The Office "Broke" (4/23/09)

[RGM1138]

Okay, I know that the term is no longer PC, but Michael has to be the living embodiment of an idiot savant.


Well, maybe more idiot that savant.

Bob

[Neenahboy]

I loved Michael's speech: "So I don't think I need to wait out Dunder Mifflin...I just need to wait out you." :up:

[ttyler1999]

I want Jim's Dwight ringtone of "Idiot! Idiot! Idiot!"

[GDG76]

"Our balls are in your courts"

".. and we put that on a flushable wipe..."

Great episode... though David Wallace is just as bumbling as Michael Scott.. at least Michael shows flashes of competency..

[Satchel]

Best episode of the year, by far. I'll have to go back and watch this one again to get all the lines.

[BrandonRe]

I was expecting Charles to go out with a bang, instead it was more of a whimper.

[Jesda]

That was outstanding. Best episode of the season by FAR.

[DancnDude]

Titans = Tight Ends
:D

[getbak]

Old Korean women climbing into the van for a ride to church...Laughed every time.

[JYoung]

Who else cheered when Michael said he want Pam as a Salesman?

[MickeS]

That was outstanding. Best episode of the season by FAR.

+1

Hard to watch though. Very awkward.

I love how the Michael Scott Paper Company was eventually resolved.

[MickeS]

Old Korean women climbing into the van for a ride to church...Laughed every time.

That was awesome.

[spikedavis]

That would have made a perfect series finale. So satisfying.

"Well, well, well...how the turntables..."

When they got on the elevator, I was saying out loud, " don't screw this up, don't screw this up, don't screw this up..."

And as someone who's had to deal with many Charles Minors in my day, I was happy to see him get his just desserts.

[caslu]

And as someone who's had to deal with many Charles Minors in my day, I was happy to see him get his just desserts.

Not sure how it's possible but I think my boss is a combo of Michael Scott and Charles Minor.

[Gunnyman]

I loved Jim just shutting up and letting Dwight be Dwight in the meeting.
I was shocked when the first words out of Michael's mouth at the meeting were NOT "We're broke" Excellent excellent episode. The payoff for Michael quitting was indeed worth waiting for.

[jschuur]

I didn't quite understand how they still had that much bargaining power after they found out that Micheal's company was broke. Their demands to reinstate the staff, including Ryan and get rid of Charles came after that fact had leaked out.

Either David smelled something wrong with Charles or their share holder meeting was so important to them that they didn't have the time to wait things out.

[EMoMoney]

I didn't quite understand how they still had that much bargaining power after they found out that Micheal's company was broke. Their demands to reinstate the staff, including Ryan and get rid of Charles came after that fact had leaked out.

Either David smelled something wrong with Charles or their share holder meeting was so important to them that they didn't have the time to wait things out.
I think Charles didn't say anything to David based on the interaction he had with Jim and Dwight. He called them both morons I think. Maybe he didn't believe what Dwight was telling him.

[danplaysbass]

Excellent Episode! So many good parts. I love how Jim ran interference with Dwight and Minor as Dwight was trying to tell Minor that they were broke.

Michael played that well. I loved how once they conceded he closed the shades and they all started cheering. It reminded me of Michael in the "Cone of Silence" on Get Smart.

[Steeler Mike]

I think Charles didn't say anything to David based on the interaction he had with Jim and Dwight. He called them both morons I think. Maybe he didn't believe what Dwight was telling him.

Yes. Charles never acted on Dwight's information, because Jim baited Dwight into an idiotic argument in the breakroom. Also, Charles lost all of his trust for Dwight earlier when he was talking about the bees in the conference room.

[Steeler Mike]

I noticed the episode description on my TIVO was, well ... , not very ... descriptive.

Michael Scott Paper Company has trouble making morning deliveries; the employees have trouble getting expense reports in on time as Angela tightens down on expense reports.

[paraphrased]


Um, that second line. That was one unconsequencial line in the episode by Angela. And they never showed anything about the employees having trouble getting them in on time. :confused:

[cheerdude]

My guess that it will be in the unaired clips of the episode.

[mtnagel]

Best episode of the year, by far. I'll have to go back and watch this one again to get all the lines.

That was outstanding. Best episode of the season by FAR.Agreed. I didn't really like when they had Michael and Pam quit, but this made up for it.

[DancnDude]

I loved when Jim went downstairs and how he already knew from Pam about how everything was going. Then Michael wanted to tell him about how he was broke and Jim just said something like "I just want to know if your VERY SUCCESSFUL paper company is interested in a buyout." :)

[DancnDude]

Oh yeah, and I was wondering if anybody knows who the MSPC was talking to about their finances? Some bank guy? An accountant? A guy who hires delivery drivers?

[sburnside1]

Wallace still needed to take Michael back even with his company failing and worth nothing.

Michael had stolen a lot of clients. Granted some were coming back to DM. Michael also said if The Michael Scott Paper Company failed, that he would just start another, then another, then another.

Wallace had to look out for the board of directors. Michael would do less damage to Wallace as a DM employee then as a competitor.

[Steeler Mike]

I think they should have just bought Ryan out & have him accept that, with Michael & Pam back to DM. But I guess Ryan will be back on the show full time.

[FourFourSeven]

Outstanding episode. I love how once Charles thinks someone is an idiot, than he essentially ignores everything they say, and hurts the company due to it.

My one quibble with the episode - Jim was clearly acting in a non-professional, grounds-for-firing way - he was doing what he could to sabotage Dunder Mifflin:

-Not reporting when he found out they're going broke (which, of course, is an awkward situation, since he found out from his stressed-out fiance). This area is a bit of a gray area ethically, so I understand not giving his company that information.
-Not reporting when their competitor (Michael) tells him they're broke
-Actively sabotaging Dwight when he tries to give that information to Charles.

This is one of those times where the "documentary" aspect of the show has to be kind of ignored - if Jim did these things on film, as soon as the documentary was shown, he'd be fired on the spot.

