Big Brother 19: Finale Review, and Thoughts on Competition Reality Juries

After spending the entire season appearing to be the uncontested eventual winner of Big Brother 19 Paul came up one vote short for the second season in a row. Some thoughts on where it all went wrong, and the humanity of competition reality juries to follow:

Paul Had It Won:
Watching this season of Big Brother, there were two things that were completely obvious: Paul was using his experience as a BB Vet to run the house, and Cody hated everyone but Jessica. With the exception of the aforementioned Jessica and Cody, Paul had everyone on his side in the game, at least until it was too late for any given houseguest to save their game from his control of the house (See: Domnique, Elena, Mark, Kevin, Jason, Alex, Matt, and Raven). Nothing happened in that house that Paul didn't want, except the occasional push back from someone like Jason who didn't nominate Kevin when he was told to. Strategically Paul was virtually uncontested as the greatest player of the season. Paul won enough competitions to be seen as a strong competitor, orchestrated every vote, and was never nominated for eviction. Comparisons between Paul and former winners/puppetmasters Dan Gheesling and Derrick Levasseur were often thrown around, but unfortunately for Paul, he was much more of a Dan than a Derrick.

Where It Went Wrong For Paul:
Some, including many on the jury, would argue that the root of Paul's failure to win can be traced back to the way he played the game from the beginning. The accusation is that Paul lied more than necessary and used (or at least encouraged) bullying tactics to single out targets in the house each week. There's a decent amount of evidence to support both claims, but neither claim necessarily negates the fact that Paul played a good game to get to the final two.

I would argue that Paul's real trouble came in the final few weeks of the game. Paul overestimated the how likable the jury would find players like Raven, Matt, Kevin, Christmas, and even himself. I think he probably could have beaten any of these players in the final two, even if it would have been a close 5 to 4 vote in his favor. Instead he singled out Josh as the person he thought the jury would hate the most. This was no coincidence. Paul spent much of the game encouraging Josh to start conflicts with other players, and making insincere attempts to blame Josh every time Paul blindsided one of his allies. Unfortunately for Paul, his attempts to make Josh the villain, actually helped Josh create a resume to present to the jury on finale night.

How Josh Won:
Josh played a good game of Big Brother, albeit a flawed one. Most people wouldn't have been able to get away with openly attacking majority of the jury, and still win the game. In an odd way, that kind of gameplay was exactly how he was able to secure the vote over expected winner Paul. For weeks as Paul had been telling each evicted houseguest that it wasn't his fault they went home (via the video farewell each player gets to leave the evicted houseguests), Josh was using those very same farewell videos to not only own up to his part in each jury member's eviction, but also to expose Paul's part as well.

Unfortunately for Paul, both he and Josh continued these strategies when they were questioned and given a final chance to plead their case to the jury. The jury Q&A, and final arguments are arguably the most important part of any competition reality show that relies on a jury to decide the winner. This is a player's chance to set the narrative of their game straight, and to show the jury that they are not just a player worth rewarding, but a person too.

In every answer he gave, Paul maintained his ruse that he hadn't gotten the jury's blood on his hands, despite knowing full well that he had been behind each of their evictions. When accused of bullying, Paul simply denied the accusation, despite knowing that if the question was being asked, someone(perhaps a pivotal vote) on the jury must have believed it was true. Then in his final speech Paul reversed course and claimed to have complete control over every move made in the game, and listed his many achievements in the game. It would have been a sound logical argument, if only Paul hadn't spent the whole game avoid getting blood on his hands.

Josh also faced some serious accusations from the jury. When questioned about what big moves he made in the game, he pointed to his direct hand in eliminating Alex, thus stroking the ego of a jury member Paul desperately needed to win over. In response to complaints about his confrontational nature in the house, he owned his actions, presented them as a strategic move to put targets on the backs of other players, and said he felt bad about them, but was willing to do anything to win the game. In his final speech, Josh presented the narrative that he was a long time fan of the show (something he successfully kept secret from everyone) who came into the game to play hard and make it to the end. He wasn't a flashy choice for a winner, but if any jury members were looking for a reason not to reward Paul, Josh's open style of game play presented an appealing alternative.

