One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions

[timimouse]

Table for three! I wouldn't even call him average. Partially due to looks, but mostly due to his schlumpy-ness and constant hangdog expression.

 

Make that a table for four. He does absolutely nothing for me.

 

 

IMO none of the guys on the show were heartthrobs.

 

I could see Dean (Jared) filling that heartthrob role. Tall. Floppy Hair. Cute Smile. I may have found him attractive if he weren't so dull! Because on Supernatural when he grew up and got buff I was like "HELLOOOOOO Sam Winchester!"

Jess (Milo) also didn't do it for me which is VERY strange because I tend to be attracted to guys  with weird mouths (eg. Christian Bale *yum*) but every time Milo spoke it just bugged the hell out of me because his mouth was twisted and his words came out funny. He got better at controlling it in heroes though.

[Eyes High]

IMO none of the guys on the show were heartthrobs.

 

I agree. There were no so-gorgeous-it-almost-hurts-to-look-at-them types of the Matt Bomer, Henry Cavill, or Jensen Ackles variety.

 

It sounds weird, but all of Rory's guys had precisely the right physical look for who they were supposed to be. Going purely on appearances as opposed to acting ability (and seeing the acting from these guys, sorry to say it's pretty clear which of the two the casting people prioritized), the casting people nailed it:

 

1. First boyfriend Dean: Tall, floppy-haired, great smile (as timimouse said), strapping build (even before he bulked up on Supernatural). Perfect for a heartthrob teen crush who works at a grocery store. They called him CuteDean in the old GG recaps on TWOP for a reason, is all I'm saying.

2. Brooding intellectual Jess: Shorter and less physically dominant than Dean (who had turned into a bit of a hulking brute at this point), piercing dark eyes, handsome but not model-pretty, looks "flawed" by lips set in a perpetual half-sneer (thanks to Milo Ventimiglia's congenital dead lip nerves).

3. Privileged douchebag Logan: Good-looking, blonde, great teeth, supremely punchable face, smile that always looks like a smirk.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Eyes High

[Guest]

I think Tristan, Christopher, and Dean were very good looking. Logan was also above average. Alex was pretty cute.

Dustylil, what do you mean about being sponge-worthy?

[dustylil]

deaja, it is from  a mid-nineties episode of Seinfeld. Elaine has just learned that her preferred method of birth control - a contraceptive sponge - has been discontinued. She does still have a supply but  feels she must ration them. She decides to more critically assess the fellows she is dating as possible bed partners - to determine whether or not they are in fact "sponge worthy". Her boyfriend at the time was played by (I thought) a very callow Scott Patterson. And he is indeed found to be worthy.

[amensisterfriend]

. I'd rather deal with Luke's grumpiness, because at least he was usually upfront about it in the beginning before the show descended into exaggeration land.

 

See, for me it's not just good-natured grumpiness, though. Obviously I'm in the minority on this one, so it's just a matter of perception---no one is either right or wrong!---but for me Luke has serious issues with controlling his temper, chronic anger and just this infectious, joy-stomping bitterness that on a day to day basis would make him dull and frustrating company at best and downright miserable to be around at worst, regardless of whether or not a few times a year he fixes something for you or makes a coffee cake.

 

I know a lot of women who are socialized to think that all that matters is whether a male is technically a good guy underneath, but IMO what matters is how someone actually behaves on a day to day basis and whether he makes you feel happy and good about yourself. I'm sure we were supposed to think that while they were dating he made Lorelai happy and feel good about herself more often than not, but neither the acting nor writing conveyed that to me convincingly on screen. I've never disputed that Luke is a generous guy, and I don't think he means to be malicious when he freaks out on people (though hollering like a maniac at the nursing home-bound elderly lady is pretty inexcusable---I can only imagine the outcry if a hated character like Christopher did that!), but for me the bottom line is that Luke is just really difficult and unpleasant to be around on a daily basis no matter how good a heart lurks underneath his boorish, perpetually ticked off behavior. Lorelai often seemed like she was walking on eggshells around him, knowing that profound annoyance or even a deeper anger was the likely response to far too many scenarios. Anyway, I'm totally willing to concede that this is a personal pet peeve for me. Luke sort of embodies how anger issues in males are often excused as 'well, boys will be boys!' or even, on this weirdo show, as cute and funny and (*shudder*) sexy. (The same idea about negative, brooding, unhappy, angry males who probably won't make you especially happy on a day to day basis being a romantic ideal is super popular in fiction these days, certainly not just GG,...and as someone who likes Rory/Jess despite their many problems, I'm clearly a total hypocrite who is more forgiving of this stuff in some instances than others! I guess it depends on chemistry and connection between the couple, how interesting I find him as a fictional character, whether there appear be valid reasons for his anger, whether he tries to change and shows growth etc.---all reasons, however lame, that I prefer Jess to Luke.)

 

It sounds weird, but all of Rory's guys had precisely the right physical look for who they were supposed to be. Going purely on appearances as opposed to acting ability (and seeing the acting from these guys, sorry to say it's pretty clear which of the two the casting people prioritized), the casting people nailed it:

 

It's so true!

