One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions

[txhorns79]

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?

 

How is a person "somewhat" estranged from their parents?  Is that what happens when you don't like your parents, but still take their money to maintain your lifestyle and do what they tell you when it comes down to it? 

 

Now in terms of what they might discuss with Logan, I can easily see them sharing an anecdote about Emily and her penchant for firing the help.  I don't think they would have to have a specific discussion about the "domestic service arrangements of their Hartford friends" to need to bring up that kind of thing. 

 

But were there no social visitors, no neighbors, 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 probably depend on when Emily had last seen the object, and how many people had, had access to the room since that time.  Presumably when friends or colleagues of Richard's are over, they aren't typically left alone.  The same would likely go for tradespeople.  A maid would typically have unsupervised access to the house in the way a normal person would not.       

 

 

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.

 

I think he even says something to that extent, doesn't he?  He thought the people he took stuff from had so much stuff that they didn't even notice when things vanished or were replaced? 

[Melancholy]

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.  

 

Sorry to say, but I think that kind of rank bigotry is acceptable. I think it's very normal for E/R to assume that their friends and social guests wouldn't steal on a social call. Yes, very much because these are rich people but also because you don't operate with that kind of suspicion towards your guests/friends. Service-people who are only there because they're paid are much more reasonable suspects. Now, Emily didn't suspect like, a handyman who was there months ago but instead the maid because I think she remembered recently seeing the object so she suspected their service person who was there all day. 

 

And I think service people can and do steal things of lesser value that they don't think their employers will notice or that they just instinctively *want* more than the highest value item. I had some fancy, expensive baby clothes that my mother packed away after I grew out of them because they were too cute and expensive for my mother to part with so she wanted to save them for the next baby in the family, whenever that may be. When I was a pre-teen, our family is sure that we had a housekeeper who cleaned us out of the baby clothes- but nothing else. Maybe she had a sentimental desire for such nice baby clothes for future baby of hers. Maybe she thought they'd re safe goods to take since they were just packed in a closet and no one in the family had any reason to check on them for years. 

 

I don't see a successful defamation suit. Emily had cause to suspect the maid. Even if her defamation went bigger than the Gilmores + Logan and she reported the maid to the agency for instance or told her friends, I think it'd hard to prove that Emily acted with actual malice or negligence. She was operating under an understandable instinct to protect her home- which can absolutely include firing a maid before her theft is like, proven in a court of law. Moreover, defamation suits are only worth anything if the statement is widely published or broadcast, not if Emily discharges a maid and gossips about why. But then again, I thought the maid's lawsuit in S3 for wrongful termination was bullshit that I head-canon that Emily absolutely won very early on in the process.. I was shocked that it made it far enough in the discovery process that depositions were taken. Emily's lawyer must have been incompetent. 

Edited February 11, 2016 by Melancholy

[txhorns79]

And I think service people can and do steal things of lesser value that they don't think their employers will notice or that they just instinctively *want* more than the highest value item.

 

I agree.  The whole point is not to get caught.  You wouldn't look to steal the more expensive items because presumably your employer would keep better track of those things.

[readster]

I agree.  The whole point is not to get caught.  You wouldn't look to steal the more expensive items because presumably your employer would keep better track of those things.

That's exactly it. I remember in the film, The Help, where the one maid finds a large diamond ring that looks to have been missing for days and then pockets it. Before being arrested. However, in the book it was stated the ring had disappeared a few days prior and then the maid finding it makes it look like she stole it. Logan here had been taking things he believed were not only small, but to the point no one would notice they were gone. Of course, as we know, Emily sees all and knows all in her house (even though she can't see her own attitude was like her mother-in-law's). Rory not saying anything showed her so spineless, it was like when Emily fired one maid because she dare to have a conversation with Rory who opened up the conversation to begin with. Rory couldn't have said: "Grandma, it wasn't her fault, I talked to her, but what is so wrong with that?"

  One huge UPO was on Emily's constant revolving door of maids (which I'm sure will continue in the rival). AS-P missed a gold mine after the one maid sued her and Lorelai butchered the defense by mocking Emily on the stand. I would have loved to seen almost a month's worth of episodes where no maid wanted to work for the Gilmore Household. Leaving Emily to do the daily routines and then Richard hiring a butler. Similar to the one that was working for him during the separation story line. Because he was in several episodes before getting the boot after Wedding Bell Blues. Because Richard didn't fire someone just because they tripped in a doorway or asked a question. I know it was a constant joke, but the writers started pulling ideas out of their asses to warrant the maids being fired in the last few seasons. I remember one was so bad, you have no idea how she was hired in the first place. Another was calling in sick and I remember one tripped leaving the room in one episode and Emily went: "She's done!" 

[dustylil]

I was not suggesting that service personnel or domestic staff do not steal. Of course some do. I have had enough experience of it  in my own home over the years. And as I said, Emily was entitled to dismiss her for whatever reason. However calling the woman a thief - with considerable implications for her livelihood and reputation - was a different matter.

 

I agree about the ludicrous lawsuit from the earlier season. Although it would have been highly entertaining if it had been some kind of class action suit with hundreds of former Gilmore servants taking part.

 

Emily's lawyer must have been incompetent

 

 

From what we have seen of them, yes. The Gilmore legal team seemed a tad lacking - that lawsuit, whoever drew up the legal arrangements for Richard's firm that put the family's financial well-being at risk and of course Rory's defense lawyer.

[amensisterfriend]

Even as someone who (mostly!) likes Christopher and his chemistry, connection, etc. with Lorelai better than most do (though I'm glad they didn't ultimately end up together) and who likes Luke and his romantic relationship with Lorelai a lot less than most do (though I've accepted that they are/will be together!), I just dread the prospect of Christopher popping up in the revival. The idea of resurrecting that love triangle nonsense yet again and the tiresome jealousy, pettiness, immaturity etc that always goes along with it is just cringe inducing at this point! I hope Christopher is there purely to somehow work on his relationship with Rory...but, with AS-P, one can never be sure :)

 

Another one: The more I rewatch certain scenes, read insightful analysis here and elsewhere etc., the more I think that my answer to the infamous 'which of Rory's boyfriends is best?!' question is...none of the above :)

 

She and Jess have BY FAR the best connection and chemistry IMO, and I adore Jess's S6 appearances. But like nearly all GG males, his flaws were exaggerated to the point where it's hard for me to genuinely like and defend him in many instances, and that 'type' of character----and he often WAS reduced to a type, IMUO, the defiant, self-designated rebel, way-too-cool-for-anything-mainstream punk---just isn't a favorite of mine.

