ERAGON - What did you think?

[Darrell]

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]

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]

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).

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

It isn't.

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]

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]

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...