S04.E06: A Chip Driver Mystery

[Yokosmom]

Quote

 I don’t remember Jason telling Chidi that he wasn’t a monk. Was that shown earlier?

Quote

Yes, they showed this. When Chidi was enjoying The Good Place too much and not motivated to get better/teach ethics, they realized he needed to be tortured again by having to keep that same secret. So Jason came out to him. Remember the ep where he made his bud hole in Chidi's place and Chidi barely opened the door when Eleanor and Michael came to visit?

No, sadly, I don't.  This season has been mostly blah and many scenes haven't stuck with me.

About the only episode this season that I've truly liked was the one where Tahani and John bonded.  They both showed some character growth and I liked that.  I like John the most of the three test subjects.  Brent is atrocious and Simone....well, I'm not sure why I'm not fond of Simone.  Perhaps its because, as someone else said above, we don't know much about her?  I don't dislike her though.

On a totally different topic, did Bad Janet seem a little bit quieter and softer than usual?  Yes, she did the usual fart stuff, but her edges seemed much less rough.  Perhaps it's because she's spent so much time thinking that Michael may deactivate her?

I'm viewing a lot of this season as filler or Good Place Light and am looking forward to some changes or faster progress.  I still have faith in the writers that they will pull something out of their hats.  I just hope that they don't keep dilly dallying and make us wait until the last episode.

[manticoraus]

3 hours ago, JessDVD said:

I heard condescending bench from Brent and I have to say, that is one other line that I laughed at because as much as Brent is awful, I personally find Simone a little one-note also, just not that level of irritating. I don't think I'd have gone as far as bench in my analysis of how she was acting, but condescending isn't unfair IMO. I find Simone to be a shade of Mary Sue - as much as Brent is being written as nothing more than a caricature of white male privilege and this is clearly written to be a bad thing (not that his behavior isn't bad, just that the show isn't trying to spin it otherwise), I feel like Simone tends to be written as, always the one in the right and thus the show wants us to find her to be superior, with not much more dimension than that. It's just not as forceful or irritating as Brent.

Really though, the fact that we're still even having all this conversation about Brent, John, and Simone is indication that the show needs to move us along. We're all still here primarily because of the original 4, Michael and Janet, and I don't want any more episodes where most of it is evaluating Brent's merits or lack thereof. I did kind of feel this way last year with the stuff in Australia, although I hate the writer's hand of Brent more, and I liked the Australia stuff more on a full season 3 re-watch so maybe (PLEASE) with the context of the rest of the season it'll work.

Actually I find it ironic that Simone is the one complaining about Brent treating other people as if they're not real and that's how she treated others in the good place the first few days that she was there.

she even assaulted people. That's I think the problem I and people like me that oppose who we call sjws. It's not that the things that they point out aren't issues. its that the unforgivableNess of sins are based on the identity of the person that they're targeting. Despite the profession of this or that virtue or standard of behavior it's a sin when this kind of person does it for pretty much the same reasons and attitudes that another person does it. And that's a non-starter in terms of trying to get people to change.

As an example of the people who brought complaints or had complaints about Brett's particular issues I bet if you look back there probably just as guilty of the same. I particularly loved how they said that passage was so exploitive of tahani I'm like oh my God he wrote having to take awhile to take her in? That was too sexist?

Though they did have a point about how forcing people who are victims in order to be ideal to those who victimize them basically allows those who take advantage of them to continue doing so. However it's more about you need to assert yourself in a effective way. We don't really get this despite the fact that they could just give him straight up good advice for being a better writer in how what he does and how it doesn't work. And how he can't demand that they endorse his book if they don't want to. But it goes from asserting who they are and sticking up for themselves to beating down on Britt.

And I think it's because their judgment doesn't come from a place of dignity or morals but of envy. They don't hate Brent because Brent is bad to people and they're good to people. It's because they have to be good to Brent and they wish that people had to be as good as brent thinks he's supposed to be treated and often does get treated

Edited November 1, 2019 by manticoraus

[Amarsir]

Good social commentary critiques the audience itself, delivering a message that the people watching might benefit from hearing. Bad social commentary preaches to the choir about stereotypes that your audience can't relate to.

Brent is bad social commentary. We know that being an entitled sexist is bad. There's no nuance to it we needed to hear. There's not much to say and the show is taking a long time to hear it.

However, Simone might be more interesting - specifically how she relates to Brent. Her attitude seems to be "He belongs in The Bad Place, not with us." And that's very relatable. None of us would be surprised to see someone like that there. But that's at odds with what Team Cockroach is trying to prove - that humans are redeemable.

So I'm curious to see where the show goes with Simone. If she's right then their only message is that a bad guy is bad. That's just preaching to the choir. But if it's setting up a message to not give up on the people we dislike, well maybe that's something we all need to hear.

[whiporee]

Here's a couple of things from the podcast:

This was the first episode written by Lizzie Pace. She's been the script coordinator and has written most of the podcasts, but this is her first actual script. So if the writing felt a little off, it's because she is new at it. 

The guy playing Brent kinda grew up as Brent -- played quarterback at Dartmouth. He gets called on to play that a lot, and he seems to understand the kind of priviledge Brent has even if he doesn't subscribe to it. Everyone says he's a very nice guy, though. 

