One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions

[scarynikki12]

Why else would they choose France for a venue?

 

Good point.  Then that's the secret, way too subtle, reason Emily was pushing for an after the fact wedding for them.  She knew it couldn't possibly be legal and planned to make it so while simultaneously throwing the wedding she'd had in her head all those years. 

[txhorns79]

When people say that shows should be planned out -- well, that's the kind of thing that showrunners really can't plan for.

 

I would disagree.  If they truly wanted to have guaranteed Sutcliffe's appearance, they could have contracted with him early on to where he appeared in Gilmore Girls a set number of episodes each season, and just include a clause in his contract requiring that his Gilmore Girls job took precedence over other jobs.  It's like when a show may be on the verge of cancellation and you read stories about the actors from the show auditioning for pilots.  Even if the actor ends up being cast in a pilot that goes to series, the actor is still contractually obligated to appear on their original show until it is cancelled and/or they are released from their contract. 

 

I'm not saying I expected that with Sutcliffe, as it likely would have been expensive and perhaps not worth it in terms of his character or the planned storyline.  I'm only saying that you can guarantee an actor's availability if need be. 

[junienmomo]

If they truly wanted to have guaranteed Sutcliffe's appearance, they could have contracted with him early on

I checked over at IMDB, and while there was a lot of TV work for Sutcliffe in that timeframe, I didn't see anything that seemed to actually point to an impossibility for him to continue. This presumes a shooting season of July through Aprilish, depending on the number of episodes.

 

Of course, that doesn't include series that never got to the pilot. 

 

The more I look at the weird decisions, the more I think it may have been really difficult for the Palladino pair to work with the studio management. Plenty of blame to go around, I'm sure, it must be a nightmare when so many powerful people think they should have the final authority.

 

Re: the marriage with Chris. I wonder why the sexual tension with Luke was so strong the first season if the intent was to get L&C married by end S2. L&L would have needed to date in S2 to make Luke a TV-reasonable competition for Chris.

A high-end wedding would have been fun to see. Emily might have gotten her Romanovs after all.

Edited November 14, 2014 by junienmomo

[solotrek]

I'm with you.  Until she was introduced as a semi-regular character, they made her sound like an awful, neglectful parent (and not the Chris version of mostly benign neglect, she had the version where the primary parent seems generally disinterested in being a parent.)  I thought Jess would have been justified in refusing to participate.  It wasn't like he and his mother had a loving relationship.

 

Didn't Jess basically say that he was there because Luke had asked him to be there?  He and his mom also seemed to have a better relationship at that point, calling each other and the such. So maybe a mixture of both.

 

I'm under the impression that the people of Gilmore Girls watched ER and decided they needed to have Kathleen Wilhoite play a similar character as who she played on ER. Except they wrote her to be way too likeable. Invading Luke's personal space and eating his diner food without paying aside, she ended up coming off exactly the same as other people in Stars Hollow. Heck, Lorelei and Sookie are often seen over stepping their bounds at Luke's. They did end up dumping his food in the trash and taking over his kitchen and dining area without bothering to ask first. I get that Liz was at a better place in life when we met her, buy boy was it jarring to finally see her and not get the crazy irresponsible drug addict flake that had been leading up to it.

 

I guess my UO will be that I kind of liked Liz (just a smidge). She definitely had her moments as "god what an awful character", but I think she was a great presence for Luke the character at times. Like April and Jess, Liz was a great way to humanize Luke and show his really protective and sometimes insecure side. Liz basically gave Luke someone to confide in, in a way that he never really did before.

 

TJ was a punce though. I love the Deluise family (you have to if you're Stargate fan, they're all there at one point), but holy crap.

[junienmomo]

Liz was on drugs during some undefined significant portion of Jess' childhood. Perfect reason to take a kid away from a parent, and dumb TV luck that she had a reliable brother to send him to, even though it would have been better many years earlier.

 

Didn't the diner takeover happen 6 or 7 years into L&L's friendship? Sookie did have an instance early on when she flat out played chef when she shouldn't have, which was absolutely wrong.

