A Year In The Life: What Would You Change?

[Pam Poovey]

10 hours ago, TimetravellingBW said:

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. 

THIS! Yes, the main thing lacking was some kind of reason for Lorelai's malaise and Rory's failure. After watching the revival, I still have no idea what was wrong with either of them: Lorelai looks spoiled and selfish, and Rory looks spoiled and lazy. And I'm left wondering if their issues were really "fixed" with marriage/new Dragonfly (more of what she already had) and writing a book/getting pregnant (a real come down from all the things she tried for, and hoped to achieve).  

It would have been great if everything had been tied in with Richard's death, giving all three characters not only a clear arc of healing and recovery, but also some much-needed sympathy. It would have also honoured Richard as the patriarch of the family that all three "Gilmore girls" had come to depend on in some way, so that removing him from the picture brought on a crisis. Maybe this was too much in opposition to some vague feminist sympathies that the show may have had once - but it could have been a good story if handled sensitively.

And yes - surely replacing the car would have been a major symbol of Lorelai moving on? And it was really old, so how long could she feasibly keep it for anyway? But perhaps it was yet another symbol of Lorelai's need to stay in the one place and have more of the same. 

[TimetravellingBW]

55 minutes ago, Pam Poovey said:

THIS! Yes, the main thing lacking was some kind of reason for Lorelai's malaise and Rory's failure. After watching the revival, I still have no idea what was wrong with either of them: Lorelai looks spoiled and selfish, and Rory looks spoiled and lazy. And I'm left wondering if their issues were really "fixed" with marriage/new Dragonfly (more of what she already had) and writing a book/getting pregnant (a real come down from all the things she tried for, and hoped to achieve).  

It would have been great if everything had been tied in with Richard's death, giving all three characters not only a clear arc of healing and recovery, but also some much-needed sympathy. It would have also honoured Richard as the patriarch of the family that all three "Gilmore girls" had come to depend on in some way, so that removing him from the picture brought on a crisis. Maybe this was too much in opposition to some vague feminist sympathies that the show may have had once - but it could have been a good story if handled sensitively.

And yes - surely replacing the car would have been a major symbol of Lorelai moving on? And it was really old, so how long could she feasibly keep it for anyway? But perhaps it was yet another symbol of Lorelai's need to stay in the one place and have more of the same. 

Exactly! We don't know Lorelai's problem so who knows if her solutions will work. Maybe the Inn will help her feel like she's taking action not "standing still" anymore. But will marrying Luke make a ton of difference? Their day to day lives will stay the same. Did she just need that stability/promise? Totally unclear.

I can kinda see how tying all 3 women to a guy's death and influence on them might seem "unfeminist" but yeah the revival made it pretty clearly GG feminism is about a decade behind now. (Rory's arc was wrapped up in men and relationships anyway). If it was written well Richard's death could be a good starting point to provoke all of them questioning different, not-just-guy-related aspects of their lives: Careers, relationships, lifestyle, purpose etc. (I keep mentioning this but because Rory and Richard's connection was based on their shared intellectual interests and educational focus it would be logical for Rory to feeling she was letting Richard down in wasting her mind and education).

With so many issues coming back to none of the characters changing for almost a decade I think the whole revival should have been set about 5 years after the OS - in 2012/2013. Rory at 27 struggling with her career and trying to make it work  makes sense: She would have followed Obama's campaign for a few years and may have a longer-term job or two before having to freelance. Whereas at 32 she's been meandering around with no results for way too long. Likewise, Luke/Lorelai not raising the marriage question is believable in a 5 year gap: They may have dated for a bit again before moving in together and they're taking little steps at a time. (Given how their engagement went down in the OS). It also makes the the pregnancy plot more logical. They haven't been quite so blase in ignoring Lorelai's biological clock. 

[Pam Poovey]

1 hour ago, TimetravellingBW said:

With so many issues coming back to none of the characters changing for almost a decade I think the whole revival should have been set about 5 years after the OS - in 2012/2013.

That's what I kept thinking the whole way through the revival. It should have been set in the past, and the actors would have had to play their characters as three or four years younger, and Richard would die earlier. There was always a conceit that GG was set in the current year, and it seems the creators could not see it happening any other way, that it would lose its "now-ness". 

It really felt that they had hung on to their main plot points too long and their ideas had gathered dust. Despite its contemporary setting, it felt dated and at times even creaky.

[illini1959]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 5:24 PM, JayInChicago said:

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

The sad thing is I (now) agree with this - but I was a solid Team "can't WAIT for this to happen!"

There isn't enough space for me to write what I'd change, and you all have said things much better than I could have anyway. To me, there wasn't one redeeming factor in this "revival". I hope ASP reads this forum and sees what a mess she made out of something that could've been sooooo good.

So, I'm just going to keep rewatching the OS and pretend this crapfest never happened. "lalalala"

[Mrs. DuRona]

19 hours ago, TimetravellingBW said:

I can kinda see how tying all 3 women to a guy's death and influence on them might seem "unfeminist" but yeah the revival made it pretty clearly GG feminism is about a decade behind now.

I don't think the loss of a spouse/grandfather/father is unfeminist at all.  Loss is loss, regardless of the sex/gender of those involved.

[qtpye]

On 1/12/2017 at 9:43 AM, HeySandyStrange said:

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.

It's worse then that.  Regular nice guy Paul is just not good enough for Rory and for some reason they thought the audience would agree.

I like old school Rory, but she is just a nice, studious, pretty girl from a well off family, even if she was raised by a single mother.  Sometimes the show acts like she is the second coming and she is not.  Why the heck were we supposed to root for her hurting Paul and probably Odette?

[Pam Poovey]

3 hours ago, qtpye said:

It's worse then that.  Regular nice guy Paul is just not good enough for Rory and for some reason they thought the audience would agree.

The awful thing is that Rory herself thinks he's not good enough for her, and the reason for that is not obvious - Paul is a nice, smart, caring, tolerant, fairly attractive guy and apparently that makes him a hilarious target for abuse by the writers. It immediately gave the impression that Revival!Rory had become a massive bitch and turned me off the story within the first 15 minutes or so. Then they dragged this lame "joke" out for the rest of the season.

3 hours ago, qtpye said:

I like old school Rory, but she is just a nice, studious, pretty girl from a well off family, even if she was raised by a single mother.  Sometimes the show acts like she is the second coming and she is not. 

 At the beginning it seems that Rory is adored by her mother, her grandparents, her best friend, her boyfriend, and family friends, which seems normal enough for a nice, pretty, studious teen. But gradually it turned out she was practically worshipped by the entire town and was allowed to get away with some pretty awful behaviour (such as cheating on a married man). And it wasn't even possible for her to have a male friend as she was so desirable that any guy she got close to seemed to fall in love with her. That's when the show just went too far and turned viewers off Rory. 

[Allie56]

Speaking of things that aren't good enough for Rory, I would change the Sandee Says interview. Rory goes into the Sandee Says interview believing the job is beneath her and Sandee is beneath her. She doesn't try. She doesn't dress professionally. She doesn't prepare. She expects the job to be given to her. She bombs and has a fit, but the job interview doesn't have any lasting consequences because Rory didn't try so it's not a reflection on her actual ability. The overall feeling is that she actually IS too good for this job, so not getting it doesn't matter. She can live off other people, so although she mentions having no money it never really lands. Rory never gets ACTUALLY desperate. She pays lip service to it, but she is surrounded by people ranging from financially comfortable (Lorelai and Luke) to very wealthy (Emily) to couldn't-spend-all-this-money-in-a-lifetime (Chris and Logan). She's so not actually desperate that she can go stay in her grandmother's enormous mansion and write a book without an agent or an advance or a book deal or anything. I get that she's EMOTIONALLY desperate, but she's not practically desperate. 

