Sad News
Gilmore Girls is *gasps* being finaled next week! If I could cry, I so would've last night when I found out. I knew it was a possibility, and I'd been preparing myself for it, but it didn't lessen the blow. As is custom when disappointed by something on the TV, I screamed loudly "No!!!!!". I'm pretty sure they could hear me all the way in Xinjiang.
The main reason I'm so upset is not because I love the show, but because there will never be another one like it. And really, when you actually think about it, that's a good thing. But it's also sad for the fans to know they'll never again see the quirky inhabitants of Stars Hollow living about their equally quirky lives; we'll never again see Kirk in a box, we'll never again see another town meeting, we'll never find out if Paul Anka actually talks (which I suspect he does -- he's just a little too smart).
And another think that's really tweaking me is that it all seems so rushed. When I last heard about it, what I understood was that Alexis wasn't really sure she wanted to do it anymore and Lauren wouldn't do it without her...I'm guessing that maybe that happened -- maybe she decided no and that's why it's all so rushed.
My take on last night's episode: Though I felt it to be incredibly rushed, I liked that Rory ended up not being with Logan. I always knew he'd do her wrong in the end. I mean, he cheated on her before. If a guy cheats on you, you clearly don't mean that much to him. But Rory took him back; Logan's a smoothe talker with a bunch of excuses. He's polite, gentlemanly...the worst kind of snake. He definitely did not need to be Mr. Rory Gilmore.
And the whole reconciliation with Lorelai and Christopher was just weird, but I guess it had to happen to tie all the loose ends into a little bow for the finale. And the big loose end that gets tied up in the finale has got to be the whole Luke and Lorelai situation. They're meant to be together; that's been made obvious throughout the whole course of the show. And it will be a fitting end, though I would've liked to see Rory find her someone who's right. But there's still hope; I have to wonder if she might find someone as like a cliffhanger or something.
A long, long time ago, before the actors got signed to different awesome shows, I always fancied that Rory might get together with Dean or Jess in the end. But that's not going to happen. lol And really, I'm too besotted with Milo's Peter Petrelli to care much about that at this point anyway.
I will definitely blog about the finale next week, if I'm not too destraught, which is a distinct possibility. Anyone who knew me during the Buffy and Angel finales knows what I'm talking about.
Heroes
As usual, Heroes was amazing Monday night. "The Hard Part" has gone down as my favorite Heroes episode so far.
Reasons why it's my favorite:
1. Paire. Duh.
2. Paire eye!sex overload. Duh.
3. Milo in like every other scene. (I ♥ him.)
4. Mohinder and Molly Walker gave me warm fuzzies. I can't wait to see how she factors into the bigger picture, because her power is really cool.
5. Nathan and Mama Petrelli are no good and now Claire knows about the former! (Okay, Nathan's good...he's just really greedy and dumb enough to listen to Mama Petrelli, Linderman, and Thompson.)
I love how they're adding onto the Save the Cheerleader prophecy -- that it wasn't just something to do, that it actually means something in the greater scheme of things. And I love how Peter wholeheartedly believes that it's Claire who's there to save the world. Which brings me to the subject of the gun.
She's obviously not going to shoot him because A) he's in the previews WITH her for next week, alive; B) she didn't make it this far, she didn't find him just to kill him; C) she loves him too much. Claire's smart; she'll find another way. Somehow, I think the phrase "you're the only one who can get close enough" is significant.
But more about the gun.
I didn't notice it until I watched the commentary and that stunt guy pointed it out, but: When Peter finds the gun, it's wrapped in a napkin. Doesn't that strike anyone as a little odd? They've basically said that Papa Petrelli didn't die the way we were told on the show. I think he was murdered. I think that gun was the murder weapon (think about it -- the napkin means no finger prints...but now Peter's and Claire's are ALL over it). And I think Mama Petrelli was his murderer. After all, she's very cold; she has a plan, and she's not afraid to sacrifice Peter to achieve her ends. Sometimes, I think she's the one pulling Linderman's strings and not the other way around. What if Papa Petrelli developed a conscience and decided he didn't like Mama Petrelli and Linderman's plan and so they offed him? I could totally see that happening. They wouldn't think twice about sacrificing him for the greater good.
And now that Claire knows that Thompson (really Linderman) is pulling Nathan's strings, she's got to convince Peter. Peter's really gotta step up and see that his family, though he loves them, are not very nice people and don't care very much about him or his convictions. (Remember, he's trying his darndest NOT to explode, but his mother and Nathan are doing their best to make sure it happens.) However, by the look of the preview, I have a feeling that that might happen. So, yay!
I love how they've brought everyone to New York in believable ways. Very well done on that front. I'm soooo excited to see how it goes down and shall be very bored this summer until spoilers for next season start cropping up.
Oh and Peter and Sylar are totally brothers. I've decided. In fact, a lot of people think this. Teehee...which means Peter and Claire may not be uncle and niece. Which -- let's face it -- they don't act like uncle and neice. So either they're really not related or else they're a perfect example of genetic sexual attraction.
And shameless self-promotion time: I started a thread on PeterandClaire.net about genetics and Heroes. It'd be cool if anyone who knew more about it would contribute, or if anyone has any theories. =D
Aaaand I think that's all folks, but I shall leave you with a gripe: Why is it that I have to pay $40 for a dress that breaks the second day I own it? Why?! Why should I have to pay so much for shoddy craftsmanship? It just doesn't make sense. Some would say "you get what you pay for", but in my quaint little mind...$40 should buy a dress that doesn't tear up!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home