Gilmore Girls in the Media

[msani19]

5 hours ago, CheeseBurgh said:

8 hours ago, maraleia said:

So I found this review and I agree with it entirely. ASP really dropped the ball on a lot of things with this revival.

http://www.theestablishment.co/2016/11/29/gilmore-girls-a-year-in-the-life-has-a-white-feminism-problem/

 

 

Thanks for the link, that is a very insightful review.

 

Yup. Here's another take on the lack of diversity or diversity issue in the show. The show has always had it, I think the times have changed enough that we will call it out. 

http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/30/13799424/gilmore-girls-diversity-tumblr-racism-casting-netflix

[Minneapple]

14 hours ago, maraleia said:

So I found this review and I agree with it entirely. ASP really dropped the ball on a lot of things with this revival.

http://www.theestablishment.co/2016/11/29/gilmore-girls-a-year-in-the-life-has-a-white-feminism-problem/

I agree with some of the review, but...it's kind of shallow and paint-by-the-numbers. Like the writer had a thesis and then fit the show around that thesis. The writer completely ignores Mrs. Kim and Lane and the fact that Lane and Zack are an interracial couple. And there's no mention that Berta and her family are the first people that Emily has let into her home on a full-time basis, that they help her heal from Richard's death, that they move with her to Nantucket...

The fat-shaming was really cringeworthy, I agree. For a writer who cast Melissa McCarthy whose weight was never once brought up in the original series (compare that to Kate on This Is Us, whose entire storyline centers around her weight), that seems backwards.

And this:

Quote

Pop-culture references remain in the reboot, but the harsh and inescapable realities of the real world—a world of Black Lives Matter, police brutality, a revival of the KKK, backlash to marriage equality, increased violence against the transgender community, and Donald Trump (though of course, the election itself happened after the show wrapped)—are glaringly absent.

The world has always been harsh and inescapable (9/11 happened less than a year after the Gilmore Girls pilot originally aired). But Stars Hollow never was touched by the harsh realities of the world; it was an escape from reality, a little corner of happy hyper-reality if you will. I can't tell you how many people I talked to who noted that they were going to binge on Gilmore Girls as part of an escape over the Thanksgiving holiday. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Minneapple

[twoods]

Exactly. I don't watch Gilmore Girls to remind myself of all the social stuff going on at this time- for most of us it was an escape to a town that brought a lot of happy TV memories (and sad ones).

I also wasn't bothered by the "lack of diversity" because it wasn't glaring to me- with Lane and Michel, and Berta and her family, plus an interracial couple with actual interracial children! I do agree that the Emily/Berta stereotype was a little annoying but with the way Emily was, I never felt it was out of character. There were definitely things that bothered me about the revival (eloquently stated in the above article), but it has room to grow. Hopefully ASP reads the critiques and does a better job with the second half.

[pennben]

Yes! The death of Florence Henderson this past week or so and her comments earlier about the Brady Bunch reminds us all that it's sometimes nice to have a show that ignores the politics of the times.  That show was during Vietnam and you'd never know it.  An escapism show here and there in awful times is a good thing.

[FictionLover]

My entertainment world is my escape from politics and injustices of the world. Being a part of the "snow globe" town is just what what I'm looking for when it's time to relax. I don't want a writer's agenda trying to influence viewers, we have news channels for that :)

[msani19]

I'm fascinated by the comments that suggest that wanting diversity in the show would somehow lessen the ability for us to escape into the "snow globe".  I might be misinterpreting what I'm reading. Diversity doesn't mean including any of the things that are in the news. I don't need there to be real-life issues in Stars Hollow. Wanting to have more varied people (besides Michel and Lane) wouldn't take away the escapism for me, more people of color doesn't mean now the show has to address social justice just because they are included/on screen. If that takes away the lightness and escapism, then it makes me wonder.

The way they finally addressed Michel being gay was fine. He didn't nor did any of the other characters go on a diatribe about gay marriage. He's married and was living his life. No social justice issues need addressing. He talks about the things anyone would talk about when married, like having kids. 

