Studio: 20th Century Fox. Production Company: Unknown.
Project Phase: Development Hell.
Who's In It: Unknown.
Who's Making It: Shekhar Kapur (Director); Dennis Feldman (Screenwriter); Vince Gerardis, Shekhar Kapur (Producers); Ralph Vicinanza (Executive Producer); based upon the Issac Asimov novel Foundation.
Premise: In the distant future, psychohistorian Hari Seldon proves that Humanity will fall back into barbarism throughout the galaxy. He creates a new field of science - psychohistory - to try and save some remnants for the survivors of the coming apocalypse.
Release Date: Unknown.
Comments: Asimov's Foundation series of books has been hailed as one of the classics of science fiction. The scope of the book is immense, and it deals with intangible and titanic mechanisms that shape human thought. Adapting it faithfully to the screen is a hard enough task; pulling off and delivering the philosophical richness of the book to movie-goers is going to be a tough job to do.
Back in 1994, TriStar Pictures purchased the movie rights and was trying to develop the property with a French director. The project remained stalled for close to two years until the rights were sold to New Line Cinema in February 1996, and screenwriter Dennis Feldman (Species) hired to work on a screenplay. Feldman has said that he will try and contain as much as the book into the screenplay and remain faithful to Asimov's vision.
Rumors: Unknown.
Scoop Feedback:
August 31, 1998... At one point a couple of years ago this project was on the start of development; now more than a year has passed and no official word has been heard about the hoped-for film version of Asimov's Foundation. Even though hardly any development has occured with this project, we've been scooped a tiny amount of news over the course of the last six weeks.
In mid-July an anonymous scooper wrote that the Dennis Feldman script had been officially dropped and the project had been placed in turnaround by New Line. Then, two weeks later we were told by another anonymous writer that Atlas Entertainment and the "producer of Twelve Monkeys" were looking for a new writer and hoping to set up the project at another studio shortly.
Another week passed and we heard some more news. The producer that the earlier (same?) scooper alluded to was revealed to be Charles Roven, who apparently also runs Atlas Entertainment. [All scoops submitted anonymously.]
Then, three days ago, another scoop. Another mention of Feldman's script being junked and the project being placed in turnaround -- but this time another mention of Atlas' attempts to breathe cinematic life into Foundation. "ATLAS is having trouble finding another studio who will take it on, mostly because everyone in town has already tried and failed to make it at some point in the past." [Sent in by 'HotDogger'.]
Will Asimov's grand tale reach theaters one day? Perhaps. It can only help this project when the revolutionary advances to special visual effects by computer generated imagery continues on unabated. As well, when other legendary novels are greenlighted that require such grand-scale FX, the chances of a Foundation film continue to grow. With the recent announcement that J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is set to be developed as three major features, and with the commitment from such as director as Peter Jackson who's passionate about the original material, perhaps Atlas will find the right studio and director who can also see the scope and vision of adapting Asimov's classic SF tale for the silver screen.
January 7, 1999... All we were told was "Expect ATLAS to have this project running at a major studio by the summer." That's it. [Anonymous.]
June 27, 2000... Faaascinating. Variety published a roundup of Asimov properties, and they stated that this project is over at Fox for Shekhar Kapur to direct. Kapur proclaims himself a big fan of Asimov since he was a kid, and the article says "Kapur turns the evil conqueror into an antihero who fights his own destiny to become 'a prophet of love.'" [Originally appeared in Variety; reported by Widgett and Steve Van Loon.]
October 1, 2000... Gary discovered that the URL www.foundationmovie.com is currently a redirector to Foxmovies.com. So we wondered...what other domains from the Foundation series have Fox nabbed? Well, we poked around a bit in WHOIS and discovered that domains for the first, second, fifth and sixth Foundation novels have been grabbed. That means that www.preludetofoundation.com, www.foundationsedge.com and www.foundationandearth.com are all redirecting back to Fox. Curiously, the third and fourth books in the series, Foundation and Empire and Second Foundation were still available. Which makes us wonder, does Fox not have the rights to them? Because otherwise, why wouldn't they have grabbed them back in April and May of this year when they did the others? Curious. [Thanks to Gary J. Harris for making us wonder.]