[Steeler Mike]

This is one of those times where the "documentary" aspect of the show has to be kind of ignored - if Jim did these things on film, as soon as the documentary was shown, he'd be fired on the spot.

Oh for goodness sake, there is no freakin documentary!!! :mad:

What kind of documentary follow ex-exployees to their new job at Staples? (Dwight) What kind of documentary follows an ex-employee to Costa Rica? (Toby) What kind of documentary splits up into two crews so they can simultaneosly document DM & MSPC?

I am so sick of reading the documentary angle of this show. Yes, that was the initial premise of the show, but that has long since passed. :mad::down:

[FourFourSeven]

Oh for goodness sake, there is no freakin documentary!!! :mad:

What kind of documentary follow ex-exployees to their new job at Staples? (Dwight) What kind of documentary follows an ex-employee to Costa Rica? (Toby) What kind of documentary splits up into two crews so they can simultaneosly document DM & MSPC?

I am so sick of reading the documentary angle of this show. Yes, that was the initial premise of the show, but that has long since passed. :mad::down:
Geez, relax! I did say the documentary aspect has to be ignored. Also, the documentary angle is still there - it's still filmed documentary-style, they still have the "confessional" moments, there's still no music or laugh track, they still use the "shaky cam," and Jim still does his looks for the camera.

Obviously you'd never have a five-year-long documentary about an office. But if you think of a single episode (or even full season) as a single documentary, and ignore the fact that all other episodes were also filmed, the documentary angle still works well. (Though of course it's a very well financed documentary with many camera crews, who magically always get the "right" shot).

Anyway, you miss the larger point - regardless of the documentary angle, Jim acted in ways that could (and should) call for his immediate dismissal, should they be discovered. That's a bit out of character for him...

[Jesda]

Oh for goodness sake, there is no freakin documentary!!! :mad:

What kind of documentary follow ex-exployees to their new job at Staples? (Dwight) What kind of documentary follows an ex-employee to Costa Rica? (Toby) What kind of documentary splits up into two crews so they can simultaneosly document DM & MSPC?

I am so sick of reading the documentary angle of this show. Yes, that was the initial premise of the show, but that has long since passed. :mad::down:

ANGER!

[BrandonRe]

ANGER!

I think Andy can refer you to a good program for that.

[NJChris]

Anyway, you miss the larger point - regardless of the documentary angle, Jim acted in ways that could (and should) call for his immediate dismissal, should they be discovered. That's a bit out of character for him... EVERY CHARACTER has done things that would warrant firing on the spot. Every. Single. One.

Any comedy cannot be based in total reality. It just would be boring.

[kaszeta]

EVERY CHARACTER has done things that would warrant firing on the spot. Every. Single. One.


Although, in the show's defense, several of my SO's coworkers have done stuff worse than much of what we've seen on The Office, and they still work there.

[Steeler Mike]

Geez, relax! I did say the documentary aspect has to be ignored. Also, the documentary angle is still there - it's still filmed documentary-style, they still have the "confessional" moments, there's still no music or laugh track, they still use the "shaky cam," and Jim still does his looks for the camera.

Obviously you'd never have a five-year-long documentary about an office. But if you think of a single episode (or even full season) as a single documentary, and ignore the fact that all other episodes were also filmed, the documentary angle still works well. (Though of course it's a very well financed documentary with many camera crews, who magically always get the "right" shot).

Anyway, you miss the larger point - regardless of the documentary angle, Jim acted in ways that could (and should) call for his immediate dismissal, should they be discovered. That's a bit out of character for him...
Sorry about that. I just get sick of the documentary debate every week. Shouldn't have taken it out on you, especially since your overall post was actually a good one.

[FourFourSeven]

Sorry about that. I just get sick of the documentary debate every week. Shouldn't have taken it out on you, especially since your overall post was actually a good one.

No problem - thanks for the apology. I thought the weekly debate wasn't on the documentary style, but was "this episode stunk - The Office isn't what it used to be!" I've noticed we haven't seen any of those posts this week - a sign of just how good an episode it was.


EVERY CHARACTER has done things that would warrant firing on the spot. Every. Single. One.

I can't think of anything Jim has done (something may be slipping my mind). Especially something so egregious, obvious, and not comedy-based.

And what about Dwight? I mean, that fire-evacuation safety drill from a few months ago was clearly not a problem, nor was hiding weapons throughout the office.


Any comedy cannot be based in total reality. It just would be boring.

I don't know - Arrested Development was incredibly realistic, and that was a great show!

[EvilMidniteBombr]

I really like how they showed Michael's glimmers of genius in the last couple of episodes. It showed us how he made such a great salesman and a terrible manager. His negotiating skills with David and Sir Charles were super. He knew he had David by the shorties and took advantage of it. I still think that David should have held firm on rehiring Ryan.

I'm looking forward to see how well Pam does in sales. Especially completing against Jim and Dwigt.

[Steeler Mike]

I still think that David should have held firm on rehiring Ryan.

Agreed.

[gchance]

I don't know - Arrested Development was incredibly realistic, and that was a great show!

:up::up::up:

Just the other day, my brother-in-law came into the kitchen painted blue, wearing cutoffs.

Greg

[Steeler Mike]

I thought the weekly debate wasn't on the documentary style, but was "this episode stunk - The Office isn't what it used to be!" There have been many debates about whether they are gathering footage for a future movie, if it is a currently running TV show on cable, etc. Maybe not weekly, but quite often.

And I think it is quite clear that there is no documentary, its just the style of the show, & that's it. Nothing more. (If that makes sense)

(and look at me, propegating the very debate I can't stand. Pot, meet kettle) :(

[Steeler Mike]

:up::up::up:

Just the other day, my brother-in-law came into the kitchen painted blue, wearing cutoffs.

Greg

Wait! Does your son have a secret lustfull infatuation with your niece? :confused:

[marksman]

I thought this episode was top notch?

Do people think Charles is gone for good? I know Michael said he must go, but Charles actual job is as the regional Manager over Michael Scott. He was just working in that office learning the ropes and filling in since Michael left.

So I guess my question is, is he gone for good or not?

