Jump to content

One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions

This was one of my favorite threads on the site from which many of us have migrated, so I was eager to start one here as well! It's so  interesting to see how we all perceive the show differently and love (or, er, very much don't love!) certain aspects of it for different reasons---and even better to see how we all derive snarky amusement from those differences in opinion and keep on respecting each other anyway :)

My most major UOs won't come as a surprise to those who knew me on TWoP, but go gently on me anyway!

1) I thought Luke and Lorelai were a terrible couple. The constant bickering and radical differences in personality and temperament that made for a stimulating and amusingly challenging friendship somehow just made them seem totally incompatible to me once they got together romantically. I saw less than no romantic chemistry between them (at times, the actors looked as if it actually pained them to share a scene!), and they just seemed so devoid of any sort of joy, spark or "I get you!" connection to me. I wanted to love them. I still want to love them!  I just see them as really ill-suited as anything more than friends and never had the sense that they made each other truly happy as romantic partners. I've never been too big a fan of 'opposites attract' couples in general, though; I prefer couples who share some commonality, connection and seem to at least mostly operate on the same wavelength. Once they became a couple, Luke and Lorelai seemed to annoy and baffle each other far more often than not. 

I totally get that many adore them, though, and I sincerely envy you guys. I guess it just shows how highly subjective romantic chemistry can be! Speaking of which...

2) Christopher is a deeply flawed character, but I enjoyed him quite a lot----albeit in the way you enjoy fictional characters who you probably wouldn't want to interact with much in real life :) I thought the actor did a terrific job with the role. And while I didn't want Christopher and Lorelai to end up together, I think they had fantastic chemistry. I didn't particularly want to see that, by the way, but I did! I thought they not only had a romantic spark, but seemed to truly understand and 'get' each other. They each seemed so happy in the other's company. 

3) I haaaaated Dean (and Max as well, but that's not too U an O!) The unpopular part is that I just didn't hate the later incarnations of Dean; I never, ever liked the sulky, sullen, jealousy-prone, personality-free bore and honestly didn't get any connection between him and Rory, even back in S1.  

4) I can only enjoy the annoyingly over-the-top Townies in blissfully small doses. Town meetings, which most people love, tend to be far too large---and loud and self-consciously 'wacky' and obnoxious---a dose for me :)

5) I find myself oddly 'meh' on some of the series' most beloved episodes; most notably, Forgiveness and Stuff, Written in the Stars, and the much-loved end-of-S4 Trilogy. 

6) I also, of course, find myself loving many episodes that most are (understandably!) meh about: The Third Lorelai, Eight O'Clock at the Oasis, Lorelai Out of Water, Say Goodnight Gracie, The Hobbit, The Sofa..., and Die, Jerk are just a few to leap to mind. 

7) The only GG male I'd be even a tiny bit interested in dating in real life (not that they'd all be beating down the door to date ME, of course!) is...wait for it...Digger. :) He was one of the few vibrantly defined 'significant others' to ever appear on the show, and I thought his quirky, amusingly neurotic wit and charm worked well with both Lorelai and the show's overall tone.  I do agree with the seemingly popular opinion, though, that he and Lorelai didn't have much romantic chemistry, so I wish he'd been introduced as an eccentric Gilmore cousin who popped in and out throughout the series. 

8) The only main couples on the show who I thought had real romantic chemistry were Lorelai/Chris and (especially) Rory/Jess and...no, that's kind of it :) 

9) Despite the subject matter of many of my above UOs, I cared far, far, FAR more about the show's familial relationships and friendships than the romances. And I'm totally obsessed with the Paris/Rory frenemy-ship. It's sad but true. :) 

10) GG music UOs: The Carole King theme song annoys me. Hep Alien is freaking AWFUL, so eardrum-splittingly bad to me that I had to tell myself the show had a Spinal Tap-ish joke going with us where, like, you're supposed to kind of KNOW that they actually suck even though they still sometimes get actual work and "duuuude, you guys rocked!" praise. And so many of the characters (Lane, Lorelai, Rory, Jess, etc.) being such 'anyone who likes uncool music is automatically a LOSER!' music snobs kind of irked me. If you guys saw my ipod, you'd totally understand :) 

11) I found Tristan an enjoyable ass who added some much-needed snark and edge to the otherwise often sugary sweet Season 1 and thought Chad Michael Murray, who I've never liked before or since, was perfect for the role. I wouldn't have wanted to see him romantically involved with Rory, but I really liked their dynamic and the sharp, more assertive side of her that he seemed to bring out. As spoiled, blond, hard partying playboys with tons of money and daddy issues go, I hold the hugely UO of enjoying Tristan more than I enjoyed Logan and felt Rory had far more chemistry with the former than the latter. 

I'm so eager to hear everyone else's UOs! Remember, confession of your weirdest and most unpopular opinions is good for the GG-obsessed soul or, er, something to that effect :)   

Edited by mstaken.
5

Share Post


Link to post

I love Eight O'clock at the Oasis too, my favorite part being when Rory tells Jess that she already called Dean , and Jess just wordlessly turns the sprinkler back on.  To me that should have been the moment when Rory realized she was kidding herself with Dean.  Also, I don't think Lorelai and Luke had any chemistry whatsoever once they finally got together.  You could practically see them thinking "ewwwww" when they kissed.

But I'm pretty sure I have the most unpopular opinion of all time: I liked Logan.  Yes, I did.  I thought he was a pretty great boyfriend.  He did all kinds of nice crap for Rory, like giving her a car and driver when her mom had that breakdown, and telling her to invite her mom and Luke to the Hamptons, and saving her ass with the paper deadline.  He was polite to her mother.  He stuck up for her to his family.  He let her live in his fancyass apartment rent-free.  He let her talk him into stealing a yacht because she was depressed.  He was a pretty good guy. 

7

Share Post


Link to post

I loved Logan too. I can understand how Rory felt blindsided by the proposal and that they really were too young, though a lot of people get engaged out of panic as they graduate, but I thought they complemented each other well and would be good together down the line.

7

Share Post


Link to post

My UO is that I liked April. Hated how Luke handled that whole situation, but it wasn't April's fault.

I liked Logan too! He ruined it by proposing at the worst possible time, but other than that he was a pretty great boyfriend like you said. 

3

Share Post


Link to post
Also, I don't think Lorelai and Luke had any chemistry whatsoever once they finally got together.  You could practically see them thinking "ewwwww" when they kissed.

Table for two, RC! :) (See L/L-related rambling in above post.) And, god, that ostensibly romantic first date they had in Written in the Stars actually pains me to watch. Luke and Lorelai just seem so uncomfortable---and not in a cutely awkward, giddy first date-ish way, but just (IMUO) in a chemistry-free, oh-god-we-totally-don't-click-do-we?! way. And both actors look trapped, horrified and about three seconds away from calling their agents about sparing them from any further couple-y interactions. 

It's funny, because I totally get where you guys are coming from on Logan, and I do think Rory had more chemistry and connection with Logan than she did with the lethally dull Dean. And I also objectively agree that Logan and Rory are a nice blend of I-get-you similarities and complementary differences. I do hate the way Logan was written in episodes like Kropogs (is that the one where he pilfers some trinket from the elder Gilmores' while he and Rory allow the maid to take the fall?!), Bridesmaids Revisited (I'm admittedly kind of old-fashioned about this stuff and will readily grant that sleeping with all those women the millisecond he and Rory broke up doesn't qualify as cheating, but it's incredibly off-putting to me nonetheless ::) and Let me Hear Your Whatever Ring Out. I also hate his impossibly vapid, obnoxious friends (I've always thought he could have been made a lot more likable if we'd seen him choosing to befriend a couple of endearing "geeks" rather than hanging out almost exclusively with the Life and Death Brigade), and I'd be a little troubled by how he seemed to  turn to drinking---often even when alone---when stressed or annoyed. And I dislike the way thinking about him apparently me inspires me to write horrific run-on sentences ;)

But I don't hold the seemingly popular opinion of blaming Logan for "changing" Rory into a yacht-stealing, college-eschewing DAR darling---I happened to find Rory less lovable and relatable and distinctively Rory-esque while with Logan, but I think those changes were coming regardless. And I also think I might have found Logan character far more likable and compelling if he'd been written as is but played by another actor. I just have this visceral "ugh" reaction to Matt C. I don't find him attractive (I know that's odd but, hey, at least I'm in the right thread, right?!), and that perpetual smirk made the character come across as condescending, arrogant and smug to me even in scenes when he was supposed to be more sincere  and vulnerable. 

