Commercial Interruption: "The Office" Strikes Back

For five months we've hungered for new episodes of "The Office," keeping ourselves busy by placing various objects in jello, practicing Flonkerton and searching for those $4 Dwight Schrute glasses at Walgreens.

Finally, on Thursday, this beloved show came back with its first post-strike episode since last year, snagging some of its biggest ratings since Sept. 27. But Channel Surfing bloggers Malavika Jagannathan, Thomas Rozwadowski and Sara Boyd were less-than-impressed.

Malavika: I felt like I'd just been on a date with the guy of my dreams only to discover that he has deplorably bad taste in music.

Perhaps my hopes were too built up. Five months without "The Office" is the difference between two seasons. I expected the first post-strike episode to blow me out of the water. Or at least, give me some of that interoffice awkward-but-hilarious yumminess I had been yearning for these cold and lonely months. Perhaps a prank, a reference to Dwight's hopes of becoming the "assistant regional manager," a dry Stanley one-liner and a Jim-looks-at-the-camera moment. Was that too much to ask?

Instead we were treated to an inside look at the dysfunctional and awkward life of Jan and Michael outside the office. It wasn't unfunny, but, between Jan's shrewish Harpie yelps and Michael's public airing of their dirty laundry, the episode felt awkwardly forced. The only saving grace was Dwight's appearance and the subtle nonverbal "what are we doing here?" exchanges between Jim and Pam.

Don't get me wrong, I'm supremely happy to have "The Office" back, but I couldn't help but be disappointed with the way it returned.

Thomas: WE AGREE! WE AGREE!

I still love "The Office," and save for some major character or writing defections in the future, will likely not get "Scrubbed out" -- that's my new term for abruptly getting burned out on a favorite show -- and abandon ship.

I have two major beefs with "The Office" post-Season Two, one I think you've already told me is silly and pretentious -- the driving force of the show being an inner-office documentary. I get that it's a TV show and the cameras can go anywhere and probably should for the sake of fresh storylines. But I think it should have more of a purpose as it applies to Dunder Mifflin. So if Michael and Dwight want to knock the crap out of each other at a dojo, that's absurd but also within the construct of an "office" conflict. Cameras at a private dinner party where Jan and Michael are a real-life Bobby Brown and Whitney Houston? Definitely forced. Why not just have all the couples go to the Scranton Zoo in the next episode and Michael can get locked in a bear cage? C'mon, writers! Focus!

Two: Jan. I can't stand her character anymore and she should have been written off a long time ago -- definitely after the deposition exposed Michael's loyalties. Yes, Michael wants a girlfriend. No doubt he'd make some huge sacrifices for companionship, even from a blow-up doll. But Jan is ... well, she's night and day from her old role, which I loved. And that shift from powerhouse, confident executive to crazy sex addict candle maker feels way too abrupt, like they're only keeping her on the show because they don't want to fire Melora Hardin. Sorry, but if Roy's time was done, then hers should be as well. It's about story, not character.

Dwight was the saving grace of the entire episode. "Purely carnal." Yep, that's why I still watch.

Malavika: Now, let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'm still shunning you for rubbing it in about those "Flight of the Conchords" tickets.

You already know I disagree with you on your first point. While it's true the driving force of the show is the inter-office mockumentary, I think it's unreasonable to expect that gimmick to last for more than two seasons. After two seasons, you've discovered all you can about the characters in their environment, and it's necessary to either add new characters (which they tried in Season Three) or shift the environment. It's the natural flow of any situational comedy that outlasts its initial premise. "Cheers" did it. "M*A*S*H" did it. Even "Scrubs" has done it.

On point two, I can't agree more wholeheartedly. Jan and Michael's relationship was brilliant at the beginning because there was a sense that despite the obvious outward embarrassment, they genuinely liked each other in a crazy screwed-up way. Now it seems they're just crazy and screwed up, and, if I really wanted to see that on television, I can watch "Grey's Anatomy." Jan's character has unfortunately lasted too long, and, much like Roy, she needs to be written out.

I'd rather have seen more last night on the Andy-Angela-Dwight triangle. In a way, they're the new Jim and Pam. Do you agree?

