Gilmore Girls- Privalaged or Townies
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 22, 2014, 02:32:27 am

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search



Star  We can rebuild it. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's best Gilmore Girls forum. The ORG Forum will be just that. Better than it was before. Better, stronger, faster.  Star 
475988 Posts in 1571 Topics by 122651 Members
Latest Member: MichalHash

DVD7
Copperboom! Season seven DVD sets are now on sale!
* Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  GilmoreGirls.org Forum
|-+  Gilmore Girls
| |-+  Cast and Characters
| | |-+  Gilmore Girls- Privalaged or Townies
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Gilmore Girls- Privalaged or Townies  (Read 7223 times)
MaRcOPoLoxxx
Town Resident
*

Community Points: 34
Offline Offline

Posts: 234


*Java Junkies*


View Profile
« on: June 13, 2007, 09:53:40 am »

There is definately a contrast presented in Gilmore Girls about different social classes, for example Logan- Privalaged, Luke-Townie.  Emily is always trying to show Rory the upper class and Lorelai is always reminded of the Upper Class she left behind.  When the Gilmore Girls scenes take place around richard and emily or their friends the show presents the wealthy class life, propper and privalaged characters and atmosphere, whereas wen it takes place in stars hallow it gives you a taste of the average class, more laidback working quirky characters and atmosphere.  Which one do you prefer?
Logged


thanks lukesgirl for the awesome siggy

*Literati*
*Java Junkie*
*Religous Rebelions*
Dani257
Pretty Town Spinster
***

Community Points: 242
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3068

I post. Deal with it.


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2007, 10:58:37 am »

Well, I liked characters from both classes.  Logan is maybe my favorite character on the show, bumping Lorelai from her top spot.  I also like Mitchum, Christopher (who could be said to have moved from one class to the other and back again) occasionally Paris (or I've felt defensive on her part), and back at Chilton, I thought Madeline was sweet, if ditsy.  I like Lane, Jess, pre-destroyed Dean, Lorelai was my favorite character pre-Logan, and I still like her.  I can't claim to have a strong like, but I'm favorably tolerant to Sookie, Jackson, Babette and Miss Patty. 

And, I find there really isn't that much difference between the classes, for all the "solid working middle class virtues" and ""snobbery" of the silver spoon richies."  Lorelai, Sookie, Jackson, Luke, Miss Patty -all hard working ambitious people who are successful in their professional endeavors.  Mitchum, Richard,Paris (okay, she's still a student, but you know she's going to be a top doctor who probably will be forced to go home once her shift is over for the day)  Emily doesn't work, but it has more to do with upbringing and coming from a certain time, but she's supportive and admiring of Lorelai and Rory's ambition.  Logan and Jess both drifted when we first met them, but settled down later on.  Emily and Richard treated Luke abominably because of his class and Richard also treated Dean horrifically.  I still think Lorelai has a tendency to see rich people as "bad" (for lack of a more precise word) by default until proven otherwise.  While Jess had legitimate criticisms of Logan's behavior, it's interesting that among them, he mentioned Porsche owning or something along those lines, as if financial wealth in itself is a character flaw.  And, then, you have Shira, born without money (I might even guess poor) married well, and is now super snobby and makes sure to tell Emily that the Gilmore money doesn't hold a candle to the Huntzberger money.  I still think the townies treated Christopher abominably (and the "he wasn't from there" argument doesn't hold water, because Lorelai also didn't originate from Stars Hollow and I doubt she would be so loyal to the town if that's how they treat strangers).  Although, that may have had less to do with money, and more to do with their strange Children of the Corn loyalty to "the cult of Lorelai and Luke 4-EVAH with hugs and kisses xxoo"

The only really distinct difference between the classes is in parenting.  There are still some overlaps, but the Stars Hollow, middle class parents are portrayed as more openly caring and changeable than the rich ones.  I think Mitchum and Shira are pretty crummy parents.  Paris only got affection from the nanny.  I have nothing but sympathy for Lorelai when it comes to issues between her and her parents, although Richard and Emily aren't completely bad and are better than the Huntzbergers.  Rich parents on the show have no problem being manipulative with their children, regardless of age.  (Except Christopher, but he was only a newly wealthy parent).  Mrs. Kim was extremely strict, but she also eventually supported Lane in what Lane wanted to do.  So, I suppose as far as parenting, I prefer the middle class style (as evidenced on the show).
Logged

