Today’s Top 10 comes from indie filmmaker Trey Hock, and this is a list I’ve tried my hand at several times, but never completed. It’s such a daunting amount of research because the cliche is: “The book is always better then the movie.” Not. Always. True. Anyway, get arguing and get ready to enjoy Trey’s Top 10 Movies as Good or Better Than Books They’re Based On. If you have your own list to contribute, just email me at eric@scene-stealers.com. Here’s Trey:

When I first sat down to write this list, I thought that I was getting ready to start some trouble, but I’m not sure that most of the list will cause much controversy. I do think there are a couple of items that may raise an eyebrow, but for most part, this list helps to illustrate a point. Books and movies are just different. One is not better than the other. Sure, you can make a crappy movie from a great book, but you can make a crappy from nothing at all. Vice versa, you can take the core idea from a bad book and turn it into something really cool.

Let’s put the emphasis back on the screenwriters and filmmakers to do their jobs well, because even if you disagree that these movies are as good or better then their books, it’s hard to deny they are at least good movies. So it can be done.

10. The Shawshank Redemption (1994) based on “Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption” by Stephen King

One would never make the claim that Stephen King is a literary genius, but there is something to be said for the strength of his non-horror short stories. They are often well thought out and focus on a single concept or theme. Though they are often easily digestible as far as content, there is something inspired at times. “Shawshank” is in the same collection of short stories as “The Body” and “Apt Pupil,” which speaks to the nature of the stories. “Shawshank” in particular is compelling because the central concept is hope in spite of one’s circumstances. What the movie does is take a story with a great concept, sloppy structure, and wavering tone, and turn it into a film with a great concept, well-developed structure and a singular ton, as voiced by Morgan Freeman. We have only one warden instead of three, Andy takes the embezzled money from his captors instead of getting a friend to set up a fund for him, and the Warden dispatches himself with a revolver instead of retiring to obscurity. All of these are better choices, which make the story tighter in the film.

9. The Wizard of Oz (1939) based on “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” by L. Frank Baum

This will not start many arguments, because most of you will have never read L. Frank Baum’s masterwork. This children’s story, written at the end of the 19th Century, is clunky, overly mechanical, and almost devoid of emotion. Not so the film version. Released at the high-water mark of the golden age of film, the 1939 “Wizard of Oz” collapses the story and a couple of characters to trim away the unnecessary bulk, and gives the viewer a straightforward coming-of-age fairy tale. The cast, which includes Judy Garland, Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr, Jack Haley, and Margaret Hamilton, is almost beyond critique. The world that is constructed around them is boldly colorful and a true artistic achievement. Even today, the film is compelling and entertaining, which is more than I can say for the original text.

8. Die Hard (1988) based on “Nothing Lasts Forever” by Roderick Thorpe

Wow, this book is really not very good. The main character is a sappy ex-cop, ex-military has-been. He whines and pines over his now-dead ex-wife and worries about his daughter stuck in the building with him and the terrorists. Just shut up already. Thanks to screenwriters Steven E. de Souza and Jeb Stuart and director John McTiernan for making him do just that. What the film does is distill the good concept of a single cop trapped in a building taking on a group of highly skilled and dangerous thieves, and removes all of the wearisome self-doubt from the main character, while still making him a hero that bleeds and wants to spend Christmas with his wife. This deserves a nod, because the movie in many ways changed what an action film could be. Now we could have something smart funny, as well as edge-of-your-seat exciting. Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers.

7. Fight Club (1999) based on “Fight Club” by Chuck Palahniuk

Chuck Palahniuk’s break-out novel is still arguably his best work. The novel is definitely worth reading, but something amazing happens when David Fincher gets a hold of the material. Fincher streamlines the story where he needs to, which makes the statement less preachy and much more subtle and subversive. Because we only have moments of voice-over and not pages of internal rant, our narrator seems smart, savvy, and only as naïve as he needs to for the story to stay plausible. The change Fincher makes by moving Tyler Durden out of the asylum and away from his scarred dragon smile at the end makes the character and story much more dangerous. This person is still out walking amongst us, ready to pee in our soup and blow up our creditors.

