It feels contradictory, Rory's storyline would make more sense if it happened when she was 22 as originally planned, before she had a career. That was the point, she would be reliving her mother's life (a bit depressing but never mind) that would also be the only way to excuse her totally unprofessional behaviour, that interview, ugh. At 32, after 10 years of seemingly nothing, it's really depressing to be honest. I just feel like Rory's character development was sacrificed for Sherman-Palladino's original master plan.
I thought this, too. She doesn't seem 32 with 10 years of working experience behind her - they only ever reference ONE article she's done, and she's struggling to support herself. How has she managed living between New York and London for a DECADE if she now can't even buy new underwear? And her Wham Line would fit better if she was 22 and not 32, so her life would more closely mirror Lorelai's. 32 is a perfectly good age to have kids, in fact leaving it much later and you risk not being able to have them naturally. In real life, people would be asking her about her plans to settle down and start a family by now. The town would probably arrange for an Ideal Home Show type event just for her and trick her into buying a house.
So I failed in my attempt to wait to watch it over 4 weekends and watched it in 4 days.
I thought a lot of the first one seemed a bit awkward and wooden, and made me wonder if it was a bad idea. But it got better in the second episode, and I loved the third. Yes the one part did go on a bit too long, but it was a "feature length" episode. The last one was a little odd in places, and sometimes seemed a little bleak, and seeing Logan's spoiled rich friends wasn't welcome at all.
I suspect I'll watch it through again and like it a lot more. Gilmore Girls was always that kind of show.
As for the story, it seems strange Luke and Lorelai lived together for so long without getting married or discussing having another kid until it was too late. And as said surely Rory would have had far more of a career in 10 years - what happened with her following Barack Obama? Or do we not talk about that as it happened in S7?
But I quite liked the ending. I'm sure we were all expecting Rory to get some great new job.
It all feels like we're not supposed to remember much of season 7 and ignore the long gap. As if the one thing worth mentioning (over and over and over) in 10 years would be Rory's one article, surely she would have done more than just that. And wouldn't being a journalist following Obama around be something to be 'so proud' of, too? That's what she wanted to do, that's what she gave up doing a masters degree for.
Would I like to see more GG? Sure, but not if Amy is the one doing them.....
I thought this, too. She doesn't seem 32 with 10 years of working experience behind her - they only ever reference ONE article she's done, and she's struggling to support herself. How has she managed living between New York and London for a DECADE if she now can't even buy new underwear? And her Wham Line would fit better if she was 22 and not 32, so her life would more closely mirror Lorelai's. 32 is a perfectly good age to have kids, in fact leaving it much later and you risk not being able to have them naturally. In real life, people would be asking her about her plans to settle down and start a family by now. The town would probably arrange for an Ideal Home Show type event just for her and trick her into buying a house.
Yeah, the last bombshell is hardly the derailing of a great career at 32, which is what it was originally intended to be.
As for the story, it seems strange Luke and Lorelai lived together for so long without getting married or discussing having another kid until it was too late. And as said surely Rory would have had far more of a career in 10 years - what happened with her following Barack Obama? Or do we not talk about that as it happened in S7?
But I quite liked the ending. I'm sure we were all expecting Rory to get some great new job.
I think Luke and Lorelei are another example of sticking to the plan no matter what, if this had all happened 10 years ago. I have no doubt
they would have had their own kid, after they got married.
It all feels like we're not supposed to remember much of season 7 and ignore the long gap. As if the one thing worth mentioning (over and over and over) in 10 years would be Rory's one article, surely she would have done more than just that. And wouldn't being a journalist following Obama around be something to be 'so proud' of, too? That's what she wanted to do, that's what she gave up doing a masters degree for.
Would I like to see more GG? Sure, but not if Amy is the one doing them.....
Yeah I agree, it's like they have been frozen in time. I hate to say it but it's all very self indulgent of the writer. She wouldn't alter anything to make the story make sense. I still enjoyed it but I do have a few reservations with the plot.
Before release in all the interviews and things Amy said they weren't going to gloss over the events of season 7 and that what happened still happened. Thinking on it though she more or less did gloss over it bar a few little references.
This definitely seemed to be the season 7 Amy wanted to do but never got the chance. And would have made more sense re what Rory has accomplished since leaving Yale and then getting pregnant if it had happened 10 years ago.
I think it would have been a more natural ending to the series had it happened in season 7 too.
It was good (imo) that Amy came back for the revival but there should have been much more character development in the last 10 years.
It was good (imo) that Amy came back for the revival but there should have been much more character development in the last 10 years.
Then again part of the charm of the show was that it's based in this weird town where nothing much changes. And also it was a reunion; people don't want to see everything different in a reunion.