 
A bit leaner, but still chock full of demonic glory.  (Still pro Logan)
100% supportive of Alexis Bledel

http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/8624/angela_tircuit.html
Miranda
Town Selectman
**

Community Points: 775
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2706


Call me Mira


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2007, 11:00:31 am »

Definatley the  townies... As you said yourself: it's a lot more laidback... I do agree with Dani though, about the 'townies' being hardworking, but very ambitious and succesful people. THe biggest difference is that they have to work hard for it, while the privilaged just get it by their families etc.
Logged


Thanks sis (Katinka a.k.a Snowy_Duerre)
Dani257
Pretty Town Spinster
***

Community Points: 242
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3068

I post. Deal with it.


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2007, 04:21:48 pm »

Actually, I just realized that there's a thread about money already in the general thread.  Maybe one of the mods should merge this one into it, if it's considered a duplicate?   I disagree with the rich just get by on their families (and thought I gave three examples to the contrary in my post) but I don't want to elaborate until I know where this thread is staying.
Logged

 
A bit leaner, but still chock full of demonic glory.  (Still pro Logan)
100% supportive of Alexis Bledel

http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/8624/angela_tircuit.html
MaRcOPoLoxxx
Town Resident
*

Community Points: 34
Offline Offline

Posts: 234


*Java Junkies*


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2007, 09:49:20 am »

oh im sry how might we move this thread?
Logged


thanks lukesgirl for the awesome siggy

*Literati*
*Java Junkie*
*Religous Rebelions*
gg4life07
Town Resident
*

Community Points: 3
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 109



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2007, 10:25:34 am »

i like seeing both sides. it nice to c how laid back the townies are, but its funny to c all the things the upper class does(the gossip like little children) Grin
Logged


*image made by Sharon aka skftex


~mom you've already given me everything i need~
BonVoyage1
Town Resident
*

Community Points: 7
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


Seven Years in Love


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2007, 11:59:46 am »

i say townies because yes they have a privaleged side but the townie side is brought up more
Logged


Rory: Look how you just said, "Luke can waltz."
Lorelai: What, I'm just saying, I'm surprised that Luke can waltz.
Rory: That sounded more like, "I'm surprised I still have my clothes on."
Ali-Sama
Town Resident
*

Community Points: 41
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 279



View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2007, 08:07:20 pm »

considering kirk has over $280,000 or so. Where does he fit?
Logged

"In eternal damnation we sow the seeds of man, so we may delight in their pain and sorrow, basking them in our infinite love.."
Charles reed March 21, 2230
My Live Journal/Myspace
http://ali-sama.livejournal.com
http://www.myspace.com/alisama77
bingbong
Town Selectman
**

Community Points: 1266
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2638



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2007, 09:21:38 pm »

I find there really isn't that much difference between the classes, for all the "solid working middle class virtues" and ""snobbery" of the silver spoon richies." ...

The only really distinct difference between the classes is in parenting.  There are still some overlaps, but the Stars Hollow, middle class parents are portrayed as more openly caring and changeable than the rich ones.  I think Mitchum and Shira are pretty crummy parents.  Paris only got affection from the nanny.  I have nothing but sympathy for Lorelai when it comes to issues between her and her parents, although Richard and Emily aren't completely bad and are better than the Huntzbergers.  Rich parents on the show have no problem being manipulative with their children, regardless of age.  (Except Christopher, but he was only a newly wealthy parent).  Mrs. Kim was extremely strict, but she also eventually supported Lane in what Lane wanted to do.  So, I suppose as far as parenting, I prefer the middle class style (as evidenced on the show).

I agree that there is less distinction between the classes in GG than it initially appears. Star's Hollow strikes me as an upper middle class town more than a blue-collar working class type. Luke, for example, the simple diner owner, bought the building next door for $100,000 and loaned Lorelai $30,000 without batting an eye. Taylor must be loaded with bucks, the way he snatches up property. The Dragonfly, like the Independence Inn, caters to a slightly well-heeled clientele, certainly nothing uniquely blue-collar. The fact that the town is only 30 miles from the upper crust area of Hartford speaks for itself (Emily & Richard would in reality live in West Hartford, an extremely wealthy area). Like any small town, there is a mix of regular working people, and they are decent people; for the most part their biggest collective fault is that they are gossip-hounds (which really only adds to their charm, unless you are a victim of their gossip; i personally have no problem with their L&L obsession!).