 

Logan and Rory are objectively a nice blend of complementary differences and a few fundamental similarities, and it was nice to see a main GG male character who was usually cheerful and a refreshing change from the usual surly, angry, ill-mannered sulker who AS-P likes to give us. But she just never seemed fully herself around him to me. And then there's the smarmy smirk, the condescension, the fact that he never QUITE comes off as sincere to me even when he's supposed to (ironically, I find David Sutcliffe made Christopher seem a lot more sincere to me than MC did with Logan, but I know that's a UO), the arrogance, the heavy partying, the bridesmaids...he's even less my 'type' than Jess is :) And for all the very understandable arguments that Logan grew and evolved (and I've made some of them myself!), that growth never seemed to last all that long before he'd regress again. Even towards the very end of the series, he deals with disappointment by being a reckless, irresponsible drunken ass with Colin and Finn yet again. 

 

Dean was deadly dull, personalty challenged and sulky at his best and weirdly possessive, angry, bitter etc. at his worst.

 

Marty had potential before that S7 debacle, but 1) he had kind of a flat, sad-sack-y energy, and Rory tends to respond to and come alive around more strong and vibrant personalities  and 2) they didn't seem to have any more romantic chemistry than Rory/Dean did to me...and Rory/Dean had almost none whatsoever :) 

 

So despite loving some Rory/Jess scenes and even a few Rory/Logan scenes, I think overall I'd root for Rory to be happily single and/or with some other guy who was never on the show. And books will always be her one true love :)  

Edited February 11, 2016 by amensisterfriend

[Guest]

I always interpret it as Logan thought the older, wealthy people in his circle had so many small items that they would never notice an item being swapped. I think he was well aware that people worked for a living (he certainly seemed to realize Marty did) but he just hadn't thought that his action might cost the maid her job.

 

Of course, he should have immediately spoken up when Emily started to turn on the maid.

[readster]

 

From what we have seen of them, yes. The Gilmore legal team seemed a tad lacking - that lawsuit, whoever drew up the legal arrangements for Richard's firm that put the family's financial well-being at risk and of course Rory's defense lawyer.

You are right, now that I look back, they had horrible lawyers across the board. Emily's lawyer couldn't make the case just disappear. How Rory got hit with so much community service and other stuff while Logan, not only a repeat offender for doing way worst was just: "Here is a tap on the finger, have fun in Europe." Richard's lawyer for his business was really a moron, for a former boss to know that much about Richard's business after he "retired" and to be able to twist him like that stinks of Alan's lawyers from Two and a Half Men. Now, really, they must of have all gone to the same law school. Because the GG clan when it came to lawyers was horrible. Let, Luke puts out his work to get his partial custody of April and it was: "Sign here, sign here, do you agree, yes or no?" "Congrats, you have rights you should have had since day 1." With the Gilmores it was: "Duh! What? Go to hell!" 

[Melancholy]

Even as someone who (mostly!) likes Christopher and his chemistry, connection, etc. with Lorelai better than most do (though I'm glad they didn't ultimately end up together) and who likes Luke and his romantic relationship with Lorelai a lot less than most do (though I've accepted that they are/will be together!), I just dread the prospect of Christopher popping up in the revival. The idea of resurrecting that love triangle nonsense yet again and the tiresome jealousy, pettiness, immaturity etc that always goes along with it is just cringe inducing at this point! I hope Christopher is there purely to somehow work on his relationship with Rory...but, with AS-P, one can never be sure :)

 

That reminded of a point that I was thinking about during the mini-Luke in Wedding Bell Blues discussion. It's interesting that Lorelai and Luke flip positions re: Christopher between Say Something and The Prodigal Daughter.

 

LORELAI: I know, and I shouldn't have. And I am so, so sorry. But all that talk from Christopher, at the wedding. I didn't see that coming. He was drunk. He was stupid. He's never not stupid, but I didn't see it coming.

LUKE: You should have.

LORELAI: I know. Rory warned me and I ignored her, but believe me. I am never seeing him again. Never.

LUKE: What are you talking about? He's Rory's father. He'll always be in your life.

LORELAI: In her life.

LUKE: Her life is your life.

LORELAI: Not when it comes to this.

LUKE: This is going to happen again and again.

LORELAI: No, it won't, Luke. I promise. God, if you care anything for me at all, just please trust me on this.

 

LUKE: They're always going to be in your life too.

LORELAI: No.

LUKE: Your mother, your father. The Gilmores will always be in your life.

LORELAI: I can cut them off.

LUKE: No, you just can't cut them off. It doesn't work that way, and they'll never feel differently about me, ever.

LORELAI: It doesn't matter, because they're gone. That's it. They are gone. I can do that.

 

But then in The Prodigal Daughter:

 

LUKE: I'm never going to be okay with Christopher being in your life.

LORELAI: I'm always going to have Christopher in my life.

 

Although, I think Luke is more consistent. He just resents Chris's presence- but he accepts by the end of the conversation the consistent awareness that Chris will always be there. With Lorelai, it really was night and day. 

 

 

 

I was not suggesting that service personnel or domestic staff do not steal. Of course some do. I have had enough experience of it  in my own home over the years. And as I said, Emily was entitled to dismiss her for whatever reason. However calling the woman a thief - with considerable implications for her livelihood and reputation - was a different matter.

 

I didn't see any real implications based on what we just saw- E/R calling out the maid in front of their family (Rory, Lorelai) and Logan. I don't know how it would have developed if Lorelai hadn't been there to get the item from Logan and save the maid. Emily isn't considerate or careful with her maids' reputations but I never really see her remembering gossip about a particular one to her friends. There's just a revolving door of faceless, nameless creatures. Maybe Emily would have reported to the agency or police- but you know, I think that would be fair if Emily reported the suspicious facts as she saw them and it was up the agency/police to ask follow-up questions and investigate whether the maid was a thief and proceed from there.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Melancholy

[txhorns79]

Emily's lawyer couldn't make the case just disappear. How Rory got hit with so much community service and other stuff while Logan, not only a repeat offender for doing way worst was just: "Here is a tap on the finger, have fun in Europe."

 

In fairness to the lawyer, the judge refused to honor the deal he made with the DA's office for Rory.  It's not really a situation a lawyer could control. 

 

 

How could Emily be sure - beside rank bigotry, of course - that the maid had done it?

 

 

I was not suggesting that service personnel or domestic staff do not steal. Of course some do. I have had enough experience of it  in my own home over the years.

 

If you are now saying it is completely understandable that Emily would suspect the maid, then why would you earlier suggest that Emily was engaging in "rank bigotry" for thinking the maid had done it?  

[dustylil]

Maybe Emily would have reported to the agency or police- but you know, I think that would be fair if Emily reported the suspicious facts as she saw them and it was up the agency/police to ask follow-up questions and investigate whether the maid was a thief and proceed from there

 

I  concur. After all, the maid may have seen Logan loitering around the bauble collection and thought nothing of it at the time. As well, a more formal investigation would lead to anybody visiting the home in the given time frame being questioned. Perhaps Logan's legal team could once again come to his rescue!

