One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions

[Melancholy]

On 1/14/2017 at 7:48 PM, Keith1980 said:

Chris is my least favourite of the male characters on the show or at least out of the men in the Gilmore's lives.  At first he came across quite well but I just find him to cynical as a character and very self-centered.  He really stepped over the line during Emily's plot to split Lorelai and Luke up.  Yes it was her plan, but Christopher knew what was going on and played along anyway. 

Here's an UO. Christopher's conduct in Wedding Bell Blues offends me more than Emily's. I bet some of that is because Emily had goodwill with me where Christopher had none. And Emily later made some amends while Christopher didn't and actively followed through the same mindset when he banged a crying, distraught Lorelai just off the breaking of her engagement with Luke. 

But also, I don't think Emily planned on Christopher getting hammered and drunkenly declaring in front of Luke and Lorelai, "Leave this guy for me. Emily told me he's just temporary." It's not clear what Emily wanted/pictured but I think it was along the lines of Christopher showing up looking like a very sexy and single perfectly ironed stud muffin (and not devolving into a sloppy drunken mess) and naturally attracting Lorelai away from Luke. That's bad but it would be more tolerable of their faction than what actually happened- to create such an ugly scene that it created relationship problems between Luke and Lorelai that they didn't seek out. 

Ill agree that Emily was more underhanded and sneaky while Christopher just moronically bursts out with his drunken tirade and creates, "It's not nice to hate the mentally incompetent" guilt. But Emily lived her life openly as a bossy meddler and that's why she and Lorelai always had a fractious relationship. However, Christopher represented himself to Lorelai as a fellow free spirit who also resented their parents' snobby bossiness and disrespect/unfair disapproval of their choices. However once Christopher saw advantages in aligning himself with the elder Gilmores, he took it. I think that bothers me even more than Emily's betrayal because it just destroys one or possibly THE key pillars of their whole relationship. 

Edited January 17, 2017 by Melancholy

[Viqutorious]

10 hours ago, Melancholy said:

Here's an UO. Christopher's conduct in Wedding Bell Blues offends me more than Emily's.

I can up you an unpopular. I think Luke's reaction was ridiculous and his behavior was out of line.

[timimouse]

3 hours ago, CheeseBurgh said:

I can up you an unpopular. I think Luke's reaction was ridiculous and his behavior was out of line.

I'd agree with you IF she hadn't decided to tell him about getting drunk with Chris on the night his father passed away. Her not being open with that information until she thought it may have come out from someone else planted that seed of doubt and mistrust, which is what I think he was really reacting to. 

[Melancholy]

And I don't think Luke would have broke up with Lorelai if she didn't accost him Doose's basically right after breakfast after he asked for the space the night before. Meanwhile not only did Lorelai accost Luke, she made clearly phony promises about how she'd cut her parents and Christopher out of her life and landed on a "The town is splitting up into teams. I can't have that" note. I've discussed before that Lorelai/Luke here reminds me a lot of BTVS's Willow/Oz in The Wish. I still can't get over how universal it is among BtVS fans (even for a "Willow Rosenberg is my favorite TV character of all time" fan like me) to criticize Willow for ignoring Oz's request for space and support Oz harshly putting her down including with a fundamental cutting character-critique- "So I can't help feeling like the reason you want to talk is so you can feel better about yourself. That's not my problem." However, Luke's actions are controversial and some people really hate him for it. The fact that Willow actually made out with her high school crush and Lorelai just did sultry "adult cookies" tequila shots with her baby-daddy doesn't account for the discrepancy in fannish treatment, especially with the host of other aggravating factors in the Luke/Lorelai story. Including how Willow isn't as obnoxious in how she ignored the guy's request for space as Lorelai in Dosse's. Luke's "Don't" when Lorelai brings up The Town Of It kills me. 

Edited January 18, 2017 by Melancholy

[JaggedLilPill]

I take more issue with Luke's behavior in WBB when it comes to Rory. Freaking hell, the girl's not nine. And Logan wasn't attacking her. What a complete overreaction, and quite frankly, an undermining of Lorelai's ability to parent. She didn't need either Chris or Luke to handle the situation. Actually, there was nothing to handle. Both of them acted out of line when it came to Rory/Logan.

And in the context of what happens in season six, it only makes me more angry when it comes to the double standard of Luke and Lorelai and their kids, i.e. Luke can overstep boundaries and feel entitled to 'protect' Rory as a father but Lorelai can't even have a conversation with April. Screw that to be honest. 

[Melancholy]

I object to Luke's and Christopher's behavior with regard to Rory. That's partly why I specified my defense of Luke's actions only with regard to Lorelai. I'll defend Luke when it comes to the romantic drama with Lorelai and I'll defend him when it comes to serving back hard to Christopher's "Butt out. Rory is MY daughter. MINE." But he had no business treating a makeout session like an attack- or for other non-Lorelai people taking his breakup anger on his customers  

I think there's definitely a case to be made that Luke's involvement with Rory was a double standard with his bar to Lorelai getting involved with April. It's not off base. But I see significant differences that make me loathe to accuse Luke of hypocrisy even though I may critique how he handled April and Lorelai in S6. Luke already had an organic relationship with Rory long before he started dating Lorelai. If Luke came into Rory's life around when he became a love interest, Lorelai would probably be far more restrictive- which would be logical if done sensibly but given the Max-stuff Lorelai would impose that restriction in an OTT way. And since Luke and Rory have their own relationship, they just *are*. As opposed to Lorelai and April where Lorelai dramatically understated how much she wanted to co-parent April to the point that I see how Luke could regard it as an unimportant issue to Lorelai. 

