only child down the aisle.  What the hell is THAT all about?

 

 Sometimes I believe that ASP was trying to mock Fraiser with the character of Marise. After all, Niles wife was never seen on screen and yet so many plots revolved around her making Niles life so difficult. However, as Kesley Grammer later said after the show ended that the writers were out of ideas with her and decided to just use her as a passing reference like an ex wife, boyfriend, girlfriend, ect. What really made it bad was that apparently Mr. Kim was alive and breathing but we never saw him and we were expected to think that Mrs. Kim made all the decisions and he had no business with her decisions or major things in his own daughter's life style. I feel it was a running joke that ended up putting them in a corner when either they should have explained he was always traveling, dead, divorced or something else. It was really, really bad use just like: "Tell don't show" Gilmore Girls was famous for.

Honestly though, in regards to Chris, I don't know how anyone could come up with a consistent character that served the purposes that the show wanted him to. If the show had been picking up when Rory was still a young child (6 or 7 maybe) you could have had Chris re-enter her life without it showing major character flaws on his part. He was 16, maybe he didn't want to keep the baby but Lor did, he tried for a while but he and Lor fight, he's a kid and didn't know what to do, his parents pull some strings and get him into college far away to get him away from the situation, he's gone and graduated and grown up and comes back to own up to his mistakes and be a part of Rory's life. I think you could have sold that type of story without having to make Chris a bad guy, but we pick up 16 years later. He's had 16 years to wrap his head around being a father and he still hasn't really done it. That sort of says some not great things about a person. But the show wants the "will they, won't they" story between Lor and Chris and it's just not the type of show to pair Lor with a total asshole so Chris's past involvement with Rory and the reason's for it and how good a Dad he is change dramatically depending on if the show wants us to be rooting for Lorilie/Chris or not.

Amen!

[dustylil]

Of course, there is another possible explanation for "Maris". The on-going gag had worked so well as "Vera" in the earlier show Cheers, that the Frasier crew  simply decided to use the idea along when the character decamped to Seattle.

Edited January 31, 2015 by dustylil

[amensisterfriend]

So many interesting comments! 

 

I think one thing about GG that makes the show so unique and also occasionally so maddening is that it's generally a 'stylized' show rather than a realistic one. So even though the underlying emotions and insights and all that are real, the actual scenes, dialogue and characterizations tend to be exaggerated for effect. (And a lot of the stuff we viewers nitpick, like how soon certain SH businesses would likely close in real life or the show's uneven depiction of the Gilmores' finances or even where the hell certain people's parents were etc. were probably rarely even discussed by the writers, as realism always came a VERY distant second to creating this certain vibrant, unique, hyper-quirky world AS-P envisioned!)

 

Take my beloved Paris: she's a 'type' many of us can relate to, but the neurotic nuttiness that makes her so memorable and amusing a character to me is often *so* over the top that it's often hard to evaluate her behavior as I would a 'real' person. Same goes for Lorelai, Luke, etc., albeit to a slightly lesser extent. I think the over-the-top-ness (yes, I'm pretending that's a word!) is part of what made many of these characters so vivid and memorable, but I also definitely think the show sometimes miscalculated just how wildly over the top they could go for comedic or even dramatic effect without alienating portions of its audience. That's especially true when it came to stuff like Lorelai's endless, juvenile babbling, Luke's temper issues, having Logan sleep with every freaking bridesmaid, making Jess as exaggeratedly rude as he often was, etc.

 

I wonder if that's why many consider this an ideal show about which to write fanfic---we were drawn into this unique place filled with so many different characters and various types of relationships that had so much potential and captured our imaginations (or, in some cases, just captured our ire---but I digress!), and yet even our favorite characters/relationships were often annoying and/or inconsistent enough to compel us to right (write?!) the wrongs and fill in gaps...hence fanfic and, for that  matter, the ongoing discussions we still enjoy here about the different ways in which so many aspects of the show can be perceived. I guess that's how I justify this show still being my all-time favorite despite its many (many, many, MANY!) flaws---even its most egregious missteps interest me and inspire me to write, even if it's just writing here about stuff I deem snark-worthy :) 

Edited February 1, 2015 by amensisterfriend

[txhorns79]

Take my beloved Paris: she's a 'type' many of us can relate to, but the neurotic nuttiness that makes her so memorable and amusing a character to me is often *so* over the top that it's often hard to evaluate her behavior as I would a 'real' person.

 

I absolutely loved Paris' breakdown (on national television!) after failing to get into Harvard.  That was a perfect Paris moment, and it felt entirely real.  Then they took it too far with her Yale Daily News insanity that made her seem unbalanced.       

