bout the only thing that crossed my mind a few times was what KOTOR2 would look like with current generation graphics on the level of Fallout 3 but with more style.

You're in luck - it's called Mass Effect. ;-)

I'm amazed you got modded at all, you AC fuckwad. You obviously struck a chord with some other annoying halfwit in here. I'm trembling at your anonymous threats! I'm also glad that you hate my choices in music, because I don't listen to your friend's (singular) shitty garage band that no one has ever heard of or ever should.

I'd explain at how my life doesn't resemble at all what you seem think it does, but you're obviously a cowardly little shitbag whose mother didn't love them enough, so I'll leave it at the little bit that I already did.

It's funny, I used to disdain NPR. The image of tatty-clothes-wearing hippies running a radio station always kind of turned me off. Perhaps not surprisingly, as I've gotten older, I find I listen to them almost exclusively. I can't stand regular for-profit radio anymore. It's all the same, a constant noise barrage littered with commercials and moronic DJ's. It's not that I don't like the music (although I avoid most bubblegum pop), my iPod is wide and varied (Metallica to Rammstein to Sigur Ros to Perfume Tree to Beethoven). But I find something very refined about NPR, and find all that they do well-thought and well-presented. Hell, I've even started listening to A Prairie Home Companion. Click and Clack are my weekend appointment, however, I try not to miss a show if I can help it.

I agree; sadly, I saw the movie YEARS after I read the book, so that's absolutely true - not only did I already know the character would go nuts, but fercrissakes, it's JACK NICHOLSON!

It's a beautifully (in the cinematic sense, maybe blood pouring down a hallway isn't technically "beautiful") shot movie that captures the feeling of "cabin fever" that the author intended, IMO. It's just based on a completely mediocre book using a totally miscast, er, cast. It didn't help that can't STAND Shelley Duvall - what a shrieking shrew. Go eat a cheeseburger for god's sake, you hop-headed drug-addled dope fiend. (Shelley Duvall, not you ;-) )

You owe me a new monitor and keyboard.

As I've said in another post, I'm not a comic fan. That said, the appeal for me in any comic-based narrative (the comics themselves, a movie, a TV show), is the character's personal story and circumstance as to how they got to where they are, and how it affects what they do in the here and now. I would suspect that for most comic fans, that's probably true as well. Maybe I should become one. :)

That's precisely what attracted me to The Watchmen... Each of the characters has a pretty interesting backstory, and the pleasure is in watching it unfold to get you to the point where they become a "team". I am honestly not interested in the "BIF POW SOCK BAM OOF!" part of comics. I like me some action like the next person, but without the good narrative to back it up, then they ARE precisely as you describe - interchangeable. I find myself FAR more interested in the NON-power superheros - Batman, Iron Man, etc. The regular Joe who decides to take on evil with his own bare hands. I can honestly say I don't give a shit about Spiderman, Superman, etc. I think it's because I feel that it's forced the creators to, well, be creative in how they adapt themselves to become more than your average man, more than "TEH GAMMA RAYS GAEV HIM SUPARPOWERS LULZ!1!11!"

I'm going to stop talking about superheroes now, because not being a comic fan, and I'm on the border of really starting to show my ignorance. ;-)

Well, the argument is whether a faithful representation can be made, yes. I've read The Shining. I *was* a big Stephen King fan, years and years ago in my youth. I *am* a big Kubrick fan. I dislike both the book and the movie. But I would say that the movie, while obviously and noticeably different, didn't hack the story into snack-sized chunks so digestible by today's audiences with the TV-induced attention spans of gnats, like most movies do that are adapted from novels these days. In fact, that could never be said about Kubrick; his movies are methodical and precise, when I'm being kind. Plodding and ponderous when I'm not - I'm looking at you, Barry Lyndon (the one Kubrick film I don't need to see again). I'm continually surprised to hear that King didn't like Kubrick's adaptation; I thought he did a remarkable job in capturing and reinterpreting the novel, as you accurately describe a director's job to be.

But this strays from the point. Of course I don't want a word-for-word, page-by-page regurgitation of a novel. But I also want a movie to at least resemble the novel that I've read; to do otherwise is misrepresentation. And movie studios, knowing this, very often create boilerplate contracts with authors that basically allow them to do this; I'm assuming mostly because they KNOW what's involved in faithfully representing a book, and for the most part they are incapable of doing that. The contract allows them to hack things to pieces, slap a high-paid actor's name on it, and call it "art".

To struggle to keep this on topic (which is often a task for me), I see this in no more prevalent situation than the comic book realm. I think that most comic creators don't have the kind of clout a big-name author does, and as such have even less power to protect their interest. Stan Lee is maybe the exception, and I think that his stories seem to have done well, for the most part. I should also state that am no comic fan; I can't tell you the backstory of any "superhero" besides maybe Spiderman and Superman. But I did read the Watchmen, a few times. And I can say that I can't conceive of a way that this movie will be anything other than a meandering mess, given the characters involved in the book and the short time in which to tell ALL their stories, plus their conjoined story(ies). I'd be happy to be proved wrong, however.

LOL, touché.

I don't know that "elitist" is necessarily the right word to use when describing people unhappy with a cinematic remake that in no way resembles the original material, but your point is still valid. I would argue based on that, however, that when a book has 1,000 pages and is well-received, then I'd posit that those 1,000 pages are there for a reason. There just isn't a way to do that justice in 120 minutes worth of film - even if a picture IS worth 1,000 words. There's simply too much content to convey. That's why I argue a mini-series with a good budget might be more appropriate for something like Watchmen. Yes, I know that Watchmen doesn't have 1,000 pages, but it's a pretty dense book nonetheless.

All this arguing about it amounts to precisely nothing, however, as no one asked us to make the movie. We'll just have to wait and see what they can or can't do with it. ;)

Ditto. I think the format alone (feature film vs. miniseries with a good budget) is going to make it suck, let alone your point about capable directors (or writers, for that matter). I don't know how you can cram that entire graphic novel into a 2-hour movie.

I would believe that there is more regulation, however small, happening at companies who are doing it for profit that Joe Sixpack in his garage, despite what the conspiracy theorists may think.

However, it is still important to remember that some tiny garage startups do succeed, dramatically in certain cases.

Very true... look what these guys did!

Pretty much my thoughts exactly when I read the article. There are markets for both, and they are not exclusive.

Same thing with champagne, although it seems that makers from the actual region of Champagne have been a little more successful defending its marketing use as an exclusive right for that region only. Still, it is consistently misidentified in the common vernacular.

If they do it for the Xbox360, then it might stand to reason that Media Center might follow? Dunno, the whole article is nothing more than speculation at this point. But it's from someone (Shane Kim) who, if anyone knew if it were a possibility/in the pipeline, it would be him.