One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions

[FictionLover]

56 minutes ago, Crs97 said:

Lorelei was only judgmental about how other people spent their money, like the audacity of Luke wanting to help out his daughter.  According to Lorelei, Rory and she could do no wrong.

But she wanted to help.

[JayInChicago]

Lorelai was conflicted about whether Rory should have a trust fund through Trix/Lorelai the First and it seemed likely the outcome, at least in whatever episode that was, was that Rory didn't get one. She also had reservations with Rory adopting the grandparents' lifestyle--though maybe she was good and over it by this point.

[Anela]

13 minutes ago, JayInChicago said:

Lorelai was conflicted about whether Rory should have a trust fund through Trix/Lorelai the First and it seemed likely the outcome, at least in whatever episode that was, was that Rory didn't get one. She also had reservations with Rory adopting the grandparents' lifestyle--though maybe she was good and over it by this point.

I thought the trust fund reaction there, was to Rory being free to leave her, and not come back. She wasn't ready to let go.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Crs97 said:

Lorelei was only judgmental about how other people spent their money, like the audacity of Luke wanting to help out his daughter.  According to Lorelei, Rory and she could do no wrong.

That summed up so much of her and Luke's relationship and hers and Rory's. Luke wants to pay for April to go to Europe? Lorelai thinks she should get a job. Rory wants to move home, jobless and older than April- welcome home! Let's sit around and judge people who are overweight or in their 30s but living at home!

[Katy M]

34 minutes ago, JayInChicago said:

Lorelai was conflicted about whether Rory should have a trust fund through Trix/Lorelai the First and it seemed likely the outcome, at least in whatever episode that was, was that Rory didn't get one. She also had reservations with Rory adopting the grandparents' lifestyle--though maybe she was good and over it by this point.

HOw would Loreleai have control of that, though?  If Trixie left Rory a trust fund, or if Richard set one up for her, Lorelai would have no control over nay-saying that.

17 minutes ago, deaja said:

That summed up so much of her and Luke's relationship and hers and Rory's. Luke wants to pay for April to go to Europe? Lorelai thinks she should get a job. Rory wants to move home, jobless and older than April- welcome home! Let's sit around and judge people who are overweight or in their 30s but living at home!

I didn't see the revival, but Rory went to Europe twice without having a job. Once, backpacking with Lorelai (which I still find odd) and once with her grandmother.  And, for all I know Logan paid for her to go once, too.  But, April can't go at all without paying her own way?  Seems unfair.

[Taryn74]

42 minutes ago, JayInChicago said:

Lorelai was conflicted about whether Rory should have a trust fund through Trix/Lorelai the First and it seemed likely the outcome, at least in whatever episode that was, was that Rory didn't get one. 

The trust fund thing was over a specific issue - Gran offered to let Rory have it early (she was set to get it at age 25) so that it would pay for Chilton and Lorelai would no longer owe her parents that money.  That's why Emily freaked out (if Lorelai no longer owed them money she would waltz back out of their lives) and said things that caused Lorelai to freak out (by implying that if Rory had access to a quarter million dollars she would waltz out of Lorelai's life) and so Gran decided that Emily and Lorelai weren't mature enough to handle Rory having the money early.  (Which, she's not wrong.  Heh.)

[JayInChicago]

Oh, my mistake about that part.

[Smad]

3 hours ago, deaja said:

That summed up so much of her and Luke's relationship and hers and Rory's. Luke wants to pay for April to go to Europe? Lorelai thinks she should get a job. Rory wants to move home, jobless and older than April- welcome home! Let's sit around and judge people who are overweight or in their 30s but living at home!

Yikes. Yikes. Triple yikes.

Gladder and gladder all the time for not having watched the Revival. Because, yikes.

[Anela]

4 hours ago, deaja said:

That summed up so much of her and Luke's relationship and hers and Rory's. Luke wants to pay for April to go to Europe? Lorelai thinks she should get a job. Rory wants to move home, jobless and older than April- welcome home! Let's sit around and judge people who are overweight or in their 30s but living at home!

 

4 hours ago, Katy M said:

 

I didn't see the revival, but Rory went to Europe twice without having a job. Once, backpacking with Lorelai (which I still find odd) and once with her grandmother.  And, for all I know Logan paid for her to go once, too.  But, April can't go at all without paying her own way?  Seems unfair.

That bugged me, too.

It didn't seem like they were much of a blended family, and left me wondering if April ever got to meet Emily. They weren't married (Luke and Lorelai), but they were together. Or maybe Luke didn't want her to be Gilmored. I'm going to have to watch again.

Logan was going to take Rory to Asia, at the end of Season 6. That would have been another expensive trip. She supposedly had that job at the gazette, but we never saw her back there. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by Anela

[Anela]

Oh, and that reminds me: Richard left Luke some money to expand the diner, but Lorelai told her mother that he didn't want to expand, and asked for the money to improve the inn (otherwise she was going to lose Michel). Since that money had been set aside for Luke initially, she could have given some of that to April, for her trip. 