 

I think Tristan, Christopher, and Dean were very good looking.

 

I never liked Chad Michael Murray's looks much post GG, but I agree that he was fairly attractive looking on GG, and definitely another example to add to Eyes High's awesome list of guys who just immediately LOOK like whatever character they're supposed to be.

 

I do think David Sutcliffe (Christopher) is probably the most attractive to me of this relatively unattractive-by-TV-standards group of males (but, hey, at least their personalities are amazing---oh, wait, they totally aren't ;)), Even with him, though, it depends a lot on his hair that particular episode :)

JP should be really attractive to me, but for some odd reason he isn't---maybe in part because, like Luke, he's got this frequent scowl and air of relentless negativity and bitterness that's just really unattractive to me.

Edited November 21, 2015 by amensisterfriend

[Eyes High]

as someone who likes Rory/Jess despite their many problems, I'm clearly a total hypocrite

 

Are you? Jess was a horrible little ball of anger in his relationship with Rory, true, who unlike Luke was not only angry but could also be truly malicious, but he grew up. He mellowed out. He became a peaceful, even kind person, the kind of person who thinks of other people, who sincerely asks Luke how he's adjusting to being a father and having April in his life. There's virtually no trace of the taciturn, unpleasant, and spiteful human disaster Jess was in his teens. His sense of humour is still barbed but the gleeful nastiness is gone: he lightly teases Luke about whether or not he confirmed paternity (when Luke says April's a brain), but there's no malice behind it. He lets things go: he leaves the dinner with Logan after sufficient insult but refuses to allow himself to be provoked into a fight and he lets Luke's vocal grumpiness about abstract art at the gallery roll off his back. He doesn't lose his shit on Rory when she admits that she's still with Logan even though she came to Philly by herself; he quietly accepts it when she says that she's in love with him, ignores her apology ("It is what it is."), and graciously suggests that she can lie to Logan about cheating on him with Jess to make herself feel better. He's upset at first, sure, but he takes it in stride.

 

I suppose I'm the hypocrite, because I acknowledge Jess' awfulness both as a person and a boyfriend in his teens while admiring the person (and potential romantic partner for Rory) he became, while I can't get over what a horrible shit Logan could be, even as he clearly matured over the course of the show and certainly had his moments. ASP kind of cheated with Jess, because we saw the end product of what was no doubt a lot of soulsearching and tough inner work on Jess' part to deal with his many issues and to get over himself, but we didn't actually see him do the work. How did a snarky, nasty teenage asshole with a ton of baggage turn into a kind, decent human being with his shit together? Assuming the answer isn't "The love of a good woman," I want to see that transition happen; I want to watch that show.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Eyes High

[dustylil]

I have always been bemused by the fact that in a show where parenting has been such a core element, the two most accomplished of the young people at the end of the series were ones who had the least parenting - Jess and Paris.

[readster]

Can I just say that I thought it was incredibly weird that Christopher decided that Logan was "alright" because of him getting kicked out of a ton of prep schools? I think that told me a lot more about Christopher than it did about Logan.

I agree, but at the same time, it really made Chris look like he forgot his past. He dropped out of school, even said in seasons 1 and 3 that he tried to go to community college and barely made it through one year. As I and many people have said, Christopher fell into success way too often because of what family he belonged too or he could "sweet talk" others. Much like Logan, he was good with words, it was just Logan realized you couldn't stay that young or live that way forever after what happened with his parents cutting him off. He didn't want to be like his father and grandfather and he found something he was good at and kept going. However, in the end, Mitchum much like Straub and Jason's father, wanted them to take over the family business from them. It got old because that was always the excuse. Much like how Emily wanted Lorelei to be like her, even though being that way worked for her, Trix was constantly bashing her like she was trash and never once did Emily come to the realization she had turned into the woman she hated much of her married life. Because remember, no one ever learned from their mistakes on GG. They were constantly repeating them and with some characters (Kirk, Luke, Lorelai) it was twice as bad when they did it again.

[dustylil]

With respect, how did Emily turn into Trix? Other than both being rather obnoxious and the mothers of only children, I  don't see a resemblance. Emily was a career wife, dedicating herself to assisting Richard in his professional climb. Her world was Richard and her charitable, cultural and social activities in Hartford. Trix, on the other hand, conducted her life on a wider stage. She managed her own business affairs and had been a political force in Connecticut - and possibly nationally.

[Kohola3]

Trix:  wrote a letter to her son on his wedding day telling him how unsuitable his intended was to be his wife.

 

Emily:  invites Christopher to the vow renewal saying how unsuitable Luke was for Lorelai.

 

I so see some parallels....

[dustylil]

But Trix didn't interfere in Richard's relationship with Emily. She expressed her opinion on the suitability of his choice of spouse and left it at that. Indeed, Emily apparently no idea of the depth of the dislike her mother-in-law had for her.

Now, as I have posted earlier, we were to learn that  Trix  had bankrolled those lunches with Pennilynn Lott, I will be more than willing to change my mind.

