# The Office, 11/19/09. (open spoilers) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 20, 2009, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-11-19-09-open-spoilers/518251 "2009-11-20T03:01:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![BiblioCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed8c4c/32.png) [@BiblioCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BiblioCat)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-11-19-09-open-spoilers/518251/61 "2009-11-23T15:39:07Z")
> [@BrandonR](#): > > There’s no way the show is going to end. NBC isn’t going to get rid of one of its highest-rated TV shows for some time… They canceled _My Name Is Earl_, and that was always pretty highly rated. ---
**Author:** ![MyFootsZZZ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/myfootszzz/32/12580_2.png) [@MyFootsZZZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFootsZZZ)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-11-19-09-open-spoilers/518251/62 "2009-11-23T15:47:44Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > “No, I pretty much miss the whole Helen.” > > I have no idea how they would get there from here, but I couldn’t help thinking about some kind of plot line that ends up with the Michael Scott Paper Company back in business. > > I agree that there have been a spate of pretty bad Office episodes, and I agree with the idea that the characters are starting to go over the top too much. I think that moving Jim up was a bad idea. In both versions of The Office, Jim’s character more than any others, in my opinion, seemed to be the link between us and them, and presumably the link between the sane observers and the insanity of the environment of the office. Not only was he, in the past, typically the voice of reason, they often included shots of Jim looking at the camera, as if to make the explicit connection between him and us. > > I think they lost a lot when they tried to move him up _and_ make him appear more incompetent. This episode addressed that a bit, with him being proactive regarding Ryan, but there still seems to be something missing. I don’t agree with the take on Jim, (I like the change), but I understand what your saying, and I hope Jim’s “shortcomings” stacked against Michael’s doesn’t last for very long. I do, however think it’s help Michael’s character become more relatable to the viewer. I think it the writers were especially clever in doing so this year. I don’t want it to last though. I wonder about getting some ‘new blood’ in the office. Someone on the lower end of the ‘crazy’ spectrum. So far, this season’s better than last season at this point, imho. I don’t think The Office has Jumped the Shark any more that it had mid season three, the beginning, (after the promising opener) of season four, the Superbowl episode, or the Wedding episode. ---
**Author:** ![Tanbarkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a698b9/32.png) [@Tanbarkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tanbarkie)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-11-19-09-open-spoilers/518251/63 "2009-11-23T15:53:29Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > I think Michael was trying to help, and he did it the only way he knew how. > > To him, it was inconceivable that the big boys wouldn’t have a plan. And when it turns out they didn’t have a plan, he tried to lead them into developing one. > > -Joe Trying to help and helping are two different things. Sure, it was stupid of David Wallace to bring Michael to the meeting knowing his propensity for taking a bad situation and making it ten times worse, but that doesn’t excuse Michael for not having enough sense to _check with his bosses_ before announcing their awesomely nonexistent plan to save the company. It’s like that episode of “The West Wing,” in which Josh makes an ass of himself while standing in for C.J. at the daily press briefing. He goes in completely unprepared and ends up accidentally implying that the president has a secret plan to fight inflation. The only difference between his idiocy and Michael’s is that, right before going into the briefing, Josh does a whole song and dance about how he’s a brilliant, Ivy League-educated legal mind, for whom the White House Press Corps should pose no threat. But the fact that he was set up by the writers for a hubris-driven fall doesn’t somehow make his actual mistake any worse than Michael’s. In both scenes, our heroes are both egotistical buffoons who waltz into a tense situation completely unprepared, and end up embarrassing both themselves and their superiors. As supposed professionals, they both should have known better, and they were both justifiably reamed out for it by their bosses (and, in Josh’s case, by everyone else in the West Wing). The fact that said bosses don’t actually have a solution to the problem at hand is completely irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![CaveMike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cavemike/32/16379_2.png) [@CaveMike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaveMike)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-11-19-09-open-spoilers/518251/64 "2009-11-23T16:01:03Z")
[‘The Office’ Ends As Documentary Crew Gets All The Footage It Needs](http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/the_office_ends_as?utm_source=onion_rss_daily) ---