Bitter Jury/Human Jury:
Any time a puppet master loses a reality show like this, the usual claim gets thrown around: it was a bitter jury. To be fair, maybe this jury really was so bitter toward Paul that he never could have convinced the five jurors who voted for Josh to vote for him instead. Paul only fell one vote short of winning though. If he had been able to read that jury with any success, then his final arguments would have been much different. Paul spent much of the season ostracizing Cody, Mark, and Elena, so it would have been reasonable to assume he was never getting those three votes. Raven, Keven, Matt, and Christmas on the other hand spent most of the game being unquestioningly devoted to Paul. So it would have been safe for him to assume he didn't need to work too hard for those votes. The really puzzling aspect of Paul's finale night performance was that he made no attempt to play to the egos of either Jason or Alex (notably Josh did). To win this game he should have assumed he needed one of those two votes, and he definitely shouldn't have assumed he already had them. Alex wore a hate all season with the word "petty" on it for crying out loud. Ultimately Paul lost cause he read this jury completely wrong. He made a logical argument to a jury that was very much looking for an emotional one.

This is why I think the "bitter jury" argument is cop out. Yes, jury's are going to be bitter. That's the nature of any game where people get stabbed in the back. But there's no criteria that says a jury can't be bitter when they vote. Each juror votes with their own personal criteria in mind. That's why getting to the end of a game isn't enough. The way a player treats the jury along the way matters, and more importantly the case a player makes to the jury matters. There's no rule that says the most logical player has to win a reality show. On no show has that been more clear than Big Brother. Dr. Will Kirby, the original puppet master of Big Brother has the same track record in his two seasons as Jordan Llyod, a player who actively said she wasn't trying to win the game on both of her seasons, and who mostly made it through the game by being the least threatening member of her alliances. There's no difference between the money or title they won, and neither player's strategy was less than the other's. Simply put; juries can vote any way they see fit, and there's no "right" way to win Big Brother.

The Good Place: "Chapters 14 & 15" Review

The Good Place came back as strong as ever this week with a one hour premiere, that had a lot of new plot to establish after last season's twist ending. Some brief thoughts on the premiere and the show moving ahead:

Beginning Again:

When last we saw Eleanor Shellstrop, she had just received the note that she had left in Janet's mouth before Michael reset his fake-"Good Place" scenario, instructing her to find Chidi. As the events of the episode played out, she indeed did find Chidi and the rest of her human cohorts and once again they were able to figure out that they were not in the "Good Place." Perhaps the more important development, however, is that Michael is on thin ice with Sean, who believes his experiment is doomed to fail again. 

Sean of course is right. Eleanor proves to be too skeptical to be duped into falling for a Michael's scheme a second time, while Chidi, Tahani, and Jason are all able to figure out pretty quickly that their new afterlives are way too miserable to actually be paradise. Ultimately though, its the mistakes made by Michael and the other inhabitants of the "Bad Place" that make it obvious to Eleanor and Co. that things aren't right. Michael fails to understand that his plan is inherently flawed, and that's where the show finds its most interesting material. 

"Out of many, one":

Michael's main failure, is where The Good Place finds its meaning. Despite what Michael thinks of these four people, none of them are completely bad, and all of them are capable of incredible good. By sticking these characters in a scenario where the whole point is judging them, the show allows us to see the complicated mixture of good and bad that makes up any person. Season one posited that when four very different and, more often than not bad, people are put together in a situation where they are challenged to make each other better, they can become better people. 

When Michael resets his fake-"Good Place" scenario, he assumes that all four of these people will behave as they would have at the beginning of the first scenario. Eleanor foregoes getting drunk at the party the first night in order to have a clear head for her speech, which allows her to find Chidi. Chidi puts aside his relationship triangle drama to help Eleanor. Tahani tries to make amends with Eleanor after drunkenly ruining her speech, and Jason and Janet reform a connection despite having their memories wiped. 

Watching these two episodes I couldn't help but think of the movie Run, Lola, Run. Each time the story resets, Lola remembers certain skills that she learned on her previous runs (for example: how to use a gun). The Good Place resets our heroes' circumstances, but also establishes that their experiences together have changed them in ways they don't even remember. At the core of the show is the idea that together we can grow, despite our worst instincts. It's a beautiful sentiment in a year that has been as bleak as 2017. For that reason, The Good Place might just be the most important show on TV right now. 

Looking Ahead:

The main concern about a show like The Good Place is that the premise wears out pretty quickly. In season one alone the premise when from being about Eleanor learning to be a better person, to Eleanor outing herself and the whole group coming to her defense, to Eleanor figuring out that they are already in the "Bad Place." By the end of the first two episodes of season two, Eleanor and her friends had already figured out pretty much everything they had forgotten from the first season, and Michael had reset their memories and started over another time. 