6. Blade Runner (1982) based on “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” by Philip K. Dick

Philip K Dick’s dystopian vision permeates much of his writing. His protagonist Rick Deckard is a world-weary cop of sorts who hunts down rogue androids. The novel suffers from meandering digressions critiquing religious practices and forms of media. What the film does is focus solely on the question, “What does it mean to be human?” Ridley Scott’s expansive film immersed us in Dick’s world where all animals are synthetic, and some of the humans are as well. One of the savvy choices Scott makes is to make Deckard single. This clears the way for him to fall in love with the synthetic Rachael. This helps Deckard and the viewer to begin questioning the true humanity of these man-made beings. Sean Young gives her typical wooden performance, and Harrison Ford shows his normal lack of range, but the finale in the abandoned building between Rutger Hauer and Ford is one of the most memorable moments in modern film. Many science-fiction franchises including the new “Battlestar Galactica” series owe an incredible debt to this film.

5. The Silence of the Lambs (1991) based on “The Silence of the Lambs” by Thomas Harris

Take a pretty solid crime thriller that follows a young FBI cadet who is tracking a serial killer with the help of a brilliant cannibalistic psychopath and put it in the hands of director Jonathan Demme, and what you get is a remarkable film. Demme shaved away a lot of the crass tone that Thomas Harris sometimes falls into. He also removed a few cute digressions, such as Lecter’s eye color and his concept of the crucifixion watch (Jesus’ outstretched arms are the hands of the clock). Ultimately this allows him to just spend time with Lecter, Starling, and the way-too-creepy Buffalo Bill. This films uses it’s visuals in an expressive way that just doesn’t translate as well from the page. Demme keeps Starling in small, enclosed spaces throughout the film. She is trapped, and it ultimately leads to her night-vision showdown with Bill. Demme is able to show us how much we need to see this story.

4. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975) based on “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” by Ken Kesey

Ken Kesey crafts a pretty stunning work that is incredibly well told and emotionally compelling. It’s a good thing the film was directed by Milos Forman. There are a few differences, the most apparent is the voice of the narrator in the book, but we need a character to anchor our thoughts in the novel, whereas Forman can show us the story that develops, and allows us to become the narrator. We all become just another nut in the nuthouse. Jack Nicholson’s performance is genuinely inspired and the cast that surrounds is like a who’s who of soon-to-be 80s stars. Really, this is a one of the few real win-win situations. You should at some point read the book and watch the movie. Both are incredible.

3. A Clockwork Orange (1971) based on “A Clockwork Orange” by Anthony Burgess

I had to find a way to get Kubrick in here. Sure there was “The Shining,” but I wanted to give King a fighting chance. Then there’s “2001:A Space Odyssey,” but Clarke and Kubrick developed the concept and story together. So I went with “A Clockwork Orange,” and really it’s quite a remarkable achievement. First, this is a really exciting read. Burgess makes us question the measures we are willing to take to rehabilitate criminals. Are we simply replacing one type of violence for another? Kubrick’s strategy is to keep the focus always on Alex. His centered close-ups as Alex’s dreamy voice-over drones his thoughts into our brain are unbelievable. Add in some of the most moving and disturbing scenes of all time and you have a pretty powerful film. This film will stay fresh the way Pink Floyd’s ever-popular “Dark Side of the Moon” stays fresh. There will always be teenagers who are angry about anything that comes within a few feet. This is the movie that gives them power and makes them scary.

2. “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy (2001-3) Based on “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien

How do you make a pretty incredible piece of popular literature that reads like a history of a non-existent world into a film? Well, you turn it into an epic action and drama-filled extravaganza, and of course, you stick to your guns about needing three films to make it happen. This is where you can go to see how a film can differ from the book on which it’s based, yet maintain the integrity of the original work. One of the hardest things that Peter Jackson had to do was to give Tolkien’s characters some emotional depth, which he does successfully. There are so many things that could have made this endeavor a disaster. The story could have fallen into the hands of someone less skilled, there could have been an insistence on one or two instead of three films, or studio New Line might not have been in the position to green-light the project. Let’s just be happy that we got good film versions of three good books.

