We Need to Talk, Vol. 1 (UPDATED)

Jump to Comments

Don’t worry. We’re not breaking up.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way . . . .I haven’t dropped anything in a while and I kind of miss it. But I’m not ready to bring it back yet. I’m not sure I ever will be. It’s possible that feature’s main purpose was just to get me into the blogging groove. But maybe it’ll make it’s way back to the Record one day. We’ll see. In the meantime, I’m offering this new featurette as a semi-substitute.

It’s not like For the Record’s been short on material lately. But you never know when I’ll hit a lull or week of sickness or month of craziness or an evening of blaring Medal of Honor: Heroes (which is what’s happening right now) and need something to keep me anchored. And it’s not like I haven’t talked to anyone in a while and need the practice. I’m not boring. I don’t mumble or spit or anything. (I threw that in for you, Cristin.) But I sure don’t want to get to that point. So I’m giving “We Need to Talk” a shot.

Basically, the idea here is for me to list 5 things that have come to mind this week that I would really write about if I had more time. I’ll start by putting a one-liner out there and letting you guys weigh in with your thoughts on the topics first. If the notion triggers 5 paragraphs of thoughts, great. If just one word comes to mind, so be it. And if you just don’t feel it, that’s fine too. Ideally, I’ll revisit the post when I’ve got more time and fill it in with my original thoughts and any new ones that your comments spark. Whenever that happens, I’ll be sure to let you know that the updated version’s on the market. Of course, it’s always possible that something else will consume my thoughts and/or time won’t permit an updated post. In that case, I’ll just respond to your comments. In the event that no one cares about any of these 5 things and I lose interest in them too, the post will remain as is. At least I will have posted something and when I peruse this category at a later date, I’ll remember that I contemplated those things and maybe even be inspired to write a brand new post on a related topic.

I’m not envisioning a particular theme for “We Need to Talk.” (I don’t have much vision at all, since I just now got the idea when I sat down with the laptop.) Like in “Drop It Like It’s Hot” and “Those Lazy Hazy Crazy Days,” media’s sure to get some attention. But, as the title suggests, serious topics are not off limits. Unlike the Drop Its and LHC, I’m not making any promises upfront to do a weekly “We Need to Talk.” Weekly would be nice; I’m certain I’ll have things every week that I’d like to blog about but just don’t have the time or state of mind to pull my thoughts together. But I don’t want to make promises I can’t keep. So for now I’ll just let ‘em happen when they happen.

Here we go!

(And, yes, I know I think about the Gilmores too much. But I can’t help it. I’m doing a series marathon at the moment, remember?)

1. Gilmore Girls isn’t just for girls.

This one’s for my sister, who, blinded by a husband who won’t watch with her and a personal inclusion in a girls-only fanbase, misguidedly proclaimed the opposite last week. As you can see in the comments, she’s changed her mind. But it’s still worth putting it in writing: “Gilmore Girls isn’t just for girls!”

It’s a common misconception really. It’s got the word “girls” in the title. The DVD boxes are pastely colors. Even worse, it’s was on the WB, which might make you think that not only is it about girls and for girls, it’s for teenage girls! Even my poor sister, who hasn’t had cable since she got married in 1999, has been told that Gilmore Girls is in the same vein as 7th Heaven. If you’re a teenage girl, I can understand why you’d think that’s true. But you’re wrong.

So wrong.

Have you (the universal “you,” not my sister “you”) seen 7th Heaven? The writing’s horrendous. The acting’s horrendous. The storylines absurd. It’s so geared toward tweens that even the show’s twin toddlers have romantic interests. Heck, the dog probably even had to decide whether to have premarital sex or not and set the entire ministerial family in a frenzy of snooping and chaos in yet another “very special” 7th Heaven. Sheesh! And as if their spot in Television Purgatory wasn’t reserved firmly enough, the WB/whatever it is now, finally dropped the axe on the Camdens after 10 painful years of subpar TV dramedy, only to resuscitate it the very next season. Wait. I take back “resuscitate”; it implies that the show ever had life to begin with. You tons of people out there who watched those kooky minister’s kids all get impregnated with twins in the series “finale” and made the network’s producers believe the big bucks lie in Heaven ought to be ashamed of yourselves. I just read about it and watched the last 10 minutes and had to shred my clothes to rags and cover myself in ashes.