As far as parenting goes, i can't help think of "Deb" and the the S.H. moms with the identical haircuts. They might be good parents, who knows, but they were portrayed as narrow-minded conformists at best. There are many ways for parents to screw up their kids, but bad parenting does not guarantee that the kids will turn out poorly. Lorelai received terrible parenting from the hyper-critical control freak Emily, but she cut loose and turned out well. I suppose she learned what not to do from Emily's example, in raising Rory. Sometimes a strict upbringing can better prepare a child for life than a pampered one, whether or not it is the intention of the parent. I don't believe that Lorelai completely shed the Emily influence, as any kid is stuck with the parents genes, like it or not; she must have needed a toughness to survive as a teenage mom and she certainly had her stubborn moments. Likewise, Mrs. Kim was unduly strict but she had solid values underneath and may have influenced Lane in positive ways without Lane even realizing it; whatever the case, Lane was clearly an amazing person from the gitgo. Compare that to what we knew of the Chilton kids and their parents. I recall Madeline saying that her father was either in prison or going to trial for some white collar crime, as one example. They came across as snarky "poor little rich kids" with uncaring parents. Rory, the "townie" outsider, kept her distance for good reason. 

I see comparisons between three Hartford fathers, those of Chris, Logan and Jason. Obviously all rich & powerful, very conscious of their high place in the business and social community. I think Jason's father came across the worst; i have to assume that guy only had a child to please his wife. He is a portrait of the rich & powerful at its most cold-blooded. Logan's father is not much better, though i suspect he and Logan are kindred in spirit and that would reveal itself by the time Logan reached his 30s and morphed (sez i) into his father. Chris' father came across to me a little more complex. Whjen he put all the blame for Lorelai's pregnancy on Lorelai herself, he was thinking of the family image that was tarnished. But in another sense, i think he was behaving like any parent, regardless of class, who is in denial about their child's faults: My son was headed towards great things but lead astray by the vamp Lorelai. For him to admit that Chris was equally responsible for the pregnancy, let alone not headed towards great things in the first place, would be to admit that he failed as a parent, and that won't do in his mind. All these Hartford fathers are cut from the same or very similar cloth and i think ASP was very deliberate about portraying them poorly. As for Richard, he is similar and he viewed Lorelai's pregnancy as a disgrace to the famil. But as a main character we also saw his other sides, the way his respect for Lorelai grew over the years and his unquestioned love for Rory.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2007, 09:37:34 pm by bingbong » Logged



Signature courtesy of SKFTEX
SIDNEY
Chilton Graduate
*

Community Points: 321
Offline Offline

Posts: 673



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2007, 07:14:38 am »

Like any small town, there is a mix of regular working people, and they are decent people; for the most part their biggest collective fault is that they are gossip-hounds.

I think that's  mutual between both worlds. We've seen Emily sharing gossips with other women.


Quote
There are many ways for parents to screw up their kids, but bad parenting does not guarantee that the kids will turn out poorly. Lorelai received terrible parenting from the hyper-critical control freak Emily, but she cut loose and turned out well. I suppose she learned what not to do from Emily's example, in raising Rory. Sometimes a strict upbringing can better prepare a child for life than a pampered one, whether or not it is the intention of the parent.

That's a really good point Wink I think the show was showing us on purpose that all the rich parents are really " no parents" which i thought was anything but objective & in a try to make a balance they made their kids turn out ok ( like Lorelai, Jason & Chris). it was a poor attempt from the show to say that they have nothing against the rich when they obviously did !!
 I think parents can screw up their kids by the worst ways possible and there is no difference if they were Privileged or Townies.

I liked when you said  : "  I suppose she learned what not to do from Emily's example, in raising Rory ".  Smiley It reminded me of when i was a little kid. i used to  try to figure out what i didn't want to be just to know what i wanted to be .

About the strict upbringing, It's true that sometimes, it does better prepare a child for life than a pampered one BUT Children who had a strict parents need  therapy more than  those who had  not . Not to mention that strict childhood make them either closed on themselves or angry or in worst times " criminals " because they want  to make someone suffers just as much as they did !!. Childhood is a very serious & sensitive time that can shape your life & change it forever.


