The Good Place Season 3
- Thread starter JD
- Start date
Forking Shawn! He's a real forking bastard! 
I figured Simone would show up during the experiment, but for Chidi to take the noble sacrifice his memories of Eleanor and the rest was a real heart breaker.
I really, really wanted Janet to say 42 when Eleanor demanded answers. But yeah, her actual answer was pretty forking good, too.
I figured Simone would show up during the experiment, but for Chidi to take the noble sacrifice his memories of Eleanor and the rest was a real heart breaker.
I really, really wanted Janet to say 42 when Eleanor demanded answers. But yeah, her actual answer was pretty forking good, too.
I was waiting for a Season finale Twist, but man that episode was sad. The movie sequence almost got me teary eyed, and then the scene with Eleanor and Janet was fantastic.
The worst part about these short seasons is that we now have to wait 8 months or so before we move forward. I think that shows that have shorter seasons should have shorter breaks.
That’s what I thought she was going to say.
Yeah, Chidi and Eleanor watching the movie of their relationship made me tear up a bit, especially when you consider the sacrifice that Chidi is going to make. Did not expect that from the season finale.
Why have shorter seasons then?
I’d rather have the breaks. This is one of the best written shows on the air, and one of the great ones.
Give the writers time, rather than deadlines.
One of the nice things about shows with longer seasons is they give you something to be excited about all year. Shorter seasons don’t keep up the excitement momentum as much.
But for heavily serial shows like Good Place it makes more sense that way because it prevents any need for filler. Shows like BSG or Lost probably should have stuck with 13 or so per season.
But for heavily serial shows like Good Place it makes more sense that way because it prevents any need for filler. Shows like BSG or Lost probably should have stuck with 13 or so per season.
That finale was heartbreaking.
I was surprised they didn't introduce all four humans. Leaving a year for us to speculate whether it's the obvious potentials Donkey Doug and Eleanor's Mom? But then I guess all three just happening to die within a year the same time would be a bit much of a coincidence. Michael McKean, possibly. Michael McKean would be a more torturous choice for Sean, as it will drive Michael crazy.
I also want to point out that there's a very good chance that Ted Danson was on Fox and NBC at the same time.
I also want to point out that there's a very good chance that Ted Danson was on Fox and NBC at the same time.
Of course. She bought tomatoes that contributed to global warming. She used almond milk even though it was agriculturally irresponsible! Horrible evil things!
Well that brings up a point that I don't remember if the show really fully solved. I know the judge acknowledged how messed up and complicated modern life has become and they are doing this experiment to see if humans who are placed in a more pure environment will make good choices but why can't the Good Place simply change the point system to take it account how complex modern life is? After all, why should someone get punished for doing a good thing just because it is connected to a bad thing 3 or 4 steps down the chain that they had little to do with? They are not responsible for those bad things. They should only get points based on their immediate and direct actions. So why not change the point system to only award points based on the person's immediate action and disregard secondary effects that are unrelated?
The reason they can't just do that right away is the bureaucratic inertia of the accountants and Good Place, so the only effective advocates are Michael and the Bad Place. They need to prove to the Judge that humans actually do deserve that consideration.
Yeah, I expected we'd at least find out who the other three were going to be. The fact the Simone popped up does make me think we might get at least one of those three.
I'm pretty sure he was, I was watching the time, and I think the second or third time they talked to the admiral on The Orville was pretty close to the half hour mark, so it should have lined up with Eleanor and Micheal in his office.
Man that was a heartbreaking episode, I was really hoping they'd come up with some way to save Chidi and Eleanor's relationship. It will be interesting to see what happens with Eleanor and Simone both there with the mind wiped Chidi.
How are you not responsible for those bad things? Life is complicated, but that doesn't mean that you you can just wash your hands of those complications that arise as a result of your actions. The points system needs to be redesigned to account for the complication of the modern world, but that doesn't mean to just ignore all the indirect consequences of your actions. It's a very complicated question with no correct or simple solution.
Yeah, but you could only be held responsible for reasonably predictable consequences.
There’s such a huge overload of contradicting information and intentional misinformation it’s hard to know where to look or what to believe. And then sometimes not committing minor evils like buying irresponsible tomatoes would result in not being able to support your family.
Like, running somebody over while driving drunk is a predictable consequence of driving drunk. Running someone over because you lost control of the car on a patch of black ice is not.
Or if you start a company, run it like a cold hearted bastard, then invent the drug that cures cancer. If you didn’t fire the nice man who just wasn’t productive and destroy his life, you wouldn’t have been able to give jobs to the five hundred other employees, or save millions of lives. And you could either give the drug away at cost or price it profitably. Do you price to save the most lives, and violate your fiduciary duty to the shareholders, and all the spiraling fallout of that? Or do you price it to profit and fund the next research? Or some balance of both?
Should the public defender defend the murderer and risk he kills again, when refusing would be a breach of your professional ethics, and if everyone did that it would make it harder for innocent people who seem guilty to be defended?
Expecting humans to process the absolute moral result of all their actions is just not reasonable.
There’s such a huge overload of contradicting information and intentional misinformation it’s hard to know where to look or what to believe. And then sometimes not committing minor evils like buying irresponsible tomatoes would result in not being able to support your family.
Like, running somebody over while driving drunk is a predictable consequence of driving drunk. Running someone over because you lost control of the car on a patch of black ice is not.
Or if you start a company, run it like a cold hearted bastard, then invent the drug that cures cancer. If you didn’t fire the nice man who just wasn’t productive and destroy his life, you wouldn’t have been able to give jobs to the five hundred other employees, or save millions of lives. And you could either give the drug away at cost or price it profitably. Do you price to save the most lives, and violate your fiduciary duty to the shareholders, and all the spiraling fallout of that? Or do you price it to profit and fund the next research? Or some balance of both?
Should the public defender defend the murderer and risk he kills again, when refusing would be a breach of your professional ethics, and if everyone did that it would make it harder for innocent people who seem guilty to be defended?
Expecting humans to process the absolute moral result of all their actions is just not reasonable.
Last edited:
Similar threads
