One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions

[blueray]

My newest UO: lorelai should have married that nice school teacher fellow.

;)

I kind of agree. There really nothing wrong with Max, they made him almost too perfect. Nice guy, who has a solid income, intelligent, treated her really well and wasn't bad looking ;).

Edited November 9, 2014 by blueray

[Kohola3]

While I personally didn't like Max, he really was a decent guy. They wrote him like he was out of line for asking about a key to the house and what his part in Rory's life would be.  Both totally appropriate questions under the circumstances, in my opinion, although they were both at fault for not discussing those things way before the eve of the wedding.

[G. Coop]

How long were they even together before they got engaged? I mean, it seems like they hadn't been dating that long before they broke up, then they got engaged pretty soon after they got back together. But, anyway, yeah, your fiancé should have a key to your home and should have some role in his stepdaughter-to-be's life. Those are things that should've been discussed the moment Lorelai agreed to marry Max. You're agreeing to sharing your life with another person when you say yes to a marriage proposal.

[HeySandyStrange]

I would say Lorelai and Max were together around 6-8 months before he proposed, give or take a few of their breaks. Depending on how you look at it, that doesn't seem very long knowing someone when you are talking about making a life time commitment to them. Not that I can talk, I married my husband after knowing him 7 weeks, give or take a day;) .  I think Max was a decent guy but Lorelai obviously wasn't passionately or deeply in love with him and apparently hadn't considered that until the whole key/ role in Rory's life situation came up. If both of them had been looking for more for friendship/companionship with their marriage it might have had a better chance of working out.

[nolieblue]

I thought Max was okay but a little patronizing. He treated Lorelai like an amusement and the offended when she treated him the same way - her "fella". They just weren't at all ready to be married.

[txhorns79]

I thought Max was okay but a little patronizing. He treated Lorelai like an amusement and the offended when she treated him the same way - her "fella". They just weren't at all ready to be married.

 

I completely agree.  The whole thing was very weirdly handled.  I truly didn't get how they were like a week or so from the wedding, and they had never discussed such basic things like what Max's role would be vis a vis Rory.  Heck, even if Lorelai truly believed Rory was "done," and would apparently never be in a situation where Max might have to discipline her (dirty!), it was so strange she never would have said anything to Max until he brought it up.  It seems like such a major thing for all the concerned parties.     

[Taryn74]

I truly didn't get how they were like a week or so from the wedding, and they had never discussed such basic things like what Max's role would be vis a vis Rory.

 

 

I really think that showcased how they were in such different places.  Max probably assumed that he would have a basic stepfather role and didn't think he needed to get clarification, and Lorelai was just too busy playing Princess Bride Barbie to even think on such matters.

[JayInChicago]

Emily as a character I go back and forth on every episode I think.

I think it's not a stretch to consider her emotionally difficult, impossible to please, and perhaps in Lorelai's teen years, yes, somewhat abusive verbally/mentally. Richard too. This isn't the 16th century--if your teen daughter doesn't want to marry the boy who contributed his genetic material to your soon to be granddaughter--she doesn't have to marry him! She in fact shouldn't marry him. They perhaps never fully understand this.

 

I think it's troubling how conditional their love for Lorelai is especially when so deftly juxtaposed with their completely unconditional love for Rory. 

Buuuuuut, Kelly Bishop's acting is so marvelous to watch. Ed Hermann's too. Obviously. They are just both such treasures as actors. The characters are clearly flawed--but I guess the UO is how flawed does ASP/DP want us to think Gramma and Gramps Gilmore are? With the way they write love interests for their main characters, perhaps what I am getting from the elder Gilmores is not what they at all intended.

and i mean, I guess I don't really think Lorelai should have married Max. But they had sexual chemistry (at least we were told that, if not exactly shown) and they cared about each other--and he wouldn't have gotten in the way of her career. And while his origins were nodded to as humble, he could have fit into the Gilmore world if they ever got over his being a Chilton teacher. He was genteel.

I feel in a similar real world situation, they probably would have gotten married. 

[scarynikki12]

With the way they write love interests for their main characters, perhaps what I am getting from the elder Gilmores is not what they at all intended.

 

 

I agree.  I think that they were pleasantly surprised at how well Kelly and Edward connected with the audience despite some nasty comments to Lorelai in the first season that they decided to see how far they could push the envelope.  Kelly and Edward kept their characters human but the writing just took them from deeply flawed parents who still wanted to have a relationship with Lorelai to two people who seemed to full on hate her by the series end (excluding the finale).  No matter how talented Kelly and Edward are, the goal of the series should have been to take the elder Gilmores from their strained relationship with Lorelai to a more open one where the love and support was apparent.  They would never get to have the kind of relationship that Lorelai had with Rory but they could at least have seemed to like being around each other and it never felt that way to me. 

 

Going back to the romantic relationships, I really wish that the Palladinos had done a better job there too, but I also think they were just blind as to how the men came across.  A few of the behavioral choices were intentional I think, like Dean dumping Rory after she couldn't say 'I love you' so that the audience would feel maximum sympathy for her or the, IMO, directorial choice of having Rory act like she was in an abusive relationship with Dean so that the audience would support the later relationship with Jess.  And I won't even get into them changing Luke's amusing and harmless rants from the first couple of seasons to over the top tirades of a crazy anger management candidate from the rest of the series.  I think they had these scenarios in their heads when they planned out each season but then went overboard in setting them up and the show suffered for it.

