MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
The real reason is, Larry wanted to put them all in prison.
So, you want someone to climb on the office, and sell YOU while standing on it?
What?
Erin doesn't really leave an impression either way. She's a bit of a psycho sometimes, but nice to see someone so clueless that they can be constantly happy otherwise.
Pam is just a conceited, egotistical, self-important little !@%&#* that most of the time, I can't stand. Even when she's not vindictive or drunk.
Season 1 Michael is not the Michael Scott of the later seasons - it's a completely different character. Watch at least until the end of season 3, and if you still hate him, then that hatred has validity, but if you hate Michael Scott solely based on Season 1, you're not being realistic or fair, and your opinion if not based on the REAL Michael Scott of later seasons.
There are so many annoying characters in this show, I don't know how anyone can pick just one.
Andy. Ryan. Phyllis. Angela. Meredith. Jan. Jim. Pam. Oscar.
There are many 'neutral' characters, that might be sometimes annoying, but most of the time, aren't really anything beyond 'bland'.
There are very few properly 'likable' characters, like Michael Scott.
Dwight is more 'wacky' than annoying, Stanley is more 'boring' than anything, Toby is more 'forgettable'.. and so on.
By the way, I am trying to think very hard, but can't really come up with 'good sides of Phyllis', except that in ONE occasion, she surprises the audience by being realistic and truthful about relationship dynamics, by shocking Pam by telling her 'Oh yeah, you'll have to put out'.
When I think if the characters from this 'their good sides'-perspective, it becomes very difficult to find likable ones.
Creed is just 'weird' - he says the 'unexpected' things that reveal more than the viewer wants to know about his character, his past, his plans and his capabilities. He's like a psychotic criminal that steals anything he can get his hands on and tells crazy stories.
I can kind of understand why someone would become a 'Boston Strangler'..
That's not a full, or even a good explanation. That's more of Michael desperately trying very hard to NOT say 'I hate you, you !@%&*n "%#***%!!!11".
The reasons are, as far as I can tell:
- Toby is HR (and everyone hates HR)
- Toby is a 'corporate spy'
- Toby's job entails controlling Michael and spoiling his 'fun'
- Toby has no personality
- Toby is extremely wimpy and a creepy simp to boot
- Toby is extremely low-energy individual
- Toby is an easy target, as he never fights back
- Toby clearly doesn't care the way Michael does
- Toby is there just for the paycheck (no passion)
- Toby speaks and moves in a slow, agonizing, annoying way
- Toby doesn't support Michael in things important to him
- Most of the time, Toby is a buzzkill, show-stopper, and an obstacle to Michael (and nothing else)
There are probably lots of others, but these came to mind off the 'top of my head' (what a strange idiom).
This might be a secret nod to the fact that no one REALLY likes Jim, but because it's 'expected', they all pretend to.
I agree that it's a weird and completely unique eventuality in the show - Dwight usually doesn't win against Jim, and even when he does, it's way more bland and 'normal'.
Maybe they just wanted to try something new or different, and it really didn't work, so they went back to 'normal'.
It's definitely one of the most uncomfortable moments on the show - Jim feels like a pathetic victim and prey to this overpowered, stalking supervillain that can toy with him as much as he wants, and all Jim can do is suffer.
It's like the show is a 'documentary', when that fits the situation/plot/etc., and it's a 'regular TV show with some shaky camwork', when the 'documentary' aspect is not considered relevant.
So sometimes we see cameramen trying to get in, but can't, or microphones being taken off (although they clearly don't have them on usually), and a huge deal being made out of it being a documentary - but most of the time, this whole 'documentary' gimmick amounts to 'weird camera angles/places', and shaky camera, and almost nothing more.
I wish they had decided to lose that gimmick, then the camerawork would at least be more pleasant without the constant zooming back and forth and wooshing the camera here and there. They obviously have multiple cameras, so that kind of stuff is not needed, but they do it anyway.
All the women of this show are pretty much annoying, and some are only there for the audience to think that the characters think they're eye candy (although the truth about it is obvious to the viewer).
Karen is basically 'superficial annoyance personified'. She has no real personality, she doesn't really do or say anything interesting, and most of the time, it almost seems as if she's there only to react to things, or have people react to her, and that's all.
She is a gameplayer at one point, but suddenly, she's Jim's love interest, and then she's some corporate manager that competes with Michael.. it's like the writers didn't know what to make of her, so she's everything and thus, nothing. She just glides from one thing to the next without adding anything of value.
