# ERAGON - What did you think?



## horacethegrey (Dec 15, 2006)

Just wanted to know what you Enworlders (and fellow fantasy fans) though of this. I've not seen it yet, and judging from the savage beating it's getting from the critics (13% on Rottentomatoes  as of today), I probably never will (except on video, where me and my cousins will mock it mercilessly  ).

So tell me, does it pave the way for more fantasy on film, or is it an embarrassment for the genre?


----------



## Ryngard (Dec 15, 2006)

I don't listen to critics. I don't need anyone to think for me. Go and watch it and enjoy it. I haven't seen it yet but seriously, why do people feel the need to hack at and bash everything? Can't you just watch it and enjoy it or watch it and go, "Meh, I didn't like it." In MY opinion the critics lame comments and mocking is just childish drivel. I am not bashing you btw, I'm just expressing my thought.

ANYWAY, I do plan to see it. I loved the book (cliche or not) but I am worried that too much will be changed or ignored for me to fully enjoy the movie. I hope its still as good as I was hoping for.


----------



## takyris (Dec 15, 2006)

Ryngard said:
			
		

> I don't listen to critics. I don't need anyone to think for me. Go and watch it and enjoy it. I haven't seen it yet but seriously, why do people feel the need to hack at and bash everything? Can't you just watch it and enjoy it or watch it and go, "Meh, I didn't like it." In MY opinion the critics lame comments and mocking is just childish drivel. I am not bashing you btw, I'm just expressing my thought.
> 
> ANYWAY, I do plan to see it. I loved the book (cliche or not) but I am worried that too much will be changed or ignored for me to fully enjoy the movie. I hope its still as good as I was hoping for.




Well, no.

I'm glad you don't listen to critics. Some of us don't have the time or disposable income to see everything that comes out in theaters. We choose to listen to critics who have demonstrated tastes similar to ours in past situations.

If a movie is bad Bad BAD, it's nice to have some warning.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 15, 2006)

A reviewer who I know appreciates good fantasy and sci-fi hosts Film2006 on BBC tv reviewed it last monday, and he was dismayed - he felt it was really poor, and he said he knows his son will want to see it and he is going to be disappointed after watching it...

I've not seen it myself, the one concrete thing that I've heard is that the director has a background in special visual effects, and it shows in that the visual effects are great but the story is perhaps a little confused.

I'd be interested to hear what others think of it when they see it though.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 15, 2006)

I was actually hoping, that this movie is decent at least (good is hard to achieve for a fantasy movie), but hearing others talk about their experiences now leaves me in doubt, that it will even achieve that. Too bad. 

I will probably still watch it, though, just to be sure. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Klaus (Dec 15, 2006)

A member of Circvs Maximvs saw it and was very entertained. Caveat: never read the novel.

Me? I'm content if it's as good as Dragonslayer or Reign of Fire. It has freaking dragon riders! Not even Dragonheart had that! Last dragonriding I saw was in Neverending Story!


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Dec 15, 2006)

A friend of mine managed to snag some preview passes.  I saw it on the 14th.

I have not read the book, so I can not compare the two.  However, some books were handed out as prizes, and they look significantly thicker than the screenplay would have been, so I'm thinking a lot was cut out.

My verdict:  plot by the numbers.

A couple of minutes into the movie I had a mental checklist going on in my head, ticking items off as they happened, in the order I expected.

Youthful hero?  Check.
Cute girl taken prisoner?  Check.
Mysterious stranger who appears to know more than the tells?  Check.
Parent missing under mysterious circumstances?  Check.
Parental figure dying?  Check.
Fleeing home?  Check.
Discovering secret about the mysterious stranger that is so obvious he might as well have worn a sign?  Check.
Argument with replacement parental figure?  Check.
Leaving replacement parental figure in a huff?  Check.
Parental figure sacrifices himself to protect the hero?  Check.
Someone who looks to be suspicious and with a dark past turns out to be okay... proving you can't judge people too quickly?  Check.

Etc, etc, etc.  While not a bad fantasy movie (so long as the 1st D&D movie and Krull exist), it isn't anything exciting.  A standard "Fantasy world stands in for the coming-of-age situation that all young men go through" plot.

I suppose I  might have liked it a whole lot better if people hadn't been reminding the main character how *special* and *important* he was every 5 minutes.  I prefer my heroes to be "How the *&%@#* did I end up here?" kind of guys/gals.

Still, go see it if you want to.  Make your own judgement.  Enjoy the book if you've read it (and I have a hunch the book is better.)


----------



## Thanee (Dec 15, 2006)

I heard the movie and the book have rather little in common, apart from the basic story, that is.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 15, 2006)

Loincloth of Armour said:
			
		

> A friend of mine managed to snag some preview passes.  I saw it on the 14th.
> 
> I have not read the book, so I can not compare the two.  However, some books were handed out as prizes, and they look significantly thicker than the screenplay would have been, so I'm thinking a lot was cut out.
> 
> ...




Damn.  I heard that it was a fantasy rip off from Star Wars and other sources to make it an exercise in cliche, but that sounds like plot by numbers.


----------



## Mark Hope (Dec 15, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> A reviewer who I know appreciates good fantasy and sci-fi hosts Film2006 on BBC tv reviewed it last monday, and he was dismayed - he felt it was really poor, and he said he knows his son will want to see it and he is going to be disappointed after watching it...



Yes, but this is also the same man who had a mutual testicle-cupping session with Borat on national television.  I'm not sure if this makes his opinion more valuable, or less so.  Just saying.



No.  Actually, on second thoughts, it definitely makes it more valuable.  He has known the hram and lived.  He can do no wrong in my eyes.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 15, 2006)

I really like fantasy movies but I think I'm gonna pass on this one based on the reviews.  I'll wait for it on HBO or whatever.  Even if the reviews were somewhere in the middle, I'd give it a shot.  Oh well, there goes the streak of entertaining December fantasy movies.


----------



## Seonaid (Dec 15, 2006)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I really like fantasy movies but I think I'm gonna pass on this one based on the reviews.  I'll wait for it on HBO or whatever.  Even if the reviews were somewhere in the middle, I'd give it a shot.  Oh well, there goes the streak of entertaining December fantasy movies.



 Wait, what if your girlfriend wants to see it in the theaters?


----------



## Meloncov (Dec 15, 2006)

Seonaid said:
			
		

> Wait, what if your girlfriend wants to see it in the theaters?




My girlfriend asked me to go with her to it. I refused.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 16, 2006)

Seonaid said:
			
		

> Wait, what if your girlfriend wants to see it in the theaters?



 Oh, if that is the case then I guess it's bad plot and dragons for me.   

Yay.


----------



## wingsandsword (Dec 16, 2006)

My girlfriend loved the book, she even got me a copy of it for my birthday so I'd read it.  So we went out and saw it today at the first showing at a local theater. . .

They took a decent fantasy novel and turned it into a run-of-the-mill fantasy movie.  Far better than the really cruddy fantasy movies, but far worse than the novel. 

The movie feels like a fantasy version of the basic plot of Star Wars, which while a number of parallels to the general "heroic journey" plot are in the novel, is a lot less screamingly obvious.  It's almost like they want the movie to be cliche so it will be like other successful movies, instead of like the book.

A lot was cut out of the movie from the original book, including some significant characters and plot developments, and a lot of scenes that set the mood and feel as something other than generic cliche fantasy were cut.  If you disliked the movie as cliche and shallow, but like fantasy in general, try the novel (which is still a little cliche, but far better and more entertaining).

Now, in many ways I do see this as Jeremy Irons atoning for being in the Dungeons and Dragons movie, since his acting, dialogue, and general performance as Brom was far, far better than his appearance in the D&D stinker.  Honestly, Jeremy Irons's acting was probably the high point of the movie.  John Malkovich did a good showing too as the evil king.


----------



## horacethegrey (Dec 16, 2006)

Ryngard said:
			
		

> In MY opinion the critics lame comments and mocking is just childish drivel. I am not bashing you btw, I'm just expressing my thought.




Now that's a misinformed opinion if I ever saw one. Despite what you may think, critics are not there to bash a movie you expect to like. No, they are there to offer commentary on whether a movie is worth the viewers time or not. And I don't know whose reviews you read, but a lot of reviewers offer some intelligent and entertaining insights in their write ups. To dismiss them as "childish drivel" is doing them a disservice. 

Of course the critics (even the ones I like) are not right all the time. But more often than not, their assesment of a film is dead on.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 16, 2006)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Now that's a misinformed opinion if I ever saw one. Despite what you may think, critics are not there to bash a movie you expect to like. No, they are there to offer commentary on whether a movie is worth the viewers time or not. And I don't know whose reviews you read, but a lot of reviewers offer some intelligent and entertaining insights in their write ups. To dismiss them as "childish drivel" is doing them a disservice.
> 
> Of course the critics (even the ones I like) are not right all the time. But more often than not, their assesment of a film is dead on.




My problem is I rarely agree with critics. Sounds like I will agree with this one though. At least now I can read the books, knowing the movie is going to be lame whether I have read them or not.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 16, 2006)

Find a critic you're in synch with -- it's the age of the Internet, so most of them have substantial backlogs of movie reviews easily available -- and you're golden.

For me, Peter Travers at Rolling Stone matches up with my opinion 95+ percent of the time, so I just glance at what he thinks of a movie, whereas Ebert & Roeper are usually hit or miss for me, and that idiot at the LA Times, Kenneth Turan, is almost 100 percent turned around from my tastes.

And no, critics aren't there to bash films. If you had to watch 10 or 20 times as many movies as you watch in theaters or on DVD a year, whether or not you wanted to see them, you'd grow pretty intolerant of crap films as well. I did theater reviews for a newspaper for several years, and I eventually would get furious when a director would waste my time with garbage.

If you feel like everything you like the critics hate, just pride yourself on being an iconoclast. Or cheerfully admit to liking bad movies (I think "Barb Wire" is a hoot, myself).


----------



## SkidAce (Dec 16, 2006)

Loincloth of Armour said:
			
		

> Etc, etc, etc.  While not a bad fantasy movie (so long as the 1st D&D movie and Krull exist), it isn't anything exciting.





Hmmmm, so it's better than Krull, I enjoyed Krull*, ergo, I may enjoy this.

*Not saying Krull is a work of timeless classic nature.  But isn't that a problem nowadays? We keep raising the bar.  As long as I can be entertained by it...anything else is a bonus.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Dec 16, 2006)

Just got back from seeing it.  I have not read the book(s) nor even knew anything more than the title when I walked in.

A bad performance in the lead role - wooden.  It's not all the actors fault as the scripting was obviously HEAVILY hacked from the first scenes.  I could just FEEL the fact that there were massive amounts of material that was being cut and the script utterly failed to properly move the material from novel to screenplay format and retain any special cachet it might have had.

It LOOKED allright but there was absolutely no sense of PLACE, of a living, breathing fantasy world.  References were made to other races and places but they were strictly throwaway.  They were tossed out at us without preamble and then left to hang embarrasingly alone in the air without any follow-up exposition to justify their presence.  We saw a map several times but it meant NOTHING.  Reference was made to people "over there" but no indication where HERE was represented on the map.  No names could be read.  No identification of notable landmarks or terrain features.  No mention is ever made of direction of travel except, "we need to go there," or, "that's in the wrong direction."  Not North, South, etc.  If Eragon's hometown had a name I would SWEAR it was never mentioned.  It was all, "we need to found a route through THESE hills," when it should have been, "The Coffee Hills are now full of people looking for us - we'll have to find another route.  The land being portrayed on screen was quite empty of people for being a Luke Skywalker story about joining up with the last of the Rebellion in their dead-end stronghold.  We are similarly given no adequate sense of the amount of passing time.  Is it days?  Weeks?  How long ARE they travellng?  How far is it REALLY to get where they're going?  How is it that opposition forms AHEAD of their arrival?

