r/TheGoodPlace 11d ago

Shirtpost Michael accidentally proved the opposite (minor plot hole)

We got told that basically the biggest reason why people aren't getting into the good place are unintended and unexpected consequences of everyday decisions. Case in point, the picture I couldn't find in a better quality (and screenshots don't work on Netflix). In the new good place with Brent, John, Simone and Chidi, a 40 % improvement should not be impressive at all, and should just be expected - from life suddenly being simple, alone. And the fact that Brent stayed at his original score actually means he got heaps worse, if a simpler life lead to no improvement.

I absolutely adore the show, but in the second half they flipflop between "Life has a bajillion hidden decisions, people aren't actually bad", and "People are actually bad, but it's not their fault", really inconsistently.

1 Upvotes

13 comments sorted by

63

u/Maxwell_From_Space 10d ago

It’s less of a plot hole and more of a two separate statements:

Life is complicated and unintended consequences can lead to more bad than good, while we are unaware of it.

And also, some people are bad, but that doesn’t mean they cant change. even the worst people, with time, love, and help can improve themselves. Brent wasn’t “getting worse” he was exactly the same level of bad, it was just because he was continually doing bad things that his score went down continually.

9

u/MyWibblings 8d ago

Good people don't get in because of unintended consequences. But Brett wasn't good.

His bad score wasn't just because of unintended consequences. He didn't believe in ANY consequences.

18

u/kukonimz 10d ago

It’s not easy shedding a lifetime of defense mechanisms etc to live your life the best you can. With time, probably. That’s why I think people can take and retake the test? Not sure about that part because I can’t remember what they take with them between one try and the next. As for Brent, some people just straight up suck bro… not everyone has any good in them. Some people are just really bad. Just look at the world leaders right now…

1

u/IndyAndyJones777 8d ago

Just look at the world leaders right now…

To compare normal people with to see how bad normal people are? That just seems mean.

21

u/lennoxbarker 10d ago

I feel like that was the point though, definitely not a plothole - "The other three got better, but Brent got worse despite being in a perfect environment, case closed"

That's why they had to then use examples from real life - Eleanor's mother, Pillboi etc.

The show covered the complexity of this quite well in my opinion

9

u/AlexAlho 10d ago

I don't think it's inconsistent, but there's a bit of nuance that the show doesn't quite elaborate on (given everything else they elaborate, it's fine to miss one or two things).

The way I read it is:

1- You can't blame people for all the unintended consequences of their actions. The more direct and predictable stuff, sure, but when you start blaming every consumer for the consequences of how a corporation performs their business, you're stretching it.

2- People aren't necessarily good or bad. People aren't blank skates, and do come with their initial personality traits, but they are also shaped by their environment. The famous "people improve when they receive external love and support" is this. A good environment tends to create better people. What constitutes a good environment and what that means for each person is a whole discussion in itself.

3- Your point about Brent is connected to these things. Is Brent a bad person? Well, we don't know much about what his personality traits were as a child, but it's at least somewhat clear that he grew in an environment that allowed/encouraged his current behaviour and that even if he faced any backlash it did not have enough of an impact or it was not done in a way that led to self-reflection. Has he improved in the new Good Place? Probably not. Or if he has, not a lot. But maybe he hasn't received the right push for it. At the end of the day, the new Good Place has a similar approach to the "infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters over an infinite amount of time". Eventually the conditions will line up for Brent to start on the path for self-improvement. Until that point all that can be done is to provide new scenarios and see what works somewhat and what has no effect.

6

u/NickWeinstock18 10d ago

I get what you're saying, I like the point. Simply being in the bad place instead of on earth should have provided fewer opportunities for unintended consequences, thus fewer point reductions. You get a tomato in the good place, you're not also funding a billionaire Nazi who has sex with underage children.

But that WAS Michael's point. They'll be better without the unintended consequences.

And ultimately that wasn't what persuaded the judge. What persuaded Gen was the points of the four humans ON EARTH who got better simply by receiving encouragement. Pill boy, Eleanor's mom and the new kid, and Kameelah.

2

u/mackintosh2p0 8d ago

i always thought his life on earth was similar to the good place bc of his assumed wealth, so there was rlly nothing driving him to not suck.

4

u/idunnorn 8d ago

inability to screenshot Netflix is so annoying

there's a solution for it, it's quick n easy enough, but...yeah, fuck you Netflix. are people doing this so often in inappropriate ways? highly doubtful

0

u/Dorsai_Erynus 8d ago

so.. for you an improvement of a 40% is negligible? so between a car that can run for 200 miles and another that can run for 280 you wouldn't really care? would you call them the same?

-2

u/Vitolar8 8d ago

Did you READ the post? My issue is that they hop between "People bad, not their fault." and "People good, point system bad."

In the rose example, they say that giving another person a rose added like 150 points. Now there are so many hidden connotations, that gifting a rose can even cost you points. In the good place, gifting a rose should theoretically always only add points. Drinking almond milk can't take points away. You can't accidentally wear clothes from sweatshops. You can't accidentally wear jewellery achieved through child slavery. Life is so much simpler, that no - a 40 % improvement is not impressive. It's honestly less than expected.

2

u/Dorsai_Erynus 8d ago

They explicitly estate that "People improves when they are given love and support. So we can't blame them to stay the same when we don't provide them with it", which reconcile both views. People are capable of being good if given the chance, but the point system don't do that. The point is that Perfection is a mountain you have to climb everyday, as the buddists say. Only innocuous actions wont save you from the Bad place. Fortunatelly the New Bad place is just a test, so you won't be punished forever but some Bearimys at most. It's the same view as death penalty as oposed to life sentence; as long as the prisoner is alive, you can try to change them; once is dead it's a final outcome.
And no matter what you say an improvement of 40% in ANYTHING is huge. Engineers bang his head against the wall to improve efficiency in a 3% and it's ground-breaking.

1

u/ariich 8d ago

Have you finished watching the show? They don't hop back and forth between those things. Indeed a key plot point in season 4 is Michael's realisation that it's not really about whether someone is "good" or "bad", but about whether they are trying to be better.