Anisky
-
Posts
112 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Anisky
-
-
3 minutes ago, Impromptu said:
No, but that wouldn't be an obstacle for a demon to take the form of Stone Cold Steve Austin and tell Eleanor that he was the real Stone Cold Steve Austin who had just died.
Plus, if the average length of each reboot is around 4 months (or even 3), then ECTJ have literally been in The Bad Place for hundreds of years already. While it's true that we don't know whether time runs at the same speed in The Bad Place as it does on Earth, it would still make perfect sense for someone who isn't dead in our present to be dead by now on the show's timeline.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Dots And Stripes said:
Michael's expression after his little talk with Eleanor was really throwing me off. Was he reacting to having more human like feelings (like Eleanor thought) or did he have an ulterior motive?
On the one hand, since Michael is a demon and likely doesn't have a conscience manifesting as a voice in his head, I don't know that Eleanor's answer did him much good. On the other, I didn't really see anything she said as something he could use against her. While watching their convo, I was wondering if he was thinking, "Well, I didn't have that voice in the first place, so maybe it will just never get easier." But even if he was, I don't think that would have changed the fact that working with Team Cockroach was his best option.
Well... not until Shawn showed up, anyway...
4 hours ago, Paloma said:There's so much to love about this show, but maybe what I love best is that it is funny without being mindless (as so many other shows are). In fact, it is better if your brain is fully engaged. Usually that means I have to watch each episode more than once to get everything, but that's a good thing!
I totally agree! I can't think of another show that's simultaneously so smart and also so easy and non-stressful to watch.
-
9
-
-
Oh wow, I realized that I forgot to comment on an EXTREMELY important thing we learned this episode: Michael's claim that there may be a way to get to the real Good Place is probably true!!
Michael: Okay, see, look, here, here, ugh, here's the reason: see, I promised the four humans that we would escape to the Good Place once and for all, and without you, we stand zero chance of ever making it there.
Janet: The new Janet will be able to help you with that.!!! I thought that Michael's claim that it was possible was a lie, but nobody's there except for Janet when he says that, and Janet certainly seems to be believe that with the help of a Janet it's possible.
I was so sure he was just BSing them to get them to help him, so I was surprised by this exchange!
Also, is it just me, or is "escape to the Good place once and for all" interesting phrasing? It's a weird way to put it if they haven't tried to get to the Good Place before. I guess he could just be referring to the fact that they thought they were in the Good Place before, but even if you assume that's what he meant, it still sounds weird. It really sounds to me like it implies that they've either been to the Good Place before but had to leave, or have made concerted efforts to get there on multiple occasions. I don't see how that could be true, but... if it's not, that's very strange phrasing.
3 hours ago, sacrebleu said:I have no problem with the Good Place Janet closet being unlocked. Why would anyone think someone from the Bad Place would steal a Janet? Janet's are built to help people, and why would any Good Place entity think someone from the Bad Place would want one. They have their own Bad Janets.
Yeah... it would have been less suspicious to me if the others hadn't asked and Michael hadn't hand waved it away using the "Good is Dumb" trope. Essentially the entire underlying structure of Season 1 was exploiting our expectation that the "Rule of Funny" trope was in effect when secretly it wasn't, in order to hide all the clues that it was really the Bad Place in plain sight. When The Good Place appears to invoke a trope at face value, that's when I get suspicious that something else is going on!
-
7
-
-
39 minutes ago, SomeTameGazelle said:
Yes, the self-destruct was clearly the last resort and there would be no reason to program the Janets to invoke the begging at that point. They just want to discourage the rebooting so those "murders" trigger the begging protocol. But self-destruct is recommended when the glitching is out of control, so it made sense.
Also, well, if they showed Janet begging, it would remind everyone that we've seen Janet lie before and we know she lied like crazy every time she was rebooted. If it comes up, they’ll probably just hand wave it away that it’s a completely separate subroutine so it isn’t really Janet that’s lying or something, or even just say that trying to prevent rebooting is just an exception. But they thought it was better if they just didn't bring people's attention to it, maybe?
It feels kinda off to me, though, since it’s a time that obviously Janets CAN and DO lie.-
3
-
-
Hey, so, basically confirmation that The Actual Good Place is up to something, right?
"Doors were unlocked, no security, I mean, it makes sense, right? They're good, so they're stupid and trusting."
