Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life Season 1

[tarotx]

Rory should have been studying the website instead of getting Logan to do so. But really there was no excuse for Rory not to be prepared because even if she was just getting a job there, she should still be coming in with ideas. Even on the Yale Daily News, Rory had to pitch stories. I guess Rory thought she would be assigned stories but even in covering sports, you have to come at it with your own angle.

[timimouse]

7 hours ago, Jack Shaftoe said:

The whole thing is just way too meta for my taste.

While I don't think it would be too hard to sell, using certain contacts and a great marketing pitch of course, I didn't care for them taking that route. It felt too much like "Dawson directs a show about the creek". And I despised that Jess TOLD her what to write about. Would have loved to see her figure it out on her own. Would have loved even more to see her be inspired by her grandfather's passing, or better yet, by her grandmother's turnaround. I think that would've convinced me more of her writer's drive. I never hated Rory's character (except maybe in season 6, but it was more deep dislike that hatred) but I was really looking forward to seeing some growth and independence, and I'm very disappointed in not getting that.

I also wish that they didn't make the 30-something gang seem so pathetic. Especially since she was in the same boat as them. I can relate. I'm 28 with a Masters degree and I feel so lost myself. It's frustrating, and I don't appreciate the older generation making us feel like we've done something wrong when we just followed the path that they basically mapped out for us. I thought she would have understood them a bit better and maybe bring them on board to work at the Stars Hollow Gazette, taking advantage of their various skills. 

[ShadowFacts]

1 hour ago, timimouse said:

I also wish that they didn't make the 30-something gang seem so pathetic. Especially since she was in the same boat as them. I can relate. I'm 28 with a Masters degree and I feel so lost myself. It's frustrating, and I don't appreciate the older generation making us feel like we've done something wrong when we just followed the path that they basically mapped out for us. I thought she would have understood them a bit better and maybe bring them on board to work at the Stars Hollow Gazette, taking advantage of their various skills. 

I didn't find them pathetic, though I think the writer wanted to make them objects of derision.  I thought they wanted to make friends with Rory, and she was sneering at them, thinking she was too good.  That kind of thing is something Lorelei in particular did in the original series.  And so did Michel, Paris, Logan, and Emily and old Trix alot.  I wasn't a huge fan of large parts of some of the characters' character.  I laughed at the zingers, yes, but didn't really like some of them.

And P.S. I don't feel anyone who has gone to school and done what they could to succeed has done a single thing wrong.  At all.  None of us oldsters were able to peer into the crystal ball and see where the economy was headed, either. 

[shron17]

51 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

I thought they wanted to make friends with Rory, and she was sneering at them, thinking she was too good. 

I didn't think she was sneering at them so much as in deep denial about her own situation.  I also think denial often motivated Lorelai to mock others, fearing she was just as bad if not worse.  Lorelai had those two worlds that were so different, each mocking the other.  It's not surprising that she would feel as though she belonged to neither group.

51 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

And P.S. I don't feel anyone who has gone to school and done what they could to succeed has done a single thing wrong.  At all.  None of us oldsters were able to peer into the crystal ball and see where the economy was headed, either. 

Amen.  Times change.  Anyone who is able to be flexible and move towards finding their way as best they can in their own time is doing great.

Quote

I thought she would have understood them a bit better and maybe bring them on board to work at the Stars Hollow Gazette, taking advantage of their various skills. 

I would have liked that too.  Although since Rory wasn't paid to put out the Gazette she couldn't have hired anyone.  We have seen her be kind to others in the past--I think she was just trying to find her footing and busy denying that she had a problem.

Edited December 15, 2016 by shron17

[FrumiusManxome]

On 12/12/2016 at 7:33 PM, random chance said:

That right there is why it would be a boring story. There are no stakes. If she fails, she can eat crow and be saved by her rich family.

 

12 hours ago, Jack Shaftoe said:

TV is a whole different animal. Even today, despite the ever growing number of TV channels, the number of TV shows is vastly smaller than the number of books that are being published every year, for the simple reason that a TV show costs so much more to make.  A non-fiction book about the family of the author - a family that no one but their relatives, acquaintances and friends has heard about - is very unlikely to become popular unless Rory convinces some of her rich relatives or Logan to pull some strings and even then it will probably never gain much traction. If Rory is a talented writer, she would have a much better chance to find success if she writes just about any other kind of book. Write what you know is a good advice but it usually shouldn't be taken quite so literally.

The whole thing is just way too meta for my taste.

I think the heart of the issue about Rory writing the book is that we do not have enough evidence that Rory is entirely capable of writing it in a 'good' way. I think that the story is interesting enough, (we are watching it after all) but I don't think that Rory is the one who should write it.

For one thing writing is difficult in general, but writing when she has no precedent for it and apparently has been floundering in journalism doesn't bode well for her ability to write non-fiction. I know Gilmore Girls (the show) isn't non-fiction, but even ASP didn't succeed at writing everything the best. This is getting more meta than I'd like, but I think ASP has shown us she's a talented writer whereas in show I don't think Rory has shown her skills. We're told enough about Rory in the OS which helps us paint a picture of what kind of writer she is (though there are still a bunch of holes imo), but the revival played so fast and loose with the details that we're left unclear as to how successful she has been. 

So I'm left thinking Rory is a decent writer, but she's not capable of writing a novel. I also think it's dumb for her to choose to write a novel with a topic that she can't handle while she has no source of income. And as people have pointed out novels do not make that much for a very long time, if they do at all. I understand the POV that Rory is doing this to rediscover her love for writing, but I just think that's selfish right now. Money isn't everything, but if she is really as broke as she says she needs to be working on that rather than following her muse. 

[timimouse]

I really did not understand that scene with Luke and Lorelai talking about who is going to pay for April's trip... Could you guys explain your take on that for me? Are we meant to believe that Lorelai is now making more money than Luke and he has a problem with it? Was it to drive home the point that 10 years later, they're still not having conversations that they should be? Or that the topic of April is still causing tension between them? Also, if the inn is doing so well and Luke was an investor in the Inn, shouldn't he be reaping benefits from that as well? And is it realistic that the 10-room inn is SO profitable that she can be paying Michel out of her salary and still be taking home enough to be able to afford to help with April's trip? And Luke can't? I'd really like to know what was the motivation behind that scene.

