S03.E09: Don't Let the Good Life Pass You By

[Mabinogia]

21 minutes ago, chaifan said:

uh oh.  For me, that is not a good sign.  I feel the Lost showrunners started out with a great concept, and then ran it into the ground.  So I really hope Schur took everything they said with a healthy dose of skepticism when it came to any discussions about how to end the series. 

I'm thinking the first thing they told him was "don't let the network talk you into more seasons" because that is what basically destroyed Lost. Had they just stuck to their guns and did a few seasons it would have been very different. But they chased the money, started padding the story for extra seasons and blew it all to shit. Schur, learn from their mistake. For the love of the Good Place, please, learn from their mistakes!!!!! 

So far, I think he has, because where Lost spent years plodding through storylines, The Good Place has burned through about 20 seasons worth of storyline in 3 short seasons. The one thing this show isn't doing is dragging it's feet. That alone makes me certain this won't be another lost. Can you imagine how many seasons it would have taken them to get off Earth if this was Lost? And we probably would have had to sit through about 50 of the reboots until they all seemed to be the same. I think Schur is skilled enough, and has a good enough team surrounding him, that he will be able to mine the good things about Lost from all the shit it ended up getting buried in. 

Also, so far The Good Place has done amazing work with small details and call backs. Their attention to detail is breathtaking in that respect. I can't imagine this show letting entire storylines get dropped because they didn't know where it was going.

And if the show ends up proving me wrong and does sink to Lost depths of tedious and frustrating, I will go on a rampage so horrible they will need to build an Even Worse Place to put me in because my endless ranting will be enough to drive even the Demons batty. 

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, chaifan said:

uh oh.  For me, that is not a good sign.  I feel the Lost showrunners started out with a great concept, and then ran it into the ground.  So I really hope Schur took everything they said with a healthy dose of skepticism when it came to any discussions about how to end the series. 

I can't remember where I read it but I think the gist of their conversations were along the lines of "what were you trying to accomplish with respect to ideas about philosophy and the afterlife" and "what went wrong or what would you do differently". Which I can respect because for as much as Lost was polarizing it was super ambitious for a network show (it is not like I would expect Schur to talk to Dick Wolf) and when it worked it was awesome.

[Smacky55]

12 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I always thought this show needa a Steve Carrell cameo at some point.

The fact that we didn't get any Bad Janet dialogue was the only let down in an awesome episode.

That was a pretty great shout out and I wondered if anyone else caught it. I remember when The Good Place started Mike Schur said he spent a bunch of time talking with the Lost showrunners about things like the after life, alternate universes and how to have an end game for a show like this. So he is obviously a fan or at least appreciated that show. Foe anyone who hasn't seen it here is that scene, Desmond was a pretty big game changer:

 

I caught it too! thought it was just me being a Lost super fan and projecting. I’m glad that it’s actually true 

[Loandbehold]

13 hours ago, companionenvy said:

If it was in the podcast, I guess that's what the show is going with, but this doesn't really make sense to me. Functionally, if you believe in an afterlife that rewards goodness, it isn't any different than knowing that there is an afterlife that rewards goodness. In either case, you're doing your good deeds for "moral dessert." 

In this case b/c Doug was right. What if he was wrong? He believes he's right and that's why he's living the way he does. But, he could have been wrong. In which case, his actions would not get him into The Good Place and, as he only was living this way to get there, his life on Earth would have been wasted. That for me is the difference b/w a good guess and being told about how to get into The Good Place. Once that's happened, there's no risk that the good deeds you do won't count towards the afterlife. Unless you're disqualified for knowing.*

* For this example, I'm ignoring losing points if you're doing good deeds but for the wrong reasons.  

[Lugal]

18 hours ago, chaifan said:

My one quibble with this is that I didn't get the sense that Doug wants to live his life as he is doing, but instead he feels obligated because if he doesn't he's damned to eternal hell.  He sounded resentful of his lifestyle most of the time.

I wonder why he couldn't ride a bicycle?  A used one, that he saved from a landfill, and has eco-friendly tires, of course. 

