One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions

[gator12]

Rory is a cheater, she was a cheater in season 2 and she is a cheater now. Its consistent with how the show characterize her when it comes to relationship

[scarynikki12]

I agree that April was great in the revival.  I enjoyed her scenes with Rory and would have liked for more of that than the inexplicably long musical segment. 

My UO is that I thought the Luke/Lorelai relationship was perfect.  That's not to say that I didn't roll my eyes when each of them once again kept information from the other that only became a big deal because they stayed silent, because I did.  But, their dynamic really sold me on their commitment to one another.  Lorelai said they were "as good as married" to the therapist and that's exactly how they felt.  They felt like they'd been together for years, had their routines down (meals, hanging out at home, having date night, and bedtime), talked about the things in their lives that only partners and close friends would actually listen to (Luke knew about her weird dreams) and, while I hated the contrived secret keeping, neither used it as an excuse to run for the hills and they instead got mad at each other in the way that couples get mad at each other.  Luke was worried that Lorelai would leave him but he didn't stop her Wild plans and was ready with his argument as to why they should stay together. 

Ever since Mad Men, I've always thought Lorelai was like Don Draper in the sense that she only liked the beginning of things, in her case: relationships.  In season 1 she spoke glowingly about how great the feelings surrounding a first date with a serious crush were but, the few times a relationship actually made it beyond the early stages, she never seemed to enjoy them when they became mundane.  And relationships ALWAYS become mundane.  The way you know you're in a good one is when you still enjoy the mundane as much as the newness.  And Lorelai never enjoyed the mundane.  And I mean mundane without anything else distracting the relationship.  Her relationship with Max never reached that stage since their first break up occurred in the newness stage and they got engaged during the newness of their second try.  Her relationship with Jason was so weird (or, Jason himself was so weird) that it never reached that stage even though they were together for a while.  There was too much external craziness in her series relationship with Luke for the mundane to really take hold.  And she enjoyed the newness of her relationship with Chris but, the second that marriage started moving away from it she started pulling back.  She was only capable of enjoying the mundane when it was a relationship that wasn't romantic (Rory, Sookie, Luke pre-romance).  The revival allowed her to finally have that character growth as she was appreciating the mundane of her relationship with Luke. 

So, yes, I thought the Luke/Lorelai relationship was excellent and I'd given up on them when the series was still on.

I will say that I was annoyed that Emily, despite staying out of their relationship in general, still took great pleasure at them keeping those dumb secrets from one another.  It was clear that she would have celebrated if those secrets had led to a permanent break up.  I know the money was brought in as a round about way for Lorelai to expand her business but I would have loved it if Emily had grown enough to recognize that Luke and Lorelai were happy as they were and not pressure Luke to franchise the diner or insist that they were roommates just because they weren't married.  Given the high divorce rates and the cost (financial and emotional) of such an endeavor, two people who are in love and have committed to each other but haven't signed a piece of paper can be just as happy and fulfilled as two people who have.  Plus, my boss is constantly complaining about how her taxes went up dramatically after she got married last year so there does seem to be a financial benefit to not getting married.  Something tells me that Emily wouldn't have called them roommates if Lorelai was living with Chris for years without getting married.

[leighdear]

I hate laziness in small details.  And Zack & Lane have 2 sons, Steve and Kwan.  Kwan is the Chinese version.  The Korean version is spelled Kwon.  And furthermore, the Vietnamese version is Quan.   IMDB shows the kid's name is spelled Kwan and that annoys the crap out of me, as I assume all the Kims would insist on the Korean spelling as their kid is not half Chinese.  

Overall, I pretty much disliked everything and everybody in the entire 4 episodes except for Emily and Paris.  I won't be watching the next "series" if it ever happens.  Too little redeeming value for my time spent.  But my curiosity was satisfied, so there's that.....

[amensisterfriend]

Taken from another thread in response to how reliable Luke is:

I don't think Luke is old fashioned or whatever. I think he's rather a jerk for the most part

I am so glad I'm not alone in this! I hate the idea that being a rude, negative, cranky jerk who can't control his temper and acts miserable all the time for no reason makes someone a 'real' man and an old school gentleman. In my view, Luke's actually not "old fashioned" at all---I think of those gentlemen as generally pleasant, well-mannered, honorably forthright guys who prided themselves on self-control and would find Luke's constant freak outs and boorish behavior appalling. And I honestly don't even consider him nearly as "dependable" as most people praise him for. He immediately freaked out and wanted to end their entire relationship over a conflict at Lorelai's parents' wedding that wasn't even her fault---"all in" sure flipped to "out" in a hurry and, IMO, without much valid reason. He can't be depended upon to communicate with even the most basic clarity and maturity---and I'm not talking about new age-y, overly earnest Dr. Phil-ish monologues about his feelings, but simply letting people know where he stands on issues like being in a relationship (poor Rachel and Nicole know how weirdly passive aggressive he can be!), having kids, etc. He is seriously evasive when it comes to anything of any import. He couldn't be depended upon to tell his serious girlfriend that a long lost daughter had just come into his life for two whole months. He can't be depended upon to behave with a minimum of courtesy or pleasantness in any situation or to control his horrible temper. That, to me, is not dependable at all.

Even if he were, there is something depressing to me about the idea that Lorelai or any other woman should give up on the idea of finding real joy, passion, and connection and compatibility, all of which are REALLY important day to day, in order to be with someone who's reliable during life's occasional crises. I know we're not supposed to think that Lorelai "settled," (not that she's any prize either, of course!), but somehow it often comes across that way in their scenes. It actually seems like neither is too happy with the other more often than not. And since ASP's take on romantic relationships is actually pretty cynical, I wonder after watching S5, S6 and the revival how she really feels about their relationship. After watching the revival, I felt like L/L still seem so lacking in joy, connection and chemistry, and they still seem unable or unwilling to communicate about really basic issues. I honestly still can't even imagine what they talk about aside from Stars Hollow gossip. (Certainly not stuff like, say, how they feel about getting married or having children after a decade together!)

A major message throughout the revival seemed to be that no one gets what they truly wanted from life but somehow find a way to be content anyway, and while I think it's a really nuanced and interesting theme, it's a somewhat depressing one that struck me as applying all too well to LL, who really do feel more like roommates than each other's real love. At least in my UO. 

This revival did hammer home how ASP, (with her typical flair for annoying exaggeration!), seems to think there are two basic 'types' of guys on the planet: surly, monosyllabic, bitterly negative men who can be counted on to steer you in the right direction when the chips are down but are thoroughly unpleasant to actually be around on a day to day basis or 'charming' golden boys who are fun and pleasant but can't be counted on. I feel like it's such a false dichotomy, because there are a whole lot of guys who are pleasant and positive and fun to be around AND dependable. As I said, the more I see and think about ASP's writing, the more I feel like she is actually really cynical about romantic relationships in general, at least on screen.  

Oh, and I don't think I'd ever bother checking out an ASP-helmed show again, but based on a lot of the fan reaction to the revival, that may not be quite as unpopular as it was a week ago!  