[Aloeonatable]

 

How did a snarky, nasty teenage asshole with a ton of baggage turn into a kind, decent human being with his shit together? Assuming the answer isn't "The love of a good woman," I want to see that transition happen; I want to watch that show.

Maybe that was the intent of "Windward Circle," the never to be spinoff. 

[amensisterfriend]

I actually hold the super UO as a Jess/Rory fan of actually being glad that we didn't see much of Jess post-S3, just a few S4 appearances to see that he was still very much Jess but in the process of growing and finding himself and in S6 to find that he had really evolved while still retaining his quintessential Jess-ness. And that's because if Jess were actually on screen regularly during that time, I don't expect that his growth as an individual or his dynamic with Rory or even Luke would have been handled nearly as well.

AS-P's idea of "growth" in characters tends to fall under the category of "one step forward, three steps back" or just straight out regression. (For example, I can honestly say that I found every single character a lot more likable, interesting, happier and more root-worthy in S2 than I did in S5-S6)  I'd have worried that Jess's relationships with Luke would have eventually become as frustrating as Lorelai/Emily's: starting out compelling but devolving into a maddeningly repetitive dynamic of dysfunction in the name of keeping things interesting. And while I think Rory and Jess had about a million times more chemistry and potential than Luke/Lorelai, if he had been around the whole time I'm worried they would have been written just as poorly as Luke and Lorelai (and the majority of other GG romances), with me even possibly reaching the same "ugh, just move ON already!" point of annoyance as I did with L/L despite seeing Rory/Jess as a much better fit. It's one reason I'm a little apprehensive about the revival: A lot of our hopes for the characters tend to play out better in discussion or fanfic than on screen :) 

Edited November 21, 2015 by amensisterfriend

[Smad]

So here is an extreme UO of mine that for once has nothing to do with Lorelai, Luke or Christopher or what have you. But my favorite mother/daughter pairing on the show is actually Lane and Mrs. Kim.

 

While nothing can beat having LG and KB in a scene together the Lorelai/Emily relationship just got tedious and boring. The 1 step forward 3 steps back relationship might be true to real life but it makes for some boring and predictable TV. You didn't need a magic eight ball to tell you how things would go down in an episode between them because it was always the same story.

 

Lorelai/Rory while interesting during Rory's highschool years was a cross between weird and boring after. The storytelling didn't exactly help the situation either. I think what also changed it for me was the fact that Rory just didn't interest me post highschool. She either bored me to tears or made me roll my eyes. And sadly she sometimes reminded me too much of her spern donor, I mean father. However the relationship was healthier on Rory's end while it exposed some fundamental weirdness and unhealthiness on Lorelai's.

 

Lane and Mrs. Kim were not unlike Lorelai/Emily in their conflicts, it was just different issues like religion and culture. The overly controlling mother smothering her child and the kid rebelling against it. However what I loved about them was that at the end of the day they decided to put their love for each other above everything else. It took quite some time to get there and they still would butt heads over most things but they want to be in each others lives because they love each other. The way their relationship evolved was never boring, always new, occassionally funny but never stale or predictable.

 

So how is that for an unpopular opinion...

Edited November 25, 2015 by Smad

[dustylil]

I don't think that opinion is particularly unpopular, smad. The relationship of Lane and Mrs. Kim was pretty much the only parent/child relationship to develop and mature over the course of the seven years of the series.  Despite their many squabbles, the Kim women came to recognize and accept the faults and virtues of each other. And learned to live in harmony.

 

Unfortunately, the same thing didn't happen with her childhood friend. With the Gilmores by the middle of the seventh season Rory was once again regarded as perfect, her missteps forgotten by the family. Not that her errors and misjudgements should have been harped on, of course. But for Richard to say to Rory -

Oh, honey, anybody who knows you knows you would never do anything to purposely hurt someone's feelings..

 

when recent family history alone told otherwise, suggested to me it that she was not viewed as a real, accomplished but fallible and human young woman in her twenties.  She was once again the Great Hope of the family. Just as her mother had been the Great Disappointment.

Edited November 25, 2015 by dustylil

[Eyes High]

Unfortunately, the same thing didn't happen with her childhood friend. With the Gilmores by the middle of the seventh season Rory was once again regarded as perfect, her missteps forgotten by the family. Not that her errors and misjudgements should have been harped on, of course. But for Richard to say to Rory (...) when recent family history alone told otherwise, suggested to me it that she was not viewed as a real, accomplished but fallible and human young woman in her twenties.  She was once again the Great Hope of the family. Just as her mother had been the Great Disappointment.

 

I'm not surprised. Richard and Emily would measure themselves by the "success" (and as we know, they had pretty limited conceptions of what "success" looked like) of their children and grandchildren. Lorelai's "failure" was their failure by extension, so Rory's "success" would be their success by extension. They therefore had a personal investment in viewing Rory in the most positive possible light, as it was viewing themselves by extension in the most positive possible light.