[dustylil]

Getting back to GG characters and fallout for a moment  - poor old  Paris was definitely a GG character who suffered from irredeemable fallout from her conduct - her emotional collapse  led  to her exclusion  from Harvard, where generations of Gellers had attended. One would hope she didn't think her decision to go to England that summer with Asher actually led to his death.

 

For Lane on the other hand I felt considerably less sympathy. After all, there was nothing preventing her from attending college or community college once her mother turfed her out. She was in good health and had no obligations. Millions of people do it all the time. As to her getting pregnant on her honeymoon - she watched movies and television shows - surely she should have expected some sexual activity at that point in her marriage.  She and Zach should have been  appropriately prepared for that eventuality. Of course maybe they were emulating Elvis and Priscilla :)

[txhorns79]

I guess that's how I justify this show still being my all-time favorite despite its many (many, many, MANY!) flaws---even its most egregious missteps interest me and inspire me to write, even if it's just writing here about stuff I deem snark-worthy :)

 

For all its faults, I think there are a lot of good moments.  Sometimes the writing can be all over the place, but when they nail it, they really nail it. 

 

 

poor old  Paris was definitely a GG character who suffered from irredeemable fallout from her conduct - her emotional collapse  led  to her exclusion  from Harvard, where generations of Gellers had attended.

 

I'm not sure what "emotional collapse" Paris had prior to her finding out she was rejected by Harvard.  What are you referring to?  Her breakdown on C-Span happened after she was rejected.  And obviously she played her insane interview tape with the Harvard admission people to show us why she was rejected, but that can pretty easily be chalked up to a combination of nervousness and likely over-preparing for the interview.  As far as I recall, there was nothing to suggest she had some kind of breakdown prior to finding out Harvard rejected her.     

Edited February 1, 2015 by txhorns79

[scarynikki12]

I still can't believe that Paris didn't get into Harvard.  If her father was new money and she was the first in her family with the opportunity to attend Ivy League schools, then I could understand why a nutty interview could tip the scales when up against thousands who had the same qualifications.  That would make some sense.  But Paris was a Geller, the latest in a long line of Gellers to apply to Harvard.  Paris isn't one to exaggerate, as it would hurt her chances to win a debate, so I have to assume that her assertion that ten generations of Gellers before her had gone to Harvard was true.  Paris would be a shoe in even if her grades were only a little above average based on that legacy alone.  Yet she didn't get in.  Her father was able to call Yale, a school that was not connected to the Geller family in any way, and use his influence to make Rory her roommate but he couldn't make a call to reverse her rejection?  Even Warner Huntington III was able to get into Harvard Law School thanks to his father's influence yet Paris had to let go of her lifelong Harvard plan?  It just didn't make any sense.

[txhorns79]

If her father was new money and she was the first in her family with the opportunity to attend Ivy League schools, then I could understand why a nutty interview could tip the scales when up against thousands who had the same qualifications.

 

I get what you are saying, but I will say she sounded full on crazy in that interview.  What did Paris compare herself to, a meth addict?   

[scarynikki12]

Something like that, I'd have to rewatch the episode to make sure though.  I agree she sounded completely nuts but I'd think that wouldn't matter when put up against her family's legacy at the school.  I also think it's an easy wank to believe that the Geller family, being so proud of that legacy that Paris grew up knowing she was expected to attend, would be major alumni contributors as well and any family member who met the qualifications would automatically be admitted. 

 

I'd much rather see Paris get admitted and then decide to go to Yale as an act of rebellion against her parents or something.  Or she and Rory both attend Harvard like they'd originally planned and the college shenanigans take place there.  I get why they went to Yale, as all shows send their characters to college in or near the hometown to keep them close for story purposes, but the show was set in New England.  Towns are much closer together up there and they could have pulled off sending them to Harvard and keeping Stars Hollow in the mix.  It would have required a bit more creativity and exposition (ie, make a point of saying that Rory schedules all her classes in the morning so that she can make the Friday Night Dinners) but it could work.  Of course, if Rory had gone to Harvard like she'd planned, then Lorelai couldn't go back and forth on move in day or drop by with her latest shopping haul despite not having an income, and we can't have that.

[FozzyBear]

I liked that Rory went to Yale. Outside of it being Haaaaaarvaaaard, Rory never really had a solid reason to want to go. I mean who wouldn't want to go to Harvard, but it always felt a little bit like arbitrary smart person school. Isn't Columbia supposed to be the Ivy for journalism? Harvard akways just felt like stand-in Ivy League anyway.

