All of which, I think, you hit perfectly on the head. It'll take a bit of "historian-ism" to learn more... but I suspect we'll definitely see a remarketing of the graphic novel at the time this film comes out, and it'll sell very well.
The filming style is definitely a bit too derivative to the "300" style, from this brief trailer... but I hope that the actual film isn't so much that way. I'm not a fan, AT ALL, of the "music video" style of moviemaking.
There's no question that the recent... "re-advent?"... of the superhero movie is behind this finally getting green-lit. But Watchmen was never a "ripoff" of the superhero genre. It was, alongside Alan Moore's other work of the time, "Swamp Thing," really the first ADULT-oriented comic work. Seriously, there's stuff in this book I'd never let a kid under 14 read. Sexual, violence (real, not "comic book-ish"), deep political/philosophical stuff, you name it.
Basically, when Moore wrote this, the idea was a totally new one... what if there were really "superheroes?" What effect would they have on the world we actually live in? What kind of people would they REALLY be? (Hint... no clear black and white answers, and no "make the world a better place" happy-happy answers).
Watchmen basically redefined everything in the genre. I still keep my inch-thick paperbound copy on my bookshelf next to Dickens, Conan-Doyle, Wells, Stevenson, etc.... I consider it a true classic of the same level.
As has been commented on by others by now, I'm sure, this more than a little bit true... but separated by a few degrees of separation.
In the '60, Charleton Comics came up with their own stable of "superhero" comics. These included, among others, The Question (who wore a trenchcoat, fedora, and a mask that hid all aspects of his face), The Blue Beetle (a normal, if rich, man who used his fortune and his technological skills to fashion a crimefighting persona), Captain Atom (a man who was disassembled in a nuclear test and reappeared as a living nuclear reaction) and a lot of others...
When Charleton went under, its assets were eventually purchased by DC, but left stagnant for a long time. Moore decided to take these characters and put them into a "real world" situation. Eventually, though, DC decided to reinvent these various characters and bring them into the DC fold. So Moore had to "reinvent" his reinventions again... The Question became Rorschack, Captain Atom became Doctor Manhattan, The Blue Beetle became Owlman, and so forth.
Each kept it's core aspect in his reinvented storyline, but each was renamed to keep the "original" character names available for use.
So... technically... this is Moore's riff on a character who, originally, was a 1960s Batman ripoff. You're 100% correct!
The term is really more appropriate... comic books, by definition (at least at the time this was published) were by definition INTENDED FOR YOUNG AUDIENCES (with a few exceptions like "Heavy Metal"). Most people, when seeing the term "comic book" immediately assume (or at least did at the time ) "appropriate for children.
The decision to use this term to describe the book was in large part due to the extended, complicated, and extraordinarily prose-heavy nature (there are large portions of the book which are NOT "comic book" at all but are direct written prose) but more importantly to keep the kiddies away from stories of "superheroes" who are self-destructive, emotionally and psychologically perverse, drug-abusing and sexually ... ahem... unusual. Who, for the most part, are extremely UNHEALTHY personalities and in no fashion whatsoever "role models."
At the time, this was totally unheard of. (The closest they'd ever come, before this point, was the brief period in the early 70s when they'd had Green Arrow go from another "batman rip" into an extreme-leftist icon, and they'd had his ward become a heroine addict for a while... this, while viewed critically as important, was never accepted or commercially successful so it went away quickly.)
"Graphic Novel" is undoubtedly the best term... I think this book may well have INVENTED the term. But you're right that many people will see this as "self-aggrandizement." If they go out and "read the comic book" afterwards, though... they'll change their mind quickly enough!
??? What "Zach Snyder connection?" Maybe I'm out of touch with "those young people today" but I'm not aware of his being a big name, huge box-office draw. He's a virtual unknown as far as I can tell... no more or less well-known than, say, Chris Pine. Am I mistaken?
Of course, this teaser barely gives you a glimpse...and tells you ALMOST nothing about the world of "Watchmen" or of the ideas behind it. I hope that later advertising does a better job... but realize that this trailer really was targeted at "the faithful." Every image in that video was one of the most iconic, recognizable images from the book.
It's up to the later advertising to illustrate that, say, due to the presence of Doctor Manhattan, who single-handedly won the Vietnam war for us, Nixon is still serving in his eight term as President... and "costumed adventurers" are outlawed unless in the direct employ of the US Government (like The Comedian or Doctor Manhattan). They need to play the appropriate songs... "All Along the Watchtower" for instance... which played so heavily into the story.
Marketing needs to demonstrate that this isn't "just another superhero riff" but is, instead, "our world if these people existed."
The only real fear that most of us have is that there is WAAAAY too much story to possibly tell in a single movie. It's more on the order of "Lord of the Rings" which also couldn't have been told in a single movie (hell, even the three extended-length editions left out huge chunks of the story, remember!).For me, the fact that so many people like this story, and that an amazing range of interesting actors are in it (Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Carla Gugino, Billy Crudup, Jackie Earl Hayley, Patrick Wilson, Matt Fewer) is more than enough to sell me on it. Actors of their caliber wouldn't sign on to some empty, brainless "comic book" movie. I'm really looking forward to this.
If you see this movie, what you'll be seeing, at BEST, is a "Cliffs' Notes" version of "Watchmen." An massively invasive abridgement.
Whether or not they somehow manage to still keep the kernel of the story remains to be seen. I'm hopeful but skeptical.
At least they've gotten MOST of the look right. My one massive complain is Adrian Veidt... his "Ozymandias" costume was intended to be utterly reminiscent of a Caesar... Roman in every way... brightly colored robes, golden circlet, bronze breastplate, sandals, and what is VERY important (and totally left out of the movie costume as well), the "All-Seeing Eye" symbol. The movie "Ozymandias" costume looks like "just another superhero outfit." Which totally misses the point of this character who sees himself as a God just as the Caesars did.
See this page for images of both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozymandias_(comics)