[jch323]

I actually like Rory.

[RoyRogersMcFreely]

Oh I hate the "love of a good man" bullshit.  I mean yes Logan is an absolute scumbag in the revival (I know some will argue always was) but at least he recognized Rory's agency and the fact she doesn't need saving. I will gladly take a dumpster fire Rory who makes her own choices for better or worse over her being a sweet docile thing being "steered in the right direction" by some dude. If she gets fixed, I want her to think she needs fixing, and fix herself.

[NumberCruncher]

42 minutes ago, RoyRogersMcFreely said:

Oh I hate the "love of a good man" bullshit.  I mean yes Logan is an absolute scumbag in the revival (I know some will argue always was) but at least he recognized Rory's agency and the fact she doesn't need saving. I will gladly take a dumpster fire Rory who makes her own choices for better or worse over her being a sweet docile thing being "steered in the right direction" by some dude. If she gets fixed, I want her to think she needs fixing, and fix herself.

YES to this.  Your line of thinking is exactly why I always got so twitchy when people brought up Jess yelling at Rory to go back to Yale and that she wasn't being herself as a good reason why she belonged with him. She always had the ability to make her own choices, thank you very much--even if they were bad--so the idea of having any one of these dudes be the one to save her from herself really rubs me the wrong way.

Edited November 28, 2016 by NumberCruncher

[msani19]

1 hour ago, amensisterfriend said:

This revival did hammer home how ASP, (with her typical flair for annoying exaggeration!), seems to think there are two basic 'types' of guys on the planet: surly, monosyllabic, bitterly negative men who can be counted on to steer you in the right direction when the chips are down but are thoroughly unpleasant to actually be around on a day to day basis or 'charming' golden boys who are fun and pleasant but can't be counted on. I feel like it's such a false dichotomy, because there are a whole lot of guys who are pleasant and positive and fun to be around AND dependable.

 

 

I've started to genuinely wonder about her relationship issues and her views on relationships. Speaking of her there are two types of guys in the world thing (which I agree with - meaning that I agree that's what ASP thinks, not that I think the same way!), which type of guy is Daniel Palladino? Is he her Luke or her Chris?

Edited November 28, 2016 by msani19
Cause ASP is weird & I needed to note I'm not on board with that thinking

[amensisterfriend]

Quote

This revival did hammer home how ASP, (with her typical flair for annoying exaggeration!), seems to think there are two basic 'types' of guys on the planet: surly, monosyllabic, bitterly negative men who can be counted on to steer you in the right direction when the chips are down but are thoroughly unpleasant to actually be around on a day to day basis or 'charming' golden boys who are fun and pleasant but can't be counted on. I feel like it's such a false dichotomy, because there are a whole lot of guys who are pleasant and positive and fun to be around AND dependable.

Quote

I've started to genuinely wonder about her relationship issues and her views on relationships. Speaking of her there are two types of guys in the world thing (which I agree with - meaning that I agree that's what ASP thinks, not that I think the same way!), which type of guy is Daniel Palladino? Is he her Luke or her Chris?

Ha! I know, right?! My completely and totally unfounded theory is that she got repeatedly hurt and let down by a Chris/Logan and has some decided ambivalence about what she sees as settling for---um, I mean, settling down WITH---a Luke :)  

Quote

YES to this.  Your line of thinking is exactly why I always got so twitchy when people brought up Jess yelling at Rory to go back to Yale and that she wasn't being herself as a good reason why she belonged with him. She always had the ability to make her own choices, thank you very much--even if they were bad--so the idea of having any one of these dudes be the one to save her from herself really rubs me the wrong way.

I agree so much. (I hope my post didn't imply otherwise...? I'm hopelessly inarticulate sometimes!) That's actually Rory's major problem---well, one of them; it's hard to narrow it down these days ;) She's so suggestible, such a 'leaf on the wind' (lame and totally out of context Firefly/Serenity reference!) who seems to just sort of drift and wait for stronger personalities (Lorelai, Paris, Emily, Logan, Jess, whoever) to give her some sort of help, ideas, direction and almost tell her who the heck she is. I actually dislike that Jess dropped by just to give our clueless wonder the idea of writing that book and don't like that "why aren't you in Yale?!" scene as much as I used to either. She needs to proactively search out answers for herself, stumble on her own epiphanies and come up with her OWN ideas of who she is and what to do. (Not that her own instincts or sense of self-awareness seem especially sharp, mind you, but maybe they'd get better with use!)  

Edited November 28, 2016 by amensisterfriend

[LeafontheWind]

33 minutes ago, amensisterfriend said:

That's actually Rory's major problem---well, one of them; it's hard to narrow it down these days ;) She's so suggestible, such a 'leaf on the wind' (lame and totally out of context Firefly/Serenity reference!) who seems to just sort of drift and wait for stronger personalities (Lorelai, Paris, Emily, Logan, Jess, whoever) to give her some sort of help, ideas, direction and almost tell her who the heck she is.

I'll take any reference I can get ;)

I agree that  Rory is not very strong willed, certainly not in comparison to the other Lorelai Gilmores we know. Once she sets her mind to something, she is good at going after it with everything she can, but she often needs a push to get her started down the path in the first place.

[dirtypop90]

1 hour ago, NumberCruncher said:

YES to this.  Your line of thinking is exactly why I always got so twitchy when people brought up Jess yelling at Rory to go back to Yale and that she wasn't being herself as a good reason why she belonged with him. She always had the ability to make her own choices, thank you very much--even if they were bad--so the idea of having any one of these dudes be the one to save her from herself really rubs me the wrong way.

Rewatched that episode last night. Hated this scene even more now that I am older. Yuck. They were also in public, right outside a restaurant. Everything about that scene was icky to me. He was pissed at Logan which led to him screaming at Rory about her life outside a restaurant.

[tarotx]

And that is why I liked how s7 ended. Rory didn't choose any of these boys but chose herself and her career. And probably why I was a bit sad with the way she turned out. Wishing she met Dean later and Sleeping with engaged Logan. At least she showed nothing for Jess who she hasn't seen in 4 years.

But she really is a lot like her father now. 

Edited November 28, 2016 by tarotx
:x accidently wrote Luke instead of Logan :x

[dirtypop90]

21 minutes ago, tarotx said:

And that is why I liked how s7 ended. Rory didn't choose any of these boys but chose herself and her career. And probably why I was a bit sad with the way she turned out. Wishing she met Dean later and Sleeping with engaged Luke. At least she showed nothing for Jess who she hasn't seen in 4 years.

But she really is a lot like her father now. 

I've always seen Chris (what we know if him) in Rory. They are both dreamers (she just dreamed of attending a fancy ivy and he didnt) and romantics and yea...flighty. Never saw Rory as a "force" like lorelai. She's never had her mother's backbone. Rory nor Chris are horrible for those reasons IMO. Chris only sucked to me because he was a dad so he had a little one he was responsible for. I also didnt mind rory in the revival until she got pregnant. She made that statement to Dean but I just thought she was being nice to an ex. She paid Jess no mind really. And sleeping with engaged Logan...bad...but she did end it. So if she didnt get knocked up, could've just been something she learned and grew from it. 