They do throw out terms we hear now but in a way to mock things which is why I wouldn't trust this team/pair of writers to handle real-world issues very well, outside of what they did with Michel, but that's likely due to knowing gay people making it relatable. I believe Lane is based on a Korean friend of ASP, so again someone she knows of in the real world. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by msani19
Spelling

[Minneapple]

38 minutes ago, msani19 said:

I'm fascinated by the comments that suggest that wanting diversity in the show would somehow lessen the ability for us to escape into the "snow globe".  I might be misinterpreting what I'm reading. Diversity doesn't mean including any of the things that are in the news. I don't need there to be real-life issues in Stars Hollow. Wanting to have more varied people (besides Michel and Lane) wouldn't take away the escapism for me, more people of color doesn't mean now the show has to address social justice just because they are included/on screen. If that takes away the lightness and escapism, then it makes me wonder.

Nobody said they didn't want more diversity, so yes you're misinterpreting the comments. There are two separate issues. It was the comment about GG needing to be more aware of news issues that people were responding to. We agree that GG does not need to include or even be aware of real life issues outside of pop culture references.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Minneapple

[msani19]

2 minutes ago, Minneapple said:

Nobody said they didn't want more diversity, so yes you're misinterpreting the comments. There are two separate issues

Fair enough. I'm glad I was reading too much into the other comments. 

[random chance]

9 hours ago, Minneapple said:

The fat-shaming was really cringeworthy, I agree. For a writer who cast Melissa McCarthy whose weight was never once brought up in the original series (compare that to Kate on This Is Us, whose entire storyline centers around her weight), that seems backwards.

There was fat-shaming on GG, it just wasn't directed at Sookie.

[tarotx]

Why Gilmore Girls' Obsession with Oz Is the Key to A Year in the Life

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/11/why-gilmore-girls-obsession-with-oz-is-the-key-to.html

Edited December 1, 2016 by tarotx

[Melancholy]

5 minutes ago, tarotx said:

Why Gilmore Girls' Obsession with Oz Is the Key to A Year in the Life

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/11/why-gilmore-girls-obsession-with-oz-is-the-key-to.html

This was clever. Thank you. 

[Winter Rose]

Gilmore Girls creators: Rory didn't get a 'happy ending'

[stillshimpy]

Thanks for the link, Winter Rose, that was Amy at her most likable and I appreciated her perspective.  

[random chance]

It's weird to me that abortion isn't even on the table as an option, it's just a given that Rory pregnant = Rory has a baby. Like it's the sixties and not 2016. (Or 2017 not 2016, the way things are going.)

[msani19]

35 minutes ago, random chance said:

It's weird to me that abortion isn't even on the table as an option, it's just a given that Rory pregnant = Rory has a baby. Like it's the sixties and not 2016. (Or 2017 not 2016, the way things are going.)

 

I came back to the boards to see if anyone had seen this story (link below) and saw your very timely comment. It's been an interesting TV year, because there have been some shows I've seen (Jane the Virgin, Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, I think Scandal, don't remember if it was this year or last) that have had characters have an abortion. We would have NEVER EVER seen that happen before, not even 5 years ago. I'd be surprised that ASP went that route, but I could just as easily see her doing it. I know she's pro-choice (as am I, not that anyone asked :-)). Based on the intensity of the reactions to Rory being pregnant, I could only imagine the reaction to Rory having an abortion. I guess this can be added to season 2 speculation.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/krystieyandoli/your-life-should-not-have-a-bow-on-it-at-32 

[Lady Calypso]

Here's another interview from Amy (it's two pages so you gotta scroll to the bottom to get to the next page):

http://tvline.com/2016/12/01/gilmore-girls-a-year-in-the-life-amy-sherman-palladino-interview-final-four-words/

Just some things she confirms, like the original plan was Rory getting pregnant at 22 right after college, ASP and DP had no idea how season 7 ended when they started figuring out the revival, ASP is disappointed in Lane getting pregnant (which I guess is why the boys only showed up in the revival for three seconds) and she didn't want Lane with kids in the revival, and ASP and DP are not thinking about a revival right now. 

