All Episodes Talk: Lorelai and Rory and the People They Love

[RoyRogersMcFreely]

1 hour ago, Aloeonatable said:

I'm not sure what you meant in the bolded sentence. I can't disregard my own principles when watching (or reading about) a fictional character. If I think that infidelity is wrong, I'm going to dislike that trait or action in a fictional character. I may still find it fascinating to explore the nature of such a character, but that doesn't mean I can't find their actions deplorable. 

I wasn't referring to your comment, I was referring to the one that said it didn't teach viewers a good lesson. That's why I said it wasn't her job to teach people lessons. Obviously you can feel however you want to feel about any character or storyline for any reason, as can I, but I don't expect the show to be Davey and Goliath teaching me right from wrong.

[dubbel zout]

On 3/1/2017 at 10:58 AM, Aloeonatable said:

Infidelity is wrong period.

I don't agree that infidelity is always wrong, but it sure was here. And I don't like that it was written in a way that I think we're supposed to sympathize with the cheaters. "Logan is trapped!" "Rory and Logan are in love!" "This is the only way they can be together!" Spare me. I get that Logan grew up with certain expectations and it can be difficult to break away from all of them, especially when they're tied to money, but he's not completely stupid. He has a Yale degree and lots of connections. I'm sure Mitchell Huntzberger has enough people who hate him that they'd hire Logan simply to stick it to Mitchell. As long as Logan could be productive, I don't see where he wouldn't sign on.

But instead we get woe-is-me-I-have-to-toe-the-family-line Logan.

[Sweet Tee]

Quote

"Logan is trapped!" "Rory and Logan are in love!" "This is the only way they can be together!" Spare me.

Agreed.  For Heaven's sake it's 2017 (or 2016 at the time).  Nobody is forcing Logan to marry Odette.  If he's trapped by his family then it's his own fault.  If he's too weak or incapable to survive in the world without his father and his father's money/business, that is completely on him.  

Infidelity can be done in an interesting way in fiction.  At least in fiction, we know the whole story and can get an idea of where everyone is coming from.  This is just not one of those cases.  This is Rory being a serial cheater and Logan not dumping his fiance because....I don't even know, because he "has" to marry her, I guess.  Neither of them come across as sympathetic to me.  I don't care that we don't know Odette.  

[qtpye]

On 2/26/2017 at 10:30 PM, whateverhappened said:

I don't doubt that they loved each other, but the writing often gave me the impression that we were supposed to conclude Logan's excessive partying and general high society lifestyle was diverting Rory from the person she used to be and was ideally meant to become. That was a theme throughout and what I saw as the purpose of Jess's visit that season - not to revive a Rory and Jess romance but as a wakeup call to Rory and using Jess a stand-in for the very large portion of the audience who disliked Logan and/or the person Rory had become during their time together. I'm definitely not blaming Logan for any of Rory's choices, but I'm just saying that I don't think of S6 Rogan as written to be a relationship we were supposed to view as "end game" or even very healthy. And to me they were definitely not an ideal romance novel couple despite having some individual romantic moments. In romance novels, the idea is that despite obstacles, the two characters clearly make each other happier and better and are meant to be happily ever after.

Too me it comes down to the writer's very simplistic style of writing. 

Rory= Lorelai

Logan=Chris

Jess=Luke

It is ridiculous to argue that people just do not blindly follow in the foot steps of a generation before them.

Rory is not Lorelai.  Lorelai is headstrong and independent, while Rory is more reserved and sweet.

I think AP really thought that Rory would have the best of both worlds in this situation.  She could live a romanticized blue collar life in a town that adored her like special princess, yet her child would have access to the wealth and privilege afforded by the Gilmore and (if she chooses to ever tell him) Logan's family name.

She could be an independent single woman, with two men pining after her the rest of her life.  Rory world will always be romantic without the drudgery and compromise of marriage, unless she decides to get married later in life, like her mother.

Rory can easily hire a nanny and then spend time writing a great novel which will eventually add her name to a long list of New England's well respected writers and authors.

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

Where is the Jess = Luke theory from? I've read the interviews where ASP liken Chris/Logan but have missed a Jess/Luke comparison 

[tarotx]

Amy is the one who uses the word trapped for Logan and called him a boy never released from his family. And Matt is the one who said Logan loved Rory. 

Edited March 3, 2017 by tarotx

[andromeda331]

14 hours ago, Sweet Tee said:

Agreed.  For Heaven's sake it's 2017 (or 2016 at the time).  Nobody is forcing Logan to marry Odette.  If he's trapped by his family then it's his own fault.  If he's too weak or incapable to survive in the world without his father and his father's money/business, that is completely on him.  

Infidelity can be done in an interesting way in fiction.  At least in fiction, we know the whole story and can get an idea of where everyone is coming from.  This is just not one of those cases.  This is Rory being a serial cheater and Logan not dumping his fiance because....I don't even know, because he "has" to marry her, I guess.  Neither of them come across as sympathetic to me.  I don't care that we don't know Odette.  

I agree. I'm not a fan of cheating. But there were ways to make Logan and Rory sympathetic and they chose none of them. Reading through this thread there have been a lot of really good suggestions. I mean, Logan could have come to Richard's funeral or ran into Rory in London when she was having a real hard time dealing with the loss of the grandfather she loved which lead to sex and now they have an emotional connection again. Maybe Logan was engaged to Odette but after running into Rory, maybe he's not so sure anymore after all he loved Rory enough to propose and to run into her now and she's single. Or maybe he fell back into his family's business whether he caved, or was unable to make it on his own and pressured to marry Odette but seeing Rory reminds him of how hard he worked in season seven to become his own person. For Rory maybe she broke down when running to Logan and has ended up depending on him since Richard's death and since then keeps going back to Logan because he was there for her when Richard had his heart attack years ago, or maybe with her non-existence career she wonders how things would have gone if she married him and moved to San Francisco working for one of the city's newspapers. Or she just broke up with Paul who's just another of string of relationships that went nowhere or it was long term relationship that just ended.   There were a lot of different options they could have done.

[AllyB]

Yeah, that's the thing. I'm not a fan of cheating but it's a mainstay of any long running drama series because it is dramatic. And over the decades there have been various writers and actors that have found ways to make the audience have a degree of sympathy with the couple that are cheating. Whereas in the revival, Rory and Logan were just written as selfish and completely callous about Odette and Paul.

[Eyes High]

Quote

Rory is not Lorelai.  Lorelai is headstrong and independent, while Rory is more reserved and sweet.

I agree that Lorelai is less reserved than Rory, but Rory can be just as headstrong as Lorelai. I don't know that I'd call Adult Rory "sweet," either. Adult Rory is just as thoughtless, self-centered and rude as Lorelai at her worst. It's too bad, because I liked that Rory was an unusual modern heroine in the early years of the series: polite, reserved and modest, but perfectly capable of asserting opinions with confidence and clarity. She was considerate, gentle and kind, but no shrinking violet. It's disappointing that those qualities seem entirely absent from Adult Rory.

Judging from ASP's comments scoffing the idea of having (for example) Jess married to Rory, it seems that she believes that a lead character achieving romantic stability is death to storytelling. That would certainly explain a lot about how she's written both Rory and Lorelai. In her mind, at least, I don't think she would see Rory settled down anytime soon, if ever.

Quote

I agree. I'm not a fan of cheating. But there were ways to make Logan and Rory sympathetic and they chose none of them.