In any case, Harvard is something I put in the "they never expected this show to be a hit" pile. I really don't think they thought they would get more than 2 or 3 seasons max. I mean it's a weird, stylized little show that borders on magic realism with no nudity, swearing, sex, drug use, or a big star to anchor it. At the same time that HBO was setting very naughty standards for smart TV. I totally get why the writers might have felt like a long term game plan was a waste of time. So I feel like certain things (Harvard, dead beat Chris, Lor and Luke being friends despite the chemistry the actors had) just weren't really mapped out for a 4 to 10 year run. So when the show became a hit and it becomes obvious around S2/S3 the writers are starting to think long term you get some disjointed narratives. To me it's not the early seasons are better/worse than the latter ones, it's just apparent that the writers have different game plans. I actually like the later seasons because the writers start to relax into stories that they are pretty sure they have multiple seasons to explore and evaluate and dig into. Many of our favorite characters are less likable, but I like that the writers will allow those types of stories a little bit.

I've heard a similar story about Friends. The writers never intended the Ross/Rachel story to go more than S1, but then JA and DS had pretty good chemistry and fans latched onto the couple and the show became a monster hit. All of a sudden the writers found that they had sort of written themselves into a corner and more or less spent the rest of the show trying to get out of it. I think in S1 and 2 the GG writers painted themselves into a couple of similar corners they never knew quite how to get out of.

Still love the show!

[txhorns79]

Outside of it being Haaaaaarvaaaard, Rory never really had a solid reason to want to go. I mean who wouldn't want to go to Harvard, but it always felt a little bit like arbitrary smart person school. Isn't Columbia supposed to be the Ivy for journalism? Harvard akways just felt like stand-in Ivy League anyway.

 

I think Rory's only real reason to want to go to Harvard was because her mother wanted her to, and I think the only reason Lorelai was so gung ho on Harvard was because it was Yale's biggest rival.  Therefore, it was just another thing which she could use to oppose her parents.  I mean, I can't recall Lorelai ever actually offering any reason why she was so intent on Rory going to Harvard as opposed to another school.           

Edited February 2, 2015 by txhorns79

[HeySandyStrange]

For Lane on the other hand I felt considerably less sympathy. After all, there was nothing preventing her from attending college or community college once her mother turfed her out. She was in good health and had no obligations. Millions of people do it all the time

 

Well, that was one of the many unrealistic aspects of GG, that there seemed to be little to no middle ground between OMG Ivy Leagues! and high school graduates who usually managed to be  successful.  It would have been interesting to see Lane go to a 2 year college and complete some degree/career training that would set her up with a secure job, but that doesn't have the fairy tale aspect of her being in a underground band and waitressing on the side. 

[txhorns79]

It would have been interesting to see Lane go to a 2 year college and complete some degree/career training that would set her up with a secure job, but that doesn't have the fairy tale aspect of her being in a underground band and waitressing on the side.

 

What, you mean Lane going to junior college to get training to become a dental assistant isn't a particularly sexy storyline? 

[solotrek]

Well, that was one of the many unrealistic aspects of GG, that there seemed to be little to no middle ground between OMG Ivy Leagues! and high school graduates who usually managed to be  successful.

 

Dave Rigalski seemed to be able to go off to college with no problems.

[FozzyBear]

Dave Rigalski seemed to be able to go off to college with no problems.

Well yeah, but he got into the University of I Got a Starring Role on Another TV Show. Crappy footbal team, but I hear the campus is pretty.

[readster]

 

All of a sudden the writers found that they had sort of written themselves into a corner and more or less spent the rest of the show trying to get out of it. I think in S1 and 2 the GG writers painted themselves into a couple of similar corners they never knew quite how to get out of.

 

 

 Oh that was evident a lot of times. As many of us have said a lot of characters had inconsistent histories such as Christopher, Lane's parents, Kirk, Taylor, ect. There was even a comment once on one of Kirk's jobs where Luke asked how he could be doing that job when he had worked as an opposing position a few episodes back. Kirk responded: "Its kind of complicated." Or how Jackson was dragged out to be snipped and then Melissa McCarthy got pregnant again in real life and the writers went with: "He faked it." Much like Sherry all of a sudden ditching Georgia and Chistopher because it wasn't the life she envisioned to make Chris look sympathetic and why Georgia was a spoiled brat because Chris didn't know how to teach her "no". I just rolled my eyes at them all. I remember my favorite former tv show Everwood got hung up on the Madison is pregnant storyline because they just decided to see where it went when Sarah Lancaster had just been casted on a new series right before they even filmed the episode. Sadly the creators of the show were so hung up on Sarah Lancaster and after the series ended they even admitted they wrote themselves in a corner and could have easily just written it as: "She had a miscarriage but everyone hid it from Ephram." and it could have still had the same impact about being left in the dark when everyone else knew. Sadly, shows like GG, Friends and more get in these spots and then go: "Maybe we shouldn't have done that." 

