Not signed in (Sign In)
Welcome to The Watercooler, the companion forum to Northern Attack and all things concerning The Office on NBC.

Guests are free to browse the forums, although you will need to register for an account if you wish to participate in the discussions or use any of the advanced features of the forum (bookmarks, history, etc).

If you already have an account, please sign in now.

The Watercooler is powered by Vanilla, the sweetest forum on the web.

Bottom of Page
End Of Season 3: A Look Back
  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. >
1 to 30 of 215
May 20th 2007 edited

About a year ago, almost every Office fan in the world was ecstatic. And with good reason.

Casino Night was an incredible episode and finished an outstanding season of television.

Flashforward to now: the next season is over, this time with The Job. Ratings seem to be at an all-time high for the show, it's marketed heavily by NBC, and more and more people seem to have become big fans of the show in my personal experience.

So how's an Office fanatic almost from Day 1 like me supposed to feel?

Well, I feel terrible.

The Office was, far and away, my favorite show on television by the end of Season 2. Through it, even. While I thought Arrested Development was the "best," I felt more personally connected to The Office and it was closer to the heart. It gave me more satisfaction, where AD inspired awe alongside laughs. I felt very similarly regarding the UK Office, which was hilarious, but not quite as funny as the US version, but was so well made and well done that it, too, inspired a huge sense of appreciation for what it'd done.

After Season 3, I feel like both those shows are far better than The Office now. My fears were realized: the show became a sitcom. I mean, sure, it always had elements of it. But for so long, we had a hilarious mockumentary centered mainly on Michael Scott. As the other main players were fleshed out, the show became better. And side characters--they were great. And by the end of Season 2, we had a great ensemble cast making innovative, off-beat television that dared to do things we didn't expect, and not just shock value.

Now, with Jim-Pam-Karen taking up way more of the story than it should, we have forced situations among the three, stilted dialogue, and all together cliched television. Thankfully, the actors have incredible talent and really elevate much of the writing to higher levels, but there's only so much they can do. Creed's increased role seems like fanservice, Dwight has become a parody of his former self, and Dwight-Angela became way too important.

The focus shifted from the hilarities of an obnoxious boss being in a completely average office, to the antics of office relationships. And that's a shame, because I really feel the show operates much better when the relationships are a sidestory to the main ridiculousness of the office hijinks. How many would take "This day is bananas!" over "Prison Mike"?

The fact the season ended on as trivial and meangingless point as it did with Kelly and Ryan...it's just sad. It could've been so much more.

I have to rewatch some of the episodes to get a more specific take on it, but one final point really pains me. The mockumentary aesthetic is completely gone. Cameras follow characters where it makes no sense to elicit cheap laughs, the cameramen are too obvious with some of their movements (like when Dwight is describing how he likes women to dress and the camera suddenly pans to Angela...totally unnecessary). And the worst? The flashback to the beach scene during Jim's interview. The show has gone so long without a single temporal displacement (sans voiceovers from talking heads dubbing video footage), and suddenly we get it now in Lifetime movie style. Sigh.

I realize this might be an unpopular opinion. This season had some incredible moments...The Convention and Grief Counseling come to mind. But with the relationship-centric focus of the last half of the season, and the pathetic episodes of The Coup and The Initiation, it really feels like The Office has lost a lot of its luster, at least to me. And I hate to sound elitist about it, but it almost feels dumbed down, when you think of the camera-movement type elements that do all the thinking for the viewer, among other things. That this coincides with a huge increase in the show's popularity isn't surprising...I just don't know which is the chicken and which is the egg.

But I'd love to hear other thoughts. So please, reflect.

May 20th 2007 edited

I can't agree for two reasons.

  1. The bosses are different, Michael is more family-oriented as well as a screwball. If the Documentery was about him, he's connected with his "family" so of course they would end up having storylines being followed.

  2. To make it less of a "sitcom" you would have to not have Jim and Pam together. Which, in real life happens often, but sometimes it works out. So what if it's happy happy, I like it that way, I've seen both series, and I think they are equal, different if their own ways and most importantly, each series played to a different crowd. UK office was in UK. The US office is in the US, different things are of course expected and liked, some of the, ney many of the things said in the UK office would never ever have a chance in the US, a country which a warning is posted due to the use to the word "boned" Us is more diverse and needs to play to a different crowd, and yet they are still extremely the best show on televison right now, if only obvious because of how into the show the actors are, they arent just jobs to them, it's a enjoyable place to be. Ironic isn't it? They love they're jobs about people who semi-hate they're jobs.

