I liked this episode. It reminded me of the horrible awkwardness of the British series.
I hate to say it but I think I'm done with this show. It's just too much. Somewhere one of the writers decided the best part of Michael was the assholishness - and it's really not. The best part is the happy medium where we can at least sympathize. For example when Pam set him up with her land lady - I mean we'd be upset then too. And for him to be put off by the womans age is sort of relateable as well, but the fashion he did it in - I don't know why someone thought that would be interesting to watch. Oh well, at least COMMUNITY is still funny.
I'm not sure what about Michael was at all different from other episodes. I thought he was sympathetic and relatable when he said that he wanted to experience things himself and not have to just make do with the memories of his older significant other who can't/has no interest in doing some of the things he wants.
It was also funny because he's like in his mid-forties saying these things, and he doesn't realize that he's kind of running out of time to do fun young people stuff himself.
Then, he went back to being asshole Michael. Really it was a great mix of his character attributes by the writers.
In past seasons they relied on a level of jerkiness from Michael that was counter-balanced by his earnest attempts to be a good person. Whoever is working on this show now seems to have forgotten how to balance all that out and make us still like Michael. The asshole way he goes about relating his fear doesn't make me care about his fear - it just makes me look at him as being an incredible jerk whose problems don't excuse his behavior. It's too much.
In past seasons they relied on a level of jerkiness from Michael that was counter-balanced by his earnest attempts to be a good person. Whoever is working on this show now seems to have forgotten how to balance all that out and make us still like Michael. The asshole way he goes about relating his fear doesn't make me care about his fear - it just makes me look at him as being an incredible jerk whose problems don't excuse his behavior. It's too much.
Maybe I'm looking back differently on the show, but Michael is a total dick a lot in all the previous seasons. Like, usually not countered by his sympathetic childish goodness.
BloodySloth on
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited November 2009
Michael's reaction to getting Phyllis' oven mitt for Christmas was pretty dickish.
I have a question - since when do characters have to be likeable to be enjoyable to watch? Some of the best comedy comes from watching awful, flawed human beings inflict pain on themselves and those around them! If you balance it out all the time with "but underneath it all, they're actually just...", then you just end up diluting everything.
Michael is horrible - not the most horrible TV comedy protagonist by a long, long shot, but has nothing so redeeming about him that you could call him 'likeable'. So what? His actions and character traits drive the series, he's evidently not the protagonist (although the Office is more or less ensemble anyway), so he's serving his purpose.
Dollhouse, many though its other flaws may be, got a lot of flak for this too. Since when does being populated with unsympathetic characters make something boring?
I thought the storyline was a little rushed. Michael came to the realization about wanting to break up with Pam's mom way too quickly. I'm guessing that they wanted to get it out of the way in time for the upcoming storyline about Dunder Mifflin.
Michael's reaction to getting Phyllis' oven mitt for Christmas was pretty dickish.
But overall funny. Who hasn't been in that situation in an office environment? I however, can count on no hands, how many times I responded to gettting some distressing news about my GF by breaking up with her over lunch, with her daughter and son-in-law at the table with us. There is no rationale for that where I go "haha Michael - I'm totally with you man." For me, that's what has made his behavior tolerable, likeable and even relateable. Now it seems the writers are just falling back on "How much of a jerk can we make Michael come off as" instead of giving us actual character movement. This wasn't some one-shot plotline for Michael, so why treat his reaction as such.
I have a question - since when do characters have to be likeable to be enjoyable to watch?
Well when he is the star of your show (and The Office may have a large cast, but how many episodes HAVENT centered around Michael Scott?) you kind of need the audience to be able to connect with your character in some way. That's how you get them coming back for more. You can not have an entirely UNLIKEABLE star and expect people to invest a long term interest in them. David Brent is tolerable because hell it was essentially a mini-series (to those of us not used to UK style of programming). Michael Scott is here foreva!
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited November 2009
I don't see how the fact that it was a shorter series makes the UK's main character's unlikeability any better than the US version. David Brent was 10 times the asshole Michael Scott is; I can't think of one time (before the christmas special) that I was on Brent's side.
ED!, I direct you to exhibit A, "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia," where each character is completely terrible and completely irredeemable in his or her own special way. And yet it is amazingly funny.
Terrendos on
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
ED!, I direct you to exhibit A, "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia," where each character is completely terrible and completely irredeemable in his or her own special way. And yet it is amazingly funny.
I'm not a fan of "Sunny," but Seinfeld I can get behind as a show with a lot of characters who are assholes yet I can relate to them because the things they get nitpicky about are things I've thought about as well.
