By Todd VanDerWerff
When it debuted in 2005, the U.S. version of The Office (Thursdays at 8:30 p.m. EST) was held up as an example of how to get a remake almost right. It wasn’t the instant failure of Coupling -- an NBC remake of a BBC series -- but it wasn’t a huge leap forward on par with All in the Family (based on the British sitcom Till Death Us Do Part). Part of the problem was that NBC's The Office -- based on a British classic that put its pitch-perfect cast, headed up by Ricky Gervais, on the map-- was essentially a one-joke concept that brilliantly executed every possible variation on that joke; it ended after 12 episodes and two specials, and there wasn't a dud in the bunch. Thanks partly to the limitations imposed by the U.S. business model -- which requires 100 episodes for a viable syndication sale -- the NBC version seemed more fluid and less focused.
That has mostly changed. If the U.S. Office hasn’t yet bested its UK ancestor, it stands shoulder-to-shoulder with it; different from but equal to its inspiration, it takes elements from the British version that could be Americanized, discards the rest, and turns the format drawbacks of the U.S. model to its advantage. 
For instance, in the UK Office, the background characters were just that. They got little character development, popping in to offer a funny line or crucial bit of exposition. The U.S. Office, however, has treated the insatiable demands of its production schedule (22 half-hour episodes per season) as an excuse to develop every character, no matter how seemingly marginal, into a finely honed little archetype. Some bit players have even moved beyond that, particularly Jim (John Krasinski), who epitomizes the American working stiff who holds onto a job he's ambivalent about because he does it well, and because a major career shakeup is too big a risk. Even the U.S. show's most minor character, Creed (Creed Bratton), sports a degree of shading that the more compressed UK Office could not permit. Plus, while the British series was more realistic (the more severe antics of Rainn Wilson’s Dwight wouldn’t have flown in Gervais’ version), the U.S. Office depicts a broader sweep of humanity.
The other way in which the U.S. Office has outstripped its forebear is in its portrayal of the show’s romantic heart -- the subdued flirtation between Jim and Pam (the alluringly dorky Jenna Fischer). The original offered us roughly the same storyline between Tim (Martin Freeman) and Dawn (Lucy Davis, now slumming in a terribly underwritten role on Studio 60), but the end point of that storyline was never in doubt -- Tim and Dawn were going to get together by series’ end, overcoming romantic foils in Dawn’s fiancee, Lee (Joel Beckett), and Tim’s briefly-courted girlfriend, Rachel (Stacy Roca).
The U.S. Office retained the basic setup until this season. Pam, who was engaged to a lout named Roy (David Denman), rebuffed Jim, who turned around met a new girl named Karen (Rashida Jones). But in contrast to the Tim-Dawn dynamic, these developments aren't minor bumps on the road to togetherness, much less pro forma gimmicks meant to prolong the standard will-they/won’t-they dynamic. When Dawn left Lee, we were given little reason to care about his feelings; Lee was simply a jerkish fiance who deserved his comeuppance and then got it. In contrast, while Roy was played as a jerk for the first two seasons of the U.S. Office, he's gained depth this year; he’s still the high school jock gone to seed, but he also seems genuinely committed to winning back Pam through random acts of kindness (like getting her out of insufferable meetings and bringing her lunch). The show also showed, in small details, how the cancellation of a wedding affected both characters, something most TV sitcoms with aborted nuptials can't be bothered to do. (For instance, they’re working their way through the meals they'd ordered for the reception, eating them one at a time.)
More interesting, though, is the burgeoning relationship between Jim and Karen, which has mostly been hinted at (the only physical contact we’ve seen has been Jim’s hand on Karen’s back) and played offscreen (in keeping with the show’s conceit of being a workplace documentary, even if the U.S. version’s longevity makes that conceit less credible by the week). In the UK series, Tim couldn't get serious about Rachel because his true passion was for Dawn (the U.S. version played out this arc in Season Two, with Amy Adams as a spectacularly bad match for Jim). Karen, in contrast, is a carefully constructed character who's meant to win viewers over rather than earning their hate. She plays video games with the guys, she's a bit nonplussed by Jim’s mugging for the camera, and when she wants him, she makes her feelings known with a directness Pam could never muster. She’s an incredibly reasonable alternative to the almost-too-sitcommy drama of the Jim/Pam pairing. Of course thwarted flirtations like the one between Jim and Pam exist in the real world; but how often do they lead to meaningful relationships beyond high school or college, especially when it’s impossible to directly express one’s feelings (as Jim finally did to Pam in the season two finale, leaving her speechless and driving him away)? The Jim/Karen relationship feels surprisingly adult -- a mutual understanding based on two people saying, “Here’s what I want.” If you doubt the the Jim/Karen matchup is richer and more durable, just imagine them groggily sharing coffee over the morning newspaper 10 years from now, then do the same with Jim and Pam. The former makes more sense every time.