[Kohola3]

Got nothing.  I have no insight into the convoluted inner workings of the mind of ASP.

[tarotx]

I think the point was that Luke and Lorelai still had things they didn't share. It wasn't about the money. Lorelai wanted luke to include her but he felt that he should do it himself because Lorelai did it herself with Rory or some none sense like that. Lorelai was feeling distant from everything-even herself and felt she wasn't making Luke happy. And he was feeling her distance. They didn't communicate it well to each other. 

[Melancholy]

It's a very strangely written scene. If they were trying to express that Lorelai would like to love and be a Demi-parent to April but Luke was shutting her out, they shouldn't have opened the discussion with Lorelai's first argument being that April should figure out how to pay for the study abroad trip while 32-year old Rory is indefinitely living with them. 

I think it's supposed to express their netherworld position as lovers who live together without a marriage license. Luke and Lorelai have been cohabiting for a decade. They seem to share lives on stuff like groceries and electricity. Lorelai can feel any financial strain from Luke because they're paddling in the same canoe at shared statuses of living. But there's still a division as roommates who didn't combine assets. Lorelai feels his financial strains but doesn't get to officially share in the end result/goal for them. In this case, putting April through university. 

Edited December 16, 2016 by Melancholy

[shron17]

I think that scene is showing us that Lorelai has access to family money and is offering to help out her partner.  But Emily took Luke out to look at properties despite Lorelai's promise to handle it, and then Lorelai lied to him about the therapy after Emily told him she stopped going.  It all ties into their argument where Luke says their deal was that she keeps her crazy family away from him and he keeps his away from her.  I don't think it had anything to do with Lorelai being involved with April--it was just money.  And it seemed like a conversation they'd had before, like Lorelai knew what his reaction would be and Luke was irritated that she would bring it up. 

Edited December 16, 2016 by shron17

[Guest]

I don't think we were meant to think Luke was struggling financially, but April's expenses would be huge for most people if he was paying college and then grad school at a high end school (I think that she was going some place big) we could be talking about $300,000 easily over the last 5 years. 

I agree with Melancholy and shron's interpretations.

[junienmomo]

14 hours ago, timimouse said:

I really did not understand that scene with Luke and Lorelai talking about who is going to pay for April's trip... Could you guys explain your take on that for me? Are we meant to believe that Lorelai is now making more money than Luke and he has a problem with it? Was it to drive home the point that 10 years later, they're still not having conversations that they should be? Or that the topic of April is still causing tension between them? Also, if the inn is doing so well and Luke was an investor in the Inn, shouldn't he be reaping benefits from that as well? And is it realistic that the 10-room inn is SO profitable that she can be paying Michel out of her salary and still be taking home enough to be able to afford to help with April's trip? And Luke can't? I'd really like to know what was the motivation behind that scene.

It was Daniel Palladino asshattery. The same guy who had Luke calling Emily Mrs. Gilmore after ASP had him calling her Emily in Winter. The same guy who wrote the dialog and directed the actor to loudly and coldly deny Lorelai's worries about Michel, a very un-Luke-like thing. He really sucked at both writing and directing for his two episodes.

Unless I imagined it, the dialog established that April didn't get a full scholarship and Luke was covering it without help from Anna. It was MIT wasn't it? That costs almost $50k per year before housing and books. He was probably coughing up over $20k a year. Add to that the costs of him having a real life with Lorelai, like vacations and stuff, and he could easily be on the edge of the diner's profitability. A summer in Europe would tack thousands onto that. 

In total agreement on the fantasy of a ten room inn supporting two owners, an operating manager and a staff of ten plus part-timers. 

The cohabitating couple could not have been wealthy without some significant source like the rest of a likely modest Danes family inheritance or money from Richard.

[Kohola3]

Anna runs a dress shop (or somesuch), Luke runs a diner and April wouldn't qualify for a scholarship?  Another "in what financial universe" moment courtesy of the writers.

[Melancholy]

1 hour ago, junienmomo said:

It was Daniel Palladino asshattery. The same guy who had Luke calling Emily Mrs. Gilmore after ASP had him calling her Emily in Winter. The same guy who wrote the dialog and directed the actor to loudly and coldly deny Lorelai's worries about Michel, a very un-Luke-like thing. He really sucked at both writing and directing for his two episodes.

Unless I imagined it, the dialog established that April didn't get a full scholarship and Luke was covering it without help from Anna. It was MIT wasn't it? That costs almost $50k per year before housing and books. He was probably coughing up over $20k a year. Add to that the costs of him having a real life with Lorelai, like vacations and stuff, and he could easily be on the edge of the diner's profitability. A summer in Europe would tack thousands onto that. 

In total agreement on the fantasy of a ten room inn supporting two owners, an operating manager and a staff of ten plus part-timers. 

The cohabitating couple could not have been wealthy without some significant source like the rest of a likely modest Danes family inheritance or money from Richard.

I could fanwank that Luke called Emily "Mrs. Gilmore" because he was feeling defensive and distant after she burst in his diner and started ordering him around instead of his more familial "Emily" when he was feeling sympathetic and closer to her after Richard's funeral. However, I really agree that the scene where Luke coldly and loudly denied Lorelai's worries about her business felt very un-Luke. I could understand and even very much agree with Luke's analysis that guy like Michele is always going to bitching and whining about something and Lorelai shouldn't let that get to her. However, this wasn't that- this was Lorelai, herself, concerned about her business's lack of growth and feeling more isolated with the possibility of Michele leaving after Sookie left. I can't picture OS!Luke at point in the OS series being anything less than supportive about those issues. 