Even less popularly?! In addition to not finding Scott Patterson (Luke) attractive, I don't think he was a particularly good actor. Then again, I don't think most of the non-Edward Herman GG males were good actors! 

Edited by mstaken.
2

Share Post


Link to post

I loved Logan too. I can understand how Rory felt blindsided by the proposal and that they really were too young, though a lot of people get engaged out of panic as they graduate, but I thought they complemented each other well and would be good together down the line.

Yeah I don't think she was bad or wrong for turning him down, but I don't think he did a bad thing by proposing either.  Plus I loved that he asked Lorelai for permission.

 

My UO is that I liked April. Hated how Luke handled that whole situation, but it wasn't April's fault.

I liked Logan too! He ruined it by proposing at the worst possible time, but other than that he was a pretty great boyfriend like you said.

Well that's a fair point about April.  It's funny though, I mostly didn't like her because her voice got on my last nerve.  And then she went on to star on Switched at Birth, and I liked that show, so I got used to it. 

 

Even less popularly?! In addition to not finding Scott Patterson (Luke) attractive, I don't think he was a particularly good actor. Then again, I don't think most of the non-Edward Herman GG males were good actors!

I thought he was attractive right up until they got together, and then it was over for good, for me. I never really thought about his acting though, which I guess is the same difference as not being impressed by it.

About Logan - for awhile there I don't think the writers could make up their minds whether he was going to be a nice guy or a rich jackass. And you're right, his character did suffer because of episodes like the trinket-stealing. Which seemed out of character later on.

(Forgive me for not quoting more specifically, I'm still adjusting to this software.)

Edited by random chance.
2

Share Post


Link to post

I never, ever liked the sulky, sullen, jealousy-prone, personality-free bore and honestly didn't get any connection between him and Rory, even back in S1.

I think there was a brief moment early on where I could see why they got together. Dean was written sort of like Jess without the attitude. He knew Rory's movie quotes, he was well read, and he listened to the same sort of music. They made him incredibly boring; oddly agressive; needy; and a townie pretty quickly. The guy went from a motorcycle riding chill Chicago boy to blah.

Jess needed to speak with more than half his mouth.

Actually, Logan always smiled with half his mouth as well.

Maybe it's a thing that Rory has for people like that.

My UO (which seems to be popular in this thread) is that April wasn't a terrible character. They just made Luke a terrible character because of her and I think a lot of the annoyance with Luke over April made people dislike April.

Edited by maculae.
0

Share Post


Link to post
oddly agressive

 

Ha! This is among the best two word descriptors of Dean I've come across :) 

Then again, another UO I have is that in general the Palladinos were way too fond of writing men as temperamental, angry and prone to jealousy. 'Cause, like, isn't it adorably passionate when a guy throws frequent temper tantrums? So sexy! ;) 


About Logan - for awhile there I don't think the writers could make up their minds whether he was going to be a nice guy or a rich jackass. And you're right, his character did suffer because of episodes like the trinket-stealing. Which seemed out of character later on.

 

As always, you totally nailed it! 

0

Share Post


Link to post

 

Jess needed to speak with more than half his mouth.

Aw, Milo has a birth defect where one side of his mouth is crooked. He has to really  work to keep it straight. I would imagine when he is concentrating on his lines or the scene he is in, he often forgets to pay attention to his mouth. 

0

Share Post


Link to post

Aw, Milo has a birth defect where one side of his mouth is crooked. He has to really  work to keep it straight. I would imagine when he is concentrating on his lines or the scene he is in, he often forgets to pay attention to his mouth.

Well, this I did not know. Sorry.

ETA: I realized this sounds kind of bitchy. I didn't intend it to come off that way. I really didn't know about Milo's birth defect.

Edited by maculae.
0

Share Post


Link to post

Maculae, I had no idea, either! And, if it's any consolation, I probably would have been far snarkier about it than you were, so please don't feel badly. :)

 

This UO goes hand in hand with my Dean and Max dislike, but I actually don't love Season 1 nearly as much as most do. Many GG fans I know name it as their favorite season, but for me S2, S3, S4 and even parts of S5 are far more awesome and hold up much better for me with repeated viewing. On the bright side, as already rambled about, S1 is the season during which I find Luke by far his sharpest, most interesting and attractive, and I do love s1 Rory. But, ugh, the overly juvenile, cutesy, vain Lorelai of S1 drives me all kind of crazy; way too many scenes feel overlong and OMG-yes-we-GET-it! heavyhanded to me, especially by this show's standards; and the overall tone feels so precious and twee that at times it borders on saccharine for me. And in my admittedly biased view, there's way, WAY too much Dean and Max :) There are surprisingly few S1 episodes (Rory's Birthday Parties, Double Date and the far less popular The Third Lorelai) that I'd consider absolute favorites of mine, and a whole bunch of them that I'm more than fine skipping upon rewatch. 

Edited by mstaken.
0

Share Post


Link to post

I am not saying this to make any comment about any character's sexuality -- or to *not* make a comment, either.

But I think Rory has the best chemistry with Paris.  Even though I do look away when they kiss in the spring break episode.  I might be ridiculous.

0

Share Post


Link to post

I did not like any of Rory's boyfriends! Sorry! Not a one!

In the beginning, I thought Dean might be okay, but then with the whole I love you thing, I thought he was kind of unfair and emotionally manipulative about it. I mean seriously dude, you are 15 or 16 years old, stop pushing for things to be so serious!

Then when she dumped him for Jess, Jess suddenly went from being a semiviable option (he read and liked the same music/seemed to be her intellectual rival) to a complete dick like the second they got together and Rory just kind of put up with it.

Then from there, she got back together with stupid Dean, so again, bad choice! Not even judging about the cheating, but your first girlfriend dumps you so your immediate thought as a high school age boy is "You know, this other girl seems okay, so obviously I need to ask her to marry me because god forbid I spend a second of my romantic life alone at 18"? Really?

And after Dean, Logan. I will admit, he had moments where he was kind of okay, but for the most part, I felt like he kind of treated her like his peppy little gal companion and not so much like an equal at times which bummed me out/confused me why she would put up with him (if I had to hear him call her "Ace" one more time in that smarmy ass way of his, I was going to scream). Growing up with Lorelai as a mother, I kind of thought that Rory would be instilled with more of a sense of individualism and the idea that she didn't need a man to succeed, but she kind of swallows some seriously crappy behaviour and just kind of resigns herself in her relationship with him.

The only time I sort of thought she might have an okay match was when she ran into Jess later in the series when he was working at his own publishing house and had written a book. He at least seemed vaguely grown up and in the real world to a certain extent.

Reading back over what I have read, I think my ultimate desire was for Rory to be single for a while and happy with it. The one season they made her single (first year of college before the Dean Devirginizing), they made it seem like it was the worst thing in the world to not have a boyfriend (Oh my god! You asked a guy out and he said no! Oh my god! You went on like one horrible date! Your life is so tragic!). It would have been more interesting if they just let her do her Rory thing for a while and had some actual viable friendships (as opposed to the late college ones she made with those art girls when the writers seemed to realize she didn't hang out with anyone but Paris) and then had a more organic dating relationship spring up from one of her actual interests.

2

Share Post


Link to post

My UO (I assume as much anyway) is that for whatever reason, Lazy Hazy Crazy Days just does not work for me.  I don't even know why.  On paper it should be a great episode, but something about it just makes me think 'meh' every time it's brought up.

0

Share Post


Link to post
I am not saying this to make any comment about any character's sexuality -- or to *not* make a comment, either.

But I think Rory has the best chemistry with Paris.

