Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote an article about season one of “The Paper.” At the time, I said it was a nice nod to “The Office” and an enjoyable mockumentary-style show. Now, after watching season two, which is now streaming on Peacock, I think the show’s creators took that nod to the old sitcom a little too seriously. Watching season two made me realize that the reason I liked the first season of “The Paper” was because, at its core, it’s essentially a redo of “The Office.” Not only is it filmed in the same style, but it also follows many of the same storylines, character dynamics and plot points. What initially felt like a fun homage now feels more like a retelling.
Season two follows the staff of small town newspaper the Toledo Truth Teller as they deal with the pressure of keeping their struggling newspaper alive. After their success in Season one, Ned Sampson, played by Domhnall Gleeson, and Mare Pritti, played by Chelsea Frei, team up with other staff members on a risky story involving a powerful local club, while the rest of the staff face new challenges both at work and in their personal lives. The season focuses on the team’s growing confidence as journalists and the risks they take to keep the paper going.
Picking up where season one left off, Ned and Mare have a secret relationship that they are hiding from the rest of the staff. Eventually, the two have a disagreement, and one chooses to transfer to a different location and move a few hours away. Sound familiar? It’s almost exactly what happened with Jim and Pam in season two of “The Office.” And that’s just one example of how closely “The Paper” mirrors its predecessor. What once felt like a homage in a charming way now just feels like replication. Rather than simply taking inspiration, season two seems to recreate the most recognizable storylines with new characters and a different workplace. The frustrating part is that it doesn’t need to do this. It has a good plot and interesting characters, and can stand on its own. The show doesn’t need to feed off the success of “The Office” in order to be successful. I would rather see the writers take more risks and allow these characters to develop in ways that feel unique to “The Paper.”
Another aspect of the season that I didn’t particularly enjoy was the number of workplace crushes and romances. It seemed like there were so many that I eventually lost track of who liked whom. By the end of the season, it felt like nearly everyone was romantically interested in someone else they worked with, which became more distracting than entertaining. Not only did this feel unrealistic, but it also took away from the main romance between Ned and Mare, which seemed to be the relationship the season wanted viewers to focus on. Their relationship was already complicated enough without adding so many other romantic storylines around them.
That being said, the show had a lot of good elements. Not as many of the jokes landed as I would like, but it had an interesting plot and engaging characters. I enjoyed watching new friendships develop throughout the season. My biggest highlight, however, is Lisa Gilroy’s performance as Lisa Graysh, the HR representative. She was funny and wacky and made every scene she was in so much more enjoyable. In a scene full of flat jokes, it was nice to have a character I could always rely on to make me laugh.
Overall, season two of “The Paper” was not bad. It had good characters, an engaging plot and some genuinely enjoyable moments. I just wish the show had taken more liberties instead of continuing to follow the formula that made “The Office” iconic. “The Paper” has enough going for it to succeed on its own, and I hope that if there is a third season, the writers are willing to move away from the shadow of “The Office” and give the show a chance to become its own.
Leave a Reply