I know this will never happen, but it'd be awesome to have some sort of pseudo-prequel where we got to see Nite Owl and Rorschach kick some ass back when they worked together.
That or a more in-depth look into the original, order generation of superheroes.
But mostly the former idea because it involves Rorschach and anything involving Roschach is immediately +1,000,000 points.

But seriously, Moore would never do it, and no one else should do it, so. Not gonna happen.

How come all the conversation stops when I post some good argument evidence? I mean, I spent all of ten minutes scanning stuff and junk.

Can I just say, and I know this sounds kind of mouthy, especially because I've only read Watchmen in part, but here goes, the entire concept of Watchmen seems kind of totally unappealing and depressing? Maybe it's because I find Alan Moore's work to be totally overrated, and the man himself to be kind of a tool, but come on... lame-ass heroes with no powers that are actually pretty much just knockoffs of actual characters in the genre? I mean, Nite-Owl. Seriously? It doesn't make it better that everyone acknowledges this as being 'ok', either. I understand there's a greater story being told, and some cool geeky stuff mixed in there... But I have to consider the source. I almost feel like it's insulting... like it's some subtle commentary on not just the state of the genre, but the genre itself. The concept.

Anyone who has ever adamantly recommended that I read Watchmen is the kind of comic book nerd who likes to pretend he isn't, which speaks volumes about the creator to me.

Not to say that you're totally wrong, (I'm just going to imply that) but the man wrote much of what is considered some of the most influential and powerful comics out there - Watchmen, The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, V For Vendetta... (And concetrate on the comics, rather than the movies here)

It's not just that he wrote works that still survive up to this day, not because of their novelty (Squirrel Girl anyone?) but because they're well written and well worked out, it's that he's this wonderfully eccentric man who's sheer character makes him interesting.

I must say, looking at those pics Seil posted, Gibbons uses yellow like no one else.

I want to see this movie so hard. 'Twill be EPIC.

I'm in the process of buying the graphic novel now. I'm told it was in the top ten greatest novels ever published. Not even graphic novels specifically.

I think that my problem with the man himself, as opposed to his works, is that he has impeded what could have been amazing adaptations of his work by refusing to support them or be involved at all. He hasn't improved anything by being difficult to work with*, excepting perhaps his own notorious reputation and thus his credibility in the eyes of critics. His eccentric behavior gives the impression of someone who is putting on a show, in his way... It's attention grabbing, and that seems to be the idea. It should be noted that I am talking about his professional relationships or his effect on them more than anything.

*this is not to say that he has not improved anything period, however.

Yeah, I'm admitting to some unfair bias here because I have to admit that his writing is really good, even if I feel a lot of it is overrated.

Yeah, only in this world do people cry urine!

Seriously though, the more I read about it the more I get excited about the movie. I saw the comic at Chapters but it was $29. 29! No way, good sir! Not after I just upgraded the box.

....
That's a pretty gigantic claim. Cause there a whole truckload of spectacular novels in the history of mankind.
Even if you said something widely regarded as genius, like Ulysses, was in the greatest 10 novels ever published you'd get a whole lot of dissent.
Let's not go crazy here.

Yeah, it'd be fairly ludicrous to rate Watchmen up there with the epics of literature throughout all of human history.
HOWEVER, Time magazine and Entertainment Weekly both rated Watchmen among the top ten pieces of fictional literature (not just graphic novels, but writing period) for the 20th Century, and I found that claim a lot easier to buy into.

EDIT: (Added the "fictional" in there because it's fairly important to note that Time and EW discluded 20th Century nonfiction pieces from consideration. IE, no biographies, scientific works like Hawking's, or great historical nonfiction, etc.)