Nitpick: Even TV folks should wash their hands before touching customers' food. LOL

 

Lorelai had Luke's implicit and explicit permission to behave as a friend/relative type of intimate.

At the rummage sale in S1, Rory teases him about Lorelai being able to convince him to participate with a poster when no one else could, especially Taylor.

Lorelai and Luke specifically agreed on their level of commitment to their relationship in Run Away, Little Boy.

Lorelai and Sookie also offered to leave, no hard feelings, if he said so.

They had no such permission/relationship at Al's or Weston's.

 

That said, I always felt it was bad form of Lorelai to do it so often, and with such apparent nonchalance.

Edited November 14, 2014 by junienmomo

[solotrek]

Didn't the diner takeover happen 6 or 7 years into L&L's friendship? Sookie did have an instance early on when she flat out played chef when she shouldn't have, which was absolutely wrong.

Nitpick: Even TV folks should wash their hands before touching customers' food. LOL

 

I mean it's one thing to go in and ask real quick before coming in and taking over. Luke would obviously say yes. It's another to have your chef walk in scream "Phase 2 phase 2" (or whatever phase it was) over and over again and telling people to throw Luke's food in the trash, bringing in your own food, a hoard of customers, and basically being a massive inconvenience without clearing anything with Luke first.

 

I mean, not even taking into account insurance issues if any accidents happened in the kitchen, people are taking over seats at Luke's diner without having to pay Luke anything. And any customer coming in would be getting Sookie's food (which is what they had offered the people at Luke's already). Since Luke was basically kicked out, that's lost revenue for Luke.

 

The least Lorelei could do, as a friend, is go in 10 seconds before Sookie and the hoard and ask. It's not like it'd be out of the way, she was inside maybe a few seconds after Sookie. They all know and we all know that Luke would never say no to Lorelei. Why be rude about it? Heck, give the guy a phone call since she has a cell phone:"Hey listen, my inn burned down. I have a ton of guests that need a place to eat, do you think we can use your diner, please?"

Edited November 14, 2014 by maculae

[txhorns79]

I'm under the impression that the people of Gilmore Girls watched ER and decided they needed to have Kathleen Wilhoite play a similar character as who she played on ER.

 

I was under the impression that was just her normal acting style.  It's like if you have seen Lauren Graham on Parenthood, the dialogue and character history is different, but I think she plays that character exactly like she played Lorelai.     

[Minneapple]

I would disagree. If they truly wanted to have guaranteed Sutcliffe's appearance, they could have contracted with him early on to where he appeared in Gilmore Girls a set number of episodes each season, and just include a clause in his contract requiring that his Gilmore Girls job took precedence over other jobs. It's like when a show may be on the verge of cancellation and you read stories about the actors from the show auditioning for pilots. Even if the actor ends up being cast in a pilot that goes to series, the actor is still contractually obligated to appear on their original show until it is cancelled and/or they are released from their contract.

I'm not saying I expected that with Sutcliffe, as it likely would have been expensive and perhaps not worth it in terms of his character or the planned storyline. I'm only saying that you can guarantee an actor's availability if need be.

Maybe he chose the new series over being a regular on GG? I think the only way to guarantee an actor's time is by making him a series regular because of union rules.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Minneapple

[Tangerine]

I've been rewatching the series from the beginning thanks to Netflix, and I guess my unpopular opinion is that I liked Tristan. He was an entitled douche, and he very much was the product of his upbringing, but I'm a little disappointed we never got to see him and Rory become friends. I know that was partly based on Chad Michael Murray's availability, but Rory didn't have a single male friend at Chilton that I can recall, and I liked their dynamic when they were talking about the aftermath of their kiss.

[Taryn74]

I liked Tristan too.

[dustylil]

I liked Tristan as well. I never understood why Rory was not allowed to have platonic relationships with the boys that she knew - they were either boyfriends, wannabe boyfriends or castoffs.

