One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions

[shron17]

9 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

But that's my point.  If the other party is no longer invested in your relationship, there's no relationship, whether they have officially given notice or not. 

I agree, the whole thing was contrived.  But to me, Luke spending the night implies he's at least somewhat invested.  I guess I can see if they hadn't spoken or seen each other for weeks, she could have decided to move on, but then why not say so when he showed up?  And for all we know he may have been making more of an effort to spend more time there.

[junienmomo]

Episode 4.01"

"LUKE: Of course, the next morning we both woke up and realized we'd lost our minds. We tried to ignore it for awhile, you know, went snorkeling, but by the time we hit land, we were separated, and now we're getting divorced."

The divorce was wanted by both of them. They also had several discussions, at least one of them upstairs at the diner and in the square in the Hollow, because the diner customers were familiar with the arguments. This dating and conveniently staying married never worked on any level. 

The writers had no decent ideas about what to do with Luke in S4 while he stood in the wings for the big L/L hookup.

I will shock myself by suggesting this would have been a good time to have April come on the scene, which I also believe they didn't have planned yet. Can you imagine Luke running into Anna somewhere, meeting a ten year old April and doing the math?

Maybe better yet, it would have been a good time for at least the Renaissance Faire non-emergency. I could almost have tolerated TJ for an extra season as opposed to this series of irrational events.

Anyway back to the actual plot, they took an extremely intelligent Nicole, turned off her brain and isolated her from her lawyer colleagues who would never have counseled the dating-marriage. She knew better, Luke knew better, but rather than give one of them the character growth to say it's over, they had the sockman. One major face palm for the writers, but hey, they got another season out of it on their contract.

[Smad]

1 hour ago, junienmomo said:

The writers had no decent ideas about what to do with Luke in S4 while he stood in the wings for the big L/L hookup.

I will shock myself by suggesting this would have been a good time to have April come on the scene, which I also believe they didn't have planned yet. Can you imagine Luke running into Anna somewhere, meeting a ten year old April and doing the math?

Well ASP had a lot of these brain farts. What I don't get is she didn't plan to put L/L together this Season until the network forced her hand. So what other reason was there to drag that nonsense storyline out? She really didn't have any good ideas for the first half of S4. Nicole/Luke and Rory was weird and boring respectively. I wish instead of Nicole we would have gotten Rachel this Season instead of S1. Or bring his sister into the show in early S4. Or some other relative of his. We know from Dead Uncles that there are plenty. Or god help us bring April in sooner. The need to keep Luke/Nicole going as a way to give Luke a storyline just never sat well with me.

Quote

She knew better, Luke knew better, but rather than give one of them the character growth to say it's over, they had the sockman. One major face palm for the writers, but hey, they got another season out of it on their contract.

What is this character growth you speak of? Is it that thing that ASP is totally unfamiliar with? Because according to her the best characters are those that never grow. Wonder if in all these years someone explained to her what this growth thing is. Maybe she should sit down with the S7 staff. They can give her some tips on how to write people as human beings (well some of them) and what growth is (for some). *evil laugh*

Edited May 4, 2016 by Smad

[junienmomo]

3 hours ago, Smad said:

Well ASP had a lot of these brain farts. (snip) 

I wish instead of Nicole we would have gotten Rachel this Season instead of S1. Or bring his sister into the show in early S4. Or some other relative of his. We know from Dead Uncles that there are plenty. (Snip again)

What is this character growth you speak of? Is it that thing that ASP is totally unfamiliar with? Because according to her the best characters are those that never grow. Wonder if in all these years someone explained to her what this growth thing is. Maybe she should sit down with the S7 staff. They can give her some tips on how to write people as human beings (well some of them) and what growth is (for some). *evil laugh*

Love this post. Season four could have been amazing with a redux of Rachel and Christopher. Maybe even up to the verge of a Luke and Rachel wedding with all of Luke's relatives. Or Lorelai actually marrying Christopher. He would have loved it, getting his Lorelai just as the bulk of the parenting responsibility ended.

[shron17]

38 minutes ago, junienmomo said:

Love this post. Season four could have been amazing with a redux of Rachel and Christopher. Maybe even up to the verge of a Luke and Rachel wedding with all of Luke's relatives. Or Lorelai actually marrying Christopher. He would have loved it, getting his Lorelai just as the bulk of the parenting responsibility ended.

The actress who played Rachel stopped acting not long after season 1 and David Sutcliffe had a series during season 4.  Also Billy Burke and Scott Cohen both were offered shows during season 3, making appearances by Alex and Max shorter than originally planned.  Teddy Dunn was supposed to be Rory's new boyfriend until he got a bigger role in Veronica Mars.  Maybe if he was, Rory wouldn't have had to commit  adultery, who knows.  I imagine there are lots of cool stories ASP could have told except for circumstances outside her control, most of which we likely have no knowledge.  .

Edited May 4, 2016 by shron17

[readster]

47 minutes ago, shron17 said:

The actress who played Rachel stopped acting not long after season 1 and David Sutcliffe had a series during season 4.  Also Billy Burke and Scott Cohen both were offered shows during season 3, making appearances by Alex and Max shorter than originally planned.  Teddy Dunn was supposed to be Rory's new boyfriend until he got a bigger role in Veronica Mars.  Maybe if he was, Rory wouldn't have had to commit  adultery, who knows.  I imagine there are lots of cool stories ASP could have told except for circumstances outside her control, most of which we likely have no knowledge.  .

Yeah, I do wonder what would have happened if a lot of those factors wouldn't have happened. Especially, when it came to both Christopher, Alex and Max if they wouldn't have had their own series as a result. I still feel that Lane and Zach were just thrown together and then there was this: "They were in love all along." I still go: "What?" to this day. As for David Sutcliffe, if AS-P wouldn't have had this constant love for him as she showed time and time again, I do wonder if Chris would have had a proper send off instead of the wonderful inclusion of Jason that then turned into a real bad ending by season 4. I do know the show was in ratings trouble in the season and why Luke and Lorelai were put together as a result. However, Nicole still leaves a bad taste in my mouth to this day. It was so horribly handled and dragged on for way to long. 

