Image Credit: Paul Drinkwater/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank/AP Images
Last night, the season finale of The Office trotted out a celebrity lineup worthy of The Marriage Ref, with Will Arnett, Ray Romano, Jim Carrey, James Spader, and even mega-billionaire Warren Buffett waltzing through the doors of Dunder Mifflin. The episode also featured a cameo by Ricky Gervais, Hollywood’s favorite irascible scamp/leering supervillain. Gervais, of course, co-created the original British version of The Office, which only ran for 14 episodes. Gervais just posted a reaction to the season finale over on his blog, in which he expresses something like exasperation with the American version. Noting that the season finale reminded him of the Chris Martin episode of Extras (in which a celebrity cameo is awkwardly wedged into a sitcom), Gervais laughs, “If you’re going to jump a shark, jump a big one!”
But Gervais isn’t just poking fun. He continues: “I assume most people know I didn’t do the US remake for the art. I did my version for the art. That’s why I stopped it after a few hours of telly.” While he notes that he’s “very proud of the US version,” you can’t help but read between the lines a little bit: It seems like Gervais is drawing a decisive line between the UK version (short, sweet, artistically pure) and the US version (commercial, overstretched, artistically compromised). Gervais also clears up any confusion regarding rumors that he might step in as the new Office boss: “You don’t start a company to work on reception.” Oh, that rude British wit!
Gervais finishes his post by noting that the original Office is almost ten years old now. And what better way to celebrate a milestone than to stir the pot a little bit! Viewers, do you agree with Gervais’ extremely measured negativity regarding the Office finale? Or do you think he’s overstepping a little bit?
Follow Darren on Twitter: @EWDarrenFranich
Read more:
‘The Office’ season finale recap: Who’s the boss?
‘The Office’ season finale: Which guest star would you hire?
26 Great TV Season Finales
The magic of the original version is that it introduces us to these characters we quickly learn to know and love, sets up a couple of story lines (the Tim and Dawn ‘will they or won’t they?’, the office merger, and David Brent’s downfall) and then wraps it up perfectly.
The U.S. version has had its moments, for sure, but it’s starting to wear pretty thin. After all the hype over who will be the new boss, the finale turned out to be a giant tease. (That said, I loved James Spader!)
The beauty of the original is that you could actually believe that a reality TV crew would be following these people around for a short amount of time.
The new version stretches ALL credibility by having the crew follow workers around since 2005! They tip their hat to the ludicrous nature of it when one of Michael Scott’s last moments had him asking, “Hey, will you guys let me know if this ever airs?”
America needs to come up with their own ideas for shows, first the Office, and now I heard they are redoing “Outnumbered” and “The InBetweeners” which are both hilarious and should not be remade – just watch the original. Have American writers become stupid? Instead of redoing them, just reair the original British versions on American primetime on NBC, ABC, CBS,etc
There have also been British versions of American shows, so this works both ways.
The British version is just so pure and beautiful. I loved everything Ricky did with it, and it was note perfect. It was art, and the American version was cute television. I liked the fact that David Brent wasn’t likable. You could, however, feel for him. The special was just heart-breaking and uplifting. I don’t know if most Americans would appreciate the David Brent character because we want to like our characters, and we don’t appreciate nuance. Plus, like you said Chris, you really could believe that it was reality television.
He’s somewhat right.
The executive assistant character (Jordan) that was added three episodes ago adds nothing, so lose that one immediately. It also stretches plausibility.
Stop having everyone in the office/warehouse date each other.
Perhaps stop making the characters into cartoons, such as what Kevin has become.
But Gervais is right.
You’re right – they’ve added too many people. The Exec Assistant needs to go – she adds absolutely nothing. Hopefully Gabe is really gone now.
But Ricky’s right – it’s totally gone downhill.