Plus, Even at Luke's most annoying and patriarchal with Rory I.e. WBB, he's never even a little a threat to the primacy of Lorelai's parenting because Lorelai is solid as the central parental figure. Luke doesn't have that solid ground with April or his own confidence as a parent because he's trying to make up for 12 lost years to establish primacy as a parent with Anna remaining a big road block beyond the 12 year deception. 

Edited January 18, 2017 by Melancholy

[JaggedLilPill]

I know. I really do know that Luke lost out on years with April so there is not exactly equal ground when it comes to comparing Luke/Rory to Lorelai/April, which is why I'm not saying it's hypocritical. But I am calling a big double standard on it.

I'm really not even trying to rehash April stuff, but it bugs me for some reason, even in the revival. Luke will always consider Rory a little bit his, and Lorelai would never say otherwise because that would be hurtful to Luke, but it's also hurtful to not offer your partner the same respect. 

Anyway, WBB is just one example of Luke overreacting to Rory's love life. There was the fight with Dean in season 1 and then again in season 5 with the Bop-It. Hell, even with Jess he did it. I'll give him more of a pass with Jess since he was Jess's guardian at the time, but it still felt awkward. 

We can comment all we want on Lorelai, Emily, and Richard treating Rory like a Special Snowflake, but everyone else enables her as well, even Luke and Chris. WBB was probably the worst example of it. It's really kind of gross.

Lorelai's issue was more about where Rory and Logan decided to have their makeout sesh, but not that Rory was making out with a guy. Chris and Luke on the other hand? How dare a college aged boy deem to kiss Rory and put his hands on her! *Major eye roll* Please. It's not only insulting to Lorelai, but Rory too because they act as if Rory doesn't have her own agency. 

Lorelai is guilty of that later on in the season i.e. blaming Logan for all of Rory's bad decisions like she did of Jess so I'm not absolving Lorelai of that behavior.

[Melancholy]

By the Revival, it's even harder to compare Luke/Rory and Lorelai/April. It just really seemed set by the Revival that Lorelai and April didn't have much of a relationship and Lorelai flat out didn't play a role in April's life that would justify calling April a little bit hers. We never got the explanation. I have a hard time blaming Luke because I detected no bar in the Revival on Lorelai socializing with/nurturing April coming from Luke- Just a bar on making financial choices for Luke and April. Anna certainly created and probably continued to foster the mess. However, I really think Lorelai flat out didn't feel maternal over April or want to claim her as a daughter. I think the difference is clear in Lorelai having a problem with Luke paying for 22 year old April while Lorelai was and would continue to support 32 year old Rory. 

I do agree that Luke was ridiculous to deem himself Rory's protecter from...standard romantic relationships. It's flat out terrible in WBB and The Break Up Part II. I was fine with it when it came to Jess because Luke was his guardian. Actually I really enjoyed how those lectures were a more gender egalitarian way of parenting where Luke lectured his male charge on sexual responsibility and propriety and how to treat girls as opposed to the more standard model where only girls have to listen to those lectures while boys are encouraged to do whatever they want. I had mixed feelings on Dean in S5. On one hand, I get the instinct to explode after being shanghaied into the "We totally support your adultery" date. On the other hand...he shouldn't have exploded. He should have just begged off once he found out Dean would be joining them. 

Edited January 18, 2017 by Melancholy

[junienmomo]

It's a little curious that we're debating Luke's and Christopher's relationship to Rory while ignoring the fact that Lorelai also had very little standing at that point in time. 

Rory was an adult. Her finances were overwhelmingly provided by her grandparents. She loved her mother, to be sure, but she was no longer the child who had to do what Lorelai said. 

In addition, she had two male friends/mentors/father figures/good friends of the family, namely Luke and Christopher. Neither of them were shy about expressing their opinions or stepping in where the only correct response would have been Rory saying, "Excuse me? I'm an adult. Please leave the room." 

Who hasn't had an older friend who voiced inappropriate opinions about how their friend should behave?

Kudos at least to Lorelai for keeping her outrage about Rory/Logan under control. 

[Melancholy]

In How Many Kropogs, Lorelai sounds very silly when she's trying to argue that Logan is a bad guy and lands on "I saw them at your vow renewal...kissing." But maybe I need to watch the scene because I think Lorelai could have come out stronger if she crudely described the scene. "Logan's fly was unzipped. Rory's blouse, unbuttoned. His hand was creeping up her blouse." I think that's what the scene looked like. That probably would have freaked E/R of The Ultimate Gift Ship Clergymen. Not that I think Lorelai should have done that. It would be a betrayal. But it's just a random thought because while Lorelai "loses" that discussion, it's because she wasn't out to win but to protect. 

To go back, I don't think Christopher burst out like that because he has patriarchal interests in protecting Special Snowflake Rory's Virtue. I don't think he has that sentimentality that Lorelai attributed to Luke where he still sees Rory as an 8 year old inviting the town to a caterpillars funeral. I think Christopher was just angry about L/L and stewing in his building temper and quite a lot of booze and when the opportunity came up to fight/release tension and claim a big role in Lorelai's life, he jumped. I think a guy who was first concerned with Rory's virtue wouldn't take the first chance to attack Luke for agreeing with him. 

Edited January 18, 2017 by Melancholy

[tarotx]

The walking in scene was pretty dramatic. I think Logan would have run as fast as he could in real life. I do think Chris was once again trying to use Rory to prove his worth to Lorelai or Lorelai's life.  And Luke was more responding to the dramatics of Lorelai and Chris.

