S01.E04: Fall

[cantbeflapped]

17 minutes ago, ghoulina said:

So glad to see I'm not alone in this. That was NOT Sookie. Nope. Didn't care for it; I was glad her screen time was short lived. 

Pull up a chair at the Recast Sookie table.....there's plenty of room!

1 minute ago, ghoulina said:

8 hours ago, chick binewski said:

 

I think that was the biggest disappointment for me. No flash mobs. 

You know, the whole old man music mocking Lorelai did just drew more attention to the fact that they're old....that thought just occurred to me this morning.  

[readster]

14 hours ago, Randomosity said:

I believe that's partially hair dye, partially being strategically clean-shaven. He appeared on "Timeless" very recently and looked a hell of a lot rougher and grayer.

YEs, Sutcliff has grayed more the last couple of years. He was on Rookie Blue a few years ago, and you could see the gray touches. Still looked good, wish I aged that well. I do look younger than I am and I get it a lot, sadly my hair is not as good as Rick's. 

[Eyes High]

Was anyone distracted by the camerawork in the finale? There were some very un-GG angles (closeups and the like), especially in the Christopher/Rory scene.

Lorelai's story about Richard was so heartwrenching. My dad has had health problems for several years, and he took me to the movies when I was a kid, and...ugh. How dare you, Lauren Graham.

Christopher's never going to be able to stack up to Michel and Lane in the aging department, but by white dude standards, he aged pretty well. There's a Christopher portrait in an attic somewhere that looks like Zach, though.

[SueB]

2 hours ago, TwirlyGirly said:

This really bugged me, too, until I remembered "The Third Lorelai" (S1/E18). This is the episode in which Trix (Richard's mother) comes to visit, and is thinking of changing the terms of the trust fund she has set up for Rory, to enable Rory to receive the money immediately, as opposed to when she turns 25 (as per the original terms of the trust), so that Lorelai will not have to borrow money from Richard and Emily to pay for Chilton. As you recall, Trix ultimately decides not to change the terms of the trust, which means (since, IIRC, we were never told differently), the original terms of the trust would remain in place, meaning Rory would have received the money at the age of 25. Had Rory carefully managed that money, it's possible she had been using that to support herself since (which would have enabled her to continue free-lancing, instead of taking a permanent position she didn't really want or felt was "beneath" her).

 

If that's the case then her now being broke (per her conversation with Jess) is even worse. It means she spent all that money.  And I totally support her freelance approach towards life but after 10 years she probably should have had a few fall backs and a savings plan.  Although, depending on how she spent her money, maybe she DID have a savings account that she drew down to zero over the course of the year that we watched.  I just wish they would have discussed this.  It all seemed to be about exploration and it didn't get down to brass tacks until Fall.  

[evethegreat]

I liked that Richard took Lorelai to see "An Unmarried Woman". Kelly Bishop is in that movie and I love it. 

[Nanrad]

14 hours ago, Smad said:

It's modern feminism in a nutshell IMO. It's why younger female generations discovering the show tend to prefer Chris as a person over Luke or Richard or other more 'old fashioned' types of men. MF teaches girls to go for the Chris types. The somewhat fun and irresponsible one that treats you like crap in between grand romantic gestures. Also makes for an ideal father of your child because he would leave all the responsibility behind so you can raise the child like you want to while also going to your daily job. MF basically teaches women they can't count on men and men are useless. Sometimes I miss old school feminism that was really only about equality.

IMO, younger female generations prefer Chris over Luke (or Richard) because Chris is charming, attractive, and fun. Like, admittedly, I like looking and watching Chris interact for those very reasons, but every since I've started watching this show, which was when I was like 13 (I'm 25 now), I always preferred Luke. Because Luke is supportive, responsible, and reliable. You don't have to encourage him to do anything for him to do it when it comes to things that matter. 

I don't know what sort of feminist theory you've been reading, but what MF teaches is that, it's preferable to have a two parent home, but if that's not possible for whatever reason, it's fine to do it alone and, in some cases, like with Christopher, it's preferable. MF doesn't push single parenting if the father is active/involved because it's emotionally and financially exhausting. The only really push it IF the father is irresponsible and/or toxic/detrimental to the child's well being. MF teaches women not to solely rely on men because some men can let you down and leave you to do it (mostly) alone.

MF is about understanding your options and why some drastic options are necessary, BUT only the extremists talk about what you claim all feminism talks about. I talk to feminists on a daily basis and, yeah, none of them spout off what you're talking about. 

Edited November 27, 2016 by Nanrad
spelling errors

[shron17]

11 hours ago, Nanrad said:

The only thing Lorelei could have done differently to encourage their relationship was marry Chris when he first asked her, which I don't think is fair to Lorelei because you shouldn't have to marry anyone in order to get them to parent and be involved. 

And even then I can't see it making their relationship much better, could have even made it worse.  See how much Chris embraced fatherhood after he married Sherry so he could be there from the beginning.  Sherry ended up leaving and writing him a note saying it was her turn, she was tired of him being gone all the time.  Being there for babies/toddlers is really hard and requires tons of patience but makes the bond between parent and child much stronger.

[Eyes High]

Luke is supportive, reliable and dependable, much like a well-built table. But who wants to date a table?

In the mate department, it's not enough to be supportive, reliable and dependable to be attractive as a partner, particularly when one has some very unattractive personality traits. Luke is supportive, reliable and dependable, but he's also irascible, strongly opinionated, quick to anger, prone to rants, very negative, and frankly often difficult to be around. Who wants to date that? Luke is great to have in a crisis, but that doesn't make the non-crisis moments, which make up the bulk of a relationship, when you're sitting around having to spend time with him as he rants and grumps and rolls his eyes, any more fun. Who wants to be around someone who's down on everything all the time?

It's not enough to be supportive, reliable and dependable if you bring nothing else to the relationship table (sorry), much less if you have anger issues or other issues. Men who grouse about the lack of women falling at their feet because of their excess of reliability and dependability, and who correspondingly gripe about women who want men who are fun, charming and who make them feel good, are misunderstanding something fundamental.

Christopher, on the other hand, for all his lack of reliability, is fun to be around. He makes people feel good, something that's pretty fucking important in a relationship (and I'm not just talking about sex). He's so good at making others feel good, in fact, that he can make them forget what a garbage human being he is. But who wants to be around someone who doesn't make them feel good? If Luke is canned spinach--nourishing but unpleasant--Christopher is a juicy, fatty, heart-attack-on-a-plate steak: undeniably deadly but undeniably delicious.

Saying that women should want a "Luke" instead of a "Christopher" just because a "Luke" supportive, reliable, and dependable is telling them that they should eat canned spinach even if it makes them gag because they need their vegetables. Maybe there are other ways for women seeking stability in their lives to "get their vegetables" that don't involve "canned spinach." Telling women who like the "Christophers" of the world while disdaining the "Lukes" that there's something terribly wrong with them for preferring steak to canned spinach seems unfair. Everyone prefers steak to canned spinach.

The Luke/Christopher divide is also a false dichotomy. One can be supportive, reliable and dependable while also being fun and charming. One does not necessarily rule out the other. Of course, the ones who are supportive, reliable and dependable while also being fun and charming usually get snapped up in their twenties and stay married, which is why Lorelai's options are more or less between Fun Garbage and Reliable Grump.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Eyes High

[readster]

27 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

Luke is supportive, reliable and dependable, much like a well-built table. But who wants to date a table?

In the mate department, it's not enough to be supportive, reliable and dependable to be attractive as a partner, particularly when one has some very unattractive personality traits. Luke is supportive, reliable and dependable, but he's also irascible, strongly opinionated, quick to anger, prone to rants, very negative, and frankly often difficult to be around. Who wants to date that? Luke is great to have in a crisis, but that doesn't make the non-crisis moments, which make up the bulk of a relationship, when you're sitting around having to spend time with him as he rants and grumps and rolls his eyes, any more fun. Who wants to be around someone who's down on everything all the time?

It's not enough to be supportive, reliable and dependable if you bring nothing else to the relationship table (sorry), much less if you have anger issues or other issues. Men who grouse about the lack of women falling at their feet because of their excess of reliability and dependability, and who correspondingly gripe about women who want men who are fun, charming and who make them feel good, are misunderstanding something fundamental.

