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
I just hope that you and I can remain friends: how long before Michael finally gets let go?
  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
1 to 30 of 43
Oct 8th 2007

After watching Dunder Mifflin Infinity a thought struck me: now that Ryan is Michael's boss what reason does he possibly have NOT to fire Michael? Especially after Mike's completely ridiculous behaviour in this episode?

How far does Michael have to push Ryan before the Wunderkind finally shows what he's made from?

All bets are on people!

Oct 8th 2007 edited

OK it's been 2 hours and I can't believe you guys haven't contemplated Michael's fate yet...

...my prediction (to keep things spicy) is that this season will be the one where we see Michael's career nosedive. Specifically...in the final ep of the season, I reckon Michael will be let go, Jim will be given his job - perhaps he'll turn it down and so Dwight will get it, like in the UK Office - but essentially I reckon we are witnessing Michael's last season as Regional Manager, Dunder Mifflin Scranton.

So what gives people? Let's hear your predictions for Michael's future at DM!

Oct 8th 2007

I just don't think that this particular likely reality could happen in this particular sitcom. He may come close to getting fired, but some weird side event (like maybe Jan threatening the company with a lawsuit) will end up in a deal for him. Sort of like how the weird side event kept the Scranton branch open.

Oct 8th 2007

Hmmm, well I definitely could see it happening. I mean, last season was just a downward spiral for Michael, emotionally, personally, etc. And this season he has already been deemed an "old person" who will not catch up with Ryan's new technology AND he completely made a fool of himself in front of an ex-client. Not even a fool. What's a worse word than fool??

I personally hope they would replace Michael with a woman from the outside. ha.

Oct 8th 2007

Though the UK version is the basis of the show, I would like to think the current writers would like to take their own spin on how to end the show. But if it stays successful and all actors stay on board, it won't be happening for some time now.

Oct 8th 2007

Wow two very conflicting opinions there. Karen X, my main reasoning behind my prediction is a) the events of the UK Office and b) the need to keep this mockumentary somewhat believeable.

PamCasso I couldn't agree more, about Michael's behaviour in DMI. And I think the word you're looking for might be...crazed and desperate man in need of a reality check?

Oct 8th 2007

I don't spend too much time speculating on Michael being fired because it wouldn't work for the sake of the show. Michael simply has to be the Scranton RM. That's the centerpiece that everything else revolves around.

I've come up with theory that Michael continuing to be the manager through all his foibles and misdeeds is a commentary on how disaffected and clueless upper management can be (not just DM, but everywhere).

Oct 8th 2007

Hmmm. Well the thing is though, that even after David Brent (the UK's Michael Scott) had been made redundant, he continued to come back to the Office and harass all the staff, so it wouldn't be like he wasn't in it anymore...obviously though it would be THE END of DM Scranton as we know it.

But is there a way for Michael not to get fired AND for the show to keep its quasi-realism?

Oct 8th 2007

I've come up with theory that Michael continuing to be the manager through all his foibles and misdeeds is a commentary on how disaffected and clueless upper management can be (not just DM, but everywhere).

AlphaMale Jackhammer makes a good point - this is one of the big differences between the UK and US Offices that I've always appreciated. In the UK version, corporate was always so perfect, playing the straight man to the RM's madman. But in the US version, there is really a lot to be said for the way they portray corporate as not entirely innocent itself...

Having said that though, we have seen from David Wallace, Jan and Ryan that they know Michael is a liability and yet they refuse to fire him. Why people why?

Oct 8th 2007

Just to clarify, I think that if Michael somehow was fired, it would be of short duration, because I agree, the show couldn't work without him as the boss. I mean, he has had the job for fifteen years, so he must be doing some things right. I think the way the show is headed tho, something is going to happen to Michael along the lines of losing his job...or maybe they will want that branch to have Co-Regional Managers or something. :)

Oct 8th 2007 edited

But is there a way for Michael not to get fired AND for the show to keep its quasi-realism?

Well, sure, there are ways, but it seems clear to me in the context of the show that, even with all the time Michael wastes and people he offends, he is the best RM for Scranton. Perhaps not the best, but he fits perfectly there.

Oct 8th 2007 edited

or maybe they will want that branch to have Co-Regional Managers or something.

Hey this reminds me of when Neil, the corporate guy (a lot like Ryan actually), swoops in an takes over running the UK Office from under David Brent's feet. That caused A LOT of friction and a really good storyline.

I am also thinking on something else about DMI that I forgot to mention. Ryan is in the office for a second day, and Michael remarks upon it saying he didn't know he would be here again. Ryan never explains what he's doing there. Could it be the powers that be are getting Ryan to report back on Michael's management style?

Oct 8th 2007

it seems clear to me in the context of the show that, even with all the time Michael wastes and people he offends, he is the best RM for Scranton. Perhaps not the best, but he fits perfectly there.

Two thoughts:

1) Apart from his complete lack of willingness to do the job, Jim would make a pretty good RM in Scranton wouldn't he?

2) Is Michael really better than Mr (or Ms) Outside Hire?

Oct 8th 2007

Having said that though, we have seen from David Wallace, Jan and Ryan that they know Michael is a liability and yet they refuse to fire him. Why people why?

He didn't lose a single customer as a result of the merger, though now we know he lost seven at some point that got gift baskets.

I don't think Ryan has all the authority his position implies. Jan hinted at that a little in their confrontation.

Oct 8th 2007

He didn't lose a single customer as a result of the merger, though now we know he lost seven at some point that got gift baskets.