Rory not having everything quite so easy is a character development of sorts. It was always "Rory's special", and that got a little tedious.
Then again part of the charm of the show was that it's based in this weird town where nothing much changes. And also it was a reunion; people don't want to see everything different in a reunion.
Rory not having everything quite so easy is a character development of sorts. It was always "Rory's special", and that got a little tedious.
I think they could have easily struck a happy medium by having Rory let go from a job, and have that leave her lost. Or have her feeling burnt out from her work and needing a change of direction. That way at least she would have achieved something, and then in these episodes we would see her justifiably looking for something to be passionate about.
Thinking about it, my friends and I are all about Rory's age or a bit older/younger and we've achieved some things at least in 10 years....ok, maybe not put on the back of a menu worthy but even still!
I find it rather shocking that Rory was raised by Lorelei who was a teenage mum working as a chamber maid at the Inn to make ends meet and worked her way up to actually being a manager and then owner, yet Rory herself looks down at the idea of becoming a teacher at a prep school. She's been handed everything in life, including the idea for the book, and is now so dependent on others she does not even know that you can actually buy new underwear if your old sets are packed away in boxes.
"I don't know, but it was 90 minutes. We had a lot of time to fill."
Nonononono, it was only 90 minutes, there wasn't that much time for things like forgetable Paul and the musical and Kirk's film...
There were many enjoyable moments to this but overall it was kind of...disposable I suppose. I ended up disliking Rory for most of this series...really bad choices, we'd been told by all and sundry how special she was yet she seemingly lacked the talent to succeed even when calling in favours.
Episode 3 was a mess. For AS-P to talk about wanting to get as many people back but they had a limited time - and then to give us nearly half an hour of musical pointlessness was the worst kind of self-indulgence. She does have form for it but in such a limited run I don't think there is any reasonable excuse for it. The Across the Universe stuff in Episode 4 was slightly better but could easily have been missed without changing the plot one iota.
The last 4 words actually make perfect sense. Lorelai in a total bind with this - she can't call Rory out on getting the dad (who has to be Logan) involved, she can't interfere with whatever choice Rory makes.
It was nice to see the girls again but it'd been nicer to have had less annoyances.
I think the critics are forgetting that the original series was far from perfect, and had lots of plot developments that people didn't like. But the plot was never the point of the show anyway, and really very little happened in 7 years when you think about it.
Self-indulgent maybe, but then ASP did create the show so if anyone gets to indulge themselves it should be her. Would it have been better to do the typical thing of getting together some Hollywood hacks to put together any old script just to make some money from the fans? I don't think so. They could have played it safer; they could have simply continued the TV show but as it was four movies they wanted to do more cinematic things and you have to respect the attempt even if some of it was a miss.
I agree about the ending. Now I think about it it's obvious and always was. Rory asking Christopher about whether he wished he'd been more of a father to her was clearly Rory wondering about if Logan would want to be a father, and we're meant to think that Jess is Luke in this repeat scenario.
I think the critics are forgetting that the original series was far from perfect, and had lots of plot developments that people didn't like. But the plot was never the point of the show anyway, and really very little happened in 7 years when you think about it.
Self-indulgent maybe, but then ASP did create the show so if anyone gets to indulge themselves it should be her. Would it have been better to do the typical thing of getting together some Hollywood hacks to put together any old script just to make some money from the fans? I don't think so. They could have played it safer; they could have simply continued the TV show but as it was four movies they wanted to do more cinematic things and you have to respect the attempt even if some of it was a miss.
I agree about the ending. Now I think about it it's obvious and always was. Rory asking Christopher about whether he wished he'd been more of a father to her was clearly Rory wondering about if Logan would want to be a father, and we're meant to think that Jess is Luke in this repeat scenario.
Oh absolutely the original show was far from perfect and one of the issues with it was ASP's self-indulgence. However, ASP herself, when talking about bringing it back, talked about have 2 hour movies and then being reduced so they had to cut a lot of ideas out...to then have spent 30 minutes of a 90 minute movie on pretty derivative nonsense (it could have been dealt with in a couple of scenes with no great loss) kind of begs the question what was the quality of the stuff she had to sacrifice in order to keep that in? Especially since the end of that episode was a blow-out twixt the girls and a crisis causing Lorelai to "go wild"...that whole bit felt incredibly rushed.
Comments
I thought this, too. She doesn't seem 32 with 10 years of working experience behind her - they only ever reference ONE article she's done, and she's struggling to support herself. How has she managed living between New York and London for a DECADE if she now can't even buy new underwear? And her Wham Line would fit better if she was 22 and not 32, so her life would more closely mirror Lorelai's. 32 is a perfectly good age to have kids, in fact leaving it much later and you risk not being able to have them naturally. In real life, people would be asking her about her plans to settle down and start a family by now. The town would probably arrange for an Ideal Home Show type event just for her and trick her into buying a house.
