One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions

[timimouse]

That's what made Lane and Zach just seem... odd as a couple. Then one who had such a bad honeymoon and then get twins after one bad night of sex. I mean, that was too much. Plus, what the hell were they supporting their twin boys on? I never really understood the money that Hepp Alien was taking in and what Lane and Zach were doing to pay the rent. 

 

Their story just got progressively worse. As you pointed out, the bad honeymoon and the twins after one bad night of sex. Then there was the talk of taking the boys on tour with them... I was SO happy when Lane woke up and realised that was in no way practical.

I too wonder all the time how did they live on Lane's salary from Luke's diner. Even if Hepp Alien played a gig every night, somehow I doubt that Stars Hollow residents paid that much. Zach didn't even work! He sat around playing video games all day pretending that was his process for writing music. Right. At least Brian had a 9-5 and Gil owned a sandwich shop... Which in my eyes makes Zach even more of a loser and added to how mystified I am that Lane even liked him!

[brightside]

Zach didn't even work! He sat around playing video games all day pretending that was his process for writing music. Right. At least Brian had a 9-5 and Gil owned a sandwich shop... 

 

Zach did work, we just never saw it. When he goes to ask Mrs. Kim for Lane's hand he gives her a letter of recommendation from his manager at Quest Copying and mentions he's up for a promotion that would give him medical benefits. 

 

Though I do agree...Zach and Lane never made much sense. Although I do think Zach is one of the few characters that improved in season 7. 

[Melancholy]

I believed Lane/Brian/Zack getting along financially when they were living together. Three people were contributing the rent and the cheapest groceries. I bet Lane was paid more than Jess- she was a full-time waitress for all meals instead of just a some-of-the-time helper for breakfast and dinner. I bet Luke paid Lane like this was her full-time job ala Caesar. I bet Lane got consistent good tips and Luke was clearly one of those reasonable restaurant owners who gives his staff some nice left-over food instead of throwing it out. There are a lot of diner waitresses surviving on their income across the country. It's not that rare.

 

I don't remember when or if Brian moved out when Lane/Zack got married. If he did, I bet that a financial hit for Lane/Zack. I believed renting out of a (teeny) house because there were three rents going toward it. However, I didn't think it was a mystery how Lane and Zack supported their twins. The twins weren't born until late in the series. Yes, Lane and Zack were still cheering on Zack pursuing his Hep Alien career- but I think a big part of that was that Hep Alien got its big huge break when the twins were born. Maybe if Hep Alien was still just a garage band only playing at small town parties, they would have a discussion that they can't raise twins and fund Zack's rock dreams and he needed to focus on working full-time at a grown-up job. However, reasonably, at this point Lane and Zack wanted to roll the dice that Hep Alien opening for a huge band would be enough exposure to put Hep Alien on the road to really being financially successful and worth far more than Zack racking up even more hours at Quest Copying. And if they had trouble paying for necessities for the twins in that time, I bet the senior Kims would help them. Mrs. Kim was already being a huge help and buying lots of baby stuff and Mrs. Kim already basically said as much that Zack's big chance for providing in a huge way for the family would be to become a rock & roll success and she took more of an interest in trying to make that happen than resigning herself to Zack's ability to provide with a normal 9 to 5 job.

 

So, the economics works for me, especially with a little TV-money licentious to explain how poverty always looks pretty. (Although, Lane actually dressed verrrry simply and always seemed like she was living on cheap unlike the SKENT-Gilmore Girls where I'd roll my eyes at skentness being shown by <gasp> having tomatoes in the house or Rory not having enough on her to have her full "vanilla-bullshit bullshit" fancy coffee <Larry David voice>.)  

 

However while the economic details of Lane/Zack made sense, it was even worse that the deeper story of why those two ended up together made no sense. Complete word to Commando Cody: 

 

 

 

I never understood why she liked Zach in the first place. Or why he liked her. He was a musician with a girl on both arms. He gave up the multiple loose girls for one sexually repressed girl. I don't know what Lane saw in him. He was kind of stupid. 

 

I was wondering if these two would even still be married in the reunion shows.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Melancholy

[readster]

 

And if they had trouble paying for necessities for the twins in that time, I bet the senior Kims would help them. Mrs. Kim was already being a huge help and buying lots of baby stuff and Mrs. Kim already basically said as much that Zack's big chance for providing in a huge way for the family would be to become a rock & roll success and she took more of an interest in trying to make that happen than resigning herself to Zack's ability to provide with a normal 9 to 5 job.

What is this plural form of "Kims" you use. We all know that Mrs. Kim was the only Kim around, and Mr. Kim was locked in a basement somewhere. In all seriousness, I can so see Lane's mother helping them out with her only grandchildren. In fact, Lane and Zach could have gotten on WIC or something else (I know, real world low in-come programs didn't exist in the GG Universe). Something that really is an UPO is on Lane and Zach's sex life. No, this is true, the way it was written, it was like after their disastrous honeymoon sex. Lane was oppose to sex ever again and Zach didn't seem to care. Instead of the message that was running rampant on TV series at the time of: "Sex is bad kids, don't do it!" It came across: "Sex will destroy your life! Don't ever think about it." Even the way Lane talked about it in: "That's what you get for making whoopee." Which was such an outdated term, I can't believe Lane even used it. I remember fans and critics said that was a horrible message to send. That a couple who is married, has waited and so forth have not only a disastrous first sexual experience. It results in getting pregnant and then the characters react like it was the worst thing in the world. When 1. Zach had long been experience in sex. 2. They followed the "Christian Rule" of waiting to have sex. 3. That married couples can't have a enjoyable sex life. 

  Instead they had characters having causal sex with their girlfriends/boyfriends that only people in their 50s went: "How dare you have sex!" I mean, Luke said himself with Nicole that things went downhill in their sex lives when they tried to stay married. Emily and Richard acted like they only had sex twice in their lives after being married. Kirk and Lulu apparently only did it went appropiate. Sookie and Jackson did it and kept getting pregnant. It was like AS-P message was: "Sex is so bad, look what could happen to you if you are married!" "Do it while you are single unless you are in high school, because you will get a baby then." "Or if you are absent parent in your own kids life." "Then you will knock up your girlfriend and have more kids you have a hard time being a parent too." 

[takalotti]

I also think that scene in Say Something where Paris gets Janet and her friend to play Love Advisers to her and Rory is profoundly underrated. One of my favorite just plain college-social scenes- no romance. "Rory, come on. We're sitting in a sea of expertise in this field. The college campus. There's no end of knock-headed bimbos with tons of dross to dispense. There's two now." Or for Janet specific material:

 

PARIS: Okay, so I've got a guy.