For those Asimov fans that are more knowledgeable than we, we left out Forward to Foundation since it was the last published and not in Asimov's own listing of the series. We also left out the "Second Foundation Trilogy," which was written by other authors at the request of the Asimov estate. But suffice to say, those URL's are not taken either. For more info on this, do what we did and check out the righteous Asimov FAQ.
November 26, 2002... "After a disastrous first draft and the poor performance of Kapur's FOUR FEATHERS, the fate of this film is resting on the edge of a knife," writes 'The Fox', a fellow who seems to know what he's talking about. "But a new treatment has been written that has finally gotten things right. Let's hope Solaris does well so that Fox does not have another reason to shelve intelligent sci-fi."
The only problem with our latest scoop is that The Fox neglected to tell us who wrote the latest draft of Foundation. Write back! [Scoop sent in by 'The Fox'.]
I disagree. The moments of humor in the LOTR movies so far have been very well-done, in my opinion (Merry and Pippin's antics, Gandalf threatening to bash Pippin's head against the doors of Moria, etc.) I was even okay with the line "Nobody tosses a dwarf!" (Regarded as blasphemy by some, but it goes by so quickly it's hardly worth getting excited about.)
In the Two Towers book, I found the "contest" between Gimli and Legolas as to who could kill the most orcs to be very amusing. Not slapstick, knee-slappingly hilarious, but amusing nonetheless. I imagine TTT will be of roughly the same caliber in terms of humor.
I don't forsee Jackson making Gimli into a joke character by any means. His role in FOTR was nicely balanced, with some great lines and some very emotional scenes in Moria and in Lothlorien. Hell, the only character to take a pratfall in the FOTR movie was Aragorn (during the hobbit "sword training" scene in the Extended Edition) and it's not like that sullied the movie experience for all time.
Moreover, Tolkien's work was itself not dark and humorless, but full of joy -- lots of jokes, lots of songs. That joy deserves to be translated to film, not made into something overwhelmingly gloomy. Grimness and maudlin has no meaning unless it has joy and humor to contrast with.
In the star wars episode 1 big battle, it looked like a bunch of CGI fighting more CGI. Granted part were robots, but they all looked robotic. I felt nothing, and it was due to the obvious cgi and actions.
Yeah, and in Empire Strikes Back all the AT-ATs look to me like models that are being clumsily animated with stop-motion, and Jabba looks like a puppet whose lips don't match the words, and there are big dark grey boxes aroung all the TIE fighters.
But my imagination took up the slack. I don't know where the idea came from that CGI is somehow supposed to supplant the moviegoing imagination. I think, ironically, it's because the effects look very close to realistic, but not 100% indistinguishable. Perhaps if they looked worse, the audience's imagination could fill in the gaps, but I doubt that will work anymore -- the audience simply expects too much.
No, the battle in Episode I is not easily mistaken for the "real" thing -- but it wouldn't have been any more convincing, IMHO, if it were a dozen guys running around in rubber Gungan suits as squibs go off all around. (Although it probably would have been funnier, at the very least.)
So, no. CGI isn't perfect. Special effects have limitations. They always have. I don't know why, all of a sudden, they're expected not to.
You should tell your brother his email is full of lots of unecessary, and not very interesting detail. His description of the book's problems are irrelevant. He should have just said "it is teh stupid."
And the slew of promotional and marketing gimmicks that have been an inherent part of Star Wars since day one...
Were you not alive in 1977? Merchandise has always been part of Star Wars. Merchandising makes money and keeps Pepsi ads out of the Coruscant billboards. More power to them is what I say.