Some other interesting things in this interview include:

• Amy does throw out the idea that Rory doesn't have to keep the baby and she does have choices. 
• Apparently, people are still questioning if Logan's the father, but ASP does bring the question around to Rory. I'm actually impressed by her answer to this particular question.
• That being said, ASP is still being a bit coy with the whole "the baby daddy can be anybody" line.
• Lorelai didn't send Emily the nasty letter.

And there's other things in the interview as well. 

[random chance]

If I had to use one word to describe ASP it would be disingenuous. It's always a mystery to her why fans think that the things she deliberately sets in motion are, in fact, set in motion!

[RoyRogersMcFreely]

I just get a feeling of being talked down to. Like, you damn kids are watching my show wrong just because we care about Rory's romantic relationships. I feel like there is a bit of a double standard when it comes to the girls love lives. I had to watch Lorelai struggle for so many years to have it all but that's okay because it was more "adult" and its childish to hope for some kind of happiness for Rory at 32.

[NumberCruncher]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of any showrunner who tells me I'm watching their show wrong (and ASP is hardly alone in this regard).  As a viewer, I'm going to interpret the show as I see it play out on my screen.  It's not the viewer's fault if things are not spelled out exactly how an EP/writer imagines them.  If they leave plot holes and missing character motivations to be filled in then the audience is going to fill them.  If I see OOC moments then I'm going to acknowledge them as such.  If there's a whole season that the showrunner decides not to watch that doesn't mean it didn't happen...etc., etc.

[starri]

2 minutes ago, NumberCruncher said:

Yeah, I'm not a fan of any showrunner who tells me I'm watching their show wrong

*cough*Joss Whedon*cough*

[TyranAmiros]

I actually kind of admire the way she refocused the question. The way she'd rather put the focus on Rory's agency rather than the men in Rory's life is a storytelling choice I appreciate. Coming from the Arrow fandom, I guess what ASP said strikes me more as "you should also think about it like this..." rather than "shippers are watching our show wrong."

[random chance]

9 minutes ago, TyranAmiros said:

I actually kind of admire the way she refocused the question. The way she'd rather put the focus on Rory's agency rather than the men in Rory's life is a storytelling choice I appreciate.

If fans think the men in Rory's life are the focus and not her career, that's on ASP, not the fans. The show did end with Rory saying she's pregnant, not Rory describing how she's going to (for example) use her trust fund to buy the Stars Hollow newspaper and turn it back into a newspaper that matters.

[Lady Calypso]

8 minutes ago, TyranAmiros said:

I actually kind of admire the way she refocused the question. The way she'd rather put the focus on Rory's agency rather than the men in Rory's life is a storytelling choice I appreciate. Coming from the Arrow fandom, I guess what ASP said strikes me more as "you should also think about it like this..." rather than "shippers are watching our show wrong."

This was my initial thought when reading this interview. Even with a lot of my issues with ASP, the way she answered that question was far from it. I think it helps that ASP put herself into the position of a shipper with other TV shows, and she doesn't discredit those fans. She even adds this point:

Quote

But I always feel a lot of people overlook a lot more of Rory because the focus was so much on the romance. And I didn’t want this moment to be about a boy. The moment was about, “Here’s what I’m going through in my life now!” It’s an ‘Oh, s—t’ moment about Rory. 

I took that as her saying that Rory's story revolves around romance, but it isn't the essential part of who she is. So even if I don't love the ending to Rory's story, I get where she's coming from in this particular answer, in that it's about Rory. I mean, I disagree with her about her opinion about Rory being overlooked, but I kind of understand where she's coming from and where she's getting this impression (a lot of arguments with Rory are about Team Logan vs Team Jess; it's why I was fine with Milo, in another interview, redirecting that question about Team Jess or Team Logan to make it about Jess being Team Rory or not). 