Gervais is right in a way. But the American-Office is its own version, and he just comes off as cold. Why did he even appear in the episode if all he’s gonna do is trash it? And I liked all the guest stars on that episode. I saw actual characters and not the actors playing them
American network execs can’t let something go as long as they are able to make the least bit of money off it. Look at Chuck Lorre and 2.5 men. Probably just trying to stretch how much syndication he can get out of that show. These people don’t give a rat’s arse if they put out good product or not. The SADDEST thing, though, is that apparently neither do many of you, the viewing public. You just want to see more of your favorite characters whether they are doing anything interesting or not. People here could use a little more discernment when it comes to their viewing practices. It’s fast food television.
As brutal as his remarks are, he’s right. This show should have ended 3 seasons ago. It’s a shell of it’s former, brilliant glory, because its head-writers (Daniels and Schur) left in Season 4 and the replacement showrunners have largely ruined the integrity of the stories and characters. I just wish Gervais, as the EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, would actually put his money where his mouth is and just end the show already.
Do you really think he has any actual influence over the show? They gave him the Executive Producer title for the money and nothing else.
Yes, by definition an executive producer has no part in the technical part of a TV show, movie or music production.
@Woot
Not true. Many executive producers are also head writers on their shows. Executive producer Greg Daniels used to be the showrunner and head writer of The Office, while he was also the executive producer. Same goes for other exec producers/showrunners like Damon Lindelof on Lost, Shonda Rhimes on Grey’s Anatomy, etc. And if an executive producer like that wants their show to end, it will end – just like Seinfeld ended his show when he wanted, despite the wishes of NBC.
Okay, so that means those people have two titles. That means they are an executive producer and a writer. Just because they write, doesn’t change their duties as an executive producer. If your only title on something is executive producer, you have add anything to the technical aspect. If you are also hired as a writer, well that’s just a different job.
*don’t
@Anne, you have it backwards. It’s not that many executive producers are also head writers; it is that many showrunners are also executive producers. The title of executive producer isn’t where the power comes from.
Sigh. I can’t believe this point of semantics is still being discussed. To be clear, in my original comment, I expressed a wish that Gervais would END the show, not change the course of the writing on the show (though he did write an episode once, and could obviously write more if he wanted to). And as for the definition of an executive producer, they are the person who is supposed to be “responsible for the overall production” and “handles business and legal issues.” Business and legal issues such as, you know, ending the production of the show they are supposedly in charge of, and not allowing it to go for another season. But of course, if he’s an exec in name only, than obviously he doesn’t have that power.
@McMurphy
No, you have my statement backwards. Woot said that, by definition, execs have no part in the technical part. My point is that, no, in fact, if they WANT to have a part and also be an exec, they CAN do that. Being an exec doesn’t exclude them from that. I never said that, by definition, they HAVE to have a part. Just that many do both, such as the examples I listed. But obviously, Gervais doesn’t have that kind of power with his exec title.
Oh for the love of Chr—
Okay, “Woot” (?), you dribbling imbecile, I’m only to going to say this once, so do please try to keep up. The title of executive producer on a feature film has a completely different connotation than it does for episodic television. On a feature, the title is often assigned to financiers, those involved on the production at the development level (who generally do not stay on the production in anything more than a ceremonial capacity beyond that), production executives responsible for overseeing the project for a studio or production company, top-lining stars (as a form of vanity credit), and, on occasion, to the actual physical line producer, who receives the credit as a sort of gratuity from the main producer(s).
Now, on the television side of the business, the credit takes on a different meaning. Executive producers tend to carry that title in lieu of what they actually are: the showrunners. In television, if you see “executive producer”, what you are seeing is the name of the showrunner, or showrunnerS, as is generally the case. The credit of “head writer” doesn’t actually exist outside of sketch comedy shows, so said creative supervisors are afforded Executive Producer credits instead. The function that the nominal executive producer (read: the one who generally gets their credit on screen first at the show’s end, rather than those credited in the opening) is the same as that of a feature film director. The actual director of a given television episode is largely a craftsman, working with the elements already put in place by the show’s creative supervisor—the Executive Producer.