 I can't find the Kropogs scene to compare Lorelai's anger level but the promo for it makes ne LOL

Edited January 18, 2017 by tarotx

[JaggedLilPill]

Chris was definitely using his position as Rory's father - in name only though because let's be real LOL  - to one up Luke and win favor with Lorelai. I just meant in the general sense, Chris doesn't really do anything to make me think he doesn't think of Rory in that Special Snowflake way. I do however think anything he does/thinks in regards to Rory is mostly determined based on proximity (both literally and figuratively) to Lorelai.

And while I don't think Luke has anything other than love for Rory and he did jump into Protective Dad Mode, he was reacting to Lorelai and Christopher. And it was a way to minimize Chris's role in Rory's life and subsequently Lorelai's and present himself as Lorelai's partner who has known Rory since she was twelve and thus has a right to jump in. Of course, I still say no, he didn't, but really it's all moot since ASP was never going to really let LL have relationship drama without Chris. RME.

It's a valid point that neither Lorelai, Luke, or Chris had a leg to stand on in terms of 'disciplining' Rory at that stage in her life. I think Lorelai's annoyance was due to the choice of venue for Rory and Logan to have a hookup. Of course Lorelai can't tell Rory not to but she can say "Uh, maybe wait until you're not at your grandparents vow renewal?" Especially since Rory sounds ridiculously stupid when Lorelai says Emily wants a picture. "Of this?" she asks. I mean, really, Rory? Really?

[dubbel zout]

21 minutes ago, JaggedLilPill said:

It's a valid point that neither Lorelai, Luke, or Chris had a leg to stand on in terms of 'disciplining' Rory at that stage in her life.

I think one's parents always have a leg to stand on when it comes to disciplining—especially when one's daughter it getting it on with her boyfriend at her grandparents' vow renewal. But I get what you're saying.

[Anela]

Rory was part of the wedding party. I don't think it was the right time to start removing clothes. 

Chris should have ignored Emily, and respected that Lorelai was in a relationship, and happy. 

[Anela]

Not that any of them should have disciplined her.  I think it was disrespectful, but then so was her grandmother. I guess it runs in the family. 

[tarotx]

Well, Christopher Told Rory that Lorelai took the first steps and kissed him and did it because she wanted too. So that is what Rory did with Logan.

[hippielamb]

16 hours ago, JaggedLilPill said:

I take more issue with Luke's behavior in WBB when it comes to Rory. Freaking hell, the girl's not nine. And Logan wasn't attacking her. What a complete overreaction, and quite frankly, an undermining of Lorelai's ability to parent. She didn't need either Chris or Luke to handle the situation. Actually, there was nothing to handle. Both of them acted out of line when it came to Rory/Logan.

And in the context of what happens in season six, it only makes me more angry when it comes to the double standard of Luke and Lorelai and their kids, i.e. Luke can overstep boundaries and feel entitled to 'protect' Rory as a father but Lorelai can't even have a conversation with April. Screw that to be honest. 

I agree so much with your post. I think the key to understanding Luke's behaviour is that he treats Rory like she's still a little girl to be protected. Luke doesn't treat her like a grown, sexually active young woman. Even though he knew about her affair/relationship with Dean in season 5. I think he was way out of line in both instances (and the Dean bop-it fight too). I find that kind of behavior from men insulting, and don't like the message it sends. 

I always thought it was telling that Chris and Luke were really fighting about Lorelai but used the situation with Rory because they both know how important Rory is. I'm always on Christopher's side even though he's drunk and out of line because I've seen more than my share of boyfriends who think they can dictate how a father is with their children. It always bugs me. 

4 hours ago, tarotx said:

Well, Christopher Told Rory that Lorelai took the first steps and kissed him and did it because she wanted too. So that is what Rory did with Logan.

 

 

They were really laying the foundation of Lor and Chris 2.0 with Rory and Logan from the get go. 

Alexis/Rory looks so adorable in her outfit. 

[Melancholy]

9 hours ago, JaggedLilPill said:

Chris was definitely using his position as Rory's father - in name only though because let's be real LOL  - to one up Luke and win favor with Lorelai. I just meant in the general sense, Chris doesn't really do anything to make me think he doesn't think of Rory in that Special Snowflake way. I do however think anything he does/thinks in regards to Rory is mostly determined based on proximity (both literally and figuratively) to Lorelai.

Well, I think Chris's actions were mainly about his Lorelai-Feelings partly because he's such a bad father whose parenting choices play second fiddle to his love interest motives. However, it's not just about that. I will give Chris a teeny bit of credit that he probably has more liberal attitudes on sex than Luke, even though that can be rendered morally grey in itself. In the absence of the WBB romantic drama, Chris immediately took it in stride that his 16-year old daughter "has a Dean." Most of all, while he told Lorelai that Logan and Rory were living together, he was VERY OK with it and actually approved of Rory living with a Bad Boy-Type because he was a "cool guy". It makes me feel that if Chris attended the vow renewal as Lorelai's date, he wouldn't be so outraged by Rory's actions and more inclined to strike a medium position of falling in line with Lorelai's opinions and may be even, taking a chillax "Aw, it's no big deal. We'll be laughing about this in an hour" to Lorelai's disapproval. 

[shron17]

5 hours ago, hippielamb said:

I always thought it was telling that Chris and Luke were really fighting about Lorelai but used the situation with Rory because they both know how important Rory is. I'm always on Christopher's side even though he's drunk and out of line because I've seen more than my share of boyfriends who think they can dictate how a father is with their children.