My personal opinion is that Doug is still eligible for points, for reasons many others have stated.  But, he is likely not accruing many due to a) his motivations, and b) his actions are relatively small in the whole scheme of point accumulation, and therefore probably will not have enough to get into the Good Place.  I like the idea of him also getting into the Middle Place, though.

I agree.  Just because Doug believes in it doesn't mean it has to comfort him.  Like on Leah Remini's show about the Jehovah Witnesses, they spend all their time preparing for Armageddon.  I think Doug can earn points, but he won't do it by living in the middle of nowhere (not gonna be ending slavery that way) and he may just be trying not to lose any more points.

7 hours ago, chaifan said:

uh oh.  For me, that is not a good sign.  I feel the Lost showrunners started out with a great concept, and then ran it into the ground.  So I really hope Schur took everything they said with a healthy dose of skepticism when it came to any discussions about how to end the series. 

I was concerned about it when the show first started, but from what I understand it was more of an example of what not to do.  The worldbuilding on the Good Place seems much more developed than Lost (where I think it was Carlton Cuse who said they didn't want to develop too much of the world ahead of time for fear of interfering with a later story.  Which is just stupid)

[VCRTracking]

I was like Eleanor,  Janice was a "straight up hottie" during that fight! Dayum! That was an impressively choreographed fight.

I loved the LOST homage opening with the nod to Desmond in the Hatch and also the reference to Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade!

Always great to see Michael McKean, from Lenny on Laverne & Shirley, David St. Hubbins on This is Spinal Tap and Mr. Greene from Clue!

[Mrs. Stanwyck]

Quote

Some part of me wants their version of New Orleans (where I live). We all know Eleanor has been here.

As a native Floridian, I'll just say be careful what you wish for.  :-)

Edited November 19, 2018 by Mrs. Stanwyck

[Red Bridey]

On ‎11‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 2:42 PM, cleo said:

@PalomaI'm Canadian and I'm not aware of anything in particular about Doug's name. Tbh I'm not sure why they bothered to be in 'Canada' bc I expected alot of jokes/ stereotypes about Canada and there were none that I noticed. It was odd bc there could be a joke somewhere about Doug's striving for points and being so nice to everyone and how 'nice' Canadians are. 

Well, the sociopathic kid called Doug a "hoser," which comes from "Great White North" with Bob & Doug McKenzie, SCTV's Canadian Content.   Quite subtle, there.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Red Bridey
wrong show title

[wilnil]

On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 4:53 PM, Loandbehold said:

 

On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 11:19 AM, Blakeston said:

Also, just a few episodes ago, Michael explained that you can't accrue points once you've learned about the point system. So why doesn't he think that would apply to Doug?

Doug didn't know about the point system. He just guessed it (with 92% accuracy). Whereas Michael told the soon-to-be Soul Squad about the system, thereby tainting any subsequent points they would thereafter score. 

Exactly. The difference is in having certain knowledge. Practically every religion includes instructions on how to behave in order to achieve salvation (or whatever the goal of that religion is), and knowing those instructions doesn't disqualify a member of that religion -- in fact, knowing them may be necessary for salvation. But faith is also a key element in many of those religions.

Think of the difference between, say, a Christian who follows Jesus' teachings on faith vs. someone who follows them only because he/she got a Dante-style actual tour of heaven and hell and thus knew for a fact what was at stake. The person who's acting on faith is generally going to be seen as the genuinely virtuous one.

WHOOPS … I missed VMepicgrl's post saying basically the same thing with more clarity.

Edited November 20, 2018 by wilnil

[Conan Troutman]

On 11/18/2018 at 12:50 AM, Ikki said:

That was my first thought too, but I think they might have meant John Balma, who played Barney on Parks and Rec, the guy from the accounting firm who kept trying to hire Ben and fangirled over him.

Yes that's who I meant. Count me in on more lame accouting jokes!

