(May 2006) Gilmore Girls should call it quits
'Gilmore Girls' should call it quits
By BILL BRIOUX -- Toronto Sun
Amy Sherman-Palladino calls tonight's Gilmore Girls sixth season finale -- her swan song as the show's driving force -- "the coolest thing we've ever done." The question is: Can and should this eccentric series survive without her?
I say cue the fat lady, bring out the fork, strike the sets. This show is toast with or without Palladino.
The last two or three seasons, Gilmore Girls has almost dared viewers to change the channel. Every character on the series was fluent in smartass. Even the extras had snappy answers to stupid questions. The rat-tat-tat patter, clever at first, became enraging.
Like Northern Exposure's Cicely, Alaska, Gilmore's Stars Hollow is Eccentricville, U.S.A. After a while, shut up with the Dorothy Parker dialogue already.
What saved Gilmore Girls from Exposure's premature flame out was great acting, especially from Lauren Graham as Lorelai and Kelly Bishop and Edward Herrmann as the over-the-top grandparents. They kept the show grounded and real, allowing Sherman-Palladino to spin her flighty fantasy world.
Doing this show without Sherman-Palladino will be like taking Aaron Sorkin out of The West Wing. It will create a different show. That may not be a bad thing; it might be refreshing to see these characters drop the know-it-all blather. Or -- and this is the bigger risk -- it may become Everwood dull.
New network CW probably needs these Gilmore Girls to snare WB viewers next fall. For what -- to string out the Luke and Lorelai romance for another season? Did they learn nothing from those one-too-many seasons of That '70s Show, Friends or Will & Grace? You go, Girls.
http://jam.canoe.ca/Television/2006/05/09/1570407.html
By BILL BRIOUX -- Toronto Sun
Amy Sherman-Palladino calls tonight's Gilmore Girls sixth season finale -- her swan song as the show's driving force -- "the coolest thing we've ever done." The question is: Can and should this eccentric series survive without her?
I say cue the fat lady, bring out the fork, strike the sets. This show is toast with or without Palladino.
The last two or three seasons, Gilmore Girls has almost dared viewers to change the channel. Every character on the series was fluent in smartass. Even the extras had snappy answers to stupid questions. The rat-tat-tat patter, clever at first, became enraging.
Like Northern Exposure's Cicely, Alaska, Gilmore's Stars Hollow is Eccentricville, U.S.A. After a while, shut up with the Dorothy Parker dialogue already.
What saved Gilmore Girls from Exposure's premature flame out was great acting, especially from Lauren Graham as Lorelai and Kelly Bishop and Edward Herrmann as the over-the-top grandparents. They kept the show grounded and real, allowing Sherman-Palladino to spin her flighty fantasy world.
Doing this show without Sherman-Palladino will be like taking Aaron Sorkin out of The West Wing. It will create a different show. That may not be a bad thing; it might be refreshing to see these characters drop the know-it-all blather. Or -- and this is the bigger risk -- it may become Everwood dull.
New network CW probably needs these Gilmore Girls to snare WB viewers next fall. For what -- to string out the Luke and Lorelai romance for another season? Did they learn nothing from those one-too-many seasons of That '70s Show, Friends or Will & Grace? You go, Girls.
http://jam.canoe.ca/Television/2006/05/09/1570407.html
posted by MissCoffee @ 10:50 p.m.
<< Home