One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions

[ChlcGirl]

35 minutes ago, Frelling Tralk said:

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?

Agreed.  Seems like lots of watchers are looking for a fairy tale.  Bad boy turned good by town sweetheart.  Boy keeps dropping in to girl's life to fix her.  Remains in love with her for over a decade.  Devotion is finally rewarded by boy needing to give up life and business to help girl raise married ex-bf's baby.

Sounds dreamy!

[CalamityBoPeep]

3 minutes ago, ChlcGirl said:

Agreed.  Seems like lots of watchers are looking for a fairy tale.  Bad boy turned good by town sweetheart.  Boy keeps dropping in to girl's life to fix her.  Remains in love with her for over a decade.  Devotion is finally rewarded by boy needing to give up life and business to help girl raise married ex-bf's baby.

Sounds dreamy!

Eh... I don't think it's so much a "want" with me. (I'd actually prefer Jess to stay the hell away from her until she grows up and figures crap out. Let Logan be her experimental failure relationship. Like put Logan in the "on again, off again, oh no did we do that???" position until viewers become completely sick of them going back and forth and cry out for the relief of a solid break-up.)

My take is that ASP and DP have no idea how to do a relationship with healthy growth on both sides, and I'm anticipating the worst. (Basically the scenario you outline above.) Wish I could give them credit for finding a more creative way to handle the relationship, but I just can't. So, I'm taking the clue that they've put on the table, and figuring that's where they're going to end up: echoing the LLC triangle down to the minutest detail. I'm mentally preparing myself (given we have no word on a sequel at all, at this point) for the possibility that that stupid scenario is just what they intend. Trite, boring, lacking creativity, and done. Oh, so Done. sigh.

Jess has learned so much, changed himself, grown up, and gained a bit of wisdom. At this point, being with Rory would be a huge step backward.

[RoyRogersMcFreely]

I think the reason Jess has been treated so well by the writing is because he's mostly been off-screen. If he's ever actually available he will get the same treatment as everyone else. I mean who could have seen what they did to Luke in season 6 coming. Jess fans should hope Milo stays super busy.

[Melancholy]

Here's one- I think it's SO right that Paris is a fertility doctor/businesswoman. It's downright poetic. Paris is brilliant enough to get into harder sciences and she's anti-the traditional warm, fuzzy, kind experience of having a child. However, Paris was fascinated by sex and social dynamics. That's why Paris hung out with Madeline and Louise or kept Terrence as a life coach. That's why Paris made a focus group out of the hottie Yale girls or why she wants to spring break or how she could spent hours talking about going to bed nude with Lorelai. Heck, I think it's partly why Paris still dwelling on Lorelai as a mother to her because Lorelai has this alchemy of both Perfect Family and Hot Cool Role Model Who Delivers the Hot/Cool Qualities to Offspring automatically that still fascinates Paris from her formative years on. Paris still believes that social dynamics of sex, family, romance are still the mysterious wonders that she can't hack but so badly wants to study so she can master those too. 

I also think Paris gets a thrill out of playing her own part in the evolution of the human species since Paris thinks the current model is so pathetic. I've heard the most upper-crust "designer baby" business is cut-throat and wealthy parents look for a business with the know-how and coldness to engineer the most perfect offspring, no matter what it does to a surrogate. I think those types parents would want to give their business to Paris since she can deliver results. It's the logical evolution to how parents would want to deliver their teenagers to college!Paris in the hopes that she puts her nastiness but brilliance and tenacity to deliver results. 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Melancholy

[Aloeonatable]

Quote

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

Amen! I wonder if the Palladinos purposely made Rory so pitiful that people would no longer see her as Stars Hollow's golden child. I know she always had it in her to be self-centered, but this revival really highlighted it. Primarily it was the Logan relationship that made me (and I hate saying it, but) hate her.  

[nolieblue]

My UO is that I wish they hadn't shown Mr. Kim. I would have preferred they keep the mystery alive!

[msani19]

My new UO is (or maybe not so unpopular?) that I now think Season 7 wasn't so bad. WTF! Thanks  a lot ASP/DP! I've hated that damn season for almost 10 years and now given what I saw in the revival it isn't that bad anymore. UGH! 

Edited November 29, 2016 by msani19

[Llywela]

5 hours ago, starri said:

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

Steven Moffat is another (and I firmly agree with everyone who says he needs a restraining hand on his wilder impulses, without it he quickly gets out of hand). Actually, I can think of a lot of showrunners, both male and female, who would probably produce better work if they shared the load with another creative figure, to inspire and restrain in equal measure. The Palladinos are far from alone!

Edited November 29, 2016 by Llywela

[Jack Shaftoe]

Quote

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. 

Off the top of my head I can remember many people saying someone needs to keep Joss Whedon in line. Especially when it comes to the post-show comics where he no longer needed to care about costs or meddling from network executives and (arguably) made a real mess of things because he got too excited by the fact he could now tell stories that would have cost too much to show on TV. It is a very common criticism for writers of both genders, and not just aimed at script writers - people lament the lack of "strong editor's hand" all the time when it comes to famous writers like G. R. R. Martin or Stephen King.

[SadieT]

On 11/27/2016 at 10:53 PM, Melancholy said:

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. 

I agree with you on all the April stuff. I wish she had been in more than a couple of scenes in one episode because she's such a big part of Luke's life, and by extension should be a big part of Lorelai's, even though that appears not to be the case. Would have much rather preferred a scene or two of her with Lorelai to expand more on the status of their relationship than all the Kirk stuff or the excessively long musical. I was also annoyed at how no one mentioned her during all the wedding talk. Lorelai asks Luke who he wants there and he doesn't even say his own daughter. I don't know if maybe Vanessa Marano was unavailable when they filmed Fall and perhaps they were just trying to avoid bringing attention to her absence by not mentioning her name, but it was glaring to me. Why not have Luke mention that she's flying in the morning of the wedding, or that she's attending grad school in Europe or somewhere and can't make it back. The way they handled it, made it seem like her own father and soon to be step-mother didn't really care about her. I also agree that Lorelai overstepped by suggesting Luke shouldn't foot the bill for April's studies abroad and April should get a job. Everyone and their mother lined up to help Rory, why shouldn't April's father help her out if he's financially able? 