1. The Godfather (1972) based on “The Godfather” by Mario Puzo

It takes a genius to make a pulpy, somewhat trashy, mob thriller into one of the greatest films of all time. This was the book that you read in high school to feel rebellious or a little dirty. Along comes Francis Ford Coppola, and his exceptional drama of a family and how uncontrolled power corrupts them, and we welcome in a new era of filmmaking. Coppola makes the story better and his direction is almost flawless. I’m not sure what more I can say. If you’re taking a class on adapting literature to film, then read the book. Otherwise watch the film over and over. This gets the top spot, because if “The Godfather” is on a list, that’s where it should be.

Tags: adaptations, as, Based, best, Better, Books, films, Good, list, movies, novel, on, or, Than, They're, Top 10 Movies as Good or Better Than Books They're Base, top ten

I got into a pretty heated IM argument with longtime Scene-Stealers sitegoer Phil Fava from Vineland, NJ this morning on the future of 3D. We covered a lot of serious ground and it echoed sentiment I’ve heard before, so I reprinted it here with his permission (language and all). What do you think about 3D? Chime in below!

(10:38:30 AM) Phil: Saw “Up” in 3-D last night
(10:38:44 AM) Eric: cool
(10:39:14 AM) Phil: This was my mini Facebook status review: “Up” was fucking incredible. It had an aesthetic rivaling “The Wizard of Oz” and “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” and literally one of the most moving stories I’ve seen put to film. Also, it was really funny.
(10:39:30 AM) Phil: And now I will tell you about the 3-D experience
(10:39:38 AM) Eric: 3D obviously didnt ruin it for ya
(10:40:28 AM) Phil: Yeah, but it didn’t improve it
(10:40:36 AM) Eric: hmm
(10:40:43 AM) Phil: And it detracted from it enough to the point that I wish I’d seen it regularly
(10:40:52 AM) Eric: wow
(10:41:14 AM) Phil: 3-D IS a gimmick, and “Up” clearly is not the film that needs such a gimmick to be watchable
(10:41:31 AM) Eric: but it wasn’t a gimmick in Coraline
(10:41:55 AM) Phil: What did it add to the film other than ticket sales?
(10:42:09 AM) Phil: Did the film really benefit from things poking out at you?
(10:42:19 AM) Eric: it increased the surreal atmosphere of the “other” world scenes
(10:42:26 AM) Eric: absolutely
(10:42:33 AM) Phil: Did you see it without 3-D?
(10:42:36 AM) Phil: And compare?
(10:42:39 AM) Eric: nope
(10:42:43 AM) Phil: Aha
(10:42:46 AM) Phil: See?
(10:42:52 AM) Eric: but they designed scenes specifically for that purpose
(10:42:58 AM) Eric: Up didnt
(10:43:01 AM) Phil: I know
(10:43:03 AM) Eric: Up was processed later
(10:43:08 AM) Phil: That’s where I’m going with this
(10:43:22 AM) Eric: then you cant call it a distraction all the time
(10:43:27 AM) Phil: Certain shots weren’t in 3-D at all
(10:43:38 AM) Eric: it all depends on the movie and the artist’s intent
(10:43:39 AM) Phil: And when I would take off the glasses
(10:43:48 AM) Phil: The non-fuzzy shots looked better than they did with the glasses on
(10:44:02 AM) Phil: And the 3-D stuff didn’t really do anything
(10:44:32 AM) Phil: 3-D really is a ticket selling gimmick
(10:44:36 AM) Phil: For shitty movies like Beowulf
(10:44:41 AM) Phil: And for good ones like this and Coraline
(10:46:35 AM) Phil: In watching this movie, I can safely say that the only way 3-D is even noticeable or effective is when things protrude from the screen, and that’s really lame, so
(10:46:37 AM) Phil: In summation
(10:46:38 AM) Phil: Fuck 3-D