As for the rest, I thought the negotiating meeting was set up brilliantly. I was on the edge of my seat knowing Michael inevitably would blow it and scream out they are broke... And at every turn you thought he would do it, but in the end he did not do it. The set it up so well. It is hard to create that kind of dramatic tension in a comedy.

[cheerdude]

There is still one or two more episodes with Charles

[DevdogAZ]

I loved when Jim went downstairs and how he already knew from Pam about how everything was going. Then Michael wanted to tell him about how he was broke and Jim just said something like "I just want to know if your VERY SUCCESSFUL paper company is interested in a buyout." :)
"I came down here to find out as little information as possible."

I loved how when Michael started into his speech which pinned David Wallace into a corner, the camera zoomed in on Pam and she was beaming with pride. You can tell she clearly likes Michael and was very happy to see the competent side of him surface in that meeting.

[RGM1138]

Two shots that crack me up:

Int/van - When the Korean woman climbs aboard and Pam pulls the door shut with such a look of resignation on her face.

Int/office - When Michael triumphantly puts his foot up on Jim's desk and the staff looks on in stunned disbelief at what he's accomplished.


Priceless.

Bob

[MrGreg]

:up::up::up:

Just the other day, my brother-in-law came into the kitchen painted blue, wearing cutoffs.

Greg

He blue himself?

[Steeler Mike]

Two shots that crack me up:

Int/van - When the Korean woman climbs aboard and Pam pulls the door shut with such a look of resignation on her face.

Int/office - When Michael triumphantly puts his foot up on Jim's desk and the staff looks on in stunned disbelief at what he's accomplished.


Priceless.

Bob
The shot of the Korean woman still in the van at the end of the show. :up:

[swizzlest]

I always got the impression the regional manager worked out of that branch. So, with Charles gone...Michael is the regional manager once again.

I mean, Charles wasn't brought in to do David's job, right?

You're right, though...it's just not adding up.


I thought this episode was top notch?

Do people think Charles is gone for good? I know Michael said he must go, but Charles actual job is as the regional Manager over Michael Scott. He was just working in that office learning the ropes and filling in since Michael left.

So I guess my question is, is he gone for good or not?

As for the rest, I thought the negotiating meeting was set up brilliantly. I was on the edge of my seat knowing Michael inevitably would blow it and scream out they are broke... And at every turn you thought he would do it, but in the end he did not do it. The set it up so well. It is hard to create that kind of dramatic tension in a comedy.

[Steeler Mike]

I always got the impression the regional manager worked out of that branch. So, with Charles gone...Michael is the regional manager once again.

I mean, Charles wasn't brought in to do David's job, right?

You're right, though...it's just not adding up.

Charles was brought in to do Jan's/Ryan's former job. He then replaced Michael (on an interim basis) after Michael quit.

I think Charles will resign or get fired in the next episode or two.

How disappointed must Kelly be? (Kelly Kapore, not the new receptionist Kelly) Or perhaps not, since Ryan is back. :)

[realityboy]

Anyway, you miss the larger point - regardless of the documentary angle, Jim acted in ways that could (and should) call for his immediate dismissal, should they be discovered. That's a bit out of character for him...

I think it was pretty in character for Jim. I would think it odd for him to put Dunder-Mifflin above Pam. He was doing this for her and Michael. He's never really seemed all that into Dunder-Mifflin. It's just a job.

[TiVo'Brien]

I think it was pretty in character for Jim. I would think it odd for him to put Dunder-Mifflin above Pam. He was doing this for her and Michael. He's never really seemed all that into Dunder-Mifflin. It's just a job.Plus Jim gets rid of the boss he can't schmooze.

[danplaysbass]

Obviously you'd never have a five-year-long documentary about an office.

You say this but how long did blonde bimbo Jessica Simpson and her husband have that newlywed show. 2 years? 3?

[Neenahboy]

*scoff* No, Jim, I use a bad apiarist.

[vman41]

Jim was quite machiavellian. David Wallace showing up and treating him like the number 2 man gave him a lot of confidence.

[Peter000]

Jim should have confidence. David did seriously consider him for Jan's job after all (the one that Ryan eventually got), so he thinks highly of him.

Jim did a masterful job of playing office politics and engineering an "out" for Michael (and Pam of course).

It's funny how Charles has absolutely zero people instincts. I think that's going to be his ultimate downfall.

I love the Michael we've seen in the last couple of episodes. I hate the totally inept Michael. And kudos to Michael for realizing the best play was for their old jobs (though Pam got promoted to salesman... that was very cool).

The best moment of the ep for me was seeing Pam's amazed and pleased reaction to Michael performance during the negotiation meeting.

[FourFourSeven]

Jim was quite machiavellian. David Wallace showing up and treating him like the number 2 man gave him a lot of confidence.
I did like how he finally figured out how to play Charles (acting like an idiot to make Dwight also look like an idiot, knowing that Charles ignores people he thinks are idiots).

I've really enjoyed the Charles Miner character. We've all had a few bosses like that - "by the book", ignores the contributions/abilities of the people below him, doesn't really get anything accomplished, but looks and acts like a boss. (Whereas I can say I've never had a boss like Michael...)

[Magister]

I have definetly worked for Charles Miner in the past.

This is definatly my favorite episode of the season, it wrapped up the story arc well. Good to have the gang back together.

[JYoung]

There is still one or two more episodes with Charles

You sure?
I thought that Idris Elba was signed for six episodes and they've aired six with him in them.

[Steeler Mike]

You sure?
I thought that Idris Elba was signed for six episodes and they've aired six with him in them.

Let's see:

New Boss
Two Weeks
Dream Team
MSPC
Heavy Competition
Broke

Yep, I'd say he's gone. I also think the way Michael handled his departure, "Nope, you're done!" & then took his victory stance with his leg up on the desk says that Charles is gone.

We might have a 30-second "confessional" scene in the next episode, ala Karen "Jim left me crying at a fountain in NYC", but I doubt anything more than that.

[Bananfish]

Good episode ... personally I think last week's brought more funny, but this was a very good episode.