The thing is, Chris shouldn't have been at the renewal in the first place since Emily invited him specifically to cause trouble for Lorelai, and he certainly shouldn't have followed Lorelai when she went to look for Rory.  Lorelai got up to find Rory to take the picture and Luke went with her, as her date, probably because he didn't want to stay at their table where Chris had parked himself as an uninvited guest.  There wasn't any parental reason why Chris needed to follow them.  It's true Luke said and did things that were out of line but none of them would have happened if Chris hadn't overstepped in the first place.

[navelgazer]

Unfortunately it was those comments that made me realize how tone deaf the writers were to Rory's character and that they were never going to call her out on it because they genuinely didn't realize how poorly she was written. It's why I can't believe the "they deliberately wrote Rory's failure as a realistic consequence of her being spoiled and sheltered her whole life" theory - ASP is oblivious to how Rory comes off and genuinely thinks she's a strong, inspirational, driven heroine.

I'm single, have been since I was 17 when the boy I married when I was 16 was killed in an oilfield accident.  I had a fiance later who I broke his heart by having an affair with another woman.  

I think I always knew how damaged I was and how much pain I could cause, so I decided after that to only be with unavailable men.  I could say "come here, come here, come here," and then when I was done with him "go away, go away, go away."

I say all of that to explain how I understand why Rory's preference is for an unavailable man.  Lorelai didn't have any long-term relationships while Rory was growing up, so Rory has no idea how to do every day.  She knows how to keep someone at a respectful distance.  She's really good at that and I understand why.  

[Taryn74]

9 hours ago, navelgazer said:

She knows how to keep someone at a respectful distance.  She's really good at that and I understand why.  

Interesting points!

[dubbel zout]

So it's Lorelei's fault that Rory can't have a successful long-term relationship? That's too easy. Besides, Richard and Emily were a model of a long-term relationship, even if Rory wasn't exposed to it on a regular basis until her teens. Lorelei being single for so long likely influenced Rory, but at some point her actions are hers alone. And it's not as if Lorelei hated men and actively trashed them. 

[navelgazer]

18 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

So it's Lorelei's fault that Rory can't have a successful long-term relationship? That's too easy. Besides, Richard and Emily were a model of a long-term relationship, even if Rory wasn't exposed to it on a regular basis until her teens. Lorelei being single for so long likely influenced Rory, but at some point her actions are hers alone. And it's not as if Lorelei hated men and actively trashed them. 

It's not a matter of fault.  It's a matter of what is.  Once is a coincidence, twice is a conspiracy, the exact euphemism escapes me, but Rory was with Dean when he was married to Lindsey, Rory is with Logan although he is engaged to Odette.  Rory does not want to do every day with a significant other of her own.  She likes the distance that an unavailable partner provides.  You can call that a character flaw and diss/poo-poo how or why it's there, but it doesn't make it any less real.  

[moonb]

Rory did do the everyday stuff with Logan from late season 5 through season 6,  but you could also argue that she seems out of character (A Vineyard Valentine, anyone?). She's saved from that by the LDR with Logan in season 7 though.  And actually, in the revival, dating Paul for 2 years and keeping things long distance would give her the space she likes without the Logan issue.   I'm not sure that I agree with her motivation being avoiding pain or causing pain, though. Rory recognizes that she caused a lot of pain during the Dean/Lindsay situation, but she seems more callous about it in the revival.  Going after unavailable partners, imo, is equally  tied to her feeling lost or unsettled. So far, anyway.

Lorelai clearly makes some bad relationship decisions over the course of the OS and causes Max/Luke/Christopher a lot of pain. But she causes herself a lot of pain, too, and show hints a couple times that her worst moments come from feeling unlovable (see the boyfriend who dumped her in her Richard memory calling her "loud and weird," or the Mimi scene in Luke's where she admits feeling like she'll never get the whole package).  I don't think the same applies to Rory.

[Frelling Tralk]

2 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

So it's Lorelei's fault that Rory can't have a successful long-term relationship? That's too easy. Besides, Richard and Emily were a model of a long-term relationship, even if Rory wasn't exposed to it on a regular basis until her teens. Lorelei being single for so long likely influenced Rory, but at some point her actions are hers alone. And it's not as if Lorelei hated men and actively trashed them. 

I'd point the finger more at Christopher than I would Lorelai, in the revival you could see Rory trying to hide her hurt when she had that talk with him about whether he regrets not being around more. I mean ultimately the only one at fault for her choices is Rory, but I'm sure that she has a ton of daddy issues  

[ghoulina]

I don't think Rory has a pattern of going after unavailable guys. Her first boyfriend was very steady and probably one of the best first boyfriends a girl could have (though he later become clingy and nasty). Jess was all hers, for the short time they dated. And then later - Logan. They had a monogamous relationship for years. 

Yes, she slept with married Dean. But then she later backed off until he moved out and officially separated from Lindsey. She tried to make it work for as long as she could. If she really had some subconscious desire to go after unavailable men, Dean's leaving Lindsey should have put her off. 

I don't see her things with Dean 2.0 and Logan 2.0 as an indicator that she is avoiding a true commitment, but that she is seeking comfort in the familiar. Take Dean 2.0.  She had a very bad breakup with Jess. Then went off to college and was not having any luck with guys there. As much as she saw Dean getting married as stupid and impulsive, she saw how happy he was with Lindsey and began to wonder if she royally screwed up by ditching him for Jess. She was in a new place, going through all this stuff, and having that adoring boyfriend back in her life grounded her in a sense. But she had Dean all to herself, minus the night they first had sex. 

