THE OFFICE (US) observations...
- Thread starter comicbookwriter
- Start date
We named our cat Toby based on The Office character as well as the Degrassi: TNG character. 
I do understand what you mean about how Michael goes too far sometimes. However, there are a few moments when you can't help but to feel sorry for him, like on "Bring you daughter to work day" and the kid asked him if he had a girlfriend or anyone special in his life at all (kids, etc.) and Michael was fighting back obvious disappointment and still managed to entertain the kids. And it was interesting that the kids were pretty cool with him throughout that episode.
Then on the Halloween one, at the end when he is all alone, you can see that the trick or treaters were the only ones who would spend time with him, however fleeting. That really hit me hard because even I (who has a decent number of friends and people who care about me) have been alone and not invited to social events and felt the sting of lonliness.
I would NEVER want to be in his place, desperate for attention and affection, yet doing everything to make people go the opposite direction.
As the seasons have gone on, Michael has done fairly ridiculous things that stretch reality, but at the same time, the rest of the office workers probably wouldn't fit in anywhere else with the exception of Jim, Oscar, Andy, and Pam (maybe).
CBW
I really don't see where you are getting the whole "Pam led Jim on" thing. Don't you think that women and men can have a close friendship without a romance?
ARE YOU KIDDING?
She was flirting with the guy for months while being ENGAGED to be married, she left him multiple voicemails, rested her head on Jim's shoulders, and then when he was dating a woman who was much hotter, more capable, and generally more fun to be around, she was being catty on the sly.
Pam sucks as a person. I know chicks like her, and they act so contrite and sweet, but love having their cake and eating it too.
bleh
CBW
All of your posts made little sense to me. I eventually concluded that you must know someone like Pam, you dislike her, and you can't separate the show from your own experiences.
And then I get to the end of the thread...and lookie what we find here...
Yeah, I figured.
And then I get to the end of the thread...and lookie what we find here...
Yeah, I figured.
I prefer the more "tone-down" Michael, then the completely over-the-top Michael. Events such as Phylis's wedding or when trying to hug Meridith while in the hospital bed, I cringe at.
As for Pam and Jim feeling superior...I never got that in the show. Ever. I think they both personally like Michael, even if they get annoyed by him. If there was anyone in the show they have felt better than, it was Dwight, and that was more retaliation from Dwight's personality.
As for the way Pam was earlier in the series...I don't get it whey people say she was a bad person. So she didn't reach for her potential? Does that make someone bad? No. If you watched the show, you clearly saw that it was Roy putting her down from going out to art school. People claiming it was her fault are kinda blaming the victim on this one. Also, Pam was way to mousy to break up with him.
Pam flirting with Jim...Okay, she probably was. Not that this is a total defense, but he was her outlet. She was able to be happy and have fun when he was around. Clearly she was already into him, even if she didn't fully realize it herself. Jim fessing up his feelings for her (and the subsequent kiss) gave Pam that courage to make the changes she knew she had to make.
As for Pam and Jim feeling superior...I never got that in the show. Ever. I think they both personally like Michael, even if they get annoyed by him. If there was anyone in the show they have felt better than, it was Dwight, and that was more retaliation from Dwight's personality.
As for the way Pam was earlier in the series...I don't get it whey people say she was a bad person. So she didn't reach for her potential? Does that make someone bad? No. If you watched the show, you clearly saw that it was Roy putting her down from going out to art school. People claiming it was her fault are kinda blaming the victim on this one. Also, Pam was way to mousy to break up with him.
Pam flirting with Jim...Okay, she probably was. Not that this is a total defense, but he was her outlet. She was able to be happy and have fun when he was around. Clearly she was already into him, even if she didn't fully realize it herself. Jim fessing up his feelings for her (and the subsequent kiss) gave Pam that courage to make the changes she knew she had to make.
Not applicable to this situation. With Pam and Jim they were not friends...they were NEVER friends. They were both into each other and they both knew it. Just one of them kept dating as asshole and leading Jim on.
I have plenty of friends. If I had a friend the way that Pam and Jim were friends my wife would leave me or kill me.
I am also reminded of how Jim and Pam go out of their way to be nice to Michael and Dwight. How they try to talk Michael out of making an ass of himself, how Jim confided secrets to Michael and comforted him when he gets down... how Jim and Pam paid for a horrible weekend at Dwight's farm to cheer him up... // I can't think of an instance where Pam outright flirted with Jim when she was engaged to Roy, she was just 'best friends' with him. Putting her head on his shoulder is pushing the boundary a bit I suppose. But I also remember that time they were celebrating and Jim was hugging her and holding her up in the air she quickly got uncomfortable with it and told him to let her go.
Love the Office, don't get to see it as much as I normally would due to the fact that I don't have television at the moment and am usually doing other things on Thursday night but enjoyed the earlier seasons of the series as well rather than the more recent episodes which are still funny but are lacking something. Jim and Pam, I don't see them being mean to Michael and Dwight, I see them as playing with them after those two act like jackasses to them and the rest of the office staff. They do try to support Michael when he's down on himself, and even Dwight at times. They bring it upon themselves anyways by doing stupid stuff all the time. ^ I pretty much agree with Mr. Light and the others assessments about Jim and Pam's friendship then courtship...Jim agonized for months about not being able to be with Pam because of the engagement to Roy and was unsatisfied with being her friend but I Don't think that the two of them engaged in inappropriate behavior with each other.
