WhileGilmore Girlswasn’t perfect, the failure of the show’s Netflix revivalA Year In The Lifeproves that the original show got one thing right.Gilmore Girls’ cast of characterswasn’t always easy to root for. Lorelei’s parents were wrong about her inability to raise Rory, but there is no denying that Rory’s mother could be thoughtless, flighty, and bad with boundaries when it came to her daughter. Similarly, although the entire town of Stars Hollow would have defended her every action with their lives, it is hard to deny that Rory was a serial cheater.
Gilmore Girls Teased Rory’s A Year In The Life Plan Back In Season 1
Although Rory’s fate in A Year in the Life seemed to come out of nowhere, Gilmore Girls season 1 subtly foreshadowed this eventual decision.
These flaws made the show’s heroes complex, relatable, and believably human, but they weren’t always likable. This worked throughout the show’s original run, sinceLorelei’sGilmore Girlsbackstoryjustified her mercenary moments of self-centered behavior and Rory’s flaws ensured she wasn’t a boring, one-dimensional golden child. However, these same traits were amplified in the show’s 2016 revival and this resulted in the Netflix miniseries receiving a very different reception.Gilmore Girls: A Year In The Lifealso changed something else about the series, and it was this alteration that truly doomed the revival.
Gilmore Girls: A Year In The Life Completely Changed The Tone Of The Original Show
A Year In The Life Was More Cynical Than Gilmore Girls
Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Lifewas nowhere near as fun as the original show, and the tonal disparity betweenGilmore Girlsand its revival was what sank the miniseries. AlthoughGilmore Girlsoften tackled serious topics, the show’s playful tone was central to its status as a cult hit.Gilmore Girlsnever became too dark, even when dealing with storylines like Rory and Lorelei’s feud or Lorelei ending her engagement to Luke. In contrast,Gilmore Girls: A Year In The Lifewas outright hopeless in comparson to its predecessor, even though the miniseries also paradoxically lacked conflict.
Plots likeMitchum telling Rory she didn’t havewhat it took to be a journalist prove that the originalGilmore Girlshad plenty of harsh storylines. However, althoughGilmore Girls: A Year In The Lifedidn’t feature any moments this biting, the series had an altogether meaner, more downbeat tone. Rory was no longer an irrepressible idealist but had instead become a bitter burnout. The “Thirtysomething gang” weren’t quirky outcasts like most of the residents of Stars Hollow, but rather the revival’s dour jab at millennials. Put simply,Gilmore Girlswas no longer fun.
A Year In The Life’s Serious Nature Made The Netflix Revival Disappointing
The Gilmore Girls Revival Never Successfully Recaptured The Original Show’s Tone
WhileGilmore Girls: A Year In The Lifewas always going to have its darker moments, the revival’s tone was a mess.Gilmore Girls: A Year In The Lifefelt darker than the original show, but not in a way that fleshed out the heroines or uncovered previously unseen elements of their personalities. Rory and Lorelei casually fat-shaming Stars Hollow locals at a swimming pool wasn’t a clever deconstruction of their original personae. Instead, it was just a nastier, less fun, and less funny version of the beloved characters. Similarly, Jason’s return highlighted the revival’s failures.
Gilmore Girls: A Year In The Lifewas released in 2016, nine years after the original show ended.
Throughout his role in the original series, Jason was one of Lorelei’s more charismatic love interests. Chris Eigeman’s character matched Lorelei’s offbeat personality and shared her weird sense of humor, but his appearance inGilmore Girls: A Year In The Lifeshowed none of his usual wit or charm. It wasn’t clear why Jason reappeared for this brief cameo, but his stiff, awkward interaction with Lorelei epitomized the difference between the original show and its revival.Gilmore Girls: A Year In The Lifedropping Sookiehad a similar feel, as a character who was originally pivotal became sidelined.
Gilmore Girls' Tone Is A Huge Reason For The Original Series' Success
Gilmore Girls Balanced Drama, Comedy, and Romance In Its Original Run
Lorelei and Sookie eventually share the screen in the revival, but theGilmore Girls: A Year In The Lifescene is so off-putting and cumbersome that viewers might wish they hadn’t. Outside of Richard’s off-screen death,there is not that much tragedy to makeGilmore Girls: A Year In The Lifedarker than the original show.Gilmore Girlsdealt with Lorelei’s numerous heartbreaks and Rory’s academic struggles as well as her failed romantic relationships, so it is not like the revival was uniquely dark in its subject matter. Instead, tone alone was the problem.
The original series was a quirky, light-hearted dramedy.
Gilmore Girls: A Year In The Lifeproved just how much the tone ofGilmore Girlsshaped its success. The original series was a quirky, light-hearted dramedy that used the goofy denizens of Stars Hollow to keep things fun whenever the love lives of the show’s heroines became too dramatic. In contrast, the revival made Lorelei and Rory more bitter and uncaring, and Stars Hollow was no longer the idyllic burg of the original show. Thus,A Year In The Lifefailed to recapture the unique appeal ofGilmore Girls.