This is not an attempt to declare a “side” in the series’ relationship wars (though, apparently, you can buy shirts), nor is it an attempt to make the whole show about its central relationship (the comedy the show turns out is consistently hilarious). Rather, it’s an attempt to get at what The Office really seems to be getting at. The original version was, really, a romance wrapped in a big faux-verite bow. Yes, your job sucks, and yes, your boss is an idiot, but at the end of the day, you’ll find love and realize one or two of your dreams and even that hated boss will find some measure of redemption. The new clash at the heart of the U.S. Office isn’t just between the Jim/Pam and Jim/Karen pairings -- it’s about gradually discarding gooey notions of romanticism that TV often sells us and replacing them with a more realistic ideal. Naturally, no one expects the series to end with Jim and Karen or Pam and Roy together, but for this season, at least, The Office's realism goes beyond its shaky camerawork.
____________________________________________________
In its third season, the CW’s Veronica Mars (Tuesdays at 9 p.m. EST) has managed to reinvent itself as a show that’s easy for new viewers to jump into, yet it's still struggling to find viewers, even with the dream lead-in of Gilmore Girls. While I liked the convoluted gymnastics that fueled Season Two’s big mystery, I can see how the sheer volume of information might have driven away the uninitiated, and the show suffered as a result (it plays better on DVD). In response, creator Rob Thomas and his writers amped up the smaller mysteries that drive the individual episodes and created mini-mysteries to drive smaller arcs, the first of which ends tonight.
Unfortunately, the episodic mysteries have always been one of Mars' most uneven elements, and this season is no exception. While the episode with the sorority growing medical marijuana ranked with the series' best hours, the one where Veronica (the still prickly, still great Kristen Bell) fretted about her boyfriend Logan (Jason Dohring) and his mysterious ways was a yawn. The absence of key supporting players (who are used sparingly, as the show doesn’t have a big enough budget to feature them all in every episode) has led to a curiously disjointed feel; it's Veronica vs. the world. And the first mini-mystery -- Veronica trying to uncover the identity of a serial rapist -- has been a mixed bag. It's well-plotted, and original in its insistence that people who seem like college types, from dumb frat boys to militant feminists, are more complex than they seem. But there have been inexplicable lapses in logic, and the portrayal of the feminist group is troubling (why, exactly, did they fake some of the rapes?).
What Veronica Mars does better than almost any current series is give you a sense that it’s building to something big. Tonight’s episode, hopefully, will satisfy that craving by revealing the rapist's identity and shattering the Logan and Veronica relationship (which sounds fine -- Dohring and Bell are better at sparring than appearing to be in love). Despite its lapses, Thomas' series is a snarky triumph -- film noir filtered through 80s teen comedies, then pureed -- and you forgive a lot when it shows Veronica bonding with her father (Enrico Colantoni) or letting her guard down long enough to reveal the girl who wishes she could return to the time when her best friend was still alive.
_____________________________________________
Ron Underwood, director of such films as Tremors and City Slickers, isn’t known for his strong visuals, but his B-movie credentials make NBC’s The Year Without a Santa Claus (Monday, Dec. 11, 9 p.m. EST) all the more inexplicable. Underwood and the network have inflated a story that was already too slim for a one-hour Rankin-Bass special into a two-hour movie that meanders through some of the cheapest production values you’re likely to see this year.