I can't remember how much it was. 

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, Anela said:

 

That bugged me, too.

It didn't seem like they were much of a blended family, and left me wondering if April ever got to meet Emily. They weren't married (Luke and Lorelai), but they were together. Or maybe Luke didn't want her to be Gilmored. I'm going to have to watch again.

Logan was going to take Rory to Asia, at the end of Season 6. That would have been another expensive trip. She supposedly had that job at the gazette, but we never saw her back there. 

They really didn't seem like one did they? I was looking forward to seeing the blended family. The four of them together, the four of them going to Friday Night Dinner together. All we got was Lorelai making jokes that April didn't understand, then April freaking out to Rory. Did April consider Rory her older sister or stepsister? Or Lorelai's daughter? Did Rory view April as her sister, stepsister or Luke's daughter. What we saw of April and Lorelai makes zero sense if Luke and Lorelai had been together for the last ten years. April was thirteen when the show ended that means she would have been visiting a few weeks every summer and one weekend a month for five years before April went off to college. Plus April really seemed to like Lorelai and Rory in the series.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Anela said:

Oh, and that reminds me: Richard left Luke some money to expand the diner, but Lorelai told her mother that he didn't want to expand, and asked for the money to improve the inn (otherwise she was going to lose Michel). Since that money had been set aside for Luke initially, she could have given some of that to April, for her trip. 

I can't remember how much it was. 

I don't think that is an issue; if the money was left in trust (which was why Emily had to go through the lawyer to get the documents changed), it wouldn't have been just a bequest to Luke.  I think it makes sense that it was released for another business purpose, but not just as extra money for Luke.

[JayInChicago]

Yeah the treatment of April in the Revival was really terrible. I kind of wish she wouldn't have been brought back at all. Mentioning her would have been fine. Lorelai showed no love towards her in the Revival not even on a distant relative level, much less a sort of step mom. My step mom who wasn't even my step mom until I was 35 is far more warm towards me.

[Kohola3]

9 minutes ago, JayInChicago said:

I kind of wish she wouldn't have been brought back at all.

There were several characters that were apparently brought back just so ASP could trumpet about it.  It would have been better to spend some time on a cohesive (and satisfying) story than drag back every peripheral character for no apparent reason than cluttering the screen and wasting time.  Did we really need to see Mr. Kim?  The whole April thing is just awful.  It made Lorelai look nasty compared to the fact that she had at least a pleasant relationship with April in Season 7.  

[Katy M]

11 minutes ago, Kohola3 said:

Did we really need to see Mr. Kim?  The whole April thing is just awful.  It made Lorelai look nasty compared to the fact that she had at least a pleasant relationship with April in Season 7.  

Again, I didn't see the revival, so I probably shouldn't comment.  But, I think seeing Mr. Kim (I'm assuming they didn't spend oodles of time on him) does sound fun as long as it's quick, like one or two scenes.  April, it sound like the problem wasn't that she was around, but that the writing for it was horrible.  I always used to feel that Lorelei merely tolerated Gigi, so it doesn't really surprise me that she's not super into April.

[scarynikki12]

I thought Mr. Kim was cute.  Seeing him lasted maybe two seconds and he looked like a sweet guy.  If they'd walked up to him and chatted for several minutes it probably would have annoyed but a two second part of a larger scene was fine for me.

[Taryn74]

I didn't like seeing Mr. Kim BUT that's only because if we were ever going to see him, it should have been at Lane's wedding.  They even showed her walking down the aisle, with no Mr. Kim escorting her.  We could have seen him in the wedding from the back and STILL not know what he looks like, and that would have been funny.  Seeing him for the first time now was just lame.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Taryn74 said:

I didn't like seeing Mr. Kim BUT that's only because if we were ever going to see him, it should have been at Lane's wedding.  They even showed her walking down the aisle, with no Mr. Kim escorting her.  We could have seen him in the wedding from the back and STILL not know what he looks like, and that would have been funny.  Seeing him for the first time now was just lame.

Yes, having him there when he's never been around and hasn't been mentioned since Season 2 just makes it seem like he's a deadbeat dad or something.

[junienmomo]

23 hours ago, Taryn74 said:

 

 

 

 

 

Yes to EVERYTHING you said.  

I've really been mulling over my thoughts about the Revival these past couple of days, and I think what's the saddest to me is that THIS is where ASP planned for these characters to end up, all along.  She never intended for Rory to move on from spoiled, entitled, Princess of Stars Hollow; she never intended for Lorelai to move on from manic, self-centered, my-way-or-the-highway Queen of Stars Hollow; she never intended for Luke and Lorelai to have a healthy relationship where they actually talk things over; she never intended for Logan to be anything but a smug, rich frat boy; she never intended for Lorelai to have a real relationship with her parents; etc etc.  It's like she created this magical world with characters we couldn't help but love, and then she snatched them all away, turned them all into the worst possible caricatures of themselves, and laughed at our naivety.  

