Having also recently seen the british BBC TV version (6 episodes) this film is really poor in comparison.
I urge you guys to watch this, it really was fantastic. Paul Abbott involved with both but the film doesnt do the story justice at all.
I think most of have seen both will agree?
So I've been told. I'd love to find a north american dvd release of the original british series.
Let slip the Determined Kitten of Doom!share
Actually I think the film is quite an admirable adaptation. Perhaps it lacks the details of the TV version and it definitely has more cliches than the original material but all in all I'd say it's fairly well condensed and an entertaining film on its own terms
share
I agree, I liked the film. In particular Rachel McAdams is luminous in it and I liked the subplot about old and new media.
There's a few things I miss. Cal's son was good in the original, I also loved when they printed the blank paper and said "ask why we can't tell this story"
"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."
Cal didn't have a son in the original.
How anyone could imagine Affleck and Crowe could ever in a billion years replace the brilliance of John Simm and David Morrissey is beyond me. Simm IS Cal, there's just nobody else who could possibly do the role justice, and casting Affleck in Morrissey's role is just laughable. He doesn't have the acting chops or the gravity to play such a character. Perhaps in a generic American Hollywood remake where the audience has to be led by the nose through the plot because they haven't had practise at following intelligent programmes, casting someone like Affleck is perfect, but if you want actual *quality*, stick with the original.
They meant to say the editor, not Cal.
John Simms is so good. I first saw him in Life on Mars and was dazzled.
Then he was the best Master ever on Dr. Who.
Now I watched the mini series of State of Play and it was great.
The same dilution of quality happened when "Traffik" crossed the pond.
Original English production: fantastically real & compelling.
American film remake, as "Traffic": brain-dead dreadful (if pretty to look at.)
Perhaps an even better example of the effect you're describing would be the British 80s TV series Edge of Darkness which turned into just another Mel Gibson revenge-based shoot 'em up roughly drawn action thriller.
Or even Dennis Potter's The Singing Detective (perhaps the greatest TV drama of all time) which got turned into a fairly mediocre film with an admittedly pretty good Robert Downey Jr.
Once again, Hollyweed turned a wonderful BBC series with no stars and no 'pretty-boy' types, and turned it into crap with stars coming out of their ears. I believed the people in the BBC series because they were real, something that can hardly be said about star egomaniacs like Affleck or Crowe.
Life sucks, then you're reincarnated
It was a pretty good adaptation. I admit it wasn't as good as the original BBC mini series though. The film version of Traffic I thought topped the original Channel 4 mini series - though. After Traffic, The Singing Detective, State of Play, and Edge of Darkness what other TV mini series will Hollywood adapt?
shareI have not seen the BBC mini series. I loved the film version and was drilled into my seat in rapt attention. Perhpas it's because I had nothing to compare it with. Though I have seen adaptations of foreign films and TV series which seemed to stray from the origianl concept and not replace it with enough of a hook for us to hang our hats on.
That being said, I would not only encourage but make it a mandatory viewing for all the media and members of congress, the judicial and executive branches of government.
We have already seen private companies making billions of dollars from our government to act as "guards" and peace keepers because we do not have enough soldiers. We have also seen them shoot and murder people in Iraq for no apparent reason, (later insisting after the evidence had become to heavy to avoid,) "Ooops. We made a mistake." These folks are still acting as mercenaries on our dime and are immune from civilian and military justice. The owners of their company was the same one VP Cheney worked for. And they did indeed make billions of dollars. LORD! I would love to see a Congressional and media investigation!
Sifting through the evidence to get at the truth, even though what he might find could destroy his career, his friend's, and reputation of his friend's wife, Crowe's character is seen redeeming himself before our eyes to become the man he once was. To put the truth and ethics above laziness and cynicism. All the while, Crowe is fending off the pressure of the editor in chief, whilst educating the new hot shot blogger that just because she makes a couple calls then enters her keystrokes into her blog several times a day, doesn't make it so...doesn't make it the truth. The three main newspaper characters all go through the redemptive process while questing for the truth not truly knowing who their true friends and enemies lie.