 

After all my rewatching I'm still completely on the Jess hate train.  I actually don't mind his attitude generally as I think Liz's failures as a parent was the clear reason for it but I absolutely hate everything about him and Rory before he left the show.  I hate that he actively tried to undermine her relationship with Dean simply because he didn't like him (that 'what do you talk about' line still bugs me because we saw them talk about books, movies, and general town stuff so, while Dean was only ever going to be the First Boyfriend, he wasn't an idiot and shut up Jess) and, while I appreciate his season 3 honesty about not wanting to do any more town functions because he was no longer trying to steal her from Dean (his words), I still hate that he did it in the first place.  Rory doesn't earn any favors from me either, as I think she wanted to keep the Dean relationship but liked having a second guy around who liked her, but I didn't actively hate her role in the Jess shenanigans until she chose to stay with Dean and then kissed Jess behind his back.  All that said, I do think that Jess had the best character arc of anyone on the show and it's sad that this happened to a character that spent most of the series off screen.  If only some of that good arc planning had been applied to the Girls or Luke, just think of all the awesome that could have happened.

[junienmomo]

Emily and Richard weren't abusive in my UO, because I attribute a certain pathology to the term abuse. They were, however, utterly convinced of their entitlement, and showed no hesitation in manipulating, sometimes bullying others to get what they wanted.For me, they are mostly bullies who were never or only rarely treated as such. 

Also, UO, I do not see their acting talents as far above those of other key players. Their parts were smaller, although Emily's was quite meaty. That smaller size, coupled with more experience, could easily make them seem better. 

 

As to story arcs, I'm guessing that the only serious arcs that were planned ahead of time were the three Gilmore women Rory, Lorelai and Emily. It strikes me that ASP's original intent was to do explore that female relationship. The more or less accidental addition of characters like Paris and Luke changed the character of the show, almost certainly giving it a bigger audience, more ad revenue and therefore a longer run. 

[txhorns79]

This isn't the 16th century--if your teen daughter doesn't want to marry the boy who contributed his genetic material to your soon to be granddaughter--she doesn't have to marry him! She in fact shouldn't marry him. They perhaps never fully understand this.

 

I think this makes it sound like Christopher was some one night stand whom Lorelai and the family didn't know at all prior Lorelai becoming pregnant. 

 

This isn't to say trying to force two teenagers into marriage is a good idea.  It is not.  However, I personally think that it is better for the kids if the parents are together in some kind of stable, legal relationship prior to the kids being born.  At least in terms of that, I could see where Emily and Richard were coming from.  And in fairness, the Gilmores seemed to accept Lorelai's decision to say no.  They clearly didn't like it, and still referenced their desire to see a marriage, but she was still living in them throughout the pregnancy and for a year after Rory was born, so they must have accepted that the marriage wasn't likely to happen. 

 

 

Emily and Richard weren't abusive in my UO, because I attribute a certain pathology to the term abuse.

 

If believing Emily and Richard weren't abusive is an unpopular opinion, then the term "abuse" has no real meaning.  They did crappy things at times to Lorelai, and I thought they could be very immature in how they treated her as an adult, but that's a far cry from abuse.  I always thought that was a huge weakness to the premise of the show.  I think when it came down to it, Lorelai couldn't really justify why she ran away from home at 17.       

Edited November 10, 2014 by txhorns79

[Aloeonatable]

 

I hate that he actively tried to undermine her relationship with Dean simply because he didn't like him

 

I'll admit that I'm a Jess apologist. I like the character, not that I would like him IRL, because he adds so much to the show and I found him complex and thus interesting. I do disagree with the above quote, however. Jess didn't undermine Rory's relationship with Dean because he didn't like him, he did it because he liked and was attracted to Rory. Jess's dislike of Dean came from his attraction to Rory. Wrong or right, he was a teenager. I think that Rory was equally responsible. We saw that she was capable of discouraging someone who was interested in her (Tristan) so the fact that she didn't discourage Jess led me, and obviously Jess, to the conclusion that she was interested in him. Even Dean figured that out fairly early. While many called this the "Love Triangle From Hell," I thought it very true to how teens, especially Rory, would act. She was sending mixed signals to both boys. 

[Guest]

 

 

If believing Emily and Richard weren't abusive is an unpopular opinion, then the term "abuse" has no real meaning.  They did crappy things at times to Lorelai, and I thought they could be very immature in how they treated her as an adult, but that's a far cry from abuse.  I always thought that was a huge weakness to the premise of the show.  I think when it came down to it, Lorelai couldn't really justify why she ran away from home at 17.       

I really wish they had made it either that she ran away sooner after Rory was born (post partum hormones to blame) or that she left the day she turned 18.  Both are more realistic given what we know of the situation.