I mean, that means that they wanted Michael to take a Janet, no? Or at least that they're hoping that some Bad Place employee will take a Janet?
I was gratified that I was 100% correct about what was going on with Janet and insist that I deserve cookies. I do kind of wish there'd been some unexpected twist, but I guess The Good Place can't manage that EVERY time, and the thing towards the end about Janet creating a person was pretty interesting. Hey, more evidence for my theory from a while back that Janet is becoming God through being rebooted so many times!-
16
-
-
28 minutes ago, SeanC said:
The way school funding is handled in the US (or, at least, most US states, from what I can tell) has always seemed self-evidently wrongheaded from my Canadian perspective, since provinces here apportion funding on a per student basis. The idea of parents strategizing to get into "good" public schools is pretty ridiculous. Of course, schools in wealthier areas will always be better off, what with parent fundraising, etc., but the baseline should be consistent.
Rogelio triumphantly pulling his wig off and telling Fabian to say hello to his grandmother is a Top 10 Rogelio moment.
Sigh, for some reason today is the day of Canadians Tantalizing Anisky with the Decency and Sanity She is, as an American, Unable to Have. I am currently jealous of all Canadians.
The strategizing to get into a good public school done in this episode is very small potatoes for an American family with young children, honestly. For a young couple with young children or expecting to have children soon, the quality of the school district is a huge consideration when buying a home.
The house I grew up in meant additional hour to hour and a half daily to the round trip work commute for both of my parents compared to other homes in a similar price range they were considering. The #1 reason they chose the house I grew up in was that it was in a better school district. We lived there 16 years. That's 2-3 hours daily between them, five days a week, for 16 years. Think how much wasted time that is.
Anyway. Ahem.
I liked this episode. I will be just fine with the death next week as long as it's Anezka, Magda, or Luisa. Any of them can go away any time. If it's one of the other options, I won't be too happy.
I appreciated how, when arguing for his character against Fabian's grandmother, Rogelio chose things that would make her feel a little sour towards Fabian, like that he never gives her massages and doesn't take out the trash, so that she wouldn't be as quick to defend him while she's like, "Yeah, why doesn't my grandson ever give me massages?"
I also loved how Rogelio listened when the women were talking about what they'd like from men! And did something about it! Now, if he keeps doing the things he learned, I will adore him. It does seem like he might just make one big gesture and then forget about it, but even if he does, Xo will still have that Room of her Own to go to!-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Winston Wolfe said:
Has anyone else noticed that, Trolley dilemma aside, Chidi has become much more decisive than before? He instantly rejected Michael's first (faux) apology, didn't accept the Emmanuel Kant manuscript and told Mikey to get the fork out of his home - all without any deliberation. Old-school Chidi would have never been so decisive. Count me among the people that believe Janet is the key to this season.
As someone who actually relates a lot to Chidi (and has a lot in common with him), it felt to me like Chidi was in "professor mode". Despite his inability to make even every day decisions like what soup to get or what bar to get beers at, Chidi was able to function successfully as a professor, so presumably he was able to write a syllabus, write lectures, handle students, grade assignments, etc. It was a role he filled for long enough that he is comfortable within it.
Before, he'd lost that routine; but now, he has an actual class, with 4 pupils, that he's running more like a regular class (when Michael doesn't mix things up, anyway). Being in the mindset that he is the Professor and Michael is his student would make it much easier to be firm with Michael, and even act like he has authority over Michael.-
18
-
-
3 minutes ago, arc said:
Janet's reboots are considered deaths for her, and marriage is (on earth) typically just "till death do you part", so arguably Jason and Janet haven't been married since the end of attempt 1. Or at least, even if there have been some repeats over the last 800 attempts, starting fresh on 802 means Janet died yet again after 801 and is thus not married.
Okay, sure, but that doesn't mean that the emotions aren't still there in whatever equivalent Janet has to a subconscious.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, piewarmer said:
I'd like mine without the mystery flavor, though.
I'd love a melted white chocolate dispenser; I'd just have it separately from the shrimp. Dessert, yum!
1 minute ago, NJRadioGuy said:I think the shrimp might have a different viewpoint, though.
I don't think shrimp are sentient, so this doesn't bother me.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
What I think are causing the glitches for Janet is that she's not supposed to be able to lie, but she's lying without even realizing she's doing it.
