MovieChat Forums > Parks and Recreation (2009) Discussion > What's the point of this show?

What's the point of this show?

posted 7 months ago by avortac4 (3746)
2 replies | jump to latest

I have only seen around one and a half seasons, and I keep expecting the show to become good, someone actually interesting and not-so-unpleasant taking the main role, something I actually care about to happen, some kind of plot or story to happen that's actually fascinating or exciting, something to start making sense, some kind of premise that's relatable...

I don't get it. What's the point of this show?

The Office was groundbreaking, because it started this whole 'is it real documentary or just a dull sitcom'-trend with the UK-version. The USA version, of course, botched this completely, making the show a more typical 'wacky sitcom', while trying to weakly copy the original for the first season.

If the rest had been like the first season, I would have stopped watching pretty soon. It did take me a long while to even 'get' that show, but once I did, I started seeing the surprisingly subtle (at least sometimes) humor behind and under all the 'wackiness' and on-the-nose stuff.

Most of the characters were still either useless, annoying or 'TV-ugly', but they are still pleasant enough to watch. Erin, for example, is an interesting character, because she's ridiculously ignorant and stupid, while still projecting a pleasant, uplifting vibe around her. She's technically 'almost-ugly', certainly not a beauty queen, but at the same time, very pleasant to look at for some reason - I could watch her for hours and feel good about it.

She definitely has some kind of 'female charisma' or something.

The blonde hag in this show... it's hard to understand why she is the lead. She's not good-looking beyond her hair, she has weird eyebrows, bulgy eyes, non-expressive face. She pulls 'weird, inappropriate faces' that make no sense instead of 'appropriate, funny reactions', like Michael Scott would.

She has no charisma, so there's no reason to look at her.

She doesn't say anything too interesting, so why are we listening to her?

She doesn't do anything amazing, she doesn't have any kind of personality, she has no 'message we can all get behind', so even when she 'wins', it feels empty and meaningless. Why should we care what she does or thinks?

This show does not have an answer.

'The Office' is interesting, because it's relatable - it deals with the everyday life many of us know, either directly or via proxy, because so many people work and have worked in an office of some kind. It has this kind of connection to 'reality', but then makes it more entertaining and adds subtle humor into the mix, which makes it somewhat brilliant as something to watch.

The characters change and grow a bit, but you can always trust Dwight to be weird and do/say something unpredictable but interesting, you can always trust Michael Scott to misunderstand some saying and make some strange decisions, react in a funny way to more normal situations and so on.

What kind of payoff do you get in this show? Is there good humor? Is there any kind of charisma? Is there anything beyond weird 'relationship drama' and Crisp Rat trying to be fun but ending up as just 'please go away'-type of thing to watch?

None of the characters are particularly expressive, or quirky enough to be fascinating. Dwight's 'evil face' is a thousand times better than anything we see in this show. Michael Scott can't even be compared to anything here.

Still, maybe I just don't get iet yet... it took me awhile to understand 'The Office', I did not 'get it', either... until everything started clicking, and now I love the show and think I understand it.

It's hard for me to see myself loving this show, though.. everything is either too silly to take it seriously, or too serious to be fun, or too boring to be entertaining, and none of the characters are relatable, exciting, wacky, quirky or fun to watch. The indian guy is like Kelly, but much more boring and one-note.

The moustache guy I just don't get - what is he supposed to be?

The blonde hag is.. well, let's just say 'underwhelming at best' and 'repulsive at worst'. I have to admit that sometimes she doesn't look 'that bad', but she never looks eye-pleasing, I always have to 'adjust myself' when she's on the screen, especially in a close-up, so I don't just turn off the whole show.

Maybe she's not 'technically ugly' (though debatable?), but I just can't understand why they or anyone would choose THAT mug over soooooo many other faces to be the lead. She could work as a Phyllis-type of character that some simp guy worships for no discernable reason, and that's the humor of it (I love Michael Scott's jabs at her, like all the 'grandma' stuff, but this show doesn't even dare do that).

As a lead role, however? What? Why? Whom did she bribe or blackmail to get this role? How? I don't get it.. if there were only about 100 people in the world, sure. But in a world with probably MILLIONS of 'more pleasant faces' they could have chosen.. why choose this one? She can't pull off Michael Scott, not even one per cent..

[–] avortac4 (3746) 7 months ago

Also, is 'filling some boring pit' really that relatable? Why would anyone think a story about 'a pit' would be interesting AT ALL, let alone be the premise of a whole show?

An office is a naturally interesting, even exciting place, because 'we've all been there', it's relatable.

How many of us have spent what seems like years, trying to fill a pit? What?

It's just a strange decision, just like giving the lead role to a mug like THAT.. not 100% unpleasant, but on the edge of almost 'uncanny valley' due to not being pleasant enough - and I am trying to be as objective as I can here. She reminds me of the female idiot in the old show 'Extras' - and I get the irony or whatever, because of the connection to 'The Office', I assure it's unintentional.

I mean, the 'female object of male lust' in the original UK office is also a slightly-repulsive blonde hag, made even more so by her being fat, but at least she was young and had a more pleasant face, so it wasn't too bad - plus, she was not the lead role.

Can you imagine UK office with the receptionist hag as the main role? Wouldn't that be strange?

What is this show supposed to give the viewer? There's no philosophy, relatability, beauty, charisma, wacky characters, interesting stories (I can't get over that someone GREENLIT this 'pit' idea), interesting office building, beautiful landscapes or any kind of promise. WHY did this get a second, let alone third season?

Do people just not get why 'The Office' was so good and celebrated? Did the same people that ran that show to the ground start this show?

The Office died, or at least went into a coma where it never recoverd the SECOND Michael Scott was permanently off screen.

This show started with worse coma than 'The Office' ever was in... and hasn't awakened yet.

I wonder how many seasons I have to wade through for this show to actually give me ANYTHING worthwhile that can even be compared to 'The Office'... I wonder.

[–] cv1cv (470) 6 months ago

BEWARE! Avortac4 is a troll trying to waste everyone's time with such idiotic comments. Look at his posts. He doesn't think anything in any film makes sense. His post may seem like it makes sense in the first sentence or two. But he always quickly wanders off into a completely idiotic idea, and then writes a wall of text that makes no sense. And his sole purpose is to waste your time, thinking he's cute for doing so. Don't feed the troll. If you write a comment, you're giving this troll EXACTLY what he wants. Don't comment after my comment.