I read it for the first time when I was 17. At the time I thought it was the greatest comic-book ever written because of the fantastic story. But I only really saw the surface elements and missed some of the deeper themes and symbolism.

I'm now 25 and just reread it and now revise my opinion in thinking, no, it's not the greatest comic-book ever written. It's the greatest book ever written. Period. Each panel is laden with more symbolism than you can cram into an hour of "Citizen Kane." And the psychological profiles for each character are so deep they make oceans look shallow.

If it's been more than a few years since you last read this fantastic graphic-novel, then set aside your One-More-Identity-Crisis head-aches and take an afternoon to plow through it.

But now I'm so very worried the movie's going to be balls.

I'm curious as to how they plan to adapt the whole thing to the screen, and really question whether they even should... I don't know if there are any sequences in the book that just scream to be put on film, and while a lot of the book is/was new to comics, it won't seem particularly new to film audiences. So a movie likely won't confirm any status of "genius" on the book. But then, it's not like "Moby Dick" made the greatest flick of all time either.

... Who claimed that good books automatically made for bad films, and vice-versa, and used the films of Alfred Hitchcock as an example, by noting that a lot of Hitchcock's best films were made from "penny dreadfuls" that had truly earned that title. If I recall correctly, Queenan's sweeping statement was that good books primarily draw their strengths from characterization and use of language, neither of which he considered well-suited to cinematic interpretations (although the fact that guys like Quentin Tarantino and Kevin Smith rose to fame due in large part to their dialogue might counter that latter claim), whereas bad books rely primarily on piling plot developments upon plot developments, without really pausing to explain them or address their implications (depressing to see how much this is reflected in current superhero comics), which he believed were much easier to adapt for the screen. And personally, I think he has a point; John Grisham never rose above the level of a formulaic page-turner author, but even the mediocre movie versions of his work are much more watchable than any attempt to translate Moby Dick to film (Queenan himself used Moby Dick as an example, calling it "a great book" whose movie versions have all been "fucking dogshit" in his opinion).

And since Alan Moore said that he wrote Watchmen, at least in part, with the specific intent of showing how film couldn't equal comic books ...

First time, as a young fella, I thought it was okay.

Second time, a little older and wiser, I realized it was one of the greatest achievements of the medium and totally awesome.

Third time, I will peel it apart and nibble on the insides.

I never ever wanted them to make a movie, and I think the movie will be shit, but I'm hoping for the best. You never know. But most parts of the book are unfilmable, and they didn't get Ed Asner for Bernie or Adam West for Hollis Mason, so bah.