Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HelenaExMachina

The Good Place S4 - We Have a Group Text now (spoilers)

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

There are actually colleges that teach Philosophy courses about this show, so I doubt the Philosophy was "a quick google search".

That probably says more about the quality of college philosophy courses than of the show 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

There are actually colleges that teach Philosophy courses about this show, so I doubt the Philosophy was "a quick google search".

*philosophy courses that use a few extracts from the show in order to lure students in the classroom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it's hard to capture the magic of the first season, because the twist was so incredibly brilliant and the framing made things so much more new. The second season built on things we already knew, and the third is more character driven than previous seasons - but we're also about to get into the heart of the entire accounting system, and I think that might make things a bit more fresh. 

And while S2 wasn't as consistently good as S1, there were episodes that were absolutely brilliant, and the arc of the judge and the obliteration of the neighborhood were pretty great. I think a lot of this season's success depends on how well they deal with basically wrapping up the Earth arc and going to the next stage, and showcasing what that is.

In the meantime we'll still have Jeremy Bearimy and shirtless Chidi, Jacksonville monster truck taxis, and Chidi attempting to break up with Simone. Heck, Simone by herself was pretty amazing. So was the worst American restaurant ever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think that it's hard to capture the magic of the first season, because the twist was so incredibly brilliant and the framing made things so much more new. The second season built on things we already knew, and the third is more character driven than previous seasons - but we're also about to get into the heart of the entire accounting system, and I think that might make things a bit more fresh. 

And while S2 wasn't as consistently good as S1, there were episodes that were absolutely brilliant, and the arc of the judge and the obliteration of the neighborhood were pretty great. I think a lot of this season's success depends on how well they deal with basically wrapping up the Earth arc and going to the next stage, and showcasing what that is.

In the meantime we'll still have Jeremy Bearimy and shirtless Chidi, Jacksonville monster truck taxis, and Chidi attempting to break up with Simone. Heck, Simone by herself was pretty amazing. So was the worst American restaurant ever. 

Agree, I feel like Seasons 2 and 3 have been inconsistent but have had their highlights. I did really enjoy episode 1 of S3 and also Tahani meeting her sister and Jason's dad. As a whole it hasn't felt too well structured however so far and I don't enjoy Michael and Janets place in the show any more, I think the show would work better without them, not that it would be possible.

Btw Simone has a pretty awful Aussie accent, that really bothered me.. especially as she was so good in Killing Eve, and going from British to Aussie should be an easy transition!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think S2 was my favorite. S1 was fine, but it was a bit cliche in the sense that someone doesn't belong somewhere and has to hide. Bosom Buddies, Sister Act, and so on have done what S1 did. I also think I read about a soul hiding in Heaven in some SFF thing somewhere in my youth.

S3 is a bit more uneven, but I do like that they aren't afraid to keep things moving as the cosmic order collapses around them.

As for college philosophy I suspect the show has done more for expounding practical philosophy than all of Western academia combined.

Edited by Sci-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night's episode was awesome. Amazing performance by D'Arcy Carden.

 

I binge watched the first two seasons and the second was as good as the first, as far as I am concerned. The third season started very strongly, but declined a bit midway (Still better than pretty much every comedy on TV), but the last episode was a return to form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Jason-Janet was amazing, down to the body tics and things. 

Guess we know that the Good Place is real, and is simply incredibly picky about things, with a moral code that likely has not adapted to, well, anything past the Renaissance. 

In case you're curious, 521 years ago was 1497, and event wise one of the bigger ones that might be relevant is Copernicus writing down his first observation. Amerigo Vespucci also apparently (maybe) started his voyage, which would be amusing - basically, the reason no one can get into the Good Place is because America. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was nice to have confirmation that someone, at some time, got into the Good Place.

I'd the comedic elements in S3 aren't as strong, but the story telling, emotional beats, and intellectual questioning have risen. It makes sense that given we are talking about the vast majority of humanity enduring unbearable torment that it was gonna end up this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, the weird sex acts accountant wanting to kill himself and not being approved was pretty awesome, as was Janet-as-Jason, her cute-telling puppies not to obliterate the universe, and the Burning Man reference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2018 at 10:34 AM, Kalbear said:

In case you're curious, 521 years ago was 1497, and event wise one of the bigger ones that might be relevant is Copernicus writing down his first observation. Amerigo Vespucci also apparently (maybe) started his voyage, which would be amusing - basically, the reason no one can get into the Good Place is because America. 

There might be something to that. This is from the show-runner in an interview with The Vulture:

Quote

 

Why has the Good Place been broken for so long?

