One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions

[Melancholy]

I've known people who just really have anger management problems in the sense of there's real venom and menace and danger behind their anger. They're miserable human beings, even if they have other nicer qualities. However, I've actually known people like Luke in real life. Genuinely annoying stuff bothers them and they lose their temper over it and they'll yell and scream and wave their arms, but they're so funny about it and you just know that they're essentially too essentially good to go further with it than an explosive, frequently funny rant. They're like some of my favorite people in the world. My dad had that quality, although truth be told, his temper was darker and scarier than Luke's. However, maybe it's just who I grew up with, but Luke's particular brand of funny and essentially harmless but frequently explosive temper plays well in IRL. For me, it's not just "I'd hate to live with it, but it's OK for TV." It's like- Luke is like a lot of my favorite people in my real life. 

[dustylil]

I never found Luke physically removing people from the diner in a fit of pique or getting into a physical altercation with a teenage boy over a matter that did not concern him particularly amusing. And I thought a number of  his verbal assaults more than a little menacing.

And along those same lines - given that this is the Unpopular Opinions thread - I did not find his Dark Days so many years after his father's passing to be  a loving tribute by a dutiful son, but evidence of a man unable or unwilling to come to terms with loss and grief.

[cuddlingcrowley]

No matter how many times I rewatch GG, I can never not feel little more than pure indiference towards Luke.

 

I don't tend to have strong opinions in regards to Lorelai's men. I think they're all generally cool and I enjoy her relationships. I dug Max and the entire storyline between him and Lorelai, and I remember being blind-sided by Lorelai cancelling the wedding in my first watch; I liked Jason and I think he's one of the highlights of S4 by far; I think Chris and Lorelai have amazing chemistry and in my later rewatches I've found myself really looking foward to his appearances and I remember being sad their marriage didn't work out.

 

When it comes to Luke, though, while I've grown to appreciate some of the nice moments Lorelai and Luke share while they're a couple, when it comes to his character I just... can't. I just don't connect with him at all. I remember thinking of him, for the longest time, as little more than a secondary character. One of the towns' people. So when it looked like the show was really gonna go there with him and Lorelai,in season 4, to quote Jess, I was like: huh!

 

His solo scenes, especially the ones with TJ and Liz, are completely unwatchable to me. And after the tenth rewatch, I fast-forward through them without regrets. The ones with April are tiny bit more tolerable. But that's probably because I've become a fan of the little actress after Switched at birth.

 

With all that said, I'm not against Luke and Lorelai as endgame. I think it's fine. But if I had to pick one guy for her, I'd probably have picked Max. I don't know if I'd have picked Chris over Luke for her, only because his character became really unnapealing in the later seasons.

Edited March 31, 2016 by cuddlingcrowley

[takalotti]

I liked Jason and I think he's one of the highlights of S4 by far; I think Chris and Lorelai have amazing chemistry and in my later rewatches I've found myself really looking foward to his appearances and I remember being sad their marriage didn't work out.

Haha! I totally had a brain fart and misread this with humorous results.

Since the actor who plays Jason is named Chris, I thought the second sentence was a follow up on the Jason topic. I thought it was just a typo that it said "Chris and Lorelai" instead of "Chris and Lauren." So by the end I was all, "Huh?!? Neither Jason and Lorelai, nor Chris and Lauren, got married."

Duh!

Edited March 31, 2016 by takalotti

[Melancholy]

UO: I'm between on the Rory/Paris issue. In S1-4, I don't think Rory owed Paris anything. As a few said earlier, Rory was such a sweetheart for just putting up with Paris after Paris started off on such a bullying foot and really only consistently eased up into a weird hostile friendship in mid-S2. They were thrust together frequently, and you can't blame Rory for simultaneously trying to make the best of the situation by making Paris into a friend but not giving up her objections to Paris's behavior and thus, keeping Paris at arms length.

 

However, I think it's a different story in S5-7. In those situations, Rory wasn't thrust into being with Paris. Rory made choices to room with Paris, work for Paris, and continue closely associating Paris and basically, take advantage of the "Put on some sunscreen, Casper" "You're lucky that you have a fruit plate coming" perks of Paris Gellar. It's hard to articulate. But I do have a problem with Rory's affect in the S5-7 relationship where it seems like Rory made a calculated choice that she wants her star/wagon hitched to Paris's star/wagon because Paris's energy, cunning, pitbull loyalty and aggression are advantageous but Rory is going to keep at Paris at arms length and coyly disavow their closeness with anyone that Rory wants to impress so Rory can get Paris's benefits without being seen as too close to the off-putting weirdo. It's incredibly phony. It's funny. The earlier seasons featured Paris as the older money type with multiple generations of Gellars going to Harvard and Rory as the fish-out-of-water with the working single mom living in a middle class home. However the later seasons, seemed to feature old-money blue blood WASP princess Rory using but looking down on aggressive, Jewish, New Money (but lost her money) Paris. Good to have as the Jewish brains of the outfit, but not elegant to belong the "came on the Mayflower" country club and all. 

Edited March 31, 2016 by Melancholy

[chessiegal]

Rory didn't choose to room with Paris at Yale - Paris manipulated it as her "life coach" felt they had to continue their journey or some such bullshit.

Edited March 31, 2016 by chessiegal

[dustylil]

Rory didn't choose to room with Paris at Yale - Paris manipulated it as her "life coach" felt they had to continue their journey or some such bullshit

 

No, she didn't. But she did choose to share an apartment with Paris in her later years at Yale.

but looking down on aggressive, Jewish, New Money (but lost her money) Paris. Good to have as the Jewish brains of the outfit, but not elegant to belong the "came on the Mayflower" country club and all

 

I guess they could have had Paris qualify for membership in the DAR but that probably would have been a bit much even for this show. Of course, why any accomplished, long-standing Harvard attending, well-to-do Jewish family would want to be associated with the DAR is another matter entirely.

[Melancholy]

Rory didn't choose to room with Paris at Yale - Paris manipulated it as her "life coach" felt they had to continue their journey or some such bullshit.

 

From S5 on, Rory made her own choice to live with Paris. 

[junienmomo]

Rory also needed Paris at Yale after the first semester.

Rory didn't make friends until her last year, even they they dumped her because of Marty's misbehavior. After Logan graduated, Rory had only Paris.

They did achieve a more or less balanced relationship when Rory learned how to let Paris know when her behavior was OTT. I think she gave her like a three minute warning and Paris learned to back off.

What I found weird was when Rory was going back to Yale, and the only place they had to live was a crime-infested neighborhood, Rory refused to take living expenses from Christopher even though he offered. Lorelai went along with it, which I found even stranger. One of the two said something along the lines of needing to have to go hungry for the full college experience (face palm). I think there would have been a different outcome if Paris had known about that, after all the times Paris paid for things.

[dustylil]

Rory refused to take living expenses from Christopher even though he offered. Lorelai went along with it, which I found even stranger. One of the two said something along the lines of needing to have to go hungry for the full college experience

 

Huh? What on earth would either one of them know about the college experience, let alone the full college experience?

[Melancholy]

To add onto my earlier post, I have a problem with Rory basically hemming/hawing disavowing Paris a best friend to people like her DAR entourage or Lucy/Olivia or the Yale editorial staff. But also while Paris is certainly always rude and self-centered in their relationship, Rory can certainly be rude and self-centered too in their relationship. I thought Rory was crappy to Paris in the following instances which should be an number of UOs.
 