There was talk that this was written during the Kavenaugh hearings (though that was last fall, and I don't know if that works in a production schedule), and that influenced both the writing and the performance. 

According to what was said, those who are thinking Brent is just a way for the writers' room to wail on a kind of person they don't like are correct. No sympathy for the character from anyone.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Amarsir said:

Good social commentary critiques the audience itself, delivering a message that the people watching might benefit from hearing. Bad social commentary preaches to the choir about stereotypes that your audience can't relate to.

Brent is bad social commentary. We know that being an entitled sexist is bad. There's no nuance to it we needed to hear. There's not much to say and the show is taking a long time to hear it.

When you consider Brent alone I agree with you but I do think the show is also making a larger point about how we are all a product of our environment. All of the characters choices make sense when you consider what we know of their upbringing. Most of us spend our lives in a insular world surrounded by people who reinforce our beliefs and that it takes someone or something to challenge that world view up close to bring about real change.

This season really seems to be making that point with the characters who would normally be viewed as inherently bad. Like Glenn believing that torturing humans was the right thing to do because he was certain they deserved it. 

This was an episode that challenged Brent and Bad Janet in that way so I expect the fallout to be interesting. 

[ClareWalks]

Brent reminds me of Sean Spicer on DWTS - complaining (in Sean's case, on Twitter) that he isn't being praised enough for something that he sucks at. I totally get the archetype that they're going for, but like others here, I find it tiresome to watch. According to next week's episode description, 

Spoiler

the experiment is ending soon, so hopefully he will be gone ASAP.

[Chaos Theory]

I actually thought at one point one of the group was going to say they were in the bad place and Eleanor was going to do that evil laugh.  Later there would be a scene where they all decided to finally torture the new people.

[iMonrey]

Quote

. As much as I love the show this point in every season has dragged a bit before it picks up in the end. 

I don't remember the previous 3 seasons ever feeling like they were dragging or stalling like now. I have hope this season will pick up but it is by far weaker than prior ones. 

[angora]

While I agree that Brent is drawn in very broad, stereotypical strokes, I thought there were a few good subtleties brought to his character in this episode. I really liked the bit toward the beginning when Simone joked about him going to Rutgers. Once she explained that she was joking, he did this blustery laugh like he was in on it all along, then said after she walked away, "But she knows it was Princeton, right? Yeah, she knows..." It was interesting, that moment of almost-fear that this woman might not know he went to Princeton. Even though he explicitly thinks he's better than Simone (and Chidi, "Jianyu," John, etc.), he still feels this strong/desperate need for her to be impressed by him.

I felt bad for Simone when she asked Eleanor why she still should have to tiptoe around misogyny and racism in the Good Place. It reminded me of back when Jason first revealed himself to Eleanor and noted that everyone was calling him Taiwanese even though he was Filipino: "That's racist! Heaven is racist!" That's a major "THIS is the Bad Place!" red flag right there, and no one should have to put up with that in paradise.

[foxfreakinmulder]

I just don't care about these new characters. I want this show to get back to our original group. I laughed at Michael spraying Lysol after bad Janet left.

That was some weird dancing lol.

[piccadilly83]

9 hours ago, albinerhawk said:

I agree that this is the point of the episode. It's about being better than you were. Brent's book was an accomplishment he never would have achieved before. This was also evident in the golf game. At the beginning he was using the filter to improve his game. At the end, he's practicing his drive to improve his game without the filter.

I may be remembering this wrong, but I believe he only takes the filter off when Michael suggests it. There's another scene towards the end where Brent is back at the links and he's using the filter again.

12 hours ago, whiporee said:

I se why Simone's in the Bad Place. She judges other people rather harshly, even if the person she's judging is someone like Brent.

Who, honestly doesn't seem to be terrible. He's an asshole and someone we'd like to avoid, but he's a product of his circumstance. Just like Tahani, or Eleanor, or even Simone. The guy was raised with a sense of privilege, and like Eleanor, I'm seeing growth in him. it was just a moment, but he was genuinely devastated when he realized no one liked his book. He accomplished something, and he was mocked and insulted for it. In addition, it's fiction -- he didn't use their names, and if he used them as archetypes for his novel, there's nothing wrong with that. it may have been stupid, or sexist or racist -- though I do think we're getting pretty deep into the weeds when we're talking about this stuff in amateur fiction. There's a degree of condescending smugness from Team Cockroach that i hope proves consequential, and there's a degree of condescending smugness from the writers' room if it doesn't. 

It's not smug to be repulsed by those who would look down on you for not coming from their background which is exactly what Brent did to everyone the second he set foot in the Good Place. If there's bad blood between him and Team Cockroach/Simone over that matter, he's the one provoking it. As we can see, Tahani judges others based on her upbringing all of the time but she's not an ass about it, unlike Brent.

And yes, Brent is a product of his circumstance, but at a certain point people cannot use their upbringings as a crutch for poor behavior. Michael, and I believe Eleanor, have taken multiple occasions to explain to Brent why his behavior is hurtful towards others. I think he took it to heart maybe once or twice, but for the most part he doesn't care. 