“The question of why no one has gotten in [the Good Place] in 521 years will be answered in the next episode,” Schur says. But like so many other small details on the show, that specific length of time wasn’t an arbitrary choice. “We sort of figured once the world was closed as a loop — once exploration moved from Western Europe and had moved across the ocean — after that moment it was essentially impossible for anyone would get in by the criteria we set up,” Schur explains. Sorry, Abraham Lincoln and Harriet Tubman.

 

Now I'm really curious. It doesn't sound like the Bad Place hacked the system 521 years ago in any direct way, so much as the criteria are weirdly set up so that something about the full world being connected screwed everyone over. 

Edited by Winter Bass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2018 at 3:57 PM, Winter Bass said:

Now I'm really curious. It doesn't sound like the Bad Place hacked the system 521 years ago in any direct way, so much as the criteria are weirdly set up so that something about the full world being connected screwed everyone over. 

Well, I think it is a problem that if the criteria never change, circumstances will.  It's something almost like a zero-sum game.  Consider this quote:

Quote

“It was always reserved for the elite, top 5 percent,” said Schur. “So we figured once westward expansion begins, everyone was screwed. Harriet Tubman, Jonas Salk, and the Golden Girls were the main [ones]. Basically, anyone Antebellum in America is screwed pretty much.”

So, it's not a strict percent, I don't think.  So, the "total needed" was made to capture the top 5%.  So, if, in 1496, let us just say that 1,000,000 put you into the top 5%.  That is, since many people were not connected, actions were less diffuse and more people were at lower point totals.  But once the world was "connected" there were no longer "significant losers" and therefor winners could not be as significant of "winners." So, now, because points are sort of relative to each other, there is no real way to transcend the mean in the same manner as before.  So, whatever the arbitrary "threshold" was to capture the top X% now no longer does.

Consider, these normal curves: Normal Distributions

So, if we consider that the point threshold would be, say 2, because the normal curve when that threshold was set was considering the Red line, than we need to look at what would happen if the curve shifted to the Blue line, or even worse, the Green line.  I think the quote above about how the world got "connected" through "western exploration" and the fact that it made the system a "closed system" points to the issue of "relativism" in points, at least, in points totals.

In other words, the "Western system" is what the points system actually is and the "western system" only "works" if it is something of a zero-sum game.  Once the whole world was essentially "on" the western system, the western system by definition could not work as "intended."

Not only that, but there is more to it.  We are told that Doug is damned, not because his point total is bad in isolation, but because it is bad for his age.  So, points are "relative" to time-lived.  You can't just amass low levels of points over a longer amount of time, because, apparently, the threshold changes based on time-lived.  Which means that longer life spans is also something that could and would shift the normal curve (likely to taller and/or to the left).

I don't imagine I have the system "figured out" by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it is mostly an aim against moral absolutism and is generally for (or will be for) moral relativism.

Edited by .H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, .H. said:

We are told that Doug is damned, not because his point total is bad in isolation, but because it is bad for his age.  So, points are "relative" to time-lived.  You can't just amass low levels of points over a longer amount of time, because, apparently, the threshold changes based on time-lived.

I got the impression that if he'd been much younger, his rate of point accumulation would be putting him on track for reaching the threshold, but he doesn't have long enough left to get that many more points before he dies. Having the threshold increase as you age would certainly be fairer to people who die young, but fairness doesn't seem to be a priority for the afterlife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, felice said:

I got the impression that if he'd been much younger, his rate of point accumulation would be putting him on track for reaching the threshold, but he doesn't have long enough left to get that many more points before he dies. Having the threshold increase as you age would certainly be fairer to people who die young, but fairness doesn't seem to be a priority for the afterlife.

Ah, yeah, that likely make more sense.

So, if you die as a newborn you are damned, a priori.

Again though, I am still trying to deduce why "western exploration" screwed the system to badly.  The statistical "normal curve" nature of things is all I can really come to right now.  Even if it is just as simple as putting everyone on "essentially" the same system "normalized" the output, meaning that the top was not transcendental enough to "qualify" for the Good Place.

Edited by .H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really really interested in who the person who died in 1497 and went to the Good Place was. Was it an actual historical person or a fictional character?

2 hours ago, felice said:

I got the impression that if he'd been much younger, his rate of point accumulation would be putting him on track for reaching the threshold, but he doesn't have long enough left to get that many more points before he dies. Having the threshold increase as you age would certainly be fairer to people who die young, but fairness doesn't seem to be a priority for the afterlife.

That was the impression I got too.

And ... am I underthinking if I just assume people generally became worse after 1497, not that the points system changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×