I really liked the movie, until they got to Antarctica. It was at that point that I felt like they messed with things way too much and kind of destroyed the whole point of the book.

Anyway, I did like Rorschach. The actor looked exactly like Kovacs in the book, it was weird.

I would like to hear why you feel that way Smiles. I mean, I think in the end despite the changes it ended pretty much the same way. They got to the same place, just a little differently. I honestly don't think the book ending would have worked very well on screen.

Well, first in the book Veidt's position is much better defined. Reading it you are put in the same dilemma that the characters in the book are put in asking yourself if what Veidt did was right. However in the movie that question was answered for you, and did not make you think as much.

Secondly, the removal of the final conversation between Veidt and Dr. Manhattan. Instead of Dr. M, telling Veidt he was leaving to go make life somewhere else, he told Silk Specter, and there were also the final words to Veidt left out. Where Manhattan tells Veidt that nothing ever ends, then abruptly leaves, leaving Veidt wondering what he meant and thinking that maybe he hadn't won. Not just Laurie talking to Dan.

Lastly, wasn't Veidt really concerned about loose ends? Didn't Laurie and Dan leave Antarctica disagreeing with what he did and wanting to do something about it in the movie, so why didn't Veidt kill them. However in the book they both decide they are ok with it.

I don't know, I thought Laurie and Dan left realizing that it had to be done, just with a bit more turmoil. I think Manhattan leaving while a little different than the book, ended with him in the same place, most likely gone forever. I mean, if he didn't agree with Veidt, he wouldn't have killed Rorschach. I agree with you about Veidt's character in the movie though. I just think Snyder and co. did what they had to do to make the film slightly more accessible.