I also agree with this:

11 hours ago, jmonique said:

If Brent were faced with the same situation as Eleanor -- the absolute knowledge that whomever this Brent Norwalk is who went on hunger strikes, and saved orphaned children is not HIM and HE isn't the Brent who's supposed to be there -- he would have likely had a lot more realizations a lot faster

I do think the strategies Team Cockroach is using to convince Brent he doesn't belong in either the Good Place or the Best Place are not going to work. He needs a different impetus than the ones he's received so far. Like some have already mentioned, he's a guy with little to no self awareness who thinks he deserves to be in the Good Place so pointing out his flaws is going to backfire since, by virtue of being in the Good Place he doesn't think he has any. Perhaps @jmonique's idea of placing a "Good Brent" would work, or perhaps they should surround him with people who came from a similar socioeconomic background who actually did noble things. They could start to get him to question how he made it to the Good Place. I don't know. I'm just spitballing here.

As to the other parts of the episode: I loved seeing Jason dance and I liked the conversation between Bad Janet and Michael. I hope it has a good payoff though. I'm somewhat worried Bad Janet is going to do something evil with that book Michael gave her and I'm half convinced the book will inspire her to do something good. I don't know. I'm just curious to see where this goes.

[Sarah 103]

4 hours ago, angora said:

I felt bad for Simone when she asked Eleanor why she still should have to tiptoe around misogyny and racism in the Good Place. It reminded me of back when Jason first revealed himself to Eleanor and noted that everyone was calling him Taiwanese even though he was Filipino: "That's racist! Heaven is racist!" That's a major "THIS is the Bad Place!" red flag right there, and no one should have to put up with that in paradise.

I thought this was going to go one of two ones. Option 1) Simone reverts to her original idea that this is all a delusion/illusion happening in her mind, and that Brent is supposed to represent every entitled white, rich, male who was mean to her or looked down on her. Option 2) Simone begins to suspect this isn't the Good Place but some version of purgatory. 

[PityFree]

On 10/31/2019 at 7:52 PM, Paloma said:

Maybe the book that Michael gave her when he freed her is "Chekov's" book and will play an important role in how things end.

 The book he handed Bad Janet is going to be very important, I’m sure.  It was the book of all of their notes and observations when Team cockroach was in Australia with Simone.  I think Michael and Janet called it their manuscript or manifesto or something.  What the demons will do with it is what I’m trying to figure out.   Will they read it? is there’s something in the book that we were given a heads up about that the demons will find?  Did Michael put something inside of the book? a paper clip?  Maybe something with a frog in it that relates back to the doorman to Earth? 

[The Companion]

14 hours ago, LBS said:

Oh I loved this episode!  It was a 'quieter' episode than most and I enjoyed the introspective narrative between Michael and Bad Janet about humanity.   I thought it bookend nicely to Simone's exasperation at the end with Eleanor.  Why indeed do we have to forgive those who aren't exactly asking for forgiveness.  Why do the good people have to turn the other  cheek in order to be considered good.    It also hearkens back to previous episodes that touched on that maybe some people aren't redeemable and that is an uncomfortable concept for a lot of people.  We all want to believe that even the worst people can be humanized so to be speak and it's scary to think that even in the Good Place they can't.   I also appreciated an episode that wasn't full bang on special effects, twists, and puns.  I actually paid more attention to the dialogue and I can't wait to re-watch. 

Yeah, I liked the quiet nature of this one. They can't all have twists.

13 hours ago, AnimeMania said:

I could watch Bad Janet fart all day, I even (mentally) added a few more every time she sat down.

It should not be as funny as it is. I love the juvenile humor from Bad Janet. It makes me laugh every time. 

11 hours ago, Loandbehold said:

I agree w/ another poster who said that the test is actually for The Soul Squad. Actually, I believe it's for both the four human test subjects as well as our original gang. After all, Eleanor., Tahani, Jason, and Michael are not trying to get the subjects to improve so they can go to the Good Place. They are doing it so humanity will have the chance. And they're suffering trying to accomplish this by running the test. That's altruism. 

I agree. Not sure it is the actual goal of the experiment, but I think it will be the determining factor or at least come into play.

For those of you who find Brent unrealistic, I am very jealous. I worked for a real life Brent. He was the VP of a company because of his unique qualifications: being born the owner's nephew. Sample story: a saleswoman came in to tell us about a new product. She mentioned that she had just gotten back from vacation and chatted a bit about the pool during small talk after the presentation. After she left, he said he would have liked to see her in the pool. He also said she had her own flotation devices and cupped his hands and held them out over his chest, just in case you didn't get that he totally meant her breasts. Working for Real Life Brent could have been it's own department in the Bad Place. Butthole spiders are too good for the Brents of the world (plus, they get bored).

[possibilities]

If tailoring the experiment to the specific targets (what Michael did in the original experiment with Eleanor, Chidi, Tahani, and Jason as new arrivals) works, and causes people to grow, why not just do that for everyone?

The idea that something worked, so we need to try something else instead, strikes me as a Bad Place construct.

