- In the UK Office - why does there appear to be so much hate for Neil? Seriously, even Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant have confirmed that you're not supposed to like Neil. The only evidence given for this is that Neil laughed at an off-colour joke from Finchy about David's date (even though David has laughed at even worse comments from Finchy) and that in some unspecified way Neil is 'smug'.
- I remember watching the Day of Laughter episode for the first time with my friend. During Neil's dance bit, my friend remarked that the actor was really good at portraying "an arsehole that people actually like". I think Neil's character just strikes a chord with a lot of folk who know what it's like to utterly resent a person that everyone else seems to love. The kind of person that you'll swear is a dog-kicking covert jerkass who probably fantasizes about face-painting Myley Cyrus when he gets home at night, but everybody else thinks he's a gem and laugh hysterically at all his dull, anodyne jokes and classy anecdotes. I think also by the time series two rolled around most viewers saw David's horrible social skills as something bordering on a disability and pitied him for it, if they didn't already. It felt like Brent was in a tragicomical battle with a crippling social illness and Neil, simply by having all the qualities David wanted, had an exascerbating presence and on some level he knew it and secretly reveled in it. The trick Gervais and Merchant pull is that when he laughs at Finchey's remark in the Special, it shows he's not an unfailing Nice Guy and vindicates the feelings of fans who didn't like him. Sorry, driveled on a bit there. Incidentally, Armando Iannucci does a brilliant Cringe Comedy dinner party sketch playing on the "guy-who-everyone-likes-except-me" phenomenon in The Armando Ian,ucci Shows.
- There are a few other clues throughout the series that Neil's not quite the nice guy we're led to believe; the fact that he willingly took the job that saw the Swindon office shut down and, presumably, everyone except the people he brought over fired suggests a hidden ruthlessness, the fact that he connects well with Finch (ultimately much better than Brent, who's clearly just an easy target for Finch) suggests a bit of a nasty streak. However, as well as what the poster above notes, ultimately I think it stems from the fact that we're seeing him largely from Brent's point of view, and from Brent's point of view Neil is That Guy. You know the one; the guy who effortlessly does everything you want to do much better than you ever will, and while he might not say anything you always get the sense that he knows it and is lording it over you a bit. He's younger, handsomer, his jokes make everyone fall around in hysterics while yours fall flat, he makes loads of friends while you struggle to connect with people, he has a beautiful girlfriend while you're lonely and single, and so on. While some of this is unfair to Neil, since Brent's perspective isn't exactly reliable, consider also that we're introduced to Neil around about the same time that we start being encouraged to see Brent not just as an insufferable pointy-haired twat of a boss but as someone who's a bit more vulnerable, a bit more sad and a bit more sympathetic than we previously thought; with these Hidden Depths on display, it stands to reason that the apparent Nice Guy Neil probably has a nasty side as well, but is just better at hiding it than Brent is.
- Though the ruthlessness at being willing to sacrifice his staff to take the promotion applies equally well to Brent, as he would have done exactly the same thing if not for failing the medical.
- Also note he is somewhat hypocritical as he critises David for office productivity, and then plays office cricket, which is downright dangerous. But Brent's still a tool to him.
- I think it's clear Neil had only been playing office cricket during the lunch break, or at least towards the end of lunch break, while Brent was down the pub with his colleagues.
- The somewhat confusing thing is that he gets on well enough with Tim, the Straight Man. In the US version it was easier to tell Charles Minor wasn't supposed to be liked because he did not get along with Jim.
- Without wishing to disrespect the American version (having not seen it), this — I'd suggest — is intentional, to introduce a bit of complexity into the situation. People are not always 'not supposed to be liked' just because one person doesn't like them. Neil, for all that he's hinted to have a less nice side, is still supposed to be a pretty likeable and charismatic person, so it's not out of the ordinary that Tim, who is also a pretty likeable and charismatic person, would like him as well.
- There are quite a few occasions during Charles Minor's short run on the show where he proves to be a total jerkass, making his dislike for Jim quite tame in comparison. Trumping other's attempts to be nice, shooting down good ideas from people he doesn't like, blaming others for his mistakes and assaulting a co-worker with a soccer ball. All beaten by the phrase "No, no Micheal... You're done." DAMN cold in context.
- I'm not sure Charles Minor is the US equivalent to Neil as the two have nothing in common other than being people who were in a position higher than Michael/David. Charles showed up on the US version midway through the series at a time where the show had distanced itself from the UK version by a wide margin.
- Word of God states that Neil more or less gets his successes handed to him and as such takes them all for granted. He may get on well with his employees, but generally doesn't see them as anything more than faces in a crowd. David Brent may not be that much better, but he at least lets people get to know him as a person rather than keeping them at a distance.
- The thing is Neil doesn't really do anything to warrant being disliked. People just infer that he must be a Smug Snake because he comes across as a Nice Guy who is better at his job than Brent, better at being liked by the staff than Brent, funnier than Brent, more successful with women than Brent and a better dancer as well. And one of the few people Finch actually treats with some respect. The branches were being merged regardless of who took the job (and both suffered redundancies anyway), so taking the promotion can hardly be held against him. In taking Brent to task for failing to do his job properly he was simply doing his own job. Laughing at Finchy's wisecrack (which was funny, if cruel) just shows he isn't a saint, but hardly puts him in Jerkass territory.