[scarynikki12]

My theory, based on very little admittedly, is that Tristan was originally supposed to fill the role that went to Jess when the Chad became unavailable.  I think he was supposed to be Rory's second boyfriend who was screwed up enough that the relationship would end badly.  The first season feels like a set up for that and, since Rory's season 2 story was about how she fell for Jess while being unwilling to break up with Dean, that easily could have applied to Tristan.  She saw Jess a lot because he was Luke's nephew and she eats at the diner daily.  With Tristan she'd see him a lot because of Chilton and I expect they'd be put in the same classes and on projects together had he remained on the show.  Then there was the fact that Dean overreacted to Tristan the way he did Jess because he recognized that the other guy was into Rory.  In season 1 Rory had zero interest in Tristan and so Dean's overreaction went nowhere.  In season 2, during Tristan's lone episode, she acted about Tristan in exactly the same way she did about Jess: that if Dean saw them talking or, in this case, realized they kissed during the season 1 break up period, that Dean would fly off the handle and beat her.  Now, I definitely think some of the abused girlfriend behavior of season 2 was to steer the audience towards Jess with the rest falling on Bledel's acting choices (and she even does some of the same in season 3 during a couple of scene where she tells Lane she has to meet Jess so I think the show took those choices and made them work for the story they were telling).  If Tristan had filled the Jess role that I believe was originally planned for him, I don't know that they would have brought Jess on the canvas at all, or if he'd been presented as Rory's third boyfriend.  I will say that I think Tristan would have been a better choice for Rory during college than bringing on Logan if they truly wanted to show her embracing the Gilmore lifestyle after moving away from Lorelai.  He'd also have the history with the audience.  They would obviously have had to recast but Czuchry's a way better actor than the Chad anyway so no loss there.

[Aloeonatable]

Actually what went down was that CMM wanted to be cast as a regular but the producers wanted to keep him as a recurring character. When he decided to pursue other options, the producers cast Milo as the romantic foil for the Rory/Dean relationship. That way they could expand Luke's story line as well. If I remember correctly, Milo stated in an early interview that he was only supposed to be in a few episodes, but ASP liked him so much that they cast him as a regular. It's hard to say where the Rory/Tristan relationship would have gone if CMM had kept his recurring status. 

 

I never thought that Tristan would become a platonic friend for Rory. I also don't agree that Rory's relationships with Jess and Tristan were similar. Rory was never interested in Tristan even though they kissed. Her kindness toward him in his lone season 2 episode was Rory being Rory. With Jess there was almost an instant attraction. I do agree that Logan was Tristan part 2. 

[Tangerine]

Actually what went down was that CMM wanted to be cast as a regular but the producers wanted to keep him as a recurring character. When he decided to pursue other options, the producers cast Milo as the romantic foil for the Rory/Dean relationship. That way they could expand Luke's story line as well. If I remember correctly, Milo stated in an early interview that he was only supposed to be in a few episodes, but ASP liked him so much that they cast him as a regular. It's hard to say where the Rory/Tristan relationship would have gone if CMM had kept his recurring status. 

 

I never thought that Tristan would become a platonic friend for Rory. I also don't agree that Rory's relationships with Jess and Tristan were similar. Rory was never interested in Tristan even though they kissed. Her kindness toward him in his lone season 2 episode was Rory being Rory. With Jess there was almost an instant attraction. I do agree that Logan was Tristan part 2. 

 

I think Rory being Rory is why they could have become good platonic friends. For as awful as Tristan was, Paris had done way worse things to Rory and they managed to become really good friends. Tristan, for all of his faults, did show signs of being a nice and smart person who just really needed to do some growing up.

 

I agree that I don't think Rory ever showed any romantic interest in Tristan while at Chilton though. I think the Logan/Tristan parallel is spot on in that if Rory and Tristan had ran into one another years later at Yale they might have given it a go. But then we would have lost out on Matt Czuchry, who I really liked as Logan.

[scarynikki12]

Thanks for the background on Tristan and his future with the show.  I also didn't know that about Milo and Jess so thanks for that too.  That actually explains Rory's 180 where Dean is concerned that season.  The season premiere shows her happy to be back with him and then a couple episodes later she's giving Jess googly eyes for writing in her book.  It's almost enough to cause whiplash. 