With Logan 2.0, she obviously had a lot more confidence and experience at this point, but her life was all up in the air. Being with Logan was comforting. She knew about Odette (although, I don't think, how serious it was), but she was able to push that to the back of her mind and relive those fun times at Yale. It was easy and grounded her in a way as well.

Rory has often seemed timid to me, the kind of girl who would rather choose something she knows than something she doesn't know. The kind of girl who will just try something she's already tried, instead of taking the risk. I don't think she seeks unavailable men, but familiarity. 

Edited January 23, 2017 by ghoulina

[Keith1980]

On 1/17/2017 at 1:12 PM, Melancholy said:

Here's an UO. Christopher's conduct in Wedding Bell Blues offends me more than Emily's. I bet some of that is because Emily had goodwill with me where Christopher had none. And Emily later made some amends while Christopher didn't and actively followed through the same mindset when he banged a crying, distraught Lorelai just off the breaking of her engagement with Luke. 

But also, I don't think Emily planned on Christopher getting hammered and drunkenly declaring in front of Luke and Lorelai, "Leave this guy for me. Emily told me he's just temporary." It's not clear what Emily wanted/pictured but I think it was along the lines of Christopher showing up looking like a very sexy and single perfectly ironed stud muffin (and not devolving into a sloppy drunken mess) and naturally attracting Lorelai away from Luke. That's bad but it would be more tolerable of their faction than what actually happened- to create such an ugly scene that it created relationship problems between Luke and Lorelai that they didn't seek out. 

Ill agree that Emily was more underhanded and sneaky while Christopher just moronically bursts out with his drunken tirade and creates, "It's not nice to hate the mentally incompetent" guilt. But Emily lived her life openly as a bossy meddler and that's why she and Lorelai always had a fractious relationship. However, Christopher represented himself to Lorelai as a fellow free spirit who also resented their parents' snobby bossiness and disrespect/unfair disapproval of their choices. However once Christopher saw advantages in aligning himself with the elder Gilmores, he took it. I think that bothers me even more than Emily's betrayal because it just destroys one or possibly THE key pillars of their whole relationship. 

Very good point on Chris.  Its true that Emily does come around and do the right thing at least.  And Chris totally made a ass out of himself.  If he had just stood aside and waited to see what would happen then that would be different. 

Great spot on Chris's phony liberal, against the system show.  Not only is Emily good at heart, but at least she's up front about her lifestyle etc...  To me Chris is a yupee dressed in sheeps clothing. 

On 1/18/2017 at 2:09 PM, JaggedLilPill said:

I take more issue with Luke's behavior in WBB when it comes to Rory. Freaking hell, the girl's not nine. And Logan wasn't attacking her. What a complete overreaction, and quite frankly, an undermining of Lorelai's ability to parent. She didn't need either Chris or Luke to handle the situation. Actually, there was nothing to handle. Both of them acted out of line when it came to Rory/Logan.

And in the context of what happens in season six, it only makes me more angry when it comes to the double standard of Luke and Lorelai and their kids, i.e. Luke can overstep boundaries and feel entitled to 'protect' Rory as a father but Lorelai can't even have a conversation with April. Screw that to be honest. 

I think thats a bit strong.  It wasn't really his place I agree.  But I do think he did it out of looking out for Rory.  It plays out as quite a funny and touching moment to me.  Rory and Logan were in the wrong. 

[Frelling Tralk]

It was an inappropriate venue to make out in, and that's rightly what Lorelai was annoyed about, but I didn't get where Luke was coming from at all when he started getting aggressive and screaming for Logan to get his hands off Rory and hands where I can see them. It almost played out like he believed that Rory was being sexually assaulted or coerced in some way, even though it was clearly a mutual making-out between two college kids, and one that had absolutely nothing to do with Luke. Rory wasn't even a teenager, she was 20 years old in that scene! 

Not to mention that Luke didn't actually see what was going on, he just heard a drunken Chris (who was also acting ridiculous) getting upset about "that is my daughter". The whole thing came off to me as an insecure Luke trying to one-up Christopher and stake his own more aggressive claim as Rory's father. The writers always seemed to consider outbursts like that to be somehow endearing though

Edited January 24, 2017 by Frelling Tralk

[Melancholy]

I agree that Luke was ridiculous but he did know that making out was happening. IIRC, he asked what was going on and Lorelai said that Rory's making out with a guy. I think Luke's first instinct was patriarchal protectionism even though it was ridiculous. 

I don't even agree that it was the wrong venue. Lorelai was also a little ridiculous but not as much. No less prudes than Emily and Richard were cool with it even though Lorelai did describe it as kissing even though it was more a hard core make out sesh. But you know, it was a party all about love. Making out in a corner or even heading out to have sex is basically an institution of weddings and those are holier occasions than vow renewals. 

[tarotx]

My favorite part is Lorelai is introducing herself to Logan and out in the hall, you can hear Chris and Luke say they are going to Kill him. I always laugh. 

Edited January 24, 2017 by tarotx

[JayInChicago]

I guess I always assumed Rory and Logan may have gone a little further than making out. It's a bit ambiguous. I feel by the time people notice them they are in the putting clothes back into place stage. It's been a while since I watched WBB though :)

[Anela]

6 minutes ago, JayInChicago said:

I guess I always assumed Rory and Logan may have gone a little further than making out. It's a bit ambiguous. I feel by the time people notice them they are in the putting clothes back into place stage. It's been a while since I watched WBB though :)

Me, too. that's what I meant. Her grandparents were fine with kissing, but weren't okay with the prospect of her having sex when she'd been with Logan for something like a year. 

