One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions

[Lady Calypso]

7 minutes ago, junienmomo said:

I share the feeling, often using other words. Her unwillingness to face the consequences of her own actions can be strong sometimes. In particular in the seasons 1-3 that you've been watching, she shows quite childish behavior when communicating with her mother, but Emily can be a pill, and I wouldn't object to Lorelai telling her off as an adult pretty often.

On the excuses side, Lorelai voluntarily gave up her teenage years to care for Rory and now that Rory is sixteen plus, Lorelai's taking some time to enjoy life, but some of that enjoyment comes from a mindset of a teenager.

I agree with this. She definitely had to give up a lot in her teenage years and not have the normal young adult life that others have had, so she's self-indulging now that Rory's old enough to take care of herself. 

I definitely liked Emily/Lorelai's relationship because Emily also can be quite tiring and I'm often just as annoyed with her, but they worked well together. 

I'm just watching Eight O'Clock at the Oasis and I'm just stunned at how whiny Lorelai is about helping a new neighbour in town. She's being very whiny and rude and I actually loved Lorelai in the first two seasons, her flaws be damned. But season 3 right now is not boding well for her likability for me. It's not even like she's changed that much, but for some reason, I am just exhausted by her scenes. 

I especially am not liking Luke/Lorelai so far because I feel like they didn't really make up from their huge fight in season 2 in my eyes. They talked about Lorelai apologizing and sending a letter, but we never saw a true apology, especially without her acknowledging (yet?) that she was more in the wrong for the Jess situation, so I just feel like, at the moment, that relationship is ruined for me. 

Edited August 31, 2016 by Lady Calypso

[junienmomo]

24 minutes ago, Lady Calypso said:

I agree with this. She definitely had to give up a lot in her teenage years and not have the normal young adult life that others have had, so she's self-indulging now that Rory's old enough to take care of herself. 

I definitely liked Emily/Lorelai's relationship because Emily also can be quite tiring and I'm often just as annoyed with her, but they worked well together. 

I'm just watching Eight O'Clock at the Oasis and I'm just stunned at how whiny Lorelai is about helping a new neighbour in town. She's being very whiny and rude and I actually loved Lorelai in the first two seasons, her flaws be damned. But season 3 right now is not boding well for her likability for me. It's not even like she's changed that much, but for some reason, I am just exhausted by her scenes. 

I especially am not liking Luke/Lorelai so far because I feel like they didn't really make up from their huge fight in season 2 in my eyes. They talked about Lorelai apologizing and sending a letter, but we never saw a true apology, especially without her acknowledging (yet?) that she was more in the wrong for the Jess situation, so I just feel like, at the moment, that relationship is ruined for me. 

Yeah, I have to be careful not to judge Lorelai too harshly for her immature behaviors, but I can't honestly say I like her as a person. Vivacity only goes so far.

Mimi was only a bridge back to the customer/coffee provider relationship, a way to give Lorelai her 'third place' back. I'm convinced that Luke was still deeply hurt by her behavior and that is what made him willing to consider the Nicole relationship.  They did slip back into friends, but there was an emotional separation in season 3 that wasn't there earlier.

[JaggedLilPill]

I think the problem with Lorelai in most situations is that she tends to go to extremes so even if you do sympathize with her, that sympathy becomes annoyance because she drags it out. A lot of that comes out more with Emily (and Richard to a degree) and that makes sense because their relationship is strained and though Lorelai is very much an "adult" according to society's standards, her interaction with them plays off like a teenager going head to head with her parents.

I think "Eight O'clock at the Oasis" is a good example of an episode. To a point, I get Lorelai's frustration with helping out Dwight, but only because he plays it off innocently and then drops more errands for her to do. Again, not the biggest deal as all she has to do is walk into the house and water more plants, but it's more the principle of the matter. If someone asks me initially to feed their two dogs and I come to find there's six instead, yeah, I'm going to be annoyed and feel slightly manipulated. However, handle it like an adult, Lorelai! Don't whine.

Similarly, the whole subplot with Peyton-Lorelai-Emily. I guess one could say well, don't date someone who is indirectly in your mother's inner circle, but let's say I set my friend up with someone. You hope it works out, but if it doesn't, I'm not going to force my friend to keep dating the guy because it could put me in an awkward position with someone else. But again, Lorelai doesn't really handle the situation well. To her, it seems outlandish and ridiculous that Emily could lose her place/standing with the DAR ladies (although I can't remember if Petyon's mom was a DAR lady or someone from another social circle of Emily's. Kind of don't care either haha), but she knows what Emily is like. On the other hand, I'm not sure why Lorelai blowing him off after the Bowie concert would seem better to Emily? I guess it was a dropped plot, but still, awkward.

[ZuluQueenOfDwarves]

I think the issue re: Peyton was that Lorelai had committed to the concert before the death-defyingly dull dinner date. So Emily accepted that Lorelai didn't hit it off with Peyton, but expected her to honor the commitment she'd made. Although if Lorelai had such a lousy time I'd imagine Peyton was similarly underwhelmed, so why he still wanted her company at the concert is anyone's guess. 

[illini1959]

Quote

 but Lorelai is horrible at reading a room most of the time and she can be quite inappropriate.

Cue the baptism ceremony! Talk about not reading a room :O So preoccupied with her own issue - a PHONE NUMBER - that she drags Rory out of the church holding (!!) the babies. Ohmygosh!

And I love Lorelai!!! But, there are times where I wonder what she's thinking and sad that there could possibly be people in the world (even a fictional world) who could be so incredibly self serving.

[JaggedLilPill]

58 minutes ago, ZuluQueenOfDwarves said:

I think the issue re: Peyton was that Lorelai had committed to the concert before the death-defyingly dull dinner date. So Emily accepted that Lorelai didn't hit it off with Peyton, but expected her to honor the commitment she'd made. Although if Lorelai had such a lousy time I'd imagine Peyton was similarly underwhelmed, so why he still wanted her company at the concert is anyone's guess. 

