A worrisome Ted Lasso makes us wonder if there’s room in its whimsical world for real consequences
“Rainbow” seemingly writes off mounting tensions of the season to celebrate “rom-communism”
TV Reviews Ted Lasso
We’re nearing the halfway point in Ted Lasso’s second season, and with last week’s Christmas outing signaling the end of the first act, I expected “Rainbow” would transition the show into exploring the conflicts brewing under the surface at AFC Richmond.
To a certain extent, this is true: With the team still struggling, Roy Kent is enlisted to help replacement captain Isaac regain his smile, and by the end of the episode he’s on the sidelines as the team’s newest assistant coach. That’s positioned as a triumph for Roy and the team’s fans, but the camera lingers on a seething Nate, who throughout the episode learns to assert himself and suddenly discovers that he’s being replaced (or, at the very least, pushed aside). Nate’s spent the season struggling to discover his voice as a coach, bullying his replacement equipment manager and often lashing out in response to the various challenges they’ve faced, and now his identity crisis is only furthered by a reminder he isn’t a “big dog,” even if he is a Diamond Dog.
But on a larger level, I need to admit that the idea there was no fallout from Sam’s Dubai Air protest two episodes ago is a significant concern. Actually, technically, there was fallout: Dubai Air dropped out as the team’s primary sponsor, with Keeley’s dating app client bantr having now replaced all mentions of the airline on both the team’s jersey and stadium. But the show doesn’t even mention this development, despite the fact it seems unlikely a relatively new dating app would offer the type of sponsorship money necessary to replace a major airline. Admittedly, it’s becoming clearer why the financial operations of the club aren’t a crisis, given that Rebecca’s initial solution to Nate’s problem with the Greek restaurant was to buy it outright: by all accounts, she can comfortably cover the team’s costs while they work their way out of relegation. But it was one thing for the show to bypass any potential fallout in a Christmas episode, and another thing entirely to be moving on as though only positive outcomes came from a Nigerian player leading a massive protest against an English football team’s biggest sponsor. This is especially true in the wake of the racism faced by England players following their Euro finals loss, a cause Sudeikis himself spoke out about at the show’s premiere event back in July.
The message the show is sending is that we’re meant to just forget about the protest: Sam stood up for his people, Ted stood behind his players, and Rebecca stood behind the team instead of the fat cats of corporate corruption, all without any real consequences. It’s a troubling development on two levels. On the one hand, it kind of undoes some of the very effective work of that episode itself, which earned the right to give the characters a moment to acknowledge the good that was done but is lessened by having none of the consequences the episode itself raised come to pass. On the other hand, and perhaps more concerningly, it makes me inherently skeptical of every other story point the show raises from this point forward. It’s one thing for Ted Lasso’s “radical positivity” to resolve smaller conflicts, but this was a significant one, and to see it tossed aside connects with some of the chatter in the comments from those who fear the show’s desire to be nice means an allergy to meaningful conflict and consequences for characters’ actions (which particularly blew up around the Christmas episode, both in my review and in Erik Adams’ piece about the episode).
However, I realize that not everyone might share this concern, so let’s put this aside for a moment to say that “Rainbow” has a central storyline that mostly works. Reframing Roy Kent and football as star-crossed lovers in a romantic comedy is charming, and using “She’s A Rainbow” to soundtrack his epic journey to reunite with his one true love on the pitch is an example of the show understanding the effectiveness of forcing Roy into its whimsical world. Nothing about Roy Kent is whimsical—which is why his “You had me at coach” line crossed into schmaltz for me, forgive my cynicism—and so him coming to terms with the fact that his desire to be part of the game he loves has such a powerful hold over him provides comic contrast as well as legitimate pathos. Roy’s arc this season has been about baby steps: becoming a pundit made him realize that leaving football behind entirely was impossible, and helping Isaac get his groove back made him realize that no amount of tweets and GIFs will give him the feeling he had when he was able to made a direct impact on a player. While Ted might have been pulling some strings, the show is smart not to make this about Ted, much as it didn’t make the pundit story about Keeley. It’s simply an extension of the show’s argument that friends and loved ones are there to help you unlock something in yourself, if you let them crash your kebab lunch.
That’s essentially what Keeley and Rebecca try to do for Nate here, although I admittedly find this story a bit more complicated than I fear the show does. Throughout the season, I have found Nate entirely unpleasant, and so I’m not sure how I’m supposed to be reacting to this story where he learns to be more confident and stand up for himself. As fun as it is to see Rebecca trying to teach him to “make himself big,” am I supposed to be happy he got his win with his parents’ dinner reservation when it feels like this will only worsen his toxic behavior within AFC Richmond? To be clear, I don’t think Nate is a bad person by any means, but it was weird to see a story about how he needs to learn to assert himself that did nothing to interrogate how his way of asserting himself in the workplace has been replicating the aggression he was subject to before he became a coach. There’s a moment with Keeley and Rebecca where they realize he only has two gears—absolute submission and utter rage—but it’s mostly unremarked upon. This strikes me as a case where Nate actually needs Dr. Fieldstone’s help more than Rebecca’s strategies, and so I’m hopeful the show will dig deeper into this (and, given Nate is seething at Roy’s arrival, that certainly does seem likely).
The rest of “Rainbow” is mostly a collection of small moments tied to the episode’s “rom-communism” theme, which…look, I realize this makes me out to be a right git, but it didn’t work for me. It was a bit too cute when Ted introduced it, too on-the-nose every time it came up after, and reached a real breaking point with the homage to the couples interviews in When Harry Met Sally. As the show settles into its formula, its efforts to shake things up remind me of how Scrubs used themes for its episodes, but there J.D.’s narration and the show’s fantasy sequences created spaces for the show to explore those themes in whimsical ways that never entirely broke the “realism” of the show itself (at least in early seasons, before the middle seasons of the show veered away from it). And so while it was one thing for Ted to have his players brainstorming RomCom stars as he tries to spin a weak metaphor about trusting that everything will all work out, it was another to break the fourth wall for a pretty mediocre punchline about the plot of Titanic, and sticking to the montage of different couples settling in for the game and topping it off with Higgins and his wife’s lovely little moment would have been more effective. In other words, while I’ll forgive the appearance of Santa as an act of Christmas whimsy, none of what bothered me here has the same excuse.
I remain charmed by Ted Lasso’s micro-level whimsy, whether it’s the Sheffield Wednesday repartee or the notion that Roy Kent once dated Gina Gershon, but what “Rainbow” reinforced is that extending to macro-level whimsy as this RomCom theme did doesn’t work as well. Between the lack of fallout from Sam’s protest, the missed connections on Nate’s behavior, and the cutesiness of the whole affair, it’s an episode that I liked better the second time I watched it when I wasn’t focused as much on all that and could simply take in the show’s base-level pleasures. In other words, it’s an example of how writing about this show in this format may in some ways be antithetical to its way of being, even if I do feel like that tension reveals some missed opportunities worth digging into (at least as the season has played out thus far).
Stray observations
- When she’s not mentoring Nate on asserting himself, Rebecca is busy flirting with someone on Bantr that the show is definitely turning into a mystery (complete with nods to You’ve Got Mail with the usernames). My instinct? Her ex, Rupert. Open to other suggestions, based on their dramatic potential, although the episode definitely wants us to think it’s Ted based on the cut from Rebecca typing to Ted on his phone right before the game.
- I realize the ensemble cast is too wide for everyone to get involved in every story, but given that Rebecca’s conversation with Higgins and Nate’s desire to be a celebrity both speak to issues of branding, it would have an easy way to loop Sam back into that conversation and at least explain what the hell happened between now and then.
- In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, co-creator Joe Kelly—who wrote last week’s Christmas episode—explained that the episode was actually not planned as part of the season, and was only added when Apple extended the show’s order to 12 episodes after the room had broken it as a 10-episode season. And so that means that the original plan had been to go directly from Sam’s protest to this rosy aftermath, which I think would have made it worse? But it’s still a pretty glaring misstep for me, barring some type of course correction later in the season that feels unlikely.