[Kohola3]

Logan must buy condoms by the gross if he carries them everywhere including a vow renewal of old people.

[Ambrosefolly]

The longer GG went on, the more convinced I am that Kirk was less of a quirky, kind hearted town folk but a sociopathic miser that fell somewhere on the autism spectrum. He did a lot of shitty things that should have regularly given him an ass kicking: 

• He befriended old ladies to take their jewelry so he could sell it
• He competitively priced wrapping paper 20% below what school children were selling for a fundraiser to build a new gymnasium. That is where he got the idea
• Did I mention it was established that his long term girl friend was a public school teacher?
• Even though said girlfriend was the first girl that didn't walk out on him, he openly told Luke he was breaking up with her, prompting Luke to threaten him because Kirk and a great thing going
• When Luke was going to put a bid on a large, old home, Kirk got wind of it, bribed bank people to disclose Luke's financial information to him so he could out bid him. He then bragged about how he got Luke to relent on the price of the wheat toast he had earlier. Luke literally chased his naked ass around  as he promised Kirk when Kirk spent the night at the Dragonfly.
• He tried to set up a competing diner across from Luke's when the diner was closed because Kirk drove a car through his window while Luke was behind the counter.
• He had the town house his homeless ass, rent free for weeks after he moved out of his mother's  (who I am guessing, also housed and fed him without him chipping in one nickel) when it was revealed a couple episodes later he was sitting on $250,000.
• He tried to use the lobby of the Dragonfly Inn, a private high end business, for his real estate business. Again, he probably still had the $250,000. Or could have used the public library he wasn't paying any taxes to support because he had moved back in with his mother. 

Luke could be a hostile jerk, but I he seemed to help out just about everyone. People like Michele and Taylor wore their assholiness on their sleeves so you knew what you were getting with them, but Kirk was really stealth about what a backstabbing jerk he could be if it suited him and his bank account.

[junienmomo]

12 minutes ago, Ambrosefolly said:

The longer GG went on, the more convinced I am that Kirk was less of a quirky, kind hearted town folk but a sociopathic miser that fell somewhere on the autism spectrum. He did a lot of shitty things that should have regularly given him an ass kicking: 

• He befriended old ladies to take their jewelry so he could sell it
• He competitively priced wrapping paper 20% below what school children were selling for a fundraiser to build a new gymnasium. That is where he got the idea
• Did I mention it was established that his long term girl friend was a public school teacher?
• Even though said girlfriend was the first girl that didn't walk out on him, he openly told Luke he was breaking up with her, prompting Luke to threaten him because Kirk and a great thing going
• When Luke was going to put a bid on a large, old home, Kirk got wind of it, bribed bank people to disclose Luke's financial information to him so he could out bid him. He then bragged about how he got Luke to relent on the price of the wheat toast he had earlier. Luke literally chased his naked ass around  as he promised Kirk when Kirk spent the night at the Dragonfly.
• He tried to set up a competing diner across from Luke's when the diner was closed because Kirk drove a car through his window while Luke was behind the counter.
• He had the town house his homeless ass, rent free for weeks after he moved out of his mother's  (who I am guessing, also housed and fed him without him chipping in one nickel) when it was revealed a couple episodes later he was sitting on $250,000.
• He tried to use the lobby of the Dragonfly Inn, a private high end business, for his real estate business. Again, he probably still had the $250,000. Or could have used the public library he wasn't paying any taxes to support because he had moved back in with his mother. 

Luke could be a hostile jerk, but I he seemed to help out just about everyone. People like Michele and Taylor wore their assholiness on their sleeves so you knew what you were getting with them, but Kirk was really stealth about what a backstabbing jerk he could be if it suited him and his bank account.

And Kirk was the character that ASP said she loved writing for the most. 'Nuff said.

[Pam Poovey]

4 hours ago, junienmomo said:

The longer GG went on, the more convinced I am that Kirk was less of a quirky, kind hearted town folk but a sociopathic miser that fell somewhere on the autism spectrum. He did a lot of shitty things that should have regularly given him an ass kicking

And here I was thinking I was the only one who hated Kirk's guts. 

Also, this might be headcanon, but I'm pretty sure all those jobs that Kirk had for just one day or one week were ones that he didn't legitimately apply for and was hired. I think he just turned up and started working as if he was meant to be there and knows all about delivering flowers or swans or installing DSL, and brushed off any questions from co-workers. There's just enough known examples of that happening in the show to make it entirely plausible. Which makes him a town nuisance and a fraudster.

[Frelling Tralk]

I'm another one who couldn't stand Kirk! I agree that he could be especially shitty about taking advantage of Luke, even though Luke actually did a lot to help him out (keeping an eye out for Kirk's night terrors, finding the last of the Easter hunt eggs for Kirk). Yet the writers seemed to consider it humorous in those moments mentioned above when he deliberately set out to screw Luke over. Even if it was an accident, he should still have been feeling terrible and offering to help Luke with the damage after he drove a car into the diner, instead he kicks the guy when he's down by immediately seizing upon the chance to set up a rival business right outside, and yet the writers bizarrely always played moments like that for quirky comedy. I know that GG could be more exaggerated sitcom than drama at times,  but hell even a straight-out sitcom would treat a character behaving like that as more villain than good guy  

[Guest]

I like Kirk, but I really feel that he fell victim to ASP's habit of writing for humor/plot first and whether it made sense for the character second. The Twickham house thing was an example of that to me.