JANET: Blind?

That WAS a good scene, but really shouldn't Janet's dig have been "Deaf?" Because I bet when Janet was her roommate, she would have preferred not having to hear Paris yammering and nagging and insulting all the time than having to see her face.

Edited February 9, 2016 by takalotti

[readster]

That WAS a good scene, but really shouldn't Janet's dig have been "Deaf?" Because I bet when Janet was her roommate, she would have preferred not having to hear Paris yammering and nagging and insulting all the time than having to see her face.

I agree on that, deaf would have made more sense. As stated, Tara and Janet were so wasted characters and as interviews stated, the actresses were surprised they weren't coming back until they were about to film the next season and told: "Sorry, but Rory and Paris are moving out." 

[readster]

That WAS a good scene, but really shouldn't Janet's dig have been "Deaf?" Because I bet when Janet was her roommate, she would have preferred not having to hear Paris yammering and nagging and insulting all the time than having to see her face.

I agree on that, deaf would have made more sense. As stated, Tara and Janet were so wasted characters and as interviews stated, the actresses were surprised they weren't coming back until they were about to film the next season and told: "Sorry, but Rory and Paris are moving out." 

[solotrek]

I don't remember when or if Brian moved out when Lane/Zack got married. If he did, I bet that a financial hit for Lane/Zack.

 

Mrs. Kim moved in before or after the twins were born and had Brian move in with a Korean family. There was that whole argument that Mrs. Kim wanted Lane to come home after finding out she was pregnant, but both Zack and Lane were against it. So Mrs. Kim made the arrangements.But it did seem that sometime later Mrs. Kim went back home and Brian came back (or maybe he never came back), hard to tell. I think it was a s6/s7 continuity thing or something.

 

So, the economics works for me, especially with a little TV-money licentious to explain how poverty always looks pretty. (Although, Lane actually dressed verrrry simply and always seemed like she was living on cheap unlike the SKENT-Gilmore Girls where I'd roll my eyes at skentness being shown by <gasp> having tomatoes in the house or Rory not having enough on her to have her full "vanilla-bullshit bullshit" fancy coffee <Larry David voice>.)

 

It kind of made sense to me too. They seemed to buy things on a budget and were conscious of buying off brand items to save money. Heck they were going to a second hand shop to be a plunger or something like that. All their clothing were pretty down to earth and simple as well.

 

The Lane/Zack thing kind of came out of nowhere. Lane never really got to explain why she was suddenly in love with Zach who she had known for years to be a dumb womanizer. It seems as bizarre to me as if Lorelai suddenly fell for Kirk. I honestly think it's sad that it's probably because they wanted Keiko to stay on the show, but ran out of storylines for her character. Then they realized that they could give Lane a boyfriend, but didn't want to spring for the money to get a new actor and also deal with that additional storyline of introducing a new guy for her (though no issues introduce Logan's cadre of friends). So basically, Lane has to get some dude that's already on the show with whom she already interacts.

 

It was like AS-P message was: "Sex is so bad, look what could happen to you if you are married!" "Do it while you are single unless you are in high school, because you will get a baby then." "Or if you are absent parent in your own kids life." "Then you will knock up your girlfriend and have more kids you have a hard time being a parent too."

 

 

The way sex was handled in this show was...odd.

[Melancholy]

The Lane/Zack thing kind of came out of nowhere. Lane never really got to explain why she was suddenly in love with Zach who she had known for years to be a dumb womanizer. It seems as bizarre to me as if Lorelai suddenly fell for Kirk. I honestly think it's sad that it's probably because they wanted Keiko to stay on the show, but ran out of storylines for her character. Then they realized that they could give Lane a boyfriend, but didn't want to spring for the money to get a new actor and also deal with that additional storyline of introducing a new guy for her (though no issues introduce Logan's cadre of friends). So basically, Lane has to get some dude that's already on the show with whom she already interacts.

I think it's entirely probable that Dave Rygowski was supposed to be Lane's End Game Guy, and steady boyfriend and then, husband for the rest of the show. He had such a thoroughly dreamy and dramatic introduction for the boyfriend of the BFF. He was folded into Lane's band story so he could fill both roles of boyfriend and band mate. Adam Brody's acting style and ASP's dialogue are a match made in heaven. Given the tenor of the show, it's just so logical that Lane would get the High School Sweethearts 5evah! storyline in a contrast to how Rory and Paris flew too high and too far for high school sweethearts and Lorelai's high school sweetheart story's continuation into her adulthood was toxic.

....But then, The OC happened so ASP just scrapped plans without bothering to make a good alternative for Lane. Just pick the tallest, arguably sexiest of the other bandmates (who I actually thought was the least sexy compared to Brian and Gil).

Edited February 9, 2016 by Melancholy

[readster]

I think it's entirely probable that Dave Rygowski was supposed to be Lane's End Game Guy, and steady boyfriend and then, husband for the rest of the show. He had such a thoroughly dreamy and dramatic introduction for the boyfriend of the BFF. He was folded into Lane's band story so he could fill both roles of boyfriend and band mate. Adam Brody's acting style and ASP's dialogue are a match made in heaven. Given the tenor of the show, it's just so logical that Lane would get the High School Sweethearts 5evah! storyline in a contrast to how Rory and Paris flew too high and too far for high school sweethearts and Lorelai's high school sweetheart story's continuation into her adulthood was toxic.

....But then, The OC happened so ASP just scrapped plans without bothering to make a good alternative for Lane. Just pick the tallest, arguably sexiest of the other bandmates (who I actually thought was the least sexy compared to Brian and Gil).

Its very true, I mean if The OC wouldn't have happened, then Adam would have stayed on the show. Both his introduction and character were well written and there was chemistry between him and Keiko from the start. Then when he left for Fox, they all of a sudden went: "Hey, we have Zach and he is 'hot' let's just work him to be the end game." Then we saw how that all went. I'm sorry, but it just felt like Lane's storylines went from making sense, from her having to move out since her mother was so hurt that Lane hid her life from her. To getting pregnant and having twins after one night of sex. Not to mention, Dave leaving the show just happened off screen. There was no real resolution, which I couldn't blame AS-P for, that was due to her schedule on The OC. However, he was just gone and then Lane realized she was magically in love with Zach. Which went back to the entire Hep Alien thing, when Lane revealed after their summer gigs they had money and Zach, Brian and Gil could have shaved and showed. That made even less sense, it wasn't like they were going to back door bars. They were in church groups and so forth, you can't tell me they didn't have free bread and shaving supplies for them? Gil also own a successful sandwich shop, he could go: "Hey here is a $2 razor and shaving cream for you buddy." 

