It’s his gym clothes for a company basketball game between the office and the warehouse.
And although we’re supposed to identify with Jim as the nice-guy hero, he’s a bit of an asshole. There was one episode when he described all of the pranks he’d played on Dwight and then said something like “It sounds kind of mean when you say it all at once.”
And I’m curious where the show goes in the third season, particularly after Jim told Pam about his feelings for her and kissed her in the final episode of the second season. What’s the show going to do now that the romantic tension has been broken?
I think he said “These don’t sound that funny when you say them all at once,” not that they were mean. And then he goes on to say “But he does deserve it!” And frankly, I agree. Anybody who steals 25% of his co-worker’s annual pay, and forces everybody in the office to take a urine test because he found a joint in the parking lot … well, he deserves to have his stuff inserted into gelatin desserts at the very least.
My guess is that she’ll stay with Roy initially, and they’ll have to deal with all the new tension between the two of them until she finally dumps Roy so she can carry Jim off into the sunset and whatnot.
Man, I can’t wait to see how that actually plays out.
I like your analysis very much but there are some things that you would show then that you would never show now. TV shows up until the 70’s would think nothing of, for example, showing an Asian character, played by a white guy, with buck teeth, thick glasses and a ridiculous fake accent acting like a confused oaf.
Both the British and the U.S. versions of The Office are brilliant. As has been said, they are brilliant because the characters are right on and the acting is wonderful and the situations are, for the most part, all too real. It such a nice change from the typical awful shit like Friends and That 70’s Show that permeates the networks.
Sounds like Mickey Rooney’s character in Breakfast at Tiffany’s - and boy are you right, absolutely awful. I think what I’m hearing you say is that there is a tradeoff as we’ve seen TV/media mature - we pull the cover off inappropriate “-ism’s” that were once viewed as okay - racism, misogyny, etc. - but we allow a much more intimate exploration of the fallibility that makes us human.
I agree with posters who comment that shows like the Office are more sophisticated and challenging that laugh-track sitcoms that spoon-feed us humor. But I also am concerned that the current shows - which in the U.S. I trace back to **Seinfeld ** as the first truly popular show that explores our fallibility - hold human behavior to such a high standard - who doesn’t do something cringeworthy on an hourly basis?
I wonder what the backlash against this type of show will be?
If Jim is an asshole, I think it’s because he realizes that he hasn’t actually done anything. He’s not going to do anything. He’s just in a holding pattern because of Pam, so he lashes out. Dwight being what he is just makes a convenient target.
-Joe
7th Heaven.
-Joe
Exactly. I also recall an episode of Gilligan’s Island where Bob Denver played a Japanese soldier who didn’t know WWII was over.
I have the UK DVD and it’s hilarious. Gervais is a master of the embarassing moment, and continues it well with “Extras” (pretending to be catholic, for instance, was hugely funny and uncomfortable at the same time).
Satire. Save the soft stuff like ‘physical pain’ for slapstick.
Dwight did that?!
What were the circumstances? I thought he was really anal about rules, including “ethical” rules. What would lead him to steal?
-FrL-
I’m not chorpler (obviously), but I think he was referring to time that Jim was trapped in Michael’s diversity seminar the day he was attempting to renew his biggest account. For some reason Dwight wasn’t in the seminar, and he took the call from the account and stole the business. (Something very similar happened in the UK version.)
Okay, that makes sense. He’d subsume that under a “you move it you lose it” sort of “ethic”.
This jogged a little something in my head. Along with the no laugh track, the show is shot in a documentary style. In other shows, you as a viewer are more omniscient, you are watching the action from a more comfortable, neutral and safe place. In contrast, this show is shot at eye level from a person who is in the room. The characters will talk to you as if you had just asked them a question. Sometimes after something bad or embarrasing has happened, the character will make a face, then look at you to apparently get your reaction. I think this style adds to the kinda creepy vibe and more real feeling of the show.
Freaky. Last night as I was reading your post, the TV was on in the background and the show Curb Your Enthusiasm just started playing. It is not often we have the TV ‘on in the background’ and I had never heard of the show until I read your post.
So I logged out of SDMB and started watching. I thought it was funny, which is surprising because the only other US comedies I like are South Park, The Office episodes I have seen, a mock sitcom about GW Bush (forgot the name) and early/later Simpsons. A couple of episodes of Seinfeld were funny, but thats about all I can think of.
There is some great US comedy in movies (The Big Lebowski is brilliant amongst many others), but it seems we hardly get any US TV comedies in Australia. Most of the TV comedies are either local or British.
So thanks for the intel chorpler.
Which Coens movies are you thinking of? They create some great characters, but I wouldn’t call them real people. They have human qualities and flaws, but they’re also really exaggerated and idiosyncratic. Maybe what makes you uncomfortable is the way so many of their characters are in over their heads, stuck in situations they don’t understand?
To be certain they exagerate them, but still it’s an exageration of normal people (i.e. making fun of them.) Fargo exagerates people from Fargo, Raising Arizona exagerates motor-home white-trash and upper middle class/lower upper class people, The Big Lebowski makes fun of Vietnam vets, ex-hippies, nihilists, and rich people… I wouldn’t say they did it in the Hudsucker Proxy admittedly, but that seemed to have very little to do with much of anything like real life. I’ve never seen Miller’s Crossing, so I can’t say about that.
I wonder if there’s any correlation between people that dislike The Office and dislike Napoleon Dynamite.
They both have very un-popular characters who are pathetic and you want to feel sympathy for them but they are actually not very nice people, so you just feel uncomfortable about it. You end up thinking “I don’t like these people so why would I want to watch them” and of the people who do watch them “Why are you being so cruel laughing at these people, they’re pathetic.”
I’m on the other side of the fence and love both The Office and Nappy-D.
But every once in a while Michael will redeem himself, whether he actually feels that way or because he has learned that’s what you’re supposed to do. I’m thinking of the repeat from last week with his birthday and the skating party. He’s selfish up until he hears that Kevin is waiting for the test results and then focuses on him. I know that could be taken as still selfish since he wants attention for being a sensitive guy, but at least he has a clue. Again, whether he actually cares about Kevin or because that’s what you do in that situation. It rings true for me because I have learned what to do in some situations through observing others, not because I have a natural sense of the right thing to do.
Sure. I think their characters are so warped that they’re not supposed to be takes on a particular group - Walter is a Vietnam vet, but he’s not a commentary on Vietnam vets as a group. He’s an asshole who happens to also be a vet. 
The Dude isn’t a commentary on hippies, he’s just one of the laziest people in Los Angeles, which puts him in the running for laziest worldwide. But obviously, YMMV and IMHO and IANAD and all that stuff.