Moreover, little kids like action figures. When I was a kid, I had a ton of them. Was I being marketed to? Was Lucas making money because I liked action figures? Hell yes. But I also got a whole lot of fun out of it, and many fond memories of my childhood, and many entertaining conversations with good friends about the cool stuff we had when we were kids.
And now, because I'm grown up and don't like action figures anymore, it suddenly has to be wrong and evil and George Lucas should die penniless and alone on some street corner for the unforgivable sin of spending his whole life trying to entertain himself and us, and kids today just don't get it and turn down that durn rock and roll music...
Give it a rest. If you're so principled, go make your own movie, with money from your own pocket, and then sell it at a tremendous loss. Then you'll have proved yourself the better man.
Lucas has said many times he's never had any intention of doing VII-IX, has never written anything for it, and has no story to tell beyond VI. And personally, I hope he never does. With each prequel the fans squeal louder about how it Isn't Like the Old Days.
At this point I'd like it if Lucas just finished up the prequels, put out the original trilogy on DVD to silence the whining legions, and retired. I like Star Wars, but the constant hype and vitriol has made me weary of the whole thing.
Yeah, Lucas is a monster. He should make movies that don't appeal to anybody and that no one sees, so he doesn't make any money at all. Then Star Wars would be perfect.
It certainly is certain games. If you have the chance, compare sometime Unreal Tournament on a high-end PC as compared to the PS2 version. The PC version is fast, attractive, a breeze to play, and very fun. UT on a PS2 controller is a complete nightmare. And the resolution stinks.
It's also hard to imagine games like Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate, Civilization, most RTSes, etc. working on the console. I'm not saying they don't exist on the console, but that it's hard to imagine them working.
Consoles are great for fighting, racing, and social games. They are not so great for quiet strategy games or RPGs, in my humble opinion. That may work for some people, but I just don't want to be in front of a console for hours. My thumbs get calluses and my hands (which are too big for most controllers) start aching terribly after too long. Not the case with a PC.
It's a variety of factors, but for me it mostly comes down to the kind of games. And it cuts both ways, too: I own a PS2 and a Dreamcast and I love Soul Calibur and DOA2. But I'd never imagine playing either on a PC.
Games, and the fact that I bought Photoshop for the PC years ago, and I'll be damned if I'm going to A) buy it again for another platform at its ridiculous price (or try convincing my employer to do so), or B) learn the GIMP or another program, because my day to day work life is busy enough without having to learn how to do everything all over again.
The same goes for a number of applications I use every day, and have little motivation to try to find the equivalent for on a different OS. Because that's hard work, and as Douglas Coupland says, "Hard work may pay off someday, but laziness pays off right now."
So, yeah, laziness and intertia. I've been using my Windows tools for so long, and use them so much, that to switch over to another OS because it's "better" is not something I feel I have the time for.
No, no, Iron Man's the one who's the lush... see, that's why he could barely beat Obadiah Stane aka Iron-Monger back in issue number... um, excuse me, I have to go kick my own ass now.
Re:For all those bashing "Blogs"
on
Blogger Hacked
·
· Score: 4, Informative
But don't compare blogs to a BBS... those were the days when you actually had to have a brain to get online, versus now
Give this man a 5, Funny!
I used to frequent a BBS. The rank stupidity I encountered there still amazes me -- I kept a few logs of some of those exchanges, and my reaction varies between thinking they must have been joking and wondering how they could even operate a keyboard.
Incidentally, that particular BBS is still running, more than seven years later. I've checked in on a couple occasions, only to find the exact same users, arguing about the exact same things, obsessing over the same miniscule and irrelevant BBS policies, carving the same mountains out of molehills -- seven years later. It gave me the chills. I sometimes wonder if they're not trapped in some kind of Sartrian hell.
The tools have advanced, there are a lot more people on the net now, but the general level of intelligence (on both ends) is about the same as it always was. What you see in an average blog isn't any more or less insightful than what I saw in the "Grips" or "Non Sequitur" forums on the old BBS.
Okay, whoever you are, I'm curious as to how on earth that's flamebait.
