A show that was created in the same year I was born and ended the year I truly began to write was just revived in the Netflix original, Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life.

Let me begin by creating some ethos for myself as a reviewer. The seven-year-long run of the original Gilmore Girls series has been rewatched by my family most likely four times. I by myself, have seen all the episodes probably seven times — while the iconic have been replayed too many times to count. Building me into the person I am today, and I’ll admit — wannabe Rory Gilmore, I have quoted the show numerous times, “And that’s how we do it at the Yale Daily News,” even though I’ve never been to Yale. “In Omnia Paratus” had been my bio for years and quite possibly will be my senior quote. (Thank you, Rory and Logan.) I was even a little bitter when the series was put on Netflix because “if anyone was really a fan, they’d have the box sets.”

As one may be able to tell, I felt a little sick when I heard of the revival — excited but, nauseas. I had just finished watching the revival of the sitcom Full House, Fuller House and wasn’t thrilled with its cheesiness and change of structure and I didn’t want Gilmore Girls to go down the same path. So, my expectations were high.

And they were met.

If you haven’t seen the original seasons, these four revival episodes may be perplexing and hard to follow. The original writer and director, Amy Sherman-Palladino did herself, the characters and the series justice by not letting the original essence of the show be lost. But this means, constant references to past episodes and specific moments in the show’s history. Most impressive, the actors and actresses were able to slip back into their characters with eaze, not bringing in any other new personality quirks. Each personality change that did take place in the revival was one hundred percent believable. The only subtle flaw being that Melissa McCarthy’s character appeared late and for only a small amount in the revival — which was odd because she appeared in most all episodes in seasons past. It was also hard to get around her star-like, on-camera presence she has constructed, landing huge roles since Gilmore Girls’ end.

I credit Sherman-Palladino with her decision to make the revival happen in modern time. The idea to make each episode reflect a season in the year was also a brilliant, letting the viewer in on a year’s worth of resolution rather than four weeks worth. What separates the show from other revivals is its ability to avoid cheap jokes and straightforwardness in providing resolutions as if they were written down on a bullet point list. With almost every character returning, fans were not left without an explanation of how their favorite turned out. The revival has its own plotline that the viewer can become invested in while old plots’ resolutions were almost subliminal. As a diehard fan watching, this was appreciated because it was more realistic than the characters wouldn’t be resolving things ten years after the fact.

As it should, the camerawork changed drastically. The focus is always impressive and artistic choices from time to time further draws the viewer in. With the decade that passed, Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life took a little bit too much of an advantage of the technology jokes. References to Uber and the 21st century’s attachment to WiFi went over the top, but every revival has its weakness.

There has been outrage and overall extreme reaction from diehards on social media to the revivals final words and cliffhanger, however I am willing to take anything Sherman-Palladino gives me. The revival seemed to reflect what she wanted which happened to fall in line with what the fan base wanted – the true telling factor of a brilliant show.