There's a better than decent chance you've had an argument or debate with someone over which is better - Ricky Gervais' version of 'The Office' or the US remake.
More often than not, people will stress the fact that the UK version ran for just 12 episodes whilst the US version ran for 201 episodes. There'll be an argument that's there more quality to be gained from having fewer episodes than more. Others will point to the fact that it's a more purer, distilled vision of what it's like to work in a crappy office with a boss who's an asshole. Hell, even Ricky Gervais seems to think that way.
In a 2011 post on his now-deleted blog, Gervais said that the 'The Office (US)' had jumped the shark. "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," said Gervais. In a follow-up post, Gervais clarified his comments about jumping the shark, and said that "it's different to the original which I created and made with different ambitions."
This is a point that a lot of people tend to forget when they're talking about both versions. They are, in every which way you look at it, truly distinct from one another and share almost no resemblance to one another.
In fact, aside from the fact that they're set in the same environment, there's no real way you could honestly compare to the two. 'The Office' was starkly realistic, and induced comedy from the awkward interactions between the cast. It directly used the camera and the pauses between comments, and you very often didn't watch it without watching it through your hands. It lived off of cringe humour, and 'David Brent: Life On The Road' followed the same formula.
The US version of 'The Office', on the other hand, had a much broader palette to work with. There's no way characters like Dwight Schrute or Andy Bernard could make their way into Ricky Gervais' version. They'd stick out because they were designed for that show, not the other. The only character that has some kind of shared DNA with the original is Michael Scott and David Brent, but even in that, both characters are distinctly different.
Brent is sometimes a bully, has no sense of shame and lacks an awareness of himself. He's not exactly loveable, certainly not in the way that Michael Scott is. Both characters are the same - they're man-children, desperate to be loved and accepted by those around them, but the execution is entirely different. It's the same with the show as a whole. The execution is entirely different; so different that it can't really be compared against the other.
While the opening season of the US version of 'The Office' might have tried to adopt certain aspects of the original's format and style, it wasn't long before it shifted gears and moved onto its own track. Jokes were broader, the set-ups were getting more comical and the relationships - particularly between Tim / Dawn and Jim / Pam - became markedly different. Moreover, the fact that the US version had a much longer run meant that characters could develop and change as it progressed, rather than simply reaching a certain point and stopping dead.
Ultimately, it's all down to personal taste - but trying to compare one with the other, or say that one is better than the other on the virtue of it being shorter or the like, just doesn't work.
Just because one thing comes from the other doesn't mean that one is automatically better. It's possible that they can both be good and in different ways.