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
5.09 The Surplus
  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. >
1 to 30 of 309
Nov 28th 2008
  • Season 5 : Episode 9
  • First aired on December 4, 2008

Summary courtesy of NBC:

SURPLUS SPENDING AT THE OFFICE--Oscar (Oscar Nunez) informs Michael (Golden Globe winner Steve Carell) that the office must spend a $4300 surplus or lose it in next year's budget. When Michael opens up the floor for suggestions, factions break out and officemates square off against one another in order to get what they want. Meanwhile, Dwight (Rainn Wilson) takes Angela (Angela Kinsey) and Andy (Ed Helms) to Schrute Farms to work on their wedding plans. John Krasinski, Jenna Fischer, Leslie David Baker, Brian Baumgartner, Kate Flannery, Mindy Kaling, Phyllis Smith, Creed Bratton and Paul Lieberstein also star.

Nov 28th 2008

A surplus, huh? I wonder if they came up with this idea before the total global economic collapse or after.

Nov 28th 2008

I like the potential for this one, especially since it is written by Eisenberg & Stupinsky.

Nov 28th 2008

This happens in my department every time we near the end of the grant year. All the funding has to be spent or we lose it. So, we have to decide whose needs have to be met the most. It can get ugly. I can't wait to see how this one plays out.

Nov 28th 2008

Lee and Gene have written only one bad episode (Job Fair) out of I can't even remember how many episodes they have written. So do I think this episode will be awesome? Yes.

Nov 28th 2008

Michael has to spend $4300, trouble brewing.

Nov 28th 2008

This happens in my department every time we near the end of the . . . year.

Mine too. We usually all get new chairs.

Nov 28th 2008

We usually all get new chairs.

I'm guessing that's what Pam wants.

Nov 28th 2008

I like the potential for this one, especially since it is written by Eisenberg & Stupinsky.

Thought about. I'm in.

Nov 28th 2008

Thought about

Thought about what? Abou tit?

Nov 28th 2008

Question:

With Ryan possibly gone, will there be a new title sequence? If so, who will take the fifth spot? My vote is Ed Helms

Nov 29th 2008

With Ryan possibly gone

Since BJ isn't listed in the "also starring" list, doesn't that mean he is definitely gone?

Nov 29th 2008

Since BJ isn't listed in the "also starring" list, doesn't that mean he is definitely gone?

I don't think that is definitive. Nothing has been confirmed either way about his status.

Nov 29th 2008

Someone who attended his last stand-up show wrote a blog and mentioned that BJ said he would be back to TO in January. I don't know if that meant he would just be back for writing or also as Ryan. I'm just glad he's coming back to write. We still haven't had a Novak episode this season.

Nov 29th 2008

We still haven't had a Novak episode this season.

And we really need one.

Dec 4th 2008

This really should be on the first page...

Dec 4th 2008

Thank god someone moved this thread up! I was starting to think there would be no ep tonight.

Dec 4th 2008

I'm interested to see how the office 'factions' break down. Might be interesting if Pam and Jim are on different sides of the surplus spending debate.

Dec 4th 2008

Something tells me there is going to be a lot of conflict going down in the episode. Can't wait...I've got 12 hours...dang it

Dec 4th 2008

Might be interesting if Pam and Jim are on different sides of the surplus spending debate.

Why would they be?

Dec 4th 2008

Might be interesting if Pam and Jim are on different sides of the surplus spending debate.

I agree BTF.

Dec 4th 2008

Why would they be?

I'm sure they can contrive some reason.

Dec 4th 2008

Why would they be?

Because even though they're a great couple, it doesn't mean they both share the same interests. Jim may be a very cool, nice guy, but he's still a guy...He and Pam won't agree on everything.

And just because they don't agree on what to spend the money on, it doesn't mean anything bad is going to be happening to them.

Dec 4th 2008

Because even though they're a great couple, it doesn't mean they both share the same interests. Jim may be a very cool, nice guy, but he's still a guy...He and Pam won't agree on everything.

And just because they don't agree on what to spend the money on, it doesn't mean anything bad is going to be happening to them.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. Thanks, BMF.

Dec 4th 2008

I'm sure they can contrive some reason.

Zing!

Dec 4th 2008

And just because they don't agree on what to spend the money on, it doesn't mean anything bad is going to be happening to them.

True, but then I remember the debate about whether Jim trying to leave without Pam in Dinner Party meant they were breaking up.

Dec 4th 2008

I think it would be a good and believeable place to insert a little harmless conflict between them.

Dec 4th 2008

I think it would be a good and believeable place to insert a little harmless conflict between them.

Yes, and I think to decide who is right, they should have a jello wrestling match in their bare essentials.

Dec 4th 2008 edited

Exactly. I liked that part of DP when they were going back and forth about Jim leaving the party and so on. I thought it was cute to watch them banter like that.

eta: Anque's idea is compelling as well.

Dec 4th 2008

Word.

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. >
1 to 30 of 309
Top of PageBack to discussions