Though I am a bit disappointed that Creed didn't get a single line in either episode.

[JYoung]

Though I am a bit disappointed that Creed didn't get a single line in either episode.

That's because William Charles Schneider stole his lines.

[brianp6621]

Loved the episode but actually confused about how they left it with Ryan. The negotation seemed to be left where Ryan is left hanging (Michael saying he wanted Pam back when David balked at getting Ryan back) and it appeared to be about the jobs and no money any longer.

So why was Ryan celebrating at the end? He has no money and no job now.

[Steeler Mike]

Loved the episode but actually confused about how they left it with Ryan. The negotation seemed to be left where Ryan is left hanging (Michael saying he wanted Pam back when David balked at getting Ryan back) and it appeared to be about the jobs and no money any longer.

So why was Ryan celebrating at the end? He has no money and no job now.

David did agree to take all 3 back (after fighting it briefly), you must have missed it.

[Bierboy]

Best episode of the year, by far. I'll have to go back and watch this one again to get all the lines.

I was laughing so hard and so often, my wife complained that her ears hurt :D

[Bierboy]

...Int/office - When Michael triumphantly puts his foot up on Jim's desk and the staff looks on in stunned disbelief at what he's accomplished...

...and Jim points to him...

[mrpantstm]

Called it! Called it called it called it!

Admittedly it was only to my wife but when Micheal quit and started his new company I said this was going to be how they resolved it.

Great episode.

[brianp6621]

David did agree to take all 3 back (after fighting it briefly), you must have missed it.

I did, re-watched it with the wife and had completely misremembered.

[bareyb]

I was cheering for Michael Scott! I love how they make him such a mixed bag. This may have been my favorite episode ever. Good stuff.

[thebigmo]

Loved when they asked the accountant(or whatever he was) to crunch the numbers again.
hits enter key, "Crunch"

[bareyb]

"I came down here to find out as little information as possible."

I loved how when Michael started into his speech which pinned David Wallace into a corner, the camera zoomed in on Pam and she was beaming with pride. You can tell she clearly likes Michael and was very happy to see the competent side of him surface in that meeting.
I agree. What a great moment. This show always manages to "put the cherry on top". That scene was perfect. :up:

[MickeS]

I just watched this clip ("web exclusive", in other words deleted scene) on Hulu: http://www.hulu.com/watch/67266/the-office-hunting-in-the-office#s-p1-st-i1

Miner really managed to completely miss the real Dwight the whole time I guess. :D

[JLucPicard]

This may have been inferred in prior posts that mentioned Charles' exit scene, but as Charles was preparing to say goodbye to everybody and Michael cut him off and said, "No. Nope. You're done" - wasn't that a call-back to Michael's eventualy exit after he quit?

So much The Office goodness in this episode. I was thrilled to see it hitting on so many levels again!

And in case anyone's keeping score, my opinion of Jim's handling of the process of the MCPC buyout was completely within Jim's character - especially in light of being "back in the game" thanks to David Wallace's acknowledgement of his competence.

[JLucPicard]

I just watched this clip ("web exclusive", in other words deleted scene) on Hulu: http://www.hulu.com/watch/67266/the-office-hunting-in-the-office#s-p1-st-i1

Miner really managed to completely miss the real Dwight the whole time I guess. :D
GREAT payoff on that scene!!! :D

[JLucPicard]

I just realized that between this ep of The Office and this week's episode of Survivor, if I ever watched TV in any way close to 'real time', this past Thurday night would have been one pretty good night of TV!

[GoHalos]

Loved when they asked the accountant(or whatever he was) to crunch the numbers again.
hits enter key, "Crunch"

Then Pam looking at him expectantly, "Did it help?" :up:

[photoshopgrl]

ANGER!This made me laugh out loud.

I don't know - Arrested Development was incredibly realistic, and that was a great show!My heart still bleeds for AD. That show was brilliant beyond brilliant.

[BriGuy20]

My heart still bleeds for [Arrested Development]. That show was brilliant beyond brilliant.

Were you one of the 5 other people that watched the finale block that aired up against the opening ceremony of the olympics? :p

[FourFourSeven]

Were you one of the 5 other people that watched the finale block that aired up against the opening ceremony of the olympics? :p

I was one of them!

[jradford]

This may have been inferred in prior posts that mentioned Charles' exit scene, but as Charles was preparing to say goodbye to everybody and Michael cut him off and said, "No. Nope. You're done" - wasn't that a call-back to Michael's eventualy exit after he quit?

So much The Office goodness in this episode. I was thrilled to see it hitting on so many levels again!

And in case anyone's keeping score, my opinion of Jim's handling of the process of the MCPC buyout was completely within Jim's character - especially in light of being "back in the game" thanks to David Wallace's acknowledgement of his competence.

Yes, it was a fantastic call back to Michael's attempted final speech.

What a great episode. It was so nice to have an episode that reminds us why we like Michael, and why we can root for a guy like Michael. Even more so, it was nice to see why some of the characters on the show, like Jim and Pam specifically, root for the guy.

Him cutting Charles off, followed by him putting his leg up on the chair, followed by Jim's pointing at him as if to say, "and that's Michael for you" will forever be one of my favorite scenes in The Office.

[USAFSSO]

Who else cheered when Michael said he want Pam as a Salesman?

Will this lead to a conflict story line between Jim and Pam. Knowing Pam will be a better salesman than Jim. Pam cares about her job, Jim doesn't.

ANGER!

Serenity Now!!!

The shot of the Korean woman still in the van at the end of the show. :up:

Reminded me of the last scene of Airplane. Good Stuff

[photoshopgrl]

Were you one of the 5 other people that watched the finale block that aired up against the opening ceremony of the olympics? :p
Indeed I was a loyal viewer!

[busyba]

Him cutting Charles off, followed by him putting his leg up on the chair, followed by Jim's pointing at him as if to say, "and that's Michael for you" will forever be one of my favorite scenes in The Office.

