I wish Michael Scott was my boss

[Nique]

Oh my gosh guys whats going to happen with Jim and Pam guys?!

[Magus]

Are they preggers again?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

say what you want about ricky gervais, i certainly have, but at least he knew when to end a series

[Nique]

I'm on like

Season 3? The show seems to run on the same joke and significant glances.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The first two seasons of US office were awful because they just repeated British office episodes done badly. From season 3 onwards it is better because they started doing their own shit that they could do better.

[rpgdemon]

See, I think I ruined British The Office for myself, because I watched the US version first, and I don't wanna rewatch it with British accents.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

With british accents and far better acting and writing you mean.

[rpgdemon]

From what I saw, it was the exact same writing. Same cuts, and everything.

Though, I like one of the actors. Dude who plays Bilbo?

[Betty Elms]

I found Michael terrifically unlikeable and almost never sympathized with him. What will forever fascinate me though is that there's this tossed off joke at one point in the show where Michael mentions how he couldn't talk at the age of five, which is just like, hold the fucking phone that isn't wacky that's a developmental disorder. So then I'm forced to have the realization that this entire time I have been amusing myself with the antics of a disabled man, and The Office has thus pulled some dark fucking Lars Von Trier trick on me, daring me to laugh while showrunner Greg Lieberstein is presumably glowering in the distance all "yes, autism entertains you does it not, you hateful wretched bitch."

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Isn't the point of Michael that he is terrifically unlikeable and yet desperately wants to be liked? The British one anyway, the American one softened out a bit in the latter series.

From what I saw, it was the exact same writing. Same cuts, and everything.

Though, I like one of the actors. Dude who plays Bilbo?

There are slight differences but they add up. And that script suited the british actors but not the american actors- hence better writing.

It's a sad day when Martin Freeman is "the dude who plays bilbo". Next thing Orson Welles will be "the guy who voiced Unicron".

[rpgdemon]

Isn't the point of Michael that he is terrifically unlikeable and yet desperately wants to be liked? The British one anyway, the American one softened out a bit in the latter series.



There are slight differences but they add up. And that script suited the british actors but not the american actors- hence better writing.

It's a sad day when Martin Freeman is "the dude who plays bilbo". Next thing Orson Welles will be "the guy who voiced Unicron".

I could have gone with Watson. Or, wasn't he Arthur Dent, too?

And maybe I'll start calling Cumberbatch, "That guy who voiced Smaug".

[Lumenskir]

Isn't the point of Michael that he is terrifically unlikeable and yet desperately wants to be liked? The British one anyway, the American one softened out a bit in the latter series.
Well, I'd say "Desperate need to be liked" is much more David Brent's (U.K.) schtick (although how much is inherent to who he actually is and how much is him trying to play a role for the documentary crew was always (I think) left a little vague). Michael Scott (U.S.) has a baseline that's closer to "Desperately wants his work life to be his family."

Those might seem similar, and at certain points they are portrayed pretty much the same, but with Michael you always get the sense that he's much more oblivious/sincere than Brent (which again might be a product of how each series treats the presence of the cameras). Michael assumes that everyone in the Office is much closer than they are, or would ever want to be, so the humor comes from him naively overstepping bounds and being pushed back into something more neutral, whereas the U.K. version would be Brent intentionally violating a boundary and then desperately trying to scramble his way back to (seeming) decency.

Speaking to people who haven't watched either series, or have only watched one, they really are two completely different animals. The U.K. one is a self-contained story focusing on a few core characters that has actual thematic statements it wants to make, along with making light of the drudgery of office life with a lot of atomic level awkward-based humor. The U.S. one, intended to run till the heat death of the universe, has no real theme to build on, but makes up for it with a wider array of jokes it can tell and a much deeper bench of secondary characters (really, the best non-Simpson's bench on T.V.)

Comparing them as apples to apples isn't really fair, but I'd gladly put the 13 best U.S. Office against the U.K. one for comedy. Of course, this isn't at all necessary because enjoyment of one doesn't somehow diminish the other! What a world we live in!!

[Magus]

I saw the original, it seemed more like a very dry comedy. The one on NBC is pretty much a straight sitcom featuring broad character archetypes with the "documentary" gimmick tacked on.

[Lumenskir]

The one on NBC is pretty much a straight sitcom featuring broad character archetypes with the "documentary" gimmick tacked on.
It pretty much is now (the decision to make Andy a watered down Michael was probably the worst option from what they were left with) but in the middle seasons (roughly 2-5, scattered parts of 6) it had a good roster of believable characters, rather than types.

And the U.S. Office has always been the best at maintaining the 'realism' of the documentary (especially now, for whatever reason, what with seeing/talking with the crew, etc.), at least compared to the other mockumentaries on currently. I remember interviews/commentaries where they talk about always making sure the shots and tracking would be something that a typical documentary crew could expect to get to, while Parks & Rec and Modern Family have the thinnest veneer of a documentary, but are basically straight single-camera sitcoms that get to do talking heads. Like, I'm pretty sure Modern Family has scenes every episode where it would be impossible to not see the documentary crews filming the multiple angles they keep cutting to, they just don't give a fuck.

[Magus]

Yeah Parks and Rec never felt like the Office to me. I guess they do do the "interview with camera bit" but none of the characters felt anything like had been established in the office and the tone didn't work either.

Heck I think Parks and Rec from what I remember has had many scenes in character's homes during like, a date or whatever. Nothing like that would ever occur in the Office without some sort of set-up to the situation that would make it seem more like it is possible in the documentary context.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Modern family is supposed to be a mockumentary?

[Magus]

Not really, it just doesn't have a laugh track. I think those are called single-camera sitcoms or something.

[Arcanum]

Not really, it just doesn't have a laugh track. I think those are called single-camera sitcoms or something.

They're actually called "a show that isn't ruined by a shitty laugh track." I believe that's the scientific term.

[Lumenskir]

Modern family is supposed to be a mockumentary?
Fun(!(?)) fact: Originally, the framing device of the show was that a group of Swedish students was filming everything for a university project. One of the cameramen was even going to have a crush on Claire. The creators decided to ditch this aspect when they realized Julie Bowen was a shrill harpy it didn't really add anything to the show.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It's hard to imagine how the show could be any worse so they should bring that back.

[Osterbaum]

Not really, it just doesn't have a laugh track. I think those are called single-camera sitcoms or something.
Fun fact: In Spain they remove the laugh track from the dubbed version. Suddenly, most sitcoms weren't at all funny any more.

[Lumenskir]

That's...odd, actually. Is it a technical thing, like the dubbing would overrun or somesuch? Because the writing on a three-camera sitcom is structured* to be theater-esque, hence why there are usually longer pauses in between jokes and such. It's the difference between a standup comedian playing to a crowd and Rupert Pupkin talking to himself in his basement.

*Of course, the structure has to be seen as distinct from the quality. Seinfeld was expertly structured and written, Big Bang Theory no so much.