I don't want Lorelai and Luke to get together,I guess because I like the relationship that they have just fine.I know that the show has to develop,but ever since the start,he's been Luke,the guy who "feeds her" and fixes things. He's the guy with the coffee,and it would just seem weird to me if they became a couple.
Lorelai and Luke
Started by
january28
, Jan 15 2004 07:08 PM
23990 replies to this topic
#1
Posted Jan 15, 2004 @ 7:08 PM
#2
Posted Jan 16, 2004 @ 10:55 AM
My preference (in an entirely ideal world) would be that ASP knows when her last season is and spends the entire season bringing them together, culminating in a wedding under the very chuppah Luke built for Lorelai. Imagine a deliciously slow romance, stretching out over 23 episodes. In my mind, that's the way to do it, if possible.
Failing that, ITA with the upthread that Luke needs some upper-hand action. Our girl takes him for granted - a lot.
Failing that, ITA with the upthread that Luke needs some upper-hand action. Our girl takes him for granted - a lot.
#3
Posted Jan 16, 2004 @ 2:21 PM
Maybe someday, you'll get your wish, Alia. There's a new interview with ASP where she says this about getting Luke and Lorelai together
Full article here: Creator Defends 'Gilmore Girls'
I think it's a positive sign that she's saying maybe it could happen before the end of the show. Because I think the building of that relationship could be really good television. I'm a diehard JavaJunkie, but I'd rather see them not end up together than have a tacked-on last-minute hookup."I think it's what we're all working toward, whether we do it before the end [of the series] or at the end."
Full article here: Creator Defends 'Gilmore Girls'
#4
Posted Jan 19, 2004 @ 7:01 PM
So am I like the only one who doesn't want Lorelai and Luke to get together?
#5
Posted Jan 19, 2004 @ 8:56 PM
Well, I don't care one bit if they get together. Does that count?
#6
Posted Jan 19, 2004 @ 8:57 PM
So am I like the only one who doesn't want Lorelai and Luke to get together?
Even with the ratings problems the Girls have had, they still have about 5,000,000 in their regular audience. There are probably two or three other people who feel that way! :)
Actually, probably there are quite a few. I'm not among them, but that's mainly because I see lots of potential for some character development if they were to get together. I would expect Luke to spend a few angry nights, at various intervals, back in his room above the diner before things settled in with them, and Lorelai might -- should -- finally start to have it penetrate that oh-so-pretty but sometimes incredibly thick skull that she's not the only person in the world, or that she and Rory aren't the only two people in the world. I think Luke's probably the best person in the Gilmoreverse to bring that about.
Edited by Kpfm, Jan 19, 2004 @ 9:02 PM.
#7
Posted Jan 21, 2004 @ 6:08 PM
I think that Rory and Jess being together should have changed Lorelai and Lukes relationship more.IMHO they could have done a lot more with that.I thought they seemd too much the same around each other
#8
Posted Jan 21, 2004 @ 6:46 PM
I have grown tired of "Gilmore Girls" and a big part of that is the way they've handled the Luke-Lorelei relationship. "Moonlighting" engendered a really annoying trend, because I think producers have become WAY too conservative, to the point that shows are being ruined by not delivering soon enough on sexual tension and chemistry. Luke and Lorelei are just one example, but I've grown tired of the sheer implausiblity of their unconsumated relationship. There is simply no way that two single people would go for years without acting on or at least acknowledging their attraction. It's the stuff of which drunken Christmas parties are made.
#9
Posted Jan 21, 2004 @ 7:32 PM
There is simply no way that two single people would go for years without acting on or at least acknowledging their attraction.
Actually, there's a very good reason. None of Lorelai's relationships have worked out, and she hasn't managed to stay friends with people once they become ex's. (case in point, Lorelai and Max) She's said herself that lovers come and go, but she values friendships more (or, something to that effect). I find it very believable that she wouldn't want to date him, because she would be afraid of jeopardizing what they do have. The pilot episode, Rory said that if they dated and broke up, it would be too weird for them to see him. Lorelai believes that.
As far as acknowledging, I don't think either one wants to, because of fear. fear that they'll have to change their approach to each other if the other one reciprocates (Luke's not big on change either) and also rejection if the other doesn't.
#10
Posted Jan 21, 2004 @ 8:45 PM
I've actually been in a Lorelai-Luke type situation, and let me tell you - fear of losing a good friend is enough to keep you in the platonic. Do I wonder what it might have been like, yes. Do I regret my/our choice, no. True friends that you love and can count on don't exactly grow on trees and I would miss it if the relationship went bad.
Don't get me wrong, I am one of those who would like to see Luke and Lorelai together. One, because I would like to see Luke finally get something nice in his life. And two, because he would be very good for Lorelai. So far, every guy we've seen her date has been of the same mold and Luke is cut from a much different one. I would love to see the character development in both of them if they changed their relationship.