[blueray]

My take on the wedding scene when Lorelai asks about who he wants on the guest list, she already eliminated obvious people (Jess, April, Liz & TJ).

[whateverhappened]

I bought more into Logan and Rory's connection in the revival than I did during the OG series. I think they love each other. That doesn't make their cheating okay in any way, and like people have said the show can't play the star-crossed lovers card since there's no realistic reason why Logan would be trapped into marrying Odette. Unless she's possibly pregnant too, and not even then. It's not like I'm entirely sure I want Rory and Logan to end up together, especially since now Rory would always be wondering if it's because she got pregnant. But I do think they have a powerful connection and real feelings for each other, and even after this revival I don't hate either of them. I found this Rory and Logan story more interesting than what we got during the real series. In real life I would feel contempt for them both but as a fictional ship I enjoy them.

The more I think about Rory in the revival, the more I appreciate her story and feel it fit.

I don't think there is one man on this show I would want to date in real life. Definitely not Luke, which is very unpopular here. I don't like angry men with tempers who hate everything, to me it's disturbing and I'd feel like I was always walking on eggshells. Plus Luke is actually dull, not interested in anything and always putting everything down. Dave Rygalski seemed ideal, but if he had been on the show more the Palldinos would probably have made him hard to like too.      

[amensisterfriend]

The revival got me wondering how much more I might have liked the original show if had better actors....

Scott's acting is completely unsubtle and one-note.

 

(Moved from another thread because my opinions about SP are very unpopular!)

I've thought about this a lot. As much as I blame the writing for a good portion of what I don't like about Luke, SP's performance has never worked for me. He's written to be a cranky killjoy too much of the time anyway, but to me SP often takes it a step or 10 too far and plays Luke like a temperamental oaf who has a mood disorder or anger management problem. His line deliveries, facial expressions and even body language often make Luke come off more hostile and belligerent than he's probably supposed to. (Again, I know most disagree---this is just the way I see it even when I've tried not to!)

It's a big part of what's prevented me from getting on board with Luke/Lorelai as a couple, because some of what is probably supposed to come across as mildly amused exasperation and good-natured curmudgeonly complaining reads as him being genuinely, thoroughly annoyed and even angry with Lorelai way too much of the time. It leaves me wondering why he would want to be with someone who ticks him off so mightily such a high percentage of the time and why she would want to be with someone so joyless and irritated with every aspect of...well, of pretty much everything. Add in the fact that I don't find SP physically attractive or appealing on any level and that I see him as having pitifully little chemistry with LG past the first season, and I, too, start to think that I could have liked Luke and Luke/Lorelai more if the casting had been different. Of course, some not-so-minor tweaks to the writing would have helped as well :)  

I don't think there is one man on this show I would want to date in real life. Definitely not Luke, which is very unpopular here. I don't like angry men with tempers who hate everything, to me it's disturbing and I'd feel like I was always walking on eggshells. Plus Luke is actually dull, not interested in anything and always putting everything down.

I feel like I could have dated Jason for at least a short time, who is definitely weird but in ways that mesh well with my own quirks (for example, the separate bedroom thing works very well for this space-needing insomniac!), and an age-appropriate Brian sounds like a guy I'd love to be with as well. Beyond that, though, I find the primary love interests on this show surprisingly unlikable. Even the ones I enjoy watching from the comfort of my couch are not guys I'd want to have a romantic relationship with in real life.  And I really am not all that picky :) I just think AS-P writes many male characters and romantic relationships in a way that really turns me off.  

[starri]

10 minutes ago, amensisterfriend said:

I've thought about this a lot. As much as I blame the writing for a good portion of what I don't like about Luke, SP's performance has never worked for me. He's written to be a cranky killjoy too much of the time anyway, but to me SP often takes it a step or 10 too far and plays Luke like a temperamental oaf who has a mood disorder or anger management problem. His line deliveries, facial expressions and even body language often make Luke come off more hostile and belligerent than he's probably supposed to. (Again, I know most disagree---this is just the way I see it even when I've tried not to!)

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Patterson and Lauren Graham supposed to intensely dislike each other.

[JayInChicago]

I thought the 30 something gang was kind of silly but I loved how they all looked sad when Rory didn't want to hang out with them. One of the few genuine laughs of the revival.

[starri]

Unpopular opinion:  Sean Gunn would be wise to stick to what he's good at, and focus his career on being a stand-in for CGI procyonids.

[Miss Slay]

UO:  Lauren Graham and David Sutcliffe have more chemistry than Lauren Graham and Scott Patterson. Even though Luke and Lorelai were always end game...it made for interesting storytelling.

And my other UO: Alexis and Milo lost all their chemistry - I don't think Jess and Rory should be end game.

[stillshimpy]

2 hours ago, amensisterfriend said:

Scott's acting is completely unsubtle and one-note.

Yeah, he favors dinner-theater style acting.  Make sure all the diners can hear you over the scraping of plates and the clinking of glass and play.it.broad.   It can be very hit-or-miss for me. 

Edited November 30, 2016 by stillshimpy

[ChlcGirl]

3 hours ago, amensisterfriend said:

(Moved from another thread because my opinions about SP are very unpopular!)

I've thought about this a lot. As much as I blame the writing for a good portion of what I don't like about Luke, SP's performance has never worked for me. He's written to be a cranky killjoy too much of the time anyway, but to me SP often takes it a step or 10 too far and plays Luke like a temperamental oaf who has a mood disorder or anger management problem. His line deliveries, facial expressions and even body language often make Luke come off more hostile and belligerent than he's probably supposed to. (Again, I know most disagree---this is just the way I see it even when I've tried not to!)