 

In any event, if the accusation was  found to be  baseless, the woman could then continue to work as a domestic in the Hartford area rather than be blacklisted - which was quite likely to happen if she was just suddenly terminated and accused of theft. The employment reference she would receive from Emily can well be imagined.

 

Another approach that could be taken if the authorities and domestic servant agency  didn't address the problem adequately and the issue still troubled her, would be for Emily to insist that Richard  engage a private detective firm  - service suppliers of which he was quite familiar -  to  look into the matter. It might be pricey but the Gilmores were well-to-do. Why not spend their money on something that would give Emily peace of mind?

 

I  just resist the idea that the only possible suspect could be the maid.

[Persnickety1]

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. 

 

In my (probably) unpopular opinion, Zack was pretty much Todd 2.0.

 

After Todd bored her to death on their movie date, I'm at a loss what would have ever attracted her to another bone headed neanderthal such as Zack.

 

The only thing I could find to justify the chemistry-free, milquetoast relationship was Lane was in the end just another groupie attracted to a guy with a guitar and a band.  

 

Of course, I'm still trying to figure out how Mrs. Kim apparently never opened Lane's closet door in a decade and discovered her "secret" life.  It's not like she could have hidden all that shit and dragged it back out on a daily basis.  

 

Just another Stars Hollow eccentricity, I suppose, where logic is in short supply and history is rewritten as necessary to push a plot point.

 

Kind of like Loralei telling Luke that she ran out of gas driving halfway to Hartford and back a few times when Rory was spending the night with Richard and Emily...Fast forward to the episode where Loralei shows up at Yale to take Rory on a road trip after the breakup with Christopher...They run out of gas, and Loralei says she's never before run out of gas.  

 

There is definitely a surplus of WTF moments with this show but I love it anyway.  

Edited February 12, 2016 by Persnickety1

[Persnickety1]

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.

 

Rory, the same twit who sat there and never clarified to Emily that the "errands" Loralei had to do that caused her to not go to the Friday night dinner was because Rory had written down the wrong date she had to report to college and hence Loralei was running all over town doing all of the preparations for Rory's departure the next day to Yale, including doing all of Rory's packing and getting Luke over to help her load the truck in Ballrooms and Biscotti?  

 

THAT Rory?

 

Yeah, she was pretty much at the top of my shit list in that episode.  There was no earthly reason she couldn't have told Emily, "Grandma, mom can't come tonight.  I wrote down the wrong date that I had to be at Yale and it's actually tomorrow, not next Saturday like I had written down, so mom's running around getting everything I'll need and packing for me so I can have dinner with you and Grandpa."  

 

Did she just not want to cop to screwing up?  Did she have temporary amnesia about just what errands her mother was running?  Did she want to shit stir between Emily and Loralei?  The child prodigy who was setting world records for her intelligence suddenly couldn't formulate a coherent yet simple sentence to Emily explaining just what her mother was doing that caused her to miss the dinner?

 

Again, yet another Twilight Zone moment comes to Stars Hollow...

[Melancholy]

I  concur. After all, the maid may have seen Logan loitering around the bauble collection and thought nothing of it at the time. As well, a more formal investigation would lead to anybody visiting the home in the given time frame being questioned. Perhaps Logan's legal team could once again come to his rescue!

 

In any event, if the accusation was  found to be  baseless, the woman could then continue to work as a domestic in the Hartford area rather than be blacklisted - which was quite likely to happen if she was just suddenly terminated and accused of theft. The employment reference she would receive from Emily can well be imagined.

 

Another approach that could be taken if the authorities and domestic servant agency  didn't address the problem adequately and the issue still troubled her, would be for Emily to insist that Richard  engage a private detective firm  - service suppliers of which he was quite familiar -  to  look into the matter. It might be pricey but the Gilmores were well-to-do. Why not spend their money on something that would give Emily peace of mind?

 

I  just resist the idea that the only possible suspect could be the maid.

 

Well, sure the "only possible suspect" was not the maid. We actually know of the guy who SHOULD have been the leading suspect here- name rhymes with "Rogan". However I do think at that early juncture, the maid is by far the most likely to be accused for really *any* employer who just recently noticed this stuff missing and reasonably doesn't suspect their family, friends and social guests (who are almost all rich) who've mainly spent their time there interacting with Emily/Richard as hosts.

 

Frankly, the whole thing justifiably would come as a hug surprise to Richard and Emily. That Logan HUNTZBURGER would steal from them and that their granddaughter would practically cheer him on. 

 

 

Did she just not want to cop to screwing up?  Did she have temporary amnesia about just what errands her mother was running?  Did she want to shit stir between Emily and Loralei?  The child prodigy who was setting world records for her intelligence suddenly couldn't formulate a coherent yet simple sentence to Emily explaining just what her mother was doing that caused her to miss the dinner?

 

You know, my UO is that I don't think Rory screwed up so bad in Ballrooms & Biscotti, although she could have handled things better. It isn't stated but IMO, Rory felt fine leaving it as just "errands..." because Lorelai was no longer obligated to come to FNDs. Based on Lorelai's kvetching about the dinners and cheering that she didn't have to attend them any more, Rory could have reasonably assumed that Lorelai really wouldn't go to dinner ever again or only verrrrry occasionally and that'd just be something that Emily/Richard would need to adjust to. Lorelai certainly gave off that vibe at the end of S3/early S4, and she abruptly reversed course by coming to all of the FDNs in S4 with no explanation of why. 

 

I get why Rory would think that it's a waste of time and just prolongs the ripping of the bandaid to feel the need to explain Lorelai's non-appearance with a "good excuse" that Emily/Richard could appreciate and not feel like they were slighted. If Rory is the under the impression that Lorelai will skip many more FDNs just to sit at home watching TV, why make a fuss about this excuse. Just fast-forward to the easier part where Emily/Richard are resigned that Lorelai will rarely see them and their relationship is just with Rory.

 

But then, I also think Rory didn't want to admit that she wrote the date wrong and put her mother out to her grandparents. Rory does feed off her perfect image in their eyes. She could have handled things better. But then, I also think Lorelai isn't blameless in that incident. As I said earlier, Lorelai actually DID start to enjoy FND and that's the only logical explanation of why she's semi-permanent fixture there in the college years when she's no longer financially obligated to be there. If she hated it as she complains about it, I don't think she'd trek over there just to be with Rory to interact with her entirely on E/R's turf as they inevitably dominate the conversation. Maybe if Lorelai was clearer on how often she'd come to FND, Emily wouldn't have been ultimately needlessly hurt and defensive and angry that Lorelai would never come and Rory would know that her mother's absence is something that needs to explained. 

