By Rachel Seo, Pat Saperstein

According To The variety SPOILER ALERT: This story contains plot details for Season 4, Part 2 of “Emily in Paris.”

Good-bye, Emily in Paris. Hello, Emily in…Rome?

Fans of the frothy comedy “Emily in Paris” may have been shocked by the ending of Season 4, Part 2, which dropped on Netflix this week. In the season finale, Emily (Lily Collins) is assigned by her boss Sylvie Grateau (Philippine LeRoy-Beaulieu) to start a new office in Rome, where a sexy new client –– not to mention a sexy new man, Marcello Muratori (Eugenio Franceschini) –– eagerly await her presence.

On one hand, it’s a step up for Emily: She’s being promoted to manage her very own office in one of the most romantic cities in the world. On the other hand, she’s leaving behind her friends, primary love interest Gabriel (Lucas Bravo) and, in some sense, her viewers. By deploying that plot twist, “Emily in Paris” is indicating that the show, in a Season 5, (which seems like a done deal) would move locations, at least temporarily. Meaning, creator and showrunner Darren Star has posed an existential question amid the polka-dot ruffles, pain au chocolat and general tomfoolery: What is “Emily in Paris” if not Emily, in Paris?

Two impassioned fans –– deputy film editor Pat Saperstein and social media editor Rachel Seo –– sat down to discuss the show’s latest developments, that shocking ending and whether the series, contrary to popular belief, is actually good.

La couture

Rachel Seo: Let’s talk about those costumes. Personally, I despise Emily’s clothes (I think I’m supposed to?). But I also think that the way her style has evolved throughout the series is interesting, because they mirror the show’s tonal shift. After I finished Season 4, I went back and watched part of Season 1 again and was struck by how much more grounded it felt.

Pat Saperstein: It’s interesting to recall that in the first few episodes of Star’s “Sex and the City,” the stars lived in a grittier and more down-to-earth version of New York. Here, there are just so MANY outfits in each episode. I, too, despise most of them, but there’s always a few stunners. By the end of this season, I thought some of her outfits were edging toward matronly — all wrong for someone her age, but often covetable nonetheless. Nonetheless, if people start wearing newsboy caps because of Emily, I will never forgive the costume designers.

Also, can I just say the red leather belted Jean Patou jacket was to die for? I’m also not mad at the cobalt blue Barbara Bui pantsuit she wore at Giverny.

Rachel: That jacket was gorgeous, and I liked the fluffy multicolored coat she wore when visiting Camille’s family for Christmas. As for the outfits when she was visiting Italy –– I thought they did a very good job of dressing her like who she is, fundamentally, which is a white American millennial woman from a major metropolitan area. There was certainly some sort of Taylor Swift-meets-Madewell ethos governing the decision to put her in a blue-and-white polka dot ruffled top.

The comparison to “Sex and the City” and its evolution as a show is smart; I was also thinking about the original “Gossip Girl.” The longer these shows go on, the more they start to feel like they’re becoming parodies of themselves. In Season 1, Emily was wearing multicolored berets with plaid shirts and sharing moments with Gabriel (for example, that kiss in the club when she was baby-sitting that pop star) that felt palpable with sexual tension and chemistry. In Season 4, she’s wearing giant striped dresses that look like spirals used for hypnosis; breaking up with Gabriel because he won’t baby her down a ski slope; and moving to Italy because hot man, why not.

The evolution of Gabriel and Emily’s relationship

Pat: First of all, did Gabriel change his hair this season? He used to be cuter. Anyway, this on, off, on, off and maybe back on? relationship has been maddening for four seasons now. But I have to commend Gabriel for his candid and blistering speech where he told Emily she was basically acting like a jerk. Too bad her utter refusal to learn even the most basic French left her vulnerable to being tricked by Sylvie’s secret diabolical stepdaughter, who mistranslated his speech to say, “I don’t want to see you anymore.” Face it, as long as we have Emily, we’re going to be stuck with this practically sexless and eternally unsatisfying romance. There is no friend zone for you, Emily and Gabriel!

Rachel: His hair is longer –– I had the same question. He’s cultivating a more rugged look? And while Emily has seemingly taken years of French lessons, it’s amazing that she couldn’t speak a full sentence until this season. Better late than never, I suppose?

Emily and Marcello

Pat: I like the idea of his family’s quiet luxury cashmere company (is it based on Loro Piana?) that does company lunches at a long table in the middle of a village. Perché non? But Marcello is no Gabriel, and I feel like Emily is more excited by the prospect of amazing gelato than by the possibility of molto Marcello. Do you like him?

Rachel: He’s boring, because he’s a little too perfect. A charming, handsome heir apparent to a luxury cashmere brand, who just wants to live in a little town in Italy and focus on his family? He should be a bit more evil.

Emily moves to Rome

Rachel: Do you think she’s actually going to move to Rome? I don’t think she’s going to move to Rome. If — when! — the show is renewed for Season 5, they’re going to spend a couple of episodes there. Gabriel is going to come and confess his love for Emily, she’s going to reject him, and then there’s going to be some revelation that she has in some conversation with Marcello that brings her to her senses. Then she goes back.

Pat: I think you’re right, since Gabriel is clearly not going anywhere. How many times does Instagram let you change your handle? Still, she would be a little pazza to give up that sweet Rome pad and go back to jockeying for space in a garret with Mindy.

Is “Emily in Paris” actually good?

Rachel: We’ve talked a little bit before about whether the show is “good” or not, and what “good” means. What do you think?

Pat: Maybe it’s not good-good, but it’s not trying to be “Succession.” It’s not so simple to make a show that goes down this easy and looks this good while doing it. Although arguably costume designer Marilyn Fitoussi should be named as the show’s primary creative force, the writing is quite clever and the visuals are first-class. Sure, the double and triple entendres are as gooey as a triple-creme brie. But the dialogue, while frequently absurd, snaps and crackles in the best rom-com tradition. Ultimately, the show’s genius is not just the fashion, but also the way it combines an American Audrey Hepburn-style ingenue with French actors in a way that feels fresh and fun — though admittedly, it’s a soufflé-light confection.

Rachel: I agree with you that there is an effortlessness to it that I’m sure takes a great deal of work and skill. I don’t know if I would go so far as to call the show “good,” but perhaps it’s “good” for what it is, which is pure entertainment?

Pat: Totally agree. See you next time in Rome, Rachel!