   AS-P had just a weird way or writing sex on GG and how she thought garage bands worked, but then again, it wasn't like Hep Alien wasn't anything, but a classic TV troupe: "I have a band that rules and my ticket to a the sweet life!"

[solotrek]

I think it's entirely probable that Dave Rygowski was supposed to be Lane's End Game Guy, and steady boyfriend and then, husband for the rest of the show. He had such a thoroughly dreamy and dramatic introduction for the boyfriend of the BFF. He was folded into Lane's band story so he could fill both roles of boyfriend and band mate. Adam Brody's acting style and ASP's dialogue are a match made in heaven. Given the tenor of the show, it's just so logical that Lane would get the High School Sweethearts 5evah! storyline in a contrast to how Rory and Paris flew too high and too far for high school sweethearts and Lorelai's high school sweetheart story's continuation into her adulthood was toxic.

....But then, The OC happened so ASP just scrapped plans without bothering to make a good alternative for Lane. Just pick the tallest, arguably sexiest of the other bandmates (who I actually thought was the least sexy compared to Brian and Gil).

I get that Dave was end game and that Helen Pai married her Dave.

 

But there was a season (plus a few episodes) between when Dave disappeared and when Zach became THE ONE. The OC became a hit very early on and it was quite obvious that Adam Brody was never coming back. So I guess my issue is that she had ample time and knowledge that the character of Dave was never going to come back. Instead of doing anything with that, she comes up with  a ridiculous and out of nowhere storyline for Lane and Zach. ASP never showed Lane and Dave ending their relationship (I think they were still dating after the marriage vase incident), Lane being upset it was over, Lane trying to move on, or why Lane fell for Zach. It all just happened. heck, I'd be happy if Lane never got together with Zach (or anyone) and her music did become her life. Or she would realize that maybe music wasn't everything and would find a new thing, similar to Rory's talking to from Mitchum except handled better.

 

Except Lane just ended up with this dumb womanizer she has known for years (whom she never really felt anything for previously from what we were shown); he torpedoes their bands big break out of a jealous rage and then proposes to her a little later. They have awful virginity losing beach sex after marriage and she gets pregnant with twins. For a show that probably couldn't see realism from the rear view mirror anymore and wanted to show "woman power", it's just deeply depressing and sad when you really think about it.

 

The best shows know when to write out characters who have run their course.

Edited February 9, 2016 by solotrek

[Kohola3]

The way sex was handled in this show was...odd.

 

The way ANYTHING about relationships was odd.  There is very, very little touching, hugging, hand holding (was there any?) and virtually no "I love you" moments in the whole series. I remember being quite shocked when Lorelai linked her arm with Luke at his uncle's funeral.  It was so natural and yet so out of place since we rarely saw any of that between characters.

 

Once couples were established there was some kissing but little other forms of touch.

 

I always wondered if ASP and her hubby had some sort of repressed emotions or something.

[Taryn74]

I guess my UO is that I never had a problem with Zach, and I grew to really like him after he and Lane got together.  And furthermore, I never really liked Dave all that much.  I definitely didn't like that he encouraged Lane's lying and hiding with regards to her mother.    

 

Maybe it's because of the garage-band-rock-star-wannabes I hung out with in high school myself, LOL, some of whom I'm still close friends with.  They do eventually grow up and get over themselves.  Zach was pretty much every guy I hung out with my junior and senior years.

 

I also didn't think it was all that unusual for Lane and Zach to have a horrible "first time" experience, and I don't believe it sends any strange messages about sex.  The first few times usually aren't all that spectacular, and it is disappointing when you've built up this dream world about how wonderful sex must be, to be smacked with the reality that it takes time to really get to know one another in such an intimate way, and there's some trial and error involved.  (Getting pregnant - with twins! - their first time was a bit much, though.  Although I never really got the impression that Lane's life was over or any other such dramatics.  No more so than Lorelai's life was over because Rory was on the way.)

[HeySandyStrange]

 

I guess my UO is that I never had a problem with Zach, and I grew to really like him after he and Lane got together.

 

I second this. Zach grew on me, he seemed like he was trying hard to be a good husband and father. That's not to say I was particularly in love with the direction of Lane's story. I would've liked to see Lane get a better job/career outside of the band then being a waitress at Luke's diner, and not be saddled with children so early on in her life. But I wasn't terribly upset either. I liked Lane a lot, but outside of her musical ambitions (which were pretty pie in the sky), she was never shown to be as focused or ambitious as Rory or Paris were. So I'm not so surprised at were her life ended up, and she at the end she seemed content with it.

[Melancholy]

It came across: "Sex will destroy your life! Don't ever think about it." Even the way Lane talked about it in: "That's what you get for making whoopee." Which was such an outdated term, I can't believe Lane even used it.

Actually, the "That's what you get for makin' whoopee" line is one of my favorite Lane remarks ever! It's a great reference to this fabulous old song about the blush of first lust in marriage leading to the drudges of marriage and kids and eventually the husband makin' whoopee with a mistress. A lot of legends sang it- Ella Fitzgerald, Bing Crosby but as per usual, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7ifBkw0HO0 Frank Sinatra did my favorite rendition. Hilarious musical nerd reference.

[readster]

I second this. Zach grew on me, he seemed like he was trying hard to be a good husband and father. That's not to say I was particularly in love with the direction of Lane's story. I would've liked to see Lane get a better job/career outside of the band then being a waitress at Luke's diner, and not be saddled with children so early on in her life. But I wasn't terribly upset either. I liked Lane a lot, but outside of her musical ambitions (which were pretty pie in the sky), she was never shown to be as focused or ambitious as Rory or Paris were. So I'm not so surprised at were her life ended up, and she at the end she seemed content with it.

The funny this is, Zach was the only character in season 7 that actually had any growth and organic moving after the entire relationship with Lane just happened. He took responsibility, wanted to be a good dad and do right by Lane. He also did it in a real organic way. Probably because his character hadn't been really been torn apart and told us to like it like everyone else in Season 6 from Lorelai to Richard. Lane ended up just floating and I had no problem with Lane's ending, she basically realize this was where life got her. She was so busy trying to not live her mother's life and that the band shouldn't have been her only ambition in life, but she did get something good out of it. She also realized, now she had to start thinking about a better tomorrow for her boys. Like I said in the end, the best ending for any of the GG character was really Lane and Zach who had the most thrown together, stories out of nowhere characters out of the last three seasons because really AS-P really didn't do much with them outside of getting them together and married because Dave wasn't coming back.