- Higgins throws out a quick reference to AFC Wrexham, which was purchased by Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney and will soon be the subject of a docuseries. Curious if we get a crossover cameo in due time, given that McElhenney is part of the Apple family via Mythic Quest.
- Roy thought the “moustachioed surprise that would anger him” might be Wario, but I’m choose to believe that Waluigi would have actually made him happy, because frankly I feel like they’d get along. I don’t know why, it’s just a feeling.
- “Did he just say Tooting?”—I know nothing about Tooting, and thus can’t speak directly to whether this has any specific classed or racialized dimensions or if it was just chosen because it sounds funny. (When I Googled Tooting the first suggested search was “Is Tooting safe?” and reader, I giggled.)
- “Fuck you’re amazing, let’s invade France”—as I am writing this, Variety just released a cover story about Hannah Waddingham and Juno Temple’s friendship that is a delight, so this was a well-timed, great moment.
- After the conspicuous Grindr joke a few episodes ago, we get another moment for Colin, but it’s just Keeley warning him to not make his Nespresso sponcon post about Welsh independence, so still on the lookout for any kind of followup there.
- For the record, “Easy Lover” runs a lengthy 5:05, so the idea of Ted getting dressed and out the door in that amount of time is pretty reasonable.
- “I gave you an indoor whistle”—given how many of us likely rewatched the first season, I appreciate that they’re willing to let callbacks like this one go without too much explanation. You either remember Nate’s bad whistle etiquette or you don’t, and the show just moves along.
- Beyond fully licensing “She’s A Rainbow,” the music supervisor also shelled out for “Song 2,” so I still really want to know their music budget.
- “I believe you have a ticket under Reba McEntire”—fun payoff to Roy’s tickets being under the name of country singers.
- I’ll be honest and say that the first time I watched this episode, I didn’t bother to look up what “piles” means in the U.K. because Beard’s refusal to go along with it was very persuasive. Now that I’ve actually looked it up? He’s right, that’s dumb.
- While the episode’s not necessarily a huge showcase for Kola Bokinni despite Isaac’s prominence, he nailed both the sullen anger of his slump and his just absolute joy when he sees Roy walking onto the pitch.
- On a personal note, a couple weeks back I had the pleasure of attending my first professional football match, as the Halifax Wanderers of the Canadian Premier League took on York United. And while the highlights show that is was sort of a heartbreaking result as a Haligonian, I had a wonderful time in the “Kitchen” among the diehard fans, even if every time they set a chant to the same melody as “He’s Here, He’s There,” I had to suppress my instinct to end with “Roy Kennnnnnt, Roy Kennnnt.” But I hope that the show is getting more North Americans out to support their local professional soccer team, both men’s and women’s.
151 Comments
Admittedly, it’s becoming clearer why the financial operations of the club aren’t a crisis, given that Rebecca’s initial solution to Nate’s problem with the Greek restaurant was to buy it outright: by all accounts, she can comfortably cover the team’s costs while they work their way out of relegation.I think they have an excuse here- since Rebecca originally got control of Richmond to run it into the ground and spite her ex, maybe there’s a certain willingness to lose money, especially in the short term. But you’d think they would mention it.-Nate spitting on the mirror was gross. I’m just relieved he didn’t get that woman’s number, because they were off-putting towards each other in all of their scenes.-Higgins never looks over anyone’s shoulder to see their screens because he has 5 boys.After the conspicuous Grindr joke a few episodes ago, we get another moment for Colin, but it’s just Keeley warning him to not make his Nespresso sponcon post about Welsh independence, so still on the lookout for any kind of followup there.Besides Colin, I’ve been wondering off/on this season if Rebecca’s coyness about her internet dating was due to matching with a woman. We got “he” several times this episode, so probably nothing there.-Call it juvenile but I enjoyed the British owls saying “whooooom” joke.ETA what on earth did Roy supposedly do to his knee? at 7+ months off the injury and able to do his yoga group, it’s really weird that it locks up so badly.
I thought it’d be obvious, but I was really hoping Nate would come back in after a few seconds to wipe the spit off.I like your theory about Rebecca matching with a woman; I just keep thinking they’re going to eventually have her and Ted fall for each other, which I think could work, but again if it’s obvious enough I’m thinking that’s where they’re going then maybe not lol
they might be able to do Ted/Rebecca well, but I like them as friends and boss/employee better.
“at 7+ months off the injury and able to do his yoga group, it’s really weird that it locks up so badly.”Welcome to middle age, partner
I’ve never had the “pleasure” personally, but anecdotally I know that if you dislocate a joint once, it is increasingly likely to slip out of position thereafter. I have several friends (one of whom is an ex-professional athlete) who have disgustingly shoved back knees and shoulders into place after they inopportunely popped out of the socket – once, right in the middle of a wedding reception, which was in equal measure sickening and hilarious.
ok, this is is terrifying. with that even more than the ligament tears I was thinking of, you’d think we would see Roy rehabbing and not just limping around, though.
This is sadly true. My husband’s shoulder used to dislocate from stupidly simple stuff like reaching up to get something from a high shelf.
Yeah, ligaments do not get a good blood supply (unlike bone, believe it or not), so once you have a severe sprain, you’re kinda screwed, barring surgery. And surgery would not return one to the kind of function needed to be a top athlete, even if it went well.
“Tell me your a humorless c*nt without telling me you’re a humorless c*nt.” McNutt is like, “read my review.” This review is rubbish. You’re not reviewing Stateless or Underground Railroad. This show is about a basketball coach who gets hired to coach soccer as a joke, so an ex wife can get back at her ex husband. The entire premise was an SNL skit. I think you’re watching the wrong show McNutt. Cynicism is exhausting. This review is such a disappointment because that was a truly wonderful, sweet, and enjoyable 40 minutes of TV. But they didn’t address the slave trade, economic inequality, and global warming, so it failed.
I don’t necessarily agree with this review’s issues that it has with the episode, but I still think it’s a really good review. Myles McNutt is a fantastic reviewer and we should be very grateful to have him.
nonono, internet man was tepid about a make-believe, better call him a cunt/s
oh noooo someone didn’t like my favorite epic reddit bacon poggers le wholesome show, i’m sooo mad
If it were presented with the same gravity as a SNL skit, then you might be right…but neither MacGruber nor Wayne’s World pretended to make grand statements in re: systematic inequality and the dangers of globalism, things with real-world importance, which impact real-world people. In that sense, I think the review was perfectly fair in pointing out TL’s glib approach.
First, jesus, tone it down. Second, McNutt clearly enjoys the show—he praised last week’s Christmas episode when a lot folks elsewhere were really ripping into it—and even seems to have enjoyed this episode, despite singling out some potentially worrying trends. Third, I don’t think his critique is that the episode failed to address “global warming”; it’s that the show cannot thrive on positivity alone, conflict drives story, and the lack of any fallout from Sam’s protest winds up cheapening in it. If it’s always easy to do the right thing then everybody would be doing it all the time. Fourth, Ted coached American football, not basketball.
and IIRC – it was originally a commercial (for NBC coverage of soccer think?), not an SNL skit
I don’t know, seems like you’re the humorless one based on your comment. Yes, the show is a comedy, and it doesn’t have to address all the big issues you mentioned. But it would be nice if there was actually some conflict within the scale of its own world instead of just coasting by on niceness and aw-shucks charm
Great to see this show being recapped, I’m finally up to date to comment. I watched S1 last year, but then had to do a rewatch with my girlfriend of S1 again before I could finally get up to date with S2. For me, I’m so far not so worried about the lack of consequence. It would be nice to see more follow up from the Sam/Dubair episode; I guess after this episode, maybe I’m not to expect it, in the same way that Jamie being brought back was tidied up in the span of an episode. As someone above has mentioned, Rebecca was willing to tank the club at the beginning of the series, so financial consequence probably sits second fiddle. Interesting in how they’re using Nate, and Ted’s meta comment about where they are in their story arc. I know Bill Lawrence has said that they are aiming for 3 seasons of Ted Lasso, so we are bang smack right in the middle of their dark forest right now, and Nates arc feels reflective of that. As someone who’s watched Scrubs a lot, really didn’t like when the whimsy came far too much to the fore of that show, so hoping the same doesn’t happen here. One Santa sighting aside, I’d say it hasn’t happened yet.One trivial thing I have noticed this season is with Roy Kent. This is not so much a nitpick but a question to all, but is Brett Goldstein going full Christian Bale with his Roy Kent voice? P.S I really enjoyed the Lost S6/Ted Lasso crossover Myles made the other week, as I’d just finished Lost S6 again. Love the idea of Ted as Desmond.