Anyway, the point is Gilmore Girls is the WB’s lone shining emblem. (I really do like Everwood too; particularly Seasons 1 and 3. The writing and acting in those two seasons give the “Colorado” town a place in my heart next to Stars Hollow, but with Season 2 relying way too heavily on teen drama and Season 4 being rushed to its premature end, not to mention the overkill of “Young love can last forever!”, I can’t let Everwood share the emblem title with Gilmore Girls.) But it’s more than just a “good show for being the WB.” It’s a good show period. For men and women. More girls do watch the show, I suppose, which makes sense, given the title and the network. And it’s definitely not “manly” in the traditional media sense. Nothing ever blows up. Nobody gets shot or stabbed. There’s no nudity. No espionage. (But, men, please, please tell me you don’t really want to live in that stereotype, much less live up to it. I think more of you than that. But if you do need a kick of typical testosterone, Luke Danes does talk about baseball.) But, like JSmo said, it’s witty and humorous. It plays out like a good piece of literature. And I wouldn’t deprive men of classic literature for one minute. Not even Jane Austen. Rory wouldn’t either.

And if that’s not enough, even though my own husband, who usually laughs whenever he gets caught in the same room with the Girls, refuses to embrace the show, I know plenty of men who would gladly testify on its behalf. Men, whom I happen to have on good authority are living, breathing, women-loving heterosexuals. Still not convinced? Okay, then my last appeal comes from John: “What man wouldn’t want to watch two of television’s most beautiful women being smart and insanely funny? It doesn’t get any hotter than that.”

2. I like Logan Huntzberger.

I’m not going to talk too much about this one because I don’t want to give away what happens with Rory and Logan to anyone who hasn’t watched or finished the show. (For the record, I’m not a fan at all of the writing in their final scene together in the series’ finale, for reasons that I think I’ve at least touched on in other posts.) But I will say that watching the growth in Rory and in Logan over the last few seasons confirmed, for me at least, that he’s more than just a likable, charming guy. Sure, he’s been a part of some jerk moments that would go down in Rory’s Personal Guys’ Hall of Shame, but he is ultimately honest with her, in some regards, even more than she is with him. And, yes, JSmo, they could use a few sessions. But Logan helps Rory tap into something inside her that she might not have ever discovered and developed without him. And Rory helps Logan become something more than just a cool guy and, more importantly, she facilitates a new knowledge and depth of love in him. Plus, Matt Czuchry flat-out out-performs both Milo Ventimiglia (token bad-boy, Jess Mariano, whose acting literally makes me grimace sometimes) and Jared Padalecki (perfect first boyfriend, turned immature, pouting, cheating husband, Dean Forester).

3. Lorelai Gilmore can be an obnoxious date.

Yes, Lorelai’s gorgeous. She’s funny. She’s smart, driven, independent. She’s creative and quirky and unique. She’s lived enough to know that while it’s nice to have a man to lean on, no woman really needs one to rescue her, and if she thinks she does, the relationship’s bound for trouble. And, like JSmo said, she’s generally very likable. I’d expect nothing less than any and every viable guy to at least take a shot at scooping her up; she deserves it! But she can also be very immature and selfish.

