"Favorites": My 2010 'Office' spec script
Cringe, comedy, and *teachable moments* from what's basically 'Office' fan fiction
I’ll write new — maybe even non-TV! — stuff here again soon, I promise, but I’m feeling lazy and when I’m feeling lazy I think “maybe there’s something post-able from the archives,” and because my professional spirit animal is Emily Dickinson, well, I’ve got nothing BUT archives — figurative shoeboxes overflowing with stabs at this or that thing, half-finished endeavors, not-ready-for-primetime material.
And nothing says “not-ready-for-primetime but definitely ripe for Substack publication” like an ‘Office’ spec1 from 2010!
Now, I thought something like this might be worthwhile to share for two reasons:
Willed embarrassment is a form of vulnerability, which according to Brene Brown is of course the path to true, lasting connection. This is number one.
Whatever this Substack is about — and who knows!2 — it’s gotta be at least half about unpacking the creative process, something far messier than “so…I did a thing” tweets would suggest and more akin to, idk, throwing stuff in a wok and hoping it will somehow amount to stir fry.
I do not think the 37 page (already overlong) teleplay I am about to share is good! But I do think that, in all its amateur earnestness, there’s plenty to discuss — for anyone interested in what goes into brainstorming/breaking/writing TV, and also anyone that wants a laugh (sometimes intended; mostly not!). Anyway, here it is:
What follows should mostly make sense whether you read the script or not, but for the absolute Laser At AMC™️ experience, give it a download and come back. We’ll be here! This is, after all, a static post.
The Year Was 2010
‘The Office’ (2005-2013) is, if not my favorite comedy of all time, the one that's made the most sizable impression on my writing brain. Basic, I know3, but -- listen, sometimes obvious things are obvious for a reason. I like niche shit, too! (Did YOU watch all of 'We Are Who We Are', Luca Guadagnino's riveting tale of imperialism and gender fluidity set on an American military base in Italy?) Basic things need not be maligned so long as they're part of a balanced diet!
Anyway, I think ‘The Office’ more than earns its flowers. Long before becoming Netflix’s most valuable early pandemic asset or a red flag dating app response (“looking for the Jim to my Pam”), it was a tight-as-a-drum comedy that somehow also elicited a pathos I’d never felt for TV characters before. Take this clip:
Perfection! Who knows if it plays for those of you who haven’t watched the show, but to me it embodies the delicate funny-sad balance ‘The Office’ pulled off at its best: jokes working in service of character as it weaved (wove?) its unassuming tale of listlessness and unlikely family in Scranton, PA.
In 2010, when I moved to Los Angeles, I was told that specs were the name of the game if you wanted to break into TV. Not that you shouldn’t write original pilots, too, but that people (executives, agents, managers, the royal “they”) wanted to see how you tackled pre-existing material — how well you could mimic what was already airing, and continuing to air4. It was a no-brainer that I'd write my own 'Office' episode.
[Looks to Camera]
“Same but different” is in many ways the primary directive of a decent spec. Can you do it like we do it? But uniquely enough that, you know, you’d be bringing something new to the table? Fall 2010 marked the seventh season of ‘The Office’, and with it certain truisms:
Michael, and to a lesser extent Pam and/or Jim, steer the A-Story
Dwight, and to a lesser extent Andy, guide the B
Creed does or says something weird
The show mostly takes place in the titular office
It would be folly, for example, to write an episode centered around Kevin going to a chili cook-off (unless this kicked off someone else’s story) or Kelly going to outer space (this isn’t in the titular office). The show has rules, rhythms; you’re not trying to reinvent the wheel.
At the same time, you’re writing this thing to stand out, right? To demonstrate how YOU, and only you, would (theoretically) be a value-add to a writers room already full of idiosyncratic, funny people (this is not me saying I am either one of these things!), and might bring something new to the proverbial and, pre-Zoom, literal table.
What I came up with, I can proclaim with 2022 honesty, definitely feels like an ‘Office’ episode but falls short of taking any big, unique swings.
Here’s the gist: off-screen, Kelly babysits Pam and Jim’s daughter, Cici, which would be totally uneventful but for the fact she’s there for Cici’s first word… and that word happens to be “Kelly.” The next day, Pam grows increasingly manic about all the other stuff she’s probably missing while Cici is at daycare, eventually roping in Michael — who regularly plays “favorites” (episode title!) with Jim and Pam — to bring her back to the office. Oh, and Jim convinces Dwight that Cici could be the antichrist.