I thought all the little rom com references were a little too contrived and cutesy. Didn’t really work for me.I really think it’s time now that Roy’s back on board for the the team to start winning. Based on their last record shown (4 wins, 4 losses 14 draws) they have to be in or near the relegation zone. The show risks being dragged down unless the team starts to have some success.
Tooting is home to some of London’s biggest post-war housing projects and also some of its best curries, due to the large south Asian population. It used to be a little dodgy, but since every property from zones 1 – 3 in London is now worth more than some of the smaller island nations’ economies, it’s full of hipsters and yuppies like all the other inner suburbs.
A lot of it’s still full of Asian and Middle Eastern people (traditionally Indian Muslim, unusually), and fairly working class (Sadiq Khan is from Tooting), though judging by the jewellery and sari shops, there’s a fair bit of money there too. There are young professionals there, of course, but it’s not dominated by them, and it depends what part of Tooting you’re in (i.e. whether you’re within easy walking distance of the Northern Line…)
I’m basing my assessment on the Balham end of town where I used to work, on the rare occasions we ventured south, so probably the gentrified bit!
Yeah, I think that as with a lot of south london areas, it gets a bit less wealthy as you go south – from what I remember when I lived in south london a while back, Broadway isn’t a world apart from Bec, but it’s noticeably a bit more run-down, particularly when you go a few minutes away from the station. (and of course Bec has the big common, and the lido; whereas Broadway has (had? hope it’s still there!) an indoor market for local traders, with probably the best selection of wholesale fabric on sale you’ll find anywhere in England…). In the case of Tooting, it also becomes more working-class (and iirc more white?) when you go east toward Streatham – the area around the mainline station (which, unless it’s changed, basically goes nowhere…) is quite different from around the northern line stations. Likewise, keep going south from Tooting Broadway and you end up in Collier’s Wood, and you immediately notice the border! But now we’re picking hairs, I guess.For Americans wanting a sense of the geography, incidentally: the real dog track the Richmond stadium is based on (Wimbledon’s stadium, a former greyhound track) is actually technically in western Tooting, which is much, much cheaper than eastern Wimbledon itself.
Ugh, Sheffield Wednesday fans are going to be even more insufferable than usual now that they’ve made the big time and been mentioned in an Apple+ show.
In your head forever
Hahaha In your head forever
I guess only the big clubs can get on the show
I don’t get some of the criticism about consequences here since, as you mention, they’re clearly setting up a confrontation with Nate. Ted Lasso has clearly set up a world where there aren’t global consequences, it’s about the personal relationships and conflicts of the characters. The effect of relegation I don’t expect to continue to be a major point (it’s basically been three lines of dialogue and some background context clues) because the show is really only interested in the football club insofar as it relates to having these characters be together.As for the idea that Bantr could sponsor the club: of course they could! If you’ve ever worked for a VC-backed company, it’s a world of frivolous expenses and no one caring about anything else but mindshare and users because they don’t really have to make money, and what money they have is someone else’s. I’ve worked at companies where they were so free with money they had bottomless champagne kegs in the office, and so disorganized and disastrous when they fell apart that I ended up with a free MacBook (because no one ever bothered asking for any company property back, and in short order there was no company to give it back to.)If AFC Richmond is still sponsored by Bantr at the end of next season, I’ll call that ridiculous that Bantr sticks around that long, but at this point it makes total sense to me.
Ted Lasso has clearly set up a world where there aren’t global consequences, it’s about the personal relationships and conflicts of the characters.
Has it? Season 1 set up a world where the global consequences weren’t as important as the personal relationships, but considering the season ended with everyone in a better place emotionally but the team losing and being relegated as a result. (Like, the big irony of the season is that Ted made Jamie a less selfish player and he used it to beat Richmond!) So I don’t think it’s in keeping with the world of the show as previously established if all of a sudden there are no larger consequences to the characters’ personal decisions.
Yeah, but my point mostly is that this isn’t really a show that’s concerned about the finances of a football club (while some of it is undoubtably down to COVID, it’s not even much interested in the appearance of what running a football club would look like) so I just mostly think people expecting stuff like the Dubai Air thing to be a major point going forward (versus something like Nate’s dickishness) are missing where the emphasis has been and will likely continue to be.
Okay, but then why did the show explicitly bring up the finances of a football club in the episode in question? I don’t think I—I won’t speak for anyone else—am responding to anything that the third episode didn’t explicitly make part of the text. If they intention was to just write that storyline off, they needed to make it far less complicated, on multiple levels.
It seems overwhelmingly likely to me that this storyline has just been put on pause for a couple of episodes, and will in fact be picked up again later in the season.At the moment, the big issue looming in the background is Richmond continuing to underperform. I would guess that the team will soon start to turn things around, and at that point the show will need some other engine for conflict. A financial pinch seems like a solid bet.
What’s ridiculous is that Richmond aren’t already sponsored by a dodgy online betting site. After all every other team in the Championship and half of those in the Premier league are!
1000% you worked at Entertainment 720, so now all I have to do is decide whether you are Detlef Schrempf or not.
Exactly. It’s like holding Scrubs to task for not talking about healthcare insurance issues. This ain’t what it’s about.I would like to see the Sam story evolve beyond the references to people liking his actions (the Christmas episode made reference with the kid making a mention). Thought it might grow into something more social/bigger. Maybe it still will? But too much time has passed in the show at this point to make it worthwhile.
“Exactly. It’s like holding Scrubs to task for not talking about healthcare insurance issues. This ain’t what it’s about.”Umm, they talk about health insurance issues constantly on Scrubs. Every other plot is about finding a way to get some expensive procedure done for a patient despite their lack of insurance.
I’m definitely trusting the writers still and enjoying this season, but it does feel like an interesting approach just how many plots they seem to me to kind of have simmering at a deliberate pace to (hopefully) pay off by the end. Nate realizing what a jerk he’s been and Ted having a session with Dr. Fieldstone seem like the surest bets to me at the moment (I was kind of nervously anticipating that Ted might break down to her once everyone was out of the locker room, or that she might press him and ask how he’s really doing). I think there might be some more interpersonal stuff about protesting and social justice (though anything too specific to Sam feels likes something that sadly might have been cut short). Keeley’s asking Colin to not make his posts about Welsh independence felt like there’s a couple threads they might still pull at, like the players have ran with the idea of using their platform for their own personal beliefs and the management will start to realize the awkward spot they’re in of outwardly wanting to be supportive, but also needing to pay the bills.
Anyway, just a couple theories about things I think I’ve picked up on that seem likely to pay off but obviously it remains to be seen if I’m even close. It also occurs to me (and idk how many people are in the same boat) that I watched season 1 once it was all out, so it didn’t feel nearly as decompressed as it can now watching it weekly, and rewatching it with family later it did move quicker through some plot lines than I remembered, but ultimately still pretty much took its time with certain characters and arcs.
They initially planned 10 episodes and Apple wanted 12. Two were added. So last week’s and this might be the added episodes that don’t address the larger issues at hand. Just a thought.
Given that this episode features a significant development in Roy becoming a coach, which I am presuming was part of the initial episode order, I don’t believe the two episodes they added were in succession.
