A Year In The Life: What Would You Change?

[TimetravellingBW]

There's been some discussion about how the revival could - or should - have gone, so here's a thread exclusively for throwing around ideas and alternate storylines. If you could rewrite aspects of the revival what would they be? How would you change certain characters arcs? What events - big or small - would you remove or add?

Rough ideas -

Things to add:

• Give Lane a story!  Preferably something related to her music, maybe she has a chance to pursue her career - whether it's running Sophie's shop, recording, writing, reviewing albums/concerts, managing, teaching - but has to decide whether to stay in Stars Hollow or move? 
• Would have loved a Paris/Doyle reunion. Paris was great in the first half so following up on how she dealt with her mid-life crisis and getting back together with Doyle. 
• A Jess arc. Personally I've always been interested in how he felt about Liz raising another kid. Would he struggle because Doula has "new and improved Liz" (who doesn't binge drink when pregnant) while his childhood was a mess? Or does he worry about how his half-sister's upbringing and security? It wouldn't have to be huge, but maybe some allusions to him struggling with returning to SH and dealing with Liz (even if he's forgiven her) and gradually talking to Luke about making sure his sister is ok, looked after and has someone stable because he never has that growing up. Would tie in nicely with he and Luke's previous relationship. 

Remove:

• That freaking musical! (Or at least cut it down).
• Those final four words

Rory:

With all the complaints about Rory, her story could have been written much better imo, even keeping the bones of her arc. (Struggling with her career, returning home to find something new, on/off relationship with Logan). 

Career wise: As so many people have commented - teaching ended up looking like a pretty great career for her, so lead towards that rather than her writing the book. (Because that's not actually a career plan Rory). So Winter and Spring could be roughly the same, but change Rory's behaviour and add context. Mention that she's had a few permanent positions but got laid off because of cuts in journalism so has only been free-lancing for a year or so. Keep her job struggles - the Naomi book, Conde Naste and Sandee Says - but rework the failures as more because the industry is tough not because Rory's incompetent. (E.g. She's actually super-prepared for her interviews/meetings but still get's turned down and she doesn't fall asleep while reporting). Still have the scene with Headmaster Charleston, but have her less dismissive about teaching. (Maybe mention she's already got her Masters in English or something, so can teach straight away?)

In Summer, instead of Jess coming back to inspire her to write a book, maybe he just reignites her love for reading/discussing literature - which ties into their old relationship much better. (Hell, they could even have their reunion chat on the bridge to make the shippers happy). Make it a thing that Rory hasn't picked up a book in a while. (On that note, did Rory read at all in the revival?) She realizes books are her one true love and accepts the teaching offer in Fall - she could run into Max, who tells her he's leaving Chilton and she decides to ask to take over his spot. (Bonus: Another cute cameo!)  She could still be writing some book on the side as a "I haven't given up on writing completely" but acknowledges that she romanticized her journalism dreams/journalism is changing/she's had her time wandering and wants to settle.

Relationship wise: Get rid of Paul and Odette, and give more insight into when/why she started sleeping with Logan - maybe they reconnected at Richard's funeral when she was vulnerable? So the arrangement hasn't been going on long. Emphasize that their relationship is about her using him as escapism from making decisions. Rather than having the eventual Logan/Rory parting over their bizarre, star-crossed lovers, dynastic plan bit make it more a difference in lifestyle and situation: Logan wants someone he can have fun with in London (maybe more of a socialite wife) while Rory realizes she doesn't want to be that position and wants to build her life/career in the U.S. They could still hint at a possible Rory/Jess ending, but slightly more hopeful - she returns his look through the window? They dance at L/L's wedding? They have another talk on the bridge at the end? 

Edited January 11, 2017 by TimetravellingBW

[tarotx]

-I think Amy just needed to get rid of Paul.  They could say Rory just broke up with a semi-long term boyfriend.

-Rory and Logan could reconnect at Richard's funeral. Then have them keep running into each other in NYC. Logan could still be with long time girlfriend Odette - A relationship he spent years creating. But Rory was his first love. He doesn't like to see her sad. They can have a similar dynamic as the Revival without most of the cheating. And in early Fall when Rory is at her lowest because of the fight with Lorelai, Logan brings in the LDB magic that leads to sex. They say their bittersweet Goodbye because of the cheating. I love Logan and Rory together but if Amy wanted them to hook to create a child but for them to not be together, this would be the better way imo. Logan is the boy Rory can vent to and he will try to lift her spirits. He lets her be who she needs to be right now as well as encourages her. 

-Rory could still have her career issues but they would be obvious she's new to freelance after covering the Obama Campaign and being in the Press pool until recently. Jess could still recommend writing a book about something she is passionate about but he would not be the one to give her the actual idea to write Lorelai and her own story. So Jess would be the Boy who Rory's proud of his achievements and even a bit Jealous of his success. Though not in a negative way. He makes her feel she hasn't reached her potential and want to actually try harder to achieve her own goals. I just wish he didn't say "I know you best of all". Allow him knowing what she might want or need to succeed speak for itself.  I think them being more like friends and even family fits with that Jess seems to have grown close to Luke. Rory showed no interest in Jess since season 4 even if she tried to use him to "cheat" on Logan. I just wish we got a family dinner instead of that longing look. He would still be the boy there for any potential implied Luke stuff. I rather that than the longing from Philadelphia.

-I would have had Luke and Lorelai engaged. But Maybe Lorelai had a miscarriage some years back and have kind of moved on from it but not really forward. Like they are stuck at being where they were before the miscarriage. So they could have a similar arc but with some development and more of a reason to be stuck in time.  

-And as for as her Baby, Rory not wanting to mess Odette's life and force Logan to make that choice would leave her question rather she should tell him. At least until the baby was born and some time has passed. Her talk with Christopher could be more about how he felt when Sherry got pregnant. I know it would be harder to hide what was coming but I think it's cleaner for Rory, Chris and Logan.

This would give Amy her full circle but in a more I can accept that this is where the characters are 9/10 years later. 

Edited January 11, 2017 by tarotx

[Taryn74]

Don't have anything to add right now, just wanted to say a big part of me wishes the fans could have written this revival.  ASP could have had the bare bones down and let the people who really love this show and KNOW the friggin' characters run with it.

sigh

[Guest]

Eh, I have a lengthy list.

• Make the girls more likable.  The funeral plot at least moved the story forward, so while I didn't like how Lorelai acted, it served a purpose.  However, the pool scenes with the bonus fat shaming did not. Paul did not. 
• Get rid of the musical and everything about the musical.
• The Gay Pride plots - no.  It seemed like ASP wanted to answer for the lack of diversity charges, but did it in a way that seemed more mocking than sincere.  Michel's plot seemed to be a more natural way to be inclusive than that bizarre town meeting.
• Dean's part was nothing - it could easily be cut.
• I didn't like the whole maid subplot of Emily's.
• Rory's pregnancy - ill-conceived (haha!) and we didn't even have time to have a reaction to it. It was just meant to be a shocker.  To me, that made it a cheap ending.

[apgold]

I actually liked the Berta subplot, even if it was Gypsy in a wig.  It was nice to see Emily finally bonding with a maid and embrace her family after all those years of firing the maid.