I understand if you haven't read your Lovecraft, so I could understand maybe an "Offtopic," but how do you get flamebait? I'm being disrespectful to fictional Mythos creatures the world over?
Unless of course someone has a mod-point vendetta out for me, which I wouldn't rule out. Seriously. I'm curious as to your motives.
After reading the Slashdot writeup, clicking over to the story and reading the article, and studying the user comments, I shall now launch into a six-paragraph attack accusing this gentleman of having too much time on his hands.
I hope you're right. And that is a good point -- if they are continuing the Starcraft license, there may be hope for a SC2 on the PC at some point in the future.
And yes, I am definitely looking forward to UT 2003 on the PC. (I can't understand how anyone can play a FPS on a console. I've tried it, and it's just alien to me.)
I don't condemn them for it -- I'm disappointed I don't get to play the game. Big difference.
If Blizzard came out and said Starcraft Ghost could not be played on anything less than a Pentium IV 2 Ghz with a GeForce5 and a 100 GB hard drive, I'd express very similar disappointment, because that would also be outside the boundaries of what I am willing to pay / go through to play it. (In fact, I will probably be making this very bitch about Doom III when it comes out.)
I mean, yes, I hope Blizzard makes lots of money, but I can only be so happy about a game I won't be playing.
I only used the "next-generation" term because it was in the write-up, and a convenient shorthand for "X-Box, Playstation 2, Gamecube." Sheer laziness.
Oh, touche, another Blizzard title exists for the PC -- my airtight argument undone! Curses!
Yeah, I have Warcraft 3, I like Warcraft 3 -- yet, I am more interested in Starcraft than I am in Warcraft, and so I am disappointed that the next Starcraft game is not available for the PC (yet). That's all I was saying.
I never said there was nothing left for PC owners. Obviously that's not the case.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/details/foundation.h tml
Foundation
Genre: Science Fiction.
Studio: 20th Century Fox.
Production Company: Unknown.
Project Phase: Development Hell.
Who's In It: Unknown.
Who's Making It: Shekhar Kapur (Director); Dennis Feldman (Screenwriter); Vince Gerardis, Shekhar Kapur (Producers); Ralph Vicinanza (Executive Producer); based upon the Issac Asimov novel Foundation.
Premise: In the distant future, psychohistorian Hari Seldon proves that Humanity will fall back into barbarism throughout the galaxy. He creates a new field of science - psychohistory - to try and save some remnants for the survivors of the coming apocalypse.
Release Date: Unknown.
Comments: Asimov's Foundation series of books has been hailed as one of the classics of science fiction. The scope of the book is immense, and it deals with intangible and titanic mechanisms that shape human thought. Adapting it faithfully to the screen is a hard enough task; pulling off and delivering the philosophical richness of the book to movie-goers is going to be a tough job to do.
Back in 1994, TriStar Pictures purchased the movie rights and was trying to develop the property with a French director. The project remained stalled for close to two years until the rights were sold to New Line Cinema in February 1996, and screenwriter Dennis Feldman (Species) hired to work on a screenplay. Feldman has said that he will try and contain as much as the book into the screenplay and remain faithful to Asimov's vision.
Rumors: Unknown.
Scoop Feedback:
August 31, 1998... At one point a couple of years ago this project was on the start of development; now more than a year has passed and no official word has been heard about the hoped-for film version of Asimov's Foundation. Even though hardly any development has occured with this project, we've been scooped a tiny amount of news over the course of the last six weeks.
In mid-July an anonymous scooper wrote that the Dennis Feldman script had been officially dropped and the project had been placed in turnaround by New Line. Then, two weeks later we were told by another anonymous writer that Atlas Entertainment and the "producer of Twelve Monkeys" were looking for a new writer and hoping to set up the project at another studio shortly.
Another week passed and we heard some more news. The producer that the earlier (same?) scooper alluded to was revealed to be Charles Roven, who apparently also runs Atlas Entertainment. [All scoops submitted anonymously.]