--

I don't think people dislike Brent because of envy. They dislike him because he's rude, condescending, and an all around asshole. I also don't see how being angry about being treated badly is somehow wrong or a flaw. If you act shitty to people, they may get pissed off. That's consequences 101. It's not the job of the person being shit on the somehow take care of the shitter, without ever becoming upset. People are not dumping grounds. I will never understand the idea that people who are being dumped on are supposed to be nice to people who are not nice to them, and if they aren't, it's a character flaw equal to that of the person who was being shitty in the first place. I just don't agree with that idea at all.

People liked Tahani, despite her privilege, because she was, while a bit neurotic and maybe a little annoying, also not mean. She was trying to do nice things. I really don't think the problem is that people with less are inherently resentful. After all, they can get whatever they want in the Good Place. And no one ever complained about Tahani having a mansion.

---

I thought BOTH John and Simone were going to realize it wasn't The Good Place during that scene with the book critique. Brent hates it. Simone identified definite problems. Chidi was actually doing okay and kind of having a good time, really. And so was John, more or less. But Simone and Brent not figuring it out was kind of a surprise to me.

[bros402]

19 hours ago, Harvey said:

I am curious to see when will that point counter person come into play who has been in that traingle cocoon in their living room since episode 1.  There must be some use to him at some point if they put him there.

The former weird sex things accountant, Matt, is locked in the obelisk until the experiment ends. So I assume that is until the judge lets him out, or one Earth year passes.

I think us not knowing what is going on in there is important - I am a fan of the theory that they are also testing the original four humans. Since only Eleanor passed the test the Judge gave them at the end of Season 2.

8 hours ago, whiporee said:

Here's a couple of things from the podcast:

This was the first episode written by Lizzie Pace. She's been the script coordinator and has written most of the podcasts, but this is her first actual script. So if the writing felt a little off, it's because she is new at it. 

The guy playing Brent kinda grew up as Brent -- played quarterback at Dartmouth. He gets called on to play that a lot, and he seems to understand the kind of priviledge Brent has even if he doesn't subscribe to it. Everyone says he's a very nice guy, though. 

There was talk that this was written during the Kavenaugh hearings (though that was last fall, and I don't know if that works in a production schedule), and that influenced both the writing and the performance. 

According to what was said, those who are thinking Brent is just a way for the writers' room to wail on a kind of person they don't like are correct. No sympathy for the character from anyone.

Princeton, not Dartmouth, but that reminds me of the hilarious Rutgers joke - maybe it was just funny because I live in NJ?

7 hours ago, angora said:

While I agree that Brent is drawn in very broad, stereotypical strokes, I thought there were a few good subtleties brought to his character in this episode. I really liked the bit toward the beginning when Simone joked about him going to Rutgers. Once she explained that she was joking, he did this blustery laugh like he was in on it all along, then said after she walked away, "But she knows it was Princeton, right? Yeah, she knows..." It was interesting, that moment of almost-fear that this woman might not know he went to Princeton. Even though he explicitly thinks he's better than Simone (and Chidi, "Jianyu," John, etc.), he still feels this strong/desperate need for her to be impressed by him.

I felt bad for Simone when she asked Eleanor why she still should have to tiptoe around misogyny and racism in the Good Place. It reminded me of back when Jason first revealed himself to Eleanor and noted that everyone was calling him Taiwanese even though he was Filipino: "That's racist! Heaven is racist!" That's a major "THIS is the Bad Place!" red flag right there, and no one should have to put up with that in paradise.

Simone joking with him about going to Rutgers was hilarious

[Paloma]

5 hours ago, possibilities said:

I don't think people dislike Brent because of envy. They dislike him because he's rude, condescending, and an all around asshole. I also don't see how being angry about being treated badly is somehow wrong or a flaw. If you act shitty to people, they may get pissed off. That's consequences 101. It's not the job of the person being shit on the somehow take care of the shitter, without ever becoming upset. People are not dumping grounds. I will never understand the idea that people who are being dumped on are supposed to be nice to people who are not nice to them, and if they aren't, it's a character flaw equal to that of the person who was being shitty in the first place. I just don't agree with that idea at all.

THIS!! (True in real life as well as on this show.)

[Helena Dax]

Re: why should we be nice towards people who aren't nice to us. I don't think that we "should", but personally, I try to stand by my principles, which means that I try to do what I believe is right even when others are not. That's the whole point. So if you believe in pacifism, you're not supposed to hit someone who's hitting you. If you believe in kindness, you're kind to people like Brent because it's not about them, it's about you. Of course, we're humans and we fail, but the way I see it, that's the general rule.

However, I must say that I think they're approaching Brent's problem wrong. He seems to have a lot of insecurities deep down and I'd be targeting that. In any case, maybe he's too of an asshole to want to be better, not without a major breakdown. And even then, a whole eternity of torture seems a bit excessive: that should be reserved for people like Hitler.

Michael's line about trying to be better was very touching and I think it touched Bad Janet too, as well as the fact that she wasn't turned into a marble.

And omg, Brent's book! It was so horrible, hahaha

[Paloma]

6 minutes ago, Helena Dax said:

Re: why should we be nice towards people who aren't nice to us. I don't think that we "should", but personally, I try to stand by my principles, which means that I try to do what I believe is right even when others are not. That's the whole point. So if you believe in pacifism, you're not supposed to hit someone who's hitting you. If you believe in kindness, you're kind to people like Brent because it's not about them, it's about you. Of course, we're humans and we fail, but the way I see it, that's the general rule.