Somehow, this project attracted something approaching an all-star cast. John Goodman would seem to be a natural for Santa, but his St. Nicholas is uncomfortably reminiscent of the manic Santa from You Better Watch Out (a.k.a. Christmas Evil). His costars -- Delta Burke as Mrs. Claus, Eddie Griffin and Ethan Suplee as elves are underwritten, and the actors give pretty much the performances you'd expect based on their past work (though Griffin’s character has an odd affection for Dr. Laura, mostly so the producers could get Dr. Laura to cameo, I guess). Harvey Fierstein, Michael McKean and Carol Kane turn up as Heatmiser, Coldmiser and Mother Nature, respectively, and are even less intergral to the remake than they were to the original (they're probably in the movie so they can sing the song, which is the only thing most people remember about the first one). NBC missed the mark completely here; they would have been better off reviving the cartoon.
____________________________________________
Here’s an early heads-up on Sundance’s intriguing new documentary series, One Punk Under God, which debuts Wednesday, Dec. 13 at 9 p.m. EST. While this isn’t quite the revolution in televised documentary that Sundance’s The Staircase was, it’s a largely fascinating examination of religion in America through the eyes of Revolution Church minister Jay Bakker, son of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the embattled PTL Club. The younger Bakker is trying to heal his still-fractured relationship with his mother and father while trying to fund his church (a task complicated by his mix of liberal and conservative politics, which alienates pretty much every source of money). Bakker's attempts to turn his church, which congregates weekly in a bar, into an instrument to spread his faith are largely fascinating; so are are his conflicts with established religious officials who bridle at his views and tattoos, and his relationship with his wife, who doesn't share his enthusiasm for the whole Jesus thing. In the first episode, when Bakker tromps around what remains of Heritage USA, the theme park/resort that was the focus of the scandal that destroyed his father, the sequence becomes a metaphor for a Christianity that dreamed big in the early 80s and found most of its leaders in shambles by the end of that decade. Surprisingly, though, One Punk Under God avoids the expected cheap shots at religious hypocrites. It's about the children of big Christianity trying to reconcile their views with a world their parents inoculated them against; while some have abandoned their faith, others, like Jay Bakker, have tried to incorporate that world into their faith, opening their hearts to the unconventional and odd, much like the man they say they follow.
____________________________________________
House Next Door contributor Todd VanDerWerff is the publisher of the pop culture blog South Dakota Dark.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
T.V. on TV: The Office, Veronica Mars, The Year Without a Santa Claus and One Punk Under God
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
25 comments:
Not to be pedantic, but Pam is played by Jenna Fischer. Rashida Jones plays Karen. Also, I don't know if I'd label the Jim character a "bit player".
One thing I had hoped to work in to the column but was unable to do in a graceful manner is that I haven't seen nearly as many Till Death Us Do Parts as I have All in the Familys (I think I've seen every one of those in TV Land reruns -- Till Death is harder to come by on these shores). My statement is based on general impressions of the episodes I've seen and the sense I get from critics and British viewers well-versed in both.
There's a new vogue for remakes in U.S. TV with the successes of The Office, Ugly Betty and Battlestar Galactica, but I'm guessing most of the new remakes will be like Coupling: trying to do a direct translation of the original. What makes the three series above work is that they've modernized (or Americanized) what they can and mostly gotten rid of what wouldn't work in the new contexts of their series. While the new remakes will feature some impressive talent (Arrested Development creator is producing a remake of the British political comedy The Thick of It and BSG producer David Eick is behind a "reimagining" of The Bionic Woman), it's hard to see how either project will be brought to a wider audience without being too insular (in the case of the former) or too silly (in the case of the latter).
I'm willing to be convinced, though!
Anon: That was an editing error, not Todd's, and since corrected.
Todd, you've done a very nice job of acknowledging the relationship of the BBC and NBC versions of The Office, and more importantly, you've really nailed many of the reasons that I think the student has surpassed the master. I would add one more item to the list, and it is the performance of Steve Carell as Michael Scott. True, Gervais is excellent at capturing the self-delusion and buffoonery of his character--nobody does the blithering obnoxious act better--but I never really bought David Brent as a figure with much humanity. Carell, on the other hand, does a marvellous job of balancing Michael's idiocy and his vulnerability. It is a marvellous performance on a show that is crammed full of 'em. It is the best comedy on the air.
I am big fan of the American version of The Office.
I think it is the best sitcom on TV.
Although, that does really say that much because most sitcom right now are not well done.
