Why would he? He tells her that frozen yogurt is popular and therefore widely available in the afterlife, he could as easily tell a dead Cantonese that dim sum is popular and therefore widely available in the afterlife. We already know the residents’ perceptions are being altered - why assume arbitrary limits on this?
The settlement itself looks to me like the kind of place where a white, suburban-raised, liberal, Gen-X/Millennial, Protestant/Agnostic American would feel comfortable, and I’m okay with that, on the assumption that it’s also the show’s target demographic. I’m just recognizing the possibility that each resident of this particular corner of the Good Place has a customized view of it. The surreal moments of chaos could be one character’s perceptions being allowed to intrude on the others’.
That said, I don’t expect the show to deeply explore the idea of collective solipsism.
So, does sexual intercourse exist in the Good Place and if so, what about talking dirty? Is a woman limited to telling her lover “Put your big fooling clock in me, hard, I want you to make me calm.”
I don’t have the quote handy, but he gives a bit more information than that. He says he doesn’t know why it’s so popular as well. If it was a construct, he’d have just said “it’s frozen yoghurt for you, churros for hispanics, etc.” Why wouldn’t he? It’s not like it’s some big secret. We also know that information on the mechanics of the Good Place is readily available - how quickly did Chidi figure out the language thing? It is not unreasonable at all to assume that Michael is simply telling the truth regarding frozen friggin’ yoghurt. If we’re to assume that everything we see is different through everyone’s eyes, let’s all just go back to Philosophy 101 class and ask the professor “but what if, like, the green that I see is actually, like, blue to everyone else, man?”.
Well, it’s a fantasy premise with (as yet) no defined limitations or constraints. To me, the individual perception aspect is pretty strongly implied (though I doubt it’ll ever be explicitly stated) because otherwise the premise makes less sense.
Not a big deal. The show is superficially entertaining for now - I’m curious if the deeper implications will be explored.
I wasn’t sold after episode 2 because I just felt bad the main character was ruining everything for everyone and she wasn’t likeable enough to overlook how bad she was as a person but episode 3 and its revelations have me intrigued enough to keep going.
Chapter 3 – especially the final scene – really sold the show.
I’m actually starting to like Tahani as a character. Despite her seeming condescension (which may be filtered through Eleanor’s perceptions), she’s basically a very nice character who just happens to say things in a tone and manner that makes it sound like she’s looking down at you.
I kind of doubt there will be a “everything you see is different from what everyone else sees” reveal, if only because it kind of renders everything we see, and everything we have seen, meaningless, plus it would be super hard to represent.
In any case, this is definitely my favorite new show this year (out of a small sample size). I definitely agree with the comparison to “Last Man On Earth”, where it starts out with an amusing and different concept, and then it lives or dies based on what it does with that.
A plus is that the actors are universally excellent.
I of course immediately started wondering if everyone was there by mistake. It sure would explain a lot: Many of the main characters sure do seem to be selling their own personal virtue overly hard.
That neither my wife nor I didn’t set the recording for ep 3 apparently suggests I wasn’t interested enough in the show… Maybe we pulled the plug too early. Think I’ll hold off and - if this show turns out to have legs - go back and catch up.
That’s exactly what I thought. This is not the type of show I typically like, but I really enjoyed it. I’m not sure where they will go with the plot, but I’m hoping they have a plan.
Well, I almost saw it coming, but yeah, the “monk” was not my suspect.
One reason I suspected Tahani (who I suppose may yet turn out to be a mistake) was because the weird/bad stuff seemingly caused by Eleanor’s bad attitude mostly related to Tahani. So I was wondering if perhaps at least some of it might actually have been caused by Tahani being annoyed by Eleanor – like maybe the giant flying shrimp weren’t caused by Eleanor’s greed but by Tahani secretly being angry about it. But it occurs to me now that Jianyu could possibly have been behind some of it.
I was thinking this too, although Chidi at least does seem to truly be who he says he is. Whether he’s really supposed to be in “The Good Place” or whether “The Good Place” is really even all that good remain open questions.
Well, so far we know that the “deities” of the good place are not even close to infallible. They seem to be extremely advanced aliens - note Ted Danson’s unfamiliarity with the human body he built for himself as well as his inability to program Janet.
We know that none of the religions of earth got closer than 5% right - presumably that includes concepts of morality.
We know that the “deities” have a formula that determines who is good and who isn’t, but we also know that a lot of folks who were pretty damned good didn’t make the cut.
My guess is that most of the people in The Good Place are meant to be there by the formula, but we’re going to eventually find out that the formula (or perhaps Ted Danson’s use of it) does not actually bring up the best of the best. Just a particular slice of humanity.
I also expect that we’ll find out The Bad Place isn’t so bad. Or maybe that there isn’t a Bad Place at all.
Agreed. Tahani may be just some really good person who was born into a life of privilege (but did something really good with it) and that’s just how she reacts to the world.