Then, three days ago, another scoop. Another mention of Feldman's script being junked and the project being placed in turnaround -- but this time another mention of Atlas' attempts to breathe cinematic life into Foundation. "ATLAS is having trouble finding another studio who will take it on, mostly because everyone in town has already tried and failed to make it at some point in the past." [Sent in by 'HotDogger'.]
Will Asimov's grand tale reach theaters one day? Perhaps. It can only help this project when the revolutionary advances to special visual effects by computer generated imagery continues on unabated. As well, when other legendary novels are greenlighted that require such grand-scale FX, the chances of a Foundation film continue to grow. With the recent announcement that J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is set to be developed as three major features, and with the commitment from such as director as Peter Jackson who's passionate about the original material, perhaps Atlas will find the right studio and director who can also see the scope and vision of adapting Asimov's classic SF tale for the silver screen.
January 7, 1999... All we were told was "Expect ATLAS to have this project running at a major studio by the summer." That's it. [Anonymous.]
June 27, 2000... Faaascinating. Variety published a roundup of Asimov properties, and they stated that this project is over at Fox for Shekhar Kapur to direct. Kapur proclaims himself a big fan of Asimov since he was a kid, and the article says "Kapur turns the evil conqueror into an antihero who fights his own destiny to become 'a prophet of love.'" [Originally appeared in Variety; reported by Widgett and Steve Van Loon.]
October 1, 2000... Gary discovered that the URL www.foundationmovie.com is currently a redirector to Foxmovies.com. So we wondered...what other domains from the Foundation series have Fox nabbed? Well, we poked around a bit in WHOIS and discovered that domains for the first, second, fifth and sixth Foundation novels have been grabbed. That means that www.preludetofoundation.com, www.foundationsedge.com and www.foundationandearth.com are all redirecting back to Fox. Curiously, the third and fourth books in the series, Foundation and Empire and Second Foundation were still available. Which makes us wonder, does Fox not have the rights to them? Because otherwise, why wouldn't they have grabbed them back in April and May of this year when they did the others? Curious. [Thanks to Gary J. Harris for making us wonder.]
For those Asimov fans that are more knowledgeable than we, we left out Forward to Foundation since it was the last published and not in Asimov's own listing of the series. We also left out the "Second Foundation Trilogy," which was written by other authors at the request of the Asimov estate. But suffice to say, those URL's are not taken either. For more info on this, do what we did and check out the righteous Asimov FAQ.
November 26, 2002... "After a disastrous first draft and the poor performance of Kapur's FOUR FEATHERS, the fate of this film is resting on the edge of a knife," writes 'The Fox', a fellow who seems to know what he's talking about. "But a new treatment has been written that has finally gotten things right. Let's hope Solaris does well so that Fox does not have another reason to shelve intelligent sci-fi."
The only problem with our latest scoop is that The Fox neglected to tell us who wrote the latest draft of Foundation. Write back! [Scoop sent in by 'The Fox'.]
I disagree. The moments of humor in the LOTR movies so far have been very well-done, in my opinion (Merry and Pippin's antics, Gandalf threatening to bash Pippin's head against the doors of Moria, etc.) I was even okay with the line "Nobody tosses a dwarf!" (Regarded as blasphemy by some, but it goes by so quickly it's hardly worth getting excited about.)
In the Two Towers book, I found the "contest" between Gimli and Legolas as to who could kill the most orcs to be very amusing. Not slapstick, knee-slappingly hilarious, but amusing nonetheless. I imagine TTT will be of roughly the same caliber in terms of humor.
I don't forsee Jackson making Gimli into a joke character by any means. His role in FOTR was nicely balanced, with some great lines and some very emotional scenes in Moria and in Lothlorien. Hell, the only character to take a pratfall in the FOTR movie was Aragorn (during the hobbit "sword training" scene in the Extended Edition) and it's not like that sullied the movie experience for all time.
