#i'm still enjoying season 3 a whole goddamn lot but i can acknowledge that it's less focused than the first two seasons

[eugeniedanglars]

#very well said!#i think it's because the question of this season isn't actionable in the way it was for S1 and S2#S3E1 poses the question: why is ted still in london?#it's a soul-searcher rather than a goal#and soul-searching is good! it brings on character development!#but if it isn't grounded in some sort of actionable goal it leads to the aimlessness we're seeing in S3#if we had rebecca clinging harder to defeating rupert coupled with a rivalry with nate THAT would have provided more narrative tension#because rebecca's desperation to win at any cost would put her in conflict with ted's belief winning shouldn't be everything#but also force him to think 'well am i wrong? should my purpose be to win?'#it would also have been a fascinating reversal for rebecca#S1 she's trying to bring down the club by any means and it fails#but what if she had tried to have the club win by any means in S3 and THAT puts them on the brink of destruction?#they flirted with that storyline when they brought zava in but then it fizzled too quickly#i've really been liking this season (probably more than most) but there is a distinct lack of overall narrative tension#and i think it's because too many characters are being relegated to isolated plotlines (via @nancywheeeler)

i think the biggest problem of season 3 (of which there are Several) is the shift away from football being the crux of the story, which has undoubtedly resulted in the aimless, overstuffed, unfocused narrative we've been seeing for the last eight episodes. season one was as excellent as it was because whether richmond won or lost a match actually mattered; if they lost too many matches, they'd be relegated, and relegation was always treated as a distinct, tangible threat. there were stakes. and while season two had its issues with pacing and unnecessary subplots, no one would call it aimless. the characters had a goal (pun intended): to get promoted back to the premier league. if they lost too many matches, they would stay in the championship league. we as the audience were invested in whether or not richmond won or lost, and the narrative was all the stronger and more coherent for it.

season one asked us, can afc richmond avoid relegation? and we were invested in the answer. season two asked us, can afc richmond be promoted? and we were invested in the answer. now we're eight episodes into season three, and the overarching goal of the season, the question it is asking its audience to remain invested in, is...what? what are we building towards? is afc richmond's goal to win the whole damn thing? to beat west ham? to beat man city? to do just enough to avoid relegation again?

and because we can't answer this question, the narrative has suffered greatly. how are we supposed to believe beard when he says man city is the team's white whale if we haven't even seen them play each other yet this season? if ted's total football epiphany was so life-changing for richmond, why did we speed past all the matches this episode where the team won using that strategy? if this is all leading to a final nate-ted west ham-richmond match, why haven't we spent any time with nate at west ham? why haven't we gotten to see him grow and develop as a coach? at one point, the team was doing so badly that higgins suggested firing ted, who has been visibly struggling on and off the pitch - and the narrative did not give that suggestion the weight it might have had in season one or two. we spent an entire episode watching rupert, rebecca, and chelsea fight over zava - and then two episodes later he was gone, and we haven't so much as mentioned him since. just last season, sam was being heralded as the star of afc richmond, highly sought after by other club owners - but we haven't gotten to see any of his alleged brilliance on the pitch this season at all. i have to kick a little ball around, which those same people love me for, sam said in 3.07, that is, until i fuck up or miss a penalty, or i decide to fight back - a speech that was excellently delivered by toheeb, but loses some of its weight because we haven't actually gotten to see any negative reaction to sam missing a penalty or fucking up or deciding to fight back (not even in season 2 after the dubai air boycott).

(all this to say: i do enjoy the show. i love the characters, i've been enjoying the episodes as individual units, and i'll continue to tune in week after week. but for a show that once boasted football was life, it's sure been suffering since it decided to stop focusing on that.)

[dreamylyfe-x]

you know i'm rewatching the gallavich wedding planning and i can't help but feel like i don't know who this is, but it ain't mickey! them writing him to be all specific about colors and sh*t, like where's the real mickey from s4 who was annoyed with that guy listing beer types? i get they wanted to do that dumb gag but they should've used someone else for it. i mean ian's the one who was always meticulous about details, they showed that from the beginning. i don't know i just found it so weird

Aw, yeah. I get that reaction -- I think it’s pretty widely shared. And I suspect that storyline did come from someone pitching “it’d be funny if Mickey was a groomzilla.” Which is an idea I find annoying. Because I find the whole bridezilla thing annoying. 

But... I kinda love it, to be honest. 

I really like the idea that Mickey has an aesthetic and some artistic tendencies. We know he draws. I think there’s some indication in canon that Mickey is creative -- both in problem solving and in, let’s say, his sartorial choices. Mickey seems to act on things a lot. He’s not buying those hoodies without sleeves. He is creating hoodies without sleeves.  

Ian IS meticulous... or at least, he’s organized. He’s also given to executing a plan that isn’t necessarily of his own devising. He is drawn to uniforms and he seeks out knowledge he can apply to systems and processes. He seems to have an appreciation for creativity and art, but he isn’t particularly creative himself. 