[JayInChicago]

Given that we actively saw Emily gaslight Lorelai (that is, tell her things aren't a certain way or things didn't happen a certain way when Lorelai knows they did) I feel fine characterizing their relationship as potentially mentally abusive. I can't diagnose it as such not being a mental health professional or the law, but yeah. I mean, that was one of the elder Gilmore's most stable characteristic--they were always right, and they would tell Lorelai whatever the hell they wanted to to get to her to do what they felt was right no matter how she felt. They purportedly were proud of their smart daughter (mostly in pointing out how she apparently failed to live up to their expectations, despite being a successful business owner) but they almost never give her credit for anything. It's a hugely dysfunctional relationship, and sure you can say Lorelai shoulders some of it--but she was their child and they were always the adults.

 

I dunno--this rewatch I'm feeling super critical of the elder Gilmores. Last rewatch I was super critical of Lorelai. Who the hell knows. 

Emily trying to machinate a break up between Lorelai and Luke was soapy, and perhaps we were supposed to judge it on knowing the show had taken a soapy turn. But judging it from a realistic viewpoint, it was really fucked up.

[txhorns79]

Given that we actively saw Emily gaslight Lorelai (that is, tell her things aren't a certain way or things didn't happen a certain way when Lorelai knows they did) I feel fine characterizing their relationship as potentially mentally abusive.

 

I would say it depends on Emily's motivation.  For example, my parents and I sometimes remember the same event differently.  It doesn't mean they are trying to gaslight me, so much as they just don't recall the event in the same way, or don't remember a detail I do.  In terms of Emily, I recall times when she and Richard remember events differently than Lorelai did (for example, she and Richard portray themselves (shockingly!) as acting much better than actually did regarding the meeting over Rory leaving Yale when fighting with Lorelai during Friday Nights are Alright for Fighting), but I don't remember ever thinking she was purposefully lying about what she recalled.  

[JayInChicago]

She's trained herself so well to automatically discount what Lorelai says or wants that she doesn't even know when she's gaslighting Lorelai. Intent isn't the only thing that matters. I'm sure Emily's intent is not supposed to be read as "EVIL EVIL EVIL".

[larapu2000]

I think that whatever parents the Gilmores were or weren't to Lorelai went out the window the minute she turned 18 years old, became an adult, and started being legally responsible for her decisions and their consequences.  It's nearly impossible to have a serious conversation with Lorelai since she's always mugging for attention, so I get why Richard and Emily, even in the face of her success, would find it hard to take her seriously.  Lorelai, just like Richard, often mocked Emily's life and activities, which was cruel and sad, because Lorelai never once tries to see that her mother is exactly the person that she was bred and raised to be.  At least Emily was involved in charitable work and organizations, versus the cliche of a shopaholic that bangs the tennis instructor.  It's one thing for Emily to see her daughter and wish she had the same independence and choices, but another thing entirely for Lorelai and Richard to throw her life back in her face on a regular basis.  

 

I actually think Lorelai was a weird version of her mother.  She flipped out when Rory was considering other schools than Harvard, she was constantly getting involved in her daughter's love life (my parents would have DIED before speaking to my high school/college boyfriends about our relationship).  She had a flipped view of her daughter than Emily-instead of seeing all of Rory's faults, she refused to see any of them, and then couldn't counsel her on relationships based on knowing those faults and helping Rory to see how she might be doing something wrong.  She iced out Rory out during their estrangement and issued ultimatums, instead of giving her some time to recover after the Mitchum/yacht incident.  

 

I had only seen the show once through, about 6-7 years ago.  On re-watch, Lorelai is annoying, cloying, attention-seeking, self-centered, and not nearly as funny as she thinks she is.  Why Star's Hollow thought she was so delightful is beyond me, but this is the same town that tolerated Taylor, so it's not surprising.

[JayInChicago]

I agree with you about rory and lorelai after Mitchum's pronouncement on Rory's lack of having it. I think that tends to be a UO around these parts. For as close a bond as they supposedly have, lorelai can't see how her sensitive daughter is absolutely destroyed by a powerful media magnate telling her she doesn't have what it takes to be a good journalist. Whether or not that was true (it certainly may have been), it was the last thing in the world rory wanted to hear.

[txhorns79]

I actually think Lorelai was a weird version of her mother.  She flipped out when Rory was considering other schools than Harvard, she was constantly getting involved in her daughter's love life (my parents would have DIED before speaking to my high school/college boyfriends about our relationship).  She had a flipped view of her daughter than Emily-instead of seeing all of Rory's faults, she refused to see any of them, and then couldn't counsel her on relationships based on knowing those faults and helping Rory to see how she might be doing something wrong.

 

I think Lorelai did recognize that Rory had faults.  However, I would say that she had difficultly counseling Rory on those faults because she had difficultly having a mother/daughter relationship with Rory, i.e. advice that Rory might accept from her mother, she would not accept from her "best friend."  I mean, look at what happened when Lorelai went straight into mom mode when she caught Dean and Rory together at the end of Season Four.  Rory couldn't handle it because she wanted a reaction from her best friend, not her mother. 

[junienmomo]

To continue the mother-daughter paradigm, I see that Rory is like her mother in many ways, and that Lorelai does react like Emily would have when Rory does something that Lorelai really didn't like. 

There was an early admission that Rory was proud to be like her mother. Lorelai also got uncomfortably involved with Dean, first the movie night, then the mentoring on how to be a good boyfriend, followed by her offer to stay friends in the grocery store (a good mom move, BTW), ending with shanghai-ing Luke into a disastrous double date. Oh yeah, don't forget her hate-detest relationship with Jess. That whole business with restarting FND in order for one night to meet Logan was absurd, and the cruelty that Lorelai's parents showed was horrible.