[companionenvy]

10 hours ago, wilnil said:

Exactly. The difference is in having certain knowledge. Practically every religion includes instructions on how to behave in order to achieve salvation (or whatever the goal of that religion is), and knowing those instructions doesn't disqualify a member of that religion -- in fact, knowing them may be necessary for salvation. But faith is also a key element in many of those religions.

Think of the difference between, say, a Christian who follows Jesus' teachings on faith vs. someone who follows them only because he/she got a Dante-style actual tour of heaven and hell and thus knew for a fact what was at stake. The person who's acting on faith is generally going to be seen as the genuinely virtuous one.

Except in TGP, faith or lack thereof isn't an issue; you don't get points for belief. Rather, your actions are judged based on your motivation. Original Recipe Tahani didn't wind up in the bad place because she had any special knowledge of the system; she wound up in the bad place because she did a lot of good things for selfish reasons. 

The same, in effect, is true of Doug. Whether he is right or wrong about how the system works is immaterial - presumably, if some crazed fan did some heroic act because he thought if he did, Miley Cyrus would fall in love with him, he isn't eligible for points even though his belief that heroics = reward of Miley's love is incorrect. That doesn't make the action any less self-interested. It just means he isn't actually going to get the moral dessert he was hoping for.

As I said earlier, I'll buy that the average believer in the afterlife isn't disqualified because, in practice, very few people really have the faith to live day by day thinking "I need to do x, y, and z to get an eternal reward when I die," to the point where that is guiding all of their actions. But that is exactly what Doug Forcett is doing.

I also agree with those who think that, logically, Michael telling TSS that they are disqualified from admission to TGP should actually preserve their eligibility; they now believe that they are hopelessly damned, which means the good deeds they've been doing are purely selfless, with no chance of reward. I had thought that that was Michael's plan - but now that they're dead again, it would seem like a moot point. Plus, even if they had a chance at the good place, the bar for admission has been set so high that I doubt they would have much hope of making it anyway (and people like Pill Boi and Eleanor's mom would have even less of a case).

[ItCouldBeWorse]

For those who wished Martin Luther Gandhi Tyler Moore had more of a back story, enjoy this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/science/jeremy-lefty-snail.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

GREAT article title, in my opinion.

Edited November 20, 2018 by ItCouldBeWorse

[Chaos Theory]

I definitely think there is a good place but I either think Shawn messes with the system or the rules were always sooooooo strict that only the most impossibly perfect can get in.  I think the funnier better story is that the good place is virtually empty and the Angels/caretakers are so bored that they began torturing the genuinely good people as well.  

[possibilities]

It has always struck me as strange that they have a Judge, but she almost never gets to hear a case. And getting to her is nearly impossible, but if you get to her (even by breaking rules), she will hear your case. It's a particularly lawless version of law, even for a system that is full of fairly ridiculous features.

[companionenvy]

15 minutes ago, possibilities said:

t's a particularly lawless version of law

The whole system of justice they have is terribly un-nuanced. Even if we accepted that these people deserved the Bad Place, it seems hard to argue that Chidi or Tahani, especially, deserve the kind of eternal torment that has been described.

Ironically, Michael's neighborhood in the first version actually did strike me as proportional punishment for those two, at least until things got really over the top with real Eleanor's arrival and the subsequent crisis. To punish Chidi by giving him a thorny moral crisis that involves lying, or by telling him his dissertation is terrible, is fairly proportional to his crimes. Ditto for ruining Tahani's parties or letting her know that she was the lowest point-scorer. 

[steelyis]

On 11/17/2018 at 6:31 AM, Luckylyn said:

All of Doug’s actions are ultimately selfish because he’s focused on getting points to get into The Good Place.  Nothing he does is really altruistic. 

 

I mean, yeah, the guy donates pee radishes.

Re-watching the episode is a little horrifying because I know he's using pee water for everything--even showering.

[possibilities]

FILTERED pee water. I know it sounds super disgusting, but you really can purify urine. He's not actually just collecting his urine and then washing in it. Though of course we don't know for sure if he's got a real treatment process going on, but it sounded like he was SAYING he did.

