We spent much of the Christmas break binge watching the new Watchman series from HBO. For the most part is was a great piece of television that was compelling and steered clear of a bunch of cliches while also giving a nuanced take on contemporary controversies.

However the final couple of episodes revealed what I thought were real problems with the way that Veidt and Osterman are reconceived. Osterman’s depiction didn’t seem true to Moore’s alienated god and the whole idea that his abilities are a commodity that can be stolen, stripped, transferred or gifted also reduces the concept of semi-divine power to a transactional commodity.

Veidt says in the comic book that he isn’t a ranting villain when confronted in Karnak. Here though that’s exactly what he is. The idea of a diminished man past his prime is interesting but you have to connect that to the person that eschewed that persona before.

This excellent essay Dr. Manhatten is a cop gives a far better critque of the problems with the show’s re-imaging of the character than I can offer (and I totally agree that allowing the option of rejecting the power of a god would have made for a better ending).

So I ended up watching the Watchmen and it was, for the most part, great television. It’s revision of the canon was masterful but it couldn’t quite land everything it started and I wonder if a less ambitious scope would have allowed a lot more depth.