At least at the end Lorelai was able to stay out of Rory's decision to marry Logan.

[txhorns79]

Lorelai also got uncomfortably involved with Dean, first the movie night, then the mentoring on how to be a good boyfriend, followed by her offer to stay friends in the grocery store (a good mom move, BTW), ending with shanghai-ing Luke into a disastrous double date.

 

During the early seasons, sometimes it felt like Lorelai wished she could date Dean, and there were times when it felt like Dean was much more interested in Lorelai's approval than in Rory. 

[Gooey]

I agree with you about rory and lorelai after Mitchum's pronouncement on Rory's lack of having it. I think that tends to be a UO around these parts. For as close a bond as they supposedly have, lorelai can't see how her sensitive daughter is absolutely destroyed by a powerful media magnate telling her she doesn't have what it takes to be a good journalist. Whether or not that was true (it certainly may have been), it was the last thing in the world rory wanted to hear.

Is this really an UO? For me, this was the Jump The Shark moment (or half season) of the entire show. I don't think the Lorelai Gilmore we saw up to that point would have ever freezed Rory out in the way it played out on screen. It would have killed her and never should have gone on that long.

 

The freezing out was OOC enough, but in league with not going to Rory's court appearance or refusing to tell her about the engagement it just was not true to the Lorelai character and the Lorelai/Rory relationship we'd seen for 5 seasons.

Then there was the Ice Queen knock back when Rory tried to give her her new phone number. And would she have even tried to contact Rory for her birthday if she hadn't been invited to the party at the Gilmores? It sure didn't look like she would blink first. That's utterly heartless and unforgivable in my book. But again, we were in soapland by that point. Sigh.

 

I remember an interview with LG where she said she felt the estrangement went on too long and that she believed the character would have tried harder to reach out to her daughter. And I think she's right.

 

Perhaps this is an UO? I  think it harmed the show immensely to have almost no Lorelai/Rory interaction for 9 episodes. The two core relationships (Lorelai/Rory and Lorelai/Emily) were off screen for almost half a season.

There was also the collateral damage of Rory having very little interaction with anyone from Stars Hollow; Lorelai having pretty much no interaction with Emily/Richard; the L/L engagement being under a pall of doubt/sadness/ice given Lorelai's life circumstances etc

 

I think it was a huge mis step by ASP.And I think both the Lorelai and Rory characters were irrevocably damaged during that horrendous arc. They never really got their mojo back after that. GG ends at season 5 for me.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Gooey

[solotrek]

While I personally didn't like Max, he really was a decent guy. They wrote him like he was out of line for asking about a key to the house and what his part in Rory's life would be.  Both totally appropriate questions under the circumstances, in my opinion, although they were both at fault for not discussing those things way before the eve of the wedding.

I thought Max was just a victim of the actor. I found him kind of boring and didn't really care when Lorelei blew him off in the end. Which is sad, because on paper he was probably the best husband/step-father guy she dated.

 

I really didn't like the character of Christopher no matter how much they tried to push him on me, hated him in fact, but the chemistry the actor had with LG was just amazing.

 

I didn't think they wrote him as out of line for asking those questions. I think they were already highlighting and foreshadowing how unprepared Lorelei was for marriage at the time. She wasn't willing to give an inch of herself for that relationship.  Contrast it with S6 how much Lorelei compromised to make Luke happy in regards to April. Too bad the Palladino's basically quit by the end of S6.

[Taryn74]

YES.  My heavens, so much yes.

 

I  think it harmed the show immensely to have almost no Lorelai/Rory interaction for 9 episodes. The two core relationships (Lorelai/Rory and Lorelai/Emily) were off screen for almost half a season.

 

 

And then as soon as - and I mean AS SOON AS - the Lorelai/Rory relationship was mended, we got punched in the gut by the April reveal and the days of sadness stretched out once again.  UGH.  I picture ASP watching the episodes air, cackling with maniacal glee at how much the viewers must be hating it, and it just pisses me off all over again.

[JayInChicago]

Is it overshare to say I think you guys are my new best friends? :-D

 

a lot of people won't even let me talk about GG anymore. In fact, the friend who introduced me to these very same Gilmore Girls won't engage me in conversation about the show.  So much sad.

[txhorns79]

Then there was the Ice Queen knock back when Rory tried to give her her new phone number. And would she have even tried to contact Rory for her birthday if she hadn't been invited to the party at the Gilmores? It sure didn't look like she would blink first. That's utterly heartless and unforgivable in my book.

 

I think this goes back to what I was saying about Lorelai and Rory actually having a very dysfunctional mother-daughter relationship.  Lorelai felt very betrayed by Rory's actions at the end of Season 5, with her moving in with Richard and Emily as the literal ultimate betrayal that Rory could ever inflict upon her.  That I understand.   Having said that, I think if Lorelai's primary role with Rory was "mother" and not "best friend," it would have been easier for Lorelai to get over it and try to reconcile.  And that doesn't even get into Lorelai's extremely immature temper tantrum showing up at her parents' house late at night, bursting into their bedroom with Rory's things and snitting like a jealous teenager that she hopes they enjoy their new, improved daughter.  Jeez, get some therapy, Lorelai.       

