I think the American Office has run it's course - Page 3

**Lock Jaw** · 02-03-2009, 12:07 PM

Yeah, The Office should never be more than half an hour long.

**IC Champion** · 02-03-2009, 03:01 PM

Last nights episode was great.

**ron the dial** · 02-05-2009, 09:23 PM

lol this is how i got squeaky fromme

**ron the dial** · 02-05-2009, 09:27 PM

wtf "to be continued" of course it's going to be continued

**Jeritron** · 02-06-2009, 12:06 AM

I didn't catch tonights episode cuz of the epic Celts/Lakers game. Gonna catch it online

**BCWWF** · 02-13-2009, 01:49 PM

OK, I'm able to update my opinion a little more.

Pam is not funny. Any episode based on Pam is boring.

Last night's episode was funny in every scene that didn't involve Pam.

**Lock Jaw** · 02-13-2009, 01:59 PM

Last night's episode was a big Holly-Tease. I waited a whole week for nothing.

**ron the dial** · 02-13-2009, 02:27 PM

i really enjoyed last night's episode. but i do have to say that pam acting like michael scott was really not that great. not terrible, but it just didn't work for me.

**BCWWF** · 02-20-2009, 01:52 PM

It's funny, last night for apparently no reason they showed a rerun, and it was from the beginning of this season when Holly was there and Pam was in New York. Hilarious.

I swear, something changed during that big break around the holidays.

**ron the dial** · 02-20-2009, 03:07 PM

yeah they reran 30 rock, too. obviously the reruns had something to do with the office.

**IC Champion** · 03-20-2009, 02:44 PM

Last nights episode was great. Stringer Bell FTW

**Requiem** · 03-20-2009, 02:46 PM

Yeah last night was good. Wow though.

**Lock Jaw** · 03-20-2009, 03:22 PM

Yeah, it was good. Jim finally got some comeuppance.

**IC Champion** · 03-20-2009, 03:35 PM

And Michael quit.

**Blitz** · 03-20-2009, 07:49 PM

Michael saying "You have no idea how I can fly" broke my heart

**BCWWF** · 03-20-2009, 08:48 PM

Last night's episode was great, and I'm excited to see what happens. This one and the Super Bowl episode have been by far the best in 2009 so far.

**BCWWF** · 03-20-2009, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitz

Michael saying "You have no idea how I can fly" broke my heart

I thought it was "You have no idea how high I can fly," no?

**Blitz** · 03-20-2009, 08:58 PM

Yes. Left the word out for some reason.

**Fox** · 03-22-2009, 03:42 AM

I don't understand why the new supervising manager said Jim's position was "made-up." When he was in Stamford he was the #2, and then when they made the merger Jan said that he would be acting #2 at Scranton, officially overriding Dwight. Then this new guy comes in and says it's a made up position.

**ron the dial** · 03-22-2009, 08:36 AM

i was a little confused by that, too, but jim did come right out and say that there were no responsibilities that came with the title so it's a pretty useless title either way.

**thedamndest** · 03-22-2009, 02:37 PM

I just watched the episode the other day when Michael "promoted" Dwight from Assistant to the Regional Manager to Assistant Regional Manager. It's in the episode where they fight at Dwight's dojo. Michael tells him that the new job doesn't come with any additional responsibilities or a raise and that they wouldn't be telling anybody in the office as it would be on a trial basis, so it's completely arbitrary, but a big deal to Dwight. There may have been an episode later when Dwight lost that title to Jim somehow, but that would be why it's a made up position.

**ron the dial** · 03-22-2009, 11:19 PM

jan did officially make jim michael's number 2 when the branches merged, but jan was pretty incompetent and just went along with what michael said.

but that doesn't make sense because he would have been that one branch manager's number 2 as well so it would have gone past the scranton branch. hmm. maybe it was a useless title there, too.

**BCWWF** · 03-23-2009, 05:09 PM

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar...onitor15?tn=z3
Layoffs would bring new life to 'The Office'

Michael Scott's sad-sack demeanor is bringing viewer morale down. A fresh face at the helm just might work wonders.

By Jon Caramanica
March 15, 2009 in print edition D-18
"The Office" is sagging and it is a conundrum to which there is only one real solution: fire Michael Scott. Or Steve Carell. Whatever it takes.

Early on, taking after Ricky Gervais' David Brent on the original British version of the show, Michael was a catalyst for misbehavior and ill will. He was difficult, verging on unlovable; you almost had to shield your eyes watching him, so great was his capacity for awkwardness.