I would have Rory go in and really try and still not get the job, perhaps because I am about Rory's age and just finished my PhD a year ago. I, too, am unemployed and miserable. I recently applied and got an interview for a part-time job that was far beneath my education and abilities because I need the money. I prepared. I dressed professionally. I met with the people prior to the interview and got along well. I gave great answers. They talked like I had the job and we discussed the future. The next week, I was called into their office for them to tell me in a crowded hallway that they decided to go in another direction. I was absolutely crushed, but had to act like I was just happy that they found the right person. It was awful. 

The reason I tell this humiliating story is that, like Rory, I was told I was special. I was my class valedictorian. I went to (gasp! horror!) a public university, but I got a fantastic education and my parents have always acted like I was destined for greatness. But here's the thing - there are thousands of people who were told the same thing. Almost everyone I've ever met was a special snowflake somewhere, who'd been told his/her whole life that something really remarkable was in store for them. Having Rory come to grips with the fact that being Rory Gilmore isn't enough would have opened up an opportunity for her to actually become the force of nature they always talk about her being. Let her have a crappy job that isn't the Stars Hollow Gazette. Let her struggle a bit in a way that's relevant to people her age right now. 

I was very frustrated with her behavior overall, especially because a lot of my friends are Rory's age with Rory's great education and background, but struggle to find a job or a direction or a purpose. I would jump at the chance to work at Chilton! The show sneered at the aimless 30-something crowd, and it sneered at the idea that Rory might have to take a job that doesn't fulfill her. It seemed hell bent on showing us that Rory was good at everything (we're supposed to believe she was great at the Chilton alum day even though her dialogue was awkward and stilted), but that she should only follow her passion even when she is broke and homeless. I wish they would have incorporated the 30-somethings into Rory's story.

This is very rambling, but I guess my overall complaint is that the AYITL felt very tone deaf to the plight of a lot of people Rory's age, and I'm included in that group so it left a bad taste in my mouth. 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Allie56 said:

Speaking of things that aren't good enough for Rory, I would change the Sandee Says interview. Rory goes into the Sandee Says interview believing the job is beneath her and Sandee is beneath her. She doesn't try. She doesn't dress professionally. She doesn't prepare. She expects the job to be given to her. She bombs and has a fit, but the job interview doesn't have any lasting consequences because Rory didn't try so it's not a reflection on her actual ability. The overall feeling is that she actually IS too good for this job, so not getting it doesn't matter. She can live off other people, so although she mentions having no money it never really lands. Rory never gets ACTUALLY desperate. She pays lip service to it, but she is surrounded by people ranging from financially comfortable (Lorelai and Luke) to very wealthy (Emily) to couldn't-spend-all-this-money-in-a-lifetime (Chris and Logan). She's so not actually desperate that she can go stay in her grandmother's enormous mansion and write a book without an agent or an advance or a book deal or anything. I get that she's EMOTIONALLY desperate, but she's not practically desperate. 

Yes, so very true.

[HeySandyStrange]

Quote

The awful thing is that Rory herself thinks he's not good enough for her, and the reason for that is not obvious - Paul is a nice, smart, caring, tolerant, fairly attractive guy and apparently that makes him a hilarious target for abuse by the writers.

Reading this, I'm wondering if Paul's big not good enough for Rory fault was-gasp!-he went to a state, not ivy league, university! Or his field/career was something practical, like he is an accountant or a business manager! He's not some quirky small town business owner, artsy academic millennial, or CEO. This show has always been really weird about education and careers, it wouldn't have been out of left field for Paul to be dumped on because he had a stable, unfun career.

[FictionLover]

I would have changed Lorelai's treatment of Luke.  The way she drowned him out with the radio when Rory came home and when she took off from the Dragonfly to help Rory when he was helping her in the kitchen.  Even when he was pouring his heart out to her she didn't act like most women would when someone expressed their devotion to them.  Maybe it was all the Botox that made her face hard to read; the OS she was a master of expressing her emotions with her facial expressions.  I guess he wasn't perfect either, I didn't like how he snapped at her about April.

As much as everyone loved the kitchen scene, I didn't like that Luke was willing to sell himself out and open franchise diners if that's who she wanted him to be.  Everything else was great but that seemed weak and OOC for him.

I always liked their story so much so it was very disappointing.  It actually made season 7 much better to me, the last half anyway.

Edited February 3, 2017 by FictionLover

[hippielamb]

On 2/2/2017 at 8:12 PM, Pam Poovey said:

The awful thing is that Rory herself thinks he's not good enough for her, and the reason for that is not obvious - Paul is a nice, smart, caring, tolerant, fairly attractive guy and apparently that makes him a hilarious target for abuse by the writers. It immediately gave the impression that Revival!Rory had become a massive bitch and turned me off the story within the first 15 minutes or so. Then they dragged this lame "joke" out for the rest of the season.

Are we really supposed to feel bad for Paul? Because I didn't, not a whiff. Yet I have read so many people sympathize with poor Paul. Rory is the one we spent seven years watching and caring about, plus the two years we got to know Logan. We spent 5 minutes with Paul. I seriously wonder if the intent is for the audience to sympathize or even care about Paul or Odette, when Rory and Logan get more screentime. 

11 hours ago, Allie56 said:

The show sneered at the aimless 30-something crowd, and it sneered at the idea that Rory might have to take a job that doesn't fulfill her. It seemed hell bent on showing us that Rory was good at everything (we're supposed to believe she was great at the Chilton alum day even though her dialogue was awkward and stilted), but that she should only follow her passion even when she is broke and homeless. I wish they would have incorporated the 30-somethings into Rory's story.

This is very rambling, but I guess my overall complaint is that the AYITL felt very tone deaf to the plight of a lot of people Rory's age, and I'm included in that group so it left a bad taste in my mouth. 

I think this all comes from Amy's attitude about certain millennials. I read an article awhile back where she was casting shade on adults who move back home and sponge off their parents. As much as her comments sometimes irk me, I found myself agreeing with her. To many of us, if you lost your job the next step would be to hustle and get another one. Not move back home and be supported by the parent(s). Honestly, the idea is foreign to me. Move back home when you are an adult? Nope nada. But there is a growing part of young adults who do just that.

Anyway, I think that's what the 30 something gang was a commentary on. None of them were working, the parents were getting together to go over their resumes, the "kids" (and I use that term loosely) were happy just to hang out with each other. The funny thing about Rory moving back home is Lorelai mentioned this possibility to Chris in season 7 (not that Amy would deign to watch it), and it came true. 

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

The 30 something's I've known who moved back home didn't do so by choice. I actually know many young people who stay home longer, whether or not they work, to help ease the financial burden before going off on their own. Its gotten better, but the economy was terrible for a very long time and newly graduates where the most disadvantaged.

Paul and Odette were poorly thought out plot points that were meant to hinder Rory/Logan. The writers didn't look past their own plot point to care how the main characters would be perceived. It was all about the endgame. Rory must be single when she utters those words. 

 

Regardless of how I feel about Paul, Rory came off as totally self centered dating someone whose name she barely remembers. I don't think they've spent any substantial time together and the guy thought more about their arrangement than Rory did but it should've ended in the first episode. The Odette plot was purely roadblock and nothing more.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Deputy Deputy CoS

[Sweet Tee]

Quote

 I seriously wonder if the intent is for the audience to sympathize or even care about Paul or Odette, when Rory and Logan get more screentime. 