[dubbel zout]

3 hours ago, random chance said:

It's weird to me that abortion isn't even on the table as an option

It could be.

[photo fox]

From that article...

Quote

“32 is frickin’ young, man.”

Only, it's really not, whether you're talking about babies, or relationships, or Rory's career.  Why does ASP persist in acting like 32-year-old Rory is fresh out of college?

[solotrek]

35 minutes ago, photo fox said:

From that article...

Only, it's really not, whether you're talking about babies, or relationships, or Rory's career.  Why does ASP persist in acting like 32-year-old Rory is fresh out of college?

Because ASP doesn't live in this reality. 26 is the average age for first time child birth as of 2014.

[moonb]

And the average age of first-time grandmothers is 47-48, so Lorelai at least is right on track. :)

[HeySandyStrange]

Quote

Only, it's really not, whether you're talking about babies, or relationships, or Rory's career.  Why does ASP persist in acting like 32-year-old Rory is fresh out of college?

Because Rory is thirty-freaking-two but still acts like she is fresh out of college? I also have always got the feeling that ASP is, shall we say, a teeny bit immature considering she is a middle aged woman. 

[Eyes High]

3 hours ago, random chance said:

If fans think the men in Rory's life are the focus and not her career, that's on ASP, not the fans. The show did end with Rory saying she's pregnant, not Rory describing how she's going to (for example) use her trust fund to buy the Stars Hollow newspaper and turn it back into a newspaper that matters.

This. It seems pretty disingenuous for ASP to place Rory's love life front and centre for the entire series, including a nonstop series of love triangles--was Rory ever even single for any stretch of time in the original series?--and then scold fans for being invested in her love life. If she didn't want viewers to focus on Rory's relationships at the expense of her career, perhaps she shouldn't have focused on Rory's relationships at the expense of her career?

Besides, didn't ASP validate the viewers' interest in Rory's personal life over her career by confirming that she intended Rory to get pregnant at 22 in the original series? Caring about Rory's career was a waste of time all along, apparently. 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Eyes High

[stillshimpy]

Well I'm laughing my butt off:  

TVLINE | Over the summer you told us that the writers who took over in Season 7 stepped on one thing you wanted to do in the revival. Was it Lane’s pregnancy?

Yes. That was the one thing. It was a totally valid story point. I’m not saying it was executed poorly. It was just the one thing I was like, “Damn.” I would’ve preferred that Lane not have kids, only because it would’ve given us more options.

Didn't call that one but it made me glad to read.  

It could be ....Paul's baby, eh?  So, she's just doing this stuff so if there is another revival, she will have more story options and she won't be wedded to actor availability?  

I think the reason no one brought up abortion as a possibility even in the episode thread, was that it was never, ever discussed as something Lorelai even considered.  It does make sense that ASP would mention that as a possibility.  Back when GG first aired, that first season was recommended by one of those Family Viewing whatevers, I'm sure because of the implications of a sixteen-year-old choosing to have a baby and because first season Rory was almost hilariously chaste. 

I swear I think ASP would deploy the option if for no other reasons than to dance on the ashes of that long ago (one season only) recommendation.  It was one of those nutbar organizations that thought women should always wear skirts and that Buffy was satanic (and she killed Angel with a sword, Amy, not a knife....it's kind of a giant deal in the story seeing as they have a massive sword fight first) and was generally just creepy as hell.  Organizing boycotts of anything they took umbrage at (i.e. a lot). 

[HeySandyStrange]

I don't know, ASP's being unhappy about Lane's pregnancy in season 7 doesn't say much to me. If she had it her way, Rory would've started out her post-grad life pregnant. I don't see how that is so much better then Lane being prematurely knocked up, except of course ASP can ridicule Lane's pregnancy because she didn't write it.

I'll bet my big toe that if ASP had been around to end the series with knocked up Rory and the fans were as pissed about that as they  had been about Lane's pregnancy, she'd be lecturing us all about how wrong we are to feel that way. How we are just too dumb to get her Shakespearian brilliance. I tend to side-eye Mrs. Sherman-Palladino, if y'all can't tell.

