I have tended to think over the last several years that the limited series has done a much better job with this than any movie. I don't read books that are the source material for many limited series because I don't want my love for one to bias my opinion but there have been many times in the last five years where I have seen limited series, sought out the book later and found the TV adaptation superior.

These include the Hulu Adaptation of Little Fires Everywhere, HBO's adaptation of Sharp Objects (which I would never have thought would have wokred as a limited series at all) and Showtime's recent adaptation of Fellow Travelers. Some adaptations take enormous liberties - The Undoing bore almost no resemblance at all to You Should Have Known, the book that was ostensibly its source material - but that didn't mean it didn't have virtues in its own right.

I agree with you entirely about Jurassic Park the film compared to Chrichton's novel. I tend to love all things Spielberg, but he more or less entirely threw away what was a brilliantly dark and sharp thriller and turned it into an excuse for CGI. All those who claim to love The Shining have clearly never read the novel (Stephen King is right to hate it) On the other hand Field of Dreams is a much better movie than Shoeless Joe ever was and I love LA Confidential the movie and couldn't make it through the novel. Anyone who says a film or TV adaptation destroys a book will get it wrong. The book's always going to be there and it doesn't disappear because of an adaptation