>>In short I never understood why there are so many people that instead of enjoying a re-telling of a good story expect that said story should be exactly how they imagined it was.
>
>One extraordinary example of both book and movie being good - in different ways and for different reason's - was Herbert's and Lynch's versions of Dune. By the time I saw the movie, I knew the book page to page, and I could exactly pinpoint the places where the movie veered away from the book (not irises - corneae should be blue; rain wasn't supposed to fall until some three books later, Fremen were supposed to be thin and sinewy, there were no weirding modules, Gurney should have an inked scar over his face etc etc). By the time I saw the movie the third time, I didn't care. It was good on its own.

On this we have to disagree. I thought the movie was pretty much unwatchable.

Now two movies I can think of that were as good as the books but obviously due to different mediums, for different reasons:

One Flew Over the Cukoo's nest. and Catch 22.