That's very true. I can understand Emily feeling that way. But yeah, if it was really as bad as Lorelai claimed, I doubt he was up for the concert either.

Although it's been said how bad Lor is at reading a room. Maybe he had a great time? Doubtful but mileage varies.

[hippielamb]

On 8/29/2016 at 8:44 AM, amensisterfriend said:

From the S1 thread:

 

 

Kohola, I'll take it a step further and say that while Logan was usually more mature, thoughtful and kind than Tristan (though that's a REALLY low bar, haha), I actually preferred Rory around Tristan for some bizarre reason :) Maybe it's because S1 was so extremely sweet, bordering on too precious and twee IMO, that Tristan's...Tristan-ness was more of an interesting tone-altering relief to me back in S1 than Logan's presence was in S5-S7. And Tristan brought out this sharp, assertive side of Rory that I actually enjoyed, while she too often seemed the opposite around Logan to me---blander, more unsure, more of a comparatively weak-willed follower who just sort of drifted along.

Truth! Rory was so lovably snarky with Tristan. I really enjoyed seeing her engage with him.

The difference to me is Logan has charm and he knows it. I don't find Tristan charming or fun. Logan revels in his wealth and privileges and seems to enjoy life. Tristan has a woe is me attitude. His acting out seems more destructive or trying to be the bad boy than Logan's attitude of life is a party. Logan also has daddy issues (most of the guys on this show do) but it's a resistance to his father's planned life for him that fuels his questionable behaviour. I think Tristan is more of a rich boy Jess than a Logan.

[Minneapple]

On 8/27/2016 at 5:42 PM, Janet Snakehole said:

This is kind of hard for me to articulate and this may not be the right place for this,  but here goes. I like this show, but it kind of baffles me that it still causes this much discussion on boards after all these years, compared to other similar shows of the era. I have been rewatching on Netflix and it's engaging, but I can't figure out why so many people find it so compelling to discuss.

Someone once compared Gilmore Girls discussion to the Internet version of kudzu. That made me lol, that a little WB/CW show with nothing viewership could create so much discussion. I think it's because the themes of the show are really universal. Mothers and daughters, family, how we communicate with each other. Plus the dialogue sparkles and it has great pop culture references. It's a fun show just to lose yourself in for an hour (or more, if you're binge-watching), but surprisingly deep and clever.

On 8/29/2016 at 8:44 AM, amensisterfriend said:

Kohola, I'll take it a step further and say that while Logan was usually more mature, thoughtful and kind than Tristan (though that's a REALLY low bar, haha), I actually preferred Rory around Tristan for some bizarre reason :) Maybe it's because S1 was so extremely sweet, bordering on too precious and twee IMO, that Tristan's...Tristan-ness was more of an interesting tone-altering relief to me back in S1 than Logan's presence was in S5-S7. And Tristan brought out this sharp, assertive side of Rory that I actually enjoyed, while she too often seemed the opposite around Logan to me---blander, more unsure, more of a comparatively weak-willed follower who just sort of drifted along. Logan and his dynamic with Rory have always somehow seemed more interesting ideas on paper than they were in reality to me. As I've rambled about elsewhere, the actor's perpetual smirk and line deliveries made him seem smarmy, slick, arrogant and insincere to me even when we were clearly supposed to feel otherwise. I'm very glad that Rory never ended up dating Tristan, but---perhaps in part because they never dated!---I actually like her chemistry with Tristan/CMM more than her chemistry with Logan/MC. 

I liked Rory better with Tristan too. Mostly because Logan felt like a Tristan retread. But I thought Rory's relationship with Tristan actually evolved, and his character just felt more real to me. He started out as an entitled jerk, then realized he had actual feelings for Rory, then didn't know how to handle them, so he reacted how a spoilt teenage boy who has never been denied anything might act. Logan on the other hand just came off as smarmy to me. And perhaps it was just that Rory was a better character in season one than she was in season five, so her relationships were more enjoyable back when. 

Edited September 1, 2016 by Minneapple

[andromeda331]

The Peyton thing is weird. I really don't get it. Or how or why it became such a big thing. They made plans to see Bowie and then to go dinner. They didn't hit it off at dinner so. But they both have to go on one more date or it'll effect Emily somehow? I agree with Lorelai its stupid for two grown adults to have go out to one more time because...of what? How does two bad dates and never seeing each other better then one bad date? Did he go home and tell his mother about the bad date? But she still insisted he had to go out with Lorelai one more time? What woman makes her grown son do that? What grown son would do that? Maybe he didn't think it went bad since he spent the whole time talking about his car, wine and plane? Was he slighted now because a girl wouldn't go out with him again? Was his mother slighted or offended because Lorelai wouldn't go out with her son one more time that she'd take it out on Emily? Are these weird Emily Post rules that you have to go out on two bad dates or keep the second date even its clear the two have zero interest in ever seeing each other again?

[KatWay]

I never cared for Tristan. I think he would have been the "Jess" if CMM hadn't gone to One Tree Hill, but I'm not sorry he went away. I didn't like original Jess either though. Part of it is CMM's acting, he just seemed so smarmy and shallow that even when the character was supposed to have depth it came across as that superficial "woe is me" attitude delinquent rich kids have.

I don't think Lorelai was a very mature character but neither was Emily. Or Richard. They could be so petty and ugh, the way they looked down on anyone they didn't deem on their level. For all of Lorelai's faults she didn't have that trait at all & she tried very hard to raise Rory against that too.

[txhorns79]

Quote

I don't think Lorelai was a very mature character but neither was Emily. Or Richard. They could be so petty and ugh, the way they looked down on anyone they didn't deem on their level. For all of Lorelai's faults she didn't have that trait at all & she tried very hard to raise Rory against that too.