This is how I'm reading it too. There's a difference between enjoying someone's company and leading someone on.
That's what she said.
Wow, talk about reading too much into things...
I don't like Pam that much because I see her character as someone who isn't as "nice" and virtuous as they believe they are. All she does is be stuck up whenever Michael tries to joke with her or talk to her, and that's not cool.
Even though Michael obviously does wacky things, he has always treated her kindly and with respect.
I say I knew people like her because I know women who pretend to be without fault but do devious things, like flirt with a co-worker in the months leading up to marriage. Jim was lovestruck, Pam was engaged and kept leading him on over the course of years. That's not cool, and even if you might think its "cute" or "romantic," that's not a good way to start a relationship.
CBW
Michael is always nice to Pam?!?! Does a single episode go by where he doesn't sexually harass her, make comments on her looks or hotness or lack thereof? Not to mention all the annoying horrible things he makes her do. Offhand when they went to the beach and he made her take copious notes on everything ever person did while berating her for not wearing a skimpy bikini.
Michael can be a bit creepy. Pam would have to be standoffish to keep him at a distance or he'd try to take advantage. Women get stuck with that, if you "encourage" a guy (by just being nice,) you're a flirt or "leading them on," if you don't, you're a "stuck up bitch." No-win. Been there.
IMO, she liked Jim, was friends but was in total denial when engaged that she had stronger feelings for him. When Jim crossed the line inadvertently, she slapped him down.
One might argue that Jim, being free and knowing that she wasn't, should have drawn back, but again, I think he was probably in denial. They both knew they were "good friends," but weren't seeing it was crossing over into more.
Roy was a jerk who should have been kicked to the curb much earlier.
I can't totally buy Pam's change from utter doormat to assertive. I would expect, if she was changing, that she would have bits of both, sometimes being too wimpy, sometimes not.
There are times I pity Michael, but then he does something that makes me just loathe him. I can't tell you how many times I had the urge to kick him in the 'nads. What an utter jerk. He deserves to be alone. You feel all sorry for him, then he does something that just totally negates that.
IMO, she liked Jim, was friends but was in total denial when engaged that she had stronger feelings for him. When Jim crossed the line inadvertently, she slapped him down.
One might argue that Jim, being free and knowing that she wasn't, should have drawn back, but again, I think he was probably in denial. They both knew they were "good friends," but weren't seeing it was crossing over into more.
Roy was a jerk who should have been kicked to the curb much earlier.
I can't totally buy Pam's change from utter doormat to assertive. I would expect, if she was changing, that she would have bits of both, sometimes being too wimpy, sometimes not.
There are times I pity Michael, but then he does something that makes me just loathe him. I can't tell you how many times I had the urge to kick him in the 'nads. What an utter jerk. He deserves to be alone. You feel all sorry for him, then he does something that just totally negates that.
With Pam, I think that if she was purposefully and consciously leading Jim on then yeah, that would be shitty. But it honestly seemed like she didn't realize what was going on. She was telling herself they were just friends, and there were many times where he started to cross the line and she pushed him away. She didn't set out to hurt Jim or Roy or be flirty. She just wanted to hang out with her friend. And when she realized that it would be impossible to just be friends with Jim, she ended her engagement with Roy. Of course I wish she would have dumped Roy sooner, but that goes along with her fear of reaching for what she really wants. She didn't want to speak out and change the status quo. Luckily that ended, I don't know how much longer I could have watched her stick with Roy.
I don't think she's a perfect angel, and she went a little overboard in that copier vs. chairs argument, but overall she is a kind person.
I don't think she's a perfect angel, and she went a little overboard in that copier vs. chairs argument, but overall she is a kind person.
If you think Pam was "leading him on" in a devious manner, then I'm afraid you have missed, completely and blithely, the theme of their relationship and roughly half of the series. Perhaps due to a personal experience.
But then, you do identify with Michael "Blithe" Scott.
Joe, "lacking due thought or consideration"
Maybe so...but if the writers want us to believe that Pam honestly didn't know what she was doing, that she didn't wake up at ANY POINT and think "this is shitty, what I am doing to Jim" - then they are even dumber than they have apparently written her character to be.
Also, why does everyone keep assuming that if a person's opinion is that Pam led Jim on, then that person can only possibly have that opinion because they were led on in real life. That's just silly.
Bottom line - she was engaged to an asshole and continued to receive what she needed from Roy from Jim - by playing buddy buddy. Unfair to Jim, unfair to Roy, and completely childish.
I believe it because I have known several women who have done the same thing. It's obvious to people on the outside that even though they are engaged/tied up with someone, they are attracted to someone else and being flirty with them. But they will vehemently deny it, saying, "No, we're only friends, you just don't understand our relationship. People can be close friends without being attracted to each other you know." And they honestly believe this. It seems to happen all the time. So yeah, I believe it.
I suppose this would be a good reason for the assumption:
We're also assuming his judgment is correct, that the women in question was actually flirting, which seems to be a bad thing to assume, given the reliability of his judgments on other things.
Again, comicbookwriter identifies with Michael Scott, an obvious tool, so his interpretation of events and motivations is amazingly suspect.
Joe, handy
Similar threads
