This is topic Gilmore Girls (or how I transform into a 13 year old girl on Tuesday nights) in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
So this show makes me downright giddy. I don't know what it is but I get excited for characters, I cheer for things to workout the way I think they should, and I talk to friends about this show and speculate where it will go from here based on the happenings of that weeks episode.
This season is the first season without the creator at the wheel, and as such my expectations were lower than usual. Last week was the season premiere and I felt it was off to a slow start. Last night's episode delivered everything I wanted. Snappy dialogue, witty pop references, and great performances from everybody involved. Lindsay still thinks it paled in comparison to previous episodes but I think it was right along side some of the best.
I wondered if anybody else follows the show and whether they feel it is significantly weaker without the Palladinos driving the show.
...i'm bored at work.
<edit: apparently the S key on this computer hates me occasionally>
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*shakes head sadly*
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
I've watched the previous seasons and I must say that the 6th made me mad. Plenty of useless and hard to believe twists, only to justify some more "character" struggle in this one.
That said, I've long been hooked anyway, so they have to damage it a lot more to make me stop watching. 13 year old girl? Yeap, I kind of fit that description too when it comes to GG.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I find it hillarious that the ad at the bottom is for the "Queer as Folk" Jewelry Collection.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I'm the first female to post in this thread? Oh dear.
I did notice differences between the previous years, but direction isn't something I tend to think about that much when it comes to shows. I do love the way the plot is going, though Laine hating sex just seems like her mother will show up soon to say something similar (again). I didn't like that there was not even a Logan phone call. Of course I like Logan, and most of my friends hate him, for reasons they tend to dislike guys I like.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I, for one, need large quantities of ibuprofen whenever I am unfortunate enough to be in the same general vicinity as a TV playing Glimore Girls. And as someone who has 4 sisters, that tended to happen with disturbing regularity.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
The few times I've admitted to my male friends how much I love this show, they end up looking at me funny. They demanded that I turn in my "man-card" right there and then, and ask if my you-know-whats are still attached. So I mostly stay quite on the issue, but I can't help that I love this show.
As for whether the show is any good without the Palladino's at the helm, the first episode felt a bit off to me. The new show runner/writer wrote some of the episodes last year too. So there's hope in that. But even having the original creators on board doesn't mean that the show would be at its best. For example, last years season was a bit disappointing and some of the character's actions didn't feel right, for example, I think that Lorilai would normally have told Luke about her concerns and confronted him much earlier than she did. Plus keeping the girls apart for the first quarter of the season was a big mistake. So far this season has been better than last years's at this time. My number one complaint so far is that we haven't seen the grandparents yet.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dr Strangelove: Could be worse... my hubby likes WWE. Just the sound of me gets me tense and angry. It's like pouring acid directly onto every single nerve. I don't understand how a smart, ivy league educated man likes something so incredibly stupid.
I should watch Gilmore Girls... It sounds like a good show and the revenge would be sweet.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
My wife is a fan of the show, and when I have watched it with her I have enjoyed it, for the most part. I think the latest major plot switchback is unnecessary, though, and completely out of character.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I love this show. So far, this season feels more authentic than last season, even with the change of writers.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think ASP did a crappy job with the last season. I'm glad she's not with the show any more if that's how she's going to treat it.
One of the writers this season is Jane Esperson. She most of the great Buffy episodes that weren't written by Joss. I'm not worried about my beloved Gilmore Girls at all.
I had to stop watching last season because the secret daughter thing was ridiculous and I was so mad at Luke for being a jerk and at Lorelai for letting him for so long. This season will be great. Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I think Katie's right, though I did watch all of last season.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
My mom and sister are addicted to it. When they are here in the summer or I go to Japan at Christmas, I have to endure Gilmore Girls.
Spoilers
First season was sorta interesting, but then when Rory started sleeping with Dean even though he was married, I thought there was redemption when Laurali chastised her and Rory looked like she felt terrible for having done it, and then she did it again....over and over, I got disgusted and lost interest.
For a girl who is supposed to be VERY bright and inteligent, she still thinks with her emotions far more then I can stand.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Rory didn't sleep with Dean until the end of the 4th season.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: Rory didn't sleep with Dean until the end of the 4th season.
Maybe my seasons are mixed up. That was my first exposure to the series. There have been episodes that I enjoyed, but overall the series just makes me mad. I try to stay away so I dont ruin it for others who enjoy it. I tend to make smart alecky comments when I watch things I really don't like.