 

I wonder if Richard and Emily would have come down quite so hard on Lorelai, or thought so highly of Rory even in her less lovely moments, if they'd had other children or grandchildren to share the burden of their expectations and ego investment. If they'd had (in their minds) a "good" child, they might have been more forgiving towards Lorelai, and if they'd had another "good" grandchild, they might have been less disposed to view Rory with rose-coloured glasses at all times.

[HeySandyStrange]

I guess I will pull up a chair at the table of liking Lane/Mrs.Kim's relationship. I especially agree with this:

 

 

Lane and Mrs. Kim were not unlike Lorelai/Emily in their conflicts, it was just different issues like religion and culture. The overly controlling mother smothering her child and the kid rebelling against it. However what I loved about them was that at the end of the day they decided to put their love for each other above everything else. It took quite some time to get there and they still would butt heads over most things but they want to be in each others lives because they love each other. The way their relationship evolved was never boring, always new, occassionally funny but never stale or predictable.

 

This is exactly why I liked the Kims' relationship. Yes, MamaKim could be smothering and demanding of her daughter, not unlike a certain Mrs.Gilmore, but the difference to me is the place that it came from. She loved Lane very much and wanted the best for her. It just happened what she thought was the best for Lane wasn't what Lane wanted, but I always felt her intentions were pure if misguided. On the other hand, it seemed to me that Emily's desires for Lorelai came from a slightly more selfish place, ie. wanting Lorelai not to "besmirch" the grand Gilmore name and to keep up with the Joneses.  As for Lorelai and Rory, I enjoyed their relationship but Lorelai did like to play BFF with Rory more then was healthy at times. 

 

Considering the limited screen time they got compared to the main mother/daughter relationships in the show, Lane and Mrs.Kim really did have some of the best growth.

Edited November 25, 2015 by HeySandyStrange

[readster]

I guess I will pull up a chair at the table of liking Lane/Mrs.Kim's relationship. I especially agree with this:

 

 

This is exactly why I liked the Kims' relationship. Yes, MamaKim could be smothering and demanding of her daughter, not unlike a certain Mrs.Gilmore, but the difference to me is the place that it came from. She loved Lane very much and wanted the best for her. It just happened what she thought was the best for Lane wasn't what Lane wanted, but I always felt her intentions were pure if misguided. On the other hand, it seemed to me that Emily's desires for Lorelai came from a slightly more selfish place, ie. wanting Lorelai not to "besmirch" the grand Gilmore name and to keep up with the Joneses.  As for Lorelai and Rory, I enjoyed their relationship but Lorelai did like to play BFF with Rory more then was healthy at times. 

 

Considering the limited screen time they got compared to the main mother/daughter relationships in the show, Lane and Mrs.Kim really did have some of the best growth.

 Another thing was, Mrs. Kim started getting what Lane wanted in life and then after the reveal that she was much like Lane with hiding her religion and beliefs from Grandma Kim. It ended up being that moment where she was: "Like mother, like daughter." Not to say I think Mrs. Kim's attitude towards people when they shopped in her store: "You buy or get out!" attitude always irked me. However, unlike Emily, Mrs. Kim came to realize she couldn't control her daughter's life, much like her own mother tried to control hers. Which of course in a way I could tell made Lane mad because when she saw how much her own mother was like her I think she had a moment. Along the lines of: "Then why did you basically kick me out of the house when you found my stuff?"  Emily and even Richard were more wanting Lorelai to be like them and Emily more as stated above about having an extension of her and being her legacy instead of what made her happy. As also said, Emily and Richard and pretty much the "rich world" of the GG Universe had limited views on what was success and what was unacceptable. However, when it was all said and done, Lane and her mother's ending was what should have been Lorelai and Emily's instead of the constant back peddling or seeing everything as their way or the highway.

[dustylil]

Much as I liked where Lane and Mrs. Kim ended up, I do wonder if the senior Kims would have been as gracious and accepting as Richard and Emily were if their fifteen year old daughter had become pregnant and refused to marry the father of the child.

[readster]

 

I think what also changed it for me was the fact that Rory just didn't interest me post highschool. She either bored me to tears or made me roll my eyes. And sadly she sometimes reminded me too much of her spern donor, I mean father. However the relationship was healthier on Rory's end while it exposed some fundamental weirdness and unhealthiness on Lorelai's.

I notice that too and so did my mother during our GG viewing days. Rory was like Christopher, when she screwed up, everyone was like: "Its not your fault, its someone's else's." Rory wasn't great with disappointment no matter how minor it was. She took criticism very badly. I'm not talking about Mitchum's smackdown I'm talking from anyone, her teachers or anything. Yet, she always was forgiven and almost handed things. No, not the refusing to leave the newspaper to get a job after her magical recovery from the yacht stealing incident. I'm talking about almost always getting a call, a quick offer and life was great. Christopher knocking not one but two women up no problem. You an get the teen situation but an adult in his mid 30s almost 17 years later, oh come on!  It happens but you think he know how to wear a damn condom! Yet it was: "It wasn't your fault, it was that damn Lorelai and 'her' daughter's fault you dropped out of not one but several schools, couldn't hold a job, never visited them, ect." Or the other half ass things he did but Emily and Richard and Lorelai enabled his behavior and it was always suppose to be: "Poor Christopher, don't worry, here is a million dollars!" (Which did happen). Both never learned the consequences of their actions but if you were Lorelai, all hell would break loose.