I think Lorelai had that trait.  She very much looked down on things associated with what she viewed as her parents' world.   

[junienmomo]

4 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I think Lorelai had that trait.  She very much looked down on things associated with what she viewed as her parents' world.   

There are too many moments when she was insultingly teasing to argue with this. Not just with her family, but also with townies or others she encountered. Occasionally she would be written as turning sweet to e.g. Kirk, but it wasn't all that often.

Lorelai was also not particularly intelligent. She talked a lot, and had a memory that could capture details, like pop culture stuff or oven user manuals, but deductive reasoning and acknowledgement that her actions have consequences was largely missing. She was a hard worker, but not a strategic thinker. IIRC, Emily had a notion of Lorelai being at the top of her class, but I have to wonder how much of that was her mother's love for her and her unwillingness to accept that Lorelai could be anything less than the best.

[scarynikki12]

I imagine that if Lorelai wasn't a good student then Emily and Richard would have brought it up. Also she probably taught Rory how to study, we know she did well in business school and was able to run the Independence and Dragonfly Inns successfully. She had her moments where she clearly didn't read social situations accurately but that doesn't mean she wasn't intelligent. 

[RachelKM]

I think Lorelai was intelligent in the traditional sense; but she wasn't particularly emotionally or socially astute and she had an epic lack of self-awareness.  And as noted above, Lorelai was absolutely a reverse snob and tended to think people with different priorities and interest were wrong or lesser.  

What saved her on paper was that she was well meaning, generally kind (if occasionally bad at it), funny, and would do almost anything for people she loved and she loved relatively easily (if you weren't her parent or boyfriend).   What saved her further in practice was Lauren Graham's warmth and charisma.

Edited September 2, 2016 by RachelKM

[HeySandyStrange]

9 hours ago, junienmomo said:

Lorelai was also not particularly intelligent. She talked a lot, and had a memory that could capture details, like pop culture stuff or oven user manuals, but deductive reasoning and acknowledgement that her actions have consequences was largely missing. She was a hard worker, but not a strategic thinker

I think Lorelai was bright, sharp, hardworking, and fairly ambitious, but yes, she was be no means a deep thinker or gifted beyond the average intellectually. I can believe she had good grades in school, but again I think that comes back to her being a hard worker and pushed and prodded by her parents to do so. TBH, I think the Ivy League ambitions she'd had would've only come about because of her rich, Ivy league parents and not because of innate ability. I see her taking after Emily that way, who was more practical then intellectual. Rory definitely got the deeper intellectual streak from Richard, imo, who we did see enjoying literature and other academic pursuits for their own sakes.

[JaggedLilPill]

I definitely think there's different levels of intelligence that most of the characters could fit under. You have Rory and Paris, who were both exceptional students, but I'm not sure how naturally it came to either of them since we saw both of them struggle. What I mean is, neither seemed to be the type that could wing it studying the night before and still manage to get an A. They both planned out their studying/reading, etc. But outside of school, they could be awkward in social situations. (Rory seemed less awkward in high school than she was in her college years). So, were they socially intelligent? Not sure.

OTOH, I think someone like Jess would probably be a wing-it type and could have done well if he actually showed up. He just never went to class.

I think Lorelai would have been a student who worked hard, but who wasn't naturally gifted, but I think she did have Ivy League ambitions. Now, how well she would have done is entirely up for discussion because other than business class/school, we never saw what type of student Lorelai was. The only reference we have is when Richard tells Lorelai how embarrassing it was for him to tell his friends that his daughter, the "brightest and best in her class," was pregnant and dropping out. I think most people probably found Lorelai to be witty and quick-thinking on her feet with her quips and generally charming. I mean people Lorelai interacted with. I know our mileages vary as viewers when it comes to Lorelai.

I think Richard and Emily were both intelligent people as well, it's just Emily wasn't expected to have a career outside of being a corporate wife, but didn't she go to Smith? Unless I am recalling wrong. And obviously Richard went to Yale. They're both well liked in their social circles, but I definitely feel like the Emily can't keep a maid bit is supposed to say something about her character.

I think Lane probably did okay in school, maybe along the lines of how Dean did or slightly better. Neither of them seemed particularly interested in college. Maybe Lane a little more than Dean. 

And Luke didn't go to college. This we know.

Part of the problem is the inconsistencies among the characters. I don't think anyone was really, you know, dumb. Intelligence is subjective anyway. People tend to put more weight on how a person did in school, but there are plenty of very intelligent, even those who have well beyond average IQ's, who find school to be not for them and thus, they don't perform well. I did awful on standardized tests so I on paper, I probably would have been deemed an idiot LOL. Anyway it seemed like ASP and Co played around with how astute and aware the characters were when it suited them even if it made very little sense in the context of the situation.

I still find it hard to believe that Lorelai wouldn't know that most high school students intending on going to college apply to more than one school. There's always a safety school. Those who are Ivy League bound are absolutely applying to more than one school, and they are also involved in extra curriculars. Now, not knowing that doesn't make Lorelai stupid. I would say more ignorant than anything. 

They played around with Luke too when they wanted to dumb him down and make him look inferior to Lorelai as a partner. Same thing with Dean. 

Oh. I forgot to include Logan who I think is also a person who could get by with very little preparation.

But yeah, I don't even remember what point I was trying to make....haha....I guess that all the characters displayed intelligence at some point or not during the series, but then they also had their WTF? Really? moments too. 