Anyhow, My biggest beef was Rory's characterization - Amy was writing her like she was still 22, not 32 and had not shown any growth in 10 years and most likely regressed.  Rory was never perfect (especially when it came to choosing men) but she just seemed OOC - lazy and cynical Rory was not.

Lane was completely wasted here.  It was nice to see the band reunite for one song, but I wanted more.

[Kohola3]

Too many to list, I swear.  But the last four words were a pile of shit.

Quote

To me, that made it a cheap ending.

The cheapest most soap-opera-go-for-shock-because-I-can't-think-or-anything-else ending possible.  Hack writing. Period.

[JayInChicago]

So when people started talking about "a stars hollow musical" I thought it was gonna be a current Stars hollow satire musical. Like I thought Sutton foster would legit be portraying the character of Loralei. I was pretty disappointed and confused when that wasn't the case. Sure, it would have been tough to cast and we probably would have mocked it here, but it would have been more sensical than what we got. I mean, obvs the musical was meant to be bad in a hokey, taylor way (akin to the stars hollow museum), but even within those bounds it wasn't even good satire.

Ok and I'm still Team "this revival never should have happened". 

Not really sorry though.

[FictionLover]

I thought for sure we would see the girls talking about things that had happened over the past 9 years to fill in the blanks; I could see Lorelai telling funny stories in her fun animated way.

No musical or LDB...a total waste of time.

Not make Luke a total oaf...really, not knowing about surrogacy.  And dressing him in clothes that are 3 sizes too big. I liked his and Jess's relationship.

It would have been more realistic had Lorelai and Luke tried to have children but couldn't conceive, rather than having them not talk about it for 9 years.  The Paris storyline could have still been used.  

I liked Emily's story and her and Lorelai's resolution.

I hated everything about Rory, but I lost interest in her character from season 5 so I didn't really care.

[TimetravellingBW]

16 hours ago, tarotx said:

-I think Amy just needed to get rid of Paul.  They could say Rory just broke up with a semi-long term boyfriend.

-Rory and Logan could reconnect at Richard's funeral. Then have them keep running into each other in NYC. Logan could still be with long time girlfriend Odette - A relationship he spent years creating. But Rory was his first love. He doesn't like to see her sad. They can have a similar dynamic as the Revival without most of the cheating. And in early Fall when Rory is at her lowest because of the fight with Lorelai, Logan brings in the LDB magic that leads to sex. They say their bittersweet Goodbye because of the cheating. I love Logan and Rory together but if Amy wanted them to hook to create a child but for them to not be together, this would be the better way imo. Logan is the boy Rory can vent to and he will try to lift her spirits. He lets her be who she needs to be right now as well as encourages her. 

Yes it would have so easy to just mention Paul as "that boyfriend you had last year that didn't work out" and even tie Rory breaking up with him to  the difficulties of freelancing and her wandering lifestyle. Mentioning that and framing Rory/Logan reconnecting in the wake of Richard's death would give some context and motivation for Rory's actions.

Rory and Logan just having sex once makes them look less selfish, though still not great if Odette is long term. It could have been interesting if Logan met and fell for Odette during the series, after reconnecting with Rory. The Rory/Logan sad goodbye could come about because he tells Rory that he won't hang around forever: Either they need to have a proper relationship or he's going to move forward with Odette. Or Logan doesn't even give Rory a choice, just says he met someone else and is committing to them. That would gel more with Logan's mature s7 character and stop the incessant Rory Gilmore Pining Disease. 

12 hours ago, deaja said:

Eh, I have a lengthy list.

• Make the girls more likable.  The funeral plot at least moved the story forward, so while I didn't like how Lorelai acted, it served a purpose.  However, the pool scenes with the bonus fat shaming did not. Paul did not. 
• Get rid of the musical and everything about the musical.
• The Gay Pride plots - no.  It seemed like ASP wanted to answer for the lack of diversity charges, but did it in a way that seemed more mocking than sincere.  Michel's plot seemed to be a more natural way to be inclusive than that bizarre town meeting.
• Dean's part was nothing - it could easily be cut.
• I didn't like the whole maid subplot of Emily's.
• Rory's pregnancy - ill-conceived (haha!) and we didn't even have time to have a reaction to it. It was just meant to be a shocker.  To me, that made it a cheap ending.

11 hours ago, apgold said:

I actually liked the Berta subplot, even if it was Gypsy in a wig.  It was nice to see Emily finally bonding with a maid and embrace her family after all those years of firing the maid.

The revival definitely crossed too many lines from funny to mean/offensive, particularly the fat shaming and Gay Pride plot. That felt like ASP mocking the audience for being sensitive and PC enough to criticize her lack of LGBT representation. I actually liked the Berta subplot: The idea of Emily finally keeping a maid and her family in contrast to her firing them weekly in the OS was nice symbolism. But Berta's language being played for laughs, the ethnic stereotyping and double casting with Gypsy soured it.

5 hours ago, FictionLover said:

I thought for sure we would see the girls talking about things that had happened over the past 9 years to fill in the blanks; I could see Lorelai telling funny stories in her fun animated way.

It would have been more realistic had Lorelai and Luke tried to have children but couldn't conceive, rather than having them not talk about it for 9 years.  The Paris storyline could have still been used.  

The gap of the past 9 years was one of the biggest issues imo. It froze so much in time: Rory's behaviour and career arc, Luke and Lorelai's relationships etc. It felt like ASP wrote the story for s7 or 8 and couldn't be bothered to fill in backstory. I really like the idea of Luke and Lorelai turning to a surrogate because they couldn't conceive rather sitting on the topic for a decade. Much more heartwarming that way. And if ASP wanted a surprise ending, it could have been Lorelai announcing she was pregnant and Rory saying something corny like "it won't just be the Gilmore Girls anymore" which would still bring the show full circle in a way.

Edited January 12, 2017 by TimetravellingBW

[Taryn74]

3 hours ago, TimetravellingBW said:

Yes it would have so easy to just mention Paul as "that boyfriend you had last year that didn't work out" and even tie Rory breaking up with him to  the difficulties of freelancing and her wandering lifestyle. Mentioning that and framing Rory/Logan reconnecting in the wake of Richard's death would give some context and motivation for Rory's actions.

The Paul thing just really bugs me.  Rory has always been shown as passive/aggressive, it's part of her character.  Work with that.  Have Paul show up at dinner in Winter, and have Rory fly into a panic because she thought she had broken up with him but apparently he didn't understand and didn't realize they were broken up, and now she has to figure out how to tell him they are not together anymore.  Heck, they could even keep it a running gag if they are just so set on that -- Rory keeps thinking she got the point across but Paul keeps popping back up.  It would still get old (heh) but it wouldn't be so OOC for Rory, it wouldn't leave her looking like such a self-centered d-bag, and wouldn't be just flat out mean to what appears to be a really nice guy.

[navelgazer]

I want to know what happened to the money that was in Rory's trust funds.  In S6 Richard mentioned to Lorelai during the "Impossible girl, my Native American name I believe" fight giving Rory access to the trust fund early in exchange for her going back to Yale, so that trust fund did exist at some point.  And there's no way rich daddy Christopher doesn't at least match whatever she was given by the grandparents.  