Thomas: I like Andy's awkwardness around Angela, but I'm not quite sold that she'd put up with him for, well, whatever reason that hasn't been adequately explained. It's more funny to watch Dwight act out of desperation, and ultimately, if they want to string out the Andy-Angela "look, but don't touch" shenanigans so that Mr. Schrute has to get jealous and go through hoops to eventually regain his queen, I'm for that. I get how it has more comedic value, and Andy vs. Dwight in those early merger episodes was priceless comedy.

I never really had my reservations about Jim and Pam as a couple, I only wanted the show to remain about everyone, not just their too-cute-for-words relationship. The writers have done a great job with it so far, and we discussed this in person already, but it can't just coast on like this, can it? I mean, a few other TV sites are already discussing the scene where Jim potentially leaves Pam behind at the awful dinner party, and if you couple that with the Finer Things Club episode, it appears the cracks in their relationship will come from Pam realizing that she's too good for Jim. Or that he's not a really considerate boyfriend? Or maybe that he's just a guy and all males need to be trained by smart women? I haven't figured out where they're going with it, and if eventually a Jim-Pam fracture will consume the show. I don't want it to. At least not for the rest of this season.

I still want more "office stuff." We work together. We both know there's a GOLD MINE for comedy in any office setting. Even the concept of boredom being worked into the Office Olympics -- pure genius. It's a personal choice, but I'd rather see the natural interaction come during the eight Dunder Mifflin hours than something beyond those walls. Again, I think there's a happy, realistic medium. Especially for a work documentary. An office Fun Run? Fine. Dwight and Angela at dinner, about to break up? No.

But yes, everything probably has to outlast its initial premise. It's why Ricky Gervais knew to end his own show when he did.

Man, they really hid Angela's real-life pregnancy well, don't you think?

Editor's note: It's not our fault that Tom has problems with brevity. We apologize for your boredom.

Malavika: OK, a) I'm still shunning you, and b) quit writing treatises.

Duuuuude, I didn't know Angela was preggers! They clearly did a great job. Unlike in "Will and Grace" when Debra Messing got pregnant and had to walk around with large pillows and handbags in front of her. It was a tad ridiculous. The worst part is that in the storyline, Grace gets pregnant AFTER Messing gave birth and returned to her normal size.

The Jim-Pam love will probably face some pitfalls by the end of the season. Rachel-Ross. Sam-Diane. Meredith-McDreamy. No good television "it" couple makes it without a few breakups in between, whether they're temporary or permanent. That's just the way it goes. I'm calling that they break up in the finale. Either that or Jim proposes and Pam says no.

I think another problem this season has suffered is the one-hour episodes that kickstarted it. I enjoyed the occasional hour-long Christmas specials, but the format definitely cramps "The Office's" deliberate pacing. The jokes take too long to manifest themselves when the episodes are an hour long.

Thomas: Where's fellow Krasinski-stalker, Boyd? She needs to be brought into this exchange.

Short enough for you?

Sara: Wow. I feel like the secret weapon here only to be brought out of an undisclosed hiding space at the prime moment (a.k.a.: when Tom has bored everyone with this far too in-depth analysis).

That said, I must say I agree with a majority of what's been written. When I read the premise of "The Office's" return, I was very excited for a what seemed to be a return of hilarity. I was left feeling cold, alone and desperately wanting to call my parents and thank them for never fighting like Michael and Jan.

I agree with Tom that the basis of "The Office" should be just that, in an office. There are plenty of plot lines they could bring out just in the span of an eight-hour work day and I think they just need to get creative. They've done the basketball tourney, the betting episode (one of my personal faves) and the revision of the health care plan (with the notable Schrute Space office -- or work space) but there's room for so much more.

Take the advice of Michael Scott -- don't add complicated dramatic scenes at Michael's condo to the show -- instead K.I.S.S.: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Malavika: Amen, sista. I think you've said it all.

In conclusion, I think we should both shun Tom, now.

-- Malavika Jagannathan, mjaganna@greenbaypressgazette.com; Thomas Rozwadowski, trozwado@greenbaypressgazette.com; Sara Boyd, sboyd2@greenbaypressgazette.com