[Eyes High]

The way ANYTHING about relationships was odd.  There is very, very little touching, hugging, hand holding (was there any?) and virtually no "I love you" moments in the whole series. I remember being quite shocked when Lorelai linked her arm with Luke at his uncle's funeral.  It was so natural and yet so out of place since we rarely saw any of that between characters.

 

Once couples were established there was some kissing but little other forms of touch.

 

I always wondered if ASP and her hubby had some sort of repressed emotions or something.

 

Did Bunheads have this problem?

[Kohola3]

I don't recall any romances on Bunheads but then I found it to be a totally forgettable show. I love ballet and only watched because of that.  Once it becme clear that the focus would not be on dance I pretty much stopped watching.

[dustylil]

Zach was the only character in season 7 that actually had any growth and organic moving after the entire relationship with Lane just happened. He took responsibility, wanted to be a good dad and do right by Lane

 

I agree. Zach often bordered on the imbecilic. However, I really liked the way he handled what he thought was the news about the two of them having twins. Not able to properly understand the sonogram, he  believed that the babies were conjoined. Rather than react  initially with  shock and sadness, he immediately turned his mind to how they would physically care for their children and his heart on how to protect them from prejudice. Good for Zach.

[Taryn74]

 he  believed that the babies were conjoined. Rather than react  initially with  shock and sadness, he immediately turned his mind to how they would physically care for their children and his heart on how to protect them from prejudice. Good for Zach.

 

I loved that, how supportive and "all in" he was ready to be.  

[GreenScreenFX]

My post was unpopular even with my own personalities.

Edited February 10, 2016 by GreenScreenFX

[amensisterfriend]

I understand the reasons people hate season 7, but it had gone off the rails long before that for me.  Season 5 was when my spouse stopped watching it with me

 

Thank you!!! It always surprises me how nearly everyone---(not just fans---critics, media, etc.)---frame GG as a show that was consistently stellar for its first six seasons before radically going off the rails in the seventh. In my UO, the show went woefully astray in the fifth season, stayed relatively wretched for most of the sixth, and actually slightly redeemed itself in the seventh. Rory in particular was far more likable to me in the seventh season than the fifth and sixth, but some of the other characters were more palatable to me in S7 than S5-S6 as well---Zach, Logan, Emily and maybe even Luke, who was at least slightly less of an over-the-top bitter, angry killjoy in S7 and at times communicated more like an adult. And the show in general seemed to recapture a little of the warmth that was lacking for so much of S5 and S6 for me. (I've even read compelling arguments as to why the show faltered as early as S4, not S5---but I've already been 'unpopular' enough for one day :) ) 

Edited February 10, 2016 by amensisterfriend

[RainbowBrite]

Thank you!!! It always surprises me how nearly everyone---(not just fans---critics, media, etc.)---frame GG as a show that was consistently stellar for its first six seasons before radically going off the rails in the seventh. In my UO, the show went woefully astray in the fifth season, stayed relatively wretched for most of the sixth, and actually slightly redeemed itself in the seventh. Rory in particular was far more likable to me in the seventh season than the fifth and sixth, but some of the other characters were more palatable to me in S7 than S5-S6 as well---Zach, Logan, Emily and maybe even Luke, who was at least slightly less of an over-the-top bitter, angry killjoy in S7 and at times communicated more like an adult. And the show in general seemed to recapture a little of the warmth that was lacking for so much of S5 and S6 for me. (I've even read compelling arguments as to why the show faltered as early as S4, not S5---but I've already been 'unpopular' enough for one day :) ) 

I am currently in season 6 of a Netflix re-watch (I actually haven't watched the later seasons since they originally aired) and I also agree with this assessment. Season 5 was just such a downer; Rory became unrelatable and unlikeable for me, and the whole show just had a different feeling to it. I am actually enjoying Season 6 - perhaps because the bar was set low by Season 5.

[amensisterfriend]

I also agree with this assessment. Season 5 was just such a downer; Rory became unrelatable and unlikeable for me, and the whole show just had a different feeling to it. I am actually enjoying Season 6 - perhaps because the bar was set low by Season 5.

 

I surprised myself with this same UO the last time I rewatched---I actually preferred S6 to S5 overall. Like you, I'm inclined to think it was because my expectations for S6 are always so rock bottom low that it can't help but pleasantly surprise me, while for some reason my expectations of S5 are always still higher, and I find that it really disappoints. S6 also has LMHYBRO, which has become a true top 10i-15ish series highlight for me, while S5...doesn't :) 

Edited February 10, 2016 by amensisterfriend

[readster]

I am currently in season 6 of a Netflix re-watch (I actually haven't watched the later seasons since they originally aired) and I also agree with this assessment. Season 5 was just such a downer; Rory became unrelatable and unlikeable for me, and the whole show just had a different feeling to it. I am actually enjoying Season 6 - perhaps because the bar was set low by Season 5.

No, I agree, Season 5 is where it all started and then continued to tear everyone apartment in season 6. Season 7 tried to start mending and fixing things, mostly due to different show runners inheriting AS-P temper tantrum writing before she left the series. Season 6 still has good episodes, but the fuse was lit midway in season 5 and characters just started exploding in season 6 and why everyone pretty much hates the season. Five was the calm before the storm. 

[Melancholy]

No, I agree, Season 5 is where it all started and then continued to tear everyone apartment in season 6. Season 7 tried to start mending and fixing things, mostly due to different show runners inheriting AS-P temper tantrum writing before she left the series. 

 

I hear that- but I don't know why the S7 writers in the spirit of "fixing things" had Lorelai *marry* Christopher. The S6 ending didn't compel that. I would re-write S7, if I was fixing the S6 mess. Ok, so Lorelai slept with Christopher. The next morning, Luke came over declaring that he's ready to elope and commit but Lorelai says that she slept with Chris. Luke/Lorelai break up. Single!Luke keeps his, IMO, very good S7 arc where he grows in a bunch of important ways because the dream of Lorelai is over so he looks to find happiness in April and being a mentor to Zack/Lane so he can get to an even-keel enough to be unbelievably generous and kind to Lorelai even though she's no longer the fantasy object and his pining left him with a failed relationship already. However, I'd give a single!Lorelai closer to a mirror of Luke's arc where she grows in pivotal ways- she makes a declarative choice once and for all to reject these toxic cycles of lust and bust with Christopher (maybe after a short failed dating relationship), makes clearer strides with her parents so there's no suspense by Bon Voyage that Lorelai would still be a part of their lives even if Rory left. Then, Luke and Lorelia would get together sooner than the final ep, even if they didn't get married, so we'd have a clearer idea of what the flagship, end-game couple would look like after all of this drama as opposed to just seeing one kiss. 

