‘Gilmore Girls’ revival doesn’t live up to its expectations

There’s one controversy that has divided my two siblings and me for years — which one of Rory Gilmore’s boyfriends is the best? My brother says Dean, the tall, silent, blue collar boy, while my sister is partial to Jess, the broody, tortured literary genius. Personally, I swoon whenever I see Logan, the reformed playboy. So when we heard that producer Amy Sherman Palladino was bringing back the popular early 2000s show “Gilmore Girls,” a lighthearted comedy about a mother and daughter duo with a one-of-a-kind rapport, for a four episode revival, I was sure that our conflict would finally be resolved.

I waited months anticipating the release of “Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life” on Netflix, and when it finally came out on Nov. 25, I was ecstatic. Finally, I could see the lives of my two favorite women (other than my mother) unfold before my eyes.

Unfortunately, my enthusiasm didn’t last for very long.

To put it bluntly, the “Gilmore Girls” revival is just a terrible, half-hearted version of the original series. The original “Gilmore Girls” is known for its mile-a-minute dialogue, snappy banter and obscure allusions to music and pop culture. Throughout it all, there is an underlying sweetness — the love that a mother has for her daughter, the loyalty of citizens to their town and the camaraderie between peers.

The viewers were invested in the lives of the main characters, Lorelai and Rory Gilmore, intrigued by the wacky inhabitants of their small town Stars Hollow and immersed in every relationship that formed through the show’s seven seasons.

I think that’s why it was especially disappointing to see so many of the characters treated unfairly in the revival. Lorelai, once a spunky, independent spitfire, now just seems like an immature woman unwilling to grow up and accept the realities of life. She spent the entire revival dealing with her constant fear of commitment and mommy issues — problems more applicable to a teenager than to a woman in her mid-forties. Her daughter, Rory — jobless, homeless, and having an affair with an engaged man — used to be a sweet, intellectually driven girl with clear ambitions, but now comes across as a spoiled 30-year-old without a real handle on her career or her life.

The side characters also didn’t exhibit much, if any, growth. Somehow, even after a decade, all of Rory’s boyfriends seem to be inexplicably still in love with her. Rory’s best friends Lane and Paris, two of the most intriguing characters in the entire series, are now reduced to flat background characters — just shadows of the complex people that they once were.

Honestly, I took it personally. I grew up with these characters, admiring their strengths, learning from their flaws and maturing alongside them; however, the writers had the audacity to mutilate the characters that meant so much to me.

The show is now like any other boring sitcom. There’s nothing that makes me want to watch more. I’m pretty sure that if I didn’t have to write this article, I wouldn’t have watched the revival all the way through.

There’s a quote by Lorelai in the first episode “Winter” regarding the death of her father. She says, “At least [his death] was sudden. Mom didn’t have to watch him fade away.” Unfortunately for us “Gilmore Girls” lovers, this revival has forced us to watch the show fade from its original glory to nothing more than a hint of what it used to be.