[junienmomo]

46 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

This. It seems pretty disingenuous for ASP to place Rory's love life front and centre for the entire series, including a nonstop series of love triangles--was Rory ever even single for any stretch of time in the original series?--and then scold fans for being invested in her love life. If she didn't want viewers to focus on Rory's relationships at the expense of her career, perhaps she shouldn't have focused on Rory's relationships at the expense of her career?

Besides, didn't ASP validate the viewers' interest in Rory's personal life over her career by confirming that she intended Rory to get pregnant at 22 in the original series? Caring about Rory's career was a waste of time all along, apparently. 

Beyond the fact that ASP wrote the 2016 story as if Rory were still 22, she ignores one thing with the final four words - that those words have just put a relationship higher in importance than everything else in Rory's life. There's a father involved, either as anonymous as a one night stand, or as close as her freshly-minted cousin. I know that the Palladinos use men as jokes or fountains of anger, but this guy has some rights here, and there may be a third person involved if she's a surrogate or the father is married. This guarantees that some relationship is going to color whatever she decides to do next. 

Full circle is not a new concept in writing, but the authors could have circled back on Lorelai's life in amazing ways without involving a love and parenting relationship.

She could have said "I'm leaving Stars Hollow.""

Running away from that which is holding her back is a full circle Lorelai move.

She could have said "I'm taking the money."

She could have used her inheritance to build a career that wasn't dependent too much on someone 'giving' her a job. Is anyone else bugged by the fact that her spec work was based on what someone else wanted and not her own creative ideas? Even the book has Jess' flavor, not Rory's.

She could have said (don't count the number of words here) "I can't live your plan for me anymore."

She could have taken the non romantic relationship angle of Lorelai's life as she rebelled against Emily's plan and forged her own life, rebelling against Lorelai's plan. Then we could have seen if Rory Gilmore is more 'forge a solid future' person like her mother, or weak wastrel like her father. 

There were plenty of ways for the last four words to be powerful and exciting and energizing without even implying that one romantic relationship is involved. Pregnancy isn't what defined Lorelai Gilmore, standing on her own, being loud and weird is.

ASP took the relationship way out and is dissatisfied with us for thinking that fathers matter too and therefore the relationship part is important. That's on her and honestly, that attitude is par for the course for her.

[Minneapple]

11 minutes ago, junienmomo said:

Beyond the fact that ASP wrote the 2016 story as if Rory were still 22, she ignores one thing with the final four words - that those words have just put a relationship higher in importance than everything else in Rory's life. There's a father involved, either as anonymous as a one night stand, or as close as her freshly-minted cousin. I know that the Palladinos use men as jokes or fountains of anger, but this guy has some rights here, and there may be a third person involved if she's a surrogate or the father is married. This guarantees that some relationship is going to color whatever she decides to do next.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it has to be a relationship in a romantic sense, which is what ASP was talking about when she mentioned the shippers. So the dad may be involved with the child, but not romantically involved with Rory. Of course the work is open to interpretation, but IMO Amy did a good job balancing Rory's work and personal stories. In fact there was very little "romance" in Rory's life. She had a friends-with-benefits arrangement with Logan, Jess was a cheerleader for her and Dean had just one nice scene where they briefly reconnected. Not really shippy if you ask me.

Quote

Pregnancy isn't what defined Lorelai Gilmore, standing on her own, being loud and weird is.

I think Lorelai would argue that giving birth to and raising Rory would be a HUGE part of what defines Lorelai Gilmore.

[junienmomo]

19 minutes ago, Minneapple said:

 

I think Lorelai would argue that giving birth to and raising Rory would be a HUGE part of what defines Lorelai Gilmore.

The choices you make in response to events define you.

Pregnancy was an event, a catalyst for Lorelai. She knew, example cotillion, that she didn't fit. She already had the intent to rebel as was explained by the teens' plan to go to Europe. As of the revival we also know that she was bullied for being herself. 