"Squee on this, bitches."

Sigh.

Totally agree with the squee.

It plays for me differently. 

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me."

By the time I experienced seasons six and seven, I realized that I'd let myself be fooled the first five seasons. Always hoping Lorelai would mature. Trusting that she and Luke would communicate as deeply as they did in season one. Hope that Rory's fairly inconsiderate treatment of her boyfriends would change, and that her early resourcefulness would return and she'd make a career she really wanted.

Fool me five times. Sigh. 

My daughter called me up as she finished season five and asked, does it get less stupid in the rest of the seasons? I told her no.

Thank goodness for fanfic.

[Kohola3]

2 minutes ago, junienmomo said:

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me."

Maybe that's why I hate ASP with the fire of a thousand suns.  She suckered the hell out of me, stringing me along with me always hoping the next episode would magically improve.  Man, was I stupid.

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, JayInChicago said:

Yeah the treatment of April in the Revival was really terrible. I kind of wish she wouldn't have been brought back at all. Mentioning her would have been fine. Lorelai showed no love towards her in the Revival not even on a distant relative level, much less a sort of step mom. My step mom who wasn't even my step mom until I was 35 is far more warm towards me.

 

3 hours ago, Kohola3 said:

There were several characters that were apparently brought back just so ASP could trumpet about it.  It would have been better to spend some time on a cohesive (and satisfying) story than drag back every peripheral character for no apparent reason than cluttering the screen and wasting time.  Did we really need to see Mr. Kim?  The whole April thing is just awful.  It made Lorelai look nasty compared to the fact that she had at least a pleasant relationship with April in Season 7.  

It really didn't feel in character for Lorelai to show April no love in the Revival. I really can't see Lorelai not working hard to build a relationship with April or the two not getting along. Lorelai came up with the birthday party idea on the spot for April, and April loved it. She had a great time. I don't see her not coming to visit during the five years before college and the two not becoming really close.

[itgetseasier]

So am I the only one here who actually loves this show? 

[Taryn74]

20 minutes ago, itgetseasier said:

So am I the only one here who actually loves this show? 

Ha ha ha, no I still love it.  Just very frustrated with certain parts of it.

[FictionLover]

2 hours ago, itgetseasier said:

So am I the only one here who actually loves this show? 

I love it but was disappointed in the revival.

[Anela]

4 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

 

It really didn't feel in character for Lorelai to show April no love in the Revival. I really can't see Lorelai not working hard to build a relationship with April or the two not getting along. Lorelai came up with the birthday party idea on the spot for April, and April loved it. She had a great time. I don't see her not coming to visit during the five years before college and the two not becoming really close.

I didn't think Christopher was in character, either, when we saw him briefly. I didn't picture him sitting in Luke's diner, and them being one big happy family, but he didn't seem like himself with his daughter. 

[Kohola3]

Quote

So am I the only one here who actually loves this show? 

I initially loved it and I still like it but the revival just ruined things for me.  I still DVR it daily (mostly for times when nothing else is on) but delete more than I watch anymore.  It just hasn't held up that well.

[JayInChicago]

The Revival just seemed wayyyy off to me. Like, who are these people?!? It didn't recapture the charm of the original series (well---first 4ish seasons) and for me that sort of put me off rewatching the OS, even.

 

Still love my memories of it. Will probably rewatch again. 

ASP can go eat her weird hats. 

[Smad]

20 hours ago, Kohola3 said:

The whole April thing is just awful.  It made Lorelai look nasty compared to the fact that she had at least a pleasant relationship with April in Season 7.  

So basically in hindsight, Luke was right to keep April and Lorelai from interacting in S6?

8 hours ago, JayInChicago said:

The Revival just seemed wayyyy off to me. Like, who are these people?!? It didn't recapture the charm of the original series (well---first 4ish seasons) and for me that sort of put me off rewatching the OS, even.

 

Still love my memories of it. Will probably rewatch again. 

ASP can go eat her weird hats. 

I hadn't re-watched in a few years and as I mentioned I was in the middle of a re-watch for the past two weeks. And I stopped. I couldn't continue past 'Festival Of Living Art'. So much boring in S3 that I had to force myself to make to the end. And early Season 4 is just more boring blah. I honestly don't know how I made it through the last time.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Smad

[FictionLover]

6 hours ago, Smad said:

So basically in hindsight, Luke was right to keep April and Lorelai from interacting in S6?

I hadn't re-watched in a few years and as I mentioned I was in the middle of a re-watch for the past two weeks. And I stopped. I couldn't continue past 'Festival Of Living Art'. So much boring in S3 that I had to force myself to make to the end. And early Season 4 is just more boring blah. I honestly don't know how I made it through the last time.