Rory liked living the Martha's Vineyard lifestyle, but she wasn't a spendthrift.  She paid attention when Lorelai stopped the premium movie channels and the magazine subs during the pre-Dragonfly days, so even though she had money, flying back and forth to London all the time wouldn't break the bank.  

This caused me all kinds of cognitive dissonance when watching the Revival.  This really needed to be explained before I could even begin to sympathize about the boxes at different places and the no underwear.  

[FictionLover]

I didn't really care about the Paul story but because no one could remember him, even Luke, I didn't see the girls as being shallow because of it.  I thought it was just a corky little thing that was sprinkled throughout the series.

Also for Luke, they should have just left him bald. It was such an awful piece and totally distracting.  

[HeySandyStrange]

17 hours ago, deaja said:

Dean's part was nothing - it could easily be cut.

Granted, I'm one of those rare people who've always liked Dean but I thought his small part was good. It was a decent sendoff for a main secondary character that had been important to Rory's overall story. I found it to be one of the better character moments and I was glad Dean (who's character was written so unevenly during the OG series) seemed like a much more stable, happy, mature person.

If anything I felt April was pointless, and I actually don't hate April. Especially pointless was the tense but confusing conversation Lorelai and Luke had about her and Luke's finances. It added nothing to their storyline.

More Lane. It makes no sense that Lane, one of the only characters who was not a Gilmore to get her own storyline, was so underused while there was so much pointlessness (Rory/Logan affair, Paul, musical). They could've done so much with her, her family and the band.

Quote

I didn't really care about the Paul story but because no one could remember him, even Luke, I didn't see the girls as being shallow because of it.

I don't know, to me Paul's story perpetuates the whole "nice guys finish last because women want assholes" stereotype. My problem is that Paul actually seemed like considerate, nice guy so it just came off as mean and nasty of the main characters to forget him and Rory to cheat on him. I think ASP thought it would be quirky but it was not to me.

Edited January 12, 2017 by HeySandyStrange

[Kohola3]

THIS, every word.  

So much of the time was pointless filler as if ASP couldn't come up with anything so shoved in anything to take up space. And the Paul thing ranked right up there with the fat shaming in perpetuating the Mean Girls genre

[JayInChicago]

Re: the fat shaming. Why were the GGs even at the pool? It was totally an example of "fat people are gross, especially when they exercise!" Rory and Lorelai are consistently depicted to be pro junk food and anti exercise. 

Also to get really nitpicky, the pool set was not a believable municipal pool. I would like to delete that scene.

[Winter Rose]

The things I'd change I think are pretty in line with what's already been said.

• I'd get rid of the final four words and the whole idea of a full circle ending.
• Have people like Jess and Sookie at Luke/Lorelai's wedding
• I'd put Jess in one more episode, that way Milo saying he's in more than two, less than four, would actually be true.
• I realize a lot can happen in 10 years but at least make a mention of how Logan came back to working for his father or, better yet, continue having him not work for his father.
• No return of the LDB and certainly no musical
• No Paul, Rory's storyline could've still been exactly what it was without him.
• No fat shaming at the pool or those little boys catering to Lorelai's and Rory's whims
• More Paris and definitely a Paris/Doyle reunion
• More Lane
• No Tristan lookalike or Francie either, I would've rather seen Madeline and Louise at the Chilton day.
• I would've liked Rory to really consider teaching, especially when Chilton would be a prestigious school.
• I think some of Luke and Lorelai's drama, like talking about kids, was more suited to a revival set years earlier so I'd rather it have just been a mention that it wasn't something they went for.
• On that note, I'd say more Luke/Rory and Lorelai/April bonding to cover it.

I don't really have anything to change about Emily's storyline, hers was the saving grace of this whole revival.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, TimetravellingBW said:

I actually liked the Berta subplot: The idea of Emily finally keeping a maid and her family in contrast to her firing them weekly in the OS was nice symbolism. But Berta's language being played for laughs, the ethnic stereotyping and double casting with Gypsy soured it.

I think you touched on my biggest objection.  I said in one of the threads that I felt that this plotline was meant to show Emily finally letting someone in or needing someone now that she was on her own.  But it didn't work for me because of what I felt was an almost racist undertone to the whole thing. Using an existing cast member only with a bad wig. A language that is deemed "not even a real language."  The implication that she moved her whole family in almost without Emily's consent as Emily didn't understand her.  It was an okay idea, but it could have been done much better.

Which is my theme for the revival overall.

[Petunia846]

13 hours ago, TimetravellingBW said:

I actually liked the Berta subplot: The idea of Emily finally keeping a maid and her family in contrast to her firing them weekly in the OS was nice symbolism. But Berta's language being played for laughs, the ethnic stereotyping and double casting with Gypsy soured it.

Quote

I think you touched on my biggest objection.  I said in one of the threads that I felt that this plotline was meant to show Emily finally letting someone in or needing someone now that she was on her own.  But it didn't work for me because of what I felt was an almost racist undertone to the whole thing. Using an existing cast member only with a bad wig. A language that is deemed "not even a real language."  The implication that she moved her whole family in almost without Emily's consent as Emily didn't understand her.  It was an okay idea, but it could have been done much better.

Yes to all of that and also, it didn't even make much sense because in the OS there were so many people who spoke Spanish seemingly fluently. If I'm remembering correctly Sookie did and maybe Luke and Lorelai even said some things to employees at the inn. Rory took French in high school, and presumably Emily did too, but there wasn't actually anything hard to understand about how Berta spoke. I'm not fluent but I still got most of it. The storyline was illogical, contradicted the OS, and yeah...was pretty offensive.

I've heard the story of how it came to be Rose Abdoo and it's a cute story, but if you think about it more it does kind of reinforce the idea that all "those people" are interchangeable. They're not individuals, so we can just use the same one in a silly wig and a silly accent and no one will know. Plus Emily was never be able to remember their names, which is a trope I really hate. (I say that as someone who works with Latino kids and has literally had teachers tell me they can't keep the kids' names straight because they all look alike. *angry glare*)

I'm sure that wasn't their intent, but if I could change this part of the revival I'd a) take the time to find another actress, b) play it without a goofy accent, and c) make the character arc be Emily getting tired of having to rely on other people to translate for her and actually making the effort to learn some Spanish and learn the names of all the people she was taking in and then her finding peace with them because she finally has a maid she really knows and understands.

[hippielamb]

On 1/11/2017 at 6:35 AM, TimetravellingBW said:

 

Things to add:

• Give Lane a story!  Preferably something related to her music, maybe she has a chance to pursue her career - whether it's running Sophie's shop, recording, writing, reviewing albums/concerts, managing, teaching - but has to decide whether to stay in Stars Hollow or move? 

Remove:

• That freaking musical! (Or at least cut it down). 

Yes to both! I am glad we got little snippets of Lane's life and that she seems happy. But! If they had eliminated that whole musical plot, there would have been time for Lane and other characters. 

On 1/11/2017 at 6:24 PM, JayInChicago said:

So when people started talking about "a stars hollow musical" I thought it was gonna be a current Stars hollow satire musical. Like I thought Sutton foster would legit be portraying the character of Loralei. I was pretty disappointed and confused when that wasn't the case. Sure, it would have been tough to cast and we probably would have mocked it here, but it would have been more sensical than what we got. I mean, obvs the musical was meant to be bad in a hokey, taylor way (akin to the stars hollow museum), but even within those bounds it wasn't even good satire.