I'm sure we're not supposed to care about Paul or Odette.  Paul is just a "funny" joke and Odette is merely a roadblock.  But, it doesn't matter to me that I've watched Rory and Logan for years (and have never, ever warmed to Logan at all).  I still think it's wrong to cheat on your partner.  Just break up with them if you don't want to be with them anymore.  I know Rory just kept forgetting to break up with Paul but I didn't find that funny either.  And in the end, she still never did it.  He did it.  What would she have done if he hadn't?  And the next time he saw her, she was pregnant with another man's baby?  I guess that would have forced the issue.  This is Rory's second affair.  I could forgive the first one because she was 19 and she seemed to genuinely feel awful about once it sank in what she'd done.  But, at this point, I'd say it's a pattern and she's just a self-centered asshole.  The other party getting hurt doesn't matter to her because the guys were "hers" first and she's Rory Gilmore, damnit!  She deserves what she wants. 

That came off angrier than I intended.  I just really haven't liked Rory since about mid season 4.  She's just been sliding downhill ever since.  And Logan didn't help that.

Quote

 

[JayInChicago]

The moving home thing didn't make any goddamn sense because she theoretically had various trust funds or just outright inheritances and what...did she blow through them already?!?!? Was she saving them for...when she was broke? Well, they laid it out that she was broke. To ignore that particular detail made me feel like AS/D P didn't even understand their own show. Where was Rory's money?

did I bring this up here already lol

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

9 minutes ago, JayInChicago said:

The moving home thing didn't make any goddamn sense because she theoretically had various trust funds or just outright inheritances and what...did she blow through them already?!?!? Was she saving them for...when she was broke? Well, they laid it out that she was broke. To ignore that particular detail made me feel like AS/D P didn't even understand their own show. Where was Rory's money?

did I bring this up here already lol

Just like Odette, Paul and most everything that had to do with Rory's plot, everything was geared towards a "full circle'. Talk about trying to fit a square into a circle.

Rory will never in a million years be poor. Unless it is self imposed and it won't resonate because it is self imposed. It was true before the she became pregnant with Logan's child that she'd never have financial problems based on inheritances from Trix and a more recent deceased  Richard alone.

She will also never be in Lorelai's shoes for the stupid circle to complete even if we disregard the economical differences between the two circumstances. The simple fact is that she and Logan are over a decade older than Lorelai/Chris were and have had years of meaningful/mature relationships. There is also the tiny problem with her parents being nothing like Emily and Richard. If ASP wants us to believe this f'cking circle nonsense, stripping Rory of her career and baring her from the father of the kid with lazy potholes is not be enough. She must de-age her, remove all support system, rewrite the relationship between Rory/Lorelai that was the heart of the show in order for that to be remotely possible. She can try that shit over Lorelai's dead body.

[Pam Poovey]

1 hour ago, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

Just like Odette, Paul and most everything that had to do with Rory's plot, everything was geared towards a "full circle'. Talk about trying to fit a square into a circle.

I just hated the whole "full circle", finding the idea that nobody ever does things differently from their parents to be not only lazy writing, but a poisonous idea. It suggests that there's no point trying in the GG universe as you are Calvinistically predestined to repeat your parents' actions.

The idea is ludicrous anyway. In real life I hardly know anyone who has literally done exactly what their parents did, and when they did, it was a conscious choice taken because their parents' lifestyle appealed to them. If nobody ever did differently from their parents, humans would still be living in trees eating fruit and nuts.

[blueray]

I agree with a lot of stuff that have been said on here so some of this if not most has been mentioned. The things I would change:

Rory: I would have still had her struggling with her career (as it's something a lot of our generation is). I would have had Rory have good work experience, however was laid off from the small paper she was working on for what ever reason, probably budget cuts. Then have Rory for the past year be trying to get jobs while freelancing for now (part of it would be interviewing that British woman) and starting to think maybe this wasn't the career for her (after that awful interview with that website).  Rory would have been prepared for it, but just not get it. I would have like most people got rite of the stupid Paul storyline. And I would have had Logan with the other woman, but have it that she knew he was also with Rory and didn't care as it was for status purpose not "love". I'm actually one of the few that like the LADB however I could have done without them. Most of all would have got rite of the last "four words". And have Rory end with seriously considering going back to school for teaching as she remembers her passion for reading and she would be getting paid a little to work for the local paper.

Loreali/Luke: I would have had them already ruled out having more kids as they are happy with how they are living now. They still would have the wedding storyline which mostly plays out the same.  Except Sookie, Jess, Emily and towns people are shown celebrating at their wedding party.

Emily: Most of her storyline would be kept. Except I would have had the maid speaking Spanish (and get rit of the stupid nobody understands her). I would have it clear that they asked Emily for help. And that she helped them. At the end when she sells the house it is just her that goes to cape cod (or wherever it was).

Lane: would have been working at the music store and clearly going to take over it as Carole king's character is retiring. The rest of her story would also be the same (as it was one of the parts I liked). I would still have her play with her band and show that her and Zach have a loving family with their sons.

Paris and Doyle: would have still been together :). And we'd get scenes with the two of them.

Star's Hollow: I would have deleted that stupid musical that took up way to much time and the fat jokes. I also would have either had those boys that were fanning them be a "towns thing" that Taylor started or got rite of it too. I also would have deleted the 30 something group as it made Rory seem really stuck up.

Edited February 5, 2017 by blueray

[hippielamb]

On 2/4/2017 at 8:42 AM, Sweet Tee said:

I'm sure we're not supposed to care about Paul or Odette.  Paul is just a "funny" joke and Odette is merely a roadblock.  But, it doesn't matter to me that I've watched Rory and Logan for years (and have never, ever warmed to Logan at all).  I still think it's wrong to cheat on your partner.  Just break up with them if you don't want to be with them anymore.  

I'm as sex positive as they come but I agree Rory should have been honest with Paul (and herself). She does avoid conflict though. I think the idea of Paul was attractive to her. Having a steady, bland boyfriend looks good. It feels like in almost every article or review, there is a aww, poor Paul attitude. We saw so little of their relationship that it's difficult for me to care about him, the same goes for Logan and Odette. I found Rory and Logan's relationship more interesting in their 30's than I ever did when they were in college. Probably because we got to see who they were as adults, as opposed to college kids. 

[HeySandyStrange]

42 minutes ago, hippielamb said:

I think the idea of Paul was attractive to her. Having a steady, bland boyfriend looks good.

I think someone else said it best, Rory is the human equivalent to pumpkin spice latte, aka basic. In real life she would have been someone's "Paul" by now imo. So why ASP thinks we are supposed to think Rory is beneath Paul is puzzling.

Really, I wonder why ASP thought it was a good idea to include Paul and Odette at all. They were basically non-entities and they only served to make the two main characters we are supposed to root for look bad. Rory and Logan could've been single and their story would've been much more interesting to me. It just seemed like a cheap device that took away from the characters and the story.

[Kohola3]

20 minutes ago, HeySandyStrange said:

It just seemed like a cheap device that took away from the characters and the story.

Absolutely.  There were so many minutes wasted on crap that could have been used to advance the story.  Lazy writing.

[nclpllm]

Quote

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.

This is so well said. In the run-up to the revival, when it was rumored that Rory was going to be struggling, I didn't believe/trust it to be as meaningful and honest as I thought it needed to be, i.e. Rory faces the fact that Mitchum was right, she didn't have it, and figure out what she'd be better suited for. I didn't think the Palladino's would ever admit that. In an interview she said they didn't want to say Rory wasn't a talented writer, just that she entered the field at an unfortunate time. They aren't willing to acknowledge that Rory isn't a special snowflake, or that the revival confirms her true character: an asshole.

So her "struggles" weren't fulfilling. Everything was just beneath her, and the only topic that sparked her interest was herself. 

Quote

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.

Oh my god, I thought I was the only one suspicious about this. ASP got all defensive and claimed total flexibility, making it sound like it was a communication problem on Melissa's end. I wanted to know WHEN she reached out- before or after she got flak? But it took the heat off ASP and shifted to MM's people, which is her instinct when being criticized.  

