Did April ruin the last two seasons of Gilmore Girls?

(1/3) > >>

My friend and I were debating the subject of whether April ruined the last two seasons of GG.

I think including her carried the show another two seasons. On the other hand, my friend argues that the story of April was not as credible because Luke loved Lorelai so much, and from the very beginning, that he would not have kept a distance after April was introduced to him.

What do you guys think?

To blame a character for ruining the show is too easy.  It's really more about what Amy Sherman-Palladino was doing.  The show was too smart to add a new child character to the series.  It's often called the "Cousin Oliver" syndrome based on the appearance of Cousin Oliver on the last season of The Brady Bunch at a time the show was in trouble. 

Gilmore Girls was going through a more dramatic period due to the Lorelai and Rory estrangement plotline and Lorelai, overwhelmed with emotions over the loss of Rory and Luke's passionate plea to help Rory, proposing to Luke.  I think what happened was that the writers needed something to shake up the Luke and Lorelai relationship.  That solution was to bring in a long-lost daughter.  It would've been some cheap plot device or gimmick but I think that would've underestimate the talents of Amy Sherman-Palladino and what she was trying to do.  I think in creating the April Nardini character, it was more about giving the Luke Danes character more dimension.  While there's truth to the fact that adding April to the series ruined the Luke-Lorelai relationship.  It didn't ruin the show.  I think the April character showed new sides to Luke, both good and bad.  On the one hand, we see someone who is devoted to be a father and learning more about himself to the point that he was a better person.  On the other hand, it made Luke extremely oblivious to what he was doing to Lorelai and not allowing Lorelai to be in April's life was a bad call on his part.  At least Luke in the final season admitted he screwed up.

I can see that there were complaints to have April be like a mini-Rory but with some differences.  I think April is different from Rory considering that she had a dad that was going to be there for her unlike Rory whose father is there and isn't there.  I don't think the series had enough time to develop April into a full-fledge character.

That's what Virtual Gilmore Girls did by having April be more of a real character and be part of a family.  The ninth season has made her into a regular as she's now returned to Connecticut full-time with her mother following her grandmother's death.  It provided a unique dynamic with Luke while there was an episode where Rory taught April the art of ordering take-out food. 

It's too easy to say that a character ruined the last two seasons of the series.  The blame really lies on what happened to the series after Lorelai discovered that Luke has a daughter and having Rory back in her life.  It became soap-operatic near the end of the sixth season and the humor was forced at times.  Plus, it didn't have everything together.  To me, the show jumped the shark on the scene where Lorelai was in the bed of Christopher Hayden.  Then everything went to sh*t. 

I agree with much of what you say, but my friend keeps insisting that the show made Luke too oblivious--to a point where you could not see the correlation between his longing for her and his surprising immediate distance.

Oh, April. I have a bit of a love-hate relationship with her. In some accounts, she completely ruined the last two seasons. In others, she saved the show.

Gilmore Gyrlie:
3 words...



[0] Message Index

[#] Next page