Pam is there just because of the whole 'JimPam romance' crap, which I always skip, but at least she is given a little bit of personality, she's supposedly some kind of artist (and yet can't use a computer beyond the basics that her work requires of her, and learning simple computer things is beyond her, although she's super passionate about doing the things that she can't do without learning that easy stuff), she plays volleyball (or doesn't), etc.
I think Pam's greatest moments are when she's "handling Michael", because it kind of gives us a deep glimpse into the mysterious world of this magical character that is Michael Scott.
The other women are either 'supposed eye candy', 'ugly', 'old', 'fat', 'wich', 'angry snake', 'valley girl' etc.
So, not very deep personalities or character arcs - they fulfill their 'assigned functionality' in the show, and that's the end of it.
I don't do the 'ranking' thing, because nothing like this is usually 'absolute' - even the same people can sometimes enjoy things in a different way the next time, and thus evaluate some episode or season higher or lower than the last time.
Also, it's like ranking music - you can't compare a song to another song and rank them in any absolute sense.
What's wrong with just enjoying both songs, and not force them to compete with each other?
This kind of threads and thoughts are like 'my dad could beat your dad', or 'favourite flavor of ice cream'.
All these 'what's your favorite'-style questions only reveal an emtpy, superficial and thoughtless mind that doesn't really care about anything or understand anything very deeply, and is only interested in a quick, easy, meaningless, trivial answers to their meaningless questions, just for the sake of keeping words and utterances flowing, without anything meaningful anywhere whatsoever.
Could people please grow up from 'what's your favorite', 'which would be better/worse', and 'rank the seasons'-line of non-thinking, into actual, original, personality that can provide actual, unique thoughts, ideas and honest self-expression?
Please?
Great thread - what could be more appropriate for a text-based discussion board, not to mention fun and entertaining, let alone thought-provoking, than a list of numbers and someone repeating the word 'bump' over and over again.
How about at least adding an EXPLANATION to each season, and why they are in that particular place?
Are people here humans, robots or just some kind of automatons? If you're going to take part in a discussion, how about having an .. I don't know.. ACTUAL DISCUSSION?
Michael also knows how to have fun, he likes to have parties, he likes to make others happy and give them what they want, etc.
He is extremely likable, but he has so many odd qualities, it's difficult to make a conclusive assesment of him.
This is what makes this character so mysterious to me. I can't ever fully 'conclude' what I think about him.
When you think about it, who can even compete with Michael?
Phyllis is just the butt of many jokes, but doesn't really do anything interesting. Someone flashed her, and she's married to some refridgerator guy that over-appreciates her. Her voice is boring, her looks are boring, her actions are almost non-existent. She basically has no story.
This can be said almost everyone in the office, with a few exceptions. Andy is 'wacky', but in an extremely annoying way that never becomes interesting.
Stanley is just a crossword puzzle guy that likes pretzels.
Most of the 'other branch' people are pretty bland. Angela is just an angry cat woman, complaining about everything and everyone.
I am not going over every character, as I am sure the point is taken.
Dwight is basically the only one that's "weird" or "crazy" enough to be any kind of competition to Michael, but he's very unlikable, his motivations are selfish, greedy, egotistical and often maniacal. He's not charming or likable on any level, and in the end, he is not exciting to watch,even if some of his antics can be entertaining or even interesting for awhile.
Michael is like the Kramer of this show; Kramer in Seinfeld is wacky, crazy and weird, but he's never a 'loser', and he, like Michael, can say the weirdest things with full conviction, which creates a really interesting tension.
Michael of this show is more grounded than Kramer, but in some odd way, a little more childish.
It could be interesting to watch them discuss something meaningful or philosophical.
Michael is a difficult character to dismiss despite what he says and his 'childish nature', because you know he has heart, he cares, his motivations are often very good and elevated, he only wants to tell the truth and protect and care 'his people'.
He really tries hard and struggles, and this makes him an endearing character despite everything else - he really, really tries very hard, and he even takes advice well (S3E21).
Michael is the most interesting character in the show, because he is in a position of power, but he doesn't act like people in such a position normally do.
Michael says things you don't expect, and he's able to tell the truth in a way that makes you laugh at his naivety. He should know better, and yet he still says things exactly as they are, without realizing it's not allowed for someone in his position.
He is a mysterious entity amidst all the wackiness and mundaneity of the show - there are many 'straight men' (even if some of them are not 'straight', and others are not 'men') to Michael's statements, which creates a delicious contrast to anything he says.
Michael has no common sense, and this frees him from the normal social restraints to say and do whatever he wants and thinks is right. Sometimes he's funny because he misunderstands how the world works, what words mean, or what people are expected to say or how he's expected to behave.