Man, did those of you complaining that Michael has become too dickish not see the first season? He's been toned down a ton since then on the prick front.
They basically took him from out and out asshole (which is closer to the British version) in the first season to just having no social skills or filter now. His concerns about her age, once he figured them out, were pretty reasonable. His voicing them right then, during the birthday dinner, obviously were not.
He didn't do it because he was trying to be a dick or because he knew it was wrong and didn't care (like he would have before they toned him down), he did it because he had no conception as to why that might not be appropriate.
Raynaga on
0
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
edited November 2009
This is basically 100% in Michael's character and is essentially almost exactly like the oven mitt episode except this time, Michael didn't know he had an oven mitt and then once he figured it out, he then didn't want it. So actually it's exactly like the oven mitt.
I also can't believe they made it a slap instead of a punch. She should have wailed on him, and I feel that's totally within her character.
It's Always Sunny though doesn't pretend to be about good guys. You know from the start of Episode 1 Season 1 that these are going to be vile sociopathic people. That is the appeal of the show. The Office isn't operating on that kind of premise. These aren't bad guys for the sake of being bad guys. At some point we're supposed to care about Michael Scott even if we find him a brute. The Sunny guys - not even in the slighstest. That is why these latest episodes have been jarring, because it has been Michael Scott for the sake of Michael Scott - before I could get behind his reasoning. This season, not at all.
And yes, I have seen every episode of The Office since it started - Michaels jerkwadness never made me want to fast forward through a scene.
That's why I found the slap funnier. She didn't even punch him, and he still cried about it and had a chicken pressed to his face.
Also, I loved the competition between Dwight and Andy.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited November 2009
I was kindof expecting Pam to ask Dwight about how to properly punch someone, and Dwight would have to wrestle with his desire to lord his knowledge of martial arts over someone and his admiration of Michael.
I was kindof expecting Pam to ask Dwight about how to properly punch someone, and Dwight would have to wrestle with his desire to lord his knowledge of martial arts over someone and his admiration of Michael.
The Toby thing was just as good though.
Any other week he might have wrestled with it but not this one. He was actively trying to do people favors.
Dwight with the 7 year old rationale and thinking it has to work, just didnt work for me. He has a little more sense then that. It was like he went "homer" during this episode. Granted he isnt the sharpest knife in the jar, I think his character needs more credit then "olol if I get a favor that means they have to fire someone to pay it back".
I am finding it hard to watch Michael self destruct like that. Its such a great character, its just painful to watch because you dont want to see that character do that.
I think Dwight's rationale was that if everybody in the office owed him a favour, then he could get each of them to do minor, seemingly innocuous things which would cumulatively undermine Jim. His last-ditch ploy at the end of the episode was out of desperation.
ED!, I direct you to exhibit A, "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia," where each character is completely terrible and completely irredeemable in his or her own special way. And yet it is amazingly still airing.
The characters in The Office are nothing like Always Sunny because try as I might, I can't give two shits for any of the characters in that show. It just seems like a 23-minute student film every time I watch it.
I think Dwight's rationale was that if everybody in the office owed him a favour, then he could get each of them to do minor, seemingly innocuous things which would cumulatively undermine Jim. His last-ditch ploy at the end of the episode was out of desperation.
I think Dwight's rationale was that if everybody in the office owed him a favour, then he could get each of them to do minor, seemingly innocuous things which would cumulatively undermine Jim. His last-ditch ploy at the end of the episode was out of desperation.
There's also the fact that while he has more sense than Homer Simpson, he also has an incredibly low estimation of everyone else in the office. He could have simply believed that they would be too stupid to not help him fire Jim.
There's always some intent on the part of the writers regarding how they want you to feel.
They can intend all they like, but at the end of the day it's up to the viewer to either accept or reject that attempt in pursuit of enjoying the show to the viewer's maximum extent.
There are plenty of examples of unlikable protagonists in all types of media. Holden Caulfield is a whiny teenager. Ignatius Reilly (from A Confederacy of Dunces) is a lazy asshole slob. Humbert Humbert is a child rapist, for crying out loud. A likable or relatable protagonist has never been necessary for great fiction.
Man, did those of you complaining that Michael has become too dickish not see the first season? He's been toned down a ton since then on the prick front.
They basically took him from out and out asshole (which is closer to the British version) in the first season to just having no social skills or filter now. His concerns about her age, once he figured them out, were pretty reasonable. His voicing them right then, during the birthday dinner, obviously were not.