[amensisterfriend]

I don't think ANY of my personal top 10 episodes hail from S4---and if you've seen other people's lists, you know how unpopular that is :) I've watched The Fundamental Things Apply more times than I can count, but even that one is more of a diverting 'comfort food' episode than one that I think is a truly superior episode. And while The Lorelais' First Day at Yale will always resonate me, there's tons about that episode which irks me beyond the telling of it. Then again, I also hold the very UOs of thinking The Hobbit, The Sofa... and Die, Jerk are among my personal top 5-6 favorites of that season, so all of my opinions about s4 should probably be taken with many grains of salt :) 

[readster]

 I was a fan of Rory and Paris's roommates in season 4 and I hated how they were just gone the following season. They really brought something different to the show and still had their quirks. I enjoyed that when they talked about Lane being there it made sense or Paris hiding her relationship and breaking up with Jaime. Telling her she just hates the fact she can't have things both ways. These were characters that told it how it is, brought something different for the show and could have really gone places after season 4. Yet... they were ditched to bring up things with Logan and the LADB and Rory's ill relationship with Dean and later breakdown.

[amensisterfriend]

Random but deeply unpopular opinion inspired by a recent search of screencaps:

 

For all his/her/their problems, Lorelai just seemed happier around Christopher than any other love interest to me. I've tried hard not to see things that way, but my eyes keep betraying me! The actress and actor just kind of light up around each other, and they seemed so connected and compatible to me.* Would I feel differently about both Luke and Christopher and their connection/chemistry with Lorelai if they had been written just as they were but played by different actors? Quite likely, yes, but I still think Lorelai/Luke might seem too different and incompatible for my personal taste. I just didn't feel that as a couple L/L truly "got" each other or were on the same wavelength. (Except in fanfic, of course, where they're utterly awesome!)  The differences that once made for sparkly banter and sexual tension now just made them seem joyless and disconnected to me. Pretty much the only time I found myself agreeing with Liz was when she remarked after L/L's breakup in S7 that they had never seemed 'in sync' or whatever...and you guys know how much it pains me to agree with Liz! 

 

*Related UO:...I genuinely liked the L/C scenes in French Twist...a lot :) I think they were among the more genuinely romantic of the series, and I found myself rooting for their marriage to succeed despite knowing Luke was the inevitable 'end game.' I'll show myself the door :) 

Edited February 5, 2015 by amensisterfriend

[solotrek]

The actress and actor just kind of light up around each other, and they seemed so connected and compatible to me.* Would I feel differently about both Luke and Christopher and their connection/chemistry with Lorelai if they had been written just as they were but played by different actors?

 

Probably because from what I see from their twitters and other things, Scott Paterson and Lauren Graham are just diametrically opposite people and probably not the greatest of friends on set. Since LG is basically playing a hyped up variant of herself and it seems like the same for SP, and from what I've seen from their other work, seem to be great at playing +/-10% themselves, probably couldn't bring the passion on screen. They worked well for the roles they played and with that you can see why they were supposed to be a great couple. Just didn't necessarily work when it came to the actors to "bring it".

 

It's kind of like, while Logan is my favorite of Rory's boyfriend. There's no denying the passion and spark that you see in the Jess/Rory relationship, and that's no doubt due to Milo and Alexis' relationship at the time.

[amensisterfriend]

It's kind of like, while Logan is my favorite of Rory's boyfriend. There's no denying the passion and spark that you see in the Jess/Rory relationship, and that's no doubt due to Milo and Alexis' relationship at the time.

 

It's so true! I was thinking of this as well. The difference for me is that I've come around to holding the (still apparently pretty unpopular!) view that Logan is the best match for Rory overall, while I'm not sure that objectively I think Lorelai should be with either Luke OR Christopher---I just think she has far better chemistry and more of a natural connection with the latter :) 

[amensisterfriend]

Probably because from what I see from their twitters and other things, Scott Paterson and Lauren Graham are just diametrically opposite people and probably not the greatest of friends on set. Since LG is basically playing a hyped up variant of herself and it seems like the same for SP, and from what I've seen from their other work, seem to be great at playing +/-10% themselves, probably couldn't bring the passion on screen.

 

It's funny, because I rarely know or care about actors' offscreen relationships, but this is probably the one case where I immediately found myself thinking "these actors must really loathe sharing scenes..." They seemed to pretty much dread even showing any affection and could barely bring themselves to smile! 

[dustylil]

And yet Lauren Graham herself has commented that she wanted to be more demonstrable in her scenes with Scott Patterson in Seasons 5 and 6 but was told by the powers-that-be that she was not to.

