Because the movie was insultingly dumb an in no real way reflected the original story. It replaced Mina as the leader with Quatermaine all because Sean Connery wanted to play the hero (not an ageing opium addicted has-been), gave Mina over the top vampire powers (no where seen in the novel. She's recovering from her assault from Dracula- but that ordeal is too subtle and boring for the target audience) and took out all the horrific content to make it more family friendly I suppose. It was hashed and rubbish (apart from Jason Flemyng's performance). They just shouldn't have bothered making it. If you'll read it you'll see why. Unless you love the film. Then sadly you might be disappointed or hopefully enlightened. It's a chalk and cheese kinda thing.
look I watched the movie and I liked it a lot. Then I read the book and all I was really filled with was sex, drugs, and cannibalism. I guess I just didn't care for it for its crudeness and such. That's just me though. I also think if they changed up the names or the name of the movie calling it something like the Guild of Talented Individuals, it might have been better as its own movie from the league and not judged as harshly. I prefer the movie over the book though I do love Alan's Moore attempt to try to fit all literary characters into one universe to make them real in some form or another. I also love the concept more than anything else.
That's the problem. The film was so misleading that if you watch it, you're not going to enjoy the story for what it really is. No one is aware is how much more adult the source material is because you've been given the 'diet' version of the story. You have perfectly made the argument for why it should have never been adapted into the film, but then you can say that about any film adaptation that deviates away from the original source.
I agree with you it would have been a better idea to re-brand it but re-branding it would have been just as insulting to Alan Moore's hard work. It's great that you liked it, and I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm sure a lot of people do, but it's not a good adaptation and the characters are all the more un-extraordinary because of it. I too love Alan's ability to cram in all those lovely literary easter eggs. Its great to read the companion along with the actual comics. It's a great concept.
I do to but I looked up stuff for the league and so forth, I just felt Alan added to much sex, drugs and such for me to really enjoy it at all but I love the concept for concept sake. I actually thought it would have been more interesting if mina had led the league instead of quartermane in the movie. That's the only thing I would have changed about the movie. I also like chatting about the league and so forth. I'm also creating a league rpg.
plus did you know that Jekyll was a large guy? When he became hyde he became smaller and more crooked and evil and liked the ladies a lot plus they suggest in the story that he did evil things but no suggestion other than maybe being a rapist perhaps but its left ambiguous. The invisible man was power mad and crazy so not sure about his motives for going to a girls school raping them. I'd have thought he would have been more productive with his time. Plus I think Allan and Mina would have been alright and captain nemo as well but I don't really know how invisible man and Jekyll would have been incorporated into the group. They would have made better villians than allies. Allan moore could have used other characters. Its another reason I liked the movie, they didn't have the original invisible man, no they put a thief who took the potion.
I'm going to politely disagree. Big massive nope from me. There was no development to this character in the film, completely sidelined to make way for Mr. Connery and turned into a ridiculous vampire. Lame.