Hee---although I don't see their dynamic as romantic or sexual, rest assured that I'm totally obsessed with the Paris/Rory frenemy-ship and hold the UO that it's probably my very favorite non-Lorelai/Rory relationship of the whole show.

A more general UO is that I think GG mostly sucked at depicting romantic relationships. They were pretty good at the buildup and rather scarily good at capturing that immediate post-breakup angst, but the way they wrote and directed the show's actual romances tended not to work for me. Speaking of which...

Reading back over what I have read, I think my ultimate desire was for Rory to be single for a while and happy with it.

Heh---I kind of wanted this for both Rory and Lorelai, though especially Lorelai. One of the most U of my Os is that I think Lorelai ending the series as contentedly single made by far the most sense for the character and everything that had transpired on this show, not to mention a refreshingly unique way to end a series. 

(if I had to hear him call her "Ace" one more time in that smarmy ass way of his, I was going to scream).

Oh my god, YES. I get that it was supposed to be cute, but it came off as cringe-inducingly condescending and, like many aspects of the Rory/Logan dynamic for me, just never quite felt natural. I always felt like Logan was talking to a kindergartner going up to bat for his first little league game: "Go get 'em, Ace!" But, again, that's probably just my weird reaction to Matt C.---for me he almost always came off as so smirky, condescending and smarmy (thanks for using that adjective---it applies perfectly t both him and Max IMO!) that even things like the perfectly benign "Ace" stuff made me wince. 

2

Share Post


Link to post

I never liked the "Ace" nickname either, but then I seem to be the only one here that didn't care for Logan much at all. Smarmy is an excellent adjective to describe him. I do admit that I'm bias when it comes to Jess, because I have a little bit of a crush on Milo. This is kind of weird because I'm (almost!) old enough to be his mother. I didn't always like Jess with Rory, but, and this may or may not be an unpopular opinion, I loved his relationship with Luke. I even liked their relationship as much, if not more, than the Rory/Lorelai relationship. 

Speaking of Lorelai, I know this is an unpopular opinion, I more often than not, didn't like her. Same with Rory in the later seasons. Wow, I just realized that I disliked the very reason to love the show! How crazy is that, yet it is still one of my all time favorites.

0

Share Post


Link to post

My UO, which doesn't seem too unpopular in here, is that I loved Logan. Like loved loved. He was the only guy (it's been a long time, so I don't remember them all, and I didn't watch every season) that I thought valued Rory's intelligence, instead of being threatened by it.

Plus, he was comfortable in all her different worlds, even her grandparents', which I think was important. Rory wasn't anti-establishment like her mom, so I don't think she was ever going to be happy with someone who was uncomfortable with her family.

Edited by photo fox.
4

Share Post


Link to post

...he was comfortable in all her different worlds, even her grandparents', which I think was important. Rory wasn't anti-establishment like her mom, so I don't think she was ever going to be happy with someone who was uncomfortable with her family.

 

That's a good point.  I'm not a big Logan fan, but I don't hate him either.  I did when he first showed up on the scene, but after a while I realized it was really more Colin and Finn that I hated (Colin more than Finn, though) rather than Logan.  But I do agree with you that it was important to Rory to be with someone who got along with her family - all of her family.

0

Share Post


Link to post

I didn't like Rory's boyfriends for the most part, either. I liked Dean in the beginning, but obviously that got ruined, I never liked Jess because of his punk teenage attitude, and Logan definitely grew on me by the end, but I was so happy she turned down his proposal. I guess my most unpopular opinion is that I didn't like Rory much post season 4. In high school she was so concerned about grades and school, even when she had a boyfriend, and then after season 4 it seemed like going to Yale took a backseat to Logan and rebelling against her mother. I feel like they totally changed her character, and high school Rory would be ashamed of Yale Rory. I think they tried to turn it around a little in season 7, giving her Yale friends (as annoying as they were), having her freak out about her post-college plans, losing on the NYT fellowship (finally Rory doesn't get something that she wants just because she wants it), and turning down Logan's proposal. It just wasn't enough, though.

Also, I really dislike how somewhere around season 4 and 5, the show's focus turned away from the mother-daughter-granddaughter relationships and became almost entirely about romantic relationships. I love Luke and Lorelai, but I feel it would have been much more novel (and entertaining) to have Luke and Lorelai break up once (because, given their track records with relationships, it was bound to happen once) and then let them be a stable force together while focusing more on the changing relationship between Lorelai and Rory as she grew up at Yale and between both of them and Emily as Rory became more familiar with the elder Gilmores' world (and yes, I realize that the Rory moving into the pool house storyline kind of goes along with that, but I felt it was done badly).

4

Share Post


Link to post
I guess my most unpopular opinion is that I didn't like Rory much post season 4. In high school she was so concerned about grades and school, even when she had a boyfriend, and then after season 4 it seemed like going to Yale took a backseat to Logan and rebelling against her mother. I feel like they totally changed her character, and high school Rory would be ashamed of Yale Rory. I think they tried to turn it around a little in season 7, giving her Yale friends (as annoying as they were), having her freak out about her post-college plans, losing on the NYT fellowship (finally Rory doesn't get something that she wants just because she wants it), and turning down Logan's proposal. It just wasn't enough, though.

Also, I really dislike how somewhere around season 4 and 5, the show's focus turned away from the mother-daughter-granddaughter relationships and became almost entirely about romantic relationships

If it's any consolation, in my experience these are extremely popular opinions! I totally share your view on Rory losing her quintessential Rory-ness. I agree that the show became annoyingly focused on romance in S5*, and generally more melodramatic in tone: Rory steals a yacht and drops out of school! Emily is a soap opera villain who actively schemes to break up Lorelai and Luke rather than just being snotty and judgmental! There's a big vow renewal ceremony where tempers flare, couples break up, and we walk in on Rory 'seducing' Logan! Maybe by another's shows standards, this stuff wouldn't have felt too melodramatic, but for me the brilliance of GG was always their ability to draw such humor and poignancy from such seemingly minor, day-to-day scenes, commonplace events and subtly woven metaphors. When my mom and I watched it, we used to jokingly describe most S1-S4 episodes as "Oh, you mean the one where not much actually HAPPENED, but it was brilliant, sweet and funny anyway?!" It just felt like the show became more typically CW-ish in S5, for lack of a better way of putting it. 

*But my UO here is that the show was actually annoyingly focused on the romantic relationships in S1. Granted, I may be biased because I happen to have really disliked both of the relationships/love interests in question, but I'm always unhappily surprised to see just how much Dean and Max stuff there is in S1. S2-S4 felt like there was a much better balance to me between romance and all of the many non-'shippy facets of the girls' lives. 

I forgot to mention (yet another!) UO: I thought the oft-snarked on Alexis Bledel did a generally awesome job. I'm not claiming she's as gifted an actress as either Kelly Bishop or Lauren Graham (though post-GG projects have me less in love with LG's acting as well!), but I do think AB was a surprisingly great match for that particular role, especially the way said role was written in S1-S4. I get that AB was an inexperienced actress and is said to be a somewhat shy, awkward person in general, but for me AB's natural awkwardness made her an awesome fit to play the introverted, cerebral, somewhat socially awkward Rory. She also had surprisingly good comic timing, great nonverbal expressions and absolutely sensational mother/daughter chemistry with LG, at least IMO. Now, granted, AB looked painfully awkward hugging non-Jess males, and fake crying is not exactly the actress's strong suit. [/understatement!] Overall, though, I hold the UO of not even being able to imagine anyone else in that role.  

0

Share Post


Link to post

fake crying is not exactly the actress's strong suit.

 

SNORT.  That almost sent my hot chocolate flying.

 

I feel it would have been much more novel (and entertaining) to have Luke and Lorelai break up once (because, given their track records with relationships, it was bound to happen once) and then let them be a stable force together while focusing more on the changing relationship between Lorelai and Rory as she grew up at Yale and between both of them and Emily as Rory became more familiar with the elder Gilmores' world.