 

I thought the same thing, especially considering how similar the actresses look. Would have been better, imo. 

9 hours ago, HeySandyStrange said:

Granted, I'm one of those rare people who've always liked Dean but I thought his small part was good. It was a decent sendoff for a main secondary character that had been important to Rory's overall story. I found it to be one of the better character moments and I was glad Dean (who's character was written so unevenly during the OG series) seemed like a much more stable, happy, mature person.

 

I liked the Dean cameo too. We found out he's a happy family man living away from Stars Hollow. It was a good ending for the character compared to what we were left with in season 5. I'm glad that he and Rory are on good terms and that she stays in contact with him. 

Personally, I would slash that musical into oblivion and see more townies. I also didn't like the surrogate plot. It seemed pointless, and was there just to create conflict. I don't have a problem with Paul and Odette. It's messy but that's realistic. I would have liked to expand the Chilton plot with Rory and Paris, that subplot was very enjoyable. 

[clack]

This series actually had a cool contrast-and-compare design for Emily's, Lorelai's, and Rory's respective character arcs : Emily and Rory struggle with their circumstances and then decide to radically change their lives, and Lorelai struggles but then resolves to improve, rather than radically change, her status quo.

But because Lorelai's arc has less intrinsic movement and shape, it really doesn't come across with sufficient force. A bit about surrogate parenthood, then another bit about the need to expand the inn in order to keep Michel, then another bit about wilderness hiking. Rather than one strong dramatic narrative, 3 different plotlines get stitched together.

It's possible to make a powerful drama about a character who is initially dissatisfied with their life, only to come to see their life with new eyes and realize it's the right life for them. If I could change one big thing about AYITL, giving a stronger arc for Lorelai would have been it.

[TimetravellingBW]

On 1/13/2017 at 3:43 AM, HeySandyStrange said:

Granted, I'm one of those rare people who've always liked Dean but I thought his small part was good. It was a decent sendoff for a main secondary character that had been important to Rory's overall story. I found it to be one of the better character moments and I was glad Dean (who's character was written so unevenly during the OG series) seemed like a much more stable, happy, mature person.

I liked Dean's bit as well, it was just a brief scene that didn't interfere with anything and the writers destroyed his character so much in s4 and 5 that it was nice to see a conclusive, happy ending. And bonus points that he a) got the hell out of Stars Hollow unlike Lane and Rory and b) wasn't still hung up on his high school girlfriend ten years later. 

On 1/13/2017 at 6:44 AM, Winter Rose said:

• I realize a lot can happen in 10 years but at least make a mention of how Logan came back to working for his father or, better yet, continue having him not work for his father.
• No Tristan lookalike or Francie either, I would've rather seen Madeline and Louise at the Chilton day.
• On that note, I'd say more Luke/Rory and Lorelai/April bonding to cover it.

I would have much preferred to see Madeline and Louise over "Tristan" and Francie. I wish they'd done more with the Chilton day - a high school reunion is a great set up for comedy and drama. Everyone at a reunion party/dinner trying to impress each other only to be feeling insecure and fake behind the scenes? 

The lack of bonding/genuine character exploration was a big issue imo. The show spent too much time on pointless fluff and too little on proper conversations between the characters. We needed to know what they were feeling, why they were acting a certain way, especially because we had a decade to catch up on. I got impatient during the "witty banter" exchanges because I wanted to actually get into things. (Yes the OS had tonnes of pop cult references and snarky back-and-forth but it was balanced out with actual plot/character insight). 

Plus there were so many combinations of people they could have played with but didn't - like you said Luke/Rory and Lorelai/April, and also Lorelai/Jess, Lorelai/Lane, Luke/Lane, more Rory/April, Jess/Liz, hell even Jess/Paris (their scenes together in s2 were hilarious). 

On 1/13/2017 at 9:22 AM, deaja said:

I think you touched on my biggest objection.  I said in one of the threads that I felt that this plotline was meant to show Emily finally letting someone in or needing someone now that she was on her own.  But it didn't work for me because of what I felt was an almost racist undertone to the whole thing. Using an existing cast member only with a bad wig. A language that is deemed "not even a real language."  The implication that she moved her whole family in almost without Emily's consent as Emily didn't understand her.  It was an okay idea, but it could have been done much better.

Which is my theme for the revival overall.

On 1/13/2017 at 0:20 PM, Petunia846 said:

I've heard the story of how it came to be Rose Abdoo and it's a cute story, but if you think about it more it does kind of reinforce the idea that all "those people" are interchangeable. They're not individuals, so we can just use the same one in a silly wig and a silly accent and no one will know. Plus Emily was never be able to remember their names, which is a trope I really hate. (I say that as someone who works with Latino kids and has literally had teachers tell me they can't keep the kids' names straight because they all look alike. *angry glare*)

I'm sure that wasn't their intent, but if I could change this part of the revival I'd a) take the time to find another actress, b) play it without a goofy accent, and c) make the character arc be Emily getting tired of having to rely on other people to translate for her and actually making the effort to learn some Spanish and learn the names of all the people she was taking in and then her finding peace with them because she finally has a maid she really knows and understands.

The double casting had so many unfortunate implications. I can't imagine randomly double casting a white actress that way. If Gypsy's actress was reading for Berta in the read-through, then that probably means other new characters were played by existing actors initially - and none of them got double cast. ("Oh Babette's actress stood in for Claudia the therapist and was great so we stuck a wig on her and used her for that role as well!) The fact it only happened with two of the characters of colour is hugely telling. And Emily learning Spanish and actually making an effort for others would add to the heartwarming rather than mocking.

Edited January 14, 2017 by TimetravellingBW

[Taryn74]

4 hours ago, TimetravellingBW said:

I liked Dean's bit as well, it was just a brief scene that didn't interfere with anything and the writers destroyed his character so much in s4 and 5 that it was nice to see a conclusive, happy ending. And bonus points that he....wasn't still hung up on his high school girlfriend ten years later. 

ITA!!

4 hours ago, TimetravellingBW said:

The lack of bonding/genuine character exploration was a big issue imo. The show spent too much time on pointless fluff and too little on proper conversations between the characters. We needed to know what they were feeling, why they were acting a certain way, especially because we had a decade to catch up on. I got impatient during the "witty banter" exchanges because I wanted to actually get into things.

This.

[NorthangerAbby]

When I saw the title of this thread, my first thought was honestly that it would be much easier for me to list the few things I wouldn't change about the revival. 

I agree with everything mentioned here so far. I haven't been here enough to figure out how to properly use the quote function, but I would quote every post if I could. I'll add that the humor was possibly my biggest disappointment. Through most of the original series, I could always count on finding some scenes witty and entertaining even when I was feeling less than satisfied with the general characterizations and storytelling.  In the revival, nearly all of the attempts at humor either crossed the line from sharp and snarky to obnoxious or cruel or were just unfunny. The two middle episodes in particular seemed to confuse straining far too hard to be random and quirky purely for the sake of being random and quirky with real humor.  That problem sometimes popped up in the original series as well, but it seemed much more pronounced here. It might be because some humor was needed to balance out the more overtly depressing, bitter and pessimistic aspects of the revival, so the lack of successful comedy was more noticeable than it might have been in most of the original series' episodes. Improving the quality of the comedic material would be high on my list of things to change. This revival really needed it. 