(10:46:59 AM) Eric: for “Up,” you mean
(10:47:13 AM) Phil: See, you didn’t see Coraline regularly
(10:47:16 AM) Phil: And I think if you had
(10:47:28 AM) Eric: i LOVED it in 3D
(10:47:31 AM) Phil: You’d notice that the atmosphere would’ve been fine
(10:47:38 AM) Phil: I think you just loved it, period
(10:47:42 AM) Eric: but 3D was better than fine in that movie
(10:47:47 AM) Phil: No
(10:47:51 AM) Phil: The movie was better than fine
(10:47:57 AM) Phil: The art direction itself was better than fine
(10:48:31 AM) Eric: no i watched the director talk about how they used 3D and i agree that Coraline used 3D well
(10:48:38 AM) Phil: Hahahaha
(10:48:56 AM) Eric: 3D is a tool
(10:49:03 AM) Phil: Yes
(10:49:10 AM) Phil: To make money
(10:49:10 AM) Eric: that tool can be used in a gimmicky way
(10:49:19 AM) Eric: or to enhance storytelling
(10:49:28 AM) Phil: Enhance storytelling?!
(10:49:30 AM) Phil: You’re insane
(10:49:33 AM) Eric: i’m not
(10:49:41 AM) Eric: you’re just wrong
(10:49:43 AM) Eric: admit it
(10:49:52 AM) Eric: in “Up,” it was an afterthought
(10:49:56 AM) Phil: Directors and actors have to talk about how great their shitty movies are all the time
(10:50:02 AM) Phil: Why would it be different for 3-D?
(10:50:08 AM) Eric: Coraline used it WHILE designing it
(10:50:13 AM) Phil: Yeah
(10:50:22 AM) Eric: AND Coraline used stop-motion puppets
(10:50:34 AM) Eric: do seeing actual 3D objects in 3D was amazing
(10:50:42 AM) Eric: “so, not “do”
(10:51:00 AM) Phil: You do see objects in movies in 3-D
(10:51:14 AM) Phil: Here’s how it is
(10:51:23 AM) Eric: http://www.scene-stealers.com/blogs/sxsw-2009-selick-rodriguez-imdb-observe-and-report/
(10:51:34 AM) Phil: 3-D is only noticeable when shit pokes out at you
(10:51:36 AM) Phil: And that’s lame
(10:51:38 AM) Phil: So who cares?
(10:51:47 AM) Phil: It has NO other purpose
(10:51:50 AM) Eric: Selick explained how “Coraline” did more than make objects jump out of the screen at its audience, using the technology to “transform space” in his stop-motion world, arranging some perspectives of Coraline’s nightmare world for maximum uncomfortability.The goal was to envelop the audience, not merely trick them.
(10:52:09 AM) Eric: are you done yet?
(10:52:11 AM) Eric: lol
(10:52:35 AM) Phil: Am I done?!
(10:52:40 AM) Phil: You’re quoting yourself!
(10:53:24 AM) Phil: And I don’t care how it well it’s used or to what end
(10:53:26 AM) Phil: It’s a gimmick
(10:54:05 AM) Eric: was sound a gimmick?
(10:54:16 AM) Eric: i think u better back up there, hombre
(10:54:33 AM) Phil: I think you better watch that tone
(10:54:42 AM) Eric: anything that accompanies film CAN be used as a gimmick, but it doesn’t have to be
(10:54:53 AM) Phil: Here’s the thing with sound:
(10:55:07 AM) Phil: Came about in, what, 1930 or ‘31
(10:55:08 AM) Phil: Yeah?
(10:55:09 AM) Phil: Yeah
(10:55:14 AM) Eric: 27
(10:55:25 AM) Phil: Fuck
(10:55:40 AM) Phil: I had this shit memorized when I was real into Nosferatu
(10:55:50 AM) Eric: jazz singer
(10:56:02 AM) Phil: Oh wow you’re so smart
(10:56:03 AM) Phil: Fuck you
(10:56:12 AM) Eric: defensive?
(10:56:21 AM) Phil: Pretentious?
(10:56:33 AM) Eric: nope, just correct.
(10:56:38 AM) Phil: And pretentious
(10:56:39 AM) Phil: Moving on
(10:57:02 AM) Phil: Even fucking Chaplin (despite his best wishes) adopted sound eventually
(10:57:05 AM) Eric: just because you dont see 3D’s potential doesn’t mean people can’t use it to enhance story
(10:57:05 AM) Phil: Within a decade or so
(10:57:12 AM) Phil: 3-D’s been around for a long time
(10:57:14 AM) Phil: And it sucks shit