Christopher, on the other hand, for all his lack of reliability, is fun to be around. He makes people feel good, something that's pretty fucking important in a relationship (and I'm not just talking about sex). He's so good at making others feel good, in fact, that he can make them forget what a garbage human being he is. But who wants to be around someone who doesn't make them feel good? If Luke is canned spinach--nourishing but unpleasant--Christopher is a juicy, fatty, heart-attack-on-a-plate steak: undeniably deadly but undeniably delicious.

Saying that women should want a "Luke" instead of a "Christopher" just because a "Luke" supportive, reliable, and dependable is telling them that they should eat canned spinach even if it makes them gag because they need their vegetables. Maybe there are other ways for women seeking stability in their lives to "get their vegetables" that don't involve "canned spinach." Telling women who like the "Christophers" of the world while disdaining the "Lukes" that there's something terribly wrong with them for preferring steak to canned spinach seems unfair. Everyone prefers steak to canned spinach.

The Luke/Christopher divide is also a false dichotomy. One can be supportive, reliable and dependable while also being fun and charming. One does not necessarily rule out the other. Of course, the ones who are supportive, reliable and dependable while also being fun and charming usually get snapped up in their twenties and stay married, which is why Lorelai's options are more or less between Fun Garbage and Reliable Grump.

That's the best analogy I have ever read about the two and brings the points home perfectly. What could have help both characters was Chris admitting he was a screw up, and made steps to improve. An example would have been telling Emily he wasn't going to be her Yes Man or going to Luke early on and saying: "Lorelei and I have a child, but the ship sailed years ago and we just can't make it work." Then going with Luke just realizing he needed to stop being "keep it to myself" and actually say how he feels, stop trying to avoid situations like the wi-fi issue in Winter or how he acted with April. They did that, they would have both come up looking better, but sadly they don't want to and AS-P didn't want that to change, she wanted her Fun Garbage and Reliable Grump. 

[MsChicklet]

I was good with the pre-wedding wedding. Because Lorelei did it not for just herself, but for Luke as well. I think she saw that being married was what they both really, truly cared about.  So this was her gift to Luke, being able to relax and enjoy the getting-married part.

[Nanrad]

@Eyes High Are you building off of my statement or responding to it?

I was saying that I preferred Luke for those reasons not that others should prefer him for those reasons. 

When we actually apply this to Luke and Lorelei's relationship, Lorelei sometimes intentionally riled him up to get that sort of response. She found amusement at his grouchy behavior, so Luke's behavior wasn't a downer for her. And, though I can't recall everything right now, he did have other things to offer. There was only very few times where Lorelei responded negatively to grumpy Luke. They are both extremes of opposite things. Luke is said to take almost everything serious and Lorelei is said to not take most things serious. Maybe that was why they were drawn to each other--they liked that the other had a trait in abundance that they lacked a lot of.

I'm confused. Is this a general point being built off my initial statement? Luke did get jealous that Lorelei dated other men, but he didn't feel entitled to her or that she owed him her time. Again, me describing Luke as these things doesn't mean that's all he had to offer or that he felt entitled to more than what he got.

Luke has never and will never be described as the life of the party, but despite his downer attitude, he does make Lorelei feel great. We've seen this. Luke doesn't have Christopher's personality, so yes, he'll pale in comparison when it comes to positivity and fun, but it doesn't mean he never entertained and was fun to be around.

Are you responding to both me AND Smad? (This whole post is me thinking aloud)

Here's how I see it: eat what you want while you're young, but you can't keep doing that as an adult because, it doesn't turn out so well in the long run. You're needs and priorities change--they aren't the same from when you're a to an adult. I think Max was the perfect combination of both, but Lorelei just couldn't make the jump.

You're right, Luke and Christopher are false dichotomies, but Lorelei is into the Reliable Grump and not just because he's reliable. You can have men who are both reliable and fun. I almost dated a guy who was Lukish, but the reason it didn't work out for other reasons. And people saw him as one way, but he was an amazing guy to me. I was the fun person to him grumpiness, and to this day, he is probably the only person I connected to emotionally who I felt understood me, knew how to make me smile, and who I had deep, fulfilling talks to (in addition to telling him secrets I'd never told anyone else). We gave each other shit and pushed each other buttons all in good fun. 

Edited November 27, 2016 by Nanrad
You're not your

[shron17]

1 hour ago, SueB said:

If that's the case then her now being broke (per her conversation with Jess) is even worse. It means she spent all that money. 

Not necessarily.  Couldn't the principle be mostly intact and Rory says she's broke because she's struggling to live off of the interest, along with what income she manages to bring in?  Rory just doesn't seem like the type to blow through all of her trust fund money while trying to find her way.  I think that's the main reason why she gave Logan back his key--she realized that while he and his friends were fun, she was too fundamentally different to be able make a long term relationship work with someone used to that lifestyle.

54 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

Telling women who like "Christopher" types that there's something terribly wrong with them for preferring steak to canned spinach seems unfair. Everyone prefers steak to canned spinach.

Not necessarily.  Everyone's taste buds are different and some actually prefer the taste of vegetables to charred animal flesh.  It doesn't make either one right or wrong, just right for them.  And I think I'd compare Christopher to a sugary treat that tastes really good when you eat it but leaves you feeling crappy after.  While I see your point, it also follows that different people have different opinions concerning what they do or don't find attractive in a partner.  Luke can be grumpy but still has a good sense of humor and even though he's often negative and not very open, you can trust that who he is with you and what he does reveal is genuine.  I find that much more attractive in a life partner than someone who constantly hides their real feelings behind a facade of charm.  It's not fun at all to be with someone who tells you for years that they like you, the things you do, what you cook etc. only find out too late that they really didn't feel that way at all.

22 minutes ago, readster said:

He's so good at making others feel good, in fact, that he can make them forget what a garbage human being he is.

That's all well and good until you find that you've unknowingly committed your life to a garbage human being.

Edited November 27, 2016 by shron17

[Nanrad]

Here's what interesting: Lorelei didn't originally want to be with Luke and always wanted to be with Christopher.

What happened: Lorelei waited and waited for Christopher to get his shit together and he screwed her over and other shit was going on. When they finally did get together, too much time and shit passed for them to work out. She'd outgrown him--he was still fun, but she was at a different place in life and her wants couldn't outweigh her needs in a relationship.

With Luke, her friendship with him transformed into something more. Yeah, she liked his dependability, but she also liked that he genuinely cared about her well being and wanted the best for her. That, even though it wasn't his thing, he'd let loose and have fun for/with her. He can admit that he was/is wrong.

Like, for Lorelei, stability was a hella important thing, so much so, she refused to be with Christopher until he got his shit together and she had the most fun with him. We can call Luke a table, but hell, Lorelei chose that table in the end and refused to let her mom talk shit about that table. lol

Edited November 27, 2016 by Nanrad

[Melancholy]

15 minutes ago, Nanrad said:

Here's what interesting: Lorelei didn't originally want to be with Luke and always wanted to be with Christopher.

What happened: Lorelei waited and waited for Christopher to get his shit together and he screwed her over other shit was going on. When they finally did get together, too much time and shit passed for them to work out. She'd outgrown him--he was still fun, but she was at a different place in life and her wants couldn't outweigh her needs in a relationship.

With Luke, her friendship with him transformed into something more. Yeah, she liked his dependability, but she also liked that he genuinely cared about her well being and wanted the best for her. That, even though it wasn't his thing, he'd let loose and have fun for/with her. He can admit that he was is wrong.

Like, for Lorelei, stability was a hella important thing, so much so, she refused to be with Christopher until he got his shit together and she had the most fun with him. We can call Luke a table, but hell, Lorelei chose that table in the end and refused to let her mom talk shit about that table. lol

Yup. I think this "Lorelai can't have fun with Luke" is a fannish judgment rather than any problem that Lorelai feels herself. The series indicates that Lorelai has lots of fun with Luke. Her conflicts with him have been about communication or his lack of openness or him prioritizing other people over her. However, Lorelai visibly has a lot of fun with aspects of Luke. She loves eating above all else and he'll cook her favorite things. She loves Stars Hallow gossip and even more, discussing the people in her life. Luke is firmly plugged into that world. She gets a kick out of being his Ambassador to pop culture and how he'll do what she likes to spend time with her so she doesn't miss out on her favorite things.