Don't get me wrong, I am one of those who would like to see Luke and Lorelai together. One, because I would like to see Luke finally get something nice in his life. And two, because he would be very good for Lorelai. So far, every guy we've seen her date has been of the same mold and Luke is cut from a much different one. I would love to see the character development in both of them if they changed their relationship.
#11
Posted Jan 21, 2004 @ 9:27 PM
Word to Dani and pathwatch. I think Luke is very secure in who he is and what he wants as far as life as a whole goes at the moment. As you point out, he's not big on change, and has structured a life he finds more or less satisfactory (but there's that little nagging feeling that maybe it's not everything it should be, hence Nicole, etc.). However, he's not all that secure in dealing with girlfriend types, and he also has the example of modern society as a whole in which couples sometimes seem to spend as much time hurting as helping each other. Lorelai has been a stable item in his life, sort of, for several years (I don't think we've learned just exactly how many); with all her frustrating qualities she is also funny, caring when she notices that there's a "situation," generous with her time when, again, it occurs to her, and a regular source of just interpersonal friendship and snark (and Luke can and does bring the snark, and hence presumably appreciates it in both Lorelai and Rory).
That's a lot to risk. Luke isn't apparently exactly overburdened with just plain friends; acquaintances, yes, but real friends? Think not. And romance is tumultuous at any age; have to mention Ruth-Anne of Northern Exposure again here: "there is no dignity in love." Luke doesn't like upset, and is usually not a big risk-taker (although, as witness the $100,000 for the building, he can be, in a way). His is the more difficult side of the equation, because we can (or I can, at least) easily see Lorelai just kind of going along her merry way not much worrying about things so long as they keep on an even keel -- she'll just let Luke be Luke, knowing that if she comes around and semi-flirts and looks cute he's probably going to grumble and go along with whatever she wants. That's a pretty good situation from her standpoint, so why change? (In fairness, I doubt she internally articulates it that way.)
Well, because that little nagging thing in Luke is getting bigger and more naggy, that's why. He's feeling the lacunæ in his life more and more, and he might actually do something about it, thus upsetting Lorelai's neat little apple cart. And watching that process could be lots of fun, at least if ASP and the writers put their minds back to work on plot and character development.
That's a lot to risk. Luke isn't apparently exactly overburdened with just plain friends; acquaintances, yes, but real friends? Think not. And romance is tumultuous at any age; have to mention Ruth-Anne of Northern Exposure again here: "there is no dignity in love." Luke doesn't like upset, and is usually not a big risk-taker (although, as witness the $100,000 for the building, he can be, in a way). His is the more difficult side of the equation, because we can (or I can, at least) easily see Lorelai just kind of going along her merry way not much worrying about things so long as they keep on an even keel -- she'll just let Luke be Luke, knowing that if she comes around and semi-flirts and looks cute he's probably going to grumble and go along with whatever she wants. That's a pretty good situation from her standpoint, so why change? (In fairness, I doubt she internally articulates it that way.)
Well, because that little nagging thing in Luke is getting bigger and more naggy, that's why. He's feeling the lacunæ in his life more and more, and he might actually do something about it, thus upsetting Lorelai's neat little apple cart. And watching that process could be lots of fun, at least if ASP and the writers put their minds back to work on plot and character development.
Edited by Kpfm, Jan 21, 2004 @ 9:29 PM.
#12
Posted Jan 21, 2004 @ 9:43 PM
See, I don't have any real objection to Luke and Lorelai (except when I'm feeling ornery about them being thought of as The One True Couple) but I think the assumption that the fear of creating a Moonlighting sitution could be the only reason for keeping them apart is a mistake. Kpfm has spelled out why them not pursuing anything is grounded in who they are.
And, if they do that, it would be a good way to get back to the stories of depth that have been missing for so long.
He's feeling the lacunæ in his life more and more, and he might actually do something about it, thus upsetting Lorelai's neat little apple cart. And watching that process could be lots of fun, at least if ASP and the writers put their minds back to work on plot and character development.
And, if they do that, it would be a good way to get back to the stories of depth that have been missing for so long.
Edited by Dani257, Jan 21, 2004 @ 9:45 PM.
#13
Posted Jan 28, 2004 @ 2:46 PM
Guess I'm going to have to risk getting Dani (whom I usually agree with wholeheartedly) feeling ornery, since, as the rest of this post should make clear, I think Lorelai and Luke *are* "The One True Couple". At least now that Rory and Dean are, to my great regret, history. :-(
I'm starting to think it's time for the writers to treat this 'ship much the way Rachel/Ross was in Friends. Get them together for a while, break them up for a while, get them back together again, etc. That might get old soon but it would still be better than their currrent denial of their mutual attraction. That storyline is *really* getting stale in my book, and just can't continue much longer no matter how hard AS-P and Co. try to keep it alive.
Agree or disagree?