I think it has everything to do with Jason. The times she glitched:Tahani: “How do you feel about giving Jason and me couple's therapy?”
Janet: “I'd feel great.” (Thumb flies off.)
“Aww, I'm happy for you guys.” (Vomits up a frog.)
“I am very happy for the both of you.” (Huge earthquake.)
If some "subconscious" part of her knows that she's married to Jason, then all of those things would be a lie-- she wouldn't feel great about giving her husband and another woman couple's therapy, and she wouldn't be happy for them. Since she doesn't know that they're lies, her programming doesn't prevent her from saying them. But since they are lies, and Janet's aren't supposed to be able to lie, it's causing glitches.That's my guess, anyway.
I also wonder if the "Ride or Die Protocol" has anything to do with it.
-
41
-
1 hour ago, CherithCutestory said:
Oh, wow. Just because he is a tool of evil who delights in tormenting humans you assume he must be a liar?! You are exhibiting some serious anti-demon prejudice.
I can't decide whether I should
A) Hang my head in shame and resolve not to be so speciesist in the future, or
B) Point out that Michael created an entire fake reality for the purpose of deceiving the main characters about the very nature of their existence, flat-out lied to them about that existence nearly 800 times* and has lied to them daily for several hundred years about all manner of things in order to (1) torture them and (2) keep up the charade, so really I'm assuming he's a liar because I've observed him lie a lot.
I know that prejudiced people usually have some kind of rationalization why their assumptions aren't REALLY prejudice, though, so probably option A is the more appropriate one. I apologize and will look into getting some demon sensitivity training.
;)*"Nearly" because of the butt reset, Eleanor walking in on his voice diary, the time Michael got drunk and ranted to Eleanor, and possibly a few others we don't know about.
1 hour ago, CherithCutestory said:I think you are right. That fits with the video given to Mindy St. Clair. The Good Place wanted her. They fought for her. Sure she was a special case. But it's still interesting.
It makes sense why the Bad Place wanted her. They love torturing people. But the Good Place probably wants everyone they can get their hands on too. But the shuffling of souls to the good and bad place is usually automatic according to very specific rules.
If some souls were to cross the line then they likely would fight for them just like Michael pretended to.
I was also thinking about the video, actually, and how the Good Place representative seemed much more like "We want you but didn't manage to win that fight and had to compromise" and not at all like "Ehhh, we're not sure whether you're good enough for us to take you." I ended up scrapping that post because it just felt like a vague vibe rather than evidence, but I'm glad that you brought it up, because I was definitely thinking the same thing!
56 minutes ago, wilnil said:I'd love to see how that was written in the script. It could also be "the Real Bad Place" as in "Very Bad" -- maybe there are supposed to be levels of badness, or at least Michael now wants them to think there is.
I doubt this is what he meant, just because if Michael's ever made a grammatical mistake, I haven't noticed it. If he meant to imply levels of badness, he'd have said "the really Bad Place".
-
5
-
-
Also, interestingly, Michael's explanations so far match up with what Michael Schur has said about the show: That Mindy and the Medium Place are real, that Janet isn't in on it, and the average length of each reboot. Unless Schur is lying in his interviews in order to mess with us, so far Michael has been more truthful than I'd have expected. What he tells them about the number of attempts matches what we saw last episode, too.
I am pretty leery of his claim that there's a way to get to the Good Place, but I found his initial explanation of his plan for all of them to go there, and how he would try to get the Good Place to accept him too, very interesting.
Prediction: The Good Place isn't willingly keeping people out; they're somehow limited so that they're only allowed to take in the "very best", but they are against the idea of the Bad Place and don't actually want anyone to be there. They would take "Bad Place refugees" in a heartbeat.
My bet is that when Michael says he thinks might be able to stay in the Good Place by saying he rescued four people from damnation and say he's changed, and Chidi asked if the Good Place would even let them stay, Michael realized that he revealed more than he should have about the Good Place and backtracked to say he had no idea.
I think there's a decent chance Michael was lying about there being a way to get to The Good Place (though I'm not sure). If he was lying, then I think he let his knowledge of the Good Place inform the fake plan. (He and Eleanor had just finished explaining why it's easier to lie when you're basing it on the truth.)