Edited November 25, 2015 by readster

[Gilmorefan]

I'm not sure if this is unpopular, but I hate the booms. They're way too soap opera. I hate what Richard does to Jason.

[DisneyBoy]

I'm a bit late to this party but on the subject of Lane, I loved Mrs Kim even though she was a tyrant, pitied Lane who clearly didn't want to rock the boat too much with her mother and sincerely hated that the show treated her like Rory's Sookie and had her marry and procreate off in the background. It's not like Rory really valued or needed her to stick around....

Lane got lousy development beyond season five from what I remember and absolutely should have left Stars Hollow to pursue her career.

And yes, Jason got thrown under the bus for Luke royally. They stopped short of setting him on fire and shooting his dog in the face.

Edited November 28, 2015 by DisneyBoy

[dustylil]

I thought Richard was a duplicitous weasel but I didn't mind that it was done to Jason. Karma is quite often a lady dog. 

Jason  did go into direct competition with  his father in their hometown for no reason beyond (metaphorically) spitting in his eye. Had he been offering distinctive services or using new technologies, then that would have been different. Industries change, evolve  and expand all the time. But not so here. Why he thought Floyd would not seek to retaliate against what he most likely saw as both a personal an professional betrayal was a puzzle.

[readster]

I thought Richard was a duplicitous weasel but I didn't mind that it was done to Jason. Karma is quite often a lady dog. 

Jason  did go into direct competition with  his father in their hometown for no reason beyond (metaphorically) spitting in his eye. Had he been offering distinctive services or using new technologies, then that would have been different. Industries change, evolve  and expand all the time. But not so here. Why he thought Floyd would not seek to retaliate against what he most likely saw as both a personal an professional betrayal was a puzzle.

Very true and if you remember when Jason asked Lorelai out, his reason was because it would piss off her parents. I was like: "Your business partner's daughter? To make him and his wife mad?" Why? Jason was not one for thinking his actions wouldn't backfire on him. His father went too far in my opinion but when did that stop people in the Gilmore Universe?

[Smad]

I'm a bit late to this party but on the subject of Lane, I loved Mrs Kim even though she was a tyrant, pitied Lane who clearly didn't want to rock the boat too much with her mother and sincerely hated that the show treated her like Rory's Sookie and had her marry and procreate off in the background. It's not like Rory really valued or needed her to stick around....

Lane got lousy development beyond season five from what I remember and absolutely should have left Stars Hollow to pursue her career.

And yes, Jason got thrown under the bus for Luke royally. They stopped short of setting him on fire and shooting his dog in the face.

Now I do agree that what they did with Lane was one of the suckiest things in the shows history and there is heavy competition for that. I also agree that Lane deserved better friends than someone like Rory. Most people deserve better. Rory was never best friends material for anyone, even her mother. But what they did to Lane was just short of unacceptable to me.

 

As for Jason, well as someone already said Karma is a B****. Why go into business with someone just to spite your father? He of all people should know how this would look to his father and that his father would do something to get back at Jason. Why not go into business with a huge, non-Hartford maybe even international insurance company, make a name there and then rub it in daddy's face? I can hardly bame Luke for the fact that this is how Jason's character was written or the fact that due to ratings tanking the network forced ASP's hand.

[dustylil]

Now if we could only figure out why that tiny insurance consulting firm needed such a huge infusion of capital to conduct its business that Yale almost missed getting its Rory Planetarium a few years later.

[FictionLover]

I did think  he was better looking in GG than when he was sponge-worthy.

I thought that Luke could look different at different times. I heard one of the Gilmore Guys say that they felt they always had him wear a hat so there was some kind of consistency to his appearance because he could look so different at times. I just have never noticed that with other actors.

[txhorns79]

I thought that Luke could look different at different times. I heard one of the Gilmore Guys say that they felt they always had him wear a hat so there was some kind of consistency to his appearance because he could look so different at times. I just have never noticed that with other actors.

 

That's interesting.  The only time I thought Luke really looked different was during the beginning of the fifth or sixth season.  (I forget which.)  It was one of those things where the new season was supposed to begin right where the prior season left off, and Scott Patterson must have changed his hair during the hiatus, because they put him in a bad wig to keep the continuity.   

 

 

His father went too far in my opinion but when did that stop people in the Gilmore Universe?

 

Seriously.  Nearly everyone on the show lived for doing some kind of big dramatic moment. 

[FictionLover]

That's interesting.  The only time I thought Luke really looked different was during the beginning of the fifth or sixth season.  (I forget which.)  It was one of those things where the new season was supposed to begin right where the prior season left off, and Scott Patterson must have changed his hair during the hiatus, because they put him in a bad wig to keep the continuity.   