Its why my wife really likes horror movies but hates watching them with me, the behavior of the victims in those movies just bothers me to no end.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: but then when Rory started sleeping with Dean even though he was married, I thought there was redemption when Laurali chastised her and Rory looked like she felt terrible for having done it, and then she did it again....over and over, I got disgusted and lost interest.
I was highly irritated when it initially happened, but I was fairly impressed with the way they handled it. They showed that there was no way for them to make it work, that it was a horrible horrible choice to have made, that it completely messed up Dean and his wife's lives, and that it was a bad experience for all involved. At the same time they also showed the limits on how much influence loved one’s have over our decisions and why it is sometimes necessary to accept the bad decisions of somebody else in order to save your own relationship with them. All of this was shown with subtlety but it was certainly shown.
So far this season looks good. I just hope, most likely naively, that they don't drag out the Luke versus Christopher thing. I'm happy with either one, but it's time for her to marry one and stop beating this dead horse.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I'm not impressed so far. There was one great moment over the past two episodes -- Rory pointing out the limits and problems of Lorelei's girls-night way of dealing with things.
I'm not hopeful.
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
I won't admit to transforming into a 13 year old girl, but I have to admit that I do love this show. I'm don't know know exactly where we are at the moment (meaning, which season), but last tuesday I saw the episode where Lorelai bought her wedding dress. The first time I stumbled upon this show I stayed tuned mainly because I thought Rory (or Alexis if you wish) to be avery attractive young lady. But I quickly fell in love with almost all the other main characters. And I absolutely love the way that the show is filled with the constant references to books, films, music and such. Somehow it makes me glad whenever I can follow the link. (Must have something to do with how my brain functions). For example, in the very first episode (might have been the second?) there was a reference to 'Elmer Gantry'. Fortunately I actually read the book by Sinclair Lewis and could understand what they were talking about. But I'm in no way claiming that I can follow every reference that's in the show (or even pick up on all of them).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Dr Strangelove: Could be worse... my hubby likes WWE. Just the sound of me gets me tense and angry. It's like pouring acid directly onto every single nerve. I don't understand how a smart, ivy league educated man likes something so incredibly stupid.
I should watch Gilmore Girls... It sounds like a good show and the revenge would be sweet.
What's wrong with WWE? I don't watch it myself anymore, but I did when I was younger, and actually I still watch Wrestlemania from time to time (Go Ray Mysterio!) for the Royal Rumble. Women get hours upon hours of soap operas all day every day, and most of the WBs former programming is primarily geared toward women, as are shows like the OC.
WWE is a specifically tailored soap opera for men. We know the dialogue and plot aren't real, and I'd challenge anyone who says the moves they do aren't real to actually try them...and then try moving the next day. It's not high quality, but not everything entertaining needs to be.
It's no more stupid than half of what I see women fawning over on television these days. I see very little difference between:
"I can't believe it, Rory slept with Dean last night, the tramp!"
and:
"And then Kevin Eubanks gave DDP a Diamond Cutter and Jay Leno actually won the match!" (that actually was an incredibly entertaining and fairly hysterical match).
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lyr: Saying soaps are stupid does not make WWE any less vapid.
It's the worst parts of masculinity boiled down to a paste and then smeared on the TV and everyone watching it.
The angry braggadocio, the fake and meaningless violence... Plus there's the gay-porn aspect which they try to offset by objectifying women. Not to mention the obnoxious announcers.
If you want to watch sheer acrobatics I recommend Cirque Du Soliel.
If you want to watch sports I recommend Football and Basketball. Both are real and fun to watch.
Pix
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It might be somewhat choreographed, but it isn't fake, again, try it and then make that claim. I work with a guy who used to do it for a living.
And I never said soaps were stupid, though I think they are. The obnoxious announcers are half of the reason why I used to like watching it. Jerry the King Lawler is friggin hysterical (even more so than how goofy he was as a wrestler). There's surprises, twists, turns, alliances made and broken, friendships made and broken, and everything else that makes it truly entertaining for some to watch.
Just calling it mindless, masculine stupidity isn't fair, and I think it's sexist. Nobody watching it thinks it's real and spontaneous, they treat it like girls treat the OC, and Gilmore Girls, and whatever other silly teen fangirl show the WB has created this year.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
MTV had a show awhile back where average people trained to be wrestlers. While I hate wrestling, I found the show very entertaing. Those stunts, while not as harmless as they are made to look, look like they smart something awful.