 

Tying Lorelai up in an arc where she made the most objectionable mistake of her life for most the last season left me with little closure from Lorelai's end. It felt like Lorelai was just spinning her wheels until the marriage failed- but ultimately like she actually learned little but we're supposed to assume that the Christopher chapter closed just based on the hugeness of the failed fifteen minute marriage. 

Edited February 10, 2016 by Melancholy

[amensisterfriend]

The S5 vs S6 chat just reminded me of another supremely unpopular opinion I have: I can actually understand Luke's (mis)handling of the April situation more than his behavior in S5, where he goes from being "all in" to having a complete meltdown over something related to Christopher and Emily that isn't even really Lorelai's fault, storms out of her parents' vow renewal without so much as leaving her cab fare or making sure she has another ride home, and proceeds to freeze her out completely without even hearing her explanation, declaring that he's thinking he's just out of this relationship, which...what?! It's kind of symptomatic of S5 in general for me: failed attempts to make things more dramatic and 'eventful', only to make characters a lot less likable in the process. I totally get that Luke, by his own admission, is slow. He often needs a lot of time and space to process things before 1) they sink in and 2) he decides how to proceed. And I actually understand and even applaud that---as someone who tends to act more quickly and impulsively like our Lorelai, I get just how disastrous the consequences can be :) But for him to just totally ignore her and then conclude he wants to just break up without even hearing what she had to say---gah. It just infuriates me. As I said elsewhere, it's like a judge retiring to deliberate and then returning to render his verdict BEFORE bothering to listen to any of the facts of the case! And given that their relationship had supposedly been going well up to that point despite a few minor clashes and (IMO) a sad dearth of joy, passion or chemistry, why would he want to take the extreme action of ending the relationship entirely even after calming down from his latest temper tantrum? And even how he decides to reconcile only after Emily travels to SH to graciously grant her 'permission' and promise to stop interfering (thank you, Queen Emily!) is a little irksome---since he's supposed to be such a 'stand up' guy (though he often isn't), can't he take the initiative to try to work things out if that he wants to do whether Emily likes it or not? Or at least listen to what Lorelai had to say?!

 

The April thing is ridiculous---the fact that he withholds the information and that he doesn't seem to intuitively understand why it would bother Lorelai that he shuts her out completely from that part of his life even as other people have met and interacted with her by that point, not to mention the nonsensical argument that Luke can't commit to a wedding date while also getting to know April because...reasons.  But at least I get that finding out you have a child out there who you never knew existed is a huge event, and one that people might handle poorly due to being stunned, overwhelmed, anxious, etc. His going from "I'm all in" to "I'm out...for no real reason" in S5 always made less sense to me. 

Edited February 10, 2016 by amensisterfriend

[readster]

 

The April thing is ridiculous---the fact that he withholds the information and that he doesn't seem to intuitively understand why it would bother Lorelai that he shuts her out completely from that part of his life even as other people have met and interacted with her by that point, not to mention the nonsensical argument that Luke can't commit to a wedding date while also getting to know April because...reasons.  But, see, at least I get that finding out you have a child out there who you never knew existed is a huge event, and one that people might handle poorly due to being stunned, overwhelmed, anxious, etc. His going from "I'm all in" to "I'm out...for no real reason" in S5 always made less sense to me.

Everyone hates not only April's introduction but also how Luke handled it. Let's face it, if someone all of a sudden showed up at my door claiming to be my child from a relationship from eons ago. Trust me, my world would be shaken to the core, but would I hide this from my wife and family? Answer... no. I wouldn't. Even waiting for a DNA test, this would be something I would meet with in private with the main family and try to deal with it. While how stupid the plot was (it was extremely stupid) how April came riding in on her bike talking a man who had no idea: "Hey, I'm doing a science fair experiment to see if you are my father or two other guys. My name is April... blah blah blah!" My first reaction would have been: "Are you insane?" Not the deer in the headlights followed by: "Is it true Anna?" with her response: "Well, you said on our one date you hated kids, I figured you would have been a lousy dad." Such utter and completely hack eyed, wanting to assassinate her own show because of Moon Lighting Curse BULLSHIT! That rivals anything up to the current season of Castle, is completely STUPID!... I'm better now sorry.

   Luke's handling of Wedding Bell Blues and then April Gate, completely destroyed Luke's character and even Luke Patterson said a few years later after the show ended: "I really wish Luke wouldn't have been such a moron in those stories." 

[txhorns79]

And I actually understand and even applaud that---as someone who tends to act more quickly and impulsively like our Lorelai, I get just how disastrous the consequences can be :) But for him to just totally ignore her and then conclude he wants to just break up without even hearing what she had to say---gah.

 

Oh gosh yes, the whole thing is so dumb.  It seems like the more logical thing to do would be to simply join Lorelai in shunning Emily.  It's not like Lorelai was actually considering returning to Chris, or was in any way complicit with what had happened.  Though I suppose it did teach us that when things get hard, Luke falls apart and cuts himself off. 

[Melancholy]

The S5 vs S6 chat just reminded me of another supremely unpopular opinion I have: I can actually understand Luke's (mis)handling of the April situation more than his behavior in S5, where he goes from being "all in" to having a complete meltdown over something related to Christopher and Emily that isn't even really Lorelai's fault, storms out of her parents' vow renewal without so much as leaving her cab fare or making sure she has another ride home, and proceeds to freeze her out completely without even hearing her explanation, declaring that he's thinking he's just out of this relationship, which...what?! It's kind of symptomatic of S5 in general for me: failed attempts to make things more dramatic and 'eventful', only to make characters a lot less likable in the process. I totally get that Luke, by his own admission, is slow. He often needs a lot of time and space to process things before 1) they sink in and 2) he decides how to proceed. And I actually understand and even applaud that---as someone who tends to act more quickly and impulsively like our Lorelai, I get just how disastrous the consequences can be :) But for him to just totally ignore her and then conclude he wants to just break up without even hearing what she had to say---gah. It just infuriates me. As I said elsewhere, it's like a judge retiring to deliberate and then returning to render his verdict BEFORE bothering to listen to any of the facts of the case! And given that their relationship had supposedly been going well up to that point despite a few minor clashes and (IMO) a sad dearth of joy, passion or chemistry, why would he want to take the extreme action of ending the relationship entirely even after calming down from his latest temper tantrum? And even how he decides to reconcile only after Emily travels to SH to graciously grant her 'permission' and promise to stop interfering (thank you, Queen Emily!) is a little irksome---since he's supposed to be such a 'stand up' guy (though he often isn't), can't he take the initiative to try to work things out if that he wants to do whether Emily likes it or not? Or at least listen to what Lorelai had to say?!

