Eragon

[bunnypeaches]

I try to enjoy a movie based on a movie's merits, not that it was based off a book, some of them as said above left such a foul taste in my mouth on abusing a good name like that....

I try to do that too, and I have no objections to them leaving out certain bits or summing things up, to make the movie flow better and to actually fit it all into a film (eg Lord of the Rings, they left a lot of stuff out, but I think they had to, and they didn't mess about too much with what was left). What I hate most of all is stupid changes like a character in the book having black hair, and being played by Nicole Kidman in the film. It shouldn't really matter, I know, but it just makes me think the director or casting person hasn't even bothered to read the book! Silly things like that, that they had no reason to change, but just felt like it. Maybe that's just me though, I get very clear pictures of characters in my head.

And for example in the fourth Harry Potter film (which by the way are some of the most awful book-to-film adapatations I've ever seen) they give away right at the very start who the secret bad guy is all along. You're not MEANT to know that until the very end. That's the whole point of building suspense till the end. It'd be like somebody coming up to Poirot with a lead pipe covered in blood and the corpse's head down his shirt. And my little sister thinks she knows all about Harry Potter cause she's seen the films, and she can't even be arsed to read the books when I point out how ignorant she actually is. She tries to correct me when I'm talking about it!

This is a pet peeve of mine, and one of the main things I rant about, so I do apologise for somewhat rambling, angry spinster-with-too-many-cats type posts!

 

[ghost8772]

No i didn't pass myself off as better than someone who read the books,not sure what you mean there but I'd never say I was better than anyone else.
And I've no desire to read the Tarzan books but maybe one day I will-i have read his first Barsoom book tho,A Princess of Mars which is an ok adventure,not bad, a bit dated,but a bit of fun.

I figured you hadn't done the "better than someone else" mindset. you read books. The people who avoid reading like its torture and feel smug about it are the ones who feel they one-upped the people who read a book, enjoyed the story and have regaled their visit to another place, time, viewpoint.

I try to do that too, and I have no objections to them leaving out certain bits or summing things up, to make the movie flow better and to actually fit it all into a film (eg Lord of the Rings, they left a lot of stuff out, but I think they had to, and they didn't mess about too much with what was left). What I hate most of all is stupid changes like a character in the book having black hair, and being played by Nicole Kidman in the film. It shouldn't really matter, I know, but it just makes me think the director or casting person hasn't even bothered to read the book! Silly things like that, that they had no reason to change, but just felt like it. Maybe that's just me though, I get very clear pictures of characters in my head.

And for example in the fourth Harry Potter film (which by the way are some of the most awful book-to-film adapatations I've ever seen) they give away right at the very start who the secret bad guy is all along. You're not MEANT to know that until the very end. That's the whole point of building suspense till the end. It'd be like somebody coming up to Poirot with a lead pipe covered in blood and the corpse's head down his shirt. And my little sister thinks she knows all about Harry Potter cause she's seen the films, and she can't even be arsed to read the books when I point out how ignorant she actually is. She tries to correct me when I'm talking about it!

This is a pet peeve of mine, and one of the main things I rant about, so I do apologise for somewhat rambling, angry spinster-with-too-many-cats type posts!

So your sister believes that Potter and Malfoy met at hogwarts, instead of getting robes fitted on Harry's 11th birthday?

Yes, some books are nearly religiously followed in screenplay, with some changes/additions or subtractions to help the visuals flow more smoothly. While others nabbed the name to get a devoted fanbase clamoring for the movie to be finished, while the name of the story and some character names are all that were taken from the book. I can understand about the potter translations, actually I think the first potter book was about the closest book-to-video of them all.

 

[AE35Unit]

Oh sometimes,if the film is good i get in the mindset that says Oh I've seen the film,no need to read the book now(lord of the rings is a good example. Jackson did such a good job that I feel i dont need to wade thru the books-tho i do have a desire to read them,out of curiosity)

 

[ghost8772]

Actually Lord of the rings was fairly closely adapted to the books, some events changed timing, and a couple things were left completely out. the only real gripe I had was they left out the part about Sharkey. though I'd guess they would have had to add about 45 minutes to an already hugely long movie. most off the Hobbits adventures getting to Rivendell were skipped completely. but under the heading of "kept close enough to the book for it to be believed it CAME from the book" about a 9.