Edited November 28, 2016 by dirtypop90

[RoyRogersMcFreely]

1 hour ago, NumberCruncher said:

YES to this.  Your line of thinking is exactly why I always got so twitchy when people brought up Jess yelling at Rory to go back to Yale and that she wasn't being herself as a good reason why she belonged with him. She always had the ability to make her own choices, thank you very much--even if they were bad--so the idea of having any one of these dudes be the one to save her from herself really rubs me the wrong way.

Ugh, yeah. That scene always came across to me like a father admonishing a child for a wrong doing with the judgement and self-righteousness. And she responded as such. Her simpering "I don't know" makes my skin crawl.

[dirtypop90]

4 minutes ago, RoyRogersMcFreely said:

Ugh, yeah. That scene always came across to me like a father admonishing a child for a wrong doing with the judgement and self-righteousness. And she responded as such. Her simpering "I don't know" makes my skin crawl.

I would've told him where to go. A high school ex could not roll into my life and speak to me that way. No way. 

[tarotx]

14 minutes ago, dirtypop90 said:

I've always seen Chris (what we know if him) in Rory. They are both dreamers (she just dreamed of attending a fancy ivy and he didnt) and romantics and yea...flighty. Never saw Rory as a "force" like lorelai. She's never had her mother's backbone. Rory nor Chris are horrible for those reasons IMO. Chris only sucked to me because he was a dad so he had a little one he was responsible for. I also didnt mind rory in the revival until she got pregnant. She made that statement to Dean but I just thought she was being nice to an ex. She paid Jess no mind really. And sleeping with engaged Logan...bad...but she did end it. So if she didnt get knocked up, could've just been something she learned and grew from it. 

6

Oops yikes didn't realize I said Luke :x

[Lady Calypso]

2 hours ago, RoyRogersMcFreely said:

Oh I hate the "love of a good man" bullshit.  I mean yes Logan is an absolute scumbag in the revival (I know some will argue always was) but at least he recognized Rory's agency and the fact she doesn't need saving. I will gladly take a dumpster fire Rory who makes her own choices for better or worse over her being a sweet docile thing being "steered in the right direction" by some dude. If she gets fixed, I want her to think she needs fixing, and fix herself.

I may have ill feelings toward Logan in the revival, but I actually really liked him through his entire appearance in the original series, even when he wasn't being a great guy. He was one I could always find myself rooting for, especially outside of Rory. He certainly lets Rory make her own decisions, no matter how idiotic they may be, and he has stood beside her for every single one of those decisions (after they met, of course). I never held him responsible for Rory's actions and I still don't. Rory makes her own decisions and they lead her to the woman she has unfortunately turned into by the time of the revival. 

I just think that Logan can still give her her agency while helping to steer her in a more positive direction in her life. Just like Rory should have been doing the same thing, and she did in season 7. Too bad season 7 doesn't exist in canon anymore, according to ASP. At least, in terms of Logan's character progression. 

[RoyRogersMcFreely]

They let each other makes their own choices, whether those choices are right or wrong. And more importantly they accept those choices for each other. I think the thing is neither is a whole person yet. And they are both usually drowning at the same time, both gasping for air. So they've never felt completely comfortable taking an advisory role. Like they were so careful to not tell each other what to do, that they were scared to give advice. If that makes sense?

[dirtypop90]

34 minutes ago, RoyRogersMcFreely said:

They let each other makes their own choices, whether those choices are right or wrong. And more importantly they accept those choices for each other. I think the thing is neither is a whole person yet. And they are both usually drowning at the same time, both gasping for air. So they've never felt completely comfortable taking an advisory role. Like they were so careful to not tell each other what to do, that they were scared to give advice. If that makes sense?

This is why I preferred Logan to Rory's other options coupled with the fact that she would never have to shrink herself or make herself appear smaller to make him comfortable. I always felt that she would have Logan's support no matter how high she wanted to reach (professionally) or how many high society functions she decided to attend. Lol She is a Gilmore/Hayden after all and not as offended by their world as her mother (which is another reason roryxjess = LL doesn't work for me). Dean nor Jess would ever accept her participating in that world. They would either constantly sulk about it or worse berate her for it.

Edited November 28, 2016 by dirtypop90

[RoyRogersMcFreely]

Yeah, I don't think Rory needs a guy she needs to beg or cajole into every little thing. She's not Lorelai who enjoys and thrives on that. She would just wilt and eventually give up doing anything that the guy objected to. She needs someone who's going to help stoke her fires, not dampen them.

[Melancholy]

6 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

I agree that April was great in the revival.  I enjoyed her scenes with Rory and would have liked for more of that than the inexplicably long musical segment. 

My UO is that I thought the Luke/Lorelai relationship was perfect.  That's not to say that I didn't roll my eyes when each of them once again kept information from the other that only became a big deal because they stayed silent, because I did.  But, their dynamic really sold me on their commitment to one another.  Lorelai said they were "as good as married" to the therapist and that's exactly how they felt.  They felt like they'd been together for years, had their routines down (meals, hanging out at home, having date night, and bedtime), talked about the things in their lives that only partners and close friends would actually listen to (Luke knew about her weird dreams) and, while I hated the contrived secret keeping, neither used it as an excuse to run for the hills and they instead got mad at each other in the way that couples get mad at each other.  Luke was worried that Lorelai would leave him but he didn't stop her Wild plans and was ready with his argument as to why they should stay together. 

Ever since Mad Men, I've always thought Lorelai was like Don Draper in the sense that she only liked the beginning of things, in her case: relationships.  In season 1 she spoke glowingly about how great the feelings surrounding a first date with a serious crush were but, the few times a relationship actually made it beyond the early stages, she never seemed to enjoy them when they became mundane.  And relationships ALWAYS become mundane. 

I've compared Lorelai to Don Draper before for the "only liked the beginnings of things" and the hyper-compartmentalization of her life and going to extreme lengths to keep secrets even if it's less effort/danger to just own up in order to maintain that feeling of control of others' opinions of you and your own independence. 

I mostly agree on Luke/Lorelai. I'll try to explain why I'm becoming more and more unpopularly fine with how Luke and Lorelai didn't get married in the interim even though they seemed like they wanted to before April and even though it was a deal-breaker for Lorelai at the end of S6. Here've been my thoughts. 

My impression was that Lorelai didn't have a problem with her personal life until Emily brought it up.   I think Lorelai and especially Luke were coming off a very happy, peaceful, warm decade by the time of Richard's funeral. It was Richard's death and Emily's vitriol about L/L that stirred up the old demons but they were asleep for the past ten years. I even think that things were relatively calm and nice between Emily and Lorelai and Emily/Richard learned to like Luke in the interim period. However, Richard's death really disturbed things. 