 

Seriously.  Nearly everyone on the show lived for doing some kind of big dramatic moment.

It's funny because it wasn't just his hair, it was his face too. It was interesting to me that it was mentioned on the G. Guys podcast too.

And why or why would they use such a BAD wig!?!

[timimouse]

So I think I may have an unpopular opinion here because it seems like a lot of people liked the Jason/Lorelai pairing. I, however, did NOT. I could not STAND the guy. It started with him and Richard going into business because he simply wanted to stick it to his father... and then the "I'd have called you back sooner if I knew you looked like this now" -__- .... and it only got worse with him kicking Lorelai out of bed after their first sexual encounter. That screams selfish to me. If he has issues like that, he should probably go see a shrink about it before he gets into a relationship. I don't care how nice a guest room it is. We are not having sex and then you kick me out of your bed. And then to top it all off, the unnecessary tailgating of Luke during his first trip to Stars Hollow. What was that about? Why? Just why? I cannot find ONE SINGLE redeeming quality about Jason. I was really glad when they wrote him off. I don't even think he would've grown on me like Logan did.

[shron17]

I agree with all of the above, but what I hated most about Jason was the way he treated his dog.  Most people have dogs for love and companionship, not to move a little to the left.  I thought Jason was an arrogant jerk and got exactly what he deserved.  He wasn't someone Lorelai would have considered dating if he hadn't pursued her so aggressively (almost like sealing a business deal).  And I always felt like "I can't date someone who's suing my family" was code for "I can't date someone who's just like my father." 

Edited November 29, 2015 by shron17

[Smad]

I actually didn't mind Jason on a whole as a character. CE definitely could do ASP's dialogue and such. But the character was never suited to be a romantic partner for anyone really. If they had kept it casual between him and Lorelai (dinner and sex and that's it) instead of actually making them a couple I wouldn't have minded the relationship either. But Jason is completely emotionally useless. He bails on his girlfriend when her father's mother passed because he can't deal with emotional situations? How about sucking it up and getting over it, at least to support your girlfriend. He wasn't ready to be a partner for anyone and I think Lorelai recognized it which is why she treated it as a fling (which it should have always been) and was blindsided when she realized Jason took it more serious than that.

 

Another reason I couldn't get behind them as a couple is the uncomfortable siblings vibe. It's almost akin to Lorelai/Chris (aka Quippy Twins). They come from the same world, feel pretty much the same way about their parents and adopted similiar coping mechanisms. So when they start quipping/bantering it feels like two siblings to me.

[33kaitykaity]

 And I always felt like "I can't date someone who's suing my family" was code for "I can't date someone who's just like my father." 

This helps me a little.  I always thought this reason for her breaking up with Jason was lame.  I didn't buy it.  The timing was too perfect in that Luke finally got his act together and realized he was finally going to do something about wanting to finally be with Lorelai and Jason was in the way story-wise and AS-P couldn't come up with anything better.  

[Taryn74]

And I always felt like "I can't date someone who's suing my family" was code for "I can't date someone who's just like my father." 

 

Same.  I think the "this is just business" thing out of both of them, was what opened Lorelai's eyes to the fact that Jason was everything she ran away from at 16.  Being rich and amusing is not enough to make up for being cold, manipulative, and having no loyalties except for when you benefit from it.

[dustylil]

being cold, manipulative, and having no loyalties except for when you benefit from it

 

Lorelai must be a slow learner. One might have thought she would have picked up on these aspects of Jason's character when he declined to attend the funeral of his business partner's mother or in how he chose to deal with his "insomnia issues".

[CalamityBoPeep]

So I think I may have an unpopular opinion here because it seems like a lot of people liked the Jason/Lorelai pairing. I, however, did NOT. I could not STAND the guy. It started with him and Richard going into business because he simply wanted to stick it to his father... and then the "I'd have called you back sooner if I knew you looked like this now" -__- .... and it only got worse with him kicking Lorelai out of bed after their first sexual encounter. That screams selfish to me. If he has issues like that, he should probably go see a shrink about it before he gets into a relationship. I don't care how nice a guest room it is. We are not having sex and then you kick me out of your bed.

 

I hated the Jason era too.  So ridiculous.  All his "quirks" were just massively irritating to me.  And seriously, if you can't stand to be in a bed with someone, why not wait for her to fall asleep, slip quietly into the guest room in your own freaking apartment, and get up early to fix the breakfast?  Sure, it'd be sneaky and dishonest, but it wouldn't put her on the spot the first time they had sex. At that stage of the relationship, it'd make more sense to keep the weirdest things quiet, rather than front and center.

 

What a freakshow that was.  Also hated the time they were both post-coital and on the phone.  Blergh.

[amensisterfriend]

It's funny, because for all the raves about what a great actress LG is*, she really couldn't sell me on feeling any genuine romantic connection or even remote attraction to Digger, Luke or Max, or any other guy not played by David Sutcliffe. 

 

*and she's good and all, though my UO is that she happened to have just been a particularly good fit for this specific role as opposed to having much range! 