In one of my lifetimes (no, I'm not Shirley McClaine) in my not too distant past, I worked for a newspaper selling advertising. What I did see and get to know about where reporters who worked damn hard to unearth all of the truth, as well as and editorial staff who wanted news, who wanted something the public responds too...but who also insisted on two sources...insisted on the truth. And we in advertising were another barrier for the newsroom when clients screamed foul play if they were mentioned in a far from positive story, or those who couldn't/wouldn't understand why after all the money they spent on advertising the news staff wouldn't do a puff piece on them. Either way, it is not only irregular and unethical, but it could weaken the news staff enough to lose community trust instead of displaying bjectivity and impartiality! The advertising staff simply would tell customers that having any dealings with the editorial side of the paper risked a conflict of interest. The lastl which any self respecting newspaper would avoid at all cost. Sonoma County should be proud of their paper and all those working so hard to fill our minds with reearched truth, rather than "payback" in the shape of a story.
State of Play, along with Absence of Malice are cautionary tales calling us all to the next chapter which we all must pick up our a banners, make space for the timely piece of vaulues of turth as they shovel through the one piece of mendacity at a time. The newspaper side of the story did finally redemption...did finally tell the truth. Now that they've seen truth, will they recognize and honor it or will they push it aside when no longer conveneint.
Both movies cry out for wider exposure and audiences...CAN WE GIVE IT TO THEM!
OP, right you are and the American version was only made bcuz the producer wanted a patch of Russell Crowe's butt hair for his personal collection.
Qui sitaque stultior me?
The American version was made because Yanks just can't leave well enough alone! As for your reference to anyone's predilection for Russell Crowe's butt hair - you probably know best!
shareI really liked the BBC version, but believe it or not, I liked the American version even better. Granted, I wasn't wild about some of the casting in the remake (Ben Affleck, Jason Bateman, Rachel McAdams as a combination of Kelly MacDonald and James McAvoy???). But I thought condensing the script added to the intrigue.
OK, feel free to start yelling at me...
They were both good, but the BBC version was clearly better. They involved more characters and developed a more interesting tale. Far fewer stupid cliches (i.e. Russell Crowe wasn't there) and a telling relationship with the police really brought the original up a notch. Oh yeah, and it was much more plausible having the oil company as the bad guys.
shareIt was much more plausible having the oil company as the bad guys.
I do prefer the BBC drama, but I don't put this down to the film makers. The TV version has a lot more time to develop characters and include more subtle details, and shortening this to two hours obviously means we miss out on some things. The film was still well worth making, even though there are elements of the original (my main one was the editor's son) that I wish they'd had more time for.
Although I loved all the original actors, particularly John Simm, the only one I really missed was Kelly MacDonald. I thought McAdams was miscast - she really did look like Bambi.
CAT - it's small, neat and doesn't care if you live or die! CAT - the dog of tomorrow.
I just watched the American version. Man...it was not good. None of the intensity of the British one. None of the intensity of the score, or of the editing, or of the acting. It just felt FLAT. And somehow...slower than the BBC original even though its only a third as long.
And wow did Ben Affleck suck and totally ruin the Stephen Collins character!
This just proved once and for all how amazing a director David Yates is.
Also, as someone who has worked for a newspaper (albeit, a student newspaper and a smalltown local newspaper, but that student newspaper was one of the tops in the country) I loved how the British film made me feel like I was actually in a real newspaper office. Everyone rushing around, making sure to tape record everything (In Britain, do they not have to ask permission? In America, you do), always on the phone or typing or whatever.
In the American one, EVERYONE is standing around. WTF. This is a daily newspaper. Why is everyone watching Russel Crowe type up the final draft rather than...you know...doing things? Why is no one copy editing or working on the design layout of the story or fact checking or anything? I never had these thoughts on the British one.