Keeping the setting in 1985 I think enhances the story in a very different way – perhaps in a way that’s not what Moore or Snyder intended. It’s meant to be a parable on the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction, but ultimately, though we have lots of great threats today, nuclear brinksmanship is something that’s not a threat to all ciites but a single one – either by terrorist attack or a “rogue” nation. It’s horrible but it’s not the end of all mankind.

So Veidt is wrong. His attempt to “save” the world is potentially unnecessary, even in a Dr. Manhattan version of 1985. The people he kills to create a new world could have kept on muddling through the old one for a long time, just as we do.

I actually saw this last year as part of the Tribeca Film Festival. The film does have some smart moments, but Kennedy’s point – that crtics and hecklers are cruel to the creator rather than the work, gets lost because he himself makes fun or the critic and hecklers not their work. The focus should be “Why call me a rape baby if you hate the movie?” not “Your lack of sexual experience makes you unqualified to talk about my film.”

More on what I saw here:
http://www.dead-frog.com/blog/entry/jamie_kennedys_heckler_if_you_cant_say_something_nasty/