We are given no reason whatsoever to care about the plight of the hero because - the hero really has no adequate plight...

Begin spoiler text


Spoiler



Two lads in the village are pressed into the army of the "Evil" oppressive king.  Eragons half-brother leaves the village to avoid a similar fate.  A girl is taken captive by forces of the king and her guards(?) killed as she tries to keep the "rock" she stole away from the king - an encounter utterly unseen and unknown by Eragon.  That's it.  That's the great shroud of evil against which Eragon is destined to fight.  Okay, that's not pleasant, but it's hardly a good sample of getting the audience to identify with the hero.  So then Eragon gets his dragon and his uncle is killed - OFF SCREEN - while the sinister agents of the king try to find and kill Eragon.  These plot points are presented with all the interest and panache of a paperweight.  It does not improve as the movie progresses, not the least reason for which is that we later get people stating that they have heard rumors of a new dragonrider - yet WE never see anyone who witnesses anything that might really lead to that rumor (certainly not to the point where such rumors PRECEDE his arrival at any given place.)  Eragon's not saying anything.  The one or two individuals he travels with aren't exactly shouting "DRAGON RIDER APPROACHING!" as they move along.  And it's made clear that the king and his minions don't want word to get around.  So how does anyone "hear rumors" of a new dragonrider?


End spoiler text

CGI is adequate with few exceptions.  A few adequate fights, but never anything that would have anyone but a 7-year-old feeling any kind of dramatic tension.  Indeed the whole movie, the entire screenplay lacks dramatic tension.  Coming out of it it felt like it was a 2-hour piece of introduction and expostion that you might get at the outset of a 6-episode mini-series.  Like something you kind of acknowledge that you have to sit through at the start to appreciate any of the good stuff later on - except you know that that was IT.  It's over.  In a couple years there may be a sequel.  You might want to see it but it won't be because THIS movie has instilled any such desire.

Those that I attended the movie with (ranging in age from single-digits to 30's) had actually read the book together with enthusiasm in the two weeks prior to the films release came out.  They universally said how disappointed they were, how so many locations and events that would have been of more interest had been left out, and those that were included had been heavily - and seemingly pointlessly revised.  I asked, "So it had nothing but NAMES in common with the book?" to which the reply was, "No, not even that."  I don't know how accurate those sentiments might be - but I could sense VOLUMES of omission of plot and story throughout the movie without having known a thing about the actual plot, characters, and story.  We got home and watched a few minutes of Return of the King playing on TBS.  Naturally the conversation instantly turned to how it was an example of how to do this sort of thing RIGHT.  Even Professor T. got his worked HACKED in places to make it into a proper film format, but what we just left at the theater... ?

Now I did get _some_ interest and entertainment out of it.  Despite it's clear failures it wasn't a _total_ waste of time.  More to the point of the OP it wasn't the EMBARRASSMENT to the genre that [a certain movie which shall remain nameless] was.  Jeremy Irons actually gives a decent performance here and to his credit his part (like all the parts in this one) was nearly as devoid of written character as... that other movie.  So it's not so much that there's anything really BAD to say about it (aside from terrible screenplay & adaptation) as that there's nothing at all to genuinely recommend it.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Dec 16, 2006)

Regarding critics.  Critics aren't a matter of RIGHT and WRONG.  Criticism of artistic endeavors is a matter of OPINION.  As has been suggested - find sources of opinion that are useful for you.  You don't even have to AGREE with them - but you really do need to get a sense of what their critical viewpoint is; what do they like, what do they dislike and why?  When you find a critic whose opinion DOES synch with yours that's most useful, but finding critics whose opinions are usefully explained, even if contrary to your own preferences, can be just as useful.  It's not WHAT the opinion is, but WHY the opinion is so.

Certainly relying on just one review at random, or just one critics opinion on a consistent basis is setting yourself up for repeated disappointment.  Not to mention it is a clear misunderstanding of what criticism is intended to do for YOU the viewer and how it does it.  Any mook can give thumbs up/down or slap up a 1-4 star label.  Knowing how the details that made up that score matter to you is what you're after.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Dec 16, 2006)

I just saw it. Horrible, horrible movie.

Just... wow.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Dec 16, 2006)

Sounds like this one is solidly falling into the "wait for HBO or Cinemax to see it" category.

I couldn't really get into the book at all (too much of a fantasy pastiche for my tastes), and since from the sounds of the posts here the movie is a dumbed-down version of an already plot-by-numbers story (to me at least), I may just skip this entirely.

Side note: I think the only thing that was "extraordinary" about the Eragon book was that the author, a teenager, managed to get it published.


----------



## Enforcer (Dec 16, 2006)

Given that there are so few exceptions to the rule "The book is better than the movie" and that I thought the book was godawful to the point that I couldn't finish it, I'll be passing on this one.


----------



## trancejeremy (Dec 16, 2006)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> Side note: I think the only thing that was "extraordinary" about the Eragon book was that the author, a teenager, managed to get it published.




It's not that extraordinary - from what I've read, his parents had it published via a vanity press, and them a big publisher somehow read it, and thought that with the right marketting, it could be a big hit.  It's not quite the same as the literary equivalent of a boy band, in that an original product actually existed, but awfully close...


----------



## dog45 (Dec 16, 2006)

This movie was a predictable pile of crap. I haven't read the book, but I will because I've heard the book is actually decent. There were a number of times watching the film that it looked like they left a lot of stuff out. Like in the Postman, when in the book he is gathering his army, but in the movie it's a montage with dramatic music. There were too many of those moments.

And the dialogue was - well, it wasn't campy, but it wasn't exactly exciting either. The worst line in the movie was in the big fight at the end. Anyone who saw it knows which one I'm talking about. SPOILER Something like "Take to the sky, burn or die. It was so cheesy I immediately wiped it from memory, although not completely /SPOILER

One last thing. Eragon = Aragon. Oh noes, I'm the last one in a long line of an mythical/special group of people, and I have to save the world. Not dissing LoTR, but rather our young dragonrider.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 16, 2006)

We went and saw it today.  I had pretty low expectations, having read the books ... and therefore wasn't disappointed.  The movie doesn't do anything to salvage the hackneyed cliches of the source material.  You can be the best director, with the best actors and writers, but if your source material is crap ... and sadly, the writers made a few decisions that made the movie worse than the source material.

The movie suffered from bad pacing.  It needed to be 45 minutes longer, to avoid the poor character introductions and complete lack of character development ("Hi, I'm &*(^$*#^>" "Cool, come join us!").  Dialogue was lousy -- poor John Malkovitch: "I suffer without my stone" - WTF?  Acting was wooden.

On the plus side, the dragon CGI was great, and Jeremy Irons actually does a halfway decent job (at least, far better than the D&D movie).  It would be really fun to give it the MST3K treatment (I was whispering appropriate Star Wars quotes to my wife -- "Your father's light saber ...", until she got annoyed and told me to shut up).  If you treat it like a brainless popcorn fantasy, rather than expecting epic fantasy, you'll be entertained.  It's far better than the D&D movie, at least.

Overall, score of 3 on a scale of 10.

Oh, I suspect Eragon came from "Dragon" with an "E".  If you think of Eragon as Luke Skywalker (last of the Jedi), Brom as Obi-Wan, Uncle X as Owen & Aunt Beru, Alya as Princess Leia, Murtaugh as Han Solo, Durza as Darth Vader, Galbatorix as the Emperor, and the Varden as the Rebel Alliance, substitute magic for the Force, steel swords for light sabers, and a dragon for an X-wing fighter, with the basic plot outline of SW:ANH, you'll have Eragon (and it gets worse in the next segment, when Eragon goes to visit Yoda ...).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 16, 2006)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Oh, I suspect Eragon came from "Dragon" with an "E".  If you think of Eragon as Luke Skywalker (last of the Jedi), Brom as Obi-Wan, Uncle X as Owen & Aunt Beru, Alya as Princess Leia, Murtaugh as Han Solo, Durza as Darth Vader, Galbatorix as the Emperor, and the Varden as the Rebel Alliance, substitute magic for the Force, steel swords for light sabers, and a dragon for an X-wing fighter, with the basic plot outline of SW:ANH, you'll have Eragon (and it gets worse in the next segment, when Eragon goes to visit Yoda ...).



This certainly makes the whole "a teenager wrote the novel" thing a lot more plausible.


----------



## Mycanid (Dec 16, 2006)

Eek ... I think I'll skip this one for a while.


----------



## Jakar (Dec 17, 2006)

What a poopie of a movie.  Enough said really.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 17, 2006)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Oh, I suspect Eragon came from "Dragon" with an "E".  If you think of Eragon as Luke Skywalker (last of the Jedi), Brom as Obi-Wan, Uncle X as Owen & Aunt Beru, Alya as Princess Leia, Murtaugh as Han Solo, Durza as Darth Vader, Galbatorix as the Emperor, and the Varden as the Rebel Alliance, substitute magic for the Force, steel swords for light sabers, and a dragon for an X-wing fighter, with the basic plot outline of SW:ANH, you'll have Eragon (and it gets worse in the next segment, when Eragon goes to visit Yoda ...).




I love Star Wars. I love dragons. You just described the perfect movie! Can't wait to see it!


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 17, 2006)

It was a watchable film and not as bad as the terrible, terrible trailer made it out to be (The trailer made me actively not want to see the movie; I went today because I was invited by friends). It was a C+ with effort, but suffered from bad editing and direction. 

The dragon effects were wonderful, and infant Safira was very cute. Really, I could have spent a more enjoyable two hours watching just that growing up period near the beginning of the book. They captured the natiure of both a dog and a cat perfectly.


----------



## Zander (Dec 17, 2006)

I saw the movie today not having read the book.



			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> The movie suffered from bad pacing.  It needed to be 45 minutes longer, to avoid the poor character introductions and complete lack of character development ("Hi, I'm &*(^$*#^>" "Cool, come join us!").



I'm in complete agreement. Eragon, the protagonist, is supposed to go on this Campbellian journey of development from boyhood hunter-farmer to adulthood warrior-hero. To make this journey plausible, the film would have had to have been longer with more convincing acting and a better script.

On the plus side, I did find Brom, Jeremy Iron's character, engaging and I would have liked to have seen more of the evil sorcerer. The CGI used to portray magic was well done.

Overall, I thought that the professional critics including Jonathan Ross, the BBC's film critic (who happens to be  a gamer), were a bit harsh. While Eragon, the movie, was not brilliant, it isn't bad either and I did enjoy it in part. I wouldn't return to the cinema to see it but I'd gladly watch it again if it were on TV. I may even get it on DVD in due course if I can find it on sale. My score: 6/10.


----------



## Seonaid (Dec 17, 2006)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> It needed to be 45 minutes longer, to avoid the poor character introductions and complete lack of character development ("Hi, I'm &*(^$*#^>" "Cool, come join us!").



Wait, so it's like every time a new PC joins an existing party?


----------



## Thanee (Dec 17, 2006)

"You look trustworthy!"

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Seonaid (Dec 17, 2006)

Exactly.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Dec 17, 2006)

Anyone know Paolini's involvement with the movie?


----------



## Zaukrie (Dec 17, 2006)

Those fantasy fans that hate this movie are too jaded or cynical or something. It was a 6 out of 10 movie. 