That shot, the way they were posed, for some reason I want to say that the tableau they formed there was a reference/homage to some famous photo or something. Something is buzzing in the back of my head, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Anybody have any idea what that might be?

[cheerdude]

I was thinking something similar... maybe something in the 1st season?

I was also wondering if the cheese puff toss in the prior episode was something as well.

[jradford]

That shot, the way they were posed, for some reason I want to say that the tableau they formed there was a reference/homage to some famous photo or something. Something is buzzing in the back of my head, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Anybody have any idea what that might be?

Other than kind of looking like a Captain Morgan's pose, I'm drawing a blank.

[USAFSSO]

I was thinking something similar... maybe something in the 1st season?
...............

And everyone posed to get in the "picture" looking at the camera.

[busyba]

Other than kind of looking like a Captain Morgan's pose, I'm drawing a blank.

It wasn't so much Michael's Capt. Morgan pose that struck me as familiar as Jim's pointing pose, especially the way that he's neither looking at Michael nor at the camera. He's looking off in a direction that seemed to be somewhat odd and out of place and would only really make sense if it was a re-creation of something specific.

[DevdogAZ]

I don't remember the pose being discussed, but from the descriptions, could it be the famous painting of Washington Crossing the Delaware?

[busyba]

I don't remember the pose being discussed, but from the descriptions, could it be the famous painting of Washington Crossing the Delaware?

This? http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Washington+Crossing+the+Delaware&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=qxf2SY6TENqDtgfO96VL&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title


No... not what I'm thinking of. And definitely a photo, not a painting.

GAH! It's bugging the hell out of me. :)

[David Platt]

That shot, the way they were posed, for some reason I want to say that the tableau they formed there was a reference/homage to some famous photo or something. Something is buzzing in the back of my head, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Anybody have any idea what that might be?

I thought the same thing, and it's been bugging me. The first thing I thought was perhaps a DVD cover of one of the seasons, but none of them are that shot. I sure hope someone figures it out.

[marksman]

Loved when they asked the accountant(or whatever he was) to crunch the numbers again.
hits enter key, "Crunch"

And pam says, "Did that change anything?", with a hopeful look on her face.

[JLucPicard]

And pam says, "Did that change anything?", with a hopeful look on her face.
Gosh, where did I see something like that before? ... Oh, ya - post #74! ;)

[johnperkins21]

This? http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Washington+Crossing+the+Delaware&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=qxf2SY6TENqDtgfO96VL&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title


No... not what I'm thinking of. And definitely a photo, not a painting.

GAH! It's bugging the hell out of me. :)

Wasn't that something Todd Packer did? Put his leg up on the desk and then Michael would point at him?

[nataylor]

I thought the same thing, and it's been bugging me. The first thing I thought was perhaps a DVD cover of one of the seasons, but none of them are that shot. I sure hope someone figures it out.

http://webpages.ursinus.edu/brkruter/img/CaptainMorgan2.jpg?

[busyba]

Like I said... it wasn't Michael's Capt. Morgan stance, it was Jim's pointing that made it evocative of something. Something not Capt. Morgan.

[BriGuy20]

http://weblogs.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/blog/12_carson.jpg

YOU ARE CORRECT, SIR!

(Captain Morgan was the first thing I thought of)

[bruinfan]

for those of you wondering, the writing on the van was korean, and it did say "scranton hallelujah church"

[buckeyenut]

The best episode of the season! So many funny moments. The Korean church bus was genius and the tension of Michael completely screwing everything up had me on the edge of the couch. I'm glad that they are getting back into the office and interested to see how the dynamics will change once Pam is in sales.

[Bierboy]

...and the tension of Michael completely screwing everything up had me on the edge of the couch.....

Huh? How was he "...screwing everything up..."? He negotiated them their jobs back plus made a bundle of $$.

[busyba]

Huh? How was he "...screwing everything up..."? He negotiated them their jobs back plus made a bundle of $$.

The tension was from anticipating that he would screw everything up. The surprise was that he didn't.

[JYoung]

The tension was from anticipating that he would screw everything up. The surprise was that he didn't.

Exactly.

I mean, I half expected him to blurt out "I declare bankruptcy" in the meeting.

[Ment]

for those of you wondering, the writing on the van was korean, and it did say "scranton hallelujah church"

Yes and 'scranton hallelujah' is spelled phonetically from English to Korean :) there must be a term for that. Smart TCF people speak up! :) It would have been even funnier it would have been Easter Egged and said something else in Korean like 'Why are you reading this'.

[domat]

what am I missing here? As far as I can tell Michael gained dental from this deal. Otherwise he may as well not have quit. Of course the other two did better.

[Steeler Mike]

what am I missing here? As far as I can tell Michael gained dental from this deal. Otherwise he may as well not have quit. Of course the other two did better.
He won a power struggle with Wallace. That has to be worth something.

[scooterboy]

what am I missing here? As far as I can tell Michael gained dental from this deal. Otherwise he may as well not have quit. Of course the other two did better.

He won a power struggle with Wallace. That has to be worth something.

What he gained was getting rid of Charles, which was the reason he quit in the first place.

[MickeS]

What he gained was getting rid of Charles, which was the reason he quit in the first place.

Exactly. And he showed Wallace that he wouldn't take any s*** going forward.

[Fool Me Twice]

Michael, of course, didn't really accomplish anything, but it all worked out well for him anyway, thanks to some help from Jim and Pam and a lot of good luck. Now he is free to continue living in his fantasy world where he is a competent man of business, surrounded by those who respect and admire him.

Well, he did show one flash of insight at a critical point in the negotiations, when he realized the true source of his leverage was not in any threat that TMSPC held for DM (which was zero), but in the immediate problems in would cause for David Wallace. And, this was the moment we saw the almost parental pride on Pam's face, because it was the only point in the short history of TMSPC when she was not holding his hand.

[domat]

What he gained was getting rid of Charles, which was the reason he quit in the first place.

but he didn't get rid of charles.

[barbeedoll]

I will be interested to see the new dynamic between Dwight and Michael. Dwight was evil and activally tried to harm Michael to curry favor with Charles. Although Michael might not have seen any of that, Dwight may have some personal change of action as a result of it.