I've seen surveys and season 3 was a favorite. I thought it was slow as well.

[Kohola3]

Quote

So basically in hindsight, Luke was right to keep April and Lorelai from interacting in S6?

Heavens, no.  She should have been interacting from the moment he found out.  But ASP wanted to go make sure she'd written such a load of BS in S6 that the S7 writers would never be able to dig out of the hole.

[closeyoureyes]

I watched most of this series for the first time and have enough odd opinions to fill several posts but will try to control myself! 

This show is actually sort of mediocre overall and at times terrible. As many have said, it's got some great dialogue, some very well done individual scenes, and...that's it. The characters all get to the point of being horribly unlikable in ways that the writer doesn't seem to intend.  The attempts at girl power empowerment are muddled and ultimately fall flat. It has some extraordinarily antiquated, outdated ideas about class, social status and even romantic relationships while also trying too hard to be edgy. It's too twee and saccharine to work as a sharp and clever satire and too cynical, obnoxiously and unrealistically quirky and filled with unlikable protagonists and cardboard caricatures to fully work as a sincere dramedy. It feels like a show that's straining to be too many things at once and ends up doing none of them particularly well.  

All three Gilmore girls are the worst. Emily is vicious, classist and so much more, and for a woman who prattles on nonstop about etiquette and breeding, she's astoundingly rude and ill-mannered in every way. Lorelai is narcissistic, absurdly immature, believes she's far more adorable and entertaining than she actually is, and always acts like she's high on methamphetmaines.  Rory is in some ways the worst because she cravenly hides behind the security of being the allegedly good, nice one of these women and never seems to accept responsibility for how entitled, selfish, unethical and weak she really is. All three genuinely, sincerely think they're superior to everyone around them and are entitled to be treated as special. It makes it impossible for me to root for them. 

Luke and Lorelai are just terrible together, one of the most mismatched couples ever on TV, and I laughed when I saw someone post here about how they were written in every scene as if the showrunner was seething with resentment and bitterness about having to acknowledge them at all. 'You're forcing me to put them together? I'll show you to be careful what you wish for, you ignorant idiots!'

I wish Mrs. Kim and Lane had been the mother/daughter duo of the show. They were more interesting, more entertaining, had a relationship that was both more nuanced and more amusing than Lorelai and Rory's, and were ultimately so much more likable. They're a main reason I kept watching the show even though I hated how the show stuck Lane with Zach and thought the actress pulled off the coup of the entire show by convincingly acting as if she actually cared about that wholly unappealing idiot. 

Logan and his friends are appalling, but the writers' idea of class are so bizarrely outdated and over the top that I can't even take them seriously. A few of my best friends went to Ivy League schools. (I was too busy reading for fun to care about school work, which was sadly reflected in my grades, lol.) My family didn't have a lot of money, but I encountered a lot of wealthy people while growing up and sometims still do in my line of work. Even taking into account that TV always exaggerates to be funnier, more dramatic or both, the writer's depcition of class divides really is unbelievably bizarre, and my favorite posts here were the ones about how her ideas are lifted straight from dramatic novels about Regency era England. My new heroine: whoever made that crack about worrying who will become the next Earl of Grantham if Logan doesn't marry Odette for what the writer hilariously attributed to "dynastic reasons"! 

Luke would have had a much happier relationship with Rachel. Or remaining on his own. 

Lorelai was much better matched with Christopher and Rory and Logan ended up very well suited.  And believe me when I say that I don't mean that as a compliment to any of the four characters involved. 

I actually admire all of you who have the patience and fortitude to rewatch the series repeatedly. I barely made it through just once! I kept hanging in there because of how much I like Lane, sometimes Sookie and Michel, and a lot of the dialogue. Plus, I had this need to see why this show is so beloved and critically acclaimed.  And it's not like I don't understand why or see any redeeming qualities, but unfortunately for me the show's flaws far outweighed its strengths. I actually found much of it extremely grating. And that's even before I got to that travesty of a revival! 

[Kohola3]

1 hour ago, closeyoureyes said:

And it's not like I don't understand why or see any redeeming qualities, but unfortunately for me the show's flaws far outweighed its strengths.

I think it was popular when it first came out because it was a bit different from most of the shows at that time. So we were willing to overlook some of the obvious flaws.  In rewatching, and in this decade, it simply does not hold up well at all.  That is one reason why the revival was so abysmal.  To replicate the rapid fire dialog and stereotypes in this viewing age just didn't cut it anymore.

[ZuluQueenOfDwarves]

Also, it's nearly twenty years since the show premiered. Back then, the fact that you could only see the show once a week helped it a lot (which is not at all specific to GG). In the era of binge watching, the clear decline in quality between seasons, the stock stereotypes, and the flanderization of so many characters is a lot more glaring. 

