AD55

All of this, especially the bolded part. I wanted to throw something when Ted said that. The substitution of "tough" for "abusive" and the notion that abuse leads some people to do great things are appalling messages. Further, they are inconsistent with what we've learned about Ted. I'm thinking about Ted's "Way to make the extra pass" note to Jamie and the fact that witnessing his father's abuse and contrasting that with how Sam's father relates to his son motivate Ted's decision to let Jamie return to Richmond. Even if we accept the idea that Jamie became a skilled player only because his dad abused him (which I don't), Ted knows that Jamie became "great" when he learned how to be a team player, which meant rejecting the lessons he learned from an abusive parent. I have no problem with Jamie forgiving his father, but if the show wanted to portray their reconciliation (and I don't see how that scene at the rehab facility can be read any other way), they could have borrowed some of the time they wasted on the KJPR storyline, or one of the other pointless arcs that went nowhere this year. I rewatched the finale on the weekend, and I disliked it even more the second time around. There were sweet scenes, such as Roy joining the Diamond Dogs, but those just make me wistful for what might have been. ETA, while I'm on the subject of Roy, a more logical outcome of Keeley's abusive relationship with Jack would have been a recognition that Roy encouraged her to be her authentic self. Instead, it seems to have led her to the conclusion that being on her own is necessary for growth. I guess this is another example of how abuse leads to greatness? Before folks jump all over me, I'm not saying that a woman needs a man. But I also don't think a healthy relationship is an impediment to a person's autonomy. Try to imagine Roy telling Keeley she needed to apologize for a sex video! To justify Keeley's rejection of Roy, the writers had to turn him into an immature asshole. Not forgetting that Roy broke up with Keeley, a better choice would have been focusing on the fact that Roy needed to recognize he is deserving of love. Throughout season 3, we were led to believe that's where we were headed, from Phoebe's telling Roy he was an idiot for breaking up with Keeley to Rebecca's pointing out that Roy needed to believe he deserved her to Roy's plaintive "How do you know if a girl likes you?" and "Can people change?"

That was me. I had no idea. Thanks.

I love this take!

Yes! to the team winning the whole fucking thing! If you're going to clutter the finale with callbacks, don't undermine one of the more important ones. What they did to Keeley reminded me of the character assassination of Cordelia in Angel. I also think losing Bill Lawrence was huge, and Brett Goldstein may not have had his head fully in the game. He has significant creative control over Shrinking, so the work is likely more satisfying. The series isn't ruined for me. I will rewatch the first 2 series and a handful of series 3 episodes, but the mishandling of so many characters and plotlines will affect my enjoyment.

No judgment on anyone who shipped Rebecca and Ted, but I also never felt they had romantic chemistry. This episode was packed with fan service, which I appreciate. I liked the callbacks to previous episodes. I'm glad that HDG showed up and that his daughter had her own meet cute with Rebecca. I don't believe commercial pilots typically bring their small children to work with them, but who cares? As someone up thread said, I don't watch Ted Lasso for its strict adherence to realism. Still, a fantasy world should have more internal consistency than we've seen in series 3. I love the characters so much that I'm willing to handwave hard enough to generate waves on a nearby lake. The casting director hit gold when they brought Nick Mohammed onboard. I look forward to following his career. One of the benefits for me was being introduced to actors I had never heard of--some of whom have been working for years. If they had redeemed Rupert on the basis of one less-than-cruel encounter with Rebecca, I would have spit nails. Anthony Head is a fantastic villain, and I'm glad he's had a great career since Buffy. I loved that we saw the unethical therapist, whose license should be revoked, behaving like the jerk he is during the game. I'm happy Michelle was finally able to recognize his true character. I don't think Ted and Michelle got back together, but it was nice to see them co-parenting like mature adults. Michelle is a bland character, but I did always appreciate that she never tried to undermine Ted with Henry and continued to support Ted. Divorce is tough, but unless there's abuse, it doesn't mean the couple can't transition to a different--maybe better--type of relationship. Still hurting over the Roy and Keeley situation. Good on Roy going into therapy, but I'm angry at the writers for pulling the bait and switch. Roy and Jamie behaving like gits doesn't jive with how both have grown and matured over the past 3 years. I would have liked to see Jamie recognizing that Roy and Keeley are a better fit for each other.

I didn't love the finale, but I didn't hate it either. I need to watch it again to sort out my feelings about it. My heart hurt when Roy asked "How do you know if a girl likes you?" My biggest disappointment is Roy and Keeley not getting together. I understand the rationale, but it didn't work for me. James Lance is the guest on Films to Be Buried With this week. I listened to it while I was walking my dog. He did not disappoint.