IMO, Loreia's failed marriage to Chris soured her and dimmed her enthusiasm on getting married. She didn't get it right the first time and that had to have devastated Lorelai who lived with so much uncertainty and shame so she get married for real to the right guy on Try #1 without any starter marriage nonsense. (A big difference with Don Draper!) So Lorelai was stuck at "It always should have been Luke" but she was gun-shy about trying the actual marriage part again because she was burned before. Meanwhile, I think Luke would be content to follow Lorelai's lead on everything but, IMO, he actively wanted children far more than marriage and Luke was seeing marriage as a vehicle to have a life with Lorelai with children but not an end-goal in itself. However, yes, in a perfect world, Luke would have been afforded the chance to raise a child of his own from infancy on through the jam-hands years if Anna wasn't a whack job or if he and Lorelai communicated their desires. However I get how between his roles in raising Rory, Jess, probably Douhla, and finally his own bio-child April, his unconscious fatherhood yearnings were pretty damn satisfied. April is a missing piece of the puzzle because she's truly his. 

So, Lorelai was genuinely put off the idea of marriage at the end of S7. She entered into her "living in sin" relationship with Luke completely willingly as a reflection of her actual wants and aversions. However at the same time, past hurts re-shaped Lorelai into someone who wasn't looking to get married. IMO, Emily's disparaging remarks about L/L being mere roommates wasn't an accurate reflection of their relationship. They WERE basically married in spirit. Emily was just flat-out wrong to dismiss L/L's relationship compared to her's and Richard's because L/L don't have a marriage license and she was wrong to dismiss them as mere roommates. However, Emily's remarks did wake up demons that Lorelai needed to deal with. Lorelai needed to get back in touch with the side of herself that dreams big and wants what she wants and doesn't get gun-shy because of past failures. And this was embodied in Lorelai insisting on the marriage part and Lorelai committing to improving the Dragonfly instead being frozen in timidity because Sookie left.  

Although in another small UO, there was a small indication that perhaps Luke and Lorelai WOULD be better off with separate bank accounts. I'd hope that Luke is allowed to financially support April as much Lorelai (and Rory's other family like the grandparents and Christopher) financially supported Rory. I think Lorelai was overstepping a little to say that April should get a job to pay for her study abroad trip.  In another UO, I also would have liked more April-scenes because I've always liked April/VM, I thought her stuff was funny in the revival, and I think she's integral to the family unit. However, I also would have also liked solid revival scenes proving that Lorelai has a bond of affection with April a little akin to Luke's bond with Rory so I can have confidence that she's fine supporting April through increasingly controversial 20-something/30-something years if April needs this help just like Rory needed it out of L/L's shared property and bank accounts. 

Edited November 28, 2016 by Melancholy

[Anela]

4 hours ago, RoyRogersMcFreely said:

Oh I hate the "love of a good man" bullshit.  I mean yes Logan is an absolute scumbag in the revival (I know some will argue always was) but at least he recognized Rory's agency and the fact she doesn't need saving. I will gladly take a dumpster fire Rory who makes her own choices for better or worse over her being a sweet docile thing being "steered in the right direction" by some dude. If she gets fixed, I want her to think she needs fixing, and fix herself.

 

3 hours ago, NumberCruncher said:

YES to this.  Your line of thinking is exactly why I always got so twitchy when people brought up Jess yelling at Rory to go back to Yale and that she wasn't being herself as a good reason why she belonged with him. She always had the ability to make her own choices, thank you very much--even if they were bad--so the idea of having any one of these dudes be the one to save her from herself really rubs me the wrong way.

Ah, I've been skimming like crazy, because I've only seen "Winter" and didn't mean to stumble across so many spoilers. I thought they'd be contained for now. :) 

I didn't mind the Jess scene before, not because I thought they belonged together, I just saw him as someone from "home" (Stars Hollow), speaking for everyone. She was already missing school - looking longingly as the new kids arrived and got settled in, when she went to see Logan. Lorelai had to point out to Christopher, that Rory had been making her own choices for years, when he accused her of turning Rory against him. So I just saw him as the catalyst, that could have been someone else. Sure enough, once she decided she wanted to go back to school, she went on to move back to Stars Hollow, get back into school, get a job, and got herself back on track.

I'm a bit sad to hear that Logan is a scumbag. I didn't think that he was, in the original series. 

[Aloeonatable]

2 hours ago, dirtypop90 said:

Rewatched that episode last night. Hated this scene even more now that I am older. Yuck. They were also in public, right outside a restaurant. Everything about that scene was icky to me. He was pissed at Logan which led to him screaming at Rory about her life outside a restaurant.

I think friends should be able to confront each other when they see that their friend is not happy. Even ASP says that Jess always "got" Rory. Sure, he was angry at Logan's insecure behavior, but Jess was also aware that Rory was not happy with her current situation. Logan and Rory also had a loud row in the restaurant after Jess left. Do you fault each of them as well? 

[dirtypop90]

7 minutes ago, Aloeonatable said:

I think friends should be able to confront each other when they see that their friend is not happy. Even ASP says that Jess always "got" Rory. Sure, he was angry at Logan's insecure behavior, but Jess was also aware that Rory was not happy with her current situation. Logan and Rory also had a loud row in the restaurant after Jess left. Do you fault each of them as well? 

Rory stood up to Logan. She was giving it as good as he was. Jess was berating Rory as a parent does a child in public and she just took it. It was plain embarrassing. IMO

The confrontation was not respectful. And I don't believe Rory and Jess were friends at that point in the series? I don't even think they had spoken in awhile.

He was nothing more than an ex high school boyfriend and so was completely out of line. Paris or another friend she regularly spoke to at the time could respectfully confront Rory. I don't tolerate my friends (or anyone really) speaking to me that way.

Edited November 28, 2016 by dirtypop90

[NumberCruncher]

4 minutes ago, Aloeonatable said:

Logan and Rory also had a loud row in the restaurant after Jess left. Do you fault each of them as well? 

The fundamental difference being Rory was inferring that Logan was to blame for her bad decisions and he got defensive by telling her that he wasn't exactly twisting her arm.  He wasn't wrong in that regard.  Logan was an asshole to Jess in those scenes and certainly deserved Rory's ire for that but not her trying to turn her bad decisions back on him.

[Aloeonatable]

4 minutes ago, dirtypop90 said:

Rory stood up to Logan. She was giving it as good as he was. Jess was berating Rory as a parent does a child in public and she just took it. It was plain embarrassing. IMO

The confrontation was not respectful. And I don't believe Rory and Jess were friends at that point in the series? I don't even think they had spoken in awhile.

He was nothing more than an ex high school boyfriend and so was completely out of line. Paris or another friend she regularly spoke to at the time could respectfully confront Rory. I don't tolerate my friends (or anyone really) speaking to me that way.