Above all else, Lorelai has *fun* arguing and debating and pushing back. She revels in conflict. I completely get it- I'm that way myself. That's why she likes Luke's grumpiness and even more, deliberately riles him up to get an argument started. It's how she has her fun. I feel like people project their desires for a conflict-free relationship where everyone is just peaceably joyful on Lorelai. We are all not like that. Some of us really like humorous arguments to playfully exercise rhetorical skills. Some of us really like to push back against someone but still end up in a place of love to constantly role-play a feeling of unconditional love (which I think is a BIG part of the L/L dynamic.) Some of us need to babble to fill up the empty spaces and conflict will do that. Heck, that's why some of us are on Message Boards about a TV show where we argue for fun or grumble about how much we hate a TV show...for fun. 

Incidentally, I think that's also why Lorelai kept going to FNDs and why Emily is still an important part of her life. Lorelai takes particular joy in the thrill of debate/push back and the reliability that a person gets you and can actively share your whole life. So, she stays arguing with the same verbose cast of characters whether it's Michelle or Sookie or Emily. Luke particularly embodies it as a love interest. 

Edited November 27, 2016 by Melancholy

[Meow25]

On 11/25/2016 at 10:35 PM, GreenScreenFX said:

I also thought Emily was a goner when they included an insignificant shot of her changing her shoes.  Who does that? Nothing in tv happpens by accident. It looked like a bridge to the mundaness of death. 

I felt the scene was emily changing her life shoes...from wealthy housewife to beachy widow with her own life.  

[Nanrad]

@Melancholy I think people also overlook that Lorelei goes to his diner because she enjoys being around him--there are other places to go even though she pretends like there isn't. We've seen her avoid Luke's in the past, so why would she endure Luke's 24/7 perma grumpiness if she didn't enjoy it? Even with us saying he provides stability, Lorelei wasn't looking for that from him at all in the beginning, he was not on her radar. Sometimes she even sits at the counter to talk to him. Like...lol. Clearly, Luke stimulates and provides her amusement and Luke knows it. It's quite clear that Lorelei gets preferential treatment, which she knows as well. This is definitely a projection because it doesn't match how Lorelei behaves towards Luke in the series at all.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Nanrad

[CalamityBoPeep]

4 minutes ago, Melancholy said:

Yup. I think this "Lorelai can't have fun with Luke" is a fannish judgment rather than any problem that Lorelai feels herself. The series indicates that Lorelai has lots of fun with Luke. Her conflicts with him have been about communication or his lack of openness or him prioritizing other people over her. However, Lorelai visibly has a lot of fun with aspects of Luke. She loves eating above all else and he'll cook her favorite things. She loves Stars Hallow gossip and even more, discussing the people in her life. Luke is firmly plugged into that world. She gets a kick out of being his Ambassador to pop culture and how he'll do what she likes to spend time with her so she doesn't miss out on her favorite things.

Above all else, Lorelai has *fun* arguing and debating and pushing back. She revels in conflict. I completely get it- I'm that way myself. That's why she likes Luke's grumpiness and even more, deliberately riles him up to get an argument started. It's how she has her fun. I feel like people project their desires for a conflict-free relationship where everyone is just peaceably joyful on Lorelai. We are all not like that. Some of us really like humorous arguments to playfully exercise rhetorical skills. Some of us really like to push back against someone but still end up in a place of love to constantly role-play a feeling of unconditional love (which I think is a BIG part of the L/L dynamic.) Some of us need to babble to fill up the empty spaces and conflict will do that. Heck, that's why some of us are on Message Boards about a TV show where we argue for fun or grumble about how much we hate a TV show...for fun. 

 

I wish I could "like" this a thousand times. So, so much.

I am that way myself... I am verbal, quick, and passionate about the things I like. (Not quite as self-centered and blind as Lorelai, but yeah.) I married a dependable, grounded, solid man who loves that I keep his life interesting, while I love that he's so freaking competent in the real world. We're opposites. We both enjoy the hell out of it. 

That's all on the surface though. When times get tough, he's the one person I know actually has my back. And I see that in Luke and Lorelai too. She counts on him, and knows he is the rock that she needs. He needs her lightness, and she needs his common sense.

[cantbeflapped]

21 minutes ago, Melancholy said:

36 minutes ago, Nanrad said:

 

Yup. I think this "Lorelai can't have fun with Luke" is a fannish judgment rather than any problem that Lorelai feels herself. The series indicates that Lorelai has lots of fun with Luke. Her conflicts with him have been about communication or his lack of openness or him prioritizing other people over her. However, Lorelai visibly has a lot of fun with aspects of Luke. She loves eating above all else and he'll cook her favorite things. She loves Stars Hallow gossip and even more, discussing the people in her life. Luke is firmly plugged into that world. She gets a kick out of being his Ambassador to pop culture and how he'll do what she likes to spend time with her so she doesn't miss out on her favorite things.

Above all else, Lorelai has *fun* arguing and debating and pushing back. She revels in conflict. I completely get it- I'm that way myself. That's why she likes Luke's grumpiness and even more, deliberately riles him up to get an argument started. It's how she has her fun. I feel like people project their desires for a conflict-free relationship where everyone is just peaceably joyful on Lorelai. We are all not like that. Some of us really like humorous arguments to playfully exercise rhetorical skills. Some of us really like to push back against someone but still end up in a place of love to constantly role-play a feeling of unconditional love (which I think is a BIG part of the L/L dynamic.) Some of us need to babble to fill up the empty spaces and conflict will do that. Heck, that's why some of us are on Message Boards about a TV show where we argue for fun or grumble about how much we hate a TV show...for fun. 

Oh,  Melancholy.....will you be my best friend?

[Nanrad]

Alright, here's some other stuff I forgot about what Luke offers Lorelei:

I kinda implied that he goes out of his comfort zone for her, but in the revival, he's watching some french show with her that he's most likely not interested in because SHE likes it. I don't recall him complaining, maybe he did and he falls asleep. But, every week, he watches the show because she likes it and tries to recall the last thing he remembered so she doesn't have to start too far back. 

He loves and supports Rory unconditionally--most parents deal breakers are their children and you'll definitely get brownie points if you genuinely like their kids. Luke has always cared about Rory and is consistently shown to care about her for who she is and not to get in good with Lorelei. 

Okay, so you have this guy who she likes to go to his diner to argue with, who does stuff literally because she asked, there for her, and who adores/supports her daughter without trying to get in good with her--yeah, I can see why Lorelei* is attracted to Luke.

*I know how to spell her name, but my computer keeps auto correcting.

ETA: Even when Kirk or Lorelei called him to Emily's house to take them home, Luke was fine with it and got somewhat grumpy due to Kirk being Kirk. He literally only came to Hartford to pick someone up and volunteered to stay until dinner was finished. He doesn't mind taking time out for himself to do for others. And he knows how to play nice and is clearly big on compromise, or at least, when he got with Lorelei. Like, he's happy with what he's got with her because she's his dream come true and he doesn't see her as a way to fix him or more than she is--he accepts her for who she is. Like, again, I can see why Lorelei jumped on that. lol

Edited November 27, 2016 by Nanrad

[shron17]

33 minutes ago, Melancholy said:

Above all else, Lorelai has *fun* arguing and debating and pushing back. She revels in conflict. I completely get it- I'm that way myself. That's why she likes Luke's grumpiness and even more, deliberately riles him up to get an argument started. It's how she has her fun. I feel like people project their desires for a conflict-free relationship where everyone is just peaceably joyful on Lorelai. We are all not like that. Some of us really like humorous arguments to playfully exercise rhetorical skills. Some of us really like to push back against someone but still end up in a place of love to constantly role-play a feeling of unconditional love (which I think is a BIG part of the L/L dynamic.) Some of us need to babble to fill up the empty spaces and conflict will do that. Heck, that's why some of us are on Message Boards about a TV show where we argue for fun or grumble about how much we hate a TV show...for fun. 