Barbeedoll

[scooterboy]

What he gained was getting rid of Charles, which was the reason he quit in the first place.

but he didn't get rid of charles.

David sent Charles to Michael's branch to oversee it. Michael objected, asked David to remove Charles from the Scranton branch, and David refused.

Michael went to David's office, asked again, and quit when David again refused.

Part of Michael's negotiation was that Charles would be gone from Scranton. David finally agreed. Michael wouldn't even let Charles address the staff on the way out.

Charles will no longer be at the Scranton branch, so tell me - how exactly do you figure that Michael didn't get rid of Charles?

[BrandonRe]

David sent Charles to Michael's branch to oversee it. Michael objected, asked David to remove Charles from the Scranton branch, and David refused.

Michael went to David's office, asked again, and quit when David again refused.

Part of Michael's negotiation was that Charles would be gone from Scranton. David finally agreed. Michael wouldn't even let Charles address the staff on the way out.

Charles will no longer be at the Scranton branch, so tell me - how exactly do you figure that Michael didn't get rid of Charles?

Charles will no longer be working at the Scranton branch because there is once again a regional manager there. Charles did not lose his job in the process, as far as we have seen. Any suggestion that he did is purely speculation. As far as we know, Charles will still be the "new Jan and Ryan" and will continue to have oversight of the Scranton branch.

Now, having said all that, I too speculate that the Scranton branch will be the "exception" and will report directly to David Wallace.

[domat]

David sent Charles to Michael's branch to oversee it. Michael objected, asked David to remove Charles from the Scranton branch, and David refused.

Michael went to David's office, asked again, and quit when David again refused.

Part of Michael's negotiation was that Charles would be gone from Scranton. David finally agreed. Michael wouldn't even let Charles address the staff on the way out.

Charles will no longer be at the Scranton branch, so tell me - how exactly do you figure that Michael didn't get rid of Charles?

no, Charles was there to get familiar with the scranton branch. He was visiting all the branches. He was never supposed to stay in scranton. He has jan/ryan's job at corporate.

David did not agree to get rid of charles.

[Zevida]

Even if Charles was not completely gone (and I think he is), there is no way Charles would stick around after being completely undermined like that. He would lose all credibility with all the branches after being upstaged by Michael. He has to go for the company and for his career.

Sidebar: In watching all the episodes on the Office, I did not ever feel that Charles Minor was anything but acceptable looking. Pleasing, but not at all hot. Kelly and Angela fawning over him seemed ridiculous. But, then I realized that he is also in that new Beyonce movie and he does look pretty darn hot in those trailers! They did a very good job hiding it on The Office with the moustache, glasses, and suit and he did a great job playing a no-nonsense character that did not exude any charm at all.

[scooterboy]

no, Charles was there to get familiar with the scranton branch. He was visiting all the branches. He was never supposed to stay in scranton. He has jan/ryan's job at corporate.

David did not agree to get rid of charles.

And I never said he did. I said Michael got rid of Charles. As in Charles will not be at Scranton anymore. Charles' presence at Scranton is what caused Michael to quit, and now it's back to the way it was. I doubt Michael gives a crap whether Charles is anywhere else in DM, as long as he's not in Scranton.

[domat]

And I never said he did. I said Michael got rid of Charles. As in Charles will not be at Scranton anymore.

yes you did. you wrote

"Part of Michael's negotiation was that Charles would be gone from Scranton. David finally agreed."

David never agreed.


Charles' presence at Scranton is what caused Michael to quit, and now it's back to the way it was. I doubt Michael gives a crap whether Charles is anywhere else in DM, as long as he's not in Scranton.

Charlie was never supposed to stay in scranton. He was just there for a short visit. He was visiting all the branches.

anyhow thats just nitpicking. I only asked my original question to see if I missed something.

[rifleman69]

Guess no one remembers the original episode in which Michael got fired..."classy". Jim was doing the leg up pose in the tux, which wrapped up that entire little grouping of episodes nicely.

[EMoMoney]

David never agreed.


David did agree to Micael's terms.

[JYoung]

Sidebar: In watching all the episodes on the Office, I did not ever feel that Charles Minor was anything but acceptable looking. Pleasing, but not at all hot. Kelly and Angela fawning over him seemed ridiculous. But, then I realized that he is also in that new Beyonce movie and he does look pretty darn hot in those trailers! They did a very good job hiding it on The Office with the moustache, glasses, and suit and he did a great job playing a no-nonsense character that did not exude any charm at all.

Well, you have to realize that in Scranton, he'd be a 10 while in New York City, he'd just be an 8.

;)

[scooterboy]

yes you did. you wrote

"Part of Michael's negotiation was that Charles would be gone from Scranton. David finally agreed."

David never agreed.


Yes, he did. Michael said Charles has to leave the branch and at first David said no. Then he relented. How could Michael have kicked Charles out in the final scene if that wasn't the case?

But you're right - it was just nitpicking.

[marksman]

How could Michael have kicked Charles out in the final scene if that wasn't the case?

I can think of how...

I brought it up earlier.. and I think it was left a bit muddy. I don't think Michael's dismissal of Charlie was a lock that Charlie has been fired. Michael does and says all kinds of things he should not say and do.

[pdhenry]

David and Michael shook hands on the deal. --> David agreed to Michael's terms.

The handshake was just before Michael asked for the room the last time, when he closed the blinds and the three of them whooped behind the blinds.

[scooterboy]

I can think of how...

I brought it up earlier.. and I think it was left a bit muddy. I don't think Michael's dismissal of Charlie was a lock that Charlie has been fired. Michael does and says all kinds of things he should not say and do.

But I never said Charles had been fired - that was incorrectly inferred by domat.

Michael insisted to David that Charles had to leave the Scranton branch (whether his assignment there was permanent, which I also never claimed, is irrelevant). David first said no, then relented. It was clear IMO.

[busyba]

No matter how you want to split the hair, Charles is absolutely no longer anyone that Michael has to answer to, otherwise he never could have gotten away with the "No. You're done" move when Charles wanted to address the office.

