Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Nessa on November 01, 2006, 12:53:32 PM
-
Trailer is available on IMDB. (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0449010/trailers-screenplay-E29123-10-2)
Yes, the book was written by a kid; yes, a great deal of the story isn't original; yes, it's not the best writing in the world, but....
The trailer looks kind of fun. However, I'm having a hard time taking it seriously and Malkovich--a favorite of mine in bad-guy roles--sounds so cliche in the trailer that I was annoyed. But then Jeremy Irons makes even cliche dialogue sound original. Anyone know the kid who plays Eragon?
-
You know, bad books can often make cool movies; Da Vinci Code is a prime example. Things that are tired and cliche in writing can be given new life visually, so when I saw the trailer for this it actually piqued my interest.
-
You know, bad books can often make cool movies; Da Vinci Code is a prime example. Things that are tired and cliche in writing can be given new life visually, so when I saw the trailer for this it actually piqued my interest.
You may be the first person I've heard say the Da Vinci Code was a cool movie.
-
The trailer was cool, but it reminds me of something made for the SciFi channel. Thus, it ends up in my "When I Have a Saturday Afternoon to Kill I'll See It" category.
-
Hmm . . . Jeremy Irons + Dragons = crap. I think I learned that equation back in high school physics.
Seriously, I'll be surprised if this film is worth watching. They've managed to hash together a bunch of people who aren't doing much, lately.
John Malkovich--has been meh since 1999's Being John Malkovich.
Jeremy Irons--see above equation.
Edward Speleers (Eragon)--Newcomer and unknown
Stefen Fangmeier (director)--Who? This is his directorial debut. He seems to be primarily a visual effects supervisor--over Lemony Snicket and Master and Commander most recently. Putting an effects-guru in charge of a movie that could easily turn into all effects and no substance seems like a recipe for disaster to me.
Four people are taking screen credit for writing the sucker, none of them really consistent or well-known. Too many mediocre cooks in the kitchen . . .
John Davis (producer)--His resume looks like a prime example of what not to produce. A slew of sequels (Doctor Doolittle 3, anyone?), Waterworld, Garfield . . . There are a few decent flicks (Predator), but they're heavily outnumbered.
In other words, there just isn't enough here to make me have belief in the film, even if it was on something new. The fact that it's on Eragon, a book that has sold well more because of who wrote it than any actual merit . . . It'll take a lot of convincing to get me into a theater, more than 4 minutes of effects shots slapped together into a preview.
-
So ABC Family was just showing a clip of this and when the dragon talks her mouth doesn't even move, not sure if there's supposed to be telepathy here or bad Special Effects.
-
It makes me spectacularly happy to see this movie doing this badly. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eragon/
The book was a waste of many many trees. Sounds like to movie isn' t much better.
-
I saw Eragon and right after went back and saw Apocalypto. I think Apocalytpo was better, but it also creeped me out; I liked it though. Eragon is something I wouldn't mind having on dvd and rewatching every now and then. If anything, it was a bit too short, probably would have been better with some more time for character and story development. Also, the dragons are real smart like in D&D and can understand people talking, they can also talk to their dragonrider telepathically, but I don't think they can just talk out loud to anyone. I think it deserves a sequel, if they improve on the faults of the first one.
-
mind turning that into a full review for us Eagle?
-
It makes me spectacularly happy to see this movie doing this badly. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eragon/
I have to say, this line from a rotten review made me laugh:
In a time of darkness, under the evil reign of John Malkovich... a hero shall rise. But lo, there will be little rejoicing, for this dragon rider (newcomer Edward Speleers) is but a nancy boy.
Luke Y. Thompson
L.A. Weekly
I might risk watching this on DVD. With such bad reviews, it's very unlikely I'll pay $8 to see it in the theaters.
-
My favorite review was the one that said it liked Eragon better when it was called Star Wars.
-
And it got #2 with 25 million, pretty good for a december.
-
review: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1485 (http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1485)
-
Hm, you say the movie's flaws keep it from being good, but it gets over 50% of the clocks?
-
Sure, above average but not good. I'd think an average movie like 3, good something like 4 to 5, and plain awesome 5-1/2 or 6. Below average probably 2 or 2-1/2, terrible something below that depending on just how bad. If you like playing D&D, then I think you'd like the movie. If you don't go to the movies too much, there are other shows that came out this month I'd see before this; in that case better to watch it on video. But I know a few people who average about 2 movies a week at the theatre.