When two seconds after Rory hears that Asher died, Rory starts trying to ask an inappropriate question because she's the hunt for a morbidly funny visual. 
 
PARIS: Asher's dead.
RORY: What?
PARIS: He died two weeks ago in Oxford.
RORY: Oh. Paris, I'm sorry. How?
PARIS: Heart attack. It was quick.
RORY: Heart attack?
PARIS: Yes.
RORY: Um...it wasn't during, um...was it?
PARIS: No, Rory. This great man was not brought down by my vagina, okay?
 
When Rory walks into her dorm room to bother Paris about losing a particular notebook with polka dots or whatever while Paris is in a therapy session with Terrance and encounters a written message by the phone.
 
RORY: This is a message from Headmaster Charleston. When did Headmaster Charleston call?
PARIS: Earlier.
RORY: And you didn't tell me?
PARIS: I'm in session.
RORY: [on phone] Hello, Headmaster Charleston? This is Rory Gilmore. I'm sorry it took so long to call you back. I JUST got your message.
 
First, it's unbelievably rude to interrupt a paid-for ongoing therapy session. Second, there's nothing to indicate that Paris really flaked very poorly on giving Rory the message for some time. For all I can see, Rory strutted into the room to interrupt Paris's session over her polka-dot notebook and just encountered a message that Paris recently took down.
 
This speaks for itself....
 
RORY: Paris. Paris!
PARIS [asleep]: Wha?
RORY: Are you asleep?
PARIS [mumbles]: Don't turn the light on. [Rory turns the light on.] Aah! I said don't turn the light on!
RORY: I didn't hear the ‘don't’.
PARIS: Why do you think I would tell you to turn on the light when I'm dead asleep?
RORY: I didn't know you were dead asleep.
PARIS: The room is dark. I'm under the covers and completely immobile. Deduce, Sherlock.
RORY: Well, you're awake now. Can I ask you a question?
PARIS: Bite me.
RORY: Were there any messages for me?
PARIS: Yes. Four other people called and asked that you bite me.
RORY [sighs]: Look, I'm serious here. Come on, Paris. It is especially important tonight that, if there was a message for me, that that message gets to me.
PARIS: If there was a message, I would have left it on the message board.
RORY: The board is blank. And you are not the most reliable message leaver.
PARIS: No messages.
RORY: Okay. I don't mean to insult you, but are you maybe telling me there's no message because you're mad that I woke you and there really was a message?

 

Or, here where Rory and Paris are both rude to each other, but Rory starts it and she's the worse aggressor to start kicking Paris when she's down because Rory wants to take out her Logan-issues on the nearest target.

 

[Rory hangs up the phone and goes out into the common room. Paris is slumped on a chair, wearing pajamas, remote in hand.]

RORY [shouting over the movie]: PATHETIC!

PARIS: What?

RORY: Nothing important, I just wanted to inform you that you're pathetic!

PARIS: Back at you, sister.

RORY: I am not pathetic.

PARIS: Oh, come on. We're in the same situation, except you're in denial.

RORY: I'm not in denial!

PARIS: I haven't seen Logan lately.

RORY: Well, why don't you call him up, then? Bet he misses you.

PARIS: Is he missing you?

RORY: Good-bye.

PARIS: Have fun pretending the sky is green.

RORY: Yeah, have fun re-enacting the Maxell tape ad.

 

Note, I don't get that angry with Rory over this stuff. Paris is frequently rude in their relationship. And some of this stuff like the PATHETIC! scene is just their special way of communicating with each other and spurring each other be more successful. However, yes, in S1-4 it's Rory being entirely sweet and reasonable and Paris being rude and demanding. In S5-7, it's much more even-handed where except for Paris's OTT poorly written reign of terror as Editor in Chief, I'd actually rate Paris as the better friend. 

[txhorns79]

Huh? What on earth would either one of them know about the college experience, let alone the full college experience?

 

Presumably in their lives they have spoken to people about their experiences attending college?  Or heck, maybe they've gleaned what they know of the college experience from reading books,or watching television and movies.  It's not like it's some giant secret one can only learn from attending college.          

[shron17]

Rory refused to take living expenses from Christopher even though he offered. Lorelai went along with it, which I found even stranger. One of the two said something along the lines of needing to have to go hungry for the full college experience

 

Actually, it was Lorelai's idea to ask; Christopher didn't offer.  And it was Rory who refused her suggestion and said it was part of the full college experience:

LORELAI: Let's call daddy. Make him pay for an apartment with one lock.

RORY: No. Look, this is the way it's supposed to be. I am in college. Don't you see? I'm supposed to live in a crappy apartment. I'm supposed to eat ramen noodles and mac and cheese for months. I've been living in a pool house with maids and fresh-cut flowers and mints on my pillow every night.

LORELAI: You got to love my mother sometimes.

RORY: This is good and right, and I'm happy, and I have roommates who are learning to kill people, so where is the bad? Now let's talk about you. How are the wedding plans going?

 

[amensisterfriend]

And along those same lines - given that this is the Unpopular Opinions thread - I did not find his Dark Days so many years after his father's passing to be  a loving tribute by a dutiful son, but evidence of a man unable or unwilling to come to terms with loss and grief.

 

 And apparently dark days give him the licence to verbally abuse innocent elderly ladies who are about to enter nursing homes. Seriously, that was HIDEOUS, and I can't help but think that if anyone else other than Luke had been the one ranting and raving at that poor woman, they'd have been eviscerated by fans. But with Luke it's easily forgiven and defended because of the love for the character, which I actually understand---we all have characters we're kind of apologists for. Luke just isn't one of mine! 

 

Between that and him rapidly going from "all in" to "out without any real reason or even letting you speak to me for three seconds about something that clearly isn't even your fault" in WBB and the aftermath, I hold the really UO of thinking Luke was even more terrible in S5 than S6 and wish he and Lorelai had permanently broken up then, especially given that their chemistry and connection were so pathetically weak (IMO).  

 

I never found Luke physically removing people from the diner in a fit of pique or getting into a physical altercation with a teenage boy over a matter that did not concern him particularly amusing. And I thought a number of  his verbal assaults more than a little menacing.

 

S1 is generally the only season where I do like Luke and see his appeal, but that scene with Dean has me cringing. That's one of at least a few times in the series when he could and should have been mandated to anger management therapy, which would have been both amusing to watch and potentially very beneficial for the character IMUO. I get that GG is a really hyper-stylized world that sometimes takes major liberties with reality, but for some reason with that scene I can never ignore the fact that other adults---including Dean's parents---would have been appalled by Luke's behavior and likely confronted him about it at the very least. I think it's actually sort of surprising that so many people defend Luke there on the grounds that 1) He's Luke and Luke is loved despite being a belligerent ass when other characters are hated for doing things not even a fraction as terrible---which, again, I really do get. It's a natural tendency as a fan and I'm sure I do the exact same thing with Rory and even Paris! and 2) Dean sucks (which, yeah, he does, but it's not like he deserved to be attacked verbally or otherwise in that scene!) and 3) This is Luke's typically primitive way of showing that he's protective of Rory, so it makes his actions okay. 