Edited May 4, 2016 by readster

[Smad]

2 hours ago, shron17 said:

The actress who played Rachel stopped acting not long after season 1 and David Sutcliffe had a series during season 4.

 

Yeah but she knew she wanted DS for the Lorelai/Chris thing that started at the end of S2 and would have continued into S3. After all hasn't ASP said before she plans Seasons backwards? So if she knew in early S2 she wanted to get to L/C by the end why not lock DS down into a contract like she did for S7? That was her own damn fault. And by S7 it was way too late to do the L/C thing IMO but I've rambled on about why in the L/C thread so no repeats here.

[shron17]

43 minutes ago, Smad said:

Yeah but she knew she wanted DS for the Lorelai/Chris thing that started at the end of S2 and would have continued into S3. After all hasn't ASP said before she plans Seasons backwards? So if she knew in early S2 she wanted to get to L/C by the end why not lock DS down into a contract like she did for S7? That was her own damn fault. And by S7 it was way too late to do the L/C thing IMO but I've rambled on about why in the L/C thread so no repeats here.

Don't know for sure, but my guess would be DS had a better contract being the co-lead in a network series than what ASP could offer for a minor character on the WB.  His show was cancelled and by season 6 he was probably happy to sign for more episodes.  

Quote

Yeah, I do wonder what would have happened if a lot of those factors wouldn't have happened.

Me too.  There definitely are places throughout the series when it feels  as though they had to swerve off course to adapt to actors' schedules or other demands.  I read that they wanted to sign Sutcliffe for more episodes from about season 2, but he didn't want to be tied down.   It would have been a better show to see more of Christopher earlier in the show and less later, but I guess that's what fanfiction is for.

Edited May 4, 2016 by shron17

[readster]

Yeah, it was more of DS wants than what AS-P and the WB were offering at the time. Many actors these days when a show they are on has a long run, they usually say: "I hope I'm employed again soon." The acting world is very fickle about people depending on their: success, age, previous work, ect. I remember Ed O'Neil saying how he was seen as Ed Bundy for years even though he did other work where he really shined as an actor and not the shoe salesman with a horrible family and life. Mark Hamil got caught in that too and then turned to voice acting and made a pretty successful career at it. I do know that DS has said after going back to Gilmore Girls, he was happy to have a fall back because after they wrapped up I'm with Her. He had 0 offers on things. However, AS-P went out of her way to shoe horn in characters and actors who were just free too. Dean's final appearance was a grand example of that and his marriage was suppose to be his farewell to the series until his other shows crashed and burned. I know Jared said that he is trying to keep work going because even with another Supernatural season. He and Jason Ackles really do wonder how much longer they can go, they are running on fumes. 

  You have in Marty who was busy with Broadway and they threw him in when he was free. While AS-P is one of the worst to throw in actors just because they are free. She sadly didn't think of keeping her actors when she knew they probably get more work from other studios. DS now ends up where ever he can find work now. He isn't considered the "hot" actor anymore. 

[junienmomo]

On 5/3/2016 at 4:52 PM, NorthangerAbby said:

(snip)

I started thinking of the two double dates in the series, the one with Dean, Max and the Gilmores in early Season 2 and then the one with Dean, Luke and the Gilmores in Season 5, and I was reminded of why I prefer Max to Luke as unpopular as that is. That first double date showed the Gilmores genuinely happy and having fun, not at all tense or worried that Max wouldn't be able to behave like a civil human being and all four of them enjoying one another's company. The one with Luke in Season 5 was a disaster, with Luke as his Lukeiest and the girls understandably anxious, tense and unhappy the entire time. Luke's behavior towards Dean was always one of the many things about him I find inexcusable, and I find Luke's treatment of Dean far more inappropriate than something like Max bonding over the Gilmore Girls with Dean. 

The two double dates are as different as night and day. 

Max's date was an introduction to life in the town with Lorelai and her daughter. Both couples were on their get-to-know-you behavior to the other couple. Even then, Max overstepped his role when he called curfew on Rory, and his lack of authority was doubly confirmed by Lorelai.

Luke and Lorelai, on the other hand, were going out with Dean and Rory after five years of very rough history. It was very much a parents going out with the kids situation, with Luke having a well-established mentor/ersatz father role which was accepted by both Lorelai and Rory and even Dean. 

Think about the years of Rory/Luke interaction. For some number of years, it is reasonably extrapolated that birthdays, caterpillar funeral and mashed potatoes with chicken pox happened, and that Rory, often with Lane, spent hours at the diner when Lorelai was working, especially when Rory was in Stars Hollow schools and had much more time on her hands.

Along comes Dean with the first boyfriend drama, which is followed by Jess. We see Luke protecting Rory even more, primarily because Rory and Jess are hanging out at the apartment rather than Lorelai's house, and Lorelai agrees to him doing it, exemplified by her letting him know that his ten minute checks on the young couple aren't nearly close enough together. He and Rory have a bond in their affection for his nephew. Heck, Luke is even giving advice to Rory on her casual date at Yale. 

Next thing we know, there's a Rory/Dean scandal that Luke isn't directly informed about, but surely becomes public knowledge when Lindsay's mom calls Rory out in public. Also, Luke is keeping Dean's secret love for Rory as best he can, even when he tries to make sure Rory knows to not go to Dean's wedding. 

When the final breakup of Dean and Lindsay occurs, and Rory and Dean start seeing each other, neither Lorelai nor Luke are pleased. Lorelai hasn't liked anything about the Dean and Rory relationship since the sex started. Luke was not thrilled with the idea of the double date, Lorelai knew this, and they both tried to make the best of it as a show of support for Rory. Guess what? It didn't work out, and it fell apart pretty much the way real family conflicts fall apart - plenty of passive-aggressive behavior, people trying not to say the things that need to be said, and everybody pissed off at the end. 