Someone mentioned ASP being bitter about having to write Luke/Lorelai, and I've thought that for a while. I don't read all of her interviews/commentary, because I always come away liking her less, but the DVD commentary for S5, she kept referring to L/L as 'we promised it in the pilot, and we delivered'. It sounded purely obligatory. She wrote herself into a corner with it, and couldn't put it off anymore. She has said her purpose for writing is 'to write for actors', and submitting to Luke meant she couldn't bring in actors she liked working with (i.e. all of Lorelai's other BFs). I think we've gathered that she doesn't care for outside opinion/feedback/ideas, so she probably doesn't like that she had to give in to what fans wanted. I've seen people say the only couple ASP ships is L/L, but I seriously doubt that. 

This, coupled with her belief that married people are boring, I guess it makes sense her Luke/Lorelai drama has always fallen short. 

I was in the minority, not enthusiastic about the revival, my hopes weren't high. I never believed ASP was capable of riding in on a white horse and making everything better, like people have insisted FOR YEARS. I know who made the show bad, I knew since S4 how adept she was at destroying characters. She had long been given a pass for writing in a way that should have lost her credibility. The revival made it clear for everyone that she isn't brilliant, but a hack. She can get defensive and dismissive and blame someone else (networks will ALWAYS be her favorite go-to), and be oblivious to how unlikable she writes her lead characters (probably because she put too much of herself in them/is enamored with them/herself); but now everyone sees her true colors.  

My expectations were much lower than most peoples. I had a feeling ASP doesn't/won't learn; doesn't care about what annoys people; would write her S7 and it would be like time froze in Stars Hollow. I was still surprised by HOW bad the revival was. I thought it would placate more people, leave them thinking ASP is a goddess, the one and only undisputed true queen of the Gilmore universe. The end made me feel similar to the end of How I Met Your Mother. They held onto the planned ending too long, and had to forced the characters into it. I never felt like this was the journey they were on. Rory was the great white hope, she said she wasn't going to get pregnant, she was would fulfill her dreams, do what Lorelai didn't get to do, even fulfill the grandparent's hope and have the life Lorelai didn't have (as in upper-middle class, nothing too extreme/over-the-top). They told us this for years. So for THIS the be the journey they were on, I feel really misled. Some plans need to be left behind.  

[Taryn74]

27 minutes ago, nclpllm said:

So for THIS the be the journey they were on, I feel really misled. Some plans need to be left behind.  

I want to jump up and give you a standing ovation for that post.  Seriously.  You put so many things into words for me.

27 minutes ago, nclpllm said:

So [Rory's] "struggles" weren't fulfilling. Everything was just beneath her, and the only topic that sparked her interest was herself. 

HA!  I love this statement so much I want to marry it.

30 minutes ago, nclpllm said:

ASP got all defensive and claimed total flexibility, making it sound like it was a communication problem on Melissa's end. I wanted to know WHEN she reached out- before or after she got flak? But it took the heat off ASP and shifted to MM's people, which is her instinct when being criticized.

I didn't keep up with all the revival talk beforehand, so I can't point to any interviews or articles or anything to back this up, but I remember the general feel of the situation seemed to be that ASP's excuse was she "assumed" Melissa would be "too busy" and never even asked her to do it until fans started questioning why she wasn't included.  Melissa, IIRC, was all "beats me why I haven't been asked, I'd love to be a part of it" and then suddenly she was brought in.  So yeah, the impression I got was that ASP's hand was forced, and we all know how well she reacts to that.  

37 minutes ago, nclpllm said:

Someone mentioned ASP being bitter about having to write Luke/Lorelai, and I've thought that for a while. I don't read all of her interviews/commentary, because I always come away liking her less, but the DVD commentary for S5, she kept referring to L/L as 'we promised it in the pilot, and we delivered'. It sounded purely obligatory. She wrote herself into a corner with it, and couldn't put it off anymore.

Remember the "where have all the anvils gone?" FND conversation in late Season 4?  You know, the one that was "easily the most pointless conversation we've ever had"?  I have long since maintained that was ASP getting in a jab at the fans.  We'd been getting anvils about L/L since the Pilot, and after four years still had nothing to show for it, and ASP was plain pissed off that fans would dare question her.  So, she was about to give us L/L, but she wasn't going to do it without acting like a petulant child first.  (I still imagine her sitting around in one of her stupid hats, cackling with glee as she wrote the scene where this never-before-even-hinted-at child walks into a diner and pulls a strand of hair out of a man's head.  *rage*)

[Kohola3]

Quote

I was in the minority, not enthusiastic about the revival, my hopes weren't high.

Absolutely spot on post. I, too, posted long ago that I feared that revival would be a bust.  And I have said it before and I will say it again - the revival was a big "screw you" from ASP to the fans.

[FictionLover]

7 hours ago, nclpllm said:

Someone mentioned ASP being bitter about having to write Luke/Lorelai, and I've thought that for a while. I don't read all of her interviews/commentary, because I always come away liking her less, but the DVD commentary for S5, she kept referring to L/L as 'we promised it in the pilot, and we delivered'. It sounded purely obligatory. She wrote herself into a corner with it, and couldn't put it off anymore. She has said her purpose for writing is 'to write for actors', and submitting to Luke meant she couldn't bring in actors she liked working with (i.e. all of Lorelai's other BFs). I think we've gathered that she doesn't care for outside opinion/feedback/ideas, so she probably doesn't like that she had to give in to what fans wanted. I've seen people say the only couple ASP ships is L/L, but I seriously doubt that. 

This, coupled with her belief that married people are boring, I guess it makes sense her Luke/Lorelai drama has always fallen short. 

I have always wondered this as well and it may have been me that had posted something like that. Season 1 was strong with the sexual tension, less in season 2, and they just seemed like friends in season 3.  Did ASP not like working with SP as time went on and changed her game plan but was forced to the pairing?  In the revival we were given a less than satisfactory LL story and 30 seconds of LL together for their wedding with a wimpy kiss.  And Scott's character was made more stupid than ever with an awful wig and wardrobe.  Besides his scene in the kitchen pouring his heart out to Lorelai and his diner scene with Jess, his character was very flat.  But to be fair, besides Emily, the girls were written poorly as well.

[junienmomo]

21 hours ago, FictionLover said:

I have always wondered this as well and it may have been me that had posted something like that. Season 1 was strong with the sexual tension, less in season 2, and they just seemed like friends in season 3.  Did ASP not like working with SP as time went on and changed her game plan but was forced to the pairing?  In the revival we were given a less than satisfactory LL story and 30 seconds of LL together for their wedding with a wimpy kiss.  And Scott's character was made more stupid than ever with an awful wig and wardrobe.  Besides his scene in the kitchen pouring his heart out to Lorelai and his diner scene with Jess, his character was very flat.  But to be fair, besides Emily, the girls were written poorly as well.

If we consider the LL relationship in the same way that others have recently discussed the Rory Logan relationship, it gets weird. 

ASP seems to have completely ignored Rory's and Logan's S7 growth, which is a shame. They were so interesting there.

But back to LL: if ASP was ignoring S7, then I am left with a WTF plot gap? How in the world did LL get over Lorelai sleeping with Christopher?

[FictionLover]

36 minutes ago, junienmomo said:

If we consider the LL relationship in the same way that others have recently discussed the Rory Logan relationship, it gets weird. 

ASP seems to have completely ignored Rory's and Logan's S7 growth, which is a shame. They were so interesting there.

But back to LL: if ASP was ignoring S7, then I am left with a WTF plot gap? How in the world did LL get over Lorelai sleeping with Christopher?

Other than Lorelai's marriage to Chris and Lane's twins, I think she did ignore season 7.  Luke also showed growth  that wasn't displayed in the revival.  But ASP is the one that wrote the storyline of Lorelai sleeping with Chris and she still ignored it along with Luke pushing Lorelai out of his life.  Maybe she recognized the hay bale maze apology and didn't feel she needed to address it. I think most of us LL shippers really would have liked to have at least heard the story of how the couple worked through all the crap she left us with in season 6.