In my opinion, the story easily could have worked in pretty much exactly the same way with Paul and Odette written out altogether. Logan could be just as reluctant to commit to Rory openly, either because he couldn't get over Rory's rejection of his proposal or because he'd ultimately accepted Mitchum's logic about Rory being unsuitable, and Rory could get frustrated with Logan because he was treating her like a mistress and wouldn't commit to her. It would unfold exactly the same way, no need for infidelity, with both Rory and Logan appearing more sympathetic.

With that said, it seems as if ASP didn't intend Rory and Logan to come off well at all; the affair was supposed to be another of Rory's terrible life decisions, thus the taint of infidelity and Logan treating Rory like a mistress (or, at worst, a call girl). Even so, ASP pulled her punches: the romantic, whimsical night with the LADB (where Logan was desperately trying to win Rory back as his side piece), Rory's "comical" inability to remember to break up with her boyfriend, etc.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Eyes High

[Iknewyoucoulddoit]

Quote

Agreed.  For Heaven's sake it's 2017 (or 2016 at the time).

Right? Even in the Palldinos' bizarre alternate universe where a lot of their points about money and class division harken back to a bygone era Amy Palladino wasn't alive for, this makes no sense. Zero. Unless maybe Logan knocked Odette up too? That Huntzberger sperm does seem to be very determined, lol, and it's not like the Palladinos are above using yet another contrived unplanned pregnancy as a key plot point.  

The revival confirmed for me that I dislike Logan even more than Christopher, but I felt that way even before. I see Christopher as a guy who, in his own ineffectual way, does sincerely care about people but is just a perpetual screwup. I'm not defending his choices, but I don't see him as a bad guy, just a continually misguided one. I always found Logan a much more duplicitous, smarmy guy than Christopher, a guy who will very deliberately use his cunning and what is supposed to pass for charm to manipulate and deceive to make sure he gets everything he wants without having to give anything up along the way.  

Just my opinion, and I respect that it's not one that many share! 

Edited March 3, 2017 by Iknewyoucoulddoit

[andromeda331]

9 minutes ago, Iknewyoucoulddoit said:

Right? Even in the Palldinos' bizarre alternate universe where a lot of their points about money and class division harken back to a bygone era Amy Palladino wasn't alive for, this makes no sense. Zero. Unless maybe Logan knocked Odette up too? That Huntzberger sperm does seem to be very determined, lol, and it's not like the Palladinos are above using yet another contrived unplanned pregnancy as a key plot point.  

The revival confirmed for me that I dislike Logan even more than Christopher, but I felt that way even before. I see Christopher as a guy who, in his own ineffectual way, does sincerely care about people but is just a perpetual screwup. I'm not defending his choices, but I don't see him as a bad guy, just a continually misguided one. I always found Logan a much more duplicitous, smarmy guy than Christopher, a guy who will very deliberately use his cunning and what is supposed to pass for charm to manipulate and deceive to make sure he gets everything he wants without having to give anything up along the way.  

Just my opinion, and I respect that it's not one that many share! 

Don't get me wrong I hate Christopher. But the older he gets the more pathetic he becomes. Christopher threw away so many opportunities. He could have had a relationship with Rory at any point in thirty-two years, he could have gone to college, or built a career. Or just done something. His life in the Revival was just hollow, it sounds like Gigi got shipped off to Paris so once again he didn't bother to do anything to raise his child.  Again.

[lulu1960]

14 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

Don't get me wrong I hate Christopher. But the older he gets the more pathetic he becomes. Christopher threw away so many opportunities. He could have had a relationship with Rory at any point in thirty-two years, he could have gone to college, or built a career. Or just done something. His life in the Revival was just hollow, it sounds like Gigi got shipped off to Paris so once again he didn't bother to do anything to raise his child.  Again.

And what was up with his comment when Rory asked if he was still with Lana (?) "Sure let's go with that." Was she his "Paul?"

[andromeda331]

4 minutes ago, lulu1960 said:

And what was up with his comment when Rory asked if he was still with Lana (?) "Sure let's go with that." Was she his "Paul?"

It reminded me of NCIS when Tony asked his father how his current stepmother was only to find that not only were they divorced, his father had married and divorced another wife without telling him.

[Iknewyoucoulddoit]

The Paul/Odette thing is just unfunny, unnecessary and gross, making Logan and Rory even less likable than they were otherwise - and they didn't need that extra help.

One thing I find ironic about Rory finding Paul too forgettable to even break up with or recall the existence of (ha ha...ha?) is that Rory herself is not exactly the world's most charismatic and vibrant sparkplug of a character.  Like who is SHE to think this devoted, generous, perfectly nice guy - a lot nicer than she is - is so beneath her that he's not even worth treating with a shred of respect despite the fact that she kept him in her life for years?

It's yet another thing supporting the theory that the Palldinos perceive their main characters as far better, more charming and lovable people than they actually are. I used to be a big defender of Rory and still can't find it in me to hate her, but even I think she's a lackluster drip who's led by stronger personalities like Lorelai, Emily, Paris, Logan, and Jess since she doesn't have much personality of her own.  Playing up how a guy she dated for years is too boring for the allegedly more dynamic, "force of nature" (LOL!!!) princess Rory to even remember is especially ironic to me and yet another example of how the Palladinos perceive their characters differently from the majority of viewers.

Edited March 4, 2017 by Iknewyoucoulddoit

[Guest]

What force of nature is Rory most like. Erosion, maybe. Yeah, something may be happening, but it can be years before you notice. Or maybe a drop in barometric pressure- not really sure what it is, but it gives me a headache. Or a comet- occasionally bright, but most of the time drifting somewhere else.

[Sweet Tee]

Perhaps high humidity.

[HeySandyStrange]

Wow, the last few messages have been some of the most amusing GG commentary I've read in a while. And the best thing, it's all true!

19 hours ago, Iknewyoucoulddoit said:

I used to be a big defender of Rory and still can't find it in me to hate her, but even I think she's a lackluster drip who's led by stronger personalities like Lorelai, Emily, Paris, Logan, and Jess since she doesn't have much personality of her own.  Playing up how a guy she dated for years is too boring for the allegedly more dynamic, "force of nature" (LOL!!!) princess Rory to even remember is especially ironic to me and yet another example of how the Palladinos perceive their characters differently from the majority of viewers.

I've expressed this exact same sentiment. I really loved early Rory, but a dynamic personality she was not and never has been. Well, I'll take that back: in the very, very beginning of the show there was at times a little genuine bite and sarcasm to Rory. I don't know if the writing changed or Alexis's lackluster acting/screen presence killed any actual complexity the character had, but it is a huge stretch to image Ms. Basic was too edgy or too much of a "force of nature" for nice guy Paul.  I said it in another thread, but in reality Rory would've most likely been the Paul to someone else by now. In reality I even wonder if she would've held Logan's or Jess's attention as she has.

Edited March 4, 2017 by HeySandyStrange

[hippielamb]

On 2/28/2017 at 0:53 AM, TimetravellingBW said:

It's implicit, As you said Logan was a cheater - and therefore a liar as well. He lied to his future wife about the fact he was sleeping with another woman. That's a pretty major lie in my book, I don't know about anyone else. 

Yes, it's possible Logan and Odette had some open relationship system but nothing indicated that was the case. (Logan was going to put Rory up in a hotel with all the connotations of having a secret mistress, was uncomfortable when his Dad found them and went out onto the balcony to avoid Odette while he was on the phone with Rory). That's continual dishonest and underhand behaviour. I really don't see how being "straightforward" with Rory about the terms of their sex matters when he's that dishonest to the woman he's promised to spend the rest of his life with. 