[DevdogAZ]

No matter how you want to split the hair, Charles is absolutely no longer anyone that Michael has to answer to, otherwise he never could have gotten away with the "No. You're done" move when Charles wanted to address the office.
You may be right just from the standpoint of that actor being a guest star and his stint being over. But when he was introduced, he was supposed to be taking Jan's place at corporate, and theoretically he would still be Michael's direct superior.

[Steeler Mike]

Guess no one remembers the original episode in which Michael got fired..."classy". Jim was doing the leg up pose in the tux, which wrapped up that entire little grouping of episodes nicely.
Michael quit, not fired.

And can you please explain what "grouping" of episodes to which you are referring. :confused:

[Steeler Mike]

What are the odds of a Charles Minor "confessional" scene in the next episode, ala Karen "Jim left me crying at a fountain in NYC", such as "David Wallace fired me at a Chiles' on Interstate [whatever]" ?

[busyba]

You may be right just from the standpoint of that actor being a guest star and his stint being over. But when he was introduced, he was supposed to be taking Jan's place at corporate, and theoretically he would still be Michael's direct superior.

Yes, and if he still was Michael's direct superior after whatever agreement Michael came to with Wallace, there was no way he could have shut him down like that with the "No. You're done."

That is what indicates to me that Charles is, at best, no longer in Michael's chain of command.

[domat]

David did agree to Micael's terms.

not to that. The conversation went something like

Michael-and you have to get rid of charlie
David-I can't do that charlie is to valuable
Charlie- Thank you...
Michael- in that case you have to give Ryan a job to.

then nothing else on Charlie.

[domat]

Yes, he did. Michael said Charles has to leave the branch and at first David said no. Then he relented.


Never happend look at my response above.

[domat]

But I never said Charles had been fired - that was incorrectly inferred by domat.

Michael insisted to David that Charles had to leave the Scranton branch (whether his assignment there was permanent, which I also never claimed, is irrelevant). David first said no, then relented. It was clear IMO.

you are wrong. look here 18:25. Very clear actually.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/69539/the-office-broke

[pdhenry]

Hmm...

[MickeS]

Never happend look at my response above.

So you're saying Charles still works in Scranton, and the scene at the end was just him leaving for the day?

Charles was probably not fired, but Michael got rid of him from Scranton.

[domat]

So you're saying Charles still works in Scranton, and the scene at the end was just him leaving for the day?

Charles was probably not fired, but Michael got rid of him from Scranton.

He was never supposed to work at scranton. He was only visiting. Only when Michael quit was he forced to work there until someone new was hired.

[buckeyenut]

Huh? How was he "...screwing everything up..."? He negotiated them their jobs back plus made a bundle of $$.

The quotes below describe what I was trying to convey in my post. The anticipation of Mike screwing it up plus other variables like Dwight finding out his company was broke. The writers setup the whole thing masterfully with Dwight sounding like an idiot in the meeting, etc.

The tension was from anticipating that he would screw everything up. The surprise was that he didn't.

Exactly.

I mean, I half expected him to blurt out "I declare bankruptcy" in the meeting.

Edit: Oh, and I can't wait for tonight's episode.

[Bierboy]

The quotes below describe what I was trying to convey in my post. The anticipation of Mike screwing it up plus other variables like Dwight finding out his company was broke. The writers setup the whole thing masterfully with Dwight sounding like an idiot in the meeting, etc.

Oh, then you meant to say the potential/possibility/likelihood/enormous odds of Michael screwing things up?



:D

[Fish Man]

Yes, and if he still was Michael's direct superior after whatever agreement Michael came to with Wallace, there was no way he could have shut him down like that with the "No. You're done."

That is what indicates to me that Charles is, at best, no longer in Michael's chain of command.

Exactly. Of course.

I can't believe anyone is arguing this point. Did we all watch the same episode?

For those who think Charles is still Michael's superior: explain how Michael could get away with being so crass and disrespectful, "No, you're done here.", and for Charles to simply back down, rather than reprimanding Michael.

The way I see it, it's somewhat ambiguous whether Charles is completely "fired" or his job description is going to be modified such that Michael does not have to answer to him or ever have to deal with him.

But, it's clear that David agreed to all of Michael's demands, including: "I want him [Charles] gone." "Gone" could mean fired, or simply that Michael never has to deal with him again, but at least, from the prospective of Dunder Mifflin, Scranton, Charles is "gone."

[rifleman69]

Michael quit, not fired.

And can you please explain what "grouping" of episodes to which you are referring. :confused:

You obviously don't watch the show...nevermind!

[buckeyenut]

Oh, then you meant to say the potential/possibility/likelihood/enormous odds of Michael screwing things up?



:D

Yes! That makes more sense now :D

[jradford]

You obviously don't watch the show...nevermind!

Your original post wasn't very clear. I think asking for a little explanation was perfectly reasonable.

[Steeler Mike]

You obviously don't watch the show...nevermind!

I don't watch the show??? :eek: :rolleyes:


The Office is #1 on my season pass priority list
I own every past season DVD
I own a Dunder Mifflin t-shirt
My screen name on certain sports message boards is Dunder Mifflin
The name of my wireless home network is Dunder Mifflin


Your original post made no sense. First off, Michael quit, was not fired. Second, the name of the episode was "New Boss", not "Classy", although Jim was trying to be classy with his tux & his suggestions for Michael's party.

And most importantly (and most confusing), that episode was the START of a grouping of episodes (the grouping of episodes which featured Charles Minor & the short life of the MSPC), it certainly did not WRAP UP a grouping of episodes. :confused:

However, if what you say is true, and in that episode Jim did the pose with his leg up (and after your complete lack of knowledge about the show in the rest of your post, I have serious doubts of the validity of this), then the mystery would be solved. (although nobody but you seems to remember it)

[Steeler Mike]

Your original post wasn't very clear. I think asking for a little explanation was perfectly reasonable.