I agree with the idea of living by the principle of doing what is right even when others are not, but "what is right" can also include doing what is needed to make a person doing bad things suffer the appropriate consequences. Being kind to someone like Brent will let him continue to get away with a racist, misogynist jerk who hurts other people. If you are not personally affected, you could choose not to react in an unkind way because you are living your principle that it is not about him, it is about you. But if his attitudes and actions are hurting other people, I believe that doing the right thing means holding him accountable even if you are not personally affected. Accountability can include anything from calling out racist and misogynist comments of your relatives, friends, and co-workers to speaking out forcefully against political candidates whose words and actions have directly hurt and will continue to hurt innocent people.  

[Helena Dax]

1 hour ago, Paloma said:

I agree with the idea of living by the principle of doing what is right even when others are not, but "what is right" can also include doing what is needed to make a person doing bad things suffer the appropriate consequences. Being kind to someone like Brent will let him continue to get away with a racist, misogynist jerk who hurts other people. If you are not personally affected, you could choose not to react in an unkind way because you are living your principle that it is not about him, it is about you. But if his attitudes and actions are hurting other people, I believe that doing the right thing means holding him accountable even if you are not personally affected. Accountability can include anything from calling out racist and misogynist comments of your relatives, friends, and co-workers to speaking out forcefully against political candidates whose words and actions have directly hurt and will continue to hurt innocent people.  

I was just trying to say that there's nothing wrong in offering the other cheek (if that's what you believe) because it doesn't mean that you can't call out someone's horrible behaviour. You totally can, but you'll try to keep true to your principles and beliefs while doing it. Chidi has been being kind to everyone and he has influenced the group a lot.

[Gregg247]

I don't hate Brent.  He's a jerk, and someone who would be tough to work with (or, especially, work FOR), but he's not a bad person.  He's a loud-mouth show-off who's used to always winning, thanks to Daddy, but he's also personable, social, and probably had a lot of friends in his life.  As noted above, he's got a LOT of insecurities.  They should be using those as the basis for making him improve.

He wrote a book!  A terrible book, apparently, but that's not something he did in his life, but was apparently something he'd thought about for a long time.  (I'll bet Daddy would have never done such a "sissy" thing as writing.)  Its great that he learned the hard way that his book stunk.  That's got to hurt a lot.  Now, they just need to help him improve it.  For example, next time, don't solve the case by page 10; that's a terrible way to write!  He'll learn, he'll grow, he'll be humbled by the experience.

There's a lot of potential for him.  As noted above, Eleanor was originally much tougher to like than this guy.

We also have to remember that "bad people" on this show aren't like bad people in real life.  Its not like the show is going to throw a serial killer or a human trafficker into the mix (thank goodness).

[Chaos Theory]

2 hours ago, Gregg247 said:

We also have to remember that "bad people" on this show aren't like bad people in real life.  Its not like the show is going to throw a serial killer or a human trafficker into the mix (thank goodness).

That would be breaking the rules.  No serial killers,  no human traffickers,  no one in a boy band.  You know the bad people.

Brent is a grade A douche bag but like Eleanor it is probably a defense mechanism developed over a lifetime of getting everything he wants so easily.   If you have someone like Janet handle everything you want in life why bother to do anything at all.    As for Tahani she had a ton of privilege coming from a rich family but she also had parents who never instilled self worth in her.  So name dropping is her way of feeling important.

Simone on the other hand is kind of a condescending bench.   The kind of person who believes they are right so much so that if you disagree with her you deserve to be in the bad place.   I am curious what kind of life she had after Chidi and how she died.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Chaos Theory

[Panopticon]

Quote

I've had it with Brent. Even the podcast today had him on it, and it dragged.

I agree that the podcast dragged, but I didn't think it dragged because of the Brent actor, who didn't really talk very much. The podcast was dominated by Lizzie Pace, who was the one who insisted that Brent was likeable (something I just don't see yet). And of course there was much gushing about how brilliant the fart joke was, which also didn't work for me because while I like plenty of lowbrow humor, fart jokes aren't my thing.

For me this was the weakest episode of the show so far. But I did like the savior of the week stuff, Chidi/Jason dancing, and Ted Danson's stuttering skill. So at least this episode managed to have something positive. The worst episodes of most shows don't have even that much.

[SoMuchTV]

3 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

Simone on the other hand is kind of a condescending bench.   The kind of person who believes they are right so much so that if you disagree with her you deserve to be in the bad place.   I am curious what kind of life she had after Chidi and how she died.

And yet - I can't remember the exact quote, maybe someone can supply it - she's judgemental, and the people she judges keep proving her correct.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Helena Dax said:

Re: why should we be nice towards people who aren't nice to us. I don't think that we "should", but personally, I try to stand by my principles, which means that I try to do what I believe is right even when others are not. That's the whole point. So if you believe in pacifism, you're not supposed to hit someone who's hitting you. If you believe in kindness, you're kind to people like Brent because it's not about them, it's about you. Of course, we're humans and we fail, but the way I see it, that's the general rule.