But as the American version has aged, evolving beyond the structure of its predecessor, the expectation that Michael will occupy the same amount of space as he did during the show's earlier seasons, when his gaffes were more gratuitous, has become burdensome.

And exhausted too. Carell can't quite play him as the simp he once was: His shoulders are slightly squarer, his hair slightly better, his uncertainty a little more certain. It's as if the show no longer believes in the character's wacky potential.

Instead, in order to breathe new life into Michael, he has become something that was virtually impossible in earlier seasons, given the naive arrogance that motivated his behavior: sympathetic. Many of the show's recent episodes have been dragged down by Michael's depression in the wake of his split with Holly Flax (Amy Ryan).

Formerly incapable of seriousness, he's become something of a sad sack, ill-equipped to grapple with his pain. Of course, no one around him is much inclined to help. Scorn is central to most of the relationships that the show's other characters have with Michael, and little has happened to change that. He's still incompetent, foolish and blinded by his inanity, but now he's needy too, an emotion that has no place here.

His impromptu lonely-hearts party a couple of weeks ago just felt tragic; he never once subverted his own sadness, the trait of his that has long made his character distinctive, if grating. Typically, the show has been able to rely on Jim (John Krasinski) and Dwight (Rainn Wilson) when Michael became unbearable, but both of those characters have also eroded of late.

Jim has become smug and self-satisfied -- not even his engagement to Pam (Jenna Fischer) redeems him. Where his fourth-wall-breaking looks into the camera were once befuddled, now they're withering, making him less a hapless bystander and more a conspirator. And as Dwight, Wilson has injected a confidence that has made the character less shocking.

Now, when he delivers his absurd pronunciations on his own potency, his eyebrows are raised just a bit, awaiting a response that his deadpan-ness used to trigger automatically. To judge by the last couple of months, all three primary characters could go on an extended work retreat and do little damage to the show -- many of its recent high points have happened at the margins.

Dealing with a weak heart, Stanley (Leslie David Baker) has been more vibrant than ever. "I don't have enough saved to retire," he recently lamented. "I feel like I'm working in my own casket."

The sexual radiance of Angela (Angela Kinsey) upon acquiring a new cat was brilliantly discomfiting, and the scene in which Oscar (Oscar Nu�ez) and Kevin (Brian Baumgartner) watched her, via webcam, as she cleaned her new prize pet with her tongue was one of the most inventive and shocking scenes on any sitcom in recent memory.

And the show's most constant love, between Phyllis (Phyllis Smith) and Bob Vance (Robert R. Shafer), continues to provide small pleasures, such as when they abandoned Jim and Pam at lunch to have sex in a restaurant bathroom. Jim and Pam were shocked, but they should have been taking notes.

Not all subplots have been successful. The episode-long debate about Hilary Swank's hotness, and the gruesome film-within-the-show involving a love triangle among Jessica Alba, Jack Black and Cloris Leachman, both felt like stretched-out one-liners from "Family Guy."

Occasionally, though, especially when all the characters get together in one room, the original sparks reemerge. Last month, Michael struggled his way through a particularly vicious roast by his co-workers, but even as it got more and more cruel, it was hard to feel for him.

But at the end of the episode, when he gave them their comeuppance, it was unexpectedly gratifying, the rare moment where a Michael Scott victory was also just, plainly speaking, a victory.

**ron the dial** · 03-23-2009, 09:11 PM

i don't know. i feel like replacing michael in any capacity would change the show to the point that it isn't the same show anymore. it just wouldn't feel right. i can't say i'm completely opposed to it, and i do see some of the points that the article makes, but i don't know. i'd rather see the show come to an end with the departure of michael scott than see a new beginning with it.

**IC Champion** · 03-23-2009, 09:12 PM

They wont be replacing Michael Scott, not on a permanent basis, I cant see it.

**BCWWF** · 03-24-2009, 09:57 AM

I can't say I disagree with that article one bit though. Replacing Michael would make it a completely different show, but Michael, Dwight and Jim aren't what they used to be

**ron the dial** · 03-24-2009, 10:26 AM

if they were the exact same characters 5 seasons later it would probably be pretty boring to watch, honestly.

**BCWWF** · 03-24-2009, 01:41 PM

That's why they are supposed to get better, not worse. When they get worse the show gets even more boring to watch. Thus, I stand by the name of this title.

ALTHOUGH, seeing what they do with Michael quitting last week could bring something back!