I have not read the book. Both 10 year old boys that saw it with me had read the book were very disappointed at the changes and ommisions, but still liked the movie ok. Clearly it could have used 30-45 more minutes to give the characters some depth, but I think that if you just go there and watch the movie (and aren't stuck on pointing out cliches and predicting what is next, just go and watch) that most fantasy fans will enjoy themselves.


----------



## Jesus_marley (Dec 18, 2006)

The best way for me to describe this film was that it is better than I feared but worse than I'd hoped. If I had not read the book beforehand, I think I would have enjoyed it more. My major complaint with the movie was that the director, simply handwaved away some major plot elements that, while not necessary in terms of advancing the story, if they had remained in the film, would have lent a greater degree of depth to the characters. I felt that the movie needed at least another 45 minutes with which to expand upon the characters and the overall world in which the story took place. It felt to me as if the director was making the film for an audience with a short attention span.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Dec 18, 2006)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> Those fantasy fans that hate this movie are too jaded or cynical or something.



Genre has nothing to do with it.  It's a BAD movie.  It's not a total waste, but it's SO badly scripted and lifelessly acted (with the exception of Jeremy Irons redeeming himself for... that OTHER movie) that the one thing it DOES have going for it is the fact that it's fantasy.  Were it any other genre we wouldn't treat it THIS well.


----------



## Templetroll (Dec 18, 2006)

I agree with these points.  This was an okay movie that had really nice dragon effects and magic effects.  The shade and the undead assassins were cool.  The baby dragon was made for a plushie or Happy Meal toys.

Now, would using Campbell's outline of a heroic journey as a template for writing a novel or scripting a movie be a bad thing?   It could get trite quickly but how much originality has Hollywood ever been accused of anyway?



			
				WayneLigon said:
			
		

> It was a watchable film and not as bad as the terrible, terrible trailer made it out to be (The trailer made me actively not want to see the movie; I went today because I was invited by friends). It was a C+ with effort, but suffered from bad editing and direction.
> 
> The dragon effects were wonderful, and infant Safira was very cute. Really, I could have spent a more enjoyable two hours watching just that growing up period near the beginning of the book. They captured the natiure of both a dog and a cat perfectly.






			
				Zander said:
			
		

> I saw the movie today not having read the book.
> 
> I'm in complete agreement. Eragon, the protagonist, is supposed to go on this Campbellian journey of development from boyhood hunter-farmer to adulthood warrior-hero. To make this journey plausible, the film would have had to have been longer with more convincing acting and a better script.
> 
> ...


----------



## Thanee (Dec 18, 2006)

Maybe I should watch the movie then before reading the book. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 18, 2006)

I found it to be a fine 'dumbfun' fantasy movie. Did not try to think too hard about the movie and enjoyed it just fine. Far better than most things on the sci-fi channel. Quite predictable, but watch able.

The evil spell caster had a warlock vibe with a full round action fireball eldritch blast.

The dragon was not as fearsome as i like them, but not that cutesy other than the hatchling stage. The egg did look like a huge jellybean.

The Nightwing looking critter was a nice flying mount.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Dec 18, 2006)

Oh, and Eragon _sucks_ at looking for bread.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Dec 18, 2006)

> The best way for me to describe this film was that it is better than I feared but worse than I'd hoped.




EXACTLY.

I went in with _really_ low expectations for this, given the bad CGI from the commercials, and the fact that it has Jeremy Irons AND John Malkovich in it.

That said, I was pleasantly surprised; it was actually OK.   Not spectacualr, but certainly not as bad as the D+D movie.

Sure, it was "Paint by Numbers" fantasy (complete with unnecessarily portentous voiceover in the opening credits),  and largely paralleled to "Star Wars", and used every dramatic fantasy cliche known, but it defnitely held my interest for 90+ minutes.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 18, 2006)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> We went and saw it today.  I had pretty low expectations, having read the books ... and therefore wasn't disappointed.  The movie doesn't do anything to salvage the hackneyed cliches of the source material.  You can be the best director, with the best actors and writers, but if your source material is crap ... and sadly, the writers made a few decisions that made the movie worse than the source material.
> 
> The movie suffered from bad pacing.  It needed to be 45 minutes longer, to avoid the poor character introductions and complete lack of character development ("Hi, I'm &*(^$*#^>" "Cool, come join us!").  Dialogue was lousy -- poor John Malkovitch: "I suffer without my stone" - WTF?  Acting was wooden.
> 
> ...




This is the post I agree with most so far. I thought Malkovitch was shockingly wooden as the Emperor and most other acting in the movie wasn't any better (Jeremy Irons excluded). 
The movie felt at least as amateurish as the book (which at least showed promise in a number of scenes even if most of it was excessively adverbial). The movie takes things that are supposed to be enigmatic but are actually easy to figure out like Murtaugh's relationship with Eragon and makes them completely baffling. 
I took my 8 year old daughter to go see it. Kids aren't all that discriminating about the movies they like. She liked it. I didn't, but that's pretty much what I expected.


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 18, 2006)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> Those fantasy fans that hate this movie are too jaded or cynical or something. It was a 6 out of 10 movie.
> 
> but I think that if you just go there and watch the movie (and aren't stuck on pointing out cliches and predicting what is next, just go and watch) that most fantasy fans will enjoy themselves.



Most fantasy fans are simply unable to watch a film like Eragon anymore WITHOUT pointing out the cliches and guessing what comes next.

Adults, on the whole, are unable to see things thru the eyes of a child. Adults have too much mental baggage that comes from their constant exposure to the fantasy genre conventions.

Adult fantasy fans should see the movie with a child of less than 12 years old to see the movie the way it was intended.
This is NOT an adult movie.
And I truly have pity for any youngster that would pick apart the obvious cliches and hackneyed writing, instead of marvelling at the FREAKING DRAGON-RIDING in the film!  :\   

And there IS a big reason to see Eragon in the theaters, instead of waiting for it to come to TV - it's much cooler to see fireballs being launched at a streaking dragon w/rider on a 100 ft wide screen, then it is to see it on a few feet-wide screen. 

I mean, for how few times dragons have been shown on screen, you'd think fantasy fans would embrace the well-done scenes of action in Eragon.  But no - they'd rather nitpick the literary merits of the film and make themselves feel superior by dissing what they should be supporting - solid family-friendly fantasy movies.
This movie couldn't have been made without Lord of the Rings being so successful. I say bring on more fantasy (even kidfriendly fantasy)! It's much better than seeing yet another cop/crime movie or uninteresting drama movie.


----------



## takyris (Dec 18, 2006)

Reaper, I've got a two-year-old son. Kidfriendlly !necessarily= Bad. Bad == Bad.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 18, 2006)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Most fantasy fans are simply unable to watch a film like Eragon anymore WITHOUT pointing out the cliches and guessing what comes next.
> 
> Adults, on the whole, are unable to see things thru the eyes of a child. Adults have too much mental baggage that comes from their constant exposure to the fantasy genre conventions.
> 
> ...



 <applause>

Very well said, sir. Were this Circvs Maximvs, I'd posrep you!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 18, 2006)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> I mean, for how few times dragons have been shown on screen, you'd think fantasy fans would embrace the well-done scenes of action in Eragon.  But no - they'd rather nitpick the literary merits of the film and make themselves feel superior by dissing what they should be supporting - solid family-friendly fantasy movies.




What we "should" be supporting are _good_ fantasy movies, family-friendly or otherwise. I feel no "duty" to support a movie that is poorly written, fantasy or not. And I'll thank you not to assign me underhanded motivations for my opinions on the subject.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 18, 2006)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> I mean, for how few times dragons have been shown on screen, you'd think fantasy fans would embrace the well-done scenes of action in Eragon.  But no - they'd rather nitpick the literary merits of the film and make themselves feel superior by dissing what they should be supporting - solid family-friendly fantasy movies.
> This movie couldn't have been made without Lord of the Rings being so successful. I say bring on more fantasy (even kidfriendly fantasy)! It's much better than seeing yet another cop/crime movie or uninteresting drama movie.




I have no duty to support bad cinema, fantasy or not. I'd rather see a film stand on all of its merits - story, presentation, pacing, and so on rather than some single criteria like having good special effects or fitting into a particular subject matter.
It's not a question of feeling superior because I'm critical of the film. It's a question of wasting my ticket money to see a piece of work that is poorly made and not very engaging or satisfying. I'd rather let people know my opinion of it so they can direct their ticket-buying money toward more worthwhile films rather than reward Eragon's filmmakers for doing a poor job.
I'd rather see good fantasy films than bad fantasy films. And I'd rather see good cop/crime movies than bad fantasy as well.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 18, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Maybe I should watch the movie then before reading the book.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




That would definitely improve your opinion of the book.

And I don't think adult assessment of fantasy has anything to do with getting older and having a hard time suspending disbelief.  I've really enjoyed the Harry Potter movies, which are aimed at a younger demographic and objectively probably aren't the finest cinema.  Bad is just bad, whether it's Krull or Eragon.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 19, 2006)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Most fantasy fans are simply unable to watch a film like Eragon anymore WITHOUT pointing out the cliches and guessing what comes next.
> 
> Adults, on the whole, are unable to see things thru the eyes of a child. Adults have too much mental baggage that comes from their constant exposure to the fantasy genre conventions.
> 
> ...




I agree with a lot of what you said here. I saw the movie with three friends and the two who had not read the book enjoyed it. They thought it was choppy and should have been longer. My friend who read the book felt they left to much out but felt that she had an enjoyable mivie experience. I have not read the book but I enjoyed the movie.

I don't think it was great film I could see where it could have had better editing and it needed to be longer. But I don't think it was a bad film either. I am rather easy going about movies if they keep my interest and entertain me then I don't feel as if I wasted my money or time.

As for cliches they don't bother me at all. All genre's have cliches if they didn't we would not have movies like Scary Movie to make fun of them.  

I hear people on this board complaining about this a lot in their books and movies and I just don't get it. Hald the movies abd books I have seen knocked are books and movies that I have enjoyed. So I sometimes wonder if some of you may be a little jaded in your outlook. Or maybe I am just not as discerning.

Don't get me wrong I can pick apart a book or movie and say how I think it could have been better, and I often do but that does not stop me from still enjoying the movie or book. 

I wanted to get the DVD of this movie when it comes out because there were things about the movie I really enjoyed.



There were a lot of kids in the movie I went to and they seemed to love the movies I overheard some talking about how much they liked it.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 19, 2006)

Why do people keep bashing Krull? :sad:


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 19, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Why do people keep bashing Krull? :sad:





I don't know. I love Krull I have had iton bought beta tape and then on VHS and laser disc. Since my laser disc still plays I have not gotten it on DVD but in time I know I will.

I love the story and the mythos they created for the movie. I enjoy it today as much as I did when it first came out.


----------



## horacethegrey (Dec 19, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Why do people keep bashing Krull? :sad:




Because it's a bad movie? :\ 

Seriously, while I do appreciate what the makers were trying to do with the flick, especially since it was the 80's, that doesn't excuse the lame product they ended up with. 

I first saw _Krull _ when I was a kid, yet all I could remember of it was how cool the visuals and some of the characters were. So it was a blessing to find it on DVD so that I could relive those childish memories, or so I thought.   

The acting was wooden, the pacing was excrutiatingly slow, and the plot was straightforward and contained very few surprises. I'm not gonna rag on the special effects, since this was the 80's, and the production design of the flick was pretty good for the most part. 