I really wouldn't compare Gilmore Girls to a soap opera. It deals with life issues but without the blown up proportion that soaps have. The whole Dean-thing was such a small part of the show.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh I know, I watched Gilmore Girls for years. The show as a whole was far more stable, and the writing leaps and bounds ahead of your average soap opera.
All that said, it's a very well written, teen soap opera.
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
I confess to a deep and abiding love of Stars Hollow
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Shepherd, you just love Lauren Graham. Not that I can blame you.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The angry braggadocio, the fake and meaningless violence... Plus there's the gay-porn aspect which they try to offset by objectifying women. Not to mention the obnoxious announcers.
If you want to watch sheer acrobatics I recommend Cirque Du Soliel.
If you want to watch sports I recommend Football and Basketball. Both are real and fun to watch.
Actually, UFC is pretty much where it's at these days. Not that there's anything wrong with wrestling for entertainment.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Could be worse... my hubby likes WWE. Just the sound of me gets me tense and angry. It's like pouring acid directly onto every single nerve. I don't understand how a smart, ivy league educated man likes something so incredibly stupid.
The WWE is excellent. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I just eventually lost interest around the days where Brett The Hitman Hart was champion of the WWF. By then it just felt like everything had been done.
If you wan't to laugh hysterically watch Japanese imitation WWF.
Its AMAZINGLY unique. Sure they have costumes and chair breaking, but at the end of it, the winner quickly helps the loser up and they both bow to each other. The ref holds up the winners hand and the winner bows to the ref, then shakes the hand of the loser again and they both bow, and hug. I didnt know what to think when I watched it Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Oh I know, I watched Gilmore Girls for years. The show as a whole was far more stable, and the writing leaps and bounds ahead of your average soap opera.
All that said, it's a very well written, teen soap opera.
How do you define soap opera?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For my generation? Anything that in any way shape or form resembles Dawson's Creek.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
When I think soap, I think of "Days of Our Lives" or "Passions." The kind of stuff I would see my mom watching on days when I stayed home from school.
You know...rampant affairs, countless trips to the hospital for coma or terminal patients, cat fights, half-naked men, botoxed women, lying, cheating, evil plots, and ridiculous internal monologues.
I look at Gilmore Girls and I see a show about mother/daughter relationships. Its about women to me who are confident but still growing as people. At the same time, the dialogue is incredibly funny and intelligent.
I'm the same age as Rory and though I'm not an Ivy League student from a single-parent home, I relate with the show alot. I remember watching it with my mom when I lived at home and being both sad and grateful that Lorelei wasn't my mother. haha.
I don't know. I find daytime soaps to be cheap and degrading. Even GG at its wildest doesn't come close to the tamest stuff you'd see in soaps.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Gilmore Girls is a dramedy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's a teenage soap opera. It's one of the better ones, maybe even the best one of recent memory as far as it's lack of stupidity goes.
But for all intents and purposes, Gilmore Girls, Dawson's Creek, One Tree Hill, the list goes on, they are teenage girl soap operas. They have comas, cat fights, half naked men and women, cheating/lying, ridiculous plotting, and whatever else you'd probably expect of a soap opera. The only differences are the age that the show is geared towards, and a reduced level of over the topness in the acting/writing.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
Gilmore Girls isn't even close to being remotely similar to Dawson's Creek or One Tree Hill. It has more in common with a show like Ed than any of the teen shows you mention.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it is on the very far end of the spectrum, but still falls under the category of teen soap opera.
There are relationships, people cheat on each other, people sleep with other people and cheat on each other, people lie, people plot, people scheme, blah blah blah.
It's by far and away better than Dawson's Creek and it's ilk, as ultimately, under everything, it's the story of a mother and a daughter, and for the first few seasons anyway the writing is fantastic, and it's a voyage of discovery, and there's fantastic character development and growth.
I don't think that changes the overarching genre though: teenage soap opera.
Posted by AeroB1033 (Member # 6375) on :
Sure, it has some soap-ish elements, but how do you define a soap opera, anyway? While there are breakups and relationship drama, it just about always comes straight out of the character and is carefully justified and believably told. Gilmore Girls rarely stoops to melodrama or contrived nonsense to entertain. Usually its faults result more from broad, farcical humor, which I wouldn't characterize as being "soap-ish" at all.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think GG has gotten far more Soapish in its later seasons.