EDIT: I also noticed that Michael said that if their plan fails, ECTJ will have to go to the "real Bad Place." Obviously he has every reason in the universe to tell them that they're better off in his neighborhood than in any other Bad Place neighborhood, since without their help he'll be eternally tortured too, but I found that phrasing interesting.-
5
-
-
58 minutes ago, Wandering Snark said:
I love that of course Vicky gave herself the role of highest scorer and co-opted the sash they had for Eleanor in V.1.
I know, right? Especially because the "Best Person" sash was created as part of Eleanor's torture. We've seen in Eleanor's flashbacks that she has very little shame, but even she fully felt how awkward and, frankly, humiliating it was to have to wear that sash. Vicky, missing all of that, is like, "Ohh, MINE!"
Also, I found it hilarious that what was ostensibly supposed to be everyone's first day in the afterlife, Vicky not only thought that karaoke was an appropriate way for her to introduce herself as "mayor", but she also chose a song called "I Will Survive" with lyrics such as
"I know I'll stay alive"
"Did you think I'd lay down and die? Oh no not I!"
Yes Vicky, what a perfectly appropriate song to sing when you're supposed to have just been told a few hours ago that you're dead!-
5
-
-
2 minutes ago, Dowel Jones said:
Or, it could be just a half hour comedy show instead of a world shaking allegory.
Eh. The show runner has explicitly said that the show is about ethics. I don't think it's a huge reach to think that perhaps the show is about ethics.
-
5
-
-
3 hours ago, CooperTV said:
I'm glad the show is continuing with its perfect set-up from last season:
1) If you have severe anxiety issues, you deserve to die in the most idiotic way possible and go to hell to be tortured.
2) If you're victim of emotional abuse and your parents never loved you and you always wanted to prove yourself to them anyway or being noticed (because that's how emotionally or otherwise abused children usually act), you deserve to die in the most idiotic way possible and to to hell to be tortured;
3) If you're mentally challenged and fall for life of crime, you deserve to die in the most idiotic way possible and go to hell to be tortured.
That's show is so cute!
I think we're on the same page, but of a different book.
Over on avclub I posted basically the same thing as you said in 1 and 2... that Chidi had (and still has) an anxiety disorder, that Tahani was emotionally abused by her family, that wanting to earn your parents' love is not a corrupt motive, and that anyone raised with the family dynamic she was would try to prove herself as good as her sister and try to gain parents' approval, etc, and that it's awful that they're in the Bad Place, that it's deeply unfair that being abused or having a mental illness would cause someone to be tortured eternally. I went on at some length, but that's the gist. So, same/similar starting point.
However, I really don't think that the show is saying that these people deserve to be in the Bad Place at all.
The show has shown that the points can be really arbitrary-- you gain points for scratching your elbow and eating a sandwich, and lose points for "blow[ing] nose by pressing one nostril down and exhaling", and lose a LOT of points for rooting for the Yankees.They've almost made a point, many times, of saying that lots of historical figures who we know of as being really amazing people who have done tons of good are all in the bad place. That only the tiniest fraction of people even make it to the Good Place, say around .01%, and the rest of the 99.99% of people are tortured for eternity. That's supposed to be messed up. That's supposed to wildly unfair. The non-arbitrary parts of the points system awards points based on how much good you've done for other people and how much you've helped them, and takes points away for having harmed/offended/inconvenienced/etc other people. But the same system that gives or takes away those points condemns the vast majority of humans to horrific suffering for eternity, something that would be worth about negative infinity points if a human did that during their life time. So we see that the system is not just unjust, it's deeply hypocritical down to its very foundations.
If all of that is just ignored for the rest of the show, then you're right, it's a horrible message. But when I watch the show I'm seeing tons of set-up for the show to explore how horribly unfair and awful this afterlife system is. I will be surprised if (unexpected cancellation notwithstanding) the show doesn't end up with an attempt to overthrow current system.
-
19
-
-
29 minutes ago, AuntTora said:
I thought Tahani said something last year about, "gave my life to save others, such fun!" Hm. Going to have to check the Tivo....
She did, during the episode "What's My Motivation?" Since we know that she didn't know how she died, I can definitely imagine Tahani just assuming that she'd died sacrificing her life for someone else's (or saying that's what happened, even though she knows she doesn't know). That would be so Tahani.