Lorelai used the classic bottom-line statement: she just needs to make it work. Luke apologizes, reaches out to the younger couple to apologize and make amends, and the family gets on with life. This is not a case of everyone tiptoeing around Luke, it's a perfectly normally weird dysfunctional family, with a little Pippi Longstocking thrown in.

[dustylil]

59 minutes ago, readster said:

DS now ends up where ever he can find work now. He isn't considered the "hot" actor anymore. 

My utter dislike of the character he portrayed aside, this is a genuine question. When was he considered a "hot" actor? Even in his homeland, where we often ooh and aww at the slightest attention from Hollywood, he didn't seem to attract a great deal of notice. And Gilmore Girls itself tended to get far better ratings in Canada than it did in the US.

[hippielamb]

On 5/3/2016 at 0:24 PM, NorthangerAbby said:

I was on a different board where everyone was excoriating Lorelai for not being more open to Jess, so it seems another unpopular opinion of mine is that I don't blame her at all in that regard. Jess has good qualities, but there's a lot about him that most mothers of teens would be understandably alarmed about. I think even people who hate Lorelai will admit that Jess did not exactly make a good first impression on her, almost going out of his way to be as disrespectful as possible, and he didn't even apologize for that. Apologizing does seem to be one of those things that male Gilmore Girls character just don't do, LOL, so I know that's not just Jess. But Lorelai did respect Rory's decision to date him, tried to be friendly or at least polite to Jess, and usually handled that situation better than most mothers I've known would have. Jess is an insolent, rude jerk who stopped going to class and lied about it and seemed intent on alienating as many people as possible. There's a lot I ended up liking about Jess, but are there really a lot of mothers who would have been more enthusiastic than Lorelai was about their daughters dating a Jess, especially the Jess of Seasons 2 and 3? 

I agree completely about Jess. I can't imagine any mother wanting him for their daughter. Especially how he talks to Lorelai *in her home*. Add to that all his bad behaviour prior to dating Rory. Yikes. Lorelai tries really hard to keep Rory on the right path, Jess must have appeared as a giant red warning sign. I think it's to her credit that she tries to be civil once Jess and Rory are together.

23 hours ago, NorthangerAbby said:

 

I know few others feel this way, which is why it's so helpful this thread exists. It was actually shocking and reassuring to see a fair number of people here who don't get the love for Luke any more than I do. I'd started to think I was literally the only person in the entire Gilmore Girls fandom who didn't love him! 

You're not the only one. Frankly, I thought his "all in" speech on a *first date* was too much. Talk about pressure. Couldn't they just date and have fun and then decide if they want a commitment? By then they could have accepted (or not) each other's flaws and issues. But that would be less dramatic and everyone seemed to be on the drama train in season 5.

 

16 minutes ago, junienmomo said:

 

Luke and Lorelai, on the other hand, were going out with Dean and Rory after five years of very rough history. It was very much a parents going out with the kids situation, with Luke having a well-established mentor/ersatz father role which was accepted by both Lorelai and Rory and even Dean. 

 

I don't see the family element there, it felt like Luke was overstepping. He's the outsider, whereas Dean has spent many movie nights with the girls and fit in. He knew what to expect with the bad food and singing. It's a little sad that Lorelai made the date to put Dean at ease because she didn't want any weirdness between them and Luke made it worse by his behaviour. 

[dustylil]

2 hours ago, hippielamb said:

Frankly, I thought his "all in" speech on a *first date* was too much. Talk about pressure

That and finding out he had apparently been pining for her for eight years. That said, I would think that after being bowled over by these confessions, she might - upon reflection  when there were  relationship difficulties between them - wonder about how committed he was to the two other women with whom he had serious involvements who preceded her  in that time period - Rachel and Nicole. And what that might portend for her.

Edited May 4, 2016 by dustylil

[txhorns79]

Quote

I agree completely about Jess. I can't imagine any mother wanting him for their daughter. Especially how he talks to Lorelai *in her home*. Add to that all his bad behaviour prior to dating Rory. Yikes. Lorelai tries really hard to keep Rory on the right path, Jess must have appeared as a giant red warning sign. I think it's to her credit that she tries to be civil once Jess and Rory are together.

I don't know, what was Lorelai going to do at that point?  Stay hostile to Jess?  That would only piss off Rory, and drive she and Lorelai apart. 
 

Quote

 

You're not the only one. Frankly, I thought his "all in" speech on a *first date* was too much. Talk about pressure. Couldn't they just date and have fun and then decide if they want a commitment? By then they could have accepted (or not) each other's flaws and issues. But that would be less dramatic and everyone seemed to be on the drama train in season 5.

 

Oh gosh yes.  They all did love their dramatic reactions to everything, didn't they? 

[FictionLover]

5 hours ago, hippielamb said:

I agree completely about Jess. I can't imagine any mother wanting him for their daughter. Especially how he talks to Lorelai *in her home*. Add to that all his bad behaviour prior to dating Rory. Yikes. Lorelai tries really hard to keep Rory on the right path, Jess must have appeared as a giant red warning sign. I think it's to her credit that she tries to be civil once Jess and Rory are together.

You're not the only one. Frankly, I thought his "all in" speech on a *first date* was too much. Talk about pressure. Couldn't they just date and have fun and then decide if they want a commitment? By then they could have accepted (or not) each other's flaws and issues. But that would be less dramatic and everyone seemed to be on the drama train in season 5.

 

I don't see the family element there, it felt like Luke was overstepping. He's the outsider, whereas Dean has spent many movie nights with the girls and fit in. He knew what to expect with the bad food and singing. It's a little sad that Lorelai made the date to put Dean at ease because she didn't want any weirdness between them and Luke made it worse by his behaviour. 

I always felt because Luke knew the history from Dean's bachelor party and him still being in love with Rory just made the whole situation uncomfortable for him.