[bros402]

13 hours ago, companionenvy said:

The whole system of justice they have is terribly un-nuanced. Even if we accepted that these people deserved the Bad Place, it seems hard to argue that Chidi or Tahani, especially, deserve the kind of eternal torment that has been described.

Ironically, Michael's neighborhood in the first version actually did strike me as proportional punishment for those two, at least until things got really over the top with real Eleanor's arrival and the subsequent crisis. To punish Chidi by giving him a thorny moral crisis that involves lying, or by telling him his dissertation is terrible, is fairly proportional to his crimes. Ditto for ruining Tahani's parties or letting her know that she was the lowest point-scorer. 

Well didn't Michael say some philosopher was punished by having to do a test or presentation every single day in the nude

then he got some "traditional" punishment afterwards.

The issue is that the demons have no creativity, outside of Michael, they use a blunt instrument when they should try to tailor the punishment a bit - they do one-size-fits-many punishments.

[possibilities]

On 11/16/2018 at 5:01 PM, Miles said:

This show continues to move at break neck pace.

It's like a moral philosophy action adventure!

 

On 11/17/2018 at 1:26 PM, meep.meep said:

I was disappointed that we didn't get to see Good Janet vs. Bad Janet. 

That would have been fun.

 

On 11/17/2018 at 10:03 PM, The Companion said:

Personal growth for him probably just looks like not performing criminal acts and thinking before acting.

That was the test Gen gave him, IIRC. He failed because he was impulsive and didn't pay attention to the details at the beginning.

[Affogato]

On ‎11‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 3:20 AM, companionenvy said:

If it was in the podcast, I guess that's what the show is going with, but this doesn't really make sense to me. Functionally, if you believe in an afterlife that rewards goodness, it isn't any different than knowing that there is an afterlife that rewards goodness. In either case, you're doing your good deeds for "moral dessert." 

I suppose in most cases, even religious people who theoretically believe in that kind of system don't necessarily live their lives as an attempt to rack up "points," probably because their concept of heaven and what it takes to get there is fairly abstract and distant. But Doug clearly does live his life with the point system in mind, so again, I'm not seeing why his actions would be meaningfully different than the Soul Squad's.  

Doesn't Hume say something to the effect that he can't prove causality, but that doesn't mean he is going to throw himself in front of a carriage? No, that didn't help.

Maybe Doug is simply trying to be a good person, using a rather convoluted idea of how to be a good person which he thought up and which, for some crazy reason makes sense to him. He could also be a Franciscan monk, trying to be a good person and using a different system which, for some crazy reason makes sense to him. Or a Buddhist. Whatever,.

Doug, we know, is more tuned in to how things work than the monk is; however both don't really know how things work and are simply acting according to their respective faiths.

I think that is why his actions are meaningfully different.

[companionenvy]

7 hours ago, Affogato said:

TMaybe Doug is simply trying to be a good person, using a rather convoluted idea of how to be a good person which he thought up and which, for some crazy reason makes sense to him. He could also be a Franciscan monk, trying to be a good person and using a different system which, for some crazy reason makes sense to him. Or a Buddhist. Whatever,.

Doug, we know, is more tuned in to how things work than the monk is; however both don't really know how things work and are simply acting according to their respective faiths.

I think that is why his actions are meaningfully different.

That's a good distinction - though it only works if you accept the premise that Doug (or the Buddhist, or Franciscan) actually is acting out of a belief that this is what it takes to be a good person and not because he wants the reward. It is probably a combination of both, but I think that the episode suggests that Doug's obsessiveness arises from plain fear that he's losing GP points, not an authentic commitment to living a good life for its own sake.

From the transcript:

"I saw with perfect clarity how the afterlife works. Immediately, I knew I had to live a perfect life...I designed a life that would maximize my point total and help me get into the Good Place."

Later, when the sociopathic neighborhood kid forces Doug to give up his shoes: "Well, as long as he's happy. See, if I make him happy, I get the points."