[nclpllm]

Quote

Other than Lorelai's marriage to Chris and Lane's twins, I think she did ignore season 7.  

The was also the vague comments Chris made about Gigi (who is near and dear to me) being French, which I guess meant she either is with Sherry in France or sees her a lot, which was a S7 development. I new she'd be easily outsourced and unseen. 

She wouldn't have been able to force her ending for Rory if she'd watched/kept S7. Logan had to work for the family (again, still? who knows!) for the dynastic planning to work. Oh wait, it still doesn't. I read a spot-on article criticizing the claim that Rory, at 32, couldn't have a bow tied on her life. The title of the article said it all: Dear Amy Sherman-Palladino, Gilmore Girls isn't a gritty cable drama. How does she not know she's writing wish-fulfillment fantasy? Everyone else can see it. She made promises about Rory's future for years, and never intended to keep them. I am positive she thinks she's a good enough writer to get away with it, but she isn't. She proves the rule. Tie the bow!

But back to L/L. It's weird when you think about it. On one hand, it's obvious that time in Stars Hollow has stood still, and that this was ASP's S7, and yet the mess she made before leaving (backhalf of S6, up to and including dropping Lorelai in Chris's bed) was completely ignored, went unexplained. This was something I figured she wouldn't address. Too much work.

Quote

We'd been getting anvils about L/L since the Pilot, and after four years still had nothing to show for it, and ASP was plain pissed off that fans would dare question her.  

She's probably as annoyed about L/L shippers as much as she is about the Dean v. Jess "obsession" that she totally isn't responsible for (the debate has actually been Jess v. Logan, and she really did nothing to stop it, other than complain). But she has to keep quiet on L/L. She tries to play it cool, like she totally let's it roll off when she makes fans upset, but I don't think she actually wants to deal with the kind of backlash she'd get for admitting she is less supportive of the show's super couple.

Quote

 I remember the general feel of the situation seemed to be that ASP's excuse was she "assumed" Melissa would be "too busy" and never even asked her

This is exactly what I thought really happened, and I think it's even reasonable and understandable (still thought MM would get a courtesy invite), but rather than act gracious and say that she's happy for Melissa's success and would of course love to work with her again and incorrectly assumed she wouldn't be able to do it, she got defensive (and cussy, as she does, since she's so edgy: "look, she's really fucking busy") and pointed her finger. 

I've never heard this woman express any gratitude for being lucky to be on the air (only complaints about network and commercial breaks . . . is she not familiar with how TV works?), or appreciation for fans. And I'm sick of her stupid hats.

[Kohola3]

5 hours ago, nclpllm said:

And I'm sick of her stupid hats.

Here, here! So ostentatious.

[Allie56]

19 hours ago, nclpllm said:

Tie the bow!

I definitely agree that a certain level of bow-tying needed to happen. Also, burn the hats. 

I also think that it's a bit, I don't know, condescending that she felt the need to say she couldn't tie a bow on the show because life isn't like that. We know that. Even the lives of the Gilmore girls were never totally perfect. I think she just totally overestimated the amount of drama that Rory needed avoid what ASP calls "tying a bow" and what the rest of us call "creating enough conflict to build a storyline." Rory's life isn't a wide open field. It's a complete and utter shit show. Pick a lane! She doesn't have a home, or she feels like a sell out, or she can't find love, or Richard's death causes a bit of an existential spiral, or her career has stalled. Don't choose ALL OF THE ABOVE and add cheating, fat shaming, and gross entitlement to the mix. 

L/L was very strange for me in the revival. They were lying to each other for no reason. Well, for a show reason in that their lack of communication created ludicrous and unnecessary conflict. They seemed to talk but not hear each other. I didn't find it compelling. I found it frustrating because the plot didn't feel organic. I could practically feeling the writing: "they argue here about X, and this causes the strife necessary to get to Y." 

A lot of people have complained about the Stars Hollow musical taking up tons of unnecessary time, and I agree, but I felt that way about the Wild storyline as well. It was uncharacteristic of Lorelai to go on any sort of hike, let alone a MASSIVE undertaking like that. Hiking gear is expensive, so she dropped hundreds and hundreds of dollars and traveled across the country only to drop the whole thing immediately, after we've wasted precious time watching her struggle with her pack and bond with other hikers. It's all in service of LG's beautiful monologue about Richard and Luke's anguished declaration of love, but you could get to that point with her leaving Luke mid-argument and coming across a beautiful hill while driving around. 

I wish that, instead of Lorelai telling her horribly inappropriate sex story at her father's funeral, she just hadn't been able to say anything about him at all. That she couldn't talk about good memories with her father because she couldn't accept that he was gone, and that inability to verbalize happy memories was what drove a wedge between Lorelai and Emily. I hated the bad taste that Lorelai's stories of her father's cruelty left in my mouth. I mean, we all know that Richard was not a perfect father but he and Lorelai shared quite a few precious moments on the show. I didn't really need them to invent horrible childhood memories. 

Edited March 4, 2017 by Allie56

[hippielamb]

On 3/3/2017 at 3:17 PM, nclpllm said:

I've never heard this woman express any gratitude for being lucky to be on the air (only complaints about network and commercial breaks . . . is she not familiar with how TV works?), or appreciation for fans. And I'm sick of her stupid hats.

Lol that made me cackle so loud that I scared my dog. ;)

[TimetravellingBW]

7 hours ago, Allie56 said:

I definitely agree that a certain level of bow-tying needed to happen. Also, burn the hats. 

I also think that it's a bit, I don't know, condescending that she felt the need to say she couldn't tie a bow on the show because life isn't like that. We know that. Even the lives of the Gilmore girls were never totally perfect. I think she just totally overestimated the amount of drama that Rory needed avoid what ASP calls "tying a bow" and what the rest of us call "creating enough conflict to build a storyline." Rory's life isn't a wide open field. It's a complete and utter shit show. Pick a lane! She doesn't have a home, or she feels like a sell out, or she can't find love, or Richard's death causes a bit of an existential spiral, or her career has stalled. Don't choose ALL OF THE ABOVE and add cheating, fat shaming, and gross entitlement to the mix. 

A lot of people have complained about the Stars Hollow musical taking up tons of unnecessary time, and I agree, but I felt that way about the Wild storyline as well. It was uncharacteristic of Lorelai to go on any sort of hike, let alone a MASSIVE undertaking like that. Hiking gear is expensive, so she dropped hundreds and hundreds of dollars and traveled across the country only to drop the whole thing immediately, after we've wasted precious time watching her struggle with her pack and bond with other hikers. It's all in service of LG's beautiful monologue about Richard and Luke's anguished declaration of love, but you could get to that point with her leaving Luke mid-argument and coming across a beautiful hill while driving around. 

I wish that, instead of Lorelai telling her horribly inappropriate sex story at her father's funeral, she just hadn't been able to say anything about him at all. That she couldn't talk about good memories with her father because she couldn't accept that he was gone, and that inability to verbalize happy memories was what drove a wedge between Lorelai and Emily. I hated the bad taste that Lorelai's stories of her father's cruelty left in my mouth. I mean, we all know that Richard was not a perfect father but he and Lorelai shared quite a few precious moments on the show. I didn't really need them to invent horrible childhood memories. 

Ugh, so with you on the "life isn't like that" condescending front and - aside from being hugely hypocritical given GG has always been an idealized, shiny version of the world - it's not like life doesn't come together in some ways. People reach satisfying stages of their careers, they settle down into steady relationships and overcome personal baggage. 