 

Totally agree.  I really think they did a disservice to Rory's relationship with her grandparents in S6.  By having Emily turn into "my mother's mother" so that Princess Rory would be ready to get her hindquarters back in gear, IMO they backtracked on everything we had learned about who Emily actually was in the first five seasons.  The beauty of Emily and Lorelai's relationship to me was Lorelai's growing realization that maybe the responsibility of her unhappy childhood/teenage years was not squarely in her parents' lap.  S6 made them villains and erased all that progress, IMO.  Another reason I hate it so much.

4

Share Post


Link to post

She also had surprisingly good comic timing, great nonverbal expressions and absolutely sensational mother/daughter chemistry with LG, at least IMO. Now, granted, AB looked painfully awkward hugging non-Jess males, and fake crying is not exactly the actress's strong suit. [/understatement!] Overall, though, I hold the UO of not even being able to imagine anyone else in that role.

I think had the cast Rory with someone else who was a better dramatic actress, Rory would have come out very differently. So definitely agree that the awkward shyness of AB helped make the Rory we all love. In fact, I'm under the impression that that's why they cast her in the first place. Also agree with AB's comedic timing. I thought her physical comedy and some of facial expressions in WTF?/oddball situations were great. Probably why Paris was such a great character in the show, it brought out the more funny bits of Rory which was AB's strong suit.

Not sure about this UO, we've been talking about Rory's bfs a lot, but my UO is that Lorelei's best boyfriends were neither Christopher nor Luke. I was a L/L person up until they got together, then it became clear that barring significant personality changes they could not be a feasible couple. The thing is, they changed their personalities to be in their relationship and each one changed for the worse.

Christopher was always the "what if" guy in her life but I always viewed him to be a selfish spoiled manchild. On top of that, I always thought he was a shitty dad. Hell, Luke was a better dad to Rory than he was and I think that was the reason I preferred L/L to L/C of the two relationships that were constantly brought up for Lorelei. The best thing about season 7 was that it took L/C which was a tire fire of a relationship and completely destroyed it. Like repeatedly driving a stake through a vampires heart, taking the ashes out in the sun with a head of garlic, and pissing on it. Pleased me to no end. Hated Christopher.

In fact, I don't think any of her long time bfs were that great. Max and her had nothing in common. Jason was just the male version of Lorelei, also less whiny and more successful than Christopher. Billy Burke's character was bland and boring. But I think she was too hung up on the "what ifs" of Christopher and Luke to seriously pursue anyone.

0

Share Post


Link to post

Heh---maculae, in my experience hating Christopher is pretty much the most popular opinion on the planet! I'm always in a tiny minority for not hating him and thinking he and Lorelai had far more of a connection and chemistry than Luke and Lorelai, though by the end of the series I didn't want her to end up with either one of them :)

 

 

Hell, Luke was a better dad to Rory

 

This is another one of my UOs: I just don't buy the 'Luke as surrogate dad to Rory' thing. They didn't seem NEARLY close enough for me to say that. In seven seasons, they shared just 2-3 scenes alone, and both were solely due to their mutual concern over Jess or Lorelai. During times throughout the series when Lorelai and Luke were arguing or estranged, there was no indication that Rory and Luke maintained any contact---or even wanted to. I don't doubt that Luke cared about her and was very generous to her, but Rory always seemed like she viewed Luke as one of a handful of Stars Hollow adults who she was fond of, not as a substitute father by any stretch. She seemed closer and more comfortable with Sookie than she did with Luke, and as male figures go, she was far, far closer to Richard. I actually WANTED to view Luke and Rory as non-biological family, but it just doesn't come through on screen for me. Rory and Luke tend to have a much richer, closer, better developed dynamic in fanfic than they did on the actual show, at least IMUO :) 

 

 

Jason was just the male version of Lorelei,

You know, it's funny---this is one of the reasons I loved Jason and think he was the best of her boyfriends (and the only one I, personally, would have any interest in dating!) It kind of speaks to my general UO re. preferring that couples have a lot of connection and compatibility rather than tiresome bickering, I-don't-get-you-and-see-the-world-in-radically-different-ways, 'opposite attracts' like Luke and Lorelai, whose extreme differences in temperament, interests and outlook made for a stimulating friendship but, for me, a dreadfully incompatible and joyless romantic pairing. I do agree with the popular opinion that Jason and Lorelai lacked sexual chemistry, but I don't think that's because they had a lot in common. (And I do think they had a few key differences as well, but now I'm just rambling and will shut myself up!) 

But, yeah, in general the significant others on this show and the depiction of romance was disappointing.  

 

 

Probably why Paris was such a great character in the show, it brought out the more funny bits of Rory which was AB's strong suit.

Oh my gosh, yes, they had such great frenemyship-y chemistry! 

Edited by mstaken.
4

Share Post


Link to post

I shipped Marty/Rory from the moment she found him naked in the hallway. 

4

Share Post


Link to post

You know, it's funny---this is one of the reasons I loved Jason and think he was the best of her boyfriends (and the only one I, personally, would have any interest in dating!) It kind of speaks to my general UO re. preferring that couples have a lot of connection and compatibility rather than tiresome bickering, I-don't-get-you-and-see-the-world-in-radically-different-ways, 'opposite attracts' like Luke and Lorelai, whose extreme differences in temperament, interests and outlook made for a stimulating friendship but, for me, a dreadfully incompatible and joyless romantic pairing. I do agree with the popular opinion that Jason and Lorelai lacked sexual chemistry, but I don't think that's because they had a lot in common. (And I do think they had a few key differences as well, but now I'm just rambling and will shut myself up!)

I personally would never date a Jason but I agree that he was her best boyfriend. They were better suited for each other, had a compatible temperament, had similar backgrounds, were quirky in the same way, and just seemed to have fun. If Lorelei were my friend, that's the type of relationship I'd encourage. Not the backwards looking relationship with Christopher, the fantasy relationship with Luke, the bland relationship with Billy Burke (what was his character's name?), or the lacking in chemistry relationship with Max.

I always thought the Christopher/Luke fans were 50/50, so I'm surprised my Christopher hate is a popular opinion! 

So I think this may be an UO (my mind will be blown otherwise), but I think they should have ended Lane's storyline earlier. Have her go away somewhere. Her relationship with Rory near the end was almost non-existent (aside from Rory crashing on her couch after leaving Emily & Richard's) and every plot line they were giving her was a disservice to her character. Her band wasn't all that great; Zach was a terrible boyfriend/fiance/husband for her; she settle for a life in a way that I don't think she had to. I would have preferred no Lane to the Lane we got.

4

Share Post


Link to post
They were better suited for each other, had a compatible temperament, had similar backgrounds, were quirky in the same way, and just seemed to have fun. If Lorelei were my friend, that's the type of relationship I'd encourage.

I am so very with you on that UO :) I agree that Lorelai and Digger were the best suited in so many ways and that, if i were Lorelai's friend, he's the one I'd feel best about her dating. Luke's anger issues and raging negativity would concern me (as would his history of being weirdly passive-aggressive to the point of being dishonest in his relationships with Nicole and Rachel, though Lorelai's relationship history isn't much to write home about, either!); Christopher's immaturity and weakness would concern me; Max's...well, smarmy, pompous Max would just flat-out baffle me because, like you, I just honestly didn't GET that one on any level!

 

 

So I think this may be an UO (my mind will be blown otherwise), but I think they should have ended Lane's storyline earlier. Have her go away somewhere. Her relationship with Rory near the end was almost non-existent (aside from Rory crashing on her couch after leaving Emily & Richard's) and every plot line they were giving her was a disservice to her character. Her band wasn't all that great; Zach was a terrible boyfriend/fiance/husband for her; she settle for a life in a way that I don't think she had to. I would have preferred no Lane to the Lane we got.

I like Lane well enough, but she was never a favorite of mine like she seemed to be for a lot of others. In later seasons, I didn't generally mind when she popped up, but nor did I ever miss her when she was MIA for a few consecutive episodes. I think you actually make an excellent point; her arc seemed to end by the end of S4 now that Mama Kim had found out and was slowly on her way to accepting Lane's secret identity as a drummer, and it didn't make sense for her to see Rory as much as she used to, so the writers seemed sort of at a loss as to what to do with her beyond lazily pairing her with Zach, which...no. Just no. (They were actually semi-tolerable to me through much of S7, but I absolutely hated Zach in S4-S6!)