[txhorns79]

*and she's good and all, though my UO is that she happened to have just been a particularly good fit for this specific role as opposed to having much range!

 

I actually agree.  She was perfect in this role, but seeing her on Parenthood essentially playing a variation of Lorelai made me think her range wasn't very broad. 

[Minneapple]

Sure, it'd be sneaky and dishonest,

 

Great way to start a relationship!

 

Just as Buffy was THE role for Sarah Michelle, Lorelai may have been THE role for Lauren. Although Lauren had two fairly long-running shows, which is not too bad. 

[dustylil]

Although Lauren had two fairly long-running shows, which is not too bad

 

Plus about eighteen movies - including a couple of seasonal features! - and a reasonable starring run on Broadway.

why not wait for her to fall asleep, slip quietly into the guest room in your own freaking apartment, and get up early to fix the breakfast

 

Or why not - during the course of a pre-sleepover dinner - bring the conversation around to personal idiosyncrasies and reveal the sleep problem  (and the fabulous guest room) then? It was not as if Jason was averse to talking about himself and his little quirks. It would seem easier (to say nothing of kinder) than potentially humiliating his partner by asking her to vacate the room or  having her wake up in the middle of the night and find him gone.

[CalamityBoPeep]

Great way to start a relationship!

 

 

Oh, I totally agree (with the appropriate sarcastic intent here)! LOL  But since the relationship was doomed anyway, and started just for the drama of pissing off the parents, (though they hid it for a while, first, to be truly childish about it), why not add a little interpersonal drama by starting it off on a lousy foot?  (I kid, I kid!)  It's just that he went to soooo much effort to sell her on that guest room that I wondered why he didn't just use it himself.

 

Or why not - during the course of a pre-sleepover dinner - bring the conversation around to personal idiosyncrasies and reveal the sleep problem  (and the fabulous guest room) then? It was not as if Jason was averse to talking about himself and his little quirks. It would seem easier (to say nothing of kinder) than potentially humiliating his partner by asking her to vacate the room or  having her wake up in the middle of the night and find him gone.

 

Or that.  If they wanted to go the honest adult relationship route. :-)  That never seemed particularly high on their priority list though.  

 

Though, if I had awakened in the middle of the night to find a hypothetical boyfriend missing, I'd just assume that he got up to go to the bathroom or to get a glass of water, and roll over to go back to sleep.  (Or, since I've been married for 28 years now... I'd assume Mr. BoPeep couldn't sleep and got up to read, or do some work, or something.  I'd still roll over and go back to sleep.)

Edited December 3, 2015 by CalamityBoPeep

[Minneapple]

It's just that he went to soooo much effort to sell her on that guest room that I wondered why he didn't just use it himself.

 

Because he couldn't sleep with any distractions.

 

Yes, it was bizarre. That I won't disagree with. 

 

Plus about eighteen movies - including a couple of seasonal features! - and a reasonable starring run on Broadway.

 

And she's written a novel (Someday, Someday Maybe, which I have on my Kindle but have not gotten around to reading yet) and is adapting The Royal We for the big screen! Lauren Graham is the best.

[dustylil]

if I had awakened in the middle of the night to find a hypothetical boyfriend missing, I'd just assume that he got up to go to the bathroom or to get a glass of water, and roll over to go back to sleep

 

This is all theory to me as well having been married since the Nixon administration, but I would think I would be somewhat  self-conscious in the circumstances and wouldn't readily fall back to sleep - wondering where he had wandered off to.

 

I never understood why they didn't  start the proceedings - for want of a better description - in that gorgeous guestroom and then have

him leave for his own plainer bedroom. I know I would have less likely to have  been offended if left on my own in that room ;)

[Smad]

It's funny, because for all the raves about what a great actress LG is*, she really couldn't sell me on feeling any genuine romantic connection or even remote attraction to Digger, Luke or Max, or any other guy not played by David Sutcliffe.

Mmm interesting. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder but I would disagree. But either way Lauren is not a method actor so she had a hard time selling me on any sexual attraction to anyone. While they managed to gloss over it in S1 by either moving around a lot or tearing off clothes (with Max and Christopher) to make it passionate Lauren very much always keeps her mouth closed during kissing, hardly even engages in any kind of lip movement. It always take me right out of the moment to be honest. I understand not everyone is comfortable (kissing is intimate) going all out but it hardly lends itself to creating on screen heat. But she had chemistry with several males on this show.

 

Still, better than Alexis who ducks to avoid being hugged and moves her whole body away when she is kissing someone. I never understood why they had her in so many romantic relationships because other than Milo it was painful to watch her intimate scenes.

[Eyes High]

It's funny, because for all the raves about what a great actress LG is*, she really couldn't sell me on feeling any genuine romantic connection or even remote attraction

 

I agree. She has a very asexual screen presence. The closest thing I saw to a spark was with David Sutcliffe, but even that had more of a chummy vibe. LG's Lorelai didn't seem sexually attracted to any of her love interests, including Christopher, but at least they got along.