But like you said Rory's life was a mess on every front and none of it pulled together: By the end she still had no career, no relationship answers and hadn't learned from her mistakes. ASP could have brought her to a somewhat conclusive point and still left some ambiguity. Rory could have given up on journalism, started a new career teaching at Chilton/writing her book and settled down permanently near Stars Hollow (fulfilling the "life isn't perfect/go the way we want" quota) and still had the shock pregnancy ending. That way fans at least got answers to part of her life. 

Alternatively, they could have cut out the pregnancy ending but still left her relationship status ambiguous. They could have had more explicit Rory/Jess hints: Have scenes with them reminiscing, hanging out, talking about books, the actors playing it more romantically, Rory gazing at Jess etc. before he had his longing look. (Bonus: It makes Jess look less pathetic and isn't as out of the blue). End with them dancing together at Luke and Lorelai's wedding or something, so it's more obvious. That way the show still ends on a question mark for Rory, she doesn't just neatly end up with a guy with her life all tied up but it's at least a more hopeful ending on the relationship front. (And doesn't end with her bogged down in cheating drama with an engaged guy). Preferably this version of events would involve some guilt and reform on Rory's end. 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who disliked the Wild storyline! It was disconnected from GG world and out of character. Yes Lorelai's story about Richard was beautiful and it was good getting some insight with her talking to the other women but the process was inorganic. (Right down to her being a book  rather than movie person). Jeez, if Lorelai was going to go on some journey of self-discovery it would be a roadtrip of the best coffee places across America. (Idk, she tries all these different coffees and realizes that Luke's coffee is the only stuff she wants and that's her big realization moment?? Super corny, but at least in character and relates to the show). And I felt disconnected from her big monologue about standing still because it was to these random women we never met. I didn't care about those lives and them bonding with Lorelai. It would make more sense in a conversation to a known character - Michel, Emily, Rory, Sookie, Lane, hell even Kirk. 

I agree Lorelai not being able to say anything about Richard would have been better than her awkward stories. (Which didn't really fit their relationship or the back story anyway). And imo Lorelai would have been more sympathetic if she didn't spend ages trying to escape saying anything. She could have literally just woken up as Emily asked her for a story, was disconcerted, on the spot and couldn't think of anything. Instead she spent 5 minutes trying to sneak away when she had time to think of something.  (Plus the scene gave the audience 5 minutes to remember things she could say and get annoyed). Not being able to produce something in 20 seconds is understandable - a few minutes not so much. It made Lorelai look horrible that she had the energy to plot her escape but not pull up a memory of her father. And her "mistake" seemed more deliberate and actively anti her parents.

Edited March 4, 2017 by TimetravellingBW

[Allie56]

1 hour ago, TimetravellingBW said:

it's not like life doesn't come together in some ways. People reach satisfying stages of their careers, they settle down into steady relationships and overcome personal baggage. 

Exactly! What about Rory's life is good? Even her relationship with Lorelai is tainted by repeatedly lying about visiting Didi in London. Homeless, hapless, jobless, unprofessional, untrusted by (the admittedly unhinged and unpredictable) Naomi Schropshire, unwanted by Sandee Says, unfaithful to her boyfriend, and, to top it all off, going commando. I actually really liked Naomi, which might be an unpopular opinion, and I thought she'd make an amazing memoir. I would read the crap out of that book. It was just another example of Rory being unsatisfied with the options before her. Naomi Schropshire? Rory's bored and annoyed and happy to be rid of her. Sandee Says? They should be happy she deigned to visit their office. The thirtysomething gang? A bunch of losers she can't hang out with. Chilton? She considered grad school, but that, too, is just not what she envisioned for herself. People have done - and continue to do - much worse jobs to keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables. I really want to love Rory, but as so many recent articles have discussed, she's kind of awful in my opinion. 

And to add to the bow discussion, ASP says life doesn't have a bow on it, but this show has the Life and Death Brigade and a magical tango club and choreographed strutting down magical avenues and young men with enough money to easily buy up businesses and inns on drunken whims. BUT NO BOWS, PEOPLE! I BEG YOU! NO BOWS!

I still don't think I hated the revival as much as a lot of people. I found it mostly watchable, and I would have enjoyed it a lot more if Rory hadn't been such a clustercuss. I love all of the random weirdos of Stars Hollow, and I wish we could have seen more of them. I think I just wish we'd had a lot less aimless stuff that went nowhere. Lorelai and Luke went to Paris's fertility clinic and wasted her time because they hadn't really discussed it. I liked the idea of Lorelai and Emily in therapy, but instead the therapist was ineffectual and it all went down the drain. The musical, of course. It could have been a lot tighter. 

[junienmomo]

I won't reiterate all of the very good insights in the previous messages, with which I heartily agree, but I will add the following: 

• ASP tied the biggest friggin' bow around Rory herself by giving her easy access to millions of dollars. Her own minor trust fund, daddy Christopher, Emily, who would do anything for her granddaughter. It just makes me see even more clearly how lacking in perspective and initiative Rory is. Her baby will lack for nothing except perhaps a mother with common sense.
• For all that the Wild thing didn't make sense, as well as the Richard anecdote problem, it was an epiphany for me to hear Lorelai talk about being ostracized for being loud and weird. That told me a lot about her character and the reasons she didn't want to remain in Hartford.

[TimetravellingBW]

8 hours ago, Allie56 said:

Exactly! What about Rory's life is good? Even her relationship with Lorelai is tainted by repeatedly lying about visiting Didi in London. Homeless, hapless, jobless, unprofessional, untrusted by (the admittedly unhinged and unpredictable) Naomi Schropshire, unwanted by Sandee Says, unfaithful to her boyfriend, and, to top it all off, going commando. I actually really liked Naomi, which might be an unpopular opinion, and I thought she'd make an amazing memoir. I would read the crap out of that book. It was just another example of Rory being unsatisfied with the options before her. Naomi Schropshire? Rory's bored and annoyed and happy to be rid of her. Sandee Says? They should be happy she deigned to visit their office. The thirtysomething gang? A bunch of losers she can't hang out with. Chilton? She considered grad school, but that, too, is just not what she envisioned for herself. People have done - and continue to do - much worse jobs to keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables. I really want to love Rory, but as so many recent articles have discussed, she's kind of awful in my opinion. 

And to add to the bow discussion, ASP says life doesn't have a bow on it, but this show has the Life and Death Brigade and a magical tango club and choreographed strutting down magical avenues and young men with enough money to easily buy up businesses and inns on drunken whims. BUT NO BOWS, PEOPLE! I BEG YOU! NO BOWS!

I found Naomi hilarious as well, I get why she was so difficult to work with and the memoir may never get written but she was a really entertaining character. But yeah, the problem was Rory was so apathetic about about so many opportunities. Stopping working with Naomi on it's own was understandable but it was part of a pattern of Rory refusing to make an effort with anything: Sandee Says, grad school, Chilton, the thirty-something gang, the Lines piece, she even seemed to get tired of the Gazette. And a lot of those were chances other people would kill for.

And seriously ASP, GG is a show made for pretty bow tying and happy endings: In the OS Rory was practically the town princess, and achieved an unrealistic number of goals from Ivy League acceptances, student VP and editor of the YDN. And Lorelai did a riches-to-rags-to-riches fairytale story (complete with questionable finances, home ownership and business success), and lived in a town that is literally referred to as living in a snow globe. Not to mention ASP's take on how the elites apparently live in the stratified social classes of 19th century Europe. This was never a show that was gritty and serious - it wan an idealized, romanticized version of life. You can't turn around at the last minute and change your mind. Know your audience, or for that matter know your freaking genre. 