[chessiegal]

7 minutes ago, FictionLover said:

I always felt because Luke knew the history from Dean's bachelor party and him still being in love with Rory just made the whole situation uncomfortable for him.

So agree. Plus we have the "Scene at a Mall" episode where Luke goes to the arcade to get change after Dean is married, and Luke sees Dean totally distracted by seeing Lorelai and more importantly Rory getting out of their Jeep. Dean was written as never getting over Rory.

[Smad]

9 hours ago, hippielamb said:

You're not the only one. Frankly, I thought his "all in" speech on a *first date* was too much. Talk about pressure. Couldn't they just date and have fun and then decide if they want a commitment? By then they could have accepted (or not) each other's flaws and issues. But that would be less dramatic and everyone seemed to be on the drama train in season 5.

Personally I thought that was Luke putting the pressure on on purpose while being incredibly honest. Luke knows Lorelai's romantic history. And his own for that matter. Her relationships have never lasted long. For me it translated to 'This is it for me. If that's not something you see happening on your end you better let me know now.' But that's just how I saw it.

Quote

I don't see the family element there, it felt like Luke was overstepping. He's the outsider, whereas Dean has spent many movie nights with the girls and fit in. He knew what to expect with the bad food and singing. It's a little sad that Lorelai made the date to put Dean at ease because she didn't want any weirdness between them and Luke made it worse by his behaviour. 

Since when is Luke an outsider to the Gilmore Girls? So what if Dean watched movies with them? Luke's got years of history with both women. And if Luke is overstepping his bounds then it's on Lorelai to tell him to back off. Or how about not putting Luke in the father position at any point prior as I have pointed out before. And Lorelai has just as many issues with the Rory/Dean thing as Luke does. The only difference is that 'her mom card is looking a little flimsy' and instead of directly confronting Rory or Dean she keeps silent on the matter 'because she needs it to work'.

[readster]

16 hours ago, dustylil said:

My utter dislike of the character he portrayed aside, this is a genuine question. When was he considered a "hot" actor? Even in his homeland, where we often ooh and aww at the slightest attention from Hollywood, he didn't seem to attract a great deal of notice. And Gilmore Girls itself tended to get far better ratings in Canada than it did in the US.

We didn't consider DS "hot" it was AS-P's actual words, just like certain show runners of Everwood and Brothers and Sisters considering an actor "hot" and they had to make him shirtless when they could (their exact words). Yet, they never did ANYTHING with the characters to make  us think that. I know you have actors like Greg Grunburg or Michael O'Keef who are BFFs with certain big name hollywood people and seem to show up where they go. However, when said shows are over and so forth. Those actors realize they don't have ins anymore. It reminds me of when 7th Heaven finally went off the air and a lot of these actors were all of a sudden out of work. Even though half of them found work in other series (before what happened with Stephan Collins). However, many were then viewed as: "We don't think you are such 'hot' stuff, so we'll call you, don't call us." DS is one of those actors. 

[hippielamb]

14 hours ago, dustylil said:

That and finding out he had apparently been pining for her for eight years. That said, I would think that after being bowled over by these confessions, she might - upon reflection  when there were  relationship difficulties between them - wonder about how committed he was to the two other women with whom he had serious involvements who preceded her  in that time period - Rachel and Nicole. And what that might portend for her.

He does follow a pattern. I wonder if she ever connected the dots and saw that he was doing to her what he did to Rachel and Nicole. Or if she wondered just exactly what went wrong with Luke & Anna to justify both of their behaviours. 

13 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

Oh gosh yes.  They all did love their dramatic reactions to everything, didn't they? 

It's like they forgot this was a comedy-drama, maybe it was intentional. The comedic bits were fewer and fewer, with much less townie festivals. The only funny parts I can remember came from the Gilmores separation and how they acted. I felt like this was the year they shifted from being a quirky family show into being a soap opera about who was dating who.

6 hours ago, Smad said:

Since when is Luke an outsider to the Gilmore Girls? So what if Dean watched movies with them? Luke's got years of history with both women. And if Luke is overstepping his bounds then it's on Lorelai to tell him to back off. Or how about not putting Luke in the father position at any point prior as I have pointed out before. And Lorelai has just as many issues with the Rory/Dean thing as Luke does. The only difference is that 'her mom card is looking a little flimsy' and instead of directly confronting Rory or Dean she keeps silent on the matter 'because she needs it to work'.

I meant an outsider in terms of movie night and relaxing with them. Dean had already been to many movie nights with the girls and went with the flow. He knew they ate the bad food and had seen Pippi with them multiple times. Lorelai did ask Luke to lay off Dean at the theatre but it had little effect. She had accepted Dean's relationship with Rory and didn't want there to be any weirdness between them. Lorelai's statement of "I need it to work" I can never figure out if she is talking about Rory and Dean, or her relationship with Luke.

[Melancholy]

Everyone from Rory to the townies all said that if Lorelai and Luke were going to start dating, than they needed to be serious about each other. This wasn't like strangers going out on a first date and the guy says that he's ALL IN. Lorelai, Luke, and everyone else was very mindful of how they couldn't afford to just have some fling. They were risking their super-close friendship and arguably Lorelai's supply of food and handyman work to take a bigger chance on the fact that they would make each other happy in a committed romantic relationship. It was completely appropriate and very kind for Luke to say that he's all in.

Moreover, I think it's entirely fair that Lorelai was pleased about the horoscope and took it for what it really was- that she's the love of Luke's life. Not that Luke is a cheater for having a piece of paper in his wallet while being with Rachel and Nicole and she better watch out. I mean, I think it's problematic that Luke wasn't in touch with the romantic extent of his feelings for Lorelai until Luke Can See Her Face and he wrote away a lot of his love for her as close friendship.