If, as I suspect, Luke and Lorelai were splitting their household expenses, that probably resulted in a big increase for Luke. His costs of living were really low when he was just living in the office above his restaurant and probably increased a lot if he had to start splitting the mortgage payments with Lorelai to help pay for his current habitat. Plus, he'd live more frugally left up to his own devices as opposed to living with Lorelai. I did always picture the diner as very, very profitable for a small town restaurant. However, I can see how dropping thousands on April would result in financial strain. (LOL, plus the people treating a low-price small town diner like Starbucks as a place to just sit and enjoy wifi, diminishing his ability to turn over tables.) 

Moreover, if Anna wasn't a fucking nutcase and Luke knew that he'd likely pay for college for a child, he probably would have set up a savings and investment plan for college early on. That's what a lot of middle class people do- let a designated fund collect interest and dividends for up to 18 years to make it easier to pay for college. It sounds like Luke was informed upon April's senior year that he needed to pick up the tab for university even though he didn't plan for it which created undue stress. 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Melancholy

[shron17]

21 minutes ago, Melancholy said:

However, I really agree that the scene where Luke coldly and loudly denied Lorelai's worries about her business felt very un-Luke. I could understand and even very much agree with Luke's analysis that guy like Michele is always going to bitching and whining about something and Lorelai shouldn't let that get to her. However, this wasn't that- this was Lorelai, herself, concerned about her business's lack of growth and feeling more isolated with the possibility of Michele leaving after Sookie left. I can't picture OS!Luke at point in the OS series being anything less than supportive about those issues. 

I agree, but don't think Luke got the full extent of Lorelai's concern in that conversation.  As soon as she said the word more, he went into defensive mode, likely from brooding over Richard's Luke's Diner Empire bequest.  He's really feeling the pressure of Emily's (and Richard's) expectation to do something he really doesn't want.  He also mentions in his rant to Lorelai in Fall that he'll franchise Luke's Diner if that's who she wants him to be.  I think Luke is wary of being judged for refusing something that would allow him to pay for anything his daughter needs as well as making a much larger household contribution.  Lorelai wrapped that up nicely for us when she explained to Emily why it was better to use the Luke's Diner Empire money for the Dragonfly.

[timimouse]

It always interests me to get different perspectives of these scenes. Also, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that found it a bit... off.

[junienmomo]

6 hours ago, Melancholy said:

However, this wasn't that- this was Lorelai, herself, concerned about her business's lack of growth and feeling more isolated with the possibility of Michele leaving after Sookie left. I can't picture OS!Luke at point in the OS series being anything less than supportive about those issues. 

I can just hear the OS!Luke rant on this, one of his sympathetic "you miss Sookie, and now even Michel is leaving, and you saw yourselves as the Three Musketeers or something, ..."

[hippielamb]

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 4:19 PM, timimouse said:

I really did not understand that scene with Luke and Lorelai talking about who is going to pay for April's trip... Could you guys explain your take on that for me? Are we meant to believe that Lorelai is now making more money than Luke and he has a problem with it? Was it to drive home the point that 10 years later, they're still not having conversations that they should be? Or that the topic of April is still causing tension between them? Also, if the inn is doing so well and Luke was an investor in the Inn, shouldn't he be reaping benefits from that as well? And is it realistic that the 10-room inn is SO profitable that she can be paying Michel out of her salary and still be taking home enough to be able to afford to help with April's trip? And Luke can't? I'd really like to know what was the motivation behind that scene.

I thought it was that Luke didn't want Lorelai's money as April was his daughter and he could handle it. And as a proud man he took offence that he couldn't provide for April. Later, it was revealed that they kept their families separate, and I assume that included April in their arrangement. I didn't care for how Luke snapped at her but I understand and agree with his thinking. April is his daughter and he alone (or Anna too if she still exists in this revival) is responsible for her. It's a little weird that she wasn't even mentioned. Like, "I'm seeing mom later" or something. 

22 hours ago, shron17 said:

I agree, but don't think Luke got the full extent of Lorelai's concern in that conversation.  As soon as she said the word more, he went into defensive mode, likely from brooding over Richard's Luke's Diner Empire bequest.  He's really feeling the pressure of Emily's (and Richard's) expectation to do something he really doesn't want.  He also mentions in his rant to Lorelai in Fall that he'll franchise Luke's Diner if that's who she wants him to be.  I think Luke is wary of being judged for refusing something that would allow him to pay for anything his daughter needs as well as making a much larger household contribution.  Lorelai wrapped that up nicely for us when she explained to Emily why it was better to use the Luke's Diner Empire money for the Dragonfly.

Yeah. I think it also shows their different business philosophies. Luke is happy with his diner and feels no need to expand or change. They showed that pretty clearly in the show. Lorelai has no real issues with growing her business (and she shouldn't. Most small businesses diversify and expand to become more successful. )

[dubbel zout]

4 hours ago, hippielamb said:

And as a proud man he took offence that he couldn't provide for April.

I didn't see any offense taken. I thought it was more that Luke didn't need help from Lorelei. After all, I don't think Lorelei ever expected Luke to pitch in with Rory's expenses. It was just a way to show that Luke and Lorelei still hadn't completely integrated their lives after all these years. But even if they had, It's not that unusual for parents bringing kids to a relationship to be fully financially responsible for them. 

Edited December 18, 2016 by dubbel zout

[JayInChicago]

I feel like it took Yanic halfway through to figure out how to do Michel's voice/accent. He sounds weird in a lot of it.

though to me Melissa easily fell back into portraying Sookie. Kind of amazingly actually. 

Something was kind of weird about Scott's voice for Luke to me. He was kind of snuffly/snorty more than I remembered Luke being. 

[JayInChicago]

I'm curious what people here think of the rewatchability of these episodes. I give it like a C+ right now on that criterion. I probably will rewatch eventually though I'm not rushing to.