I guess my point is this: Yes, they've strayed away from the not making jokes obvious, not showing any emotion (even though real people have real emotion) ways of the start and the UK but in the same token, they've still in my mind held the same standards, and to do that, is simply impressive. Endlessly Impressive. Ask yourselves this: Would I rather have a show that was absolutely stalwart in their ways and lasted two seasons, or would you want a show that was flexible to a point, yet still held it's ground and is still going?

May 20th 2007

Asd, I was really comparing the US Office to itself, basically S03 to S01/S02 for the most part, and how the current season really changed the show. I think S02 really balanced the documentary aspect and the comedy show aspect perfectly for American audience...it wasn't too much of one or the other and was a great mix. It was subtle but never overly, and had enough callbacks to keep devoted fans really happy. Now it feels like callbacks are force fed and accompanied by a Jim smirk to signal it.

I think the documentary is about an American office, but given Michael's self-promoting personality and thinking so highly of himself (but not really in an arrogant way...he's just super friendly and likes to take credit for things) it makes (and made) sense that he would dominate the screen. Jim, Pam, and Dwight were perfect main characters as well, in Season 2, and the US version did an excellent job of fleshing out the rest of the office, and especially Jan, who could've been just a cold corporate woman, but they made her into a really interesting, flawed character (though perhaps too much now, her sexual aggression doesn't seem 100% genuine and seems odd for oddness' sake).

As for sitcomness, I don't think Jim and Pam have to be together -or- be apart. It can work either way, and the show could easily pull it off. Will They/Won't They was done excellently in Season 2, and we can only imagine how occasional scenes of a lunch date at Steamtown Mall could be. Remember when Jim and Pam went to the grocery store during Michael's birthday? I think a Jim + Pam relationship could function in that way: funny, warm, genuine, reasonable with regards to plot and character, and just the right dosage. There's one scene that lasts just a few seconds, but it's Pam asking Jim about fabric softener. It's short, subtle, and brilliant. That kind of thing was lacking in Jim-Pam-Karen and really in other aspects of the show as well. Jim and Dwight's budding friendship had some of it at times, and Michael picking up Dwight at Staples certainly had a feel for it, but on the whole that kind of TV-Magic was gone, in my view.

May 20th 2007

I only had brought up Uk to Us, because you sort of yourself. I do however see your points I just don't agree with it. I think of myself having to remember that, just as we as viewers, are getting used to the way the show is, the people in the office are getting more and more used to the cameras being around, so callback looks that Jim would give only to Pam are given to the camera because 1. He more used to him, they are more like his friends now and 2. Jim and Pam weren't connecting as much this season, she really wasn't their in his brain to give the look to. This season I feel was about saying what needs to be said, yes it causes a loss of "hidden moments" but if only because those moments need to be said sometimes, not just hinted at.

May 20th 2007

It's hard for me to say one way or the other how the season went, because we're talking about it less than a week after the finale and I think time heals all wounds over the drawn-out Jim/Karen/Pam triangle ;-)

What I will say is this: I don't have any uneasiness about next season. After the second season finale, I would say the high of Jim and Pam kissing was tempered by the first rejection (pre-Kiss) and the knowledge that Pam was engaged to Roy. Now, without any entanglements on either's part, they're free to move on unencumbered by ex-fiancees (though a certain ex-girlfriend could make it awkward if she hangs around Scranton).

I can honestly say I would be fine if the show wrapped up after the fourth season, if we're thinking in terms of cycles (first season was intros, second was about Jim, and the third was about Pam). Something where some loose ends were tied up and others left undone (because real life is often like that). Of course, as long as they can keep putting the "quality" back in "quality television" I want them to continue.

May 20th 2007 edited

My overall assessment of this season, as you can probably see blithered all over the pages here, is that it was far, far inferior to the first two seasons, for many of the reasons you mentioned. To come up with my own valuation, I'll have to put more thought in it, but I really think that the initial mistake that was made was the decision that this had to be "Pam's season", because last year was "Jim's season", and then casting about for a way to keep them apart so Pam could allegedly "grow" (a badly botched storyline), rather than just letting it develop organically. Suddenly, the ideas of story construction were leading the characters around by the nose, and that led to many blunders -- much of the Karen business, the ill-conceived Roy interlude, the way that the pacing of the story collapsed in on itself in the season's second half -- that could have been avoided if someone hadn't fallen in love with their concept, or at least recognized that it wasn't working when it so clearly wasn't.

