Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Sept 28, 2018 13:34:16 GMT -8
Enough of us watch this, right? Ok.
Probably a weaker premiere than the first and second seasons, in my opinion. The Judge and Shawn were kinda pathetic, which doesn't bode well for the rest of the season. I'm curious where the show goes with Simone and Chidi - do they set up a love triangle? And most interestingly, do they all realize that the mysterious old man who changes all their lives is the same dude? Hmm.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Sept 28, 2018 13:50:08 GMT -8
As Quiara just called Shawn pathetic, she is now sealed up in a gooey pod until further notice.
The actress from Killing Eve that they cast as Chidi's love interest is very appealing, though I don't know that I buy that Simone would be attracted to him, given the emotional mess he is.
Though they always had the threat of ETERNAL TORTURE hanging over their heads in the first two seasons, by putting them back on Earth, the stakes just feel a little higher to me now. That said, this only feels like a four-season show: I don't think the premise can be sustained much beyond that.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 29, 2018 18:39:27 GMT -8
I thought the premiere was fine (though not quite bonzer). I didn't laugh quite so much, and the "cocooning" gimmick has grown stale. But I like the way they're building off the S2 finale, and putting the characters on Earth does allow the show to freshen itself up.
I'm hoping Eleanor/Chidi/Simone doesn't go the love triangle route, since I don't find Eleanor and Chidi interesting as a romantic couple. (They work much better as a comedy duo.) I expect the season won't be that predictable, though.
|
|
|
Post by Zarnium on Oct 2, 2018 15:09:09 GMT -8
Before this thread gets inundated with season 3 spoilers, I'll say that I enjoyed this show quite a lot. Not only is it funny and has a surprisingly engaging and thick plotline for something so openly farcical, it also has a lot of genuinely intelligent commentary on different notions of moral behavior and what makes someone a good person. Is someone good because they did good things, or are they good because they had good intentions? Do you need both? Does it matter if your moral development has been constrained by sociological factors outside of your control? Does belief in or certain knowledge of the existence and nature of the afterlife matter? There are a lot of complex moral and ethical ideas here that are broken down into easily digestible chunks, and surrounded by whimsical humor that doesn't distract from their importance one bit.
One concept the shows explores that I find particularly intriguing is whether or not having a philosophical understanding of ethics actually means anything. For example, when hearing about it, it's easy to think about the trolley problem in a calm and rational manner and come to decision about which track you would switch to. In reality, moral decisions are never that clinically detached; when Chidi is placed into a realistic simulation of the trolley problem, he doesn't carefully consider what would be the moral choice to make, he freaks out and doesn't make a decision in time. That's what most people would do if confronted with trolley problem in real life; there's not enough time to rationally consider all the options, and not enough detachment to make an impartial choice.
If I have one complaint, it's that the seasonal memory wipe destroys the character continuity a bit. While it's handled pretty well, I can't help but feel a bit sad that the characters' personal relationship growth keeps being reset, except on some subconscious level.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Oct 12, 2018 5:53:55 GMT -8
I think I'm turning against The Good Place a little bit. Simply put, it moves too fast, and never let's things settle in to a form of comfortable familiarity. And for a long time in Season 2, that was to its benefit, it was exciting how it was burning through plot at a rapid pace. The issue is relationships and characters are never really allowed to stabilize. There's no foundation for our feelings or our cares about these people anymore, because they keep changing at too much of a pace to keep up.
I'm not explaining myself very well, but the show is moving a lot faster than I typically like shows to move.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Oct 12, 2018 17:54:06 GMT -8
Are you still working through Season 2? Because I kind of think that the characters DO stabilize quite a lot in Season 3, for better or worse (I haven't decided yet).
ETA: Hold on, is your last name Rosenberg? I was just reading Sepinwall's review, and noticed sentiments similar to your own in the Comments section. Anyways, despite the rapid jumps in time, I don't think the characters have changed that much this year. Well, aside from Janet, who's definitely less unique in her current incarnation. But given the developments at the end of the most recent ep, I suspect a good deal of change is afoot.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Oct 13, 2018 15:19:58 GMT -8
I think I'm turning against The Good Place a little bit. Simply put, it moves too fast, and never let's things settle in to a form of comfortable familiarity. And for a long time in Season 2, that was to its benefit, it was exciting how it was burning through plot at a rapid pace. The issue is relationships and characters are never really allowed to stabilize. There's no foundation for our feelings or our cares about these people anymore, because they keep changing at too much of a pace to keep up. I'm not explaining myself very well, but the show is moving a lot faster than I typically like shows to move. I also think this season is weaker than the first two. This is the only regard in which I think this post is not completely wrong. "It moves too fast, and never lets things settle in to a form of comfortable familiarity [...] The issue is relationships and characters are never really allowed to stabilize." Hard disagree here on two key points. Yes, the plot moves quickly on this show, but I'm pretty comfortable with the characters. Even when they're not being incessantly rebooted, I don't think the changes they've undergone are deep enough that they're fundamentally different people. I think that on the one hand, you're making the error of trying to evaluate The Good Place as a work of arc-driven character drama when I think it's much more of a sitcom or even a procedural, where the intrigue is derived from how static characters react to changing circumstances. But on the other hand, you're also forgetting there is a character who has a stable and consistent arc throughout the entire show in Michael. I'm actually reminded of another show where people levied similar complaints which I think are largely missing the point, namely, Dollhouse, which has a similar hybrid structure to it. You have one set of static characters, and one set of dynamic characters who oversee the