From the article (quoting Weide):

“In any movie, there are a number of scenes that get cut in an effort to keep the film from running too long. Some are of little consequence, but others are important scenes that are very painful to lose. In this instance, there were a few scenes that I fought hard to keep, but eventually acquiesced with the knowledge that at least they’d be available on the DVD. Well, not so in the U.S,”

The final release wasn't as good as Pegg and Weide hoped because the studio required them to cut scenes they felt were integral to the story. The extras (including said deleted scenes) would have restored some of the quality lost due to the cuts.

Good point, but isn't there a fundamental difference between how we interact with characters in a comic book and ones from a video game? Isn't the relationship between the reader/player different?

Anyway, this is a losing battle on my part. My response wasn't an appropriate answer, but I seriously think people should consider it....if we don't start thinking about innovation, we start thinking like the movie execs we all claim to loathe....

I acknowledge I missed the point (probably completely) but what is the next stage of evolution in the movie viewing experience? 3D? Higher definition sound/video?

What makes video games great? And why would ANYONE want to see a movie adaption of one? What's the additional appeal? So they can see somebody else play Gordon Freeman on screen (instead of playing him at home)? I don't understand the interest in that....

The problem with any video game-to-movie conversion is the interactivity inherent in video games that movies lack. Great video games (the System/Bioshock series, Fallout series, Half-Life series) involve not only story and character development but the player's direct involvement with the respective arcs. Although I enjoy watching and analyzing film, it is primarily a one-way exchange of thoughts and ideas (director/writer/actor --> viewer) and only very rarely does the transmission work the other way around (like when fanboys freak out and studios hesitantly oblige) and rarer still does it work in near real-time.

So, what's my point? With a traditional filmmaker --> viewer transmission of a movie, I think we miss a larger opportunity to envelop the viewer, a job performed with better and higher fidelity and success in video games. So, the big breakthrough for video game to movie adaptations won't be a mere "copy/paste" of characters and story from one to the other, but movies that attempt to enhance their interactivity and feedback response with the audience....

Perhaps, a story split into several short movies shown across multiple screens/theaters (obviously, this idea would work best in a city). All viewers would watch the first movie to collect the relevant background information on the plot/characters. From there, the viewer is given a choice about the next movie, how THEY want to see the movie to progress. By keeping the runtime relatively short (maybe 45-60 mins?) and having the movies shown in physically separate locations, this enables the viewer to affect their movie watching experience and emotionally (or atleast, temporally) invest into the characters on screen. Maybe the act of traveling to another theater or screen is part of the plot of the films, further blurring the line between film and film viewer....

This isn't quite the answer asked for, but anyone serious about media in general should take the best elements of each form (video games and interactivity/immersion; movies and its facsimile to reality) and transcend any single one.