**thedamndest** · 03-24-2009, 03:57 PM

The underlying premise of the article seems to be "I prefer season one of The Office to the later seasons because the characters are funnier then." I see where he's coming from to some extent because at certain times the characters do seem to become more like caricatures in later seasons as they up the ante on the pranks. In that regard, I think there have been times when some of the later episodes haven't been as good.

However, The Office also does something which you won't see on According to Jim, and that is make what happens on each show matter week to week. As stupid as something Michael did on this week's episode, it will probably have repercussions on next week's, so in that regard the characters have all developed in response to or played a role in whatever happens around them. The article seems to imply that the actors have changed the characters' mannerisms for no reason, when in fact it is because the characters have changed as the show has progressed. Whether viewers enjoy the change or not, I guess is a personal taste.

I don't see Michael leaving. If he does, it's time to end the show. It would be one of those things where people looked back and said, "Yeah, The Office really got bad when Steve Carrell left."

**IC Champion** · 03-24-2009, 04:07 PM

LOL, According to Jim.

I agree with thedamndest pretty much.

**Requiem** · 03-24-2009, 04:45 PM

Shut the fuck up BCWWF. Jesus, you are a non-stop whiney bitch in this thread. If you don't like the show anymore, or you don't like the direction it's going, then stop watching it you tard. Quit saying they need to change 'this', or they need to change 'that'. Some of us like the show the way it is. Go find a show that fits your comedic needs, and just stop watching this one if so many things about it bother you so much.

**BCWWF** · 03-24-2009, 04:50 PM

I don't think the article is implying that the characters have changed for no reason, but rather that the characters have changed to the point where they aren't as effective as they used to be.

I think the analysis is spot on in many regards. Michael used to be so outrageous and annoying that the humor was based around how awkward he was and how uncomfortable he made other people feel. Toward the middle of this season, the characters seemed to embrace his weirdness, especially Pam for some reason, and it was like "Oh, haha, Michael being Michael," instead of "Oh my God, I can't believe he just did that!"

For me, and probably most, the Office was undoubtably the best in season two, but season three was still very good and season four wasn't bad at all. The beginning of this season was really great as well. In season three, Jim was in the other office and then they merged, disrupting the status quo and introducing new characters like Andy. That's what made season three good.

The current season started out on the right track. Bringing Holly in as somebody who embraced Michael and encouraged him and legitimized the stupid things he did gave a whole new dimension to the character. Then she left and Pam came back, and it's been pretty shitty ever since. The only two episodes that I thought were good since Holly left were the Super Bowl and last week's.

Here's to hoping the Michael quitting cliffhanger from last week sticks around, because that was great. Michael showing his pride for himself to the point where he quits the company is something we haven't seen from his character before. The way to keep a show running is to switch things up just enough that it's new and fresh, but that you can still sense the old.

I think some drastic storyline needs to change. Some ideas? That black guy takes over for Michael and the office is miserable, but then they do things to mess with the new guy. Some of the office is outsourced to a different office? A fire destroys the office and they have to move somewhere uncomfortable while it gets fixed. These sound pretty terrible, but something needs to happen more than "Jim and Pam are happy and play along with Michael's games."

**BCWWF** · 03-24-2009, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

Shut the fuck up BCWWF. Jesus, you are a non-stop whiney bitch in this thread. If you don't like the show anymore, or you don't like the direction it's going, then stop watching it you tard. Quit saying they need to change 'this', or they need to change 'that'. Some of us like the show the way it is. Go find a show that fits your comedic needs, and just stop watching this one if so many things about it bother you so much.

What the hell is your problem? Obviously I'm not the only one in this thread who is saying the show has gone downhill, and I posted an article from one of the biggest newspapers in America that shows that opinion is not isolated to this message board at all.

The whole point of this thread is to discuss the show. If you want to make your own thread called "Funny moments from this week's episode of the Office" then go ahead. I won't go in there and complain like you keep doing to this thread. But in case you missed the first three pages, the topic of this thread is discussing whether or not the Office is as good as it used to be.

I don't really get your hostility?

**ron the dial** · 03-24-2009, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCWWF

For me, and probably most, the Office was undoubtably the best in season two

bold claim. i'd love to see what the real "favorite season of office fans" would be.

**IC Champion** · 03-24-2009, 04:57 PM

Season 3 was pretty damned good.

**BCWWF** · 03-24-2009, 04:57 PM

Really? You think a majority of people would disagree that season two was the show's best?