 

I can totally see both sides of the Paris issues and am enjoying that discussion immensely! 

 

I liked Jason and I think he's one of the highlights of S4 by far;

 

Right there with you! He's definitely one of my favorite things about S4, if only by default :) 

 

I think Chris and Lorelai have amazing chemistry and in my later rewatches I've found myself really looking foward to his appearances and I remember being sad their marriage didn't work out.

 

Sometimes I wonder: If the actor (and his natural chemistry with LG!) had been cast as Luke, would I be more in favor of L/L, or would the writing for Luke make that impossible for me regardless of actor chemistry? I honestly don't know the answer!

 

When it comes to Luke, though, while I've grown to appreciate some of the nice moments Lorelai and Luke share while they're a couple, when it comes to his character I just... can't. I just don't connect with him at all. I remember thinking of him, for the longest time, as little more than a secondary character. One of the towns' people. So when it looked like the show was really gonna go there with him and Lorelai,in season 4, to quote Jess, I was like: huh!

 

It's interesting that you say you don't "connect with" Luke at all, because I SHOULD connect with him on some level---I, too, can be a bit of a loner---but I just don't either. And while his simultaneous annoyance with and affection for Lorelai often mirrors my own, it's not really the type of thing that results in a happy and healthy romantic relationship, as IMO we saw all too clearly with L/L. They just don't seem to connect with EACH OTHER any better than you and I connect with Luke as a character!  

His solo scenes, especially the ones with TJ and Liz, are completely unwatchable to me. And after the tenth rewatch, I fast-forward through them without regrets. The ones with April are tiny bit more tolerable. But that's probably because I've become a fan of the little actress after Switched at birth.

 

So sometimes I actually get and even like what they were trying to do with April's character---soften Luke a bit, make him learn more about expressing and communicating like an adult, and just give him someone else besides Lorelai to share scenes with. But for me those April scenes just felt so forced and repetitive somehow. And, yes, I too fast forward when Liz and TJ appear...with or without Luke :) The only scene of theirs I really like is that second (?) episode of S7 when Luke maturely, insightfully and apparently sincerely talks about how he and Lorelai just aren't meant to be together romantically and Liz agrees that they were just never in sync. I agreed with all that completely, though of course we're supposed to think Luke is just in denial and trying to make himself feel better at that point!  

[dustylil]

it was Rory who refused her suggestion and said it was part of the full college experience

 

Thanks. That makes a lot more sense. And it is always much more fun to glamorize miserable living conditions when you have quick and easy ways out of them.

Who was paying for that crummy apartment, by the way? I  had assumed it was Christopher - and Lorelai's comment was merely suggesting an upgrade.

[elang4]

I actually liked Jason as well. I have to admit that I'm a big Luke fan but if there was no Luke, I could see Lorelai with Jason. He was witty, sarcastic and could keep up with Lorelai. :)

[CalamityBoPeep]

 And apparently dark days give him the licence to verbally abuse innocent elderly ladies who are about to enter nursing homes. Seriously, that was HIDEOUS, and I can't help but think that if anyone else other than Luke had been the one ranting and raving at that poor woman, they'd have been eviscerated by fans. But with Luke it's easily forgiven and defended because of the love for the character, which I actually understand---we all have characters we're kind of apologists for. Luke just isn't one of mine! 

 

Between that and him rapidly going from "all in" to "out without any real reason or even letting you speak to me for three seconds about something that clearly isn't even your fault" in WBB and the aftermath, I hold the really UO of thinking Luke was even more terrible in S5 than S6 and wish he and Lorelai had permanently broken up then, especially given that their chemistry and connection were so pathetically weak (IMO).  

 

S1 is generally the only season where I do like Luke and see his appeal, but that scene with Dean has me cringing. That's one of at least a few times in the series when he could and should have been mandated to anger management therapy, which would have been both amusing to watch and potentially very beneficial for the character IMUO. I get that GG is a really hyper-stylized world that sometimes takes major liberties with reality, but for some reason with that scene I can never ignore the fact that other adults---including Dean's parents---would have been appalled by Luke's behavior and likely confronted him about it at the very least. I think it's actually sort of surprising that so many people defend Luke there on the grounds that 1) He's Luke and Luke is loved despite being a belligerent ass when other characters are hated for doing things not even a fraction as terrible---which, again, I really do get. It's a natural tendency as a fan and I'm sure I do the exact same thing with Rory and even Paris! and 2) Dean sucks (which, yeah, he does, but it's not like he deserved to be attacked verbally or otherwise in that scene!) and 3) This is Luke's typically primitive way of showing that he's protective of Rory, so it makes his actions okay. 

 

Speaking as a Luke fan, I can't say I'd ever defend Luke on the Dark Day rant about the garage. That was over the top, and a really stupid choice. I just chalk it up to a ridiculous event the writers decided to use as a hinge for Luke's eventual about-face. They needed a "trigger" for Luke and Lorelai to disconnect over, and that's what they picked, because they lacked the imagination to come up with something more organic. There are other characters that got run over by the plot-bus throughout the series, and I don't hold every one of their stupid actions against them. I kind of just watch those things in a dispassionate way, with a mindset of "your plot-fail is showing, writers."

 

The Dean thing affected me the same way. It was played for a sight-gag. That was the whole point. I could almost see the writers chortling in the writers room: "Wouldn't it be hilarious if Lorelai and Rory are having a quiet conversation, while Luke and Dean are battling it out in the window behind them?" It was like the scene on Friends, where Ross is flinging around a cat clinging to his shoulder, on the balcony with Rachel trying to "help", while the other friends sing in the apartment. It's a sight gag. The set-up in the Friends episode was definitely more clever though. I guess I just don't see it as part of an overall characterization when the writers are failing in their set-up. It becomes one of those "eh... writing fail" moments to me. Like Jason's bed thing. They wanted the glamorous guest room thing, and they needed something to get there. So they made Jason somewhat ridiculous.

 

As for Luke's all-in then out moment... I've always heard that as Lorelai pushing him... "what are you feeling?" She wanted to know his feelings in that moment. Key words, for me: right now. At that moment, I think Luke was feeling "What am I doing in this relationship? Her parents are always going to sabotage it, they've made it clear they hate me, and she lied to me, and who knows if she can stand up to that kind of pressure... Right now... this moment... run for the hills." Which is why he was avoiding talking about his feelings. He knew his feelings would likely change, but she wanted to know, at that moment, what he felt. He told her, in that moment. She read that as a permanent break-up, and then he was kind of lost as to what to do about that. I didn't read that he actually wanted a full break-up... I thought he just needed to be heard and understood for a moment... but when she went full-bore into ex-girlfriend and "The Way We Were" territory, he wasn't sure if he could fix it. He looked poleaxed as he left her house after she returned his answering machine tape. His expression as he left was that of a man slugged in the gut. And his going dark in his diner afterwards struck me as resignation to the fact that he felt he'd failed, and he was at fault somehow, but didn't know how. He'd given up his dream of a relationship with her, because he couldn't overcome a debilitating blow to think about her feelings first.

 

This is my unpopular opinion sneaking out, obviously, because I always have thought that if she had been somewhat prepared for his likely feelings (at least a day had passed and she was still fixated on herself) and had some insight into how that whole scenario might make any person feel the need to run at least temporarily, then he probably would have come around. If instead of desperation and "let me explain myself for the umpteenth time" she'd been more inclined to mirror and validate his feelings of being completely blindsided as well as overtly hated by her family (it wasn't just subtle digs at that point, it was outright sabotage), he probably wouldn't have lashed out with "right now I'm feeling like I can't do this."