[backhometome]

My UO: I liked Dean. I thought he was a great character in the first season. Him and Rory were really sweet. I loved the Chilton dance episode. I hated what they did to him to prop Jess.

 

Other UO: I liked everyone else on the show more than Lorelei and Rory.  The more I watched the show in reruns the more I think they were really selfish and only cared about what they wanted. I thought Rory was a Mary Sue. Every guy loved her and and never got over her. Yes, she was smart but did we have to hear over and over about how great Rory is and how perfect she is. I liked the supporting players and the townsfolk more than the 2 main girls. I liked them in the first seasons but as it went on I really started to dislike both of them.

[pawneerangers]

I think my unpopular opinion is that I love the show. Reading the posts here makes me depressed. I agree that Luke is too angry but I ended up loving him for all his good qualities. Lorelai is too childish and the show had some problems but I loved it anyway and wish other people here did too. I think the nitpicking is a little excessive, especially on a show that's supposed to be funny and quirky and weird instead of completely realistic. I don't really understand wasting so much time ranting over and over about shows you hate that aren't even on TV anymore but that's just me. I hope maybe there are other places where people are positive about the show and the Netflix revival. 

 

One of my unpopular opinions here is that I love Lorelai and Rory. They have issues but they're two of my favorite people on television. I love them so much and they helped to inspire me.  

 

I love Lorelai and Luke even though they weren't as happy and affectionate as they could have been. At first their relationship depressed me but I came to appreciate it. I even liked a lot of what we saw of their relationship in Season 6. 

 

The last few seasons are much better than they're made out to be. Sometimes I even love them as much as the beginning ones. It depends on what I feel like. Season 5 may be my favorite even though I know most people here hate it. 

 

I love Rory and Logan. I don't think I would like Logan if he were a real person but I liked him as a character. 

 

Paris is the best but I love Rory and Lane's friendship too. 

 

Lorelai belongs with Luke or as a happy single woman but Christopher wasn't as terrible a guy as everyone makes him out to be. He had some good qualities and I see why Lorelai cared about him. 

 

Paris and Doyle is one of my favorite couples. I think they are really perfect for each other. 

 

April wasn't that bad and I like that she made Luke softer. 

 

The only characters I ever really hated seeing were Liz and TJ. 

Edited February 12, 2016 by pawneerangers

[themoon411]

My uo is that the lane and Zach relationship made perfect sense. Yes, she didn't have much interest in him at the beggining. But then they started living together. They would discuss household issues together, go shopping together, eat meals together, and often spend free time together(watching movies or listening to music). Plus they were in the band together, the band lane was obsessed with, and she probably felt a mild high discussing band stuff with him. Plus, even before they were dating, we were given glimpses that Zach was a good guy. For example when he gave a shelf for lane to use in the living room or agreed to put on a tie and serve tea for lanes mom. This was when they were still friends. I also imagine a tired lane coming home from work would naturally confide in zach, and that would also strengthen their relationship. Now I know the same argument could be made for brian, but I believe the reason she went for zach over Brian was physical attraction.

I also don't agree with the argument that lane was so much smarter and more interesting then zach. Lane was never especially studious and she never lamented that she couldn't go to college since mrs Kim wouldn't foot the bill for a secular college. We never really saw her have interests that weren't music related, and Zach despite his dumb, appearance seemed to know music.

Tldr, I think lane ended up with Zach because when you spend that much time with someone it's normal to develope feelings, it's why actors often date their costars!

[Melancholy]

Aw, pawneerangers, I agree with a lot of your UOs. (Except, I'm solidly anti-Christopher but I also get why Lorelai couldn't shake him as a love interest. It's the history and how often he verbalized a deep *respect* for her and all that she accomplished. She usually doesn't hear that from her 'hood- even though I think E/R did respect what she accomplished but they had trouble showing it. To give something to Christopher, it's also something for the dashing male love interest to compliment his lady mostly for building a career while being a single mother and for her independence and intelligence FAR more than for her looks. Aw, now I'm talking myself into feeling fondly towards Chris)

 

On your most UO, I also liked April and her effect on Luke. To go even further, the April/Luke scenes were a lot my favorites of the last two seasons. I have a big aversion to fans bashing April for being a "mouthy" kid and saying that it's "not cute" that she was such a chatterbox. But then, I really hate that "children should be seen and not heard" crap. IMO, April was adorable and part of it was that she was a Chatty Kathy. Also, I never got this concept that April was unoriginal because she was chatty like Lorelai or smart like Rory. April was a radically different type of chatty. Lorelai performs, April just has no filter. Early Rory's intelligence was tied to how docile and angelic she was. April's intelligence was tied to her oddness. I understand TV's desire for Smart Kids because there's canon reasons on why they're actually an intellectual challenge to grownups so many of the children/teens on GG were smart. Within those parameters, I think April's sunny girly chattiness was a very nice contrast to Jess's surly monosyllabic interactions with Luke while he lived there and good for Luke's character development.

 

Like, I think Luke's hot-tempered surly instincts were GOOD for Jess. However, how do you raise a kid who doesn't deserve and won't appreciate being pushed into a lake, told to build her room after he made the first hole with the sledgehammer, and won't bond over shared contempt for town or TJ stupidity or a mission to hunt a swan. 

Edited February 12, 2016 by Melancholy

[HeySandyStrange]

 

My UO: I liked Dean. I thought he was a great character in the first season. Him and Rory were really sweet. I loved the Chilton dance episode. I hated what they did to him to prop Jess.

 

Dean suffered a lot from poor writing and character direction, imo. He started out as a fairly well-read new guy from a big city, then he devolved into a country bumpkin in contrast to bad boy intellectual Jess. He was turned into a plot device. Rory and Dean should've broke up long before they did and Dean could've exited the show with a little more dignity intact.

[Minneapple]

I love the show too. I love that it's woman-centric and about mothers and daughters. I love Lorelai, Rory and Emily -- they're amazing television characters. While I don't always agree with their actions, I don't think that makes them worse characters. Just flawed. There were characters I didn't like but I can deal. I don't have to like every single little thing about a show to enjoy it.

 

I will say that the continued discussion and nitpicking are a sign that people DO still love the show. I mean look, this forum is really busy for a show that's been off the air for eight years -- and a lot of discussion is a sign that you've written something impactful. (Granted a lot of the discussion is about the new episodes coming up.) I once read on another message board that Gilmore Girls is the Internet version of kudzu and takes over every television discussion ever. I cracked up at that. There's just so much to deconstruct about this show which is what I love about it.

[readster]

Dean suffered a lot from poor writing and character direction, imo. He started out as a fairly well-read new guy from a big city, then he devolved into a country bumpkin in contrast to bad boy intellectual Jess. He was turned into a plot device. Rory and Dean should've broke up long before they did and Dean could've exited the show with a little more dignity intact.