[BC Mama]

Is it overshare to say I think you guys are my new best friends? :-D

 

a lot of people won't even let me talk about GG anymore. In fact, the friend who introduced me to these very same Gilmore Girls won't engage me in conversation about the show.  So much sad.

Today I spoke with the spouse of a work friend of Mr. Mama, who is watching GG for the first time. I think I scared her with my enthusiasm over discovering a GG virgin!

[larapu2000]

This could not possibly be an UO, but because it can't be said enough, I hate April.  I hate the character, how they write her to be Rory 2.0, and I hate the actress and her condescending delivery.  This doesn't even have anything to do with the soapy "lost child" plot element the character was.  

[JayInChicago]

I like some aspects of Luke's bonding with her. It was somewhat interesting to see that side of him. But I hated pretty much everything else about her.

Edited November 12, 2014 by JayInChicago

[junienmomo]

Re: evangelizing others to the cult of GG: 

I tone down my evangelism around others, because it is really too extreme. Even when I ran into self-avowed GG fangirls, I overwhelmed them with talk of character and story arcs and season opinions, like we discuss here (so happy for this forum)

One good friend and also my Momo can handle it, but I treat those relationships delicately, not willing to really make their eyes glaze over. I guess I'm a hopeless GG-geek.

It's not an UO to hate April and storyline, but I separate it the following way:

• hate the character
• hate the acting and don't think the person's physical attributes conform to Luke
• acknowledge that Luke needed a character arc twist to be sustainable through S6-S7

 

Other possible character arcs that I find more plausible:

• responding to Taylor's call and the town's need for another strong male leader
• some other female making a serious play for him
• him finally calling Lorelai out on her behavior

[txhorns79]

This doesn't even have anything to do with the soapy "lost child" plot element the character was.

 

For me, I could never get past how freaking insane Anna must have been to unilaterally decide that Luke should never be told about April, not because he was abusive to Anna, engaged in behavior that could be dangerous to Anna or April, had mental problems or the like, but because he "didn't like kids."  I also kind of hated how passive Luke was in response to that kind of insanity. 

[amensisterfriend]

I also kind of hated how passive Luke was in response to that kind of insanity.

 

ITA that pretty much everything related to the April plot is ridiculous and aggravating, but weirdly enough, I actually think that passivity was in character for Luke. For all his brutish bluster and blunt rudeness and temper tantrums, he was actually always oddly passive (and often passive-aggressive!) in dealing with conflict ad interpersonal relationships. 

[junienmomo]

Anna was also not tops in the common sense department because she apparently slept with 3 different men within one cycle. All this crap just so ASP could give her buddy a part. 

She did try to play Luke at the end by refusing visitation and expecting him to accept it. 

Also, what kind of kid doesn't want to know her dad, at least a little?

[Taryn74]

Anna was also not tops in the common sense department because she apparently slept with 3 different men within one cycle. All this crap just so ASP could give her buddy a part. 

She did try to play Luke at the end by refusing visitation and expecting him to accept it. 

Also, what kind of kid doesn't want to know her dad, at least a little?

 

Well, not to give Anna a break or anything LOL but IMO it was never implied that Anna didn't know who the father was, it's just that she never told April.  April pieced together what info she could from reading Anna's old letters and diary (or something like that) and went daddy hunting.

[solotrek]

I like some aspects of Luke's bonding with her. It was somewhat interesting to see that side of him. But I hated pretty much everything else about her.

Completely agree. I thought it brought out some of Luke's best qualities that we saw glimpses of when he helped raise Jess. Him genuinely caring and worrying for another person with a really toned down gruffness (mainly in April's case). April probably could have used a better actress and less overwhelmingly Stars Hollowish.

[dustylil]

Taryn, actually, for me that was worse. Letting a child believe you had no idea as to who her father was. Jeez, Louise!

 

I could understand - but not condone - Anna thinking that she did not need anyone else to help her raise her daughter. But not to give the child any sense of one half of her parentage struck me as cold and unkind - if not, extremely self-centred on Anna's part. Even a made up story of a doomed love affair and the tragic death of April's father before her birth would have been better than this nothingness.

 

Others had commented on many of the  ludicrous elements of  the April storyline. The aspect of it that struck me as utterly preposterous was Luke's lack of anger towards Anna in the months after learning about the existence of his daughter. Even when speaking privately to Lorelai, he described Anna as "cool", "down to earth", and "nothing bad". This from a man who got into a fistfight with a teenage boy whom he thought had jilted Rory, railed against the town for their quite reasonable concerns about his wayward nephew, who  took umbrage at issues large and small and ranted at the drop of a hat. If there was ever a matter for justifiable ill-feelings, this was it. Now it was understandable that he might not act on this emotion, (even if it might require quite impressive self-discipline), given that he was just getting to know the child and assumed that Anna held all the cards in the situation. But  to apparently  not feel  any animosity  in those initial months at being kept from his child for all that time to me beggared belief.

 

[Gooey]

It's almost like ASP put in something so completely ridiculous just to see if she could get away with it. Or that she was dared or blackmailed! I just cannot understand how she thought those two season 6 storylines were a good idea - rift followed by long lost daughter. It's laughable even writing the words. 