As far as the rest of the relationships, it never bothered me, because they were funny. And that's all I really want, is for the show to be genuinely funny. Have they made Dwight more of a cartoon? Oh, certainly. They've also made him (somewhat) less of a tool. I'm not sure the camera usage -- such as panning to Angela when Dwight talks about what he likes women to wear -- is radically different to how it was before, but the documentary conceit has suffered a little bit. I waver on whether that matters to me or not, but sometimes -- such as when Dwight is obviously burning to death on hot coals, and nobody's doing anything -- it leads to things that are sincerely unpleasant.

Yeah, The Office took a turn toward the middle this year, and I think it was a little the worse for wear. But the real misfire, the thing that led to the fact that I will probably never re-watch this season the way I do the second season, or other television shows that I love, was the disaster of the Jim-Pam storyline, and the character assassination performed on both of them in service of pat storyline mirroring.

Shows change. Sometimes they change for the better. Sometimes they don't. I suspect that this show is about to change a lot, again, and I'm interested to see how it works.

May 20th 2007

Could it be that the show needed to go through the "rough patch" that a lot of people cite as the main problem with this season, if only to improve next year? I still think this third season had its highlights, but the general consensus seems to be that it doesn't measure up. I think the same could be said of the third season of Arrested Development (which unfortuantely never got a chance to correct those mistakes), and a lot of shows seem to experience a slump.

My big issue has been the super-sizing of episodes, and I realize this puts me in a minority but I feel like the specialness of an extra fifteen minutes or more has been diluted by an overuse of it. Some episodes merited the longer format, to be sure ("The Merger", "The Job", "Beach Day") but the Christmas episode could have been trimmed. Say what you will about the twenty-minute format (because of commercials), but sometimes it can help pare down the non-essential bits of the episode so that the finished product is so much more satisfying.

The coal walk scene with Dwight was problematic, but if you consider that anyone rushing to help him would have to risk serious injury themselves then I think it makes sense dramatically for there to have been so little effort (that we saw, anyway). Did the success of the second season go to the producers' heads? Possibly, but I think they felt the freedom to be more "out there" with their characterizations, so maybe that could account for the lack of a real documentary vibe.

May 20th 2007

About a year ago, almost every Office fan in the world was ecstatic. And with good reason.

Casino Night was an incredible episode and finished an outstanding season of television.

Flashforward to now: the next season is over, this time with The Job. Ratings seem to be at an all-time high for the show, it's marketed heavily by NBC, and more and more people seem to have become big fans of the show in my personal experience.

So how's an Office fanatic almost from Day 1 like me supposed to feel?

Well, I feel terrible.

The Office was, far and away, my favorite show on television by the end of Season 2. Through it, even. While I thought Arrested Development was the "best," I felt more personally connected to The Office and it was closer to the heart. It gave me more satisfaction, where AD inspired awe alongside laughs. I felt very similarly regarding the UK Office, which was hilarious, but not quite as funny as the US version, but was so well made and well done that it, too, inspired a huge sense of appreciation for what it'd done.

After Season 3, I feel like both those shows are far better than The Office now. My fears were realized: the show became a sitcom. I mean, sure, it always had elements of it. But for so long, we had a hilarious mockumentary centered mainly on Michael Scott. As the other main players were fleshed out, the show became better. And side characters--they were great. And by the end of Season 2, we had a great ensemble cast making innovative, off-beat television that dared to do things we didn't expect, and not just shock value.

Now, with Jim-Pam-Karen taking up way more of the story than it should, we have forced situations among the three, stilted dialogue, and all together cliched television. Thankfully, the actors have incredible talent and really elevate much of the writing to higher levels, but there's only so much they can do. Creed's increased role seems like fanservice, Dwight has become a parody of his former self, and Dwight-Angela became way too important.

The focus shifted from the hilarities of an obnoxious boss being in a completely average office, to the antics of office relationships. And that's a shame, because I really feel the show operates much better when the relationships are a sidestory to the main ridiculousness of the office hijinks. How many would take "This day is bananas!" over "Prison Mike"?

The fact the season ended on as trivial and meangingless point as it did with Kelly and Ryan...it's just sad. It could've been so much more.

