posted
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>
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love this show. So far, this season feels more authentic than last season, even with the change of writers.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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).
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 44 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Just curious, since you and I seem to be operating under different definitions of the term. Where is yours?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's nothing to agree or disagree about. In television genre terms, Gilmore Girls is a dramedy.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
13 year old girl? Yeap, I kind of fit that description too when it comes to GG.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
