Michael Scott and David Brent in The Office Page 2

This may be against popular opinion, but I actually think there is more depth to the character of Michael Scott than there is to David Brent. At least in The Office Seasons 2-4. You get a sense that Michael Scott was actually a competent salesman, but was promoted beyond his station and now has a job that really doesn't suit him. I also think there is much more sympathy for Michael, you see that all he wants deep down is a family that he can love and that loves him back - He tries desperately to create this atmosphere in the workplace because he fails to achieve it at home.

That's not to take anything away from David Brent, who is also a great character and well-realised. I just think there is more depth and more layers to Michael Scott.

Quote: Martin H @ December 9 2009, 7:05 PM GMT

This may be against popular opinion, but I actually think there is more depth to the character of Michael Scott than there is to David Brent. At least in The Office Seasons 2-4. You get a sense that Michael Scott was actually a competent salesman, but was promoted beyond his station and now has a job that really doesn't suit him. I also think there is much more sympathy for Michael, you see that all he wants deep down is a family that he can love and that loves him back - He tries desperately to create this atmosphere in the workplace because he fails to achieve it at home.

That's not to take anything away from David Brent, who is also a great character and well-realised. I just think there is more depth and more layers to Michael Scott.

View original

Co-sign.

Co-co-sign, but with the acknowledgement that the US writers have had way more time to develop their character. And Scott would have become tiresome quickly if they hadn't fleshed him out from time to time.

Scott's *way* more clownish and slapstick than Brent though.

Havent seen the US Office yet I might get the first seasom next year and formulate my own opinion

I read this as "Matthew Stott as David Brent in The Office". I was expecting news of a well-cast remake.

Quote: Tim Walker @ December 9 2009, 9:05 AM GMT

There's definitely a part of the US version which feels it needs to reflect the aspirational American view of work as a means to success and self-improvement. Although that is implied in Britain, it is bad form to admit it. We're bred to complain about work, even if we enjoy it.

For me, in the UK version, Tim is the character that most men will identify with and Dawn (I presume) most women. You say they never really do anything, but the point is that their lives take place off-screen as it were. Both characters have a bit of growing up to do, but both essentially realise that ultimately their place of work is little more than a anchor of financial and social security. Whereas as David and Gareth (plus Finchy) - live their lives through their work. In this way, Michael and Dwight are similarly somewhat deluded.

The necessity for continuing seasons means that the US version can't pace out its story or character development in the same way as the UK version, of course. It is in some respects a completely different show, but it makes its own way nicely as a very well-written and funny sitcom. It can't have the same relentless failures and disappointments for its characters as that would be a big turn-off over multiple seasons. In the UK version the characters did have victories, but they were smaller and more subtle. Any time Tim and Dawn physically touch each other, for example, was a mini-triumph in their lives. In the US version the characters' lives are (understandably) played out more on the surface - the plot and the dialogue. In the UK version, what Tim and Dawn don't say (and indeed many of the minor characters as well) is as important as what they do say.

I will always prefer the UK version, but that's simply because for me it was more than a sitcom. It said a lot of about life, love, ambition and (especially) what constitutes "failure", which made it quite a deep social drama as well. That's the reason it touched so many people really. Its key audience is probably those in their late 20s, early 30s and upwards - you need to be of an age where you've had to re-adjust your ambitions in life - in order to fully appreciate it, I think. Where you're not quite old enough to (albeit begrudgingly) accept where you've ended-up in life, but at the same time not young enough to easily go back and start all over again.

View original

Now I know I'm in britcom heaven! someone who actually took the time to write this really well-thought out analysis of the show in answer to my half baked question!

Peter:
I was a very staunch hold out, refusing to see US Office for years (only started this year via Netflix and am now on Season 5) because I HATE it when people try to remake british comedy. but I have to say US Office holds its own - the characters are exceptionally well-acted and for the most part it's very well written. definitely check it out, maybe skip the first half of the season. you'll see lots of vague references to the original show that kind of annoyed me.

I prefer the US version. Don't get me wrong, I love The Office UK, but the American version is one of the funniest sitcoms on TV. It's utterly compelling.

Dan

Quote: KeyLimePaige @ December 10 2009, 12:03 AM GMT

Now I know I'm in britcom heaven! someone who actually took the time to write this really well-thought out analysis of the show in answer to my half baked question!

View original

Yeah, it took us quite a while to knock Tim into shape. You should have seen the stuff he used to post.

Quote: chipolata @ December 9 2009, 10:12 AM GMT

And then, in the Christmas specials, the show ends on Brent not only finding a hot woman who likes him, but cracking a joke that everybody laughs at.

View original

I didn't notice he eventually cracked a good joke, what was it about?

The US version is what we called a "tin sealed" sitcom with all the american media formulas seen in exactly the same way on all other sitcoms and movies in general.

The grin smile Michael bears is exactly the same as if it would have been done by Steve Martin, Jim Carrey (yes, even a canadian), or the 80's guys Ted Danson, even Seinfeld, or any other us top comedian. Its the TV smile look, the "look-I-am-a-star-actor" look.

Natural uggliness like in Gareth, easy common people like Tim or Dawn, even fat guys behaving like dull persons, all these aspect of the uk version are not allowed in an american sitcom aimed at mass audiences. They all need to be exaggerated so the public can relate to "its just a sitcom" and won't offend viewers in any way.

I think Ricky Gervais could have carried on but after he won a few Baftas (and Emmy) he was more keen to move on something else because he is a guy with many ideas. The success of The Office gave him the start he needed, then, shows, Extras, America...thou the program had other writers, he and Stephen were crucial and wanted to do something else.

luis

Quote: peter gazzard @ December 9 2009, 8:55 PM GMT

Havent seen the US Office yet I might get the first seasom next year and formulate my own opinion

View original

Get the second season then formulate your opinion (or watch them both). The first season isn't very good because it tries to be too much like the original, it isn't until season two when it really comes in to its own.

Agree with Martin. Watch season 2 (or even 3) rather than 1 as that's when it hits its stride.

Dan

Quote: Gianni Merryman @ December 14 2009, 10:39 AM GMT

I didn't notice he eventually cracked a good joke, what was it about?

View original

When they were having their photo taken at the end, someone said they were having trouble and Brent did a Frank Spencer impression.
"Ooh - Having a bit of trouble"
And everyone laughed.

Ah, right, when he asks to take a photo with only the old Sleugh lot group in, right before closing credits.
Now I can remind it, thank you!