Also worth noting (as I'm sure KB knows) that Alan Moore formally (and magickally) cursed the film project, and took the stance of donating his fee to Dave Gibbons the artist; a decision he later sheepishly and in good humour appears to regret, as it was a great deal of money.

In interview he has spoken about how the medium of literature, and particularly comics, allows the author to great thematic and visual links that bind panels in scenes separated by pages or whole chapters. This allow the reader moving at her own pace to flip back and forth between sections, absorbing the juxtaposed elements. This, he says, is impossible in a time-bound linear medium like a film. As he wrote Watchmen for the former medium, he believed it would never work as a film, particularly not a single Hollywood chunk.

At one point the adaptation was to be a mini-series under the direction of Terry Gilliam. Perhaps a better form, allowing more depth, but arguable it would have taken more liberty with the content.

Hollywood has a history of screwing up Moore's work. KB's right - this is the least worst adaptation; even some of the climactic plotting changes could be argued superior and neater; but for sheer depth and tone the original material is the way to go.