# Talk:The Job (The Office)

I'm still a bit afraid to touch anything here, but it seems to me that the "references" is nothing more than an ad...it just doesn't seem appropriate.
en

The NBC press release is the source for the episode title. -- Raymondc0 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

was that lorne michaels?

I really don't think so. -- Viewdrix 01:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
No it wasn't. I rewound it on my DVR a bunch of times and it definetly wasn't Lorne.  I at first thought the same thing but it was just this random guy.--Arsenal0328 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have sworn it was him, looking right into the camera.
I get the feeling that it was just a guy trying to awkwardly avoid the camera. I little bit of verisimilitude as the show does purport to be a documentary so it would make sense that some guy who doesn't know the situation might not handle it smoothly. Just a theory. --Offput 23:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't re-watched it yet, but I was certain it was Lorne Michaels, or at least someone dressed as him.  It was one of the funniest bits in the episode, and I can't imagine it being accidental, or just some random guy walking so close through the shot at that exact moment.  Screenshots anyone? MrHate 08:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have screenshots on me, but I rewatched it, and it wasn't him. As well, no credible source says it was him. -- Viewdrix 01:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Y'know, I think we're the victims of a pretty obvious joke.  The dialogue in the scene is "I swear I saw Lorne Michaels"... "That wasn't him".  We're having the same argument.  MrHate 11:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      I watched an interview with Lorne Michaels on YouTube, and then I watched this episode again on my computer, and that WAS Lorne Michaels. Arius Maximus 17:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't pause it when it showed the man who LOOKED like lorne michaels.  It wasn't him.--Arsenal0328 04:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Where are we supposed to be seeing him? -- (unsigned)

On the DVD commentary, nobody makes any special remark during the "Lorne Michaels cameo" - if it really were him, you'd think somebody would say something. -- Raymondc0 16:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It was most definitely not him. He looked more like an old Will Ferrel than Lorne Michaels. 70.50.38.99 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone suggested that Katy was shown in one of the shots of New York, but somebody else deleted that note, saying it was just a lookalike.  What does everyone else think?  I thought it looked like Katy too, but I'm not sure. - Shaheenjim 04:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It was right after Jim and Karen talked about whether or not he'd move to New York if she got the job. - Shaheenjim 04:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean the person hailing a cab?

Yes.  The one who looked like Katy. - Shaheenjim 13:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you mean the one who looked nothing like Amy Adams. -- Raymondc0 02:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You must be thinking of someone else.  The fact that she looked like Katy is not in dispute.  The only question is whether it actually was Katy, or whether it was just someone else who looked a lot like Katy.  At least three people so far thought it looked like her.  We aren't just pulling this out of nowhere. - Shaheenjim 03:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm the one that originally posted that. I'm pretty sure that it was her. I'll check it out once I got the episode.  - Himalstorch 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's her. I re-added the entry into the trivia section.  - Himalstorch 23:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I just went back and checked on my High-def recording. It's definitely, definitely not her. The girl in this episode has a really long face. Seeing as how there's no proof supporting the theory it's her, I'm removing the trivia. -- Viewdrix 04:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely her, to the infinity power.  What a ridiculous argument this has become.  We marked it as disputed, that's fine for now. - Shaheenjim 07:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Please mark it with some sort of source. Same with Lorne Michaels. Until then, I'm removing both as original research. -- Viewdrix 16:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If we had an official source, it wouldn't be disputed.  The unofficial source is that we all saw it with our own eyes.  Which is the same source as the vast majority of the other plot points listed in the article, and they don't get removed as original research. - Shaheenjim 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Precedence generally says that something that is clear to everyone and basically not arguable, like a plot summary, does not need a source added to it. For instance, if I said Bart Simpson had spiky hair and wore a red shirt on The Simpsons article. Go check any Media Featured Article, they do9n't have sources for plot points. The fact that there's dispute over this detail, however, makes it all the more important to have a source. And just because it's disputed doesn't mean you can simply add it to the page and say it's "disputed". I could then claim and add anything to Wiki, and by using your logic for keeping it here, it couldn't be removed. For instance, could I just say I thought I saw Julia Roberts in the background of Spider-Man 3 and add it to that Wiki page, even as "Unconfirmed"? It would be removed instantaneously. If there's such concensus that it was Katy or Lorne Michaels, find any credible source to back you up. Until then, I'm removing it. -- Viewdrix 01:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
If there were a bunch of people who all thought they saw Julia Roberts in Spiderman 3, then maybe it would be worth noting.  It'd be on a higher level than just one lone wacko who thought he saw something.
So far, two guys on Wikipedia are the only ones I've heard say it was her. High much higher is that than "one lone wacko"? -- Viewdrix 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I did a few searches on google to try to find documentation, and I saw a few other people on other sites mention it.  But more importantly, even if I were the only one who thought it was her, I'd still be distinguished from a wacko because I actually have a good reason to think it's her.  Even if she isn't in the episode, there's still general agreement that there is someone in the episode that looks a lot like her. - Shaheenjim 20:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure we'd be able to find a source for this even if it is true.  Maybe someone should post a screenshot, and say that some people think it's Katy, and let people decide for themselves.  Someone else will have to do it, though, as I can't get screenshots. - Shaheenjim 18:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
In the DVD commentary, Rashida Jones explains that the woman hailing a cab is just a random person on the street. They had to chase her down to get her to sign a release. -- Raymondc0 16:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok.  Although I still say I wasn't crazy for thinking it might be her.  The fact that Rashida thought it needed to be explained actually supports that. - Shaheenjim 15:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
She didn't say "That woman isn't Amy Adams; it's just some random woman." She said "See that random woman? We had to get her to sign a release." There was no indication that anybody recognized a resemblance. -- Raymondc0 (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that Jim is a 76ers fan? The Trivia section just claims it with no justification. -- Raymondc0 02:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The boss in NY says "I don't know if I want to give the job to a Sixers fan" or something like that, I'm paraphrasing.
Ah, right. It's really quick. -- Raymondc0 03:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

i see no indication that karen's decision to go out for lunch with friends actually "surprised" jim in any significant way. 71.192.247.11 22:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. - Shaheenjim 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if Jim was on pace to get the job, as when Wallace says that Jim will like everyone except the HR guy.  Basically, possibly not known if Jim was offered the job and then refused to accept it, or if Ryan outright beat him for it.

