*“It’s really weird that you guys won a contest to be in this building…”
“Oh…take that up with the folks at Weird Contest Magazine.”*
ps: As a fan of How Did This Get Made?, it was fun seeing Paul Scheer.
I don’t think that the committee members are intended to be former humans who themselves made it into the good place, any more than Michael and Trevor are former humans who ended up in the bad place. But… hard to say.
Agreed. The committee members were talking about things that happened 200k years ago, when all that stabbing stuff started - so clearly not human. The Good Place equivalent of Sean’s team, but without a Sean to take control.
Mindy St. Clair was a hint about unintended consequences - a bad person who accidentally did a lot of good and got credit for it. Just need to turn it around to see a lot of good people who accidentally did bad and got discredit for it.
And once again: I did not see that coming.
The ‘angels’ are, just like the demons, ridiculous characters who seem to genuinely love what they do.
I’ve been wondering for a while if that’s an important detail. Everything we’ve seen about the demons shows them to be endlessly fascinated by bad humans. Are we seeing a situation where the angels and demons are both shaped by the actions of humans?
I get the criticism, but I wouldn’t say the “fart and noogie” vibe of the demons is a particularly nuanced portrayal, either. I think ineffectually-cautious bureaucrats is fairly equivalent, but not necessarily as fun on screen.
I think Michael’s insight is that no one game the system. The Bad Place folks may not even be aware that no one has made it to the Good Place for 500 years - it certainly was news to the accountant.
Sean knew - he told Michael that Doug Forcett would be going to the Bad Place.
And to Michael, who is one of the bad place folks.
If anyone gamed the system, my bet is on the people in the good place. Maybe they like heaven a lot more without thousands of pesky humans arriving every day.
Or, this is commentary about the social media age, and how anyone’s actions can be found to be problematic if you just look far enough downstream. Sort of like ‘Six degrees of separation from evil’.
Maybe… but that wouldn’t have been in full swing everywhere in the world for the past 500 years, would it?
It was not credible that the accountant did not know that no human had made it to the good place in a year, let alone 500 years. A supervisor looks at the big picture.
Last time I brought it up we discussed that maybe the accountants were in on not wanting humans to get to the good place. But if the situation is really just point creep that was not adjusted for, then what is up with the accountants not monitoring the situation they are in charge of? There are billions of them.
Not sure if I felt a lot of chemistry between Chidi and Eleanor, now that they are finally together. Maybe they have known each other so long they are now at the old married couple stage.
Hopefully, Michael realizes after being let down again that he will have to be in charge of whatever changes might be made.
My favourite line was Jason to Tahani "It’s nice to know I can talk about girls with my wife!..
It really depends on the time scales they are used to dealing with. If they really have been at this for many 100,000 years, then a 500 year dry spell might not be something they would notice. Remember the remark about stabbing.
My wife made the same comment.
I mean, obviously that’s a bit of a goof but I think it’s pretty much just a dig at “bean counters.” The head accountant’s job is just to make sure the numbers add up. He’s NOT looking at the bigger picture of what the numbers DO. He just makes sure his team is following the rules. And the fact that they are apparently cross-checked by oodles of other accountants and come to the same results apparently means they ARE doing it right.
It’s worth being aware that the impossibility of an accurate (or even “accurate enough”) “felicific calculus” to tally the effects of an action has long been considered a major problem with utilitarian ethics. Just like Season 2 built a lot of its ethical points around dissecting the Trolley Problem, Season 3 seems to be aiming to undermine the problems of utilitarianism.
I’ve finished the second season on Netflix, and sadly have to wait for more.
D’Arcy Carden (Janet) looks and sounds so uncannily like the girl I dated in 1990-92 that I had to look her up on IMDB. Nope, not her, and she’s about a decade too young.
Yes, I think so, too. And of course, a major point is being made about modern culture—particularly the social-media component of it—in which “judging other people” has become a major pastime for millions.
You bought your mother flowers? And you think you’re going to get praise for it? Well, how about all the ____________________________________________________ [insert long list of Negative Unintended Consequences, only some of which were mentioned in this episode!]
Scolding other people for Being Thoughtless or for Enabling Exploitation or for Killing the Rain Forest, etc. etc. etc. far into the night, is pretty much what we do, these days.
‘Pleasure in shaming others’ as an orientation to life is something Michael Schur is skewering, here.
(my emphasis in the quote)
If you want to get deep you could say the theme is that all systems start out with good intentions and good purposes but eventually they lose the purpose and only serve to perpetuate the system itself. Yes, The Good Place is basically The Wire. 
Please let the series end with Michael saying “what the fork did I do?” while dropping Eleanor off in Phoenix
Episode: “Chidi Sees the Time-Knife”
Discussion started in #1000[size=“1”] Wait, really?[/SIZE]
I liked the Niednagel joke.