Just because they hadn't seen each other in a while does not mean they weren't friends who could talk to each other. Rory had no comeback to Jess because she knew he was right. I didn't see Jess's questioning her life at that point as disrespectful or berating. He was more than just an ex-boyfriend, IMO, the exchange in her bedroom at the elder Gilmore's home proved that to me. 

[Aloeonatable]

4 minutes ago, NumberCruncher said:

The fundamental difference being Rory was inferring that Logan was to blame for her bad decisions and he got defensive by telling her that he wasn't exactly twisting her arm.  He wasn't wrong in that regard.  Logan was an asshole to Jess in those scenes and certainly deserved Rory's ire for that but not her trying to turn her bad decisions back on him.

I didn't see it that way. Of course they both chose the lifestyle they were leading, all Rory was doing was pointing that out to Logan. He was the one that implied she was blaming him. He became defensive.

[dirtypop90]

1 minute ago, Aloeonatable said:

Just because they hadn't seen each other in a while does not mean they weren't friends who could talk to each other. Rory had no comeback to Jess because she knew he was right. I didn't see Jess's questioning her life at that point as disrespectful or berating. He was more than just an ex-boyfriend, IMO, the exchange in her bedroom at the elder Gilmore's home proved that to me. 

Agree to disagree. Jess was not talking to her; He was screaming at her (because he was still riled up from Logan) and she was unprepared and overwhelmed. It was not what he was saying but how. He could've have said everything he did in a calm and respectful tone. 

[Aloeonatable]

I agree that his tone was harsh, and that he was angry at Logan, but what he said was needed. He probably knew that was the only way to get her to listen. Will agree to disagree.

[NumberCruncher]

2 minutes ago, Aloeonatable said:

I didn't see it that way. Of course they both chose the lifestyle they were leading, all Rory was doing was pointing that out to Logan. He was the one that implied she was blaming him. He became defensive.

I don't disagree with your assessment re: Logan's overreaction but that's how he took Rory's words and that's why they ended up yelling at each other.  The point is that their argument had nothing to do with Logan telling Rory how she should be living her life (unlike what Jess did in belittling her).  The original UO was the notion that none of Rory's men should be saving her from herself and I pointed out that Jess was trying to do just that and that's what I found disgusting.  Your first response to that was trying to equate the Jess/Rory argument to the Logan/Rory argument when they really had nothing to do with each other in terms of Rory's agency to make her own choices.

[RoyRogersMcFreely]

The thing is its not his job to get her to listen. He can absolutely voice his concern as a friend but the screaming does show a lack of respect to her as a person. She can take his advice or not but yelling should never be a go to form of communication. And I'm always baffled that considering he was so aghast at her choices he never kept in touch. If he was so worried about how she was doing. If they were such good friends who could call each other out.

[Leonana]

41 minutes ago, Melancholy said:

I've compared Lorelai to Don Draper before for the "only liked the beginnings of things" and the hyper-compartmentalization of her life and going to extreme lengths to keep secrets even if it's less effort/danger to just own up in order to maintain that feeling of control of others' opinions of you and your own independence. 

I mostly agree on Luke/Lorelai. I'll try to explain why I'm becoming more and more unpopularly fine with how Luke and Lorelai didn't get married in the interim even though they seemed like they wanted to before April and even though it was a deal-breaker for Lorelai at the end of S6. Here've been my thoughts. 

My impression was that Lorelai didn't have a problem with her personal life until Emily brought it up.   I think Lorelai and especially Luke were coming off a very happy, peaceful, warm decade by the time of Richard's funeral. It was Richard's death and Emily's vitriol about L/L that stirred up the old demons but they were asleep for the past ten years. I even think that things were relatively calm and nice between Emily and Lorelai and Emily/Richard learned to like Luke in the interim period. However, Richard's death really disturbed things. 

IMO, Loreia's failed marriage to Chris soured her and dimmed her enthusiasm on getting married. She didn't get it right the first time and that had to have devastated Lorelai who lived with so much uncertainty and shame so she get married for real to the right guy on Try #1 without any starter marriage nonsense. (A big difference with Don Draper!) So Lorelai was stuck at "It always should have been Luke" but she was gun-shy about trying the actual marriage part again because she was burned before. Meanwhile, I think Luke would be content to follow Lorelai's lead on everything but, IMO, he actively wanted children far more than marriage and Luke was seeing marriage as a vehicle to have a life with Lorelai with children but not an end-goal in itself. However, yes, in a perfect world, Luke would have been afforded the chance to raise a child of his own from infancy on through the jam-hands years if Anna wasn't a whack job or if he and Lorelai communicated their desires. However I get how between his roles in raising Rory, Jess, probably Douhla, and finally his own bio-child April, his unconscious fatherhood yearnings were pretty damn satisfied. April is a missing piece of the puzzle because she's truly his. 

So, Lorelai was genuinely put off the idea of marriage at the end of S7. She entered into her "living in sin" relationship with Luke completely willingly as a reflection of her actual wants and aversions. However at the same time, past hurts re-shaped Lorelai into someone who wasn't looking to get married. IMO, Emily's disparaging remarks about L/L being mere roommates wasn't an accurate reflection of their relationship. They WERE basically married in spirit. Emily was just flat-out wrong to dismiss L/L's relationship compared to her's and Richard's because L/L don't have a marriage license and she was wrong to dismiss them as mere roommates. However, Emily's remarks did wake up demons that Lorelai needed to deal with. Lorelai needed to get back in touch with the side of herself that dreams big and wants what she wants and doesn't get gun-shy because of past failures. And this was embodied in Lorelai insisting on the marriage part and Lorelai committing to improving the Dragonfly instead being frozen in timidity because Sookie left.  

Although in another small UO, there was a small indication that perhaps Luke and Lorelai WOULD be better off with separate bank accounts. I'd hope that Luke is allowed to financially support April as much Lorelai (and Rory's other family like the grandparents and Christopher) financially supported Rory. I think Lorelai was overstepping a little to say that April should get a job to pay for her study abroad trip.  In another UO, I also would have liked more April-scenes because I've always liked April/VM, I thought her stuff was funny in the revival, and I think she's integral to the family unit. However, I also would have also liked solid revival scenes proving that Lorelai has a bond of affection with April a little akin to Luke's bond with Rory so I can have confidence that she's fine supporting April through increasingly controversial 20-something/30-something years if April needs this help just like Rory needed it out of L/L's shared property and bank accounts. 

That makes sense, thanks for going to the trouble of explaining it. I have to admit, I was disappointed that they weren't already married, as it seemed they had gone backwards in growth from the end of Season 7. However, I hadn't thought of how her marriage to Christopher would have affected her.

13 minutes ago, Aloeonatable said:

I agree that his tone was harsh, and that he was angry at Logan, but what he said was needed. He probably knew that was the only way to get her to listen. Will agree to disagree.

I agree. He wasn't screaming, that I remember, but more like speaking emphatically. He was the only person she listened too, and finally got her act together. I'd say he knew exactly how to speak to her and reach her. Logan certainly wasn't making any efforts, other than being a jealous ass.

