I will concede that Fight Club the movie is one movie better than the book that inspired it. In fact, I usually cite that movie as an exception to the rule that the book is better than the movie.

I disagree on the C.S. Lewis and Tolkien choices because there is still more back story and depth in the books than in the movies. Ironically, I think the same can be said for The Princess Bride.

The Stand was never made into a movie; it was made into a TV miniseries. Besides, making a Stephen King book better by making it into a movie is akin to making a kindergartener's drawing better by making it into a movie. From a style and presentation standpoint King is a terrible writer. He's like Dan Brown. The same goes for the guy who wrote Forrest Gump, and Michael Crichton. So, if you're going to say that pulp authors who write airplane reading with virtually no redeeming value tend to write books worse than the movies made from them, perhaps you're on to something. But then I'm not likely to waste time reading them in the first place.

Finally, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer was never a real book. There was COLORING BOOK that inspired a song that inspired the Rankin-Bass stop-animation movie. If an actual book was subsequently published it doesn't count.

In other words, I think you only listed ten, of which I would firmly dispute 4 and where most of the other 6 are not worth reading in the first place. Fight Club, however, is a valid choice, so you did "name one" as I asked.