The first few I don't think really meet the standard as much, and they were brilliantly written.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Considering that of the two main characters, one is "teen" and the other is an adult, I don't know why you classify it as a "teen soap opera." Without listing off characters, there's a pretty even balance between young and older secondary characters on the show. For every Logan, there's a Luke. For every Paris, there's a Kirk. There's probably actually more well-developed adult side characters once I start counting the grandparents, Suki and Jackson, Michel, Taylor, and the townspeople.
I also wonder what on the show would have to change in order for it not to be considered a soap opera, but a drama which reflects artistically reflects reality? In its six years, Rory has had only three boyfriends. The Rory/married-Dean storyline seems dramatic but I know a close friend who has done exactly that. The soap opera version of events would have featured the actual sex scene, Rory getting pregnant with Dean's baby, convincing another guy that it was his, and she'd probably be murdered by other guy's girlfriend. Jess would have ended up with Lane and Zach and Paris would have had a one-night stand, etc. It makes my head spin.
Until someone is murdered, pops out a love-child with their unknown brother, or is diagnosed with brain cancer, it shouldn't be called a soap opera.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Rory turned 21 last season. Also, no one has ever been in a coma or had amnesia. Therefore, it's not a teenage soap opera.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For my generation? Anything that in any way shape or form resembles Dawson's Creek.
So essentially you define a soap opera as anything that resembles another show that wasn't actually a soap opera?
Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less about Dawson's Creek. Never saw the show, have no strong feelings about it either way, and you can diss it all you like. But people call Dawson's Creek a soap opera to insult it. It isn't actually a soap opera in the strict definition of the term.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I like the definition you (blacwolve) came up with, a soap opera really should be 5 days a week pretty much all year, with actors and actresses coming and going.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I have no problem calling Gilmore Girls a soap opera. I think of soap operas as shows that are fueled by emotional drama. I tend to think all the really great shows are soap operas at heart.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
blacwolve -
Where is the "stricest definition of the term?"
Just curious, since you and I seem to be operating under different definitions of the term. Where is yours?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I consider a soap opera a show with low production values, that runs in the afternoon, and is covered in soap opera weekly.
I don't think any show that is called a soap opera as a means of insulting it is actually a soap opera in the strictest definition of the term. Instead, it is being insulted by being compared to a soap opera.
I think by your definition of a soap opera every drama on tv is one, at which point I think the term has become functionally worthless.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Close, but not totally my view on the definition.
Either way, moot point, and I'm alright with agreeing to disagree.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
There's nothing to agree or disagree about. In television genre terms, Gilmore Girls is a dramedy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"Soap Opera" is a cultural term, and like most cultural terms, it's definition morphs a bit as times, and the subject of that definition, change.
Entertainment for the masses used to be watching gladiatorial fights and public executions. Now it's television. Show with a chief aim of showing something other than the personal lives of people I agree are not soap operas. 24, while dramatic, and with life altering events therein, is not a soap opera (though my mind wants to immediately label it as such, I'd call it Shock Drama). Dawson's Creek most definetely IS a soap opera. The OC definetely IS a soap opera. Genre isn't defined by frequency, so whether it's once a week or once a day, it can still be a soap opera.
Some things fall into a grey area.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Lyrhawn:
I think the problem I'm having is your rejection of blacwolve's post above and then your claim that it's a cultural term whose definition has morphed.
It seems to me that the definition has morphed only for you and not broadly speaking culturally.
I could be wrong -- I don't care enough to do the research.
And this is not a call to ask you to provide a ton of examples proving your point. I always think that doing so on an Internet message board is a bit silly. This isn't an academic argument where documentation is everything.
But my point is this -- the critical culture has created a vocabularly with which to discuss television. I suggest that we use these terms.
The more interesting discussions, imo, are in what ways is GG a dramedy or not a dramedy -- or -- in what ways does GG enlarge/modify/build on the dramedy genre?
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Lots of people other than Lyrhawn use Soap Opera whenever they choose to insult a show. I really do like Blacwolve's definition of soap opera, it's not just a show that has shock values, it's a show with a low budget produced daily.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
While this isn't my only point, would you agree that Wikipedia is a good source of cultural definitions?
