Why This "Gilmore Girls" Revival Is a Terrible Idea
Since the Gilmore Girls revival on Netflix was first announced last fall, I've been avoiding all news about the project. Seemingly every week, a little news dribbles out: a set photo, a casting, a new interview that reveals some fresh plotline. Today, Entertainment Weekly even debuted a cover dedicated to the show, with exclusive details about the four 90-minute films that are planned. I don't stay away from the updates because I hate spoilers, though.
I think this revival is a really bad idea, and I'm dreading its release. I don't get excited by news that Matt Czuchry is returning, or feel my heart soar at a photo of Luke and Lorelai holding hands. If given the chance, I'd beg creator Amy Sherman-Palladino and her giant black hat to stop the madness.
These constant pop-culture revivals and revamps and remakes and recycles are really so incredibly lazy. The attempts to recapture TV magic have been awkward at best - 90210, Dallas, Charlie's Angels, Girl Meets World - and creepily surreal at worst. That'd be you, Fuller House. A look at this summer's biggest movies reveals an endless schedule of sequels or reinventions: Independence Day, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Captain American, Star Trek, Jason Bourne, Ghostbusters, Finding Dory, Neighbors 2. We are discouraging creativity, and wasting time with the same-old same-old when we could be falling in love with new characters.
The studios make these products because they'll make money. The audience is all but guaranteed, and fans themselves are often responsible for the revivals; thanks to social media, their prayers are heard and answered. But maybe we shouldn't be given everything we ask for.
Consider the 7-year-old who finishes her millionth viewing of Frozen, lets the credits roll, and then commands "Again! Again!" until she gets her way. We are better than this 7-year-old. The story of Gilmore Girls ended in 2007. We can't, and shouldn't, keep demanding "More! More!" No more foot-stomping.
The revival could also very well dilute the show's legacy. Indeed, the final season was controversial: Creator, executive producer, and writer Amy Sherman-Palladino wasn't involved, and the plot lines ended somewhat abruptly. But the series did have an ending, and I actually really liked it. Lorelai got her parents' approval and Luke, and Rory graduated from Yale, rejected her boyfriend's proposal, and set off to follow Barack Obama on the campaign trail. It's fun to imagine and discuss and debate where the Gilmore girls would be now - babies, marriage, a newspaper for Rory to run? - but airing a sequel takes away that magic.
Put simply: What if Gilmore Girls becomes the new Sex and the City? An endless grubbing for fan dollars, each iteration becoming more absurd, a parody of itself? Have you considered that, Netflix?!
This is all to say, of course I'll watch these four movies when Netflix drops them. I'll call my mom, I'll mourn the loss of Edward Herrmann (cast members are literally dying out), I'll giggle with glee when and if Carole King starts singing "Where You Lead." I still wish it weren't happening.
Follow Good Housekeeping on Instagram.