I don't ship Luke and Lorelai because I have trouble believing their affection is more than platonic and feel they've been shown as too different and too problematic to work, but I was optimistic that the revival could give Amy Sherman-Palladino the chance to correct some of the mistakes she made with them during the last few seasons of the show. Instead the revival read like Amy is still resentful over having to put these two together at all. She seems really resistant to writing romantic relationships that are functional and healthy, let alone happy. Writing these two middle aged adults as still communicating with the maturity of high school freshmen first experiencing a relationship but with a lot less passion and happines than most of those high school kids would exhibit was just frustrating to watch. The ultimate message with Luke x Lorelai seemed to be that they were settling for a relationship lacking in communication and real romantic love, but since no one's dreams in life really come true anyway and they were used to each other by now, they may as well stay together. I'm sure that Amy wouldn't say that's what she was attempting to show with Luke and Lorelai's story, but that's how it came across to me and others I know who watched the revival. BTW, what is with Luke not having the brain power to grasp the concept of surrogacy? He was never exactly the most intellectual, clever or cerebral of characters, but nor was he quite the dumb oaf he seemed through a lot of this revival. So I would write Luke and Lorelai as either not together, having realized they're better off as friends, or as together in a relationship that seemed happier and more mature.  They could have still had conflicts and obstacles but be shown as dealing with them in a much more grown up way. It seems like they regressed even further back individually and as a unit. 

I don't even have the energy to write about Rory, Logan or their relatinship except to say that if Amy's goal was to make those of us who used to ship them regret it, she succeeded in my case. I agree with everyone who would eliminate Paul and Odette. I didn't need their help to make Rory and Logan even less sympathetic.

I don't know how to fix or change how off it all felt and how these four overlong revival episodes managed to make me feel disillusioned about the entire series except possibly to wish that the people in charge could go back in time and decide not to do this revival in the first place. Or, at the very least, to cut that entire musical.   

Edited January 20, 2017 by NorthangerAbby

[HeySandyStrange]

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 10:44 AM, Winter Rose said:

•  
• No Tristan lookalike or Francie either, I would've rather seen Madeline and Louise at the Chilton day.

Yes!!! I was disappointed all the way back to when the cast list came out the Madeline and Louise weren't included. I would've loved to see what both of them were up to, at least get a snap shot of their lives and maybe have them in tow with Paris at Chilton, throwing in their usual sarcastic or clueless remarks. It would be even funnier if they were more "successful" in some way then the two geniuses Rory and Paris. It's not like either actress didn't have time in their schedules to film a few scenes. They certainly stood out to me in the OG series more then Francie or Tristan.

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

Quote

I don't know how to fix or change how off it all felt and how these four overlong revival episodes managed to make me feel disillusioned about the entire series except possibly to wish that the people in charge could go back in time and decide not to do this revival in the first place. Or, at the very least, to cut that entire musical

.   

That is why the Revival is not part of my cannon. I'd never rewatch the original if it were.

[Pam Poovey]

Agree with almost every point everyone has made! I can't quote or else the whole thing would be quotes and requotes and answers to quotes.

In addition:

* the revival should have tallied better with the OS. For example (and sorry to keep labouring this point), if Season 1 said Stars Hollow was already off the septic system, it shouldn't be back on it 16 years later! If everyone could talk fine by mobile phone in SH in 2000, there's no reason why it should suddenly be an issue in 2016. That's just stupid.

* the revival should have have had the same "feel" as the OS - yes a little quirky, but still recognisable as the real world with real life emotion and drama. The revival didn't look or feel like the OS, but like a series of cartoony sketches of what GG was like. Somehow SH went from an eccentric little Connecticut town loosely based on real Connecticut towns and villages to a complete fantasy land that was clearly as imaginary and artificial as Oz. The LBD sequence finally pushed the point home that all connection with what's possible in the actual world had been severed completely. 

* the sparkle and comedy of dialogue should have felt organic and character-driven: too much of the time it felt as if someone had written in the script: Now insert two minutes of witty banter with at least a dozen pop culture references for no clear reason.

* Rory's career woes should have been more realistic, and been solved/resolved with something better, more original, and less groan-worthy than writing a book about her life with her mother, because nothing could be more interesting than herself. (Hopefully she won't fall asleep while interviewing herself for the book). She wasted most of a year not doing any proper work, and still didn't have anything even vaguely resembling a real job or viable career path by the end. Unless you consider getting knocked up by an ex-boyfriend engaged to someone else and three chapters of an unwritten book a viable career path.

* Stop making Rory and Lorelai just plain disgusting and foul! Yes, they were always flawed characters but somehow they became monstrous caricatures of themselves. It was impossible to want to cheer them on in any way. By the end, I was hoping the last four words would be "I"m dying". "Me too".

* Stop making Luke mentally handicapped! He went from savvy and practical to complete idiot who got pushed around by everyone. Did he have a head injury off screen? Was Lorelai keeping him drugged so he would obey her better? 

* Just make it a proper Season 8 with 40 minute episodes that told one little part of a story that gradually built into a story arc. I hated the four 90-minute movies idea: it didn't work, and led to a lot of pointless self-indulgent filler. 

* If determined to stick with the four movie idea - make them better! And if based on four seasons, be much crisper with the timing. Lorelai's three days on the west coast somehow took up most of Fall, and didn't fit with the date of the wedding which was apparently all planned in 4 days. Seriously get a flipping calendar and make sure your timeline is even vaguely plausible if you are going to set it around Winter to Fall in one year.

* Sorry if this offends anyone but don't let anyone with Palladino as part of their name anywhere near the script or production! Do not let them make decisions in regard to casting. I'm convinced the pair of them actively hate their own show and despise their fans by this stage, and either consciously or subconsciously sabotaged it for some warped and twisted reason of their own.  

(Apologies for frothing at the mouth ranting which may have led to some incoherence!!!) 

[hippielamb]

On 1/14/2017 at 6:27 AM, TimetravellingBW said:

Plus there were so many combinations of people they could have played with but didn't - like you said Luke/Rory and Lorelai/April, and also Lorelai/Jess, Lorelai/Lane, Luke/Lane, more Rory/April, Jess/Liz, hell even Jess/Paris (their scenes together in s2 were hilarious). 

Yes to more Lorelai and Lane. They only shared one scene (not counting the scenes where Lane was a glorified extra). I would have liked more between them, but I'm completely biased as they are my 2 favourite characters and I love scenes in the series when they are together. 

The cast and media made a big deal about the language/voice of the show being back with Amy's writing.  (It's understandable with the cast, she created the show and their characters.) Most of that is the witty pop culture banter that was missing in season 7. Yet that year had lots of characters telling us how they were feeling about something. I guess she's not big on characters expressing feelings, unless they are yelling at each other. 