This is exactly how I feel. There is a difference between empathy and forgiveness. Sometimes people like Brent piss me off but mostly I feel sorry for them. The baby boomer line was apt and it would be miserable to live life with such a fragile sense of self.

This whole conversation reminds me of the last season when Simone talked about the us vs. them mentality. 

4 minutes ago, SoMuchTV said:

3 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

Simone on the other hand is kind of a condescending bench.   The kind of person who believes they are right so much so that if you disagree with her you deserve to be in the bad place.   I am curious what kind of life she had after Chidi and how she died.

And yet - I can't remember the exact quote, maybe someone can supply it - she's judgemental, and the people she judges keep proving her correct.

That line was just about Brent proving her right.  

She tends to make snap judgments about people, and he's a guy who repeatedly confirms the accuracy of her snap judgments. 

I like Simone as a tv character but it real life I would probably find her off-putting.  She has absolutely no tact. 

[bethy]

3 minutes ago, SoMuchTV said:

And yet - I can't remember the exact quote, maybe someone can supply it - she's judgemental, and the people she judges keep proving her correct.

And that’s the problem with the character for me. Her flaw is that she makes snap judgments, but her judgments when it comes to Brent have been correct. She’s more of a mouthpiece for the writers, which makes her, as someone said above a Mary Sue.

I don’t know. Maybe they are going to have Brent gain some insight into himself and Simone learn that there’s more to Brent than his bluster and insecurities, but so far, at least, it doesn’t seem like it.

[Mabinogia]

38 minutes ago, bethy said:

And that’s the problem with the character for me. Her flaw is that she makes snap judgments, but her judgments when it comes to Brent have been correct.

Which is interesting since her main point was that being nice to Brent was just going to reinforce to him that he has no reason to change. So her randomly hitting on the correct judgement with Brent will just reinforce in her the fact that her snap judgements are right. 

I did not care for this ep the first time, but I rewatched today and appreciated it a lot more. And even when I watched the first time and didn't quite like it I still found many parts absolutely hilarious. I just don't like Brent much because he is too real to me. I've met Brent's, I've worked with Brent's and I really would rather see him get his ass handed to him than see him get redeemed or saved. 

[clack]

The Brent problem is killing this season.

I want to watch how the core 6 characters relate to each other, and how they develop as individuals.

Instead, the writers have created this human piñata stuffed with every negative attribute that they can imagine. Too much of the precious remaining time left to the show has been spent bashing this cardboard character,  but to what purpose?

I keep waiting for some compelling twist or intriguing development in Brent's characterization, but maybe the writers are just venting their political anger, and that's all that's going on with this final season.

Edited November 3, 2019 by clack

[Amarsir]

Maybe they brought in Aaron Sorkin to ghostwrite the final season?

[ItCouldBeWorse]

On 11/1/2019 at 4:58 PM, Yokosmom said:

On a totally different topic, did Bad Janet seem a little bit quieter and softer than usual?  Yes, she did the usual fart stuff, but her edges seemed much less rough.  Perhaps it's because she's spent so much time thinking that Michael may deactivate her?

It's because she hasn't been on her phone for the last 6 months.  Going without made her a nicer person! (not a person).

On 11/2/2019 at 2:56 AM, bros402 said:

On 11/1/2019 at 5:57 PM, whiporee said:

The guy playing Brent kinda grew up as Brent -- played quarterback at Dartmouth.

Read more  

Princeton, not Dartmouth, but that reminds me of the hilarious Rutgers joke - maybe it was just funny because I live in NJ?

Brent attended Princeton. He was friends with people who played football at Princeton. The actor himself attended and played football at Dartmouth.

Edited November 3, 2019 by ItCouldBeWorse

[lucindabelle]

The skewering of smug wanna be self published writers wasn’t nearly as funny as the skewering of actors- with Vicki the demon it was so creative. This was very on the nose.

brent wasn’t “devastates,” he was merely feeling sorry for himself. He didn’t for a second consider his book had flaws just felt sad people were being “mean.”’product of his environment? Dude is 60 they said. He’s still going on about Princeton. No sympathy. 
but if he’s shooting actual golf at the end I guess that’s something.

filler episode. 

[possibilities]

5 hours ago, clack said:

Too much of the precious remaining time left to the show has been spent bashing this cardboard character,  but to what purpose?

Catharsis, maybe?

I don't believe in turning the other cheek. To me, it just sounds like some kind of masochistic bullshit designed to keep people from doing anything to hold anyone accountable for abuse. To me, sugar coating is enabling. Sometimes you need to tell people NO, and make clear why you think what they did is harmful. If someone's hurting others, they need to understand why, not have everyone act like it isn't happening. In my view, the world is a mess because people like Brent are given a pass in so-called polite society.

I don't actually believe in eternal punishment, either. I'm just not into pretending stuff isn't happening, and asking people who've been dumped on to take it with a smile.

I find it interesting that so many people dislike Simone. As I recall (and maybe I'm wrong), she was quite popular as a character in the previous season.

[bros402]

12 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

That would be breaking the rules.  No serial killers,  no human traffickers,  no one in a boy band.  You know the bad people.

Brent is a grade A douche bag but like Eleanor it is probably a defense mechanism developed over a lifetime of getting everything he wants so easily.   If you have someone like Janet handle everything you want in life why bother to do anything at all.    As for Tahani she had a ton of privilege coming from a rich family but she also had parents who never instilled self worth in her.  So name dropping is her way of feeling important.