[Melancholy]

See, I thought Yanic was one of the best at snapping perfectly into Michel's character while Melissa didn't seem Sookieish at all in her one scene. Melissa's voice actually seemed snuffly. I didn't think Scott's voice was odd but I do think he was playing Luke a lot more mellow and calmer than the OS which could have been taken as Scott NOT slipping back into character or Scott logically evolving his character based on the last decade of settling down with Lorelai. I give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was the latter.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Melancholy

[cantbeflapped]

7 hours ago, JayInChicago said:

 

I'm curious what people here think of the rewatchability of these episodes. I give it like a C+ right now on that criterion. I probably will rewatch eventually though I'm not rushing to.

 

Well, since you asked...   I'm enjoying them more and more the more I watch them.  But I loved them the first time around.  The more I watch them the more I think, "These really feel like the original series."  

[shron17]

8 minutes ago, cantbeflapped said:

I'm enjoying them more and more the more I watch them.

Ditto.  So many things I notice the more I watch.  Like when Steve and Kwan are helping Rory look for her lucky outfit and try on her hats?  So cute.  And Paris saying "are they serious?" when Hep Alien play.  The scenes that I'm disliking more and more each time are the ones with Naomi Shropshire.  Though I do like the stealing food thing and her Brexit comment.  If Rory had just told her thanks but no thanks about her book in the first place and gone on to greener pastures she could have been so much better off.  

[Kohola3]

8 hours ago, JayInChicago said:

I'm curious what people here think of the rewatchability of these episodes.

Nope, not happening.  So much more out there that is way better.

[Guest]

I'll probably watch them again at least once to pick up on things I missed and let things sink in.  But I wasn't a huge fan, so I don't see them being added to the rotation the way Seasons 1-5 are.

[junienmomo]

3 hours ago, Melancholy said:

See, I thought Yanic was one of the best at snapping perfectly into Michel's character while Melissa didn't seem Sookieish at all in her one scene. Melissa's voice actually seemed snuffly. I didn't think Scott's voice was odd but I do think he was playing Luke a lot more mellow and calmer than the OS which could have been taken as Scott NOT slipping back into character or Scott logically evolving his character based on the last decade of settling down with Lorelai. I give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was the latter.

Watchability - they are in my rotation and I've substituted them for everything starting with the advent of April through Season 7 completely. 

Luke was supposed to play more mellow. There was the improved relationship with Taylor. He hugged Emily, for goodness' sake! Also Luke said things a couple of times that indicated that he was a) happy and b) doing things the way Lorelai wanted. Luke Danes getting everything he wanted after he rationalized babies away? I would expect mellow. His worst problem seemed to be convincing Lorelai that he wasn't wanting anything more than what they had.

[Melancholy]

Come to think of it, Taylor mellowed for the Revival. The most obnoxious thing he did was loudly harangue Luke about septic tank v. sewers in the crowded diner. Other than that, Taylor wasn't so bad. Lorelai and Rory were all scandalized at the supposed cruelty of calling people B-list actors but maybe I don't get the Hollywood vapors over that because it seems pretty benign to me. I was a little surprised that he didn't interfere with Rory's running of the Gazette. 

[random chance]

I really did not understand that septic tank campaign at all. Why would anyone need to be convinced to choose the convenience of a city sewer system over the pain in the ass of a septic tank? But yeah, other than that Taylor had mellowed. And that town will go straight into the crapper when he dies, for all that everyone bitches about him.

[hippielamb]

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 1:42 PM, dubbel zout said:

I didn't see any offense taken. I thought it was more that Luke didn't need help from Lorelei. After all, I don't think Lorelei ever expected Luke to pitch in with Rory's expenses. It was just a way to show that Luke and Lorelei still hadn't completely integrated their lives after all these years. But even if they had, It's not that unusual for parents bringing kids to a relationship to be fully financially responsible for them. 

Oh I agree. He did get snippy with her, although she kept pushing it. Maybe offence is not the right word. He said he could handle it (or words to that effect), and was getting a little annoyed with Lorelai. I think she would have the same reaction if Luke pushed on anything to do with Rory. 

9 hours ago, cantbeflapped said:

Well, since you asked...   I'm enjoying them more and more the more I watch them.  But I loved them the first time around.  The more I watch them the more I think, "These really feel like the original series."  

Yep. I've now watched them 4 times. I have to watch them as a set, they feel connected in a way. I don't really dislike anything about the revival (except that musical), so it is a feel good story to me. As much as there are parts of season 7 I enjoyed, this revival feels more in tune with the original show. 

21 minutes ago, random chance said:

I really did not understand that septic tank campaign at all. Why would anyone need to be convinced to choose the convenience of a city sewer system over the pain in the ass of a septic tank? But yeah, other than that Taylor had mellowed. And that town will go straight into the crapper when he dies, for all that everyone bitches about him.

Well, your water and sewer rates go up. If you just have a septic tank, you don't have to pay for a sewer on your water bill. I think they just added it on for Taylor to be doing some wacky town thing. 

[Kohola3]

Quote

I really did not understand that septic tank campaign at all.

That whole thing was beyond stupid.  What town that size has septic tanks unless you are in the outermost boondocks of the US?  Individual older homes on the outskirts may have them but a whole town in a highly developed state?  I thought the whole thing was ridiculous.  Our town of 3000 has a sewer system and has for my whole life and we're in the boonies in upper Michigan.  My  house, however, has a septic because I am 12 miles from town.

[Taryn74]

7 minutes ago, Kohola3 said:

That whole thing was beyond stupid.  What town that size has septic tanks unless you are in the outermost boondocks of the US?

ASP is just that clueless when it comes to "Small Town USA".  She treats SH like it has a population of maybe 500, rather than close to 10,000.  It's been that way since the beginning.

[Bumblebee Tights]

On 12/12/2016 at 2:28 PM, Jack Shaftoe said:

Technically, that's correct. Realistically, Rory would probably be better off trying to win the lottery. At least it won't waste much of her time.

 

This is so completely off topic, but I'm currently rewatching PLL and I just read this in Spencer Hastings' voice, which filled me with delight, so thank you for that.