However, that's what Luke was doing. He didn't think he could date Lorelai so he was trying to move on with other women but finding it hard to keep his boundaries between romantic love and platonic love. People do this a lot- it's not malicious or dishonest or the equivalent of cheating. It's just a fact of life that many people don't get to live happily ever after with the shiniest brightest most beautiful desirable star in their life. However even though they don't get the It Girl or It Guy, they're still in charge of trying to live a happy life for themselves which includes romance. Luke was part of a mass of people in that struggle. Some of these people do move on and fall in love with the person that they're "settling for." I think Luke could have been among their number if Nicole and Anna were actually more committed to *him* or better suited for him. They weren't. Luke was instead part of the number that did seem to end up with his dream woman- which is great too. However just because you have a crush on someone that you find unattainable doesn't mean that you're morally obligated to a lonely life of celibacy until you're over your crush. 

Edited May 5, 2016 by Melancholy

[Smad]

1 minute ago, hippielamb said:

I meant an outsider in terms of movie night and relaxing with them. Dean had already been to many movie nights with the girls and went with the flow. He knew they ate the bad food and had seen Pippi with them multiple times.

Luke doesn't know they eat unhealthy food? So all the times he has commented on their food habits doesn't count? Yes he's a stranger to movie nights with them but at least he admitted that he knew he wouldn't be comfortable around Dean, hence him saying he should have said no despite Lorelai wanting to double date.

Quote

She had accepted Dean's relationship with Rory and didn't want there to be any weirdness between them. Lorelai's statement of "I need it to work" I can never figure out if she is talking about Rory and Dean, or her relationship with Luke.

Lorelai most definitely was not ok with the Rory/Dean thing. Even Sookie had commented on that in an episode prior. It's not rocket sience to understand that Lorelai is not making a fuss about it because she doesn't want to lose her daughter. When she last confronted Rory about the Dean thing her daughter ran away to Europe. So that comment had nothing to do with her and Luke's relationship and everything to do with wanting to keep the peace so as to not make Rory flee from her again.

Quote

SOOKIE: Why did you say "how's Dean?" like that?
LORELAI: Like that?
SOOKIE: [ Affected voice ] "How's Dean?"
LORELAI: I did say it like that, didn't I?
SOOKIE: Yep.
LORELAI: I don't know. I think I'm trying so hard to make Rory think I'm totally cool with the situation that I end up sounding totally freaked out by the situation.
SOOKIE: You're totally cool with the situation?
LORELAI: Well, I'm totally on my way to being totally cool with the situation.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, junienmomo said:

 

Think about the years of Rory/Luke interaction. For some number of years, it is reasonably extrapolated that birthdays, caterpillar funeral and mashed potatoes with chicken pox happened, and that Rory, often with Lane, spent hours at the diner when Lorelai was working, especially when Rory was in Stars Hollow schools and had much more time on her hands.

 

I completely disagree that this is reasonably extrapolated.  I feel like it was shoehorned in Season 7 to try to make the plot work, but it is completely inconsistent with what we saw in Season 1.  Season 1 Luke was familiar with the girls and friendly-ish, but they did not have that kind of relationship.  I also think that Lane would not have been permitted to spend hours just hanging out at a place that sold Satan's starchy fingers.

[Smad]

21 minutes ago, deaja said:

I completely disagree that this is reasonably extrapolated.  I feel like it was shoehorned in Season 7 to try to make the plot work, but it is completely inconsistent with what we saw in Season 1.  Season 1 Luke was familiar with the girls and friendly-ish, but they did not have that kind of relationship.  I also think that Lane would not have been permitted to spend hours just hanging out at a place that sold Satan's starchy fingers.

Actually the occurences mentioned in the post your quoted were from S5. So that would mean it was shoehorned into both S5 and the other stuff we got in S7 which isn't listed in that post.

[dustylil]

1 hour ago, Melancholy said:

Not that Luke is a cheater for having a piece of paper in his wallet while being with Rachel and Nicole and she better watch out. I mean, I think it's problematic that Luke wasn't in touch with the romantic extent of his feelings for Lorelai until Luke Can See Her Face and he wrote away a lot of his love for her as close friendship.

I hardly suggested he was a cheater - just  possibly commitment-shy. I would be more willing to accept the idea that Luke was not aware of his feelings for Lorelai for such a long time if Rachel - of all people - had not pointed them out to him some three years earlier. Coming from a woman who knew him well - as opposed to resulting from the revelations of that inane self-help book - I would have thought would mean more to him.

However, I was looking at the matter from Lorelai's perspective, how she might view the keeping of the horoscope and his relationships with Nicole and Rachel - and in particular how he increasingly distanced himself from them.

[Melancholy]

1 hour ago, Smad said:

Actually the occurences mentioned in the post your quoted were from S5. So that would mean it was shoehorned into both S5 and the other stuff we got in S7 which isn't listed in that post.

Yup. Also french fries or not, Lane said that Luke's was one of the few secular "Mrs. Kim approved places in Stars Hallow." Lane did spend some time in Luke's with the girls in S1-3 and then, got a part-time job there in S4 when she was living at Mrs. Kim's with her permission. Luke's does sell healthy food, even though that's not what the Gilmore girls order. I also recall Lane going in there to order bagels for church on her mom's orders.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Melancholy said:

Yup. Also french fries or not, Lane said that Luke's was one of the few secular "Mrs. Kim approved places in Stars Hallow." Lane did spend some time in Luke's with the girls in S1-3 and then, got a part-time job there in S4 when she was living at Mrs. Kim's with her permission. Luke's does sell healthy food, even though that's not what the Gilmore girls order. I also recall Lane going in there to order bagels for church on her mom's orders.

Sorry, @Smad. I was confused about when those occurrences were.  I know that Luke's was one of the approved places by Mrs. Kim, but I still don't think (based on how she was portrayed early seasons) that she would have allowed Lane to just hang out there aimlessly.  Going there briefly and working there are a different matter.  

[hippielamb]

On 5/5/2016 at 9:58 AM, Smad said:

Luke doesn't know they eat unhealthy food? So all the times he has commented on their food habits doesn't count? Yes he's a stranger to movie nights with them but at least he admitted that he knew he wouldn't be comfortable around Dean, hence him saying he should have said no despite Lorelai wanting to double date.