I'm starting to think it's time for the writers to treat this 'ship much the way Rachel/Ross was in Friends. Get them together for a while, break them up for a while, get them back together again, etc. That might get old soon but it would still be better than their currrent denial of their mutual attraction. That storyline is *really* getting stale in my book, and just can't continue much longer no matter how hard AS-P and Co. try to keep it alive.
Agree or disagree?
Edited by Brahmsian, Jan 28, 2004 @ 2:47 PM.
#14
Posted Jan 28, 2004 @ 3:13 PM
Agree! And we were so close with last night's show. I hate that. Just do it already, 'cuz I know TPTB will just completely ignore that little conversation for another few weeks. Especially in the "Season of Very Little Plot or Character Development", now would be a good time to test the waters. Let Lorelai finally admit her feelings (and dump Digger) and try it out. Will it succeed? Hopefully, but not necessarily. No matter what happens, it would be good for both characters to get off their respective duffs and move on with their lives. I think that is the biggest reason why I am a huge Luke-Lorelai 'shipper - they may not always be good with each other, but they are certainly good for each other.
#15
Posted Jan 28, 2004 @ 4:46 PM
Word, pathwatch! Everyone needs friends who are close enough to call you on your shit. And there was a lot of that going around last night....they may not always be good with each other, but they are certainly good for each other.
I'm a big 'shipper, but I don't mind stuff like what we got last night. I felt like they advanced their relationship, so I'm happy. Lorelai had to think about how she takes Luke for granted. Luke had to think about what he might mean to Lorelai and that her taking him for granted might be about more than clean gutters. I'd rather see their friendship progress than have them pushed together romantically, especially while Luke's still married. I'm just old-fashioned that way.
#16
Posted Jan 29, 2004 @ 12:56 AM
I'm kinda disapointed that we never see Luke jealous of Lorelai's guys. I mean, in real life (and obviously this isnt real life, but just making a point.), most guys do get jealous, not all, but most. And i'm just surprised that Luke dosent get jealous. What do you all think would take to make Luke jealous and obvious? And also, how come we never see him act serious? I mean, hes always in a sarcastic joking mood.
#17
Posted Jan 29, 2004 @ 1:15 AM
My favorite television series when I was three years old wasn't "Sesame Street" or "Winnie the Pooh," but, believe it or not, "Moonlighting!" Apparently, I was three-going on-thirty and loved the show because I couldn't wait to see Dave and Maddie kiss. And it's all been downhill from there, because my three favorite television series post-Moonlighting all have had an unrequited relationship as an important (oftentimes, central) component of the series, and three (Lois & Clark, Ed, & Moonlighting) of the four series ended (arguably) because the characters "got together" and people stopped watching. (All three shows also lasted four years. Well, I'm rounding up Ed's 3.5 seasons. I have yet to follow a show that lasts more than four seasons. Gilmore Girls, I'm counting on you!) I'm not a superstitious person, but sometimes I feel like I'm cursed : ). But I'm here to tell you, pointing the finger of blame for the demise of the three series at the "resolution of the sexual tension" is grossly oversimplifying the matter. The three shows have very specific and individual reasons for their respective downfalls. I'm strongly of the opinion that after ASP & Co. watch the three series and take notes on the positives and the negatives, they'd shout out, "Eureka!" because they'd have an idea of how to begin and continue a Luke & Lorelai romance.
I don't remember much of Moonlighting (except for the fact that they used to talk to the camera), but I picked up a book based on the "Jump the Shark" website while I was waiting in line at Borders one day, and it just served to corroborate my belief that the set-up and the pay-off in terms of the characters "getting together" and the pacing in doing so makes all the difference in the world. Apparently, Dave and Maddie just all of a sudden jumped into bed together in the last season, and she got pregnant and had a miscarriage. Do I even need to explain why the show got cancelled?
I've only periodically watched Ed, so I'm not the authority on it, but I know that ratings often dictate the direction the writers decide to take. Not knowing whether the show would be renewed for a fourth season, the creators wanted to give the fans what they've been waiting for, and bring about some sense of closure to the show, by having Ed dump his long-term "requisite love interest" (that's what I like to call them, among other things) and requite his relationship with Carol (via a kiss during a fireworks display) in the third season finale. The show was renewed for a fourth season, but I smelled something fishy in the air when I realized the relationship was moving too fast. Sure, I expected them to sleep together during the fourth season premiere, but I didn't expect them to move in together during the second episode of the year! The episodes as episodes weren't bad at all, but the pace and predictability of the relationship irked me. It's as if they were going by a checklist, and I assumed correctly that that checklist had something to do with the writers' notion that this would be the final season. So, in Ed's case, the relationship was partly affected by NBC's agenda, partly by the writers' decision to hold off on the relationship (which, in my opinion, should have started in season three).
I don't remember much of Moonlighting (except for the fact that they used to talk to the camera), but I picked up a book based on the "Jump the Shark" website while I was waiting in line at Borders one day, and it just served to corroborate my belief that the set-up and the pay-off in terms of the characters "getting together" and the pacing in doing so makes all the difference in the world. Apparently, Dave and Maddie just all of a sudden jumped into bed together in the last season, and she got pregnant and had a miscarriage. Do I even need to explain why the show got cancelled?