[solotrek]

On 12/19/2016 at 7:00 PM, Taryn74 said:

ASP is just that clueless when it comes to "Small Town USA".  She treats SH like it has a population of maybe 500, rather than close to 10,000.  It's been that way since the beginning.

 

On 12/19/2016 at 6:50 PM, Kohola3 said:

That whole thing was beyond stupid.  What town that size has septic tanks unless you are in the outermost boondocks of the US?  Individual older homes on the outskirts may have them but a whole town in a highly developed state?  I thought the whole thing was ridiculous.  Our town of 3000 has a sewer system and has for my whole life and we're in the boonies in upper Michigan.  My  house, however, has a septic because I am 12 miles from town.

Large parts of non-boondock Long Island uses cesspools. If you're not on the north or south shore, chances are you have a cesspool. Our taxes are already insanely high and the thought of them going up to accommodate sewers is something we don't really want to deal with. In fact, a local project was going to add a sewer system to a train station and some surrounding homes, neither town wanted to deal with the financial burden and taxpayers didn't want the tax hike. I think they ended up with a plan where basically the train station would get a sewer but it would get channeled to an already over burdened system.

But the cesspools are leaching into our aquifers and local lakes and beaches. So that's gross.

With Connecticut and Long Island having similar histories, the septic system plot makes sense.

The sewer thing is something that we could really relate to.

[Frelling Tralk]

On 16/12/2016 at 9:19 PM, timimouse said:

I really did not understand that scene with Luke and Lorelai talking about who is going to pay for April's trip... Could you guys explain your take on that for me? Are we meant to believe that Lorelai is now making more money than Luke and he has a problem with it? Was it to drive home the point that 10 years later, they're still not having conversations that they should be? Or that the topic of April is still causing tension between them? 

I was a bit confused by that as well. My first assumption was that it was supposed to be about Lorelai feeling defensive after all of her mother's cracks on Luke and Lorelai just being roommates, so that's why she brought up that maybe she could contribute as well, and then looked so hurt at Luke snapping that, "April's mine". But then if it was just meant to be about Lorelai wanting to share their life's more, then I didn't really understand why she approached it from the position of April being old enough to fund herself? That made it seem more like she still hadn't completely accepted April in Luke's life, and that she didn't think that Luke should be supporting her, even though it's hardly unusual for a father to pay for those trips for a 22 year old very recent college graduate

[HeySandyStrange]

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 2:19 PM, timimouse said:

I really did not understand that scene with Luke and Lorelai talking about who is going to pay for April's trip... Could you guys explain your take on that for me?

What struck me most by the scene was Lorelai's rather snotty insinuation that Luke was spoiling April and that April should have a job. Considering how much of the revival was Rory floundering in her life and career, I thought it was possibly setting Lorelai up for a later Aha! moment when she reflected on Rory got to the place she was partially because of how pampered she had been by the grandparents, the town, and Lorelai herself. But there was no real follow up to it, so it seemed sort of pointless in the grand scheme of things.

[Taryn74]

59 minutes ago, HeySandyStrange said:

I thought it was possibly setting Lorelai up for a later Aha! moment when she reflected on Rory got to the place she was partially because of how pampered she had been by the grandparents, the town, and Lorelai herself.

Asking Lorelai V. to reflect on anything having to do with herself, is asking an awfully lot.  I love her (mostly) but self-introspection is beyond her capabilities.

[shron17]

1 hour ago, HeySandyStrange said:

I really did not understand that scene with Luke and Lorelai talking about who is going to pay for April's trip... Could you guys explain your take on that for me?

I keep thinking about Luke and Lorelai's fight in the diner where he says she set up their relationship to be separate and he just went along with it.  And to me, it makes sense if I carry that out to Lorelai setting up everything in their relationship.  She decided when they should get married and set it all up before she talked to Luke about it.  The first time she proposed and also picked the date and location with Sookie.  When Luke wanted to buy the Twickam House all Lorelai had to do was make some jokes about not selling and Luke figured out how they could keep it.  It's not so much that she has to have everything her way, but more that she likes to be in control and have things work in the way she thinks best for everyone involved.  So given that, it seems possible that scene is Lorelai trying to "set up" Luke and April's relationship to somewhat alleviate the financial pressure being put on Luke.

[Melancholy]

Who knows what happened in the last 10 years but it doesn't seem like Lorelai and April ever bonded or that she developed parental-like feelings for the girl as Luke did with Rory. At their family dinner, it didn't appear that Lorelai and April had any bond. Lorelai just spouted off impersonal stand-up one-liners which April didn't get which flummoxed and even irritated Lorelai. It's a little odd because Luke won a big slice of a truly shared custody arrangement and then, April went to school in Boston. This all should have ensured that April was very available to anyone in Luke's household and Lorelai seemed dead set on being an Awesome Stepmother to April in S6. 

I think all anyone can do is fanwank. I think April became odder and more prickly through her teenage years and it became harder to bond with her. We left April while she was still a young, impressionable child in a general school population. I think adolescence as a science, math prodigy and becoming a prickly adult as BOTH of her parents are prickly adults and cliched technical anti-social affect of Those/Us Damn Kids/Millennials eventually took and curdled the innocence of youth. Luke, being her father and well *Luke*, will put the effort in to decipher pages of inaccessible technocratic babble as a letter from a daughter to her father. I don't believe Lorelai has that patience and dedication. With Lorelai, I think she gives up on people if they don't appeal to her as much as she'll be generous with people who appeal to her. April didn't appeal to her. 

However as much as Lorelai felt distant from April, she did want to be Luke's full partner and share in his life completely. With that twin distance from April but desire for closeness from Luke, Lorelai's first instinct was the inexpensive tac of being Luke's Wise Adviser/Co-Parent who creates policy that April has to fund her trip abroad. Luke didn't agree and supporting April. Then, to Lorelai's credit, she tried changing methods of support to instead offer to help him pay. However, he slapped that down and Lorelai felt spurned. 