 

So my (not completely related to the quoted post) Tangential Unpopular Opinion is: She abandoned him. She left him in an untenable situation, first with her lies, and second with her obliviousness to the mindsets of her parents, whose deviousness she should have expected as obvious to her by that point. She put him in the position and basically sided with her family, in going with the appearances first. Getting dragged off to take a picture was no excuse for not immediately following him, and addressing (with him) what Emily had just done to the man Lorelai was supposed to love.

 

He should have been her first, last and only thought at that point. Her absence in Emily's picture should have told the 1000 word story. But she let him go, and yes, we got the "we're done" moment which everyone loves, but honestly, she should have ignored Christopher entirely, shaken off Marilyn's hand with a forceful "no", and gone with Luke. To hell with the rest of them. And she shouldn't have insisted that he hear her first. She should have been silent on the way home, waiting for him to ask questions, hearing his ruminations, owning her betrayals, and validating what he must have been feeling. He just had his entire relationship torpedoed, in an unprovoked attack. And she just wanted to make sure he heard that she didn't know about Emily going to Chris.

 

But that would have required a grown-up and insightful Lorelai to come to the fore, and that hasn't been in her character... not even at the very end. 

 

Or... you know... writer-plot-fail. They picked the laziest route of all, in order to create angst between Luke and Lorelai. So, even through this whole mess, the writers' lack of imagination makes me just brush aside the stupidity. They seem to be so convinced that "impulsive, dishonest, and stupid" is an interesting characterization. It does make me cringe to think about how that might play out in the revival. I sincerely hope they have all grown up.

Edited March 31, 2016 by CalamityBoPeep

[Taryn74]

I kind of just watch those things in a dispassionate way, with a mindset of "your plot-fail is showing, writers."

 

I agree with pretty much everything you just wrote. And especially this -

 

I've always heard that as Lorelai pushing him... "what are you feeling?" She wanted to know his feelings in that moment. Key words, for me: right now.

 

 

And that's the same damn thing that broke them up in Partings.  Lorelai, the impulsive...ready to jump in...hey let's go elope even though we've obviously got some things we need to work out...one, wanted immediate action from Luke.  Luke, the steady...let's think about it and make sure we're doing the right thing because that's the way I am and that's one of the things you love about me...one. And when he didn't ask 'how high' when she said 'jump' that was it.  It was over.  She literally left him standing in the middle of the road to go jump into Christopher's bed and GOOD LORD I still get so upset over this. 

[cuddlingcrowley]

It's interesting that you say you don't "connect with" Luke at all, because I SHOULD connect with him on some level---I, too, can be a bit of a loner---but I just don't either. And while his simultaneous annoyance with and affection for Lorelai often mirrors my own, it's not really the type of thing that results in a happy and healthy romantic relationship, as IMO we saw all too clearly with L/L. They just don't seem to connect with EACH OTHER any better than you and I connect with Luke as a character!

 

I also can be a loner in the sense I'm definitely not the relationship type. Luke doesn't activelly annoy me nor do I feel strongly against him like, say, my relationship with Dean's character. But, unlike Luke, I tend to make an effort to be happy; to be pleasant, to look at the bright side of things, to have passions, to enjoy myself, essentially. It's not easy but it does tend to make life easier. So I think it's probably Luke's whole...thing that doesn't work for me. His perpetually grumpy thing, I mean. It's easy to be boring and unpleasant and joyless, you know? I don't find that charming or noteworthy. I probably tend to tune out those types in real life pretty fucking fast hence why Luke is just...there, to me.

 

I'd be friends with Lorelai any day over Luke.

 

Now I'm starting to wonder if someone who can take such joy on most of the simple things of life, like Lorelai, would truly fall for Luke. Hell, that's probably why it took her so many years to give it a go in the first place.

 

As far as Paris and Rory's friendships goes, I don't see it as especially deep one and I never expected/wanted it evolve that way. Maybe in the Chilton years it would have worked;  Paris/Rory/Jess as a friendship that would have lasted for more than an episode is something I would have literally paid to watch. But by the time we got to Yale, I think there was a part of Rory that was pretty done. Rightfully so, imo. And I personally don't find Yale!Paris more appealing than Chilton!Paris, minus the bullying that is. 

 

The life coach thing never worked for me. for one. But the fact that Rory didn't even get any breathing room from Paris at all? Real story time: I'm still best friends with my bff from highschool (ten years later) but after we graduated we had a mutual cooling off period of a couple of years and I think I really, really needed that for reasons I won't get in here. But today I think I appreciate her and love her even more than I did in highschool. So the fact that Rory didn't get that time to breath from a person as tiring as Paris who she very loosely considered a friend? I don't envy her.

 

So I see their friendship as one of those friendships you're vaguely fond of the person because you've known them for a long time and/or they're a good contact to have in life. I don't fault Rory for being friends with Paris in that capacity.

Edited April 1, 2016 by cuddlingcrowley

[junienmomo]

I agree with pretty much everything you just wrote. And especially this -

 

And that's the same damn thing that broke them up in Partings.  Lorelai, the impulsive...ready to jump in...hey let's go elope even though we've obviously got some things we need to work out...one, wanted immediate action from Luke.  Luke, the steady...let's think about it and make sure we're doing the right thing because that's the way I am and that's one of the things you love about me...one. And when he didn't ask 'how high' when she said 'jump' that was it.  It was over.  She literally left him standing in the middle of the road to go jump into Christopher's bed and GOOD LORD I still get so upset over this.

Calamity and Taryn, table for three in this UO.

I'm often surprised by the conviction of people who think the Doose's ambush had Luke saying he wanted to break up, when the words as spoken were truly and literally about that moment.

But what you describe in terms of Lorelai believing herself to be dumped was created by her, and each new revelation like the tape and the use of the term ex all kept blindsiding Luke.

Occasionally I wonder if Lorelai fantasized herself in the Katie role so she wouldn't have to deal with the reality of her own non-movie plot relationship. Once she went to that place in Denialville, then every event had to fit her interpretation of the movie, and reality was simply no longer possible.

The Tangential UO is also very telling. Luke had been doing his best to be all in, but Lorelai lied, tried to put a patch over it at the vow renewal, then as you aptly described, abandoned him, and for a stupid photo? As far as I could see, Lorelai was never all in; sometimes it seemed to me like she was barely in at all.

Oh well, writer-plot fail. My new mantra, because I also get very upset over this.

[Melancholy]

As for Luke's all-in then out moment... I've always heard that as Lorelai pushing him... "what are you feeling?" She wanted to know his feelings in that moment. Key words, for me: right now. At that moment, I think Luke was feeling "What am I doing in this relationship? Her parents are always going to sabotage it, they've made it clear they hate me, and she lied to me, and who knows if she can stand up to that kind of pressure... Right now... this moment... run for the hills." Which is why he was avoiding talking about his feelings. He knew his feelings would likely change, but she wanted to know, at that moment, what he felt. He told her, in that moment. She read that as a permanent break-up, and then he was kind of lost as to what to do about that. I didn't read that he actually wanted a full break-up... I thought he just needed to be heard and understood for a moment... but when she went full-bore into ex-girlfriend and "The Way We Were" territory, he wasn't sure if he could fix it. He looked poleaxed as he left her house after she returned his answering machine tape. His expression as he left was that of a man slugged in the gut. And his going dark in his diner afterwards struck me as resignation to the fact that he felt he'd failed, and he was at fault somehow, but didn't know how. He'd given up his dream of a relationship with her, because he couldn't overcome a debilitating blow to think about her feelings first.

