Romantic Comedy?[edit]

This film doesn't contain any of the hallmarks of modern-day romantic comedy, so I took that part out. This film really doesn't have that much romance in it. 134.117.125.20 (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TPS Reports[edit]

Do we -really- need every single solitary mention of TPS reports in pop culture ever? Lots42 (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One man's trash is another's treasure. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean it should go.
That said, Office Space has made a fair impact on pop culture and the number of instances listed here is just a testament to that. Cburnett (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, if this article is ever going to get promoted to GA status or better, than this list is going to have be converted to prose and cited.--J.D. (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I object to that that necessitated you arguing for it? Cburnett (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Saying something like 'TPS reports have been seen or mentioned in multiple video games and movies, including but not limited to...'. We don't need a detailed rendering of every time a ref pops up in some obscure corne of a shoot 'em up video game. This'd make the article a mess. Lots42 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amen. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Me too"s are hardly valuable to a discussion. Cburnett (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They indicate consensus, so yes, they are. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Indiscriminate" is wholly vague and hardly agreed upon. Cultural references to something specific is hardly indiscriminate (quite discriminate if you ask me). I also think you're being quite melodramatic about "every single solitary mention" and "of every time a ref pops up". What is your basis in determining that every single solitary mention of TPS report is present in this article? Baseless assumption to make things seem "worse" off then they are? Seems as though you've tipped your hat on your bias and have come here not looking for discussion but a reason to go nuts with your delete key. Cburnett (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of occurences in pop culture invite non-notable items and trivia. Moreover, even if these references should be in WP, they would be better placed in TPS reports than in this article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Carl said. Lots42 (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conserning the bar scene[edit]

I believe in the movie that durring the bar scene where Peter is telling Michael he is going to be fired, Samir is not there, but the wiki says he tells his two friends in the bar. I didn't correct the article because I could't recall if it was true or not. Could someone with the dvd check? Tonkatsu182 (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that it was just Peter and Michael at the bar. They tell Samir of the situation later on in Peter's apartment.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

The plot section, in my opinion, needs to be rewritten from the ground up. Too long, too much past tense and odd grammar and sentence fragments abound. Lots42 (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of a stapler in the plot section[edit]

Although it may seem cute or chuckle-worthy to the people who have seen the film, the inclusion of a picture of a stapler in the plot section serves no useful purpose in improving this article. I see it akin to including a picture of a quarter in the plot description of No Country for Old Men (film). I have removed it. Please let me know if you disagree.
Thanks. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other media[edit]

I've moved this section here because it is largely unsourced and just a collection of points or random references. If this film is going to be upgraded to GA status, this stuff has to be converted to some kind of coherent prose, cited properly and placed in other sections. Anyways, I've placed it here for posterity.--J.D. (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TPS reports are real life documents. Therefore, saying any reference to a TPS report in media is an allusion to this movie is false. --71.170.209.16 (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any, sure. SOME...naturally. A few well sourced 'cultural refs' (few as in thee or four) would be a cool aspect of the article. In my opinion. Lots42 (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Television

Commercials

Music video

Video games

References

  1. ^ "http://youtube.com/watch?v=FhHA4aO8t0I". ((cite web)): External link in |title= (help)

In popular culture[edit]

This section is not cited or cited very well and is basically a list. It needs loads of citations and changed into prose and integrated into other sections. I'm putting it here for safe keeping.--J.D. (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several phrases, items and concepts from the film have found their way into common usage - particularly in office environments.