One fankwank or another, I think pairing Lorelai being all "Tell April to get a job and pay for her trip herself!" and "I'll help you send April to Europe" really indicated that Lorelai was quite indifferent about April even though she wants to care about what Luke cares about and help him. However, while I picked my fanwank, I think there's an interesting Chicken or Egg dynamic with Lorelai and Luke. As much as Luke spouted out that they separate their crazy families, Luke is solidly in Lorelai's family. He says that he's always considered Rory "a little bit his" even though he reminds Lorelai that April is HIS and not HERS. There's a controversy on whether that's because Luke does the work to be there for Lorelai's family while Lorelai doesn't do the same with Luke's family or because Lorelai makes a place for Luke in her family and Luke doesn't return the favor with his. I think there's some of both, but it's FAR more the former where Luke puts a lot more effort with Lorelai's family even when it's not fun than Lorelai does with Luke's family. 

I think that's the story at stake with L/L in the Revival but it's so damn underwritten. Example- I feel like there's a critical evolution from Lorelai making the usual anti-Jess crack in Winter ("Toss a football *with*. Not *at*.") to Lorelai being all comfortable with Jess hanging in their living room and blowing him a kiss as he leaves. However, there's no in between scenes to explain how Lorelai gets to that point. Did Lorelai internally feel inclined to make new effort to embrace Luke's family because she had an insight about what it takes to really be a complete family even if it means, for instance, doing the labor to let up on old grudges and truly forgive (a very hard thing for Lorelai!) or did Lorelai think that they're just all inherently family upon a pending marriage which would solve everything?

Edited December 26, 2016 by Melancholy

[cuddlingcrowley]

2 hours ago, Melancholy said:

think that's the story at stake with L/L in the Revival but it's so damn underwritten. Example- I feel like there's a critical evolution from Lorelai making the usual anti-Jess crack in Winter ("Toss a football *with*. Not *at*.") to Lorelai being all comfortable with Jess hanging in their living room and blowing him a kiss as he leaves. However, there's no in between scenes to explain how Lorelai gets to that point. Did Lorelai internally feel inclined to make new effort to embrace Luke's family because she had an insight about what it takes to really be a complete family even if it means, for instance, doing the labor to let up on old grudges and truly forgive (a very hard thing for Lorelai!) or did Lorelai think that they're just all inherently family upon a pending marriage which would solve everything?

Your entire post is very interesting! 

I personally feel the revival told us that Lorelai and Jess will always be a little snarky as far as the other goes but any real ill feelings are long past. Hence Jess hanging around Lorelai's (and Luke's?) home.

I'll confess my reading is heavily influenced by the fact I was immediately incredibly indignant on Lorelai's behalf by:

2 hours ago, Melancholy said:

As much as Luke spouted out that they separate their crazy families, Luke is solidly in Lorelai's family. He says that he's always considered Rory "a little bit his" even though he reminds Lorelai that April is HIS and not HERS.

While I find you raising the question of whether Lorelai makes the same effort to belong to Luke's family as he does to belong to hers very interesting, Luke's attitude in that scene is infuriating to me in so many levels and a complete callback to season 6 when he unilateraly decided Lorelai shouldn't even get to meet April, let alone be part of her life because of his insecurities.

IMO, Lorelai tries to integrate their families but is mercilessly shut down whenever she even brings up the idea. Hence why I never saw Jess hanging around her home as development from her part given, if anything, I feel Luke is the one in need of character development in that front.

Hell, in theory, I'm don't even fundamentally argue against the merit of Luke's instance. It sounds blissfull not to have to deal with the in laws. I do find the way he communicates it bothers on cruel, not to forget it's deeply, deeply hipocrytical.

Edited December 27, 2016 by cuddlingcrowley

[shron17]

2 hours ago, Melancholy said:

He says that he's always considered Rory "a little bit his" even though he reminds Lorelai that April is HIS and not HERS. There's a controversy on whether that's because Luke does the work to be there for Lorelai's family while Lorelai doesn't do the same with Luke's family or because Lorelai makes a place for Luke in her family and Luke doesn't return the favor with his.

The thing is, you're comparing two very different conversations.  In the first one Luke says he considered Rory a little bit in his in response to Lorelai's concern he never had the opportunity to raise a child.  In the second one Lorelai is giving Luke her opinion about what he should or should not pay for his daughter.  We've never ever heard Luke weigh in on finances in regard to Rory, quite possibly because it would be considered none of his business.

[Melancholy]

2 hours ago, cuddlingcrowley said:

Your entire post is very interesting! 

I personally feel the revival told us that Lorelai and Jess will always be a little snarky as far as the other goes but any real ill feelings are long past. Hence Jess hanging around Lorelai's (and Luke's?) home.

I'll confess my reading is heavily influenced by the fact I was immediately incredibly indignant on Lorelai's behalf by:

While I find you raising the question of whether Lorelai makes the same effort to belong to Luke's family as he does to belong to hers very interesting, Luke's attitude in that scene is infuriating to me in so many levels and a complete callback to season 6 when he unilateraly decided Lorelai shouldn't even get to meet April, let alone be part of her life because of his insecurities.

IMO, Lorelai tries to integrate their families but is mercilessly shut down whenever she even brings up the idea. Hence why I never saw Jess hanging around her home as development from her part given, if anything, I feel Luke is the one in need of character development in that front.

Hell, in theory, I'm don't even fundamentally argue against the merit of Luke's instance. It sounds blissfull not to have to deal with the in laws. I do find the way he communicates it bothers on cruel, not to forget it's deeply, deeply hipocrytical.

See, I was mostly on Luke's side because of the merits of the April-conversation. I just can't get past the fact that Luke has every right to insist on still supporting his young adult daughter, whether it's the first issue on whether she should be supported at all or whether Luke should do it without Lorelai's monetary contribution. For the same reasons that shron17 mentioned. I'll agree that Luke was insensitive in how he harshly articulated his point. Ideally, he should have thanked Lorelai for the offer before declining- although I get how he was a little wrong-footed on what the conversation meant and whether it was a purely nice gesture with Lorelai opening proceedings by suggesting that Luke doesn't pay for April's trip. Actually, I don't even have a problem with Luke saying that April is his, not Lorelai's. This is where their lack of marriage is crucial. Lorelai isn't related to April in any familial way. Maybe it'd be a different story if Lorelai bonded with April as Luke bonded with Rory- but every piece of evidence indicates the contrary. 