 

I didn't think it was a big deal that Luke left Lorelai without cab fare or a ride home. Lorelai was with plenty of family at a big party. There's no reason to assume that she wouldn't leave without money. They were at some big convention center in Hartford where I'm sure there were plenty of cabs. I don't think Luke stranded her at all. 

 

I also don't think Luke broke up with Lorelai out of anger. Well, Luke was justifiably angry that Lorelai spent all night drinking with Christopher at his house but didn't tell him. I think it was also extra-suspicious because Lorelai went out of her way to tell Luke about Chris coming to the Inn with Gigi which was a much more ostensibly innocent get-together with tons of witnesses that nothing was untoward but Lorelai had to hide the all night drink-a-thon at Chris's house? And then, nervously be all "Ooh, there's Chris at the vow renewal. WE DRANK ALL NIGHT AT HIS HOUSE...BUT THERE WAS NOTHING DIRTY GOING ON!!!" That is suspicious. 

 

But IMO, the main thing driving Luke's break-up was that Luke did feel understandably anxious and scared that Lorelai has all of this immovable people in her life from her parents to the father of Rory who are scheming against him and pouring poison in Lorelia's ear to get her to break up with him. I think he had fair reason to doubt that their relationship could stand up to that kind of hostility so perhaps it'd be prudent to break-up now when the relationship was still young before it's a Chocolate v. Flowers type of melodramatic situation. IMO, Luke really had a point. The grandparents and Chris WERE a part of Lorelai's life till the end of the show- and almost definitely beyond, even for Chris. Lorelai's blithe "I can cut them all out" didn't ring true. Just a few eps later, Lorelai went back on her "You and me? We're DONE" promise just for a pass at meeting Logan on that particular Friday night instead of another occasion of her own choosing. (And IMO, that only makes sense with my head-canon that Lorelai really did miss her parents and FNDs (Mozart? mind-games?) and she was looking for a martyr-reason to go over there and not lose face.) 

 

I think it's *possible* to marry into a family that hates you- but it's really hard, especially when said family is pushing the father of the child you share at you as a romantic partner. Luke was harsh out of hurt feelings and early on, a frustration that Lorelai wasn't giving him the space he asked for, but IMO, he wasn't breaking up with Lorelai to punish her but just because he felt like their relationship was a losing prospect so better to break up sooner than later. 

 

That's why it made sense why Emily telling Luke to go see Lorelai gave him the confidence to go back to Lorelai. Because again, it wasn't that Luke wanted to punish Lorelai or thought she was a bad girlfriend or that the vow renewal incident was her fault. It was that Luke didn't want to commit to a family who was against him. Heck, Lorelai had Logan-specific reasons for being anti-Logan/Rory but IMO, part of it really was that Lorelai didn't want Rory to do the unpleasant work of trying to force her way into family that hated her and deal with the uncertainty that Logan's purse-string holding family would always pressure him into being with someone else. With Emily's go-ahead, Luke felt a little better that powerful people in Lorelai's life weren't working to sabotage their relationship anymore and he could just relax and enjoy the relationship instead of worrying about whether a hug from Lorelai's parents really meant there'd be a knife in his back. 

Edited February 10, 2016 by Melancholy

[amensisterfriend]

Luke's handling of Wedding Bell Blues and then April Gate, completely destroyed Luke's character and even Luke Patterson said a few years later after the show ended: "I really wish Luke wouldn't have been such a moron in those stories."

 

Heh---that actually gives me an increased respect for Scott Patterson! 

 

Oh gosh yes, the whole thing is so dumb.  It seems like the more logical thing to do would be to simply join Lorelai in shunning Emily.  It's not like Lorelai was actually considering returning to Chris, or was in any way complicit with what had happened.  Though I suppose it did teach us that when things get hard, Luke falls apart and cuts himself off.

 

EXACTLY! And it was so jarring, because one of Luke's strengths is supposedly that he's always there for those he cares about and hangs in there no matter what... but I agree that in actuality he tends to check out figuratively or even storm out literally when things get tough. Another example is The Prodigal Daughter Returns, where he freaks out to an extent that's  a little alarming upon hearing Christopher's voice, has one one of his temper tantrums (even with Sookie and Jackson present) and sits drinking beer at home until Lorelai comes over and rather nervously calms him down.  Why AS-P found the 'rude, jealous, angry boor' thing such an attractive trait in the male characters she created will always be among the show's biggest mysteries to me. 

[txhorns79]

It was that Luke didn't want to commit to a family who was against him.

 

If Lorelai was younger and was really influenced by what her parents' thought of her relationships, I would agree.  I just kind of feel like that was less an issue in terms of Luke and Lorelai, because Luke knew that Lorelai had shunned them for years without issue, and likely would have done so again if it came down to it.   

[shron17]

Luke knew that Lorelai had shunned them for years without issue, and likely would have done so again if it came down to it.

I think he knew Lorelai wouldn't be able to shun them for long if Rory didn't.  And she wasn't.  

 

And then, nervously be all "Ooh, there's Chris at the vow renewal. WE DRANK ALL NIGHT AT HIS HOUSE...BUT THERE WAS NOTHING DIRTY GOING ON!!!" That is suspicious.

Not to mention that she actually said "I’m only telling you now because he’s here and it might come up, and I don’t want you to feel shanghaied."

 

My unpopular opinion is that I completely understand why Lorelai went back to Friday night dinner when Logan was invited.  It wasn't necessarily to spend time with Logan, but more that she needed to assert that she was as much a part of Rory's life as Emily and Richard.

 

I didn't think it was a big deal that Luke left Lorelai without cab fare or a ride home. Lorelai was with plenty of family at a big party.

I agree that it's a silly thing to hold against Luke.  He probably figured Rory would take her home since they drove separately.

Edited February 10, 2016 by shron17

[Melancholy]

If Lorelai was younger and was really influenced by what her parents' thought of her relationships, I would agree.  I just kind of feel like that was less an issue in terms of Luke and Lorelai, because Luke knew that Lorelai had shunned them for years without issue, and likely would have done so again if it came down to it.   

 

I still think it's an issue, although of course it'd be more so if Lorelai was very influenced by her parents. However, the senior Gilmores have been a constant presence in Lorelai's life for the last four and a half years, even if she complains constantly about them. They were still bankrolling Rory's Ivy League Education, which the girls prioritize above all. And you also have Rory's father, apparently also desperate to get back together with Lorelai with senior Gilmore support. I can see why Luke thought there was too much against him and Lorelai really making it so it'd be best to end things just a few months into the relationship. Luke was consistent about this "need familial support to have a lasting relationship." He gave Jess similar warnings about getting along with Lorelai and the grandparents if he hoped for a serious relationship with Rory. 