[junienmomo]

5 hours ago, closeyoureyes said:

This show is actually sort of mediocre overall and at times terrible. As many have said, it's got some great dialogue, some very well done individual scenes, and...that's it. The characters all get to the point of being horribly unlikable in ways that the writer doesn't seem to intend.  The attempts at girl power empowerment are muddled and ultimately fall flat. It has some extraordinarily antiquated, outdated ideas about class, social status and even romantic relationships while also trying too hard to be edgy. It's too twee and saccharine to work as a sharp and clever satire and too cynical, obnoxiously and unrealistically quirky and filled with unlikable protagonists and cardboard caricatures to fully work as a sincere dramedy. It feels like a show

This is all true. Personally i fell in love with the show because i generally have a willingness to gloss over cracks in a story when something has caught my imagination. This was the LL relationship for me. I so bought into the promise of season one that I was ridiculously accepting of the way the writers hacked the relationship to bits. It wasn't until season 6 and the long lost kid storyline that i gave up.

However, LL still exists in my mind and fanfic gives me hours of entertainment.

[txhorns79]

Quote

Heavens, no.  She should have been interacting from the moment he found out.  But ASP wanted to go make sure she'd written such a load of BS in S6 that the S7 writers would never be able to dig out of the hole.

I don't agree they should have been interacting the moment Luke found out, but I agree that Luke letting it go on for as long as he did was absurd.  It was the worst of all worlds to have Lorelai find out such huge news in the manner she did.   

[Bringonthedrama]

On 7/6/2017 at 3:31 PM, Crs97 said:

 I must admit that my watching the revival was more like skimming, but did anyone else get the feeling that Rory was driving the "casual" nature of her relationship with Logan? The way he responded to every phone call and tried to help solve every issue she had suggested to me that he would have dumped fiancée in a heartbeat if Rory had wanted to pursue things further.  Or did I FF a scene that suggested otherwise?

I guess you didn't watch the LDB scenes? After the dancing, Logan and Rory were alone in a room looking out onto the dance floor, and Logan offers her a key to a house owned by his father. She asks if he's still going to marry Odette, and he says (without hesitation) "That's the dynastic plan." It was clear that he had no intention of dumping Odette, but I felt that AB played it like Rory was hoping her question would cause him to hesitate, and tell him he would rather be with her. If Logan genuinely loved her and wanted to pursue things further, that was the moment he would have said it. I thought Logan handing her the key was a strong implication that the entire LBD experience was meant to both cheer her up and get her back on board as his side piece. Rory looked like she was trying to put on a no-big-deal front (since this arrangement was 'okay' with her this whole time), but her expression conveyed that she was hurt and sad.  And then she slept with him. again. I believe it was supposed to remind the audience of their college years, when Rory told Logan she was fine with a casual thing so that he would want her, and then when she and her mom saw him on a date with a girl after Logan and Rory slept together the first time, she was hurt (but tried to pretend that it didn't bother her).  Cue the Founder's Day scene where she gets drunk and ends up sick on the bathroom floor, crying to her mother "Why doesn't he like me/call me."

But the revival's narrative makes no sense, since during the series Logan had moved beyond being a a player, committed to and then *proposed* to Rory.  As far as I can tell, the only things that AS-P acknowledged in the revival, which were in the series after she left it,  were Lorelai's brief marriage to Christopher and Lane having twins. 

[readster]

I agree on AS-P view and what happened when she left. She basical said: "That's not how I would have had it and screw it! People regress all the time." Then we got the stupidity with Logan wanting Rory as his side piece, the Mitchum that was a bigger asshole than last we saw him. Luke's constant: "She's my daughter." Or how about the DAR: "We can do everything illegal to make a point because we are better than everyone else, and don't say: 'bullshit'". 

[BlancheDevoreaux]

Most of my UO have already been mentioned.

1. I am with everyone else about Luke and Lorelei.  I loved their friendship but disliked just about everything about their relationship other than the friendship parts.  

2. I preferred Lorelei with Christopher.  She was completely in the wrong with how she treated him when they were married, but that aside, I was much more into the build ups of their get-togethers.

3. I hated just about everything about Jess at every point in the series.  No, he didn't redeem himself in the later seasons to me.  I think Rory said it best at the end of season 4 when she was telling Lane why she didn't run off with him to New York.  He was too much of a flake ad she could have said yes and he would have changed his mind before she finished packing.  So he seemed decent enough on season 6, but I didn't trust it.  Too much of him being a complete ass to everyone except Rory (and even then, that was only up until they got together - once they started dating, he was an ass to her) has me not trusting anything about him or wanting him to end up with anyone on this show.