Yeah, something doesn't add up here, does it Brian??? When David Wallace said that in The Job, I also thought of the Product Recall ep, where that female customer was so angry - did she really stay with them after that?

How much authority Ryan actually has may well become clear just as soon as Dwight asks him 'Can you fire Jim?'

Oct 8th 2007

Apart from his complete lack of willingness to do the job, Jim would make a pretty good RM in Scranton wouldn't he?

Yes, he'd be very good. Everyone except Dwight would respect him and there would be minimal problems. Where's the fun in that? Good for real life, bad for a TV show.

Oct 8th 2007

Apart from his complete lack of willingness to do the job, Jim would make a pretty good RM in Scranton wouldn't he?

Yes, he'd be very good. Everyone except Dwight would respect him and there would be minimal problems. Where's the fun in that? Good for real life, bad for a TV show.

That about sums up my perspective on the situation. Well put, AMJ.

Oct 8th 2007 edited

Yeah I know I know. Maybe I'm taking the need for some sort of realism too seriously?

But you know, once this show forgets its documentary/real world premise, isn't that when it jumps the shark? And I really don't want that to happen...

I mean basically just someone, anyone come up with a reason I can satisfy my questioning brain with as to how Michael has not yet been fired...just for my own sanity...please?

Oct 8th 2007 edited

anyone come up with a reason I can satisfy my questioning brain with as to how Michael has not yet been fired...just for my own sanity...please?

I'd say "The Client" from Season 2 shows why he hasn't been fired. Because, unless you're an uppity lawyer with a kid who's allergice to Cajun almonds, he's a master salesman. Phyllis and Stanely are probably good salespersons too. Dwight was Salesman of the Year, and Jim "always meets [his] numbers." Andy also rocks the sales. It's the bottom line, I suppose, and Michael looks absolutely great when you reduce it to the bottom.

Oct 8th 2007

Michael looks absolutely great when you reduce it to the bottom.

Perfectly said griefbone.

Oct 8th 2007

I mean basically just someone, anyone come up with a reason I can satisfy my questioning brain with as to how Michael has not yet been fired...just for my own sanity...please?

Maybe it's because he is actually good at his job. Although his antics are questionable at times, he appears to be a decent salesman. Take The Client espisode for example. He obtained the County/City account by just being personable and himself. Sure, he hit his employee with a car, but she didn't threaten lawsuit, or at least hasn't yet. And the employees tolerate him because I have to believe deep down they see the kind person he truly is. Just watch for those brief moments like in Business School when he showed up to Pam's art show and this quote which I believe will come into play at some point in this season: Michael: A good manager doesn’t fire people. He hires people and inspires people. People, Ryan. And people will never go out of business.

Oct 8th 2007

Hey I like your callback call of duty. Yeah, I'm not saying Michael doesn't have his good points, and the writers have really excellently portrayed how he managed to get where he is today, but when you see him behave like he did in DMI, it is difficult to take, especially with Ryan now his boss...perhaps Ryan was more moved by Michael's words than we imagined?

Oct 8th 2007

He didn't lose a single customer as a result of the merger, though now we know he lost seven at some point that got gift baskets., though now we know he lost seven at some point that got gift baskets.

I thought about the discrepancy with this too. Brian says, He didn't lose a single customer as a result of the merger." If those were the actual words that David Wallace used, then that my be true. They may have lost those customers before the merger. The woman that they lost in Product Recall was due to the watermark, not because her local branch merged with Scranton. I don't know if those were the exact words because I loaned out my DVD set so I can't watch The Job to check on it, I'm just assuming that Brian quoted from the episode.

Oct 8th 2007

Maybe I'm taking the need for some sort of realism too seriously?

I don't know about you guys, but I've worked at more than one place that refuses to fire people because it's a pain in the a@#. Even complete idiots, especially ones in management.

I think it would take Michael outright stealing $30,000 to buy a new car or something to force their hands. And while Michael is an idiot, he's not a dishonest a-hole so I think he's safe for now. Plus, he's got Jan batting on his side now.

Oct 8th 2007 edited

I just read in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MichaelScott(TheOffice)#ComparisonwithDavidBrent) that Michael Scott reduced costs by 13% when he took over as RM at Scranton without losing any staff...does anyone know where this comes from? And also does anyone know how he did it?

Oct 8th 2007

Perhaps David was talking about his personal clients because it does appear that he still sells and doesn't just support his sales staff. Like 'Cos' on Pretzel Day or the City/County account.

Oct 8th 2007

My dad was unable to fire people without at least a year's worth of paper trail. He ended up leaving before he actually fired anyone, but not before starting a paper trail on someone.

Perhaps Michael cut the frills budget, and his statements about Chili's being the new golf course is a justification now become habit than his original intention. So he nixed fancy client lunches to save money but came up with a fun reason and now believes all the lies he's told.

Oct 8th 2007

Perhaps David was talking about his personal clients

I'm pretty sure David Wallace meant the branch's clients. It does appear he pulled off the impossible.

Oct 8th 2007

13 percent is significant but by no means impossible. For all we know he crammed everyone into a smaller suite to save rent, and people lost their offices (hence the desk corral).

Oct 8th 2007

Perhaps Michael cut the frills budget, and his statements about Chili's being the new golf course is a justification now become habit than his original intention. So he nixed fancy client lunches to save money but came up with a fun reason and now believes all the lies he's told.

Wow KarenX that is the kind of serious imaginary cynicism I like to see - and that is just the kind of thing I could see Michael doing too!

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
1 to 30 of 43
Top of PageBack to discussions