 

JESS: I’m dating Rory, not her family.

LUKE: All these people come in a package with this girl. The mother comes with this girl. The grandmother comes with this girl.

 

IMO, Luke regarded Lorelai that way too. Rory, Sookie, Michel, Richard/Emily, even Christopher under the most limited circumstances come with Lorelai. 

Edited February 10, 2016 by Melancholy

[takalotti]

While it in no way justifies Luke's silent treatment and shutdown post-WBB, nor was this perspective ever conveyed by Luke, I could also see Luke looking at the situation and prioritizing family over boyfriend for Lorelai (not that it's up to him how Lorelai prioritized them). Luke "family is the most important thing" Danes wouldn't want Lorelai to cut out her family for him.

[timimouse]

Not to mention that she actually said "I’m only telling you now because he’s here and it might come up, and I don’t want you to feel shanghaied."

 

My unpopular opinion is that I completely understand why Lorelai went back to Friday night dinner when Logan was invited.  It wasn't necessarily to spend time with Logan, but more that she needed to assert that she was as much a part of Rory's life as Emily and Richard.

 

I agree that it's a silly thing to hold against Luke.  He probably figured Rory would take her home since they drove separately.

 

I agree that the "I'm only telling you now" statement was really a stupid thing to say. It just made the whole thing even more suspicious. But oddly, I blame Rory for all of it. I don't think Lorelai would've kept it from Luke had Rory not jumped in with the "we were up all night" thing... Was that even necessary?!?!?!

 

I'm not sure if your opinion is unpopular or not but I just finished watching that episode and I found that I entirely disagreed with her going back to friday night dinners just because she wanted to meet the boyfriend on the same night as her parents. I found it to be very childish. What does it matter when she meets him? Can she not trust in her relationship with Rory being stronger than that of Rory with her grandparents? Did she not understand that's what they did in "their" world... the world that she didn't want to be a part of? While i can understand her dislike of Logan, I think she didn't handle it correctly. And all of that probably added to the break down of their relationship in season 6.

 

I have a question about your last point... Didn't they all drive there together? I know we saw them leaving Lorelai's house together so I just assumed that both Lorelai and Rory drove with Luke.

[shron17]

But oddly, I blame Rory for all of it.

I can see that.  Although Lorelai had her chance later to come clean and still didn't.  I think it was completely unnecessary.

 

I'm not sure if your opinion is unpopular or not but I just finished watching that episode and I found that I entirely disagreed with her going back to friday night dinners just because she wanted to meet the boyfriend on the same night as her parents.

Lorelai met Logan at the vow renewal so it wasn't about that.  It was more about claiming her place in the family as Rory's mother.  She had already made her point to Emily by not coming back when demanded--it was probably just a matter of time anyway.

 

I'm pretty sure they didn't all go to the vow renewal in Luke's truck or it would have been discussed when Lorelai said Luke was bringing the truck around and to go back in.  They probably drove separately so Rory could go back to Yale after.  Either way, Lorelai knew everyone there and could have easily gotten a ride if she really needed one.

[Melancholy]

I agree that the "I'm only telling you now" statement was really a stupid thing to say. It just made the whole thing even more suspicious. But oddly, I blame Rory for all of it. I don't think Lorelai would've kept it from Luke had Rory not jumped in with the "we were up all night" thing... Was that even necessary?!?!?!

 

LOL, I still mostly blame Lorelai for creating suspicion and dishonesty when it didn't need to exist- but yeah, Rory was ridiculous in that scene. I wasn't even hungover when I last saw that ep- and she aggravated me! 

 

 

I'm not sure if your opinion is unpopular or not but I just finished watching that episode and I found that I entirely disagreed with her going back to friday night dinners just because she wanted to meet the boyfriend on the same night as her parents. I found it to be very childish. What does it matter when she meets him? Can she not trust in her relationship with Rory being stronger than that of Rory with her grandparents? Did she not understand that's what they did in "their" world... the world that she didn't want to be a part of?

 

I still insist that Lorelai missed E/R and insisting on meeting Logan that night was her way of going to FND without admitting to herself or others that this was a reconciliation. Lorelai had no beef with Richard, and actually drew a little closer to him with the insurance during the feud. I think it did matter that Emily went to SH to get Luke to re-connect with Lorelai and Lorelai no longer felt actively harmed since she was with Luke. It's a head-canon that I cling to because, you know, it DOES make sense and it explains why Lorelai just HADDA be there on that night and actually allows me to feel as sorry for her as I'm supposed to when Emily treats Lorelai like an estranged daughter that they're fighting with at the dinner. And it explains why come the next ep, it's all fondue and dirty ballet guy jokes by the cold open like nothing happened. 

[shron17]

I still insist that Lorelai missed E/R and insisting on meeting Logan that night was her way of going to FND without admitting to herself or others that this was a reconciliation.

I guess I see it more that after Lorelai made her point and got Emily to back off she decided to call the fight off sooner than she planned in order to be there when Logan was invited to the family dinner.  And I don't feel sorry for Lorelai at the dinner simply because she had to know exactly what kind of treatment she was in for when she decided to go.  The next week Lorelai had made her point, Emily got her pound of flesh and they went back to normal.  Even so, calling it a reconciliation is a bit of a stretch.

[dustylil]

Whatever her reasons, I'm glad Lorelai attended that particular FND. Otherwise that poor maid would have lost her job. Lord knows the simpering Rory wouldn't have informed her grandmother of Logan's tchotchke  prank.

the show went woefully astray in the fifth season, stayed relatively wretched for most of the sixth

 

So true. It was getting rather grim.  I remember seeing a publicity photo from what appeared to be Season 6's Godmother episode just before it aired - Lorelai was doubled over in laughter from something that Sookie had just said. I thought, oh good some of the long missing humour and lightness is back in the show. Unfortunately, it was a photograph of Melissa McCarthy and Lauren Graham sharing a joke.

[Melancholy]

I guess I see it more that after Lorelai made her point and got Emily to back off she decided to call the fight off sooner than she planned in order to be there when Logan was invited to the family dinner.  And I don't feel sorry for Lorelai at the dinner simply because she had to know exactly what kind of treatment she was in for when she decided to go.  The next week Lorelai had made her point, Emily got her pound of flesh and they went back to normal.  Even so, calling it a reconciliation is a bit of a stretch.

 

I"m fine calling it "getting back to normal" instead of reconciliation. I agree with the above.  