Obviously like the show's original premise, we can only watch Michael reset this afterlife scenario so many times before it becomes a stale plot point. Michael Schur is arguably the greatest working sitcom creator, and so far he had done an excellent job of not allowing the show to run in any one direction longer than it should. He's earned the trust of viewers, and I have no doubt he has a well crafted plan for the future of the show. What that plan entails, remains to be seen. 

Other Thoughts:

• The cast did a lot of great work in the first season, but in season two everyone feels much more comfortable in their roles. 
• The entire cast is amazing and you've got comedy veterans like Kristen Bell and Ted Danson around elevating everything, but D'Arcy Carden remains this show's secret weapon.  

iZombie Review: "Heaven Just Got a Little Bit Smoother"

After being on hiatus for nearly a year, iZombie is back for it’s third season, and as fun as ever. In fact, now that Liv’s entire circle of friends is in on zombie secret (Clive having finally been brought into the loop in the penultimate episode of season 2), the show has opened itself up to explore a plethora of new storylines. We got a taste of that in “Heaven Just Got a Little Bit Smoother”, as the group (are we officially calling them team Z?) started to figure out what their next steps are in light of what happened in last season’s finale.

The episode picks up right where season 2 left off, with Liv’s newfound discovery that Vivian Stoll, head of the cleverly titled military contractor company Fillmore Graves, and her crew are zombies, and that they know Liv is a zombie too. As we learned in this episode, Vivian is essentially Seattle’s own Magneto from the X-Men comics. She’s protective of zombie-kind, and therefore a potentially valuable ally to Liv and company. She’s also very set in her belief that one day humans will discover zombies, and she’s using her resources to prepare for the war she believes will follow. Major, facing the persecution of having all of Seattle think he is a serial killer (despite the fact that he was cleared of those crimes and many of his supposed victims have resurfaced), is completely on board with Vivian’s view of the future. By the end of the episode, unable to find a regular job, he even joins Fillmore Graves as a soldier/employee.

If Vivian is Magneto, then Liv is Professor X. Having experienced first hand the kindness that humans can show zombies, she’s not sold on the idea that humans will automatically want to kill zombies upon their discovery. She’s also not naive enough to think that humanity at large is currently ready to find out about the zombie outbreak. Liv has always used her powers to help humanity, but those same powers have exposed her to humanity’s darkest corners. Magnifying that conflict, feels like a natural direction for the show to go in this season.

Now that Clive is in the know, he can actually weigh in on all of this, which is an exciting development. Being Liv’s friend and crime solving partner, he’s somewhat of a zombie ally, but being a human and a detective, he’s naturally skeptical about what Fillmore Graves is up to. As he notes in the episode, he doesn’t want to go down in history as the human who was dumb enough to help a zombie army destroy human-kind. His resolve is softened somewhat, when he learns that a boy, Wally, who used to live in his apartment building, is also a zombie. Unfortunately this development also leads to what appears to be one of the show’s major story arcs moving forward.

Somebody knows zombies exist (and probably that Fillmore Graves exists too), and is killing zombies to send a message. The first victims were Wally and his family, but I suspect the killings won’t stop there. If there is a zombie serial killer out there, then it is in everyone’s best interest to stop the person or zombie committing these crimes. It’s also an effective way to bring everyone together with one goal, despite all of the characters’ opposing agendas. It’s hard to tell if this new direction for the show will produce better or worse iZombie, but either way, “Heaven Just Got a Little Bit Smoother” was an interesting start to the long awaited season.

Other Thoughts:

• Ravi, Peyton, and Blaine don’t have a whole lot going on in this episode, beyond a love triangle nobody really wanted or needed.
• Similarly, everything about Blaine and his business felt like a distraction from all of the much more interesting stuff going on in the episode. What is Don E. doing with Blaine’s dad? Honestly I don’t care all that much.
• Thank goodness the show finally added Aly Michalka as a regular cast member. Peyton is funny, smart, and a more loyal friend to Liv than just about anyone else. This was a no-brainer (pun intended!).
• Major didn’t play a huge role in this episode, but he was around enough to raise some interesting questions about his role this season. As Ravi pointed out, Major is living (or nonliving?) on borrowed time as a zombie, and Ravi seems to have given up on a side effect free cure, in favor of a cure for memory loss. It took little convincing for Major to join Fillmore Graves, but he must be well aware that if he wants to stay alive he has to cure his zombie-ism sooner than later. Also, Major brought up the missing zombie call girl way too much in this episode for it not to come up again at some point this season.