Moreover, Tolkien's work was itself not dark and humorless, but full of joy -- lots of jokes, lots of songs. That joy deserves to be translated to film, not made into something overwhelmingly gloomy. Grimness and maudlin has no meaning unless it has joy and humor to contrast with.
I know.
In the star wars episode 1 big battle, it looked like a bunch of CGI fighting more CGI. Granted part were robots, but they all looked robotic. I felt nothing, and it was due to the obvious cgi and actions.
Yeah, and in Empire Strikes Back all the AT-ATs look to me like models that are being clumsily animated with stop-motion, and Jabba looks like a puppet whose lips don't match the words, and there are big dark grey boxes aroung all the TIE fighters.
But my imagination took up the slack. I don't know where the idea came from that CGI is somehow supposed to supplant the moviegoing imagination. I think, ironically, it's because the effects look very close to realistic, but not 100% indistinguishable. Perhaps if they looked worse, the audience's imagination could fill in the gaps, but I doubt that will work anymore -- the audience simply expects too much.
No, the battle in Episode I is not easily mistaken for the "real" thing -- but it wouldn't have been any more convincing, IMHO, if it were a dozen guys running around in rubber Gungan suits as squibs go off all around. (Although it probably would have been funnier, at the very least.)
So, no. CGI isn't perfect. Special effects have limitations. They always have. I don't know why, all of a sudden, they're expected not to.
Sim-ageddon?
I would definitely pay money for a Sims(TM) "End of Days" expansion pack.
You should tell your brother his email is full of lots of unecessary, and not very interesting detail. His description of the book's problems are irrelevant. He should have just said "it is teh stupid."
And the slew of promotional and marketing gimmicks that have been an inherent part of Star Wars since day one...
Were you not alive in 1977? Merchandise has always been part of Star Wars. Merchandising makes money and keeps Pepsi ads out of the Coruscant billboards. More power to them is what I say.
Moreover, little kids like action figures. When I was a kid, I had a ton of them. Was I being marketed to? Was Lucas making money because I liked action figures? Hell yes. But I also got a whole lot of fun out of it, and many fond memories of my childhood, and many entertaining conversations with good friends about the cool stuff we had when we were kids.
And now, because I'm grown up and don't like action figures anymore, it suddenly has to be wrong and evil and George Lucas should die penniless and alone on some street corner for the unforgivable sin of spending his whole life trying to entertain himself and us, and kids today just don't get it and turn down that durn rock and roll music...
Give it a rest. If you're so principled, go make your own movie, with money from your own pocket, and then sell it at a tremendous loss. Then you'll have proved yourself the better man.
Lucas has said many times he's never had any intention of doing VII-IX, has never written anything for it, and has no story to tell beyond VI. And personally, I hope he never does. With each prequel the fans squeal louder about how it Isn't Like the Old Days.
At this point I'd like it if Lucas just finished up the prequels, put out the original trilogy on DVD to silence the whining legions, and retired. I like Star Wars, but the constant hype and vitriol has made me weary of the whole thing.
Yeah, Lucas is a monster. He should make movies that don't appeal to anybody and that no one sees, so he doesn't make any money at all. Then Star Wars would be perfect.
I'll be getting them both.
Because one story is good doesn't render the other bad. I think they were both good series, for very different reasons.
That they're both set on a space station is pretty much where most similarities end.
It certainly is certain games. If you have the chance, compare sometime Unreal Tournament on a high-end PC as compared to the PS2 version. The PC version is fast, attractive, a breeze to play, and very fun. UT on a PS2 controller is a complete nightmare. And the resolution stinks.
It's also hard to imagine games like Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate, Civilization, most RTSes, etc. working on the console. I'm not saying they don't exist on the console, but that it's hard to imagine them working.
Consoles are great for fighting, racing, and social games. They are not so great for quiet strategy games or RPGs, in my humble opinion. That may work for some people, but I just don't want to be in front of a console for hours. My thumbs get calluses and my hands (which are too big for most controllers) start aching terribly after too long. Not the case with a PC.