I'm not the only one in the world who has labelled something other than daytime soaps as a soap opera. Whether or not Gilmore Girls specifically is one, we can disagree on, but the definition of soap opera isn't fixed in stone, and for that matter, I reject, since that's what I do apparently, your de facto claim that GG can only have ONE genre.
It isn't just a dramedy, which I accept by the way as an additional genre title, it's a teen drama, a family drama, a soap opera, a dramedy, and whatever else fits.
What exactly is the "Critical culture?" And where is a list of their definitions?
Edit to add: I wasn't using Soap Opera as an insult.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
"anything that resembles Dawson's Creek" reads as an insult.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Edit to add: I wasn't using Soap Opera as an insult.
You know, you were.
quote: And I never said soaps were stupid, though I think they are.
quote: They have comas, cat fights, half naked men and women, cheating/lying, ridiculous plotting, and whatever else you'd probably expect of a soap opera. The only differences are the age that the show is geared towards, and a reduced level of over the topness in the acting/writing.
quote: All that said, it's a very well written, teen soap opera
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
First one refers to daytime soaps, my apologies, second one referred to the WB shows in general, last one is a compliment, not a diss.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
*blinks* I'm confused.
Are you using two different definitions of the word soap opera? Maybe if you could provide some kind of clear definition of what you mean, we could have a conversation. Currently, as far as I can tell, the term 'soap opera' means whatever you want it to mean at any given point in time.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For example?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Gilmore Girls is cancelled. May 15th will be the final show. I didn't get into the first 3 seasons, but later got hooked. I will miss it, it was a great show.
Sadly, the show was doomed once Amy Sherman-Palladino was axed.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zalmoxis: Sadly, the show was doomed once Amy Sherman-Palladino was axed.
I don't think that necessarily true. Based on a lot of other people's opinions I've read and my own personal opinion, Sherman-Palldino did most of the sabotaging with how she and her husband treated the Luke and Lorelai relationship and the subsequent Christopher and Lorelai relationship. David Rosenthal has only recently gotten rid of the whole Christopher and Lorelai plot and returned to a development of a Luke and Lorelai relationship. In my opinion and in the opinion of many at Television Without Pity, the last few episodes have been much better than the beginning of this season and season 6.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Perhaps. It's hard to know without knowing how ASP we're going to wrap things up. But, yes, season 6 wasn't good.
It's too bad that networks try and squeeze as much blood as possible out of a show. GG probably would have worked best as an 100-episode (or so) series.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Drat. After spending a whole 6th season with talks about new daughter and Luke-Lorelai getting or not getting married we finally got a season worth watching. And the show gets canceled.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I'm with RRR, I've enjoyed this season far more than last season. Sad that it's ending, but it had a good run. Knowing that it's ending though makes me feel less certain about what's going to happen though. Now there's no reason for Rory to need to stay in the Northeast. My hope is that it ends like a Shakespeare comedy. Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I'm glad, since Alexis Bledel wasn't willing to do another season and it would have been useless without her.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I was praying that the talks would work out. Even for a shortened half-season. It would have been perfect. Not too long to drag things out but plenty of time to end things properly.
I can't imagine how everything is going to be tied up by the end of the season. Tying up Rory's side of things...imaginable given Logan's San Francisco plans. Though unfortunately, I stopped caring about this half of the Gilmore power-duo awhile ago. I watched the pilot on tv today and mourned for the Rory I once loved and admired.
Really, its all about the Luke/Lorelei drama. I'm pretty sure we know how its all going to end, but I want it to get to that conclusion in beautiful and classic GG fashion. I'll be seriously disappointed if they force it or pull any last minute stunts. But saying this I realize that there's only two episodes left. That is NOT enough!
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yeah, Shanna, that was my thought too-- only 2 shows makes it nearly impossible finish the series gracefully. The writers will really have to pull a rabbit out of a hat to wrap it up with any real sense of completion.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
I like the show -- thought the plots themselves were usually pretty dumb, but loved the characters and the dialogue. Only got partway through the second season though, just not watching much TV lately, so dunno when I'll get around to seeing more... curiosity question = did Paris ever come out??
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Come out how? Like, out of the closet?!?
No. haha.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Yeah, Shanna, that was my thought too-- only 2 shows makes it nearly impossible finish the series gracefully. The writers will really have to pull a rabbit out of a hat to wrap it up with any real sense of completion.