Sometimes he's funny, because he's like a child lost in the world of adults, so of course he's hopeful and a dreamer, and unrealistic. He doesn't have a full grasp of his situation or the world, and any moment that he is forced to face actual reality that crushes his optimistic, unrealistic notions, it's a dark, sad moment in the show, and you almost want to cry.
He's also very down-to-earth, and not pompous or snobby - he is very real and direct instead of the ego-based nastiness many others succumb to (think of the other art critics vs. Michael's honest appraisal of Pam's art).
It's almost as if Michael 'feels' through the world instead of thinking through it, and is always naive enough to fall for the stupidest jokes (the 'Wendy's' thing, for example).
Even knowing his character, you never fully know what he's going to say or do next, and this makes him the most exciting character to follow. Everyone else is pretty much predictable and boring.
Michael is definitely the most interesting and entertaining character in the show exactly because he doesn't seem to have a full grasp on reality the way other people do.
He misunderstands 'concierge' to mean something like a 'sophisticated lady of the night'.
He mispronounces most big words that he doesn't use in his everyday life.
Of course he has unrealistic expectations of life and his future, and if he didn't, he would probably be depressed.
He also honestly expresses many pretty sound and solid ideas, even though a man in his position should know it's politically incorrect to say things like that out loud.
It's sometimes an interesting juxtaposition (is this even the right word?) between something that's accepted, although it's illogical, and Michael's honest (even if somewhat skewy sometimes) interpretation and direct expression of it, or opposing it.
A good example is what he thinks of 'equality'. He, quite correctly, says that 'women and children first' is unequal, and shouldn't be encouraged in a fire. However, the WORLD thinks this is wrong, because the world thinks women should ALWAYS be given preferential treatment over men, because the world values women more than men - that's why no one ever stops women from lying and saying stupid things, like 'women can do anything men can do, and in high heels', or 'women should be treated equally' (while insisting men pay for dinners, drinks, fix the cars, computers, roofs, provide for the family, and NEVER insist that women are forced to do sewer jobs, or other dangerous/uncomfortable/smelly work that men routinely are expected to do, they never insist that women protect men, etc. etc.).
So there's a horrible hypocrisy going on in the world, and Michael deals with it in a honest, innocent, direct, logical way - and in this matriarchal world of political correcness, that comes off as incredibly funny (surely a man in his position should KNOW what 'equality' is expected to mean)
It was about Michael misunderstanding what 'concierge' means.
This is the root cause of all Michael's pain.
He thinks it means somethign like a western 'Geisha', and he also thinks 'Geisha' means something more extensive in certain areas than it actually does (though there's debate about this).
In other words, Michael is under the impression that Wallace cóckteased Michael via proxy.
Michael thinks Wallace arranged a concierge to tease him and then not 'do the deed' in the end, just to F with him or something.
From Michael's point of view, Wallace is giving him 'a woman' in a way, but then takes her away from Michael in the end, to mess with him. This is what makes Michael so angry.
Michael misunderstands the world, people's motivations, people's actions in a myriad of ways, and what 'concierge' means, is one of those ways.
Andy may have WANTED to be in the club, but would he have FIT in it?
Andy is a crude banjo-player and people-pleaser, not to mention manipulator. He also has an anger problem and some form of OCD judging from his reactions to when things don't go his way (think about his cell phone in the ceiling).
Andy is EXTREMELY UNLIKABLE character, that would never have TRULY appreciated the 'finer things'. His motivation to join the club was obviously wrong. He wanted to join the club because it's 'exclusive', not because he actually naturally and organically appreciates the 'finer things'.
He is also trying to WEASEL his way in; how would that be compatible with people that just want to quietly appreciate these 'finer things' and discuss them honestly?
Whatever you say about Pam (and I don't like her on any level), she at least seemed to honestly appreciate the 'finer things' an wanted to discuss them, and in my opinion, she would've been a good fit for the club.
Of course bringing Jim in, immediately destroyed the whole thing, so there's that.
Andy might have been good on some levels, he would've supported the club enthusiastically and driven some kind of ego fix from it, but in the end, such a club was doomed to fail sooner or later.
"..he's an overgrown man child who hates cats"
Attraction is not something you choose. It also doesn't have to make sense, and often doesn't. A vegan girl can be attracted to a butcher, even if she hates him mentally.
Angela is certainly not 'a very attractive', and what makes you consider her a 'lady'? She has no 'ladylike' qualities whatsoever, she's like an angry snake, ready to hiss at anyone and anything.