It's a big part of what's prevented me from getting on board with Luke/Lorelai as a couple, because some of what is probably supposed to come across as mildly amused exasperation and good-natured curmudgeonly complaining reads as him being genuinely, thoroughly annoyed and even angry with Lorelai way too much of the time. It leaves me wondering why he would want to be with someone who ticks him off so mightily such a high percentage of the time and why she would want to be with someone so joyless and irritated with every aspect of...well, of pretty much everything. Add in the fact that I don't find SP physically attractive or appealing on any level and that I see him as having pitifully little chemistry with LG past the first season, and I, too, start to think that I could have liked Luke and Luke/Lorelai more if the casting had been different. Of course, some not-so-minor tweaks to the writing would have helped as well :)  

 

 

I feel like I could have dated Jason for at least a short time, who is definitely weird but in ways that mesh well with my own quirks (for example, the separate bedroom thing works very well for this space-needing insomniac!), and an age-appropriate Brian sounds like a guy I'd love to be with as well. Beyond that, though, I find the primary love interests on this show surprisingly unlikable. Even the ones I enjoy watching from the comfort of my couch are not guys I'd want to have a romantic relationship with in real life.  And I really am not all that picky :) I just think AS-P writes many male characters and romantic relationships in a way that really turns me off.  

Mmmmmmm.  I'd be absolutely into Digger but then I've always had a thing for Chris Eigeman.

[amensisterfriend]

Quote

UO:  Lauren Graham and David Sutcliffe have more chemistry than Lauren Graham and Scott Patterson. Even though Luke and Lorelai were always end game..

Chemistry is such a nebulous, subjective, indefinable thing, but whatever you see between DS and LG, I see it too. They always sort of lit up around each other and seemed so genuinely happy and themselves. And I honestly think LG and SP have less chemistry than almost any onscreen couple I can think of. But again---it's subjective :) 

Quote

And my other UO: Alexis and Milo lost all their chemistry - I don't think Jess and Rory should be end game.

Am I the only one weird enough to wonder if their former chemistry stemmed at least in part from their real life romance while their current lack thereof--and lack of shared scenes, for that matter---is due partly to the fact that they're now real life exes rather than just fictional ones?! 

Speaking of chemistry, another UO is that I thought Logan and Rory had more of it this revival than they did during the original series. It takes more than chemistry for me to want a couple together, and in this case their sordid circumstances and my ambivalence about who each is around the other was more than enough to have me hoping they would split up. But from a purely chemistry/connection perspective, I felt a much more powerful pull and indefinable IT between them than ever before. If it makes you guys feel better, I kind of hate myself for feeling that way! 

I've always held the very unpopular opinion that Alexis Bledel, while probably not a great actress in general, was the perfect fit for Rory. And I actually still think that even after the revival. There's something about her overall presence that fits perfectly with the lost, drifting, perpetually confused, out of touch and oblivious young woman this revival wrote her to be. There was this air of sad wistfulness in her scene with Dean and her final scenes with Logan that I thought really worked, and I still always like her mother/daughter rapport with LG no matter how messed up their characters happen to be at the time. And, as noted above, she sold me on a real chemistry with Logan that I previously hadn't seen her show with any love interest other than Jess/Milo (who she was dating at the time). It's true that a lot of the character's real emotions and motivations weren't clear, but I blame the writing for that more than I blame AB. 

Edited November 30, 2016 by amensisterfriend

[Thundercatmary]

I don't know much about their personal history but I though Milo and Alexis had good chemistry, Lauren and Scott not quite as much but that's just me.

[dirtypop90]

I too thought Alexis and Matt had more chemistry in the revival than the original. I was oddly more invested in their relationship in the revival (until she popped up pregnant) Dont shoot me but I wouldnt have minded their s/l if A. we got both of their POVs and B. Rory wasn't pregnant and considering cutting Logan out. The cheating was messy and yucky but I grew up watching daytime soaps  with my grandma as a young girl, so I'm not nearly as offended by cheating s/ls as I should be. lol I really think this s/l just couldn't be done justice in a 4 episode long revival.

[nolieblue]

23 hours ago, msani19 said:

My new UO is (or maybe not so unpopular?) that I now think Season 7 wasn't so bad. WTF! Thanks  a lot ASP/DP! I've hated that damn season for almost 10 years and now given what I saw in the revival it isn't that bad anymore. UGH! 

I always thought S7 was better than S6 and I say that as a huge L/L shipper! S6 -especially the second half - was completely devoid of charm and warmth. The whole thing was ugly - first the fight between Lorelai and Rory and then the April storyline and breakup - ugh. 

I don't know if this is unpopular but I thought Alexis Bledel was really good in the revival. She carried a lot of the emotional load in her scenes and she was consistent in her portrayal of Rory. For most of the last two regular seasons, she seemed to be rushing through her lines like she couldn't wait to be done.

Edited November 30, 2016 by nolieblue

[msani19]

21 minutes ago, amensisterfriend said:

And I honestly think LG and SP have less chemistry than almost any onscreen couple I can think of. But again---it's subjective :) 

Oh man, SisterFriend. I remember your posts from the TWOP GG forum and we agree on SO, SO much! I think this is just about the only thing I've seen that we wildly disagree on! Not that we all need to always agree! It's interesting what we do or do not see related to chemistry, it really is subjective. I thought that LG & SP were sizzling in the early seasons, especially S1.

Shrug...who knows maybe they did really hate each other and were just trying to do their jobs! I heard that Bruce Willis & Cybill Sheppard DETESTED each other in Moonlighting but were able to still sell it. Were they better actors? Not something I'd ever say about Bruce Willis!  Like ever. 

[amensisterfriend]

Quote

I don't know if this is unpopular but I thought Alexis Bledel was really good in the revival.

It does seem to be an unpopular opinion, but as I rambled about above, it's one that I share :) 

Quote

I always thought S7 was better than S6

I'll be even more unpopular and add that I think it's better than S5 as well! And much better than the revival. I've long thought S7 was underrated, and even a lot of what I don't like about it can be attributed to the fact that DR was stuck cleaning up quite a mess that he inherited from ASP. But I thought S7 had warmth, charm and a knack for making many of the characters more likable to me again. And now I have a feeling I might appreciate S7 more than ever. 

Quote

Oh man, SisterFriend. I remember your posts from the TWOP GG forum and we agree on SO, SO much! I think this is just about the only thing I've seen that we wildly disagree on! Not that we all need to always agree! It's interesting what we do or do not see related to chemistry, it really is subjective.