[Aloeonatable]

17 minutes ago, RoyRogersMcFreely said:

The thing is its not his job to get her to listen. He can absolutely voice his concern as a friend but the screaming does show a lack of respect to her as a person. She can take his advice or not but yelling should never be a go to form of communication. And I'm always baffled that considering he was so aghast at her choices he never kept in touch. If he was so worried about how she was doing. If they were such good friends who could call each other out.

Job? I don't think he looked at it as if it were his "job," but more like a friend seeing a friend unhappy and hanging around someone that was obnoxious. Jess knew Rory and knew that she wasn't happy at that time and so he confronted her. She listened and knew he was right. It worked. 

[Lady Calypso]

14 minutes ago, RoyRogersMcFreely said:

The thing is its not his job to get her to listen. He can absolutely voice his concern as a friend but the screaming does show a lack of respect to her as a person. She can take his advice or not but yelling should never be a go to form of communication. And I'm always baffled that considering he was so aghast at her choices he never kept in touch. If he was so worried about how she was doing. If they were such good friends who could call each other out.

I totally get that. I do think it was definitely heat of the moment, Logan's jealous pompous act got Jess riled up and he definitely seemed frustrated and emotional. But that's not a lack of respect to Rory. People yell sometimes, even at their loved ones. It happens, but it also doesn't negate what he was saying to Rory. He was trying to figure out what was going on with her. I think it was stewing up the whole visit, from the moment he found out from Luke about Rory's new residence, right into Logan's rude behaviour to him. Plus, as soon as Jess calmed down and realized that he struck something in her, he backed off and left. It's not that he kept yelling at her. I do think she needed to hear what he had to say, really. And the whole point is that she listened. She was trying to make excuses for Logan, he brought the conversation back on her and she listened. 

I think it took Jess to help her further her track into going back to Yale and talking to her mom again. He's obviously not the only reason, but he helped give her a steady push. Seeing it from Jess' point of view, he hadn't seen Rory in over a year. He comes back to see that not only is her and her mom not talking, but she's living with her grandparents. Then, he goes to see her and finds out that she's dropped out of Yale, and working essentially for her grandmother. Then he meets her boyfriend, who is completely dismissive and rude while Rory mostly sits there. He sees this major 180 from Rory and he wants to know why. His emotions got in the way of how he handled it, absolutely, but he was not wrong to question her. He was right in trying to figure out what changed in the last year and a bit that they hadn't seen each other. He just wanted to know how someone so ambitious as Rory who wanted to become a journalist turned into a college dropout who cut ties with her mother and was working as a hostess/event planner for rich families. 

I know that it's not confirmed as to what conversation Jess was going to have with Rory, but Jess did want to talk to Rory alone. I think it's entirely possible that he was planning to have a modified version of that conversation then before Logan showed up.  I agree it was a messy confrontation, but I think it had good intentions. Jess could have brought Logan into the confrontation, but he kept the focus on Rory. He wanted it about her, not about him. In that sense, I got the feeling that he was really trying to be a friend and wanted to talk to her as a friend but Logan's appearance seemed to make things take a different turn that made all parties look bad. 

I just think that his intentions were good. Maybe the execution could have been handled better, but in no way was he berating her or making her look like a lesser person. He didn't make it about himself; he, like everyone else in Rory's life, just wanted to know why. And we all know she dropped out because of Mitchum's comment about her not being cut out for it. She basically confirmed it herself in 6x05 to Paris. 

[RoyRogersMcFreely]

Well, I don't think it needed to be a confrontation. And if his only goal was to help her and be her friend he would have kept in touch to see if she needed further counsel. Friends don't drop in and out when they are going through something major. If its his place to confront her then its his place to support her.

Edited November 28, 2016 by RoyRogersMcFreely

[KatWay]

since we're talking about agency, I have to say I hated that they once again had Jess basically tell Rory what she needs to do. Can Rory just once make a good decision for herself? If he only had steered her on the "write a book, maybe" path and she'd come up with the idea about writing about Lorelai and herself on her own, but no, Jess had to practically lay that out there for her too.

And despite the fact that I like Jess now and still like Rory, despite thinking she's a complete mess, I don't want them together.

[shron17]

8 hours ago, Anela said:

I didn't mind the Jess scene before, not because I thought they belonged together, I just saw him as someone from "home" (Stars Hollow), speaking for everyone. She was already missing school - looking longingly as the new kids arrived and got settled in, when she went to see Logan.

I agree.  Whenever Jess gives Rory advice it's always when her life is a mess and he's genuinely trying to help her get herself right.  Logan is also supportive but since he didn't know Rory before Yale, his knowledge about her is more limited to what she's shared with him.  Even in the revival, Logan only knows what she tells him about her life and only sees her in his environment.

[Aloeonatable]

8 hours ago, KatWay said:

since we're talking about agency, I have to say I hated that they once again had Jess basically tell Rory what she needs to do. Can Rory just once make a good decision for herself? If he only had steered her on the "write a book, maybe" path and she'd come up with the idea about writing about Lorelai and herself on her own, but no, Jess had to practically lay that out there for her too.

And despite the fact that I like Jess now and still like Rory, despite thinking she's a complete mess, I don't want them together.

I don't see a problem with him suggesting she write, but I do agree that the idea for the book should have come from her. I also don't think they should be together. My UO is that he is too good for her. She's a mess and has been for over 10 years, it seems.

[amensisterfriend]

Quote

I've decided that the Palladinos are full of contempt in their minds and hearts.  Their writing is quirky and full of amusing pop culture references (but ugh, Ben Affleck, why??) but at the heart and soul, their perspectives are full of bitterness and both snobbery and reverse snobbery.

Someone wrote this in another thread, and I just wanted to say...YES! This. (Thank god the people here are so brilliant and insightful. I like reading these posts so much more than I liked watching the latest episodes of this show!) And the above captures part of why the revival left me so inexplicably depressed and even doubting my previously held opinions about the original series. It's not even about the specific missteps the Palldinos made in terms of storylines and characterization---it's this overall sense that instead of a warmhearted, charming, primarily hopeful show with splashes of sharpness, snark, and cynicism, maybe this series all along was more of an obnoxious, bitter, self-indulgent mess underneath its misleadingly 'cute' veneer. There's nothing wrong with a more cynical show, of course, but it's just not the one I thought was my energizing 'go to' mood boosting show all these years, so it's sort of disconcerting to view it that way! It would explain a lot, though, particularly what many of us have said about how ASP seems to depict many characters, romantic relationships, the idea that many are fated to become (the worst of!) their parents whether they want to or not, etc.  To be clear, it's not like I thought the original series was full of purely lovable people leading idyllic lives---there was always an underlying cynical element to the show, and I often appreciated how it counterbalanced the more potentially saccharine aspects of it. I guess I just felt that OVERALL it was still a positive, inspiring, hopeful sort of show full of characters who were flawed but still root-worthy for me, and now I'm doubting my original perception of it. 

