I'm always quick to remind my friends when they're attached to a novel and aren't happy about changes made for the movie that film is entirely different medium and certain details that make a good book don't necessarily make for a good movie. For one, movies have to be much more ruthless about what gets included, as there isn't as much room for meandering subplots. And sure, I've told my friends that are hardcore Harry Potter fans that too. Some have conceded my points to varying degrees, while others argued. I suppose that because cinema is my favorite medium, I'm more sympathetic to the filmmakers who are given the task of turning the source material into a good film than I am the authors who are getting paid to sit it out and maybe give their input if they're powerful enough (like Rowling). Watchmen is a perfect example of something that's faithful to a fault, and while I like the movie...I would not exactly call it a 'good film' in the sense that I consider other good films to be good. I love the comics, I love BTAS, I love Batman in most incarnations to be honest, but to me Batman movies are something different and my expectations change as a result. In fact, I love it when the movies can introduce things into the mythology and surprise me (as all three films did). That said, the comics clearly offered a plethora of inspiration for these films, as stated by the filmmakers themselves and as noted by most fans who've been paying attention. I think the films were sufficiently influenced by the comics, so this rant really has nothing to do with the trilogy. I just think it's always important to remember the differences between one medium and another.