But my main beef with _Krull _ is that SPOILERS the Glaive, the bladed frisbee that appeared in all the movie's advertising, turns out to be completely and utterly useless.  SPOILERS. Not. Cool. At. All. 

Anyway, back to _Eragon_, while it's good that some of you found some worth in the film, I strongly disagree with the notion reapersaurus made that just because I'm not a kid, I can't enjoy the flick. PLEASE. I loved _The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe_, which was as kiddie as a fantasy film can get, yet was still an excellent movie. The last two _Harry Potter_ flicks were also good (though in truth, those were more aimed at teens). Don't presume to think that I dislike a movie just because I happen to bring some "adult baggage" with me. I dislike a film because it's a bad film. End of story.

So I'm gonna have to agree with some of the posters here on their stance on not supporting bad fantasy on film. Why should we settle for stuff that's more likely to play on Cinemax or an MST3K marathon (_Eragon, Krull, Hawk the Slayer, Star Wars prequel trilogy  _)? When we could have stuff that can enthrall us and stick with us for years to come (_The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, Star Wars original trilogy _  )?


----------



## Klaus (Dec 19, 2006)

Next thing you know, you'll be bashing Beastmaster!


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 19, 2006)

Nah, Beastmaster sits somewhere below Conan (good), but above Red Sonja (bad) and D&D (excruciating) ... in a category of almost-but-not-quite-bad fantasy movies.    A movie with weasels can't be all bad.


----------



## horacethegrey (Dec 19, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Next thing you know, you'll be bashing Beastmaster!



Can't bash what I haven't seen.  Actually, not quite. I have seen _Beastmaster_, but I was a kid back then. So plot details and how the story went are sketchy in my memory at best. The only thing I can remember clearly was when Dar used the sight of one of his animal companions to find the assassin who was stalking him. That was a pretty cool sequence.  

But aside from a couple of episodes of the TV series (which I thought was quite good), I've not seen much of the original _Beastmaster _ or it's sequels. I do hope to find a DVD one day, and when do I sit down to watch it it won't be as bad a nostalgia shock as _Krull _ was for me.



			
				Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Nah, Beastmaster sits somewhere below Conan (good), but above Red Sonja (bad) and D&D (excruciating) ... in a category of almost-but-not-quite-bad fantasy movies. A movie with weasels can't be all bad.



Anything that's better than that horrid D&_D _ movie can't be all bad.  I honestly lost a lot of respect for Jeremy Irons for appearing in that turd.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 19, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Why do people keep bashing Krull? :sad:




Me sad too. I enjoyed Krull quite a lot at the time (nice novel on it too). FWIW I also thought Hawk the Slayer was an excellent, flavourful movie and Beastmaster was fun too


----------



## Lobo Lurker (Dec 19, 2006)

Man, you guys are harsh.

I knew nothing about the book before going to see the movie and then a friend told me it (the movie) was terrible. With that in mind, my wife and I went to see it and we both enjoyed it a lot.

Was it a great movie? No.
Did it have a great script? No.
Were there any wonderful acting performances? No... though Jeremy Irons regains any bad points he earned from the DnD movie (another terrible movie that I enjoyed).
Was it entertaining? Yes.
Was it worth the $2.50 that I paid to see it? Definitely.

Movies don't have to be great works of art to be enjoyable. I'd give it 3 stars out of 5. It's average because of the lack of dramatic tension, weak scripting, and fact that it was obvious that much material was getting cut. 

...and I liked Krull, Clash of the Titans, and Mars Attacks. I guess that means I like bad movies. ^_^


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Dec 19, 2006)

> I loved The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which was as kiddie as a fantasy film can get, yet was still an excellent movie.




I disagree with that statment.

While "Lion, Witch and Wardrobe" may _seem_ kiddie at first glance, there's actualyl alot of deeper thematic elements that are explored beyond the "Cool! A centaur with tow swords!" moments.

And the same holds true for the Harry Potter films, though the messages there are not as bltatant and deeply imbedded as the ones in Narnia.

Back on topic:
"Eragon" was a decent film, but didn't tread any new ground, and needed to spend about another half-hour developing the charcters and the relationships between them.


----------



## horacethegrey (Dec 19, 2006)

ShadowDenizen said:
			
		

> I disagree with that statment.
> 
> While "Lion, Witch and Wardrobe" may _seem_ kiddie at first glance, there's actualyl alot of deeper thematic elements that are explored beyond the "Cool! A centaur with tow swords!" moments.



I'm not denying that Narnia had a lot deep themes within it, but you can't deny that it was a story originally written for children. It just so happened that C.S. Lewis wrote it in such a way that it could appeal to adults as well, and Andrew Adamson followed suit and thankfully didn't dumb it down as most kids films often do.



			
				ShadowDenizen said:
			
		

> And the same holds true for the Harry Potter films, though the messages there are not as bltatant and deeply imbedded as the ones in Narnia.



Again, I'm not denying the thematic depth of these books and films. In fact, the _Harry Potter_ series amazes me in that it tells these magical stories while realistically portraying the trials and tribulations of growing up. 

A shame though that Chris Columbus turned the first two books into such amazing borefests. That man couldn't make a good kid flick if his life depended on it.  :\  



			
				ShadowDenizen said:
			
		

> Back on topic:
> "Eragon" was a decent film, but didn't tread any new ground, and needed to spend about another half-hour developing the charcters and the relationships between them.



Which is why _The Lord of the Rings_ needed 3 films to tell the story, rather than two or one. Yeah, I'm talking to you Harvey Weinstein!   Keep your greedy fat ass out of the other fantasy films to come! One film my ass.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 19, 2006)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> I'm not denying that Narnia had a lot deep themes within it, but you can't deny that it was a story originally written for children. It just so happened that C.S. Lewis wrote it in such a way that it could appeal to adults as well, and Andrew Adamson followed suit and thankfully didn't dumb it down as most kids films often do.




Perhaps he didn't dumb it down, but he sure didn't make the kids the heroes they were in the book. In the movie, they're reluctant heroes at best, working against being heroes for much of the time. In the book, even the mention of Alsan has a mystical effect on them that they can't explain. That's a lot more powerful and, I think, could have been well handled in the film.

But that's a digression from the discusson of Eragon.


----------



## horacethegrey (Dec 19, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Perhaps he didn't dumb it down, but he sure didn't make the kids the heroes they were in the book. In the movie, they're reluctant heroes at best, working against being heroes for much of the time. In the book, even the mention of Alsan has a mystical effect on them that they can't explain. That's a lot more powerful and, I think, could have been well handled in the film.
> 
> But that's a digression from the discusson of Eragon.



Sorry, but I don't find that appealling at all. Just cause Aslan is this all powerful mystical presence doesn't mean the kids should kowtow to him and follow his every whim. Aslan should be inspiring the kids to feats of heroism, not lording over them and making demands of them (though I'm pretty sure _bringing particluar examples of what entire religious groups would want to see would be against board rules_). 

Also, Adamson did say he wanted to develop the characters of the Pevensie kids further in the movie, as they were woefully underdeveloped in the book. For the most part, I think he succeeded, as the kids in the film are very appealing and quite believable.

Also, what's so wrong with reluctant heroism? _The Lord of the Rings_ was full to the brim with it, yet do you hear people complaining? But again, that's a discussion for another time.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 19, 2006)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I don't find that appealling at all. Just cause Aslan is this all powerful mystical presence doesn't mean the kids should kowtow to him and follow his every whim. Aslan should be inspiring the kids to feats of heroism, not lording over them and making demands of them (though I'm pretty sure _bringing particluar examples of what entire religious groups would want to see would be against board rules_).




THis is very much NOT in the book either. The kids don't kowtow to him at all, nor would I advocate putting that in the movie. But hearing about Aslan from the beavers _inspires_ them to be heroes in ways they don't yet understand, not try to go home. That's what I'm talking about, and it's completely lost in the movie. The kids have some instinctive reactions toward being heroic and toward Aslan that I think the movie could have delved into. Instead, it chose to drag them into most acts of heroism (with the exception of Edmund taking on the queen). There's too much of them trying to do the sensible thing (go home) and not the right thing. And that's too bad.

Oh, and I don't have an objection to the reluctant hero in Lord of the Rings because that's a significant part of Frodo's character, hobbits being natural homebodies and all that.


----------



## horacethegrey (Dec 19, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> THis is very much NOT in the book either. The kids don't kowtow to him at all, nor would I advocate putting that in the movie. But hearing about Aslan from the beavers _inspires_ them to be heroes in ways they don't yet understand, not try to go home. That's what I'm talking about, and it's completely lost in the movie. The kids have some instinctive reactions toward being heroic and toward Aslan that I think the movie could have delved into. Instead, it chose to drag them into most acts of heroism (with the exception of Edmund taking on the queen). There's too much of them trying to do the sensible thing (go home) and not the right thing. And that's too bad.



Well thank you for clearing that up. But I still prefer what Adamson did in the movie over the book. It's too much a stretch that the Pevensies would wholeheartedly accept the burden of saving the whole of Narnia like that (with the exception of Lucy). It's a much better thing that they'd grow into their roles and rid whatever doubts they have of themselves, before accepting that burden.

Also, who said that wanting to go home wasn't the right thing to do? The kids suddenly appeared in this strange world and were caught up in a conflict between two opposing forces, a conflict that was sure to get them killed. What sane person wouldn't want to turn tail and run? And no, I don't think it's cowardice, it's survival, which I think is a natural instinct in human beings when they find themselves in circumstances beyond their control.

EDIT: Oh, and sorry about that little crack I made. Forgot about the rules regarding such things. Lesson learned.


----------



## Archetype (Dec 19, 2006)

*NOT a "Dragonrider" movie at all...*

What I hated the most about _Eragon_ (at the top of a long list, much of which has been mentioned above) is the BAD TASTE it will instill in the general populace against any future "dragonrider" movies... 

I have been eagerly awaiting the day that cinema technology could convincingly and breathtakingly recreate the thrilling union of man and dragon in flight.  I was hoping that someone would get Anne McCaffrey's _The Dragonriders of Pern_ onto screen first, to set the standard for this, but unfortunately this pile of drek got rushed into production first. 

Bleh.

How can you call someone who spends more time falling *off* his dragon than actually riding it a "dragonrider" anyway?  And what ultimate cheesewiz was the scene where the hatchling dragon just goes *poof* in the air to instantly grow up into a convieniently-sized mount to finish the required battlescene with?  (No I don't know if this happened in the book as well.)  At least give us a "dragon growing up" montage!  I guess this panders to the whole instant-gratification Pokemon-generation needs (_"Safira, I choose YOU!"_), but it dumbed down the concept of dragons as a long-lived, majestic species that occasionally interacts with lesser beings during their many centuries of  life...

Passable CGI can *not* cover over the stink of the rotting, poorly assembled carcass of bad writing, acting and directing underneath.  So sad.

Oh, well.  Hopefully this will be forgotten by the time that Pern's _true_ Dragonriders make it to the screen...


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Dec 19, 2006)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Nah, Beastmaster sits somewhere below Conan (good), but above Red Sonja (bad) and D&D (excruciating) ... in a category of almost-but-not-quite-bad fantasy movies.    A movie with weasels can't be all bad.



They were ferrets. Were supposed to be meercats. Not a bad movie, but I hate it anyway. Andre Norton's book, upon which it was supposedly based, is *Science Fiction*! Changing it into a fantasy ensured that she never again allowed any of her works to be filmed.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 19, 2006)

Yet it was damn near perfect Dark Sun...


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 19, 2006)

Lobo Lurker said:
			
		

> Was it worth the $2.50 that I paid to see it? Definitely.