[amensisterfriend]

I've been rewatching the series from the beginning thanks to Netflix, and I guess my unpopular opinion is that I liked Tristan. He was an entitled douche, and he very much was the product of his upbringing, but I'm a little disappointed we never got to see him and Rory become friends. I know that was partly based on Chad Michael Murray's availability, but Rory didn't have a single male friend at Chilton that I can recall, and I liked their dynamic when they were talking about the aftermath of their kiss.

 

My people!!! I'd dislike Tristan in real life.  In fact, he's actually the type of character I normally dislike on TV as well :) For some reason, though, I really loved...well, not Tristan, exactly, but what he added to the show. I especially appreciated his sharp snarkiness during an often borderline cloying, overly cutesy and sicky-sweet first season. I love the sharp, quietly assertive sides of Rory's character that Tristan brought out, and while I wouldn't have wanted them to end up together romantically, I found Rory far more interesting around Tristan than the infectiously dull Dean. The few times I've attempted to write fanfic, I find myself oddly tempted to work in a reference to how Tristan turned out as an adult. 

 

To make this even more unpopular: in the nonexistent battle of cocky, spoiled, wild and studly blonds, I always preferred Tristan to Logan. Objectively, I realize Logan is a more kind and mature character, but for some bizarre reason I just preferred Tristan and his dynamic with Rory. And as much as I usually don't like Chad Michael Murray in any other role, I actually thought he was a great fit for Tristan and enjoyed him a lot more than Matt C. as Logan. 

Edited November 19, 2014 by amensisterfriend

[solotrek]

. I especially appreciated his sharp snarkiness during an often borderline cloying, overly cutesy and sicky-sweet first season.

 

One of my favorite scenes from the first season is when Rory is late for the exam and at the end of her rant she just yells at Tristan, "and for the last time, the name is RORY."

 

I found Rory far more interesting around Tristan than the infectiously dull Dean.

Rory was more interesting in regards to the deer that hit her car than Dean. Tristan would have been a fun platonic friend for Rory, too bad that never happened. Ever in this show.

[amensisterfriend]

Rory was more interesting in regards to the deer that hit her car than Dean.

 

HA! This literally made my day. 

 

If the show was intent on going the 'love triangle' route (and what WB/CW show isn't?!), I think Tristan would have been a more interesting rival for Jess than Dean. The snarkfests would have been legendary. 

[Tangerine]

My people!!! I'd dislike Tristan in real life.  In fact, he's actually the type of character I normally dislike on TV as well :) For some reason, though, I really loved...well, not Tristan, exactly, but what he added to the show. I especially appreciated his sharp snarkiness during an often borderline cloying, overly cutesy and sicky-sweet first season. I love the sharp, quietly assertive sides of Rory's character that Tristan brought out, and while I wouldn't have wanted them to end up together romantically, I found Rory far more interesting around Tristan than the infectiously dull Dean. The few times I've attempted to write fanfic, I find myself oddly tempted to work in a reference to how Tristan turned out as an adult. 

 

To make this even more unpopular: in the nonexistent battle of cocky, spoiled, wild and studly blonds, I always preferred Tristan to Logan. Objectively, I realize Logan is a more kind and mature character, but for some bizarre reason I just preferred Tristan and his dynamic with Rory. And as much as I usually don't like Chad Michael Murray in any other role, I actually thought he was a great fit for Tristan and enjoyed him a lot more than Matt C. as Logan. 

 

Totally! I would have disliked Tristan if I met him in real life, but sometimes you need people in your life that challenge you and Tristan certainly did that for Rory. It was a classic "pull the hair of the girl I like" relationship, but Rory and Tristan's dynamic was really enjoyable.

 

With regards to Logan v. Tristan, I don't think Tristan was anywhere near as intellectual as Logan, and Logan was certainly the gentler, nicer character. But Logan also could be passive-aggressively manipulative and patronizing, while Tristan was a lot more transparent with his emotions.