Angela is not socially adept, she probably doesn't have friends - her social network is most likely relatively small, and she lives with cats, which already indicates that she has given up on trying to attract mates.
So she lives in a 'socially unsuccessful', maybe even a bit 'awkward' circle, where she can't really shine or be the 'life of the party'. She can't easily attract mates, although being a female, of course men are drawn to her somewhat.
Now, expecting realism from a TV show is silly, but I think her attraction to dwight is at least a little bit realistic, and could actually happen in real life.
Dwight is not an 'alpha male' by any means, but he can play one convincingly enough for angela to have 'stirred feelings' inside of her about him. Dwight is not an apologetic simp that acts as a doormate, but he tries to dominate every situation he is in. Even though Dwight is not actually very successful in this regard (it's not always realized in concrete way), the constant aura of dominance has an effect on angela.
Dwight has AMBITION - an aphrodisiac to women.
He also goes for what he wants, and takes it (whenever he can), has strong opinions and a big ego.
Dwight is a faulty individual in many ways, and a little bit crazy - but as an attractive MAN, he certainly succeeds in angela's eyes.
Dwight DARES, and sometimes that's all it takes. Meek men usually don't 'dare', and this is something that, in a big way, separates the 'wheat from chaff' in women's eyes.
'Overgrown man-child' (what a weird term!) doesn't enter into it.
If you think and experience these jokes fully and understand all the layers, and where it all comes from and why, and you get the character motivations and experience the relationship dynamics properly, there's a lot of really fun stuff in there to enjoy.
But these things are _so_ easy to not notice, or dismiss, or just see from a superficial perspective, that if you just see this as 'non-funny dialogue' without realizing all the perspectives that work in tandem, you won't get it, and understandably probably continue to hate it.
So a lot of responsibility for enjoyment of this show falls to the observant diligence of the viewer - if you focus wrong, you'll miss it. If you don't understand what's going on and why, you'll miss it.
It's like hearing a joke, but focusing only on the words used, without listening to the content of it, and then dismissing the joke as unfunny.
This is the kind of superficial TV viewing that can EASILY happen with this show, because there's a surprising amount of intricate subtlety woven into many of the scenes that you can't appreciate with a surface-level viewing.
This is exactly why it took me so many viewings to start appreciating the show - I simply didn't understand or realize what was going on, I didn't give the show enough credit, and I wasn't immersed in the relationship dynamic that makes the dialogue so funny - in a very subtle way. So all I heard and saw was 'words that make unfunny sentences, spoken by some people I don't know'.
Once you know change that into 'Michael does his typical misunderstanding thing while undermining the egotistical Ryan in a brilliant way', you can see how there's way more substance than what I originally experienced.
Once you start seeing everything in this show in its proper context and the underlying intricacies open up to you, THAT is when you can properly and truly start enjoying the show.
It's not for everyone, maybe you'll still hate it - but it needs more than surface viewing.
This is a weird show, and it's actually easy to not like it.
It took me a really long time, and multiple viewings - almost out of sheer curiosity - for this show to start finally growing on me enough for me to starting to eventually like it.
It's the kind of experience that you have to be 'in tune' to, understand the characters, observe all the sometimes really subtle humor, find something that speaks to you, to start liking it. It's not immediately genius, it's more like 'after not understanding' for the longest time, you expect it to be crappy, and you watch it anyway, and then something might click a little bit.
Then something else makes you somewhat laugh or smile, and after repeat viewings sort of start 'making sense' in its own, perhaps silly way. When you can start to expect a certain 'tone' or 'style' from the show, you can start appreciating the humor and the misunderstandings and Michael's innocent charm more and more.
It's possible you might never like it and always hate it, but for me, a change happened after I just watched it enough. I didn't expect it, but the things Michael says, and how he delivers them, just started really getting me to like the show more each time.
One very small example;
Michael asks Ryan, who used to be a temp, and is now .. a salesman or something, to fetch him coffee. Ryan says, "I don't do that stuff anymore", obviously referring to 'fetching coffee' and other temp duties that a salesman doesn't have to do.
Michael insults Ryan by saying "No, it's for me, bimbo!"
It's subtle, but there are layers in that joke. It undermines Ryan's importance, it plays on Michael's view of Ryan as a temp he remembers him as (not letting him have the dignity of 'not being a temp'), him not even taking into account Ryan's elevated status as a salesman (or whatnot), and making Ryan seem so stupid, he thinks Michael orders Ryan to get coffee for himself, and fully expects Ryan to fetch him coffee, now that he cleared it up.