Comparing it to some of the other movies I've saw this month, I thought Rocky Balboa and Apocalypto were both good; better than Eragon. I'd buy Rocky on dvd and probably even Eragon, but probably not Apocalypto, even though I thought it was a much better movie than Eragon. Apocalypto just isn't the kind of movie meant for numerous rewatchings, but of the three I'd say its the one to see in the theatre as it will lose a lot of its effect when not on the big screen.
-
The movie sucked the kid playing morgerth was an idiot when he to 5 minites to shlash an an urgal I almost pucked. Eragon the book was a good book witch i enjoyed but the cast was horrible for the book they didn't represent Arya in the least and they didn't follow the book at all. It was as if each of the production comitee read one chapter and tried to peice them together bettween themsleves.
-
I borrowed the first book awhile ago, but haven't got to read it yet. I also bought a bunch of other books for $1 each, so I have a whole lot to read right now. One of the $1 books I got was Writers of the Future v. XXI; one of the stories is by Eric Stone (who has his own forum on these boards)... haven't got around to reading that one either, but looking forward to it.
-
I thought this movie was a bit of a mediocre at best. The acting was sub-par, the story line moved to quickly and again the acting sucked The books on the other hand are fantastic. I was able to get into them very quickly and was engaged throughout. My recommendation is to forget the movie and read the books, much better choice!
-
I felt that the book was OK, but it needed to be drafted another time or two before release.
The movie however, it was just a shear and utter disappointment for too many reasons to bother listing.
-
Has anyone watched this movie with the Rifftrax (former Mystery Science Theater guys) commentary? It makes it totally worth watching. Absolutely hilarious.
-
I watched Eragon once, and it was with the Rifftrax commentary. Hilarious. Highly recommended.
-
Awful. I wish I saw it with the comentary but now that I've seen it without I know I couldn't bear watching it again.
-
THe first time I saw it was with the Rifftrax. Is probably one of the better Rifftrax I've seen/heard.
-
Wow, glad I'm not the only one who thought it was great! "If they run into Jar Jar Binks, I'm going to put my head through a wall." ;D
-
The movie was horrible. The acting was bad. The casting was bad. The action was bad. And the dragon didn't even look like a dragon! It looked like the offspring of a lizard and the woman from X-Men or whatever that series is. In the book, everyone's always oh so scared of her–but in the movie, if I was one of Galbatorix's soldiers and she came to scare me away, I'd fall down and start cracking up. (Normally, I'd like to say then I'd get up and chopped her head off but considering how well coordinated I am I'd probably fall on my sword and gut myself to death 8).) And they barely followed the real storyline at all! They killed off the Ra'zac–WHAT THE HELL??? Absolutely no skill at movie-making whatsoever!
-
It played out like a SciFi channel original movie. which I LOVE those, but simply because they are so horrible most of teh time. I love B grade movies, but they should consider themselves B grade movies (Bruce Campbell anyone? Army of Darkness? C'mon, you know you loved it!)
-
"I'm the Rider, and I saw we go!" ??? Way cheesy. And the way he said it…kid, go get another diaper from your mommy.
-
Army of Darkness was a great movie.
-
What's it about? Who directed it?
-
Bruce Campbell drives his car back to midieval times and kicks you know what with a chainsaw. Classic B movie from him.
-
And it's called 'Army of Darkness?' Is it a comedy or something?
-
Oh its hilarious.
-
OK good I love comedies. I'll have to check it out.
Would it be appropriate for a seventh and an eigth grader, do you think?
-
Bruce Campbell is probably best known for his role as Autolycus on Hercules and Xena and as "Boomer" in Sky High, he is currently on "Burn Notice" and has also appeared in all 3 Spiderman movies (he is close friends with Sam Raimi, he produced "Evil Dead" which Sam directed, and his brother Ted (Joxer from Xena) ).
If you like Army of Darkness, also check out "Alien Apocalypse" - which follows the same fish out of water B movieness, although it is not as good as AoD, still fun and funny.
-
Good references. I do remember him in Herculese and Xena. I have no idea what Sky High is but Burn Notice is a good show.
-
Sky High?....Meh. It's okay.....Corny. Wouldn't really recommend it. I should check out 'Army of Darkness' though. Sounds funny.....Hopefully it's more entertaining than Monty Python (which WAS funny, but most of it for me was a "huh?" kind of funny...I couldn't really believe that what was happening on screen was REALLY happening....It was weird. But it was funny. Quite funny...).