[amensisterfriend]

With regards to Logan v. Tristan, I don't think Tristan was anywhere near as intellectual as Logan, and Logan was certainly the gentler, nicer character. But Logan also could be passive-aggressively manipulative and patronizing, while Tristan was a lot more transparent with his emotions.

 

Oooh, that totally nails it for me. The writing and acting combined to make Logan seem smarmy and condescending to me even when I'm sure that wasn't the intention. (Is it unpopular that even the ostensibly 'cute' "Ace" nickname made me cringe?! It just felt so patronizing!) Tristan was an ass, but somehow he came across as more genuine to me. I guess I can also blame a little of Tristan's jerkiness on his age and cling to the hope that by the time he hit college or at least afterwards he was a marginally more mature and decent human being :) 

 

 

 

but Rory and Tristan's dynamic was really enjoyable.

 

I completely agree that Tristan seemed to jolt her out of her comfort zone, which is what I enjoyed about her dynamic with Jess as well. (And what I very much would have enjoyed about Logan if I'd liked the acting and writing for that character!) For lack of a better way of putting it, Rory was just more vibrant and ALIVE around people like Tristan (and Paris, who also challenged her!) than Dean or even Lane. And I think that's how she was supposed to be around Logan as well, though somehow she seemed kind of faded and chameleon-like to me around him instead. 

 

Honestly, Rory's scenes with Tristan (and, of course, Paris!) are easily among my favorite parts of S1. I couldn't stand Max or Dean. And even as a Lorelai fan who would always name Lorelai/Rory scenes as my favorite facet of the series, I didn't even like Lorelai for much of this season---she was way too vain, juvenile, cutesy and annoying to me. (Yes, even more than subsequent seasons!) 

Edited November 19, 2014 by amensisterfriend

[dustylil]

I find I really can't compare Logan and Tristan. When we last saw Tristan he was about sixteen. When we first met Logan he was in his early twenties. People can and often do change a lot in those years. I offer Rory Gilmore as Exhibit A.

[Aloeonatable]

 

And I think that's how she was supposed to be around Logan as well, though somehow she seemed kind of faded and chameleon-like to me around him instead.

 

I think Bledel was tired of the character by that point in the series, and it showed in her acting. Then again, she was becoming more like the people that Lorelai ran away from, more like those in her grandparents world. 

[larapu2000]

Meh, I didn't really care for Tristan.  It was like another Poor Little Rich Boy story.

 

I didn't care for the handling of "Logan almost dies in Costa Rica" with his parents.  Sheila and MItchum were assholes, sure, but to not even go to the hospital to see their son is stretching all kinds of credulity.

[Tangerine]

I liked Logan as a character, but I also found it weirdly unbelievable that Rory would have fallen for a guy like him. He had a lot of surface appeal, sure, but nothing really that made me believe would have made Rory fall for him. Understanding of course, that it was to show how Rory was becoming more and more engrained into Emily and Richard's world.

 

I think the only love interest of Rory's I really didn't like was Dean the second time around and Jess. As a character, I thought Jess was very interesting, but as Rory's boyfriend he was just so cliche and terrible to her that I couldn't wait for them to break up.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Tangerine

[junienmomo]

Logan was the guy who led Rory into the young and hip side of the rich Gilmore world. Think You Jump, I Jump - I think that was her turning point towards adult freedom and away from the "angel of SH" stereotype. I really liked how Rory developed as a person around Logan, felonies notwithstanding. He was indirectly instrumental in helping her stand up to her grandparents and her mother when it was needed. 

He also didn't hold back on the truth when she wrote mean things about his business event. Finally, he was there to let her decide for the Reston Fellowship.

I wish Lorelai had trusted someone as much, her life would have been much better.

[dustylil]

I thought Rory lost her angel of Stars Hollow crown some months earlier - when Lindsay's mother publicly denounced her.

[txhorns79]

I wish Lorelai had trusted someone as much, her life would have been much better.

 

I thought Mia appeared to have filled that role, at least somewhat.  I know she barely appeared in the series, but at least in her first appearance, Lorelai seemed very concerned about what Mia would think, and appeared very close to her. 

