I’m with you, Gilmore Girls fans. A Year in the Life bears a strong resemblance to your typical family reunion. It makes you feel warm and fuzzy and nostalgic at times, but at others, it leaves you wondering if you ever really knew these people in the first place.
But here’s the thing: creator Amy Sherman-Palladino has said time and again, this was her endgame vision for the original run of the show. She’s been hanging onto these stories, to those controversial final four words, for over a decade. If something about them didn’t feel right, it’s because they were never meant to unfold in 2016. But as far as I’m concerned (and concerned I am, given our girl Rory’s current moral compass), what we got in this revival is far better than nothing — I loved returning to Stars Hollow, even if I didn’t agree with everything that was happening there. And what would be even better is more Gilmore Girls.
Now I know some of you out there are thinking, “No thanks! Enough damage has been done to my beloved characters!” But hear me out: Sherman-Palladino came into this revival with tunnel vision. It was her do-over, her chance to tell the story she didn’t get to finish the first time around. And because that story wasn’t meant for 2016, parts of it inevitably felt, well, a bit off.
Would I have bought Rory perpetually falling for playboy Logan’s charms back in her early twenties? Sure. I wouldn’t have been happy about it given the relative awesomeness of grown-up Jess (#TeamJess, guilty as charged), but I would have understood it and I probably would have forgiven her for it (yes, even the cheating). But Rory in her early thirties? Come on, girl. Get it together. It’s perfectly acceptable to make mistakes at 32, but ideally, you aren’t still making the same mistakes you made in your youth.
This is why the time jump doesn’t quite work — these characters should have grown and matured a bit more — but the beauty of moving forward with even more new content is that it would essentially be a clean slate. Yes, there’d be fallout from A Year in the Life to deal with. But in a recent interview with TV Line, Sherman-Palladino responded to a question about whether she’s thought about where the story goes next by saying, “No. Not at all.” If they were to make more episodes, she could approach them without the added weight of weaving in outdated, preconceived plots.
She could take a step back, look at where our girls are at in the current timeline, and write a story that not only deals with questions posed by the revival, but takes the characters to new heights that feel more fitting given where and who they are now.
More Gilmore Girls? I say, bring it on. But please, no divorce for Lorelei and Luke — my shipper heart couldn’t handle it — and also, no more musicals that aren’t funny enough to justify their length. If you’re going to do a musical number, Kirk needs to be part of the performance. And maybe Petal the pig, too.
Kate Pawson Studer is a freelance editor and young adult author. You can find her online at this link.