(10:57:17 AM) Phil: It doesn’t add realism
(10:57:22 AM) Eric: it HAS sucked shit
(10:57:31 AM) Eric: because it wasn’t developed enough yet
(10:57:48 AM) Eric: you don’t need realism for a movie to be good!
(10:57:56 AM) Eric: Coraline depends on the unreal!
(10:58:00 AM) Phil: I don’t mean realism in that way
(10:58:01 AM) Eric: that’s why 3D worked!
(10:58:05 AM) Phil: I meant in terms of physicality
(10:58:19 AM) Phil: The appearance of places being tangible or whatever
(10:58:22 AM) Phil: Or objects or people
(10:58:25 AM) Phil: It doesn’t do that
(10:58:29 AM) Phil: It’s just distracting
(10:58:48 AM) Phil: You’re arguing something different
(10:58:56 AM) Phil: Tons of my favorite movies aren’t realistic
(10:59:05 AM) Phil: In terms of story or character or setting
(11:00:08 AM) Eric: how can something that is purposefully used by the director to achieve a feeling from the audience “distracting” if it achieves that goal?
(11:00:16 AM) Eric: it’s not
(11:00:22 AM) Eric: it’s effective
(11:00:51 AM) Eric: you may want to see Coraline in 3D and wait for Jamas Cameron’s Avatar before u pass any more judgement
(11:01:19 AM) Phil: You may want to go back in time and NOT see Coraline in 3-D (unless that option was unavailable)
(11:01:36 AM) Eric: not necessary
(11:01:46 AM) Eric: already saw that it worked beautifully
(11:01:54 AM) Eric: nothing more to glean from a 2D version
(11:01:56 AM) Phil: No you didn’t!
(11:01:58 AM) Phil: Hahahaha
(11:02:05 AM) Phil: You saw that the FILM worked beautifully
(11:02:16 AM) Phil: How tall are you?
(11:02:17 AM) Eric: no, the 3D film
(11:02:34 AM) Eric: uh oh…here comes the analogy
(11:02:38 AM) Eric: 6ft.
(11:02:47 AM) Phil: Okay
(11:02:56 AM) Phil: So that means I have a good chance of winning when we fight over this
(11:04:15 AM) Eric: funny
(11:04:29 AM) Eric: the last gasp of a dying argument
(11:04:51 AM) Phil: It was a joke, you dickwad
(11:05:01 AM) Phil: And I will argue this all day
(11:05:15 AM) Phil: Except you ultimately lose because you didn’t see Coraline in 2-D
(11:05:17 AM) Eric: i have a feeling that if I engeged in the same kind of arguments i do with JD
(11:05:21 AM) Phil: So your frame of reference is limited
(11:05:28 AM) Eric: that you would end up punching me in the mouth
(11:05:33 AM) Phil: Hahahahahahahaha
(11:05:39 AM) Phil: It was a joke!
(11:05:46 AM) Eric: true, but still…
(11:05:50 AM) Phil: I was more or less wondering because I watched a review earlier
(11:05:52 AM) Phil: And I was like
(11:05:55 AM) Eric: btw, did u see “Up” in 2d?
(11:06:00 AM) Phil: “Either JD is a midget or Eric is the tallest man ever”
(11:08:20 AM) Phil: Yeah, parts of it I did
(11:08:30 AM) Phil: Because when I would remove the glasses and look at the non-processed shots
(11:08:36 AM) Phil: They looked better than the processed ones
(11:08:43 AM) Phil: Clearer
(11:08:56 AM) Phil: Brighter (partly due to the fact that the 3-D glasses are basically sunglasses)
(11:09:22 AM) Phil: And the ones that were processed were indistinguishable from the regular ones with the glasses on
(11:09:25 AM) Phil: They added nothing
(11:09:30 AM) Phil: And if they HAD added something
(11:09:31 AM) Phil: For me
(11:09:37 AM) Phil: It would’ve detracted and distracted
(11:10:15 AM) Eric: Can I reprint this conversation on the site?
(11:10:22 AM) Phil: Hahahaha
(11:10:25 AM) Eric: it’s actually got a lot of good stuff in it
(11:10:30 AM) Eric: seriously
(11:10:32 AM) Phil: That would be awesome

Tags: 3D, argument, debate, device, discussion, gimmick, or, rant, storytelling, useful