Hey anon. I should have made that bit player thing a bit more clear, you're right.
What I meant to say is that every character has grown beyond the workplace stereotype they started as in the pilot (all heavily based on the British version, save for a few of the background characters).
Hope that clears some things up.
And hey, teresa (wow, I should have refreshed). I'm actually inclined to think that sitcoms are making a very quiet renaissance in this age of attention-seeking dramas. Granted, none of the best sitcoms have that good of ratings (How I Met Your Mother does best, and it doesn't even crack 10 million), but there's a solid sitcom lineup right now, especially when Showtime's Weeds, HBO's sitcom trio (Curb Your Enthusiasm, Entourage and Extras) and FX's deeply uneven but often funny It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia are on the air.
Still, it's a good time for comedy, which is more than one could say for when The Office started, when Curb, Arrested Development and Scrubs were pretty much it.
You know, I don't often find myself in disagreement with Dan, but I think the major difference between the BBC Office and the US Office was that Brent was more human and vulnerable and tied to his misguided efforts to connect with others, whereas Scott is more of a deliberate asshole. This, strangely enough, makes the US version easier to watch because Scott's cringeworthy moments don't cut quite as deeply as Brent's.
Also, I do love Veronica Mars muchly, but the show's choice to show angry feminists faking rapes led me to wonder if they'd hired Bill O'Reilly to punch up the story lines. That was a bunch of horseshit there. It's not that angry college feminists are any sort of sacred cow, but the fake rape story made no sense (did that girl roofie herself, too? What else would explain her behavior in the convenience store) and asking the audience to believe that any self-described feminist (let alone any self-respecting human being) would take rape so lightly as to simulate it for revenge seems only a few steps away from one of Ann Coulter's humorless "jokes" about feminazis or some such crud.
All that said, tonight's episode was taut, maybe even a bit too taut, and had me in knots the whole time. I wish more viewers would find this show, but I'm an optimist about viewer taste. As long as I'm mentioning wishes, I wish Slate could find some insightful commentors on The Wire. The web's full of smart writers who love it, so why go with someone who seems to have understood only one of the many storylines at play?
The fake rape storyline was bullshit, plain and simple -- an example of a show being so eager to outsmart the audience that it embraces stupidity. Mars is a frustrating show, good but almost never great. Season One was terrific, but Season Two had too many balls in the air at once, and it got so preoccupied with plot mechanics (and outsmarting the viewer) that it sometimes lost track of the human element. I don't think it's all Rob Thomas' fault -- he's squeezed between a factory mentality (22 episodes a year) and a limited budget (first on UPN, now the CW), plus there are content restrictions and a mandate to balance film noir ugliness and the light, peppy, even trivial sense of humor fans are conditioned to expect. But I sometimes think the series doesn't understand its own strengths, a couple of which are highlighted by Todd here -- namely Veronica's relationship with her dad, her weird chemistry with Logan (a great character) and Veronica's predicament, which is being an adult, even an old soul, in a juvenile environment (and a juvenile country).
"I don't think it's all Rob Thomas' fault -- he's squeezed between a factory mentality (22 episodes a year)"
I was hoping that CW's initial order of 14(?) episodes and doubts they would order more would force Thomas and crew to craft a tighter season. I was wrong unfortunately. Granted it would be difficult to top the first season when the stakes were both high and personal (for almost all the major characters).
My big problem with Season 3 so far is out-of-character choices that seem to serve only plot. Veronica is drugged so she leaves a public place and wanders out to her car alone without trying to call anyone? That's just not a choice Veronica would have made in the past -- she's too smart. It's just lazy writing.
the show's choice to show angry feminists faking rapes led me to wonder if they'd hired Bill O'Reilly to punch up the story lines.
I thought it was interesting -- and not coincidental -- that this occurred in the same episode where Patty Hearst's character is applauded for being anti-sweatshop Left the impression that the writer wanted something clearly progressive in there to balance out the fact that the fake rape subplot could be taken as bolstering a certain kind of conservative worldview.
Still not sure how I felt about this element, myself -- I do think that the show did a good job of showing the Pi Sigs to be loathsome enough, but at the same time, I don't know that the gender politics behind their comeuppance were realistic. Though given that nearly everyone on the show seems to have wobbly ethics...