[amensisterfriend]

I've gone from once liking GG's Luke to feeling increasingly ambivalent about him to feeling a lot worse than ambivalent and from actually semi-shipping him with Lorelai to liking him only as a friend to Lorelai/uncle to Jess to not even liking him much in those contexts. And recent rewatches have solidified my most unpopular opinion ever: I hate Luke Danes. To me he's a boorish brute, he's rude, he's alarmingly angry and temperamental, he's somehow too passive, too aggressive AND too passive-aggressive in all the worst ways, he's joyless and humorless, he's dreadfully dull, he's one of the most ghastly communicators I've ever seen, he's dopey, he's too often not honest with himself or others, he's bitter, he's petulant, he's jealous, he's depressing, he never apologizes or even deigns to acknowledge his many, many, many problems and mistakes. He's just a thoroughly unpleasant, toxic person who usually has absolutely NO reason to be, and the fact that once or twice a year he'll make you something or help fix an appliance doesn't come close to making up for all that's wrong with him to me. And the more many revere him and merrily disregard his MANY serious flaws, the more I find myself disliking him, because apparently I can be just as immature as most GG characters when it comes to these things ;) 

[Kohola3]

Amensisterfriend, you really shouldn't suppress your feelings like you do.  Feel free to tell us what you REALLY think!

And (awaiting the blow) I love Luke.  What can I say?

[txhorns79]

Quote

I think Lorelai would have been a student who worked hard, but who wasn't naturally gifted, but I think she did have Ivy League ambitions. Now, how well she would have done is entirely up for discussion because other than business class/school, we never saw what type of student Lorelai was. The only reference we have is when Richard tells Lorelai how embarrassing it was for him to tell his friends that his daughter, the "brightest and best in her class," was pregnant and dropping out. I think most people probably found Lorelai to be witty and quick-thinking on her feet with her quips and generally charming. I mean people Lorelai interacted with. I know our mileages vary as viewers when it comes to Lorelai.

I viewed Lorelai as fiercely ambitious and quick witted.  From what we saw and heard, she was a good student, but likely not on the same level as Rory.  I liked Lorelai's ambition and take charge nature.  She wanted to have her own inn, and she did it.  Whatever fights they had, I do think Emily and Richard were very proud of Lorelai and what she had accomplished.  I think they only really made it clear in the end of the show.     

[FictionLover]

6 hours ago, Kohola3 said:

Amensisterfriend, you really shouldn't suppress your feelings like you do.  Feel free to tell us what you REALLY think!

And (awaiting the blow) I love Luke.  What can I say?

I love Luke too.  That said, I do understand how some may not. 

[Janet Snakehole]

Honestly, Lorelei seemed far more intelligent and quick witted to me than Rory. Rory was a reader and good at knowing things, but I thought Lorelei just seemed brighter, if that makes sense. 

[chessiegal]

Didn't at some point Richard or Emily mention that Lorelai was at the top of her class in high school? Or did I imagine it?

While I'm posting,I remember a discussion that the Asian waiter was never called "Caesar", but I saw an episode recently where Lorelai specifically calls him Caesar.

[TimetravellingBW]

Yup, Richard mentioned she was best or brightest in her class in Christopher Returns I believe. I always saw Lorelai as someone who was naturally very bright, picked things up quickly, had a good memory and could get good grades by cramming at the last minute and winging it, but she didn't have the focus to get into deep study like Rory and Paris did. I figured she was one of those students who could skate by on her natural brains through high school but might be challenged later when she faced work she couldn't immediately get. (In that respect I think she's like Logan who seems to have got by being naturally clever and fast, without putting in much effort). She managed to get through business school while working full-time and raising Rory, so I feel she could work pretty fast and didn't need to spend hours studying. 

Lorelai was definitely more intelligent socially than Rory; I think in general all the Gilmore's are naturally intelligent but Lorelai and Emily are more capable socially being quicker-witted and able to manage people, while Rory and Richard are more studious, focused, methodical and deeper-thinkers. 

On 9/3/2016 at 4:00 AM, JaggedLilPill said:

I definitely think there's different levels of intelligence that most of the characters could fit under. You have Rory and Paris, who were both exceptional students, but I'm not sure how naturally it came to either of them since we saw both of them struggle. What I mean is, neither seemed to be the type that could wing it studying the night before and still manage to get an A. They both planned out their studying/reading, etc. But outside of school, they could be awkward in social situations. (Rory seemed less awkward in high school than she was in her college years). So, were they socially intelligent? Not sure.

OTOH, I think someone like Jess would probably be a wing-it type and could have done well if he actually showed up. He just never went to class.

Imo Rory and Paris were both naturally exceptionally clever, but still had to work hard to stay at the top of the class. We know Chilton did have crazily high academic standards, so the two of them having near-perfect GPA's and graduating as Valedictorian and Salutatorian (I assume Paris came second?) at a school that intense is no small feat. I imagine if they didn't work as hard or did stuff more at the last minute they'd still get good grades, but anyone needed to be both very clever and hard-working to top the year at Chilton. (I'd say Rory is naturally slightly smarter than Paris though, Paris clearly tried harder while Rory managed to catch up from a state school to private school in only three years, which is impressive). 

Jess is hard to get a read on, he's obviously intelligent and I got the impression that he just got bored at school and gave up on trying all together. He failed to graduate because he stopped attending classes not because he was struggling. Considering he grew up on the rougher side of NY, he wouldn't have been in a position where teachers could pull aside that surprisingly bright eleven year old reading Hemingway and Dickens and try to stretch him. I imagine he just got lost in a poorly-funded, under-staffed state school. (That's in no way judging state schools, teachers or students there - it's just an unfortunate reality that a bright, little Rory with a mother who helped her with homework, took her to the library, and had the family means to go to a private school, is a completely different ball game from bright, little Jess who had zero chance of going to a better-funded school and whose mother didn't believe he'd amount to anything - Jess admits Liz doesn't think he could go to College and I can't believe she helped him with homework or turned up to parent-teacher conferences).  It is notable he ends up going into a pretty intellectual career - writing and publishing - and enjoys that atmosphere once he was out of the regulated educational environment. It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if Jess had come to Luke sooner and had more support from someone who expected more of him: He almost-certainly would have graduated high school, though going to College is questionable. He might have still been too naturally rebellious to want to go - and definitely not to a fancy Ivy league - but College is a more open-minded, intellectual environment that would have suited him better than high school.