It's a variety of factors, but for me it mostly comes down to the kind of games. And it cuts both ways, too: I own a PS2 and a Dreamcast and I love Soul Calibur and DOA2. But I'd never imagine playing either on a PC.
Games, and the fact that I bought Photoshop for the PC years ago, and I'll be damned if I'm going to A) buy it again for another platform at its ridiculous price (or try convincing my employer to do so), or B) learn the GIMP or another program, because my day to day work life is busy enough without having to learn how to do everything all over again.
The same goes for a number of applications I use every day, and have little motivation to try to find the equivalent for on a different OS. Because that's hard work, and as Douglas Coupland says, "Hard work may pay off someday, but laziness pays off right now."
So, yeah, laziness and intertia. I've been using my Windows tools for so long, and use them so much, that to switch over to another OS because it's "better" is not something I feel I have the time for.
Why stop now?
No, no, Iron Man's the one who's the lush... see, that's why he could barely beat Obadiah Stane aka Iron-Monger back in issue number... um, excuse me, I have to go kick my own ass now.
Give this man a 5, Funny!
I used to frequent a BBS. The rank stupidity I encountered there still amazes me -- I kept a few logs of some of those exchanges, and my reaction varies between thinking they must have been joking and wondering how they could even operate a keyboard.
Incidentally, that particular BBS is still running, more than seven years later. I've checked in on a couple occasions, only to find the exact same users, arguing about the exact same things, obsessing over the same miniscule and irrelevant BBS policies, carving the same mountains out of molehills -- seven years later. It gave me the chills. I sometimes wonder if they're not trapped in some kind of Sartrian hell.
The tools have advanced, there are a lot more people on the net now, but the general level of intelligence (on both ends) is about the same as it always was. What you see in an average blog isn't any more or less insightful than what I saw in the "Grips" or "Non Sequitur" forums on the old BBS.
Okay, whoever you are, I'm curious as to how on earth that's flamebait.
I understand if you haven't read your Lovecraft, so I could understand maybe an "Offtopic," but how do you get flamebait? I'm being disrespectful to fictional Mythos creatures the world over?
Unless of course someone has a mod-point vendetta out for me, which I wouldn't rule out. Seriously. I'm curious as to your motives.
I'm rather partial to "Yuggoth" myself.
So is the Bugbear's frequency Common, then?
YOU obviously haven't been around here very long!
Man, the trolls around here are getting fewer creative all the time.
After reading the Slashdot writeup, clicking over to the story and reading the article, and studying the user comments, I shall now launch into a six-paragraph attack accusing this gentleman of having too much time on his hands.
I hope you're right. And that is a good point -- if they are continuing the Starcraft license, there may be hope for a SC2 on the PC at some point in the future.
And yes, I am definitely looking forward to UT 2003 on the PC. (I can't understand how anyone can play a FPS on a console. I've tried it, and it's just alien to me.)
I don't condemn them for it -- I'm disappointed I don't get to play the game. Big difference.
If Blizzard came out and said Starcraft Ghost could not be played on anything less than a Pentium IV 2 Ghz with a GeForce5 and a 100 GB hard drive, I'd express very similar disappointment, because that would also be outside the boundaries of what I am willing to pay / go through to play it. (In fact, I will probably be making this very bitch about Doom III when it comes out.)
I mean, yes, I hope Blizzard makes lots of money, but I can only be so happy about a game I won't be playing.
I only used the "next-generation" term because it was in the write-up, and a convenient shorthand for "X-Box, Playstation 2, Gamecube." Sheer laziness.
Oh, touche, another Blizzard title exists for the PC -- my airtight argument undone! Curses!
Yeah, I have Warcraft 3, I like Warcraft 3 -- yet, I am more interested in Starcraft than I am in Warcraft, and so I am disappointed that the next Starcraft game is not available for the PC (yet). That's all I was saying.
I never said there was nothing left for PC owners. Obviously that's not the case.