[BC Mama]

I agree with all of your above assessments of Anna's major parenting fail in denying her daughter the right to know her father (and Luke to know April). And, it does not seem realistic to me either that Luke would be so accepting of the fact that he lost out in twelve years of April's life! Her argument that Luke hates kids is ridiculous! A lot of people who are not kid-people make amazing parents! Lorelai made some questionable parenting choices, but I respect that she always made Rory available to Christopher, without setting Rory up for disappointment.

[txhorns79]

And, it does not seem realistic to me either that Luke would be so accepting of the fact that he lost out in twelve years of April's life! Her argument that Luke hates kids is ridiculous! A lot of people who are not kid-people make amazing parents!

 

A thousand times this.  I can't even imagine my anger at someone who would do that to me.  I could buy it if Luke didn't go off on her because he was worried she would cut off access to April, but even in private, he seemed okay with her explanation and horrible behavior. 

[Guest]

And because Liz is an idiot (aka, she's Liz) she helped Luke buy that it was his fault Anna kept his daughter from him. "She said I don't like kids." "Yeah, you don't."  

 

Go renaissance somewhere else, Liz.

 

(Because it can't be said enough that she sucks!)

[amensisterfriend]

My UO re Max is the opposite of some other people's here: I couldn't stand him. I won't even pretend it's rational, but I found him smarmy and dull and pompous. His presence just annoys me. Even the poor guy's hair annoys me! I just had little to no sense of who his character was and the ways in which he was supposed to connect with Lorelai. It's funny, because despite my meh-ness re. Lorelai's love life in general, I did get how and why she connected with Christopher, Digger, Luke, etc. in various ways, but I just never 'got' Lorelai and Max, for lack of a better way of putting it. I've never liked the actor, so I'm sure that's a big part of it. 

 

 

 

Go renaissance somewhere else, Liz.

(Because it can't be said enough that she sucks!)

 

Can I give you a hearty 'amen, sister friend' here?! As we've discussed, I think I hate Liz---and the degree to which her awfulness as a parent and person was cheerily overlooked or even perceived as 'cute'---even more than TJ, who we were at least *supposed* to feel was annoying. And my related UO here is that I wouldn't have blamed Jess a bit if he had declined to participate in Liz's wedding. 

Edited November 13, 2014 by amensisterfriend

[larapu2000]

My UO re Max is the opposite of some other people's here: I couldn't stand him. I won't even pretend it's rational, but I found him smarmy and dull and pompous. His presence just annoys me. Even the poor guy's hair annoys me! I just had little to no sense of who his character was and the ways in which he was supposed to connect with Lorelai. It's funny, because despite my meh-ness re. Lorelai's love life in general, I did get how and why she connected with Christopher, Digger, Luke, etc. in various ways, but I just never 'got' Lorelai and Max, for lack of a better way of putting it. I've never liked the actor, so I'm sure that's a big part of it. 

 

 

 

 

Can I give you a hearty 'amen, sister friend' here?! As we've discussed, I think I hate Liz---and the degree to which her awfulness as a parent and person was cheerily overlooked or even perceived as 'cute'---even more than TJ, who we were at least *supposed* to feel was annoying. And my related UO here is that I wouldn't have blamed Jess a bit if he had declined to participate in Liz's wedding. 

Ugh, I am with you on the Liz thing, which is why I absolutely, positively hate Christopher so much, and why I hate Lorelai when she is so easy to let him off the hook about his terrible parenting.  She's constantly telling him he did the "best he could."  That is bullshit.  He wasn't aware of Rory and Lorelai's Christmas traditions?  Which means he wasn't around, even at Christmas?  People are always hand waving away his absence in Rory's life as "he was young, blah blah blah."  So was Lorelai, and she put on her big girl pants to raise a child that needed 2 responsible parents.  I have zero sympathy for Christopher in any way when he's called to the carpet over not being a better parent, which he rarely is anyway.  And when he finds the letter Lorelai wrote for Luke?  He should have felt like shit and instead of getting mad at Lorelai, he should have gotten mad at himself and apologized to his daughter.  

[JayInChicago]

to hop aboard the chris hate train, i add:

http://the-toast.net/2014/10/27/gilmore-girls-chris-dies/

[Kohola3]

For me, I could never get past how freaking insane Anna must have been to unilaterally decide that Luke should never be told about April, not because he was abusive to Anna, engaged in behavior that could be dangerous to Anna or April, had mental problems or the like, but because he "didn't like kids."

 

A woman who has sex with three different men within a few days doesn't really come across as someone who makes great decisions altogether.  How did she manage to explain that to her teenage daughter?  Quite the free spirit (she says sarcastically).

[BC Mama]

A woman who has sex with three different men within a few days doesn't really come across as someone who makes great decisions altogether.  How did she manage to explain that to her teenage daughter?  Quite the free spirit (she says sarcastically).

 

To be fair, we don't know that Anna had sex with all of them, or that if she did, it was within a short time period. Presumably, Anna was not forthcoming to April with the details of the events that lead up to April's conception, so April probably did the legwork of asking around and reading through old letters to figure out who her possible father was.

