Sat, 20 October 2007
Slate.com Tells Us "What's Wrong With The Office"
Apparently, the reviewers at Slate.com haven't been too thrilled with season four of THE OFFICE. In a post on this past Thursday, they lay out just where exactly they feel the show is going wrong so far. To quote from the article:
'We believe that the show's new long format is to blame. The season has kicked off with several hourlong episodes, the fourth of which airs tonight. In seasons past, each 22-minute episode has been a model of comedic restraint. Easy jokes were avoided. Funny ones landed swiftly and moved on to make room for the next. Rather than encouraging actors to mug and showboat, the camera paused briefly on subtle glances and smirks. Mindy Kaling, who writes for the show and plays the ditzy customer-service rep Kelly Kapoor, told Rolling Stone that The Office is a show without "chuffa"—a writers'-room term for "filler that seems like it's funny but isn't really a joke." The hourlong episodes make us wonder if there's a word for "filler that seems like a joke but isn't really funny."'
(click HERE to read the rest of the article)
I don't agree with all of their conclusions, but I do think they're dead-on with some points (especially with how Ryan has been handled so far, and whether or not a happy PB&J is best for the series). I will admit that we have a LOT of room left this season, and it's hard to say how the whole thing will play out. I wouldn't say I'm "worried" about the show at this point, but this article has tapped into some of my fears about what COULD happen.
So what do you guys think?
>\\\"Not to detract from this enjoyable argument...\\\" lol. matt, we should fight more often...than we already do...haha. i agree totally when the article refers to michael as an emotionally stunted adult in the die hard scene. lately, his character has been made pretty cartoonish and over the top at times (i still think it\\\'s hilarious!). but, i have to say i\\\'d rather have a half hour full of hilarity than a dramatic hour. at the same time, i think the beauty of the office is that we don\\\'t have to choose between the two because they usually balance both so well.
posted by: elisa on 2007-10-22 21:18:00
I agree that the Jam thing is a total catch-22. What are the writers supposed to do? I understand that the whole angst thing was a big part of the show, but they can\\\'t just go on pining for each other forever. The writers would be just as criticized for that, if not more so. They HAD to get together at some point. Can you imagine if they went through three seasons of that and then Jim and Pam never ended up getting together? That\\\'s just ridiculous.
posted by: Grace on 2007-11-07 17:13:00
i meant \\\"i know you didn\\\'t say they WERE unintelligent...\\\" i redact it.
Not to detract from this enjoyable argument, but just wanted to point you all to another TV blog that discusses this week's episode. (I know, I know - blasphemy! What can I say? My job is kind of boring and I\'m a bit of a TV blog whore! I\'m somewhat loyal to this new blog as I won the Fantasy TV League he sponsored last year and was rewarded with a free t-shirt & Season 1 of \"The Wire.\" I\'m also a SWAG whore.) I found this at least moderately interesting and he brings up a lot of the points we\'ve all been discussing here, as well as some things I hadn't thought of. Anyway, just thought I\'d share! http://www.magneticmediafed.com/?p=1219#more-1219
posted by: (another) Amy on 2007-10-22 14:49:00
I vote for a win-win-win resolution. Perhaps Matt could wear a shirt with babies playing instruments on it?
posted by: Melonie on 2007-10-22 00:58:00
no, i know you didn\\\'t say they weren\\\'t unintelligent, that\\\'s why i wrote i know you\\\'re not saying that. but i\\\'m just saying some people don\\\'t know how to analytically examine a given work of art or literature or what have you. i don\\\'t know where i\\\'m going with this, it\\\'s much easier for me to debate stuff vocally. so, yeah, i guess matt can wear a shirt with babies on it and i can make sexually suggestive comments that make him uncomfortable. lol! win-win....win. thanks melonie! as the old saying by michael scott goes \\\"may god guide you in your quest...\\\" lol
i\'m in agreement with kevin about ryan for the most part. even though i think they\'re trying a bit to hard to make ryan a villian/douchebag, i\'ve always enjoyed ryan and i think his storyline this season has a lot of potential and i love the tension between him and michael. and amy, totally agree about all those early reviews on season 3, it is too early to make a proclamation on the show as a whole. i have no problem with people giving criticism about the show, that\'s everyone\'s right. it bothers me when people tear a show apart and focus on everything that\'s wrong and then roll their eyes at people who want to talk about the good stuff. where\'s the fun? there are episodes that i don\'t care for but i would say the only episode (yes, i said ONLY) i\'ve ever disliked is \"diwali\". so what if someone can find positive aspects in an otherwise so-so episode? sorry matt. i think it is ridiculous to assume that someone who says they love every episode means they aren\'t capable of understanding the complexity of a story. i accept that someone can be critical of the show and have as much of a right to watch it as anyone else. but don\'t say i can\'t claim to be a fan of a show because i don\'t watch a train wreck. let me remember the good times! lol whateva! i do what i want!!
matt, what i\'m saying is it\'s unfair to say that someone who says every episode is \"the best episode ever\" has no standards. i have friends who watch the office and say that same thing. i don\'t agree with them but i wouldn\'t say they\'re any less intellligent than me because they only want to sing the shows praises. that\'s just how i interpret what you\'re saying. i mean no disrespect, i know you\'re not saying those people are idiots. i just think you have to keep in mind that not everyone who watches the show has the ability or the tools to analyze the construction of the episode either visually or narratively. not everyone has taken \"intro to film\" or \"intro to television\". just trying to defend their side, i guess. so, i wonder if michael would have us resolve this via cage-match or in the dojo...if it\'s the latter, i\'m gonna sweep the leg!!! lol
i mean intelligence in the context of critiquing an episode, not their overall intelligence. if that makes any sense...haha.