I have to rewatch some of the episodes to get a more specific take on it, but one final point really pains me. The mockumentary aesthetic is completely gone. Cameras follow characters where it makes no sense to elicit cheap laughs, the cameramen are too obvious with some of their movements (like when Dwight is describing how he likes women to dress and the camera suddenly pans to Angela...totally unnecessary). And the worst? The flashback to the beach scene during Jim's interview. The show has gone so long without a single temporal displacement (sans voiceovers from talking heads dubbing video footage), and suddenly we get it now in Lifetime movie style. Sigh.

I realize this might be an unpopular opinion. This season had some incredible moments...The Convention and Grief Counseling come to mind. But with the relationship-centric focus of the last half of the season, and the pathetic episodes of The Coup and The Initiation, it really feels like The Office has lost a lot of its luster, at least to me. And I hate to sound elitist about it, but it almost feels dumbed down, when you think of the camera-movement type elements that do all the thinking for the viewer, among other things. That this coincides with a huge increase in the show's popularity isn't surprising...I just don't know which is the chicken and which is the egg.

But I'd love to hear other thoughts. So please, reflect.

I disagree.

May 20th 2007

I disagree.

Brian are you sure your not a writer for the show. Because your ability to merge simplicity and hilarity so perfectly makes me think other wise, well done.

May 20th 2007 edited

the pathetic episodes of The Coup and The Initiation

What! I heartily disagree. Micheal inspecting Dwight's teeth, Michael intimidating Dwight onto the floor, cousin Mose as "fear," Mose's carving of the Venus of Willendorf: all funny stuff, and eminently rewatchable. Not to mention (but I will) the introduction of the term FNB during the phone call.

May 20th 2007

Come on now, hug it out, bitch.

May 20th 2007

Yeah, I"m sorry to return so soon after bending your ears with my previous lengthy post. But I have to say that even the episodes I'm least fond of - The Coup, Gay Witch Hunt - are chock full of funny moments. I think there have been more laughs over all this season than in season 2. I just think Season 2 captured lightning in a bottle with an unexpected mixture of relatable longing and frustration subtly played out against a backdrop of even more relatable corporate parody. But after 28 episodes, that wasn't new anymore. I think that was the handicap Season 3 faced. They weren't going to sneak up on anyone with the same formula. It wasn't Season 2 by a long shot, but I'll watch it again soon.

May 20th 2007 edited

I have to kind of agree with everything on this page. This season definitely had more weak moments than strong. It botched several scenarios that we were so excited for and made me less faithful in this show to the extreme. Dwangela was over-emphasized, the Ryan-Kelly misery was slightly well done, but only if the writers intended to make Ryan look like a complete asshole (which they very well might have). Episodes like Diwali and A Benihana Christmas sickened me, ABC because it contradicted the Karen-Pam tension and made them seem like friends, and Diwali because...well I don't know, I just didn't like it. The Ryan-Kelly scene at the end of the finale annoyed me and seemed completely unnecessary (because it lasted 10 seconds and was unbelievably abrupt and oversimplified).

And yet, The Office prevailed.

Though completely laughable (in the bad way) episodes like Diwali were the worst of the series, they had some funny moments and even progressed the Jim-Pam and Jim-Karen situations. With most bad episodes, a fairly good one followed. The season finale and premiere were both extremely "OK", apart from the last and first ten minutes of both, respectfully. Has it lost fans? Sure. But, also, has it gained twice as many as lost? I would say so. There's no comparison to the first season or second, but these are definitely, at least some of them, some rewatchable episodes. I have to agree that the supersizing sometimes turned me off.

But in the end, on the third or fourth Thursday this September, many people will tune in, because one bad season can't rub out two fantastic ones.

(P.S., I agree with the constant panning to Jim's smirk to have to acknowledge a funny moment)

May 21st 2007

There has been much said about "Pam's season" this year, and "Jim's season" last year. They both have grown and changed in ways that no other characters have (duck and cover). Yes, Michael has made some movement, and we KNOW them all a little better.

This season, the focus has been on Fancy New Beesley, while Fancy New Halpert was headed home all the while. He sang along with Andy, calling back his Karaoke singalong with Michael, an empathetic reaction to a foundering Michael/Andy. He has made an effort to reach a level of peace with Dwight, and Pam herself learned to have some fun with him.

