P.S. It would be nice to see this Watchmen materialise at some point. It's hard to imagine they could do the comic justice, but it's good to see things falling into place for this one.

Now, can you distill its base elements and make a workable movie out of it? Probably. But the appeal of Watchmen is in its sum, not its parts. It might be a good movie -- heck, it might be a great movie -- but it won't be Watchmen.

Please note that I'm not calling the book a big pile of shit. I love Watchmen as much as anyone.

The fascinating thing is that this isn't a new phenomenom. It goes back centuries. It's like, Washington so stunned the world when he resigned his commission in 1783 that society expects everyone to follow his example or risk condemnation.

The writings and the revolutions of the 18th century, however, destroyed that in the West. By 1790 it was, as John Adams said, just Freemen and Slaves (it's amazing how fast indentured servitude disappeared in America after the war was over), and then within a few more decades, even that separation was removed. So everyone is equal except by their talents. The protectors are braver or more powerful or whatever, and I think that's a different distinction to handle than, say, something based on intelligence. I don't resent Physics professors because I understand that they obviously possess a skill set (both in intelligence and in personality) that I do not. But when the only difference between you and your protector is their level of commitment, it's easy to see why jealousy and derision would form.

Plus I'm feeling snarky this morning. I'll give Zach the benefit of the doubt.

For now.

you know it just *feels* right

I love this book. It doesn't need to be made. Don't do it.

Realistically, Watchmen doesn't have a chance to be three 3-hour films, which it easily could *and should?) be to tell the story right (maybe three 2-hour films would suffice.) And if it has to be relegated to 3 hours or less, then I say DON'T FILM IT. Everyone should sit down with the comic and just enjoy it for the great work of literature it is.

Putting it on the big screen won't make it any better, esp for those of us who already appreciate it in its original illustrated form.

Regardless of whether you liked Unbreakable (I loved it), that is sort of the tone and pacing they will need. Not some flashy eye-candy, but a character study. Make it 2.5 hrs long and add in an edgy, harsh (someone earlier used Taxi Driver - that would be a good template) tone.Rate it R and shoot for an older crowd and don't worry about "because there are superheros, we gotta make toys, so we gotta make a kids' film."

It *can* be done.

Everytime you post the phrase "Ain't It Cool News" or "AICN", you owe Harry $100 because it makes baby Jesus cry.

A talkbacker above mentioned Stanley Kubrick as a director for WATCHMEN and that is the most perfect idea I have ever heard. I'm surprised that I hadn't read that suggestion SOMEwhere before.

There were 12 years between Full Metal Jacket (1987) and Eyes Wide Shut (1999), what the hell was he doing?! He could have directed it in 94, 95, 96, and he would have been able to use what CGI he needed.

In an alternate universe there is a Stanley Kubrick directed WATCHMEN.

other casting ideas: tim roth= Rorschach, adrain veidt= val kilmer or cary elwes , doctor manhatten = ed harris, slik specter = cathrine zeta jones or demi moore.