 
Quote
But as a main character we also saw his other sides, the way his respect for Lorelai grew over the years and his unquestioned love for Rory.


I remember in Lorelai's graduation ep, she told Rory that her parents are the most proud people & she humiliated them, she humiliated them !! I think for her to say and feel that after 17 years - says about enough of how much Those kind of parents affect their children lives forever.!
Lorelai's relationship with her father even worse than hers with her mother. I feel if Lorelai & her father sat together alone, no words would  be spoken. They are like 2 strangers who share the same last name. Even when Rory told Lorelai to pick one of her parents in an attempt to reconcile them, she picked Emily and that was no coincidence.!!

I always feel that Richard’s love for Rory is hard on me because I think & feel that he sees her as a replacement for Lorelai!! I can’t help but feeling that way. I think i recall Lorelai now telling Rory that Rory is the"  daughter they never had ".




« Last Edit: June 29, 2007, 07:24:07 am by SIDNEY » Logged


Billy: Are we over the rainbow, Ally? Is this it? We used to sing as kids "over the rainbow".
We've gone from being people with bright futures to people who should be living their futures now.
bingbong
Town Selectman
**

Community Points: 1266
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2638



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2007, 08:39:47 am »


Like any small town, there is a mix of regular working people, and they are decent people; for the most part their biggest collective fault is that they are gossip-hounds

I think that's  mutual between both worlds. We've seen Emily sharing gossips with other women.

That's for sure, those DAR women are fierce. The difference, i think, is that i could not think of any other serious faults for the S.H. people as a whole, whereas the Hartford crew has many more to spare, at least when it comes to parenting. There are S.H. pains like Taylor, but he is not a truly bad person, just an annoying one. Now, are the DAR gals truly bad? Probably not. They just have nothing better to do with their time, i'd say. They do partake in charitable organizations, though who benefits from those charities i wonder. And i admit i always wondered if Taylor had some kind of slush fund going behind the scenes, but i cannot prove anything. This is possibly a matter of taste, and as the lesser of evils i'd feel less repulsed hanging with Taylor (that's the best i can say about him).

Quote
There are many ways for parents to screw up their kids, but bad parenting does not guarantee that the kids will turn out poorly. Lorelai received terrible parenting from the hyper-critical control freak Emily, but she cut loose and turned out well. I suppose she learned what not to do from Emily's example, in raising Rory. Sometimes a strict upbringing can better prepare a child for life than a pampered one, whether or not it is the intention of the parent.

That's a really good point Wink I think the show was showing us on purpose that all the rich parents are really " no parents" which i thought was anything but objective & in a try to make a balance they made their kids turn out ok ( like Lorelai, Jason & Chris). it was a poor attempt from the show to say that they have nothing against the rich when they obviously did !! I think parents can screw up their kids by the worst ways possible and there is no difference if they were Privileged or Townies.

I liked when you said  : "  I suppose she learned what not to do from Emily's example, in raising Rory ".  Smiley It reminded me of when i was a little kid. i used to  try to figure out what i didn't want to be just to know what i wanted to be .

About the strict upbringing, It's true that sometimes, it does better prepare a child for life than a pampered one BUT Children who had a strict parents need  therapy more than  those who had  not . Not to mention that strict childhood make them either closed on themselves or angry or in worst times " criminals " because they want  to make someone suffers just as much as they did !!. Childhood is a very serious & sensitive time that can shape your life & change it forever.

I think for a lot of us there is an "unlearning" process of our growth, where we have to discard the crapola of our upbringing and replace it with new ways that will help our lives. Easier said than done. And it is not easy figuring out what to discard and what to retain. I think that's part of the struggle for characters like Lorelai, Jason, Chris and Logan. This is definitely more of a "privileged" Hartford issue in GG, although Lane definietely falls into the same category, even if i put Mrs. Kim far about the Hartford parental monsters. I don't know when it was stated that the show had nothing against the rich, but the Hartford parents (and many of the kids) were depicted in a terrible light and that was by design i'm sure.

But as a main character we also saw his other sides, the way his respect for Lorelai grew over the years and his unquestioned love for Rory.

I remember in Lorelai's graduation ep, she told Rory that her parents are the most proud people & she humiliated them, she humiliated them !! I think for her to say and feel that after 17 years - says about enough of how much Those kind of parents affect their children lives forever.!
Lorelai's relationship with her father even worse than hers with her mother. I feel if Lorelai & her father sat together alone, no words would  be spoken. They are like 2 strangers who share the same last name. Even when Rory told Lorelai to pick one of her parents in an attempt to reconcile them, she picked Emily and that was no coincidence.!!

