>The reason is obvious: while adaptations don't have to be and shouldn't be an exact duplicate of the original material, it's annoying when a movie seems to ignore the *spirit* of the original work. It usually ends up seeming like some producers just wanted to make a quick buck and decided the easiest way to do that would be to license something with an existing fanbase.

I'd just like to point out that you're assuming the spirit of the original work was ignored based on about three minute's worth of trailers with edits every five seconds and very little dialogue.

When the movie comes out, the Mina character may in fact be all that she was in the comic book series, simply with vampiric abilities. Who knows? Maybe the vampire scene was from a character's nightmare in the film.

To complain that the movie betrayed the spirit of the comics based on viewing of one or two fast-paced trailers... Well, I've seen two different commercials for some movie called "Holes". In one, it looks like it's some sort of horror/suspense film. In another, it looks like a remake of Meatballs.

(I'm also reminded of the legion of comic book fans who where incensed that Michael Keaton was going to play Batman. When the movie came out, he didn't stink on ice counter to fanboy predictions.)

The only thing I didn't like about the trailers is the movie makers apparently think that "extraordinary" begins with the letter "X".

-FP