And back on topic. Eragon SUCKED. That part where Brom's about to die and Eragon's all talking to him? When I watched it in theatre, I looked over at my friend and I'm like, "This is dialogue from a cheesy romance."....It was pathetic.....Heck, it was more than pathetic. I would almost go so far as to call it the 'Twilight' (book, not movie) of movies.....which means it bombed. Only difference is with Eragon, people know it bombed. With Twilight....there are many deluded souls. I feel sorry for them. Sometimes....
-
Yeah Sky High was pretty cheesy and the acting wasn't very good. VERY unrealistic.
I don't get it with Twilight. And then all the girls in my school who read it are like connecting it to everything that happens in the real world and it gets really annoying. Like, I wrote a story for English and read it in class and it had a character named 'Seth' and a character with the last name 'Cohen.' So of course she misheard me and thought I said 'Seth and Cullen' and was convinced that I read Twilight and took the characters' names for my story. I haven't even read the freakin' book.
-
Heh. I feel more sorry for you than I do for the people who have read it.....I also feel more sorry for you because you're still in middle school/high school, and therefore still have to deal with the majority of Twilighters.....Whereas I, as a college student, can avoid most of them, and the ones that I can't are intelligent enough to know people have differing opinions on certain forms of literature (which I still don't consider Twilight literature, but oh well).
Oh, and I wouldn't say "all the girls" in your school like the books....I would hope some of the girls in your school have brains. Those that do most likely know that Twilight sucks. Bad....Although it probably seems like everyone loves it.....
Speaking of which, two of the females in the jury I was selected for are currently reading Eclipse. For the most part, I've kept my mouth shut regarding them, even though I really want to say something....On a little side note, though. I brought in Mistborn to read. So at least there's some intelligent fantasy in the jury room. It's a start....
-
Haha, yeah.
I still don't consider Twilight literature
See the thing is, all the fans love the story, but the one person I know who's read them and thinks they're bad says they're horribly written. I don't know how the writing is….Regardless, I agree with you.
You're right. Let me say, then, all the girls who I know have read the book (except for one (above-mentioned)) like it. Still pretty pathetic, I think. About the brains thing….Are you familiar with east coast schools? 'Cause if not I won't bother saying my school….
It does. It's a bit overwhelming at times. LOL.
HAHA that's really funny…good thing you're spreading the BS lol.
-
Oh, I'm ALWAYS trying to spread the BS. Great thing to spread. I even tried to this morning with one of the Twilighters. I asked her if she was a fan of fantasy, or just a fan of vampires, and she said neither, and that she doesn't even like romance. All I could think of was 'Why in the HECK do you like Twilight, then?" I didn't say that to her though....I did say that Mistborn was pretty much the best fantasy that I had ever read. Which was true.
As for the writing of it. Let me say this. It's addictive. Meyer has a talent for holding an audience. But the writing ITSELF sucks. Badly. I've read better fanfiction. I've read better Twilight fanfiction. I would venture to say that a 13-year old girl with absolutely no background in writing whatsoever could write a better book than Meyer did. Or at least with more plot, and more developing characters. And just a more intriguing book overall. It seriously sounds like it was written by romance-starved teenage girl....I'll have to post a review my sister found a couple months ago and sent me. But not right now. My lunch break is over. I have to leave. If I don't, I'm going to be late for the reconvening of the trial. And that won't be good.
-
It is 8). Haha that's weird.
??? I'm sorta confused…if the writing 'sucks,' why do you say the writing is addictive and Meyer has a talent for holding an audience? I'm actually kind of intrigued….
OK good luck.
-
Yes. I understand your confusion. I myself am slightly confused at this paradox.....The only thing that I can say to possibly explain it is that most published authors actually have talent and can hold an audience because of their talent. Then, there are a VERY slim percentage of authors who have the ability to emotionally attach a reader, regardless of the writing skill of said author....You would HOPE that a person with this emotional attachment ability would also have skill. Such is not the case with Meyer....Not the case at ALL.
That's not to say that she's able to emotionally attach ALL readers. Just a good percentage. For example, she got me....At least until I finished them and started thinking about what I had read. And then I realized the sheer stupidity of it all....and the utter immaturity of the writer. My sister, on the other hand, did not get hooked. She kept her head. She also helped me pull out of the dropping IQ deal a bit earlier than I probably would have otherwise....