Hayden asserts: You know, I don't often find myself in disagreement with Dan, but I think the major difference between the BBC Office and the US Office was that Brent was more human and vulnerable and tied to his misguided efforts to connect with others, whereas Scott is more of a deliberate asshole. This, strangely enough, makes the US version easier to watch because Scott's cringeworthy moments don't cut quite as deeply as Brent's.
I retort:
Disagreement is good, Hayden! Agreement leads to blandness; disagreement forces us to sharpen our arguments.
You may be right about Brent's character being more humane, but I'm talking about the ACTORS who portray the parts. I think Carell is, simply put, a much better actor than Gervais, so he is better able to portray Michael as a (relatively speaking) multi-faceted and relatively complex character, whereas Brent's character is more limited by the Gervais' lesser capabilities as an actor.
hayden: "did that girl roofie herself, too? What else would explain her behavior in the convenience store"
I'm guessing she was just acting. That makes the most sense.
Also, in re: David Brent -- I don't DISagree with you, but his loathsome humanity is something that doesn't seem wholly American to me. His level of incompetence would have probably been punished much earlier in the American corporate system, so Michael Scott's blend of cluelessness, stolen-off-an-inspirational-poster aphorisms and random competence fits better in the show's milieu. I generally like both characters about the same, but David was never unbelievable while Michael has been occasionally over the top. I'll give the UK version the slight edge in this regard.
Matt, scott and Tobias: I often admire Veronica Mars' devotion to creating a universe where there's no one you can trust, up to and including normal authority figures, but a feminist group that creates a situation where rape can be cheerily dismissed (if what they're doing gets out) rings ALL kinds of false. Corrupt and incompetent cops both exist in our world and are a staple of the genre but the feminists strained the show's already delicate reality to a near breaking point. Fortunately, the second mystery is a good, old-fashioned murder mystery, something the show has done very well in the past. This one also comes with pre-established suspects (something the show had to establish -- often clumsily -- in arc one) and the opportunity to use the show's supporting players (particularly Weevil, who's still fascinating as the show's one remaining link to its season one, class-struggle roots). I still like VM quite a bit, and the ratings were way, way up last night, so I have hope for the rest of the year.
Todd: I think we're on the same page re: David Brent and Michael Scott. David is a more realistic (if loathsome) character, while Michael seems more stylized, to the point where an outside observer would peg him as a nut pretty quickly. But Dan's right that Carell is simply a deeper and more versatile actor. That said, it's tough to choose between the two, and I don't want to; it's like Modern English's anthemic "I Melt With You" versus the sweeter, softer, almost inxociated Nouvelle Vague cover. Same song, different rhythm and tone, but both terrific, and well worth a listen.
Also, I don't agree that David's "level of incompetence would have probably been punished much earlier in the American corporate system." Depends on the corporation.
I think the US Office has not only surpassed its UK inspiration, but had done so by the second episode, the already classic Diversity Day, which sustained the character-based humor while deftly exploring a situation (casual racism and the lure and appeal of easy stereotypes) that could have blown apart in clumsier hands. It's still my favorite episode from either series.
I agree that David Brent/Michael Scott is a toss-up. Probably the slyest joke of the original series is that in many ways Brent isn't a bad boss at all. He's annoying as hell, yeah, but so desperate for a mate that if you indulge him with the occasional after-work beer and laugh at his jokes he'll let you get away with murder during the workday. Whereas Michael is even more craven for approval, to the point where you ignore his by-the-mangled-book encouragements at your peril, but still exhibits, as Todd points out, actual competence now and again. Note that when Jim heard how his new branch manager sold out the company, he immediately admitted that Michael Scott would never do that.
(Note also, in fairness, that Jim, the show's writers, and I, Americans all, consider that to Michael's benefit; which might just be a cultural assumption insufficiently examined on our parts.)
And the minor players are every bit as rich and hilarious as Todd asserts. Angela's freaked-out response to Oscar's coming out of the closet ("Don't touch me!") was a dead-on character response that few shows would have dared to include; Kelly's sweet, shallow Valley-Girlisms (or whatever the PA equivalent would be) are a nifty way of subverting her own potential stereotyping as "The Indian Girl"; and while Creed's doped-out non sequitors are often the biggest laughs in an episode, my heart belongs forever to Leslie Baker's glum, getting-through-the-day Stanley, the best office curmudgeon on TV this side of Mary Lynn Rajskub's sainted Chloe.