Honestly, I can't not get bothered about it. Sure the impact of empathizing with Odette is lessened because we never see her. But she still exists in universe. Logan and Rory are still cheaters and liars and acting horribly, just because they have more screentime and are known characters doesn't cancel out the wrongness of their actions imo. It might mean we cut them more slack or try to understand their perspective more than an objective situation with two unknowns, but they're still doing a despicable thing.

Yes Rory and Logan are fictional so their actions obviously aren't as serious as real people's (as discussed here, you do go easier on fictional characters than in real life). But the show is still based in a realistic setting and in-universe holds up standards on honesty, cheating etc. This isn't some GoT's universe with totally different morality and outlook, GG norms are similar to RL society and expected behaviour. 

I"m actually curious how bad other people find the cheating. For me cheating and lying is a massive line to cross in terms of being a good or sympathetic person and people that do it - even if they're fictional - I'll judge harshly. Especially in the context of Rory and Logan with no understandable motivation. But maybe other people see it differently? 

It matters to me because this is about the Gilmore girls, not Odette and whomever. I am judging Logan's behaviour on how he treated Rory. He didn't lie to her about Odette or try to keep his engagement secret. 

That seems to be what most people think. I just can't. Almost all the reviews and articles about the revival focus on it. I could care less about Paul or Odette. I do think if you are going to be having other relationships with people, you need to be honest with everyone involved. 

 

On 3/1/2017 at 4:57 PM, moonb said:

While I buy that Paul is a punchline to Rory and Lorelai, I thought it was out of character for Emily and Luke to blatantly forget somebody Rory was dating. That seems very unlikely. Whatever, he was supposed to a joke. 

I think it was supposed to read as Paul being this completely bland forgettable person. Having other people forget about him removes some blame from Rory (theoretically but apparently not, judging from folks reactions to it). I did like him in that breakfast scene at the diner. He was likeable enough but we saw so little of his relationship with Rory to really feel invested. 

[TimetravellingBW]

On 3/1/2017 at 3:55 AM, Melancholy said:

However, I would say that GG paints cheating particularly unsympathetically for me, with the exception of S2-3 Rory/Jess and to a lesser extent, Rory's side of her affair with Dean. GG is not a show of bodice ripping sexy passion so it's not like people are slaves to passion. I do believe Lorelai/Christopher and Rory/Logan loved each other but it's superficial love, never tested by "for better or for worse." GG is determinantly not angsty so I don't usually feel like people are acting out sexually because of huge "big time legitimate pain"/Buffy. Rory has that a little in the Revival but it was glossed over. And while I like to say that Rory was acting out sexually over big pain over Richard's death and her flailing career, that's not a Logan/Rory friendly shipper analysis. 

On 3/3/2017 at 9:33 PM, andromeda331 said:

I agree. I'm not a fan of cheating. But there were ways to make Logan and Rory sympathetic and they chose none of them. Reading through this thread there have been a lot of really good suggestions. I mean, Logan could have come to Richard's funeral or ran into Rory in London when she was having a real hard time dealing with the loss of the grandfather she loved which lead to sex and now they have an emotional connection again. Maybe Logan was engaged to Odette but after running into Rory, maybe he's not so sure anymore after all he loved Rory enough to propose and to run into her now and she's single. Or maybe he fell back into his family's business whether he caved, or was unable to make it on his own and pressured to marry Odette but seeing Rory reminds him of how hard he worked in season seven to become his own person. For Rory maybe she broke down when running to Logan and has ended up depending on him since Richard's death and since then keeps going back to Logan because he was there for her when Richard had his heart attack years ago, or maybe with her non-existence career she wonders how things would have gone if she married him and moved to San Francisco working for one of the city's newspapers. Or she just broke up with Paul who's just another of string of relationships that went nowhere or it was long term relationship that just ended.   There were a lot of different options they could have done.

On 3/3/2017 at 6:47 AM, Sweet Tee said:

Infidelity can be done in an interesting way in fiction.  At least in fiction, we know the whole story and can get an idea of where everyone is coming from.  This is just not one of those cases.  This is Rory being a serial cheater and Logan not dumping his fiance because....I don't even know, because he "has" to marry her, I guess.  Neither of them come across as sympathetic to me.  I don't care that we don't know Odette.  

Exactly. The biggest problem with the cheating and why I have zero sympathy for Rory and Logan is there was no justification or even exploration of why they were having an affair. While cheating is problematic, good writers can still make the characters sympathetic if they explain why they're acting this way. ASP could have at least provided a perspective and understandable motivation for their actions. But there was no insight from either of them. And as said, GG isn't a show where the audience will buy wild passion as enough justification for cheating.

Any of @andromeda331's suggestions would be good: Tie Rory's motivation with losing Richard and needing security, tie Logan's perspective to how he ended up trapped back with his family and Rory reminds him of wanting to be independent again. They even could have excluded Paul and Odette altogether, but - if they wanted to justify why Rory and Logan weren't properly "together" or compatible long term - made it clear they were using each other as coping methods and escapism. Using the other to avoid dealing with their issues (Rory's grief and career, Logan's job and family). It could have ended with a genuinely heartwarming situation where they acknowledge they can't use each other as outlets anymore but push each other to move on and change their situations. But that's too mature for ASP. 

On 3/2/2017 at 2:39 AM, Kohola3 said:

This isn't Merry Olde England where the royals in arranged marriages all had lovers on the side.  You're engaged (arranged or not which was a ludicrous premise anyway) but still have a sexual relationship with someone else, - it is cheating.  And immoral.

On 3/4/2017 at 2:40 AM, Iknewyoucoulddoit said:

Right? Even in the Palldinos' bizarre alternate universe where a lot of their points about money and class division harken back to a bygone era Amy Palladino wasn't alive for, this makes no sense. Zero. Unless maybe Logan knocked Odette up too? That Huntzberger sperm does seem to be very determined, lol, and it's not like the Palladinos are above using yet another contrived unplanned pregnancy as a key plot point.  

On 3/3/2017 at 5:49 AM, dubbel zout said:

I don't agree that infidelity is always wrong, but it sure was here. And I don't like that it was written in a way that I think we're supposed to sympathize with the cheaters. "Logan is trapped!" "Rory and Logan are in love!" "This is the only way they can be together!" Spare me. I get that Logan grew up with certain expectations and it can be difficult to break away from all of them, especially when they're tied to money, but he's not completely stupid. He has a Yale degree and lots of connections. I'm sure Mitchell Huntzberger has enough people who hate him that they'd hire Logan simply to stick it to Mitchell. As long as Logan could be productive, I don't see where he wouldn't sign on.

But instead we get woe-is-me-I-have-to-toe-the-family-line Logan.

Yes to all of this. The only justification we do get for why Rory and Logan "have" to cheat is the bizarre *dynastic plan* line. Which as everyone has pointed out, does not work in a 21st century setting. It feels like some kind of Tudor Court/Game of Thrones/Titanic/Medieval Romance mash up. These forced marriages just don't exist these days, not even in the elite circles. The most Mitchum could do is cut Logan off, but as @dubbel zout pointed out there are still ways for Logan to get around that - like getting an actual job. And it would be x10 easier for him than normal people thanks to his background and position. 