Thoughts on Jane the Virgin: Chapter 54 and the big change it brought.

CW

**Spoilers Below**

Michael was always destined to die. There are few certainties in the world of Jane the Virgin, but the writers gave plenty of warning that at some point, Michael would die. In fact the first foreshadowing of it came all the way back in season one, when the narrator said something to the effect of, "Michael would love Jane until his last breath." So when Michael collapsed because of a residual effect of the gunshot wound he sustained at the end of last season, it wasn't necessarily a surprise. The real surprise is where the show goes from here, now that it jumped three years ahead.

Killing a major character is always a gamble, especially one that character is such an essential part of the main character's life. That being said, this was the right move, and I'm glad show creator Jennie Urman was able to recognize that. Jane and Michael were as perfect a couple as you will find on TV, and that's the problem. Such a perfect couple left the show with very limited narrative room in which to navigate. Michael served the purpose of being the perfect partner to help Jane transition from girlhood to womanhood. Once she had made that transition though, Michael made very little narrative sense to the show.

Michael's purpose on the show has always been about servicing the needs of the plot, and more importantly Jane's story. When Jane's world was turned upside down by her pregnancy, Michael served the purpose of pushing her toward Rafael so she could explore the dramatic changes happening in her life. When Jane needed stability, Michael's flaws seemed to melt away and he became the obvious choice for Jane as a partner. Of all of the characters on the show, Michael often had the least developed stories, and what stories he did have were often some of the least interesting the show was telling. A lot of credit is due to Brett Dier for giving the character as much life on the show as he had. 

The real question for Jane the Virgin, is what happens next. Creator, Jennie Urman, seems to have some sort of plan for Jane's overall story, and so far, she hasn't given us a reason not to trust that she knows what she is doing with this show. Obviously the show will need to give the audience some sort of closure about Michael's death, even though it has jumped three years ahead in time. Three years after Michael's death, Jane is probably going to have some sense of closure about it all, but reconciling that with the fact that many in the audience are still probably in a little bit of shock about it all, will be key to moving forward. A three year time jump might seem like a lot, but most of these characters were at a point where they were looking toward something in the future (Rafael going to jail, Petra bonding with Elsa and Anna, Xo moving out, and Rogelio doing a reality show) so if ever they were going to do a time jump like this, now seems like an appropriate time. It will be a difficult transition to navigate, but this show's writers have more than earned my trust by now.

Riverdale Premiere Review: "Chapter One: The River's Edge"

The CW

Riverdale is a strange thing. Based on the Archie comics, the show follows the lives of classic characters like Betty, Veronica, Jughead, and Archie himself. If you're a fan of the original material (personally my knowledge of this universe was very limited going in), then in some ways you are still dealing with the same dynamic here: a group of teens hang out and try to figure out the next steps in their lives, while the classic love triangle between Archie, "good girl" Betty, and "wild child" Veronica rages on. That's about where the similarities end though, and that appears to be a good thing so far. Under the old fashioned facade, there are secrets that seep into the heart of this small town.

After seeing the first episode, there are two things I can say Riverdale does extremely well. Riverdale is one of the most uniquely stylized shows on TV right now. The idea of mixing the wholesome small town aesthetic of the classic Archie comics, with the gloomy shadow of a noir-ish murder mystery is risky, but the show not only makes it work, it turns its atmosphere into its greatest asset. Some shows would sink in the gloom of an aesthetic like this, but Riverdale, like the town it is named after, is kept alight by a garish neon glow. These are small town kids, and while they may be stuck in the middle of a brooding teen soap, they have genuine hopes and aspirations.

The other compliment I can pay the show is that after one episode, I want to know more about these characters. That's a great feat for the pilot of any show. If you can't make me want to learn more about at least one of your characters by the end of the pilot, then why should I watch any more of your show? Granted, not every character is quick to draw the audience in. Archie (K. J. Apa) is arguably the most bland character we meet in this first episode, and aside from some mediocre narration, Jughead (Cole Sprouse) is basically a non-factor in this episode. Supporting characters like Josie (Ashleigh Murray), of Josie and the Pussycats fame, bring a lot of attitude and some impressive musical performances to the show. Kevin Keller (Casey Cott), is Betty's openly gay best friend whose running meta commentary and frequent pop culture references are one of the show's most entertaining aspects. As of now these, and most of the other supporting characters, are all pretty flat, but most of them have enough personality to allow the show time to round them out.

