this was so beautifully and accurately explained. part of the appeal of all of Schur's shows is the genuine friendships and the fact that Schur's humor doesn't come from pushing minorities down, as well as homophobia or sexism (quite obviously except The Office, which does prey on this a lot. Do you think this is because the early 2000s were a different time and it was just normal humor or the fact that Schur wasn't really running the show that much? Or a combination of both I suppose). Also, I love Brooklyn 99, mostly because of the characters, but I don't really find it funny. What I mean is, with Parks I honestly could find myself laughing out loud but with 99 the humor is a bit dry for me and I just don't find it genuinely funny. I know Dan Goor runs this more so could that be the reason? Parks is just so much funnier to me so I'm not sure what causes it but I do still love the 99.
Schur was never in charge of The Office. That show's cynical nature was a mix of the original's British humor, and showrunner Greg Daniels. Brooklyn 99's humor is much more slapsticky, whereas Parks and Rec leans heavy on dialogue and character dynamics. Not to say that B99 lacks those elements, but it's secondary to the more physically comedic nature of that show.
I loved this, Mike Schur's sitcoms are my comfort sitcoms & it is everything!! But hey, putting Donna on frame over "office lackeys" isn't quite accurate, Donna and Tom are the "coooOOl "peeps of P&R Department #TreatYoSelf, but I agree with Larry/Terry/Jerry/Ben's Friend.
'The Good Place is unlike any other show that has ever existed... By having characters that are so flawed yet so engaging Schur let's the audience become emotionally attached' You sure about that statement, buddy? What about Community? I just watched the Good Place after I finally watched the Office and was planning on rewatching Parks and Rec and noticed like you the commonality, and I watched B99 until season 5. But Schur and the Good Place are far from the first or only show to bring a group of heavily flawed misfits together through circumstance who learn to be better people because they found each other and with that the companionship, support and love that makes them want to be better. Dan Harmon did that with Community already over 10 years ago now and honestly, sometimes I wish I'd never seen Community because even after all this time everything else still pales in comparison. He's done what Schur does so much better. He has the same optimism about people and the same vulnerability, but it goes so much deeper than Schurs work. Optimism isn't depth. Flawed characters isn't emotional depth. Not automatically. I've watched all of Schurs work now over the past 2 months or so and I've never felt anything like the connection I felt to the Community characters or even Rick & Morty. Schurs work, apart from B99 which I really didn't like, is fun, sure, and funny too, and it has heart, I won't deny that. But it doesn't make a true impact, it doesn't hit you where you're most vulnerable, it doesn't leave a mark nor does it stay with you. As soon as you finish you're done. It's a shame because his shows could be so much more but they're not.