Simone on the other hand is kind of a condescending bench.   The kind of person who believes they are right so much so that if you disagree with her you deserve to be in the bad place.   I am curious what kind of life she had after Chidi and how she died.

No managers of boy bands.

[snarktini]

When Eleanor said she was sure everyone lost points I wondered: Did they?

Hitting someone I assume is a point loss. But being honest, standing up for someone else, and defending values...could those ADD points? Just a thought.

ETA: I guess I'm thinking mainly of Chidi here. In life he was indecisive to the point of harm. Taking a stand feels like positive growth to me. OTOH, the point system doesn't seem to work that way.

Edited November 3, 2019 by snarktini

[Loandbehold]

3 hours ago, snarktini said:

Hitting someone I assume is a point loss. But being honest, standing up for someone else, and defending values...could those ADD points? Just a thought.

ETA: I guess I'm thinking mainly of Chidi here. In life he was indecisive to the point of harm. Taking a stand feels like positive growth to me. OTOH, the point system doesn't seem to work that way.

It will be interesting to see what the guy residing in Chekhov's penis in Mindy's house has to say if he explains how the points were distributed as opposed to just giving totals. 

[Lugal]

I'm in the minority because I liked this one (although I admit it's setting up stuff for later).  I loved Michael and Bad Janet's conversation.  The demons' reasons for torturing humans is interesting and the cynic in me can't disagree with them, humans can be awful, (but its still not a reason to torture them for eternity).

Brent is every rich asshole I've had the misfortune of dealing with, so I'm somewhat interested to see where they go with him.  He's one of those rich assholes who take credit for making the things they've bought.  I don't think he's stolen too much focus, because it's still about how the original team deals with him.  Bad Janet was right on about the baby-boomer comment: Prick their fragile egos and boom! They turn into babies.  He's going to have to come to terms with that and a punch in the face was probably what he needed.

The interesting thing about Simone is I've met her type too, the highly educated scientific people with tendencies toward know-it-allism.  And they do tend to make snap judgements.  The problem is that Simone is right when she calls Brent an asshole and that only further enables her judgemental behavior.

[ClareWalks]

The baby boomer line was great, but I was a bit distracted by it because I didn't think Brent was a baby boomer. He seems late forties, fifty tops. Sure enough the baby boomer range ends with 1964 births, and the actor was born in 1968. Not a huge deal but still, baby boomers are definitely older than this show indicated.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, ClareWalks said:

The baby boomer line was great, but I was a bit distracted by it because I didn't think Brent was a baby boomer. He seems late forties, fifty tops. Sure enough the baby boomer range ends with 1964 births, and the actor was born in 1968. Not a huge deal but still, baby boomers are definitely older than this show indicated.

I pretty sure Brent is supposed to be older than the actor’s actual age. Michael said that he was on Earth for nearly 60 years which would make him a baby boomer. 

[ClareWalks]

4 minutes ago, Dani said:

I pretty sure Brent is supposed to be older than the actor’s actual age. Michael said that he was on Earth for nearly 60 years which would make him a baby boomer. 

That might explain it. The character just doesn't read 60 to me and the actor's age supports that. YMMV!

[clack]

Season 1 Eleanor was as big of an asshole as Brent is. And pre-deceased Jason was much worse than either -- a stupid, violent, bomb-throwing criminal who was lucky he didn't wind up murdering someone.

And yet, if Chidi had decked either Jason or Eleanor it would have damaged the tone of the show, because the writers had empathically imagined the characters.

Brent, as presented so far, is a failure of the writers's imaginations.

[Wanda]

On 11/1/2019 at 1:08 PM, iMonrey said:

I see I am not alone in thinking this episode was really a letdown. I've been struggling with the season as a whole and I keep waiting for some big twist but it's the same week after week. I just don't think the current "experiment" is servicing the main characters very well, and the loss of Eleanor and Chidi's budding relationship has really left a big hole where a lot of the enjoyment used to be.

It was interesting but I expected something more to come from it. It seemed to be leading up to some big breakthrough in the experiment - and yet . . . nothing. Also, the point of the experiment isn't to prove that Michael can improve and be a better person. It's to prove that that the humans can improve. 

Except that doesn't make any sense because the original four already showed that they could improve. That's the whole reason the Judge agreed to this experiment. Michael et. al. wanted to prove to her they could repeat that improvement with four new humans. 

Actually 3 of the original 4 failed Judge Jen’s tests. She agreed to the experiment because Michael proved to her that humans have a way more complicated life than the accounting dept currently accounts for. She’s black y’all and they don’t like black ladies on earth.

2 hours ago, Dani said:

I pretty sure Brent is supposed to be older than the actor’s actual age. Michael said that he was on Earth for nearly 60 years which would make him a baby boomer. 

Obviously Brent has had mucho work done 

[edhopper]

I saw something else with Brent. He is usually non-plussed and indifferent to what anyone else says. Just the self-assured, priviledged schmuck sufferring from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.But he really thought that his book was good and he actually worked hard on it. Whe he got u iversal rejection, he was hurt, and showed himself to be full of doubt. Perhaps that is the start of his turning into a better person. Maybe he will need a way to get people to see he is a good person.