Like you said, her decision to give birth and her decision to raise Rory and the million decisions around that defined Lorelai.

I just think that if she wanted a non-relationship decision for Rory that ASP had plenty of options. But she chose pregnancy. Bit of a cop-out IMO.

[dubbel zout]

1 hour ago, stillshimpy said:

I would’ve preferred that Lane not have kids, only because it would’ve given us more options.

Because Rory had so many?

The last four words could have been Rory saying, "I'm buying the Gazette."

[stillshimpy]

1 hour ago, HeySandyStrange said:

don't know, ASP's being unhappy about Lane's pregnancy in season 7 doesn't say much to me. If she had it her way, Rory would've started out her post-grad life pregnant. I don't see how that is so much better then Lane being prematurely knocked up, except of course ASP can ridicule Lane's pregnancy because she didn't write it.

 

No, the thing that made me laugh was that THAT was the one thing that interfered with her plans.  Of the many things that happened in season 7, that is not on the list of "I bet that was it!" for me.  She was, after all, the woman who had poor Lane have the most horrible honeymoon sex.  It never would have occurred to me that knocking up Lane as further punishment was anyone else's idea.  

[Lady Calypso]

21 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

Because Rory had so many?

The last four words could have been Rory saying, "I'm buying the Gazette."

Hell, if they really wanted to go the baby route, all Rory had to say was these four words: "I want a baby." 

[shron17]

8 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

She was, after all, the woman who had poor Lane have the most horrible honeymoon sex.

No, that was DR in 7.02, the same episode where Lane found out she was pregnant.

[Melancholy]

I get what ASP was saying about Lane. Sounds like she wanted to tell a rock n'roll on-tour very UN-kid story about Lane/Zack in the Revival but she couldn't because they're supposed to be likable characters and making them shitty parents would have ruined that. She wasn't bashing the choice to give Lane twins.  She said it was a perfectly valid story choice in S7. It's her prerogative to have different writing plans for Rory and Lane. (For starters, I think music interests ASP more than journalism.)

[Minneapple]

I don't think Rory saying she's buying the Gazette packs any kind of emotional punch. I mean it could be an interesting story, but not so much as the infamous last four words.

I think Amy had to go personal, not professional, on those last four words. Now she could have done something different and more complete, like "Mom? Thanks for everything" or something like that. I don't completely mind the pregnancy, though it does seem sort of like it's more for shock value than anything else. But I get her reasoning as to why she did it.

[random chance]

1 hour ago, Minneapple said:

I don't think Rory saying she's buying the Gazette packs any kind of emotional punch. I mean it could be an interesting story, but not so much as the infamous last four words.

And that right there is the problem with teases like the infamous four words, or where is the island, or how he met your mother, or any other show where they dangle that kind of a carrot on a stick: it is never going to live up to the hype, and attempting to make it live up to the hype always involves a contortion that mostly pisses people off. Buying the Gazette wouldn't have that kind of emotional punch but it would have been a satisfying ending for me - Rory was in her element as editor at Yale, way more so than she ever has been as a journalist, and I would have enjoyed picturing her whipping that paper into shape. I do not enjoy picturing her raising a child by herself in her thirties, because I've already seen that movie. But the four words are required to be shocking since ASP has gone on about them for years, so a baby it is.

[Melancholy]

Buying the Gazette sounds stupid. It's a small town paper with a necessarily limited readership. Rory already seemed to have absolute content control as the editor right down to cutting the poem out even though it was an institution. I don't see how Rory would have more intellectual or creative satisfaction if she were the owner. Maybe she could turn it into a moneymaker with a wider reach by making it a web sensation with a quality that appeals to non Stars Hallow residents. That could be a great story with arguably more of the meta "This is an interesting story, huh?" of Rory's Gilmore Girls. People can be hungry for this nostalgic small town USA feel. Analogize the inconveniences but thrill of being part of something fun as a Star Hallow event with waiting on line. But that's a long storyline and buying the Gazette is the least and I'd argue not necessary to achieve that. 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Melancholy

[tarotx]

I just wish that ASP had Rory come up with writing her book or at least what the book was going to be about. Rory was doing something very similar with Alex Kingston's character so it's not such a huge leap. Having Jess be the one who Knows Rory best of all (even though it had been stated they haven't seen each other in 4 years) was a big let's have a "shipper" moment be more important than giving Rory her own moment. Imo.  