Yes I first compare a movie to how it followed the book it was named after, then will check it for its own merits. Guess being a reader first makes me want to see if the person running the movie felt the same way I did about the book.

 

[AE35Unit]

And next up is The Hobbit which will hopefully be released as two films spanning 2011/12
Thats the only Tolkien book I've read and it was a long time ago.
Oh getting back on topic I don't understand why this has been posted in Anne McCaffrey!

 

[bunnypeaches]

Yeah sorry about that, AE35, I did take it off topic a bit, it started as a general complaint about rubbish book-to-films adaptations and rip offs of other stories, but I got distracted in my ire!

Ghost, I agree, the bit with Sharky at the end was always one of my favourite bits and I thought it kind of showed how the hobbits had got so much tougher that handling Saruman all on their own didn't seem like such a big deal anymore. I'm always gutted they left out Tom Bombadil (sp?) though! And yes, my sister thinks they met at Hogwarts, and she probably still doesn't even know how it all ends. I just can't understand why she's not interested in finding out! Those films do seem very slapped together to me, and like you (or someone) said, simply made because they knew there'd be a huge audience for them, no matter how badly done they were. People should have to answer a questionnaire or something to prove they've read the book before going to see any book-to-film movie. Then I wouldn't care, cause people would know the real story, and see the films for what they are.

I actually prefer The Hobbit to the LotR trilogy, but that may be just cause there's less rambling discriptive passages, and I think Bilbo's a better character than Frodo by far. I heard Guillermo del Toro is directing or producing it or something though? In a way I think it'd almost be better if Peter Jackson was still involved to kind of make it have the same feel as the LotR films. But I might be pleasantly surprised and it might be brilliant. I hope it is, it's a much shorter book so maybe by making it into two films they wont have to leave anything much out.

 

[AE35Unit]

Bunnypeaches,both del Toro and Jackson are on the team. Jackson is the producer,del Toro the Director.

 

[Clansman]

Actually Lord of the rings was fairly closely adapted to the books, some events changed timing, and a couple things were left completely out. the only real gripe I had was they left out the part about Sharkey. though I'd guess they would have had to add about 45 minutes to an already hugely long movie. most off the Hobbits adventures getting to Rivendell were skipped completely. but under the heading of "kept close enough to the book for it to be believed it CAME from the book" about a 9.

Yes I first compare a movie to how it followed the book it was named after, then will check it for its own merits. Guess being a reader first makes me want to see if the person running the movie felt the same way I did about the book.

Yes, a good movie, but several gripes:

Elrond (Weaving got him completely wrong), Aragorn as a reluctant king (not so in the book, really changed the tenor of his story line), Arwen instead of Glorfindel the elf lord in the Flight to the Ford, Frodo (much stronger and way less whinging in the book), Faramir (directed very badly). Mind you, for a project that size, those are minor complaints. I too missed Sharky and the Scouring of the Shire, but that would have added at least 45 minutes. Really needed four movies, not three, to make them more watchable.

The book is always better. Period.

 

[ghost8772]

yes, reading is much more preferrable than brain mushing in front of television, or crammed in cheek-to-jowl in a theater. However I will join in the masses to see a movie with droolworthy special effects. Eragon had decent ones, though a rather poor plot. LoTR was a lot more to my liking despite the divergences taken from the novels. the charge of the rohirrim though...... totally worth the price of the ticket.... for all three.

 

[F'Lessan Amused]

on the subject of bad adaptations....the countless Phillip K Dick books thats been ruined by films is astounding, especially when they dont credit him....i was watching one the other day and the plot kept nagging at me and then i remembered it was a short story by Dick. it was one of those late nite cheaply made films...i almost broke the tv throwing teh remote at it.

on topic. can anyone wait for teh 4th book? its a dreadful series and a big rip-off but i also want to see what happens to saphira and the other two.

and ive read McAffrey and Eragon is basically teh same concept but in a different setting. one in a fantasy realm, another in sapce.