-
5
-
-
3 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:
Biting and twisting people are apparently options...
And burning them!
-
17 hours ago, arc said:
They'd need a new trick because (as per the end of the season premiere) Michael now knows that one and checks for it. Except when he's being sloppy, like forgetting to close the door before Eleanor's orientation starts.
Oh, whoops, I totally forgot about that!
Okay then, they need to go with that sharpie idea.
6 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:In real life, here in Chicago, restaurants with "punny" names open all the time, and never make it. (With the exception of hot dog stands, which seem to require them.) So don't. :)
Wait, food stands are legal in Chicago now?! When I lived there (2005-2008) food trucks and food stands weren't legal! The city tried to have this all-night culture-and-fun type fest, but there wasn't anywhere to get food or even water because the, like, 2 restaurants that were open in the Loop were all jammed and there was NOWHERE ELSE. Please tell me they changed the law! That would be so cool!
5 hours ago, CooperTV said:Or is The Good Place supposed to be parallel Real Life in the sense that Real Life is Hell? Are we to assume the showrunner is nihilistic individual who hates human connection and personal improvement?? (I'm joking, of course, but the world-building of the show is so confusing it's a plausible explanation).
Well, I think Michael Schur is known for injecting the literal, direct opposite of that attitude into his shows... so it would certainly be a twist! And The Good Place is now known for its twists! So, maybe.
After last season I trust the writers a little, so I'm viewing the world building as more "has not yet been fully explained" than "intrinsically confusing", but I acknowledge that I may be setting myself up for heartbreak.
2 hours ago, Amarsir said:If they wanted to, they wouldn't have to wait for a reboot. Just send Janet on a delivery as soon as they get back. It wouldn't necessarily be a bad plan to ingratiate themselves to Mindy even more once they knew this was a repetition thing. But then again, apathetic coke fiends aren't really the powerful allies one might hope for.
I mean, her home is literally the only accessible safe haven from HELL, and the only place where their demon tormenters cannot find them. She's also the only one besides said demon tormenters who can tell them anything about the events that have been erased from their minds, or who knows how long they've been in Hell. I don't care how apathetic she is or how much she likes cocaine, her good will is incredibly valuable to them. So yeah, send that woman a boatload of cocaine, STAT! (Or more specifically, a train car full. I mean it. Fill an entire car of the train with cocaine. Hey, go for two cars. She's going to be there for eternity.)
56 minutes ago, LoneHaranguer said:That would have been a Bad Janet. They said near the end of last season that the Janet we'd been seeing is a Good Janet that Michael stole. I don't recall them fully explaining the difference, but I expect that Bad Janet would be like an evil genie and give people the worst possible version of what they ask for, quickly giving away the truth, even if her attire and demeanor weren't enough.
I know this is probably getting into fanwanking territory, but maybe the only way to prevent Bad Janet from appearing in the city is to replace her with a Good Janet? Like, they need the foundational mainframe in place, so you can't remove Bad Janet or disable her without putting in another Janet?
-
3
-
-
I love that the writers are really aware of what it means that this show is set in the *afterlife* and that the story has all the space of a literal eternity to unfold in.
After playing on our expectations about sitcom tropes and structure in order to hide the big twist in place sight in Season 1, now they're having fun breaking our expectations about plot structure (especially its speed). And why not? Literally millions of years could pass, and it will still, functionally, be an infinitesimally small fraction-of-a-percent of the available storytelling space.
It's fun to see writers really exploring all the possibilities of their setting. Especially when they go in unusual and unexpected directions!
EDIT: Also, in all the time they never thought to write "Bring Mindy some cocaine" on a piece of paper and stick it into Janet's mouth when they're about to be memory wiped? Rude!!
-
14
-
-
49 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:
I believe it does NOT make a difference when the context is a quest for power or dominance. The imperial Spanish thought they had good hearts and intentions by "saving" the Inka and Maya from sinful polytheistic religions. The Church debated whether the new people they encountered were really people; these kind hearted priests even wondered whether or not the natives had souls to be saved. Thankfully some well intentioned monk convinced the church that they did! How charitable. That benevolent attitude really saved the natives a lot of heartache and slaughter. /sarcasm
Likewise, Dany thought she was saving the lamb people from being raped by the Dothraki, and we know how well that turned out.