Awww...I love that we agree on so much and am more than fine with not agreeing about this one thing. It keeps things interesting, and I would never expect most GG fans to agree with me about the lead couple being so lacking in chemistry :) I do agree with you that they had better chemistry in S1 than any subsequent season! See, we always find common ground :)

Edited November 30, 2016 by amensisterfriend

[stillshimpy]

1 hour ago, dirtypop90 said:

The cheating was messy and yucky but I grew up watching daytime soaps  with my grandma as a young girl, so I'm not nearly as offended by cheating s/ls as I should be. l

 

1

Good lord, you just gave me some very strange insight into my psychological makeup, as I also thought things like divorce, cheating,  ending up pregnant and then passing that baby off as the cuckolded's was just all five-by-five, all's fair, etc. etc. for a lot longer in life than you would think was humanly possible.  Similarly?  Watched soaps with my grandmother from age toddler to ten.   

Existential dilemma, man.   Yet another aspect of my character gleaned from TV.  Thank goodness we were fans of PBS, so at least Sesame Street and company stood a chance of saving me from Masterpiece Theater's shining example of murder, torrid affairs, and infamy with impeccable accents. 

Also, agree, Alexis Bledel had good chemistry with Matt Czuchry that hadn't been there before.  

Edited November 30, 2016 by stillshimpy

[JayInChicago]

For me it's not so much the cheating, it's that I don't understand why it had to be cheating. Rory didn't have to be stuck with forgettable Paul--who doesn't add anything to the revival anyway. And Logan certainly didn't need to be paired with a new character for plot purposes or anything. The Palladinos still could have made them friends with bennies and still could have made their situation be something they are hiding and lying to people about. At least soap operas have .... zesty storylines around cheating and love triangles. This is just kinda blah.

[KatWay]

I also thought Rory and Logan had more chemistry than before and I found them more interesting as a couple than in the original run. I liked Jess but him and Rory felt very old friends in their scene, I didn't see any of that pull we definitely saw when he came to town. I also think Logan and Rory getting it together despite the insane family stuff he's got going on, would make for a better storyline than Jess helping out Rory with new baby, aka the Luke/Lorelai redux. 

[hippielamb]

13 hours ago, whateverhappened said:

The more I think about Rory in the revival, the more I appreciate her story and feel it fit.

I don't think there is one man on this show I would want to date in real life. Definitely not Luke, which is very unpopular here. I don't like angry men with tempers who hate everything, to me it's disturbing and I'd feel like I was always walking on eggshells. Plus Luke is actually dull, not interested in anything and always putting everything down. Dave Rygalski seemed ideal, but if he had been on the show more the Palldinos would probably have made him hard to like too.      

I love her more now than in the original series. Unlike most people, I wasn't upset with her journey. The only thing that irked me was her fight with Lorelai over the book. I like this 30 something Rory much more than when we last saw her at 22. I liked that Rory but she was too 'can do no wrong' that it was a little boring. This Rory with the messy love life, and unstable career is much more interesting to me. 

I would choose Dave too. He was a little overly nerdy for my tastes but I am partial to musicians, and I loved that he was very supportive of Lane. As for Lorelai's guys, I'd choose Jason and Chris. They had different types of charm that appeal to me. 35 year old Logan is looking good, and he still knows how to have fun. 

7 hours ago, amensisterfriend said:

(Moved from another thread because my opinions about SP are very unpopular!)

I've thought about this a lot. As much as I blame the writing for a good portion of what I don't like about Luke, SP's performance has never worked for me. He's written to be a cranky killjoy too much of the time anyway, but to me SP often takes it a step or 10 too far and plays Luke like a temperamental oaf who has a mood disorder or anger management problem. His line deliveries, facial expressions and even body language often make Luke come off more hostile and belligerent than he's probably supposed to. (Again, I know most disagree---this is just the way I see it even when I've tried not to!)

Much like Jared did with Dean, I think Scott overdoes it when Luke is supposed to be angry. There are a few times during the series where he comes across as threatening to me, and I know that's not the intent. Angry men are a huge turnoff to me, and I don't find it enjoyable in fictional characters. I did find Luke less angry in the revival, he snapped and yelled at Lorelai (not cool, dude) but he seemed less intimidating. 

4 hours ago, amensisterfriend said:

Chemistry is such a nebulous, subjective, indefinable thing, but whatever you see between DS and LG, I see it too. They always sort of lit up around each other and seemed so genuinely happy and themselves. And I honestly think LG and SP have less chemistry than almost any onscreen couple I can think of. But again---it's subjective :) 

I see it as Lorelai lighting up like a Xmas tree when she is around Chris. It's like a switch is flicked and she's bouncy and happy. I will always prefer her chemistry with him over any other guy for that reason. I did get the sense in the revival that she is happy in her comfortable life with Luke. It's a different energy for sure. 

[Melancholy]

With the exception of his S6 appearances, Christopher is angry and upset in most of his appearances. And he's usually not justified in his feelings at all. To run down: 

Christopher Returns: He wasn't upset about his father calling a Lorelai a life-ruining whore and Rory a mistake who's at a slut-age but he did get preemptively angry at Rory for honestly reporting to her mother about his inability to pay for the Oxford English Dictionary. 

Red Light on the Wedding Night: He's cool on a minute-long phone call. 

It Should Have Been Lorelai: He gets angry twice- the major scene where he screams at Lorelai in Luke's and he was passive aggressively upset at Lorelai questioning how he's handling things with Sherri when Lorelai didn't introduce Chris to Max. I did defend Chris in the major scene a few weeks ago here and I think he's got a point that Lorelai's plans to *marry* Max were major enough for Rory that it merited a sit-down between Max and Chris in a perfect world. So, I think Chris was essentially correct. However, he gets very intense and public about his anger.

Teach Me Tonight: His "You have to show me this Jess's picture so I don't rip the head off the wrong kid. Because that would be bad" anger very annoying and infuriating. He doesn't know enough about the situation to start attacking the other teenager in the car with Rory. For all that Lorelai gets justifiably attacked by fandom for her anger in the aftermath of the accident, at least, she knew Jess was a troublemaker and had cause to assume Jess was being reckless when driving even though she shouldn't have declared him guilty before hearing everyone out. 