 

Right. I don't know if anyone's a BtvS fan but it kind of reminded me of Oz and Willow in The Wish when Oz caught Willow necking with Xander and accordingly, got angry and indicated he wanted to break-up and apparently told her not to contact him. However, still, she was desperate to know whether the relationship was really really over and waited by his locker the next morning. 

 

 Oz:  Yeah. You said all this stuff already.

Willow:  Right, but... I wanna make it up to you. I mean, if you let me, I wanna try.

Oz:  Just... You can leave me alone. I need to figure things out.

Willow:  But maybe if we talk about it, we could...

Oz:  Look... I'm sorry this is hard for you. But I told you what I need. So I can't help feeling like the reason you want to talk is so you can feel better about yourself. That's not my problem.

 

IMO, the Luke/Lorelai break-up in Say Something is a lot like Oz/Willow. Yes, Lorelai didn't actually cheat on Luke. However, she was dishonest with him in a totally fishy, disrespectful way and then, she tried covering up her tracks in a cloying, phony way and that could have been surmountable, but her parents and Christopher were willfully and maliciously sabotaging the relationship in a way that *I* find damn less sympathetic than high school kids necking. Luke told Lorelai that he needed space and time to think. Like even my favorite character of all time Willow Rosenberg, Lorelai wanted to talk so she could feel better about herself and get an answer RIGHT NOW that she was forgiven and Luke was confident in their relationship even though Luke couldn't do that. It was similarly self-centered, and that's just emphasized by Lorelai making grandiose, almost mendacious in their self-serving irresponsibility promises that she'll cut her parents and Christopher out of her life that she immediately broke as Luke expected her to. 

[CalamityBoPeep]

Now I'm starting to wonder if someone who can take such joy on most of the simple things of life, like Lorelai, would truly fall for Luke. Hell, that's probably why it took her so many years to give it a go in the first place.

 

It seems to work for my husband and me. He's more a Lorelai when it comes to enjoying the little moments and having fun, and I tend to look at things in a more weighty manner, as does Luke. But then, I'm more emotionally verbal like Lorelai, and hubby is extremely tight-lipped where his emotions are concerned, like Luke.

 

What makes it work though, is an effort to see the world from the perspective of the other person. Hubby tends to enjoy watching me rant, sometimes saying something just to get me going, to watch the fireworks. He'll just sit there and smile, and I know he does it out of love for the show, so I make sure to give him a show he'll enjoy. Neither of us takes it terribly seriously.

 

He knows when his own emotions are running deep, I'll find the words for them and offer him sanctuary for things he can't express. I give him peace and I give him fireworks. He gives me stability when my emotions are going off the rails, and he gives me fun. It works. Appreciating a partner who balances our more extreme traits makes us both better people. And we are pretty much opposites in most things, but appreciation and a firm foundation in friendship (which we had before we got involved romantically) make a mature partnership. And that's always what I imagined Luke and Lorelai could be for each other. She could make him laugh. He could make her think. Blending her lightness with his heaviness would result in balance for both of them.

 

I think Luke and Lorelai could have a great balance. He gives a sense of gravitas to their reality, and she brings a light touch and fun. This is the version of them that I want to see in the revival. Their middle. Where they've moved beyond themselves individually and started to function as a true partnership. I don't mind if they have external issues to deal with, for drama's sake. I just don't want their relationship to be the drama. I'd prefer it to have the feel of a fully formed match... like Coach Taylor and Tami in Friday Night Lights. (Ok, no one will ever be that awesome. But I'd like the relationship health, at least. LOL)

[solotrek]

Right. I don't know if anyone's a BtvS fan but it kind of reminded me of Oz and Willow in The Wish when Oz caught Willow necking with Xander and accordingly, got angry and indicated he wanted to break-up and apparently told her not to contact him. However, still, she was desperate to know whether the relationship was really really over and waited by his locker the next morning.

 

I saw that during my last rewatch of early BtvS when trying to introduce hubby to the show and also thought of this situation. However Oz was a much more eloquent speaker and Willow was not Lorelai level "TELL ME NOW, I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYTHING EXCEPT KNOWING RIGHT NOW".

 

I just don't want their relationship to be the drama. I'd prefer it to have the feel of a fully formed match... like Coach Taylor and Tami in Friday Night Lights. (Ok, no one will ever be that awesome. But I'd like the relationship health, at least. LOL)

 

 

I would love that, but ASP seems to enjoy more over the top drama for dramas sake than anything. How else would she keep that relationship interesting for 4 extra long episodes? Also, not really important to plot points, but Scott Patterson is no Kyle Chandler. Leading to my possible UO that I  think SP's inadequacies as an actor is what makes Luke so unattractive personality wise to people.  I think a better actor would have conveyed the angry brooding a little less "possible domestic abuse-y" and surly killjoy-ey.

[CalamityBoPeep]

 

I would love that, but ASP seems to enjoy more over the top drama for dramas sake than anything. How else would she keep that relationship interesting for 4 extra long episodes? Also, not really important to plot points, but Scott Patterson is no Kyle Chandler. Leading to my possible UO that I  think SP's inadequacies as an actor is what makes Luke so unattractive personality wise to people.  I think a better actor would have conveyed the angry brooding a little less "possible domestic abuse-y" and surly killjoy-ey.

 

Re: Kyle Chandler... so much Truth. Oh, how I miss that man's expressive hair. (Hi, TWOPpers!)

 

And I'm afraid you may be right re: Amy's love of drama too. sigh. I also imagine if SP could have infused a bit more subtlety into the angst, it might have worked better for more people. He acted Pain beautifully, but I sometimes wonder if the broody angst just didn't come very naturally to him. It was sometimes a little too dialed up, you know? Meh... but who knows if that was an acting choice or a directing choice? 

[lgold]

Re: Kyle Chandler... so much Truth. Oh, how I miss that man's expressive hair. (Hi, TWOPpers!)

 

And I'm afraid you may be right re: Amy's love of drama too. sigh. I also imagine if SP could have infused a bit more subtlety into the angst, it might have worked better for more people. He acted Pain beautifully, but I sometimes wonder if the broody angst just didn't come very naturally to him. It was sometimes a little too dialed up, you know? Meh... but who knows if that was an acting choice or a directing choice? 

 

I would imagine that he was directed to dial it way up for comedy/drama sake.  Its just that some of the funniest banter is between SP and LG, so I don't see how he isn't a good actor.  Personally, sometimes I feel he's not given enough credit.  If you think about it, perhaps, LG's portrayal of Lorelai is so lauded because she had an acting partner who was able to give so that she came off as good as she did.  Their scenes are a lot more convincing then some of AB/LG scenes, but that is my UO. 