Edited September 4, 2016 by TimetravellingBW

[clack]

The Christopher we're told about is not the Christopher we see.

We are told that he is the ultimate dead-beat dad. Doesn't provide child support, promises but then fails to show up for Rory's major occasions -- birthdays, graduations, etc. --and can barely be bothered to make the occasional phone call. We expect to see a narcissistic, selfish, superficial, dislikable asshole.

Instead we meet a sympathetic, sensitive, self-aware, decent, wryly funny guy who genuinely loves Rory. He doesn't add up.

[Kohola3]

Wow, self-aware, decent, and sensitive?  I must have missed those episodes.

[andromeda331]

27 minutes ago, clack said:

The Christopher we're told about is not the Christopher we see.

We are told that he is the ultimate dead-beat dad. Doesn't provide child support, promises but then fails to show up for Rory's major occasions -- birthdays, graduations, etc. --and can barely be bothered to make the occasional phone call. We expect to see a narcissistic, selfish, superficial, dislikable asshole.

Instead we meet a sympathetic, sensitive, self-aware, decent, wryly funny guy who genuinely loves Rory. He doesn't add up.

I disagree. Christopher never paid child support, he never came to Stars Hollow until Rory was sixteen, he wasn't their for her 16th birthday or her 21st and there's never any mention he came to any of her other birthday parties. He didn't come to her high school graduation or help her move into her college dorms. He clearly wasn't in touch at all when Rory had her meltdown and dropped out of Yale. Lorelai and Rory put his "definitely going to be there" at sixty-forty odds he'll actually show up, in the same episode his number is disconnected and they didn't know he had moved to Boston. Or got a job.  In his very first episode, he doesn't know Rory doesn't play sports, and lies about how well his business is doing and Rory isn't surprised when his credit card is declined. He promises Rory that he's going to be follow through when it looks like he and Lorelai are going to give it a go in the end of season two, only for him to break his word to raise off to be their for is now new baby. Yes, his girlfriend got pregnant but he could figure out how to be there for Rory and his new child.  He also could have manned up at the time and told Rory instead of having Lorelai do it. Then has the nerve to blame Lorelai because Rory doesn't want to talk to him. Because Rory couldn't possibly be mad at him for something. He had Rory's entire life to grow up and start taking care of his daughter and he never did.  It never stops bugging me that Richard and Emily praise him when he did none of the work to raise the grandchild they adore.

[clack]

I didn't say that Christopher was a good guy. I'm saying is that what we know about his (mainly) off-screen actions doesn't add up with the (mainly) sympathetic man we see on screen.

He was a contrived character. He had to be likeable enough to remain in play as a viable end-game romantic partner for Lorelai, but, for whatever reason, they didn't want to make him a series regular. He wasn't there for Rory's big moments not for plot reasons, but because the actor wasn't available, or they couldn't afford him just to show up for a line of dialogue, or something.

He doesn't make sense as a character. He's not alone. Luke doesn't make sense. Dean, Sookie, Lane, Taylor -- they don't make sense.

[Kohola3]

I have to respectfully disagree that he is mainly sympathetic man.  His only concrete contribution to his daughter was when he suddenly found himself loaded upon the death of his grandfather.  Other than that his only interest in the family was an occasional random meeting with Rory (never for holidays or birthdays) and his teen-hormone driven pursuit of Lorelai.  Both of the Gilmore Girls had little belief in his ability to carry through with anything, giving poor odds on most things.  I thought he was insufferable throughout the series and I'm not sure that's not what the writers had in mind anyway.  I imagine he was supposed to be a foil for Luke, the old boyfriend antagonist.

[Viqutorious]

I agree with Clack, I find him charming and very likable with flaws.

[dahling]

On 9/3/2016 at 11:33 AM, amensisterfriend said:

I've gone from once liking GG's Luke to feeling increasingly ambivalent about him to feeling a lot worse than ambivalent and from actually semi-shipping him with Lorelai to liking him only as a friend to Lorelai/uncle to Jess to not even liking him much in those contexts. And recent rewatches have solidified my most unpopular opinion ever: I hate Luke Danes. To me he's a boorish brute, he's rude, he's alarmingly angry and temperamental, he's somehow too passive, too aggressive AND too passive-aggressive in all the worst ways, he's joyless and humorless, he's dreadfully dull, he's one of the most ghastly communicators I've ever seen, he's dopey, he's too often not honest with himself or others, he's bitter, he's petulant, he's jealous, he's depressing, he never apologizes or even deigns to acknowledge his many, many, many problems and mistakes. He's just a thoroughly unpleasant, toxic person who usually has absolutely NO reason to be, and the fact that once or twice a year he'll make you something or help fix an appliance doesn't come close to making up for all that's wrong with him to me. And the more many revere him and merrily disregard his MANY serious flaws, the more I find myself disliking him, because apparently I can be just as immature as most GG characters when it comes to these things ;) 

As a first-time binge watcher on Netflix this past spring and summer, I would also like to add that this actor is terrible. He delivers all his lines like he's the understudy in a community theater presentation of Angry Diner Owners and the People Who Annoy Them. He got a little better with adding some nuance in the later seasons, but the first few, oy. Nobody in real life would like this guy or eat at his restaurant more than once. 

[txhorns79]

Quote

He was a contrived character. He had to be likeable enough to remain in play as a viable end-game romantic partner for Lorelai, but, for whatever reason, they didn't want to make him a series regular. He wasn't there for Rory's big moments not for plot reasons, but because the actor wasn't available, or they couldn't afford him just to show up for a line of dialogue, or something.

A thousand times this.  I don't think he could be a regular because it would undermine the premise of the show.  It's not really Gilmore Girls if Rory's dad is regularly in the picture, and, God forbid, someone besides Lorelai has any kind of say with anything that happens with Rory. 