Lorelai's Graduation Day: Again, he's cool on a minute-long phone call. 

I Can't Get Started: Well, he doesn't get angry. I guess that's one thing you can say for him in this ep through the grey-area cheating on Sherri, over-promising to Lorelai, and "He's going to be visiting his daughter" euphemism for banging Lorelai. 

Haunted Leg: The ULTIMATE scene of Chris getting viciously, publicly, unprompted angry when he's the one in the wrong.

Dear Richard and Emily: He's not angry here.

Norman Mailer, I'm Pregnant Here: He's not angry here.

Emily Says Hello: Yes, Rory was really baiting him to fight but I get ticked off that Chris's instinct to get angry back and vociferously defend his rights to see Lorelai instead taking a stance to try to make things right with Rory. 

Come Home: He's in sad, grieving, regretful puppy mode. No anger here.

Wedding Bell Blues: Another ULTIMATE scene of Chris getting viciously, publicly, unprompted angry when he's the one in the wrong. 

I said I think Chris is not angry in his S6 appearances. I don't feel like running down through S7 now- he's not angry in the beginning but he starts flipping out intensely almost immediately after he and Lorelai get married. Luke is far more episodes and heck, he probably gets angrier more frequently. However, I think Christopher is more frequently seriously angry even though he's wrong in his anger while a lot more of Luke's anger is justifiably triggered by actual annoyances/grievances or part of a comedic bit. 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Melancholy

[junienmomo]

On 11/29/2016 at 1:56 AM, kieyra said:

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. 

I would say that about a male showrunner. In the literary arena, John Grisham had some really good books at the beginning of his career. However, after he got very famous, the financial motivation to get his books on the market as soon as possible make them edit his stories less and less. Now, for me at least, his books are just a mess and I don't enjoy them much. 

[solotrek]

On 11/28/2016 at 7:56 PM, kieyra said:

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.

Off the top of my head, Chris Carter. His mythology made less and less sense as the show continued. Just like ASP, his issues seemed highlighted during a show revival. And just like ASP, he ended his possible 1 season revival with a cliffhanger. Who would think XFiles have something in common with Gilmore Girls?

On top of that, I call it "George Lucas-ing" based on the writing/directing disasters that were the  Star Wars prequels. I don't really think it's a sexist issue. Especially since both Palladinos have the issue. To be a fly on the wall at their house.

[Crs97]

I am adding Tom Clancy to the literary list of someone who needed a strong editor to keep him on point.

[Blandings]

I'm an LL shipper from the first scene of the pilot so I think they have a lot of chemistry and a very deep bond, but it's just different than what she has with Christopher. To me she is a teenager around Christopher again, giddy and infatuated but with a lack of maturity and depth. She seems less hyper around Luke, but I've always felt like it's because she doesn't feel the need to perform around him. She's got deep feelings for him that take her aback, and Lorelai responds to that with an almost stunned, atypically reflective silence sometimes. He's the only person who makes her stop talking long enough to look inward, to relax and process before reacting. She's not flitting around all the time to divert him or herself, but more quietly content, thoughtful and at peace. She's not in the usual entertaining cocktail party mode with him, so I can see how it seems like she's less happy, but I see it like she's content and at ease. She's comfortable with him, herself and a lower key existence than she is around anyone else. This is just the way I see it. 

As for him, I think he protects himself with a gruff exterior but is clearly a softie underneath. He is actually a very emotional and sensitive guy. That passion comes out in overly annoyed rants rather than sonnets, but it's there! He's got his flaws but I think he loves Lorelai very deeply and would do anything for her and Rory. And I do think we've seen that he likes how she encourages him to have fun and be a part of things rather than being a cynical detached observer.  

I also wanted to mention that disliking Christopher is very different from disliking David Sutcliffe. I like David Sutcliffe a lot and agree with the poster who said that they almost feel sorry for him sometimes for playing a thankless role. I've seen a lot of his interviews and think he's gracious, attractive, thoughtful and seemingly a good soul. He's been very open about his battles with depression, which is something I sympathize with and respect. I read somewhere else that he's gotten a lot of cruel emails and letters over the years for playing Christopher, which made me feel awful for him. One of the reasons I like this site is that most seem smart and mature enough not to blame an actor for his character! 

The more I watch the revival, the less disappointed I am with it. I relate to Rory's drifting a lot more than I want to admit. I think AB was better in the role here than she had been for the last three or four seasons on the show. I still hate Logan but agree there was more chemistry between the than before. I really loved the LL story as a whole despite my frustrations with some of the specifics. And this LL shipper doesn't mind that they didn't end up having kids. Emily was amazing. The stuff with maids was awful and tone deaf for so many reasons, but I loved the rest. 

There were too many unfilled plot holes, but the flip side is that allows for a lot of interesting interpretations, so I'm really enjoying the discussion that the revival has generated. 

One more: I care so much more about the relationship between Jess and Luke than the one between Jess and Rory. That's especially true now, but I've always felt that way. 

[CalamityBoPeep]

24 minutes ago, Blandings said:

I'm an LL shipper from the first scene of the pilot so I think they have a lot of chemistry and a very deep bond, but it's just different than what she has with Christopher. To me she is a teenager around Christopher again, giddy and infatuated but with a lack of maturity and depth. She seems less hyper around Luke, but I've always felt like it's because she doesn't feel the need to perform around him. She's got deep feelings for him that take her aback, and Lorelai responds to that with an almost stunned, atypically reflective silence sometimes. He's the only person who makes her stop talking long enough to look inward, to relax and process before reacting. She's not flitting around all the time to divert him or herself, but more quietly content, thoughtful and at peace. She's not in the usual entertaining cocktail party mode with him, so I can see how it seems like she's less happy, but I see it like she's content and at ease. She's comfortable with him, herself and a lower key existence than she is around anyone else. This is just the way I see it. 

As for him, I think he protects himself with a gruff exterior but is clearly a softie underneath. He is actually a very emotional and sensitive guy. That passion comes out in overly annoyed rants rather than sonnets, but it's there! He's got his flaws but I think he loves Lorelai very deeply and would do anything for her and Rory. And I do think we've seen that he likes how she encourages him to have fun and be a part of things rather than being a cynical detached observer.  