I've only periodically watched Ed, so I'm not the authority on it, but I know that ratings often dictate the direction the writers decide to take. Not knowing whether the show would be renewed for a fourth season, the creators wanted to give the fans what they've been waiting for, and bring about some sense of closure to the show, by having Ed dump his long-term "requisite love interest" (that's what I like to call them, among other things) and requite his relationship with Carol (via a kiss during a fireworks display) in the third season finale. The show was renewed for a fourth season, but I smelled something fishy in the air when I realized the relationship was moving too fast. Sure, I expected them to sleep together during the fourth season premiere, but I didn't expect them to move in together during the second episode of the year! The episodes as episodes weren't bad at all, but the pace and predictability of the relationship irked me. It's as if they were going by a checklist, and I assumed correctly that that checklist had something to do with the writers' notion that this would be the final season. So, in Ed's case, the relationship was partly affected by NBC's agenda, partly by the writers' decision to hold off on the relationship (which, in my opinion, should have started in season three).
#18
Posted Jan 29, 2004 @ 2:00 AM
Now, where to begin with "Lois & Clark"?!?! Lumping the show into the "Moonlighting effect" category is unfair, because most people overlook what the show did *right*. After the network returned to the show's original "romantic comedy" concept, Lois and Clark started dating in the middle of the second season, which ended with Clark proposing (a bit prematurely, in retrospect, since the show became too preoccupied with preparing for a wedding and forgot about a courtship! Although I always construed the first half of the third season---the "we're leading up to a wedding, but we're still doing that damn tango" part---as a courtship.) You've got the guy, who's been secretly pining away for the girl, who has feelings for the guy but won't admit to them (is this sounding familiar?), finally asking the girl out, and they go on an "almost first date" (yes, it was as cute as it sounds), and then a fantastic real date, which causes the girl to freak out since she realizes, "Hey, this could actually work," and they fight and then they have their first non-ruse/non-dream sequence kiss, and they're constantly discovering new things about each other even though they're already the best of friends, and are slowly becoming comfortable with each other as something more. They still have a lot to learn, but the important thing is, is that they learn together, as Clark always told Lois, "We're in this together." This is the barebones skeleton of the courtship (taking away annoying-go live under a rock "requisite love interest" Dan and the complexities (and dangers) of their relationship and personal growth as a result of Clark's Super Secret), but it is important to note that the ratings skyrocketed once people started jumping on the "Road to Romance" bandwagon.
And as much as I want Luke and Lorelai to just jump each other already, I think what made the Lois & Clark relationship work (when it worked) is that the writers (at first) took their time with it. Lois and Clark didn't just hop into bed like Dave & Maddie; they took the time to get to know each other better, as friends and as partners, because they both knew that they were too important to each other for the relationship to not work out. (Again, sounding familiar?)
As for Luke and Lorelai, well, I did not start watching the Girls (in the middle of the second season) because of them. Actually, I was drawn to Lorelai's dysfunctional relationship with her parents, and then to Lorelai's and Rory's relationship. But, since I can't seem to escape unrequited romances, the possibility of Luke and Lorelai became one of my favorite aspects of the series (if not my favorite!). I personally think that their "relationship" is one of the most important components of Gilmore Girls, because while Lorelai, Emily, and Richard's relationship won't change (it will always be the vicious circle of "one step forward, several steps backward") and Lorelai and Rory will naturally grow apart (to an extent) as Rory grows up, Lorelai's life will move forward, as she ultimately grows up. And a huge part of moving forward for Lorelai will be finding that "right person" and I don't need to elaborate upon why that person is Luke, because it has all brilliantly been said before.
I'm skeptical that the show will last the six years that the cast is under contract for. While I never thought it would have "the shelf life of 'All in the Family,'" as Amy has talked about in interviews, I was confident it would be able to last six years without a fair amount of strain. But this season has made me doubtful, and reading articles about the WB being "less fond" of the series, has only served to confirm my worst suspicions. The WB has historically been wonderful about allowing shows to draw closure by either announcing ahead of time that a particular season with be a series' last, or by stopping and then once again resuming production (in the case of "Birds of Prey") to film an adequate finale. So, I think Gilmore Girls will last a full fifth season, but I don't think it has enough stories left to sustain itself beyond that (There's only so much they can do with Richard/Lorelai/Emily, and Rory could have a few interesting final stories--perhaps changing her major? and of course, a love interest will be in her future---but I think, if TPTB introduced a new love interest for Lorelai or Luke, many people would revolt, because, even though the Nicole marriage gave us a fantastic episode last night, it doesn't get anymore contrived than a sham marriage or Digger Stiles.) I'm hoping the Digger and Nicole storylines are resolved this season (and I'm not completely against them because I want to see Emotion! and Growth! and all that good stuff) and we get one full season of Luke and Lorelai.