That's been my argument for years. Until they decided to make him look bad so Rory and Jess could get together, it was pretty much over for the character. Other shows have written much more organic reasons to break up characters because of whatever the plot needs, but handled it with more grace. The cheating storyline was bad because the way Dean and Lindsey got married was so thrown together and was meant to be the original exit for Dean. He gets married, though wishing Rory would have chosen him and he goes off. Then of course Jared's other TV jobs never went through so they brought him back this way. His exits were handled even worst. First the: "I have no place in your world do I?" to his speech to Luke that was so hacked eyed and completely devoid of even the Dean who left with his head down from his break up with her again. "They will always want more and you aren't good enough!" Was so bad, and the fact that it had to take into account that Dean apparently had no idea who Lorelai was at all or that it was her parents who thought that way. Another reason why Jared signed back up, he hated his final episode on the series and probably wants to show that maybe Dean learned and moved on his life and is happy now. At least I hope. 

[txhorns79]

Another reason why Jared signed back up, he hated his final episode on the series and probably wants to show that maybe Dean learned and moved on his life and is happy now. At least I hope.

 

I would hope so too.  I mean, it isn't like he needs the money.  His show is in what, it's 11th season?     

 

 

I love the show too. I love that it's woman-centric and about mothers and daughters. I love Lorelai, Rory and Emily -- they're amazing television characters. While I don't always agree with their actions, I don't think that makes them worse characters.

 

I could take or leave the Lorelai/Rory relationship, but I'm endlessly fascinated by the Lorelai/Emily relationship.  There is such love between them, and yet they know every exact button to push to drive the other one insane. 

[timimouse]

I've noticed every so often people come onto this forum and interpret the conversation as bashing the show. But it's my understanding that we actually really LOVE it. I've watched and re-watched it countless times now and after finding this forum I've found it's made my re-watches so much more interesting. I look at scenes with a different perspective based on someone's opinion stated here or I look for things mentioned that I never noticed before. I'm in no way as good as a lot of you guys that can quote the episode names but that just goes to show how much of fans you are. 

I really really like the GG community that I've found here. Sometimes I just come on and read because I'm not even sure how to feel about the topic at hand but the conversations are SO interesting.

Popular or unpopular... My opinion is that this forum is AWESOME! :)

[Melancholy]

Maybe I'm being mean but I'll be pretty bored if Jess AND Dean AND Logan AND Christopher just drift in for an "S'all good!" curtain call, just there to brandish a cute wife and/or fulfilling job and exit stage left. I know that's the safest bet- fluff all of the guys as doing fine but don't pick among Rory's paramours and keep Lorelai with Luke. No one will be pissed off. However, I think that's boring. Not sure I'd want to make a big sacrifice for interesting, definitive drama- like to have Rory end up with Dean or Lorelai be with Chris instead of Luke or for Jess to have majorly backslid. However, I do want something more than just inoffensive "everyone's sunshine and roses but ASP didn't pick a shipper side unless it's Luke/Lorelai which most people are for and the minority that aren't accept it as the way of the world."

Edited February 12, 2016 by Melancholy

[JayInChicago]

My true UO is that I think the depictions of L/L's relationship are fine. To me it seems like an entirely realistic relationship--it reminds me of my parents' 40 year marriage actually. Not too mushy, not too communicative, a not unusual amount of fights/misunderstandings. Granted my dad didn't put off marrying my mom because he had a secret!daughter but I do like Luke being shown as a dad.

I do agree that the amount of angry surly men seems off, but Lorelai clearly *likes* Luke's surlyness. She purposefully triggers it at different times. I also think Luke had every right to hate Christopher though not vice versa. Luke shows his love by doing things and being more or less reliable.

[txhorns79]

I really really like the GG community that I've found here. Sometimes I just come on and read because I'm not even sure how to feel about the topic at hand but the conversations are SO interesting.

 

Popular or unpopular... My opinion is that this forum is AWESOME! :)

 

A thousand times yes!  

 

 

I do agree that the amount of angry surly men seems off, but Lorelai clearly *likes* Luke's surlyness. She purposefully triggers it at different times.

 

You are entirely right.  She likes the control aspect I think.  She knows what button to push, and Luke gladly obliges with one of his fits. 

[shron17]

I do agree that the amount of angry surly men seems off, but Lorelai clearly *likes* Luke's surlyness.

 

I like Luke's surliness also, I think because it often comes with a much needed shot of truth.  In fact, I've often thought without Luke (and Taylor) the show would have been way too light and fluffy to hold my interest the way it does.  And I agree that Luke and Lorelai's relationship seemed fine to me.  They had the kind of connection you see in an old married couple even before they got together.

 

I've noticed every so often people come onto this forum and interpret the conversation as bashing the show. But it's my understanding that we actually really LOVE it.

I really like many discussions here as well.  The only time it bothers me is when there's a lot of negativity directed at Amy.  Cause after all, if it wasn't for her creation in the first place we couldn't be here talking about it.

 

My uo is that the lane and Zach relationship made perfect sense.

 

I agree with all of your points and thank you for putting into words my feelings about Lane and Zach.  I don't think Zach ever really expected a girl like Lane to develop feelings for him but he took her seriously when she told him and used it to become a better person.

 

I think the nitpicking is a little excessive, especially on a show that's supposed to be funny and quirky and weird instead of completely realistic.

I agree that expecting this show to make sense completely misses the point and takes away a lot of its charm.  Yet it manages to ring true to me in so many ways--it just works better if you don't think too hard about the details.

[dustylil]

I also think Luke had every right to hate Christopher though not vice versa

 

I thought Christopher kind of did by the early part of Season 7. I know I would be ticked off if someone came to my home and punched me in the face.

I also don't agree with the argument that lane was so much smarter and more interesting then zach. Lane was never especially studious and she never lamented that she couldn't go to college since mrs Kim wouldn't foot the bill for a secular college. We never really saw her have interests that weren't music related, and Zach despite his dumb, appearance seemed to know music

 

Yes, I never saw any evidence that Lane was particularly brainy or academically ambitious.  After all, there  was nothing stopping her from going to a community college - even part-time - when the Seventh Day Adventist college  plan didn't work out and for her to take her education further after that.   She wasn't interested in anything but rock music and not all that motivated in the pursuit of a musical career, come to think of it. Exactly why did she remain in Stars Hollow? Surely New York or another large city would make more sense as a place to get started. And I  am reasonably sure there were waitressing jobs available in those places.

 

Zach, the big galoot, seemed a good fit for her.

[Everleigh]

My UO: I liked Dean. I thought he was a great character in the first season. Him and Rory were really sweet. I loved the Chilton dance episode. I hated what they did to him to prop Jess.