[snip]

And this LL shipper doesn't mind that they didn't end up having kids. Emily was amazing. The stuff with maids was awful and tone deaf for so many reasons, but I loved the rest. 

One more: I care so much more about the relationship between Jess and Luke than the one between Jess and Rory. That's especially true now, but I've always felt that way. 

Maybe that's what it is for me, too. I actually am not a big fan of Sparkly-Quippy Lorelai. I have never enjoyed her relationship with Max, and not just because he was Rory's teacher. First, he asks her on a date, and she loses sight of all the reasons it'd be a bad idea. Her common sense just vanishes, and she arranges the meeting at the coffee shop. There, it's all about quips, and being "tapped." Which is just too cute by half for me. Then his treacly story goes on too long, and she buys into his play. On the date in Stars Hollow snow, again... too cute... too much "I'm so free-spirited and magical, and look I'm pulling you, formerly sane guy, into my magical world" about it. 

And with Jason, it's just more of that, only doubled. Oy. Too much whimsy for me. With Chris it's the same thing, only brought back to a high school level.

I get that people like this. I just don't... I find it a little nauseating. So, when Luke is his curmudgeonly, cynical, dry self, I feel like it's such a relief. I'd get ill from the sweetness of the show, otherwise. I need that two-by-four of reality knocking some sense into these people now and then, so when Lorelai's with Luke, I finally feel like she could be an actual real person, and I kind of like that person. (Other than season 6 mopey Lorelai... because that wasn't her either. The Lorelai I like is the feisty, standing-up-for-herself Lorelai. The one that knocks on Emily's hair dryer in the salon, in season 1).

I agree that Scott Patterson overplays the anger at times, losing the subtlety that would soften the edges. But I tend look beyond that with the character, because honestly, in my personal life, I have a much easier time dealing with people's raw emotions, even if they're angry, than I do with happy-happy-joy-joy people who don't want to cope with an unpleasant truth. I tend to look for the meaning behind the words, in most cases, so when Lorelai and Max-Jason-Chris is just happy and sparkly, I don't feel like she's real. She's cloaking her messy, emotionally distancing, insecure self, and pretending to be something different.

With Luke, she can relax, let down that need for distraction, and finally just figure out who the hell she is. For herself.

I also don't mind that they didn't have kids. I like how Luke is satisfied with that too. And ditto on your enjoyment of Jess/Luke over Jess/Rory. In any re-revival installments, I'd rather see more Luke/Rory honestly, than Jess/Rory. (Not in a squicky way. LOL)

[absnow54]

I didn't think it was implied in the revival, but I've seen it interpreted this way... if Logan is still hung up on Rory's proposal rejection 10 years ago, I have no sympathy for him. I found his proposal to be incredibly selfish because Rory was 22 and struggling to find a job after graduation. If they'd rushed into marriage she would have been fated to season 6 Rory, and I thought he put her in a really shitty position by asking. We don't have much context to their revival affair, but I don't think the past marriage rejection had anything to do with the no-strings-attached nature of their fling, and if Logan is still heartbroken that a 22 year old who was trying to establish her career wasn't ready to marry him, then that's on him.

[Smad]

11 minutes ago, CalamityBoPeep said:

I tend to look for the meaning behind the words, in most cases, so when Lorelai and Max-Jason-Chris is just happy and sparkly, I don't feel like she's real. She's cloaking her messy, emotionally distancing, insecure self, and pretending to be something different.

With Luke, she can relax, let down that need for distraction, and finally just figure out who the hell she is. For herself.

I always thought the best way they highlighted that was with Lorelai's night wear. With Jason and Chris she had to wear negligees every damn night, even in the deep, cold winter. It's so presentational and fake. With Luke she wore whatever she wanted, even if that meant long pants and a long sleeved shirt because it's winter and it's cold.

[Melancholy]

32 minutes ago, CalamityBoPeep said:

Maybe that's what it is for me, too. I actually am not a big fan of Sparkly-Quippy Lorelai. I have never enjoyed her relationship with Max, and not just because he was Rory's teacher. First, he asks her on a date, and she loses sight of all the reasons it'd be a bad idea. Her common sense just vanishes, and she arranges the meeting at the coffee shop. There, it's all about quips, and being "tapped." Which is just too cute by half for me. Then his treacly story goes on too long, and she buys into his play. On the date in Stars Hollow snow, again... too cute... too much "I'm so free-spirited and magical, and look I'm pulling you, formerly sane guy, into my magical world" about it. 

And with Jason, it's just more of that, only doubled. Oy. Too much whimsy for me. With Chris it's the same thing, only brought back to a high school level.

I get that people like this. I just don't... I find it a little nauseating. So, when Luke is his curmudgeonly, cynical, dry self, I feel like it's such a relief. I'd get ill from the sweetness of the show, otherwise. I need that two-by-four of reality knocking some sense into these people now and then, so when Lorelai's with Luke, I finally feel like she could be an actual real person, and I kind of like that person. (Other than season 6 mopey Lorelai... because that wasn't her either. The Lorelai I like is the feisty, standing-up-for-herself Lorelai. The one that knocks on Emily's hair dryer in the salon, in season 1).

I agree that Scott Patterson overplays the anger at times, losing the subtlety that would soften the edges. But I tend look beyond that with the character, because honestly, in my personal life, I have a much easier time dealing with people's raw emotions, even if they're angry, than I do with happy-happy-joy-joy people who don't want to cope with an unpleasant truth. I tend to look for the meaning behind the words, in most cases, so when Lorelai and Max-Jason-Chris is just happy and sparkly, I don't feel like she's real. She's cloaking her messy, emotionally distancing, insecure self, and pretending to be something different.

With Luke, she can relax, let down that need for distraction, and finally just figure out who the hell she is. For herself.

I also don't mind that they didn't have kids. I like how Luke is satisfied with that too. And ditto on your enjoyment of Jess/Luke over Jess/Rory. In any re-revival installments, I'd rather see more Luke/Rory honestly, than Jess/Rory. (Not in a squicky way. LOL)

I agree with all of this. Lorelai doesn't discuss or is resistant to discussing anything serious or life pressing with Chris/Jason/Max. It really sticks out with Christopher where Lorelai is so nervous and self-conscious about Christopher's fragility that she doesn't share pressing issues about the kid they had like together like Rory's anger at hearing about the marriage or the E/R conflict that led to Rory asking Christopher to pay for Yale. 