Wonderful insights!  And definitely a lot of projection of desires in our opinions.  Nobody is saying you have to enjoy Luke's personality, just that Lorelai so obviously does.

During Winter I finally realized Lorelai really is addicted to drama.  Why else would her DVR be full of Lifetime Channel classics?  Way too dramatic for me!

32 minutes ago, Meow25 said:

I felt the scene was emily changing her life shoes...from wealthy housewife to beachy widow with her own life.  

It also felt like a callback to Emily in Wonderland when she borrowed Lorelai's shoes.  Now she's wearing tennis shoes willingly.  I really love how she scorned the DAR ladies and became passionate about whales!

Edited November 27, 2016 by shron17

[cantbeflapped]

1 minute ago, Nanrad said:

I kinda implied that he goes out of his comfort zone for her, but in the revival, he's watching some french with her that he's most likely not interested in because SHE likes it. I don't recall him complaining, maybe he did and he falls asleep. But, every week, he watches the show because she likes it and tries to recall the last thing he remembered so she doesn't have to start too far back. 

OMG...so glad you reminded me of this.  My screen name is no accident.  I AM a female Luke.  The falling asleep thing...All. The. Time.  (I also wake up very early).  I've taken three nights to get through a 22 minute sitcom on Netflix because I have to start over every night.  And that has happened repeatedly.  

That was just one of those moments where you see your experience so perfectly captured on TV...lol.  What did Rory call it?  Binge watching something?   I meant to remember but was probably too sleepy.  

[Nanrad]

2 minutes ago, cantbeflapped said:

OMG...so glad you reminded me of this.  My screen name is no accident.  I AM a female Luke.  The falling asleep thing...All. The. Time.  (I also wake up very early).  I've taken three nights to get through a 22 minute sitcom on Netflix because I have to start over every night.  And that has happened repeatedly.  

That was just one of those moments where you see your experience so perfectly captured on TV...lol.  What did Rory call it?  Binge watching something?   I meant to remember but was probably too sleepy.  

LMFAO.

I'm currently going through this. I kept falling asleep for a series I just started because I have to wake up earlier than I'm used to. I finished the episodes, but I'd start one and always have to finish the second one the next day. (it's called binge watching). And, Luke gets up at like 4:45 am or 5 am, so I'd imagine he tries to stay up with Lorelei and often falls asleep. lol

[MaiSoCalled]

1 hour ago, readster said:

What could have help both characters was Chris admitting he was a screw up, and made steps to improve.

This was what I needed in his scene with Rory - an apology. One split second of him admitting that he wasn't there for her as much as he could have been, and that was wrong. But he didn't say that. He made excuses and said that everything worked out as it was supposed to, which isn't a bad thing on its own, but it lets him off the hook. His lack of apology or self awareness broke my heart. 

I like Christopher well enough. He's a compelling character and both girls light up when he's in the scene. But he floats through life and gives the bare minimum to get by. I'd always been a Logan fan, but the parallels in this series were jarring. I think of season 7 Logan and Rory and wonder - is that what young Lorelai and Chris were like? 

[QQQQ]

• Quote

  It's modern feminism in a nutshell IMO. It's why younger female generations discovering the show tend to prefer Chris as a person over Luke or Richard or other more 'old fashioned' types of men. MF teaches girls to go for the Chris types. The somewhat fun and irresponsible one that treats you like crap in between grand romantic gestures. Also makes for an ideal father of your child because he would leave all the responsibility behind so you can raise the child like you want to while also going to your daily job. MF basically teaches women they can't count on men and men are useless. 

  I never figured Dr. Laura for a Gilmore Girls viewer!

[stillshimpy]

The last few pages of this discussion have been awesome.  Fans will always choose their own preferences for a love interest, that's how escapism works, you know?  That is in absolutely no way a slam, it's just everyone likes to see a world that makes emotional sense to them. 

David Sutcliffe is a freaking saint, by the way, showing up for a primarily thankless role again and again, despite the fact that the guy has decided to leave acting (per his Gilmore Guys appearance).  

I only have one thing to add to the "Oh shit, Rory Gilmore just got mugged by her uterus, in the grand tradition of the only thing writers seem to be able to do with female characters: make them unexpectedly pregnant" stuff and that is that -- in an entirely weird way -- David S. Rosenthal bailed ASP out from her worst instincts (really, another disaster of a Golden Rich Boy, Amy?  Who done broke your heart there, lady?) by having Logan propose to, and be rejected by, Rory lo those many years ago.  So that their primarily distasteful relationship hinges on Logan having wanted to marry her, so at least the insanely heartless thing both are doing to Odette (who must be in the know about Logan's greater/lesser character aspects) is at least based in a form of love, vs. being emotionally callous. 

Alexis Bledel is much, much stronger as an actress, I think.  She had believable chemistry with all of her exs and that wasn't always the case.  I guess years of friendship must have helped with Jared Paledecki and Matt Czuchry.  Weirdly it was her chemistry with Milo that was the least, "I still think about you" and that's likely attributable to the actors having been involved for a few years.  

But holy crap, ASP, way to sell the "you'll never actually get over feeling slightly abandoned" thing with Rory and so much worse, being poised to repeat the pattern.  If this does get picked up for more, I hope ASP will not simply have Rory do something that unconscionable to a grown man.  The only "I made the decision to raise my child alone" detail that ever saved Christopher from complete sucking infamy was that he was a sixteen-year-old boy when Lorelai -- in essence -- decided she was the arbiter of parental rights. 

I guess ASP could swerve and have baby-daddy be the texting Paul rather than the emotional catastrophe that is her relationship with Logan culminating in a baby set to rock the boat worse than a freaking stolen yacht.   So that's the thing that no one could quite save ASP from: she doesn't seem to get that a) dudes have actual, enforceable parental rights b) Logan is a nightmare on so many levels but she did make a much stronger character than Christopher in him and he's incredibly unlikely to just accept being told she wanted to raise a child alone. 

What a weird thing to fixate on, I know, but when Rory asked Christopher how he felt, blah blah, and his response was basically that he accepted Lorelai's decision because no one could talk her into anything, I wondered if ASP has a full enough grasp of the fact that a lot of men?  Actually give a shit about exercising parental rights.

[Deevee45]

Quote

David Sutcliffe is a freaking saint, by the way, showing up for a primarily thankless role again and again, despite the fact that the guy has decided to leave acting (per his Gilmore Guys appearance).  

I didn't hear this. His IMDB shows things through 2016, but nothing more. Has he said why?

[stillshimpy]

Quote

I didn't hear this. His IMDB shows things through 2016, but nothing more. Has he said why?

They actually discussed it at length, I'd say for at least ten-to-fifteen minutes of his "Gilmore Gab" on the Gilmore Guys podcast.  I'm going to try and sum it up, but please forgive me, as I don't remember the name of the type of personal energy therapy he has decided to dedicate his time and effort to.  That's the gig though, there's some kind of centering/energy/spirituality work that he wants to lead in workshops and apparently is doing fairly well at as it is.  

That was an entirely delightful podcast, by the way.  He's really actually fun to listen to.  Scott Patterson did a few of those also and came off -- being kind, being kind -- not quite as well, overall.  Sutcliffe and Milo were both a lot of fun with Milo V. being the true surprise, he was incredibly generous with his time and actually, quite clearly, completely exhausted the question set....so they ended up just talking.  All three are highly recommended.  

Edited November 27, 2016 by stillshimpy

[WhosThatGirl]

14 hours ago, Daisy said:

I'm not trying to excuse everything did - and that's why I said that Christopher did take the easy road and accepted it - and I always did get mad at him for nothing big a big part. But as I said - I don't think after Lorelai ran away to the shed, she wanted any help. She wanted to Do It Alone. 

From my Christopher Coloured Glasses - he did cultivate a close relationship. and I'm not saying it needed to be BFFs like Lorelai + Rory but I do think it could have been better if there weren't doors closed by Lorelai.  It was complicated(ish) situation. 