10 hours ago, NorthangerAbby said:

I don't ship Luke and Lorelai because I have trouble believing their affection is more than platonic and feel they've been shown as too different and too problematic to work, but I was optimistic that the revival could give Amy Sherman-Palladino the chance to correct some of the mistakes she made with them during the last few seasons of the show. Instead the revival read like Amy is still resentful over having to put these two together at all. She seems really resistant to writing romantic relationships that are functional and healthy, let alone happy. Writing these two middle aged adults as still communicating with the maturity of high school freshmen first experiencing a relationship but with a lot less passion and happines than most of those high school kids would exhibit was just frustrating to watch. The ultimate message with Luke x Lorelai seemed to be that they were settling for a relationship lacking in communication and real romantic love, but since no one's dreams in life really come true anyway and they were used to each other by now, they may as well stay together. I'm sure that Amy wouldn't say that's what she was attempting to show with Luke and Lorelai's story, but that's how it came across to me and others I know who watched the revival. BTW, what is with Luke not having the brain power to grasp the concept of surrogacy? He was never exactly the most intellectual, clever or cerebral of characters, but nor was he quite the dumb oaf he seemed through a lot of this revival. So I would write Luke and Lorelai as either not together, having realized they're better off as friends, or as together in a relationship that seemed happier and more mature.  They could have still had conflicts and obstacles but be shown as dealing with them in a much more grown up way. It seems like they regressed even further back individually and as a unit. 

Or, at the very least, to cut that entire musical.   

I agree though I assumed a wedding was going to happen to appease their fans. They seem like friends who are living together, and it makes me sad yet Lorelai was acting happy. Basically if she's happy being in a settled, middle aged relationship then good for her. I want Lorelai to be happy. I just wanted more for her. 

God yes that musical needs to die. I was talking to a friend who also loves the show and she told me the entire musical plot was nearly 20 minutes. Twenty minutes! No wonder if felt neverending. 

8 hours ago, HeySandyStrange said:

Yes!!! I was disappointed all the way back to when the cast list came out the Madeline and Louise weren't included. I would've loved to see what both of them were up to, at least get a snap shot of their lives and maybe have them in tow with Paris at Chilton, throwing in their usual sarcastic or clueless remarks. It would be even funnier if they were more "successful" in some way then the two geniuses Rory and Paris. It's not like either actress didn't have time in their schedules to film a few scenes. They certainly stood out to me in the OG series more then Francie or Tristan.

Maybe they are still on spring break. ;) I would have loved to see those characters at 32. 

[junienmomo]

6 minutes ago, hippielamb said:

I agree though I assumed a wedding was going to happen to appease their fans. They seem like friends who are living together, and it makes me sad yet Lorelai was acting happy. Basically if she's happy being in a settled, middle aged relationship then good for her. I want Lorelai to be happy. I just wanted more for her.

Lorelai was unhappy/dissatisfied/depressed throughout the revival, only returning to her sparkle after she decided to get married and Luke responded correctly this time. I think that set the tone that made me rather dissatisfied. Even if she's down, the show needed Lorelai's sometimes-manufactured optimism to keep the mood up. However, in order to give her "growth" the writers gave her everything she wanted but heaped some vague dissatisfaction on top of it. 

Seriously, Lorelai had the guy she loved, her inn that had been successful until two years before, and a daughter who was out living the dream career that Lorelai had always wanted for her. Why the heck was she unhappy? I don't really buy the premise that her father's death triggered self-reflection, because she had been doing these weird things like not replacing Sookie with a full-time chef and keeping her family separate from Luke's family for a long time. 

It seemed more like "Lorelai got everything she wanted ten years before, but never knew what to do with it."

[NorthangerAbby]

Quote

By the end, I was hoping the last four words would be "I"m dying". "Me too".

This made me laugh so much more than any part of the revival. The only part that came close was when Chris referred to Rory as a "force of nature." I know that wasn't supposed to be funny, but it made me wonder if he was confusing her with someone else. 

[timimouse]

5 hours ago, NorthangerAbby said:

This made me laugh so much more than any part of the revival. The only part that came close was when Chris referred to Rory as a "force of nature." I know that wasn't supposed to be funny, but it made me wonder if he was confusing her with someone else. 

Also, when headmaster Charleston claimed to "always been fond of" Rory and her being "top of her class at Yale"... LMFAO

[Pam Poovey]

6 hours ago, NorthangerAbby said:

The only part that came close was when Chris referred to Rory as a "force of nature." I know that wasn't supposed to be funny, but it made me wonder if he was confusing her with someone else. 

 

1 hour ago, timimouse said:

Also, when headmaster Charleston claimed to "always been fond of" Rory and her being "top of her class at Yale"... LMFAO

Both screechingly funny lines (when did Chris ever see Rory being forceful? Forcefully having her arm broken and being put to bed by mommy? Forcefully reading the dictionary he bought her?).

I was drinking a cup of tea during Charleston's friendly chat, and nearly spit it out laughing. Maybe Chris and the headmaster should have watched a few episodes of Gilmore Girls to remind them what actually happened before they spoke ...  

[TimetravellingBW]

8 hours ago, NorthangerAbby said:

This made me laugh so much more than any part of the revival. The only part that came close was when Chris referred to Rory as a "force of nature." I know that wasn't supposed to be funny, but it made me wonder if he was confusing her with someone else. 

2 hours ago, timimouse said:

Also, when headmaster Charleston claimed to "always been fond of" Rory and her being "top of her class at Yale"... LMFAO

I couldn't keep a straight face at Chris's line. I'm assuming he's the sort of person who refers to puffs of breeze and gentle rain showers as forces of nature. And Charleston's claim that Rory has always been "internally stronger" than everyone else was ridiculous. That might have been true for s1-3 Rory compared to other Chilton students but saying that against a backdrop of her behaviour revival made him look like an idiot.

Unfortunately it was those comments that made me realize how tone deaf the writers were to Rory's character and that they were never going to call her out on it because they genuinely didn't realize how poorly she was written. It's why I can't believe the "they deliberately wrote Rory's failure as a realistic consequence of her being spoiled and sheltered her whole life" theory - ASP is oblivious to how Rory comes off and genuinely thinks she's a strong, inspirational, driven heroine.

Edited January 22, 2017 by TimetravellingBW

[Kohola3]

4 minutes ago, TimetravellingBW said:

Unfortunately it was those comments that made me realize how tone deaf the writers were to Rory's character and that they were never going to call her out on it because they genuinely didn't realize how poorly she was written.

That's it in a nutshell.  Hack writing from start to finish.  The ASP ego trumped a cohesive story.

[navelgazer]

6 hours ago, TimetravellingBW said:

Unfortunately it was those comments that made me realize how tone deaf the writers were to Rory's character and that they were never going to call her out on it because they genuinely didn't realize how poorly she was written. It's why I can't believe the "they deliberately wrote Rory's failure as a realistic consequence of her being spoiled and sheltered her whole life" theory - ASP is oblivious to how Rory comes off and genuinely thinks she's a strong, inspirational, driven heroine.

Taking this to the UO thread.  