Let’s not even address her tendency to “run,” because it’s a very common one and its presence on Gilmore Girls serves as a catalyst to her ultimate growth and maturity. Her immaturity in her relationships with men and her parents is central to the show and the humanization of her character. I’m a fan of it. But I’m not a fan of her so often thinking of herself before Luke. The guy’s just made her a full-on breakfast and she can’t eat it because she needs to keep her routine of eating at the diner? I understand wanting to keep Diner Luke, but why can’t she at least eat and enjoy that first breakfast at home? She eats Poptarts at home. She feeds Kirk, Paris, and Rory cereal at home. If Sookie fixes a gourmet breakfast, Lorelai doesn’t refuse it and demand to eat at Luke’s. And what about that scene where Luke’s making her a fancy dinner on Friday night while Rory’s at her grandparents’ Male Yale Meet and Be Meat Party and T.J. bursts through the door in a panic? T.J.’s obviously upset (and to her credit, Lorelai later offers him some food and compassion), Luke is obviously feeling overwhelmed, and Lorelai can’t stir the sauce? I understand that she’s worried about ruining all Luke’s hard work, but, really, does she need to voice her concern over and over while he’s trying to handily deal with a mini-family crisis? Just stir the sauce, Lorelai! At least Luke, who’s always going above and beyond to show Lorelai how much he loves her, says the same thing out loud. Those two just might make it.

4. I’ve had “Don’t You Evah” stuck in my head for three days, and I really don’t mind.

I think the song speaks for itself.

5. Season 3 of LOST is sooooo much better the second time around. (The other two seasons are good, but I miss the “Gaaaaaaah!” factor from the first viewing.)

Concealed Spoilers Ahead: Highlight blank spots to reveal the hidden text.

There was a lot of commotion amongst LOST fans during the airing of Season 3. That commotion even resulted in several fans jumping for shore. And I can understand why. The season’s got at least three episodes that have no (directly) apparent connection to the main story and don’t readily move the plot forward. The writers took a big risk dropping new characters onto the fuselage side of the Island too. (According to Matthew Fox, that’s a risk that didn’t pay off.) Then there’s the issue of the Losties’ borderline stupidity. The characters are finally getting plenty of face time with the Others, but no one’s asking any questions! Jack’s got Ben bleeding to death on the operating table and he’s just bargaining for sex-having Kate and Sawyer? Why not demand an answer to at least one question too, Jack? Kate and Sawyer sit around a campfire with Other Carl, but the only question they manage to ask is, “You guys have backyards?” You’ve got all night! Why not ask where they are, how the Others got there, why they kidnap people, how they know all about the survivors, why they’ve turned on Carl, and if there’s a way off the Island? But the biggest problem that plagued Season 3 was lack of follow-up. Anyone who’s watched LOST knows every episode’s going to end with a cliff-hanger and no mystery is ever going to be completely resolved. But in Season 3, the writers kept on introducing more and more mysteries without giving fans any strands of resolution to hang on to. Not only that, but every time they almost told us something, the episode cut to the twist and left us hanging . . . not until the next episode, but until the next two or three episodes. And after Sweeps they just plain left us. It was more than a little frustrating.

But! Like Steve, I do like Season 3. The first few episodes with the Others can leave your head spinning, but they’re awesome. “The Man from Tallahassee” shows that the writers never really forgot their perfect television formula. Juliet, as Steve noted, is a GREAT character, whom I still haven’t figured out. We get to see more of Ethan, who so perfectly portrays that combination of normalcy and eeriness that every masterful serial killer in history has possessed. The cast continues to amaze, with each character displaying exceptional acting skills. The story, even though it’s easy to lose sight of, just keeps getting more intriguing. And let’s not even get started on the finale, which settled once and for all that LOST is one of television’s greats and completely blew my mind (Heck, it’s still blowing my mind!) and set my blood rushing with the same LOST fever that had me literally dreaming about the Island in Season 1.

And now that we’re doing our LOST-a-thon, I’m enjoying Season 3 even more. Seasons 1 and 2 are still exciting the second time around. I’ve even caught several things that I missed the first time or had forgotten. They’re definitely worth multiple viewings, but you just can’t replicate the feeling you get when you watch them for the first time. Season 3, however, might even be better on the second go round, because you’ve got an outline to work with and you already know that they’re going to leave you (way) out on the most recent cliff. With such knowledge, you stop fighting so hard to figure things out and just let the show take over. When you do, you might just see some connections you didn’t see before, and for sure, you’ll remember why LOST continues to deserve its fans’ undying love.

And that’s it. I’m so glad we talked. Let’s do it again soon.

8 Comments

Filed under Gilmore Girls, Music, TV

Tags: Lost