2 hours ago, junienmomo said:

I won't reiterate all of the very good insights in the previous messages, with which I heartily agree, but I will add the following: 

• ASP tied the biggest friggin' bow around Rory herself by giving her easy access to millions of dollars. Her own minor trust fund, daddy Christopher, Emily, who would do anything for her granddaughter. It just makes me see even more clearly how lacking in perspective and initiative Rory is. Her baby will lack for nothing except perhaps a mother with common sense.
• For all that the Wild thing didn't make sense, as well as the Richard anecdote problem, it was an epiphany for me to hear Lorelai talk about being ostracized for being loud and weird. That told me a lot about her character and the reasons she didn't want to remain in Hartford.

That bit really stuck out to me too and I wish they'd explored it more in the original series. Framing Lorelai as something of a weirdo and misfit growing up totally changes my perception of her and makes her much more sympathetic. Based on the OS it seemed like she'd been just as popular and adored growing up as she was as an adult in Stars Hollow. (The episode where she hung out with the Chilton mom's and they fawned over her comes to mind).  It felt like she chose not to fit into that upper class life rather than not being able to. But Lorelai growing up being teased and looked down upon by her peers because she's "loud and weird" utterly changes that. It makes her finding a home and friends with the weirdos in Stars Hollow much more heartwarming and her discomfort with her parent's world more about insecurity rather than petulance. 

[FictionLover]

I would have loved to have seen after Jess broke the wifi in the diner that all the old regulars came back to the diner and it returned to be the heart of the town.  I missed the craziness of breakfast at Luke's.

[Lady Calypso]

9 hours ago, TimetravellingBW said:

I found Naomi hilarious as well, I get why she was so difficult to work with and the memoir may never get written but she was a really entertaining character. But yeah, the problem was Rory was so apathetic about about so many opportunities. Stopping working with Naomi on it's own was understandable but it was part of a pattern of Rory refusing to make an effort with anything: Sandee Says, grad school, Chilton, the thirty-something gang, the Lines piece, she even seemed to get tired of the Gazette. And a lot of those were chances other people would kill for.

Thinking about this, Rory was really, really rude in the way she handled the Naomi situation. Much like the Sandee Says opportunity, she didn't hold back on her feelings and kept it super unprofessional. Because of it, she did cut all ties with both prospective jobs. These were actual jobs and she treated it like a chore, as if she was doing a friend a favour or something. Even if I can understand why Rory wouldn't want to work for Naomi, she was so blatantly rude to Naomi's lawyer. They relegated Rory into a whiny adult who has no care for professional courtesy or any professionalism whatsoever. She can be perfectly nice when something is going her way but when it isn't, she just doesn't care and she shows it to anyone in a close proximity. She is bored by a source's story? She falls asleep right in front of him. She sleeps with another source. There's a difference between being confident and being cocky, and Rory was, for the most part, extremely cocky and assuming that she was better than the jobs she was going for.

She treated the Gazette as a volunteer opportunity until she found something better. And with the pregnancy at the end of the revival, it's pretty obvious that she's going to be unhappy with the Gazette being a more permanent position. In her mind, the Gazette was clearly a temporary job until she could move to New York. ASP and DP didn't attempt to make Rory any sort of likable in the revival. I wish they had, because all I saw was rudeness. She shared one or two scenes with Lane, she shared a minor subplot with Paris but didn't seem as supportive, even if they tried by giving her a nanny role for two scenes, and she really seemed to isolate herself by lying about her affair with Logan and ignoring her own boyfriend 100% of the time. 

All they needed to do for me was allow her to find her path as a teacher, have her life get more stable before throwing in an unplanned pregnancy. At 32 years old, she should be better than me, a struggling 23 year old, especially when Rory has even more opportunities with Emily's wealth, Logan's connections, and Lorelai's support. 

[nclpllm]

On 3/4/2017 at 10:03 AM, Allie56 said:

L/L was very strange for me in the revival. They were lying to each other for no reason.

They were really strange. Whatever episode it was where Luke found out Emily wasn't going to therapy anymore and Lorelai pretends like they are, about 20 minutes after it ended I thought, oh god, Luke didn't confront her about that, it's going to have to come up again. And then when it did it was even worse than I anticipated. "You're cheating." Dear god that's bad. I actually just had a dream, where Jason left 14 messages for Lorelai after the funeral (I got the impression he's a sad old bachelor who never found happiness with any woman after Lorelai (because no one can come close to her, of course) and would have made a move if she was single (Chris Eigeman sold it with his eyes); but I don't think anyone else was concerned with it). Then Luke accusing her of cheating vaguely made sense. You know, as much as dream thoughts can make sense, lol. 

Luke/Loreliai's whole story had me asking, why are they doing this now? Why are they still acting like this? And I didn't like the backpack struggle, or the inappropriate funeral memories. The good memory was very good, made me shed a tear. But the drama to get there was not worth it. 

On 3/5/2017 at 4:21 AM, TimetravellingBW said:

And seriously ASP, GG is a show made for pretty bow tying and happy endings: In the OS Rory was practically the town princess, and achieved an unrealistic number of goals from Ivy League acceptances, student VP and editor of the YDN. And Lorelai did a riches-to-rags-to-riches fairytale story (complete with questionable finances, home ownership and business success), and lived in a town that is literally referred to as living in a snow globe. Not to mention ASP's take on how the elites apparently live in the stratified social classes of 19th century Europe. This was never a show that was gritty and serious - it wan an idealized, romanticized version of life. You can't turn around at the last minute and change your mind. Know your audience, or for that matter know your freaking genre. 

Don't forget the harems of men for each Gilmore girl, fighting over each other in the hopes of being "lucky" enough to be included in their lives; or how there were hardly ever consequences for Rory's actions. I was a shy bookish girl in high school, and yet even then I knew Rory was not relateable. And that, I think, is a big problem with wish-fulfillment. It became impossible to root for her, back in S5. True to life, Rory's life was not. She effortlessly got everything, was adored by all (even when it wan't remotely deserved, by S6 it was laughable). So I agree with you, to suddenly try what's "real" (taken with a grain of salt since ASP's version of reality is clearly warped) at the very end wasn't true to the universe she created. I seriously wonder what ASP thinks she's writing. 

Since she likes parallels so much, I actually find several between her and a certain reality TV star turned high profile government leader (I know politics are't allowed here, so I won't even mention him by name). As a schadenfreude bonus, ASP hates him. Call me crazy, but I think they're birds of a feather. I posted about it on my livejournal (I'm m_redhead there) if anyone wants to consider the theory. 

[qtpye]

On 3/7/2017 at 7:34 PM, nclpllm said:

Don't forget the harems of men for each Gilmore girl, fighting over each other in the hopes of being "lucky" enough to be included in their lives; or how there were hardly ever consequences for Rory's actions. I was a shy bookish girl in high school, and yet even then I knew Rory was not relateable. And that, I think, is a big problem with wish-fulfillment. It became impossible to root for her, back in S5. True to life, Rory's life was not. She effortlessly got everything, was adored by all (even when it wan't remotely deserved, by S6 it was laughable). So I agree with you, to suddenly try what's "real" (taken with a grain of salt since ASP's version of reality is clearly warped) at the very end wasn't true to the universe she created. I seriously wonder what ASP thinks she's writing.

Yes, I was glad that Dean had a happy life and moved on, because I was afraid that every man that Rory had come into contact with, would still be pining away for her after all these years, because she is that phenomenal of a person.

It annoyed me when we are to believe that Jess still has a thing for her, but it might make sense given their history.  The Logan affair was stupid.  What is this fricken Victorian dynastic plans that Logan must fulfill?  If Prince William can marry a commoner and make her the future Queen of England, I think the grand Huntzberger name will not be tainted if Logan is with ivy league educated Rory, who also comes from a pedigreed family.  There was no reason for them not to be dating instead of cheating, except it would not create the necessary soap opera drama needed for ASP's version of "realness".

Edited March 9, 2017 by qtpye

[Chewy101]

On 1/11/2017 at 4:01 PM, apgold said:

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.

