Pajiba

Not to mention that Paolini ripped off nearly every major fantasy series in one way or another, and real fantasy geeks just get annoyed at him.

"Yeah, I wrote stuff like that when I was fifteen. I also never tried to get it published because it was total shit," to quote one friend.

Needless to say, I will not be watching this movie if I can avoid it.

"The ensemble cast includes a number of occasionally great actors -- Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich, Robert Carlyle, Djimon Hounsou"

Whoa there bubba, only occassionally?

" 'The ensemble cast includes a number of occasionally great actors -- Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich, Robert Carlyle, Djimon Hounsou'

Whoa there bubba, only occassionally?"

i say these guys are great occasionally, perhaps even moreso than occasionally, but they do have stinkers in their resumes:

Malkovich: "Con Air" (as Cyrus "the Virus")

Carlyle: "Formula 51"...enough said

Hounsou: "Biker Boyz", "Deep Rising" (don't get me wrong, I loved "Deep Rising", but a great performance this was not...)

Irons: "Dungeons and Dragons", "The Time Machine"

so come on, BarbadoSlim, no great actor is infallible, cut the reviewer some slack...

You think Jeremy Irons would have learned his lesson.

"I simply must make up for that dreadful D&D movie. What's this? A derivative fantasy movie involvin dragons and posibly a dungeon or two? This is my chance!"

Oh, Jeremy. At least you didn't have to put up with Marlon Wayans again.

The book was pretty blah, and the only thing good from it was the more interesting guy who tags along with the hero (not the token "wise man" guy, the other one who comes later). If he was the hero instead of Eragon (typical farm boy with warrior destiny and bagging pretty elf chicks yadda yadda yadda) it would have been a lot better.

I agree with Stacey and Anne--I'm on record with the boyfriend complaining ad nauseam about how, now that we have the technology to make great dragons onscreen, it's time to Pern it. Those threads falling would look great, too--it's so cinematic even on the written page. AFAIC the only scene that really grabbed me in LotR was the dragon air-assault battle, and I've been dreaming of Pern ever since.

That said, I'm no slavish McAfferey follower so I understand if others who love her stuff more might balk at the idea. Chances are, after all, that any Pern-screenage would suck (see Exhibit A above).

I read the book, and it was a waste of time. What I want to know is, how did they do the dragon talking to Eragon? Was it all voiceovers, or was she actually talking?

Generally novel based movies always lose something in the creation. There are FEW novel based movies that were better or as good as the novel "from whence they came". The story usually suffers in the retelling.

That said, when you have a so-so book, like Eragon for example, one of two things could happen: 1. maybe the director, screenwriter, whoever could somehow create a silk purse from a sow's ear and find a way to render the story in a such a way that you forget the faults of the novel itself;

or 2. things get worse.

Guess what happened here...

Paolini has potential but Eragon was merely a way to pass time and the same goes for the film. (Curiosity got the better of me.) I third Anne's argument. Pern would have been a much better place to go...but only with the right director.

As a fan of ACTUAL fantasy (and sci-fi), I...am so very unsurprised given the source material, and frankly am just grateful that they merely turned crap into crappier crap, rather than raping yet another of my dearly loved fandoms.
See: LOTR, HHGTTG

I'm of two minds about this. One side groans that these hacks have set back the sword & sorcery genre at least a decade. And that all my hopes for, say, a GOOD fantasy TV series have been dashed.

But the other side maintains that LOTR showed people that fantasy can be good. You can have sword play, and maybe even a touch of magic going on without it feeling goofy or self-referential, and that it can even be exhilarating and moving. And so people can look at this film and realize that this isn't the genre, this is the genre done very poorly.

I'm still undecided. But I guess the proof will be in whether The Machine makes another fantasy movie anytime soon. I think the LOTR glam might be a bit squandered at this point on Narnia and Eragon. What might be really cool is George RR Martin's Song of Ice and Fire. But maybe that would be better as an HBO series (hope hope).

When there are so many talented but struggling authors out there, it's frustrating to see a derivative hack achieve such market success. For those of you unfamiliar with the fantasy genre or its conventions, let me give you a comparison using a mainstream example:

Let's say I write a new book about two characters named Haminal Fecter (a canibalistic serial killer) and Clarissa Darling (an FBI agent). Clarissa needs Haminal's help solving a current case, so they engage in a tit-for-tat information exchange that ultimately leads to finding the killer (Mild Phil). Haminal constantly harasses Clarissa about some pigs that she was unable to save from slaughter on her father's farm (hence the title of this book: Silence of the Hams).

At the end, Haminal escapes and while on the lamb (heh,heh), he searches for the REAL serial killer that framed him: a one-legged man. At last he is found and all is well.

The End.

My books becomes an instant bestseller. I'm hailed as a 17 year old prodigy. I get movie deals and worldwide fame. My children and my children's children can live off the money I earn.

Seriously. This series is THAT close to Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.

Meh, I agree with you re: George Martin's Song of Ice and Fire. It's really involved though, and it would be a good mini series as opposed to a movie.

Mr. Sparkle: yeah, that "Paolini is only 15 when he wrote it!" bullshit has to stop. To paraphrase David Gemmell, you have to write a LOT of crap, get through a fair bit of authorial conceit before you hit pay dirt. Paolini hasn't even begun to get through the dirt. I was listening to BBC 4 about a set of twins that took seven years to write a fantasy series, and the letters of rejection actually helped them to write a much better book than if they just got the first draft published.

