Talk:The Office (UK TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Should there be a section about the critical and commercial reception of the show? As it is, these things are not even mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Character psychology[edit]

Personally, I think there's much more to be said about the psychological interplays between characters. David Brent, for example, is a classic narcissist and an externalizer. If there's a problem in management, it's not David's fault, he'll tell you, because he fancies himself to be of noble, upstanding, and righteous character, clearly worthy of note, because of reasons x, y, and z. He seems most comfortable sharing these self-perceptions vocally when the fewest people are around. Indeed, in more private interview sessions, he attributes all the negative qualities about himself to others, but the greater portion of his dialogue is characterized by self-bolstering. In public, conversely, he consistently and naively tries to evade public scrutiny for his own faults, and the bulk of his communicative efforts tends toward the belittling of others. These tendencies remain fairly stable throughout the course of the show, with notable exceptions. At the end of Season One, David for the first time acknowledges his own complacency. Again, at the end of The Christmas Specials, he tersely severs ties with Chris Finch (ie "Chris, why don't you just **** off?"), and it is clear that David is ready to abandon his naive defenses and stand up for himself. For David in particular, there is something to be said of the complex message being communicated through the programme. He's the static character who surprises the audience bit by bit, as he continues to discover his own independence. --bigcarm2002, 05:36, 20 February 2007

Chris Finch's success with women[edit]

"Finchy" is a horrible character. I hate him. He and I would never get on in an office together since I would find his jokes offensive.

Nevertheless, he is successful with one woman - at the end of episode two (?) series two, during the credits, we suddenly see him in a carpark obviously having sexual relations with one of the Swindon ladies. His approach is, how shall I say it, "from behind". "My knees hurt" says the woman "Nearly finished love!" says Finch in response. Urrkk! creepy! --One Salient Oversight 03:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Finch is horrific, but successful with women. That's because he's confident and funny, and I don't think enough is made of that in the article, or the fact that Brent worships him. And what about the way that Finch also loves to bask in the attention of others, and that the reason he puts down Brent is that Brent himself tries to ride Finch's coat-tails into the limelight? Anyone else see that?Arthur Markham 14:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Episode guide[edit]

Any chance we could have a detailed episode guide with a Spoiler Warning instead of the reveal-nothing one currently in the article? the one currently in the article is well-written and would work well for a TV guide, but the usual wikipedia format for episode guides is a straight, detailed account of what happened in each episode.

I'd do it myself, only my DVDs have been in my friend's house for over a year now! I want them back, but i keep forgetting to ask!

NaLaochra 19:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. All of the questions seem like TVGuide capsules, not episode descriptions.
'Just an average day, then'? 'will Gareth finally realise what an utter prat he is'? We're not doing comedy writing here folks, not even bad comedy writing; this is an encyclopedia. Could someone please rewrite these to make them dry and boring? Eixo 15:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Any reason that an encyclopedia has to be 'dry and boring'? --Joseph Q Publique 10:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I also agree that the episode guide should be rewritten. The tone of this article is not encyclopedic and the article reads as a fanboy piece. Jeff schiller 04:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the episode section from this article and created a new list page that includes individual articles for each episode. I've moved all of the synopsis from this page to the new ones, but I do agree that the tone isn't right for an encyclopedia. Anyone who wants to rewrite them, be my guest. The list: List of The Office (UK) episodes Pele Merengue 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


To whoever wrote these...good job! Just the right touch of dry humour. Perhaps we can have photos for the main characters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargletheape (talkcontribs)

No, you're wrong, and probably stupid. Eixo 15:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is incisive and compelling. I had not realized just how unspeakably awful character photographs are. I will sin no more. --Gargletheape 04:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Once again the power of rational argument wins the day. Just shows that Wikipedia works. Eixo 22:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The above was perhaps the greatest example of what I call "Wikipolitics," or the banal, terrible, and often hysterical 'intrigue' that happens behind the scenes. That was quite funny. The current state of the articles are fine some months later. 02:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sold DVD units[edit]

Should there be a notice about how many DVD units the office has sold worldwide? I only know it is the BBC's best sold dvd, but don't know how many that are.