And after Michael tells him that he should just kick back and live a little: "I can't do any of these those things...because I can't risk it. There's an accountant out there measuring the value of everything I do. What if I relax and do something that loses me just enough points to keep me out of the Good Place and I'm tortured for eternity? No, I have to make every moment count It's the only rational way to live (emphasis added).

To me, that makes it pretty clear that Doug is not in this for the right reasons. 

[Milburn Stone]

2 hours ago, companionenvy said:

And after Michael tells him that he should just kick back and live a little: "I can't do any of these those things...because I can't risk it. There's an accountant out there measuring the value of everything I do. What if I relax and do something that loses me just enough points to keep me out of the Good Place and I'm tortured for eternity? No, I have to make every moment count It's the only rational way to live (emphasis added).

To me, that makes it pretty clear that Doug is not in this for the right reasons. 

And yet he's right that if his premise is correct, it is the only rational way to live. What rational human being--gifted with the knowledge of how eternity works--would live his life any other way?

It reminds me of a thought I've often had about God. The only believers who are truly rational are, paradoxically, the ones who take everything God said literally--the most orthodox among us. (Of whom I am not one.) Because if any part of you accepts the premise that there is a God, there is one incontrovertible conclusion--God is God. How dare you disobey even a tiny fraction of His hundreds of commandments? You'd have to be crazy. Now, most people who do believe in God (including me) are not like that. We pick and choose and discard the pronouncements and commandments that don't make sense to us, while still being moral people. But there's no getting around the fact that if God exists, God is God--and it really would make the most rational sense to act like it.

[companionenvy]

3 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

And yet he's right that if his premise is correct, it is the only rational way to live. What rational human being--gifted with the knowledge of how eternity works--would live his life any other way?

Oh, I agree that, in theory, he's right - but if motivation matters, and people who are doing it for the reward get rejected, then doing something simply because it is the rational way of maximizing your own eternal happiness shouldn't be enough. Doug's comments make it clear that he isn't actually concerned about being a good person, or helping others - if he had an insight that you got into TGP via murdering x number of people, he probably would have gone and done that, too. Which might be rational, under circumstances, but it wouldn't be good. 

[Ailianna]

Keeping in mind that Michael first said that Doug only got it mostly right, I wonder if the part he got wrong was the part where why you do things matters as much or more as what you do?

[aradia22]

GASP! From the little glimpses, I thought that was Michael McKean but I didn't know for sure until he opened the door. 

Eating plain raw radishes feels like something from the Bad Place.

Ted Danson must be having so much fun doing this show. The way he spit the "composting toilet water" back into the cup. Exceptional.

Chidi and Jason playing Jacksonville style pool was adorable.

"He's just a local sociopath who comes by my house to take advantage of me." TOO REAL

Rosa Parks the deer tick... Franklin Delano Raccoon... 

Woo! Janet fight scene!

Is no one observing earth enough to know about all the demons showing up?

[aradia22]

Quote

Also, I question how much good Doug is actually doing, if his every deed is performed with concern about racking up afterlife points. Being environmentally conscious is nice and all, but it doesn't appear he's actually having much of a positive effect on other people's lives.

What about all of that stuff about needing to do good things for the right reasons (Tahani) and how none of them could accrue points after finding out about the afterlife because they'd only be doing good things to get into the Good Place? Why didn't Michael and Janet bring that up to Doug?

Quote

Jason is the only one that's more difficult - he was certainly influenced into his lifestyle by Donkey Doug but I never felt he was anything less than happy with his life. Well, except he never got to see the Jags be a good team.

I think he was dissatisfied with his life. Being a sort of emotional goldfish who could perk up at a Pikachu balloon didn't stop him from feeling discouraged by his life. That's why he was always trying to do crimes. 

[Holmbo]

I question that Doug Forcett method are the best for maximizing points. Sure, by living of the grid with very small resources he's minimizing the negative impact on other people, but he's also minimzing the positive one. The main social interaction he seems to have is to encourage a child to act terribly, which I imagine would count as negative. I feel like based on what we know of the system so far it would be better to live a life like the one Elanor did at the start of the season, working for some good cause volunteer organization and living as a person part of society.