A lot of people I know are tracking down Bunheads after watching the GG revival, so I guess my latest UO is that I disliked what little I saw of Bunheads even before the revival, am convinced I'd dislike it even more than I thought based on what I saw during the revival, and (*whispers*) don't get the big deal about Sutton Foster. 

I still can't get over that this revival made me kind of like Dean and feel genuinely glad for him that he grew past his ties to Rory and Stars Hollow to carve out a far happier life for himself elsewhere. If you had told me that Dean was one of the few characters from the revival I'd feel really happy to have seen, I never would have believed you :)

My UO is that he is too good for her. She's a mess and has been for over 10 years, it seems.

I know, right?! I actually now hold the UO that despite often seeming more sane than her mom on the surface, Rory's been an even worse mess than Lorelai since S5 to one degree or another. Back then her dysfunction was a little less highlighted, still balanced out by a few strengths, and more understandable given her age and stage of life. 

Edited November 28, 2016 by amensisterfriend

[misschung]

On 4/21/2016 at 10:56 PM, 2Old2BAFangirl said:

 

On the other hand, I absolutely hate, detest, despise Kirk.  I find nothing funny, entertaining, or endearing about Kirk at all.  I just hate him. 

 

Me too! He was such a waste of space, especially during this revival. 

[Taryn74]

I'm beginning to think it's a UO that I didn't feel Sookie was "off" at all during the revival.  Her voice was a bit deeper, but as far as characterization I thought she was spot on.

[moonb]

Possibly a UO: I thought Lorelai and Rory both looked their ages in the revival in spite of whatever LG has had done to her face, and that's a very good thing. I think LG still looks like Lorelai for sure, and Lorelai Gilmore is never going to look like one of the Golden Girls even though she's not so many years off from 50-something Blanche, Rose and Dorothy.  But her styling, skin tone an neck definitely make her look like a (very attractive) late 40-something.  Same with Rory, whose face and forehead really look 32, which is refreshing.  Or it's my tv, haha.

[Tikichick]

1 hour ago, amensisterfriend said:

And the above captures part of why the revival left me so inexplicably depressed and even doubting my previously held opinions about the original series. It's not even about the specific missteps the Palldinos made in terms of storylines and characterization---it's this overall sense that instead of a warmhearted, charming, primarily hopeful show with splashes of sharpness, snark, and cynicism, maybe this series all along was more of an obnoxious, bitter, self-indulgent mess underneath its misleadingly 'cute' veneer. There's nothing wrong with a more cynical show, of course, but it's just not the one I thought was my energizing 'go to' mood boosting show all these years, so it's sort of disconcerting to view it that way! It would explain a lot, though, particularly what many of us have said about how ASP seems to depict many characters, romantic relationships, the idea that many are fated to become (the worst of!) their parents whether they want to or not, etc.  To be clear, it's not like I thought the original series was full of purely lovable people leading idyllic lives---there was always an underlying cynical element to the show, and I often appreciated how it counterbalanced the more potentially saccharine aspects of it. I guess I just felt that OVERALL it was still a positive, inspiring, hopeful sort of show full of characters who were flawed but still root-worthy for me, and now I'm doubting my original perception of it. 

A lot of people I know are tracking down Bunheads after watching the GG revival, so I guess my latest UO is that I disliked what little I saw of Bunheads even before the revival, am convinced I'd dislike it even more than I thought based on what I saw during the revival, and (*whispers*) don't get the big deal about Sutton Foster. 

I still can't get over that this revival made me kind of like Dean and feel genuinely glad for him that he grew past his ties to Rory and Stars Hollow to carve out a far happier life for himself elsewhere. If you had told me that Dean was one of the few characters from the revival I'd feel really happy to have seen, I never would have believed you :)

 

 

In a nutshell, the fat jokes/fat shaming in Summer clearly didn't have a place in this series past episodes and really let me know I was watching a very different take on these characters and this place.   I loathed the pool scenes for that and many, many other reasons.  What an insulting and unnecessary waste of time that could have been devoted to giving Lane a suitable storyline.

My UO is I adored the musical.  Of course I was a major Bunheads fan and IMO Sutton Foster is incredibly talented, musically, dramatically, dancing or as a comic actress.

[JaggedLilPill]

My new UO is that I like Francie. Well, in the sense that I find her amusing. I don't really think she's the typical 'mean' girl. Even during their senior year power struggle with Paris and Rory, she didn't come off as that mean. More like bored that she had to engage in that ridiculous warfare with Rory. There's just something about her that I find entertaining, particularly her "Sorry, did I accidentally step into 2003?" and then her asking what Paris's damage was in the revival.

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

On 11/27/2016 at 11:03 AM, whateverhappened said:

It's only my first post but I already know this is the place I'll probably call home since I have a lot of unpopular opinions!

Please don't hate me, but I really liked Rory's story in the revival. I didn't necessarily like Rory, but I related to what she was experiencing and agree with people who say that it makes sense given her character flaws and the life she led up until this point of the series. I don't hate her for it and I don't even hate Rory/Logan as a pairing. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about them, but I think I may believe they really do care about each other now than I ever did during the series. I know that's ridiculous to say about two people sneaking around cheating, which for the record I do not condone in any way.

I just like that their situation was messy and complex in a way I related to. They had real feelings for each other beyond just attraction, but we're not quite sure of the strength and intensity, and maybe they aren't either. During the series I never found their dynamic interesting, and now I do. I don't hate either of them even though I definitely see why most people here do. Again, I am NOT supporting that they were cheating.  I don't even think they necessarily do or should have any sort of future, even of he breaks up with the curiously named Odette. But as someone who was involved on and off with my college boyfriend long after college ended (for the record, not while we were seeing other people), their scenes clicked with me a lot more than their scenes during the original series did. Holding on to the remnants of a past love that's not quite in the past is so complicated. There's nostalgia, fear of moving on, affection based on how you felt about each other then as much as it is for the people you both are now. I could see how Rory and Logan's encounters would be comforting and reaffirming to them while also making them both feel as they seem to us, a little pitiful by now. It would be messy even if other people weren't involved, and it's awful that they are, but this time it's a mess Rory's helped create that I happened to relate to more than I expected. Same goes for the humbling she needed and mostly got with regards to her career. Her arrogant, oblivious denial were annoying, but I get it. Rory and many other people who were always told how smart they were and how they could and should do wonderful things with their lives sometimes take a while to find out that academic prowess doesn't necessarily translate to the outside world and that hard work and attitude matter significantly more than innate intelligence ever could. Once again, I didn't like Rory through most of this---just need to make that abundantly clear, lol---but I found her story more relatable and compelling than almost anything they gave her during the original series. I warned you this was unpopular!