[dustylil]

At the time of the vow renewal, Lorelai and Luke had been dating for about four months.  Just as Dean may  have anticipated more of Rory than she could provide for her to say "I Love You" after three months, it  may have been too much to  expect Lorelai to drop all familial obligations at a formal function (like the photo-taking)  because the senior Gilmores behaved badly towards her beau. She didn't ignore their conduct - she made her feelings quite plain to her mother. And then immediately went hunting for Luke. Lorelai  knew she didn't want to break up with Luke. She thought he  knew this as well. Even if she was aware she did have some serious relationship repair work to do.

 

Neither Luke nor Lorelai were teenagers when they became involved, both had histories, romantic  and otherwise. Luke had known Lorelai and  the complicated relationship she had with her mother and father for years.  He also knew that  her parents disliked him, were enamoured of Christopher  and  had a long-standing practice of manipulating people and events to get the results they wanted. That they would go to so much effort to meddle in their daughter's personal life on this apparently big "romantic" occasion in their lives was a tad odd to say the least. After some processing and reflection,  all of this should have been clear to a mature man.

 

The vow renewal shenanigans  may not have been her fault but Luke certainly had a legitimate concern about Lorelai's lying after Straub's passing. That required both an explanation and a heartfelt apology. Several months later when Luke heard Christopher's telephone message, that explanation and apology were apparently either not given or not accepted.

[txhorns79]

If you think about it, perhaps, LG's portrayal of Lorelai is so lauded because she had an acting partner who was able to give so that she came off as good as she did.

 

I think my unpopular opinion is after watching LG on Parenthood for years, I think her acting wasn't so "good" here as much as she happened to have a great character to work with.  I say that only because her character on Parenthood had an entirely different background, and frankly, a much, much harder life prior to the series than Lorelai, and yet, it felt like LG played the character exactly the same as she did on Gilmore Girls.      

Edited April 1, 2016 by txhorns79

[lgold]

I think my unpopular opinion is after watching LG on Parenthood for years, I think her acting wasn't so "good" here as much as she happened to have a great character to work with.  I say that only because her character on Parenthood had an entirely different background, and frankly, a much, much harder life prior to the series than Lorelai, and yet, it felt like LG played the character exactly the same as she did on Gilmore Girls.      

 

txhorns79, 

 

do you think people then are connecting more with the character and not necessarily the acting?  And sorry to ask this, do you like her acting?  I wasn't too sure from your answer.  I've only watched 3 episodes so far of Parenthood, and I have to say I have a hard time separating Lorelai from Sarah Braverman, because as you said she plays the character the same. 

 

Not trying to be argumentative. Just want to make sure I got where you're coming from.  :)

Edited April 1, 2016 by lgold

[Melancholy]

I saw that during my last rewatch of early BtvS when trying to introduce hubby to the show and also thought of this situation. However Oz was a much more eloquent speaker and Willow was not Lorelai level "TELL ME NOW, I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYTHING EXCEPT KNOWING RIGHT NOW".

 

I'm so glad that I"m not the only one because I've had that Oz/Willow in The Wish = Luke/Lorelai in Say Something thoughts for awhile. I'm not sure that the difference is Luke's and Oz's eloquence, although that's a certainly plausible explanation on a Watsonian level. I guess I just take a cynical Doylist POV that sidekick Willow will get her feet put to the fire by her love interest that her desperate desire for reconciliation at the expense of her betrayed and hurt SO's explicit request for space is selfish and annoying. However very similar behavior in Lorelai is propped up in Gilmore Girls because Lorelai is the *star* and is constitutionally entitled to to make everything about her. 

 

I couldn't get into Friday Night Lights- but I'm going to try a second time this summer. So I get the Connie Britton love a little with Nashville but I don't get Kyle Chandler's lovability out of Bloodline or Carol. At any rate, I guess Scott Patterson is divisive but I found his performane faultless. The main cast is pretty great so I'm not knocking anyone. However, Lauren Graham could be very cloying and fake in her dramatic inevitably breathy "I'm delivering a speech of wisdom/woobieness/importance" moments- even though she was great at everything else. Alexis Bledel was fake-cutesy in the later seasons, and she always sucked at crying- although she totally filled the character of Rory. Keiko was solid in most categories, but didn't exactly wow me. Mellissa McCarthy has a harsh quality that undermines her sweeter scenes, especially in the later seasons. However, the actors where I'm hard-pressed to form any critiques- Kelly Bishop, Richard Hermann, Liza Weil, and Scott Patterson. 

Edited April 1, 2016 by Melancholy

[cuddlingcrowley]

I think my unpopular opinion is after watching LG on Parenthood for years, I think her acting wasn't so "good" here as much as she happened to have a great character to work with.  I say that only because her character on Parenthood had an entirely different background, and frankly, a much, much harder life prior to the series than Lorelai, and yet, it felt like LG played the character exactly the same as she did on Gilmore Girls.

 

 

I personally think it was the other way around. I've watched the entirety of Parenthood and, imo, the problem there was not so great writing for Sarah Braverman and LG being wrong for the role. Plain and simple. I never bought her as loser!Sarah and i don't mean that in the "I can't believe this obviously wonderful person isn't out there kickass and rulling the world" way. Don't even get me started on Hank!

 

Now, I don't think that's because LG isn't as talented as Lorelai Gilmore has led us to believe. Yes, Lorelai was the role of a lifetime but I only have to rewatch the first few episodes on S1 to get blown away all over again over how LG takes Lorelai this entire different level of emotion and vulnerabilty. 

 

I also think GG did a number of LG. From the few interviews with her I've read/seen, it was utter insanity to be a lead of that show, let alone for so long. IMO, it would have taken another incredible role to lit that fire back in LG. Parenthood, definitely wasn't it. It was probably just her way of getting back to having a steady pay-check but actually having a life this time.

 

 

Lauren Graham could be very cloying and fake in her dramatic inevitably breathy "I'm delivering a speech of wisdom/woobieness/importance" moments- even though she was great at everything else.

 

 

 

LOL! No contest on that one! But I find it easy to chalk it up to it being a Lorelai thing.

 

 

Keiko was solid in most categories, but didn't exactly wow me.

 

 

 

She excelled at being Rory's friend -- Keiko and AB were simply excelent together -- but Keiko definitely had some cluncky acting moments. Drunk!Lane comes to mind.

 

 

Mellissa McCarthy has a harsh quality that undermines her sweeter scenes, especially in the later seasons.

 

 

 

Lord almighty, do I know what you mean! After the last pregnancy, Sookie's character took such a turn and, imo, Melissa played her with way more bitterness than it was needed. The last few seasons (season?) is reason I'm quietly relieved Melissa isn't returning even though I adore pre-babies Sookie. Now that's a UO!

Edited April 1, 2016 by cuddlingcrowley

[solotrek]

You can definitely see hints of Melissa's current characters in later Sookie. Just without the swearing.

[junienmomo]

One of my until now never confessed UO is that I don't think that Kelly Bishop and Edward Hermann were such "better" actors than the rest, they did however have twenty years more experience, which showed.

They performed their character acting jobs very well, and since their roles were bigger than those of Sally Struthers, Michael Winter, et al, they may have stood out more.

I do think that the supporting cast of townies is given relatively less credit, but deserves more, than they got.

