Gilmore Girls discussions
Topic: Art and Poetry
As we know, a great tragedy occurred when Season Six of Gilmore Girls threw up all over the airwaves. A perversion of the characters and plot lines rolled through every week until the last week travesty of Lorelei sleeping with her ex - Christopher. A vast boiled discontent has erupted in Gilmore Girls land and of course I have an opinion about it all. Over at Ask Auseillo I find myself posting a word here and there. Just so I don't lose those I'll put them right here.
Lorelei and Luke have zero chemistry and, other than the fact that they live in Starrs Hollow, nothing in common. Luke is a humorless person, and he never gets any of Lorelei's (or Rory's) pop culture references.
I'm reminded of the scene in Ice Age II, the little rat like creature which sounded an awful lot like John Leguizamo when he is explaining to Manny, the Mastadon/Wolly Mammoth creature about how the female Mastadon and Manny are meant to be together. He said, "She's tons of fun, and you're no fun at all. She com-pletes you.!"
Well, opposites attract, some people who don't seem to be worthy matches are in fact perfect for each other. And that is the case with the two characters Luke and Lorelei.
As long as we're looking at 'character' the Christopher character has shown none whatsoever. He lets Lorelei raise Rory all by herself, not the tiniest bit of care and compassion or help all those years. (if the character development is to be believed - you know 'this year' he inherits or wins the lottery or something fanciful and only then suddenly becomes responsible enough to care about his daughter and helping to pay for some part of her raising - mostly after the fact. Where's the courts when you need them. Yah, that's good writing.)His 'wit and banter' holds nary a candle to the solid, there for Lorelei and Rory all those years Luke. It's the difference between the dandy and the responsible person who might not be as witty, but is there when needed. -Completely unlike the Christopher character. That the character of Luke and Lorelei for that matter, have been assassinated by their creators doesn't take away the first five seasons of character building, - the characters built and filled out and who were the characters we loved. The Luke that was inattentive to Lorelei and the the Lorelei that went to sleep with the loser Christopher were the results of that season long lack of care and attention by the writers. To say that 'well, Luke wasn't paying attention to Lorelei and you know, I can understand why she went to Christopher' simply ignors all those years of character development.
Maybe Lorelei was wrong to jump in bed with Chris, but she's still way too good for Luke. I, for one, will be very disappointed if Lorelei and Luke end up together.
Oh I disagree completely, with everything you said right there. Neither character, as written this season, is worthy of anything. But before that, Luke was too good for her. (I mean, if we're balancing those sorts of things out)
Elibu said, I knew my comments Lorelei having better chemistry with Christopher than Luke would be controversial.
Um, not 'controversial' - simply your own opinion, and everyone has one. Doesn't make it correct or the majority opinion or controversial. Stem Cell research is controversial, an opinion about a fictional couple is an opinion.
Elibu said, Lorelei was the one who wanted to go off on her own as a single mom without accepting help from anyone. That may have been the right decision for her, but I don't think it's fair to attack Chris for that.
Well, life isn't fair. Remember Bill Murray's speech in Stripes to John Candy. Fair? Fair! Life isn't fair, is it fair that you were born this way? NO! Our opinions on characters in a show has a lot to do with whether we take the time and effort to tune into a show or a movie. If we really really like certain characters in certain shows or if we really really like the stories and plots of those show we say 'hey, tonight let's tune into this show or that show.' Why? Because we enjoy it. I don't recall ever saying, "you know, that show with characters I don't like and plot lines I hate is on tonight, let's be sure to watch that!" We don't usually say it, we just make the determination whether we want to watch something or not.
It reminds me of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes. After writing Sherlock Holmes for a while Doyle got really sick on the character. He wanted to do other things and create other stories. So Sir Doyle kills off Sherlock Holmes. Great, good for him, free at last. Name another character and or story written by Doyle after that? (crickets chirping) Yup, that really worked for him. After a while Sir Doyle brought Sherlock Holmes back. The people had spoken. It seems to me that there is a balance between a creator/writer, the creation/show and the audience. If the creator finds himself lucky enough to create something that others enjoy then that creation/show lives and it's audience makes known what it likes about the show. It's not a science, it's an art and an inexact one at that. Witness the apparent roller coaster that the show Lost has been in. Those people who loved it the first season are saying that the show has lost them and the creators of that show have been busy trying to recreate the magic they had. Their audience is waiting and hoping for that magic to return. The ratings this year will tell if the magic is back or not. Just like with Gilmore Girls, if the magic is back some will return, others won't. (once burned, twice shy) And if it goes where it seems to be going, the show peters out and fades away back into the misty folds of time.
