[...] making a modern teen movie, the creators opted for a culture clash subtext. Nancy goes from being Rory Gilmore, the most popular girl in her small town, to being a smart, accomplished, completely unpopular girl [...]

[...] Harper. I like her. Even cooler was that the character is specifically based on her portrayal in My Favorite Year, one of my favorite movies. [...]

“Welcome to Brooklyn,” on the other hand, still gets hummed every time I think of meatloaf.

The new Rory/Marty/Logan storyline makes for an odd mirror of the Lorelai/Luke/Christopher plot, which is obviously intentional–if somewhat dispiriting, per Johanna’s complaint about how the girls have reduced themselves. But at least it indicates to me that there’s a plan at work.

Finally, when has “money solves everything” not been the point of the show? While there are usually strings attached, the cash fairies have been looking out for the girls since the pilot episode. L&R have always played at disadvantage while eagerly tapping into the enormous wealth at their disposal (from family or the magic bank account of diner owner Luke Danes) whenever a need arises. I’m not sure I agree with Bob G. that Lorelai has learned all that much about learning to accept help; she’s always accepted it while denying its implications. It’s actually one of the recognizably human character flaws that has kept the show interesting for me.

And Lorelai’s reunion with Christopher has been anything but tension free. She’s stared scared into the camera more than once during this storyline. It’s on shaky ground.

[spoilers]

The most recent episode demonstrated that Christopher is an ill fit with the rest of Stars Hollow. (In an example of the “townsfolk creating a community” Stars Hollow gets together for a benefit knit-athon to raise money for repairs to a local bridge; Chris inadvertently ruins their fun by donating all the money needed to fix the bridge.) The plot seems to be slowly moving toward a reconciliation between Lor and Luke, with his parenting of April designed to mature him. Basically, ithink the show runners put the marriage in the November sweeps period in order to end it by the Feb. sweep and put Luke and Lorelai on track for the series finale.

Unfortunately, the two episodes you deleted are the ones that most closely match the tone of previous seasons, for pacing and dialogue. It’s actually awkward to see the characters almost get their old voices back–it only highlights the places where the writers wildly miss the mark.

While I agree that the show is diminished by defining the leads in terms of their men, the show pretty much crossed that bridge for good way back in season four.

Ali: thanks, I’ll check it out.

An example from my own life: I once added a Kenny of South Park doll to the background of one of my comic strips. The doll had nothing to do with the strip’s joke, and only mildly added to the depth of one of my characters. The strip could stand alone without the Kenny doll, but most of my audience recognized it, and chuckled that one of my characters would actually own such a thing.

Now, I did not credit South Park, but as I mentioned, the strip did not require it, and at the time, the character was immediately recognizable.

It is important to mention, however, that although I believe this does cross the line, it would be up to a judge to decide if it was intentionable. Many creators feel at one time or another that they have been ripped off. However, it is quite possible for more than one person to come up with the same great idea quite independently.

Also, the writer may have seen My Favorite Year, forgotten it, and the joke rested in their subconscious until it suddenly surfaced as a ‘great idea’.

Of course, if the writer is publicly known as a fan of the movie, well, that’s a boo boo. Some mention of the movie should then have been made.

Cheers, JOHN :0)

Speaking of Studio 60 and Sarah Paulson’s character Harriet Hayes, of perhaps interest is today’s New York Times which has a profile of Kristin Chenoweth, who used to date Aaron Sorkin and on whom and whose experiences (promoting an album on the 700 Club; being disinvited from a Women of Faith conference for being pro-gay rights; an FHM pictorial, etc.) he based the Harriet Hayes’ character.

I think a quote that’s intended to be recognised is likely fair enough, even without overt attribution (though that leaves questions of how large and close a quote is permissible), it’s borrowed material that you’re not supposed to spot that seems worse.