The Swingline 747 Classic stapler in red

References

  1. ^ "http://www.acco.com/productdetail.aspx?s=0&pid=S7074740". ((cite web)): External link in |title= (help)
  2. ^ "http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151804/quotes". ((cite web)): External link in |title= (help)

Misplaced Decimal Point?[edit]

I do not remember a misplaced decimal point creating the excess cash. As I recall, it was simply the large amount of money going through the system that caused the excess cash. Lots42 (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Michael says that it's a misplaced decimal point. "That's not a mundane detail, Michael!" EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

The movie is about the life of an employee named Peter who as a symbol of minority is trying to get out of cubicles caused by individualism in USA. The movie begins by Peter driving alone in his car changing lines to break free, and the movie ends showing that the freedom he is looking for, is achieved by destruction of the organization as a symbol of government. The movie shows that although finally Peter finds his ideal environment, his two friends chose to go back to a similar system. So it argues although western kind of freedom brought by individualism could be the answer which majority of people are looking for, but other kinds of freedoms must coexist to satisfy minorities or they will rise and bring destruction to achieve it. --AndrehShahbazian (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this or is it your own original research? Either way, I think that there is way too much being read into the movie if these are anyone's ideas. Dismas|(talk) 05:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my NPOV. Please check the source of the idea which the movie insists on at this link  :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_Sartre 83.147.219.124 (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC) To feel the dept, I suggest watching the documentary by Adam Curtis called "The Trap" first. go:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis 91.184.92.140 (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Printer?[edit]

There's several mentions of the "printer" in the article .. wasn't the machine they smashed up a fax machine? - Mblaxill (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was a copy/fax/printer--all in on sort of thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.129.52 (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be double-checked. I always understood it to be an HP laser printer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.2.114 (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This came up again in a recent edit. I don't think the movie states it explicitly, but one prominent scene includes the dialogue: "PC Load Letter? What the fuck does that mean?". PC Load Letter appears to be an error specific to old HP Laserjet printers, suggesting that it was in fact a printer مفكر1 (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milton[edit]

I'm confused where it says Milton was fired 2 years ago but still gets paid due to a glitch, and then it says he had to move to a roach-infested basement because he doesn't get paid.Landroo (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

besides not firing him and just fixing "the glitch", the boss humiliates him too .. in other words, he doesn't move to the roach infested basement "because he doesn't get paid" - he just moves there because Lumberg is enjoying having someone to pick on .. hope that explains it. All best - Mblaxill (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it was to humiliate Milton. It was more a passive aggressive way to get rid of him, probably hoping he would finally stop coming to work. I once had a high-level executive say something like that to me. Along the lines of "You don't always have to fire someone. If they're not promoted or given pay raises, not given interesting work, they'll generally leave." (Robo45h (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Location of the company[edit]

Does anyone else feel that it is important to note where the company in question is located? Personally I don't think it's critical to understanding the plot in the summary at all but I thought I'd bring it here for discussion since the editor adding it feels so strongly about it. Thoughts? Anon IP I'd love to see why you think it's relevant enough to add. Millahnna (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not important. It's trivia and borders on original research. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Judge said recently that while it was filmed in Texas, he purposely avoided any hint of an actual location and tried to keep it as generic as possible (which is part of his point), down to using generic license plates on most of the vehicles. Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the 80% Fresh rating from RottenTomatoes.com[edit]

All of these reviews from Rotten Tomatoes are from many years after the film initially hit theaters, many from 2005 or later. Therefore they are not accurate reflections of how the film was received by critics upon its initial release, as the article insinuates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.215.55.194 (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. We'll have to make an effort to find some contemporary reviews (if any are available) and make sure to rephrase the critical reception to make it clear that some reviews (currently all) are from after the fact. Millahnna (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milton's stapler[edit]

Stapler-swingline-red.jpg was linked in the Plot section with the description, "Milton's stapler". As is well documented by fans, the red stapler that Swingline currently sells is not Milton's stapler. The Rio Red stapler is a 747, which looks very different from the 646 that Office Space's prop department painted red. I actually found a 545 at work, and it's a pretty close match, whereas the 747 has a huge block of metal on both sides near the rear hinge. Unable to buy Milton's stapler from Swingline, many fans locate 646s and paint them red.

My first instinct was to change the description to something like "a stapler similar to Milton's stapler", but what's the point of having a picture of a stapler that somewhat resembles Milton's stapler? So I'm just going to delete the image link, and I trust that this will not be controversial. DOSGuy (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

other cast[edit]

closing credits other names, not part of opening or closing title cards:

Categories