In retrospect, all the seeds were planted, and did come to FLOWER in the finale. But the problem for network TV is that while it is well crafted and subtle and exciting to see it all come about, the missteps along the way were unfortunate for those who aren't obsessive. Plenty of people gave up on all the stalling and watched something else, 'waiting til May when Jim and Pam will finally get together."

Don't get me wrong, I am all about the JAM, and I believe that the JAM relationship is the heart of the show. Not ALL the show, but the heart of it. (duck and cover). That there are well drawn characters, and true comic genius in snapshots along the way is a bonus.

So, it will be better as a unit, watching one after the other, to see the threads as they are woven.

May 21st 2007

the missteps along the way were unfortunate for those who aren't obsessive

Great post, but I'd say they were more unfortunate for those who are excessively obsessive, like me.

May 21st 2007

those who are excessively obsessive,

And that would be me too -

Consider this: they claim (and have delivered) that this show is 'different' yet clearly to survive, they have to pull in the viewers. If 'different' didn't do it, then the pressure would be coming to change something to stay alive - and change to a more traditional TV format. So then, perhaps it feels like a MISstep, becuase traditional sitcom formula doesn't work for this show.

Like trying to put a piece of a whole different jigsaw puzzle in the one you are working on. No matter how hard you try, it's going to be an awkward fit.

May 21st 2007

I'm not going to deny that S3 had some (relatively) large flaws. I'm also not going to lament it, either. S2 was an amazing feat of television perfection, and I can't help but think that S3 was doomed to be somewhat of a letdown, because how can you follow perfection? And I'm not talking about the kind of "letdown" that comes from remembering something as better than it actually was, or the "their older stuff was better" I-only-listen-to-indie-bands type nostalgia. I think pretty much everyone here is objective enough to see though that kind of thing. The show was in an actual catch-22. As much as we all love S2, how long would it have taken for us to start getting tired of "Michael is a buffoon, Dwight annoys Jim, Jim pranks Dwight, Pam and Jim have chemistry, rinse, repeat" if S3 had just been an attempt to clone S2? (I point out the fact that comments have been made about some hallmarks of the show, e.g. Dwight's outlandish behavious and Jim's "trademark looks" suffering from what is seen as forced continuation.) On the other hand, change can be dangerous when what you have is working so well. They sort of forced themselves into option B by ending S2 with Casino Night, and personally I'm glad they did. Perhaps they changed too much, but ultimately I think it will be good for the show. I would rather watch a show that attempts to evolve and occaisionally "schrutes it" than one that grows stale, and while I don't like everything about S3, I like it very much as a whole, and I can appreciate it for what it is.

In summary: I agree with Brian.

May 21st 2007

I can't help but think that S3 was doomed to be somewhat of a letdown, because how can you follow perfection? ... In summary: I agree with Brian.

And I agree with TheRealBenFranklin in his agreement with Brian.

May 22nd 2007

There is something to be said for watching the show episode by episode, v. watching it as a series, one ep. after another. It is a different experience. There are two 'kinds' of genius at work here, one is more evident episode by episode, the other (all the little hints and threads that come to completion at the end) best noted when watching ep after ep, or at least in groups of episodes.

Season 3 suffered some missteps in the week to week category that werern't so evident in S2,, but perhaps it will stand up to serial watching. And there is always the commentary and deleted scenes that come with the DVD set, which are enlightening.

Jun 5th 2007

I just read a pretty good summary off a link on officetally. The conclusion is great, I think.

The third season of The Office was without a doubt its most ambitious and complex to date. Losing virtually none of the humor or charm it had established in Season 2, the series still managed to take the time to explore deeper, more emotional themes. The main Michael, Dwight, Jim, and Pam storylines remained the core element to the plot line, but many other arcs came into their own as well. Secondary characters such as Creed, Toby, an Stanley emerged as scene stealing forces in each episode. And the addition of Rashida Jones and Ed Helms to the cast was a stroke of genius. Never before has a show been able to be both hilarious and heart wrenching at the same time. The Office is one of the rarest of things in modern day television. It was a pleasure watching this gem of a season unfold. See you again this fall.

Jun 5th 2007

Losing virtually none of the humor or charm it had established in Season 2

I'd say they traded some charm and added some humor in exchange.

And the addition of Rashida Jones and Ed Helms to the cast was a stroke of genius.

False on the first count and a no-brainer on the second.

Never before has a show been able to be both hilarious and heart wrenching at the same time.

Well, once before. It's called The Office, Season 2.