/rant over

 

[ghost8772]

on the subject of bad adaptations....the countless Phillip K Dick books thats been ruined by films is astounding, especially when they dont credit him....i was watching one the other day and the plot kept nagging at me and then i remembered it was a short story by Dick. it was one of those late nite cheaply made films...i almost broke the tv throwing teh remote at it.

on topic. can anyone wait for teh 4th book? its a dreadful series and a big rip-off but i also want to see what happens to saphira and the other two.

and ive read McAffrey and Eragon is basically teh same concept but in a different setting. one in a fantasy realm, another in sapce.

/rant over

I only read the first book, but found it took the dragon-rider concept from Pern, some of the mentor/student stuff from Eddings and star wars, the sword felt like it should have been a lightsaber, I never even cracked the cover on any of his other books. I felt I could enjoy my diversions better straight from the source instead of what I feel was overhyped fan fiction of a kid's favorite components of a story. Also since I have copies of what I felt were his base stories I don't have to spend the money or borrow a copy to read what I feel was the better story anyways.

 

[Boaz]

It seems that the discussion here comes down to whether Paolini copied McCaffrey or was inspired by her. This is difficult to know.

I read the Pern books or what was published when I was fourteen years old... I think it was about five books. Now, I've just read Eragon.

Similarities... Sentient dragons. Dragons and riders are psychologically and empathically bonded. Both series are continuously open-ended with their authors adding as they see fit. Both authors may be exploring their own place in the world through written characters... Lessa and Eragon.

Differences... On Pern, the dragonriders are battling their environment for the survival of their race while the dragonrider of Alagaesia is fighting a geo-political/racial war.

All stories carry pieces and parts of previous stories... both intentionally and unintentionally. People can claim that the character Eragon is Luke Skywalker of Pern, but what if that was unintentional on Paolini's part. What if he consciously was trying to retell My Father's Dragon, The Yearling, or the story of David in The Bible?

In no way do I think that Paolini has plagiarized or stolen McCaffrey's intellectual property. Paolini is closer to plagiarizing names of places from The Bible (Gilead) and The Silmarillion (Mithrim, Beor). But do we really need to fish out the origin of every detail? In Star Wars, the antagonists are the Sith. Does it seem strange that Goodkind's and Tad Williams' antagonists are the Mord-Sith and the Sithi, respectively?

How can we get to the bottom of where Paolini's story originated?

The cultural impact of Star Wars has been tremendous. Tech, speech, myth, shared experience, and story-telling have all been indellibly marked by George Lucas' epic. But where did Star Wars come from? The web page, Star Wars Origins: How did George Lucas create Star Wars? is very interesting. It talks about how... Lucas was inspired by Flash Gordon which was inspired by Buck Rogers... Lucas was inspired by Akira Kurosawa, but Kurosawa was not original either... Lucas was inspired by Tolkien who was inspired by MacDonald and Dunsany, et al... Lucas drew from personal experiences, but don't we all?

When an author has many sources or draws from a story from antiquity, we say he/she had inspiration. When an author has one source and the story is not even thinly veiled, then I call that plagiarism.

Here's a synopsis of the first part of a fantasy story. See if you can guess which one...

A short young man and his faithful friend are warned by a wizard that they must flee their pastoral home to escape black creatures. The young men meet a ranger who guides them through adventures to the secret refuge where the representatives of the Elves, Dwarves, and Men are formulating a plan to overthrow the Dark Lord. The young man, his faithful friend, the wizard, the ranger (who is actually a prince), and another prince (this one from the border kingdom that has borne the brunt of the Dark Lord's assault) form a Fellowship. The Elves and Dwarves send their representatives along with the fellowship. The Fellowship battles their way past goblins and a nameless monster until they find themselves under the foundations of an ancient city. When a huge Fire Demon threatens the Fellowship, the wizard fights it alone... both Wizard and Demon fall into a bottomless pit.

Did you guess The Fellowship of the Ring? If you did, you're wrong. This is The Sword of Shannara. I could do this again with The Iron Tower Trilogy of The Wheel of Time, but you get the point. I'm sure Brooks, McKiernan, and Jordan would claim that they had many sources of inspiration...

And how much did Tolkien lift straight ouf of Beowulf? Where does it end?

I felt Eragon was good story-telling from a teenager. It was actually better than some fantasy written by adults. Eragon was enjoyable, but not really as satisfying at the Pern stories.