I always feel that Richard’s love for Rory is hard on me because I think & feel that he sees her as a replacement for Lorelai!! I can’t help but feeling that way. I think i recall Lorelai now telling Rory that Rory is the"  daughter they never had ".

I think Lorelai's relationship with Richard evolved, whereas her relationship with Emily remained basicallly static. During season 6, as Lorelai became successful with her own business, Richard treated her with more respect. Would he have been so respectful if her business had failed? Probably not. But, at least it was a start. And he evolved after his heart attack in season 7 (reminded me a little of Jack Nicholson in "Something's Gotta Give", if you saw that movie). You saw the final two eps in season 7, yes? He paid tribute to Lorelai in a way that Emily was incapable of doing. But for most of the series, it's true that Lorelai could at least have some kind of relationship with her mother. It was strained (an understatement), but it was something. Richard did not make much effort. (This is personally familiar to me, because my father was just "there" when i was growing up, hard to relate to; not a bad father but there was not much effort on his part with me or my siblings). And at least when the series ended, Lorelai the transplanted townie had something of a "relationship" with her priviledged parents.

Yeah Sidney, you've done it again!  Smiley
« Last Edit: June 29, 2007, 08:45:40 am by bingbong » Logged



Signature courtesy of SKFTEX
SIDNEY
Chilton Graduate
*

Community Points: 321
Offline Offline

Posts: 673



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2007, 09:26:55 am »

I don't know when it was stated that the show had nothing against the rich..

That's the thing it was never stated but one of those things that are too clear. The whole idea was the rich parents are not good but their kids nothing like them. somehow it seemed to me  like a passive aggressive thing.


Quote
Richard did not make much effort. (This is personally familiar to me, because my father was just "there" when i was growing up, hard to relate to; not a bad father but there was not much effort on his part with me or my siblings).



There's a movie called " before sunrise" where the  lead actor says " Every parents screwed up their kids . Rich parents gave them too much . Poor parents not enough, too much affection, no that much affection .. "  and so on . .

I know what you mean about your father, though. I have that kind of  parents. My father always loved me,i guess  but that never meant that much to me because he never knew a thing about me ( except my name & the way i look   ) When we sit together he talks about business & politics  And i just nod my head and smile. I barely say to him more than 2 words(  really & True ) .As you said not a bad father but hard to explain.


Quote
Yeah Sidney, you've done it again!  Smiley

I was about to say the same to you Wink
« Last Edit: June 29, 2007, 09:29:46 am by SIDNEY » Logged


Billy: Are we over the rainbow, Ally? Is this it? We used to sing as kids "over the rainbow".
We've gone from being people with bright futures to people who should be living their futures now.
bingbong
Town Selectman
**

Community Points: 1266
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2638



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2007, 10:21:26 am »

I don't know when it was stated that the show had nothing against the rich..

That's the thing it was never stated but one of those things that are too clear. The whole idea was the rich parents are not good but their kids nothing like them. somehow it seemed to me like a passive aggressive thing.

I think it is debatable that their kids are nothing like them. My view on Logan, for example, is that he did evolve as a charcter but is still under the Huntzberger umbrella and always will be. It's natural for him to resist his father, who he said he hated, and try things on his own, but he is still under that umbrella, with the Huntzberger money and connections. And my guess is that he always will be. Chris i agree was not like his father, which was a struggle he had that was similar to Lorelai with her parents. Ditto with Jason. But we have all the Chilton kids. They were still just teenagers and still forming their identities but it is hard to see any of them turning out much different from their parents, including Madline & Louise for example. How much good can be said for Tristan, once you get beyond his alleged pretty boy looks? They might hate their parents as teenagers, but i again think when they grow into adults they will follow in their parents footsteps. I had no faith in those kids to think they would learn much from their parents mistakes.


There's a movie called " before sunrise" where the  lead actor says " Every parents screwed up their kids . Rich parents gave them too much . Poor parents not enough, too much affection, no that much affection .. "  and so on . .