However, my issue with Luke only comes down to tone-issues while I have more substantive issues with Lorelai trying to make a bid at reducing support for 22-year April so Lorelai feels like more of a decision-maker because I didn't see any parental concern for April there and since there wasn't a story about Luke being truly financially uncomfortable because of these decisions, I still stand by that Luke has every right to spend his money as he wants and that very much includes on his daughter's education. However, I really have a hard time describing Luke as cruel or hypocritical. Luke isn't taking away anything particularly desirable in an April/Lorelai relationship. Lorelai can have a relationship with April. She's just not expected to pay for April and with that, Lorelai's suggestions that Luke reduce help for April aren't obeyed. I just don't feel like Lorelai is substantively wronged by Luke choosing any of that. Now, I think it's entirely possible that Luke is partly financially supporting Rory as Rory consumes the house's groceries, electricity, etc. However, I think Luke/Lorelai were regarding that as temporary until Rory gets back on her feet and finds a job, despite the townies' more judge-y, less attached attitude of "Rory is back and here to join the 30-something gang." More crucially, Luke never opened proceedings by suggesting that Rory support herself with a job because she's old enough to not need parental help. He never communicated anything other than appreciation that she was there. 

I really strongly disagreed that Luke, instead of Lorelai, needed development on the Lorelai v. Jess dynamic. That's actually a really clear cut question for me while I'll acknowledge there's worse-Luke-history and better-Lorelai-history on April. Luke never indicated in the series that he didn't want Lorelai and Jess to have an amicable relationship. I don't think he passionately cared about it- partly because Jess wasn't in town in the OS while he and Lorelai were dating. However, Lorelai's dislike of Jess has always been a problem for Luke so I'm sure he'd prefer for her to regard Jess as family. Lorelai needed the character development since she basically only had something ranging from snarky to out and out mean to say about Jess, even after he was no longer Rory's boyfriend. I think that there IS a mean edge to Lorelai taking the time to make "Toss at football WITH. Not AT" snark when having the over-due baby-conversation with Luke and then, flipping out even harder at Rory writing a book about their family with an automatic assumption that if Jess suggested it, he must be interested in a anti-Lorelei slam book. I sit here and have to imagine that there's some deleted Lorelai/Jess scene that'll show up on the DVDs to explain how they seemed like they were in a good place in Fall. Because I don't regard that scene in Fall as of a piece with ANYTHING that Lorelai has done with Jess in the past. Maybe there isn't- but that's how incongruous (and intriguing) I find the scene.

Meanwhile, I have a hard time parsing Jess's snark on Lorelai. I think, in the scene itself, Jess was very nice about Lorelai. Jess didn't snark about Lorelai FINALLY seeing a therapist- Luke just accused him of that. And then, Jess punted with a self-depreciating joke to gracefully continue to not attack Lorelai even though they *were* in a conversation about how Lorelai just took off after an argument to hike in California indefinitely leaving Luke in the lurch as Lorelai openly pursues a life-changing mission while she re-evaluates everyone and everything in her life while Luke is supposed to sit at home feeding Paul Anka and probably cooking Dragonfly Inn food waiting with bated breath to see if he made the cut in Lorelai's life-transformation experience. (Wow I tend to get angrier at Lorelai, the more that I think deeply about her.) In the scene, Jess was a mensch about Lorelai and was probably holding back on some RIGHTFUL irritation with Lorelai. The only ambiguity is if Luke made the accusation that Jess was about to snark about Lorelai needing therapy because Jess was the habit of making anti-Lorelei jokes in recent years. I can see either being the case.

Curiously, Luke was treating Lorelai like a complete partner in his family in how he casually handed the phone to Lorelai to get the low-down on TJ/Liz joining the vegetable cult. But then, I think Lorelai actually indicated more affection and warmth for Liz/TJ and established a relationship of sorts far more than she did with Jess/April. I don't know exactly how purposeful it was. I think Luke cares more about and loves Jess/April than Liz/TJ and Jess/April are the promising, fulfilling future of his family. In her heart of hearts, I think Lorelai wants to be in synch with Luke's deeper emotional priorities. However because of mistakes by Luke and Lorelai (but IMO, mostly, Lorelai) that didn't really happen. 

Edited December 27, 2016 by Melancholy

[junienmomo]

If we take a step back and look at it from the story perspective, I assume that ASP laid out the plot of all four stories with DP assisting. Then they split up the work and DP did the two middle episodes, which are the most GG tone-deaf moments of the season. 

So I look back at Winter and Fall as the episodes most likely to be true to the original intent. That specifically means the LL relationship had deteriorated to sniping (after remarkable affection in Winter) and Luke was convinced she was leaving him.

In Fall, Luke discusses that he and Lorelai are sniping at each other. When? We have the Michel is leaving snipe and the April vacation financing snipe. I found both of those to be poorly written and directed moments, but they are definite snipes. Are there more? There was certainly opportunity. Lorelai keeping therapy a secret, which induced Luke to play tit for tat, but not sniping. Same for the April visit. Both offering to get the cheese isn't a snipe. I remain mystified as to why Lorelai chose to not be more to April than an occasional hostess. Not being given her rightful role with April is what caused her to leave in the first place. Nine years later we see that she didn't take the role anyway? If I were Luke, I'd be in therapy over that. 

Mostly I see it as DP executing the plan poorly, and everyone's comments here are very insightful, but they tend to fall under his work. 

[shron17]

9 hours ago, Melancholy said:

I'll agree that Luke was insensitive in how he harshly articulated his point. Ideally, he should have thanked Lorelai for the offer before declining- although I get how he was a little wrong-footed on what the conversation meant and whether it was a purely nice gesture with Lorelai opening proceedings by suggesting that Luke doesn't pay for April's trip.