I just don't think ASP did Rory any favors. Most of the Revival was Rory being aimless and her in and out of both Logan's and Paul's lives. 

Edited December 2, 2016 by tarotx

[Jillibean]

Quote

I just wish that ASP had Rory come up with writing her book or at least what the book was going to be about. Rory was doing something very similar with Alex Kingston's character so it's not such a huge leap. Having Jess be the one who Knows Rory best of all (even though it had been stated they haven't seen each other in 4 years) was a big let's have a "shipper" moment be more important than giving Rory her own moment.

I totally hear that criticism, but with all the literary and other allusions, this one struck me as very Little Women--Rory is writing all the wrong things, not realizing that the thing she really needs to write is her own story, but she's too lost to see what's right in front of her. Insert Jess as Professor Bhaer. It also works for me because he played a similar role in season six. 

I agree that ASP's interviews are coming off with a tinge of, "Fans shouldn't care about this, they should care about THIS," and I also agree that once you put something out into the universe, your authorial intent doesn't matter very much. If you want people to care about something, you need to make them care about it with your writing. Same thing for prioritizing one aspect of a series over another. I almost feel like ASP should take it as a compliment that Rory's relationships were all strong and believable enough that this particular debate could be going on for so long with such passion from all sides. All three guys were depicted as having great qualities but also being flawed, and as being good for Rory at different points in her life. Couldn't one sort of conditional statement that into the debate really being about where Rory is in her life post-series based on which guy people think is appropriate for her?

Quote

I get what ASP was saying about Lane. Sounds like she wanted to tell a rock n'roll on-tour very UN-kid story about Lane/Zack in the Revival but she couldn't because they're supposed to be likable characters and making them shitty parents would have ruined that. 

I read that the same way--that she wasn't disappointed in the storyline itself but rather the fact that it interfered with whatever her headcanon was for Lane and Zack. 

Very glad to see the show is being called out on the body-shaming and questionable-at-best gay pride parade scene. DP's writing was always a bit meaner in nature than ASP's, but that was unnecessary and not funny. 

[TimetravellingBW]

http://www.cinemablend.com/television/1596490/the-real-reason-gilmore-girls-didnt-include-a-big-wedding

Amy's explanation for why there was no big Luke/Lorelai wedding.

"The wedding was originally a much bigger deal. The wedding was a whole shebang. And then they took money away from us. Anything that has extras in it and costumes became a production nightmare. So we had to figure out how to make this wedding satisfying without doing 'The Big Wedding.'"

I'm rapidly losing respect for ASP. Oh, a 'big shebang with costumes' was a nightmare and had to be cut?? Oh no, if only there was some other endless, 20-minute, huge production sequence with special guest stars that had no bearing on the plot or characters that could be cut! Or another all-singing, all-dancing sequence that apparently took months to film and would have had crazy-expensive royalties for a famous song but involved peripheral characters. Oh what to do, what to do! Huh. There's nothing. Guess we'll just have to cut the wedding of our main couple that fans have been waiting for for years. 

Even if we give ASP the benefit of the doubt and assume the musical and LDB sequence were sorted and filmed before the wedding and before money got "taken away from us", I'm questioning why she didn't prioritize costing at the beginning and why Netflix cut funding at all. I mean from everything I've heard Netflix weren't skimping on this revival, they essentially gave ASP four movies with a lot of free reign, there are a ton of locations involved, they rebuilt Stars Hollow, allowed for every character and their mother to come on board and did tonnes of promotion. So I'm side-eyeing this story. If they suddenly took money away, maybe it was because they'd watched ASP & DP spend the budget hiring their favourites like Sutton Foster and vanity projects like the musical, and put their foot down. Idk, but if stuff was cut or didn't work I'd put that on ASP mismanaging things. She needed to prioritize at the beginning and if there were any question marks over funding, maybe get the important stuff down before throwing money at the "would be nice to have". 