I haven't seen Eragon and don't intend to, but I wanted to comment on this.  If I could see it for $2.50, I might consider it.  However, here in Syracuse a movie ticket is over three times that much ($8.00).  It's even more in other places.  Cost is a huge mitigating factor for me in deciding to see a film, and when I'm spending that much, it needs to be at least average for me to consider it - which Eragon hardly is, according to reviews.

Also, I love Rotten Tomatoes because it's a compilation of all the published reviews.  Its primary purpose is to diminish the bias of the reviewer by polling all of them, with all of their different tastes.  IMO, it excels in that goal.  So at 14%, I think it's safe to say Eragon is a bad movie.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 19, 2006)

Archetype said:
			
		

> And what ultimate cheesewiz was the scene where the hatchling dragon just goes *poof* in the air to instantly grow up into a convieniently-sized mount to finish the required battlescene with?  (No I don't know if this happened in the book as well.)  At least give us a "dragon growing up" montage!  I guess this panders to the whole instant-gratification Pokemon-generation needs (_"Safira, I choose YOU!"_), but it dumbed down the concept of dragons as a long-lived, majestic species that occasionally interacts with lesser beings during their many centuries of  life...




A problem with this might be, that the boy would have died of old age by then. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Dec 20, 2006)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> I haven't seen Eragon and don't intend to, but I wanted to comment on this.  If I could see it for $2.50, I might consider it.  However, here in Syracuse a movie ticket is over three times that much ($8.00).  It's even more in other places.  Cost is a huge mitigating factor for me in deciding to see a film, and when I'm spending that much, it needs to be at least average for me to consider it - which Eragon hardly is, according to reviews.
> 
> Also, I love Rotten Tomatoes because it's a compilation of all the published reviews.  Its primary purpose is to diminish the bias of the reviewer by polling all of them, with all of their different tastes.  IMO, it excels in that goal.  So at 14%, I think it's safe to say Eragon is a bad movie.




Excellent points. I don't get to go see many movies in the theater, so when I do it has to be a for-sure great movie. I might watch Eragon when it comes out on video, but I'm not paying $7.50 to see it. I don't care how good the visual effects are, if the story is bad, the acting is bad, and cliches abound I'm just not that interested. 

I also like Rotten Tomatoes. It's normal for a critic or two to not like a movie. When very nearly all of them dislike a movie that is usually a huge red flag. Lord of the Rings raised the standard for fantasy movies. You can make a great fantasy movie without it being completely cheesy and cliched, and you can make one with good character interaction and development. LOTR wasn't all about the action, it was about the characters. You cared about them. You wanted them to succeed. That was because of the story, the dialogue, the character introductions and development. Jackson had great material to work with thanks to Tolkien, but he and his team still did a good job of not letting the effects and action be the entire story. Those things supported the story. I simply will not forgive a movie using the effects in place of the story.


----------



## Zaukrie (Dec 20, 2006)

edit: obviously it's ok with me if you disagree, I just don't think it can be stated as "fact" that this is a bad movie

Well, obviously I disagree with some of you, but it was worth full price to me, my wife, several people at work and 3 of the 4 kids I took (one just couldn't, like some of you LotR fans, get over the ommissions).

The effects did not make up for a bad story. The movie was too short to be a very good movie, but I still found it entertaining. Some of the responses here are so over the top that they don't deserve comment/counter argument, but here are some responses:

The director/studio made too short a movie. This to me lead to the biggest weaknesses, the lack of "downtime" and character growth to get some people to buy into the characters. On the other hand, someone complained that he fell off his dragon the first time he rode it, do you want growth or not?

The dragon grew too fast, well, I just took that as some kind of magical ability that they had - I just accepted it at face value that that is how dragons worked in this world. If they had let it grow up from an egg to big enough to ride, I doubt anyone would have cared more or less about the dragon or the boy. Would you really care more? Or, can you just not accept that is how dragons work on this world? Really, why pre-suppose anything about how dragons work - isn't the fact that they aren't long lived and that they magically grow different and not cliched - see, you don't like it when it doesn't play to your cliche.

The acting and dialogue were wooden - have you watched the first star wars movie lately? I saw it in the theater in 1977 when it came out and loved it. I still love it, but Mark Hammil is brutal, and Carrie Fischer isn't much better. The dialogue, bad and contrived. Yup, the dialogue and acting could have been better, I agree, but it wasn't so bad that it ruined this movie. Remember, some of you like Will Ferrel movies - hardly great acting (and yes, comedies can be well acted).

Finally, the predictability - that was a weakness no doubt. But, come on, most movies with patently evil guys and obviously good guys end with the good guys winning and the bad buys losing. Really, did SW 4 or 6 end any differently than you expected? Did LotR end any differently? Yes, there were lots of obvious things happening, but that didn't mean that you couldn't just sit back and let the images and plot wash over you as inevitably and enjoyably as a wave from the ocean (sorry, just had to write something better there). 

I enjoyed it, most everyone I know, fantasy fans or not, enjoyed it also. I did not love it, nor would I put it on my all time favorite list. But, if someone asked me if they should see it, and if they were not a fantasy hater (my mom, e.g.), I'd suggest going, with the warning that you are unlikely to be surprised very often.

So, now you know whose advice not to take for movies....


----------



## horacethegrey (Dec 20, 2006)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> The acting and dialogue were wooden - have you watched the first star wars movie lately? I saw it in the theater in 1977 when it came out and loved it. I still love it, but Mark Hammil is brutal, and Carrie Fischer isn't much better.



Um, no. I've watched the original movie on DVD lately, and the acting there is still miles better than the acting in any fantasy or scifi crap that came in the wake of _Star Wars_ success. Mark Hammil is brutal you say? Hardly. He played Luke with a lot of energy and sincerity, which I think perfectly fit the character. And surprisingly, he gave Luke a commanding prescence when he flew in the final battle on the Death Star, which is much better on the eyes than watching some whiny ass punk bitching about being a Jedi Master. *cough*Anakin*cough*  

I do agree that Carrie's faux pas British accent and early lines were somewhat laughable. But the moment she meets up with Han and that inner spunk of hers comes out, it's great to see.


----------



## Chairman7w (Dec 20, 2006)

But WHY does the Dragon have feathers?  Ugh - as soon as I saw that I said no thanks.


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Dec 20, 2006)

About the Star Wars points:

Star Wars didn't have the greatest acting but it did have characters people immediately connected with and the interaction was great. The chemistry between Ford, Hammil, and Fisher helped a lot in this area as well. Also, the plot was good. 

About the endings to the Star Wars movies - no they didn't end exactly as expected. Are you going to tell me you expected Han Solo to shoot Vader's cover ships, sending him shooting off through space and giving Luke time to blow up the Death Star? Did you expect Vader to throw the Emporer off the ledge and come back from the dark side? When I first watched them I didn't. I also see you left out any mention of Empire Strikes Back which focued heavily on the characters and had an unexpected ending. In LOTR, did you expect Gollum to destroy the ring? Wouldn't you say the more conventional ending would involve the army of men overpowering the armies of Sauron? Instead it is shown they cannot defeat Sauron through fighting but need Frodo and co. to destroy the ring. That isn't expected.

Yes, you expect the good guys to win in the end, but it's the execution and the details that determine how it is received.


----------



## Templetroll (Dec 20, 2006)

Chairman7w said:
			
		

> But WHY does the Dragon have feathers?  Ugh - as soon as I saw that I said no thanks.




I've read that feathers were not in the book's description so it was either the director or the art director trying to have a recognizably _different_  dragon.  That didn't bother me at all, but I hadn't read the book either.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 20, 2006)

Chairman7w said:
			
		

> But WHY does the Dragon have feathers?  Ugh - as soon as I saw that I said no thanks.



 Maybe because lots of dinosaurs had feathers, and dinosaurs were the template for dragons in our imaginations?

I mean, it's no different than a Chinese dragon with the mane of a lion, the eyes of a rabbit and the antlers of a deer...


----------



## werk (Dec 20, 2006)

Loincloth of Armour said:
			
		

> I suppose I  might have liked it a whole lot better if people hadn't been reminding the main character how *special* and *important* he was every 5 minutes.  I prefer my heroes to be "How the *&%@#* did I end up here?" kind of guys/gals.




Big Trouble, Little China, FTW!


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Dec 20, 2006)

I would reiterate that fans of fantasy are MORE forgiving of bad writing, wooden acting, and poor direction in a fantasy film than they would normally be.  By rights they have to be.  The heavier the fantasy elements the higher the budget required to do it right, but making it LESS likely that it will live up to its potential.  Since it has for so long been a disrespected genre (and in many ways still is) it does not have a tendency to attract the best writing, the best actors or superior effort in their performances, nor directors with any greater vision and motivation than a paycheck.  Bad movies are still bad.  Bad _fantasy_ movies; those that draw disrespect even from fantasy fans; are actually somewhat worse for having managed to lose the extra credit the genre is given by those fans.

The fantasy genre is thus filled with dreck and the really good ones are quite uncommon.  Eragon, IMO, is _passable_ entertainment, but it is NOT a good movie.  Even its fantasy status cannot fully make up for its faults.  The wooden acting and cheezy (by todays CGI standards) stop-motion animation of any Ray Harryhausen title (i.e., the Sinbad movies) would be at least as entertaining and those are movies that are 30-40 years old, not to mention utterly forgotten by all EXCEPT fantasy fans and effects buffs.

I CAN say that shortly after having seen Eragon I caught Dragonslayer on cable.  Undoubtedly being shown simply to feed off of any interest created one way or another by Eragon.  Up until now I had held unshaking to the opinion that Vermithrax was STILL the best dragon ever on film despite every advance of CGI.  Now I certainly can't say that Eragon's Sefire (sp?) is actually superior simply for having been surrounded by such an inferior screenplay and acting, but I finally see Dragonslayer and its Go-Motion animation showing its age in comparison to CGI.  One reason that I would consider Eragons dragon to remain inferior is that the editing (not mentioned specifically in my earlier review) still struck me as distractingly fast-paced.  In other words, I think they were intent on using fast cuts and the impression of unnecessarily extreme speed to attempt to substitute for the excitement that was NOT being provided by script or acting.

Yes we DO need more family-friendly entertainment, but that MUST NOT be gained at the cost of technical and artistic adequacy.  Movies of inferior quality should never be praised simply to encourage g-rated content.  The two objectives are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Dec 20, 2006)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Movies - ERAGON - What did you think?



I think I'll wait until it cpomes on the premium channels to watch. From the reviews I am hearing, I don't think I want to waste my money on seeing it in the theater.


----------



## Darrell (Dec 20, 2006)

THREAD HIJACK ALERT



			
				IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> Are you going to tell me you expected Han Solo to shoot Vader's cover ships, sending him shooting off through space and giving Luke time to blow up the Death Star?




Well, no.  Then again, I was 11, and didn't have a heckuva lot of experience with movies in general.  In retrospect, it's pretty obvious from the moment he and Luke say 'good-bye' that he's gonna be showing up again.



			
				IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> Did you expect Vader to throw the Emporer off the ledge and come back from the dark side?




Did I expect that sequence of events?  No.  Did I expect Vader to turn on the emperor?  Yes; from the moment in ESB when he wanted Luke to help him 'rule the galaxy as father and son.'



			
				IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> I also see you left out any mention of Empire Strikes Back which focued heavily on the characters and had an unexpected ending.




Only in that it didn't actually _have_ an ending.  It was two-ish hours of pure filler.  I'm probably the only (former) SW fanatic that hates ESB almost as much as Ep 1.