static characters. Or, if you want a less controversial example, ask yourself whether Groundhog Day is a worse movie because Andie Macdowell keeps having her memory wiped. My actual problem with this season is actually a point you raised several years ago in those great Breaking Bad reviews of yours: this season's stakes are fake. The premise of The Good Place is malleable enough that technically anything can happen, but the realities of ensemble casting mean that potential directions for the plot are only viable provided that they keep the six main characters together. Season 2 was very good about this, because the constant reboots enabled them to veer off wildly from the initial premise, without risking permanent fatalities that couldn't actually happen for meta reasons. And they didn't really try to derive tension from the occasional "Michael is going to be VAPORIZED" - it was more "will they be able to retain their character growth?" This season has instead tried to derive tension from things that literally cannot happen - Gen can't have Michael offed because the show can't kill Ted Danson, the Brainy Bunch can't be divided by Trevor's antics or there's no show, the Brainy Bunch can't go their separate ways or there's no show, et cetera. So the "cliffhangers" this season have felt a lot more like deus ex machinas, because instead of taking the story in new and weird directions they just move the pieces into the places they need to be for the ensemble cast to stay together.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Oct 13, 2018 16:24:12 GMT -8
One thing that really doesn't make any sense is why would the judge accept any improvements in the four characters' morality/ethics, etc., when she knows Michael and Janet are consistently affecting the outcome? She knows the game is rigged, that Michael and Janet have broken the previously-established rules, and they've also just plain pissed her off. If she's the only one who can allow them entry to the actual Good Place, it should already be game over.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 13, 2018 16:55:55 GMT -8
I think Quiara nailed it. The Good Place is more complex and serialized than the average sitcom, but it's still not trying to be a character-driven drama. It can futz around with its characters' memories all the time because its focus is more on philosophical themes and oddball humor.
If I have a (minor) complaint with the season at this point, it's that some of the humor around the "supernatural folks getting acquainted with the human world" is growing a bit stale. Ted Danson plays these jokes with his usual gusto, but I'm hoping later episodes find other comedic outlets.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Oct 15, 2018 9:38:59 GMT -8
I think Quiara nailed it. The Good Place is more complex and serialized than the average sitcom, but it's still not trying to be a character-driven drama. It can futz around with its characters' memories all the time because its focus is more on philosophical themes and oddball humor. If I have a (minor) complaint with the season at this point, it's that some of the humor around the "supernatural folks getting acquainted with the human world" is growing a bit stale. Ted Danson plays these jokes with his usual gusto, but I'm hoping later episodes find other comedic outlets. I guess my complaint is that the show isn't good enough at philosophical themes or oddball humour to be anything other than a pleasant watch. My evaluation of The Good Place at this stage is solely in response to the critical praise surrounding it and to what I myself saw in Season 1. I have high expectations for the show, and it this point it's just primarily a humorous plot engine without the significant depth beyond that. I guess the fact it's humorous helps it go a long way, but the most part people complain about plot engines ( Westworld) but The Good Place seems to get away with it. In response to your Michael point, Quiara, I just don't think he's been very consistently written enough to say "this is the characterization the show is hanging its hat on." The character growth has been there, but it's been in more sudden fits and starts than a continuous line. I think a big part of it was they were trying to keep up an element of surprise in the end of "Leap to Faith" making Michael's sudden goodness rather abrupt. I think that's the difference between this show and something like Groundhog Day. JC, I am not Scott Rosenberg, as much as I'd like to share something else in common with Jeremy. I wasn't even aware that the Rolling Stones articles had comment sections.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 15, 2018 15:44:42 GMT -8
I hear, and echo, some of your concerns. Season Three doesn't yet have the same "pull" of Season Two, and its more philosophical side (evidenced by the Brainy Bunch gatherings) has felt considerably weaker.
On the bright side, the next episode is written by Megan Amram, who's delivered some of the show's best episodes in the past. Here's hoping that streak continues.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Oct 19, 2018 11:25:47 GMT -8
I HATE JEREMY
Bearimy, season three episode four of The Good Place.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 22, 2018 5:36:46 GMT -8
Well, I HATE BOSC
h Season One, a mediocre start to one on Amazon Prime's most popular dramas.
(I suddenly wish you hadn't changed your name.)
I thought it was a fine episode, albeit not the game-changer I was expecting. Could be William Jackson Harper's Emmy episode, assuming the series ever gets noticed (it won't) by the Emmys.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Nov 10, 2018 11:02:08 GMT -8
One month in, and the season is... still kinda suffering. On the other hand, Vicky's back! As is an overarching plot.
I think the problem The Good Place has may very well be "it's a Mike Schur sitcom."
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Nov 10, 2018 23:27:13 GMT -8
One month in, and the season is... still kinda suffering. On the other hand, Vicky's back! As is an overarching plot. I think the problem The Good Place has may very well be "it's a Mike Schur sitcom." Last season was legitimately an all time great. This one just suffers in comparison. I'm not sure why the season isn't quite clicking, but it just isn't operating on the levels of the previous ones-the jokes are slightly less funny, the philosophy less thoughtful, the character moments less meaningful. I think Alan Sepinwall was right- The Good Place is at its worst on Earth. The setting of the neighborhood was one of the things that made it so unique and delightful. You may also be right about Mike Schur's sitcoms. They never (with one glaring exception: bless you Brooklyn 99) really can sustain their dizzying peaks for more than a couple seasons can they? The difference is, usually they have a weak first season, and Seasons 2-3 are the peak. This time Season 3 is when it starts to go downhill (but hopefully it turns itself around).
|
|