The real draw here is the friendship between Betty (Lili Reinhart) and Veronica (Camila Mendes). On the surface both characters seem to fit their stereotypical roles. Betty is the sweet and shy girl next door (she literally lives right across the street from Archie) who always follows the rules and doesn't cause waves. As the episode goes on we learn that this is not necessarily her natural personality, as much as the result of an overbearing mother who controls her every action. Betty has a pent up rage that she successfully hides, but which is bound to come out in one form or another this season. Veronica also walks into town appearing every bit the privileged wild child that her reputation suggests. She has no problem going toe-to-toe with Riverdale's resident queen bee Cheryl Blossom (Madelaine Petsch) mere days after arriving in town. Like Betty, Veronica is more than she seems at first. Family tragedy has exposed her insecurities, and given her a wake-up call about how she was living her life back in New York. Veronica is trying to use her outgoing personality for good, and is fiercely loyal to her new group of friends.

What makes this friendship such a fascinating part of the show is that each girl is in some way trying to be more like the other. Betty wants desperately to be able to speak her mind like Veronica does, and Veronica is determined to become the kind of person that disproves the negative reputation her family has gained. Watching how each character evolves just over the course of the episode, was easily the best part of this pilot. Betty and Veronica are easily the most fully realized characters on the show, and all signs point to that growth continuing to develop as their friendship does.

Riverdale isn't without it's problems in this first episode. Being a teen drama, the show is always on the edge between being the joke or being in on the joke. The best example of this is Cheryl Blossom, who is a fairly effective villain in this first hour, but who starts to wear out her welcome by the end of the pilot. There is also a lot of work to do developing the adult characters on the show. Obviously in this first hour putting primary focus on the kids makes sense, but the show makes a strong enough point of introducing many of these kids parents, that the show will need to do a much better job of proving their relevance than it did in this episode. Then there's the biggest problem of them all: Archie's affair with his music teacher Ms. Grundy (Sarah Habel). Statutory rape is a very tricky road to go down. Maybe the show will eventually do right by a storyline about such an important subject, but all of the sexualizing of it in this episode didn't give me a lot of confidence. Hopefully it doesn't detract from all of the show's great elements in the long run, but as of now it is a problem the show needs to address sooner than later.

This show has a lot of promise, but it's also walking right on the edge of being a smart genre subversion and a cliche that falls into the traps of the genre itself. We've yet to really get into the murder mystery aspect of the show, as it isn't revealed until the very end of the episode that Cheryl's brother's disappearance was actually a murder and not just an accident like the town had assumed. As of now this show definitely has my attention. It's not for everyone, but I'd say this first episode is worth checking out, because it just might surprise you.

The Good Place Season One Finale Review: "Mindy St. Claire" & "Michael's Gambit"

I don't normally do spoiler alerts at the beginning of a review, because it's kind of a given. If you happen to be reading this and haven't seen the season one finale of The Good Place, I would just caution you to go watch those episodes first, because major spoilers lie ahead.

The season one finale of The Good Place was technically two episodes, and while “Mindy St. Claire” was a fine episode on its own, there are only two major takeaways from the episode that shed any significant light on the series moving forward (that is if it moves forward, which it better): Eleanor (thankfully and ironically we can drop the “fake” from now on) grew up with awful parents whom she eventually emancipated herself from, and there is a middle place in the afterlife that is basically undetectable by either the people running The Good Place, or the people running The Bad Place. The major revelations, however, came in “Michael’s Gambit”, so that’s the part I really want to discuss here.

It’s rare that a show can pull of genuine surprises these days. Sure shows like Scandal and How To Get Away With Murder pride themselves on “OMG” moments, but genuine and thoughtful plot twists are hard to pull off in the social media age. Is it out of the realm of possibility that some viewers saw this twist coming? No, but gauging the reactions I saw from people on social media, many of them being the most avid TV watchers around, I’m guessing most people didn’t see this twist coming. The Good Place, is actually The Bad Place, and it has been set up specifically to be a living hell for our four main protagonists: Eleanor, Chidi, Tahani, and Jason.