Not according to Apple:
“Apple was also able to tell Collider this 12-episode order was made because the season’s story required it.”
https://collider.com/ted-lasso-season-2-how-many-episodes/
Somewhere Ted was described as a “Manic Pixie Dream Dad” and it hit me as to what irks me about this show
Second-best episode of the season so far. Loved it. The last thing this show needs is to pretend it exists in the real world.
“After the conspicuous Grindr joke a few episodes ago, we get another moment for Colin, but it’s just Keeley warning him to not make his Nespresso sponcon post about Welsh independence, so still on the lookout for any kind of followup there.”
I’m confused about what show some people think they’re watching.
No mention of the dig, albeit lovingly, at Ryan Reynolds/Rob McElhenny owning Wrexham? That is actually a thing.
I know there’s a lot of stray observations, but it’s in there!
Sorry about that! I looked thru the body of the article and missed the observations. I lol’d at that line. My ancestors are from Cardiff, as I recently discovered so I’m exploring my Welsh roots.
Thank you for not making this comment about Welsh independence, then.
I thought the repeated use of ‘She’s a Rainbow’ in this and previous episodes was a not so subtle reminder that this is first and foremost an Apple show. After all, it was one of the Stones forgotten tracks until Apple resurrected for a couple of big ad campaigns
Yeah I think someone (was it you?) mentioned on a previous thread that Apple had already licensed the song, when they brought out iMac in late 90’s.I dunno if that means they have rights to the song in perpetuity or that it was easier for them to re-use it for Ted Lasso.
Apple isn’t Lasso’s production company so they wouldn’t have licensed it. Also a song by an artist like the Rolling Stones wouldn’t be licensed in perpetuity and to be used wherever they wanted in the future. Only time I could see that possibly happening would be if they bought it to use as a show’s theme.Another funny thing about that song is Mick Jagger performed it on SNL to say goodbye to Kristen Wiig. It was also Sudekis’ last episode IIRC and nobody even mentioned it. I always wondered if he was resentful over that but maybe he was all Ted Lasso about it.
those last eight-ish minutes were SO FUN! Also, are Rebecca and Ted texting or is that a red herring?
Concensus seems to be that it’s a red herring.
Sometimes something so obvious can be true though, it could be a triple bluff.
So the screen name – LDN152 – was a reference to You’ve Got Mail, where Tom Hanks’ character was NY152. But hard to say if that’s meaningful or not.
It’s such an obvious red herring that I hope the real answer is something stunningly unlikely, that would turn everyone’s office relationships upside down.
Like Roy.
Roy fucking Kent. It’s schmaltzy, but Roy walking into the stadium feels so cathartic. Brett Goldstein walks like a boss.Coach Beard is just so precious.
It’s time! For! Nitpicking!Re: Bantr getting the kit sponsorship-I’d be shocked if this wasn’t more than a temporary fix, seeing as how Dubai Air dropped them in the middle of the season. Bantr may be only paying a half-season deal, with Rebecca giving them a discount. Of course, I suppose we will find out in Season 3.Re: Roy Kent’s injury-Yeah, it’s gruesome af when he snaps that knee back into place, and seems odd that it’s still this serious based on what we saw. However, considering we did see an episode where he was getting worked on after a match, and the fact he mentioned “broken bones” in his Isaac speech, I’d bet the farm that wasn’t his first major knee injury, and that it’s likely an accumulation of thingsRe: Nate’s spitting-I was 100% expecting him to clean it up, but on the other hand, it does resemble a turn for him we’ve seen this season, namely he’s never been treated this well, and doesn’t genuinely know how to handle being in a position of power. It’s definitely coming to a head, especially now with Roy Kent joining the coaching staff.Finally, I imagine Ted has some interesting words about why Queen’s Park Rangers had their name (assuming he has any familiarity with the Central Park Rangers, assuming they exist outside of the Elf universe)
The real Roy Keane, fwiw, did suffer with continual injuries, including multiple serious knee injuries (most famously the cruciate injury in attempting to foul Alf Inge Haaland, which inspired him to then attempt to break Haaland’s legs a few years later in a premeditated assault). He himself blamed this on his aggressive style of tackling. Roy Kent is obviously a much softer and cuddlier version, but he’s still a hard-tackling, long-serving, box-to-box midfielder, and he probably has a similar injury history to Keane.
“I expected “Rainbow” would transition the show into exploring the conflicts brewing under the surface at AFC Richmond.”
Seriously, what fucking show are people watching?
“For the record, “Easy Lover” runs a lengthy 5:05″
The video you linked to is 4:46 and includes a short intro before the song starts. I’m curious where you got 5:05…
“My instinct? Her ex, Rupert.”
One of the Rebecca/Keeley scenes ends with Rebecca texting her mystery man and cuts to Ted walking down the hall, looking at his phone, smiling and putting it away.
I’m guessing Rebecca DOESN’T mention that she “owns Richmond and is fit as fuck”, and when she shows up for the date it’s Ted Lasso pulling her chair out for her.
Also, Rupert is getting married and if he’s trolling dating apps I doubt he’s looking for people older than “his” Rebecca.
“Beyond fully licensing “She’s A Rainbow,” the music supervisor also shelled out for “Song 2,” so I still really want to know their music budget.”
What’s the obsession with the music budget? Is this the first show you’ve ever seen that licensed music?
And Christ Almighty, it’s APPLE. Do you think they’re scraping pennies together to try and fund shows? I mean, what the ACTUAL fuck???
Colin is Hot!Nate’s confidence storyline reminded me of Freaks and Geeks when Sam is told by the councilor to look in the mirror and tell himself “he’s cool”, to feel better.
I would have liked some attempt at explaining why a restaurant would refuse to allow someone to reserve the front table. I can make up some ideas, ranging from racism (in a Greek restaurant?) to wanting to always hold it open for a really great-looking party (although I don’t buy that either), but come on, give us something.
Restaurants never want to have the front table reserved. They try to keep it packed (to make it look busy, to entice passing trade in), which is easier to do if you can shove the next customers onto it as soon as the old ones walk out the door, without having to worry about it being reserved for someone who hasn’t turned up yet.
That makes sense, so thanks…I’d still like the show to have clued me in, because I don’t think it’s something that absolutely everyone knows (unless it’s just me).
But then why wouldn’t she give them the table when they showed up and it was free?
I enjoyed it. Clearly Ted was talking to us with his dark forest analogy and I’m happy to sit back and let the show take me where it will.Roy in a romcom was delightful for me. I didn’t need “you had me at ‘coach’” but the stirring music and mad dash to the stadium made me laugh. I’m glad Roy’s back in the warm bosom of AFC Richmond where he belongs.I definitely think we’re meant to think Rebecca is communicating with Ted (and that is certainly what would be happening in a rom com) but I’m not sure if Ted’s the type to quote Rilke? Although, I do really like the idea of a Ted who is using Bantr in order to communicate with someone his deeper feelings, instead of using the cheerful happy voice that he feels everyone expects from him.Colin trying to turn every IG post into a rant about Welsh independence is a great image. I think we’re giving Nate too little credit. The man does not know how to stand up for himself or anyone else. As noted, his two modes are basically “shy nobody” or “screaming jerk.” Learning how to stand up for himself is an important arc for him and now that he’s threatened by Roy’s return, he’s going to get the practice.
“When she’s not mentoring Nate on asserting himself, Rebecca is busy flirting with someone on Bantr that the show is definitely turning into a mystery (complete with nods to You’ve Got Mail with the usernames). My instinct? Her ex, Rupert.”Did NO ONE catch the fade from Rebecca posting on Bantr in a way that highlighted anonymity and what information they were keeping from each other [who’s your team? that’s a tad intimate. . . .] right to Ted glancing at his phone, pocketing it, and smiling?
I literally talk about it in the sentence after the one you quoted!
I’m saying Rebecca is matching with Jamie. Note how long he was blurry in the background when Keeley and she were talking about this mystery man.
Jamie doesn’t strike me as someone who quotes Rilke.
ROY does, though.Jeez, quite the conflict that would set up, eh…?
Even if Roy would flirt with anyone when he’s about as head over heels for Keeley as any character on TV has ever been for someone they’re dating, I really doubt he’d sign up for a dating app of any sort. He’s just not that guy.