If they had to throw her with someone, couldn't it have been Brian?! For a show that celebrated reading and learning and general smarty-pants-ness as merrily GG did, geeks and nerds were sadly underrepresented.

And your description of Hep Alien is far kinder than mine! I think their music was painfully awful, and their scenes all started to feel identical to me.  

 

 

the bland relationship with Billy Burke (what was his character's name?),

Hee! It was Alex, bit the fact that most of us don't even remember it speaks volumes about how well they defined and developed his character ;)

Edited by mstaken.
0

Share Post


Link to post

Yeah, Alex disappeared onto 24.

As for Lane, I'm still pissed off she didn't end up with Dave, even if the actor did leave the show. If she couldn't be with Dave, why did they have to pair her up with anyone from the band? Why did they have to pair her up at all? That moment when she said she barely got to do it, barely got to be a real person, was so sad for me, because I feel like that's really what they did to her character by marrying her off to Zach and having her get pregnant with twins. I grew to like Zach more and I liked a lot of the things about Lane and Zach's wedding, but ultimately I didn't like what they did with her character once they paired her up with Zach.

3

Share Post


Link to post

Yeah, Alex disappeared onto 24.

As for Lane, I'm still pissed off she didn't end up with Dave, even if the actor did leave the show.

Oh man, Dave! I freaking LOVED Dave Rygalski! When I did my last rewatch, the Dave season was my favourite. By far, the best GG boyfriend! He ate horrible sandwiches and played Christian music and read the bible in one whole night! The fact that he didn't just Google that quote blew my mind but maybe the internet didn't exist in Stars Hollow at that time as Kirk/Mick messed up the wiring? I don't know. Anyway, I am still sad about this too (although real life Lane Helen Pai DID end up with her Dave so at least The OC didn't completely screw up the love story. ;) )

3

Share Post


Link to post

Dave was really the best guy any of them dated.

Also, I'm a big fan of Jason/Digger. I especially enjoy the episode where they end up eating dinner outside a grocery store. And if I'm trying to get something out of a particular friend, I'm known for saying, "stay! there's Kielh's products in the bathroom!" even though usually there are not.

Edited by JayInChicago.
1

Share Post


Link to post

My UO is that I really did not care for Dave that much at all.  He had his moments, but overall I didn't like his character all that much and I didn't think he was such a great boyfriend for Lane.  It bugged me the way he encouraged her to keep lying to her mother, and even lied to her himself about what kind of person he was.  That's not a quality I would like to see in the boy my daughter is dating.

1

Share Post


Link to post

My OU (if it is one) is that I rarely liked Jackson. It could be that the actor just wasn't that good, but I didn't like how whiny and unpleasant (and loud!) he often was. He's probably in the bottom of my townie rankings - Taylor would be my least favorite Townie. 

0

Share Post


Link to post

Taryn, that's a really interesting and insightful take on Dave! Oddly enough, I think it may help me to like him even more ;) My only complaint about Dave used to be that he was a little too flawless, especially in contrast to many of the show's others deeply imperfect characters, so I actually like the reminder that he did have faults. It makes him more relatable and interesting to me. And given the degree to which many of the romances and romantic partners on this show sucked (IMUO, of course), Dave and Dave/Lane was still easily among the best of the bunch for me---if only by default! 

 

 

My OU (if it is one) is that I rarely liked Jackson

Frequent rewatches have brought me closer and closer to agreeing with this UO! I don't dislike him, but I certainly don't love him like many others fans seem to---and nearly as much as I used to. AS-P really had a thing for negative, temperamental men who are forever complaining, grumbling, and pitching minor to moderate fits, didn't she?! Jackson and Jackson/Sookie had their great moments, but overall I hold the UO that, like pretty much all townies, I like them best in small doses :)

And speaking of one of AS-P's many moody, negative, quick-to-anger men, as much as I enjoyed Michel's snark, my UO is that he's a pretty terrible person. If I had to work alongside him all day, I'm not sure I'd last a week without being fired or arrested for assault.  

Another UO: I find both Rune and Tobin enjoyable amusing rather than get-off-my-screen annoying. Lord knows why, but I do. (And this is especially unpopular coming from me, who has a notoriously low tolerance for AS-P's wildly over-the-top, excessively quirky minor characters!)

Edited by mstaken.
0

Share Post


Link to post

Heh, glad I could be of service MsT!

 

Tobin, as you may know, makes me want to poke very sharp things into my eyeballs (more for the way Lorelai and Sookie both turn into vapid ninnies around him than for the way he acts himself), but I kind of love Rune.  He's just so horrible he crosses over into great.

 

How does everyone feel about Jackson's brother Beau?  He made me giggle in FoLA but I found him absolutely hysterical in Godmother.

0

Share Post


Link to post

I now can't see Beau as anything but Ron Swanson.  So when he hits on Lorelai, I'm kind of like...maybe you should go for it!

1

Share Post


Link to post

Having just marathoned the entire series while my father recovered from surgery, here are some of my unpopular ideas: 

1. I wish Christopher's season 7 storyline had taken place in Season 4. I actually really enjoyed the Christopher story, because it's a relationship that really needed to be explored, not only because of the premise of the show, but because it's the elephant in the room for the first six seasons--as Emily says, "it should have been Christopher".  They should have explored it earlier, because it also resulted in much needed character growth for both Christopher and Lorelai, especially with Lorelai being forced to confront the question of whether she's still rebelling against her mother. Exploring it in Season 4--including a short-lived marriage and divorce--would have been a good prelude to the Luke/Lorelai relationship in Seasons 5+. 

2. On Christopher, I think he and Lorelai really are bound together.  Lorelai's comments when her mother got arrested--"anyone else would have though I was crazy for laughing"--point to something important for Lorelai.  The Stars Hollow townies may not understand it, but Lorelai will always have a Gilmore side that's antithetical to Stars Hollow. While I think they had to a Lorelai/Christopher arc like they did in Season 7, I would have liked to have seen a Lorelai/Christopher relationship in the end.  Maybe if they'd done the Season 7 arc earlier, they could have come back with a slightly more mature Christopher in Season 7.

3. I don't like Luke and Lorelai together.  Platonic bffs, sure.  But they're both too independent and need different things in a romantic partner. Ironically, they probably had the best chance of succeeding in Season 1, but as Lorelai was increasingly dragged back into her parents' world over the course of the show, I don't think Luke understands or wants to understand that side of her.

4. The relationship stumbling blocks were incredibly obnoxious. The show got very soap opera-like with all of the magically appearing relatives/exes that kept showing up--and why were they so disproportionately connected to Luke? I think I fast-forwarded through every TJ scene.  Wait, this is probably not that unpopular a belief.

4

Share Post


Link to post

Welcome, TyranAmiros! It's so fun for us grizzly veterans to hear fresh perspectives from someone who just recently devoured the show. And I'm not just saying that because I happen to share many of your UOs :) 

 

 

While I think they had to a Lorelai/Christopher arc like they did in Season 7, I would have liked to have seen a Lorelai/Christopher relationship in the end.  Maybe if they'd done the Season 7 arc earlier, they could have come back with a slightly more mature Christopher in Season 7.

What really irks me about the writing and pacing of their S7 relationship is that, IMUO, they seemed so *genuinely* loving and happy for awhile, two people who really did connect and 'get' each other, and it didn't come across to me in the intended 'Lorelai's trying to pretend she's happy but REALLY still misses Luke' way. Lorelai was even compromising a bit, and she just looked and seemed so much more in love than I thought she ever did with Luke. Then it's like the writers belatedly recalled that they have to get rid of Christopher to pave the way for another (ill-advised, IMUO!) reunion with Luke, so that arc felt really rushed, sloppy and contrived to me.

 

 

. I don't like Luke and Lorelai together.  Platonic bffs, sure.  But they're both too independent and need different things in a romantic partner. Ironically, they probably had the best chance of succeeding in Season 1, but as Lorelai was increasingly dragged back into her parents' world over the course of the show, I don't think Luke understands or wants to understand that side of her.