 

I have no idea what the actor's real-life orientation is, but Jason always read as gay to me. The show told me that they had a sexual relationship, but I never believed it. I wanted him and Lorelai to get drunk together and bitch about stuff. Lorelai seems like the type of character who would have a Sassy Gay Friend (Michel doesn't count, since he seemed barely to tolerate Lorelai). Wasn't Sookie originally supposed to be a lesbian?

 

I actually agree.  She was perfect in this role, but seeing her on Parenthood essentially playing a variation of Lorelai made me think her range wasn't very broad. 

 

It's admittedly a small sample size, but she seemed to be playing slightly different versions of the same character...which is fine. A lot of talented, award-winning actresses pretty much play the same character over and over.

 

Lauren very much always keeps her mouth closed during kissing, hardly even engages in any kind of lip movement. It always take me right out of the moment to be honest. I understand not everyone is comfortable (kissing is intimate) going all out but it hardly lends itself to creating on screen heat. But she had chemistry with several males on this show.

 

Still, better than Alexis who ducks to avoid being hugged and moves her whole body away when she is kissing someone. I never understood why they had her in so many romantic relationships because other than Milo it was painful to watch her intimate scenes.

 

Old Hollywood films will show that awkward, closed-mouth, lips-mashed-together kissing is no obstacle to creating heat! Paging Clark Gable and Vivian Leigh in Gone With The Wind!

 

I've seen lesbian actresses who appeared to be more into their het kissing scenes than Alexis. I get that she was very shy and very young, but she appeared positively repulsed at the prospect of physical contact with a romantic prospect. It will be interesting to see if she's improved at all in the intervening years. I don't remember her kissing scenes from Mad Men.

 

What bothered me more about Alexis was her constant fidgeting. There was this one scene with Jess in Season 6, I think, when she's sitting with him and reaches over to her other shoulder and adjusts her jacket! It's the worst. The wooooooorst.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Eyes High

[dustylil]

I get that she was very shy and very young

 

Ms Bledel may well have been very shy when she started the show but  not very young. She was nineteen when she played the fifteen year old Rory.

[JayInChicago]

 Lorelai seems like the type of character who would have a Sassy Gay Friend (Michel doesn't count, since he seemed barely to tolerate Lorelai). Wasn't Sookie originally supposed to be a lesbian?

 

 

Hasn't Amy said she wanted to make everyone in the series gay?  I know I should research it before I drop that, but what does one even google? "gilmore girls amy sherman palladino said everyone should have been gay"???  Does anyone else remember that...

wasn't actually that hard to find at all:  "...You know, today everyone would be gay. Lorelai would be gay!"

oh amy sherman p

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/06/gilmore-girls-michel-gay_n_7521330.html

too bad about the rather tasteless gay jokes scattered throughout the series, amy

Edited December 4, 2015 by JayInChicago

[dustylil]

If I recollect correctly, wasn't a somewhat conservative, family oriented organization instrumental in providing support in getting the series on the air in the first place? Lorelai as a teenage mother was likely controversial enough for the time. 

too bad about the rather tasteless gay jokes scattered throughout the series, amy

 

Lord, ain't that the truth! And the ghastly Vineyard Valentine had more than its share, as I recall. I remember wincing at the place names  "banter" between Luke and Lorelai at the beginning, thinking  this episode is bound to get better. Unfortunately, I was wrong.

[Eyes High]

Hasn't Amy said she wanted to make everyone in the series gay?  I know I should research it before I drop that, but what does one even google? "gilmore girls amy sherman palladino said everyone should have been gay"???  Does anyone else remember that...

wasn't actually that hard to find at all:  "...You know, today everyone would be gay. Lorelai would be gay!"

 

Good lord. I'm wondering if the revival will have most of the cast as out and proud: Michel with a boyfriend, Taylor with a husband, Gypsy with a girlfriend, Emily settling down with an immaculately pantsuited lady after Richard's untimely death (relevant), Doyle casting off the shackles of compulsory heterosexuality and finding someone even shorter and fussier than he is, Paris pairing up with a gorgeous power lesbian who's even more terrifying than she is but is a dead ringer for Rory (also relevant), Luke becoming disturbingly chill once he comes to terms with his homosexuality, Lorelai dating a woman who is basically her clone, Logan marrying Finn in Vegas after a drunken one-night stand...

 

I kind of want this now. Heck, maybe we'll get something like this in the revival.

 

too bad about the rather tasteless gay jokes scattered throughout the series, amy

 

Her original intent for more LGBT (well, LG, I guess, in between lesbian manque Sookie and ambiguous Michel) representation is laudable, but it's hard to swallow in light of her fondness for gay jokes and lack of out gay or lesbian characters in the lead or even the secondary cast (which is something you almost never see nowadays, where LGBT representation is pretty much a given, even in "family friendly" fare).

Edited December 4, 2015 by Eyes High

[Smad]

On the Gilmore Guys podcast the guys mentioned talking to Rose Abdoo and she said that she played Gypsy's scenes with Lorelai as if she were in love with her. Make of that what you will...