You can learn a lot by reading. But we're not talking about history books or science books -- that stuff's for squares. No, we mean you can learn a lot about movies by reading their book tie-ins before you go to see them. Not only are they packed with spoilers, they sometimes have intriguing behind-the-scenes information you wouldn't know otherwise. Such is the case with the two lavishly illustrated Watchmen movie tie-in books: Watchmen: The Art of the Film and Watchmen: The Film Companion. Read on, and check out the ten (non-spoilery) things we learned about the movie from these info-packed tomes.

Elton John's Rocket Pictures is putting together a new take on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. They won't just be taking the same old story and transplanting it to modern times, oh no. This new reimagining will be called Pride and Predator and while it will be set in the novel's original time period, things will be decidedly different when a murderous alien is thrown into the mix. Naturally, this got me thinking. First I thought, "Elton John? Really?" Then I thought about all the other classics of literature that could get new titles and add in a few monsters, robots, or general helpings of gore.

For those not in the geeky know, Neil Gaiman is a prolific author and comic book (or graphic novel if you are prissy about it) writer in the sci-fi/fantasy genre. He's a pretty damned big deal in that world (and it is a good world to live in), and now more and more of his written works have been getting the big screen treatment. Neverwhere was made into a UK miniseries, and MirrorMask and Stardust landed to a bit of a culty buzz on the silver screen. The newest adaptation, Coraline, arrives this week. This dark and twisted "children's tale" about a girl who stumbles into alternate version of her life has been turned into a stop-motion feast for the eyes that evokes The Nightmare Before Christmas. While we're excited about this new release, it only makes us want more, and considering the crap load of mediocre fantasy films that have been unloaded on to viewing audiences since The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter hit it big, it is about time we are given some fantasy that we might actually enjoy.

Decades before Watchmen was even conceived, much less finally shot for the big screen after 20 years of development hell, Frank Herbert's epic 1965 novel Dune was the embodiment of the term "unfilmable." So much so that even after two (two and a half, if you count Alan Smithee's cut, which we do) productions, no filmed version of this iconic science-fiction text has managed to fully capture the scope, depth, imagination and intrigue of this iconic science-fiction text in a way that truly satisfied fans.

But now Peter Berg, the director-producer responsible for Hancock, The Kingdom and Friday Night Lights (both the movie and TV series), has signed on to create another feature-length adaptation. Is the right filmmaker for the job? Do we really need another Dune movie? We say yes and yes. Here's why:

Inkheart is a movie of such potential, that takes such a cool idea -- a guy can make what's written in a book happen just by reading it aloud -- that you'll find yourself imagining the infinite possibilities: He could read Shakespeare and cause us all to have mistaken identities (or to die, if he chooses tragedy). He could read Austen and make us all eloquent and stubborn in love. Or he could read, say, Wilde, and we'd all be clever narcissists. [I'm not sure that's exactly how his power works, but I catch your drift. - Zach] But the possibilities go away rather quickly when you realize the writers have created a book, Inkheart, that will take up the bulk of the movie's screentime. And it will turn out to be an utterly meaningless book, with characters and plots we won't understand. Oh, and to top it all off, the movie itself will not follow its own rules or explain inexplicable occurrences.

Hold off on that diet shake and collagen injections: an actress was recently fired for being too thin and too young. Sienna Miller was reportedly released from Ridley Scott's Robin Hood movie because she proved to be too lissome a Maid Marian to the considerable bulk that is Russell Crowe. Reportedly (there's that word again), it was Crowe himself that demanded the cast change. One insider is said to have put it thusly regarding potential love scenes: "He's so old and fat, and she's so young and gorgeous. It's just... gross." So now they're looking for an actress with a few more years on her... and who doesn't look as though she'd snap like a piece of driftwood under the flailings of a bull elephant seal. Here are just a few suggestions for possible replacements.

Like a sweet, flaky Danish made with rancid butter, the possibility of a Breakfast at Tiffany's remake is impossible to keep down. Now gossip guru Liz Smith quotes Anne Hathaway as saying it would be "simply divine" to play Holly Golightly in a remake of the 1961 film that starred Audrey Hepburn in the same role. Okay, no, it wouldn't. Just ask Jennifer Love Hewitt about trying to recreate anything that Hepburn did first. Not so divine, was it?

I'll probably be disowned by everyone I know for saying this, but I think Leonardo DiCaprio is overrated. By no means am I saying that he's not a decent actor -- he can hold his own -- but I've never really thought the guy could transform himself into other people. He can emote with the best of them, and the man can deliver a line, but whenever I see him onscreen, I see Leonardo DiCaprio, not whatever character he's playing. Then again, I was sitting in the very front row directly in front of the air conditioner output when I went to see Titanic, which got coincidentally frigid right about the time Jack was freezing to death in the water, which made for a seriously miserable movie experience, so maybe I have a DiCaprio mental block. Anyway, whenever Leonardo decides on a role, it's always big news, and his latest pick is no exception.