ERAGON - What did you think?

[HeavenShallBurn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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...