 

[junienmomo]

I agree about Mia, Tex. ;)

She had the potential to be a true mentor to Lorelai, but simply wasn't there after Lorelai could handle the inn on her own.

 

Mia will have an opportunity to help move Lorelai along in my fanfic, though.
Weirdly enough, it's Mia1 and not Mia2 that I want to use. Mia1 seems to be a person who won't take any guff from people. I'm also curious to understand why Luke is so attached to her and Taylor is not. The big point for Mia in my fanfic, though, is to assist Lorelai to a better relationship with Emily.

[amensisterfriend]

I wish Lorelai had trusted someone as much, her life would have been much better.

 

I guess my UO is that, aside from somewhat dubious choices related to men, Lorelai carved out a pretty great life for herself. She had a (mostly!) amazingly strong relationship with a daughter who turned out (again, mostly!) quite well, achieved all of her professional dreams, loved her friends and her community, had a lot of interests, etc.

 

Personally---and I realize how unpopular this is---I think she would have been happier if she had never reconciled with Luke after he stormed out like the angry, temperamental baby that he is in WBB, stranding her at her parents' wedding without cab fare or a ride (what a gentlemen!) and then ignored her, shut her out and refused to even allow her to explain or apologize for events that weren't really her fault  to begin with. I get that people here love Luke, but I think he would have been absolutely awful to be in a relationship with----and my UO is that that's even BEFORE his April-related evasiveness and general ridiculousness! Not that Lorelai was such a proverbial walk in the park either, of course :) I think they both would have been far, far happier by realizing they were better off as friends and finding people who they had more commonality and compatibility with. 

 

 

 

I really liked how Rory developed as a person around Logan, felonies notwithstanding. He was indirectly instrumental in helping her stand up to her grandparents and her mother when it was needed.

 

IMO, she didn't develop at all. If anything, she regressed. I think one issue with the show lasting seven seasons is that Rory started out the series as so unusually mature, determined, levelheaded etc. that there wasn't a whole lot of room for growth, so instead they were forced to have her regress, stumble and then ostensibly get back on track...which makes sense, though the execution of all that was fairly awful :)

 

 I get what they were trying to do with Logan and how he took Rory outside her comfort zone, but it didn't work for me. And having him a smirky, patronizing, womanizing boozehound who pilfered items from Rory's grandparents' home and let the maid take the fall makes me think that the writers initially planned to have Logan a short-lived 'lesson' for Rory rather than a long-term relationship (with a few breakups along the  way, of course), though maybe that part is just wishful thinking on my part! 

Edited November 20, 2014 by amensisterfriend

[Kohola3]

And having him a smirky, patronizing, womanizing boozehound who pilfered items from Rory's grandparents' home and let the maid take the fall....

 

Best summary of Logan I have seen in print! Throw in his supercilious, obnoxious friends and the stupid stunts and that sums up exactly why I couldn't stand that whole arc.

[Jfer082887]

I think the Logan relationship lasted too long. It should have been a phase for Rory, maybe about a year tops. They should have broken up and stayed broken up in season 6 and of course leaving room for Rory to be on her own then or reunite with Jess.

[Aloeonatable]

 

I get what they were trying to do with Logan and how he took Rory outside her comfort zone, but it didn't work for me.

"Amen sister-friend," amensisterfriend. It didn't work for me either.  

 

 

And having him a smirky, patronizing, womanizing boozehound who pilfered items from Rory's grandparents' home and let the maid take the fall

 

This too. I'll never understand what Rory saw in him. I didn't find him remotely attractive. I loathed his friends and his life choices. 

[Guest]

Meh, I didn't really care for Tristan.  It was like another Poor Little Rich Boy story.

 

I didn't care for the handling of "Logan almost dies in Costa Rica" with his parents.  Sheila and MItchum were assholes, sure, but to not even go to the hospital to see their son is stretching all kinds of credulity.

 

All of this.