This also puts ASP's previous disagreements with execs from the original show's run in a different light. Is she seriously already complaining about Netflix, given they were the ones who funded AYITL and made it possible to do the revival at all? They seem to have been very generous with the deal she got, so her throwing them under a bus and pinning fan complaints on them seems poor taste. 

That turned into a long rant and I didn't actually dislike the L/L wedding. But I was disappointed that we missed out on a big Stars Hollow ceremony with everyone there, especially if this is the reason why.

Edited December 7, 2016 by TimetravellingBW

[Minneapple]

I'm actually glad they took the money away. I liked the cozy, intimate (but pretty!) wedding a lot, and would probably have not liked it if it was some huge overblown affair. 

[Lady Calypso]

22 minutes ago, Minneapple said:

I'm actually glad they took the money away. I liked the cozy, intimate (but pretty!) wedding a lot, and would probably have not liked it if it was some huge overblown affair. 

I loved the environment, I loved the feel. The one thing I wish they could have used the money for was Melissa McCarthy and Milo Ventimiglia. They could have cut the 20 minute musical down to 5 minutes, cut out half the LDB sequence and they probably would have had the money to bring in those two for the small intimate wedding. Again, this would be a perfect world if they had done the small wedding AND had the right witnesses. 

[NumberCruncher]

28 minutes ago, Minneapple said:

I'm actually glad they took the money away. I liked the cozy, intimate (but pretty!) wedding a lot, and would probably have not liked it if it was some huge overblown affair. 

Ditto. Luke and Lorelai sneaking off in the middle of the night under the noses of the nosy townspeople was all kinds of perfect to me.  It's one of the few details in the revival that I actually enjoyed.

[junienmomo]

5 hours ago, NumberCruncher said:

Ditto. Luke and Lorelai sneaking off in the middle of the night under the noses of the nosy townspeople was all kinds of perfect to me.  It's one of the few details in the revival that I actually enjoyed.

That was one of the most in-character things LL did in the revival. That and the flash mob banter.

The flash mob banter reminded me so much of my favorite banter moments in the OS, with one difference - in the revival it was exceedingly obvious that they were teasing each other. Back in the OS, when I was much more naive, banter like the yale mattress left me puzzled. Now I'm completely convinced we were always supposed to take that as "they both know they're kidding and will choose the logical thing at the end, but the banter is irresistible."

[Melancholy]

29 minutes ago, junienmomo said:

That was one of the most in-character things LL did in the revival. That and the flash mob banter.

The flash mob banter reminded me so much of my favorite banter moments in the OS, with one difference - in the revival it was exceedingly obvious that they were teasing each other. Back in the OS, when I was much more naive, banter like the yale mattress left me puzzled. Now I'm completely convinced we were always supposed to take that as "they both know they're kidding and will choose the logical thing at the end, but the banter is irresistible."

Really? I don't think the Yale mattress played like that. I think Lorelai just really didn't want to deal with the mattress. Certainly she didn't want to deal that day when Lorelai kept wanting to use Luke's truck longer than they initially agreed was the borrowing time to get Rory more stuff or keep her company that night. The conflict was real. It just became banter missing any real sting of a fight because of all the good feelings together and because Luke may want to grumble and remind Lorelai of her promises re: the truck because he really was put out, he fundamentally thinks moving Rory in correctly is worth the extra inconvenience. 

I think they banter in two ways: where they head in specifically for the banter and to tease or where there is a real conflict between them but it stays banter instead of a real fight or even just the more normal thing of walking away passively because of the love. This is just about the banter- separate from when they really do fight. 

I also thought the small elopement was great and in character and one of my favorite bits. I'm actually fine with not having Sookie there because I think she and Lorelai became more distant after Sookie left despite the friends hug.  However, Jess really should have been there as family.