I'm still struggling to see the difference between Dany, Cersei, and Stannis, especially after this episode. Yeah she burned soldiers and not religious wackos or wilding leaders who refuse to kneel, but at the end of the day, her enemies died screaming (to quote the Dany of Season 1). I know we all want to see the Lannisters get theirs, but its so much more entertaining to me that Dany be morally ambiguous, so I prefer to see her that way. Also I admit its a fault of mine to see similarities in political leaders rather than their finely tuned differences (I despise viewing history through presidential biographies and all that nonsense).
Are you familiar with the concept of something being "necessary but not sufficient"? That's the technical phrase for what I was trying to get at when saying that having good intentions is important, but is not the only thing that matters. Giving other examples of times when people had good intentions but were not good rulers doesn't disprove the assertion that good intentions are necessary but not sufficient for a good ruler, because all it does is prove that good intentions aren't sufficient, which was already part of the premise in the first place. The main way to disprove the assertion would be to give an example of a ruler who did not have good intentions, but was nevertheless a very good ruler. That is what would prove that good intentions aren't something that matter, that they aren't something that a good ruler needs to possess.
Plus:
46 minutes ago, spottedreptile said:Nobody ever thinks of themselves as the bad guys.
This!
You're holding up as an example the imperial Spanish, who as you say, "thought they had good hearts and intentions". But that would be equivalent to Daenerys saying that she herself has a good heart, which is not what happened. Jon Snow, a man with whom she is at odds (and the man who she wants to have power/dominance over) says that she has a good heart. So for your example to be equivalent, it would need to be the leaders of the Incans and Mayans who believed the imperial Spanish had good hearts.-
2
-
-
21 minutes ago, Colorful Mess said:
"She has a good heart" -- is this all that separates her from Stannis, Cersei, et al.?
"My people who are trying to rule don't have an easy time of it. Just having good intentions doesn't make you a wise king." - GRRM, Rolling Stone Interview
Good intentions (/a good heart) aren't the only thing, to be sure, but are you trying to say that they aren't an important thing? What if Cersei did have a good heart and good intentions-- you don't think that would make a huge freaking difference?
Anyway, Jon wasn't trying to give a exhaustive analysis of Dany's strengths and weaknesses as a prospective ruler. He was giving his impression after talking to her three times. Sheesh.
-
8
-
-
52 minutes ago, bluvelvet said:
I'm glad that Tyrion brought up his marriage to Sansa, I guess he was essentially saying that it was invalid? I wonder if he knows about Sansa's marriage to Ramsey, for some reason I thought Jon would bring it up.
I knew Tyrion wouldn't believe Jon about the WW and wights but I am surprised at Danaerys since she is the mother of dragons. I would have assumed she would be a bit more open, I also think the bit about Jon taking a stab to the heart will come into play a bit later.
Sorry, I haven't read the posts after this one yet, I wanted to reply to this one but also want to get to bed soon!
My take on that exchange: When Tyrion first said (twice I think?) that his marriage to Sansa was unconsummated, I thought it was his circumspect/delicate way of saying, "Don't worry, I didn't rape your sister or take advantage of her, I swear." Considering Tyrion didn't know that Jon Snow was King in the North, there's no reason he would know the details about Sansa and Ramsay, so he doesn't know that this isn't as reassuring as it might have been if Sansa hadn't ended up going through all kinds of rape and abuse anyway.
Since Sansa had already told Jon that Tyrion was decent to her, Jon hadn't been concerned about that part, so he heard Tyrion's reassurance as more of a "Don't worry, I'm not going to try to say that I have some kind of claim on your sister, I'll leave her in peace." So Jon's "I didn't ask" was basically saying "I don't care, because I wouldn't have let you push any kind of claim anyway."
That's what I got from the exchange, anyway.-
18
-
-
18 hours ago, SixFeetOver said:
Did I miss a plot-point or episode in which it was suggested that Rafael might not be the father of Petra's twins? If he were their bio-dad, then wouldn't they be even a little bit darker (physically)?
This doesn't seem strange to me. For one thing, Petra is pretty fair. It's very common for pale kids to have blond hair, even light blond hair, as a young child, and then have it darken to brown as they get older. It happened to both me and my sister. So if they mostly inherited Petra's coloring, I'd expect them to have lighter hair at their age than they'll have when they're older (and thus, lighter hair than Petra has now).