 

As to the second part, Logan's parents were not that bad until they had to become the supervillains to prop up Rory.  Oh, Mitchum is such a jerk that he doesn't care about his son. But being yelled at by his son's 21 year old girlfriend is hard enough on him that he goes and visits him.  Alrighty then.

[amensisterfriend]

Thanks for letting me know I'm not at a table for one on that one, guys :) And, yes, I've often thought that by having Logan drift apart from vapid, waste-of-space Finn and (especially!) the mean-spirited, elitist misogynist known as Colin, they could have made Logan more likable and relatable, subtly demonstrated his growth, and given us some entertaining and even touching scenes between Logan and "nerdy" Yailie friends who we wouldn't have expected him to connect with. Instead, we were stuck buying that Rory suddenly loved 'partying' with and dully trailing around with the very type of guys she'd always despised. 

 

Here's another one: I freaking loved Trix. Yes, she was awful---and, like many GG characters, exaggeratedly so. But i found her amusing, and I loved getting to see someone out-Emily Emily---it was not only entertaining, but made Emily more vulnerable and root-worthy for me. 

But being yelled at by his son's 21 year old girlfriend is hard enough on him that he goes and visits him.  Alrighty then.

 

Hee! Don't even get me started ;) 

Edited November 20, 2014 by amensisterfriend

[larapu2000]

I thought they did show Logan in scenes with nerdy Yaley-s that he otherwise wouldn't have connected to.  Their names are Paris and Doyle.  

 

I don't get the problem with Logan's friends.  My best friend my freshman year turned out to be a pathological liar.  I knew 2 guys that went to the library so drunk that they rode the elevator up and down and peed in the corner.  A friend of mine had sex in the kitchen at a campus watering hole.  At least 8 of my friends to this day have run around our college basketball arena naked.  My point is that college students are between 18-22 years old, and they're living in a world that indulges and celebrates the NON-responsibility of it all.  They ALL do stupid things.  They ALL treat women questionably at times.  They ALL are dicks from time to time.  I didn't see  a problem with Logan being friends with guys like that because we didn't get to see what happened 2-3 years after graduation, when you do start to grow up and evaluate your friendships.

[dustylil]

I think I would be less pessimistic about Logan and his choice of friends if  he wasn't  twenty four years of age  by the time he got around to graduating from Yale, already 2 to  3 years past customary graduation time. Not because he was ill or had to drop out  to earn money or even to do volunteer work. But because he was goofing off with the likes of Colin and Finn.

[txhorns79]

I didn't see  a problem with Logan being friends with guys like that because we didn't get to see what happened 2-3 years after graduation, when you do start to grow up and evaluate your friendships.

 

I like this opinion.  I didn't like them because they seemed vapid, and they were kind of jerks, but I see what you are saying about growing up and moving on from certain friendships.

[larapu2000]

I think I would be less pessimistic about Logan and his choice of friends if  he wasn't  twenty four years of age  by the time he got around to graduating from Yale, already 2 to  3 years past customary graduation time. Not because he was ill or had to drop out  to earn money or even to do volunteer work. But because he was goofing off with the likes of Colin and Finn.

But he was goofing off with Colin and Finn because he knew the moment his Yale diploma touched his fingertips, Mitchum would start his lifelong imprisonment of newspaper publishing sadness.  Not to mention the fact that the average college tenure these days is 5 years.  Not 4.

[txhorns79]

Not to mention the fact that the average college tenure these days is 5 years.  Not 4.

 

Yeah, I'm not following the idea that Logan's character is thrown into question because he didn't graduate college by an arbitrary deadline.  I'm not even sure they ever gave us a specific reason why Logan initially left school.      

[Kohola3]

My point is that college students are between 18-22 years old, and they're living in a world that indulges and celebrates the NON-responsibility of it all.  They ALL do stupid things.  They ALL treat women questionably at times.  They ALL are dicks from time to time.

 

Well, I have to respectfully question the "all" comment. I had many, many friends in college who did absolutely none of these things and not were dicks at any time.  Not a single one ever jumped off of a tower.   But none were filthy rich, entitled asses, either.