[scarynikki12]

It's just one thing but I wish Sookie had been on a book tour.  She was completely out of character the entire time she was offscreen and it wasn't necessary.  I can't see Sookie abandoning Lorelai and the Inn to go live off the grid, as I don't think that would ever interest her, but I can see her gaining enough fame as a chef to write cookbooks and then go promote them.  Instead of cameos from a bunch of unnecessary tv personalities, they could have used that time to talk about how she'd done on a talk show the day before, or a funny story she'd told Lorelai offscreen when they talked on the phone.  Lorelai is the one who had to remind her that her kitchen staff was excellent and completely capable of handling Thanksgiving back in season 3, so there's no reason to think that they couldn't have Sookie's #2 run the kitchen in her absence (and Sookie could still be anxious, resulting in those offscreen calls where Lorelai gets her talking about her experiences on the book tour to distract her from assuming the worst in the kitchen and then viewers get funny stories).  Then, when Lorelai decided to expand, they could even agree that #2 did so well that he/she deserved a promotion and was slated to run the annex.  The way Sookie was presented makes me think that the Palladinos don't like Melissa, had no intention of bringing her back, and her fame forced their hand.  If her level of fame were low like Liz/TJ then I don't think they'd ever have given in when show fans wondered why Sookie wasn't initially part of the revival. 

[Pam Poovey]

1 hour ago, scarynikki12 said:

 

It's just one thing but I wish Sookie had been on a book tour. 

 

I guess you can only have one author per TV show. And Rory's "success" at writing three chapters would look pretty paltry next to Sookie being on a busy book tour/chat show circuit. If not a book tour (so as not to make Rory look even more useless in comparison), why not her own line of gourmet cookies or something? She was a gifted cook, loved baking, and I could see something like that starting small as a specialty of the Dragonfly Inn, then taking off as word gets out from travel and food writers. Before you know it, she's spending weeks at a time overseeing production and having to create secret recipes in seclusion  - or whatever you do when you have your own line of baked goods and are a complete control freak over the entire process.

[Guest]

Or they could have had Sookie have her own cooking tv show and be the one sending the celebrity chefs to fill in for her. Off the grid Sookie was a stupid plot.

[Pam Poovey]

9 hours ago, deaja said:

Or they could have had Sookie have her own cooking tv show and be the one sending the celebrity chefs to fill in for her. Off the grid Sookie was a stupid plot.

Brilliant! And not unbelievable, because pretty well anyone can get their own cooking show these days. 

Although last night I was amusing myself by imagining that Rory announces she's going to write a book, and it turns out almost everyone in SH is a published author or is in the process of writing a book.

Sookie has a best-selling cook book, Taylor has written a volume on the history of Stars Hollow, Miss Patty has a fascinating memoir based on her one-woman stage show, and Lane writes a series of books on music criticism called Why Rolling Stone Got it Wrong. Lorelai is writing an anti-Wild book based on her aborted yet cathartic trip to the Pacific Coast Trail, and even Kirk is hard at work on A Book by Kirk.  Gypsy is the author of the popular handbook, The Everywoman's Guide to Home Mechanics, of which she tells everyone, "That book just got me a new kitchen!".  Everyone in the Thirty-Something Gang is already published (their parents paid for the vanity publishing), and all are working on new material. 

Gradually it dawns on Rory that any idiot can write a book and even get it published, and she's just joined all the other SH eccentrics in their favourite pastime. Babette, author of a series of books on dealing with pet grief, tells her she finally managed to catch up to them all.    

[junienmomo]

1 hour ago, Pam Poovey said:

Brilliant! And not unbelievable, because pretty well anyone can get their own cooking show these days. 

Although last night I was amusing myself by imagining that Rory announces she's going to write a book, and it turns out almost everyone in SH is a published author or is in the process of writing a book.

Sookie has a best-selling cook book, Taylor has written a volume on the history of Stars Hollow, Miss Patty has a fascinating memoir based on her one-woman stage show, and Lane writes a series of books on music criticism called Why Rolling Stone Got it Wrong. Lorelai is writing an anti-Wild book based on her aborted yet cathartic trip to the Pacific Coast Trail, and even Kirk is hard at work on A Book by Kirk.  Gypsy is the author of the popular handbook, The Everywoman's Guide to Home Mechanics, of which she tells everyone, "That book just got me a new kitchen!".  Everyone in the Thirty-Something Gang is already published (their parents paid for the vanity publishing), and all are working on new material. 

Gradually it dawns on Rory that any idiot can write a book and even get it published, and she's just joined all the other SH eccentrics in their favourite pastime. Babette, author of a series of books on dealing with pet grief, tells her she finally managed to catch up to them all.    

Please don't stop there! We need books for Michel, Luke, Bootsy, and maybe even the Petes. And the reverend and the rabbi!

[hippielamb]

On 1/20/2017 at 11:16 PM, junienmomo said:

Lorelai was unhappy/dissatisfied/depressed throughout the revival, only returning to her sparkle after she decided to get married and Luke responded correctly this time. I think that set the tone that made me rather dissatisfied. Even if she's down, the show needed Lorelai's sometimes-manufactured optimism to keep the mood up. However, in order to give her "growth" the writers gave her everything she wanted but heaped some vague dissatisfaction on top of it. 

Seriously, Lorelai had the guy she loved, her inn that had been successful until two years before, and a daughter who was out living the dream career that Lorelai had always wanted for her. Why the heck was she unhappy? I don't really buy the premise that her father's death triggered self-reflection, because she had been doing these weird things like not replacing Sookie with a full-time chef and keeping her family separate from Luke's family for a long time. 

It seemed more like "Lorelai got everything she wanted ten years before, but never knew what to do with it."

I didn't really understand her behaviour either. It seemed like she was realizing that she wasn't 25 any more and was balking at the idea of being middle aged. That's fine. Most people in their forties or fifties have had those thoughts. The Wild trip made no sense to me. As did the reason she and Luke weren't married was because she didn't do things the Emily way. Except she was gung ho in season 6 to seal the deal. As a Lorelai fan, her plotlines left me confused. (It's probably why I enjoyed Rory's story more.) Only her scenes with Rory and Emily felt right.

[twoods]

Sorry guys! This is what I get for surfing while watching tv- reading about GG but wanting to post in GH.

I think most of you would have written the revival better than the P's did. I was looking forward to more Luke and Jess, Lane and how she was doing with motherhood (with some Lorelai sprinkled in), Lorelai and Rory growing up...and no terrible musical! If they do another "year in the life" hopefully they saw online from fans what worked and didn't work.

Now off to post in the GH thread.

Edited January 24, 2017 by twoods
Tv and phone surfing=wrong thread

[Kohola3]

Huh?

[Taryn74]

3 minutes ago, Kohola3 said:

Huh?

LOL.  I'm thinking it must have been meant for another forum.

[Pam Poovey]

4 minutes ago, twoods said:

 

Caught today just for some Finn-Hayden goodness. Nice that they are finally together, but they are still doing this Finn-addicted to fake heroin storyline?

 

I think perhaps you are looking for the General Hospital forum? 

[moonb]

Lol, maybe the post above really would have improved the GG revival. Kirk and Lulu being a demon spawn's parents,  the LGB and Christopher running an illegal business, and April's mom Anna attracting psycho Luke.   It's dark Gilmore Girls!

[twoods]

2 hours ago, Pam Poovey said:

I think perhaps you are looking for the General Hospital forum? 

Haha, I thought I was on the GH forum. Damn phone. Thanks for the heads up and will edit so it's related to GG.