I'm in the category of people who shipped Luke and Lorelai until they became a couple and threw myself overboard somewhere in the fifth and sixth seasons, but I liked them in this revival to the point where I have one foot tentatively placed back on that ship. It's irritating that they still don't communicate very well, it's true that their chemistry wasn't exactly sizzling yet again, and Amy Sherman-Palladino still overdoes his crankiness and her acting like she's constantly performing a one-woman standup comedy routine on a stage that no one else can see. I did see connection and real affection, though, and I don't think of them as grudgingly settling for each other as much as realizing that life in general and relationships in particular are never ideal, but there's happiness to be gleaned from them anyway. I wouldn't have especially wanted to see them become parents and so count me among the few who are glad that didn't happen. As others have snarked about, there's a depressingly high chance they'll end up the de facto guardians of Rory's kid anyway, lol.

Kelly Bishop is a treasure and I loved Emily's ultimate destination so much that I don't mind that the show was a little clumsy in getting us there. 

I always liked Dean until as late as the fifth season, so I was really gratified by how happy he is away from Stars Hollow and Rory Gilmore. 

Lorelai's phone call to Emily will go down as one of my favorite scenes of the series. 

Not to put on my tinfoil hat, but Jess got so much less screentime than I expected that I wondered if Milo and Alexis had indicated they were uncomfortable doing a lot of scenes together based on their real life past relationship. 

So I'm on the miniscule island of people who loved the revival in general. I didn't love all of it, but I never love everything about any Gilmore Girls episode. The Palladinos always seem to go a step or 10 too far, especially when it comes to the townies and their meetings and quirkfests, so I'll be skipping a lot of those scenes when I watch this again. Once I got used to the different appearances, voices and slightly darker tone, I found myself really sucked in.

These characters do sometimes suck, nearly ALL of them, and I feel like this was the first installment of Gilmore Girls to face that candidly while still giving me hope that ultimately their better sides will prevail. So for that I will always be grateful for this revival. I will never find anything redeeming about that musical sequence, though. That was astonishingly awful.   

I agree with most of this. The disclaimers however, no. 

I actually do like Rory, always have and always even when I don't like her actions. I'll always love her. Same goes for Logan and their relationship. I don't like every aspect of it but overall, I ship them and hope they get their acts together as a couple or as individuals. 

I never liked Luke and Lorelai, I just accepted them because they are the "It" couple for Lorelai. I usually accept the main couples of shows I watch even if I didn't like them if I intend to continue watching. Actively hating those types of couples takes too much away from the show and its not usually worth it.

[amensisterfriend]

Okay, one more UO for the road before I finally shut myself up, but I feel like Jess's now infamous gazing at Rory through the window wasn't necessarily 'wow, I still love this woman and always will!' as much as a wistful goodbye of sorts---goodbye to the Rory he once knew, to the dream he had in the back of his mind of reuniting with her, etc. I'm not saying he plans to leave her life or even that he'd no longer be interested if she one day wanted to get involved with him (though I'd like to think he'd have found happiness elsewhere by then and would no longer be interested, but that's just me), but I didn't see it as confirmation that he was currently still in love with her like nearly everyone else did. And I certainly didn't see that one look as ASP telling us that Jess is willing to wait for her as long as it might take like a lot of fans seemed to have. (Clearly a lot of wishful thinking must have been at play when I interpreted that scene because, now more than ever, I would prefer for Jess to move on!) I don't see it as him doomed to moon over her for the next however many years in hopes that she'd eventually deign to be with him romantically---but, again, that may be because I don't want to. 

As with MANY things about this revival, this was left to viewer interpretation, so there's no right answer here. But to me ASP seemed more like she was throwing a bone to Jess/Rory shippers with a quick 'hey, so I know this story focused a zillion times more on Logan and now she's carrying his child, but maybe Jess is still interested, who knows what the future may bring?!"' moment rather than clearly setting the stage for Jess to be Rory's "Luke," ie the one she's clearly going to end up with.

At the moment, my only "ship" for Rory is Rory/Therapy.  

[kieyra]

I don't really know where else to put this so here it goes. My UO is that it's a little weird that I keep seeing language indicating that ASP needs someone to keep her in line in order to 'fix' the show. (I was probably writing sentences like that myself ten years ago.) I get that everyone needs an editor, but the wording with ASP is always that someone needs to keep her under control or keep her in check, because she obviously can't be permitted to just run wild with her own (enormously successful) show.

Today I'm just wondering if we'd say the same thing about a male showrunner--that he needed a 'heavy hand' to keep him in line. 

I can only think of a few male showrunners I've singled out for sustained critique--the people who made an absolute travesty of Sleepy Hollow, and whoever made the extremely unpopular decision that happened this year on The 100 (names escape me in both cases). I'm sure I posted hoping FOX would replace the showrunner(s) for Sleepy Hollow, but I don't think it occurred to me to hope another, stronger personality would come in and control the showrunners' poor impulses instead.

I don't know, just thinking out loud. 

[amensisterfriend]

I don't see it as a sexist thing at all. I've actually heard just as much, if not more, that Daniel Palladino needs someone to rein him in and make sure his tendencies for wildly over-the-top "whimsy" and self-indulgence don't spiral out of control. I don't think ASP draws that type of criticism because she's a woman. I think it's because her work seems to warrant it. 

Edited November 29, 2016 by amensisterfriend

[starri]

11 minutes ago, kieyra said:

My UO is that it's a little weird that I keep seeing language indicating that ASP needs someone to keep her in line in order to 'fix' the show.

I can name you a few male creators who get those kinds of comments.  Bryan Fuller, without even having to think about it.

[Frelling Tralk]

4 hours ago, amensisterfriend said:

Okay, one more UO for the road before I finally shut myself up, but I feel like Jess's now infamous gazing at Rory through the window wasn't necessarily 'wow, I still love this woman and always will!' as much as a wistful goodbye of sorts---goodbye to the Rory he once knew, to the dream he had in the back of his mind of reuniting with her, etc. I'm not saying he plans to leave her life or even that he'd no longer be interested if she one day wanted to get involved with him (though I'd like to think he'd have found happiness elsewhere by then and would no longer be interested, but that's just me), but I didn't see it as confirmation that he was currently still in love with her like nearly everyone else did. And I certainly didn't see that one look as ASP telling us that Jess is willing to wait for her as long as it might take like a lot of fans seemed to have. (Clearly a lot of wishful thinking must have been at play when I interpreted that scene because, now more than ever, I would prefer for Jess to move on!) I don't see it as him doomed to moon over her for the next however many years in hopes that she'd eventually deign to be with him romantically---but, again, that may be because I don't want to. 

As with MANY things about this revival, this was left to viewer interpretation, so there's no right answer here. But to me ASP seemed more like she was throwing a bone to Jess/Rory shippers

I interpreted it as just throwing a bone to the shippers too. In fact I find it interesting that so many people seem confident that Jess/Rory are being set up as eventual endgame if there's another series, even though there was absolutely no indication in their scenes that Rory still has romantic feelings for Jess IMHO. In fact Jess seemed to be the one ex of hers where she wasn't hung up on wistfully remembering their time together, she simply treated him as a good friend that she was happy to see again, but there were no other sparks there from Rory's end. And yet a single wistful look from the guy is apparently enough to signpost them being destined to get together in the end?