Edited April 1, 2016 by junienmomo

[txhorns79]

do you think people then are connecting more with the character and not necessarily the acting?  And sorry to ask this, do you like her acting?  I wasn't too sure from your answer.  I've only watched 3 episodes so far of Parenthood, and I have to say I have a hard time separating Lorelai from Sarah Braverman, because as you said she plays the character the same.

 

I think she's a decent actress.  My comment was more that I think her range is a lot more limited than her performance in Gilmore Girls suggests.  Essentially, I thought she was great in Gilmore Girls until I saw Parenthood, and realized that she was playing what should be a very different character exactly like she played Lorelai.  So maybe I'm saying she is very good at playing a certain kind of character, but doesn't have the range to switch things up.       

[Taryn74]

What makes it work though, is an effort to see the world from the perspective of the other person.

 

 

Exactly.  Exactly.  

 

I look at it like puzzle pieces - hubby and I are each pieces of a puzzle, made to fit together.  He has strengths where I have weaknesses, and vice versa.  If we had too much in common, we'd never fit together.  We'd just be occupying space together.

 

Apart, hubby and I are just two pieces of the same puzzle.  Together, we make something beautiful.

[court32]

The only time I saw Lorrelai while watching Parenthood was in the more comedic scenes. And I think that just happens to be Laurens own sense of humor as well. She wasn't really given much on that show and it didn't help that they recycled GG story lines ie her dating her daughters English teacher. I though she did great with the dramatic elements on that show though.

[Aloeonatable]

 

Apart, hubby and I are just two pieces of the same puzzle.  Together, we make something beautiful.

 

Aww, that's sweet, Taryn.  As a long-time-married-to-my-opposite, I can relate. 

 

I couldn't get into Parenthood, though I tried for the first season. The cross-talk was just too much. I also could not stand Dax Shepard's character.  I did see a lot of Lorelai in Sarah Braverman. 

[GreenScreenFX]

Parenthood was just Lauren Graham riffing with other characters. Occasionally they would interject a plot point.

[FictionLover]

The only time I saw Lorrelai while watching Parenthood was in the more comedic scenes. And I think that just happens to be Laurens own sense of humor as well. She wasn't really given much on that show and it didn't help that they recycled GG story lines ie her dating her daughters English teacher. I though she did great with the dramatic elements on that show though.

I did enjoy Parenthood (I think Craig T. Nelson is funny...I'm a "Coach" fan)  but I did see recycled Lorelai in the program too.  Along with dating a teacher, she was also the wild estranged child, single parent of the Braverman's.  When Sarah started dating Hank, his ex-wife didn't want Hank's girlfriend around their daughter (but even a man with Asperger's was able to stick up for himself in that situation...ahem, Luke). Plus, when Hank purposed to Sarah he told her he was "all in". Yes, the writer's certainly didn't have to do a lot of character or story development for Sarah Braverman.  That said, I liked Lauren and Mae Whitman as mother and daughter way more that Lauren and Alexis. I agree that she is always great with the drama.  If Lauren Graham cries, so do I!

[GreenScreenFX]

im sorry, this is OT but responding to the above.....Ray Ramono was the most miscast person to person.

[GreenScreenFX]

Ray Ramono- Jason Ritter- Scott Patterson- David Sutcliff- Jared Padaleki- Peter Krause ?

[Taryn74]

Aww, that's sweet, Taryn.  As a long-time-married-to-my-opposite, I can relate. 

 

:)  21 years for us as of a couple of weeks ago.  And I literally have something once or twice a week that I think "I'm so glad he enjoys doing that [something I hate] so I don't have to...."  LOL

[CalamityBoPeep]

:)  21 years for us as of a couple of weeks ago.  And I literally have something once or twice a week that I think "I'm so glad he enjoys doing that [something I hate] so I don't have to...."  LOL

 

I think that same thing several times a month, too. LOL   28 years for us. :-)

Edited April 2, 2016 by CalamityBoPeep

[Aloeonatable]

:)  21 years for us as of a couple of weeks ago.  And I literally have something once or twice a week that I think "I'm so glad he enjoys doing that [something I hate] so I don't have to...."  LOL

 

 

Ditto! 45 years for us.

[cuddlingcrowley]

My UO is that season 3 is my least favorite season, hands down, followed by season 4. The later I just find boring and lacking in sparkle, but there are episodes in season 3 I can't ever rewatch. A big part of that is how the writers chose to depict the Rory/Jess relationship. 

 

It just felt like the moment they got "together together" the writers started to sabotage that relationship, starting in the thanksgiving episode and that nonsense about not kissing on the street. I know some find it realistic but some of the writing choices are just inexplicable to me. The rory/dean friendship is by far my least favorite thing this show has done in 7 seasons, that's how much I hate it and it last for like an episode so why? Why go there?

 

Also, Jess is way, waaaay underutilized and seems oddly absent, only allowed with Rory in mostly incredibly short, tense, awkward looking scenes. But then we get to see them blissfully walking around town making out in another episode or Rory seriously considering having sex with him or Jess looking up the distance to Yale so I got really confused with what I was watching.

 

And the whole thing about Jess treating her like dirt? I'm sorry the guy couldn't get to a phone because he was busy in line to buy tickets to both of them and somehow that translates to treating someone like dirt? What?

Edited April 2, 2016 by cuddlingcrowley

[solotrek]

And the whole thing about Jess treating her like dirt? I'm sorry the guy couldn't get to a phone because he was busy in line to buy tickets to both of them and somehow that translates to treating someone like dirt? What?

 

I thought Jess got the tickets after he went to the Gilmore house and got a lecture from Lorelai? I just don't get why Rory didn't talk to him after the first time he didn't call her. "Hey I waited but you didn't call at all, what happened? Just let me know ahead of time next time, thanks." It's pretty simple.

Edited April 2, 2016 by solotrek

[cuddlingcrowley]

I thought Jess got the tickets after he went to the Gilmore house and got a lecture from Lorelai?

 

 

It's been a while since I've watched that episode but I don't actually recall ever having that particular read of it. It makes a little bit more sense in regards to why the show seemed to want us to think Jess was treating Rory like dirt, but I don't know. There's so much that doesn''t feel in character about that whole scenario that I don't even know where to begin.

 

I just don't get why Rory didn't talk to him the after the first time he didn't call her. "Hey I waited but you didn't call at all, what happened? Just let me know ahead of time next time, thanks." It's pretty simple.

 

I felt like Rory completely blew it out of proportion. I've had to deal with people close to me that didn't call me when they said they would and yes, that can be infuriating, but you don't automaticaly write off the person without knowing why.

 

Rory was fresh out of a relationship with Dean, the clingiest boyfriend that ever clinged in the history of ever, so her perspective might be screwed up. I'll give her that. But people are different and thus show love and affection different. Some of those people might not even feel the need to call a girlfriend 10 times a night, lurk outside her house and basically have their entire universe centered around her. I don't take away Jess' fault in screwing up their relationship, but I think Rory had plenty of her own as well. Or rather, she simply had no idea how to handle someone like Jess and only thought about her own needs. Instead of trying to get to know Jess in order to decide what was what, she just got defensive.

Edited April 2, 2016 by cuddlingcrowley

[shron17]

So my (not completely related to the quoted post) Tangential Unpopular Opinion is: She abandoned him. She left him in an untenable situation, first with her lies, and second with her obliviousness to the mindsets of her parents, whose deviousness she should have expected as obvious to her by that point. She put him in the position and basically sided with her family, in going with the appearances first. Getting dragged off to take a picture was no excuse for not immediately following him, and addressing (with him) what Emily had just done to the man Lorelai was supposed to love.

