I didn't see the 9/11 film "United 93," and I probably won't see Oliver Stone's upcoming "World Trade Center." But on August 22, I'm almost certainly going to buy "The 9/11 Report: A Graphic Adaptation."

Indeed, two comic book veterans, writer Sid Jacobson and artist Ernie Colon,
have brought 9/11 to the comic book world. Jacobson and Colon have based their
new graphic novel on the 9/11 Commission's final report on the terrorist attacks
on Sept. 11, 2001. I've read the report already, which is stunning in its detail
and surprisingly well written, and I'm extremely intrigued to see what kind of
treatment it will get as a graphic novel. Whether you agree with all the
findings of the commission or not, the U.S. government's version of the tragic
events that day should be required reading.

Aside from my interest in comic book artistry, there are more important matters
here. Even though 9/11 is still burning in most people's minds here in America,
far too many people forget that the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission essentially
flunk the federal government and the Bush Administration's efforts to secure
America and protect it from terrorist attacks. Most people don't realize that
President Bush and Congress have blown off the recommendations of the 9/11
Commission to improve the country's security. So while the 9/11 Commission
Report was released as a 500-page non-fiction book in 2004 and quickly became a
bestseller, there was hardly any call to action.

Perhaps that will change with "The 9/11 Report: A Graphic Adaptation." The new
graphic novel will be previewed this week at Comic-Con 2006 in San Diego, which
I will be attending. Jacobson and Colon will discuss their work with a few other
panel members and ask if a comic book can make a political statement and
motivate people to act. I, for one, can't wait to hear and see more.

Is the Entertainment Software Ratings Board doing its job correctly? Not by a long shot, according to Aaron Ruby, who co-wrote Smartbomb: The Quest for Art, Entertainment and Big Bucks in the Video Game Revolution with Heather Chaplin. In an excellent editorial on Next Generation, Ruby outlines a convincing case for why the ESRB's rating system is fundamentally flawed. For example, he points on the stunning fact that the ESRB doesn't actually play the games, which has become a major sticking point for censorship-happy legislators and anti-video game activists. Here's an excerpt from Ruby's column:

"I'm going to be completely reduced to a mess of carbon ash and caramelized
fat for saying this, I find it alarming that the ESRB does not bother to base
its ratings on the entire experience of playing a game, instead relying far too
much on submitted clips-not even complete gameplay run-throughs, mind you. Even
if you think the idea is unnecessary or even absurd, there's no getting around
that failing to do so lends an impression of incompleteness and an ad hoc
quality to the system that invites skepticism. It's like rating movies based on
storyboards."

If you think that Ruby is some fringe critic who has a grudge against gaming,
well, that couldn't be further from the truth. I interviewed Ruby earlier this
year about Smartbomb, and in addition to being a gamer himself, Ruby has a
wealth of knowledge about gaming after spending several years researching and
writing a book. Here's an excerpt from the href="http://www.twitchguru.com/2006/02/09/an_inside_look_at_the_video_game_indu
stry/">interview:

RW: Speaking of content, I've heard you're not fond of the game rating
system.

Ruby: I really don't have much respect for the ESRB. There is a serious problem
with the system when the people that are in charge of rating the games don't
actually play them. Playing a game and watching someone else play a game are two
totally different things. There are some things that can't be accurately
observed by watching. So the whole rating system approach is to observe the
content. But you have to ask yourself why video games are considered learning
tools. Is it the content or is it the design and the mechanics of the game? It's
not the content. Take Grand Theft Auto; I don't think the game teaches you how
to murder people. But Full Spectrum Warrior, which nobody ever criticized
because it doesn't have content that people deem offensive, shows you how to
shoot people and blow things up. So I think the uproar is part of a lack of
knowledge about games, and that's why the level of debate on the issue is so
low.

How low is the level of debate on video games? Check out my summary of a recent
Congressional hearing on
video games.

IGN has posted a story claiming that J.J. Abrams ("Lost", "Alias", "Mission: Impossible III") is in place to direct Stephen King's The Dark Tower series in live action form.  Now, take this with a grain of salt since no official word has been given yet, but King, who regularly writes for Entertainment Weekly did a story for EW with J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof where they each professed much admiration for the other's work.  That does lend some legitamacy to the claim, but it could all just be heresay.

I'm not sure how happy I am about this.  On the one hand, I'd love to see a live action, slavishly loyal adaptation as an HBO series, and with Abrams' television success that seems possible.  I don't think movies would work, and I don't think they'd be able to get the approval to do seven, which means they would cut elements out (probably the flashbacks, which are my favorite sections).  I'm not really a fan of Abrams' television shows.  I tried watching "Alias", but after reading that the ending didn't go anywhere, I lost interest.  The same thing happened with "Lost".  I know you "Lost" fans out there love your conspiracy theories, but trust me on this, guys...that show is going nowhere.  They are making it up as they go along.  I'll wait to judge J.J. until after I see some of this (if it is really happening).  I do think he has a good eye for direction, and as long as they don't steer too far from the books, I'll probably be on board.  My vote for Roland is Viggo Mortensen.

I just read an interesting bit of news on Chud.com about how Tom Cruise was interested in the upcoming "Watchmen" movie. Devin Faraci at Chud.com recently spoke with "300" director Zack Snyder, who's slated to the direct the movie version of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' epic graphic novel. Snyder confirmed that Cruise had expressed interest in starring in the movie and that the two had talked about Cruise playing the role of Ozymandias, "Watchmen's" smarmy, un-likeable All-American pretty boy superhero (pictured left, center).

Snyder added that he didn't think it was going to happen. Still, the idea of Tom Cruise as Ozymandias has probably upset a few fans out there. I must admit that I'm one of those obsessive "Watchmen" fan. I consider it to be one of the greatest works of fiction, let alone comic books, of the last 50 years. I've tracked pretty much every rumor and news report about the movie, and even though I think "Watchmen" may be next to impossible to pull off as a great movie, I'm still going to see it.

Still, I think the possibility of Cruise as Ozymandias is an excellent idea, and I agree with Faraci, who wrote that it would be "great casting." After my initial shock wore off, I started thinking about it. Of all the characters that Tom Cruise could play in "Watchmen," which one would be the best fit? That's right: Ozymandias. Here's why:

5. Everyone hates Tom Cruise right, so he's perfect to play a rich, devious genius known as "the smartest man in the world."

4. Adrian Viedt, a.k.a. Ozymandias, is completely out of touch with reality and drunk on his own fame and power. Sound familiar?

3. Tom Cruise can actually act, and when he takes on darker, non-Cruise roles like in "Magnolia" and "Collateral," he can be pretty damn good.

2. Ozymandias is a supporting role, and Cruise proved he could pull off such a feat with "Magnolia."

1. Of all the big-name actors that could play Ozymandias, I can only think of one that would be better: Clive Owen. He just has the right look, and he's a great actor. I know others have been recommended by fans - everyone from Jude Law and Brad Pitt to Val Kilmer and Matt Damon - but to me, Cruise is just about as good as any choice.

Of course, he could have another incident on "Oprah," in which case all bets are off.