I know what you mean about your father, though. I have that kind of  parents. My father always loved me,i guess  but that never meant that much to me because he never knew a thing about me ( except my name & the way i look   ) When we sit together he talks about business & politics  And i just nod my head and smile. I barely say to him more than 2 words(  really & True ) .As you said not a bad father but hard to explain.

I have not seen that movie but i think that quote is a little too generalized for me. I think in reality there are good & bad parents regardless of economic class. But that's not the case on GG!

Yeah, as a teenager, i maybe exchanged three words per week with my father and one of them was "grunt"!
"not a bad father but hard to explain", but i would put it this way for myself: He was there in person but not in mind. Economically, i grew up middle class and he was a decent provider as the saying goes and it could have been a lot worse for me, i'll say that. I mean, i could have been stuck in Hartford and at Chilton!!
Smiley




 
Logged



Signature courtesy of SKFTEX
SIDNEY
Chilton Graduate
*

Community Points: 321
Offline Offline

Posts: 673



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2007, 11:55:41 am »

But we have all the Chilton kids. They were still just teenagers and still forming their identities but it is hard to see any of them turning out much different from their parents, including Madline & Louise for example.

That's what i don't get about the show. I don't believe that a big school like that had no good kids in it. Just because they are rich doesn't mean they are bad. i think the show wasn't objective in that point because they didn't show us a teenager who is rich & smart & nice.

 

Quote
I have not seen that movie but i think that quote is a little too generalized for me. I think in reality there are good & bad parents regardless of economic class. But that's not the case on GG!

I don't think you'd like that movie. My sister joked about me watching it often  but what can i do ! it's  my weird taste  Smiley the movie basically was about two strangers ( a guy & a gal ) meeting on a train. They had until the sunrise to take  separate ways. So they just kept wandering on the streets all night talking about all sort of things. He was a little grumpy so don't expect him to give you a bright side on life Wink Anyway i thought he had a point because sometimes no matter how hard you try there is something you're going to miss!


Quote
Yeah, as a teenager, i maybe exchanged three words per week with my father and one of them was "grunt"!


Yeah, but the conversation i was talking about wasn't just as a teenager, it still the same until now and in every time i see him. And I use " really " or " true " because they go with all sort of talks even if you weren't with someone in mind  Wink

"
Quote
not a bad father but hard to explain", but i would put it this way for myself: He was there in person but not in mind. Economically, i grew up middle class and he was a decent provider as the saying goes and it could have been a lot worse for me, i'll say that. I mean, i could have been stuck in Hartford and at Chilton!!

Yeah, because Hartford's life sucks? who wants a new car everyday Cool But seriously money really doesn't mean anything to me. My father, he never said " no " to me. Everything i wanted i got it even before i ask for it but somehow that made me miserable. He was the kind of person who thinks that love is just buying things for you which is still a sign that he didn't know me because i care about a post card more than i care about material things.

Ok, maybe i got too personal .. SORRY!!


« Last Edit: June 29, 2007, 12:04:12 pm by SIDNEY » Logged


Billy: Are we over the rainbow, Ally? Is this it? We used to sing as kids "over the rainbow".
We've gone from being people with bright futures to people who should be living their futures now.
bingbong
Town Selectman
**

Community Points: 1266
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2638



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2007, 12:12:32 pm »


 But we have all the Chilton kids...

... That's what i don't get about the show. I don't believe that a big school like that had no good kids in it. Just because they are rich doesn't mean they are bad. i think the show wasn't objective in that point because they didn't show us a teenager who is rich & smart & nice.

... He was the kind of person who thinks that love is just buying things for you which is still a sign that he didn't know me because i care about a post card more than i care about material things.


Yeah, i get what you're saying. And undoubtably there would be the good seeds, and where were they? All i can think of is Brad, the kid who Paris terrorized everytime he appeared (i confess, knowing it was fictional & Paris, it was kind of funny). But look what happened to that nice kid? He was considered a dweeb loser, was so terrified he went to therapy & another school, then came back to "confront his fears" and even after appearing on Broadway was still an outcast. So, there's your nice rich kid and look what happened. That could have been Rory, thrown to the wolves, if not for her tough backbone. Rory was the townie who not only held her own but became a major force - valedictorian!

Hey, from your description with your father, maybe you would have been another nice kid in the Chilton mix. And hopefully would have kicked some butt!   Wink

Logged



Signature courtesy of SKFTEX
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.7 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.234 seconds with 20 queries.
';