Maybe the marriage thing was again Right Thing To Do, but I don't blame him for that and he was always willing to make things work out. it is complicated but I just never saw Christopher as bad bad bad :)

This is what I was trying to explain- Christopher did want to marry her at 16, or at least said, 'it wouldn't be the worst thing' to her. Lorelai seemed to have shut that down and then after having Rory ran off to Stars Hollow. Look, Christopher should have stepped up more, I agree, but.. I also agree with the above quote that Lorelai preferred that he wasn't around much. That he was living in with California and therefore could only parent when he was in the same state as them or phone calls.  We've never been given details on what went down before the show aired- kind of how like the show has always tried to do a Lorelai versus her parents but..I don't see it that way anymore. 

As for the who is the baby daddy, it's obviously not the random guy she slept with, and I doubt it's Paul, only because when Rory read the breakup text from him she didn't sound like heartbroken, like 'the father of my child broke up with me' and unless in the possible second season there's some unmentioned hookup with Jess reveleved, the baby is Logans. 

[snarktini]

It seems opinions of Rory are at an all-time low after this revival, but I really don't think Rory is looking to dramatically cut out the father. In my mind, asking about raising the kid on her own isn't saying no contact, it's basic logistics. If she stays in Stars Hollow and isn't in a relationship (much less the the same state) with the father, that largely means raising the kid on her own, even if he's involved. 

I took her questions to be sorting out the big picture. If it's okay to intentionally become a single mom. If she owes it to the father to factor him in to where she lives. If she should actively invite him to raise this child with her. (Now, if he asked to be with her, move to her, or become an active co-parent, that would be the real test. I doubt Logan wants to do that, but who knows.)

ETA: Of course, I'm applying real world logic. Considering ASP, maybe y'all are right.

Edited November 27, 2016 by snarktini

[Smad]

3 hours ago, Nanrad said:

I don't know what sort of feminist theory you've been reading, but what MF teaches is that, it's preferable to have a two parent home, but if that's not possible for whatever reason, it's fine to do it alone and, in some cases, like with Christopher, it's preferable. MF doesn't push single parenting if the father is active/involved because it's emotionally and financially exhausting. The only really push it IF the father is irresponsible and/or toxic/detrimental to the child's well being. MF teaches women not to solely rely on men because some men can let you down and leave you to do it (mostly) alone.

MF is about understanding your options and why some drastic options are necessary, BUT only the extremists talk about what you claim all feminism talks about. I talk to feminists on a daily basis and, yeah, none of them spout off what you're talking about. 

Theory and actual reality are two very different things. One has to only look at statistics. Or better yet events around the world and when so called modern feminists decide they have an opinion and make it known and when they keep quiet despite the fact they should be screaming from the rooftops. Or maybe that's just their own definition of MF which has nothing to do with the actual meaning. However the practising MF tends to be more successful than the theoretical. Buffy, for example, is another fandom where you see how much actual MF has skewed young women's thinking.

[Smad]

15 minutes ago, WhosThatGirl said:

This is what I was trying to explain- Christopher did want to marry her at 16, or at least said, 'it wouldn't be the worst thing' to her. Lorelai seemed to have shut that down and then after having Rory ran off to Stars Hollow. Look, Christopher should have stepped up more, I agree, but.. I also agree with the above quote that Lorelai preferred that he wasn't around much. That he was living in with California and therefore could only parent when he was in the same state as them or phone calls.  We've never been given details on what went down before the show aired- kind of how like the show has always tried to do a Lorelai versus her parents but..I don't see it that way anymore. 

No, no and no. I might give a 16 year old a pass for not stepping up and for being weak willed to let themselves be pushed around like that. But adults don't get a pass. If Chris really wanted to be a father he had several choices. If Lorelai really prevented him from being an active parent to Rory (all evidence to the contrary) he always had the option of securing his parental rights in court. Of course said court would then also have ensured he paid child support which he apparently didn't. At least not that we know. He also could have found a job near Stars Hollow if he really wanted to be a father (and Lorelai wasn't blocking him there). Fact remains Chris was happy not to have the responsibility so he was free to do what he wanted because for Chris it's always Chris first. The same thing happened with GiGi. Chris was traveling and the nannies and Sherry had to do it all. Only reason he had to become an actual, involved father to GiGi was because Sherry left him no choice.

[dubbel zout]

26 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

I don't remember the name of the type of personal energy therapy he has decided to dedicate his time and effort to.  That's the gig though, there's some kind of centering/energy/spirituality work that he wants to lead in workshops and apparently is doing fairly well at as it is.  

According to his Wiki page, he's a "Certified Core Energetics Practitioner, a graduate of the Radical Aliveness Institute of Southern California." 

Edited November 27, 2016 by dubbel zout

[Daisy]

9 hours ago, Smad said:

It's modern feminism in a nutshell IMO. It's why younger female generations discovering the show tend to prefer Chris as a person over Luke or Richard or other more 'old fashioned' types of men. MF teaches girls to go for the Chris types. The somewhat fun and irresponsible one that treats you like crap in between grand romantic gestures. Also makes for an ideal father of your child because he would leave all the responsibility behind so you can raise the child like you want to while also going to your daily job. MF basically teaches women they can't count on men and men are useless. Sometimes I miss old school feminism that was really only about equality.

Actually. I love and adore Richard and I love for the most part how he handled things.  During the rewatches I chewed out Sherry for not being there for Gigi, and that she should totally take more of interest of being there for her daughter, like all she really seemed to care about was her career before (and I always wondered if that was because they couldn't get Madchen Amick back on the show, so they decided instead of recasting, they trashed Sherry as a parent, not wanting to be around etc). And from the brief mentions she had z.e.r.o. interest of truly parenting other than a whole "oh yah come to France." shout out. 

I don't think Luke is old fashioned or whatever. I think he's rather a jerk for the most part - but that's neither here or there, and I don't consider myself a modern feminist, or an old-school feminist or any kind of -ist. but it's a total milage may vary - so i get it. 

 

13 hours ago, armadillo1224 said:

The idea that a man should have to be "encouraged" to be a father is so bizarre to me. If he really wanted to be a dad, a lack of "encouragement" from Lorelai or anything else she did to push him away (and it's not like she was taking him to court) should not have been a deterrent. He clearly didn't want to be a father that much, if a lack of encouragement was enough to keep him away.

I feel like the way we talk about Christopher is so dependent on his gender. Can you imagine how we would talk about a mother who only visited her child's hometown once during the first sixteen years of the child's life?  We just expect much less from men, as parents, so a guy who can barely bother to call his daughter is just someone who didn't get enough encouragement.

I don't know. maybe i'm articulating it wrong. So that's on me.  However - several times I did chide Christopher for taking the easy way out. We don't know (or will ever know on his side) how hard he pushed to parent Rory in the first few years, specifically. from what we've seen  (from the flashback). they had sex, she found out, everyone found out, Christopher basically said he was okay with being married, and being responsible, working for his parents, rather than bumming around Europe, sleeping on benches. 

Lorelai didn't want that and (from how it was presented to me) cut Christopher off (she cut everyone off). It didn't even seem like it was a year, just a couple of months later, she goes to Stars Hollow, lives in the Shed, and is a maid doing things, because that's what she felt she needed to do. It never showed on screen that Christopher was ever in the decision process at all, and Lorelai out right rejected his plan: Him supporting his family. and I don't think that comes out of simply doing what was best for the time. Millage could vary on that. We were never, not once offered a more comparable situation where they both came up with what worked for what they both wanted. I took it as respect for Lorelai, a touch (or a bucket) of irresponsibility, and knowing what everyone knows: Lorelai generally gets what she wants anyway, and Lorelai wanted to raise Rory her way. 

Now, I didn't re-watch Gilmore Girls prior to this so it could be hazy, but did Christopher bum around Europe? I know he flaked out of Yale I think and was kind of driftless. In Christopher Returns it did seem he was having some financial trouble (the dictionary), and wasn't super responsible (financially) but I truthfully couldn't remember all the details. but by Season 2, he was all grow'ed up and had a volvo and everything. I never once got the impression that he wasn't "there" for Rory (they had their phonecalls, etc - maybe he wasn't in a situation where Rory could visit) Truly not sure if he sent child support (or if Lorelai even wanted it, because again she only really went to Emily because she had no other option, so I don't know if she'd take Christopher's support if it was given (again I truly don't remember).