[txhorns79]

Well, I have to respectfully question the "all" comment. I had many, many friends in college who did absolutely none of these things and not were dicks at any time.  Not a single one ever jumped off of a tower.   But none were filthy rich, entitled asses, either.

 

Yeah, I have to agree that not "all" college students are like that.  Some are, some aren't.  I don't think it's a money thing (though the writers had some very weird feelings on money), so much as it is a jerk thing.  You can be poor or middle class and still act like an entitled jerk. 

[larapu2000]

Well, I have to respectfully question the "all" comment. I had many, many friends in college who did absolutely none of these things and not were dicks at any time.  Not a single one ever jumped off of a tower.   But none were filthy rich, entitled asses, either.

Well, "all" was probably a little much, but I think you are correlating filthy rich and entitlement to standard college kid behavior when one does not necessarily have anything to do with the other.  And sorry, but everyone does stupid things at some point in their life.  I stand by that particular "all."  lol.

 

Here's another UO-I can't stand Lane most of the time.  DRAMA QUEEN!

[dustylil]

I think I can top that Larapu2000, I can't stand Lane all the time. Deceitful and ungrateful wretch.

[JayInChicago]

Who was a bigger drama queen, Dean or Lane?  Don't give Dean points for being a dude. heh

[txhorns79]

Deceitful and ungrateful wretch.

 

I can't imagine what Lane has done to earn the status of "deceitful and ungrateful wretch."  I mean, if it is all about her not following her mother's strict religious directives, as you have suggested a few times before, then calling her those names would be really over the top.   

 

 

Who was a bigger drama queen, Dean or Lane?  Don't give Dean points for being a dude.

 

Lane was the bigger drama queen hands down.  I thought Dean's behavior was much more about his need for control, i.e. he would let Rory see him throw a giant fit if she was around Jess as a way to control her behavior. 

[amensisterfriend]

I've always been weirdly indifferent to Lane, which seems unpopular as well :) I rarely saw a genuine "best friend" chemistry between her and Rory. Her tendency to just assume she was always welcome to literally yank the Gilmores' food right out of their hands and to use their house for activities related to that ear-splittingly awful band of hers did grate sometimes. I'm not sure I see her as a drama queen, though....at least as compared to many of the other characters on this show! 

[amensisterfriend]

...Oh, and as inspired by our episode elimination game: While I like S7 more than most do, I'm not a big fan of the beloved "I Will Always Love You" karaoke scene, and not just because I found it unbelievable (and, for me, undesirable!), that Luke and Lorelai would get back together. It was an unintentionally amusing choice of songs, though---IMO, lyrics like  "we both know I'm not what you...you need...." seems to fit them all too well ;) 

[Tangerine]

What I found unbelievable was that Luke and Lorelai would have broken up in the first place actually. The April storyline was wildly unpopular, and I find it incredibly unrealistic how immature Luke and Lorelai both became as a result. They're both at the age, have had the experience and loved one another enough to be able to have gotten through it together. But they needed to break up because they needed the drama and ran out of storylines for these two.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Tangerine

[HeySandyStrange]

I can't imagine what Lane has done to earn the status of "deceitful and ungrateful wretch."  I mean, if it is all about her not following her mother's strict religious directives, as you have suggested a few times before, then calling her those names would be really over the top.   

 

I agree with this. I don't see Lane as all that bad, really. She hid some cd's and candy bars from her mother, she wasn't out drinking, drugging, or doing anything remotely wild or even that rebellious.  Mama Kim was extremely controlling and fanatically religious, so she wasn't exactly perfect herself. I also never viewed Lane as ungrateful, maybe a little spoiled and naïve, but she seemed to overall love her mother and respect her too.

[JayInChicago]

I tend to like Lane, though since the very first episode partially details how she and Rory aren't even going to go to the same school anymore--from the start she and her mother were more quirky townie than supporting main character.

 

I certainly don't see how Lane deserves the opprobrium she got in this thread.  Her rebellion was extremely mild, and she did love her mother--she just had no interest in being this show's depiction of a strict seventh day adventist.  I would have felt similarly. She moved out and got a job and supported herself.