She was Lorelei. Immature girls is her specialty.

[junienmomo]

I would give up everything except the LL wedding if they would have delivered one episode as good as Pushkin was. Beautifully shot and lit, great A and B stories; even Paris' C story was good. AB even showed some decent acting skills.

Sigh.

 

 

[JayInChicago]

I don't understand Rory's beef with Naomi S.  those are the kind of people you have to deal with when you do a job like that Rory! 

I imagine Naomi S being a little like ASP. I imagine ASP is about that much fun to work with...

[Chewy101]

Re-watching the series, getting through season 7 now. I find it ironic that Logan's business failed and he melted down, only to be kicked in the butt by Rory. He was all of 25. Considering Rory has meltdown after meltdown- even STILL having them in her 30's in the Netflix thing, I think the boy escaped a bullet. Just like Jess and Dean did. How does she manage to justify her wretched actions, and we are supposed to believe the boys she dates are "bad?" Total double standard. The same one Lorelei gets, only Lor makes more sense to me, considering her upbringing. Rory grew up in Disneyland. What is her deal. She has everything paid for, never even has a job like her highschool friends did... And when she gets her first job right after graduation, after fretting about the interview for days, she immediately doesn't want it anymore. She gets hugged daily by an entire village and still sleeps with a married man and then sleeps with a taken man on Netflix. Why is she such a nightmare.

Still loving Paris in season 7. I know a poor interview kept her from attending Harvard, but I'm glad to see she got into every master's program she applied for after Yale. She works so hard, while Rory wastes endless time having breakdowns. She even rallied Rory their final year. 

Not happy with Paris' write in the Netflix thing. I'm glad she's successful, but why did her marriage have to be destroyed. Only one or the other can survive? That's crap.

I'm glad the bitchy writer didn't destroy Lane as she destroyed everyone else. Some things are sacred. 

[Chewy101]

Change Lauren Grahams's face back. I've complained before, so I apologize, but Dear God. She gestures with her head because her actual face wont move, and she is disturbing! Watching season 7 and straight into the revival is jarring. She looks like some cheap soap star. She also looks more like Emily's crazy sister than her daughter. If the writing didn't do this thing in, her plastic surgery did. 

[glorie]

On Thursday, March 09, 2017 at 4:21 PM, qtpye said:

Yes, I was glad that Dean had a happy life and moved on, because I was afraid that every man that Rory had come into contact with, would still be pining away for her after all these years, because she is that phenomenal of a person.

It annoyed me when we are to believe that Jess still has a thing for her, but it might make sense given their history.  The Logan affair was stupid.  What is this fricken Victorian dynastic plans that Logan must fulfill?  If Prince William can marry a commoner and make her the future Queen of England, I think the grand Huntzberger name will not be tainted if Logan is with ivy league educated Rory, who also comes from a pedigreed family.  There was no reason for them not to be dating instead of cheating, except it would not create the necessary soap opera drama needed for ASP's version of "realness".

"Dynastic plan" can in my opinion only mean two things:

1. Odette is pregnant - they are creating dynasty, and both their families are so happy.  This was Logan's and Odette's goal -  to give birth to new heir for their families. Perhaps after several years of marriage and certain number of kids "they will be free" and will be able to divorce (if they will want to).

2. Or Logan is a typical cheater and "dynastic plan" is an excuse he is using. For cheaters "relationships are always bad, but there are certain circumstances that prevent them to leave their significant other". In this scenario Logan doesn't love Rory, he probably cares more for Odette than for Rory. But Rory is his "mistress" and she is willing to do anything for him.

 

I've loved Jess and Rory in original series. However, I'm not sure, that I still want them together. But not because Rory is a mess. I love flawed Rory. But there were no evidence of their romantic attachment in revival. And they dated almost 15 years ago in high school. It was too long ago. It would seem strange, if they are still in love with each other. I was happy about Dean's good life too.

Edited March 18, 2017 by glorie

[clack]

Rather than the viewers being dropped into the middle of an ongoing affair, why not show Rory and Logan meeting for the 1st time in 10 years so we get to see the affair from its beginning?

Both characters would have been seen in a more sympathetic light. Rory just back from Richard's funeral, struggling with her career, maybe already thinking about writing her memoir and feeling nostalgic -- then she runs into Logan. She always wondered whether she did the right thing in refusing Logan's proposal -- is this her 2nd chance?

And Logan : yes he's engaged, but he and Odette are not living in the same country, he's worrying whether marrying her is the right decision, and then comes along a woman from his past who he had loved intensely, and who had rejected him. Having a brief affair with Rory under those circumstances is still wrong, but more understandable.

[Chewy101]

On 3/18/2017 at 9:00 AM, clack said:

And Logan : yes he's engaged, but he and Odette are not living in the same country, he's worrying whether marrying her is the right decision, and then comes along a woman from his past who he had loved intensely, and who had rejected him. Having a brief affair with Rory under those circumstances is still wrong, but more understandable.

Odette moved in with him well into this revival mess. He was not only claiming commitment, but living with her. There is nothing left to understand about Rory being as much of a jerk as Logan was to this woman. And Rory did not just come along, did she? We were introduced to something that had already been going on, meanwhile she was treating her own boyfriend like garbage and it was supposed to be funny. Rory showed zero respect for relationships, herself, another woman, etc.... So I guess she deserves her counterpart, Logan. Let two jerks live happily ever after. Even a village raising this girl couldn't save her from being an A**hole.

Edited to stay on topic, of what I would change. I would change RORY. For me, there is no sympathetic light left to shine on her behavior. They crucifed her character. 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Chewy101

[clack]

^ 

I don't understand what the above has to do with the topic, " what we would change". Rory would have been more sympathetic if she didn't even know about Odette. Logan would have been more sympathetic if he didn't remain engaged while keeping Rory as his long-term mistress, but rather fell impulsively into an affair with Rory, and then had to make a choice : should he remain with Rory, or break off his engagement?

Rory's whole arc could have been so much cleaner. Winter we get her career struggles, the meta-joke about forgettable Paul, climaxed by her resolve to write her memoir about her high school and college years.

This would have left her the next 3 episodes to revisit her past, and make her reunions with Dean, Jess, and Logan seem more organic to the story.

[txhorns79]

Quote

She expects the job to be given to her.

I'll defend Rory a little on that, and say that I can see why Rory would have that impression.  Sandee was pretty misleading in the way she dealt with Rory, and from their conversations, I can see why Rory would not necessarily understand that she was being offered an interview, rather than a job. 

[nclpllm]

On 3/10/2017 at 5:03 AM, Chewy101 said:

Not happy with Paris' write in the Netflix thing. I'm glad she's successful, but why did her marriage have to be destroyed. Only one or the other can survive? That's crap.

Because ASP thinks married people are boring. I have nothing against Doyle and was surprised they were divorced. But I was more disheartened/confused to see Paris full circling with her kids. It looks like they'll be seeing more of the nanny than Paris, to mirror her relationship with her parents.

 

On 3/18/2017 at 3:13 PM, clack said:

Rory would have been more sympathetic if she didn't even know about Odette.

That's what I always thought about the affair with Dean. If it had been a new guy who didn't tell her he was married, and then she felt awful and put an end to the affair, I would have tolerated it. But she knew about Lindsay. I can count what I liked about the revival on one hand, and Dean being happy and not pining was one of the best parts. 

"Dynastic Planning" is just such a weird, ridiculously outdated way to force the single mother angle. And it made Rory and Logan such unlikable jerks. At least with the one night stand, she might not know the guy's name or where to find him. I guess ASP really really wanted the entire Luke/Lorelai/Chris triangle to repeat. The means did not justify the end. Or vice versa, for that matter.

Edited March 25, 2017 by nclpllm