What Plotline Ruined Amy Sherman-Palladino’s Gilmore Girls Revival Plans?

rew-cvr-1410gg_612x380Credit: Entertainment Weekly

There are a lot of things we really want to know about the Gilmore Girls revival, for example: who will Rory be dating? Is one of our favorite Gilmore’s pregnant? And the most important thing: What are the final four words of the show?

In addition to the questions we already have, there will be one more we can add to our list; apparently there was one thing in the show’s seventh season that threw off an idea for the revival.

In an interview during the Television Critics Association summer press tour, Amy Sherman-Palladino mentioned that she hasn’t watched season seven of our beloved show. Her husband Dan and she had stepped down as executive-producers of the show after season six when the CW took over.

In order to being able to plan everything that could happen in the revival, Sherman-Palladino revealed that she has asked her friends, who watched the final season, to fill her in: “I called them and went, ‘We’re thinking of doing this. What steps on it?’“ The big themes for the revival were safe, though, and nothing that happened in season seven had an impact on that.

There is one thing, however, that did ruin something she had planned for the revival. “There was one thing I wish… I’m not going to tell you,” she said. “It was the only thing where I was like, ‘Ah, I’ll go a different way.'”

Despite the “one thing” and the fact that Sherman-Palladino and her husband didn’t work on season seven, they are not going to ignore what has happened in it. “Nothing against the seventh season,” she added, “but any writer who was so emotionally connected to something and then pulled out of it is going to find it very hard to go back into that world and not feel like you either want to slit your own wrist and die slowly in a swimming pool, or be angry or be jealous.”

Until we can finally watch Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life, we might have to binge all seven seasons and hopefully can figure out ourselves what “the thing” was.

Anna Hattingen