Just buy the graphic novel.

I've been struggling to find the right adjective to use to describe your story, but all I can say is thank you for telling it. It's personal accounts like this that really bring home the effects of war, and this is what happened to the victors!

I admit I don't read much non-fiction, but I hold a very special place in my heart and my life for Spike Milligan's war diaries which, along with the Maus graphic novels, taught me more about the reality of war than I ever wanted to know. Like your story they are so relatable and so full of banality and horror side-by-side that my disgust for the instigators makes it painful to try to see things from their point of view.

I try to eliminate unconscious bias where I spot it, but here I just can't. Unfortunately this disgust also stops me from wanting to learn more.

NOTE: [spoiler]The movies are a sequel to the books. We can not expect things to be the same every single loop[/spoiler], and you are trying to fit a 7 long books into what... 3 movies and 2 TV series? Plus covering a bit of the graphic novels and expected changes...

EDIT: Appears the spoiler tag doesn't actually work, though it is listed in the FAQ... unless one can see one's own spoilers...

Well, the comic it comes from (The Dark Knight Strikes Back) is widely regarded as a bit of a mess (the art is pretty terrible and the story is all over the place). Shame, since it's a sequel to one of the most important graphic novels ever (The Dark Knight Returns).

And then there's the Goddamn Batman.

Basically, Miller is insane.

*comics Adapted from a graphic novel "The Coldest City"

It's always funny when something with a long comic history comes into the mainstream and everyone debates it like it's something new that only exists because of other shows that exist in recent pop culture.

The real question is: Why are the Defenders -- who are basically Dr. Strange's "Avengers" -- comprised of the 2000s Marvel Knights minus Moonknight?

Why not Moonknight instead of Iron Fist?

It's not as simple as "punch-em-up" versus the graphic novel, artsy Alias side of Marvel. The Netflix version of The Defenders is weird and I'm just hoping they tie in Cumberbatch (Dr. Strange) and the "Matrixesque" side of Marvel with what is the "Lovecraftian" side of Marvel. The Defenders are more this dark horror magick side who fought against the Nameless One and his legions.

I'm sure the graphic novel is great, but this trailer just looks quite generic, which tends to happen when they make movie adaptations

It's way far from anything that is Star Wars. I have all the Graphic Novels at home and it's an amazing series.

It probably looks like everything sci-fi because so many other sci-fi films have drawn inspiration from the visuals from this late-60's graphic novel. Including starwars(heavily).

I thought the opening credits were fantastic, probably the one original piece that actually added to the work as a whole.

But the rest of the movie was basically just page to screen and it really didn't add anything.

I've read the graphic novel several times, but I really have no desire to see the movie again.

I enjoyed the movie. I read the book first, but only because I saw the trailers and wanted to see the movie, but I was advised to go to the source first. Perhaps because it was all fresh to me etc, that when I saw Zac's "moment montage" I was able to fill in the gaps.

I guess it depends on your definition of adaption. I feel that implicit in adaption is transformation or evolution. The story is in the telling no? Can you cut the story out, leaving behind all context, and still call it "Watchmen"?

The homage to Batman's suit is perhaps not literally true to the source material, but I think in some ways it is kind of true to the spirit of it. Here's Watchman, the graphic novel, was playing with our preconceptions of what makes a superhero comic book. Perhaps Snyder's intention was to use motifs of superhero movies in the same way Watchmen used preconceptions of its medium. maybe.

I disagree that it cannot be adapted to film. It could be done with a director that can function in a storytelling environment, which Snyder simply cannot do. The problem with Snyder was covered very well here recently, *related=http://videosift.com/video/Nerdwriter-Fundamenal-Flaw-Zack-Snyder-Batman-v-Superman
He was exactly the wrong director to have film this. I would have went with Del Toro or Whedon, but even they have their flaws.

Now, if the question is, can an adaptation be done that Alan Moore will feel 'suits' his vision? Probably not. He is an artist, in very good ways, but also in some very bad ones. He has a specific idea of how his creation must flow, which means he will never be satisfied with a medium outside of the graphic novel or comic.

Personally, I think one of the few un-adaptable works would be Gaiman's Sandman, but that's just my opinion.

I kind of get it. But on the other hand, every time you change mediums the way you tell the story changes. Every time a movie comes out based on a book (I mean an all-text novel, not a graphic novel / comic), most people that love the source book *think* that they want the movie to be a 100% verbatim adaptation. But the medium just doesn't work the same way.

Describing a setting or a character might take many paragraphs in a book, possibly spread out over multiple chapters or even multiple books. In a movie, *bam* -- you put it on screen, and you can see it. Done. On the other hand, describing a character's motivations can be done very succinctly or in great depth and detail in a book, but it is harder to do that in a purely visual medium like film.

Wolverine's color scheme and costume design works in comic books. His mask/hat thing with the horn-like points works in the comics. But in live-action film, what materials can look or behave like either or those things, and not be jarringly weird? Even cosplay type stuff is generally built to look good in still images -- not necessarily in video, being subjected to action-movie kinds of physical motion. I believe the directors / filmmakers when they say that they have tried more authentic costumes, and felt that they "didn't work".

Deadpool was a very good example of how it *can* work to move the imagery in a direction visually closer to the comic books. But I think the best we can hope for is a happy medium where *some* visual cues are adapted from the comics, in the situations where those things adapt well to the format.

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

No it's not right, and while my immediate response to a gender reversal in this situation might be disgust I find that having thought about it over the years makes me more aware of the double standard it implies.
I agree that prohibitions against sex between minors and adults are right and necessary; but I can't help but wonder if we called it something that didn't involve the word rape if it would change how we think about it. Rape is a very incendiary word and I don't think it always accurately describes what is really going on in these situations. I understand that teens can't give consent under the law, but teens occupy a place where they are neither children or adults and it seems disingenuous to assume that they are utterly incapable of acting on their own.
I haven't seen the movie but 'The Diary of a Teenage Girl' (or read the graphic novel, or seen the play for that matter) but it sounds like it talks about the issue without the usual hysterics.
http://www.npr.org/2015/08/13/431997207/a-diary-unlocked-a-teenage-coming-of-age-story-put-on-film
I would also agree with @lucky760, you didn't know that kid or any of the other people involved but you'll slap the victim label on him and expect it to stick, whether it's the truth or not.