			
				IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> In LOTR, did you expect Gollum to destroy the ring?




Reading the book?  From the moment Gandalf says he thinks Gollum still has a part to play, I figured he'd be involved in the destruction of the ring.  That his 'part' was to engineer a complete random fluke of a destruction was, admittedly, unforeseen...and happily so.  One of the only real disappointments for me in the movie was that he and Frodo struggled for the ring.  I'd have much preferred that he just pretty much blunder into destroying the ring, like in the book.  I like the random happenstance of the 'Hooray!  I've got the precious! ... Whoops.' ending.



			
				IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> Wouldn't you say the more conventional ending would involve the army of men overpowering the armies of Sauron? Instead it is shown they cannot defeat Sauron through fighting but need Frodo and co. to destroy the ring. That isn't expected.




When they explicitly _state_ that they cannot defeat Sauron through fighting, I don't find their finding another method to defeat him unexpected at all. 

END THREAD HIJACK

Y'know, I'm not sure that comparing _Eragon_ to _Star Wars_, _LotR_, _D&D_, _Krull_, or any other movie is entirely valid.  The fact that we may see a movie as 'bad' or 'good' shouldn't mean that we disregard the 'good' points of 'bad' movies or the 'bad' points of 'good' movies, and in the end, one 'good' or 'bad' movie is of no help in determining the worth of another.  Any film should be judged on its own merits, without consideration of any other film.

I saw _Eragon_, and didn't like it.  You may have seen it and liked it.  In the end, when the critics have had their (fairly useless) say, and the audiences have all gone home, your own opinion is all that matters.  If you liked it, more power to you.  It'll be out on DVD by April, pick it up and watch it again.    

Regards, 
Darrell King


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Dec 20, 2006)

Darrell said:
			
		

> In retrospect, it's pretty obvious from the moment he and Luke say 'good-bye' that he's gonna be showing up again.




It's obvious now because there have been countless movies made with similar happenings. But in 1977 most people were probably pretty surprised by that.



			
				Darrell said:
			
		

> Only in that it didn't actually _have_ an ending.  It was two-ish hours of pure filler.  I'm probably the only (former) SW fanatic that hates ESB almost as much as Ep 1.




It did have an ending. Vader telling Luke he was his father and then the Falcon escaping and preparing to go save Han is the ending. "I am your father" was surprising when I first saw it.



			
				Darrell said:
			
		

> Y'know, I'm not sure that comparing _Eragon_ to _Star Wars_, _LotR_, _D&D_, _Krull_, or any other movie is entirely valid.




Why wouldn't it be valid? Those movies are considered in the same basic genre as Eragon. Eragon borrows elements and ideas from Star Wars and LOTR. A comparison is completely valid, perhaps not head to head but in quality. Star Wars and LOTR are both beloved trilogies of movies that, in their time, raised the standard for the genre. Movies made in the same genre will be compared and rightfully so.


----------



## warlord (Dec 20, 2006)

Not only is comparing Eragon to these movies valid it must be done. Any half-brained fantasy fan can see Eragon is one thinly vieled copyright violation after the other. The only spark of talent this kid showed was his ability to split Darth Vader into three different people and utterly ignore Chewbacca.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 20, 2006)

IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> It's obvious now because there have been countless movies made with similar happenings. But in 1977 most people were probably pretty surprised by that...




Not if they had seen any of about a hundred movie westerns, including, for example, _The Magnificent Seven_. The mercenary who turns out to have a heart of gold is a staple in that genre, and _Star Wars_ has a lot in common with the movie western genre.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 21, 2006)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> I haven't seen Eragon and don't intend to, but I wanted to comment on this.  If I could see it for $2.50, I might consider it.  However, here in Syracuse a movie ticket is over three times that much ($8.00).  It's even more in other places.  Cost is a huge mitigating factor for me in deciding to see a film, and when I'm spending that much, it needs to be at least average for me to consider it - which Eragon hardly is, according to reviews.





Movie prices, grrr (at least in NJ).

Matinee movie tickets to Eragon for two: $16.00
Drinks and popcorn: $15.50
Realizing you just spent $31.50 to watch a badly recycled version of Star Wars: Priceless.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 21, 2006)

Like I said earlier the people I went to see it with liked it. My son he is in his 20s and his gaming group went to see it and they enjoyed it.

Most of my gaming group went to see it and they have all enjoyed it. Sure most of us agree that it could have been longer and was badly edited. 

I agree with a lot of what some of the people here are saying and that is that people have become jaded and unable to just sit and let the story wash over them without engaging the crticial part of their brain. Its like a lot of people have become crtitics and look for what is done wrong in a movie and what is done right in a movie as they sit and watch it. I would hate to be a paid critic of the movies because I think it takes a lot of enjoyment out of the simple pleasure of sitting in a dark theatre and getting caught up in the story.

Being critical as you watch the movie is not the same as what Hitchcock called the fridge critic which is what I am. Its when after you see the movie and are making a sandwich and thinking aboutt he movie you realize that there are things wrong with it. That is usually diffrence between a okay movie and a great movie.

I also add something to this. To me a bad movie is one where I sit there wishing I was someplace else. Where my mind wanders and I am bored. When its over I am left feeling well that two hours of my life I aint ever getting back.

So I considered Eragron a okay movie. I was not bored and the movie held my attention. Though it had a lot of fridge moments, But I am still glad I saw it.

I also think the judgement that a film is bad is a personal one. Aside form the critical point of view. For example Big Trouble in Little China from the critical point of view is a bad film, but a personal favorite. A movie like the English Patient is a great film from a critical point of view but to me it is a bad film, boring and several hours of my life wasted. 

Maybe its true that LOTR rings raised the bar on fantasy films and now we expect that level out of every fantasy film we see. I just don't see that happening. Hollywood puts out very few great films.  Those stand out and are remembered. LOTR is up there with films like Casablanca. Do you know the name of many films that came out the year Casablanca did? 

Its like fiction every so often a book will be writtten that blows you away and becomes a great literary classic, but not every book written has this happen some are just entertaining they are pieces of fluff meant to give you a few enjoyable hours of reading. 

I think a lot of movies are like that to. I am glad that I am able to turn of my crtical part of the brain and just enjoy so many movies that a lot of critics have said are bad movies.


----------



## Darrell (Dec 21, 2006)

IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> It's obvious now because there have been countless movies made with similar happenings. But in 1977 most people were probably pretty surprised by that.




As has already been pointed out, no, it wasn't really that surprising.  Westerns (and war movies) had been doing the 'good guy scoundrel' bit for years, and far more people had seen those types of movies than had watched sci-fi movies when SW first emerged onto the scene.  For what it's worth, in a sense, I would consider _Star Wars_ to be one of the best 'westerns' ever made (too bad its 5 follow-up flicks dropped the ball).



			
				IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> It did have an ending. Vader telling Luke he was his father and then the Falcon escaping and preparing to go save Han is the ending. "I am your father" was surprising when I first saw it.




No, that's a climax...an 'ending' is not the same thing.  ESB started out in the middle of something and ended up in the middle of something, and had no real 'beginning' or 'ending' point.  It was two-plus hours of 'middle.'



			
				IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't it be valid? Those movies are considered in the same basic genre as Eragon. Eragon borrows elements and ideas from Star Wars and LOTR. A comparison is completely valid, perhaps not head to head but in quality. Star Wars and LOTR are both beloved trilogies of movies that, in their time, raised the standard for the genre. Movies made in the same genre will be compared and rightfully so.




I just don't think so.  IMO, movies should stand on their own feet (one of my problems with ESB, by the way...if you hadn't seen SW and didn't know about RotJ, it would make no sense whatsoever), without comparison to any other movie, regardless of genre.  A good movie is a good movie is a good movie...period.  Ditto, a bad movie.  What's more, in the end, only _you_ can assign a movie any type of worth.  If I think the D&D movie is good (I don't, btw, it's just used as an example), it _is_ good...no matter what all the rest of the world thinks.  If you think _Citizen Kane_ is a bad film, it _is_ bad...no matter what all the rest of the world thinks.  Comparison with ANY other movie is just pointless.  It should 'pass or fail' on its own merits, or lack thereof, and in your own opinion.

Regards,
Darrell King


----------



## Thanee (Dec 21, 2006)

I also found the movie enjoyable and fun to watch. Certainly far from good, but decent enough to not be angry about having spent the money on the ticket. 

The wings should have had scales, though. 

The scenes straight out of Star Wars were kinda funny. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Dec 21, 2006)

It was basically a film montage knock-off of everything else.  I mean you could spot scenes ripped wholecloth out of movies from Star Wars to LoTR to We Were Soldiers, but it wasn't meant to be great literature or a great movie.  It's a straight-up popcorn flick and at that it isn't really bad, considering it was written by a 15 year old.  

Still I couldn't help thinking to myself as I watched it that the special effects artists 1 did a rather good job, and 2 had read the PHB.  I mean several of the scenes had magic use that could almost have come straight out of the PHB.  From the beginning:
1.  The enemy wizard pulled off a straight out of the PHB Wall of Fire in the opening scene
2.  What's her name the cliche princess responds with a teleport object spell
3.  Eragon shows that he has the Precocious Apprentic Feat when he uses his one high-level spell of the day in the flaming attack on the bridge
4.  The Old Mentor pops a cantrip to light the campfire
5.  Eragon whips out an animate rope spell applied to the vine in the scene where he crashes Saffira and takes out the undead assassin
6.  Eragon pulls some rough equivalent to the old 2e Infravision while flying and spots the undead assassins
7.  Enemy wizard uses telekinesis in a straight out of the PHB pick up weapons and fling them attack
8.  Same wizard later making his own grand entrance with a high level summoning spell
9.  Then follows it up by throwing around the fireballs like there's no tommorow


----------



## Archetype (Dec 21, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> A problem with this might be, that the boy would have died of old age by then.




Sure.  I get the "time-saving cinematic license" angle.  It was just so BADLY done, it was embarassing to watch.

And, no, I am not speaking from the viewpoint of someone unable to concieve of a "different dragon biology," or other such enjoyment-blinders.   I for one thought that Safira's bird-wings variation looked pretty unique, and  I was really looking foreward to a cool, new concept of the "Fantasy Dragon" mythotype that was worth exploring over a few movies.  I was expecting so much more than the bland, cobbled-together mess which they presented in the movie.

OK, so there are NO dragons left.  Oh, wait.  Except the Evil King's dragon (which we never really see or even get a hint of in this movie...why not?)  And he had a big blue jellybaby that he got from...where?  And when did he lose it exactly?  The Princess Leia Clone from the beginning acts like it had been passed down from generation to generation, waiting for the dragon inside to find the right yellow-haired farmboy to hatch in front of.  But then the Evil King acts like he just lost it last Wednesday, and must have it back right away before he has to spout any more Really Bad Dialogue about it.  Which was it?  Why don't we care?

Here's a moral impass that never happened in the writing.  If Safira is the *LAST DRAGON* and if her rider dies she will die (but not visa-versa), then why the hell is he risking her life and the future of an *entire ancient species* to show up and grandstand in a lame "final confrontation" battle that probably could have been avoided anyway?  Since the poorly illustrated map they used didn't really tell the viewer where exactly in the geography this all was taking place, we don't get why the "Rebels" don't just pack up their faux-Zulu wardrobes and relocate to Studio C over the next ridge.  Are we really supposed to buy that all the significant players in a generations-long resistance against an oppresive dictator were *all* concentrated in one indefensible complex, hoping that someone else would intervene and save their butts once they were eventually found out?  Any such pack of morons certainly deserves to be wiped out if that's the best they can do. 