And as much as I want Luke and Lorelai to just jump each other already, I think what made the Lois & Clark relationship work (when it worked) is that the writers (at first) took their time with it. Lois and Clark didn't just hop into bed like Dave & Maddie; they took the time to get to know each other better, as friends and as partners, because they both knew that they were too important to each other for the relationship to not work out. (Again, sounding familiar?)
As for Luke and Lorelai, well, I did not start watching the Girls (in the middle of the second season) because of them. Actually, I was drawn to Lorelai's dysfunctional relationship with her parents, and then to Lorelai's and Rory's relationship. But, since I can't seem to escape unrequited romances, the possibility of Luke and Lorelai became one of my favorite aspects of the series (if not my favorite!). I personally think that their "relationship" is one of the most important components of Gilmore Girls, because while Lorelai, Emily, and Richard's relationship won't change (it will always be the vicious circle of "one step forward, several steps backward") and Lorelai and Rory will naturally grow apart (to an extent) as Rory grows up, Lorelai's life will move forward, as she ultimately grows up. And a huge part of moving forward for Lorelai will be finding that "right person" and I don't need to elaborate upon why that person is Luke, because it has all brilliantly been said before.
I'm skeptical that the show will last the six years that the cast is under contract for. While I never thought it would have "the shelf life of 'All in the Family,'" as Amy has talked about in interviews, I was confident it would be able to last six years without a fair amount of strain. But this season has made me doubtful, and reading articles about the WB being "less fond" of the series, has only served to confirm my worst suspicions. The WB has historically been wonderful about allowing shows to draw closure by either announcing ahead of time that a particular season with be a series' last, or by stopping and then once again resuming production (in the case of "Birds of Prey") to film an adequate finale. So, I think Gilmore Girls will last a full fifth season, but I don't think it has enough stories left to sustain itself beyond that (There's only so much they can do with Richard/Lorelai/Emily, and Rory could have a few interesting final stories--perhaps changing her major? and of course, a love interest will be in her future---but I think, if TPTB introduced a new love interest for Lorelai or Luke, many people would revolt, because, even though the Nicole marriage gave us a fantastic episode last night, it doesn't get anymore contrived than a sham marriage or Digger Stiles.) I'm hoping the Digger and Nicole storylines are resolved this season (and I'm not completely against them because I want to see Emotion! and Growth! and all that good stuff) and we get one full season of Luke and Lorelai.
Edited by MsHighStrung, Jan 29, 2004 @ 2:03 AM.
#19
Posted Jan 29, 2004 @ 12:22 PM
Well, I hope that they last the sixth season, but that's just me. Anyway, I do not see Luke and Lorelai getting together as the same death knell as in Moonlighting, for reasons that MsHighStrung kind of alluded to: Moonlighting was about the courtship of Dave and Maddie - that was the whole plot and when it happened there was no more plot. Gilmore Girls is about different relationships, not just Luke and Lorelai. So, if they get better writers (and a sustained plot line) they could put Luke and Lorelai together and still have a great show about character development.
#20
Posted Jan 29, 2004 @ 12:28 PM
I agree, pathwatch. The show is called Gilmore Girls, and that's what it's about. Lorelai and Rory and their relationship with each other is the primary focus.
If Luke and Lorelai get together, the focus should be on how their new relationship fits in with all the other stuff in their lives. No matter who she's dating, Lorelai will always love Rory more than anything in the world. She will always be at odds with Emily. Other shows shrink the world to just those two people, and that's why the shows fall apart. I think Gilmore Girls has a lot more going for it, and if it were done right, the relationship could be good for the show, not bad.
If Luke and Lorelai get together, the focus should be on how their new relationship fits in with all the other stuff in their lives. No matter who she's dating, Lorelai will always love Rory more than anything in the world. She will always be at odds with Emily. Other shows shrink the world to just those two people, and that's why the shows fall apart. I think Gilmore Girls has a lot more going for it, and if it were done right, the relationship could be good for the show, not bad.
#21
Posted Jan 29, 2004 @ 12:45 PM
The show is called Gilmore Girls, and that's what it's about. Lorelai and Rory and their relationship with each other is the primary focus.
And, from the opposite end, this is exactly why I don't see it as that huge a deal if they get together. Another quote from Ikcelaks
THE cornerstone of this show has always been and should always be Lorelai's flawed (yet hopefully growing) relationship with Emily, their stubbornness at clinging to old resentments and hiding a shared desire for forgiveness.
These are the important things of the show and always will be for me. (I disagree that because her relationship with her parents won't change that it's not the main element of the show. And, I actually disagree that it won't change. It's just the change is slow and difficult. Which makes it interesting when they explore it) Therefore, Luke and Lorelai is really a small matter and won't make or break the show for me whether they get together or not.