[shron17]

And I agree that there's a bit of truth in your "fluffier" version as well.  I may well just be an old cynic.

 

You're right, Dusty, it certainly worked out for the poor maid.  I almost can't believe what a jerk Logan was and how spineless Rory was.

[dustylil]

I almost can't believe what a jerk Logan was and how spineless Rory was

 

I didn't blame Logan all that much. Playing idiotic pranks was practically his life's blood. And he had a host of people to come in and repair the damage if things got too awry.  I genuinely don't think he had any idea how Emily would respond to this kind of practical joke - he struck me as careless, not cruel.  But Rory knew. And she certainly was spineless. All she had to do was tell Logan that the maid would lose her job and that he should play his foolish trick at the next house he visited. But Rory was too much in  thrall of him and his way of life. I thought her behaviour was shabby. No wonder Lorelai was getting exasperated with her.

[txhorns79]

I didn't blame Logan all that much. Playing idiotic pranks was practically his life's blood. And he had a host of people to come in and repair the damage if things got too awry.  I genuinely don't think he had any idea how Emily would respond to this kind of practical joke - he struck me as careless, not cruel.  But Rory knew. And she certainly was spineless. All she had to do was tell Logan that the maid would lose her job and that he should play his foolish trick at the next house he visited.

 

This almost sounds like the argument is being made that Logan just couldn't help himself, so he shouldn't be blamed for his own actions.  As to Rory, I'd agree she should have spoken up once it was clear the maid would be fired, but unless she was prescient, I doubt she knew Emily would immediately notice the small item was gone or start firing people.  Though I suppose you could argue it was a like mother/like daughter moment for she and Lorelai.  After all, Lorelai said nothing when she heard that Emily fired the wedding planner over Lorelai's prank of switching up the seating chart. 

Edited February 11, 2016 by txhorns79

[HeySandyStrange]

 

This almost sounds like the argument is being made that Logan just couldn't help himself, so he shouldn't be blamed for his own actions.

 

I think it's more the fact that rich, pampered Logan has no idea that is "silly" practical jokes could have real life consequences for the little people in the real world. I mean, he probably figured Emily wouldn't even notice a little trinket missing and if she did, she'd just trot out and buy another. It doesn't excuse his behavior, but he has no idea who easy it is for a maid to lose her job in the Gilmore household and how one missing bauble could ruin the maid's professional reputation. I wanted to give him a swift kick in the ass over that, but Rory almost deserved the bigger one for sitting by and making googly eyes at him during. She apparently forgot all about the hard years at the Inn that her mother spent as a maid herself so that they could eat and live. You'd think she'd remember times and realize how some joke like that could've lost Lorelai her own job. Rory had very little insight at times, for all that she was so intelligent and all.

[txhorns79]

I think it's more the fact that rich, pampered Logan has no idea that is "silly" practical jokes could have real life consequences for the little people in the real world. I mean, he probably figured Emily wouldn't even notice a little trinket missing and if she did, she'd just trot out and buy another. It doesn't excuse his behavior, but he has no idea who easy it is for a maid to lose her job in the Gilmore household and how one missing bauble could ruin the maid's professional reputation.

 

I would think Logan knows exactly what could happen, but doesn't necessarily care.  I agree that he thought Emily would probably not notice. 

[HeySandyStrange]

I would think Logan knows exactly what could happen, but doesn't necessarily care.  I agree that he thought Emily would probably not notice. 

 

I guess it is all about perspective. In Logan's world, people don't have to work to make a living, they work to maintain their fortunes. He has no idea how devastating losing a job can be since at that point who always expected everything to be handed to him. I don't defend his arrogant and entitled attitude at all, but I can see how he might not be able to understand how the other half live. I expected more from Rory but somehow she bumped her head and forgot all about her modest upbringing.

[dustylil]

In Logan's world, people don't have to work to make a living, they work to maintain their fortunes

 

With respect, Logan's mother did  before her marriage, so I don't think the concept of working for a living would be totally alien to him.

 

In any event, I also doubt that Logan at that point in time would know that Emily was in the habit of dismissing staff for frivolous or non-existent reasons. Why would he? This was only the second or third time he had been to the senior Gilmore home. It is  possible, even likely,  that his parents knew of Emily's little "quirks". However, why would they discuss the domestic service arrangements of their Hartford friends with their son who was living in New Haven and from whom they were somewhat estranged?

[Melancholy]

I don't think you need to be a harsh employer to instinctively fire a new maid when an expensive item goes missing from the house without any sign of a break-in. Stealing is fireable by any metric and yes, a new maid is the first and even the only suspect for stealing a specific item. 

 

I think txhorns is right. It is well within Logan's knowledge to assume that the maid or really any of the waitstaff could be fired for his prank. However, he didn't care. I think he just goes around assuming that the point of practical joke remains- the wealthy have so many tchotchkes that they won't even notice if one expensive-looking tchotchke is replaced with another one. Logan was a little shocked himself at Emily's eagle eye seeing the missing item straight away. I don't think that happens in Logan's presence. I'd hope that the fun went out of the joke and Logan never tried it again- as a matter of fact, some rich society ladies actually DO know the contents of their luxurious homes down to the smallest item. 

 

Rory was deplorable and pathetic. Apparently she lacks the guts to report Logan to Emily, the finesse that Lorelai had to extract the item out of Logan to save the maid with while the near-firing/considered arrest was happening, and even the mere concern for her grandparent's household and waitstaff to just tell Logan "Don't" when he was in the process of stealing the item instead of practically cheering him on with a flirtatious "You're crazy" <hearts eyes>. She had three ways to come out like a halfway decent human being and she took none of them. 

Edited February 11, 2016 by Melancholy

[dustylil]

I don't think you need to be a harsh employer to instinctively fire a new maid when an expensive item goes missing from the house without any sign of a break-in. Stealing is fireable by any metric and yes, a new maid is the first and even the only suspect for stealing a specific item

 

If the maid was the only person on the premises during the time the knick-knack was there and then disappeared, then a reasonable case might  be made. Although why she would just steal a bauble when there were likely many other small things of considerably greater value in the room or around the house  is puzzling. To say nothing of the risk of being blacklisted in her field of work if she was caught.

 

But were there no social visitors, no neighbours, no trades or service people, no DAR ladies, no business colleagues of Richard visiting the house in the relevant time period? How could Emily be sure - beside rank bigotry, of course - that the maid had done it?

 

It would have made a great cross-over with Judge Judy. Now of course Emily is entitled to discharge any employee she wants to. But the maid could have sued Emily for defamation of character and damages for having branded her a thief without any proof.  

Edited February 11, 2016 by dustylil