Just a thought.

Edited November 4, 2019 by edhopper

[Guest]

4 hours ago, clack said:

Season 1 Eleanor was as big of an asshole as Brent is. And pre-deceased Jason was much worse than either -- a stupid, violent, bomb-throwing criminal who was lucky he didn't wind up murdering someone.

I think original Eleanor and Brent are pretty much the same level of asshole just based on personality. His money and position makes him worse in my eyes because his actions would have had greater repercussions. 

[bros402]

9 hours ago, clack said:

Season 1 Eleanor was as big of an asshole as Brent is. And pre-deceased Jason was much worse than either -- a stupid, violent, bomb-throwing criminal who was lucky he didn't wind up murdering someone.

And yet, if Chidi had decked either Jason or Eleanor it would have damaged the tone of the show, because the writers had empathically imagined the characters.

Brent, as presented so far, is a failure of the writers's imaginations.

Jason, from all that has been implied, had pretty much no upbringing. He was raised by his father who had no idea how to raise a kid, and he had school in a junkyard. He had no way to learn how to do better in life because he had to worry about mortal concerns such as food, shelter, bills.

4 hours ago, Dani said:

I think original Eleanor and Brent are pretty much the same level of asshole just based on personality. His money and position makes him worse in my eyes because his actions would have had greater repercussions. 

Yeah - original Eleanor and Brent are both ashholes, but in different ways. Brent's feels worse because he impacted more people with his decisions - so he probably had a lower score than Eleanor, because of the overall impact

[Ailianna]

I somewhat disagree that Eleanor and Brent were the same level of ashhole behavior.  Even from the beginning, you could see the defensiveness of Eleanor's  behavior.  Probably because KB is so awesome, but I always felt that she was trying to keep the world away so it wouldn't hurt her, even before we saw too much of her actual upbringing.  Brent, however, feels like his behavior is just reflexive--it's just how he interacts with the world.  Possibly it is a case when he puts others down to feel better about himself, but that's not as sympathetic, to me, as protection.  And honestly, this last episode is the first time there's been a hint that Brent is insecure from the story or actor, versus Eleanor, who I always felt was a person with a past, if you follow.

[ClareWalks]

10 hours ago, Dani said:

I think original Eleanor and Brent are pretty much the same level of asshole just based on personality. His money and position makes him worse in my eyes because his actions would have had greater repercussions. 

Agree. When Brent acts this way, he is punching down, or at least he THINKS he is punching down. IMO that makes it worse. Although they are similar in that their behavior was largely tied to insecurity.

[Ohiopirate02]

On 11/3/2019 at 1:29 AM, lucindabelle said:

The skewering of smug wanna be self published writers wasn’t nearly as funny as the skewering of actors- with Vicki the demon it was so creative. This was very on the nose.

brent wasn’t “devastates,” he was merely feeling sorry for himself. He didn’t for a second consider his book had flaws just felt sad people were being “mean.”’product of his environment? Dude is 60 they said. He’s still going on about Princeton. No sympathy. 
but if he’s shooting actual golf at the end I guess that’s something.

filler episode. 

I work in books, and with Goodreads and book Twitter I am well versed with authors like Brent.  Authors behave badly on a weekly basis, but you have to be aware to find any of this funny.  Honestly compared to authors like Anne Rice and Kathleen Hale Brent's reaction was weak.  

[clack]

Eleanor knew when she was being an asshole, she just didn't care. But that degree of self-awareness makes her oddly sympathetic.

Brent has no self-awareness, which might make him less culpable morally ( could make for a good discussion with Chidi -- is it worse when you do wrong knowingly, or when you do so through complacent ignorance?), but also makes Brent less appealing.

Edited November 4, 2019 by clack

[WAnglais1]

13 hours ago, edhopper said:

I saw something else with Brent. He is usually non-plussed and indifferent to what anyone else says. Just the self-assured, priviledged schmuck sufferring from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.But he really thought that his book was good and he actually worked hard on it. Whe he got u iversal rejection, he was hurt, and showed himself to be full of doubt. Perhaps that is the start of his turning into a better person. Maybe he will need a way to get people to see he is a good person.

Just a thought.

Especially since he thought it was fantastic Chip Driver solved the murder on page 10!

The scenes with Michael and Evil!Janet were great. I liked the quiet approach. Ted Danson could have chemistry acting with a glass of water.

[Dbolt]

16 hours ago, edhopper said:

I saw something else with Brent. He is usually non-plussed and indifferent to what anyone else says. Just the self-assured, priviledged schmuck sufferring from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.But he really thought that his book was good and he actually worked hard on it. Whe he got u iversal rejection, he was hurt, and showed himself to be full of doubt. Perhaps that is the start of his turning into a better person. Maybe he will need a way to get people to see he is a good person.

Just a thought.

I felt like that was what they tried to show by having him actually practicing his golf shot at the end. He was trying to get better not rely on the cheat function. I think they are setting it up for Michael to become a father figure and that will inspire Brent to change. I think the point will be that even someone with this many flaws can start to see that they need to improve and even if it is a tiny bit it is something.