I agree - but the distinction today seems to be teasers don't tell you the story and trailers do. That's the best I can tell anyway

Interesting.... I don't think I was cognizant that teaser and trailers were different. I think if someone asked me what the difference was I would have said duration.

Yea, teasers are generally giving you the vibe of the movie without any real details while a trailer is a sort-of-synopsis of the story the marketing team wants to to have in mind when you decide what you're doing this weekend.

Sorry, contranym or auto-antonym not antonym

Wiki examples:

• Cleave can mean "to cling" or "to split apart".
• Clip can mean "attach" or "cut off".
• Drop can mean "release or make available" (e.g., a music record) or "abandon or discontinue".
• Dust can mean "to remove dust" (cleaning a house) or "to add dust" (e.g., to dust a cake with powdered sugar). This contradiction features in the children's book Amelia Bedelia.[9]
• Fast can mean "without moving; fixed in place", (holding fast, also as in "steadfast"), or "moving quickly".

I found it interesting that "abash" is a synonym. "Abash" is a word I've only ever seen or used as "unabashed."

I think that's just fine. Wanting movies to be 'adaptations' of books is like wanting horses to be 'adaptations' of birds. They have some things in common, of course, but the idea is misbegotten. A good movie can steal some ideas from a book, but that's all: movies are their own thing, they are not like books.

I didn't even like the first two Dune movies very much, but I would have liked them a lot less if they had tried to clone the books more than they did.

I think this matters only when you see the movie version of a book you've read. If you see the movie first then read the book, I wonder if preferring the movie is more common. Is your first introduction to the story normally the preferred version? The only book I've ever read after seeing the movie was Stephen King's Firestarter, but 30 years passed between me seeing the movie as a kid and reading the book last summer so I don't have personal experience to fall back on here.

However, I think that generally the more the movie strays from the book the less I tend to like the movie. The Silo series, the adaptation of Wool, included major changes that I don't think added anything to the story (The entire Judicial thing?). I can't think of a movie that was better than the book except maybe the 80's movie Less Than Zero.

The few I would pitch aren't trying very hard to be "good" adaptations, and they're all the better for it:
- Annihilation (the way he approached that adaptation is truly nutty)
- The Godfather (the book is interesting, but kind of a slog?)
- The Social Network
- Children of Men
- Moneyball (the horse/bird analogy is exceptionally apt here)

Maybe the only proper adaptation I can think of that I genuinely prefer is Greta Gerwig's Little Women. She tapped into some electricity and verve that made me understand the source material in a whole new way. David Fincher's movies seem like they do that too, but I'll admit to having not read Gone Girl or Fight Club to do a proper comparison.