Even in the original series, I could never buy Logan's *there's one door and I'm being pushed through it* spiel. He could easily have found a way out. He was at college and seemed to have access to an almost unlimited supply of Huntzberger money. Instead of throwing it at crazy-expensive LDB events, he could have saved money and used the four+ years of College to explore what kind of career he wanted to go into, and used his families' connections to break into it. (Like, y'know what normal people go to college for). That way if he graduated and announced "hey Dad, I'm going to be a writer/firefighter/gardener/accountant/toy shop owner/IT specialist rather than go into the family business" and Mitchum still cut him off, he'd have a career and savings to fall back on, and could live his own life. (Hell, he could probably put a deposit on an apartment with Huntzberger leftover change or the cost of just one the LDB events. Even if his parents withheld his trust fund/allowance he could have been in a much better financial situation than 90% of his peers if he planned in advance).

Instead he did nothing for 5 years except waste money partying, getting drunk and crashing yachts and then complained he was being forced into a job. You can't have it both ways Logan: If you want to be a normal "free" person then you'd have to get a job anyway (and one probably a lot harder than a cushy position at Daddy's company). Or if you're going to live off your family fortune then yeah you're dependent on your parents. (Granted Mitchum was a major ass and horrible to Logan, but given Logan showed no initiative in doing something with his life it's not surprising Mitchum was trying to control his future). 

I know it wouldn't have been entertaining for the show to go into the details of Logan's financial situation "Oh look, an episode where Logan sets up a separate bank account" but the problem was Logan's "entrapment" fell apart on a practical, logical level. 

On 3/2/2017 at 4:34 AM, Lady Calypso said:

I pretty much echo other people's thoughts about the cheating being bad, but I will add in one more point: just because the revival treats the cheating as no big deal, just because Paul's used as a punchline and as more of a funny joke than an actual person, and just because Odette is used as a Macguffin and is merely there as a disservice to Logan and Logan/Rory, it doesn't make the cheating any less wrong. We need to be better than ASP and DP here. It may just be a show, but it is supposed to be mirroring real life, societal norms and societal expectations and at the end of the day, Logan/Rory are cheaters. They can downplay it all they want, but it's not a good lesson to teach viewers that cheating is alright as long as the two people are in love.

On 3/2/2017 at 5:31 AM, deaja said:

I don't think anyone thinks it is her job to teach viewers lessons. But it does change how viewers see the characters and in many cases, it makes them like them less.  Now, some very unlikable characters on this show (cough... Paris Geller) are the most entertaining.  But Rory doesn't fall in that category for me either.

While it's not ASP's job to teach lessons, I think there's something to be said for not taking ASP and DP's messages lying down but calling them out for romanticizing poor behaviour. (Cheating, fat-shaming, racism etc.) And because it's a show that mirrors reality we do bring in society's values and standards when judging the characters. 

[dubbel zout]

16 hours ago, TimetravellingBW said:

if his parents withheld his trust fund/allowance

And that's assuming they had control of the trust fund. The Huntzbergers were rich in the grandfather's generation, at minimum, so it's possible he set up the trust fund structure.

There were a lot of ways to explain why Logan felt obligated to marry Odette, but "family dynastic reasons" was one of the lamest. 

[AllyB]

The problem all boils down to those last four words and Amy's insistence that the characters come 'full circle.'  Yes, there were ways for Rory and Logan to have been written as sympathetic cheaters. But pretty much any of those storylines would have meant that Rory wouldn't have been able to go to Chris in Fall and decided Logan was her Chris and as such would be a pretty crap dad. I suppose she could have made Rory more sympathetic by having had a single Rory meet a deceitful Logan who let her believe that he too was single at the start of their affair. But I don't think Amy wanted to make him wanted to make him be out and out dastardly, so she created Paul and made Rory and Logan equally blithely selfish and careless with the feelings of their partners. Which made her characters impossible to root for and the story boring and mildly confusing.

[RoyRogersMcFreely]

On 3/3/2017 at 6:04 PM, Iknewyoucoulddoit said:

It's yet another thing supporting the theory that the Palldinos perceive their main characters as far better, more charming and lovable people than they actually are. I used to be a big defender of Rory and still can't find it in me to hate her, but even I think she's a lackluster drip who's led by stronger personalities like Lorelai, Emily, Paris, Logan, and Jess since she doesn't have much personality of her own.  Playing up how a guy she dated for years is too boring for the allegedly more dynamic, "force of nature" (LOL!!!) princess Rory to even remember is especially ironic to me and yet another example of how the Palladinos perceive their characters differently from the majority of viewers.

I think the "force of nature" thing could work if we're supposed to look at it through the context of that scene. Which is Chris was never there and never really got to know who Rory is. He's only ever saw her as an extension of Lorelai and just assumes since Lorelai raised her then surely she's a force of nature. Like, this is how disconnected he is to his kid to this day. It's probably not what Amy is going for, but if I just look at it like he's supposed to be wrong, it works for me.

Edited March 6, 2017 by RoyRogersMcFreely

[Aloeonatable]

Quote

Even in the original series, I could never buy Logan's *there's one door and I'm being pushed through it* spiel. He could easily have found a way out. He was at college and seemed to have access to an almost unlimited supply of Huntzberger money. Instead of throwing it at crazy-expensive LDB events, he could have saved money and used the four+ years of College to explore what kind of career he wanted to go into, and used his families' connections to break into it. (Like, y'know what normal people go to college for). That way if he graduated and announced "hey Dad, I'm going to be a writer/firefighter/gardener/accountant/toy shop owner/IT specialist rather than go into the family business" and Mitchum still cut him off, he'd have a career and savings to fall back on, and could live his own life. (Hell, he could probably put a deposit on an apartment with Huntzberger leftover change or the cost of just one the LDB events. Even if his parents withheld his trust fund/allowance he could have been in a much better financial situation than 90% of his peers if he planned in advance).

Instead he did nothing for 5 years except waste money partying, getting drunk and crashing yachts and then complained he was being forced into a job. You can't have it both ways Logan: If you want to be a normal "free" person then you'd have to get a job anyway (and one probably a lot harder than a cushy position at Daddy's company). Or if you're going to live off your family fortune then yeah you're dependent on your parents. (Granted Mitchum was a major ass and horrible to Logan, but given Logan showed no initiative in doing something with his life it's not surprising Mitchum was trying to control his future). 

Wow, you just reminded me of the reasons I hated Logan in the OS. Grow a pair, Logan! 

[qtpye]

Hey, if Logan does not marry Odette, then how the heck is he going to be the next Earl of Grantham?

Oh, wait...wrong show and century and country.

[Guest]

That is how I thought Logan and Lorelai were a lot alike, at least by the time we saw them. Logan resented having to follow his family's path, but not enough to abandon it and strike out on his own. Lorelai resented it to the point of leaving the path, but by the time we saw her again, she was willing again to use the family money and strings that came with it for what she felt was important.  It was, however, a much more reasoned decision than we saw from Logan who was more talking about how he was trapped, but no action. He really grew in Season 7 away from that.  Too bad it was erased, apparently.

[txhorns79]

Quote

That is how I thought Logan and Lorelai were a lot alike, at least by the time we saw them. Logan resented having to follow his family's path, but not enough to abandon it and strike out on his own. Lorelai resented it to the point of leaving the path, but by the time we saw her again, she was willing again to use the family money and strings that came with it for what she felt was important.  It was, however, a much more reasoned decision than we saw from Logan who was more talking about how he was trapped, but no action. He really grew in Season 7 away from that.  Too bad it was erased, apparently.

