My Name Is Earl / The Office season premieres thread, 9/21

[CrazyEyez]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that maintaining credibility in terms of stuff like that is almost more important for more surrealist shows like this,

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this statement. Credibility and realism is more important for a show like The Office than a show that's supposed to be realistic?

[/ QUOTE ]

When a show is very grounded, suspension of disbelief is really easy to achieve.

When a show is semi-grounded, like The Office, it's a trickier thing. If you want me to buy all the other stuff (Pam/Jim, Michael/Jan- the stuff that imo, is the real strength of the show), you can't just be running off into super fantasty land before I just can't take the show seriously at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess I sort of agree with you, when you factor in the pam/jim stuff. But it's not to the point yet that it bothers me, because from the start Michael and Dwight are ridiculous characters.

[odellthurman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that maintaining credibility in terms of stuff like that is almost more important for more surrealist shows like this,

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this statement. Credibility and realism is more important for a show like The Office than a show that's supposed to be realistic?

[/ QUOTE ]

When a show is very grounded, suspension of disbelief is really easy to achieve.

When a show is semi-grounded, like The Office, it's a trickier thing. If you want me to buy all the other stuff (Pam/Jim, Michael/Jan- the stuff that imo, is the real strength of the show), you can't just be running off into super fantasty land before I just can't take the show seriously at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you want to take a sitcom seriously? That seems very strange.

[CrazyPsycho]

It's like people purposely watch these shows to find a reason to dislike them.

[Force1]

I'm with Dids on this. I know you are all saying its TV WTF? but seriously it has to have some level of credibility. You can't have Michaels actions affect the story line of 1 character but not his own. If this was a show like the Simpsons where is 'resets' everyweek it woudln't matter but this is an ongoing story arc and its completely ridicoulous for Oscar to get those perks cause the company was gonna get sued but for no mention of any discipline on Michael.

[Force1]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you want to take a sitcom seriously? That seems very strange.

[/ QUOTE ]

The show cant pick and choose what we are supposed to take seriously. If we are supposed to buy the 'downsizing' talks, and buy Jim/Pam, then you have to be able to buy the whole show.

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm with Dids on this. I know you are all saying its TV WTF? but seriously it has to have some level of credibility. You can't have Michaels actions affect the story line of 1 character but not his own. If this was a show like the Simpsons where is 'resets' everyweek it woudln't matter but this is an ongoing story arc and its completely ridicoulous for Oscar to get those perks cause the company was gonna get sued but for no mention of any discipline on Michael.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do have a point. However, as Bulldog pointed out, this happens all of the time. A manager who brings in a ton of money can get away with a ton of stuff because companies won't bite the hand that feeds them. I think that is the whole purpose of Michael.

I used to have a boss who was high all the time and never had to take a drug test when everyone else did. Was an ass to just about everyone in the company, including sexual harrassment (he once told a female employee, "So I hear you like big black dick" after seeing her talking to a black guy.), calling people retarted and just having the people skills of a skunk. We even had a guy selling T-shirts with his picture on it in "ahem" a compromising position at the biggest public event we had and the pictures where real. He finally got fired when his ratings slipped.

Odd part is this was a boss I had in Scranton,Pa. I'm not joking.

[Force1]

[ QUOTE ]
A manager who brings in a ton of money can get away with a ton of stuff because companies won't bite the hand that feeds them. I think that is the whole purpose of Michael.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have seen this a couple times in this thread. I was under the impression that Michael's branch was really underperforming and had the worst numbers of all the branches.

Note: This is the first season I am gonna watch in full not on DVD. I watched all of Season 1 on DVD and prolly about half of season 2 with the other DVD's on the way so this might of been something that changed in some of the episodes I missed.

[runner4life7]

[ QUOTE ]
It's like people purposely watch these shows to find a reason to dislike them.

[/ QUOTE ]

/agreed i watch tv for fun not to find problems to complain about. that doesnt sound like fun to me.

[Dids]

"You do have a point. However, as Bulldog pointed out, this happens all of the time. A manager who brings in a ton of money can get away with a ton of stuff because companies won't bite the hand that feeds them. I think that is the whole purpose of Michael."

The people that are saying this are out to [censored] lunch. What he did gets him fired 100% of the time in any real world scenario.

[Force1]

[ QUOTE ]
/agreed i watch tv for fun not to find problems to complain about. that doesnt sound like fun to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not like Dids went out of his way to see it. It was a huge glaring omision in the episode. It went like this Michael is inappropiate, Jan find outs, Oscar gets settlement, no mention of Michael. I don't know about you but I like my TV shows to be grounded to some sort of reality. If Michael can sexaully harass a employee and said employee gets settlement due to Michael's actions I expect some info about what happened to Michael. My point is the show choose to have Michaels actions effect Oscar, but it does not effect Michael that makes 0 sense.