Of the characters we’ve met so far, Rilke strikes me most as a Coach Beard pull.
I think there is at least a 50% chance that there would be no serious consequences for telling Dubai Airlines to eff off. You find a new sponsor that gets good PR for not being evil. I think the reason we think it is a big deal is that so many powerful people have been reluctant to do the right thing in these circumstances. But that is more about powerful people not liking the idea of any powerful people ever experiencing any consequences and less about it actually being a seriously hard thing to do.
I was discussing this with someone else and basically my position is that there are too many moving parts in that story (the sponsorship, the racial dynamics, the political dynamics) for it to carry zero consequences. The show’s positive worldview is fine, honestly, but there’s a limit to what it is able to swallow up and put aside to move on. To me, this story was too complex for the show to work its magic, and they needed to recalibrate the story if they had no desire to even EXPLAIN what happened with the sponsorship situation with some throwaway dialogue.
Surely Sam’s Dubai air drama , the team’s finances, and relegation are tied together and pointing towards the finale. I obviously don’t know which specific storylines they’ll pick back up but they do point towards a turning point for the team and for Ted. If this episode is all about everything turning out ok in the end, these plot mechanics could point to something really devastating for him. He might have turned the team to his side, but he did leave his family to be here. If these things go bad for him that could spell a mental breakdown, which is another big thread the show has been pointing towards for a while now. Relegation wasn’t a big threat till the end of season 1. I haven’t lost faith that they are taking us somewhere, even if it is a little less tightly plotted than season 1.
More than the finance (though it must suck to lose a premier league sponsor and have to replace them with a championship one!), I’d worry about the legal issues, if this actually happened. You can’t just sign a deal to have a sponsor’s name on your shirts in exchange for money, and then send your players out without that name on their shirts – let alone make a point of covering up that name and then criticising the sponsor. The sponsor wouldn’t just end sponsorship, they’d sue you!
Legally, you breached a contract, so the rest of the other party’s side of the contract doesn’t get performed. In this case, they don’t pay for some portion. And, yes, they might sue. But, they wouldn’t win. They would only win if the club kept all of the money for the entire contract. Assuming they followed the law and gave some portion back or didn’t collect the remaining, legally, they are fine. To deter them from pursuing a lawsuit for long, AFC Richmond could use the full press room they have every week continually embarrass Dubai Air. They’ll drop the suit. In the end, they will do what is best for the bottom line. (This of course is American law, but America borrowed contract law from the British.)
Regardless of the specifics, I guess my point is that this is why the show not even acknowledging it and waving it away offscreen without explanation is the core of the issue. We can argue logistics all day—it’s literally my favorite thing—but in the end the show punted on a significant roadblock for the team and decided that nothing but good came from it, and that strikes me as an overreach of the show’s positivity that makes me question its overall commitment to following through on the stories it’s touching on.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m confused by what you say. Are you a lawyer? Because it contradicts my understanding of how repudiatory breaches of contract work. That is:- in the case of a repudiatory breach, the aggrieved party is entitled to seek damages to compensate them for the harm done by the breach of contract. This includes the (massive) reputational damage of the club’s attacks on the sponsor, the opportunity damage (if the sponsor had known that the team would end the deal within a few months, they would have sponsored a different team, but are now unable to do so, as all teams will be locked down with sponsors for the rest of the year), any obligations the sponsor has already made to third parties (like promising people use of the sponsor’s box at the stadium, or arranging for people to meet the players, and so on), and the whole of the sponsorship money paid so far (a loss to the sponsor for less than no gain, since using the sponsorship platform to attack the sponsor will have left the reputation of the sponsor worse than if the sponsorship had never existed);
– these damages are not limited to the initial value of the contract, and can very quickly add up. (I see an article explaining that if sponsors had terminated their agreement to sponsor the Qatar world cup in response to the deaths and torture, the damages awarded to FIFA could easily have been equal to the total value of the sponsorship just for the public embarassment). In addition, this is a very active area of the law and lawsuits over sponsorship obligations are commonplace (though I can’t find any analogy to Richmond’s situation, precisely because the consequences are likely to be so dire that people aren’t stupid enough to do what they did);- if they continue to badmouth the sponsor, in violation of the non-disparagement clause that’s certainly in the contract, that they only increase the reputational damage to the sponsor, which the sponsor can demand compensation for- if they threaten in words, or make clear in actions, that a lawsuit would be met by further disparagement, then they could be criminally prosecuted for extortion (they’re essentially threatening to cause reputational damage unless the lawsuit is dropped, which is extremely illegal)- the club is liable for the actions of the players, because FA rules stipulate that the players’ contracts allow the club to sack people or otherwise discipline them for doing exactly this, and so if the club doesn’t do so it’s clear it’s allowing or encouraging the breach- the contracts between the club and the sponsor are also regulated by the FA/EPL/EFL, and by being so brazenly in breach of their obligations the club is probably violating their contract with the FA/EFL, and may be financially sanctioned by them or worse (the FA/EFL have a strong motivation to enforce good behaviour on the clubs, since otherwise other clubs would find it harder to attract sponsors).- non-legally, it would also make it a huge headache to find future sponsors, once they’ve shown their willingness to ignore their contracts, and because it was so wilfull it would void a lot of relevant insurance the club might have.
As I say, I’m not a lawyer, but everything I can find suggests that this would be a really serious issue, and much more than a case of just handing back sponsorship money pro rata for the remaining term of the contract…
I practice American law, not British. Contract law is similar between the countries, but there are substantial differences between the two bodies of law related to free speech and libel/slander.In the world of the show, they already had a new sponsor by the next game. And I don’t know why we believe it would be hard to get a new sponsor. Is there a history of this happening and we’ve seen how badly it goes? No! We’re just afraid that it would be that way. When I have a frightening thought, I ask myself, “is this something I know is true or something I am afraid might be true?” There is a difference. When we act as if the things we are afraid might be true are known to be true, we live as cowards. Cowards are always telling courageous people to stop taking risks. Its annoying and it makes the world a crappier place. My point is I don’t think the show went wrong for having someone be courageous without serious consequence. I think the reason people in power don’t do these things isn’t that there are terrible consequences if they do. Its because rich folks don’t want their tender little bums to ever experience consequences for anything they do and so they are very careful not to ever allow any other rich people to experience consequences for something they’ve done. Yes, people threaten consequences in these moments. But that is part of the game. Like when you go sky diving and you have to sign a waiver that says you can’t sue if you die or get injured. No court would enforce that; a company is liable for injury if they were negligent or reckless regardless of what that contract says. But that clause is used as a tool of intimidation. But back to contract law. Generally speaking, contract law doesn’t destroy freedom and free will. It just imposes consequences for doing something. And those consequences are generally right sized to the breach. You can try to write a wily contract that imposes insane consequences for a breach, but good luck getting a court to enforce it. Which is not to say that not one judge in the world will, but that you have poor odds that the judge you are assigned to will play ball.If BP experienced reputational damage from spilling 47 millions gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, so it buys a soccer sponsorship to help people start associating it with things people like, and the soccer team drops them mid-contract, it is untenable for a court to make the soccer team pay for the reputational damage they experienced from effing up the whole Gulf of Mexico. If you are a soccer team owner and your lawyer lets you sign a contract that does that, they are a crappy lawyer. You don’t let your client take a $1 million sponsorship in exchange for taking on $10 billion of risk. Also, if you have a crappy lawyer and they let you sign it, very few courts would enforce that because it violates basic principles of contract law. And that is what happened here. Dubai Air’s owner experienced reputational damage from what they did in Nigeria. That is why they wanted black/Nigerian soccer players in their ads. Sam asked to be taken out of their ad campaign, which was agreed to by the sponsor. Then all of the players put tape over the Dubai Air logo on their shirts, which was a failure to perform the advertising that was paid for in the contract. Then, at the press conference, Sam asked that the Nigerian government put an end to decades of environmental destruction caused by Dubai Air’s parent company, and accused the Nigerian government of corruption. Sam only knows about the environmental destruction because of an article on that subject that was already published. Also, its true. I’m not saying that I couldn’t, as a lawyer, make the argument that AFC Richmond owes my client a bajillion dollars for what Sam did. I am saying that the odds of a court assigning my client that amount in damages is very, very, very low. I could more easily make a winning argument in court defending AFC Richmond from excessive damages claimed. But, as a political operative, I wouldn’t never let it get that far. If I were Rebecca and Dubai Air sued me for more than a portion of that sponsorship contract, I would roast their butts in the press room every week until they dropped the suit. If you have a big microphone, and AFC Richmond does, make Dubai Air decide whether to keep their suit going and constant bad press or whether to preserve their profits. They’ll choose the latter. This is really how the world works.