As you can see from my posts, I agree wholeheartedly that Luke and Lorelai worked as friends but had less than no chemistry and connection as a romantic couple. For me, it's not the differences in their lifestyles/backgrounds, though---it's their radically different, incompatible personalities, temperaments, and interests. Once they became a couple, they just didn't seem to get each other or make each other happy. And chemistry is always very subjective, but I just don't see any between them...at times it looked like they could barely stand to exchange even a chaste kiss on the cheek! It would have been so refreshingly rare (rare by TV standards, that is) to see them mutually recognize that they just don't click romantically but would love to rebuild their friendship.  

There's a scene in That's What You Get Folks... (7.2) where Luke explains to TJ and Liz that he and Lorelai just didn't fit, and even though we're supposed to believe he was just trying to convince himself of that to dull the pain, I was nodding along in earnest agreement and thinking that it's the most insightful and self-aware either of them had sounded in quite some time! 

 

 

The show got very soap opera-like with all of the magically appearing relatives/exes that kept showing up--and why were they so disproportionately connected to Luke?

Heh---I always felt like once Jess left the show, they were kind of at a loss as to what to do with Luke's character and storylines outside of his not-yet-ready-to-act on connection with Lorelai and his lamely halfhearted, clearly ill-fated romance with Nicole. Hence the long lost daughter and the horror that was Liz/TJ :) 

I'd love to hear your thoughts on Rory, Emily, Paris...etc.! 

Edited by mstaken.
0

Share Post


Link to post

 

What really irks me about the writing and pacing of their S7 relationship is that, IMUO, they seemed so *genuinely* loving and happy for awhile, two people who really did connect and 'get' each other, and it didn't come across to me in the intended 'Lorelai's trying to pretend she's happy but REALLY still misses Luke' way.

To me it always felt like they were playing house. Lorelai was happy to be with someone without complications like disapproving parents, long-lost daughters etc., and of course Chris was happy to have finally caught Lorelai. However, that's all they had -- a temporary escape from the real world, a fulfillment of a fantasy that both had always had. Lorelai finally did what her parents wanted and created the her little nuclear family but it wasn't enough. 

I know a lot of people think the Luke and Lorelai were very different but I think they're very alike in what their core values are. Both are hard-working and independent, both are extremely loyal to family and community (Luke for all his grumpiness was always there to help in the end). So they were well-matched in those respects. And for anyone who watches Say Yes to the Dress, I swear nearly every bride describes herself as the outgoing, more emotional one and the fiancé as the one who calms her down and accepts her for herself.  Luke often needs calming down himself but he's definitely the one who accepts Lorelai for all her quirks -- actually because of her quirks. Christopher thinks she's a rebel. Maybe she was as a teenager, but she was actually quite conservative after having Rory. She didn't drag Rory all over the world following the Bangles. She moved 20 miles away from her parents, got a job, supported herself and lived a pretty quiet life in a small town. She rarely dated until Rory was in high school, she wanted the whole two kids and a golden retriever life. I could never see Christopher settling for that. 

3

Share Post


Link to post
She rarely dated until Rory was in high school, she wanted the whole two kids and a golden retriever life. I could never see Christopher settling for that.

 

I can definitely see where you're coming from, but in S7 Christopher was really ready and eager to settle into a very normal married life in SH or wherever else she wanted. And he never struck me as wanting her to be some sort of adolescent rebel anymore---he actually seemed to adore her as is, and I felt he instinctively 'got' her while Luke just seemed baffled and perpetually annoyed by her---and she seemed so uncomfortable and flat during most of their relationship. 

 

 

 

I know a lot of people think the Luke and Lorelai were very different but I think they're very alike in what their core values are. Both are hard-working and independent, both are extremely loyal to family and community (Luke for all his grumpiness was always there to help in the end).

 

I hear what you're saying, but for me these are descriptors that apply to many, many, MANY people. In terms of personalities and interests and their perspectives on the world, they just seemed on different planets to me. I agree that some differences are complementary and can challenge and help one another to be better people, but their differences just seemed to lead--in my UO, obviously---to a depressing lack of connection, spark and common ground. But I'm in the admitted minority who really doesn't like the whole rom-com-y trope of total opposites being destined for each other and how constantly fighting and never having any commonality is the ultimate sign of chemistry...to me, it's just tiresome incompatibility.

I do think they'd both be really exhausting to deal with on a daily basis, though: his moody, anger-prone negativity, her irritating rambling, etc. Does being tiresome count as something they both have in common?! ;) 

That's what makes this stuff interesting, though---it all comes down to subjective perception. I wanted to love Luke/Lorelai as a couple, but I just saw them as wwoefully ill-suited and with less chemistry than I'd have believed possible based on their often sparkly friendship of s1-S4! 

Edited by mstaken.
3

Share Post


Link to post

I actually agree with both of you, mstaken and nolieblue. There are moments of pure attraction and moments of playing house.  But I guess my unpopular opinion was that I enjoyed the arc because of this duality.  Lorelai and Christopher are both stuck at 16 in terms of their romantic emotional development--contrast Lorelai and Christopher's petty fighting over Luke even with Rory and Logan's far more mature conversation when Rory developed a crush on the TA.  Lorelai still had her teenage walls up, trying to compartmentalize her Stars Hollow life away from Christopher, while Christopher was still the insecure teenager needing constant reassurance. There's a good comparison between Lorelai/Christopher/Luke in Season 7 and Rory/Dean/Jess in Season 2, except that it's expected at 17, but you should have grown out of it by 37. Lorelai has more emotional growth in Season 7 than in Seasons 3-6 combined, and I really enjoyed seeing her mature at least 15 years over the course of the season. 

To me, Luke and Lorelai are too similar to work in a relationship.  They both want independence, but in radically different ways.  Lorelai wants an escape route, the freedom to make her own decisions without her parents' say-so.  She wants to avoid her mother's scheduled and socially regulated world--remember the discussion about "Europe in the spring? But we do Europe in the fall" in Season 1.  Luke, on the other hand, wants autonomy.  He wants to be left alone, to engage with others when and how he wants.  He wants to make decisions on his own timeframe.  For Luke, Lorelai's constant reference point of her parents' world isn't accessible.  For Lorelai, Luke's unwillingness to fully communicate his feelings is maddening.  Lorelai needs to know where she stands; Luke needs to know that he's secure.  They're both fighting for independence, but in different directions, and because neither is good at compromise, they'll eventually pull apart.

My thoughts on other characters.  Well, I don't know how unpopular this is, but I find Season 1 Rory to be mean.  She's constantly pouting about Dean, and lets the whole breakup thing go way to far.  I also find Rory and Lorelai's fight to be perfectly reasonable--Lorelai is shown to be living vicariously through Rory, and it makes sense that Rory might also want to go her own way for a time.  I think Emily and Richard do the wrong thing, but it's perfectly in character for them.  They're also living their fantasies about their daughter vicariously through Rory.  

I don't like how the show treated Paris at all.  She should have been valedictorian. She should have gotten into Harvard.  In theory, her character makes a good foil for Rory's, but they kept sacrificing Paris at the altar of Rory or relegating her to plot device to spur Rory to do something.

4

Share Post


Link to post

1) I thought Luke and Lorelai were a terrible couple. The constant bickering and radical differences in personality and temperament that made for a stimulating and amusingly challenging friendship somehow just made them seem totally incompatible to me once they got together romantically. I saw less than no romantic chemistry between them (at times, the actors looked as if it actually pained them to share a scene!), and they just seemed so devoid of any sort of joy, spark or "I get you!" connection to me.

I couldn't agree more. I absolutely hated Luke and Lorelai as a couple, mostly because I really dislike Luke. For 7 seasons he seemed like such a miserable downer all the time to me, and generally appeared to be more annoyed by Lorelai than anything else. Lorelai is vivacious, funny, high-spirited, outgoing, socially savvy, and to me Luke always came off as a monosyllabic, misanthropic, grunting Neanderthal with no social skills. (His interactions with Lorelai's parents were just cringeworthy.) It just felt like a complete mismatch and it didn't help than I saw zero romantic chemistry between SP and LG. Their kisses were just baffling to me.

