"The Office" is well into its third season on NBC. Even after proving itself with multiple award nominations and wins, including a 2006 Emmy victory for Outstanding Comedy Series, some people continue to claim that it does not live up to the original British version created by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant.
There are basically three types of fans of "The Office." The first type, who I'll call the "loyalist," is the fan who believes the original British version is the best, and the American adaptation is not only disappointing, but is exploiting its predecessor's brilliance.
The second type, who I'll call the "colonist," is strictly a fan of the American adaptation and is either unaware of its British origins or knows and is unimpressed.
The third type, who I'll call "reasonable," recognizes the genius of both versions. I am reasonable.
As a reasonable fan, I cannot conceive any justification for hating the American "Office," aside from its threat of outdoing the British equivalent. As it stands now, I believe the American version has, in fact, surpassed its inspiration with its volume. I don't just mean volume of episodes, but also volume of classic moments. I respect the writers of the NBC adaptation for continually creating quality programming for almost 40 episodes.
At the same time, I cannot help but respect Gervais and Merchant for limiting the number of their episodes to 12, plus one special, as a way of preserving the series' overall quality. Just because I say the American adaptation has surpassed the British version in volume does not mean I would ever dream of ignoring the original's innovation. There is a lot of excellence packed into that baker's dozen.
Both the British and American versions are based on the same premise. A team of filmmakers (who are never shown) is documenting the goings-on of a paper-sales office. An immature man, who would rather be friends with his employees than tell them what to do, runs the office. There is an engaged receptionist and a male coworker who loves her. Throughout both series, the writers handle this romantic element with exceptional skill, giving the viewers hope for the relationship and then stomping on their hope. Along with several more similarities, the concept is compelling, regardless of whether it's airing on BBC or NBC.
Aside from the quality of each program, a common disagreement between loyalists and colonists is over who makes the more entertaining boss. It is nearly impossible to compare Gervais and Steve Carell. They are both hilarious. They both brilliantly embody the boss who likes to think everyone is laughing with him rather than at him. They also both won a Golden Globe for playing fundamentally the same character. With so much going for them, they shouldn't be compared, but rather individually praised. It doesn't matter who is better. They are both great.
I can sort of see where a colonist is coming from, though. For instance, when ABC picked up "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" in 1999, most of us knew it was adapted from a show in Great Britain, and yet, no one cared. Regis Philbin hosted the show and the questions were related to American knowledge. Why, as an American, would I get more joy out of watching a British version of "Millionaire," with questions geared toward the citizens of Great Britain?
Though an exaggerated example, a similar case can be made for "The Office." There are times while watching the British version when I am confused either because I do not understand what is being discussed or because I do not understand a reference geared toward the British audience. On the other hand, this problem never occurs while watching the American adaptation, making that version, as an American, more enjoyable to watch in that sense.
Furthermore, Gervais and Merchant are executive producers of the American version. On top of that, they wrote last week's episode, "The Convict." If they're okay with the American adaptation, why can't we all be?
I recall watching an interview with Gervais on "Late Night with Conan O'Brien," in which he said that American television was better than British television. This is the exact opposite of what many loyalists would say.
Nevertheless, I think Gervais' remark may explain the loyalists' viewpoint. So why is it some Americans feel the need to look down on their fellow Americans for liking American-made programming? It can probably best be summed up with the cliché, "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence," or, in this case, "the grass is always greener on the other side of the ocean."
However, British television isn't necessarily better — it's just different. The same goes for American television. Both have their pros, and both have their cons. If all were tallied, I think they would balance out.
I realize many of my arguments are leaning toward what I deemed the colonist viewpoint, but that's only because loyalists generally outnumber them. I was merely trying to shift the argument back into neutral.
In the end, though, there is no reason to argue over "The Office." The dispute is about as ridiculous as my tactic of associating it with the Revolutionary War. Gervais and Merchant did a wonderful job with "The Office" and have now passed the torch to the Americans, who I believe can keep that torch lit. Whatever the cause may be for this debate, I hope loyalists and colonists can eventually stop quarreling and start being reasonable.
Mike Peters is a senior focusing on communication arts, film and business. Want to start being reasonable about "The Office" ? Send him an e-mail at [email protected].
