The Good Place - NBC network show

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
A show with a premise that makes one go “meh”.

....and yet. Does it?



I’ve been avoiding this show since it was introduced. I watched the first minute, and was so bored, i accidentally started watching something else.

“Network sitcom” esque shows are not often discussed here. This is surprising to me, as shows like this give a lot of influence to the DP or camera op. They often have revolving Directors, and other shows even have frequent changes of the DP position. Perhaps since shows are so often considered a writers and actors medium, that cam ops often overlook the influence and control they have on those shows with ever changing directors.

From what i was reading, “The Good Place” is a 3 camera show, or rather a multicamera show, but you get the idea. There is a challenge in lighting for simultaneous coverage. It is fun watching when they choose to light coverage seperately and when they just go all in. How they stage actors, and how they utilize time of day to get through some pages. I get heart palpatations just thinking about the scheduling. Many of you have probably tried to shoot heavy dialogue scenes out side using the sun. Just so nerve wracking!

The studio setups are fun familiar spots, and it is cool to see the team re using the same spaces, but keeping it from being to cookie cutter.

Is this a good show? Does anyone else like shooting this way? Thoughts on the writing? Should they have ended season 1 the way they did, or should they have saved something for season 2? Does the show hold its own into the later seasons? How does the photography change throughout?
 
I haven't seen it (yet) either...but I have many friends who rave about it so maybe there's something to it.

Yes, a friend of mine said it was good. I laughed, thinking they were joking. But it is kind of like New Girl meets Idiocracy on the humor scale. Not surenifnthat is for everyone, but seems rather popular these days. But the way they make the show and the world they built feels like a writers sandbox. Has a built in recipe for being able to rehash thebsame characters in new situations. Though, season one could also be its own self contained thing.
 
I watched the first season and wasn't too thrilled with it until "something" happens that radically changes everything. You have to watch the entire season to get where this show is going...
 
It think the first season is very bingable. The show as a whole is definitely designed for once a week viewing for a USA audience. A lot of cultural references, not sure they translate overseas.

David Miller shot this show and “Veep”. I rhink he won the emmy for veep.
 
It's a solidly entertaining show for a network sitcom. It gets a little silly & off track in the latest season, but there's only so much that can be done with the premise. It definitely ends up being very different than it initially appears.
 
“Network sitcom” esque shows are not often discussed here. This is surprising to me, as shows like this give a lot of influence to the DP or camera op. They often have revolving Directors, and other shows even have frequent changes of the DP position. Perhaps since shows are so often considered a writers and actors medium, that cam ops often overlook the influence and control they have on those shows with ever changing directors.

Doesn't really surprise me that there is little discussion of television comedy in general here, because that look is rarely the moody/atmospheric vibe that seems to be the most popular to discuss and applaud on message boards.

It used to be that the revolving director aspect made TV more of a DP and/or operator medium...over the past few decades there were many times I had some major input into the process. It has shifted a bit, where sometimes we have a single director do an entire season, and they are usually given an EP credit along with that so it is closer to a traditional feature DP role. However the writer/EP's still hold the cards.
 
I've gotten into it. I like how they continue the flow of the story, even as the end credits are playing. Then, the next episode opens with the exact same flow and story threads as the previous one ended with. It's almost as if it's just one, long running story. Another thing, they are embracing various philosophy ideas as central to the characters and plots. When was the last time you saw a heavy discussion of determinism vs. free will on t.v?
Good stuff.
 
I'm so sad it's over. But I definitely file it under my "This show was too good for network TV but somehow ended up on network TV" file and I will go back and watch it multiple times.
It turned me into a big Kristen Bell fan (well, this and Veronica Mars), re-affirmed that with the right material, Ted Danson can still be great and Michael Schur is a genius for conceiving
this and more importantly, for letting it slip through the network TV dumb down filter with no ill effects. The plots and storylines really make you think and consider, especially the S2
moral philosophy lessons. A great series.
 
Back
Top