My unpopular opinion? Absolutely loving Lorelai and Christopher together. Now there was chemistry. LG and DS seemed to sparkle in their scenes together, and when I watch the show, I can see what is drawing these two characters together over and over. If I had my way, Luke and Lorelai would have broken up permanently in season 5, and the rest of the series would have Lorelai and Chris reconnecting as adults and eventually getting married.

7

Share Post


Link to post

CleoCaesar, I feel like you must be my long lost TV soulmate :) 

LG and DS seemed to sparkle in their scenes together, and when I watch the show, I can see what is drawing these two characters together over and over.

'Sparkle' is the perfect word for it. Lorelai just always seemed so genuinely happy and animated and life-loving around Christopher, who instinctively got her and wasn't forever squashing her enthusiasm and taking the darkest possible view of every little aspect of life. My mom saw the series for the first time last year, and kept remarking how Lorelai/LG seemed to "light up" around Christopher and how naturally they seemed to click. She thought Lorelai just seemed so much more genuinely happy around Christopher than she ever did with Luke and, no, I swear that I hadn't biased her beforehand! 

While some perceive Lorelai and Chris's connection as a purely superficial one, I just saw so much instinctive understanding, commonality and connection between them.  I actually think the casting directors did too good a job, as odd as that sounds; while they knew all along that Christopher/Lorelai weren't 'end game', they cast Christopher with an actor who IMO had about a zillion times more chemistry with LG than Scott Patterson did. 

For 7 seasons he seemed like such a miserable downer all the time to me, and generally appeared to be more annoyed by Lorelai than anything else. Lorelai is vivacious, funny, high-spirited, outgoing, socially savvy, and to me Luke always came off as a monosyllabic, misanthropic, grunting Neanderthal with no social skills.

You know, I always wonder how most of us would feel if genders were reversed here: If Lorelai were the cranky, temperamental, joy-stomping misanthrope while Luke were the vivacious, enthusiastic rambler, would so many people be as eager to see them paired together? I feel like a lot of us are kind of conditioned to find moody, temperamental, angry, monosyllabic guys 'sexy' and desirable while those same traits are frowned upon in females. Personally, I'm not wild about them in either sex, and while I get that Luke's temper was often exaGGerated for "comedic" effect, I found it really off-putting. He'd have bored, exhausted and depressed the hell out of me. (And, granted, Lorelai would grate on me!)

Similarly, I think a lot of us fiction addicts are taught that opposites who can't seem to stop clashing and bickering for ten minutes at a time are 'soulmates', but for me these two were just so depressingly incompatible.  

And this is an even more controversial one: I think the degree to which Christopher was truly a 'deadbeat dad' is often exaggerated. I've known deadbeat dads. Christopher, while obviously immature and not as involved as he should have been, tried to marry Lorelai both while she was pregnant and again in S1, planning to live with her and Rory if Lorelai had agreed to it. (And I understand why Lorelai didn't want that, but that's another story!) The show was also wildly inconsistent, telling us one episode that Christopher called faithfully every week at the same day and time and then sloppily intimating a few episodes later that they hadn't heard from him in 'months.' Similarly, the show was awfully ambiguous (and occasionally outright contradictory) as to what extent Lorelai, protective and admittedly even possessive of Lorelai, actually blocked Christopher's efforts to be a bigger part of her life as opposed to him just never making those efforts at all. I'm certainly not claiming that Christopher was a great father or that Lorelai should be 'blamed' for the ways in which he fell short, but I do think the 'deadbeat dad' thing is an exaggerated vilification of him. 

7

Share Post


Link to post

And this is an even more controversial one: I think the degree to which Christopher was truly a 'deadbeat dad' is often exaggerated.

 

Yes.  SO much yes.

Oh look at that!  The dead horse saw me coming and just took off running for the hills.  I guess I won't expand on it.  For now.  ;)

1

Share Post


Link to post

I think Christopher was a very inconsistent father and that's what they portrayed. It's clear he never provided financial support and that he rarely kept his word. It's hard to know what he was like before the show, so to speak, but we know they rarely saw him and he was never a major part of their lives. Lorelai, as she has admitted herself, was quite happy to have Rory all to herself, but that doesn't excuse Chris's absence from Rory's life. Frankly I could never stand him. I thought he was a whiny, immature, manipulative guy who sulked and ran away when he didn't get his own way.

 

ETA: I don't have children, but I don't think I'd ever want to be with a guy who pretty much ignored his own kid for the first 16 years of her life. 

Edited by nolieblue.
2

Share Post


Link to post
CleoCaesar, I feel like you must be my long lost TV soulmate :)

After reading your posts, mstaken, I am inclined to agree. :) (P.S. I loved Digger too. I knew there had to be someone else on Earth who did.)

'Sparkle' is the perfect word for it. Lorelai just always seemed so genuinely happy and animated and life-loving around Christopher, who instinctively got her and wasn't forever squashing her enthusiasm and taking the darkest possible view of every little aspect of life.

Yes, exactly! They just seemed to click so well, and really enjoy each other as people. Luke at best seemed to tolerate her.

I feel like a lot of us are kind of conditioned to find moody, temperamental, angry, monosyllabic guys 'sexy' and desirable while those same traits are frowned upon in females.

So true. I never, ever found Luke’s brooding or gruffness sexy, but I feel like I was “supposed” to. He just seemed like a dumbass to me, to be honest. Did he have any friends? Hobbies? Passions? Honestly, up until April’s arrival, he barely seemed human to me at times. (Maybe it was Scott Patterson’s bland-eyed stare, heh.)

Here's an unpopular opinion: There were times when I wished Luke was actually killed off the show: his hissy fit upon hearing Christopher’s voicemail and subsequent pouting, his acting like a total idiot around Emily and Richard (I thought they had a point about seeing their daughter date a guy like that), his Neanderthal behavior in “Vineyard Valentine” (a good preview of a life with Luke), all of his “rants” (never funny to me, just annoying), when he hid April from his fiancée (who DOES that?) and his tortured logic why he did so, sucker-punching Christopher, and a thousand other examples. It always seemed concerning that affection seemed to be connected with aggression to Luke. Even their stupid first kiss in “Raincoats and Recipes” came on the end of him yelling in her face about how she was leading him on and he was doing everything right. IMO he was just a sulky, pouty, jealous, aggressive, immature jerk.

*takes deep breath, reminds self that this is a fictional character on a show that ended seven years ago*

And this is an even more controversial one: I think the degree to which Christopher was truly a 'deadbeat dad' is often exaggerated.

Oh God yes.

5

Share Post


Link to post
I loved Digger too. I knew there had to be someone else on Earth who did.)

Amen, sister friend. And one of a few reasons I hold the very unpopular opinion of not particularly liking those last episodes of S4 is that I loathe the way Jason was made a pitiful stalker to pave the way for Luke/Lorelai. 

 

 

He just seemed like a dumbass to me, to be honest.

Ha!

 

 

Did he have any friends? Hobbies? Passions? Honestly, up until April’s arrival, he barely seemed human to me at times. (Maybe it was Scott Patterson’s bland-eyed stare, heh.)

Okay, this settles it---you're my separated-at-birth TV twin. I've gone on Luke-esqe rants about how strangely devoid of non-Lorelai interests, ideas, passions etc. Luke was. I think it was particularly glaring on a show where the other characters are brimming over with interests and passions and a general zest for life: Sookie had her cooking, Lane had music, Lorelai had movies, TV, music, pop culture and making clothes (and I'm convinced she would have spent a lot of time on websites like this one, haha), Rory had reading, journalism, political issues, music, general learning etc...even Jackson cared a great deal about his produce, and the almost-as-negative-as-Luke Gypsy seemed to genuinely love being a mechanic! Luke cooked and owned his own business and fixed/built things and very occasionally watched baseball or went fishing, but he didn't seem to actually *like* these things. Maybe since he hated them a little less than he seemed to hate pretty much everyone and everything else, that's supposed to be construed as enthusiasm.  And as off-putting as I find his anger issues, as a fictional character being that dull is an even more egregious sin for me.