#22
Posted Jan 29, 2004 @ 12:56 PM
I'm hoping the Digger and Nicole storylines are resolved this season (and I'm not completely against them because I want to see Emotion! and Growth! and all that good stuff) and we get one full season of Luke and Lorelai.
ITA about L/L in Season 5 – which may be its last unless the ratings pick up again. I want them to continue dealing with their SO’s this season, learn some life lessons about what they really want in a partner, and lead to a vocal acknowledgement of their feelings.
It’s been said that ASP is afraid to write the courtship b/c she thinks it will be boring to see them happy and that it cuts off possibilities. Well, then don’t make them so happy! While we know that they are perfect for each other, and deep down I think they know it, too – they both have commitment issues and I think it will be a struggle, even after the admit that there’s something there. I mean it’s taken them four years just for Lorelai to admit to Luke that she cares!
The struggle should make it all the more rewarding when they finally do commit to each other! Under the chuppah, no less – I think the show created a self-fulfilling prophecy by having that brief shot of them under the chuppah in RLOAWN. It’s things like that (and Lorelai’s “happily ever after” dream) that makes me certain that TPTB will get them together.
Edited by gluglug, Jan 29, 2004 @ 12:56 PM.
#23
Posted Feb 11, 2004 @ 12:32 PM
Well, I just wanted to go on record that after last night's episode I'm more in favour of Luke/Lorelai than ever. Lorelai, you really need to listen to what you're saying about Luke to Liz, know what I mean? And I loved, loved, loved the way she went after Jess for what he said to Luke.
#24
Posted Feb 11, 2004 @ 5:24 PM
It's kind of unfair that they've set both Luke and Lorelai up with love interests this year, and then they tease us with all the shipper-y goodness we got last night!
Highlights:
- Finding out Luke gives Lorelai a hard time for not letting him fix stuff.
- Liz meeting Lorelai and assuming she's "the wife" but then later telling Luke to give the earrings to "the wife" or Lorelai. Clearly she thinks there's a little somethin' somethin' there.
- Luke (or should I say Butch) was a hit with high-school girls! I'm guessing since they were in Liz's class, these girls are a couple of years younger than him.
- Lorelai agreeing that Luke is maybe "the good one." And was it just me, or was there a little pause for visualization when she brought up the little toga dress? (Maybe a flannel toga?)
- DrunkLuke, and Lorelai taking care of him and getting all MamaTiger on Jess's ass for being, well, an ass, to Luke.
And next week, LeatherJacketLuke with no hat. Be still, my heart!
Highlights:
- Finding out Luke gives Lorelai a hard time for not letting him fix stuff.
- Liz meeting Lorelai and assuming she's "the wife" but then later telling Luke to give the earrings to "the wife" or Lorelai. Clearly she thinks there's a little somethin' somethin' there.
- Luke (or should I say Butch) was a hit with high-school girls! I'm guessing since they were in Liz's class, these girls are a couple of years younger than him.
- Lorelai agreeing that Luke is maybe "the good one." And was it just me, or was there a little pause for visualization when she brought up the little toga dress? (Maybe a flannel toga?)
- DrunkLuke, and Lorelai taking care of him and getting all MamaTiger on Jess's ass for being, well, an ass, to Luke.
And next week, LeatherJacketLuke with no hat. Be still, my heart!
#25
Posted Feb 17, 2004 @ 5:11 PM
Luke's cute but what with "Ed" and other recent shows, I think the show will get boring if L & L end up a couple. Maybe they could become a couple right before the show goes off the air - otherwise, I don't want to see it.
#26
Posted Feb 18, 2004 @ 2:21 AM
Another great Luke/Lorelei episode.
I appreciate how the writers are furthering the relationship of Luke and Lorelei. Yes, I want to see the characters get together as a couple sooner or later. But to be believable, it must be done gradually. Up until recently, Luke/Lorelei hardly interacted at all. It would be strange if all of a sudden they were "in love".
But in the last few episodes we are shown that there is more. Both characters are there for each other, especially when things are bad.
Like today's episode. When Lorelei met up with Luke to cancel dinner, he could tell she was upset and needed someone. I like that the person she needed was him.
And Luke learned to hug! Compare the awkward hug he gave Rory when she was accepted to the ivy league schools. Then last weeks sweet hug for his sister when she was leaving town. (I loved when he cupped the back of her head during the hug.) And the comfortable way he was holding Lorelei, when she just put her head on his chest? Made me smile.
As friends, or lovers, their chemistry rocks!!!!!
I appreciate how the writers are furthering the relationship of Luke and Lorelei. Yes, I want to see the characters get together as a couple sooner or later. But to be believable, it must be done gradually. Up until recently, Luke/Lorelei hardly interacted at all. It would be strange if all of a sudden they were "in love".
But in the last few episodes we are shown that there is more. Both characters are there for each other, especially when things are bad.
Like today's episode. When Lorelei met up with Luke to cancel dinner, he could tell she was upset and needed someone. I like that the person she needed was him.