[amensisterfriend]

That may well be true, dusty, but, with respect, I hold the UO that LG and SP had a very tough time selling it when they WERE asked to be affectionate. You can actually see them wincing a bit when they had to exchange even quick pecks. So for me it's not just about how frequently they were directed to show affection, but how unnatural and awkward it felt to me when we did see it. 

[dustylil]

amen (hmm, why do I suddenly feel that I am back at the Baptist churches of my childhood - but I digress), I don't think your opinion regarding SP and LG is unpopular in the least.

That was why I was surprised when I read Ms Graham's comments that the lack of physicality between the two  was the director's choice, not that of the actors. Based on comments at our former home (sob!) and elsewhere, I had thought there was tension if not animosity between SP and LG and that was - quite unprofessionally I thought - reflected in their scenes together.

 

I will willingly stipulate that David Sutcliffe is a far, far better dance that Scott Patterson and that he and Lauren Graham were quite charming in that Season 2 scene.

 

 

[amensisterfriend]

I had thought there was tension if not animosity between SP and LG and that was - quite unprofessionally I thought - reflected in their scenes together.

 

So interesting, dusty! (And I apologize for my avatar giving you flashbacks!) I never knew that animosity between LG and SP was established---I thought it was more just a vague fanwank among some of the viewers who, like yours truly, were searching for reasons why they seemed to have so little chemistry.  Either way, I'm sure there are many, many actors who don't get along offscreen but manage to muster up more of an attraction and connection ONscreen :) It's one reason why I hold the UO of not praising LG's acting quite as highly most do---she really couldn't sell me remotely on being genuinely in love with Luke, and acted way too happy around Christopher given that he was clearly canon fodder :) 

 

 

 

I will willingly stipulate that David Sutcliffe is a far, far better dance that Scott Patterson and that he and Lauren Graham were quite charming in that Season 2 scene.

 

They just seemed so glowing and happy around each other. I remember actually researching to see whether they were close in real life :) 

Edited February 5, 2015 by amensisterfriend

[txhorns79]

I never knew that animosity between LG and SP was established---I thought it was more just a vague fanwank among some of the viewers who, like yours truly, were searching for reasons why they seemed to have so little chemistry.

 

Here is what Scott Patterson said in a 2007 interview with TV Guide about the situation:

 

Over the years there's been speculation that you and Lauren had some rocky times. Would you say that's accurate?

 

Patterson: No, I think it's not accurate. I think it's really inaccurate. And I think people thrive on rumor and innuendo; that sells papers, gets people to click on websites. Lauren has always been pretty much the rock of that whole production. She did the lion's share of the work, and she did it with real aplomb. I wouldn't have wanted that schedule. Not for 10 minutes would I have wanted that schedule. I mean, that schedule would've broken a workhorse, and she just plowed through it every day and it was pretty amazing to watch. We would hear those things and just laugh. We had a very comfortable working relationship. I enjoyed doing scenes with her because I knew she was going to hit the ball back over the net as good as she got. All of that stuff is just overblown.

 

 

I'm not sure what source dustylil is citing for her comments about LG and SP being told not to act as intimate with each other during scenes. 

Edited February 5, 2015 by txhorns79

[junienmomo]

I'm not sure what source dustylil is citing for her comments about LG and SP being told not to act as intimate with each other during scenes. 

 

I don't know her source either, but I did some googling last year when I saw the engagement scene for the first time. Totally unbelievable that they wouldn't touch, then the kiss was accompanied by sarcasm.

Sometime during that research I read someone saying the showrunners kept L/L apart, maybe it was from LG.

Sometimes I wonder (giving the showrunners more charity than they deserve) if they made rules like that to emphasize that the L/L relationship had a different foundation than the L/C relationship, which to me was always 13 y.o. girl love-dovey.

[takalotti]

I vaguely remember ASP saying somewhere that once L/L got together she didn't want their relationship to be all "You're pretty" "No, YOU'RE pretty" because that would be boring.

I get where she was coming from; In most cases of "sexual tension before a TV couple starts dating," if they just become a shmoopy couple afterwards then all the spark from that previous tension is gone.

Trouble is, I just don't think that ASP was good at creating some alternate conflict. So everything came soap-operay.

[readster]

I vaguely remember ASP saying somewhere that once L/L got together she didn't want their relationship to be all "You're pretty" "No, YOU'RE pretty" because that would be boring.

I get where she was coming from; In most cases of "sexual tension before a TV couple starts dating," if they just become a shmoopy couple afterwards then all the spark from that previous tension is gone.

Trouble is, I just don't think that ASP was good at creating some alternate conflict. So everything came soap-operay.

