With rumors about whether Netflix will continue their wildly successful "Gilmore Girls" revival floating around, it seemed almost certain that fans would get to return to Stars Hollow again sooner rather than later.
Last month, Netflix Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos opened up to British news agency Press Association about the streaming site's hope for more episodes. "We hope [it happens],” Sarandos said. “We obviously loved the success of the show [and] fans loved how well it was done; it delivered what they hoped. The worst thing is to wait a couple of years for your favorite show to come back and for it to disappoint you, but [series creator Amy Sherman-Palladino and exec producer Dan Palladino] sure delivered, and people were really excited about more. And we have been talking to them about the possibility of that.”
Needless to say, speculation about what these news episodes would be about, when they'd be set, and what the new project would entire broke loose immediately.
The stars of the show, however, have warned fans not to expect another "Gilmore Girls" revival just yet.
"I don’t know if there is a need to do more. I wouldn’t want it to feel like we overstayed our welcome,” Lauren Graham told TV Line.
Alexis Bledel was slightly more optimistic, saying it would depend on "What story we’re telling… I’m just interested in telling a story that is dynamic and that I can hook into.”
As much as we loved the revival and are desperate to revisit the Gilmore women in a new stage of their lives, we're siding with Graham on this particular issue.
Revivals are fun because the bring back the nostalgia and merriment of the original series, and for a short while, you're transported into a world you've been missing for five, ten or even twenty years. The quick jaunt down memory lane is satisfying in the moment, but an overdose can be worse than nothing at all.
As Graham so aptly puts it, another "Gilmore Girls" chapter might be overstaying their welcome, especially considering the mixed reactions some fans had to Neflix's take on their favorite show. A second season wouldn't be a revival of the original, it would be a continuation of "A Year in the Life," which kind of kills the frenzy. The tone and feel of the revival was much more whimsical than anything we ever saw on the WB or CW, and it's not clear whether fans would be as excited or engaged a second time around, now knowing exactly what kind of story they'd be getting.
Even more important is the question of who would return for yet another revival?
Jared Padalecki, who played Rory's first love, Dean Forester, was barely able to squeeze in one quick cameo thanks to his full time role on "Supernatural." With the wild success of "This Is Us," it would be similarly hard to pin down Milo Ventimiglia for another run. A revival with no Jess is barely a revival worth having.
Considering the way the revival left off with Emily (Kelly Bishop), we're not sure there's much left of her story to tell. It would be a pretty big disservice to any incarnation of "Gilmore Girls" to continue on without one of the Gilmore women.
All in all, we're kind of hoping we don't get another batch of "Gilmore Girls" episodes. Netflix already gave us a wonderful wrap-up to the story, and dipping back into it would seem a little like a brash move to cash in on the Gilmore frenzy of 2016.
"Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life" is available on Netflix.