So of the two of them, I think Mickey is actually much more likely to observe the details and to have opinions about them. That’s still a long way away from having a meltdown about gold chiavari chairs with white cushions. I do realize this. And I remember how that scene came out as a sneak peek the week before and I was... concerned. But when I saw it in context, I honestly liked it. Not so much the scene itself, but the story of that episode. It’s pretty much the only ep that season where Mickey’s concerns are foregrounded over Ian’s and, though (as always) I would have liked MORE of it, I like that we got this one episode about what the wedding mean to Mickey. 

So here are the top reasons why I like and buy this story. 

1. Right off the top, I don’t think Mickey objecting to being given a list of beers indicates he’s not going to care about what chairs are at his wedding. Putting aside that he’s lived an additional five or so years since then, Mickey doesn’t get annoyed in that scene because he thinks it’s dumb to know a lot about beer -- He’s annoyed that Ryan has asked him a question he can’t answer. I’ve always thought of that as a class issue -- He has never been in much of a position to CARE about what he drinks, and he drinks mass-produced pilsners because that’s what everyone in Southside drinks, because it’s cheap. He might love a winter wheat. He has no goddamn idea, because he isn’t living a life where you get to concern yourself with whether or not you’re into IPAs or lagers. Mickey DOES like beer. I was surprised and delighted when he recently ordered a stout at The Alibi, because it does indicate that his life has changed enough that he gets to know a bit more about beer. That at some point, he had the time and inclination to alter his tastes. He might have a different answer for Ryan now.

2. That Mickey wants things. Just... I don’t know. Mickey wanting anything other than food, shelter and Ian gets me so much. Mickey attending to his hierarchy of needs legitimately makes me teary. For people who grow up like Mickey -- asking for things can be a very big deal. So the fact that he just decides he’s going to make a wedding happen -- and a wedding with nice flowers and chairs that will reflect the light (because, we find out, that’s why he wants the gold) and a singer who will perform Livin’ on a Prayer -- is a big deal. And as many have cited before me, it makes sense that Mickey wants a better wedding with Ian than the one he had with Svetlana. But what we also find out, when we get the moment with the vows, is that Mickey takes the whole thing very seriously. He delivers those vows with complete commitment and deep sincerity. So I understand why he wants that space to carry the weight of what is happening. 

3. Mickey doesn’t break the chair because it’s not gold. He breaks the chair because every single person he’s encountered that day is a fucking dick. And they’re being a dick about his wedding. Something he’s happy about, and something he wants to celebrate. And, honestly, he’s not asking for much. He’d be annoyed, but most likely not violent, if his father hadn’t aimed a gun his face and some random old lady hadn’t refused him as a client because he’s gay. Brooks -- who tries to gaslight and act like the chairs are the chairs that were asked for when he knows damn well they are not -- is taking the wrath for a number of other people. But to me, the most important line in that scene is “why does everything always have to suck?”

4. Another thing about this is... back when Mickey responds to Ryan’s multiple choice beer question with “how ‘bout beer?” Ryan covers the awkward moment by making a joke about his own sexuality. The implication being that relating to beer with the kind of detail traditionally reserved for wine, is not masculine. And the thing is, Ryan is making a joke at his own expense, but he’s also acknowledging something that has always been true for Mickey. That Mickey has to make sure he never, ever displays any of these qualities Ryan so casually exhibits. Whether it’s natural for him or not, Mickey has to avoid anything that can be read to be a stereotype. He has to be hyper masculine, both because he’s from House that Toxic Masculinity built, but also because HE knows, even when he won’t acknowledge it, that he’s gay. So when we see Mickey openly talking about what flowers and chairs he wants at the wedding, he’s letting out something that could very well have always been there, but that he never, ever would have expressed back in seasons 1 through 4. Mickey doesn’t kiss Ian for two whole seasons because he’s so messed up about his sexuality. I 100% buy that, at that same time, he isn’t acknowledging having opinions about home decor. 

5. I like it when Mickey defies our expectations. I’m find with him discovering or revealing new facets or abilities or interests -- what I don’t like is when they have him do something that seems more like a regression. The show lampshades that this is something of a surprise, for Mickey to want a wedding, by having Ian be absolutely baffled by it for most of the episode. But they also participate in the end. There’s an indication that Mickey and Ian plan the eventual wedding together, though I imagine Mickey’s stronger opinions took the day in most cases. And the gesture at the end of that episode -- a romantic gesture just as surprising from Ian as anything Mickey does in that episode, really -- validates Mickey in a way I think is pretty beautiful. Like... he gets to be a guy who wants someone to sing Livin’ on a Prayer to him while he holds his boyfriend’s fiancé’s hand. He wasn't allowed to be that guy for years. I like that he gets there. 

So. We might not agree on this, but I really like that you drew a parallel between that scene and the party scene at Ryan’s because I hadn’t though of that before and I think it’s a very interesting one. I also enjoyed thinking so much about this on the day that we mark their one year anniversary! Because holy fuck. Gallavich is married!