Part of the problem of adapting a novel for fiml is that you have to leave bits out. A novel, even a reasonably lightweight one, would easily crack the three-hour running time which most people seem to get numb bums at. So parts have to be removed. And when you do that, there will always be some area of the fan-base who cry, "Hey, that was my favourite bit! You've completely destroyed the soul of the book/series!" Screenwriters and directors just have to learn to develop hard shells to deal with these comments.

As to the Philip K Dick stories - whilst I think that certain liberties have been taken regarding the story arc (and characterisation, and so many other things) in films based on his work, the one thing I have always found is that the world-setting has always been almost completely immersive. PKD films always seem to attract directors who have a 'thing' for creating believable worlds - Scott's future LA, for example, or Verhoeven's use of the media to create a setting that feels complete. As such, I've always found them entertaining films - even Paycheck!

I'm not sure you can really pass comment on the handling of the Batman franchise. Whilst some of the films have been utter stinkers (B&R, anyone?), the interpretations of the character have been fine. After all, in the 70-odd years of his career, the comic book version has evolved and adapted in all sorts of way, and has been drawn (and written) in a vast number of styles. I loved the Burton films - but I do think that Nolan managed to knock them into a cocked hat!

JonTheCelt