He didn't do it because he was trying to be a dick or because he knew it was wrong and didn't care (like he would have before they toned him down), he did it because he had no conception as to why that might not be appropriate.
Exactly. I can't even watch the early seasons because it relies so much on Michael being so unbearably annoying.
He's likable because he's so sincere. He wants to be liked, he just doesn't understand how.
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
edited November 2009
"It's sad, but the saddest part is that the woman was willing to pose for this photograph without a single question as to the artist's intent. What happened to integrity?"
This season doesn't feel right at all. Pam is always angry and emotional and I guess that's her character's progression but it just doesn't do it for me.
Posts
In past seasons they relied on a level of jerkiness from Michael that was counter-balanced by his earnest attempts to be a good person. Whoever is working on this show now seems to have forgotten how to balance all that out and make us still like Michael. The asshole way he goes about relating his fear doesn't make me care about his fear - it just makes me look at him as being an incredible jerk whose problems don't excuse his behavior. It's too much.
Usually he just does stuff that's horribly awkward.
This was just him being a total dick.
edit:
What this guy said.
Michael is horrible - not the most horrible TV comedy protagonist by a long, long shot, but has nothing so redeeming about him that you could call him 'likeable'. So what? His actions and character traits drive the series, he's evidently not the protagonist (although the Office is more or less ensemble anyway), so he's serving his purpose.
Dollhouse, many though its other flaws may be, got a lot of flak for this too. Since when does being populated with unsympathetic characters make something boring?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
But overall funny. Who hasn't been in that situation in an office environment? I however, can count on no hands, how many times I responded to gettting some distressing news about my GF by breaking up with her over lunch, with her daughter and son-in-law at the table with us. There is no rationale for that where I go "haha Michael - I'm totally with you man." For me, that's what has made his behavior tolerable, likeable and even relateable. Now it seems the writers are just falling back on "How much of a jerk can we make Michael come off as" instead of giving us actual character movement. This wasn't some one-shot plotline for Michael, so why treat his reaction as such.
Well when he is the star of your show (and The Office may have a large cast, but how many episodes HAVENT centered around Michael Scott?) you kind of need the audience to be able to connect with your character in some way. That's how you get them coming back for more. You can not have an entirely UNLIKEABLE star and expect people to invest a long term interest in them. David Brent is tolerable because hell it was essentially a mini-series (to those of us not used to UK style of programming). Michael Scott is here foreva!
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I'm not a fan of "Sunny," but Seinfeld I can get behind as a show with a lot of characters who are assholes yet I can relate to them because the things they get nitpicky about are things I've thought about as well.
They basically took him from out and out asshole (which is closer to the British version) in the first season to just having no social skills or filter now. His concerns about her age, once he figured them out, were pretty reasonable. His voicing them right then, during the birthday dinner, obviously were not.
He didn't do it because he was trying to be a dick or because he knew it was wrong and didn't care (like he would have before they toned him down), he did it because he had no conception as to why that might not be appropriate.
I also can't believe they made it a slap instead of a punch. She should have wailed on him, and I feel that's totally within her character.
And yes, I have seen every episode of The Office since it started - Michaels jerkwadness never made me want to fast forward through a scene.
That's why I found the slap funnier. She didn't even punch him, and he still cried about it and had a chicken pressed to his face.
Also, I loved the competition between Dwight and Andy.
The Toby thing was just as good though.
Why are you limping?
Any other week he might have wrestled with it but not this one. He was actively trying to do people favors.
I think the problem is when the B-plot turns out better than main one. I mean Dwight and Andy's parts in this episode totally stole the episode.
I love Creed.
I found the Dwight-Andy aspect of this episode to be funnier than the main plot (though I found that funny as well).
And we now know atleast one topless photo of Mindy Kaling exists.
I am finding it hard to watch Michael self destruct like that. Its such a great character, its just painful to watch because you dont want to see that character do that.
Edit: Creeds line of the season was awesome.
The characters in The Office are nothing like Always Sunny because try as I might, I can't give two shits for any of the characters in that show. It just seems like a 23-minute student film every time I watch it.
This is exactly how I took it.
Which is why I don't like that show. Also, no one is "supposed" to do anything with a show. The viewer individually makes that determination.
1: Homer Simpson
2: Al Bundy
3: The whole cast of Burn After Reading
3: Except for poor Richard Jenkins.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
They can intend all they like, but at the end of the day it's up to the viewer to either accept or reject that attempt in pursuit of enjoying the show to the viewer's maximum extent.
He broke into a stranger's house! Dick move!
He's likable because he's so sincere. He wants to be liked, he just doesn't understand how.
Kelly Kelly Kelly....