[tarotx]

2 hours ago, twoods said:

Caught today just for some Finn-Hayden goodness. Nice that they are finally together, but they are still doing this Finn-addicted to fake heroin storyline?

What is up with Anna being a magnet for psychos? 

At least the writers cut their losses with Claudette, but now Lulu is stuck with that whiny child. Doesn't even make sense but how she's that demon child's mom but whatever.

At least Nathan had a reason how he got a hold of an expensive necklace. This isn't some ice princess thing now is it?

2

But it kind of fits the thread if you change a few names :P 

[twoods]

I'm trying to think who on GG attracts psychos.....

Demon child= old Rory?

Edited January 24, 2017 by twoods

[TimetravellingBW]

On 1/23/2017 at 0:55 AM, deaja said:

Or they could have had Sookie have her own cooking tv show and be the one sending the celebrity chefs to fill in for her. Off the grid Sookie was a stupid plot.

On 1/22/2017 at 9:03 PM, Pam Poovey said:

I guess you can only have one author per TV show. And Rory's "success" at writing three chapters would look pretty paltry next to Sookie being on a busy book tour/chat show circuit. If not a book tour (so as not to make Rory look even more useless in comparison), why not her own line of gourmet cookies or something? She was a gifted cook, loved baking, and I could see something like that starting small as a specialty of the Dragonfly Inn, then taking off as word gets out from travel and food writers. Before you know it, she's spending weeks at a time overseeing production and having to create secret recipes in seclusion  - or whatever you do when you have your own line of baked goods and are a complete control freak over the entire process.

Sookie writing a book/having a TV show/promoting her food line would have made way more sense than her off squatting in mud and taking soil samples for years. That was in character for Jackson, but not for perfectionist fancy gourmet food chef Sookie. If nothing else they could have just had her competing or judging on a cooking show (professional Masterchef?) for a season and coming back home for good in Fall. So many options. 

On 1/23/2017 at 10:57 AM, Pam Poovey said:

Although last night I was amusing myself by imagining that Rory announces she's going to write a book, and it turns out almost everyone in SH is a published author or is in the process of writing a book.

Sookie has a best-selling cook book, Taylor has written a volume on the history of Stars Hollow, Miss Patty has a fascinating memoir based on her one-woman stage show, and Lane writes a series of books on music criticism called Why Rolling Stone Got it Wrong. Lorelai is writing an anti-Wild book based on her aborted yet cathartic trip to the Pacific Coast Trail, and even Kirk is hard at work on A Book by Kirk.  Gypsy is the author of the popular handbook, The Everywoman's Guide to Home Mechanics, of which she tells everyone, "That book just got me a new kitchen!".  Everyone in the Thirty-Something Gang is already published (their parents paid for the vanity publishing), and all are working on new material. 

Gradually it dawns on Rory that any idiot can write a book and even get it published, and she's just joined all the other SH eccentrics in their favourite pastime. Babette, author of a series of books on dealing with pet grief, tells her she finally managed to catch up to them all.    

I love this so much. I imagine Taylor is probably lobbying Netflix to make a TV series based on his history of Stars Hollow books. I'd love to see it dawn on Rory that not only is everyone else a published author before her, the lifelong writer, but they all have day jobs because gosh, writing a book isn't actually enough to live off? 

On 1/14/2017 at 5:15 AM, clack said:

This series actually had a cool contrast-and-compare design for Emily's, Lorelai's, and Rory's respective character arcs : Emily and Rory struggle with their circumstances and then decide to radically change their lives, and Lorelai struggles but then resolves to improve, rather than radically change, her status quo.

But because Lorelai's arc has less intrinsic movement and shape, it really doesn't come across with sufficient force. A bit about surrogate parenthood, then another bit about the need to expand the inn in order to keep Michel, then another bit about wilderness hiking. Rather than one strong dramatic narrative, 3 different plotlines get stitched together.

It's possible to make a powerful drama about a character who is initially dissatisfied with their life, only to come to see their life with new eyes and realize it's the right life for them. If I could change one big thing about AYITL, giving a stronger arc for Lorelai would have been it.

You put your finger perfectly on why Lorelai's arc - despite a heartwarming ending - didn't impact me. There was no overarching struggle. I finished not knowing what she was doubting about her life and not knowing how she came to peace with it. (Idk, she wanted more permanence??) Lorelai's plot was all action: "Surrogacy!" "Expand the Inn!" "Therapy" "Do Wild!" "Marry Luke!" with little character explanation behind it. 

The only real insight we get with Lorelai was when she talks about standing still while the world moves around her. And it's kinda implied the other women's crappy lives made Lorelai appreciate what she had. But it was a weak, sloppily tied together arc. As you said they spent too much time on disparate pieces that needed to be united into one journey/struggle. Instead Lorelai's story didn't really matter until the last hour.

At least with Emily and Rory they had clear trigger points or reasons to spiral: Emily's whole world had changed and Rory had a lot of uncertainty in her life. Even though I disliked Rory's behaviour I enjoyed Spring because she had a clear struggle/motivation in trying for her career and failing. (They just dropped the ball on giving her satisfying rebuilding after that failure). And Emily's story was developed consistently over all 4 episodes.

Personally I think Lorelai should have been given a clearer trigger for her mid life crisis. Richard's death would make sense and could impact Lorelai in multiple ways:

• His death and legacy makes her have a "I need to do more before I die" fear. (In Winter she comments that thinking about aging/dying made her look up cruises). She considers leaving Stars Hollow to explore or starting more Dragonfly's elsewhere before realizing she's truly happy with Luke and just expanding the Dragonfly within SH. (Linking with @clack's journey of appreciating what you have).
• Or Lorelai reflecting on her difficult relationship with Richard makes her realize she needs to stop clinging to the past and old grudges. So she heals her relationships, goes to therapy with Emily, marries Luke getting over their old scars, let's Rory document her story, forgives Jess etc. She also moves on in her day to day life, gets a new car or even leaves the Crap Shack. (I honestly thought her early jeep issues was foreshadowing Lorelai still being too set in her ways and would end with her finally giving it up).
• Or even Richard's death just makes her think of her childhood and her parent's happy marriage, and realizes she wants kids and marriage with Luke. They haven't been able to conceive before and haven't pushed it but now turn to surrogacy because they realize it's something they seriously want.

(Imo Rory would have been more sympathetic had her spiral been specifically a recent issue and linked to Richard's death as well. She feels like she failed him - in relationships and her career - after all his hopes which is why she chases journalism despite being burnt out and goes to Logan. That compare and contrast of all 3 of them being impacted by Richard's death, reacting in different ways and coming to their own peace could have been fascinating. 

Edited January 26, 2017 by TimetravellingBW

[mammaM]

Had no desire to see this but curiosity (and dental work that got infected) got the better of me, bad curiosity bad. Like others have said, it was a train wreck. I don't think I would have minded as much if it happened 7-8 years ago, still not a great season but not as bad as now. And that was the biggest problem, it was like these people were frozen in time, it didn't seem like 10 years had passed. Lorelai and Luke didn't seem like a couple that had been together for ten years. Rory's story would have made more sense if she was 24-25, two or three years into her career not 32 and a (supposedly) seasoned journalist. Someone upthread mentioned that it was as if ASP had an old script she really wanted to use and didn't bother updating it.