 

 Oh I agree, ASP's sense of conflict was either way over the top or she didn't want to do it. I remember when Jackson yelled at Lorelai for using Luke to fill in for Sookie why she was on bedrest. It didn't come off as someone defending his wife it came off like a complete jerk who didn't know the whole story. Also, when the doctor says bed rest, that includes not going on a go cart train to check in on them. She is lucky she didn't have the baby right there and then. It wasn't funny, it came off as a woman obsessed who put her baby and herself in danger. 

[junienmomo]

I vaguely remember ASP saying somewhere that once L/L got together she didn't want their relationship to be all "You're pretty" "No, YOU'RE pretty" because that would be boring.

Trouble is, I just don't think that ASP was good at creating some alternate conflict. So everything came soap-operay.

 

Wow. There was a LOT of room between schmoopy and what she did to the L/L relationship. Maybe subtlety wasn't her strong point. 

When I think of the Christopher/Lorelai relationship, it always seemed schmoopy to me. He never seemed to be his own person with his own life. It got worse when they married. All he brought to the marriage was a pile of schmoop and a bigger pile of money. I wonder if he hero-worshipped Lorelai.

 

If repetition is any indicator, apparently I like the word schmoopy. ;)

Schmoopy Schnickelfritz. LOL

[JayInChicago]

"She is lucky she didn't have the baby right there and then."

 

that was all so ridiculous ugh.

and then the same bed rest yet mobile thing happened with Lane, too. 

[Guest]

Wow. There was a LOT of room between schmoopy and what she did to the L/L relationship. Maybe subtlety wasn't her strong point.

 

 

You don't say. ;)

[Guest]

One of my more unpopular opinions is I hate, hate, hate Lorelai's First Day at Yale.  It is probably one of my top 10 least favorite episodes (assuming I can count all of Season 7 as one episode). Lorelai is probably at her absolute worst in this episode. Lies to Luke and completely takes advantage of him, lies to the Yale tour lady, wastes money on tons of food, and acts like Rory has to have absolutely everything she could possibly want.  

 

Another unpopular opinion - Lorelai was not a good parent. I mean, she was no Liz, but she's not a great parent. I think most of Rory's problems in Seasons 5-6 stemmed from the fact that Lorelai raised her to think she was above reproach and that anyone who criticized her was wrong.  Rory didn't have the skills to cope with the types of disappointments that you face as an adult because she never had to face them. She couldn't even tell her grandma she wanted to go home after dinner; she had to have Lorelai come and "rescue" her.  Rory was an adult at that point; the whole thing was ridiculous.

[solotrek]

She couldn't even tell her grandma she wanted to go home after dinner; she had to have Lorelai come and "rescue" her.  Rory was an adult at that point; the whole thing was ridiculous.

 

She couldn't even tell her grandmother that the reason that Lorelai wasn't there was because she had to do Rory's last minute college shopping. Instead let her grandparents think that Lorelai was just not there to spite them or something.

[txhorns79]

I think most of Rory's problems in Seasons 5-6 stemmed from the fact that Lorelai raised her to think she was above reproach and that anyone who criticized her was wrong.  Rory didn't have the skills to cope with the types of disappointments that you face as an adult because she never had to face them.

 

I honestly thought Rory's problems stemmed from the fact that she had a mother who put being a "friend" first, and mother second.  This made it so Lorelai couldn't step in the way a parent could to discuss Rory's issues.  Instead, we got occasional glimpses of "mom" mode, but for the most part Lorelai approached Rory like she was afraid of losing her friend, rather than doing what was right for her daughter.   

 

 

Lorelai is probably at her absolute worst in this episode. Lies to Luke and completely takes advantage of him, lies to the Yale tour lady, wastes money on tons of food, and acts like Rory has to have absolutely everything she could possibly want.

 

Lorelai's attitude towards Luke definitely sucks during the episode.  She majorly takes advantage of his generosity, and acts way too cutesy about it.  

[readster]

 

I honestly thought Rory's problems stemmed from the fact that she had a mother who put being a "friend" first, and mother second.  This made it so Lorelai couldn't step in the way a parent could to discuss Rory's issues.  Instead, we got occasional glimpses of "mom" mode, but for the most part Lorelai approached Rory like she was afraid of losing her friend, rather than doing what was right for her daughter.

 

  That's the main thing, Lorelai went on record telling Emily and others that her and Rory were friends first and then Mother and Daughter and as many people pointed out even the show's creators, that was a hard act to follow and at times would backfire. Granted I think ASP and company really didn't know how to write the backfiring of the situation and many times they wouldn't even have Lorelai admit that being a parent is hard, especially single and you can't be their best friend. Yet, constantly, it showed that Lorelai didn't want to lose her "friend" not step in and telling Rory things a parent should tell their child. That no everyone is going to find you "great" if you do something really stupid, I am going to get mad and not be happy with the choice you make. 