I thought a lot of the first one seemed a bit awkward and wooden, and made me wonder if it was a bad idea. But it got better in the second episode, and I loved the third. Yes the one part did go on a bit too long, but it was a "feature length" episode. The last one was a little odd in places, and sometimes seemed a little bleak, and seeing Logan's spoiled rich friends wasn't welcome at all.
I suspect I'll watch it through again and like it a lot more. Gilmore Girls was always that kind of show.
But I quite liked the ending. I'm sure we were all expecting Rory to get some great new job.
I do agree about Rory's career in the last 10 years though.
Would I like to see more GG? Sure, but not if Amy is the one doing them.....
Yeah, the last bombshell is hardly the derailing of a great career at 32, which is what it was originally intended to be.
I think Luke and Lorelei are another example of sticking to the plan no matter what, if this had all happened 10 years ago. I have no doubt
Yeah I agree, it's like they have been frozen in time. I hate to say it but it's all very self indulgent of the writer. She wouldn't alter anything to make the story make sense. I still enjoyed it but I do have a few reservations with the plot.
This definitely seemed to be the season 7 Amy wanted to do but never got the chance. And would have made more sense re what Rory has accomplished since leaving Yale and then getting pregnant if it had happened 10 years ago.
I think it would have been a more natural ending to the series had it happened in season 7 too.
It was good (imo) that Amy came back for the revival but there should have been much more character development in the last 10 years.
Then again part of the charm of the show was that it's based in this weird town where nothing much changes. And also it was a reunion; people don't want to see everything different in a reunion.
Rory not having everything quite so easy is a character development of sorts. It was always "Rory's special", and that got a little tedious.
I know. I bet every other teen (Lane aside) in that town bloody hated the little princess.
I think they could have easily struck a happy medium by having Rory let go from a job, and have that leave her lost. Or have her feeling burnt out from her work and needing a change of direction. That way at least she would have achieved something, and then in these episodes we would see her justifiably looking for something to be passionate about.
This review gives a blow by blow of the revival and she does not mince her words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQfOYmPcQZk
http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/gilmore-girls/news/a815586/gilmore-girls-revival-lauren-graham-no-time-revival-backlash/
"I don't know, but it was 90 minutes. We had a lot of time to fill."
Nonononono, it was only 90 minutes, there wasn't that much time for things like forgetable Paul and the musical and Kirk's film...
There were many enjoyable moments to this but overall it was kind of...disposable I suppose. I ended up disliking Rory for most of this series...really bad choices, we'd been told by all and sundry how special she was yet she seemingly lacked the talent to succeed even when calling in favours.
Episode 3 was a mess. For AS-P to talk about wanting to get as many people back but they had a limited time - and then to give us nearly half an hour of musical pointlessness was the worst kind of self-indulgence. She does have form for it but in such a limited run I don't think there is any reasonable excuse for it. The Across the Universe stuff in Episode 4 was slightly better but could easily have been missed without changing the plot one iota.
The last 4 words actually make perfect sense. Lorelai in a total bind with this - she can't call Rory out on getting the dad (who has to be Logan) involved, she can't interfere with whatever choice Rory makes.
It was nice to see the girls again but it'd been nicer to have had less annoyances.
Self-indulgent maybe, but then ASP did create the show so if anyone gets to indulge themselves it should be her. Would it have been better to do the typical thing of getting together some Hollywood hacks to put together any old script just to make some money from the fans? I don't think so. They could have played it safer; they could have simply continued the TV show but as it was four movies they wanted to do more cinematic things and you have to respect the attempt even if some of it was a miss.
I agree about the ending. Now I think about it it's obvious and always was. Rory asking Christopher about whether he wished he'd been more of a father to her was clearly Rory wondering about if Logan would want to be a father, and we're meant to think that Jess is Luke in this repeat scenario.
Oh absolutely the original show was far from perfect and one of the issues with it was ASP's self-indulgence. However, ASP herself, when talking about bringing it back, talked about have 2 hour movies and then being reduced so they had to cut a lot of ideas out...to then have spent 30 minutes of a 90 minute movie on pretty derivative nonsense (it could have been dealt with in a couple of scenes with no great loss) kind of begs the question what was the quality of the stuff she had to sacrifice in order to keep that in? Especially since the end of that episode was a blow-out twixt the girls and a crisis causing Lorelai to "go wild"...that whole bit felt incredibly rushed.