[amensisterfriend]

It always amuses me when the conversation here circles back to Christopher hate, as in my experience there's absolutely no GG-related opinion more 'popular' than that one...well, except maybe for hating TJ and thinking that most of Season Six should be renamed Season Sucks ;) 

 

I won't defend his parenting and don't even think he was a good one, but my 12 zillion rewatches have taught me that the show was wildly inconsistent as to 1) the actual level of his involvement in Rory's life and 2) the degree to which LORELAI, rather than Christopher, preferred that he keep a certain distance. 

 

I think Christopher has major flaws and would never want to date him in real life, but I find him more appealing than Luke and think Lorelai had far, far greater compatibility and chemistry with Christopher than with Luke. (Now THAT'S unpopular!)

Edited November 14, 2014 by amensisterfriend

[txhorns79]

Can I give you a hearty 'amen, sister friend' here?! As we've discussed, I think I hate Liz---and the degree to which her awfulness as a parent and person was cheerily overlooked or even perceived as 'cute'---even more than TJ, who we were at least *supposed* to feel was annoying. And my related UO here is that I wouldn't have blamed Jess a bit if he had declined to participate in Liz's wedding.

 

I'm with you.  Until she was introduced as a semi-regular character, they made her sound like an awful, neglectful parent (and not the Chris version of mostly benign neglect, she had the version where the primary parent seems generally disinterested in being a parent.)  I thought Jess would have been justified in refusing to participate.  It wasn't like he and his mother had a loving relationship. 

 

 

I won't defend his parenting and don't even think he was a good one, but my 12 zillion rewatches have taught me that the show was wildly inconsistent as to 1) the actual level of his involvement in Rory's life and 2) the degree to which LORELAI, rather than Christopher, preferred that he keep a certain distance.

 

I would agree that Chris was a lousy father.  I was always mixed on him.  The premise of the show was Lorelai and Rory against the world, so Chris, by design, couldn't be a stable presence in their lives, because it dilutes the Rory/Lorelai relationship.  I felt like the show could never really get past that.     

[scarynikki12]

I actually agree with you that the show was very inconsistent when it came to Christopher's involvement in Rory's life after she was born but I think that the inconsistencies really only started in the last couple of years of the series.  The first two seasons, in particular, are actually very consistent about how often he was a part of Rory's life growing up.  We knew that Rory saw and spoke to him enough that she recognized him and was comfortable running to him for a big and enthusiastic hug and that they showed great affection for one another.  On the other hand, he'd never been to Stars Hollow until his arrival in season 1 and the drive wasn't exactly far from Hartford (we have no information on when me moved).  We also know that Rory never visited him in California, but I'll chalk that up to lack of funds on both sides.  He wasn't comfortable revealing his financial troubles to Lorelai (not a Rory issue) but also didn't hesitate to ask Rory to lie to her about them (a major problem), though she thankfully told the truth when Lorelai heard the story from other townie sources.  It's also flat out stated, by Christopher himself, Lorelai, Sookie, Rory, and Sherry during his various appearances in the first couple of seasons that he wasn't around and couldn't be depended on to keep his promises of visits.  Now, Chris and Sherry both talked about it in terms of how much he regretted his choice to stay away, Lorelai mentioned it in the context of letting him know that he didn't have to continue that behavior, Rory with an attitude of hope that this time he'd change, and Sookie only mentioned it during the season 2 premiere in the context of how Lorelai deserved to be happy after the hardship of raising Rory all alone (her words) and doing such a good job.  No one talked about it like he was Satan or anything but it was stated enough that I think we were supposed to take it at face value and had the added bonus of setting up the 'Chris is finally ready, willing and able to commit to Lorelai and Rory but, wait, Sherry's pregnant and now he can't' finale ending.  Season 3, with Rory's outburst (still one of my favorite scenes from Bledel, she really sold the pain of the daughter who'd been hurt yet again but wasn't going to push it aside this time), was the last time we really had any comments on Chris' failings as a father until season 5 when the show started, IMO, whitewashing the character to sell a love triangle over Lorelai.  Then we started seeing a lot of those inconsistencies that just created confusion.  I know that many in the audience remained vocal about wanting his failures to be addressed and the show somehow made it worse by having Lorelai coddle him in season 7 while still describing herself as a single mother.  They wanted to address the fan issues with the character without actually addressing them, which I think would have easily been the more interesting story.

 

I really wish that the Gilmores had behaved differently about Chris as well.  I don't think they should have hated and vilified him the way the Haydens did with Lorelai, but they treated him like the golden child who could do no wrong while taking the next breath to remind Lorelai how shameful it was that she got pregnant.  I get that Chris was willing to marry her and do the 'honorable thing' but he still got their daughter pregnant.  Surely two people who can and will hold grudges like the Gilmores would keep Chris at arms length for Lorelai's pregnancy?  Yet they loved him and seemed to prefer him to their own child.  I could understand it if they came to see that Chris failed their beloved granddaughter and got some perspective on how hard it was for Lorelai to raise Rory without him around but that didn't happen.  Emily was witness to Rory's hurt and resentment in Haunted Leg, and even told him to leave firmly if kindly, yet there was no fallout from that incident.  She continued to want Lorelai to marry Chris, telling me that she really didn't think highly of her daughter that she'd want her to be with someone SHE KNOWS hurt her so much.  Then, and this is what really annoys, Lorelai finally marries Chris like they always wanted, gets divorced a couple months later, and nothing.  No anger at the shame of their daughter eloping abroad only to divorce a couple months later?  No upping the ante on holding it against her like she and Richard did with the teenage pregnancy?  No passive aggressive comments on wasting money on those wedding arrangements?  Surely a quickie marriage and divorce would get the tongues wagging among the same peers who would have gossiped about the pregnancy back in the day, yet the Gilmores didn't show any concern over that.  If their attitude towards Chris had changed with the divorce, like they'd been pretending for 22 years and could finally stop now that Lorelai had done what they wanted, that would be one thing but they continued to treat him as they always did just without the guilt trips on Lorelai.  It's baffling.