I'm with Lef here: the guy literally transposed the plot of Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings and has gotten away with it.

Well, I do like Jermey Irons, John Malkovitch et al, but dang, no I shan't be seeing this movie. The book was a CHORE to read, cand the movie is WORSE?!

Again, dang.

THANK you. I tried to read this to my then-nine-year-old last summer, and couldn't force myself to get beyond the first three pages, the writing was so bad. So he was 15? Just goes to prove you can write badly at any age. At least he has an excuse (I'm LOOKING AT YOU, CORNELIA FUNKE.)

As for why McCaffrey's novels don't cut it as a movie, well, there's a lot of sex in 'em. Who would be the market for a plot that relies heavily upon sex (not 'romance', but sex) and dragons? I'd go just to see CGI threadfall, and then probably fall asleep. Also, her many similar books are not the most challenging or interesting work out there, either.

I'm with you Leigh. I'd also like to point out Trainspotting and Scanner Darkly as non-disappointing adaptations. And Adaptation for that matter.

I saw the first trailer for this when I went to see Casino Royale. I excitedly turned to my friend and shouted "Oh boy! They're finally making a Dragon Riders of Pern movie!" You know the rest. Barnacles, that's all I have to say... barnacles. And I have decided in retaliation for Jeremy Irons annoying me, to annoy my wife and friends (and my wife's friends) by leaving messages on their answering machines informing them that they are, in fact, the next dragon rider.

I actually liked the book. It's basically a giant tribute by a teenage geeky kid to all the books and movies he likes, which I found kind of endearing despite the clunky writing. Eh, I never claimed to have good taste.

I am DEFINITELY not seeing this movie, though. Gotta draw the line somewhere.

"You think Jeremy Irons would have learned his lesson"

From memory he was quite open about the fact that he desperately needed money for renovating his castle or whatever, and did Dungeons and Dragons because of that. I fully expect him to have the same motivation now.

One of the reasons I really like Jeremy Irons that he'll usually quite happily admit to prostituting himself in shit films when he's strapped for cash, instead of doing the whole "it's such an inspirational script, you know, and I've always respected (insert director's name here)'s work so I was thrilled to be asked for the project"-press junket schtick.

Surprisingly enough, John Malkovich was the worst part of the movie for me....and the crappy pacing runs a close second. He was just too ridiculous with his blatant American accent, and I was sort of ashamed for him. The lack of character development actually made me WANT to read the book, there are parts that are "sad" where I thought that if I was reading it I might feel some sort of emotion. Special effects were amazing though....overall it was very dull harmless dragon-fare, and I have to say....a part of me sort of liked it. It could have been the Speleers kid, he's sort of endearing in that "I'm a strapping young lad who's stupid and reckless" kind of way.

about the book....wasn't s.e. hinton 15 when she wrote the outsiders? so howcome HER book didn't suck, hm? hollywood's really running out of material......

Why can't people just enjoy a movie and forget about the book that it has been based on? no book can be turned into a movie without some people being dissapointed on some level...

either they left something out or chanced something... Well if they did not do this then people would complain about the movie been dissapointing because everybody knows what will happen next...

enjoy the movie and forget about the book or enjoy the book and forget about the movie... you can't have both...

Jim: You're 59 and still using the "You can't criticize it if you don't do it" bullshit? Jesus. And that half-assed Walmart insult too, my god. You're my grandfather's age so I won't be too much of a dick, but if all you can do is fling childish insults around instead of actually pointing out WHY you think the review is incompetent -- AND YOU'RE 59 YEARS OLD -- I just have to feel sorry for you. I've read more scathing condemnations written by 12 year olds posting on the Leaky Cauldron.

"I suffer without my stone." We couldn't stop laughing.

SE Hinton wrote the book when she was 15 -- it didn't come out until later, did it? I think it was later. Plus, she had the advantage of writing (or the smarts to write) about topics and events that came directly from her own high school experience. She wasn't trying to make up (or, you know, copy) stuff outside her sphere. And she was blessed with strong prose, which is not out of the realm of possibility for a teen.

Paolini had fairly decent prose. "Pretty words that say nothing" is one of the most common criticisms of writing at that age. Experience and depth are lacking, regardless of talent. Unfortunately, because of this naivete, Paolini was not able to supply a plot and had to borrow one -- or two -- wholesale. (Now that I know his parents published his book, it smarts far less. Even JK Rowling, whose work I don't care for, had to shop around, market and edit herself. There was some quality control there.)

It's normal for beginning writers to copy. It's normal for artists in general to do this, which is why you see students with sketchbooks in museums, essentially plagiarising the greats. It's a pretty typical part of the process. BUT... it's a lesson. They don't try to get paid for it. Jeeze.

I was hoping that with outside input the movie might be better -- more streamlined at least? I guess not.

I thought you Eragon hatas should get a load of this: There was a phrase in his books that is as follows "...he will be healed by the balm in the city of Gil-Ead..." That is only a few characters away from being identical to the phrase "Is there balm in Gilead?!" from Edgar Allan Poe's The Raven, paragraph fifteen, line five. Now I'm not a cynical person, but something like that couldn't simply be coincidence. How could he play such a tasteless prank on his readers? Was he drunk or something to find such a sick joke even slightly funny? Does he really think all his readers would be too stupid to see that?! I was insulted when I read that!