'Watchmen's' test of timing

Two movie bloggers are stepping away from the keys tonight to debate the merits of "Watchmen" on G4 network's "Attack of the Show." Drew McWeeny of HitFix, formerly Moriarty from Aint it Cool News, and David Poland from Movie City News will join "Attack of the Show" live, in the studio for a roundtable debate starting at 7.

I hope the forum includes a pro-con debate over the relevance of Alan Moore's "Watchmen
today. Some reviewers say that so much time has passed since the Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan and the nuclear paranoia of the day that only updating to a present-day trauma -- and let's face it, we have plenty -- would have breathed new life into the material. Some say there's nothing wrong with taking a look at the past and turning it on its ear, especially as the past seems destined to repeat itself.

I'm in the latter court. Should we not have had movies made of a book like "Charlie Wilson's War," about the politician who helped fund the Afghans in their war against the Soviets, or a film version of the play "Frost/Nixon" because the interviews and historic context were a generation ago? If we don't understand the context in "Watchmen" of "silencing" Woodward and Bernstein to allow Nixon to continue as president, then who's at fault? The writer? The moviemaker for sticking to the source material? Or the readers and viewers who need to brush up on their history?

Without nods to the past, we wouldn't have had, for instance, the "Watchmen" war room scenes that were an obvious homage to "Dr. Strangelove." Or that great opening sequence that included a surprise on the grassy knoll in Dallas.

I agree with many critics that director Zach Snyder (pictured) was at his best when he was re-interpreting certain passages that were difficult in the original, such as that troublesome giant squid at book's end. But re-writing the history that inspired "Watchmen"? Alan Moore already did that. I'm glad Snyder didn't try.