Lorelai most definitely was not ok with the Rory/Dean thing. Even Sookie had commented on that in an episode prior. It's not rocket sience to understand that Lorelai is not making a fuss about it because she doesn't want to lose her daughter. When she last confronted Rory about the Dean thing her daughter ran away to Europe. So that comment had nothing to do with her and Luke's relationship and everything to do with wanting to keep the peace so as to not make Rory flee from her again.

Luke didn't know why they like Jojo's food on movie night while Dean did. I am simply saying that because of Dean's history of hanging out with the girls, he fit in with them better on movie night. Luke had never participated in a movie night with Lorelai and Rory together and was the new guy, so to speak. 

I don't think Lorelai was ok with the Rory and Dean relationship, she chose to accept it. She already voiced her concerns and Rory knew how she felt. Much like Emily finally accepted Lorelai's relationship with Luke, she didn't approve but had to accept it as a reality.

 

On 5/5/2016 at 10:09 AM, deaja said:

I completely disagree that this is reasonably extrapolated.  I feel like it was shoehorned in Season 7 to try to make the plot work, but it is completely inconsistent with what we saw in Season 1.  Season 1 Luke was familiar with the girls and friendly-ish, but they did not have that kind of relationship.  I also think that Lane would not have been permitted to spend hours just hanging out at a place that sold Satan's starchy fingers.

It felt like they were trying to force something we hadn't seen. Rory has a fondness for Luke and certainly cares about his feelings, and Luke is overprotective of her especially in her dating life but I never got a father/daughter feel to their relationship. The most paternal (or grandpaternal?) person in Rory's life is Richard, I feel like that has been shown and it feels more organic to the overall plot of the series.

[txhorns79]

Quote

I don't think Lorelai was ok with the Rory and Dean relationship, she chose to accept it. She already voiced her concerns and Rory knew how she felt. Much like Emily finally accepted Lorelai's relationship with Luke, she didn't approve but had to accept it as a reality.

I agree.  Lorelai had already made her feelings clear about Rory and Dean, and unless she wanted to create a rift with her daughter, her only real choice was to be civil and tolerate the situation. 

Edited May 6, 2016 by txhorns79

[amensisterfriend]

I never saw Rory as caring any more about Luke than she did about the other handful of adults in SH who played a big part of her upbringing. She literally almost NEVER interacted with him independently of Lorelai or Jess, the very few scenes they share alone are about Lorelai or Jess, and there's absolutely no evidence that they maintain any kind of independent relationship during times when Luke and Lorelai are estranged. (When Rory shows up at the diner at the beginning of S6, it's purely to inquire about Lorelai.) They're fond of each other, with Luke seeming to care more about Rory than she ever did about him IMO, but they in no way seemed close enough to be like father and daughter to me. As others have noted, she seemed much more connected to Max than she did to Luke, far closer to Richard than Luke, and even among the townies seemed to have a closer relationship with Sookie than she did with Luke. In short (I know...too late!), while I totally get why fans wanted to see a special father-daughter relationship there, I just don't think that's what we got on screen.  Luke just seemed like one of many adults who Rory cared for and appreciated. 

Every time I read the insightful posts about the GG's exhaustingly problematic romantic relationship and the way that AS-P chose to depict her male characters, I come closer and closer to the very UO that AS-P's original intention was to have both Gilmores end up contentedly single, deviating from the usual 'happy ending' by having both of them conclude they were their happier and better selves while single, at least for the foreseeable future. And even if that wasn't ever her intention, after seeing the way AS-P writes her characters and romantic relationships in general, I can't help but think it should have been :) 

 Also, on a non-romance related note and because it's been sadly long since we talked about unpopular opinions about episodes, I was recently reminded that I LOVE the generally unpopular The Third Lorelai, like to the point where it's definitely in my top five S1 episodes :) 

Edited May 6, 2016 by amensisterfriend

[cantbeflapped]

I didn't know The Third Lorelai was unpopular, amensisterfriend.  I really like it too...though it probably wouldn't  make a favorite list of mine because of too much competition.  

Okay, Luke fan here....and Luke and Lorelai fan here....but even I have to say the writers forced that Rory/Luke father/daughter thing in later seasons.  He seemed like a beloved townie friend to me.  Though, I will say, there's a special bond with someone when they feed you....or maybe that's just me....lol.  

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, amensisterfriend said:

I never saw Rory as caring any more about Luke than she did about the other handful of adults in SH who played a big part of her upbringing. She literally almost NEVER interacted with him independently of Lorelai or Jess, the very few scenes they share alone are about Lorelai or Jess, and there's absolutely no evidence that they maintain any kind of independent relationship during times when Luke and Lorelai are estranged. (When Rory shows up at the diner at the beginning of S6, it's purely to inquire about Lorelai.) They're fond of each other, with Luke seeming to care more about Rory than she ever did about him IMO, but they in no way seemed close enough to be like father and daughter to me. As others have noted, she seemed much more connected to Max than she did to Luke, far closer to Richard than Luke, and even among the townies seemed to have a closer relationship with Sookie than she did with Luke. In short (I know...too late!), while I totally get why fans wanted to see a special father-daughter relationship there, I just don't think that's what we got on screen.  Luke just seemed like one of many adults who Rory cared for and appreciated. 

 

Agreed. I mean, in Season 7 when she saw Kirk crash into his diner (which was the same building he lived in), her reaction wasn't a concern that you would expect her to have for a father figure.  It was "Wow, that was really cool!"  

In Season 2, when she needed a father figure to present her, she didn't even list him as a possibility. I know it's not his thing, but if he'd really been her father figure you would think he would at least have been listed in a "I'd ask Luke, but he'd hate it" type of way.