[Viqutorious]

Luke, (Scott Patterson) snorts. Once you hear it you notice it all the time! I agree that he is a horrible actor.

Edited September 4, 2016 by CheeseBurgh

[FictionLover]

I have to say that SP's acting is far superior to his singing. 

[John Potts]

On ‎31‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 8:51 PM, JaggedLilPill said:

I think the problem with Lorelai in most situations is that she tends to go to extremes so even if you do sympathize with her, that sympathy becomes annoyance because she drags it out.

The one that immediately springs to mind on Lorelei's maturity was when buying the Dragonfly Inn (I think). I have no problem with Lorelei (to use a Gilmoreism) "Carpeing her Diem" but have some fucking sensitivity (pardon my English). At least wait until the coffin is in the ground before seeing if the guy is interested in selling. IRL, anyone acting  like that would get their head bitten off and get put on the "Do NOT sell to this person - they're clearly an idiot with no idea how to function as an adult!" list.

[clack]

AS-P is a fine writer of comic dialogue, but a terrible writer of comic situation. This is especially true of the actions of "wacky" characters like Sookie and Kirk.

For instance, Lorelai and Luke are estranged, but still in love. They are each helping out, behind the scenes, the production of a grade school play, making awkward conversation and casting longing looks at each other. Potential for a compelling dramatic situation, right? But no, because fucking Kirk is starring in the play, acting scenes with a 10 year old playing his wife.

That is something that would not happen. Even in the broadest, silliest farce, the writers would expend some effort in setting up such an impossible situation, so that the viewers might briefly suspend their disbelief.

The comic situations that Sookie is placed in, while maybe not as cartoonish, are even more credibility-shredding, as Sookie is Lorelai's business partner, and supposedly a trained chef.  But for "comedic" effect, she is portrayed as incapable of catering a children's party. When incapacitated by pregnancy, she hides out at the inn and has Luke's entrees sneaked up to her room to taste them. That's not funny, that's actually disturbing.

[timimouse]

1 hour ago, John Potts said:

The one that immediately springs to mind on Lorelei's maturity was when buying the Dragonfly Inn (I think). I have no problem with Lorelei (to use a Gilmoreism) "Carpeing her Diem" but have some fucking sensitivity (pardon my English). At least wait until the coffin is in the ground before seeing if the guy is interested in selling. IRL, anyone acting  like that would get their head bitten off and get put on the "Do NOT sell to this person - they're clearly an idiot with no idea how to function as an adult!" list.

I will agree to this. I thought that was completely unnecessary and in no way amusing. She could've gotten his contact information from the reverend and gotten in touch the next day. And we saw a lot of those scenes that I think were thrown in for a touch of comedy that came off rather.... insensitive. I guess at the time we thought it was funny but after many rewatches it has now become annoying.

[Kohola3]

And don't get me started about the yammering at the most inappropriate times - full voice conversations at concerts, funerals, etc.  I would have smacked anyone talking aloud and being so disrespectful!  We were, apparently, supposed to think it was cute or ignore it because, after all, it was a Gilmore Girl "thing".

[JaggedLilPill]

5 hours ago, clack said:

For instance, Lorelai and Luke are estranged, but still in love. They are each helping out, behind the scenes, the production of a grade school play, making awkward conversation and casting longing looks at each other. Potential for a compelling dramatic situation, right? But no, because fucking Kirk is starring in the play, acting scenes with a 10 year old playing his wife.

OMG yes. Why was this allowed? Creepy much? I know it's supposed to be yet another Kirk thing, but it came off as uncomfortable to me, especially since it's about Luke and Lorelai loving each other despite their current situation.

I know this is probably not an UO, but good G-d, the townspeople of SH were annoying as hell. My husband thinks Taylor is the worst mayor ever. I have to remind him he's not the mayor of SH; he's the town selectman. But still. Not sure how Taylor gets away with half the shit he does. I love the episode where his family is in town to watch the hockey game and his brother basically tells him to GTFO with the activities he has planned. Tour of Stars Hollow anyone? 

It's just a lot of what we're supposed to find quirky and just one of those weird townie things, I find disturbing. Like Kirk. If this were any other type of show, Kirk would be Norman Bates in training. 

I find Gypsy to be amusing, but other than her, even Jackson and Sookie I find insufferable towards the end.

[txhorns79]

Quote

The one that immediately springs to mind on Lorelei's maturity was when buying the Dragonfly Inn (I think). I have no problem with Lorelei (to use a Gilmoreism) "Carpeing her Diem" but have some fucking sensitivity (pardon my English). At least wait until the coffin is in the ground before seeing if the guy is interested in selling. IRL, anyone acting  like that would get their head bitten off and get put on the "Do NOT sell to this person - they're clearly an idiot with no idea how to function as an adult!" list.

My issue was more that they did all this during the funeral and the later procession.  I've said it before, but I am sure it took super human strength to keep ASP from having some incident with the coffin where it "hilariously" sprang open and Fran's dead body was splayed on the street while Lorelai attempted to buy the property. 

[JaggedLilPill]

7 hours ago, John Potts said:

The one that immediately springs to mind on Lorelei's maturity was when buying the Dragonfly Inn (I think). I have no problem with Lorelei (to use a Gilmoreism) "Carpeing her Diem" but have some fucking sensitivity (pardon my English). At least wait until the coffin is in the ground before seeing if the guy is interested in selling. IRL, anyone acting  like that would get their head bitten off and get put on the "Do NOT sell to this person - they're clearly an idiot with no idea how to function as an adult!" list.

Oh absolutely.

I was also cringing during the scene where her and Sookie are asking what Fran will do with the place when she goes on that "long vacation" that everyone will eventually take. And of course Fran didn't understand what they were getting at, which is probably better, but still makes Lorelai and Sookie look super insensitive.