Actually thinking about it - Rory (or Lorelai) didn't want anything to do with Christopher's money when Strobe died and Christopher was like okay now I can really take care of you like I want, and make up for when I couldn't - and they both said no. they only reason why they did in season six was because they wanted to get out of Emily/Richard's thumb/Friday Night Dinners, for some thing. 

I personally feel that out of respect for Lorelai's wishes, Christopher took more of a back seat (than he wanted) - which is why when the Sherry thing came up he was more "I need to be there, I don't want to miss things this time." I've always said - that was on him for his part, but Lorelai (in my mind) was never lily white innocent in her part. Christopher could have done a lot more - I always said that. But Lorelai could have done a lot more too. Just like Christopher was always lamenting he wished Sherry would do a lot more to be there for Gigi and why going to France was a big deal for him because he didn't want her (Sherry) out of Gigi's life. But again. Millage may vary here. (well not may. totally does) :)

I feel - that a lot of the story is lost from Christopher's point of view, just like how a lot of people don't like Richard/Emily for how "mean" they were to Lorelai but i was always team Richard/Emily. mileage. 

 

Edited November 27, 2016 by Daisy

[Nanrad]

22 minutes ago, Smad said:

Theory and actual reality are two very different things. One has to only look at statistics. Or better yet events around the world and when so called modern feminists decide they have an opinion and make it known and when they keep quiet despite the fact they should be screaming from the rooftops. Or maybe that's just their own definition of MF which has nothing to do with the actual meaning. However the practising MF tends to be more successful than the theoretical. Buffy, for example, is another fandom where you see how much actual MF has skewed young women's thinking.

You cannot rely on statistics to tell the entirety of custody arrangements.

In the circles I frequent, women constantly talk about how they are tired of trying to get the fathers to be involved in their children's lives as well as beg for child support. But, no one actually encourages women to leaves their partners, if the women are in a relationship, because men are useless and you need to do it alone. It's only when the man is toxic/detrimental to the child. 

I'm a feminist myself and my position in this particular discussion has always been, "it was better that Lorelei did it alone because Chris was irresponsible and unreliable" and, in the same breath, I've defended Luke as a father. Many feminists would actually be appalled at Anna's treatment of Luke when he found out about April. You had a father who not only wanted to be involved, but provide financial support. Luke wanted to do what he could for his daughter and cared about her overall well being. 

The other part is that, indirectly, MF advocates for fathers rights as well. Even then, feminism isn't a monolith movement and there are various theories and types. There is intersectional, black feminist, queer theory, etc. I definitely know with black feminist and intersectionality, it's about equally splitting parental duties.

When you look at the world around you, you will see men who are involved in their children's lives regardless of what life has thrown at them and men who find any excuse to not be a father. We have perfect examples of this IN the series. When you actually look at this world examples, you see more times than not, men are where they choose to be and not where a woman forced their hand pertaining parenting. 

Edited November 27, 2016 by Nanrad

[Viqutorious]

23 minutes ago, Smad said:

Theory and actual reality are two very different things. One has to only look at statistics. Or better yet events around the world and when so called modern feminists decide they have an opinion and make it known and when they keep quiet despite the fact they should be screaming from the rooftops. Or maybe that's just their own definition of MF which has nothing to do with the actual meaning. However the practising MF tends to be more successful than the theoretical. Buffy, for example, is another fandom where you see how much actual MF has skewed young women's thinking.

Are you serious?  I'm having Donna Reed flashbacks.

Edited November 27, 2016 by CheeseBurgh

[WatchrTina]

I'm doing a re-watch of the series -- just started Season 2 -- and it is so funny to see little things there that are either echoed or contradicted by the miniseries.  Some people here have complained about Michel and Lane being the witnesses at the impromptu pre-wedding (since clearly it should have been Jess and Sukie).  I just watched the episode where Sukie throws an engagement party for Lorelei and Max and says "everyone in town wants to celebrate with you" to which Lorelei replies "Even Michel?"  The answer?  "Well no."  Yet 15 years later he's the guy they wake up to be a witness at the pre-wedding?  Right.  

[SueB]

In Gilmore girl-esque tangent: I did love how they mentioned Buffy The Vampire Slayer (I think they did it twice).

That is all.*

 

*Gratuitous M*A*S*H quote.

[Nanrad]

5 minutes ago, Daisy said:

Lorelai didn't want that and (from how it was presented to me) cut Christopher off (she cut everyone off). It didn't even seem like it was a year, just a couple of months later, she goes to Stars Hollow, lives in the Shed, and is a maid doing things, because that's what she felt she needed to do. It never showed on screen that Christopher was ever in the decision process at all, and Lorelai out right rejected his plan: Him supporting his family. and I don't think that comes out of simply doing what was best for the time. Millage could vary on that. We were never, not once offered a more comparable situation where they both came up with what worked for what they both wanted. I took it as respect for Lorelai, a touch (or a bucket) of irresponsibility, and knowing what everyone knows: Lorelai generally gets what she wants anyway, and Lorelai wanted to raise Rory her way. 

Now, I didn't re-watch Gilmore Girls prior to this so it could be hazy, but did Christopher bum around Europe? I know he flaked out of Yale I think and was kind of driftless. In Christopher Returns it did seem he was having some financial trouble (the dictionary), and wasn't super responsible (financially) but I truthfully couldn't remember all the details. but by Season 2, he was all grow'ed up and had a volvo and everything. I never once got the impression that he wasn't "there" for Rory (they had their phonecalls, etc - maybe he wasn't in a situation where Rory could visit) Truly not sure if he sent child support (or if Lorelai even wanted it, because again she only really went to Emily because she had no other option, so I don't know if she'd take Christopher's support if it was given (again I truly don't remember). but I personally feel that out of respect for Lorelai's wishes, Christopher took more of a back seat (than he wanted) - which is why when the Sherry thing came up he was more "I need to be there, I don't want to miss things this time." I've always said - that was on him for his part, but Lorelai (in my mind) was never lily white innocent in her part. Christopher could have done a lot more - I always said that. But Lorelai could have done a lot more too. Just like Christopher was always lamenting he wished Sherry would do a lot more to be there for Gigi and why going to France was a big deal for him because he didn't want her (Sherry) out of Gigi's life. But again. Millage may vary here. (well not may. totally does) :)

It's interesting that you pointed out that Lorelei ran away a few months later and that Chris was never involved in the decision of what happened with Rory at all. 

Lorelei told Chris about her pregnancy--she didn't keep this a secret from him. I don't think it was a "FYI: I'm pregnant, but I don't want you involved." She told him because she did want him involved, but his only solution was marriage. Her shutting that down doesn't mean shutting any other options he has to offer down, but that's how Chris may have taken it. All he has to offer was marriage. By extension, Lorelei is his family, but Rory is his flesh and blood. Okay, Lorelei turned down his proposal, which was really a half assed proposal and she seemed to be the only one who got the enormity of what it meant to be a young parent, Rory is STILL his family and he should've been financially taking care of her regardless. Because if his decision wasn't based off of old fashioned values, then what was it based on? Lorelei came up with something that worked for Chris and he still didn't want it: an open door. Chris had unlimited access to his child and could've build a solid relationship with her and chose not to. I think it's seriously unfair to keep saying that Lorelei kept them separate or act as if Chris sacrificed a relationship with his daughter to keep Lorelei happy when, canonically, we've seen Lorelei DISTRAUGHT about Chris constantly disappointing their daughter. Lorelei isn't secretly reveling, she's fucking upset, yet; he's respecting her wishes by staying away. All she ever wanted was for Chris to get his shit together and tried to accommodate him, so he could be a good dad when he got his shit together and be there as much as he could as he tried and she's still to blame for him fuck ups and being a deadbeat?