Veronica Mars, eh. I liked the first season as much as most for all the reasons given, though it did bug me that Veronica didn't solve the crime so much as have the crucial clue fall in her lap. But halfway through the second season a string of bad, preachy, ill-conceived episodes just piled up. Including one (the repellent 12 ANGRY MEN riff) that I genuinely consider one of the worst hours of television I've ever seen. I stopped watching then, still don't know or care who sent the bus off the cliff, and haven't decided if I'll catch up with the third season once in debuts on DVD. From the reactions here, probably not.
While the episode with the sorority growing medical marijuana ranked with the series' best hours...
Man, I almost did a spit take when I read that, 'cause the complete lack of realism where that subject is concerned completely ruined that episode for me (the fact that nothing the sorority did violated any California laws was only the least of it).
I'm not spoiling anything by saying this, but the episode of The Office that I believe is scheduled to air tomorrow night, written by Gervais, does some really cool things with the Jim-Pam-Karen situation, while also being somewhat shameless about stringing viewers along. I assume it's the episode that's going to air--NBC sent out a screener disc that included it, alongside tomorrow's Scrubs premiere--but the promos they're airing suggest they're showing holiday-themed episodes, which these ain't. It's a little confusing...
I feel the need to throw down a mild disagreement with Todd's assessment of NBC's The Year Without a Santa Claus redux, if for no other reason than to provide counter opinion.
It's not that bad. It's actually not really bad at all, and this is coming from a die hard fan of the original who initially scoffed mightily at the idea of this TV movie - and make no mistake...a TV movie it is. But it's got a lot of heart and enough humor to carry it along. If you look around at the crap studio X-Mas fare trotted out year after year (I'm talking to you Tim Allen), this comes up a few steps ahead, and watching it made me wish it had been given the big budget treatment (along with maybe one more script polish).
If nothing else, tune in for the Michael McKean/Snowmiser vs. Harvey Fierstein/Heatmiser musical number, which is ~great~ fun. (There's something undeniably kitschy about seeing Fierstein surrounded by singing and dancing hot babes.) I'm sure plenty of fans of the original will hate it, but I'm one who was pleasantly surprised.
Oh yeah...don't want to seem like some sort of Todd-basher -- you are right on with your OFFICE schtuff. This show has come a long way - I only hope it can sustain the momentum it's bulit up. With Carrell's burgeoning film career, anyone else wonder if we'll see the day when Michael Scott is fired and yet the show continues?
I dunno. The world's plenty big enough for Carell to be an actor in both media. And Carell's smart enough to know he's in the midst of creating a series that has a chance to go down with the all-time greats. It'd be like All in the Family without Archie. Inconceivable, no?
Dan -
When I think of Carell, I think of exhaustion. When THE OFFICE went into production, there wasn't near the demand for his antics as there is today. Then THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN hit. And then THE OFFICE, to the surprise of many, took off like a rocket (well, rocketish anyway). Have you looked at his IMDB listing lately? Jeez, when does the guy sleep?
I'm fascinated by the possible success or failure of EVAN ALMIGHTY and how it might affect his career. If that movie hits big, will NBC be able to justify his paycheck (and I'm sure there will be negotiations from season to season as the show moves forward)?
Back to your question. I actually do think THE OFFICE could survive without Carell - which is by no means meant to diminish his excellent contributions to the show.
But it has built itself into quite the ensemble cast, and certainly the general public talk far more about Pam and Jim than they do Michael and Jan. It might not be as good without Carell (when has that ever stopped a network?), but being as it's set in an office, there's more room for change than say something like ALL IN THE FAMILY.
I mean, look at M*A*S*H, for instance, and all the characters/actors who seemed so integral to it that ended up moving on over the years. Or CHEERS? Or even THREE'S COMPANY?
OK, let me now propose this...let's say Carell does move on at some point. Out of the current cast, who should be promoted to office manager for maximum comic effect?
OK, let me now propose this...let's say Carell does move on at some point. Out of the current cast, who should be promoted to office manager for maximum comic effect?