 

I've always wished that Chris' presence on the show had been about building his relationship with Rory, paralleling Lorelai's with her parents.  If he'd been brought on as Lorelai's childhood BFF, who couldn't get his act together for 16 years but was finally growing up and determined to make up for his failings, without any romantic potential hanging overhead, I think I would have loved him.  Christopher Returns actually seems to take that attitude until he and Lorelai have sex on the balcony.  Their dynamic plays like old friends who happen to share a kid.  It's only when they have sex and Chris tries to convince her to marry him that the show loses me and it just continued to be 100% predictable after that.

 

We all know that Sutcliffe's lack of availability is why he wasn't in very many episodes in season 3 but the rewatches tell me that they learned of that issue at the end of season 2.  I'm convinced that the plan was to end the season with Lorelai and Chris firmly together.  For her story it was to take the place of her now damaged friendship with Luke, distracting her until such time as she was willing to truly apologize for her actions and mend fences.  A stable and committed relationship for them would also contrast with Rory cheating on Dean with Jess but unwilling to be the one to end the relationship.  I think that final shot of the Girls at the start of the wedding was meant to show Rory's indecisiveness next to Lorelai's happiness but Sutcliffe wasn't available for more than a few episodes beyond that so they rewrote it with Sherry's pregnancy.  If he had been available and was signed in time, I could actually see him being a regular in season 3, with the relationship starting to show cracks once Lorelai fixed her friendship with Luke (like season 7 when she focused on Chris as a way of not dealing with her heartache over Luke) and then coming to a head in season 4 and them breaking up once and for all (and, who knows, maybe Emily's dislike of Jason would have been her coming to realize that she disliked Chris and then he and Richard could have a falling out over a business deal or investment gone wrong-did we ever learn exactly what Chris did for a living before his deus ex inheritance?).  I don't see the Palladinos putting Lorelai and Luke together until the end of the series without the network stepping in (which I believe they did), so the final seasons would be played with the 'will they won't they' trope.

 

I really wish, if the show absolutely had to do a Long Lost Daughter story with Luke (and, no they did not) that it had been with Rachel as a result of her season 1 stay.  We knew that she had a hard time staying in one place, that she often felt like Stars Hollow was too small for her, that she tried to make it work with Luke but left him because of his obvious feelings for Lorelai, and that he had a hard time trusting her as a result of their history.  Her learning of a pregnancy shortly after leaving, but choosing not to tell him initially as a result of the season 1 fallout, but coming to regret said decision and return to introduce the kid to Luke, would have worked much better if only because we'd actually seen their brief history as well as being told about it.  Plus, Rachel seemed to genuinely like Lorelai even if she felt some resentment about Luke's feelings so that would have made for an interesting dynamic and I can see Rachel seeking Lorelai out even if Luke chose to remain brain dead about telling her about the kid.  If they really wanted their old pal Sherrilyn to play the role of Luke's baby momma just bring her in as the new Rachel rather than create a woman the audience had no history with.

[Minneapple]

We all know that Sutcliffe's lack of availability is why he wasn't in very many episodes in season 3 but the rewatches tell me that they learned of that issue at the end of season 2.  I'm convinced that the plan was to end the season with Lorelai and Chris firmly together.

It was. IIRC Chris and Lorelai were actually supposed to get married in early season three, but David Sutcliffe had a show ordered to series. And that's why he wasn't in season three a lot. When people say that shows should be planned out -- well, that's the kind of thing that showrunners really can't plan for.

[dustylil]

scarynikki12,  one theory (and it is my current favourite) as to why Richard and Emily weren't outraged over the foreign wedding and quickie divorce was that they knew the whole marriage  was a sham. And Emily would have revealed this in Season 8 - either to embarrass Lorelai or in support of some new nefarious scheme.

 

Why else would they choose France for a venue? It is a country  where the senior Gilmores had spent some time (and logically  might be familiar with French laws and customs). As well, Emily's sister  with whom she apparently was on good terms currently lived there. Even a brief discussion of the Gilmore/Hayden nuptials between Emily and Hopie would make clear that any  arrangements Christopher made and  whatever ritual he and Lorelai went through, did not involve them  getting hitched. Not only are foreigners  staying briefly in France not permitted to marry, the ceremony as described by Lorelai bears no relation to wedding practices in that country.

 

I cling to this theory.  Firstly, Emily is considerably more  entertaining (if dreadful) when she is devising a cunning plan. And secondly, I don't want to believe the showrunners were that dumb :)