And Luke learned to hug! Compare the awkward hug he gave Rory when she was accepted to the ivy league schools. Then last weeks sweet hug for his sister when she was leaving town. (I loved when he cupped the back of her head during the hug.) And the comfortable way he was holding Lorelei, when she just put her head on his chest? Made me smile.
As friends, or lovers, their chemistry rocks!!!!!
#27
Posted Feb 18, 2004 @ 3:52 AM
There's just so very much to consider about the Luke/Lorelai relationship. In fact, I think, the Lorelai/Emily relationship is at the very core of this show, but all the Lorelai relationships are inescapably central, including Lorelai/Richard, Lorelai/Rory, of course Lorelai/Luke, Lorelai/OtherLover, even Lorelai/Stars Hollow in general. But some people have complained that Lorelai/Luke is not viable because they're too much the opposite characters to each other. I disagree.
I see them as virtual clones of each other.
They are both stubborn, egoists, convinced of their own correctness under all circumstances ("Go to Hell!" "Right back at'cha!"), determined to go it alone if necessary to do it their way, want to think they're self-sufficient (while neither of them is, in the long run), very intelligent, very independent of trends while aware of them to varying extents in their own areas of interest, and quick-thinking and talking (have you ever seen Luke at a real loss, when he wanted it, to have a comeback to Lorelai?). They are, in short, both extremely intelligent people who for reasons of family history and hurt isolated themselves from real emotional interaction for most of their lives. They've chosen somewhat different paths to do this, Lorelai being something of an extrovert and thus bringing herself to the fore on the surface, while Luke is introverted (but without introspectiveness) and hence isolating himself when away from his business), but they've both rejected outside contact of a meaningful nature. And Lorelai's extroversion, it should be noted, did not extend to the level of having lots of folks around all the time, but only to her superficial relationships, possibly with the exception of Sookie. She devoted her life to Rory; Luke devoted his private life to being a bachelor, apparently, and achieving something of the same level of pop culture familiarity as Lorelai has (he's a Trekkie, after all, if closeted -- as is she).
They have differences, of course. She spends money daily; he saves it, and thus has it to spend when emergencies come up (for which Lorelai needs to be grateful, it appears). Their food differences. But these things are superficial. At their cores, they (and Jess) are extremely similar persons.
It's kind of like Kate Hepburn and Spencer Tracy in "Adam's Rib." They are exact opposites, but -- not. They are really exactly the same, and that's what makes them seem opposites.
I have had the "opposites attract" sexual phenomenon occur in my life, too. Just as some say, it's fun while the sex is fun, but when you get to looking at the larger picture, you, well, you stop. And she does the same thing, and it's a little sad, but mainly it's a relief, because sex is available everywhere 24/7, if you really want, and real meeting of souls -- that's rare. I'm sure everyone here except the very youngest have stories that could be told; I'm old enough that some come from my hippie (well, semi-hippie) days, and some of those girls -- well, I sometimes wonder where they could be these days. I bet they're grandmothers in upscale suburbs for the most part.
And I bet some of them are dead in the general manner of Janis Joplin.
I don't see any of that in Luke/Lorelai. She'd make him learn about music, he'd make her learn about cooking, and that would be the biggest mutual problem they'd have, if they could ever make the real, bottom-of-the-heart commitment to understand each other's views. I think they have the guts, the intelligence, and the baseline love (that they both fight) that are needed to do that. Like Kate and Spence. Who were lovers for decades despite his unwillingness to divorce his Catholic wife and thus dishonor her. A view Katharine never shared -- but respected. Luke and Lorelai would respect each other.
ETA a thanks to Ravenswood for noting my gaffe, and to correct it.
I see them as virtual clones of each other.
They are both stubborn, egoists, convinced of their own correctness under all circumstances ("Go to Hell!" "Right back at'cha!"), determined to go it alone if necessary to do it their way, want to think they're self-sufficient (while neither of them is, in the long run), very intelligent, very independent of trends while aware of them to varying extents in their own areas of interest, and quick-thinking and talking (have you ever seen Luke at a real loss, when he wanted it, to have a comeback to Lorelai?). They are, in short, both extremely intelligent people who for reasons of family history and hurt isolated themselves from real emotional interaction for most of their lives. They've chosen somewhat different paths to do this, Lorelai being something of an extrovert and thus bringing herself to the fore on the surface, while Luke is introverted (but without introspectiveness) and hence isolating himself when away from his business), but they've both rejected outside contact of a meaningful nature. And Lorelai's extroversion, it should be noted, did not extend to the level of having lots of folks around all the time, but only to her superficial relationships, possibly with the exception of Sookie. She devoted her life to Rory; Luke devoted his private life to being a bachelor, apparently, and achieving something of the same level of pop culture familiarity as Lorelai has (he's a Trekkie, after all, if closeted -- as is she).