Thanks for backing me up. Has anyone ever told you that you have a striking resemblance to the E-trade baby? (Hey girl, can I hit you back?) :)

[JLucPicard]

However, if what you say is true, and in that episode Jim did the pose with his leg up (and after your complete lack of knowledge about the show in the rest of your post, I have serious doubts of the validity of this), then the mystery would be solved. (although nobody but you seems to remember it)
Steeler Mike,
In the early part of that episode when Jim, Dwigt, Michale and Pam (?) were in the conference room and Jim was wearing the tux, there was a point where he put his foot up on a chair like Michael did to his desk in the latest shot, but that bore no resemblence to the group shot in which Michael put his foot up on Jim's desk.

Aside from that, I have no idea what rifleman69 was talking about in that post. :shrug:

[Steeler Mike]

Steeler Mike,
In the early part of that episode when Jim, Dwigt, Michale and Pam (?) were in the conference room and Jim was wearing the tux, there was a point where he put his foot up on a chair like Michael did to his desk in the latest shot, but that bore no resemblence to the group shot in which Michael put his foot up on Jim's desk.

Aside from that, I have no idea what rifleman69 was talking about in that post. :shrug:

Thank you for verifying Jon Luc. I'll have to watch the webisode to remember.

[Fish Man]

Thank you for verifying Jon Luc. I'll have to watch the webisode to remember.

I think the reason that most of us aren't remembering Jim "putting his foot up" in "New Boss", is because it wasn't memorable. It had no significance. Jim may have put his foot up on a chair or something. It was just the way he happened to be standing. Nothing significant.

However, in this episode, Michael was obviously striking a "victory pose", with a bit of a flourish, at that. It had meaning, it was memorable.

Methinks rifleman69 is assigning a significant connection where none was intended.

[JLucPicard]

Methinks rifleman69 is assigning a significant connection where none was intended.
That's how I saw it as well. :up:

[rifleman69]

I think the reason that most of us aren't remembering Jim "putting his foot up" in "New Boss", is because it wasn't memorable. It had no significance. Jim may have put his foot up on a chair or something. It was just the way he happened to be standing. Nothing significant.

However, in this episode, Michael was obviously striking a "victory pose", with a bit of a flourish, at that. It had meaning, it was memorable.

Methinks rifleman69 is assigning a significant connection where none was intended.


Yeah, it's perfectly normal to put your foot up on something... :confused: :confused: :confused:

Jim's pose was also a victory pose, why do you think he was wearing the tux to begin with?

[BrandonRe]

Yeah, it's perfectly normal to put your foot up on something... :confused: :confused: :confused:

Jim's pose was also a victory pose, why do you think he was wearing the tux to begin with?

I do remember this scene. Last question first: Jim was wearing a tux because he was driving Dwight crazy by overemphasizing "classy". The tux was another piece of that. Nothing to do with a victory of any kind.

He put his foot up on a chair, I believe, and struck a satirical quasi-sophisticated pose which was to exaggerate the tux and the "classy" vibe he was throwing off to Dwight.

[jradford]

Yeah, it's perfectly normal to put your foot up on something... :confused: :confused: :confused:

Jim's pose was also a victory pose, why do you think he was wearing the tux to begin with?

Better question: Why do YOU think he was wearing the tux?

[pigonthewing]

Oh for goodness sake, there is no freakin documentary!!! :mad:

What kind of documentary follow ex-exployees to their new job at Staples? (Dwight) What kind of documentary follows an ex-employee to Costa Rica? (Toby) What kind of documentary splits up into two crews so they can simultaneosly document DM & MSPC?

I am so sick of reading the documentary angle of this show. Yes, that was the initial premise of the show, but that has long since passed. :mad::down:

Either we're going to complain about the lack of documentary-ness or we're going to complain about the constant destruction of the fourth well.

I'll let you pick. ;)


Obviously you'd never have a five-year-long documentary about an office.

Yeah, for that type of length, it'd have to be about a custom bike shop. ;)

[busyba]

Just tell us who the damn Mother is already!!!!! :mad:


:p

[pigonthewing]

Then Pam looking at him expectantly, "Did it help?" :up:

That might have been my favorite scene. :D

[pigonthewing]

And, yeah, I just want to repeat, as others have, that hiring Ryan back makes NO SENSE at all, even considering the natures of these people. I could see David hiring back Michael and Pam, but not Ryan. Not ever Ryan.

Hiring Michael back? As far as David seems to be aware, Michael is a good manager. That's a worthwhile employee acquisition for him.

And Pam? David never knew she could do sales, but if she's doing it now at MSPC, and doing it well, okay then, clearly she can do sales, so let's bring her aboard and have her start selling stuff for us. I get that too.

But Ryan?! As David himself said, Ryan was responsible for DM hemorrhaging money. There's no universe (not even a fictional humorous sitcom universe) in which hiring him back makes sense.

[MickeS]

Yeah, for that type of length, it'd have to be about a custom bike shop. ;)

Or a group if kids... http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTM3MTA3NzQ2N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjM5NzYyMQ@@._V1._SX333_ SY400_.jpg (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2948046080/tt0058578)

:)

[busyba]

But Ryan?! As David himself said, Ryan was responsible for DM hemorrhaging money. There's no universe (not even a fictional humorous sitcom universe) in which hiring him back makes sense.

And he's a convicted felon, no?

[Kablemodem]

And, yeah, I just want to repeat, as others have, that hiring Ryan back makes NO SENSE at all, even considering the natures of these people. I could see David hiring back Michael and Pam, but not Ryan. Not ever Ryan.

Hiring Michael back? As far as David seems to be aware, Michael is a good manager. That's a worthwhile employee acquisition for him.

And Pam? David never knew she could do sales, but if she's doing it now at MSPC, and doing it well, okay then, clearly she can do sales, so let's bring her aboard and have her start selling stuff for us. I get that too.

But Ryan?! As David himself said, Ryan was responsible for DM hemorrhaging money. There's no universe (not even a fictional humorous sitcom universe) in which hiring him back makes sense.

This is a sit-com, not a reality show. Nothing really has to make sense.