I understand the frustration of those who believe some of us are setting a higher bar for Nate's redemption than for Rebecca's and Jamie's. I've said before that one of the reasons Nate's actions hit differently with me is because his attacks on the team, and especially Ted, were intensely personal. Related to this is that my expectations of Rebecca and Jamie were low to begin with. Both of them were almost cartoon villains when the series started. The writers stacked the cards against Nate. They encouraged us to root for him, and we felt betrayed when he turned on people who had helped and encouraged him and whom viewers held in affection. I think it is harder to forgive someone who has been presented as flawed but essentially decent--as part of Team Lasso--than it is to grow to like someone who started out as a bastard. Viewers identify with the characters we respect and/or love. As the team came to sympathize with Jamie, we did, too. As Keeley uncovered Rebecca's good qualities, we saw them as well. The writers did Nate a disservice by removing him to West Ham, where he interacted only with people viewers are indifferent to (Jade, his coworkers) or loath (Rupert). I care about what Roy and Sam think of Jamie, or what Keeley and Ted think of Rebecca, and their judgments affect mine. This doesn't quite work in reverse. That a scumbag like Rupert treats Nate with contempt doesn't make me like Nate more. I don't care about Rupert's opinion of Nate, and I think less of Nate that he does care. Nate has turned on his boss, but for a genius, he's been slow to grasp how despicable Rupert is. I don't believe Nate is unredeemable, and I have been persuaded by folks on this forum that what he did was not worse than what Rebecca and Jamie did. But the writers set themselves a difficult task by making us first like and then loath Nate, and then attempting to redeem him out of context. Perhaps they will pull it off, now that Nate has rejected Rupert and is returning to Richmond, but I think it would have been easier had they not waited until the last two episodes.

That's an intriguing speculation. I mentioned in another thread that Rupert invites underlings into his confidence to corrupt/control them. That's what he did with Higgins. This would offer an alternative narrative to Higgins's failure to inform Rebecca about Rupert's cheating. I think most of us have forgiven Higgins for that. Showing Nate taking a principled stand in a similar context would be demonstrating, rather than telling, that he is becoming more empathetic. If this is how it plays out, I hope the writers show his concern extends to Bex's daughter, relationships between parents and children being a central preoccupation in TL. ETA: I still think this will be too little, too late in filling in the many gaps in the Nate redemption arc.

How did I not know about this?!! I just watched the Judy Kuhn clip--delightful! Ted would definitely include a reference to this performance in one of his signature digressions.

That's so interesting and makes me view those scenes a little differently.

Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks have great chemistry. "Don't cry, Shop Girl" gets me every time. I want the dress and sweater Meg Ryan wears in that scene.

I adore The Shop around the Corner and think it's a much better movie than An Affair to Remember. The problems I have with YGM don't exist in The Shop around the Corner.

I love that part, too, and I agree it's more relevant to the show. I think Meg may even say something like "when people say that, what they mean is it's not personal to them." Hanks talks like a mob boss in that scene.

Me, too. I was relieved they didn't go there. I suspect you're right and Ted will slip away, as he did with Dr. Sharon, and Nate will take over. Not the ending I was hoping for, but that's this season for you. I loved the episode, so long as I don't try to make sense of it in the context of the series. In You've Got Mail, Meg Ryan's character tells her ex that there isn't someone else, but there's the dream of someone else (or words to that effect). That's my overall response to this season of TL. That's also how I feel about that movie, BTW. It could have been good were it not for that whole falling-in-love-with-a-corporate-asshole-who destroyed-your beautiful-independent [children's!]-bookstore travesty. Have a little self-respect, Meg! Thank you! When Jamie started stroking his mum's leg, I thought, "well, it's not just his father who effed him up." I don't get the "will they/won't they" with Roy and Keeley. I really need them to be well and truly a couple. The way this season has gone, I almost wouldn't put it past the writers to end the last episode with Keeley giving Nate an appraising look. Totally agree. Also, they don't need him, as evidenced by Nate's exclamation "Colin's free!" being followed by Jamie making the extra pass. The team and current coaches have got this. ETA that I did get a kick out of Roy's dismissive "I don't give a fuck" and his acknowledging that he and Nate have different strengths, when Ted asked if he would be okay with Nate returning to the team. Even though I'm pretty sure that foreshadows Roy and Nate becoming the new Ted and Beard. There's no way Beard stays in London if Ted leaves. I'm apparently entering the acceptance phase of Nate's return to Richmond.

Thank you for reminding me of the context of your comment. I agree with everything you say here, especially about feeling like you missed an episode. I don't think it would have taken a whole lot to show that Nick is learning. With Jamie, there were little beats along the way that gave us hints that he had the potential to change--I'm thinking of his reaction to Ted's giving him a toy soldier and encouraging note. I love the scene where Nick leaves the bar, and I'm sure something followed that precipitated his quitting West Ham. For me, it's about the writers doing a better job of connecting the dots. I love all of this. With respect to the bolded bit, the writers could have made his treatment of Colin a little less revolting by reminding the audience that Colin is one of the people who bullied him. It's still punching down, but with context.