 

[ghost8772]

It seems that the discussion here comes down to whether Paolini copied McCaffrey or was inspired by her. This is difficult to know.

I read the Pern books or what was published when I was fourteen years old... I think it was about five books. Now, I've just read Eragon.

Similarities... Sentient dragons. Dragons and riders are psychologically and empathically bonded. Both series are continuously open-ended with their authors adding as they see fit. Both authors may be exploring their own place in the world through written characters... Lessa and Eragon.

Differences... On Pern, the dragonriders are battling their environment for the survival of their race while the dragonrider of Alagaesia is fighting a geo-political/racial war.

All stories carry pieces and parts of previous stories... both intentionally and unintentionally. People can claim that the character Eragon is Luke Skywalker of Pern, but what if that was unintentional on Paolini's part. What if he consciously was trying to retell My Father's Dragon, The Yearling, or the story of David in The Bible?

In no way do I think that Paolini has plagiarized or stolen McCaffrey's intellectual property. Paolini is closer to plagiarizing names of places from The Bible (Gilead) and The Silmarillion (Mithrim, Beor). But do we really need to fish out the origin of every detail? In Star Wars, the antagonists are the Sith. Does it seem strange that Goodkind's and Tad Williams' antagonists are the Mord-Sith and the Sithi, respectively?

How can we get to the bottom of where Paolini's story originated?

The cultural impact of Star Wars has been tremendous. Tech, speech, myth, shared experience, and story-telling have all been indellibly marked by George Lucas' epic. But where did Star Wars come from? The web page, Star Wars Origins: How did George Lucas create Star Wars? is very interesting. It talks about how... Lucas was inspired by Flash Gordon which was inspired by Buck Rogers... Lucas was inspired by Akira Kurosawa, but Kurosawa was not original either... Lucas was inspired by Tolkien who was inspired by MacDonald and Dunsany, et al... Lucas drew from personal experiences, but don't we all?

When an author has many sources or draws from a story from antiquity, we say he/she had inspiration. When an author has one source and the story is not even thinly veiled, then I call that plagiarism.

Here's a synopsis of the first part of a fantasy story. See if you can guess which one...

A short young man and his faithful friend are warned by a wizard that they must flee their pastoral home to escape black creatures. The young men meet a ranger who guides them through adventures to the secret refuge where the representatives of the Elves, Dwarves, and Men are formulating a plan to overthrow the Dark Lord. The young man, his faithful friend, the wizard, the ranger (who is actually a prince), and another prince (this one from the border kingdom that has borne the brunt of the Dark Lord's assault) form a Fellowship. The Elves and Dwarves send their representatives along with the fellowship. The Fellowship battles their way past goblins and a nameless monster until they find themselves under the foundations of an ancient city. When a huge Fire Demon threatens the Fellowship, the wizard fights it alone... both Wizard and Demon fall into a bottomless pit.

Did you guess The Fellowship of the Ring? If you did, you're wrong. This is The Sword of Shannara. I could do this again with The Iron Tower Trilogy of The Wheel of Time, but you get the point. I'm sure Brooks, McKiernan, and Jordan would claim that they had many sources of inspiration...

And how much did Tolkien lift straight ouf of Beowulf? Where does it end?

I felt Eragon was good story-telling from a teenager. It was actually better than some fantasy written by adults. Eragon was enjoyable, but not really as satisfying at the Pern stories.

Actually Boaz I figured it was Sword of Shannara. there's been major discussion about the similarities between LoTR and Sword. I haven't heard of a base story that they both might have used to create their stories, but major plot points of the two are close enough to wonder if Brooks didn't copy Tolkien's plot. since LoTR was published just a few years before Shannara got a start.

Eragon however doesn't have the feel that someone built a story. what it felt like was the Author took bits and pieces that he liked, possibly polished them a bit to be more how he liked the idea. like dragons only hatching when their chosen rider is present. Some of the ideas seemed fully formed, while others were patchy, and sketchy at best. and connecting the polished pieces there seemed to be filler. not even decent filler.