I've always pretty much thought it was a consensus the season two was the best, followed by three and one, and then four.

**BCWWF** · 03-24-2009, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Instant Classic

Season 3 was pretty damned good.

Season three was brilliant too, I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't. But I always thought season two was one of the rare untouchable seasons of any show.

**IC Champion** · 03-24-2009, 05:06 PM

I don't recall exactly what happened in season 2, I do remember season three being amazing.

**Jeritron** · 03-24-2009, 05:06 PM

I slacked viewing for the past month or so because of real life inteference. I have a Thurs night class. I just caught up the other night though, and I thought they were hilarious.

Some seasons or episodes may be better than others, but I don't really know what you guys are on about. It's still great in my book, and I think when the show "jumps the shark", we'll all know it.

If you don't like it anymore, stop watching. It can't be that bad if you're still interested. Shows lose viewership and fall into obscurity because people stop watching/caring about them. Not because people start arguing over whether or not things live up to their romanticized perceptions.

P.S., If Michael leaves the show, that will very likely be a jump the shark moment. I doubt it though.

**BCWWF** · 03-24-2009, 05:14 PM

The whole "If you don't like it then stop watching it" thing is pretty stupid. It really doesn't even correlate with what we're talking about.

I like the show, I think the writing has been brilliant and I've followed it for the past four years. At this point, why are my only two options to either enjoy the show or stop watching it?

Like some other people in this thread and the LA Times writer, I find the show to be in a slump right now. Some episodes have been funny, but some haven't. If you just want to comment on funny things Dwight did then go ahead and do that, but I am more interested in talking about the writing and the dynamics of the show in this thread, and that's what I'm doing.

03-24-2009, 05:06 PM	#119
Jeritron Get a poke on Posts: 35,234	I slacked viewing for the past month or so because of real life inteference. I have a Thurs night class. I just caught up the other night though, and I thought they were hilarious. Some seasons or episodes may be better than others, but I don't really know what you guys are on about. It's still great in my book, and I think when the show "jumps the shark", we'll all know it. If you don't like it anymore, stop watching. It can't be that bad if you're still interested. Shows lose viewership and fall into obscurity because people stop watching/caring about them. Not because people start arguing over whether or not things live up to their romanticized perceptions. P.S., If Michael leaves the show, that will very likely be a jump the shark moment. I doubt it though. Last edited by Jeritron; 03-24-2009 at 05:08 PM.

02-03-2009, 12:07 PM	#81
Lock Jaw Loque Ja Posts: 87,868	Yeah, The Office should never be more than half an hour long.

02-03-2009, 03:01 PM	#82
IC Champion They/Them Posts: 15,326	Last nights episode was great.

02-05-2009, 09:23 PM	#83
ron the dial the heartbreak king Posts: 48,431	lol this is how i got squeaky fromme

02-05-2009, 09:27 PM	#84
ron the dial the heartbreak king Posts: 48,431	wtf "to be continued" of course it's going to be continued

02-06-2009, 12:06 AM	#85
Jeritron Get a poke on Posts: 35,234	I didn't catch tonights episode cuz of the epic Celts/Lakers game. Gonna catch it online

02-13-2009, 01:49 PM	#86
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	OK, I'm able to update my opinion a little more. Pam is not funny. Any episode based on Pam is boring. Last night's episode was funny in every scene that didn't involve Pam.

02-13-2009, 01:59 PM	#87
Lock Jaw Loque Ja Posts: 87,868	Last night's episode was a big Holly-Tease. I waited a whole week for nothing.

02-13-2009, 02:27 PM	#88
ron the dial the heartbreak king Posts: 48,431	i really enjoyed last night's episode. but i do have to say that pam acting like michael scott was really not that great. not terrible, but it just didn't work for me.

02-20-2009, 01:52 PM	#89
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	It's funny, last night for apparently no reason they showed a rerun, and it was from the beginning of this season when Holly was there and Pam was in New York. Hilarious. I swear, something changed during that big break around the holidays.

02-20-2009, 03:07 PM	#90
ron the dial the heartbreak king Posts: 48,431	yeah they reran 30 rock, too. obviously the reruns had something to do with the office.

03-20-2009, 02:44 PM	#91
IC Champion They/Them Posts: 15,326	Last nights episode was great. Stringer Bell FTW

03-20-2009, 02:46 PM	#92
Requiem Posts: 19,294	Yeah last night was good. Wow though.

