MovieChat Forums > The Office (2005) Discussion > Let's list the flaws and inconsistencies...

Let's list the flaws and inconsistencies within the show

posted 9 years ago by SethOfTheFields
51 replies | jump to latest

I'll start with a few off the top of my head

1. In the season 1 episode "The Alliance" we learn that Meredith is an accountant. After season 1, she obviously isn't an accountant.

2. Again in "The Alliance" we learn that Meredith's birthday is the firth birthday coming up but it's not for about a month, or a few weeks or something. Then in season 4, when Jim is put in charge of the office for the day we learn that it's birthday month. There are 3 birthday's in one month ending with Meredith's. And speaking of Birthdays

3. Wow, "The Alliance" is just causing a lot of problems here. We kind of get the impression from that episode that they never really did birthday parties in the office. Michael just wanted to do something special to lift the spirits of his employees. Then in Season 4 we get a montage of Michael surprising employees on their birthday's and it's implied that this is what Michael has always done. I guess it's possible that he only began the birthday tradition after season 1, but I don't think that was the implication.

4. Pam and volleyball. In Season 4 we learn that she always faked PMS to get out of playing sports in gym including volleyball. Then in season 5 we learn that she played volleyball in high school and college and went to volleyball camp most summers.

What else do we have?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FE9SLJ2Xoc

[–] sharpnova 9 years ago

If these are the best you can do, then the show is flawless.

[–] rpressley 9 years ago

I had sex 2 times last night

[–] loki242 9 years ago

I had sex 2 times last night

Masterbation isn't the same as sex. But good for you.

On topic, I felt like the show had to "find it's legs" like how Kelly started out as a reserved Indian chick and became a empty headed "mall girl". The American show started slow (real) like the brit version but got more and more overt as time went on. An example was when Dwight poured water on Phyllis while she listened to 50 shades of grey. That was typical sitcom writing.

You hate Congress but every election you re-elect YOUR "guy" and wonder why things never change!

[–] SethOfTheFields 9 years ago

Yea, Kelly really had the biggest character transformation.

...except for maybe when Ryan inexplicably becomes a lazy hipster in the later seasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FE9SLJ2Xoc

[–] jeff_mcjefferson 9 years ago

That scene with Phyllis was pretty gross actually. Phyllis was a sucky character.

Get on the scale son! Get off the scale.

[–] maj15 9 years ago

During the reception for Phyllis's wedding Michael was kicked out during the pre meal toast. Michael apologizes as the bridal party are leaving the reception, but the tag at the end of the episode shows Michael getting involved in the cake eating.

[–] FEL123_2000 9 years ago

Pam's mom as a completely different person.

[–] bookman7772000 9 years ago

No way Dwight wouldn't have been fired after shooting off a gun in the office (even accidently) and injuring Andy. Doesn't matter how good of a salesman Dwight was.

[–] FEL123_2000 9 years ago

Come to think of it, many of them would have been fired many times over in the real world, especially Michael and Dwight. Hell, Michael and Dwight would have been charged with crimes even.

[–] jeff_mcjefferson 9 years ago

Nick the IT guy was played by the same actor that Pam talked to about graphic design in at the careers fair at the high school.

Get on the scale son! Get off the scale.

[–] theauxphou 9 years ago

I noticed that, too. Although I figured he and someone from Dunder-Mifflin got talking at the job fair and yada-yada-yada that led to him being hired to do the Scranton branch's IT support.

[–] SaidNDone 9 years ago

i guess an obvious one is the dwight paternity test thing

Azula >>>>

[–] kendrah66 9 years ago

What was inconsistent about that? Dwight was the father of the baby, but the senator gave him the DNA, so it wasn't the baby's real DNA. He got a diaper off another baby, obviously.

[–] SaidNDone 8 years ago

just saw this post

even though that is a popular and plausible theory, there was never any explanation given in the show for what happened

[–] SaniOKh 8 years ago

According to the producer David Rogers, it is pretty much canon that Dwight grabbed the wrong diaper: http://www.officetally.com/a-a-r-m-qa-with-david-rogers

Even though his reasoning for not including the explanation in the show itself is, IMHO, rather dumb.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I think the biggest thing is that sometimes the show is like a regular TV show, with the usual implausibilities, when it comes to camerwork and all - and other times, when the plot requires it, suddenly they're addressing the camera or acknowledging that a documentary is being filmed.

Why would they film a documentary for that many years? When did it air? Did the employees see it (surely they would be interested enough to see themselves on TV)?

Now that they're big TV stars, why would they work in a crappy office?

Why do they divulge SO many secrets, especially about lying to the other characters, to the camera crew, when all those secrets will just be aired when the documentary comes out anyway?

Is it a documentary series or just a documentary film? When you watch real documentaries, you can sometimes see cameramen and sound people and lighting and all that crew, but in this show, -everyone-, almost -all-the-time- treats all these people like they don't even exist at all (and they're amazingly good at keeping out of everyone's way, except when the plot requires otherwise).

Well, it's pretty easy to find implausibilities and such. But then again, it is a comedy show.

[–] avortac4 (3770) 5 years ago

It's like the show is a 'documentary', when that fits the situation/plot/etc., and it's a 'regular TV show with some shaky camwork', when the 'documentary' aspect is not considered relevant.

So sometimes we see cameramen trying to get in, but can't, or microphones being taken off (although they clearly don't have them on usually), and a huge deal being made out of it being a documentary - but most of the time, this whole 'documentary' gimmick amounts to 'weird camera angles/places', and shaky camera, and almost nothing more.

I wish they had decided to lose that gimmick, then the camerawork would at least be more pleasant without the constant zooming back and forth and wooshing the camera here and there. They obviously have multiple cameras, so that kind of stuff is not needed, but they do it anyway.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]