Yes, it's still fundamentally excellent graphically and in terms of characterization, but it no longer seems as mind-blowing as it did back in 1986. Super-hero comics are still full of the same Good-Guy-Beats-Up-Bad-Guy stuff that they've always had, just with different artists and costumes. The depth of super-hero comics certainly hasn't increased; if anything, it may have regressed since the late '80s.

In retrospect, one reason why Watchmen provided such exhilaration back in the day was because of the comic book's physical appearance. For the most part, comics before the mid-80s didn't look like Watchmen, with the then-fancy paper, the high production values, the ancillary material in the back of each issue, and the covers that looked like someone actually put thought into the design, rather than just slapping together something that looked, well, like a comic book.

Sad to say, as with the plots, the graphic designs and layouts of comics have retreated to their garish days.

On a broader scale, Watchmen's plot really reeks of the kind of Cold War thinking that turned out to be wildly wrong. And Alan Moore's black-and-white political speculation seems naive at best and laughable at worst, although there's still a good deal of validity to his overall views of the kind of sociological impact that a Dr. Manhattan would have.

Perhaps the most regrettable part of Watchmen is the ending. Several observers (including Sam Hamm, who wrote the screenplay for Tim Burton's Batman and the original Hollywood treatment for a Watchmen movie that never got beyond the planning stages) have pointed out that the only way the Bad Guy's plan would actually work is if he redid it in a different city every six months.

If you think otherwise, look no further than the World Trade Center attack--the world was gushing with Unity And The Fight Against Terrorism for about, oh, two months or so. Now the world is back to criticizing almost every move America makes.

Granted, Watchmen's climax is on a much larger scale than the WTC (which was terrible enough, don't get me wrong), but ultimately, you'd still have the same reaction. Yes, the world would tremble for maybe a year, but then people would get back to their old ways; it's too implausible to expect people and nations of the world to abandon their ways almost overnight. Even the destruction of a major city, in and of itself, could not possibly overthrow all of human history preceding it.

Perhaps the best example would be the biggest catastrophe in human history, World War II. You would think that a conflict that ruined two continents and a significant chunk of a third might cause people to think about world peace and unity. And they tried, which is why we have the United Nations. Unfortunately, the good feeling didn't last long, did it? The world is as conflict-ridden now as it was in 1939, perhaps moreso. And if World War II couldn't do it, it seems highly unlikely that Our Villain's "masterstroke" would be any more effective.