The writer got nearly everything wrong. There, I said it. Maybe I\\\'m the only one but I\\\'m loving Ryan this season (and, for the first time since mid-season one, BJ Novak deserves his \\\'star\\\' show credit). I loved the entrance with redbull last episode. And I think Novak has been great with the empty corporate catch-phrases. Agree that the hour episodes could have been tighter but I\\\'ve enjoyed them. I\\\'m also enjoying the Jim / Pam which (mercifully) has been underplayed through most of Season 4. It\\\'s not a big deal anymore and is more of a slow burn with little bits of \\\'relationshipy\\\' things like the kiss in the last episode. But mostly, they\\\'re just a couple other people in the office. I\\\'m also encouraged by Jan\\\'s role after the last ep, too. I think Ms. Levenson will be due for some corporate redemption soon. It could be interesting to see her be a puppet master for Michael as well. They got the Dwight/Angela/Andy thing right though. That\\\'s been a delicious pleasure.
posted by: Kevin Crossman on 2007-10-21 15:55:00
ITA, Kevin. Writers that bitter should only be writing for Salon. And I\'m a Salon subscriber! There, I said THAT! Seriously, I\'m also with Elisa. I barely watch any TV anymore, and if I don\'t want to watch the show, I know how to use my remote. Personally, I think we all were confused why NBC would offload 4 of the 5 hour-longs in the first 4 weeks. And, yes, more is not always better--I love chocolate cake, but I can\'t eat a whole cake in one sitting. I read all sorts of crap last year about how S3 was the \"worst season ever\", and now S4 is the worst season ever? How can that be, anyway? In short (oops, too late!), I, too, am ready for shorter episodes, but the show is still the best thing out there. I\'ll watch it until it is too much over the top time and time again. It\'s too early in the season, and in the show\'s life, to call it quits.
posted by: Amy on 2007-10-21 16:52:00
so far I think the first four episodes of season 4 are much stronger than the first four of season 3. I also think the show will return to true form after this week when it goes to half hour ep\\\'s. The hour longs seem to have one storyline or scene too many. And it just drags on
posted by: ryan c on 2007-10-21 19:04:00
I think I feel the same way as Matt after reading this article. To me, the one hour episodes aren\'t working because they feel like two thirty minute episodes loosely linked togther instead of a cohesive one hour show. Other than that I\'m not worried about the show yet, and am really enjoying this season of The Office.
posted by: Bryan M. on 2007-10-20 21:15:00
okay, well, i DID read the article and i\'ll say this: i am soooo sick of people bitching about pam and jim being together. it\'s a no win situation all around for the writers (catch 22! lol) the only way to win with that story line would be if the american office followed the same format as the british one and quit after only 2 seasons (and the seasons were only 6 episodes long) and then did a one hour long special. and THEN people would bitch about how the show should\'ve never ended. am i a \"jam\" fan? yes, so i\'m biased. i agree that their dynamic isn\'t the same as the first three seasons. well, no shit. that doesn\'t mean there isn\'t a spark and depth to their relationship anymore and i think this last episode proves this. so the hour long format isn\'t working. okay, well, it\'s not permanant. and for the article to liken them to ross and rachel was the biggest eye roller---i hated ross and rachel. the same will they won\'t they dynamic that they repeated for 9 years-- do we really want pam and jim to get together, break up, get together, break up, pam gets pregnant and then they get back together...you get the idea. give me a break. and if they kept them apart instead of having them get together this season---then they\'d be dragging it out like that stupid niles and daphne thing--how much more could we really take of all those shots of jim and pam pining for one another season after season. i didn\'t care for the launch party episode so i dare anyone to say that i\'m not a true fan because i say i love every episode. i don\'t laugh at every joke but you know what--i still love the show and i\'m not gonna say that it\'s gone down hill. and if i begin to hate it then i can pick up this thing called a \"remote\" and change the channel. i used to love prison break and i stoped watching after the second episode this season. if it\'s that excruciating to watch, why MAKE yourself sit through it? blurg!!
I also agree with some of the stuff they are saying. However, this was written before the episode \"money\" where I think PB&J got their spark back again. I also think that this most recent episode was the first since the start of the fourth season that didn\'t seem like it was trying to stretch to fill the time. I also have to keep reminding myself that we are only on the fourth episode. Four episodes into season 3 it still seemed like having two seperate offices might be a disaster and Jim and Pam had essentially no interaction. I think you could have accused season 3 of having as many problems as they are conluding about season 4 now. As for these new episodes with \"chuffa,\" I think whenever they office got 1 hour time slots they only were as successful as their half hour shows about 50 percent of the time. I just think it\'s a little too soon to be drawing conclusions besides to bring back the half hour episodes.........
posted by: Val R. on 2007-10-20 19:39:00