03-20-2009, 03:22 PM	#93
Lock Jaw Loque Ja Posts: 87,868	Yeah, it was good. Jim finally got some comeuppance.

03-20-2009, 03:35 PM	#94
IC Champion They/Them Posts: 15,326	And Michael quit.

03-20-2009, 07:49 PM	#95
Blitz Angel Headed Hipster Posts: 37,942	Michael saying "You have no idea how I can fly" broke my heart

03-20-2009, 08:48 PM	#96
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	Last night's episode was great, and I'm excited to see what happens. This one and the Super Bowl episode have been by far the best in 2009 so far.

03-20-2009, 08:58 PM	#98
Blitz Angel Headed Hipster Posts: 37,942	Yes. Left the word out for some reason.

03-22-2009, 03:42 AM	#99
Fox "Ask him!" Posts: 10,072	I don't understand why the new supervising manager said Jim's position was "made-up." When he was in Stamford he was the #2, and then when they made the merger Jan said that he would be acting #2 at Scranton, officially overriding Dwight. Then this new guy comes in and says it's a made up position.

03-22-2009, 08:36 AM	#100
ron the dial the heartbreak king Posts: 48,431	i was a little confused by that, too, but jim did come right out and say that there were no responsibilities that came with the title so it's a pretty useless title either way.

03-22-2009, 02:37 PM	#101
thedamndest A Property of Matter Posts: 25,543	I just watched the episode the other day when Michael "promoted" Dwight from Assistant to the Regional Manager to Assistant Regional Manager. It's in the episode where they fight at Dwight's dojo. Michael tells him that the new job doesn't come with any additional responsibilities or a raise and that they wouldn't be telling anybody in the office as it would be on a trial basis, so it's completely arbitrary, but a big deal to Dwight. There may have been an episode later when Dwight lost that title to Jim somehow, but that would be why it's a made up position.

03-22-2009, 11:19 PM	#102
ron the dial the heartbreak king Posts: 48,431	jan did officially make jim michael's number 2 when the branches merged, but jan was pretty incompetent and just went along with what michael said. but that doesn't make sense because he would have been that one branch manager's number 2 as well so it would have gone past the scranton branch. hmm. maybe it was a useless title there, too.

03-23-2009, 05:09 PM	#103
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar...onitor15?tn=z3 Layoffs would bring new life to 'The Office' Michael Scott's sad-sack demeanor is bringing viewer morale down. A fresh face at the helm just might work wonders. By Jon Caramanica March 15, 2009 in print edition D-18 "The Office" is sagging and it is a conundrum to which there is only one real solution: fire Michael Scott. Or Steve Carell. Whatever it takes. Early on, taking after Ricky Gervais' David Brent on the original British version of the show, Michael was a catalyst for misbehavior and ill will. He was difficult, verging on unlovable; you almost had to shield your eyes watching him, so great was his capacity for awkwardness. But as the American version has aged, evolving beyond the structure of its predecessor, the expectation that Michael will occupy the same amount of space as he did during the show's earlier seasons, when his gaffes were more gratuitous, has become burdensome. And exhausted too. Carell can't quite play him as the simp he once was: His shoulders are slightly squarer, his hair slightly better, his uncertainty a little more certain. It's as if the show no longer believes in the character's wacky potential. Instead, in order to breathe new life into Michael, he has become something that was virtually impossible in earlier seasons, given the naive arrogance that motivated his behavior: sympathetic. Many of the show's recent episodes have been dragged down by Michael's depression in the wake of his split with Holly Flax (Amy Ryan). Formerly incapable of seriousness, he's become something of a sad sack, ill-equipped to grapple with his pain. Of course, no one around him is much inclined to help. Scorn is central to most of the relationships that the show's other characters have with Michael, and little has happened to change that. He's still incompetent, foolish and blinded by his inanity, but now he's needy too, an emotion that has no place here. His impromptu lonely-hearts party a couple of weeks ago just felt tragic; he never once subverted his own sadness, the trait of his that has long made his character distinctive, if grating. Typically, the show has been able to rely on Jim (John Krasinski) and Dwight (Rainn Wilson) when Michael became unbearable, but both of those characters have also eroded of late. Jim has become smug and self-satisfied -- not even his engagement to Pam (Jenna Fischer) redeems him. Where his fourth-wall-breaking looks into the camera were once befuddled, now they're withering, making him less a hapless bystander and more a conspirator. And as Dwight, Wilson has injected a confidence that has made the character less shocking. Now, when he delivers his absurd pronunciations on his own potency, his eyebrows are raised just a bit, awaiting a response that his deadpan-ness used to trigger automatically. To judge by the last couple of months, all three primary characters could go on an extended work retreat and do little damage to the show -- many of its recent high points have happened at the margins. Dealing with a weak heart, Stanley (Leslie David Baker) has been more vibrant than ever. "I don't have enough saved to retire," he recently lamented. "I feel like I'm working in my own casket." The sexual radiance of Angela (Angela Kinsey) upon acquiring a new cat was brilliantly discomfiting, and the scene in which Oscar (Oscar Nu�ez) and Kevin (Brian Baumgartner) watched her, via webcam, as she cleaned her new prize pet with her tongue was one of the most inventive and shocking scenes on any sitcom in recent memory. And the show's most constant love, between Phyllis (Phyllis Smith) and Bob Vance (Robert R. Shafer), continues to provide small pleasures, such as when they abandoned Jim and Pam at lunch to have sex in a restaurant bathroom. Jim and Pam were shocked, but they should have been taking notes. Not all subplots have been successful. The episode-long debate about Hilary Swank's hotness, and the gruesome film-within-the-show involving a love triangle among Jessica Alba, Jack Black and Cloris Leachman, both felt like stretched-out one-liners from "Family Guy." Occasionally, though, especially when all the characters get together in one room, the original sparks reemerge. Last month, Michael struggled his way through a particularly vicious roast by his co-workers, but even as it got more and more cruel, it was hard to feel for him. But at the end of the episode, when he gave them their comeuppance, it was unexpectedly gratifying, the rare moment where a Michael Scott victory was also just, plainly speaking, a victory.