  Many times I know Lane wanted her mother to be more like Lorelai, Mrs. Kim was the extreme parent, even more so than Emily and even more, she left no room for conversation if Lane had a problem with something. It was: "My way or the highway and the highway is still too good for you." This also put onto Rory, the girl had no backbone. She couldn't tell Emily why Lorelai wasn't there. She couldn't tell Mitchum he was wrong about her. She couldn't tell Shira and the grandfather: "Excuse me?" "What did I ever do?" "You don't even know me!" Yet, she go running crying to grandpa or Lorelai when she didn't get her way. The only time she stood up for herself was telling Taylor and the rest of Stars Hollow she can't be the ice cream princess anymore. She has a life and they still believed they could snap their fingers and she do as she was told. 

[amensisterfriend]

Lorelai's attitude towards Luke definitely sucks during the episode.  She majorly takes advantage of his generosity, and acts way too cutesy about it.

 

Agreed, but I actually hold the very UO of thinking their dynamic often brings out the least likable sides of BOTH characters---even when they were just friends. You guys are so right about Lorelai taking blithe advantage of Luke's generosity and thinking that being ever so 'adorable' (i.e., overly cutesy and annoying) makes up for it. Meanwhile, bitter, angry, killjoy Luke is so often squashing giddy Lorelai's life-loving enthusiasm and/or simply annoyed and bewildered by her. She always has to beg him to snap out of his perpetual life-loathing negativity to do even the simplest little things, which he usually does with a total lack of graciousness, like joining her for that carriage ride in Bracebridge. And even their S1-S4 conflicts bug me so much. She says and does dumb, impulsive things and then pleads and pleads with him to accept her apologies---he freezes her out, gives her the silent treatment for what always seems like way too long a time given her 'offense' and seems allergic to ever uttering the words "I'm sorry" himself, even when he needs to. Honestly, guys, I've probably allowed my dislike of their joyless, chemistry-free 'romance' taint my view of their friendship, but now even in those earlier seasons they're just kind of exhausting to me! I've started to prefer both Luke and Lorelai in their scenes with most other characters than when they're with each other :)  

ETA: ITA with you guys re Lorelai far too often parenting as a friend first and a mom second, as is probably natural given their relatively narrow age gap...and yet I still think Lorelai's an amazing mom nonetheless :) Yes, she and her parenting style have VERY definite flaws, and I'm glad those were evident at various points in the series. Overall, though, she was warm, loving, supportive, fun, energetic and---when it came to Rory---surprisingly selfless. I have A LOT of issues with Lorelai, but while her mothering certainly wasn't perfect---and nor was it supposed to be---I  think she was easily one of the best parents on the show. Then again, that's a really low bar :)  

Edited February 12, 2015 by amensisterfriend

[Taryn74]

I think my UO is that I don't think Mrs. Kim was so terribly strict and oppressive at all.

 

I think much of what we assume about Mrs. Kim came from Lane's assumptions and not from Mrs. Kim herself.  And much like Lorelai was often wrong about Emily and her motives, Lane was often wrong about her mother.  We just didn't get to see "the other side" of Mrs. Kim as much, the way we did Emily.

[amensisterfriend]

I think most of Rory's problems in Seasons 5-6 stemmed from the fact that Lorelai raised her to think she was above reproach and that anyone who criticized her was wrong.  Rory didn't have the skills to cope with the types of disappointments that you face as an adult because she never had to face them.

 

I think this is attributable to a few things---you're certainly right about Lorelai's parenting being a factor, as was the insanely doting adoration of the small, sheltered town she grew up in and the fact that beyond receiving (gasp!) one poor grade, she had a remarkably charmed life! She didn't know how to deal with rejection, criticism and adversity because she simply hadn't had to face much of it. And that brings me to my UO that I kind of love that Rory had those flaws---being such a passive people pleaser for fear of those being angry with her, being unable to cope with life's harsh realities, being clueless about how many facets of 'real' life work, etc. They kept her from being too 'perfect' a character and were, for me, very relatable and realistic flaws that stemmed organically from her personality and upbringing. Now, like most fans, I often wasn't too thrilled with how the writers dealt with the actual manifestation of these flaws or some of the storylines that stemmed from them---but I'm very glad she had them :) 

Edited February 12, 2015 by amensisterfriend

[JayInChicago]

The Ls first Day at Yale ruined the word mattress for me. it almost ruined mattresses themselves for me.