I viewed Logan more in Season 7 as getting out of the family business, but not really losing the perks of being a Huntzberger.  He still had money, he still had the connections and still appeared to be living a very upper class lifestyle.  So there was some growth, but not so substantial that he was actually on his own, so to speak, like Lorelai was when she walked away from her parents. 

[qtpye]

It would be something if we found out in the next installment, that Logan's family has lost all their money.  Odette, breaks up with Logan, because dynastic duties no longer matter now that the family is broke.  What would be hilarious is this would free Logan up to be a happy little family with Rory now that she is pregnant with his baby.

[dubbel zout]

1 hour ago, txhorns79 said:

I viewed Logan more in Season 7 as getting out of the family business, but not really losing the perks of being a Huntzberger.  He still had money, he still had the connections and still appeared to be living a very upper class lifestyle. 

Same here. And given that he is a Huntzberger, I don't think he'll ever lose all of those perks. Logan will never lack opportunities. They might not be what he wants, but he'll always be able to use his name somehow.

[TwirlyGirly]

On ‎2‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 11:13 AM, FictionLover said:

So, I have a question for "Team Whatever Guy you Ship".  This question is not sarcastic, I really want to know. If you have a guy that you really like why would you want him to end up with Rory, especially after the shallow, thoughtless and selfish one we were given in the revival?  Even Alexis was surprised how she was written.  I liked Rory for the first four seasons but once she turned into a whiney annoying character, she lost me.  But after Revival Rory I was surprised anyone cared who she ended up with.  Just wondering...

I've always been Team Luke for Lorelai, and Team Jess for Rory, even though I really can't stand Lorelai (and like Luke), and while I used to like Rory (at least more than Lorelai), her character in the revival really changed my opinion of her. I've always liked Jess.

The reason for both choices is Luke was obviously always in love with Lorelai, and Jess with Rory. IMO, they were the only two men in their lives that could successfully handle their behavior and call them on it, consistently. Which made Lorelai and Rory better people when they had those men in their lives. Both Lorelai and Rory became so used to adoration from everyone they met, which allowed them to get away with making poor choices and treating others badly, so they needed Luke and Jess to bring them back to reality and force them to face their behavior.

[TwirlyGirly]

On ‎2‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 11:13 AM, FictionLover said:

So, I have a question for "Team Whatever Guy you Ship".  This question is not sarcastic, I really want to know. If you have a guy that you really like why would you want him to end up with Rory, especially after the shallow, thoughtless and selfish one we were given in the revival?  Even Alexis was surprised how she was written.  I liked Rory for the first four seasons but once she turned into a whiney annoying character, she lost me.  But after Revival Rory I was surprised anyone cared who she ended up with.  Just wondering...

I've always been Team Luke for Lorelai, and Team Jess for Rory, even though I really can't stand Lorelai (and like Luke), and while I used to like Rory (at least more than Lorelai), her character in the revival really changed my opinion of her. I've always liked Jess.

The reason for both choices is Luke was obviously always in love with Lorelai, and Jess with Rory. IMO, they were the only two men in their lives that could successfully handle their behavior and call them on it, consistently. Which made Lorelai and Rory better people when they had those men in their lives. Both Lorelai and Rory became so used to adoration from everyone they met, which allowed them to get away with making poor choices and treating others badly, so they needed Luke and Jess to bring them back to reality and force them to face their behavior.

[TimetravellingBW]

On 07/03/2017 at 6:30 AM, qtpye said:

Hey, if Logan does not marry Odette, then how the heck is he going to be the next Earl of Grantham?

Oh, wait...wrong show and century and country.

Bahahaha. I don't even want to imagine what would come out if ASP and Julian Fellowes co-wrote a show. 

On 07/03/2017 at 3:37 AM, RoyRogersMcFreely said:

I think the "force of nature" thing could work if we're supposed to look at it through the context of that scene. Which is Chris was never there and never really got to know who Rory is. He's only ever saw her as an extension of Lorelai and just assumes since Lorelai raised her then surely she's a force of nature. Like, this is how disconnected he is to his kid to this day. It's probably not what Amy is going for, but if I just look at it like he's supposed to be wrong, it works for me.

I would have thought the scene was highlighting how little Chris knew Rory and just saw her as a Lorelai clone, if not for headmaster Charleston making similar comments. (His "you've always been internally stronger than everyone else" compliment and comparing her to Lorelai). The show really wants us to believe Rory is this driven, empowered heroine whose genius and talent just isn't ~appreciated properly~ 

(To be fair on Charleston, high school Rory was more independent and happier to go against the flow compared to most Chilton students, and he watched her go up against bullying, isolation and catching up years worth of schooling to top her class. So that comment about 16/17 year old Rory lines up - but not for 32 year old Rory). 

Ultimately both men's comments and comparisons with Lorelai were obviously driving towards the "full circle, like mother like daughter" ending. We're meant to believe Rory is Lorelai 2.0 in order to justify her ending up in exactly the same situation as her mother and implied to deal with it in the same way. (Her "can't ever quit you" relationship with Logan, seemingly not wanting to tell the father and raise the baby alone).

Unfortunately Rory is much limper and weaker than Lorelai ever was, and revival Rory would be much more likely to turn up at Logan's demanding a house, full time nanny and private jet to support them rather than run away to raise her baby in a potting shed. (And as covered a lot here, trying to fit Logan/Rory into the Lorelai/Chris mould of being unable to either quit or commit to each other didn't work or mesh with their character arcs in the OS). 

On 09/03/2017 at 5:23 AM, txhorns79 said:

I viewed Logan more in Season 7 as getting out of the family business, but not really losing the perks of being a Huntzberger.  He still had money, he still had the connections and still appeared to be living a very upper class lifestyle.  So there was some growth, but not so substantial that he was actually on his own, so to speak, like Lorelai was when she walked away from her parents. 

I agree that Logan's "rebellion" against his parents didn't match up to Lorelai's. Logan bitched about them a lot but never made the total clean break and truly survived on his own like Lorelai did. Maybe if DR had written a s8, but as it is he just whined a lot through s5/6, had a brief burst of independence in s7, and was back with the family in the revival.

Lorelai - for all her faults- completely walked away, abandoned all the luxuries of her upbringing, survived on her own merits, worked incredibly hard for years and built a life for her and her daughter. Logan never achieved that. I'd say he's more comparable to Chris, or even Tristan-type behaviour, where he'll rebel in small, petty ways and complain but it comes down to it, doesn't manage to truly seperate himself and make a life of his own. And in the GG's world, a lot of rich kids resent their parents/lifestyle but Lorelai is the exception in actually walking the talk and accepting the consequences of leaving that life. (Yes she later came back for Rory's tuition but that was for her daughter not her and she absolutely intended to pay it back. I have to give props to everything she achieved on her own before that). 

Edited March 9, 2017 by TimetravellingBW

[voiceover]

Ugh.  Getting ready to turn off "Blame Booze & Melville", as it opens up a series of plot lines I deplore: Sookie's demand that Jackson get a vasectomy (both ends of that plot made you wonder if they EVER communicated) and Rory's meltdown after Mitchum's evaluation.  

A lot of noise was made about this being her first big rejection, but -- IIRC -- there was Italian opera after the Shakespeare test and the "Drop my class" eps.  For a child of divorce, she never seemed to gain any resiliency.   I mostly couldn't stand Paris as a character, but she was a lot tougher than Rory -- the one & only thing I liked about her.