No, you’re wrong.Breaching the contract in no way establishes libel/slander, or the ability to collect damages for cost to reputation. All the damages you can collect for breach of contract is the cost to put you back in the same place you would’ve been if the other party hadn’t breached. Given all the soccer teams in the world, it’s hard to argue the advertising value of AFC Richmond is so unique as to be irreplaceable, and since these things are hard to value the court would likely determine that the value the airline was getting for the advertising was equivalent to the price they were paying for the advertising (because why wouldn’t it be). The airline could try to prove it would’ve gotten some special/idiosyncratic value from the advertising but that’s hard. And in this particular case, given that they contracted with a Premier League team but now are getting advertising from a Championship Level team, they would have to overcome a strong presumption that the they’d have gotten _less_ than what they were paying for. In other words, it’s likely that the court would find the airline is actually coming out ahead by not having to pay for the advertising it’s not getting, and this has no damages.Front-loading of payments and/or any expenses that the airline shelled out for that it doesn’t get value from over the intended life of the contract (if it paid for the jerseys, put up its own ads with the team, painted its planes Richmond colors, etc) could mean that they do have some damages they can collect on, though.And truth is an absolute defense to libel/slander of a public figure like an airline.—Aso note that punitive damages are specifically not allowable for breach of contract — our contract law has developed to encourage “efficient breach”. If for example we agreed I’d paint your house for $1,000, and someone comes along and says look j love your painting and I need you today and offers me $10,000 to do it and I tell you sorry I’m breaching our contract, all you’d get back is the reasonable cost to have someone else paint your house. If that’s, say, $2k, then you would get the whole $2k, to put you in the same position you’d have been in if I performed. But it’s a net gain to society for me to turn my labor into $10k worth of value and you to find someone else to do it. If there were punitive damages in play to discourage me from breaching, then society would end up worse off if that discouragement worked and I didn’t do the $10k deal.—All the above are based on US legal system, but UK and US are probably similar on these issues. Also, this is a show that calls draws “ties”, so likely following it’s sense of US law rather than UK.
You find a new sponsor that gets good PR for not being evil. On that note, it was a bit jarring for the episode to feature such prominent product placement from Nestlé.
a lot of popular culture these days is very infantile, but ted lasso takes it to a whole new level. it is literally a binky in streaming format.
A perfectly enjoyable and whimsical episode that seems to have it all — classic Roy, Nate finally getting attention, Rebecca the big bear, and plenty of Ted-isms. Why can’t you guys just enjoy?!
I do worry that the show is getting much more episodic of late. I didn’t realize that the Christmas episode was supposed to be a standalone episode outside of the main plot of the show (though definitely noticed how plot-development was non-existent), but the direction of the show concerns me a little though it still seems to be entertaining each week.On top of the Dubai Air lack of consequences, there was also the lack of consequences for Ted when bringing Jamie back onto the team. The entire episode showed how hostile the team was towards bringing Jamie back, only to bring Jamie back dramatically before practice. Next episode starts and there is some anger from the team and a storyline about Jamie having to earn the team’s respect, Ted mostly skates by and Sam doesn’t say a word about it. I’m not saying the show has to be a drama that carries over from week to week, but I would have hoped for more week to week continuity from a show that is otherwise well written.
I think you’re on to something here, and I really expect the show to hit that theme hard. Ted tries to make everyone happy all the time, and he’s not noticing that certain people get stepped on when he does that. Bringing back Jamie & Roy are the obvious examples.
This show is only going to last 3 seasons.Serious shit is going to go down. We’re only 5 episodes in out of 12.
I think/hope so. Season 1 was so good that them whiffing the first half of season 2 would be an unbelievably precipitous drop. Hopefully in the end it’ll turn out that these seemingly inconsequential episodes were actually setting up a rather brilliant 2nd half, and that all this handwringing would have been for nothing. However, season 2 so far feels like what Ted Lasso naysayers were mistakenly saying about season 1, i.e., that it’s too nice, etc.
“But the show doesn’t even mention this development, despite the fact it seems unlikely a relatively new dating app would offer the type of sponsorship money necessary to replace a major airline.”Lads, it’s AFC Richmond.** any sponsorship payments would be significantly cut with a relegation clause. That’s just… football. It was more surprising them still being the sponsor. Brits wouldn’t bat an eyelid if they never mentioned this again really, considering it’s a comedy. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was, just it’s easy assumed knowledge there. Nate is just horrible this season hey. Love the reviews as usual. Asset to the site.
Also, Tooting sucks. No racialised connotations there. North Londoner here.
Not to be that guy, but I find it difficult to believe that they’re in any danger of relegation from the Championship as the TV bozos were saying if they have mostly ties/draws, as noted in the premiere episode.
I think they might be – if they replicated their results from the first half of the season again in the second half, they’d have finished ten or so points off the bottom in last year’s Championship table.
Yes – They were 4-14-4 at the halfway point, so 26 points. Doubling that would get them to 52, which is pretty safe in the Championship. (Sheffield Wednesday, Rotterham and Wycombe were relegated with 41, 42 and 43 points.) There would still be a few teams between Richmond and the drop zone. The real question is how they get into the promotion tournament – QPR went on a crazy second-half tear last season, got 68 points, and still fell short by 2.To get from 26 points to ~70 will require stacking wins quickly.We also know that they make a deep FA Cup run (spoiler! but it’s in the trailer!) and I expect they’re going to have to rest some players for FA Cup games in order to keep promotion dreams alive….
Because you get 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw, and 0 for a loss, it’s generally worse to have a bunch of draws than a mix of wins and losses.
I really liked this episode. I would’ve loved it with 20% less Nate and 20% more Isaac instead.
Ooh, do I get to be the first to point out that the “what does a British owl sound like?” joke is a callback to last season, when Ted kept trying to tell it but Coach Beard kept blowing him off?
That’s essentially what Keeley and Rebecca try to do for Nate here,
although I admittedly find this story a bit more complicated than I fear
the show does. Throughout the season, I have found Nate entirely
unpleasant….I had a much less negative read on what they’re trying to project with Nate than this piece does. With the exception of the last 10 seconds of the episode, where the music changes and the camera zoon implies Nate is gonna be jealous of/threatened by Roy, I didn’t see any of his previous behaviors as deliberately malevolent, just hapless-schlub-stuff. Overcompensating and trying too hard to be the kind of coach he thinks he has to be.
But I guess I don’t understand why Nate would think this: his boss is Ted freaking Lasso. He became an assistant coach because Ted showed him the dignity of learning his name and allowing him a voice, and now he’s berating his replacement? The toxic masculinity Nate is portraying would be one thing if he had been hired on as an assistant coach to a different team, but there are no specific pressures on him to act this way, and he seems completely oblivious to this. It may not be deliberately malevolent, but it is targeted, and when you combine with the attitude he’s shown toward Dani’s yips (“Show him his paycheck”) and other similar moments, there’s a problem here that goes beyond nervous overcompensation to a problem that demands an intervention. And here, they’re basically validating his worst tendencies! I don’t get it. I read a lot of tweets last night that were among the lines of “Yay Nate,” and it’s just…dude is acting a dick right now, and it’s weird the show isn’t really grasping that.