[Enigma X]

I am a late comer to the Gilmore Girls, having binge watched the originals and the Netflix series recently. I like the show but (here comes the UO) don't think the show is one of the best shows ever because most of the characters never grow.  The main characters are too "precious" and to too many people. Things don't add up financially with the often mentioned "Gilmore Girl struggle" and how they actually live (that bugs me). And as some of you have said, humor (which gets repeated and stops being funny by episode/season/series end) overtakes whatever rationality the plot should have had.

[starri]

If hating Kirk is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

[whateverhappened]

Is there any more room left at at the table for those who think Kirk is the worst? The only characters I loathe more are Liz and TJ and those Life and Death Brigade miscreants. To be honest, there are a lot of Gilmore Girls characters I can only take in very small doses or flat out dislike.

This show is clever, fun and charming but it is also really tiresome and irritating sometimes. Like a lot of shows, I feel like it's most enjoyable when I don't examine it too closely. When analyzing it, there are a ludicrous number of inconsistencies, potentially weird and unsettling messages about family and romantic relationships and, as others have pointed out, a troubling cynicism and bitterness beneath the show's veneer.

I stopped watching the revival halfway through "Summer," and while initially I complained that the revival didn't feel true to the spirit of the show I loved, I think maybe my real problem is that it highlighted the problematic parts of the show that were always there but which I didn't want to see.

Part of me thinks that Amy Sherman-Palladino resents everyone with privilege, everyone without privilege, nearly all males, nearly all females, people who are single and people who are in relationships, the young and the old, and so on. She's a misanthrope who cloaks her cynicism in cuteness. 

The first season is my favorite. People think it's too twee and as subtle as a bulldozer, which I get and even agree with sometimes, but it's also the season where I think Rory and Luke are both depicted at their best, when the Emily and Lorelai dynamic is still fresh and interesting instead of maddeningly circular, and when there was more of a warm and optimistic core. I feel like it also captured Luke and Lorelai at their best, even more so than S4 did.

I am a Java Junkie for life, but I agree with nearly all of the criticisms of them too. I finally reconciled that contradiction by realizing that I love Luke and Lorelai's potential more than how the Palladinos wrote them in reality. I'm not sure that makes sense? I fell in love with them in the first season, but in doing so I formed these expectations of what they could be like together and how they could make each other happier. Those hopes were almost never realized on screen, but I hold onto them anyway. 

Rory's relationships were all kind of terrible. I like certain things about Dean, certain things about Jess and certain things about---no, actually I hate nearly everything about Logan. His smugness is palpable to me, and I agree with everyone who thinks he's permanently stuck on smarmy insincerity with that indelible smirk. Rory's love life is exhausting. I fast forward through most of it now. Given how many fans are Team Jess or Team Logan, I assume it's unpopular not to care about that aspect of Rory's life at all. Lorelai's love life can be frustrating too, but I will take scenes with Max, Jason or even Christopher over almost any of Rory's romantic trials and tribulations. Speaking of which, I really like Jason. Not as a long-term partner for Lorelai, but as an individual character. 

My most unpopular opinion is that I get the appeal of Christopher much more than I understand the love for Logan. I don't like Christopher much and wanted Lorelai to get over him, but I did see chemistry there and there's something more genuinely well meaning and charming about Christopher to me beneath his irresponsible idiocy. I don't expect anyone else to feel that way! I'm a diehard Java Junkie from the first episode, but I could see why Lorelai was sometimes still drawn to Christopher. I don't see that chemistry and link between Rory and Logan and am just left wondering why she doesn't see him as the smug, insufferable, arrogant party boy douchebag that he seems to be. Please don't hate me! I'm not trying to disrespect anyone who ships Logan and Rory. I know they were given a few cute scenes, but they didn't connect with me. We all just see relationships and characters differently. That's the fun of reading this thread. It was much more fun than watching the revival.  

[Taryn74]

1 hour ago, whateverhappened said:

Part of me thinks that Amy Sherman-Palladino resents everyone with privilege, everyone without privilege, nearly all males, nearly all females, people who are single and people who are in relationships, the young and the old, and so on. She's a misanthrope who cloaks her cynicism in cuteness.

I think this made me laugh far more than is really necessary.  I'm not sure I've read a more accurate description of ASP.

Oh but don't forget - resents the fans who made her show popular, for whatever bizarre reason.

[ghoulina]

Judging by the posts here, I think that liking Kirk is more of the UO than not liking him. LOL! I actually like Kirk. Well, I don't know if I LIKE him, but I find him hilarious and entertaining. Yes, on paper the stuff is does is downright awful. But I find a lot of the town stuff to be so OTT that I don't take it seriously. It's just light, fluffy fun for me. 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, ghoulina said:

Judging by the posts here, I think that liking Kirk is more of the UO than not liking him. LOL! I actually like Kirk. Well, I don't know if I LIKE him, but I find him hilarious and entertaining. Yes, on paper the stuff is does is downright awful. But I find a lot of the town stuff to be so OTT that I don't take it seriously. It's just light, fluffy fun for me. 

This.  I mean, some of his plots annoy me or I think it's too dragged out to be funny, but much like I don't like Taylor but think he adds to the show, I feel the same way about Kirk. 

And Cat-Kirk.

[ghoulina]

Cat Kirk was hilarious! I loved when he just couldn't understand what was so weird about giving the cat his name. 

[Anela]

I named one of my puppies after my mother, but it was because she was so smart, and funny. Mum got a laugh out of it. When my parents took her to the emergency vet for me once, the poor receptionist looked embarrassed when she was calling for a dog named Rita, for a woman named Rita. 