[Smad]

I never saw Rory and Luke have that kind of relationship either. The presents thing doesn't seem forced to me however since the townies always were at her b-day parties so she got presents from them every year. And while Luke may not have been at all of her parties it doesn't seem that far fetched to me he would give her one anyway. I just have a problem with Lorelai forcing Luke into the dad place sometimes when it comes to a crisis. It's no wonder he sometimes oversteps his bounds as a friend.

[dustylil]

5 hours ago, hippielamb said:

It felt like they were trying to force something we hadn't seen

I concur. Particularly that business about the vast array of presents Luke had  given to Rory over the years we heard about when Luke, April, Lorelai and Rory met at the mall. It was out of keeping with both Luke's aversion to mindless consumerism, his conversations with Lorelai about gifts over the years and the two birthday scenes we saw between Rory and Luke in the first and sixth seasons.

And add me to the group who didn't think there was any kind of father/daughter bond between Luke and Rory. She had a father and two grandfathers, only one of whom gave her more than a passing nod when she was growing up. That was her paternal reality. In Luke she had a kind,  decent and reliable man who both encouraged her and looked out for her. That was no small thing for any young girl to have.

[txhorns79]

Quote

I never saw Rory and Luke have that kind of relationship either. The presents thing doesn't seem forced to me however since the townies always were at her b-day parties so she got presents from them every year. And while Luke may not have been at all of her parties it doesn't seem that far fetched to me he would give her one anyway. I just have a problem with Lorelai forcing Luke into the dad place sometimes when it comes to a crisis. It's no wonder he sometimes oversteps his bounds as a friend.

They didn't really have that kind of relationship.  I thought the coffee cake for her birthday was cute, but the family heirloom pearl necklace was way over the top given their relationship.    

[Kohola3]

Quote

I thought the coffee cake for her birthday was cute, but the family heirloom pearl necklace was way over the top given their relationship.    

I have to disagree.  He was engaged to her mom and this was a milestone birthday. I thought the gift was both thoughtful and very sweet.  He was entering the family in a much better way than Max who immediately wanted to know his role in terms of discipline. 

[elang4]

8 minutes ago, Kohola3 said:

I have to disagree.  He was engaged to her mom and this was a milestone birthday. I thought the gift was both thoughtful and very sweet.  He was entering the family in a much better way than Max who immediately wanted to know his role in terms of discipline. 

I agree. It was a very sweet gift and it was his way of showing her how much he cared about her. Especially during that time when Rory and Lorelai were fighting.

[txhorns79]

Quote

I have to disagree.  He was engaged to her mom and this was a milestone birthday. I thought the gift was both thoughtful and very sweet.  He was entering the family in a much better way than Max who immediately wanted to know his role in terms of discipline. 

I think Max just wanted to know his role in terms of being Rory's stepfather, and was giving an example of a situation where he might actually have to do parenting, because Lorelai was dismissive of his legitimate concerns.  It wasn't like he was all: "When can I start beating Rory?"  

As to the necklace, I just didn't think she and Luke had the kind of relationship where that was appropriate.  It was more something that should have gone to Liz (even if it didn't fit), rather than his maybe future bride's daughter.  I don't think April existed yet, but I can imagine him hitting himself later on for giving away a family heirloom to Rory when it turned out he had an actual daughter for whom the gift would be more appropriate.          

[clack]

The 1st few seasons gave me the impression that there was no deep back story to the Lorelai/Luke relationship, that when we first meet them they are only casual friends, and that we are seeing their friendship develop and deepen in present time. (Later seasons seemed to retrofit a closer friendship that extended back years before the 1st episode).

That's the only way that their relationship makes sense to me -- Luke with a crush on the bright, lovely woman who comes to eat daily in his diner, exchanging jokes and pleasantries with her, but he with no real opportunity to initiate a romantic relationship. If they were truly close friends who routinely found themselves alone with each other in those periods when each were single, how could Luke not have asked her out? 

[elang4]

12 minutes ago, clack said:

The 1st few seasons gave me the impression that there was no deep back story to the Lorelai/Luke relationship, that when we first meet them they are only casual friends, and that we are seeing their friendship develop and deepen in present time. (Later seasons seemed to retrofit a closer friendship that extended back years before the 1st episode).

That's the only way that their relationship makes sense to me -- Luke with a crush on the bright, lovely woman who comes to eat daily in his diner, exchanging jokes and pleasantries with her, but he with no real opportunity to initiate a romantic relationship. If they were truly close friends who routinely found themselves alone with each other in those periods when each were single, how could Luke not have asked her out? 

Because he probably thought that he didn't have a shot in hell with her. Luke was insecure and he probably thought that she would say no. Although as their friendship developed, I think part of it was that they didn't want to ruin their friendship by making it something more. 

[chessiegal]

Luke tried to ask Lorelai out in Season 1 during "Double Dates". After the disastrous outing with Sookie, Jackson, and Rune, when they are playing cards at the counter, and she says what a good time they are having, he starts to ask her out until Mrs. Kim bursts in and asks where Lane is. The next day at the diner, he starts to ask her again and then stops himself. In "Forgiveness and Stuff" we also see a lot of flirty stuff. ASP was definitely writing the 2 as an end game from early on, which amuses me since originally she wanted Luke to be a woman, and the network said it had too many females.

[Kohola3]

Quote

As to the necklace, I just didn't think she and Luke had the kind of relationship where that was appropriate. 

But they were engaged. What more of a relationship would make it appropriate, not until they were actually married?  Rory even introduced him as her stepfather-to-be.  I think it was a lovely gesture on his part and she accepted in with an acknowledgement that he was a significant person to her.

[txhorns79]

Quote

But they were engaged. What more of a relationship would make it appropriate, not until they were actually married?  Rory even introduced him as her stepfather-to-be.  I think it was a lovely gesture on his part and she accepted in with an acknowledgement that he was a significant person to her.

And you are entirely entitled that opinion.  I just thought the gift was too much, and Luke's mother's necklace should have gone to his sister.  I mean, she may have ended up trading it for some magic beans, but that's just Liz.  Though I guess they could just been low to mid-quality cultured pearls, and that's not a particularly expensive gift, so maybe that would be okay.  