4.  I'm not really sure if this is more about writing, directing, or casting, but for how smart Rory was supposed to be, she certainly spent most of the series appearing to be a nitwit. At Chilton, she got that award where she was going to speak publicly on CSPAN, she did a terrible job.  Now, we might could chalk that up to the comfortableness of the situation but the rest of the series, when she had to speak, she often used that weird baby voice and didn't enunciate he words. She couldn't handle any sort of disappointment or anything not going exactly as she planned -meltdown when she slept through her test at Chilton, meltdown about dropping a class (seriously, WTF was that about?), meltdown with the bad performance review, etc.  

5. There should be a spinoff show with Joey Potter and Rory Gilmore going to grad school together and the guys have to decide which one they will fall all over themselves to get to fall in love. 

Okay, number 5 is not real. Please don't do this.

[Katy M]

3 hours ago, BlancheDevoreaux said:

5. There should be a spinoff show with Joey Potter and Rory Gilmore going to grad school together and the guys have to decide which one they will fall all over themselves to get to fall in love. 

Okay, number 5 is not real. Please don't do this.

Too late.  I've called Katie and Alexis. They're completely on board.  Filming starts tomorrow.  The first scene involves a ridiculously complex coin toss. 

[Nostariel]

On 7/15/2017 at 11:27 AM, closeyoureyes said:

This show is actually sort of mediocre overall and at times terrible. As many have said, it's got some great dialogue, some very well done individual scenes, and...that's it. The characters all get to the point of being horribly unlikable in ways that the writer doesn't seem to intend.  The attempts at girl power empowerment are muddled and ultimately fall flat. It has some extraordinarily antiquated, outdated ideas about class, social status and even romantic relationships while also trying too hard to be edgy. It's too twee and saccharine to work as a sharp and clever satire and too cynical, obnoxiously and unrealistically quirky and filled with unlikable protagonists and cardboard caricatures to fully work as a sincere dramedy. It feels like a show that's straining to be too many things at once and ends up doing none of them particularly well.

I love that you've managed to summarize all of my complicated feelings about the show in only one paragraph. I still enjoy most of S1 & S2, plus bits and pieces afterward, but exposure to truly great TV over the past few years has me noticing the flaws in the shows I watch more and more. Gilmore Girls is, unfortunately, a deeply flawed show. One that I love, to be sure, but it makes rewatches harder than I'd like.

[clack]

GG's best virtues were always its mood, atmosphere, tone. There was some accidental magic there that no other show has ever been able to replicate, not even those produced by AS-P.

The characters, situations, and dialogue don't really hold up to repeated viewings 17 years after the show debuted. To that extent, the show is showing its age. But watch a little scene with Lorelai and Rory chatting and walking through the streets of Stars Hollow while snow falls and the soundtrack La La Las, and the magic is still there.

[Katy M]

38 minutes ago, clack said:

GG's best virtues were always its mood, atmosphere, tone. There was some accidental magic there that no other show has ever been able to replicate, not even those produced by AS-P.

The characters, situations, and dialogue don't really hold up to repeated viewings 17 years after the show debuted. To that extent, the show is showing its age. But watch a little scene with Lorelai and Rory chatting and walking through the streets of Stars Hollow while snow falls and the soundtrack La La Las, and the magic is still there.

Yes, I would say that Gilmore Girls' parts were better than its whole. 

[shron17]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

Yes, I would say that Gilmore Girls' parts were better than its whole. 

So much so that for me, all of the wonderful parts add up to way more than the whole of any other show I've watched.  When I rewatch it's because so many scenes, probably at least one in even the worst episodes, make me happy.  I find that to be true of all seasons of Gilmore Girls (though to a much lesser degree in season 7) and in the revival.

 

3 hours ago, clack said:

GG's best virtues were always its mood, atmosphere, tone. There was some accidental magic there that no other show has ever been able to replicate, not even those produced by AS-P.

My unpopular opinion is that there's a great deal of talent that helped create the magic along with the accidental part.  In ASP's newest pilot I could feel magic in the creation of characters and a fictional world in a way that makes me want to return and impatient for new episodes.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Katy M said:

Yes, I would say that Gilmore Girls' parts were better than its whole. 

I would emphatically, but respectfully, disagree.  When I look at the parts of GG, the individual relationships, the uneven storylines, I think "who would watch that?"  But then I watch it and I'm still hooked after watching most of it 10-15 times.

[forever]

Get ready to hate me, but I still and forever "ship" Rory and Jess. I know all the reasons I shouldn't, most of which are related to how troubled Jess used to be in the past and how problematic Rory turned out to be later on, but the people and relationships I'm drawn to both in fiction and real life often defy rational explanation :) Like a lot of people, I see a massive amount of chemistry between them, some of which might be attributed to Alexis and Milo being in love in real life during some of their time together on the show, but for me it's more than a purely physical connection. I just feel like they have this natural connection and understanding that neither has with anyone else. When I watch Rory and Jess, I just can't shake that sense that they're meant to be. It's more of a feeling and instinct than an intellectual, logical conclusion! I'm guessing a similar feeling keeps a lot of fans shipping LL despite much of what did and didn't happen on screen.  But that's just a guess, since another unpopular opinion is that I never shipped LL, not even back when they were friends and seemed to like each other and connect better than they did after they started dating. Although after reading this thread, I was surprised to see that indifference or dislike towards the LL romance seems a lot less popular than it used to be.  I agree that Luke and Lorelai were both more enjoyable and likable apart than together. 