And Emily!! why did they take away all that hard-won growth & sympathy from her -- a woman who found the letter her husband's mother wrote, declaring Emily not good enough to be a Gilmore -- why did they take it all away and have her be the cause of the L & L breakup, Part 1?

I'm rambling and crabby, but that's how I always get at this time of the series.

Edited March 10, 2017 by voiceover

[dubbel zout]

12 hours ago, voiceover said:

For a child of divorce, she never seemed to gain any resiliency.

Rory wasn't a child of divorce, given that her parents were never married, let alone together as a couple. I think Lorelei worked really hard to make Rory feel nothing was missing from her life. Rory never had much reason to learn resiliency, given that she was the town pet.

[voiceover]

5 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Rory wasn't a child of divorce, given that her parents were never married, let alone together as a couple. I think Lorelei worked really hard to make Rory feel nothing was missing from her life. Rory never had much reason to learn resiliency, given that she was the town pet.

You're right.  Hatred of the plot lines threw me into an alternate reality.

I know she was a snowflake.  But bad things DID happen to her -- yet the show didn't allow her to learn from it, all for the sake of breaking up L & R.

And there WAS something missing from her life -- a father's presence.  Even with all that Lorelei did, she was not able to fix that.

And before anyone shouts me down about bad fathers and great mothers -- that's not my argument.  Not commenting on one-parent families.  This is just about Rory.

[txhorns79]

Quote

And there WAS something missing from her life -- a father's presence.  Even with all that Lorelei did, she was not able to fix that.

I don't know.  They sometimes suggested that Rory wished Chris was more involved, but other times it seemed like she was entirely fine with how things were and didn't feel at all that she missed out on anything. 

[voiceover]

21 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I don't know.  They sometimes suggested that Rory wished Chris was more involved, but other times it seemed like she was entirely fine with how things were and didn't feel at all that she missed out on anything. 

Because the show glossed over it.  

The closest it ever got, if memory serves, wasn't about Rory mourning the lack of a father.  It was Lorelai, weeping to Luke (I think it was that moment on the bench when she asked him for money?) that sometimes she missed having a partner to pick up the slack.  But we saw how the "being both parents" thing, gave her the resiliency that was part of her character.  

I'm not saying Rory's life would have been better -- or worse.  But here in hindsight, with all the shows laid out before us, we can track the zigzagging behavior of the characters and spitball explanations.  And Rory folding like a wet tent after every setback is a thing that annoys.  So sometimes I look for explanations.

Easiest thing the show could have done?  Hire everyone on this thread as writers. ?

[Taryn74]

36 minutes ago, voiceover said:

Easiest thing the show could have done?  Hire everyone on this thread as writers. ?

ITA!

[AllyB]

15 hours ago, voiceover said:

And there WAS something missing from her life -- a father's presence.

There's something missing from everyone's life though. I'm an oldest child, so I'm missing an older sibling. I only have brothers so I'm missing a sister. I have two brothers so I'm missing the level of parental attention an only child would have. Rory missed out on having a father as a genuine presence in her life and on having sibling (because she never seemed to consider Gigi a sister) but she had a kind of deep and complex relationship with her mother that wouldn't have been possible if she'd had the other two. And while we can argue in retrospect that their relationship wasn't good for Rory, that was due to Lorelai's immaturity rather than the dynamics of a single parent-only child relationship in itself.

[ghoulina]

On 3/9/2017 at 4:55 PM, voiceover said:

A lot of noise was made about this being her first big rejection, but -- IIRC -- there was Italian opera after the Shakespeare test and the "Drop my class" eps.  For a child of divorce, she never seemed to gain any resiliency.   I mostly couldn't stand Paris as a character, but she was a lot tougher than Rory -- the one & only thing I liked about her.

When Paris didn't get into Harvard she became bedridden and missed class, something I'm sure she'd never done before. She had a complete meltdown when she was ousted from the paper.  I think both girls were overachievers who meticulously planned everything out and didn't handle it well when things didn't go as planned. 

[Iknewyoucoulddoit]

I always felt like Paris more proactively set goals and went after what she wanted. Rory, especially in college, wanted certain things in the abstract but, aside from studying hard because she genuinely enjoyed doing so, often waited for other people to helpfully shove her in a certain direction or outright gift her with opportunities. Fortunately, the writers made sure that such opportunities were always plentiful and timely. :)  

There are probably better examples than Rory being eagerly handed the editorship of Yale Daily News despite not even indicating an interest in it and not having been on campus the entire previous semester while she was off living like a celebutante and DAR-ing, but that might be the one that bothers me the most. I haven't watched that episode in years, but I recall staff memebers all but pleading for her to take the position. I get that they didn't want to work for Paris anymore, but are we to believe that not one other reporter for the Yale Daily News was better equipped for that role than someone who deals with adversity by stealing yachts and dropping out of college and who has one less semester writing and learning about the paper than other Yale juniors on staff? Heaven forbid someone critique one of the articles Rory was responsible for editing during her reign; she might have burned down the entire building, or at least stolen that person's vehicle. ;) The way that situation was carefully written to prevent viewers from being angry at Rory bothered me too. I would have much rather seen a newly re-matriculated Rory become obsessively driven, so determined to make up for lost time and pursue her goals that she was willing to hurt Paris along the way. It would have made for an interesting conflict between Rory and Paris, the kind where you can at least partly understand where both people were coming from, but of course instead Paris is made out to be a irrational nutjob for daring to get angry at Rory since our little princess never actively sought out the editor in chief position in the first place. And at least in that scenario Rory would have ended up with an honor that she deliberately, assertively set out to get rather than one she was handed because she's Rory.

Does anyone else ever feel like they need reminders about why they love this show since there's so much about it that is all too worthy of criticism? I read the posts here and the media critiques pointing out how the revival magnified serious issues with the show and its characters that were present all along and I suddenly have trouble recalling why it's supposedly one of my favorite shows!     

[ZuluQueenOfDwarves]

Paris had also humiliated herself on television, and was still a teenager, and stayed on top of all her classwork while she was home. Rory stealing the yacht and dropping out of Yale was the final nail in the coffin of the Rory Gilmore we all once knew and loved. 

[hippielamb]

On 3/5/2017 at 0:45 PM, dubbel zout said:

And that's assuming they had control of the trust fund. The Huntzbergers were rich in the grandfather's generation, at minimum, so it's possible he set up the trust fund structure.

There were a lot of ways to explain why Logan felt obligated to marry Odette, but "family dynastic reasons" was one of the lamest. 

I thought it was explained in the episode when Logan takes Rory to his family's for dinner. They are opposed to Rory because she wants a career, not to be a corporate wife like Emily or Shira. I honestly don't know if we are supposed to factor in that Logan proposed marriage to Rory and she declined, or if we are supposed to ignore it (like so much of season 7). Either way, it seems that Logan chose a wife who would fit into his family and career. 

1 hour ago, Iknewyoucoulddoit said:

 

Does anyone else ever feel like they need reminders about why they love this show since there's so much about it that is all too worthy of criticism? I read the posts here and the media critiques pointing out how the revival magnified serious issues with the show and its characters that were present all along and I suddenly have trouble recalling why it's supposedly one of my favorite shows!     