I don't know. Rory graduating and both of them getting engaged/married seems like a fitting end. Rory could believably get engaged in that time, and I think it would be appropriate if Luke & Lorelei rushed things. In fact, I would find it somewhat unbelievable if they didn't.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
True, Rory is graduating so that helps.
But Lauren Graham has said recently she thinks the show shouldn't end with a marriage. Sorry, no linkage. Anyway, ending with with a marriage is too trite and mawkish--I hope they don't do it. I remember the ending of Roswell--that's the only bride I've ever seen with an exposed midriff.
I guess "nearly impossible" is overstating it. I just feel for the writers trying to provide a fitting coda for a series on such short notice after contract talks collapsed, and with only two shows to do it.
Maybe they had an inkling the negotiations wouldn't go well, so they started the subplot of Logan moving to Cali and asking Lorilei for Rory's hand. If Rory got engaged and moved, and Lorilei and Luke got back together (without eloping) that could work as completion for a show about a mother who's best friends with her daughter.
[ May 05, 2007, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Anyway, ending with with a marriage is too trite and mawkish--I hope they don't do it. I remember the ending of Roswell--that's the only bride I've ever seen with an exposed midriff.
Ah, Roswell's ending is one of my favorite endings to a series. But, yes, I could see how trite would work far better for Roswell than for Gilmore Girls.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think Rory is getting engaged. She just told Paris that she wouldn't put her career on hold for Logan, so unless nothing comes up for her or she gets a job in San Francisco, she isn't going to CA with Logan.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
It seems like she'd be just as likely to get a job in the San Francisco area as she would in the Hartford area. Without the New York Times internship, location doesn't seem revelant to her career. She still might not get engaged, but I don't see her career holding her back.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It isn't just Hartford vs. San Fran, because there's no next season and it WOULD be contrived to keep her right next to her mother. It's SF vs. the rest of the United States, and I'm guessing she'll get something somewhere in the rest of the United States.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I tried to get into gilmore girls but I was always turned off with howartificiallyfasttheyalwaystalkedallofthetimealways
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I never thought they talked any faster than any of my friends or myself.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I've seen Lauren Graham on multiple talk shows, and she talks at the same speed on those that she does as Lorelai.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The talking is actually very artificially fast. They don't have any of the timing spaces that you normally have when two people are talking to each other.
It is actually done on purpose: an extremely fast moving dialogue allows for more to get crammed into the hour. IMDB:
quote:Due to the fast pace speech in the show, the average script for an episode of the show runs 75-80 pages, as opposed to 45-50 for a standard hour-long television show.
They talk really really really really really fast.
It drove me nuts.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
And yet you can walk into any high school anywhere and find two girls talking just as fast with similar spacing. And you could the year before GG started, and before that.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
Indeed. I didn't think they'll manage a decent finish, what with the talk about this being or not being the series finale, but they did a good job. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yeah. I think the show runner figured this was the end. It was a very nice wrap up, and I LOVED the ending shot. It wasn't very funny, but that's the only complaint. I think it covered everything, and I even enjoyed the Luke and Lorelai reunion. Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I missed most of it. What exactly is Rory doing and how did she leave her status with Logan?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Rory is working for an online magazine as their correspondent on Barack Obama's campaign. She told Logan that she didn't want to get married right then and Logan said that was it.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Thanks, Amanecer.
That's a bit of a let down. There hasn't been much of anything to suggest that Logan would insist on marriage [well, he has been a bit volatile, but it's been a bit contrived, imo] or that Rory would settle for a non-name brand media outlet (even if she gets to cover Obaman's campaign).
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
She had already been working for this online magazine, just writing short articles, and they offered her this job when she asked for a reccomendation.
I was happy enough with the ending.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
The finale was pretty good. The party was nice.
My favorite part was when Lorilei's dad said the party was really a tribute to her, and how she made a great home and raised a great daughter.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: The finale was pretty good. The party was nice.
My favorite part was when Lorilei's dad said the party was really a tribute to her, and how she made a great home and raised a great daughter.
Yeah, I thought the interaction with both parents went really well. Of course, Emily being Emily, she has to go about it the wrong way, but the feelings were there. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yeah, Emily's machinations are straight out of Macchevelli. Would it really have killed her to say, "Lorilei, I would like to keep seeing you for Friday night dinner after Rory is gone"?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
13 year old girl? Yeap, I kind of fit that description too when it comes to GG.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But, yes, I could see how trite would work far better for Roswell than for Gilmore Girls.