 

I liked Dean too. Well I liked Early Dean. He was sweet and I thought he was the perfect first boyfriend for Rory. I haven’t seen the show since the original airing so I don’t remember many details or specific plot points but I do recall my fondness for Dean dimming when he came back and got married and all that so I wish they had just left well enough alone when he was originally written off. 

 

My unpopular opinion is that I couldn’t stand Jess. Never liked him, not even a little bit. Not because I thought Rory belonged with Dean or Logan or anyone else because I never cared much about that, but I found Jess’s broody, misunderstood, rebellious teen shtick tedious and annoying. I thought he was pretentious and whiney and at times it came off like he thought he was better than everyone else. I kind of loved when Luke pushed him into the lake because that’s basically what I wanted to do to him whenever he popped up on my screen.

 

On your most UO, I also liked April and her effect on Luke. To go even further, the April/Luke scenes were a lot my favorites of the last two seasons. I have a big aversion to fans bashing April for being a "mouthy" kid and saying that it's "not cute" that she was such a chatterbox. But then, I really hate that "children should be seen and not heard" crap. IMO, April was adorable and part of it was that she was a Chatty Kathy. Also, I never got this concept that April was unoriginal because she was chatty like Lorelai or smart like Rory. April was a radically different type of chatty. Lorelai performs, April just has no filter. Early Rory's intelligence was tied to how docile and angelic she was. April's intelligence was tied to her oddness. I understand TV's desire for Smart Kids because there's canon reasons on why they're actually an intellectual challenge to grownups so many of the children/teens on GG were smart. Within those parameters, I think April's sunny girly chattiness was a very nice contrast to Jess's surly monosyllabic interactions with Luke while he lived there and good for Luke's character development.

 

I liked April too. Or at least didn't mind her. She was smart and witty and she brought out a softer side to Luke, which was greatly needed because his constant grumpiness grew tiresome. Luke actually ended up being really sweet with April towards the end and those are some of my favorite moments of his. I didn’t find anything off-putting about April's character beyond the usual pre-teen behaviors. Honestly I just think that age is hard to pull off on TV because kids are beyond the cute stage where every little thing they say is adorable, and they’re not yet in the interesting teen stage where they can have drama of their own, so they’re just kind of there being precocious and snarky and serving as plot points and road blocks for the adults in their world, and as a result they get a lot of undeserved resentment from the audience, which seemed to be the case with April. 

 

I did think April had some similarities to both Rory and Lorelai but I didn’t find her to be a copy of either of them. But it made sense that April would have some things in common with Rory because they were both only children being raised by headstong  single mothers. 

[Minneapple]

In season one, Rory and Dean would discuss books. He read Jane Austen for her and she read Hunter S. Thompson for him. He was actually quite well-rounded, he played sports and could put together a car, which is quite impressive for a 16-year-old boy. He didn't act like a lunkhead when talking to her and Lorelai. He kept up with the references. And then Jess showed up and Dean was reduced to an idiot who had no interest in silly book learnin' things. He was definitely dumbed down so Jess could look better.

[Melancholy]

Count me in with those who liked Luke's surliness. Sometimes, he went too far with it- A Vineyard Valentine, getting into a fistfight with Dean after his and Rory's S1 breakup. However the vast majority of the time, I didn't count it as threatening or hurtful or miserable. It felt more like a VERY colorful and almost-too-on-point reaction to the various insanities of life. The Luke v. Taylor wars were a bunch of my favorite moments of the show. I like people with a certain amount of fire in their belly or piss & vinegar in their personalities- it's why seemingly different characters like Paris, Jess, Luke, Emily, and Richard are among my faves on the show. 

 

While Luke was clearly very wrong to get into a fight with a 16-year old Dean over a break-up that he hadn't even gotten the story on, I kind of love Luke for his bad behavior in the double-date in We've Got Us a Pippi Virgin. I know it's not gracious and Luke would better address his discomfort with Rory/Dean by just not going on the date. However Luke rants about the shit that should be addressed- one of which was absolutely Dean and Rory flitting about Stars Hallow after breaking up a marriage like they're the precious young lovers of the world. 

[txhorns79]

I know it's not gracious and Luke would better address his discomfort with Rory/Dean by just not going on the date. However Luke rants about the shit that should be addressed- one of which was absolutely Dean and Rory flitting about Stars Hallow after breaking up a marriage like they're the precious young lovers of the world.

 

I agree with the general sentiment, but I just can't get past what a child Luke is in that moment. 

[shron17]

getting into a fistfight with Dean after his and Rory's S1 breakup.

But he didn't get into a fistfight.  I know Luke gets a lot of grief for this but if you actually bother to watch the scene you can see that Luke was only trying to turn Dean around and keep him from going into the diner.  Dean grabbed Luke first and I think once he did there wasn't much chance to back off.  Besides, why was Dean so intent in going to the place where Lorelai and Rory practically lived?  Afterwards it was obvious he didn't want to see her either.

 

I agree with the general sentiment, but I just can't get past what a child Luke is in that moment.

The two times I really hate Luke's behavior are Bop-It with Dean and playing basketball with Logan at Martha's Vineyard, and I  think you've nailed down what bugs me.

 

My UO is I really don't think Luke has anger management issues.  Sure, he gets angry but generally has good control even when he acts out physically (the one exception being when he threw that guy out of the diner on his knees).  I seriously doubt anyone with real anger management issues/violent tendencies would only kick the car of a guy he caught with his wife or only lay one punch on Christopher.  I think Luke is written more as the guy that seems on the edge, who maybe even wants people to think he would cross that line but is actually not at all impulsive and too responsible to actually cross it.

Edited February 13, 2016 by shron17

[pawneerangers]

There are so many terrific comments and I wish I could quote them all but I can't figure out how to include them yet. 

 

I love when someone called Lorelai a performer because it helped me realize that Lorelai being more quiet and calm around Luke doesn't mean that he depresses her or that she's unhappy but just that she's so comfortable that she doesn't feel the need to perform anymore.

 

I am so happy that a few other people like April and how she made Luke softer. In my head April and Lorelai now have a really good relationship.

 

but Lorelai clearly *likes* Luke's surlyness. She purposefully triggers it at different times.

 

It's almost like Lorelai appreciates how Luke can be so open and passionate about his dislike of things because she sometimes secretly feels the same way but just doesn't express it that way. Deep down she is snarky and cynical too but makes herself be cheerful and optimistic which I think is a strength of hers. But I think Luke says a lot of what she really feels. They have more in common than it seems. 

 

I am a terrible writer as you all can see but I hope some of that made sense. 