Without question, I'd vote for Ed Helms' Andy (he may not be an official regular, but close enough).
Andrew -
Andy would make for a fine Michael Scott replacement - he'd be the boss everyone loves to hate.
It would all depend on where the TPTB wanted to take the show creatively after such a major unheaval.
Personally, I'd get a huge kick out of seeing Creed forced to run THE OFFICE.
Todd, back to Veronica Mars and Claire-the-fake-rapee: Maybe it makes the most sense that she was acting in the convenience store, but given that she was with her easily-identified boyfriend and presumably neither drunk nor roofied, why the hell would she be acting? That option may be the least senseless explanation, but that's a low bar. It seems like a pointless, poorly-thought-out red herring in retrospect, and definitely not the first. It's little points like this why Veronica Mars, one of my favorite network TV shows, is forever going to be an A-/B+ kind of show in my mind.
Geez. . .a guy goes away for a few days to celebrate his birthday and THIS happens. . .
Anyway. . .
Matt: "Also, I don't agree that David's 'level of incompetence would have probably been punished much earlier in the American corporate system.' Depends on the corporation."
I guess I've just worked for better corporations, then. I DO find it unthinkable that Michael wouldn't have been written up for some of his more glaring exploits, but maybe I work in a Heaven of a workplace (God, I hope not).
bruce: I think season one is more hit-and-miss than you, but Diversity Day is a keeper, no doubt.
And I think it's worth revisiting VM, season two on DVD. That way, you can skip past some of the nonsense and see some of the truly great moments -- like Weevil making Logan complicit in a murder after all (though Logan has no idea).
Andrew: "Man, I almost did a spit take when I read that, 'cause the complete lack of realism where that subject is concerned completely ruined that episode for me (the fact that nothing the sorority did violated any California laws was only the least of it)."
The lack of realism didn't wholly bother me (and I think the biggest problem was that she was growing the marijuana without being registered with a government agency, which my Wikipediaing tells me is the case, though that site is oft wrong). What I liked about the episode was that it forced Veronica into an essentially immoral position. She's so cocksure of her rightness so often that it's always nice to see her taken down a level or two. It had a whiff of college ethics class to it, but it was well played and plotted, so it worked.
Ross: I forgot to mention that the Santa Claus movie actually rips off jokes from The Santa Clause (though, to be honest, the jokes weren't that original to begin with). I genuinely like holiday specials -- I watch way too many of them, and my TiVo captures even more. But this one was that blend of treacle and smarm that the worst of the genre is known for.
As for Carell leaving The Office -- I don't imagine he will. If he has a standard TV contract, he's signed for five seasons. From there, a sixth would get them to syndication numbers, and I'm sure he could be persuaded to stick around for a seventh (there's a lot more money in a successful sitcom for an actor -- Ray Romano probably lights cigars with $10,000 bills).
If he did leave, the show would have to do backflips to not make Jim the boss (which would, of course, not be funny unless it went the Newsradio route and did a show about how being a boss to crazy people is taxing). I imagine they'd go with Dwight, but the first person I thought of when you asked this question was Andy (just like Andrew). His brand of sycophanty is the sort of thing that tends to rise through the ranks in the workplace.
Finally, Hayden: That's one of the weaknesses of Veronica Mars, no doubt. The mystery resolutions always result in fairly strong episodes, but to get there, you have to be willing to be strung along a lot. There's a whiff of, "Shit. We have to fill 22 episodes with this?!" in every big arc. For example, in the rapist mini-arc, all of the clues you needed to solve the mystery were dispatched by episode two, I believe, so there was a lot of misdirection involved. The season two mystery required more actual sleuthing but took lots of long side trips to keep us distracted. Even the season one mystery was full of misdirection.
To that end, Rob Thomas has said he's thinking about ditching the bigger arcs and concentrating on the standalone mysteries (though he hinted that some would take place over two or three episodes). This feels like network pressure to a degree, but I also wonder if he isn't just sick of trying to figure out a way to stretch out these stories more and more. (I'm surprised he didn't go the early-Buffy route and confine the mystery to 10 or 11 episodes out of the season, culminating in a four or five episode run at the end of the year.) Really, the strength of the show is usually in its cranky worldview and its character interactions. If they can find a way to preserve those, they'll be fine.
Post a Comment