Lorelai and Luke don't share enough with each other for a truly model relationship but they share concerns and pressures more with each other than anyone else. Lorelai doesn't share these concerns about Rory's bad behavior or the flimsy Mom card or any concerns about the Dragonfly's problems with any of the other guys. Largely because I think Lorelai is afraid of rejection if she isn't always a dazzlingly beautiful performer and she doubts that Chris/Jason/Max would even be a value add who could solve a problem Lorelai couldn't because they have similar or irrelevant skill sets. Especially Christopher whose onscreen abilities are purely banter With Luke, she feels safe in his loyalty and steadfastness and knows she's getting a different brain which is a value add to her abilities.  

Edited November 30, 2016 by Melancholy

[ChlcGirl]

1 hour ago, CalamityBoPeep said:

Maybe that's what it is for me, too. I actually am not a big fan of Sparkly-Quippy Lorelai. I have never enjoyed her relationship with Max, and not just because he was Rory's teacher. First, he asks her on a date, and she loses sight of all the reasons it'd be a bad idea. Her common sense just vanishes, and she arranges the meeting at the coffee shop. There, it's all about quips, and being "tapped." Which is just too cute by half for me. Then his treacly story goes on too long, and she buys into his play. On the date in Stars Hollow snow, again... too cute... too much "I'm so free-spirited and magical, and look I'm pulling you, formerly sane guy, into my magical world" about it. 

And with Jason, it's just more of that, only doubled. Oy. Too much whimsy for me. With Chris it's the same thing, only brought back to a high school level.

I get that people like this. I just don't... I find it a little nauseating. So, when Luke is his curmudgeonly, cynical, dry self, I feel like it's such a relief. I'd get ill from the sweetness of the show, otherwise. I need that two-by-four of reality knocking some sense into these people now and then, so when Lorelai's with Luke, I finally feel like she could be an actual real person, and I kind of like that person. (Other than season 6 mopey Lorelai... because that wasn't her either. The Lorelai I like is the feisty, standing-up-for-herself Lorelai. The one that knocks on Emily's hair dryer in the salon, in season 1).

I agree that Scott Patterson overplays the anger at times, losing the subtlety that would soften the edges. But I tend look beyond that with the character, because honestly, in my personal life, I have a much easier time dealing with people's raw emotions, even if they're angry, than I do with happy-happy-joy-joy people who don't want to cope with an unpleasant truth. I tend to look for the meaning behind the words, in most cases, so when Lorelai and Max-Jason-Chris is just happy and sparkly, I don't feel like she's real. She's cloaking her messy, emotionally distancing, insecure self, and pretending to be something different.

With Luke, she can relax, let down that need for distraction, and finally just figure out who the hell she is. For herself.

I also don't mind that they didn't have kids. I like how Luke is satisfied with that too. And ditto on your enjoyment of Jess/Luke over Jess/Rory. In any re-revival installments, I'd rather see more Luke/Rory honestly, than Jess/Rory. (Not in a squicky way. LOL)

That's interesting because I have always seen her as being extra sparkly-quirky around Luke, as someone said (brilliantly!) in another thread, as if she was a one-woman stand-up show.  To be fair, I feel that she is like that with every man and only occasionally calms down and carries on a real conversation with them.

[methodwriter85]

Quote

Here's one- I think it's SO right that Paris is a fertility doctor/businesswoman. It's downright poetic. Paris is brilliant enough to get into harder sciences and she's anti-the traditional warm, fuzzy, kind experience of having a child. However, Paris was fascinated by sex and social dynamics.

I agree. I think it's hilarious that she is, and it feels right that she would tackle the lucrative baby-making business with a ferocious bite. Also that she would treat the surrogates like "product" instead of people.

Am I the only one who DOESN'T harbor negative feelings towards this revival? Maybe it's because I pretty much bailed out on the show after season 4/5-ish and I wasn't more than a casual fan after season 1, but it just felt fun visiting old friends. My expectations weren't high and I just wasn't that invested in the show.

I also really related to Rory's angst (which is okay to have when you're 22 but not so okay at 32) and I kind of wish she had hung out with the 30-something gang.

[ALittleShelfish]

My UO is I really wanted to like Taylor in the revival and I managed to like him even less than I did before (which was as close to "Not at all" as you could get).  I went into the revival with the mindset of "everyone else loves Taylor, I'm going to find SOMETHING to like about him" and nope. Nope-itty nope nope NOPE.  

I came around on Kirk a little bit, but save for the final scene in Fall, I still don't love him.  

The musical should have been a scene in the regular series, not taking up precious real estate in the revival because I didn't hate it but I really didn't want it in the revival.   Ugh so many of my feelings were made more feeling-y.  

[MaiSoCalled]

7 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

I kind of wish she had hung out with the 30-something gabg

You and me both! I wanted to see her hire the 30-something gang on at the paper.

I wouldn't mind more 30-something gang if there are additional episodes. 

[CalamityBoPeep]

9 hours ago, ChlcGirl said:

That's interesting because I have always seen her as being extra sparkly-quirky around Luke, as someone said (brilliantly!) in another thread, as if she was a one-woman stand-up show.  To be fair, I feel that she is like that with every man and only occasionally calms down and carries on a real conversation with them.

 

I guess I should clarify.... I see her as still quippy with Luke, but less sparkly-quippy and more cynical-quippy, which really appeals to me. She also tends to be able to dig down into her deeper feelings with him, quippy or not.

 

7 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

 

Am I the only one who DOESN'T harbor negative feelings towards this revival? Maybe it's because I pretty much bailed out on the show after season 4/5-ish and I wasn't more than a casual fan after season 1, but it just felt fun visiting old friends. My expectations weren't high and I just wasn't that invested in the show.