So you’re saying the people making the show aren’t really grasping that……and based on your observance of Twitter, the people watching the show aren’t really grasping that…….hmm.Well, who knows, maybe it’s a deliberately multilevel character arc, and you will end up being right in the end!Speaking of red herrings, I agree with you on Ted not being the cell phone Bantr dude. What would be much more of a grenade to throw into the office politics would be if it were… Roy.
If it were any other show, I would think it was throwaway. Ted Lasso is so pure though that there aren’t any other characters that are casually cruel that aren’t either problems for Ted to fix or straight up villains like Rupert. For me, the whole season has been a little lackluster because there’s not much tension when almost everybody is on the Ted train. They could save it for me if Ted realizes that he’s gotten complacent because of that chumminess and made a big mistake with failing to teach Nate how to be good at the people side of coaching.
This is completely off-topic, but can we take a moment to appreciate that Head’s character is, once again, called Rupert?
It’s going to be Rupert. His entire new trophy girlfriend dynamic has been upended with the pregnancy and (presumably, given the time that has passed) the newborn.
I dunno, the constrast between making himself bigger not working but spitting in his reflection’s face kinda highlighted there’s a strong undercurrent of anger rather than being hapless. Roy’s adition is surely going to exacerbate that..
Once you drop out of them Premiership (top league) shirt sponsorship is really not that big of a deal. Most teams in The Championship (second league) are are relent on wealthy owners, and ticket sales.
The drop off on earning from the Premiership to the Championship is severe as the clubs lose the money from TV rights, which is the biggest earner. Big money sponsors will likely sever their ties or pay a much reduced fee.
The team currently top of the Championship who were like Richmond(only real), were relegated last season, are sponsored by a company that makes boilers and one club is sponsored by their local university.
I started watching Legion a few weeks ago so this summer has had me spending a lot more time listening to “She’s a Rainbow” than I would have anticipated.
I enjoy the feel-good saccharine sluicing that is Ted Lasso as much as the next fella, but at this point it’s starting to test the limits of my suspension of disbelief. The true whipping boy of Ted’s ‘aw shucks, let’s just be nice to each other and everything will work out’ motif is Rebecca.Since drinking Ted’s Kool-aide, she’s gone from being the cool, calculated sole owner of a Premier League team to being the touchy-feely benefactor of an organization that’s about to be relegated to League One. In the real world, that equates to about a billion pound loss of equity. Sure, she’s rich, but rich enough to just shrug her shoulders at that kind of loss?Meanwhile Ted, all of his buddies he just decides to put on staff because he wants to help them be better people, all the players getting Premier League money, Keeley, Higgins, and who-knows-else on salary all still get to suckle at the teat of their Soccer Mom. Anybody employed by her would do well to ask for a raise while Rebecca is still high on Lasso-Endorphins and more concerned with her online dating profile than worrying about how to fund a ten million pound a week payroll.‘Bitch-Ass Boss’? More like ‘Bend-Over Boss’. I really hope they return her backbone before the season’s end.
If Rebecca and her ex-husband were as rich as it is implied, why did she get the team in the divorce? Since they say the team was important to him, you would think he would have given up something else so he would get ownership of the team.
I have a feeling, based on what they did show in season 1, that Rupert likely had a plan to get back in charge: convince some young woman to marry him, buy a piece of the team under her name, and either slowly buy up the club or organize an owner revolt as (he assumed) Rebecca ran it into the ground. So taking the short-term L as a way of hurting her in the long-term (as he clearly wanted to do) was OK.Two things about that, though:1. He wasn’t planning on Ted
2. I’m guessing we’re not done with him scheming, especially if there is a buildup of “no consequences” into something serious down the road.
“Fuck you’re amazing, let’s invade France” 1. definitely my favorite line of the series so far, along with “high five tree!”, which I use as much as possible whether it makes sense for the situation or not2. I’m starting to wish there were subtitles for the English actors’ lines because I only understand about 75-80% of them, and this was one of them
Bearing in mind they’ve picked unusually well spoken people too, because it’s a US TV show designed for non-Brits.Watch some interviews with real life footballers and prepare to be baffled.
since I was reminded that this was co-created by the guy who created Scrubs, I find myself holding my breath a little each episode that it won’t devolve into the type of heavy emotional pathos I remember from Scrubs. It’s as if the writers are telling the viewers, in exchange for some incredible jokes and situations, we’re going to really rub your nose in sadness and disappointment at some point involving characters you care about, so get ready!
The scene where Dr. Cox lost all the transplant patients to rabies and busted up the machinery in the room where his friend dies is as dark as I’ve ever seen a sitcom get and is now *permanently* associated with “how to save a life” by the Fray.
Laverne’s death; Brendan Fraser’s death (in one of the most confusing episodes I’ve ever seen); Molly Shannon talking about her dead son before Dr. Cox finally realized that’s who she was talking about; even the first show when JD realizes his girlfriend is a drug addict; it almost seems masochistic how much pathos they want to heap on the viewers. I assume since Jamie Tartt has been sort of an afterthought so far this season that if Bill Lawrence’s comment about his situation being analogous to Ted Lasso’s story about the dog, they’ll spend the next few shows showing him and Ted bonding and getting all happy before Ted sells him to another club so he can continue growing as a person, with all the accompanying sadness.
Nah, I didn’t find this a bad episode at all. Funny and sweet and clever as hell. True that it didn’t continue directly with the protest thing, but.. They’ll probably get to it soonish. They’ve got their three full season order, I think, which is what the show runners planned. I think they’ll stick the landing. Many landings.
Until I read the review I hadn’t considered that the other texter would be anyone but Ted. Holy christ, if it’s Rupert….! that would be awful.
Dubai Air apparently isn’t all out, as seen in the big picture at the top of your review. They may be off the kits to make the players happier, but they’re still buying a pretty decent amount of brand exposure.
Apple didn’t think to adjust the promotional images that were shot on set, but in the episode itself all of the Dubai Air signage is painted out and replaced with bantr. (It was still there on the screener initially as well, but the effects weren’t finished on these episodes when they went out, and it was adjusted before it debuted).
If anything the less realistic thing was Dubai Air continuing to sponsor the team. Bantr feels like a pretty realistic Championship level sponsor. I guess one more thing: do you want everything spelled out, or can we just agree that the show leaps forward in time a bit every week and doesn’t hold our hand? This isn’t a Netflix-like serialization. It’s episodic television with a mix of self-contained storylines and longer arcs.
If anythingva tech sponsor is pretty cool. They’re lucky it’s not Big Dave’s Discount Paint
You get the 4th wall reference was actually a direct reference to When Harry Met Sally, right? I don’t think you’re old enough to get/appreciate all the rom com references. They made my old heart swell.
I’m a little offended by your suggestion I wouldn’t be familiar with these rom com references, both because I am not a philistine and because I literally mention When Harry Met Sally in the same paragraph.(In your defense, I only saw When Harry Met Sally for the first time last year. But still. Not a philistine.)
This anti-Philistine business must stop. You can hardly blame the Philistines for their lack of knowledge about rom-coms, considering not only the lack of television or cinema at their time, but that they were struggling under the yoke of Neo-Assyrian oppression for centuries. Any more of this and I’ll suggest you be assigned to history’s dustbins along with fellow tyrants/misanthropes/bigots such as Nebuchadnezzar and both of the Michael Richards.
I know you did! Which made it all the weirder that you just called the couple convo breaking the 4th wall.
Its sappy dreck, I don’t know what you were expecting.
Here’s the one where I might step off. An assistant coach who really is just a custodian that Ted upgraded cuz he’s swell, can wander in to THE OWNER’S OFFICE and they all have a bunch of fun? The Kebap Guy is a sage? The most irascible character on the show suddenly falls in love with a team he was only on for a short time? He absolutely MUST get there for this game? The B plot is a guy wants to get a prime table in a restaurant? STUPID.I have really embraced this show, up to this point. I enjoy the positivity of this. But Dirk Bogarde and I think this is a bridge too far.The first season had Ted just lose it. Beard dressed him down. There were stakes. I hope that this season finds some. So far, this is some weak tea.Also, Nate has never been a particularly likeable character. I sort of like the show for this. Even when he was a put-upon clubhouse custodian, he was sort of a dink. He revelled in others’ failure, and was quick to criticize. If they play this up(which it seems they won’t) I’m all for it.