Now, I will say to each their own. Tolkien or Brooks, Paolini, or Star Wars, Pern, Eddings, whomever can conceive a decent yarn together and build it into a good story. I will not say that any stories are 100% original, they can't be, but they can at least consistently appear in the author's voice (Brooks did it, Lucas did it, I do not feel Paolini did it) but this is my opinion, I'm actually entitled to it, and also entitled to not read another book by Paolini, because I do not like. Just like you are entitled to read them all, because you do.

 

[devilsgrin]

the first page of Egagon was enough to make me shudder... however my persistent OCD whereby i MUST finish reading a book at cost of major distraction compelled me to read on. I was not disappointed... i was rather appalled at the badly stitched plot devices. Yet, alas, a sequel came out... and i had to read it too... bad fan-fic it turned out to be. in fact i've read lots of fan-fic over the years that was significantly better. And wait... then came a third... it was marginally better than the first two.. yet still... Gary Stu 1 and Gary Stu 2 took centre stage again and never once looked in doubt of surviving all obstacles presented to them. What was initially painted as Mary Sue 1 has become "traditional strong female character who suddenly cannot do anything without Gary Stu 1 along to save her."
Unfortunately for me, when a fourth book in this Trilogy (oh wait now its a Saga) is released, i will most likely buy it... damn me for being an idiot that opened the first book to begin with.

 

[Clansman]

This series is proof that anything, ANYTHING, can sell, provided that it has a publisher that backs it. Without a publisher's backing, excellent books languish with low press runs, and no real chance at exposure to the reading public. It took a gargantuan publishing effort to get A Song of Ice and Fire going (believe it or not), and look at all the attention Terry Goodkind received, thus creating momentum, and cashing in on the OCD of people like devlisgrin and me (before I was cured of that particular affliction by TG's writing).

Trouble is, Paolini had a publisher before he had written a page (his parents), and now he has a following. Too bad, because as bad as it is, it was the beginning of someone who might become a good writer, except that he has not had to go through the crucible of rejection, revision, and resubmission that most authors must in order to refine their craft to the point where is is actually decent. As a result, all Paolini writes is fanfic under a different title, and it is likely that he'll never get the chance to refine his talent and actually create something.

 

[ghost8772]

This series is proof that anything, ANYTHING, can sell, provided that it has a publisher that backs it. Without a publisher's backing, excellent books languish with low press runs, and no real chance at exposure to the reading public. It took a gargantuan publishing effort to get A Song of Ice and Fire going (believe it or not), and look at all the attention Terry Goodkind received, thus creating momentum, and cashing in on the OCD of people like devlisgrin and me (before I was cured of that particular affliction by TG's writing).

Trouble is, Paolini had a publisher before he had written a page (his parents), and now he has a following. Too bad, because as bad as it is, it was the beginning of someone who might become a good writer, except that he has not had to go through the crucible of rejection, revision, and resubmission that most authors must in order to refine their craft to the point where is is actually decent. As a result, all Paolini writes is fanfic under a different title, and it is likely that he'll never get the chance to refine his talent and actually create something.

which all boils down to "there goes the neighborhood" next up Captain Quark and his half elf second-in-command story, wandering the galaxy in their spaceship Entrepeneur.... and have ALL the kids clamoring for the next installment from the fifteen year old author and taking offense from anyone telling them the story is taken from something older.

 

[Clansman]

Hey, I just realized, that the only way Paolini is getting any attention on the Chrons is in a thread under another author's sub-forum. The irony is beautiful, and a little tragic.

We could go to some Paolini sites, just for the fun of getting flamed.

 

[ghost8772]

Hey, I just realized, that the only way Paolini is getting any attention on the Chrons is in a thread under another author's sub-forum. The irony is beautiful, and a little tragic.

We could go to some Paolini sites, just for the fun of getting flamed.

I think I could have less fun in life than getting black-balled from Paolini fan sites.

 

[Clansman]

I think I could have less fun in life than getting black-balled from Paolini fan sites.

I suppose. Black balled? I wouldn't be nasty or profane. I would just be right.

 

[ghost8772]

I suppose. Black balled? I wouldn't be nasty or profane. I would just be right.

certainly, but the majority would take offense that you had anything bad to say about their author.

and likely would work in concert to get one permanently removed from their precious site.