[txhorns79]

I know Luke gets a lot of grief for this but if you actually bother to watch the scene you can see that Luke was only trying to turn Dean around and keep him from going into the diner.  Dean grabbed Luke first and I think once he did there wasn't much chance to back off.  Besides, why was Dean so intent in going to the place where Lorelai and Rory practically lived?  Afterwards it was obvious he didn't want to see her either.

 

I think there are two problems in that situation.  The first is that Luke is a grown man and Dean is what, 16?  It's one thing for Luke to come out of the diner and suggest to Dean that he not come in, it's a whole other for Luke to put his hands on him and physically try to prevent his entrance.  It's very wrong, and watching the scene (thank you Netfilx!) Luke puts his hands on Dean first to try to push him away from the diner.  Dean then responds by trying to get away from him, and Luke grabs Dean around the waist.  A scuffle then ensues.   The second issue here is that Luke was way over-invested in a situation he knew nothing about.     

Edited February 13, 2016 by txhorns79

[shron17]

Luke puts his hands on Dean first to try to push him away from the diner.  Dean then responds by trying to get away from him, and Luke grabs Dean around the waist.  A scuffle then ensues.

Okay, fair enough.  Although it looks to me like Dean walks right into Luke's hands when all he had to do was walk away from the diner.  I still think it often gets blown way out of proportion.  Also, all Luke is invested in is keeping Dean out of the diner when Rory is there because he was told they just broke up--he's not passing judgment on Dean or the situation.

[Melancholy]

My UO is I really don't think Luke has anger management issues.  Sure, he gets angry but generally has good control even when he acts out physically (the one exception being when he threw that guy out of the diner on his knees).  I seriously doubt anyone with real anger management issues/violent tendencies would only kick the car of a guy he caught with his wife or only lay one punch on Christopher.  I think Luke is written more as the guy that seems on the edge, who maybe even wants people to think he would cross that line but is actually not at all impulsive and too responsible to actually cross it.

 

Yes! I really think just kicking the *car* of a guy fucking your wife is a pretty mild response. I don't condone violence but I also really see Luke's point in laying a punch on Christopher. I think certain people understate exactly how deeply betrayed Luke would feel after Partings. Christopher was always a specter threatening his relationship with Lorelai, an emblem that no matter what Luke does or no matter how deeply he loves Lorelai, the Gilmores and maybe even Lorelai herself will never think that he's good enough to deign to be closer to Lorelai Gilmore II than just the guy that serves her coffee. Lorelai went from "I'll cut Chris out of my life" to "Chris will always be in my life." Luke swallowed that. But then, his fear for the entire relationship came true. Those feelings of betrayal cut deep. It's worth a punch. 

 

With Luke, it's like Kirk's "Everyone's touched by darkness. Luke's a little more touched than some." IMO, Luke is extremely aware of the injustice and frustrations and problems in the world and he feels cynical and angry about it. Generally in S1-5/6, he controls himself enough that he doesn't really hurt anyone despite the anger that he feels and actually does a lot of good but he doesn't exert much control over his demeanor to try to seem less angry or cuddlier to others. His attitude is generally that he's not out to hurt anyone, but if someone can't take his heat, they can stay out of his kitchen/diner. And actually correspondingly, Luke's passive reticence to draw clear boundaries or start relationships he deeply wants (just pining after Lorelai for years) is connected his aggressive demeanor. It's all part of a "The world is unfair attitude so I'm always going to seem angry and there's little point in going after happiness because it won't ever come to me." April's presence interrogated that attitude of Luke's when he had to both become a softer, nurturing parent to a sensitive girl but also go after his desires by fighting Anna in court instead of throwing up his hands with the cynicism that the world is unfair.

 

There are so many terrific comments and I wish I could quote them all but I can't figure out how to include them yet. 

 

I love when someone called Lorelai a performer because it helped me realize that Lorelai being more quiet and calm around Luke doesn't mean that he depresses her or that she's unhappy but just that she's so comfortable that she doesn't feel the need to perform anymore.

 

I am so happy that a few other people like April and how she made Luke softer. In my head April and Lorelai now have a really good relationship.

 

It's almost like Lorelai appreciates how Luke can be so open and passionate about his dislike of things because she sometimes secretly feels the same way but just doesn't express it that way. Deep down she is snarky and cynical too but makes herself be cheerful and optimistic which I think is a strength of hers. But I think Luke says a lot of what she really feels. They have more in common than it seems. 

 

I am a terrible writer as you all can see but I hope some of that made sense.

I think this great and very well-written! Now that you mention it, I also hope that Lorelai and April have a canon-great relationship in the revival. I think I'd really dig April/Luke/Lorelai family scenes- and wouldn't consider it a diss to Rory if she was apart from some of that as we cover a big city/travelling journalist life for her. That's all appropriate to me. I don't really want Luke and Lorelai to have had baby in the intervening time period or for Lorelai to get knocked up with a later in life child in the revival (although I actually get the symmetry of that one- being pregnant at 16 and in her mid-40s). I actually Rory and April are both interesting offspring to explore if the revival has Lorelai and Luke firmly together, as I really expect.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Melancholy

[Taryn74]

 

Yes! I really think just kicking the *car* of a guy fucking your wife is a pretty mild response. I don't condone violence but I also really see Luke's point in laying a punch on Christopher. 

 

Completely, totally, agree with both of these points.

 

Furthermore, I think Christopher knew very well he deserved that punch.  I've always liked Chris just fine, but even I felt he fully deserved to get his plow cleaned after sleeping with Lorelai just an hour or two after she had broken off her engagement and was obviously very emotionally distraught.  IMO it's as if he'd slept with her while she was passed out drunk or something.  There's just a line that you don't cross, and he not only crossed it, he was cheerful and gloaty about it.  Ugh.

 

Yes, Luke showed quite a bit of restraint there IMO.

[John Potts]

To add my $0.02 on the Logan/Jess/Dean issue, the only answer is surely that Rory should end up with... Paris. Hey, it's the 21st Century! Though I would feel sorry for Doyle and Emily would have a heart attack.

[JayInChicago]

Who among us wouldn't want to give Chris a quick bop in the nose?

[pawneerangers]

I just saw the episode where Lorelai and Luke go on their first date again. I don't think it's unpopular to love that episode so it's probably not too strange that it's one of my favorite episodes of the whole series. The thing that may be unpopular is that I don't think Logan is a jerk in this episode. I'm not trying to be a Logan apologist even though I probably am lol. I can admit when he is totally in the wrong and I can't stand him when he steals from Emily and Richard's house and when we find out he sleeps with those bridesmaids. He can also be a jerk around his friends and when he drinks too much. I hated how he acted when Jess came to visit Rory. I liked him in that first episode we meet him though. I think we see right away that he can keep up with Rory intellectually and has the quick wit that she likes. You can see that he challenges her which is what she needs and what Dean doesn't give her at least by that point. I don't think Logan was rude and condescending to Marty when he asks him to be his bartender again. Colin was a jerk like he always is but Logan was actually friendly. Maybe they shouldn't have shown him around those friends so much. I'm not saying people would like Logan anyway because I can see why they don't but I think he's sometimes guilty by association, like he seems worse than he is because he chooses to hang around those guys but he's almost never the one being mean or even really snobby. 