Yes and it helps not reading reviewers who have an ax to grind. Yes, the revival had issues and there are things I did not like. But, I still enjoyed parts of it. I went back and rewatched the early seasons and it made me smile. 

[TimetravellingBW]

On 3/10/2017 at 1:55 PM, voiceover said:

Ugh.  Getting ready to turn off "Blame Booze & Melville", as it opens up a series of plot lines I deplore: Sookie's demand that Jackson get a vasectomy (both ends of that plot made you wonder if they EVER communicated) and Rory's meltdown after Mitchum's evaluation.  

A lot of noise was made about this being her first big rejection, but -- IIRC -- there was Italian opera after the Shakespeare test and the "Drop my class" eps.  For a child of divorce, she never seemed to gain any resiliency.   I mostly couldn't stand Paris as a character, but she was a lot tougher than Rory -- the one & only thing I liked about her.

Funnily enough I didn't mind Rory's early break downs, because they felt like reasonable reactions for what she was going through and she pulled herself together afterwards. A lot of teenagers would crack at the teasing and workload she dealt with at Chilton and most students have some meltdown or other during their first year of college. Rory's struggles humanized her more than if everything had gone perfectly, and she was sympathetic because she pulled herself up again. But with Mitchum her reaction was totally out of proportion and she didn't learn from it. Maybe if she'd struggled more during s5 (Mitchum, her classes, YDN fitting in with Logan's friends) and built her to her dropping out to reevaluate her life. Instead it was: Things are fine --> Receives one piece of criticism  --> Commits a felony/drop out completely --> Lazes around being adored by Logan's friend and the DAR with no introspection for months. 

5 hours ago, Iknewyoucoulddoit said:

There are probably better examples than Rory being eagerly handed the editorship of Yale Daily News despite not even indicating an interest in it and not having been on campus the entire previous semester while she was off living like a celebutante and DAR-ing, but that might be the one that bothers me the most. I haven't watched that episode in years, but I recall staff memebers all but pleading for her to take the position.

Does anyone else ever feel like they need reminders about why they love this show since there's so much about it that is all too worthy of criticism? I read the posts here and the media critiques pointing out how the revival magnified serious issues with the show and its characters that were present all along and I suddenly have trouble recalling why it's supposedly one of my favorite shows!     

The YDN editorship and Vice-President were the two biggest examples of Rory getting things she didn't deserve or even aim for. Her academic achievements we at least see her working for and wanting very badly, so I don't resent them. (Though Paris should have got Valedictorian). But too many other things just fall into her lap. 

Bahaha, I complain about GG so much I have to ask if I ever enjoyed it. But honestly, I wouldn't still be dissecting the characters and trying to fix everything if the show hadn't been good in the first place.  It's a sign of how great the early seasons were (mostly 1-4) that I still care about the characters and am invested in their stories even after years of terrible writing. There are a lot of shows that didn't end develop nearly as badly but I gave up on out of disinterest. GG may drive me crazy, but it's still got wonderfully complex characters and my early love keeps me going :D

On 3/10/2017 at 4:15 AM, TwirlyGirly said:

I've always been Team Luke for Lorelai, and Team Jess for Rory, even though I really can't stand Lorelai (and like Luke), and while I used to like Rory (at least more than Lorelai), her character in the revival really changed my opinion of her. I've always liked Jess.

The reason for both choices is Luke was obviously always in love with Lorelai, and Jess with Rory. IMO, they were the only two men in their lives that could successfully handle their behavior and call them on it, consistently. Which made Lorelai and Rory better people when they had those men in their lives. Both Lorelai and Rory became so used to adoration from everyone they met, which allowed them to get away with making poor choices and treating others badly, so they needed Luke and Jess to bring them back to reality and force them to face their behavior.

That's always why I come back to Luke and Jess as well: They brought out the best in Lorelai and Rory. While Lorelai was self-absorbed with whoever she dated and bossed Luke around, he was good at keeping her grounded, called her out on her bullshit and actually enjoyed snarking with her. (Keeping Lorelai on her toes is pretty essential if you want to date her).  And on the flipside she was good for him, got him to lighten up and not isolate himself. With the exception of the s6 toxic mess and their flat dynamic in the revival, it's obvious they enjoy the whole "Lorelai babbles and Luke grumps about it" routine and it works for them. Imo the two most telling exchanges about their relationship are Luke building her an ice rink because he doesn't like seeing her sad even though he's Mr Grumpy Grumps, and Lorelai sending Luke off camping only for him to admit he likes her dragging him along to her shenanigans. They're not perfect but imo they're very compatible and enjoy being together, even if they bicker on the surface. 

With Jess, there's a pattern of him bringing out the best in Rory, especially when she's at her lowest. (Triggering her returning to Yale,  breaking her writers block etc.) I might be in a minority here, but think he had a positive impact on her in s2 and 3, even when their actual relationship was a mess. Unlike literally everyone else in her life, he wasn't blind to her flaws and called her out on them. (E.g. questioning whether she's too sheltered to be a foreign correspondent, pointing out she was in the wrong for kissing him and running). At the same time he was still supportive and truly believed she was capable of achieving her goals and unlike Dean wasn't threatened by having such an intelligent girlfriend (there was a lot of tension from Dean about her Harvard plan, while Jess stepped back and let her make that call herself). Basically Jess managed to rare feat of being realistic about Rory's strengths and weaknesses, but not turning on her whenever she screwed up.  Too many people in her life idolized her and then couldn't deal with it when she failed (Lorelai, Richard & Emily, Stars Hollow residents). 

I also think it was important that Rory first began bucking expectations because of Jess. Her remaining friends with him over everyone's objections and standing up to Lorelai over the car crash, was pretty significant in learning to become her own person separate from her mom.  Yes it was uncomfortable for Rory at the time and she didn't deal with it well, but it was necessary. And unlike her rebellious, "finding myself" period with Logan, her choices regarding Jess weren't destructive or impacting her life negatively. She was still focused on school and hobbies, didn't change herself for him, kept close relationships with her family and friends, and was secure in herself. The worst Jess-related consequence was missing Lorelai's graduation (which wouldn't have happened if she'd picked literally any other day to rebel and see him) and the break up with Dean. (And tbh that split was always going to happen, whether it was because of Jess, her leaving for college or meeting another more compatible guy down the line). 

Edited March 12, 2017 by TimetravellingBW

[andromeda331]

15 hours ago, Iknewyoucoulddoit said:

I always felt like Paris more proactively set goals and went after what she wanted. Rory, especially in college, wanted certain things in the abstract but, aside from studying hard because she genuinely enjoyed doing so, often waited for other people to helpfully shove her in a certain direction or outright gift her with opportunities. Fortunately, the writers made sure that such opportunities were always plentiful and timely. :)  

There are probably better examples than Rory being eagerly handed the editorship of Yale Daily News despite not even indicating an interest in it and not having been on campus the entire previous semester while she was off living like a celebutante and DAR-ing, but that might be the one that bothers me the most. I haven't watched that episode in years, but I recall staff memebers all but pleading for her to take the position. I get that they didn't want to work for Paris anymore, but are we to believe that not one other reporter for the Yale Daily News was better equipped for that role than someone who deals with adversity by stealing yachts and dropping out of college and who has one less semester writing and learning about the paper than other Yale juniors on staff? Heaven forbid someone critique one of the articles Rory was responsible for editing during her reign; she might have burned down the entire building, or at least stolen that person's vehicle. ;) The way that situation was carefully written to prevent viewers from being angry at Rory bothered me too. I would have much rather seen a newly re-matriculated Rory become obsessively driven, so determined to make up for lost time and pursue her goals that she was willing to hurt Paris along the way. It would have made for an interesting conflict between Rory and Paris, the kind where you can at least partly understand where both people were coming from, but of course instead Paris is made out to be a irrational nutjob for daring to get angry at Rory since our little princess never actively sought out the editor in chief position in the first place. And at least in that scenario Rory would have ended up with an honor that she deliberately, assertively set out to get rather than one she was handed because she's Rory.

