>For some things, technology is an enabler. I remember about 20+ years ago, when I read Arthur Clarke's "Rendevouz with Rama" thinking that it will make a great movie (and I still think that a good director could make a better movie than the book, actually), but at this time, the techniques were too poor to make it really impressive. I know it would be possible now, and I guess that there is some projects going.

I hope this movie is made, and that it's a big success, because that would mean that Hollywood has finally lost it and allowed for production of normal and good movies.

Until Hollywood crumbles into dust, Rama will not be made into a movie, or if it will, I will not spend a dime to watch it. You see, in Clarke's story there are no monsters, no master villains, no space fights, and generally, nothing that would guarantee a great commercial success (as per current recipe). So if Rama is made, it's either the end of Hollywood, or a bad movie.

>Well, sometimes is not enough with the author getting very involved. William Gibson was more or less involved in the two adaptations made from his work (Blue Rose Hotel, Johnny Mnemonic), the result was quite bad, in my opinion, mostly because they tried to translate the petty imagery that works ok on typeface, but can't support a movie.

I actually liked Johnny Mnemonic - IMO, it's as good as one can get at doing Gibson onscreen.