Figs,
Films and books are different mediums. Something that works on the page may not work on the screen..hence the word: adaptation. Snyder's film may have faithfully recreated the comic but for the entire second act, it just sits there with nothing going on. That's not a good thing for film because of the limited amount of time you have to get your points across in a film. It just doesn't work.
I know they are different mediums and that what works on page doesn't work on screen.
You have to remember this is the book that they said couldn't be filmed the book so many comic lovers treat as the holy grail.
Yes, Snyder could have, maybe even should have changed things around a bit more, but I guarantee you that so many more fans would have been crying bloody murder. I think because so many fans held the source material up so high that doing it just about exactly like the book for the film was the only option to satisfy the majority.
There was a way to make Watchmen for the lovers of the books and for the general audience. Snyder choose not to because, quite honestly, he's no visionary.
First off I'll throw this out their so you aren't confused about my opinion...I don't agree Snyder is a visionary either he still has to prove that with future films. As of right now, no I wouldn't call him one either.
With that being said, no, he made it the way he did as a service to the fans of the graphic novel(which he is one of). He said he wanted to stay true to the source and make it as accurate as possible...doing that means alienating the general audience since the story is a bit out there compared to a lot of Hollywood fare.
And as for Snyder's comment about the typical Hollywood treatment, how does he explain, no matter what he says, the happy ending to his film compared to the comic?