For another, when parents have different coloring from each other (or even parents who have similar coloring but one or both of THEM had parents with different coloring), how that is expressed in their children's phenotypes is known for varying widely. I mean, these two women are twins. Obviously, that's an extreme example, but coloring among mixed-ethnicity full siblings is much more variable than a lot of people assume. Noticeably closer coloring to one parent than the other, instead of a smooth 50-50 blend, is pretty common.
I'm feeling pretty neutral right now about the whole Jane/Rafael thing. I don't know. It depends on how they handle it. I'm not really feeling Rafael/Petra, but I do agree with other people who said that Jane on the "outside" of the triangle while Rafael is in the central position might be refreshing. If they have to have another love triangle, then I'm more interested in seeing Jane experience being one of the two people vying for the one. It will show us (and Jane) what she's made of.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, AllyB said:
This annoyed the hell out of me in this episode. The women were literally sitting across from Liv, talking about the teacher's listening skills while Liv sat there without listening, waiting for her chance to throw in some stupid patronising platitude. It was so blatant I was waiting for it to be a clue in the murder. I thought Clive would figure that Liv's behaviour being such a contrast to the man described would lead to him somehow making a breakthrough in the case. Which would also be a new and novel way to show how Clive's knowledge of the zombie situation can help them solve cases.
And as the women were sitting across from Liv, all of them were like "WTF?!" and giving "What is wrong with this person?" facial expressions. There was no, "This reminds me of the weird but endearing quirk of the man I was in love with / was sexually attracted to." They thought she was a crazy person.
-
6
-
S02.E09: Leap to Faith
in The Good Place [V]
Do we know for sure that Michael really is "good" now?
I think there's a good chance he's still on Team Cockroach, but I'm not at all convinced he was being selfless in turning down this amazing promotion that's everything he ever wanted. He was being promoted, sure, in order to oversee a greatly expanded version of the fake Good Place neighborhood.
Since Michael hasn't been able to actually make that work in 803 tries, trying to get an expanded version right on the first (or at worst second) try when it's much higher profile and has the attention of this "High Council" would be next to impossible for him. When he fails to make it work, it may not even matter whether they realize he lied about all the reboots or not; he'll probably be in for "retirement" either way.
Even if he didn't care about the humans at all and is only looking out for himself, trying to find a way out of there is still his smartest move. If having the humans and Janet could help him do that, then so is saving them. (It would probably buy him more time, since examining their brains like Shawn said would probably reveal that their minds had been wiped a whole lot more than once.)
I think Michael probably is basically "good" now, especially after the Janet & Michael episode... but just putting it out there that if they go with a Michael's-loyalty-twist, it wouldn't need to contradict this episode.
It is, and if Michael had managed to make this neighborhood work, then that would be a possibility... but he couldn't.
Ooh, but wouldn't that just be an amazing way to redeem himself and eventually earn his way to the real Good Place-- creating and running a Bad Place neighborhood that secretly redeems humans and makes them eligible for the Good Place? If ever there were a way for a demon to earn his way into the Good Place, doing that-- all the while risking getting caught by the Bad Place authorities-- would be it!
If Eleanor, Chidi, Tahani and Jason haven't improved as people enough to get into the Good Place yet, maybe they could be "in on it" in the opposite way from the demons in the neighborhood-- pretending to just be other Good Place neighbors, but secretly guiding the new humans towards redemption. Wouldn't that be an interesting way to spend a season? Wait, what am I saying, this is The Good Place. Wouldn't that be an interesting way to spend a few episodes?
Yeah, Michael's expression at the end of this episode kind of torpedoed my theory that the Good Place would gladly take anyone to save them from torture. (Though I guess he could be sad if he thinks the humans will be let in but he won't.)
Either way, since there's at least one more season, we know they haven't actually won and won't actually go to the Good Place right away. The humans (well, Tahani and Chidi) were just being way over-optimistic. Since Michael even said that getting to the Good Place would be difficult and take a long time to arrange, he could even just be sad that they're so excited when he knows (and so should they based on the info he gave them) they have a long way to go yet.
But of course, it's The Good Place, so I expect his expression actually heralds some kind of twist, and not just emotion based on what we already know.