it had potential


The UK version was okay, but no where close to the US version. It was a bit creepy though the way things were copied; looking back they should have tried to be a bit more original.

I like to think I have a pretty good grip on the English language, but goodness, I really wish I had subtitles sometimes while trying to watch it. I could hardly keep up with what Gervais was attempting to say through all the cackling and expressions. Most of the others were pretty understandable though...It was odd to hear his "american" accent while singing/playing. For that short time he sounded like a sane person.

Overall it seemed like it should have been called The Ricky Gervais Show. By the 2nd season of the US Office there was a lot more diverse character development. Yes there were more than twice the number of total episodes, but it wasn't being written and directed by Steve Carell, therefore, it wasn't completely centered around him. If it was it would have died off just as quick as the UK version.

I don't like the way they ended it. I think Gervais wrote himself out too early. They didn't leave room if it to be longer; there were just too few episodes for it to seem like a "successful" series to me. Not that it necessarily would have lasted with him as the lead for that much longer anyway.

Hopefully people who keep criticizing the US version have actually bothered to see the entire series. It drops off a bit after Carell leaves, but it's still worth it. And comparing it to shows like Sunny in Philadelphia is nuts....those are two completely different sub-genres. Albeit, it is very similar to Parks and Recreation, which is another fantastic show worth watching (all the way though people).


Of all the characters, I'd have to say Keith is the only one that gives their US equivalent a run for their money (Keith could probably use a jog). His whole demeanor was hilarious.

reply

"Overall it seemed like it should have been called The Ricky Gervais Show" - actually one of the things that made it so watchable was the good ensemble cast/characters being given their own stories and development - Gervais probably had slightly more screen time than the rest but only the same as Steve Carell would have in each episode of the US version. Brent's one of those characters that's better in small doses. If it had just been 20-30 minutes of Brent goofing around it would have been unwatchable. He's possibly still in it too much for other people's taste, but try watching Extras, when his character is on screen pretty much the entire time. It's too much. Think that's one of the reasons the only other work of his I like is Cemetary Junction, in which he only appears a couple of times and only for a few minutes (as the lead's dad).

reply

and that's just how sitcoms are done over here. 6 episodes, and then after a couple of series, they either quit while they're ahead or go stale. Even a "long running" sitcom like Only Fools and Horses - it's quite misleading because they stopped making series after about 1990 and then just did some rather lacklustre Christmas specials (with 3 very obvious exceptions), therefore only making I think 10 episodes for the last 13 years of the show's "run".
In the US they have teams of writers who pick up the mantle for different episodes, and can get away with filler/bottleneck episodes if it's in the middle of a good 15-20 episode series. Friends, Fraser, its predocessor Cheers, Seinfeld etc. ran for years, 20 odd episodes per series without the quality slipping or the essence of the show being lost despite different people (often ones who had nothing to do with the creation or inception of the show) writing throughout. Maybe we English should have tried it.
Although not a sitcom and not aimed at adults, Grange Hill ran for 30 years, pushing 20 episodes each year, and that's one of the few shows that did use different writers etc because each series was so long. And I don't think any lack of continuity or dip in quality showed as a result of them doing this. So it does work.

reply