Lastly, Elibu said, Also, to all the people who have read Michael Ausiello's original post and the comments and posted yourself, saying how you're done with the show and won't watch, you're all full of it. You're going to watch. If you weren't, why are you wasting so much time reading and posting here about it?
It's always interesting when someone makes blanket statements about groups of people they don't even know. The reasons I've posted and expressed my opinion is because I really really loved Gilmore Girls. I really really hate what they did to it. I'm not happy, I'm venting and I'm writing about that frustration. I watched maybe half of last season out of a hope that it would get better, even at that it was painful and annoying to watch. Now I won't even watch that. There's not even anything left on that channel that I watch. Of course it does no good at all to vent here since they've already killed all the good parts of the show and they aren't going to change. Like Sir Conan Doyle, they know better than their audience.
Posted by: gadlaw 07/25/2006 3:15 PM
I am also a big Lost fan and was disappointed with their second season. At least it's creators have paid attention to the audience and the ratings and hopefully, return it to the quality of the first season.
Even though DR didn't give us the same hope in his interview doesn't mean he won't do the same thing.
Well, if he didn't give any hope in his interview, a time when we presume that he'd be trying to woo the audience I don't know how you could have much hope for the future. He pretty much slapped the audience down, said that any thought about making the big mistake a dream sequence was retarded and he'd go along doing his soap opera remake of the GG. (that's how I interpreted it) I imagine it would have taken a better writer than him and his team to have taken that last episode which began with a close up of Lorelei in bed and listening to Suki and her husband to that same exact close up of her in bed with the evil one at the end and then extending it in the season opener to her blinking her eyes and being in bed with the actual Paul Anka then having her blink again and having her mother sit there in curlers and a goofy bathrobe and lecturing her about how she should put the smack down and become herself and quit moping around then have her actually wake up in a cold sweat. Then have her say 'Oh my god!' then having her frown and look around saying 'I thought my dream sequences were supposed to be a bit fuzzy around the edges' then have her shrug and then bouncing off to set things right. Nope, that would have been too difficult of a story to write for this crew. That would have been Gilmore, not this soap opera dribble that is now promised to continue with the super secret 'eyes only' draft that the good hearted Ausiello was slipped.
Yes indeed, I don't watch Lost but I have noticed how the audience is being listened to. Makes a marked contrast to what the new Gilmore crew is doing. The ones who don't get what the show was about would probably be happier writing for that Housewife show or perhaps Guiding Light. Failing to get those gigs they have decided to write those stories over at Gilmore Girls.
Elibu said, So I made a blanket statement about people I don't know, but I wasn't trying to offend anyone.
As they say in the old west, Smile when you say that. Indeed. I agree with you that many of the folks who say they'll never watch will be glued at the season premiere. But I also think that many of the folks who penned heartfelt grievances with the direction of the show and who said they were done, are in fact done. Don't forget that there are million things to do, it takes an effort to find your way to the tv at a scheduled time to watch any particular show. And again, if you cared enough to write and pen a few thoughts at a TV Guide forum that doesn't necessarily mean you're mindlessly hooked to a show like a zombie is hooked on eating brains. Personally I'm glad to find people who are as mad as I've been about the show, that's why I read and write here. Not because I'm going to watch another episode. I've not watched it since the final of the last season on either WB or on ABC Family where it's on daily, or was. I don't know anymore since I don't watch it now. I'm not ever buying season 6 on DVD and who knows when I'll be able to ever watch the other seasons I do have. I'm sure I'll know what's going on the same way I know about a show I've never seen like 'Friends' - commercials for the episodes and other publicity that finds it's way across my tv screen and such. I won't need to watch it to satisfy my diminishing curiosity, my curiosity is already satisfied, the duff who runs the show said 'it happened, we have to deal with that' satisfied my curiosity. 'We' don't have to do anything. We don't have to watch it. Sure- some will watch it, others won't. There's a new season out there, perhaps there will be another good show worth paying attention to. That would be nice.
Posted by: gadlaw 07/25/2006 7:17 PM
And of course, the image insertion still doesn't work.
Posted by gilbert davis
at 12:28 AM EDT