- Actually, Neil's behaviour towards the end of the series seems to hint at some pretty unattractive traits to me. As previously pointed out, he seems to be friends with Finch and finds his crass and unpleasant jokes highly amusing, even joining in. More notably, he also spends a lot of time egging on Brent to get a date for the office party - but not because he's genuinely interested, but because he knows Brent is less attractive and struggling to find a partner. He wants to see David be humiliated when he turns up without a girl at the party, which is particularly cruel after already firing him and seeing him at his lowest point. When Brent DOES start talking about dating, Neil immediately starts boasting by showing off a photo of his attractive fiance, encouraging Finch to leer over her and also emphasising that she's a doctor and so has superior social status. None of these are the actions of a very nice person, which raises questions of how the documentary team edited the footage of him previously.
- The only time Neil is outright mean to David is in the Christmas episodes, after he's spent who knows how long enduring David's hostility, petty behaviour and juvenile sniping without responding in kind. Those couple of scenes get magnified because there's literally nothing else that suggests he's a jerkass. We never see Neil mistreat or disrespect anyone else, something David does constantly. There is a reason why everyone but David seems to like him. Neil mentioning a fiancee and her being a doctor were both in response to more snide comments from David. Nor did he encourage Finch to leer over her; Finch just said she was a stunner, very moderate by his standards. In the same scene, David had also just snubbed Neil's offer of a handshake. If you were Neil, how would you treat David? I see him as more like Ned Flanders to David's Homer Simpson.
- It's a case of Truth in Television; plenty of people have reasonably professional managers who are still crummy people on a personal level. While there isn't much to complain about regarding Neil as a boss, everything we see of his personality beyond his job indicates he's not much better than Chris Finch. There are three instances where he's making the same lecherous and homophobic remarks that Finch does in all of his appearances. Neil's disliked because he's a typical boy's club corporate mook. His professionalism doesn't offset this, as it would be fairly unremarkable if not for his having the extraordinary distinction of managing David Brent.
- Considering David Brent is an incompetent boob and the Slough branch are generally perceived as "having a laugh", how come the board initially vote for him to be promoted instead of Neil?
- Brent only mugs for the camera, obsesses over cultural sensitivity, and makes cringeworthy jokes because he's self-conscious of being filmed and wants to look good. In the Christmas special, he complains about how the documentary filmmakers selectively edited the show to present him in a bad light. In all likelihood, he's a much better manager than he appears to be on the telly.
- It's called the Peter Principle. People do well in a lower ranked job and get promoted to management, only for them to completely fail to adapt to their new role. However they don't do anything to warrant actually being dismissed, especially in light of their years of decent service prior to being promoted, so they just sort of linger in a role they're no good at (or maybe even end up being Kicked Upstairs by being "promoted" again into a role where they have no actual responsibility). There's evidence to suggest David was a decent sales rep back in the day and was rewarded with a promotion to manager of his branch, and while he did okay following the previous manager's lead he failed utterly to lead himself. It's more common than you'd think.
- It could also be that he actually was a decent manager before the documentary started, if still socially awkward and less than likeable. When the documentary started, he saw an opportunity for his big break as an entertainer of some sort, and just overreacted in every way imaginable.
- How often do we see a board member at the branch? Never. From a distance Brent was likely just seen as the safe option. The Slough branch was doing reasonably well and Brent had (presumably) been in the job longer than Neil, ergo he was probably seen as more experienced and more deserving. Jennifer only makes fleeting visits, and doesn't stay long enough to really notice just how inept he is. The only Brent superior who's there regularly is Neil and he makes him redundant within weeks.
- The EOFY party at the end of the first season was in a big dance hall. Why didn't they have their Christmas party there instead of in their cramped and dreary workspace? You can't say that the hall was booked out because there was plenty of space for at least two office parties and we've seen Gareth dancing with a woman who didn't work with them, making the EOFY party clearly an open one.
- Money is one reason — they might have been able to afford the dancehall for the earlier party but were on a tighter budget for the later one. Another is convenience; many offices just hold the Christmas party immediately after work on the last working day before the Christmas break, and it's often just easier to have it in the workplace rather than hiring somewhere else since pretty everyone's already there. The EOFY party might also have been organised by Head Office as a way of allowing many different branches to interact (thus [a] more money to spend; [b] needing more space to fit everyone and [c] Gareth interacting with someone who's clearly not part of the Slough branch), whereas the Christmas party was just a local branch affair. And finally, we can't dismiss the possibility that the hall was booked quite so easily since, while the venue could probably host more than one function, there's still probably more than one other business or gathering in the area likely to book that venue besides Wernham-Hogg. Perhaps for the second occasion it was fully booked up (there are likely to be at least two other businesses in the area who might be interested in booking the same hall at the same time) and the Wernham-Hogg branch just had to make do.
Headscratchers / The Office (UK)