Great article[edit]

Fantastic article - just the right touch of humour. Well done to whoever wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Again with the stupidity...Eixo 23:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
You know, Eixo, instead of smugly attacking the intelligence of people who dare to disagree with you, you could try giving reasons for why you think the article needs improvement or suggestions on how you'd do things. At the very least, you could try and be civil to other users, since you're hardly likely to persuade people of your viewpoint the way you've been acting on this page.--Joseph Q Publique 01:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought the exact same thing. The analysis of the show is pretty deep for what seems to just be a character guide. Amazing article.

I think that the analysis of the show is much too simple for what the show deserves. It doesn't really reflect the complexity of the relationships. This is a programme that doesn't resort to the old comedy archetypes (though maybe it hints at them), but has a huge amount to say about how people really are. That doesn't come through in this article, which is simplistic and often misses the key points about what the programme is trying to say. Arthur Markham 14:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Lost" nod to the show[edit]

I've changed the link that mentions the nod given to the show by the TV series "Lost" as it was in lowercase and linked to a disambiguation page. Also, does the quote need any kind of citation or is it ok to be taken "as is"? --Durzel 11:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


would it be worth saying in this article that the PBS station in my area airs the office? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I think it should be nmoted that it airs on PBS because it airs on many PBS stations accross the country. 02:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Das Büro[edit]

About the recent addition of Das Büro: is it indeed an adaptation, direct or not, of The Office? I can't find such indication on the net or in IMDb. It struck me as doubtful that Stromberg, the unofficial version, would have been attempted while a direct adaptation was running (note: Das Büro began in 2003 and Stromberg in 2004). Can we have more information on Das Büro? --Liberlogos 02:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Das Büro has been a sitcom with de:Wochenshow host Ingolf Lück. I don't think it's related to The Office. The only thing the two shows had in common was their setting in an office. Das Büro was not made up like a documentary and did not share the same or a similar plot with The Office... T.Terhoeven 16:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

Should it not be The Office (BBC TV series} rather than UK TV series as per naming conventions? 20:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree wiht the aforementioned advise. The naming conventions of this encyclopedia project would closely dictate to that regard. 02:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends on which set of rules we are applying today. The ones for British sources or the rest of the world. ~ Clay —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Gareth's ringtone[edit]

This may seem like an odd question but does anyone know what Gareth's ringtone is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ehmjay (talkcontribs) 20:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC).


Generally very nice summaries of the characters, but you when you say "While Trudy brushes off Gareth's advances in a suprisingly polite way", you are not seeing her intention. The politeness is superficial, Trudy is actually setting Gareth up for a sexual harassment case. The email would provide evidence. I'll change the summary now. 13:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Office Space reference[edit]

The reference to Office Space is unnecessary. Contrary to the article, I can see no connection between the show and the film, and given Office Space's unpopularity in the UK, Gervais and Merchant are unlikely to have seen it (the only reason I have is because I have numerous American friends). That both involve people in "unsatisfying jobs" is tenuous. Could we list Dilbert as inspiration as well?--Zoso Jade 15:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree the reference is not needed. However, you are fooling yourself. The two are related - it is a fact confirmed by Gervais himself. Office Space was unpopular everywhere and I would assume that is why Gervais and Merchant have been able to basically steal the idea. That is my opinion on the matter without any supporting information unlike the fact listed about Gervais. Movies ideas are often taken in this way. Many many examples could be listed and to defend the film simply because its British is just wrong. Dilbert was listed as inspiration for the movie "Office Space" so yes, despite your attempt at sarcasim it could be listed. ~Clay

Yep, also "Pete Gibbons" was referenced in the first episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Office Space" not relevant[edit]