As a premise, that’s not bad!5 You've got an emotionally-driven, relatable story for Pam (and Michael) and the promise of wacky hijinks for everyone's favorite sociopath, Dwight Schrute. In execution? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
“I hate… so much, about the things you choose to be”
First things first: here’s a childless 24-year-old writing about a young mother’s relationship to her child, something I would only begin to understand two years later (JK never). Pam goes from 0-60 way too quickly in this story, and really has no moves to make — besides learning the truth about Kelly’s night with Cici, which is outside information; nothing she does — once she brings Cici back to the office in act two. Actually, in general here there’s a lot of talk and not enough action. ‘The Office’ was of course a very talky show, but stories developed through conversation; things moved forward, almost imperceptibly, while you thought people were just talking. Here they’re kind of just… talking.
The characters do sound the way they should, for the most part. Even now, twelve years later, I think that dialogue and speaking cadence are my primary strengths as a writer. And when I wrote this in 2010, I did so largely on instinct. Here’s how Michael sounds! Here’s how Creed sounds! I’d seen, you know, every episode of the show and while I didn’t understand the structural underpinnings of its jokes, knew what they sounded like. And that’s what I think I wind up with here: the occasional, genuinely funny moment but also a lot of stuff that sounds like a joke without actually being one. “Joke-adjacent,” if you will6.
I’d wager the biggest problem here — and one that plagues my writing to this day, including this very newsletter! — is it just takes me for fucking ever to get to the meat of something, at which point I throw my hands up and say “this probably needs to end, soon, let’s just do that.” Whether because I wasn’t sharp enough to realize they were missing or just didn’t have enough steam/pages left to write them, there are narrative gaps in both Pam and Michael’s stories. And then things just kind of… end.
Re-reading “Favorites”, it’s clear to me that the A- (read: main) story of this episode should be Michael’s long history of playing favorites, something I was perceptive enough to name the episode after but not keen enough to explore. Things get very fan-ficky (it looks gross when you add the “k,” maybe because it’s now just the word “icky”) when Oscar calls Michael out, and we’re led into a classic “Michael stands in the doorway of his office trying to calm everyone’s reasonable concerns” moment. Nothing wrong with that in principle, but on the page here it just feels… undercooked, an excuse to air a succession of “now this character, now this character” comedy beats that don’t actually add up to a story. (Or anyway, a compelling one.) It all sounds kind of right, but when you think about it for even a second, falls apart as something real. It’s the TV equivalent of that guy doing Tom Cruise deepfakes7.
Final Thoughts
“Favorites” is not all bad! Though I think it’s missing a beat or two and could stand to go even bigger, Dwight’s subplot dealing with a potentially possessed infant works and leads to, IMO8, a very solid punchline to the whole episode. Katy Perry remains enough of a cultural force that the "California Gurls" reference still plays. Hell, I serviced every single character on the show at the time, even if only for a line or two.
But this is also clearly the work of someone mimicking something, feeling it out, rather than understanding how it actually functions. Ten-plus years later I’d argue that BOTH are essential to good storytelling — concrete narrative tools are worthless without taste, some sort of ear and eye for whatever already resonates with you — I just wish I’d been more in tune with the math of it all when I sat down to break out this episode.
…It’ll get better — and more appropriately formatted — when I try my hand at a ‘Mindy Project’ episode in 2014! Spoiler alert: that one also involves babies. (Theme??)
“spec” being short for “speculative,” as in no one pays you for it
Actually, if you do know, please tell me!
I also like pumpkin spice, something it’s taken me years to admit. Live your truth! Life is short
Which — I’m realizing this literally as I type it — actually did make a lot of sense in a pre-streaming era, where not only did shows last longer (i.e. more than one season!) but they had longer episode orders. I’m pretty sure season one of ‘The OC’ had 73 episodes!
See? I can give myself compliments
…Which could describe a lot of currently airing comedies I WILL NOT NAME
Who, this is unrelated to anything here, should honestly go to jail
You can stop writing, IMO, Hendog! It’s **all** IMO