MovieChat Forums > CarolTheDabbler > Replies
CarolTheDabbler's Replies
Maybe they'd understand if <i>The (British) Office</i> were called a mini-series.
They might be the same people who keep asserting that <i>Sherlock</i> was cancelled -- "Well, it wasn't renewed!"
A number of things were "borrowed" from the UK show -- many of the characters were renamed but still similar in certain ways. Every so often in later seasons, I've noticed some little plot point being borrowed as well. (Sorry, should have taken notes!)
Oh, and Ricky Gervais had a guest cameo.
Just in case anyone's wondering, "Porque es muy rapido" translates to "Because it's very fast."
<blockquote>... sometimes, especially in seasons 1-2, it makes Jim and Pam look like borderline bullies.</blockquote>
They inherited that from how Tim and Dawn harassed Gareth in the British Office. Like a lot of other things, it morphed as the seasons progressed and the US show developed its own characteristics.
Right, she apparently meant well but didn't check to make sure the painting itself was protected.
It quietly comes back later on, though. I assume that Pam redid it.
<blockquote>Jim leaves Michael alone at the gas station thinking that his daughter was locked in the car. Upon leaving the toilet Michael is shocked that Jim has left, and doesn't believe the gas station worker that he was just ditched....
.... why didn't Michael for instance ask for the cameraman's phone, why didn't he ask the cameraman where Jim went, and why didn't Jim tell the cameraman where he was going and what happened? Also why didn't the cameraman EXPLAIN what happened?</blockquote>
You're wanting some in-universe explanations, so -- taking the last question first, how about these: They don't explain because Michael doesn't ask them to (their job is generally to just record what happens, though perhaps occasionally there's a life-or-death situation, or they just can't resist). As for Michael not asking, that's probably because he's so used to ignoring the camera unless he's the explicit center of attention. And Jim doesn't think to leave a message with them because he's focussed on saving his daughter.
Like you, I didn't care for Andy -- up till he came back from the anger management class. I found him fairly likeable (most of the time) after that. (<i>Nobody</i> in that show is likeable all the time!)
You're both absolutely correct! Ed doesn't mug or "make faces", he just looks how Andy is feeling. Very organic -- not to mention hilarious.
Right!
If you do well at (for example) selling, they'll promote you to senior salesperson. If you also do well at that level, they'll promote you again, say to manager. If you don't do well at that, then they'll never promote you again, and heaven help your underlings!
There was an incident at our office that *should* have occurred in The Office (though I'm only up to Season 7 now, so maybe it will):
Our little company had been bought out by a slightly larger company in another state. One day the local boss was complaining to a couple of us senior staff members that the long-distance Big Boss had ridiculed an idea of his a couple weeks previously -- and then today had "invented" the same idea himself. The two of us started laughing hysterically.
To his credit, though, after a long moment he said (apparently quite sincerely) "Do you mean that I do that?!" If that happened on The Office, I suspect the perp (maybe Dwight?) would indignant deny it.
<blockquote>Once Wallace rehires Michael it's all over. Erin is worthless and unfunny. Pam in sales doesn't work.</blockquote>
I agree that was the case at that point in the series, and that's exactly how I felt then. I'm not sure what they did with Erin, though, but she grew on me after that. And Pam fixed her own problem by creating an Office Manager position for herself.
<blockquote>Toby, for some reason, doesn't complain to corporate about it.</blockquote>
Maybe he's done that, maybe numerous times, but their response was merely "Deal with it." Which would leave him in the same fix, because who *could* effectively deal with dear oblivious Michael?
After coming to my own conclusion the other day, I asked my husband for his opinion, and he agrees that I'm Angela -- though neither of us thinks I'm nearly as knee-jerk judgemental as she is. I would prefer to compare myself to Hermione Granger and/or Monica Geller, but limiting my choices to The Office characters, I'd have to say Angela.
It was sexist back then, too (and racist, homophobic, etc.), but -- as you say -- we were still allowed to have a sense of humor back then. And Michael (like David Brent in The [original British] Office) was funny because he thought he was so with it, but was actually missing the point by a mile.
Speaking as a sample of one, it's still funny if you choose to take it that way. The big "however" is that the networks wouldn't air it now.
For popular, relatively recent shows such as <i>Monk</i>, they do tend to have excellent episode guides (though some much older and/or less popular shows may not have a lot of added info). Here's the guide for Monk:
<blockquote><url>https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312172/episodes/?ref_=tt_eps</url></blockquote>
Click on the season number at the top, then click on an individual episode to get detailled information.
I dunno about perfect -- I mean, who is? But she's the sort of person that I enjoy knowing and would enjoy working with.
Pay no attention to avortac4 -- they don't like anything!
In all fairness to Pam, though, she and Roy had been engaged for years, apparently since they were too young to know any better. And since they'd been together for so long, she felt obligated to stay with him, almost as though they were married. Breaking up without a specific new reason would have been embarrassing to her.
In equal fairness to Roy, he seems like a fairly decent fellow in his own way. But as you say, he and Pam don't share many interests or values.
(I agree with you about Jim, by the way. He goes a little too far with his jokes sometimes, but his intent seems to be playful rather than mean-spirited.)
<blockquote>He was a friend who was attracted to her.</blockquote>
And vice-versa. It probably happens a lot more often than people realize.
<blockquote>What's so wrong about that??</blockquote>
It's probably not ideal, but you know, "let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Being human means having a chance to learn from your mistakes, and if you don't do it on the first round, things just keep getting more complicated. (Which is what TV writers call a 'plot.')
Oh, for sure! Not saying that things didn't turn out properly. I'm merely amazed that such a collection of misinterpretations could fortuitously lead Columbo to an accurate conclusion!
OK, maybe he (or the writers) realized that an accurate description of the situation (such as you gave) might not have a sufficient impact on the guilty party to elicit a confession -- so he (or they) concocted that bunch of hooey, and once the confession was on record, it didn't matter what prompted it. (And I don't think "you fooled me!" is an adequate defense.)