While I think most thinking people will agree that books are generally better then the movies based on them, I just gotta wonder why Hollywood bothers saying a movie is based on a book, when it is totally different. I just finished "I Am Legend". NOTHING like the movie. Well, I mean it's about a guy who survives a plague that affects almost everyone else in the world, but that's about where the likeness ends.
Did you read Under the Tuscan Sun? In the movie, Diane Lane does move to Tuscany but the whole flavor of the story is changed because her character is so different from the protagonist in the book. I mean...why buy the rights to the story and then alter it so drastically?
A Good Year, was another story changed drastically from the original book. They changed the main character to suit Russel Crowe's personality. Sure it's sexy, but it's not the book!
I dare say there's a hundred examples I could think of like this.....
I understand why they sometimes need to edit a story...the Harry Potter books....Gone With The Wind....terrific books but so long and involved there was just no way to put it all in a movie. The studios at least had the good sense to keep the story lines the same! But why name a movie after a book and then totally erase the book's original story? I have got to wonder if the folks that decide these things are dumb or just arrogant.