03-23-2009, 09:11 PM	#104
ron the dial the heartbreak king Posts: 48,431	i don't know. i feel like replacing michael in any capacity would change the show to the point that it isn't the same show anymore. it just wouldn't feel right. i can't say i'm completely opposed to it, and i do see some of the points that the article makes, but i don't know. i'd rather see the show come to an end with the departure of michael scott than see a new beginning with it.

03-23-2009, 09:12 PM	#105
IC Champion They/Them Posts: 15,326	They wont be replacing Michael Scott, not on a permanent basis, I cant see it.

03-24-2009, 09:57 AM	#106
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	I can't say I disagree with that article one bit though. Replacing Michael would make it a completely different show, but Michael, Dwight and Jim aren't what they used to be

03-24-2009, 10:26 AM	#107
ron the dial the heartbreak king Posts: 48,431	if they were the exact same characters 5 seasons later it would probably be pretty boring to watch, honestly.

03-24-2009, 01:41 PM	#108
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	That's why they are supposed to get better, not worse. When they get worse the show gets even more boring to watch. Thus, I stand by the name of this title. ALTHOUGH, seeing what they do with Michael quitting last week could bring something back!

03-24-2009, 03:57 PM	#109
thedamndest A Property of Matter Posts: 25,543	The underlying premise of the article seems to be "I prefer season one of The Office to the later seasons because the characters are funnier then." I see where he's coming from to some extent because at certain times the characters do seem to become more like caricatures in later seasons as they up the ante on the pranks. In that regard, I think there have been times when some of the later episodes haven't been as good. However, The Office also does something which you won't see on According to Jim, and that is make what happens on each show matter week to week. As stupid as something Michael did on this week's episode, it will probably have repercussions on next week's, so in that regard the characters have all developed in response to or played a role in whatever happens around them. The article seems to imply that the actors have changed the characters' mannerisms for no reason, when in fact it is because the characters have changed as the show has progressed. Whether viewers enjoy the change or not, I guess is a personal taste. I don't see Michael leaving. If he does, it's time to end the show. It would be one of those things where people looked back and said, "Yeah, The Office really got bad when Steve Carrell left."

03-24-2009, 04:07 PM	#110
IC Champion They/Them Posts: 15,326	LOL, According to Jim. I agree with thedamndest pretty much.

03-24-2009, 04:45 PM	#111
Requiem Posts: 19,294	Shut the fuck up BCWWF. Jesus, you are a non-stop whiney bitch in this thread. If you don't like the show anymore, or you don't like the direction it's going, then stop watching it you tard. Quit saying they need to change 'this', or they need to change 'that'. Some of us like the show the way it is. Go find a show that fits your comedic needs, and just stop watching this one if so many things about it bother you so much.