They have differences, of course. She spends money daily; he saves it, and thus has it to spend when emergencies come up (for which Lorelai needs to be grateful, it appears). Their food differences. But these things are superficial. At their cores, they (and Jess) are extremely similar persons.
It's kind of like Kate Hepburn and Spencer Tracy in "Adam's Rib." They are exact opposites, but -- not. They are really exactly the same, and that's what makes them seem opposites.
I have had the "opposites attract" sexual phenomenon occur in my life, too. Just as some say, it's fun while the sex is fun, but when you get to looking at the larger picture, you, well, you stop. And she does the same thing, and it's a little sad, but mainly it's a relief, because sex is available everywhere 24/7, if you really want, and real meeting of souls -- that's rare. I'm sure everyone here except the very youngest have stories that could be told; I'm old enough that some come from my hippie (well, semi-hippie) days, and some of those girls -- well, I sometimes wonder where they could be these days. I bet they're grandmothers in upscale suburbs for the most part.
And I bet some of them are dead in the general manner of Janis Joplin.
I don't see any of that in Luke/Lorelai. She'd make him learn about music, he'd make her learn about cooking, and that would be the biggest mutual problem they'd have, if they could ever make the real, bottom-of-the-heart commitment to understand each other's views. I think they have the guts, the intelligence, and the baseline love (that they both fight) that are needed to do that. Like Kate and Spence. Who were lovers for decades despite his unwillingness to divorce his Catholic wife and thus dishonor her. A view Katharine never shared -- but respected. Luke and Lorelai would respect each other.
ETA a thanks to Ravenswood for noting my gaffe, and to correct it.
Edited by indke, Feb 18, 2004 @ 11:55 PM.
#28
Posted Feb 18, 2004 @ 7:02 AM
Great characterization, indke . I really want to see both Lorelai and Rory mature before the show ends.
I do think there were stories to tell of Lorelai growing with her parents, but the writers have kept that static, a one-note song. I similarly think there are really good stories to tell of Lorelai and Luke coming together as a team and making a new family. After the romantic coming together (which is long overdue), and after seeing Rory and Lorelai figure it out, I'd love to see that relationship move into the background and become a constant - a solid family in spite of past disappointments.
(I think you meant Janis Joplin? Janis Ian is fine!)
Edited to spell names properly.
I do think there were stories to tell of Lorelai growing with her parents, but the writers have kept that static, a one-note song. I similarly think there are really good stories to tell of Lorelai and Luke coming together as a team and making a new family. After the romantic coming together (which is long overdue), and after seeing Rory and Lorelai figure it out, I'd love to see that relationship move into the background and become a constant - a solid family in spite of past disappointments.
(I think you meant Janis Joplin? Janis Ian is fine!)
Edited to spell names properly.
Edited by Ravenswood, Feb 18, 2004 @ 7:12 AM.
#29
Posted Feb 18, 2004 @ 4:09 PM
Want to comment on the L/L development, especially in last night's episode.
I think the Palladinos are showing us that Digger is fulfilling mostly a sexual need in Lorelai (plus some witty banter) while Luke is fulfilling her need for emotional support. The fact that Lor broke down in front of Luke and not Jason speaks volumes about the depth of their friendship and potential romantic relationship.
At some point, Lorelai will have to face her feelings and decide who she wants to be with. I think she is with Digger b/c he’s fun and a distraction. Besides, Luke is technically taken, and I mean technically, he doesn’t even wear a wedding ring! His hands were in full view last night in the bench scene. But something has been building the last few eps between the “I don’t want you to move” speech, the Drunk!Luke scene and the “give them to your wife or Lorelai” earring subplot from last week. And the breakdown scene from last night really shows how close they are getting. I wonder what plot device the Palladinos will throw in next to push them apart?
I think the Palladinos are showing us that Digger is fulfilling mostly a sexual need in Lorelai (plus some witty banter) while Luke is fulfilling her need for emotional support. The fact that Lor broke down in front of Luke and not Jason speaks volumes about the depth of their friendship and potential romantic relationship.
At some point, Lorelai will have to face her feelings and decide who she wants to be with. I think she is with Digger b/c he’s fun and a distraction. Besides, Luke is technically taken, and I mean technically, he doesn’t even wear a wedding ring! His hands were in full view last night in the bench scene. But something has been building the last few eps between the “I don’t want you to move” speech, the Drunk!Luke scene and the “give them to your wife or Lorelai” earring subplot from last week. And the breakdown scene from last night really shows how close they are getting. I wonder what plot device the Palladinos will throw in next to push them apart?
#30
Posted Feb 18, 2004 @ 11:13 PM
What do you think will finally push Luke and Loreali together? The jealousy thing is getting old. I mean, Luke got married and Lorealis with Jason, so if thats not enough to make anyone admit their feelings, then what will? What does everything think will take for them to admit their feelings?
Television Without Pity • © 2013 Bravo Media LLC • A Division of NBCUniversal • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy • AdChoices