It was a pleasure watching this gem of a season unfold.

Except for the times when watching it unfold was about as pleasurable as having cavities filled.

Jun 5th 2007

I was gonna say a bunch of stuff, but then Brian said it all first.

Jun 5th 2007

actually, as soon as I posted that I thought it was a great review I immediately regretted it. I just didn't feel like editing it.

Jun 5th 2007

Sorry to stomp on your post, Daoust. There was a lot I liked about the season, particularly now that I can view it as a whole. I just had a gut reaction to those particular points.

Jun 5th 2007

Yeah, I didn't mean to pile on. It was the "casting Rashida Jones was genius" thing that made me see red. No disrespect to the multi-talented Ms Jones, but her character was the exact opposite of genius: Predictable, boring, and a total cliché. I can remember describing the plotline to a friend of mine who doesn't watch the show, and I as soon as I got to, "But Jim's got a girlfriend now", he groaned. At the time, I was like, "Yeah, but . . ." If only I had known how long it was going to go on, and how poorly.

Jun 5th 2007

I can see how you'd think Karen wasn't the most interesting of characters but, relative to most sitcoms' "other woman," I wouldn't call her cliche. Wouldn't cliche be a venomous, backstabbing girlfriend whom we love to hate? The antithesis of Pam? Instead, they created a likeable, albeit boring, person who made sense as the object of Jim's rebound affection. I think they were just trying to stick to reality.

Jun 5th 2007

relative to most sitcoms' "other woman," I wouldn't call her cliche

The cliché is the very fact of her. In fact, it was a plotline they'd already mined once, with Pam and Roy. And then the character was boring. What I was saying was that her character was not, in any sense, a stroke of genius, and it's my considered opinion that if she'd never been on the show in the first place it might well have been better, because they would have had to come up with storylines without leaning on the crutch of, "Jim has a girlfriend, and Pam is sad about it."

Jun 5th 2007

Ah, I see.

Jun 5th 2007 edited

I see the logic behind all of the posts on this page, and agree with several of them. But I wonder if it is really fair to compare S2 to S3. The writers in Season 2 had a blank slate, they could really take the characters anywhere they wanted to, and we couldn't complain because we didn't have our own ideas about what was in/out of character. The audience had no expectations and we were just delighted to have a show that was different from anything on TV.

Fast forward to S3 and the writers are almost victims of their own success. We now have high expectations for the show and are emotionally invested in the characters. The writers couldn't just produce another S2. They allowed the characters to change, took some risks (well-executed or not) and left most of us excited for the next season. In many ways the UK Office had it easy because they only had to keep things fresh for 14 episodes, not 50+.

The one thing I don't get is the point about the show being more "contrived", isn't that the point of all TV? The writers contrive a plot? I mean if you apply that same logic to the entire show isn't the whole premise (a documentary about a paper company for three years) rather contrived?

Jun 5th 2007 edited

took some risks

I felt like a large part of the problem was an aversion to risk.

The one thing I don't get is the point about the show being more "contrived", isn't that the point of all TV?

No. The point of television -- or at least some of it -- is to be an entertaining simulacrum of life. When you say the writers "contrive" a story, you're using the word in a slightly different sense: "Contrived" as in "made up" or "conjured", rather than "contrived" as in "showing the effects of planning or manipulation". The storyline -- the Jim & Pam one, specifically -- felt forced, leaden, tired, and occasionally surprisingly dumb, at least to me. People didn't seem to be making choices based on what actually made sense to the characters, but based on preconceived notions about storytelling. And then, when the story ground to a halt in late April, I found myself thinking, If you're going to manipulate it to your ends, have things happen at times that make no sense so that you can meet your quotas for drama and angst, why not let it pay off right? The contriveance, in other words, didn't work.

Sure, the whole conceit of the show is not exactly what you'd call the most realistic, but ultimately, that's something I'm willing to ignore, because it's merely a device to allow them to tell a story in a specific way. Unfortunately, I cannot ignore the story itself, because the story is the point, where as the documentary conceit is merely the trappings.

As far as making excuses for mediocrity, why do that? The, This show was so good, of course it got worse argument has never made sense to me. Television shows have maintained a high level of quality -- some have gotten better -- after more than just two seasons. I was disappointed in this storyline not only because it felt like it was crapping out, but because it felt like too soon to be crapping out.

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. >
1 to 30 of 215
Top of PageBack to discussions