 

Is buying a mattress for a dorm room actually a thing? i only lived in a dorm one year but i definitely just used the school provided mattress. lol

[txhorns79]

Is buying a mattress for a dorm room actually a thing? i only lived in a dorm one year but i definitely just used the school provided mattress.

 

I guess if the mattress appeared gross enough, you might do it.  I'm liked you, I just used the one they provided. 

 

 

Overall, though, she was warm, loving, supportive, fun, energetic and---when it came to Rory---surprisingly selfless.

 

I would say selfless mixed, at times, with martyrdom.  I think Lorelai's identity was very much wrapped up in the idea that she had grown up a "poor little rich girl" with oppressive, awful parents and how she had freed herself from that "burden" so to speak to raise her child on her own.  

Edited February 13, 2015 by txhorns79

[TyranAmiros]

Lorelai wanted to be the anti-parent--everything the opposite of how her parents treated her.  So while she was incredibly loving and brought fun and excitement into Rory's life, Lorelai only put boundaries around herself--she wouldn't date, she would be honest with Rory, she would make sure Rory had every opportunity.  Rory didn't have those kinds of boundaries because Lorelai never found herself in a position growing up where she felt she needed more parental involvement.

 

On Rory's First Day At Yale, I thought Lorelai's idea for a takeout party was awesome.  The mattress bit was a bit much, though I could certainly relate to the "I completely forgot to buy X before arriving!"  I think we bonded during orientation more on trips to Target than anything else. 

 

I also think that was an episode I would have liked to have seen Chris in.  Maybe in an AU where Gigi doesn't exist, Chris and Lorelai team up to help Rory move in.

[Tangerine]

I've heard the rumours that LG and SP didn't really get along but I had heard it was just more of a difference in acting styles, which based on LG's real life interviews I can totally see.

 

I also have the UO that I enjoyed Lorelai and Christopher's relationship a lot more based on just how much they seemed to actually enjoy each other's company. But I think watching it now that I'm older, their relationship was really a lot like two people trying to recapture this fun, easy romance they had in their youth. They weren't particularly good at dealing with important issues that came up in their relationship.

 

One big illogical moment for me was how Chris was apparently totally okay with Lorelai spending hours in the hospital with Luke when April was getting surgery, but becomes all insecure and jealous upon seeing her with Liz's baby. I feel like at this point they just needed some contrived excuse for tension in their relationship because they had gotten to the point where it was like "Wait a minute...Lorelai and Chris have a really healthy relationship, how the heck are we going to get her back together with Luke?!" And also, Lorelai commends Chris for being upfront about Sherry being in contact...and then turns around and hides the reference letter she writes for Luke.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Tangerine

[amensisterfriend]

One big illogical moment for me was how Chris was apparently totally okay with Lorelai spending hours in the hospital with Luke when April was getting surgery, but becomes all insecure and jealous upon seeing her with Liz's baby. I feel like at this point they just needed some contrived excuse for tension in their relationship because they had gotten to the point where it was like "Wait a minute...Lorelai and Chris have a really healthy relationship, how the heck are we going to get her back together with Luke?!" And also, Lorelai commends Chris for being upfront about Sherry being in contact...and then turns around and hides the reference letter she writes for Luke.

 

Want to sit at my table?! I'll bring the snacks...and the giant mugs of coffee :) 

 

Your post awesomely captures my issue with that S7 Chris/Lorelai arc---it seemed like things were LEGITIMATELY going really well until the writers were issued a reminder that Luke is supposed to be the 'end game', at which point they hastily and sloppily made Christopher regress in ways totally and completely inconsistent with who he'd been shown to be that season. I get that we weren't supposed to see it that way---we were supposed to believe that deep down Lorelai was never happy with Christopher and always felt her heart was still with Luke---but IMO that really failed to come across in the acting and the writing. As you said, Christopher/Lorelai actually had a pretty healthy marriage, at least in my very UO, coming across as a whole lot happier and more connected and compatible than Luke and Lorelai ever were while dating.

 

I could have gotten behind the whole 'Chris was part of who she was as a teen---Luke is the one for the woman she is NOW!' theme, if IMO they hadn't (no doubt unintentionally) shown us that she and Christopher DID still connect very well as adults and that Lorelai and Luke seemed so devoid of chemistry and joy.  The pacing was just so off, the writing was whiplash-inducing, and IMO someone should have told LG and David Sutcliffe to act a lot less in love if we were going to be asked to believe what they tossed our way a few episodes later. (By the way, I actually hadn't wanted Christopher and Lorelai to date in S7---but, once they did, I was totally taken by their connection and chemistry. It's the reverse of Luke/Lorelai, who I DID  want to see date, only to soon realize that i should have been careful what i wished for :) 

Edited February 13, 2015 by amensisterfriend