Although Arthur C. Clarke's 2010: Odyssey Two was written as a sequel to the movie version of 2001 rather than the novel version (in which the Monolith was at Saturn rather than Jupiter). And that wasn't even a movie tie-in per se, since the movie 2010 came out years later.
Also, Gary K. Wolf's original novel Who Censored Roger Rabbit? was set in the (then) present day and depicted the toons as comic strip characters, but his later sequel Who P-P-P-Plugged Roger Rabbit? was based on the very different movie version, with the original book dismissed in passing as a dream Jessica had. (Though how a character in the 1940s could have a dream set in the 1980s is beyond me.) If the movie is better known than the book, and it usually is, then it's good business to do a sequel to the movie instead of the book.
Good point. Logan's World,
the sequel to the novel Logan's Run,
didn't literally ignore the first book, but very quickly advanced the plot so that the beginning of the sequel more or less synched up with the ending of the movie. Like in about five pages or so . . . .
On other hand, Stephen King's new sequel to The Shining
is very much a sequel to his earlier novel, not
the Kubrick movie version. I read an interview with him in which he acknowledged that this is likely to confuse some readers who are more familiar with the movie, but he's still treating his own book as canon as it were . . . and who can blame him?
Here's a potential confusing situation. The TV-movie The Night Stalker
(scripted by Richard Matheson) was based on The Kolchak Papers
, a (then) unpublished novel by Jeff Rice. When the TV version was a huge ratings success, a tie-in edition of Rice's novel was finally published--under the title The Night Stalker,
Later, when Matheson scripted a TV-movie sequel, The Night Strangler,
Rice was tapped to write the novelization of the sequel to the movie based on his book!