You would think that Luke...er whatshisname...would have developed a deeper bond with the magnificent mythological creature from ancient times which chose *him* to pal around with, rather than a bunch of seemingly brainless strangers he knows nothing about.  Why not let them get wiped out if need be, go away and raise an _entire new generation of dragons_ and *then* come back and go after the Big Bad Guy with a sizeable draconic attack force?  (After all, dragons don't have to "grow up" any more, they just ...."plump when you cook 'em"...or something like that.)

Anyway, there are so many BETTER "dragonrider" novels and stories to explore that I am still disgusted that this piece of stolen-screenplay-cut-and-paste got greenlighted instead.  Oh how much more interesting Barbara Hambley's _Dragonsbane_ novel would have been on the big screen.  Or McCaffrey's _Dragonriders of Pern_ or even something from any _Dragonlance_ source.

I guess the question is:

"Is it better to have LAME Fantasy, or NO FANTASY at all in our cineplexes?"

I vote for "None at all," with the option of waiting until something worthwhile gets made instead.

What would you vote?


----------



## Thanee (Dec 21, 2006)

If I had to choose between Eragon and nothing at all, I would certainly prefer Eragon.

Sure, if the choice was between Eragon and Lord of the Rings, the decision would be even easier.


Now, if I could choose nothing over crapilicious pieces like Matrix III (which actually doesn't exist), that would be something. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Dec 21, 2006)

Darrell said:
			
		

> IMO, movies should stand on their own feet (one of my problems with ESB, by the way...if you hadn't seen SW and didn't know about RotJ, it would make no sense whatsoever)




So, because Two Towers is a middle movie and you need to see FOTR and know about ROTK it is a bad movie and makes no sense?

By your reasoning there are no good sequels out there since you are required to watch the first film. I wonder if you will feel the same way if they make a movie about Eldest.


----------



## Darrell (Dec 21, 2006)

IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> So, because Two Towers is a middle movie and you need to see FOTR and know about ROTK it is a bad movie and makes no sense?




Actually, I consider _The Lord of the Rings_ to be only one (bloody long) movie, as it was created from one already collective literary work, and all three flicks were filmed at the same time; unlike _Star Wars_, which (despite Lucas' often contradictory claims) would never have been a 'continued' work if the first one hadn't done well.  Now, if they ever get around to actually making a film of _The Hobbit_, I would judge it on its own merits, without comparison to LotR.  If you want to judge them as three distinct movies, however, then, yes, TT would be a weak movie, because it's too heavily tied to FotR and RotK, and lacks a distinct beginning and ending.



			
				IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> By your reasoning there are no good sequels out there since you are required to watch the first film.




Actually, there are a good many sequels that _don't_ require you to have seen the original.  A recent example would be _Superman Returns_, which I was somewhat surprised to have actually enjoyed (especially considering how much I hate the four Chris Reeve movies, and how much the producers/directors fawned over those flicks...or, rather, the first two of them...in the time preceding the SR release).  The origin of Superman, who he was, and the fact that he had 'left' was covered in a simple explanation paragraph before the opening credits.  It wasn't necessary to see any other film in order to understand or enjoy it.  In a similar vein, _Silence of the Lambs_ was a sequel to _Manhunter_, and it was entirely unnecessary to have seen _Manhunter_ to enjoy SotL, as the only character they really had in common was Lecter (well, and a few side characters), and they quite easily let the viewer know who he was.



			
				IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> I wonder if you will feel the same way if they make a movie about Eldest.




Considering how much I disliked _Eragon_, I'm not likely to see any sequel...at least not for a long time.  I'll make a value judgment on it at that time.

Regards,
Darrell King


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Dec 21, 2006)

So if they are filmed at the same time they should be judged as one film? That doesn't make sense. They are three movies released at three different times. It forms one continuous story, but they are separate movies. If you say that TT has no beginning and end, how can you say that FOTR has an end and ROTK has a beginning?

About Superman Returns, it doesn't explain things like what the fortress of sollitude is or where it came from, what happened to Mr. Kent, the past connections between Superman and Louis, how the little kid could be Superman's, etc. The movie assumes you know all these things. If someone knew nothing of the Superman backstory and hadn't seen the previous films, they wouldn't know those things. Wouldn't they kind of need to see the films?


----------



## Darrell (Dec 21, 2006)

IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> So if they are filmed at the same time they should be judged as one film? That doesn't make sense. They are three movies released at three different times. It forms one continuous story, but they are separate movies. If you say that TT has no beginning and end, how can you say that FOTR has an end and ROTK has a beginning?




They don't.  FotR has a beginning, RotK has and end, and TT has neither.  They were released at separate times, but were filmed as, essentially, one continuous movie...one single story in multiple parts.  That's why I consider them one movie.

The same could be (almost) said of _Superman_ & _Superman II_, more particularly for the recently-released 'Donner version' of _Superman II_.  They were filmed simultaneously (up until the last little while, at least), with the idea of being two parts of one story.  The Studio [(TM) a subsidiary of They..."'They' won't let you..."] stepped in and basically quashed the idea, but Donner's intent was there.



			
				IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> About Superman Returns, it doesn't explain things like what the fortress of sollitude is or where it came from, what happened to Mr. Kent, the past connections between Superman and Louis, how the little kid could be Superman's, etc. The movie assumes you know all these things. If someone knew nothing of the Superman backstory and hadn't seen the previous films, they wouldn't know those things. Wouldn't they kind of need to see the films?




My nephew is 10.  He has never seen the Reeve Superman films, and doesn't read comics.  His only previous experience with Superman is through videogames and the JLU cartoon (both of which delve very little into Superman's backstory). He had no trouble following the movie at all.  

The Fortress of Solitude is pretty well covered in one line by Parker Posey's character (something to the effect of, "Is this, like, his house?"), and that's really all you need to know about the Fortress; where it came from is largely irrelevant...it's his 'house.'  Mr. Kent?  Martha's line, to the effect of, "If your father were here...," makes it fairly clear that he's dead.  Again, that's all you _need_ to know.  As for the relationship and the kid, it's pretty broadly hinted at that Lois & Superman have a 'past,' and everyone (meaning Jimmy, Perry, etc.) seems to assume that she's still in love with (or at least involved with) him.  It is not at all necessary to have seen the Reeve films to understand _Superman Returns_.  It is, in fact, one of the reasons I liked it.  It tells you everything you _need_ to know without delving back into 'origin story' material.

One of the poxes on superhero movies is the constant need for an origin story.  My favorite part about the first 'X-Men' movie was that the entire 'origin and explanatory' stuff consisted of a 30-second (if that) monologue by Patrick Stewart at the outset of the movie.  Too bad the guys making _The Hulk_ apparently didn't see it.  ("Bruce Banner was exposed to a massive level of Gamma radiation.  Now, when he gets mad, he turns into a big, green critter that likes to smash things."  Now, get on with the movie...)  But I digress...

Regards,
Darrell King


----------



## Someone (Dec 21, 2006)

Went yesterday, just for the pretty colors, but it barely entered the "meh" category. The dragon was technically very well done, but the use it had was unimaginative, and lacked those "wow" moments you get with good special effects.

Better not to comment on the story, except for one little detail: when the dragon is burning alive the king's (Galvatorix? is that a medicine or something?) conscript army. The same soldiers that were recruited from his own village and probably the previous night were talking about how much they missed their moms. Maybe Eragon's brother/cousin stumbled upon a recruitment patrol and his flesh was incinerated from his bones by his brother's dragon.

I must have problems, seeing how I find this quite amusing.


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Dec 21, 2006)

I don't think sequels should delve back into the origins of a character or what happened previously, but one shouldn't blast one sequel for not doing this while praising another for the same thing. You could follow Superman Returns, sure. You could follow ESB also. But do you truly understand the little things about the movie without seeing the previous movies? No.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Dec 21, 2006)

It was a poor film.  I think there's plenty of empirical evidence to support that.  The book is certainly better, and I suspect Paolini (sp?) had little or nothing to do with the production of the movie.

However, it was by and large entertaining.  Of course, I have a huge crush on Rachel Weisz, so hearing her voice coming out of a dragon probably fulfills some subconscious and weird Freudian fantasy that would probably not be appropriate for these boards...


----------



## Darrell (Dec 21, 2006)

IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> I don't think sequels should delve back into the origins of a character or what happened previously, but one shouldn't blast one sequel for not doing this while praising another for the same thing. You could follow Superman Returns, sure. You could follow ESB also. But do you truly understand the little things about the movie without seeing the previous movies? No.




Yes, actually.  More so, I'd say, with SR than ESB.

In SR, there are no 'little things' from the previous movie(s) to have to see.  There are reiterations, 'easter eggs,' and line similarities for those who want to place them in context with the Reeve movies, but these do not add to or detract from the movie.  The only things you need to know about Superman are that he's from Krypton, he became 'Earth's Greatest Hero (TM),' he went away, and now he's come back.  Luthor is a Bad Guy (TM), he stole some 'Krypton-stuff' for a plot he's hatching, and Superman (as 'Earth's Greatest Heroes' are wont to do) stops him.  All references to the earlier films/TV shows/etc. are superfluous.  They could have been left out completely without changing the film at all.  Someone walking into SR cold, with no previous experience with Superman, is told everything they need to know without need of any outside source of information.  All the better, I might add, for those (like me) who have added SR to (and pointedly excluded the Reeve movies from) their DVD collection as a 'reboot' of the franchise (in a similar vein to _Batman Begins_) instead of a continuation of a 'series.'  

There are more of the 'little things' in ESB...almost from the word 'go.'  To someone who'd not seen _Star Wars_, they see: Luke is attacked by the big furry thing.  We find him hanging upside down in its lair, his 'sword' just out of his reach, as the critter is approaching.  Suddenly, his 'sword' magically leaps into his hand, enabling him to free himself and fight the big bad critter.  Why??  Basic concepts and characters, like, say The Force or Obi-Wan are referenced or shown with no explanation of what or who they are.  Now, granted, Lucas assumed everyone seeing ESB would have seen SW (a likely assumption at the time, less so today), and much of it is, as you say, easy to follow.  It's pretty obvious from his initial entrance that Vader is the big bad-ass bad guy.  My main dispute with ESB (apart from the general distaste I've developed for pretty much all things Star Wars) is that it begins in the middle of the action, goes on for two hours-ish, and ends _still_ in the middle of the action, with no type of real resolution of any major plot points.  Again, it's all 'middle.'  YMM (and apparently does) V.

Regards,
Darrell King


----------



## Zaukrie (Dec 21, 2006)

I agree that Barbara Hambly's Dragonsbane would make a great movie. I also think her vampire novel (can't remember the name) would make a unique vampire movie, or it would have been more unique back when it was written....


----------



## Darrell (Dec 21, 2006)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> It was a poor film.




Agreed.  Even beyond the varied cries of 'plagiarism,' it's just not well-put-together, plot-wise, or well-acted (excepting Irons).



			
				GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> However, it was by and large entertaining.




I'm not prepared to grant it that much leeway.  I'm not going to call it a festering pile of manure or some such, but I can't say I enjoyed it, either.



			
				GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Of course, I have a huge crush on Rachel Weisz,




From the minute she walks out in the veil and 'harem-girl-ish' outfit in _The Mummy_.
Oh. My. God.    

Regards,
Darrell King


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 21, 2006)

Saw it.  Laughed after about the first 10 minutes all the way to the end.  After the uncle died, a friend leaned over and said:

"It must have been orcs.  Only orcs could have been so precise."