After watching the revival, I jokingly asked another GG fan and attorney whether some of us could start a class action suit to sue ASP for the deliberate infliction of emotional distress. Even after that debacle, though, I still have some residual affection for Rory. Not as much as I used to, but some. Like a lot of us here, I was the kind of introverted, bookish teenager who cared more reading, learning and spending time alone with the very few people I was close to than what most other young TV females on TV seemed to focus on. Even as an adult who's now on the wrong side of 40, that description still fits me pretty well!  I connected with Rory from the first episode, and I even related to some of her not very appealing but somewhat realistic changes and questionable choices in the middle to late seasons. Even at her worst in seasons 5, 6 and the revival, I still partially see the young woman I once really cared about. I'm like 99% of Gilmore Girls characters - mysteriously brainwashed into always perceiving Rory as a better person than she is in reality.  :) Even now, I don't see Jess as having suddenly become unrealistically perfect (to me, he's still very...Jess, just grown up and a little more settled and stable and less inclined to lash out angrily at the world around him, as many troubled kids with unstable home lives eventually do) and I don't see Rory as too irredeemable to eventually get it together.  And so even now, I still stubbornly "ship" them despite Rory seeming to view Jess purely platonically in the revival, not to mention being an utter mess. I don't even usually like the brooding  leather-clad"bad boy" who disdains everything mainstream, but even though I did wantito muzzle him for stretches of seasons 2 and 3, Jess is the exception to that rule. (I shipped them even then, but I felt guiltier about it than I did after seeing him in Season 6) I don't think I'd want to be with someone like him, but I do still think he's right for Rory. Why? Because...I just do. Shipping  turns me into a partially deluded masochist. :)  If we did sue ASP for traumatizing some of us with that revival, I could finally afford the help that I clearly need.  

I recently rewatched parts of S6 (another sign of that masochism I mentioned!), and I came to the conclusion that ASP had no plan whatsoever for Rory and Logan. The writing gave me the impression that she never knew what she wated his or their arc to be or even how much longer she wanted Logan to be on the show. Some episodes she wrote them as if we were supposed to root for them. Then, without any apparent reason, she'd write them in a way that makes me think she thought they were a doomed train wreck and that we, the audience, were supposed to think so too. Part of me is still surprised she put them together again after LMHYBRO which even my very Logan loving friend thought was ASP putting a nail in Rory/Logan's coffin, and that was even before the bridesmaid embarrassment. Anyway, I'm definitely not trying to ignite any sort of Logan vs Jess battle because I'm too old and emotionally fragile for that :) And also because I really do see attributes and problematic aspects of both those ships, so it's just a question of preference. I'm just saying in what is becoming a very unnecessarily long way that after watching parts of season 6 again and realizing that nearly all of Logan showing more consistent growth and maturity came in season 7, I wasn't as surprised by how ASP wrote them in the revival. Revival Logan seemed at least somewhat consistent with who ASP thought he was all along, someone adventurous, charming and alluring but not someone with real substance and integrity. Just like Christopher, and heaven knows ASP likes her mother/daughter parallels. I'm not saying viewers should view Logan that way, just that ASP seemed to.  And it's one of the few things I think I agree with her on, but that's just my own opinion. As for her ignoring S7 as it suited her, though, it's one of a few things that make me think ASP isn't any more mature than her "heroine," Lorelai. 

I'm so sorry this ended up so long! I didn't know I had so many thoughts until I started typing them. I wanted to agree with those who feel that Gilmore Girls is still magic. Objectively, I dislike many aspects of it. There's no other show where I could dislike at least 60-70% of the characters and relationships (and that's a generous estimate!) but would still consider that show all time favorite.  But like deaja and others said, somehow these individual and often problematic parts add up to a much greater whole than they logically should, a show that's still a huge source of joy, humor, and comfort to me and is full of clever dialogue that I've made the mistake of trying to quote to people who never watched Gilmore Girls. I'm still glad I found the show and found a place like this to talk about it. It's just that there's this enormous gap between what I objectively think of the show and how warm and fuzzy it still makes me feel!  

[mamadrama]

On 7/6/2017 at 7:56 PM, Katy M said:

 

I didn't see the revival, but Rory went to Europe twice without having a job. Once, backpacking with Lorelai (which I still find odd) and once with her grandmother. 