Looking back at the way the series was built leading up to this point, it was such an amazingly well crafted con. Michael Schur created such an intricate world in the twelve episodes leading up to the reveal, that once the wizard was revealed behind the curtain, it all still held up. Off the top of my head I can’t think of any major continuity errors. That’s the brilliance of this show’s storytelling. I’m not even mad that this entire season has essentially been a preface to the real story that will hopefully be told in subsequent seasons. I’m just mad that I will probably have to wait until next fall to see how all of this plays out. I’m not saying it was flawless, but it was some of the smartest and most thought provoking storytelling on TV.

Thematically, the show takes on a whole new meaning after this revelation. Over the course of their time together in The Bad Place, our four main protagonists did become better people just by knowing each other. Eleanor learned to put others before herself, Tahani learned to genuinely care about the good things she did for other people, and Chidi learned to become fairly decisive when it came to protecting Eleanor. Jason seems to have learned the least, but the fact that he was able to fall in love with Janet, is proof that he could at least care about something other than himself.

The show actively rebels against the idea that people are irredeemably bad. It posits that connecting with other people and learning to love beyond just ourselves, helps us become the best version of who we can be. Michael brought these four people together knowing that they would drive each other crazy, and initially they did. Eventually however, it was learning to rely on each other as a way of coping with their struggles, that made them better people. It’s an important story for the times we are living in right now. I hope this isn’t where that story ends.


Other thoughts:

• The one aspect of the show that is still somewhat confusing is Janet. If I understood correctly, our Janet actually belongs in The Good Place, but The Bad Place actually stole or took her for authorized use in The Bad Place. Either way, it sets her up as a potential ally for our protagonists, seeing as this is not where she belongs. 

• One of the most brilliant storytelling tricks the show pulled off, was using the audience’s expectations about sitcoms against them. On any other kind of show, the absurd obstacles that kept popping up to hinder the group might have been seen as suspicious, but they are a familiar part of the sitcom formula, so in this case most people probably didn’t give the orchestrated effort to make our protagonists’ miserable, a second thought. 

• If the show moves forward, it will be interesting to see how Michael fits into everything, given that we now know he’s essentially the villain of the show. I’m sure the writers have something great planned.

The Good Place: "What's My Motivation"

Being such a serialized comedy, The Good Place, is tasked with balancing its absurd humor with further developments in the plot. Sometimes it does both at the same time very well, but other times it seems to shift focus on an episode by epsode basis. Last week's episode did very little to move the overall story of the show forward, but it did feature some comedic character building moments, such as Jason and Janet's wedding or the bonding between "Fake" Eleanor and Tahani. "What's My Motivation" was far from absent of good comedic moments (particularly Michael interrogating Janet and Jason about their marriage), but for the most part this episode was all about setting up the events to come in the last two episodes of the season.

This episode picks up where last week's episode left off, with Tahani having devised a new plan to keep "Fake" Eleanor in The Good Place. Tahani's theory is that since "Fake" Eleanor has been trying to be a better person since arriving in The Good Place, perhaps they can start adding up the value of her actions in the afterlife, to prove that she actually does belong in The Good Place. "Fake" Eleanor goes along with the plan, trying to do nice things for the citizens of The Good Place, and repair her reputation in the community. Ultimately "Fake" Eleanor realizes the plan won't work, because the motivation behind all of her actions is self preservation, and therefore nothing she does can actually be considered altruistic in nature. Eventually Eleanor does the only thing that can truly make her worthy to live in The Good Place, which is deciding to sacrifice herself and voluntarily go to The Bad Place.

In the side stories, Michael discovers that Janet and Jason are married, after the two decided to take their relationship public. This leads to some pretty funny jokes between Michael's interrogation of Jason, and Jason's inability to understand that Janet isn't a real person, and Michael isn't her dad. Included in Jason's story is also a flashback to how Jason died. This part of the series is kind of wearing out its welcome. There are plenty of episodes where the flashbacks have given meaningful insight into situations and characters, but overall, they have become the least interesting part of the show. In episodes like last week's and this week's the flashbacks actually had the effect of making the characters featured in them look unrealistically cartoonish. In Jason's case, the show can sort of get away with that, but in Chidi's case last week, the flashback presented a version of Chidi that didn't feel true to the show.