**Author:** ![MyFootsZZZ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/myfootszzz/32/12580_2.png) [@MyFootsZZZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFootsZZZ)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-11-19-09-open-spoilers/518251/65 "2009-11-23T16:06:11Z")
My main problem is when other people outside the office act unrealistically, like the crowd turning around so fast in this episode. Don’t get me started with the Wedding episode. Jim my be the voice of reason, but I think his character’s been written to be a little TOO “perfect”, even for real life… (admitting, mostly on the romance front). There’s a connection to us when he mugs the camera, but there’s also a connection I find in Michael, Oscar, Pam, Karen, Stanley, and even Kevin. It’s also looking like I’m finding some commonality with the over-apologetic Erin. Of course not when they’ve been written as caricatures, (and sometimes when they have). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-11-19-09-open-spoilers/518251/66 "2009-11-23T16:09:02Z")
Michael wasn’t being egotistical, and he’s not egotistical in general. He’s just desperate to be liked, and the booing of the shareholders made him panic. His response wasn’t arrogant, it was just his normal, reflexive impulse to try to make people like him. Plus, I think that Michael has been shown to have a naive trust in the wisdom and competence of the D-M corporate suits. It would not be out of character for him to assume that they really did have a plan, an that he was just showing faith in them. ---
**Author:** ![CaveMike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cavemike/32/16379_2.png) [@CaveMike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaveMike)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-11-19-09-open-spoilers/518251/67 "2009-11-23T16:19:04Z")
> [@Lightsaber](#): > > My impression was that Oscar was completely over his head, that his ideas were too obvious to mention to a group of people who (in theory anyway) knew how to run a business. That was my impression too. That he got caught playing armchair quarterback. > [@Tanbarkie](#): > > The whole episode, I got the feeling that both Michael and Andy seemed to think that just because Oscar was a smart, math-minded guy, that he _must_ have some magic plan to save the company… I agree with this part too. ---
**Author:** ![MyFootsZZZ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/myfootszzz/32/12580_2.png) [@MyFootsZZZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFootsZZZ)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-11-19-09-open-spoilers/518251/68 "2009-11-23T16:24:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Michael wasn’t being egotistical, and he’s not egotistical in general. He’s just desperate to be liked, and the booing of the shareholders made him panic. His response wasn’t arrogant, it was just his normal, reflexive impulse to try to make people like him. > > Plus, I think that Michael has been shown to have a naive trust in wisdom and competence of the D-M corporate suits. It would not be out of character for him to assume that they really did have a plan, an that he was just showing trust in them. Yes, I agree with **Tanbarkie’s** take on Oscar, though, (don’t know if you do), in that I can’t blame him for coming up with nothing. However, I’m sure it was written for Oscar’s character to feel like it was an opportunity missed… even if he didn’t have a plan, he had the panel’s full attention to say exactly what he wanted to say at a time where his job’s in Jeopardy anyway. If Oscar had been at least candid, instead of kissing ass, then there may have been some dialog. I can’t blame Oscar though… He didn’t outright ask to be in THAT situation. After the plan Michael laid out. If Michael’s plan was so unrealistic, why not think of something more so? Or think of something to tell them, (something vague) that will make this ‘easily aroused’ crowd from not ditching them. I think that’s the salesman in Michael. My friend is in sales for a cell phone company, and get’s people to buy the leather cell phone protector that’s more expensive because it’s Basileo Leather, and the other isn’t. Basileo’s his last name. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-11-19-09-open-spoilers/518251/69 "2009-11-23T16:41:11Z")
> [@MyFootsZZZ](#): > > My main problem is when other people outside the office act unrealistically, like the crowd turning around so fast in this episode. Don’t get me started with the Wedding episode. > > Jim my be the voice of reason, but I think his character’s been written to be a little TOO “perfect”, even for real life… (admitting, mostly on the romance front). There’s a connection to us when he mugs the camera, but there’s also a connection I find in Michael, Oscar, Pam, Karen, Stanley, and even Kevin. It’s also looking like I’m finding some commonality with the over-apologetic Erin. Of course not when they’ve been written as caricatures, (and sometimes when they have). Especially Stanley. His whole attitude is “Why do I have to put up with this shit?”, which from reading these threads is exactly what most of the Dopers would feel. And I disagree with everyone about Andy. Andy didn’t think that Oscar was a smart guy who could help. Andy was trying to instigate a little entertainment by getting Oscar to do something exciting. Pure fun, no danger. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-11-19-09-open-spoilers/518251/70 "2009-11-23T17:22:46Z")
> [@MyFootsZZZ](#): > > I don’t agree with the take on Jim, (I like the change), but I understand what your saying, and I hope Jim’s “shortcomings” stacked against Michael’s doesn’t last for very long. I do, however think it’s help Michael’s character become more relatable to the viewer. I think it the writers were especially clever in doing so this year. I don’t want it to last though. I wonder about getting some ‘new blood’ in the office. Someone on the lower end of the ‘crazy’ spectrum. I know it’s probably boring to keep comparing this Office to the original British version, but your observation here illustrates one of the big differences, and to my mind the most gutless aspect of the American version. In the American version, although Michael is depicted as an inept bumbler, hamstrung by immature aspects of his personality, the writers always save him in the end, either by somehow showing competence or compassion. The British version didn’t care. They let David Brent be a buffoon, and let us sit with that all the way through. They had created enough of a character for us to not loath him and to care enough to keep watching, but didn’t feel the need to have deus spring from the machina every week to somehow make the character okay. I preferred the British version in this respect, and have never particularly liked the way that Michael somehow saves things for himself, because it usually is a bit jarring. It’s become worse in the recent past, leading to things being so inconsistent that my ability to identify and follow along willingly is challenged. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-11-19-09-open-spoilers/518251/71 "2009-11-23T17:37:43Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I know it’s probably boring to keep comparing this Office to the original British version, but your observation here illustrates one of the big differences, and to my mind the most gutless aspect of the American version. > > In the American version, although Michael is depicted as an inept bumbler, hamstrung by immature aspects of his personality, the writers always save him in the end, either by somehow showing competence or compassion. The British version didn’t care. They let David Brent be a buffoon, and let us sit with that all the way through. They had created enough of a character for us to not loath him and to care enough to keep watching, but didn’t feel the need to have deus spring from the machina every week to somehow make the character okay. > > I preferred the British version in this respect, and have never particularly liked the way that Michael somehow saves things for himself, because it usually is a bit jarring. It’s become worse in the recent past, leading to things being so inconsistent that my ability to identify and follow along willingly is challenged. In all fairness, there were only 12 episodes for the entire run of the UK version, so they could keep Brent a buffoon and not exhaust the audience’s patience. There have been over 100 episodes of the US version, so I doubt anyone could sustain a central character being so unapologetically loathsome and unlikeable for so long without shedding viewers like crazy. If Scott had stayed as bad as Brent, they never would’ve made it to Season 6. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-11-19-09-open-spoilers/518251/72 "2009-11-23T18:07:40Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > In all fairness, there were only 12 episodes for the entire run of the UK version, so they could keep Brent a buffoon and not exhaust the audience’s patience. There have been over 100 episodes of the US version, so I doubt anyone could sustain a central character being so unapologetically loathsome and unlikeable for so long without shedding viewers like crazy. If Scott had stayed as bad as Brent, they never would’ve made it to Season 6. That’s a fair point. ---