I couldn't agree more.  What I hate the most was how Lorelai stayed back and let the argument escalate and didn't even speak up when Chris started insisting Luke was only for now, that she was meant to be with him.  Luke turned to look at her and all she could say was, "Chris don't."  After failing to support him then, I agree, if she really valued their relationship Luke should have been her first priority.  She knew he was only there at her insistence and was very uncomfortable being there even before her confession about spending the night with Christopher that she only bothered to share because Christopher was there. 

 

But that would have required a grown-up and insightful Lorelai to come to the fore, and that hasn't been in her character... not even at the very end.

Yes.  Lorelai had a tendency in her romantic relationships to be passive and then freak out or bail at the first obstacle and blame it all on someone else.  For her first breakup with Luke it was Emily and Chris who got her dumped no matter that she made major mistakes and then pushed Luke for forgiveness before he was able (let alone forcing a very personal conversation at Doose's in full view of Taylor and everyone in the store).  In Partings it was Luke who didn't fight for her and "let" her walk away because he didn't immediately react to her ultimatum.  Maybe this was because there was no middle ground in Lorelai's relationship with her parents and she never learned to compromise.  Maybe it was because she was so focused on raising her daughter during the years she would have been learning to be in an adult relationship.

 

And that's always what I imagined Luke and Lorelai could be for each other. She could make him laugh. He could make her think. Blending her lightness with his heaviness would result in balance for both of them.

Thanks for sharing!  This was my thinking as well.  It seemed so obvious to me that they not only thoroughly enjoyed each others' quirks but were attracted and connected to each other because of their differences, not in spite of them.  I'm also hoping to see a better version of their relationship in the revival.

 

My unpopular opinion is that I think Lorelai's ultimatum was just as much of a betrayal of their relationship, if not more, than sleeping with Christopher.  After giving it all way too much thought, I also think Luke and Lorelai's problems in season 6 were actually organic to each of their characters.  Lorelai was always overly emotional, impulsive, needed to be the center of attention, and used pointless conversation to avoid discussing her feelings.  Luke was always emotionally guarded, slow to process, overly private, and despised accepting advice or help from anyone, They were both independent, stubborn, afraid to show vulnerability and avoided confrontation.  But despite a few parts of season 7, the process of finding their way back to each other should have been so much more satisfying than it was.

Edited April 2, 2016 by shron17

[dustylil]

the process of finding their way back to each other should have been so much more satisfying than it was

 

Did they really find their way back to each other though? I never thought so. What had changed? It was nice that they spoke warmly  to one another in the hay bale maze but it was as if they were speaking of a dented fender, not the collapse of a serious relationship. I think a large stack of self-help books and lengthy sessions of  both individual and couples counselling - in addition to lengthy and anguished discussions - were needed if they were to have a future together.

 

After all, what evidence was there that Lorelai would be honest and assertive with her thoughts and feelings  to Luke and not blindside him?  We  got karaoke and an elliptical conversation on knowing when to get married. Could she believe he would no longer keep secrets from  her? Clearly another child coming out of the woodwork would be preposterous even for this show, but what of money worries or a health crisis?   Why on earth would Luke trust her now if she was not there when he called or was late  for a date when he responded so angrily to a mere telephone message a year and a half earlier  and had no cause to doubt her fidelity? Could she be sure he wouldn't withdraw - emotionally and physically - from her once again as she had seen him do with both Rachel and Nicole?

 

That April was nowhere in sight when they began to rekindle their relationship in late Season 7 was to me quite telling. Not that the child was in anyway responsible for the fiasco that had come about. But her presence with the pair of them in a comfortable and  ordinary setting would have been encouraging.

                                                    ----------------------------------------

And in the real life relationship sweepstakes - 45 years as well.

Edited April 2, 2016 by dustylil

[shron17]

Did they really find their way back to each other though? I never thought so.

 

I do think they did, but would really like to see more that shows how deeply they're still connected and how those things they went through helped them change enough to let the other person more fully into their life.  As far as Luke trusting Lorelai, since the main obstacle was always Christopher and she's since married and divorced him, my guess would be Luke no longer sees him a threat to their relationship.  As far as April, it seems Luke felt more secure in their bond and has settled things with Anna to the point that he'd be comfortable fully sharing that part of his life with Lorelai.  As far as their other issues, well, my hope would be that even though they would still have ups and downs that they both would have grown enough to understand how important it is to protect their friendship and trust and have worked out ways to support each other in most situations.  If they've gotten married and/or had children together I think that would help them feel more secure together.  Since Amy and Dan created these characters and, in my opinion, at times showed their relationship in a much more satisfying way I do wonder how much better season 7 (and 8?) might have been if they'd stayed. 

[AllyB]

My UO is that season 3 is my least favorite season, hands down, followed by season 4. The later I just find boring and lacking in sparkle, but there are episodes in season 3 I can't ever rewatch. A big part of that is how the writers chose to depict the Rory/Jess relationship. 

 

It just felt like the moment they got "together together" the writers started to sabotage that relationship, starting in the thanksgiving episode and that nonsense about not kissing on the street. I know some find it realistic but some of the writing choices are just inexplicable to me. The rory/dean friendship is by far my least favorite thing this show has done in 7 seasons, that's how much I hate it and it last for like an episode so why? Why go there?

 

Also, Jess is way, waaaay underutilized and seems oddly absent, only allowed with Rory in mostly incredibly short, tense, awkward looking scenes. But then we get to see them blissfully walking around town making out in another episode or Rory seriously considering having sex with him or Jess looking up the distance to Yale so I got really confused with what I was watching.

 

And the whole thing about Jess treating her like dirt? I'm sorry the guy couldn't get to a phone because he was busy in line to buy tickets to both of them and somehow that translates to treating someone like dirt? What?

I've just finished a season 3 rewatch and it just makes no sense. In season 2 (and early in season 3) it was clear that Jess, despite his troubled life and resultant moodiness, was someone who connected with Rory on a mental level. They talked, got each others jokes and references, had a great time having dinner with Paris, etc. He was considerate of Rory, holding the umbrella over her during the construction work in the diner, bringing her food when she was alone, turning back on the sprinklers so Dean wouldn't know he'd helped her, etc. It was obvious that Dean wasn't right for her as they didn't have enough in common and, while Jess wasn't necessarily right for her long-term having a boyfriend who was an intellectual match was something that would be good for her.

 

Then they started dating and he was a cardboard cut out of a crappy bad boy boyfriend. We never saw them connect about anything again. They either kissed or had Dean related awkwardness or Jess wasn't bothered with talking to her. There was one scene where he liked the book she was reading and she bribed him with it, and that was their whole mental connection. They never felt like a couple at all. If this was supposed to be some guy Rory was physically attracted to that would have worked as a story. She loves kissing him, and is considering having sex with him but they have no emotional/mental connection and he's an ass, is something a lot of teenagers experience and would have made sense as a story. But the point of Jess was that he matched her mentally and shared many of her passions. They should have been a great couple who connected on many levels but Jess' anger and trust issues along with the appearance of his father prevented them from making it work.