It'll be revealed in the next episode if at all. please try to keep the Talk page to discussing the article itself. -- Viewdrix 01:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this bit should be deleted from the Trivia section: "David implies in his interview with Jim that the sales numbers he has asked of everyone are a formality.  His hiring of Ryan proves this since it was revealed in Beach Games that Ryan has still not made a sale despite several months in his full-time job." David is referring to a questionnaire that needed to be filled out as an HR formality and not necessarily that the bringing of sales numbers were. Anyone else agree? Checkguy 09:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether David was referring to the questionnaire or the sales numbers, but it doesn't really matter.  I rephrased that note so that it isn't an issue anymore. - Shaheenjim 20:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is never shown that Ryan is given the job that everyone else is applying for.  I think that it should be omitted that he was given "the" Job, but could still be stated that he was given "a" Job.  It very well might be the job, but it hasn't been proven yet.

Frankly, I believe you're overthinking things a little bit.  While it's not explicitly stated he's getting Jan's old job, he is certainly getting a job at Corporate.  It wouldn't make any sense for him to be getting any other job.--67.34.244.200 02:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
BJ Novak confirmed on his blog that Ryan is now Michael's boss. This show isn't "Twin Peaks" or "X Files" which are known for teasing viewers with double meanings and secret messages. "The Office" is pretty straightforward in its storytelling. -- Raymondc0 02:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The producers and writers have not said what the title is supposed to mean, but even if they had it really doesn't belong in the synopsis.  How about putting the "boob job" theory in Trivia until it's confirmed?--67.34.244.200 02:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "Explaining" the meaning of the title is analysis which certainly doesn't belong in the synopsis. I would accept putting it under Trivia. -- Raymondc0 02:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's just a theory, because it's implied pretty clearly.  But moving it to the trivia section is fine with me. - Shaheenjim 03:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Technically, you could claim that the writers intended the title to refer to Jan's boob job, but they did not intend it to refer to the position at the corporate office.  Raymondc0 and I rephrased the note so it doesn't assume anything. - Shaheenjim 00:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The way it is now is fine. See "The Return": it's not noting that the title has a double meaning, it's just noting what could be chalked up to coincidence. -- Viewdrix 02:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim's haircut in this episode looks identical to his haircut in that movie License to Wed.  Could it be possible that he was filming for that movie at the same time as this episode?
This was because he had been filming for the movie leather heads, as is well documented in the articles       for previous episodes.--D0nkeypie (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is Dwight's fantasy salary notable? It's just a retelling of a joke from the episode. If it's a notable plot detail, then put it in the synopsis. -- Raymondc0 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If we just retold the annual salary, that'd be retelling a joke from the episode.  But the episode doesn't mention the monthly salary, and that's what makes it notable. - Shaheenjim 04:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is Jan surprised to learn that she will be fired? She clearly knew that Michael was in New York for an interview, so she must have known which position was being interviewed for, and she should have figured out that it was her own job. 82.35.50.31 (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Job (The Office)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 17:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Lede: "The cast were unaware how the season would end, as they shot multiple endings." -> "The cast were unaware how the season would end, as multiple endings were shot by the crew."
Fixed. Ruby 2010/2013 04:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Lede: "Filming wrapped in April 2007." -> "Filming wrapped up in April 2007."
Fixed. Ruby 2010/2013 04:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Plot: "…that she had a breast augmentation." -> "…that she has had a breast augmentation."
Fixed. Ruby 2010/2013 04:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Plot: Should "No. 2" be spelled like that, or should it be "number two"?
Hmmm...wasn't sure, so I changed it to "number two". Ruby 2010/2013 04:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Production: "…who had recently directed…" -> "…who had, around the same time, directed…"
Fixed. Ruby 2010/2013 04:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Production: Do we know what any of the alt. endings were? This is more out of my curiosity than a weakness. :P
I haven't heard or read much about it unfortunately. I'll do a little more searching, as I'm also a bit curious! Ruby 2010/2013 04:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Those are the only issues. On hold for seven days. BTW, I don't know about you, but I feel after this episode, the show started to decline in quality. The show is still one of my favs, but just thought I'd say that.--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the decline in quality. Of course, the constantly-failing network NBC isn't going to stop airing the series no matter how bad it gets... It's become a bit of a game watching the network constantly make bad decisions. Ruby 2010/2013 04:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
It's rather depressing, as I felt season seven wasn't half bad because they actually had legitimate stories for their characters. It's become a poor sitcom now. Anyway, this article is good to go. If you find anything on the alt endings, just add 'em in!--Gen. Quon (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Job (The Office). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219203806/http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=2653 to http://wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=2653
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121113212250/http://www.nbc.com/the-office/episode-guide/season-3/59065/the-job/episode-324/59477/ to http://www.nbc.com/the-office/episode-guide/season-3/59065/the-job/episode-324/59477/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)