The Rory Gilmore Book Club discussion

59 views
Gilmore Girls Discussions > Why did Amy leave?

Comments Showing 1-14 of 14 (14 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Dini, the master of meaning (new)

Dini | 691 comments Mod
Not sure if this has been discussed before, but I'll ask anyway. I've only watched the beginning seasons of GG and then kind of had a falling out (I know, boohoo). I wouldn't have known about Amy Sherman-Palladino's departure from the series if you guys hadn't mentioned it. What I'm not clear about is why -- did she want to end the series but the producers didn't, or some creative reasons (she wanted to take the story this way, others wanted the other way), or something else? Am really curious. Thanks y'all!


message 2: by Alison, the guru of grace (new)

Alison | 1282 comments Mod
This is all I've got, Dini.

"On April 20, 2006, it was announced that Amy Sherman-Palladino and her husband Daniel could not come to an agreement with The CW to continue their contracts. As a result, the Palladinos' involvement with Gilmore Girls came to an end. Writer and producer David S. Rosenthal replaced them.

The couple did an interview with TV Guide writer Michael Ausiello, where they went further into their reasons for leaving the show. The official statement was as follows: "Despite our best efforts to return and ensure the future of Gilmore Girls for years to come, we were unable to reach an agreement with the studio and are therefore leaving when our contracts expire at the end of this season. Our heartfelt thanks go out to our amazing cast, hard-working crew and loyal fans."



message 3: by Robbie (new)

Robbie Bashore | 592 comments Gotta love Wikipedia.org :)


message 4: by [deleted user] (new)

Wasnt the cast unhappy about them leaving too??


message 5: by whichwaydidshego, the sage of sass (new)

whichwaydidshego | 1996 comments Mod
I remember hearing that Lauren Graham wanted more creative control and that is one of the reasons the studio didn't budge. But I couldn't even tell you where I heard that, so... it's gossip. But I'm thinking it was an entertainment news show, so who knows?


message 6: by Cody (new)

Cody Wilshire (codywilshire) | 85 comments Palladinos wanted more money and more creative control, the studio wouldn't budge (mostly because the numbers of GG were on a gradual decline, had they been higher, it probably wouldn't have happened the way it did).

It's unfortunately ridiculously common.


message 7: by Sarah (new)

Sarah (songgirl7) I think it also had something to do with the new network. The WB may have been more willing to work with them than the CW.


message 8: by Meghan (new)

Meghan Entertainment Weekly (my source of all info, heh) had done a small piece on her after she had left. Part of it was that CW and her (and her husband) were unable to agree with how much control they would have over the show's future. But also, there was a verbal(?) agreement that Amy would be allowed to develop new shows and from what I gathered, the CW was renigging on that.

I also think Amy wanted to see the show end sooner than the network. She never intended for the story to go beyond college. She's been quoted as saying that her picture of Rory was to see her graduate from college and walking/riding off into the sunset towards her dreams. I think the network didn't want to commit to such an end should the series gain popularity and then they would want to continue it afterwards (it kind of reminds me of the situation with ABC and Lost, only with Lost being able to commit to a number of episodes).


message 9: by Sarah (new)

Sarah (songgirl7) Well there was no way for the series to gain popularity with that stinker of a seventh season.


message 10: by Dini, the master of meaning (new)

Dini | 691 comments Mod
Thanks everyone for the info. Guess it's the old creativity vs. business interests again, huh? They way you guys described it, the last season sounded rather forced.


message 11: by whichwaydidshego, the sage of sass (new)

whichwaydidshego | 1996 comments Mod
It's still GG, even if it wasn't them at their best! At least that's how I feel. Still glad I watched.


message 12: by Meghan (new)

Meghan Well, GG WAS Amy--she talks that fast in real life, is that well versed in pop culture, is very well read, and pretty much was to GG as J.K. Rowling is to Harry Potter. To not have one pretty much meant a great loss to the other.

I was frustrated by the inconsistencies of the 7th season. It was like the new writers (which were just writers within the show promoted) totally forgot what happend in the previous 6 seasons. And then they just had the storyline all over the place.

I think with a more firm comittment from the writers (and producers for that matter, as Amy was a producer as well, so there were new people in that position as well), the show could have done well. It had been picking up since the "disasterous" 5th season where Lorelai and Rory were on the outs (I read that somewhere, probably EW), so I think they assumed the numbers would continue upwards.


message 13: by Meghan (new)

Meghan Oh and if the Emmys had actually took the time to watch the show and nominate Lauren Graham for best lead actress (it was an absolute crime that she never got one nomination!), it probably would have helped in keeping Amy onboard.


message 14: by Sarah (new)

Sarah (songgirl7) It's pretty unusual for a WB or CW show to get recognized during award season, isn't it? And Did Lauren Graham ever get nominated for a Golden Globe? I remember seeing her at some ceremony but maybe she was a presenter?

Oh, I just looked it up and she was nominated for pretty much everything EXCEPT an Emmy! I had no idea she had so many nominations.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0334179/aw...


back to top