If you’re going to be a pedantic wang about this, you should at least be kind of / sort of / almost correct…which you, I am sorry to report, are not. Or even close, in fact.
Totally agree with you. Ricky is 100% right.
Kate, your sister’s dunk is a thing of beauty. Hook a brotha up.
Ricky Gervais has no power to end the show. He only got an Executive Producer credit because they bought his concept. It just gives him a share of the profits, but no real role in the running of the show. Ricky makes a ton of money from the show without having to do any work. Why would he want that to end?
If that is the case and he is an exec producer in name only, than that is too bad that he has no power.
But just to clarify to the above commenters, many executive producers DO have showrunner power – like exec producer Greg Daniels, who used to be the sole showrunner.
Too be fair, by this point in their runs, even MASH, Frasier, Happy Days and other “classic” shows were pretty lousy.
Let’s look at other shows currently on that are as old as The Office: Desperate Housewives, House, Grey’s Anatomy, How I Met Your Mother, etc… they are ALL shadows of their former selves.
Personally, while definitely fizzling out, The Office hasn’t sunk as badly as those shows have.
I imagine a lot of employees get exasperated with NBC.
As long as he keeps cashing that check, he ought keep his mouth shut. But we already know that’s not Ricky’s style.
He should keep his mouth shut ’cause he has f*cked up teeth!
He’s right we a fresh perspective for once, give us Catherine Tate, she’s brilliant and hilarious! There’s never been a female manager and it’s about time.
Sorry did not care for her at all. Plus I couldn’t understand her. Seems to me like someone is pushing for the female equivalent of David Brent. Big disappointment last night. Did not like the cameos too much. They should have just kept to the original office members. Collectively, they are funnier.
Catherine Tate was really funny. Seriously, you couldn’t understand what she was saying? I had no problem.
I could understand what she was saying…it just wasn’t funny.
Catherine Tate was hysterical. I don’t get how English speaking people can’t understand her. The show needs someone off beat and she is so far off the beat I think it could work well!
We know you didn’t do the US remake for the art. You did it for the money. So unless you’re going to give that money back, which I’m sure is many times what your “art” got you, shut your mouth.
Seriously. You cant have your cake and eat it too. You sound like a fool trying to have it both ways – making money off of it on one hand will trying to distance yourself and your cred with the other.
Why would I want cake, if I can not eat it? Never thought that saying relates to what people intend it for. Even if you substitute the cake and eat it analogy for anything else. As in you can’t have a girlfriend and bang her too, You can’t have a lot of money and spend it too, You can’t have your medicine and heal yourself too.
it’s like selling your soul to the devil and then complaining about what the devil decided to do with it.
i think gervais is a funny guy and his original ‘office’ was brilliant while the U.S. version is unwatchable, BUT he’s a hypocrite to say anything negative as long as he’s rich from it.
Enought with the metaphors! You’re beating a dead horse!!! Hahaha…
And yet he was pretty quick to take credit for the show when he hosted the golden globes the first time.
I see your point, but he did also say he was proud of the show. I don’t think he hates it, he was just commenting on a fault with American television, in that shows just keep going until they’re no longer financially viable, rather than ending because it’s the right time for the characters or the story. He’s not the most tactful man in the world, but I think he has a valid point. And you can be proud of something you were involved in while still being critical of its faults. Can’t you?
Then I suggest he determine when he thought the show should have ended, and donate all of his share of the profits from any show after that point to charity.
that makes absolutely no sense, charley. he’s entitled to his opinion, whether he makes money off of the project or not. i don’t get people like you who are saying he doesn’t have the right to an opinion. are you people fascists or what? must everyone either be in lockstep with what you (or fill in the blank) think or shut up? Sorry, that’s not the kind of world i want to live in. My guess is you feel the same but just get mad if someone disagrees with YOU.