[Ambrosefolly]

17 hours ago, deaja said:

This.  I mean, some of his plots annoy me or I think it's too dragged out to be funny, but much like I don't like Taylor but think he adds to the show, I feel the same way about Kirk. 

And Cat-Kirk.

 

Every once in a while, people would tell off Taylor and Michel, and lets not forget Taylor losing in a landslide against Jackson, but for Kirk, the tone almost always seemed "oh, that Kirk!", with only Luke and the school children being the only ones that dealing with Kirk's sociopathic behavior.  

[whateverhappened]

That's another unpopular opinion I have! As far as the show's amazingly annoying minor characters go, I would rank Taylor above Kirk, Liz, TJ, Zach and the insufferable overindulged idiots from the Life and Death Brigade. Taylor would be maddening to deal with, but I always felt like Stars Hollow wouldn't be half the town it was without him. He can be a jerk, but he's a jerk who gets things done, and he cares so deeply about that town. I'll add that some of his interactions with Luke did entertain me, while TJ, the L&DB and so on entertained me approximately 0% of the time. 

And now I'm reduced to defending Taylor Doose? This show really has driven me over the edge. 

[ghoulina]

Haha, I like Taylor too. Wouldn't like him in real life, what a pill. But he works on the show. He's a good foil, especially for Luke. 

I think the only characters that I generally just did NOT like, couldn't find anything remotely redeemable about them, were Christopher (sorry, I just can't), Logan's parents, and Colin. (Finn could be funny sometimes, but Colin was nothing but a snob who was far too impressed with himself.)

There might be more, but those are the ones that immediately jump to mind. I generally like most of SH, though. They're crazy, but it just works for me. 

[hippielamb]

On 1/30/2017 at 1:49 PM, whateverhappened said:

Is there any more room left at at the table for those who think Kirk is the worst? The only characters I loathe more are Liz and TJ and those Life and Death Brigade miscreants. To be honest, there are a lot of Gilmore Girls characters I can only take in very small doses or flat out dislike.

This show is clever, fun and charming but it is also really tiresome and irritating sometimes. Like a lot of shows, I feel like it's most enjoyable when I don't examine it too closely. When analyzing it, there are a ludicrous number of inconsistencies, potentially weird and unsettling messages about family and romantic relationships and, as others have pointed out, a troubling cynicism and bitterness beneath the show's veneer.

I stopped watching the revival halfway through "Summer," and while initially I complained that the revival didn't feel true to the spirit of the show I loved, I think maybe my real problem is that it highlighted the problematic parts of the show that were always there but which I didn't want to see.

Part of me thinks that Amy Sherman-Palladino resents everyone with privilege, everyone without privilege, nearly all males, nearly all females, people who are single and people who are in relationships, the young and the old, and so on. She's a misanthrope who cloaks her cynicism in cuteness. 

The first season is my favorite. People think it's too twee and as subtle as a bulldozer, which I get and even agree with sometimes, but it's also the season where I think Rory and Luke are both depicted at their best, when the Emily and Lorelai dynamic is still fresh and interesting instead of maddeningly circular, and when there was more of a warm and optimistic core. I feel like it also captured Luke and Lorelai at their best, even more so than S4 did.

I am a Java Junkie for life, but I agree with nearly all of the criticisms of them too. I finally reconciled that contradiction by realizing that I love Luke and Lorelai's potential more than how the Palladinos wrote them in reality. I'm not sure that makes sense? I fell in love with them in the first season, but in doing so I formed these expectations of what they could be like together and how they could make each other happier. Those hopes were almost never realized on screen, but I hold onto them anyway. 

Rory's relationships were all kind of terrible. I like certain things about Dean, certain things about Jess and certain things about---no, actually I hate nearly everything about Logan. His smugness is palpable to me, and I agree with everyone who thinks he's permanently stuck on smarmy insincerity with that indelible smirk. Rory's love life is exhausting. I fast forward through most of it now. Given how many fans are Team Jess or Team Logan, I assume it's unpopular not to care about that aspect of Rory's life at all. Lorelai's love life can be frustrating too, but I will take scenes with Max, Jason or even Christopher over almost any of Rory's romantic trials and tribulations. Speaking of which, I really like Jason. Not as a long-term partner for Lorelai, but as an individual character. 

My most unpopular opinion is that I get the appeal of Christopher much more than I understand the love for Logan. I don't like Christopher much and wanted Lorelai to get over him, but I did see chemistry there and there's something more genuinely well meaning and charming about Christopher to me beneath his irresponsible idiocy. I don't expect anyone else to feel that way! I'm a diehard Java Junkie from the first episode, but I could see why Lorelai was sometimes still drawn to Christopher. I don't see that chemistry and link between Rory and Logan and am just left wondering why she doesn't see him as the smug, insufferable, arrogant party boy douchebag that he seems to be. Please don't hate me! I'm not trying to disrespect anyone who ships Logan and Rory. I know they were given a few cute scenes, but they didn't connect with me. We all just see relationships and characters differently. That's the fun of reading this thread. It was much more fun than watching the revival.  

Agreed! I can't get too critical of the show because it's mostly lighthearted and I don't take too much of it seriously. There's a real bias against characters who have money that really makes me wonder about ASP. I too love season 1, it's my GG happy place. I could never be a Lorelai/Luke shipper but it's nice to hear you don't hate Christopher for existing. He has a different dynamic with Lorelai than Luke does, it's all about your preference.