Edited May 7, 2016 by txhorns79

[dustylil]

15 minutes ago, Kohola3 said:

I think it was a lovely gesture on his part and she accepted in with an acknowledgement that he was a significant person to her

I was hoping that some time in Season 7 we would see Rory quietly appear at the diner with the box containing the necklace and ask that Luke give it to April. Towards the end of Santa's Secret Stuff would have been quite appropriate. 

[junienmomo]

1 hour ago, txhorns79 said:

As to the necklace, I just didn't think she and Luke had the kind of relationship where that was appropriate.  It was more something that should have gone to Liz (even if it didn't fit), rather than his maybe future bride's daughter.  I don't think April existed yet, but I can imagine him hitting himself later on for giving away a family heirloom to Rory when it turned out he had an actual daughter for whom the gift would be more appropriate.          

There's no reason to believe that the pearls were anything more than value-appropriate for a small town hardware store owner's wife to own.

Luke was sensitive to family etiquette, and Liz, a jewelry maker, was never shy about taking things she wanted, so if she felt she wanted them, she would have had them. He wasn't hoarding them hoping to give them to Rory one day, it just came up.

[dustylil]

45 minutes ago, junienmomo said:

Liz, a jewelry maker, was never shy about taking things she wanted

I'll say. Their father's boat, room and board for her elder child,  babysitting, food, a job for her imbecilic and inept husband.....I could go on ;)

Edited May 7, 2016 by dustylil

[marineg]

I do think that the necklace was a nice gift. When Liz and Luke's mother passed away, or even their father, they probably divvied up the heirlooms. But that's not even the point. The fact is that Luke was a nice guy and when he gave it to Rory, I got the sense that Liz didn't want it because it didn't fit, not that he didn't want to give it to her. And for a girl he's known for 15 years, on her 21st birthday, and who is the daughter of the love of his life, I don't think it's too much.

I do think however that the writers tried to trick us, in the later seasons, to believe that Luke was this constant presence in Rory's life. In the first few season, it's very clear that their close relationship started to develop on screen, and not before. Lorelai didn't know about any of his old girlfriends, he didn't know about her past as a rich Gilmore. Nothing. But as time went on, they started to make allusions to past experiences and shared moments of closeness in Rory's childhood. From what I understood in the first seasons, they saw each other at the diner, they were polite, maybe joked a bit, but that was it. I mean, even when Rory gets into college, he doesn't know how to hug her, and she is very surprised by the gesture. That is not the behavior you have with somebody who's been there your entire life, and who's shared every birthday, every chicken pox mashed potatoes incident, every bad grade or every important milestone.

[dustylil]

Quote

for a girl he's known for 15 years, on her 21st birthday

With respect, that timeline doesn't work. Based on Written in the Stars and other episodes Luke only got to know Rory once she and Lorelai had moved from the potting shed at the Independence Inn into Stars Hollow proper. Around 1995/96.This was when Rory was around eleven years of age, making their friendship of about ten years duration. If it had been of fifteen years in length, it would have overlapped both the creation of the diner and Luke's ill-starred romance with Anna Nardini.  Anna was involved with him when he was getting Luke's up and running. Even if Luke kept his personal life private, there has been nothing in series canon to suggest that Lorelai and Rory were friendly with him at the time of the diner start-up.

[marineg]

40 minutes ago, dustylil said:

With respect, that timeline doesn't work. Based on Written in the Stars and other episodes Luke only got to know Rory once she and Lorelai had moved from the potting shed at the Independence Inn into Stars Hollow proper. Around 1995/96.This was when Rory was around eleven years of age, making their friendship of about ten years duration. If it had been of fifteen years in length, it would have overlapped both the creation of the diner and Luke's ill-starred romance with Anna Nardini.  Anna was involved with him when he was getting Luke's up and running. Even if Luke kept his personal life private, there has been nothing in series canon to suggest that Lorelai and Rory were friendly with him at the time of the diner start-up.

With respect, it was a top off the head estimation. The number of years is not really the point though.

Edited May 7, 2016 by marineg

[junienmomo]

5 hours ago, marineg said:

I do think however that the writers tried to trick us, in the later seasons, to believe that Luke was this constant presence in Rory's life.

LOL, the writers were very good at overlooking pesky details from the past. Grandmothers appearing from the dead, Richard on the verge of bankruptcy, but later having enough money to buy a building at Yale, love child, Lorelai's poverty vis a vis her designer clothes, ...

The funniest one I noticed lately was Lorelai on the morning after Sniffy's saying, "I didn't think the diner could open without you!" but Luke was just gone for seven weeks and she was in the Luke-less diner every day.

[amensisterfriend]

This is probably more flat out bizarre than technically unpopular, but why not lighten the mood: I would have loved a whole episode---heck, maybe a whole season---from the primary perspective of the reverend and rabbi. They were two of the only characters on the whole show who I always enjoyed and who never annoyed me. (I realize much of that probably stems from the fact that they weren't onscreen enough for the writers to ruin them, but still!) I loved their snarky yet generally correct take on things and I love the rapport they had with each other. For all AS-P did wrong, including when it comes to the depiction of religion and spirituality, I'll happily give her credit for not making the reverend and rabbi heated rivals and reinforcing the idea that people of different faiths can't get along and see eye to eye. I'd have loved to see their take on the unconventional nuttiness that was so pervasive in SH, to see them counsel various residents on their issues (pre-marital counseling with L/L would have been especially amusing and potentially even helpful), etc. (I'm not especially religious myself, but I really think they could have added a lot to the show!) That scene in Godmother where Rory and Lorelai meet with the Reverend and lamely try to sell him on the fact that they're good people is a funny and surprisingly interesting highlight of S6 for me :) 

Alas, I'm guessing the Reverend and Rabbi are among the only two people ever to pop up on the show who we won't get to see in the increasingly overcrowded revival!