But Lorelai was also insensitive in the way she brought it up.  Luke was filling her in on April's plan for the summer, never mentioned finances and looked irritated as soon as it was brought up.  Not to mention she was indirectly highlighting the different economic standings of their daughters and themselves.  Rory complains about being broke soon after suggesting an impromptu trip to London to stay with her rich ex-boyfriend.  Even though she moved home no one questions if she can pay her expenses.  If Lorelai was really concerned about Luke's money all she needed to do was vaguely reference that if it was ever too much she could chip in.  If she had shown respect for the fact that Luke is willing and able to support his own daughter he wouldn't have needed to remind her. 

In regards to Lorelai and Jess, I would just explain it as Lorelai sniping at him when she's feeling vulnerable--1) with Luke after being focused on her mother's criticism of how she treats him and 2) with Rory when she finds out it was his idea for Rory to write the story of their lives.  Once she'd worked through those issues in her head and felt like she was on firmer ground in both relationships she was nice to him.  Jess has pretty close relationships with the two people closest to Lorelai and it seems very human that she would worry about what might be said behind her back when she's feeling like she's making mistakes.

[Melancholy]

I saw La La Land this weekend. (As such a huge fan of old school Hollywood musicals that I could even warm to fucking *Christopher* for like fifteen minutes if he puts on Funny Face, I LOVED IT. But it's not quite the next Singin' in the Rain or An American in Paris as its biggest critic-fans hype. Too high of a bar.) It really ticked me that the narrative structure is "A Year In the Life" with title cards announcing the seasons. And it's the same order as the Revival- Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall. 

Edited December 28, 2016 by Melancholy

[junienmomo]

5 hours ago, Melancholy said:

I saw La La Land this weekend. (As such a huge fan of old school Hollywood musicals that I could even warm to fucking *Christopher* for like fifteen minutes if he puts on Funny Face, I LOVED IT. But it's not quite the next Singin' in the Rain or An American in Paris as its biggest critic-fans hype. Too high of a bar.) It really ticked me that the narrative structure is "A Year In the Life" with title cards announcing the seasons. And it's the same order as the Revival- Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall. 

Well, that starts to give me vibes about how much AYITL stuff is inspired by other artwork, and how much gets dangerously close to derivative. At least there are no plot connections to La La Land.

[clack]

The Four Seasons, a movie written and directed by Alan Alda and one of the biggest hits of 1981, had a similar structure : title cards, 4 acts, etc.

[qtpye]

On 12/10/2016 at 6:48 PM, moonb said:

 It's not for lack of trying on the part of the actress.  I think she radiates intelligence and alertness.  She listens really well (which makes her a natural at playing a journalist).  But she always seems like a charming teenager playing at being an adult.  When she has a freakout it looks likes a little girl having a tantrum, not an adult having a freakout (which we do, sometimes).

There is an actress on Mad Men who is also very youthful looking.  Her name is Allison Brie and despite easily passing as a teenager, she can command the screen and put Pete Campbell and Don Draper in their place.

She also has great range...she played a totally different type character on the comedy "Community:

 

On 12/10/2016 at 6:48 PM, moonb said:

I bought her as the fragile depressed housewife on Mad Men, but I think she just doesn't do sensuality well at all - which might be a reason she plays "young."  So her affair with Logan makes character sense but it's just as well there weren't any sexual scenes, lol.

I do not think she is awful, but she is terribly one note.  You are right that she can not sell sensuality...it always kind of comes off as quirky and adorable.

That is why it is hard to buy that she and Logan have such a passionate connection, that they are going to cheat on their partners.  I do not love Carrie Bradshaw, but she did have a lot of chemistry with Mr. Big, that you almost (though not quite) could understand the cheating, even though you still strongly disliked the characters engaging is this type of activity.

With Rory, it comes of as a kind of a "huh?".

[Melancholy]

3 hours ago, clack said:

The Four Seasons, a movie written and directed by Alan Alda and one of the biggest hits of 1981, had a similar structure : title cards, 4 acts, etc.

This spoilered article on LaLa Land and its homages to old movies says it derived the season/title card format from The Unbrellas of Cherbourg, a 1964 French musical. 

To stay on topic, I don't think big sexual passion drove Revival Logan/Rory.  It's like they never fell out of love with each other or even more pivotally, stopped regarding the other as their best match primarily for comfort and history beyond sex. To put it less kindly but still validly, "He was my boyfriend first!" played as big a role here as with Dean (where there was also a deficit of sexual heat). For a tawdry affair of transatlantic booty calls, we never saw Rory and Logan in the act of having sex. Granted, GG never showed that and the Revival kept that tone despite the move to Netflix. However even comparing how thing would get randy in the OS, we didn't see heavy duty make out scenes or them both naked and sweaty and very post coital in bed together.

I think Rory morally justified her choices as Logan's Odette-world is part of the Mitchum Huntzberger crap and therefore deserves no respect and shouldn't infringe on Rory's life with Logan. I think Rory's shame and reticence to ask for Mitchum's help with the Condé Nast article was more than just embarrassment at needing help from a guy she hates. It also undermined her romantic conception of herself as the lover who gives Logan relief from the vagaries of his Poor Little Rich Boy Life (where Odette is an unseen but unsympathetic feature more than a human being.) This was also a lot like Rory's affair with Dean. Mitchum = Lindsey, here. 

Edited December 28, 2016 by Melancholy

[Taryn74]

3 hours ago, qtpye said:

You are right that she can not sell sensuality...it always kind of comes off as quirky and adorable.

That is why it is hard to buy that she and Logan have such a passionate connection, that they are going to cheat on their partners.  

...it comes of as a kind of a "huh?"

Yes, this, exactly.  I still remember laughing so hard at the recapper's comments in the episode where Rory attempts to send sexy texts to Logan, and Paris asked Rory if they talk dirty in bed.  (I believe the recapper said something about having to pause the TV until she stopped laughing, heh.)  It created quite an amusing mental image, that's for sure.