I don't really harbor negative feelings about it, though I had no use for the musical. But in general, I was pretty satisfied with the revival. Not as appalled as some over Rory's trajectory. And (as a JavaJunkie), not as disappointed in the Luke/Lorelai ship as some. There were bits of each episode that had me either rolling my eyes, or waiting for it to be over, but that's nothing different than what I expected, and is pretty par for the Gilmore Girls course.

I'm also not terribly offended by ASP's offensive jokes, because a) I grew up in the '80's, so it just feels like a throwback to a grittier time, and b) life gets pretty boring when nothing can be offensive. Comedy gets kind of sterile when we have to worry about who's going to take offense. So, yeah, even though I have some back-fat going on, I didn't feel particularly bothered by the jokes. Meh.

[msani19]

1 hour ago, CalamityBoPeep said:

I guess I should clarify.... I see her as still quippy with Luke, but less sparkly-quippy and more cynical-quippy, which really appeals to me. She also tends to be able to dig down into her deeper feelings with him, quippy or not.

 

 

 

 

I think that Lorelai was still as quippy with Luke as she was with anyone else. I  just always felt that her feelings for him were for real and very deep, which was scary for her, but she's willing to go there because she loves him. Her being sparkly and shiny are not the only things that interest him about her. She knows that he's there her - crazy antics or not. I really liked the scene where she's in the living room and trying to dance off the pounds and he's just like yeah, ok crazy lady, dance it off, I have other things to do. It signaled comfort and safety to me. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by msani19

[stillshimpy]

19 hours ago, Melancholy said:

However, I think Christopher is more frequently seriously angry even though he's wrong in his anger while a lot more of Luke's anger is justifiably triggered by actual annoyances/grievances or part of a comedic bit. 

 

 

Just a side note, I think Amy finds guys who holler and stomp to be all Heathcliff levels of attractive or something.  

Lot of yellers in the romantic interest departments.   Paris and Doyle.  Count up the times Zach yelled for no earthly reason.  Or, count the times he didn't and be done much sooner.  This list goes on.  Men in the GGverse tend to say it so that back rows can't miss it. 

It's an ASP thing.  She likes 'em stormy, I guess? 

Edited December 1, 2016 by stillshimpy

[readster]

8 hours ago, ALittleShelfish said:

My UO is I really wanted to like Taylor in the revival and I managed to like him even less than I did before (which was as close to "Not at all" as you could get).  I went into the revival with the mindset of "everyone else loves Taylor, I'm going to find SOMETHING to like about him" and nope. Nope-itty nope nope NOPE.  

I came around on Kirk a little bit, but save for the final scene in Fall, I still don't love him.  

The musical should have been a scene in the regular series, not taking up precious real estate in the revival because I didn't hate it but I really didn't want it in the revival.   Ugh so many of my feelings were made more feeling-y.  

The problem with Taylor, is that AS-P put more on how Taylor just wants attention and be remember. I'm not talking about the situation in Winter with the septic tank, but everything from the Gay Pride Parade and pieces of the musical. It just said: "This man has no life and honestly should just retire and leave town." Kirk's problem is he is still trying to be like Taylor, but no one wants to have another Taylor. Plus, to find out that Kirk and Lulu after being married almost 8 years are now talking about kids? Umm... what? They didn't get any younger, in fact Sean Gunn has really grayed so much in the last few years. You are really trying to point out that Lulu who would be close to pushing 40 would now want kids? Especially after being a school teacher and loving kids even the ones that Kirk said at one point: "Would make any person go crying home." Time lines and actual progress for what Kirk and Taylor should have been doing since the end of season 7 or at least season 6. Just don't make sense at all. 

[Leonana]

My UO is that I didn't think L/L had any chemistry in the Revival. I have always been a big L/L shipper, and thought they had great chemistry, especially in S1. I even thought they had chemistry in S6 and 7, despite hearing the rumors they didn't like each other. However, I couldn't see it in the Revival. LG had more chemistry with Digger and the park rangers. Of course, one of the park rangers is her real life partner, so I suppose that helps. It was almost as if LG was happy to act with someone else.

OTH, I've rewatched Winter, and their relationship came off a little better to me with the second viewing. Maybe the relationship seems more realistic the more you watch it.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Leonana

[Aloeonatable]

Quote

I bought more into Logan and Rory's connection in the revival than I did during the OG series. I think they love each other. 

While I agree that Alexis seemed more comfortable with her scenes with Matt in the revival, I disagree that Logan and Rory loved each other. I think they  enjoyed each other's company, sexually and otherwise, but I can't see any love between them. If he loved her he wouldn't be engaged to another woman. If she loved him she would work to be with him, instead she would casually fly to London (I noticed that he never flew to see her) and they would hop into bed. The only time, other than the LADB antics, they had all but one scene in his apartment. When Logan set up the LADB night it was in hopes that Rory would continue to be his side piece. Nothing more. To be honest, I think ASP created this story line because Matt was more available than any of the other Rory love interests. 

[braziliangirl]

I actually loved Rory's storyline. First: being a journalist these days is hard (at least in Brazil). And she did have some success but it didn't pan out.
One thing that always made me disconnect from Rory is that she always got what she wanted and was great in everything she ever did. All the guys loved her, all the schools wanted her etc. So I liked her storyline with Mitchum and the one in the remake.

I always liked Dean so I was happy that he moved on but they were sort of friends. I hated Jess in the show but I really liked him here. I actually wanted more of him. Who would've thought? 

And even though Rory was wrong being with Logan while he was engaged, I understood why she was with him.

The Paul thing I didn't take that seriously because, for me, it was just a joke that didn't work.

I like Christopher. I liked his scene with Rory and the different feelings I got from both of them: love, disappointment, I wished he had a scene with Lorelai and showed them being friends (also missed him in Richard's funeral).

Edited December 3, 2016 by braziliangirl

[nolieblue]

Quote

OTH, I've rewatched Winter, and their relationship came off a little better to me with the second viewing. Maybe the relationship seems more realistic the more you watch it.

Winter is my favorite episode partly because I like their relationship in it so much. They seem really happy -- Lorelai teasing Luke about being "super proud" and the Felix/Oscar banter. They seem like a team. That falls away a bit as the seasons go on but that's because Lorelai is so at sea about things in general. But then in Fall, you see it again after the proposal.