I could never imagine what he and Lorelai would actually *do* in their free time. They seemed to have literally zero interests in common. We've Got Magic to Do actually drove that home quite effectively---it seemed either they'd have to engage in totally separate activities, or that one would have to constantly do something he/she didn't like doing, no doubt complaining all the while. ;) And it's not like they exactly seemed so swept up by passion that it could mask their glaring lack of compatibility, either, because those two looked pained when they had to exchange even a quick peck on the cheek,  

 

 

his hissy fit upon hearing Christopher’s voicemail and subsequent pouting, his acting like a total idiot around Emily and Richard (I thought they had a point about seeing their daughter date a guy like that), his Neanderthal behavior in “Vineyard Valentine” (a good preview of a life with Luke), all of his “rants” (never funny to me, just annoying), when he hid April from his fiancée (who DOES that?) and his tortured logic why he did so, sucker-punching Christopher, and a thousand other examples.

Yes, yes, yes...and yes, especially re. April, which he's always somehow absolved for because he was 'stressed.' And don't forget him storming out of Emily and Richard's vow renewal, leaving Lorelai stranded without a ride or even cab fare (what a gentleman!) and then proceeding to ignore and freeze her out (a pattern with him) before even allowing her to explain her side of the story so that he could fairly think things over. He was like a judge retiring to render a verdict before bothering to hear any evidence. And this was over something that was very CLEARLY more Christopher and Emily's fault than Lorelai's anyway! Or how about that totally vicious, uncalled for insult in Nick and Nora about how he wouldn't trust the judgment of someone who got pregnant so early in life? (Although I think he put it more meanly than that!) Or how he ignored her profuse apologies and desperate attempts to make amends for literally *months* following the time she lost it on him while frightened after Rory's car crash, but he expected her to always forgive him immediately and without question despite never, ever even bothering to apologize?! Or... *takes that deep, cleansing breath right along with you*

By the way, it's funny that you brought up him showing up at Christopher's to sucker punch him in the face, because while the general reaction to that seemed to be a combination of amusement and a sense of vindication since Christopher supposedly "deserved" it (like anyone deserves to be physically harmed), I thought that was cringe-inducingly awful and made Luke look far worse than Christopher for being such a dopey, temperamental, boorish brute.  

I'm certainly not trying to claim Lorelai was blameless in their conflicts, by the way, and lord knows I don't think being in a relationship with her would be a proverbial walk in the park. But I'm always kind of surprised all over again by the very popular opinion that Luke was a "great" boyfriend and some sort of male ideal. He was a generous guy and didn't have a bad heart underneath, but I can honestly claim that of the popular 'leading men' I've seen on TV, Luke is easily among the ones I'd least want to date. Or want my friends to date.  

 

 

Even their stupid first kiss in “Raincoats and Recipes” came on the end of him yelling in her face about how she was leading him on and he was doing everything right. IMO he was just a sulky, pouty, jealous, aggressive, immature jerk.

Heh---those are the exact adjectives I use to describe Dean but, yeah, I often think they apply with even more depressing accuracy to Luke. And I totally, completely agree about how much I hated that much-loved kiss in R&R. In addition to your astute observation above, it's such a tiresome 'rom com' trope to fight and bicker over some grand misunderstanding right up until the moment they finally kiss. (As a general rule, AS-P seemed to hold the rather disturbing viewpoint that anger and jealousy are supremely sexy and romantic!) 

Anyway, I'll shut myself up about him now, but thank you so much for letting me know I'm not alone! 

Edited by mstaken.
2

Share Post


Link to post
I loathe the way Jason was made a pitiful stalker to pave the way for Luke/Lorelai.

I loathe Richard in those episodes. What he did to Jason was unprincipled, immoral, and most likely illegal, and somehow Jason was the evil one for suing and trying to salvage his career. 

Luke cooked and owned his own business and fixed/built things and very occasionally watched baseball or went fishing, but he didn't seem to actually *like* these things. Maybe since he hated them a little less than he seemed to hate pretty much everyone and everything else, that's supposed to be construed as enthusiasm

Ha! Yes, exactly. I never got any sense of Luke as a real person, just a collection of rants and attitude. I generally wouldn’t mind so much, but when this is the character being forced down my throat as one half of the show’s supercouple, then it becomes a problem.

...proceeding to ignore and freeze her out (a pattern with him) before even allowing her to explain her side of the story so that he could fairly think things over. He was like a judge retiring to render a verdict before bothering to hear any evidence. And this was over something that was very CLEARLY more Christopher and Emily's fault than Lorelai's anyway! Or how about that totally vicious, uncalled for insult in Nick and Nora about how he wouldn't trust the judgment of someone who got pregnant so early in life?

This, right here, is fueling my Luke hate-fire. I’d forgotten the “Nick and Nora”-episode insult. What an ass.

such a dopey, temperamental, boorish brute.

Sing it, sister!

"IMO he was just a sulky, pouty, jealous, aggressive, immature jerk."

Heh---those are the exact adjectives I use to describe Dean but, yeah, I often think they apply with even more depressing accuracy to Luke.

To me they apply with equally depressing accuracy to Jess, a mini-Luke in terms of maturity level and temperament. (At least Jess was well-read and well-versed in music, and eventually mellowed out and matured, which is more than one can say about Backwards Baseball Cap.)

Anyway, I'll shut myself up about him now, but thank you so much for letting me know I'm not alone!

 

That’s what this marvelous thread is for. :)

4

Share Post


Link to post

Oh, I have many of these.

-Lorelai, while a great character, was not a great parent. She taught Rory that she was the center of the universe.  Then when Rory acted on those beliefs, she acted shocked and appalled.

-I was glad Rory turned down Logan's proposal because he could do much, much better than the person she was by that point in the series.

-Digger was perfect for Lorelai. That said, I thought their breakup was one of the more realistic ones on the series as far as reasons.

-Luke had no right to punch Christopher for sleeping with Lorelai. She's an adult. She had broken up with you. Who she sleeps with is your business.

-Season 6 is better than Season 7.  Season 7 tries way too hard.

4

Share Post


Link to post

“Run Away, Little Boy” was just on TV and the Luke plot just makes me rage. Seriously, Lorelai dares out to go out with someone of her choosing and Luke acts like a passive-aggressive jerk. Sookie explains away his asinine behavior because he’s been “patiently waiting” for Lorelai. Like, WTF. This cretin does not have the right to be an ass to Lorelai simply because he feels entitled to her. And then in the end, he doesn’t even ask her out and continues to “patiently wait” for her. UGH.

My UO: The “little boy” in the episode title is Luke.

Rage.

2

Share Post


Link to post
Digger was perfect for Lorelai.

 

I'm so loving that this opinion is turning out so much more 'popular' than I'd ever imagined! 

 

 

Luke had no right to punch Christopher for sleeping with Lorelai. She's an adult. She had broken up with you. Who she sleeps with is your business.

 

Amen, sister friend. This bugged me on so many levels. And not that I defend resorting to physical violence under any circumstances, but somehow the fact that Luke deliberately drove over to Christopher's with the intent of assaulting him as opposed to, say, running into him accidentally and being overwhelmed by a sudden wave of emotion makes it even more awful. Honestly, no matter how hard they tried to play Luke's anger issues for laughs, I found them vaguely disturbing. And his food must be REALLY good for customers to continually return there after he regularly throws temper tantrums in front of them and on a couple of occasions even physically throws a couple out the door for little to no reason. 

 

 

My UO: The “little boy” in the episode title is Luke.

Hee! 

But you seem to be forgetting AS-P's valuable lesson: jealousy, anger and possessive entitlement is very, very sexy and romantic, which is why pretty much every male GG character exhibits them with rather alarming intensity and frequency :) 

Edited by mstaken.
2

Share Post


Link to post

But you seem to be forgetting AS-P's valuable lesson: jealousy, anger and possessive entitlement is very, very sexy and romantic, which is why pretty much every male GG character exhibits them with rather alarming intensity and frequency

...and the womenfolk just lap it up and keep coming back for more.

*headdesk*

0

Share Post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now