Not represenative of what happened in the movie, but it summed up the film for me.

Short review: Best comedy of the year.


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Dec 21, 2006)

You bring up the point of Luke using the force early in ESB without an explanation, and that is very valid. I would also point out that Superman uses his powers in SR without any explanation of why he has them, which was explained in Superman I. Just saying.


----------



## Darrell (Dec 21, 2006)

IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> You bring up the point of Luke using the force early in ESB without an explanation, and that is very valid. I would also point out that Superman uses his powers in SR without any explanation of why he has them, which was explained in Superman I. Just saying.




Except that Superman has a more widely-known 'basic history.'  People who have never seen Star Wars...and there are lots, believe me...know, at essence, who Superman is (basic powers, 'truth, justice, and the American way,' etc.).  The Superman 'S' shield (like the Coca-Cola logo, the McDonald's arches, etc.) has a high degree of world-wide recognition over a _LONG_ period of time.

Luke doesn't quite have that.  In fact, he's not even the most widely-known of the Skywalker family anymore.  More people have seen Eps I-III than the originals now, and I run into more and more people every year who have never seen the originals at all, even in a cursory viewing.  A good many have never watched _any_ of the six movies. These are the people who are going to be greatly confused, if ESB should happen to be their first experience with the Star Wars universe...but odds are very strong that these same people already know who Superman is.

As an example, I can tell you that my 2 1/2-year-old niece can't tell an X-Wing from an airplane, or a hobbit from a handsaw (as it were), but she can identify Superman, Batman, and Spiderman on sight, and likes to 'fly' (read: throw) Superman around the room.  A single character is much easier to get a handle on than an entire 'universe' of concepts.

Regards,
Darrell King


----------



## TogaMario (Dec 21, 2006)

I don't think the special effects are on par with today's standards (or the standards 5-10 years ago, just looking at Dragonheart, for example). I'll watch it to see if it's got a good story and perhaps read the books afterward for full effect if I like it, but I'm certainly not excited about the pseudo-special effects, lol.


----------



## Darrell (Dec 22, 2006)

TogaMario said:
			
		

> I don't think the special effects are on par with today's standards (or the standards 5-10 years ago, just looking at Dragonheart, for example).




The effects are actually a bit better than they seem in the trailer (though I'm in agreement with the poster(s?) who didn't like the feathery wings.



			
				TogaMario said:
			
		

> I'll watch it to see if it's got a good story




It isn't.



			
				TogaMario said:
			
		

> and perhaps read the books afterward for full effect if I like it, but I'm certainly not excited about the pseudo-special effects, lol.




The books (or at least the first one, I haven't read _Eldest_ yet) are a bit better than the movie, though not by much.  

You might enjoy it, though.  I sort of liked the D&D movie, in a perverse sort of way.    

Regards,
Darrell King


----------



## Klaus (Dec 22, 2006)

IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> You bring up the point of Luke using the force early in ESB without an explanation, and that is very valid. I would also point out that Superman uses his powers in SR without any explanation of why he has them, which was explained in Superman I. Just saying.



 Not fair. Superman has the same level of recognition worldwide as Jesus Christ (I kid you not), according to Time magazine.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 22, 2006)

I was entertained. It was a horrible mess of Star Wars cliches, LotR-inspired settings, uber-kewl fight scenes, hot elf babes, and barely the common sense to change the spellings on the plagiarism.

In short, it was my first D&D campaign on film   

I enjoyed it. Then again, I own BOTH D&D movies on DVD, so what does that say about me? Would I rank in my top 50? Absolutely not. But I didn't feel ripped off by it like I have other movies (COUGHBill&Ted'sbogusjourneyCOUGH)

Oh, Memo to Jeremy Irons: STAY AWAY FROM BAD FANTASY MOVIES INVOLVING DRAGONS! I thought you would have learned your lesson...


----------



## BRP2 (Dec 22, 2006)

That's fine in my book. I mean, turning water to wine is cool and all, but can Jesus throw mach 2 punches? I mean the greatest miracle Jesus performed was coming back to life. Superman totally did that too.


----------



## PatrickLawinger (Dec 22, 2006)

Um, haven't read every post here so don't know how we got from Eragon to Superman, but I took my kids and several of their friends to the movie this afternoon. (possible spoilers below, but there have been spoilers in some of the other posts)

My 11-year-old (who has read the books and a WIDE collection of other books): "It was fun but I don't know how they are going to have an Eldest movie, they didn't even introduce some characters from Eragon (the book) that are important in Eldest."

His 12-year old friend (who hasn't read the book): "Those effects were SO COOL. Except the 'shade dude' he was, like, puppetman on a smokey bat thing, it looked stupid..." He liked the movie and had a good time

That boy's older brother started falling asleep during the last 20 minutes (when there was actually MORE action). His older brother has a few problems though and I think this just wasn't his type of thing.

My 7-year-old enjoyed the movie, however, he finished reading the book this morning and was able to start describing all the differences between the book and the movie. this resulted in him trying to get his older brother to tell him which characters were imporatant in Eldest (the second book) which he just started reading. It was nice, as a parent, to note that my older son simply refused and stopped talking about missing characters so as not to "ruin" the second book for his brother.

His 8-year-old friend just plain had a great time at the movie and really, REALLY liked it.

My 4-year-old daughter decided that she didn't like it and wanted to go home, after the first 20 minutes.

Yes, I took 6 kids to the see Eragon and watched the last hour and a half with a cranky 4-year-old (who likes LOTR-don't ask me, probably because her brothers do) in my lap.

Oh, my opinion? Not a very faithful adaptation of the book (I haven't read the second book but suspect my 11 year-old knows what he is talking about above). I think that younger boys of the ages 6-13 will enjoy the movie (and some girls). Overall, the movie felt lacking to me. I think the script and direction were pretty poor. Ofcourse, certain actors do turn in good performances, but really, they didn't have much to work with.

Patrick


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 22, 2006)

I hadn't heard of Eragon until this year...and the reviews I've heard & read (and with the movie trailers out, things I've seen) hasn't encouraged me.  I'm waiting until it shows up on Sci-Fi or FX or some such.

Upon seeing the commercials for it, my first thought was "Another D&D movie?  Will they never learn?"

I agree with the above poster that the Dragonslayer dragon is still the best I've seen, including the Eragon clips, though I don't have a problem with feathered dragon wings.  Quezcoatl rulz!

I also agree that Hambly's or McCaffery's books would have been much better choices for translation to the silver screen.  So would Dickson's "Dragon and the George" and subsequent novels.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Dec 22, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I also agree that Hambly's or McCaffery's books would have been much better choices for translation to the silver screen.  So would Dickson's "Dragon and the George" and subsequent novels.




I've always thought the Dragon and the George series was good humorous fantasy.  Probably one of the best to translate to the movies for all the out-of-character humor and the general light-spiritedness of it.


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Dec 22, 2006)

We were working on the scenario of someone who had no prior knowledge of anything Superman going to see Superman Returns. Not very realistic, but it was just for discussion sake. I think it isn't very realistic for someone in 1980 to not be aware of at least a little of the Star Wars story. The first movie was a cultural phenomenon in '77 - it was all over the place. 

Bottom line, nearly every sequel in history requires you to watch the previous movies to know a lot of the little things going on in the film. Sure, you can follow the plot of a sequel without that, but you won't understand some things that are going on.


----------



## Darrell (Dec 22, 2006)

IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> We were working on the scenario of someone who had no prior knowledge of anything Superman going to see Superman Returns. Not very realistic, but it was just for discussion sake.




Granted.  Though, I'd still say it's easier for that novice movie-goer to follow _Superman Returns_ than ESB.



			
				IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> I think it isn't very realistic for someone in 1980 to not be aware of at least a little of the Star Wars story. The first movie was a cultural phenomenon in '77 - it was all over the place.




More realistic than you'd think.      In my (admittedly small, especially at the time) North Carolina town, there were only about a dozen of us who became SW freaks.  The reception for SW was so small that our local cinema (a single one-screen house, no multiplex at that time...we're a bit better off now) didn't get ESB when it came out.  I had to go to a larger town nearby to see it.  We're still light on fantasy freaks around here, by the way; _Eragon_ isn't in this week's listings. (Frickin' _Passion of the Christ_, on the other hand, stayed on our screens--_two_ of 'em, no less--for better than five months.)

I'd point out, as a side note, that virtually all of those non-Star Wars-goers knew who Superman was.    



			
				IcedEarth81 said:
			
		

> Bottom line, nearly every sequel in history requires you to watch the previous movies to know a lot of the little things going on in the film. Sure, you can follow the plot of a sequel without that, but you won't understand some things that are going on.




Again, granted; though, again, I'd point to _Silence of the Lambs_.  There was literally no need whatsoever to have seen _Manhunter_ to understand it.

Regards,
Darrell King


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Dec 22, 2006)

I won't argue which is easier to follow - no doubt SR is. 

About SOTL, that is why I said nearly every sequel rather than all.


----------



## NiTessine (Dec 23, 2006)

I went to see _Eragon_ the other day.

I started giggling around the time of the opening narrative and did that all the way to the end, stopping every time the script tried to be funny.

_Eragon_ places pretty firmly in my personal top ten of worst films of all time, alongside such classics as _Dungeons & Dragons_ and _King Arthur_, because when you have a budget of some 100 000 000 dollars (according to Wikipedia) and guys like Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich and Robert Carlyle, churning out crap like this just isn't excusable.

The movie failed in just about every area, including soundtrack and the fight scenes, which have traditionally been a strong point in even the bad fantasy and historical flicks.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 11, 2007)

Just saw it last night. Disclaimer: I am not familiar with whatever source material it's from.

This movie was... not good. I didn't really enjoy myself, and thought that it was simply a 'plot by numbers' flick. I guess it wasn't horrendous, but still... not great.

Maybe a 4/10.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Jan 11, 2007)

I saw it with my youngest daughter and a friend about a week ago.

It's not awful exactly, but whoeve mentioned it was "By-The-Numbers" earlier in the thread has the right of it. I mean, there is very little originality in it...and I don't ask for much as a rule.

But when my 9 year-old daughter mentions that a certain chracter is "just like Obiwan Kenobi" you kind of have to laugh a bit.

Still, it was nice ot see Jeremy Irons _not_ screwing up a Sword and Sorcery movie 

By way of comparison, I got the Second D&D movie on DVD for Xmas and enjoyed it quite a bit more than Eragon.


----------



## IcyCool (Jan 11, 2007)

Saw it with my wife.  To preface, both she and I have read the first two books of Paolini's Inheritance trilogy.

1. I found the movie to be marginally better than the 2nd D&D movie (which was quite a bit better than the first D&D movie, IMO).

2. The most enjoyable scene to me was the final fight between Eragon and Durza.  It was pretty CG and just plain fun.  This did not make the movie any better though.  That said, I had a better time watching both SARS Wars: Zombie Apocalypse, and Jesus Christ Vampire Slayer.

Honestly, the book was fairly mediocre, but I didn't feel like I wasted my time reading it.  When it comes to the second book, I found myself far more interested in the side plot for Roran's character than I did with any of the flashy, whiny bits with Eragon.

My personal ratings scale goes like this:

**** - I'd see it multiple times in the theater at full price.
*** - It's worth the full price theater ticket, but probably only once.
** - It's worth the matinee price.
* - Rent it, or wait for it to come out on TV.
 - At least it wasn't "Stacy".

So Eragon is a solid "**" on my scale.


----------