I've solo backpacked Europe several times over the years. I've also backpacked Europe with my mother. I was 22, she was 63, and we had a blast. We've backpacked all over Eastern and Western Europe. I've been with friends my own age, too, but I'd rather go with my mom. My son is 9. I've promised to backpack with him over there when he's a teen, if he still wants to. He and I have already taken alone trips to LA and NYC. When my daughter is older (she's 5), I'll do alone trips with her as well. 

[forever]

 This one is just weird, but at least it's a new topic I don't think you all have discussed yet: does anyone else feel like there was a little too much drinking on this show? Drinking that some viewers might find borderline problematic but is never pointed out as such on screen so is clearly not supposed to be? As you all would say, I think I will be at a table for one on this issue! I do know it's a strange thing to point out, but it especially stood out to me during the revival, when it seemed like characters were guzzling down alcohol in almost every scene. (My friend and I, old and sentimental as we are, sighed nostalgically over when Rory was always seen clutching books and coffee. In the revival, she held only alcohol and cell phones in nearly every scene. How dare she grow up? ;))

Even during the OS, it seemed like Lorelai drank a lot, and by the way, if my mom got that drunk at my best friend's wedding and treated the entire crowd to a mortifying speech all about her own problematic love life, I think I would have to change my name and go into hiding because my humiliation would be eternal. Logan seemed to be an excessive drinker too. I understand why defenders of his character will counter that most college students party and I agree, but do most college students carry around a flask and drink alone whenever their daddies irritate them? I only knew one kid who drank alone and that excessively in college, and he needed a stint in rehab soon after we graduated. 

Typing out that paragraph reminded me that I agree with people who think Lorelai and Logan are very similar.  And if Lorelai hadn't had responsibility thrust upon her at such a young age in the form of an unexpected pregnancy, I think Lorelai would have been even more similar to Chris and Logan, who were more frivolous, impulsive, reckless and carefree in large part because their lifestyles afforded them that luxury. I will compete for the queen of unpopularity by adding that I think Luke and Dean are very similar too. "Guy's guy" types, both into fixing things, sports and outdoor activities, both by their own admission "simple", what you see is what you get type of people as opposed to the rest of Gilmore Girls' somewhat more complex characters, both are smart about pragmatic matters though neither is intellectual or very academically inclined, both are genuinely content with a no frills, small town life in a way that many of Gilmore Girls' other characters wouldn't be, and both are prone to jealousy and have problems controlling their tempers. They just always reminded me a lot of each other. I always suspected one reason Luke was so over the top in his dislike of and rudeness towards Dean was that he saw  things in Dean that reminded him of himself, and maybe not the parts of himself he likes most.

I promised the friend I watch Gilmore Girls with that I would ask the experts here your opinions on a pressing issue we were discussing: if the next "revival" were structured as a murder mystery, which frankly I think would be a vast improvement over what we got, which three characters would you most want to see as the victims? These are the sort of things we mull over while drinking as much coffee as Lorelai. :)

Edited July 20, 2017 by forever

[txhorns79]

Quote

 This one is just weird, but at least it's a new topic I don't think you all have discussed yet: does anyone else feel like there was a little too much drinking on this show? Drinking that some viewers might find borderline problematic but is never pointed out as such on screen so is clearly not supposed to be? As you all would say, I think I will be at a table for one on this issue! I do know it's a strange thing to point out, but it especially stood out to me during the revival, when it seemed like characters were guzzling down alcohol in almost every scene.

I didn't find the drinking problematic, or at least I never got the impression we were supposed to take it that way.  There were certainly episodes where some of the characters got drunk, but it wasn't written like they had a problem.  Though honestly, how are the writers supposed to determine if the drinking is such that some viewers might find it borderline problematic?  That seems like a pretty vague standard. 

[forever]

Quote

hough honestly, how are the writers supposed to determine if the drinking is such that some viewers might find it borderline problematic?  

 I meant that to me the drinking was excessive to the point where some viewers could reasonably find it problematic even though that wasn't the writers' intention, not that the writers were supposed to sit around calculating exactly how the majority of the viewing public would feel about it.

Edited July 20, 2017 by forever

[ghoulina]

I never really thought there was a lot of drinking. Other than the few times Lorelai got drunk (Luke limo, Lane's wedding), I really only remember her having alcohol at FND. And it was usually just a drink or two, which the elder Gilmores had as well. I don't know, it's very common for a lot of people to have a stiff drink after work or some wine with dinner. I was in Ireland earlier this year and everyone had alcohol with dinner. It was just common, but no one was drunk. (Okay, not no one. But you know what I mean. It was just part of the meal.)

Logan and his buddies partied a lot, but I think that's what MANY college kids did, so I didn't see it as an issue. I'd maybe worry about him carrying on after his business went bust, but he got his shit together and it didn't turn into a prolonged problem or anything. 

So yea, the drinking never stood out to be as anything out of the norm. I guess maybe if you came from a culture where there is little to no alcohol it might seem like a lot, but not to me.