Being a dad is more than about phone calls. A child can get phone calls from anyone, being a father means being there for your child and doing everything you can with what you have. Anna didn't want Luke involved, but he pushed the issue and was there for April in any way he could. April had a great relationship with her mom, but for Luke, that didn't mean that they couldn't have one or that he'd be interfering by trying to be apart of his daughter's life. He tried to respect Anna as much as he could, but his respect doesn't mean that he should forego a relationship with April to make her happy. Like, Lorelei is being treated like she was doing Anna type shit. Chris is being treated like Luke in this situation. And how can Lorelei collect child support from a man who can't afford a book? If Chris was stable and could've afforded child support early in Rory's life, they would've gotten together and became a family (whether or not it would've lasted is up on the air), but if Chris was a responsible person, Lorelei would've accepted help. 

[LegalParrot81]

It did bring a smile when Lorelai came to Emily and said she wanted to expand the inn to another building and they did the "so you want money" lines from season 1, this time Emily being the one to get the checkbook.  

Of the four installments, this was by far my favorite (excluding the 4 words, ugh).

[Daisy]

12 minutes ago, Nanrad said:

but if Chris was a responsible person, Lorelei would've accepted help. 

 

to sum up - to which i said. 
I gave Christopher crap for that. I never once said he was innocent in his actions, just that I don't think it was simply. "and Christopher didn't try either." as I said. I hadn't re-watched, I don't remember everything, so if Christopher was an eternal jerk, then I totally accept that and I gave (and give) him crap for it, when I watched. However. I also acknowledge that he came back, and tried to rectify it. and if people want to say too little too late, that's fine. I personally think that there was a lot of story left to tell (on that end)  and  it is sad that it was never truly fleshed out in 7 seasons and 4 mini-movies. and if it's simply "And Christopher was a jerk". 

from his actions regarding Sherry + Gigi, it doesn't jive with me. but that's just me. (well and other people, but I don't like to speak for other people).  which is why I'm just going to just say it's a clearly millage may vary point and leave it there. 

[msani19]

2 hours ago, Melancholy said:

Yup. I think this "Lorelai can't have fun with Luke" is a fannish judgment rather than any problem that Lorelai feels herself. The series indicates that Lorelai has lots of fun with Luke. Her conflicts with him have been about communication or his lack of openness or him prioritizing other people over her. However, Lorelai visibly has a lot of fun with aspects of Luke. She loves eating above all else and he'll cook her favorite things. She loves Stars Hallow gossip and even more, discussing the people in her life. Luke is firmly plugged into that world. She gets a kick out of being his Ambassador to pop culture and how he'll do what she likes to spend time with her so she doesn't miss out on her favorite things.

 

I wish I could like this 1000s of times! I've been trying to write up something to address this for the last hour...you guys are super fast, I can't keep up! The Luke vs. Christopher debate rages on! I guess Chris is fun & charming, that’s what I’ve been hearing for years about him. I’ll be fair and say that there is a lightness to him that’s somewhat appealing. However, he’s NOT a man that I would want ANY of my friends or family to date. Who hasn’t been up with a hysterical crying friend because the fun, charming, cool dude she was head over heels in love with had disappointed her again. Yeah, no thanks. You invariably know that you’ll be back to listening to her excuses for Mr. Fun & Charming's behavior, followed quickly by another round of hysterics and tears. Chris has also not grown up in all these years, and this is the guy people want for Lorelai? I don’t get it. 

I find the Luke vs. Chris comparisons misleading and unfair. People can have more than one quality. Luke isn't just reliable and boring. Chris isn't just fun and charming (he's also unreliable, irresponsible, undependable...am I biased much!). I'll add that I'm not really a Luke girl. I just bristle at the comparisons between the guys.

[Nanrad]

@Daisy I don't think Chris is an eternal jerk, I think he's a deadbeat dad--there is a difference. lol

I just don't think Chris really tried. And what happened with Sherry pertaining to them getting married and him working all of the time is why I don't support the whole "he tried to marry Lorelei and be a family." Being a family for him is marriage and working, but it doesn't include active parenting. He had to be forced to do that. I think Chris is charming, but consistently, all through the series, he's shown more as a deadbeat to Rory than actually trying and taking real accountability about how he really didn't want to be a father--he wasn't willing to accept the hard part so it.

[cmahorror]

1 hour ago, shron17 said:

During Winter I finally realized Lorelai really is addicted to drama.  Why else would her DVR be full of Lifetime Channel classics?  Way too dramatic for me!

I try to keep my life as drama free as possible but I love bad Lifetime movies - they help remind me why I am still single 10 years after I lost my husband lol.

Seriously, I enjoy a wide variety of TV shows and movies and they all appeal to a different aspect of my personality. I can spend the day watching An Affair to Remember followed by Evil Dead 2 and an MST2K classic before ending with a Monty Python movie. I think that is one of the reasons I enjoy Lorelei, she is not pinned in to any one specific genre - her choices are eclectic, just like her.

As for the Christopher versus Luke debate - both men and relationships have positive and negative aspects. I think the reason she ultimately chose to spend the rest of her life with Luke is because she recognizes that, no matter what, he will have her back. They do need to work on melding their lives together - no more of this my family, your family crap - but they love and respect each other in a way that Christopher and Lorelei can't anymore. There is just too much baggage and too much pain to rebuild the relationship now. Christopher will always feel guilty for not being the man Lorelei needed while Rory was growing up and she will always resent his not stepping up and being the father Rory needed.

From Haunted Leg (Season 3, Episode 2). Christopher interrupted Friday night dinner to try and talk to Rory and Lorelei about the Sherry situation but was sent away after admitting he was marrying Sherry because she was pregnant - doing what he tried to do with Lorelei when she got pregnant with Rory.

Rory: I can't believe he just came over.

Lorelei: He misses you.

Rory: He misses you.

Lorelei: We're very missable. Honey, he loves you so much he didn't mean to...

Rory (interrupting): No, he never means to but he does.

[mledawn]

On 11/25/2016 at 3:23 PM, Mrs. DuRona said:

I started crying when Lorelai called Emily from the mountains, and never quite stopped.  I need to process before I can give other thoughts, haha.

I absolutely ugly cried during this scene. I alternated sad and happy crying for the rest of the episode.

Why isn't the baby Wookie-man's? 

[LegalParrot81]

I truly believe that Emily Gilmore has been suppressing yelling bullshit for years.  I literally laughed out loud when it rolled so easily off her tongue.  As much as she adored Richard, she would never have dared let it escape her lips, now she can now stand up, on her own and scream bullshit as long, as loud and as often as she wants. 

She's finding a new voice.

[Melancholy]

12 minutes ago, Nanrad said:

It's interesting that you pointed out that Lorelei ran away a few months later and that Chris was never involved in the decision of what happened with Rory at all. 

Lorelei told Chris about her pregnancy--she didn't keep this a secret from him. I don't think it was a "FYI: I'm pregnant, but I don't want you involved." She told him because she did want him involved, but his only solution was marriage. Her shutting that down doesn't mean shutting any other options he has to offer down, but that's how Chris may have taken it. All he has to offer was marriage. By extension, Lorelei is his family, but Rory is his flesh and blood. Okay, Lorelei turned down his proposal, which was really a half assed proposal and she seemed to be the only one who got the enormity of what it meant to be a young parent, Rory is STILL his family and he should've been financially taking care of her regardless. Because if his decision wasn't based off of old fashioned values, then what was it based on? Lorelei came up with something that worked for Chris and he still didn't want it: an open door. Chris had unlimited access to his child and could've build a solid relationship with her and chose not to. I think it's seriously unfair to keep saying that Lorelei kept them separate or act as if Chris sacrificed a relationship with his daughter to keep Lorelei happy when, canonically, we've seen Lorelei DISTRAUGHT about Chris constantly disappointing their daughter. Lorelei isn't secretly reveling, she's fucking upset, yet; he's respecting her wishes by staying away. All she ever wanted was for Chris to get his shit together and tried to accommodate him, so he could be a good dad when he got his shit together and be there as much as he could as he tried and she's still to blame for him fuck ups and being a deadbeat?