**Author:** ![MyFootsZZZ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/myfootszzz/32/12580_2.png) [@MyFootsZZZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFootsZZZ)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-11-19-09-open-spoilers/518251/73 "2009-11-23T23:08:12Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > In all fairness, there were only 12 episodes for the entire run of the UK version, so they could keep Brent a buffoon and not exhaust the audience’s patience. There have been over 100 episodes of the US version, so I doubt anyone could sustain a central character being so unapologetically loathsome and unlikeable for so long without shedding viewers like crazy. If Scott had stayed as bad as Brent, they never would’ve made it to Season 6. Pretty much my response. I saw the UK version a long time ago, and I’m now watching it again weekly on Adult Swim. Brent is a bigger jerk than I remembered. “It has been acknowledged that Brent’s character was deliberately made more sympathetic as the show progressed. In the DVD commentary of the pilot US episode of The Office, writer B.J. Novak recalls Gervais and Merchant saying that they deliberately altered Brent to become more of a “buffoon” in the second series, and thus more likable. This mingling of comedy and pathos in a superficially grotesque character is characteristic of some of the classics of British comedy, such as Hancock and Steptoe and Son.” > **[David Brent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brent)** > > David Brent is a fictional character in the BBC television mockumentary The Office, portrayed by the show's co-creator, co-writer, and co-director Ricky Gervais. Brent is a white-collar office middle-manager and the principal character of the series. He is the general manager of the Slough branch of Wernham Hogg paper merchants and the boss of most other characters in the series. Much of the comedy of the series centres on Brent's many idiosyncrasies, hypocrisies, self-delusions, and overt self... ---
**Author:** ![Tanbarkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a698b9/32.png) [@Tanbarkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tanbarkie)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-11-19-09-open-spoilers/518251/74 "2009-11-24T00:45:02Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > In all fairness, there were only 12 episodes for the entire run of the UK version, so they could keep Brent a buffoon and not exhaust the audience’s patience. There have been over 100 episodes of the US version, so I doubt anyone could sustain a central character being so unapologetically loathsome and unlikeable for so long without shedding viewers like crazy. If Scott had stayed as bad as Brent, they never would’ve made it to Season 6. The American writers also used to be a lot better at making Michael’s “redeeming moments” fit in with the plot and existing character development - see, for example, Michael having to deal with Devin’s post-layoff pumpkin bomb, or how the writers subtly bring in Michael being good with kids throughout the second season, with the final payoff in the form of his relationship with Carol. They’ve gotten much sloppier in the last few seasons, which IMO is what gives rise to the whiplash effect that bothers Hentor. The recent formula seems to be: have the entire episode focused around Michael being an idiot or a douchebag, and then attempt to twist it into a heartwarming and/or triumphant moment at the very end, without any setup whatsoever. Rinse and repeat. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-11-19-09-open-spoilers/518251/75 "2009-11-24T21:41:45Z")
**ftg** ’s “The Office” fantasy. Apparently D-M’s stock is tanking quickly, as per the building stock ticker near the end. Michael is a strong believer in investing in the future of his company so buys a lot of stock. Since by then it’s selling for pennies, he actually ends up owning most of the company. Just when it’s about to declare bankruptcy, an oil field or some such is found under one of D-M’s pulp tree plantations. Company is in the black, Michael Scott is now the principal stockholder. He moves HQ to Scranton, starts running the company from the Vance (?) building. Jim is sole regional manager but has to deal with Michael on a daily basis. Maybe throw in having Michael also invest his employees’ 401(k)s or whatever in D-M so they go from threatening to lynch him to feeling rich. Basically, the show needs to move on. Michael and Jim can’t be co-managers. Michael needs to move up to where he can do maximum damage without being fire-able. ---
**Author:** ![kasuo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8c91f0/32.png) [@kasuo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kasuo)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-11-19-09-open-spoilers/518251/76 "2009-11-24T23:10:54Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > **ftg** ’s “The Office” fantasy. Apparently D-M’s stock is tanking quickly, as per the building stock ticker near the end. Michael is a strong believer in investing in the future of his company so buys a lot of stock. I can also see some current reference being thrown into the story where DM gets bailed out by the government. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-11-19-09-open-spoilers/518251.md?page=3)