 

I think this is the post where I show I can be a Logan apologist even when I say I won't be! 

Edited February 13, 2016 by pawneerangers

[Melancholy]

To add my $0.02 on the Logan/Jess/Dean issue, the only answer is surely that Rory should end up with... Paris. Hey, it's the 21st Century! Though I would feel sorry for Doyle and Emily would have a heart attack.

I'd plotz if the end-game is Rory/Paris. It's almost too much to hope for but it's really my favorite Rory/ship. Maybe I'm giving Emily too much credit, but my heart tells that Emily would be fine with Rory and Paris ending up together in 2016. I'm almost writing a plot in my head where Lorelai and Rory and Paris are super-apprehensive that Emily won't accept Rory in a lesbian relationship but Emily's attitude that Paris is a Chilton/Yale/Harvard med school grad who's making bank as a successful high status doctor whose attitude almost reminds Emily of herself in a modern modern life so she'd more easily accept Paris into the family than she did Luke or Dean.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Melancholy

[Smad]

Who among us wouldn't want to give Chris a quick bop in the nose?

I wouldn't. Damage my own hand on Dopey's face? No way. I prefer kicking. And in Christopher's case I'd kick just hard to enough to prevent him from being able to create any further offspring.

 

Btw why are so many using any Luke examples from the AVV episode? Does that episode count as taking place in GG universe? Because I thought we had entered an alternate universe with people who look kind of familiar and that's it. No? Ok, just me then.

 

I actually don't mind Luke's surliness either. Think about what the poor guy went through early on in his life. He lost his mother as a young boy. His father apparently suffered for a long time before he finally died. Luke had to help out in the store and keep the family going since his sister was a complete useless douchbag who only cared about herself. And all of that happened while he was only in high school (and for a while after that). Add in Rachel who came and went as she pleased. If i had lost so many people who I loved at such a young age I might just be a cynical loner myself.

[Kohola3]

Who among us wouldn't want to give Chris a quick bop in the nose?

 

I'm leaning more toward a frying pan to the head.

 

The more I hear about the growing list of returning Rory paramours, the less enthusiastic I become.  This looks like a Rory retrospective with everyone else appearing in short cameos.

[amensisterfriend]

Luke is an embarrassingly clueless, rude, negative, angry and joy-stealing boor in AVV, but IMUO that's no different from usual. It's nice that he occasionally builds or fixes something, but the remaining 99% of the time he'd be among the world's most boring, depressing and difficult people to be around. Have you guys ever had to spend prolonged time with someone like Luke---someone who has no interests and is apt to mock yours, freaks out at the proverbial drop of a hat, complains constantly about every single aspect of life and stomps off in jealous rages when, for instance, he hears the father of your child has left a message on your answering machine? Luke is a charmless, brutish clod who has very serious anger issues and would be relentlessly depressing to spend any time with, but since the 'curmudgeon with secret heart of gold' is a character type we're all taught to love (though usually only in men, not women!), he's given a free pass. 

Edited February 13, 2016 by amensisterfriend

[solotrek]

I just saw the episode where Lorelai and Rory go on their first date again.

I know your post is about Logan, but this typo made me LOL for quite awhile.

[pawneerangers]

I just saw the episode where Lorelai and Rory go on their first date again.

 

Oh my gosh, I'm so embarrassed! Sorry, everyone. I'll try to fix my post and then slink away in shame! 

[pawneerangers]

Have you guys ever had to spend prolonged time with someone like Luke---someone who has no interests and is apt to mock yours,

 

I think Luke does have interests though. He likes outdoorsy stuff like camping and fishing. He likes baseball. He obviously likes to cook. As you said he likes to build and fix things, which is a real skill and talent. He even likes movies and TV shows enough to rant about them! 

 

And everyone on this show teases each other a little about what they're into but not really in a mean way. He says something in the episode where he builds Lorelai an ice rink about how he knows he's grumpy about things but doesn't want her to be. That always sticks with me because I think that he likes how she's enthusiastic about a lot of stuff even when he grumbles about it. 

 

 

 

stomps off in jealous rages when, for instance, he hears the father of your child has left a message on your answering machine?

 

I don't like how he handled things there or after the stuff at Richard and Emily's vow renewal either. But I think he really only storms off two or three times in the whole series. It's not ideal behavior but not often or terrible enough to be a really big problem. 

 

I'm not trying to argue you out of your opinion at all! You make a lot of good points and we can all like who we like. I just think that Luke's good sides outweigh the bad ones. I also like how sometimes you see the actor smile a little after he's been ranting like he is reminding Lorelai and the rest of us not to take him too seriously! 

Edited February 13, 2016 by pawneerangers

[LeafontheWind]

I have been quietly holding in this UO for quite some time while enjoying the conversations on this forum, but I feel it is time to reveal my dark secret to you all. I can only hope that after I admit it, I won't be shunned...

I really liked Christopher and very much wanted him to end up with Lorelai. They were my ship all the way through the last episode of season six, but I could never get on board with their attempt at a relationship due to the way it started. Chris should definitely not have slept with Lorelai when she came to him that night and that ruined any hope I had for them to ever really be together. I hated that aspect of ASP's final season more than any of the shenanigans with Anna or April because it throughly sank my favorite ship of the show. I know Chris had his faults, but I couldn't help but be charmed by him all the same.

There, I feel like a weight has been lifted from my chest. Now you all know my secret shipping shame!

[amensisterfriend]

No shaming from me, LeafontheWind! I wanted Lorelai to end up single, but I thought she had a MUCH better connection with Christopher than with Luke. They had chemistry, a natural rapport, common interests, and they seemed genuinely happy in each other's company. They just instinctively GOT each other, for lack of a better way to put it, while Lorelai and Luke just forever annoyed and confused each other. Lorelai (or at least the actress who played her!) lit up like a Christmas tree around Christopher, while she looked so uncomfortable having to fake attraction to Luke that I actually felt embarrassed for her during some of their scenes. I really didn't want to like Christopher for a variety of reasons, but he and Lorelai just seemed so happy and right together. (Even for parts of S7, where the whole point was to illustrate that they weren't meant to be, Lorelai just seemed happier with Christopher than she ever had with Luke to me.) It was clear from the outset that we were supposed to root for Lorelai to end up with Luke (down-to-earth, blue collar 'curmudgeon' with a heart of gold!), and I tried to,  but she and Christopher just clicked and connected in so many ways that she and Luke never did IM(U!)O.