That’s what he says though that he did the UK version for the art and that’s why there were so few episodes. He didn’t do the US version for art he had different reasons but not art.
Gervais’ commentary is a bit surprising considering he still produces the show. I’m surprised he did not influence more of the developments this season considering the ample time Carrell provided to management on his impending exit. Having said that, all the naysayers should relax. Obviously if they were this unhappy they haven’t continued to watch the show. While yes, granted the edge has dulled somewhat, there is plenty of material that could inject new life into the series.
He’s pretty much a producer in name only, I think. Shows have lately gotten into naming tons of people EPs as a credit. I doubt Ricky Gervais is actually doing anything – it’s a money/credit thing.
Kate, you may be right.
I don’t know that I laughed once. Just postponed the joy that is Parks and Rec.
You took the words right out of my mouth. There were no LOLs in my house until Parks and Rec came on the screen. It was like night and day to me.
Speaking of…where is the Parks & Rec recap?? It’s seriously the funniest show on tv
No, Ally, it is *literally* the funniest show on tv.
haha…my bad…you’re right!
james spader knocked it out of the park ricky would be nice as the new boss
BUT I’VE BEEN DIEING FOR SOME MORE FRESH JIM CARREY
AND PLS TELL ME JIM CARREY IS NOT A BIG SHARK
James Spader showed signs of reviving the show…the moments with him gave you the sort of classic OFFICE uneasy humor feel.
Agreed! James Spader needs to be the new boss. I was rooting for Darryl, but if this show is going to stick around, new people need to be added. James Spader please!
Agreed. The Office has long been one of my favorite shows, and I think Spader would be the perfect choice as the new manager. No one will EVER come close to the perfection that is Michael Scott, but i think his character would be great fun. Also, i agree that the past couple of seasons have been sub-par. I loathed the Gabe character, and was thrilled to see him shipped off in the finale.
The UK Office declined at each juncture – brilliant season 1 to good season 2 to the schmaltz-filled “special” that never should have been made. The David Brent character grates after a while and works only in the small dosage that the UK series provided.
Disagree. The special was brilliant. It showed the other side of David Brent – how lost and frustrated he became when he couldn’t be the joker and the center of attention. And it gave us that lovely Tim and Dawn moment.
What you describe as lovely was pure sucrose to me. They should have let it end after the second series.
While I am a huge fan of Gervais, i agree that the UK version was a bit much to handle after the first season. His character was much more obnoxious than even Michael Scott, so in that regard, the US version, while not exactly “art”, has been more enjoyable for me at least.
I totally agree with you Dave. I watched the original version and quite frankly it *had* to end after 14 episodes because Gervais’s character was such a douche by the end of it that I couldn’t watch it anymore. He had no redeeming qualities whatsoever and I don’t think I would have continued watching it had the series gone on. They are 2 completely different shows that just happen to have the same title and are trying for the same vibe of uncomfortable humor. I tend to like my humor with some heart though and the original version had very little (Tim and Dawn not withstanding).
Too true. The best US episodes were the ones not dominated by Michael Scott. The background characters in the UK version were cardboard compared to what we’ve got in the US version, which is why David Brent filled the screen too much.
They are two different shows. It’s common in th UK to do a few short series (seasons) with less than a dozen episodes each and then end a show. That doesn’t happen on U.S. networks (sometimes on cable). He knew going in that he was commiting to 23 episodes every year and (if successful) an indefinite number of seasons. If the UK one were produced under those conditions, it would have been different. As it was, he could plan out and write an entire series before shooting the first show. It is a lot easier to tell one story that way.
He’s been bought and paid for.
Ricky, your money’s on the dresser;
don’t slam the door on your way out.
Come back tomorrow.
Agree with James Spader! He was awesome last night.
Why could no one at EW be bothered to review Parks and Recreation from last night? It’s not in Popwatch, TV or anywhere else I looked.