Being a dad is more than about phone calls. A child can get phone calls from anyone, being a father means being there for your child and doing everything you can with what you have. Anna didn't want Luke involved, but he pushed the issue and was there for April in any way he could. April had a great relationship with her mom, but for Luke, that didn't mean that they couldn't have one or that he'd be interfering by trying to be apart of his daughter's life. He tried to respect Anna as much as he could, but his respect doesn't mean that he should forego a relationship with April to make her happy. Like, Lorelei is being treated like she was doing Anna type shit. Chris is being treated like Luke in this situation. And how can Lorelei collect child support from a man who can't afford a book? If Chris was stable and could've afforded child support early in Rory's life, they would've gotten together and became a family (whether or not it would've lasted is up on the air), but if Chris was a responsible person, Lorelei would've accepted help. 

Very well said. I watched the revival with my sister. At the start of the scene with Chris, I said, "You know, I gotta say. Christopher still looks SO GORGEOUS. He barely aged." At the end of the scene, I was all, "Ok, he looks good but he's SO REPULSIVE. Just an icky empty suit." As always, I'm enamored until he opens his fucking mouth.

Christopher didn't even have to "fight" for Rory to have a better relationship. Like, Luke had to fight Anna to have a good relationship with April. To contrast, Lorelai let Rory go off and have a "get to know you" evening with Sherri even though Lorelai caught a lot of grief from her mother that Friday. Anna wouldn't even let Lorelai play any role in April's life until she and Luke and they'd "discuss it." Rory and Lorelai always lived a relatively short drive away from Boston or Hartford or Princeton. However, Chris never bothered visiting Stars Hallow until Rory was 16 and then, he seldom visited for the remainder of her high school career. But then every time that Chris visited Stars Hallow in S1-3, Rory and Lorelai were always eager to entertain and receive him. 

It's not like anyone was planning on moving to New Mexico when he was still in Connecticut without consulting him or planning any visitation whatsoever. THAT'S when you have to haul the mother in court to work out a custody plan and it's a fight. However with Chris, he just had to usually make a two hour drive every month or so or ask Lorelai/Rory to make the drive. That's not requiring Christ to fight. That's asking Chris to do what most parents would regard as *fun*- make some excursions to spend time with his kid even if he doesn't get the drudgery of being the custodial parent. The fact that he regarded that as a "fight" just speaks volumes on how he's contemptible. As always, he couldn't own his responsibility in how he played no role in raising his daughter. Instead, he passively-aggressively blamed Lorelai for doing all of the work. 

I firmly believe that Lorelai always had the open door to Chris to be a father to Rory while she blocked Emily/Richard from building a relationship with Rory in those first 16 years. Chris was her buddy/lover/comrade-in-arms while Emily/Richard were and embodied everything that Lorelai was running away from. However, I get that SOME speculation goes into making that kind of differentiation. However, look at what happened in the years which were actually televised. Emily/Richard fought for a relationship with Rory to the point that Rory regarded their house as a second home and that ideal place to write her family's story because it holds some of her fondest memories. Rory goes to see Chris to question why they never had a real relationship and why Chris never tried being a father to her. 

[KateeBar]

18 hours ago, starri said:

We are a nation of two.  Although I'm clearly not a girl.

I'm with you guys on Christopher. The arc in the original where they got married? I wanted that to stick. Luke is SO unpleasant in OG, and that hasn't changed here. My other unpopular opinion - I like the LDB. Utterly ridiculous, but really fun scenes to watch, for me.

So, Fall. I was okay with it. I didn't guess the final four but I have to say I like them better now than I would have in the original. I know Rory doesn't have her life together at all, but I would have been really disappointed if she'd ended up pregnant right out of college and basically becoming Lorelai with an Ivy League degree. And I did like the ridiculous wedding decorations. That was fun, quirky Kirk rather than disturbing Kirk. 

[SueB]

If I was Rory, I'd be very afraid to tell Logan.  It's absolutely the right thing to do, but she has reasons to fear. An actual marriage between the two is not where their relationship was remotely heading.  So if they are honest with themselves, and she decides to have and keep the baby, then she's got a potential custody concern.  Not from Logan as much as the grandparents.

Or worse, Logan could want nothing to do with the child and be an asshole about her getting pregnant.  Double worse: the grandparents claim her to be a gold digger.  Lots of icky drama she wouldn't want.
 

BUT, there's no get out of jail free card here.  Rory is 32.  Here's the unpopular opinion: if she wants a baby, she's running out of time.  Yes, you can have babies later but it's high risk after 35. Definitely for a first child. Plain and simple.  That's just a medical fact. And possibly part of the reason we had the fertility clinic subplot. Paul, the guy she spent the last two years with, was clearly not "the guy".  And she had Logan as her "romance" and was happy with that for as questionable as that was but it had to end.  So now, Rory Gilmore is in an unstable position regarding her work. She's drafted the next great American novel which may or may not pay the bills in the future. She has no earned income. She just broke up with her Not!Boyfriend Paul and her illicit affair Logan. What are the odds that she's going to terminate this pregnancy, fall in love, get married and have a baby in the next 2-3 years?  If she doesn't ever want a baby, then her conversation with her mother will be very short. But if she does?  She should keep this baby, tell Logan, try to make finances work, and try and be a good mother. 

Which leads me to the following "ah-ha" moment.  Perhaps some of what we saw going on with Rory was her subconsciously realizing time was fleeting. She was not going to be able to maintain the life she had. She resisted 'settling' for something less than what she wanted. All her life she had been told of her potential for greatness.  She had a lot of expectations to live up to (in HER mind).  I think she's aimless in this "Year in the Life", in part, because she realizes that the next moves she makes are going to have longer-term implications.  I'm talking about her job, where she lives, love life, family, everything.  She's getting out of the "find yourself" stage. In fact, she's about 2-5 years late coming to this moment.  And although writing is definitely who she is, I think she was starting to realize the rootless existence was not what she wanted.  She REALLY wanted that job with Conde Nast.  A salaried job. And it wasn't going to happen.  So she has to redefine success.  I think she "got there" with her book idea (although it's still shaky as hell regarding finances).  Am I disappointed Rory was just getting the "stability" wake-up call?  Yes. But I can also see how sometimes people with so much potential end up chasing what they THINK they want and resist any sense of "normalizing."  You don't have to be a writer for Conde Nast to have a great impact with your words and ideas.  And "safe" is maybe what you actually want in a relationship. Paul was stable but she clearly wasn't herself with Paul or she would have been able to talk to him about everything.  So he wasn't actually "safe".  (Note: I'm not remotely suggesting Dean, but there was a wistfulness when she used that word.)  She wants an intellectually challenging, emotionally safe partner in life.  And her pregnancy now gives her a sense of family direction.  Not one she would have picked but one that I think she's going to end up embracing.  

So... although I think the pregnancy was simply to continue the circle of life, Gilmore-style, I think it also works from a character perspective.  

Edited November 27, 2016 by SueB

[ShadowFacts]

I have only read the first 2 pages, and I will go back and catch up, but I had to throw my daughter's theory out (which I will probably see somewhere in pages 3-6, sorry):  Rory's baby's father is not Logan or Paul or Wookie.  She is a surrogate, through Paris' agency.  She is tired of couch-surfing and hasn't sold a book yet, she complains of being broke (though there must be some Gilmore money available to her but she just doesn't want to ask), and why else introduce Paris' line of work and not use it?  

P.S.  The announcement of her pregnancy should have waited until after the next day's festivities, but I guess if they weren't going to show that, it had to be this way.                                                                                                                  

[Sweet Tee]

On 11/25/2016 at 8:28 PM, MarshallB6 said:

 

Quote

No, no and no. I might give a 16 year old a pass for not stepping up and for being weak willed to let themselves be pushed around like that. But adults don't get a pass.

This.  Even if I by that Lorelai completely shut Chris of Rory's life(I don't), he supposedly did grow up at some point.  I can understand a 16 year old boy just going with it and not fighting to be around his daughter.  But, he never, ever tried to have a better relationship with Rory.  He just doesn't care that much about her.  If he wasn't always so head over heels in love with Lorelai, I bet he'd have been around even less.  And even now, he doesn't regret any of it?  Missing out on so much of his daughter's life is just fine with him?  Just wow, Christopher.  Maybe he is charming.  Maybe I just can't tell because I find deadbeat parents disgusting and inexcusable.  Particularly in his case, where he had no obstacles at all keeping him from Rory.