It seems like this season is setting Ted up to be a sort of unwitting antagonist.He brings Jamie back, undermining Sam. He brings Roy back, which builds up Isaac but undermines Nate. And the entire time, he’s rejecting the entire concept of the Doctor and what she represents in terms of his emotional growth. Also, there have been too many Ted-drinking-whiskey scenes for that not to be a plot point, it seems. Nate’s story feels almost out-of-order. He’s been a posturing big-timing jerk all season, and now he’s reverted to Season 1 Nate.
I thought reviewers got several of these episodes in advance. Wouldn’t you already know that they aren’t following up on certain plotlines?
The Myles who is currently replying to you does. But the Myles who wrote this review did not, since I purposefully wrote about each episode after I watched them to avoid having hindsight cloud my initial reaction.
Just jumping in to say that while I don’t necessarily agree with all your concerns and criticisms, I sure do like reading them and thinking them through. Thanks for the consistently thoughtful reviews.
I appreciate that, but word on the street is that if I’m not absolutely in love with it I am obligated to be fervently against it, so from this point forward it’s As and Fs, no inbetween. (Seriously, thank you for saying that, it’s very appreciated and a sign I’m doing what I set out to do.)
I had my doubts about this comment, so I went out on the street to verify it. No one out there had any idea what I was talking about.
I went out on the street. Now I have four drugs and a teardrop tattoo. Never again.
from this point forward it’s As and Fs, no inbetween.
Sounds like a great rating system.
Hi Myles, just want to say I completely agree with you. The words “concerningly” and “worrisome” are spot on. Sure this episode was enjoyable at face value, but the complete lack of reference to the Dubai Air fiasco was a bit of a shock to me. I really do hope they come back to this at some point. Otherwise it appears the writers don’t care about any real stakes.So far this season each episode has been fine on its own, but the thread of the season has been borderline boring or nonexistent. Maybe it’s because I’m a soccer fan myself, but it feels like the games themselves and the team’s seasonal arc is being ignored for these resolving emotional character beats (Roy’s post-playing career; Isaac’s leadership; Jamie’s abrasiveness etc…)
I think you’re addressing a few tensions. One is the show’s transition into essentially a workplace comedy set in a sports team, rather than necessarily being a sports show in and of itself. It’s not a dramatic change, but it’s a clear one, and something the show is obviously calibrating as it goes. The second is this idea of stakes, and where they come from. I don’t think the show is against the idea of stakes personally speaking: this matters to the people involved, and in the case of Ted’s mental health the show has been very consistent about that. I think the issue is that the choice to tell the Dubai Air story suddenly brought much larger stakes into the show’s orbit that the basic day-to-day of the show doesn’t really have to grapple with, and thus ignoring them as they’ve done feels more problematic than if they hadn’t been raised at all. I don’t think there’s anything wrong if Ted Lasso focuses on lower stakes interpersonal dynamics: it just can’t set those within spaces like the Dubai Air story and expect them to be resolved as easily as “Isaac is unmotivated.”
Why is everyone so sure this plot wont come back? I want more overarching plots this season too, but the team getting mired in middle eastern politics is not it.
No interest whatsoever in soccer. But I love this show. I think the biggest concern it has right now is no conflict. When Rebecca was evil, it had conflict.
I am hoping the sunny set-up is just the structure for the first half of the season and they’re going to have all the consequences come crashing down on them in the last half, setting up next season’s cliffhanger.
But yes, we need to start seeing some consequences soon for the various problems out there in the ether.
I think it is pretty clear that the “inquiry from Wrexham” that was quickly dismissed was to speak with Coach Nate about a job.
I think you’re missing some of the point, Trent Crimm from The Independent. When I started watching, it took me a couple of episodes to understand that Ted Lasso is not the kind of too cool, trendy, too clever, narcissistic and ultimately boring show that we’re constantly barraged with. The show is a throwback to simpler and broader themes informed by the best of what we can be; instead of yet another boring example of how mean we can be to each other. When I gave up waiting for “gotchas” and reveals the show became an absolute pleasure to watch.You remember Ted’s quote, “things will always work out, sometimes in ways we don’t agree with”? Of course something else is going to happen. It’s a sitcom. But the ride there will be enjoyable, funny and heartwarming.Which is anathema to some these days, because if no one dies or suffers then it’s crap.
Ted’s mention that everything would work out, just now how people expect, seemed like some sort of underlining of where this show is going. Ted simply isn’t going to last as coach. Roy is a much better fit as a leader. If so, then what is Ted to do? I hope that answer isn’t “be with Rebecca.” I love their platonic relationship (similar to other greats like 30 Rock and Parks and Rec) and would hate to see that cheap twist.This show certainly has trouble harnessing its whimsy as well as Parks and Rec (Galentine’s Day was as outsized as it was totally organic seeming to the show). I hope they find a way to mine what makes this show unique and to challenge its own comfort zones.
Ryan and Rob’s response:
“Enjoy the game.”“Fuck you.”“It is him!”
I’m guessing the lack of consequence from the Dubai Air protest is a mix of things (Rebecca’s clearly pretty wealthy, other comments on here relating to how non-essential Championship league sponsors are both to the teams and to the fans, etc) but mostly a purposeful lull. Particularly to show us how easily the characters (props for people in general) can move along thinking their actions won’t have negative consequences if they feel they’re “right”. Even knowing they’re right. Perhaps Dubai Air is just preparing some paperwork for a future lawsuit. Which ought to give us quite a payoff to see these characters, in which we’re presumably invested, work through whatever’s coming next.
As I noted, this is technically possible, but if there was concern over a future lawsuit it feels like Higgins would have mentioned it, or there would be some kind of anxiety depicted? Basically, my read on it is that it would have been VERY easy to throw in a bit of exposition to suggest that this concern might arise again later: the absence of that struck me as a conscious choice, whether it was meant as one or not.
This was probably the most charming episode of the season (the Christmas episode was definitely far too treacly and corny), but, man, this season is so slight it’s in danger of just floating away.I know a lot of people like the warm, cozy, comforting “Ted Lasso”, but the first season wasn’t literally all just smiles and hugs. There was real tension, real stakes, real conflict, real drama.
This season has exactly zero of that.
Boy, I think you’re really reading into Nate’s “rage.” All i can remember is ONE single scene where he’s a dick to the new equipment boy, but it’s quickly put to bed and never addressed again (and, presumably, never repeated.)
And Nate doesn’t remotely “seethe” at Roy’s arrival so much as look very mildly uncomfortable. I know we’re desperate to see any whiff of actual conflict in this utterly conflict-averse season, but you’re wildly exaggerating what the show is actually depicting.
But, if the pattern holds true, Nate will probably express extremely mild jealousy in two episodes and then it will be completely forgotten about five minutes later.
The other moment that really stood out to me was when Dani had the yips in the premiere and Nate’s response was “Just show him his fucking salary,” basically. It was such a performative piece of aggression, in a situation where the others were all acting in a sympathetic fashion, and it stuck with me as we got more little glimpses of this.As I said, not a bad person, but it felt like a real shift from where the show left the character at the end of the previous season that it felt very intentional.
Fair point. I had completely forgotten about that moment. It does seem there is a pattern, but I still hold that it’s extremely slight and small in scope.I mean, even after getting “confidence”, Nate still “demands” the good table in the most passive, doormat-y way possible. “Can we sit there, we promise to eat fast.”
We’ll see where it goes (haven’t seen the latest yet), but seeing as the season is half over already, if they finally start kicking their conflicts and plots into gear, I worry it’ll feel like a jarring shift at this point or too little, too late.
Just catching up on this show and you’re right. You’re a fucking cynical git who hates joy. Fuck off.