I fully agree with, Zoso Jade, above. The reference to "Office Space" insinuates that Gervais borrowed characters and themes from that small, independent US film. Note the author's skeptical tone in "although Gervais and Merchant claim they had not seen the film." The "banal and dissatisfying nature of office jobs" has been the subject of literature, film, and television for over a century. (Melville wrote Bartleby the Scrivener in 1853.) There is no evidence to suggest that "The Office" is derivative of the Mike Judge film. The author should limit the article to the facts and remove this unfounded speculation. 14:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that paragraph per the reasonings on this page. Regardless of whether it shares themes or not, the only citation given is to a DVD review, which not an appropriate authority. Gervais and Merchant stated the names of the series and films they "stole" ideas from (Simpsons, Larry Sanders, etc) in the Comedy Connections episode. Brad (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
As of 2008, Gervais has openly admited to creating the series after viewing the movie "Office Space" so if its relevant to include it here or not is open to discussion, if Gervais got the idea from the movie is not. Also, since "Office Space" released in 1999 and "The Office" released around 2000 its not really a stretch of the imagination that the two are related. I personally don't really see any point in citing the source of the idea. Also, consider that anything relating to Britian is supported with very anti-American perspective so adding anything that might even suggest it has any American roots would simply lead to great debate and would eventually led to a pro-British moderator removing. Best left out ~~ Clay —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Gervais' persona[edit]

In the final remark in the trivia section it says "As Gervais usually plays parts with this persona, an argument could be made that all Gervais characters are Brent at different points in his life, or perhaps one of his relatives". This is clearly false. Andy Millman in Extras is clearly a different character, and Gervais' appearance in 'Night at the Museum' is also very different to David Brent. I'll remove this sentence in a few days unless somebody provides a decent argument for why it should stay. Tonksville 00:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Episode notability[edit]

All the existing individual episode pages for The Office fail notability guidelines, including the notability guidelines for television episodes, and have been tagged accordingly. Might I suggest these articles are improved with real-world information (ie. referencing with reliable sources) to assert notability, removing trivia (seeWP:TRIVIA) quotes, overly long plot summaries (a breach of copyright) or consider merging the information onto the list of episodes page. Otherwise, when these pages come up for review in fourteen days, they may be redirected, merged or deleted. If you want any help or info, then come to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. Thanks, Gwinva 20:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Can someone more familiar with the show please add pictures of the individual characters to the individual character pages? With the only picture being the group one, it is difficult to put a face with the name. Thanks Vdrj2 07:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV episode discussion[edit]

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in process[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Office which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 19:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ricky Gervais and Microsoft[edit]

hello. The microsoft videos are Ricky Gervais and Steven merchant (a fellow comedian) not a Microsoft employee. I can only assume its a viral video but certainly not a microsoft employee. Kindest

What does this mean?[edit]

In the description of Tim Canterbury, the following line appears: "... he also fails to pursue his relationship with Dawn to a success". I'm not familiar with this show and perhaps I'm not getting it because I'm so tired but, what does this line mean? The phrasing seems ambiguous but, like I said it might just be me. Apologies in advance if I'm wrong about this being ambiguous. (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Office Revisited (2013)[edit]

In a couple places, the article mentions the 12 episodes and 2 specials (the Christmas ones). Until recently, the infobox read "3 specials", now it's 2. The List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes article also mentions "The Office Revisited (2013)". Is this last one not included as a special episode for some reason? Too much time after the initial series? A slightly different name? If I recall correctly, "Revisited" had all the same characters, and they lived in the same fictional universe. Willondon (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Brent was the only character from the original series I'm pretty sure. More of a catch up with his character and not so much the Office. "The Office Revisited" was just a title for a one off sketch rather than being part of the canon. (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
OK. What I'm remembering (poorly) was set a year and some later. Gareth was the manager, Dawn and Lee had moved to Florida (was it?), Brent was back for a visit. Sort of a "Where are they now?" hour-long episode. Maybe that's one of the Xmas specials I'm remembering. It's been a while. Thanks. Willondon (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)