The bottom line was she didn't want to sell it. Say, 'okay', and respect the lady's wish. The fact that they were asking the guy during the funeral was even more infuriating.

[marineg]

Definitely agree with all written above. On a somewhat unrelated note, anyone else see Anna Nardini as a Lorelei 2.0? I mean, of course, two single quirky moms who accidentally got pregnant and had genius teenage daughters. But more than that, I felt so hard that they were SO much alike.

Remember in "Super Cool Party People" when April tells Lorelei that she reminds her of her mom? Well, rewatching it, I felt that so strongly. They are both quirky in their way of life and in the way they educate their daughters (remember Anna's nail polish mural? if Lorelei had any artistic talent, she would do that!) and in the way they protect them. They take their parental duties to the extreme and both act selfishly with everyone else. Lorelei kept Rory to herself, not letting her see her own Gilmore grandparents apart from holidays for 15 years and keeping Christopher at arm's length no matter how many times she argued she was always waiting for him to grow up. She even kept Rory away from her Hayden grandparents who didn't see her for 16 years! I mean I can understand not trusting Christopher as he was kind of a screw-up until Rory was 16-17, but her grandparents, no matter how they wanted their sons life to turn out, were stable (not to mention rich). They could have helped. Well Anna did the same with April. She kept her own father away from her, not even telling him she was pregnant and giving a sad excuse like "I saw you around other kids. You didn't like them..." That's a Lorelei type of excuse. And then she goes ahead and moves halfway across the country without asking Luke if he's okay seeing the daughter he never knew twice a year.

Even the way they date. Lorelei FLIPPED OUT with the whole Sherry thing, in "It Should've Been Lorelai" and "Take the Deviled Eggs...". She couldn't imagine having her be Rory's stepmother. But, she was willing to have Max be a part of Rory's life, live with them 24/7 (although she kept him away from her too by forbidding him to parent her...), then the same with Luke. And Anna does the same in  "Super Cool Party People" when Lorelei organizes April's birthday party. I mean yeah, Anna freaked out for nothing. Lorelei and Luke were engaged and it would have been creepy for Luke to sleep in the same room as a dozen 13yo girls. But still, can you imagine if Sherry had done the same with Rory? GASP!

I don't know if Luke was so in love with Anna that when Lorelei came into his life a coupe years later, he latched onto her as a sort of replacement, but he certainly has a type: quirky, independent, a bit selfish, and definitely not ready for anyone ever to come into their life apart from their daughters.

[I do want to say that although I hate Anna and my heart will always belong to Lorelei, Anna was a more grown-up version of Lorelei...]

Edited September 5, 2016 by marineg

[Kohola3]

44 minutes ago, marineg said:

he even kept Rory away from her Hayden grandparents who didn't see her for 16 years!

Well, maybe she knew how positively toxic those two were - well, at least Straub who said a lot of really horrible things right in front of Rory.  I thought they were absolutely hateful.  If Lorelai had a clue about how nasty they were, I can see keeping Rory away from them!

[marineg]

7 minutes ago, Kohola3 said:

Well, maybe she knew how positively toxic those two were - well, at least Straub who said a lot of really horrible things right in front of Rory.  I thought they were absolutely hateful.  If Lorelai had a clue about how nasty they were, I can see keeping Rory away from them!

True. But would their relationship be the same if she had brought Rory to see her grandparents? Seeing it from their point of view, Christopher was a screw-up after the pregnancy. Now, those two things may not be related, but from their point of view, they saw their son become a father, and then lose his daughter, and their granddaughter for 16 years. If from the get go they had a relationship with Rory, they may not have harbored so much resentment towards Lorelei and unduly blamed her for everything that went wrong in Christopher's life.

[Taryn74]

41 minutes ago, Kohola3 said:

Well, maybe she knew how positively toxic those two were - well, at least Straub who said a lot of really horrible things right in front of Rory.  I thought they were absolutely hateful. 

It may just be my impression, but I never got the idea the Haydens even officially accepted Rory as their granddaughter, much less showed any interest in ever seeing her or getting to know her.  I consider their frosty relationship totally on them, not Lorelai.

[Kohola3]

Quote

GRANDMA: Rory is a very special child - excellent student, very bright.
GRANDPA: You should have a talk with her Straub, she could give you a run for your money.
STRAUB: Is that so?
GRANDMA: That’s right.
[Straub looks at Rory, Rory looks uncomfortable unsure what to do]
STRAUB: Well I think my money’s safe.

This from the transcript of Christopher Returns.  What an incredibly mean thing for Straub to say to a 16 year old he hasn't seen since she was an infant.  Lorelai was smart to cut them out.  Can you imagine him bullying her as a toddler?
 

[Lady Calypso]

Not only that but:

Quote

STRAUB: If you had attended a university as your parents had planned and as we planned in vain for Christopher, you might have aspired to something more than a blue collared position.
CHRISTOPHER: Don’t do this.
STRAUB: And I wouldn’t give a damn about you derailing your life if you hadn’t swept my son along with you.
LORELAI: [to Rory] Honey go into the next room. Go, go.
GRANDPA: I’m going to have to echo Christopher’s call for civility here. A mutual mistake was make many years ago by these two, but they have come a long way since.
STRAUB: A mutual mistake Richard? This whole evening is ridiculous. We’re supposed to sit here like one big happy family and pretend that the damage that was done is over, gone? I don’t care about how good a student you say that girl is....
LORELAI: Hey!
STRAUB: Our son was bound for Princeton. Every Hayden male attended Princeton including myself, but it all stopped with Christopher. It’s a humiliation we’ve had to live with every day, all because you seduced him into ruining his life. She had that baby and ended his future.