Does anyone else ever feel like they need reminders about why they love this show since there's so much about it that is all too worthy of criticism? I read the posts here and the media critiques pointing out how the revival magnified serious issues with the show and its characters that were present all along and I suddenly have trouble recalling why it's supposedly one of my favorite shows!     

I always liked Paris for setting goals and going after them and hoped that it would rub off on Rory. She never goes after anything and it always bugged me. Watching her working hard to keep up with Chilton when she first arrived was one of my favorite Rory parts trying hard to keep up with classes, failing at one point and her crappy first day I liked watching that and seeing her trying hard and picking herself up after her D and meltdown in class. When Paris was trying to force her off the paper I liked seeing turning it around on Paris by writing a moving article. But after that Rory just basically coasts the rest. Yes, she joined the paper but she never went out for anything else. It never occurred to her to try for Vice President until Paris asked her and pointed out how well it would look to Yale. Which yes it would have been nice to see her trying for more things to impress Harvard she only really did Vice President which wasn't her idea and volunteered to build the house. Even though we got the occasional episodes that Rory didn't have enough to get her into Harvard nothing ever happened after the episode. Why not show her trying out for different clubs or a short scene trying another charity thing to add it to her application?

Another thing would have been nice to see her trying to be journalist. Yes, we saw her writing and submitting articles but show her investigating. Show her trying to come up with ideas. Yes, we got a little of her researching the LDB but it could have been more then seeing the girl with a mask in the bathroom, research and then threatening to follow Logan. Even after Mitchum told her she didn't have it that could have been another moment where Rory could have decided to "show him" and prove she could be the journalist she wanted to be or realize she wasn't really doing anything to be the journalist she always wanted to be and give it a try. Maybe then decide whether she really wanted to be that type of journalist. But no, that didn't happened we were suppose to think Mitchum, was meanie. Rory was surrounded by people who made things happen Paris made goals and went after them, she volunteered, and did everything she could to make it happen to get into Harvard. Lorelai worked her way up at the inn to running the entire place, saved up bought her own inn and ran that, Lane joined a rock band and after being kicked out of the house by her mom she moved in with her band mates and worked hard to make that happened. None of that ever rubbed off on Rory and she never even had to really try. She got things without trying. Got into Harvard, Yale and Princeton. She was begged to be the editor of the Yale Daily News and to be Vice President.

Edited March 12, 2017 by andromeda331

[junienmomo]

10 hours ago, Iknewyoucoulddoit said:

Does anyone else ever feel like they need reminders about why they love this show since there's so much about it that is all too worthy of criticism? I read the posts here and the media critiques pointing out how the revival magnified serious issues with the show and its characters that were present all along and I suddenly have trouble recalling why it's supposedly one of my favorite shows!    

Nah, I only have to start watching season six or the end of season five to really see the flaws pile up on top of each other. 

My daughter was watching GG for the first time when she called me yesterday, saying she'd just watched the Diorama episode. She really hated it and asked me if it would get better. I told her no, recapped the last two seasons, and hung up feeling very sad they didn't have producers who were able to enforce continuity, character development, or common sense. 

Poor daughter was shocked by the major plot points of S6 and S7. She kept saying "no!" but actually screeched when she heard Lorelai f'd Christopher. 

[AllyB]

On the episode with the Shakespeare test. I thought what Rory was studying seemed odd as the bits we heard her say aloud were just dry facts and figures about Shakespeare. It was all really basic. I found it really hard to imagine that the best student in even the apparently awful Stars Hollow High wouldn't have known those things already and might have filled her test essays at Chilton with that type of information and expected it to be good enough. I assumed her low grades were down to her lack of in depth intelligent analysis of the literature as opposed to her not knowing a few simple facts. Was that bad writing on the writers part?

[Lady Calypso]

On 3/11/2017 at 5:52 AM, AllyB said:

There's something missing from everyone's life though. I'm an oldest child, so I'm missing an older sibling. I only have brothers so I'm missing a sister. I have two brothers so I'm missing the level of parental attention an only child would have. Rory missed out on having a father as a genuine presence in her life and on having sibling (because she never seemed to consider Gigi a sister) but she had a kind of deep and complex relationship with her mother that wouldn't have been possible if she'd had the other two. And while we can argue in retrospect that their relationship wasn't good for Rory, that was due to Lorelai's immaturity rather than the dynamics of a single parent-only child relationship in itself.

I totally see your point here. I do think the difference is that Chris always had the chance to be a father to Rory and that piece could have been filled at any time. Her missing her father was actually a preventable thing. Him popping in and out of her life gave her hope and took it away every time so eventually, she grew accustomed to it and gave up hope. But then her parents getting back together and then breaking up, Chris promising to change and him showing progress and then regressing again did it again. But on the other hand, I guess he was still missing in the fatherly way for her entire life, so she was still missing that presence. 

[voiceover]

On 3/11/2017 at 3:52 AM, AllyB said:

There's something missing from everyone's life though.

No kidding?

The "lack of father" is very, VERY different from lack of sibling.  Especially for a girl.  I never said that it made Rory better or worse.  The show never addressed it.  The closest it came was reassuring us, loudly, that the BFF relationship she had with her mother was the totes best anything ever.

That was my speculation on the lack of resiliency issue.  You're free to speculate that she dropped out of Yale because she didn't have a big sister.

[voiceover]

On 3/11/2017 at 2:43 PM, Iknewyoucoulddoit said:

 

Does anyone else ever feel like they need reminders about why they love this show since there's so much about it that is all too worthy of criticism? I read the posts here and the media critiques pointing out how the revival magnified serious issues with the show and its characters that were present all along and I suddenly have trouble recalling why it's supposedly one of my favorite shows!     

I laughed when I read this.  Especially since I'd just come from noodling through the Friends and the Sex & the City threads where the same question might be asked.

Off the top of my head?  It's due to the long-run nature of the series; the multiple marathon rewatches; places like...this.

Many British series, which tend to be a few seasons & done (like The Office) don't have the same issues -- the writing staff turnover, the showrunner switchoff, the actors' long-run-itis.  So the inconsistencies and the dreadful OOC bullshit that shows up in Seasons 4 through Infinity, are a non-issue.

That being said: I was an L &L-er from the pilot ep, so I cherish the eps when they're good together -- and FF other moments.  Like the April years.

[qtpye]

On 3/11/2017 at 4:43 PM, Iknewyoucoulddoit said:

but of course instead Paris is made out to be a irrational nutjob for daring to get angry at Rory since our little princess never actively sought out the editor in chief position in the first place. And at least in that scenario Rory would have ended up with an honor that she deliberately, assertively set out to get rather than one she was handed because she's Rory.

I think Paris was introduced to be a foil to Rory.  We all are supposed to have said, isn't Rory the most wonderful person ever, especially compared to this nut case?  However, the actor and  early writing really brought out something in Paris.  She was a true force of nature...good and bad.