Did anyone else think that Eragon the movie really sucked? I loved the book, but I think the movie SUCKED!!!! I think Christopher Paolini should have had a part in the movie. Maybe that way it wouldn't have sucked. It was too short for that size of book, many of the important scenes were missing, the girl who played Arya sucked, Angela's character changed from a kooky herbologist witch to a freaky fortuneteller who refers to herself in the third person, basically the whole plot changed, and lastly, they've made it difficult to transfer into Eldest. Speaking of Eldest, if the movie is made, I probably won't watch it. what do you think?
2006-12-17 15:29:25 · 19 answers · asked by Logan B 1 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
I left the theater fuming (along with many other unhappy fans) with how bad that was. My parents who hadn't read the books were so confused about what happened in the movie. The acting was horrible except Brom was good, but the scrip didn't do him justice. The movie didn't even follow the book. What angers me the most is the way they portrayed Arya. They made her seem weak and clingy. She is blond too, whats up with that? And the attraction between her and Eragon. We know Eragon likes her but they let on that she likes him. Fox changed every thing and I'm so angry about the movie. Wow that felt good getting some of that out there in the open. I could go on and on, but I won't.
P.S.- Message to Fox: READ THE BOOK BEFORE YOU MAKE A MOVIE
2006-12-18 12:09:52 · answer #1 · answered by Greyhound 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I haven't read the book yet, but saw the film at the weekend. Based on the film alone, it was ok, but I did feel it was missing something, like they could have done more with it. I did like the Shade character and Brom, but Arya did seem a little weak, and the Angela character seemed unimportant.
I think I will read the book before the next film is made.
As for the person who said that the Harry Potter movies aren't as good as the books, I can agree and disagree. The first two films were pretty much spot on. The third did leave out a lot of key point, particularly on Snape, but they did make the transition from happy kiddies to angsty teens quite well. The fourth was better than the third, but still missed a lot out, but since the book was so long, I doubt they had much choice. I can't wait for the fifth or the sixth. I love the films as much as the books, and it was seeing the first two films that made me read the books in the first place.
2006-12-19 07:36:31 · answer #2 · answered by Seph7 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If i hadnt read the book, i would think the movie was GOOD at best, but your right. If they make an Eldest movie, i will see it just so i can scream "F uck everyone who made this movie!!!!" And, Paolini let on that the third book (empire) would be about roran and eragon finding the razac! That isnt going to happen if they make an Empire movie, cause the razac are already dead!
Paolini wrote a great book, and WOULD have been the next tolken, but because the movie sucked monkey testacles, his popularity is going to go way down. Here is a MINOR list of flaws in the movie.
No Twins
No Solumbum
In the book, Murtaugh had many protests about going to the Varden, in the movie, there was not one mention of it!
there was no indication that the dwarves were dwarves!
They made angela (who i thought to be a wise woman, in her forties, who is young at heart) look like a fircken prostitute!!!!
saphira grew from babie to full size in 7 seconds!
The urgals (who are 6-10 feet tall in the book, and have horns) were just regular guys with facepaint!!!
Eragon and Roran arent supposed to look that much alike, roran is said to have dark hair!
Sloan is way to nice, in the book, he almost kills eragon
No Jeod
On http://www.imdb.com it shows movies and there plot and some actors, up until about a week before the movie, it said tehre were about 5 actors that werent in the movie. it said that tehre were twins, the child eragon blessed, orin, and more Urgals!
Saphira's voice was way to high!
The razac are birdish like people who ride their parents, and kill with superhuman strenght, not regular, naked people, covered in bugs, who are easily killed by an attack by brom!
That was a very, very short list compared to what i could say. The ONLY good things were that Fox has good graphics, so saphira loked cool. They also captured Durza's character prety well.
2006-12-19 03:45:42 · answer #3 · answered by Leon K. 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe not :- "Eragon grossed approximately $75 million in the US and $173.9 million elsewhere, totalling $249 million worldwide.[22] Films need to gross roughly twice their production and distribution costs to break even:[23] Eragon, which had a production budget of $100 million and distribution costs of an estimated $30 million,[24] did not reach this threshold."
2016-05-23 03:32:53 · answer #4 · answered by Marcia 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
About Me
Member since: December 19, 2006
Total points: 103 (Level 1)
Points earned this week:
Total answers:
Best answers:
The book was mediocre at best, but the movie aside from the less than passing resemblance to the book, was wretched.
From a motion picture stand point, book content aside. it was horrible. from the bad cuts, bad directing, and all together bad everything. the director and fox studios should be ashamed of themselves for producing such crap. and it appeared in all ways to be nothing more than a sci-fi original movie. In fact if done as such the movies quality would have possibly been slightly better, without the ticket price.. all in all i would rather be violated in a corn field backwards running up a tree without lubricant, in the most horrific of ways than watch that poor excuse for a movie again. i hope that answered your question..
2006-12-19 13:19:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree with you the movie doesnt compare to the book at all. I couldnt believe they left out the twins and when he blessed the girl. I hope the third book ("Empire") doesnt suck now that Paolini's gone holllywood.But if they do make and Eldest movie i hate to admit it but ill watch it.
2006-12-18 14:30:01 · answer #6 · answered by B Wells 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I hated the movie. It ravaged the book. If they make a movie of Eldest I am gonna start a protest, and it will be the million person march on idiots(Eragon/Eldest crew). What was up with the Ra'zac gettin killed? They totally destroyed it, and should be shot. I stongly urge you to not see it. I thought Eragon and Murtagh were gonna have a gay love scene.
2006-12-17 18:12:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
i was so thrilled when i heard about this movie it could have been so good, but alas it was as smelly as an Urgal fart. they shouldn't have called this movie eragon. it is the only movie that should be watched before the book is read. they left so much out. no twins, no dwarf city, no Angela or warecat, what the hell is this. i don't think that this movie will encourage people to read the book and if you have read the book stay away form this movie. you will leave frustrated.
2006-12-18 08:14:40 · answer #8 · answered by sid8084 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it did suck. the urgals were way different than the book explained. the way saphira got old was dumb. hw did he learn all those words, brom only tought him like 3. and my favorite scene in the book, is where saphora come breaking through the top of the dwarf structer, and breath fire for the first time, in the movie they changed that part completley. over all the movie got a 4 out of ten, and i am being generouse.
2006-12-18 13:29:05 · answer #9 · answered by nathan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I haven't seen it yet, but I don't think I'll like it. I'll probably go see them both though (Eragon and Eldest, when it comes out) purely because Murtagh's amazing. Of course, if the actor sucks, I'll leave the theater in the middle of the show. :)
2006-12-17 17:01:08 · answer #10 · answered by 525600cupsofcoffee 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