Judging by this entire conversation, I highly doubt Christopher's parents were ever going to accept Rory into their lives. They had their minds set about getting to know their grandchild early on, seeing as they stopped seeing her when Rory was between 1 and 3 years old. It does go to show that some effort was made, but it clearly didn't work out. Plus, they made no effort to get in touch with the Gilmores to find out how Rory was. Christopher was in contact with his parents in some capacity, but they never asked him about Rory. His parents put the sole blame on Lorelai, not Christopher. And thus, by proxy, Rory would have always been the blame to Christopher's failures, even though he might not have been any more successful even if he had been active in Rory's life. He wouldn't have gone to Princeton, and his parents would have known Rory, but not been any more civil toward her than in this conversation. 

[Kohola3]

11 minutes ago, Lady Calypso said:

Christopher was in contact with his parents in some capacity, but they never asked him about Rory.

Not that he could answer anything since he was an absentee father from what we know.

[Smad]

1 hour ago, Kohola3 said:

What an incredibly mean thing for Straub to say to a 16 year old he hasn't seen since she was an infant.  Lorelai was smart to cut them out.

Too bad Christopher is seriously lacking something we call a spine. It's his job as Rory's father to protect her from such an attack. And it's also his job as Straube's son to tell his father to stuff it.

[timimouse]

6 hours ago, marineg said:

Definitely agree with all written above. On a somewhat unrelated note, anyone else see Anna Nardini as a Lorelei 2.0? I mean, of course, two single quirky moms who accidentally got pregnant and had genius teenage daughters. But more than that, I felt so hard that they were SO much alike.

Remember in "Super Cool Party People" when April tells Lorelei that she reminds her of her mom? Well, rewatching it, I felt that so strongly. They are both quirky in their way of life and in the way they educate their daughters (remember Anna's nail polish mural? if Lorelei had any artistic talent, she would do that!) and in the way they protect them. They take their parental duties to the extreme and both act selfishly with everyone else. Lorelei kept Rory to herself, not letting her see her own Gilmore grandparents apart from holidays for 15 years and keeping Christopher at arm's length no matter how many times she argued she was always waiting for him to grow up. She even kept Rory away from her Hayden grandparents who didn't see her for 16 years! I mean I can understand not trusting Christopher as he was kind of a screw-up until Rory was 16-17, but her grandparents, no matter how they wanted their sons life to turn out, were stable (not to mention rich). They could have helped. Well Anna did the same with April. She kept her own father away from her, not even telling him she was pregnant and giving a sad excuse like "I saw you around other kids. You didn't like them..." That's a Lorelei type of excuse. And then she goes ahead and moves halfway across the country without asking Luke if he's okay seeing the daughter he never knew twice a year.

Even the way they date. Lorelei FLIPPED OUT with the whole Sherry thing, in "It Should've Been Lorelai" and "Take the Deviled Eggs...". She couldn't imagine having her be Rory's stepmother. But, she was willing to have Max be a part of Rory's life, live with them 24/7 (although she kept him away from her too by forbidding him to parent her...), then the same with Luke. And Anna does the same in  "Super Cool Party People" when Lorelei organizes April's birthday party. I mean yeah, Anna freaked out for nothing. Lorelei and Luke were engaged and it would have been creepy for Luke to sleep in the same room as a dozen 13yo girls. But still, can you imagine if Sherry had done the same with Rory? GASP!

I don't know if Luke was so in love with Anna that when Lorelei came into his life a coupe years later, he latched onto her as a sort of replacement, but he certainly has a type: quirky, independent, a bit selfish, and definitely not ready for anyone ever to come into their life apart from their daughters.

[I do want to say that although I hate Anna and my heart will always belong to Lorelei, Anna was a more grown-up version of Lorelei...]

100% agree. I've always felt that Anna and Lorelai were deliberately written with extremely similar personality traits and lifestyles - and daughters - and it often made me wonder if there was a planned reunion for Luke and Anna. That way, some viewers would actually like her as she reminded them of Lorelai? I dunno.. but it really bothered me how much Anna came off as a Lorelai 2.0. That's exactly what I used to call her. And April was the knock-off Rory. As much as I have a soft spot for Vanessa Marano, she's not a very good actress... especially in those early years.

[junienmomo]

Quote

On a somewhat unrelated note, anyone else see Anna Nardini as a Lorelei 2.0?    From Marineg

I see it as more convoluted. Chronologically, Lorelai would be Anna 2.0 since Anna the girlfriend came first. The fact that she was retconned and probably was never in the minds of the writers until they planned their season 6 poison pill would make Anna Lorelai 2.0 instead.

Regardless, Anna and April were recycled characters unattractively shadowed off of Lorelai and Rory.  The Palladinos had a tendency to recycle plots and characters, not always doing as well as their original creations. Fair enough; this happens in most long-running TV series, mainly because they do run out of plots. It's a bizarre thing, because as often as we've written here talking about 'what if' plots, there really was a lot more great material that could have been done. One of the hardest things a writer has to do is decide to stop before they ruin what they had.

Looks of the actors is also relevant. I've heard two stories, one of which was Sherilyn Fenn (friend of ASP) was originally wanted for Lorelai, but couldn't schedule it, and the exact opposite - there never was anyone but Lauren Graham. Either one of the actors would have brought her own interpretation to Lorelai and I'm on the fence on the question of who would have done it better. It's now firmly in LG's repertoire, so any SF interpretation would of course be Lorelai 2.0.

What would have been Luke's position on Lorelai or Anna 2.0?

IIRC he had a few non-exclusive dates with Anna and parted ways without regret. Therefore, I'm guessing that Anna and Lorelai both had character or beauty elements that attracted Luke, but the chemistry wasn't there with Anna. He certainly wasn't pining for her. Unless of course you retcon the fact that no one never mentioned her as a past love, even though the townies knew about her. Then it could be argued that he was pining for her and settled for Lorelai. Who knows what else is hidden in that wallet?

We can at least amusedly conclude that Anna didn't think Luke was sponge-worthy. (shoutout to Scott Patterson and his appearance on Seinfeld). That decision sure came back to bite her in the uterus.