-
LOL she's like a witch….
-
I wouldn't be surprised. Although I think a witch would have a higher maturity level. Meyer is incredibly immature. This is the reason I hate her so much. She's such a popular author, yet she's so immature that she puts a bad connotation to the word "author"....At least for me, anyway.
-
One of my friends just told me she's rereading the Twilight series for like the fifth time. I told her that was pathetic. I don't think it got through, though.
-
It probably didn't. I've met some Twilighters who were pretty thick-headed. Not many, but that's probably because I distance myself from Twilighters in general. I've found that they can get irate when someone starts dissing their favorite books, and I've also found that when they go defensive, I just can't shut my mouth....
Still, though. 5 times is really a waste of time. The books hold nothing of value, and even if they did hold a little bit, I think one read-through would be plenty. I'm thinking after 5, the person would start to be affected by the morals of the story (ie perfectly sexy boys loving you no matter how "plain" you are; thinking you can get all your dreams with no effort, even if some of them are contradictory; females canNOT function without their male counterpart, it is physically impossible)....Twilight morals disgust me.
-
Eragon: Abysmal movie. The book can only be better by comparison.
-
True, the book is better. It's also a horrible rip-off of much greater books. It's pretty much a collage of the works of a bunch of different authors...Mostly LotR, though.....It's sad. Good, but completely unoriginal.
-
True, the book is better. It's also a horrible rip-off of much greater books. It's pretty much a collage of the works of a bunch of different authors...Mostly LotR, though.....It's sad. Good, but completely unoriginal.
LoTR? Sure, it could have been set in the same world, but I always thought it was more of a Star Wars fantasy myself.
-
I don't know about that. Half of Star Wars is the amazingly infuriating game of cat and mouse–half the freaking time all the do is the good guys get caught, then Han Solo plans an amazingly daring rescue to get them out (when he's not in cased in carbon or whatever). I find it a little repetitive, personally. Eragon is much different, I think.
I see where you're comin' from, though….
Yea I know. There's this Twilight fan in my English class and we got into a small argument about it today and I'm trying to get her to read RJ and BS. Keep your fingers crossed! (converting a Twilight fan to RJ and BS would be beyond incredible)
-
Star Wars. Really? Hmm. Maybe it's been too long since I read Eragon, because I don't recall that at all. I distinctly remember getting an OSC vibe reading it. And definitely LotR. And then a few more that I can't recall 'cause it's been so long (it's been close to 5 years since I read it). Regardless, all the stuff (at least that I've read) that he took ideas from are better than how his turned out. Not that Eragon was bad, because I liked it. I haven't read Eldest or Brisingr yet, but from what I've heard of them, they both bombed (or maybe that was just Brisingr).
I have no problem with unoriginal books. The thing I have a problem with is when it's obvious that an author has taken ideas from multiple different authors. Take one from one, and build on that, and make it your own. Don't steal from a bunch and add nothing of your own. That's a terrible idea, and it will mostly likely spawn horrible books....eventually (like with Brisingr).
-
What's OSC? Do you mean 'OCD?'
-
**SPOILERS FOR ALL 3 BOOKS**
Think about it. A young farmboy, living in an out-of-the way village, with his uncle. The Empire rules the known world, but there is a small group of rebels who resist them.
This farmboy meets a strange old man who has arcane powers. Eventually we discover that this man was once part of a magic organization who protected and defended the world from evil. The boy returns to his village to find the Empire has destroyed his home and killed his uncle. (Sound familiar yet?)
This farmboy rescues a princess from the Empire and escapes with her with another guy. He takes her to the rebel group and he joins them in their fight against the evil Empire. Somewhere along the line here, the strange old man dies.
Later, we find out that the Emperor's right-hand man and former "apprentice" was Eragon's father. (this is later debunked in book 3) Also, this same man fathered another child.
The farmboy realizes he doesn't have enough training in the ways of the Jedi and must seek more guidance. He travels far and finds that the strange old man was actually not the last of the Jedi/dragonriders; there is another, old and decrepit. Later this wise teacher dies.
The thread kinda falls away in Brisingr, but then Brisingr sucked anyway. I guess since Star Wars only has 3 movies he didn't know what to do...
-
Oh, wow. Yeah, I never really tried to connect it to Star Wars, but....you're right. The basic plot mirrors SW almost perfectly. This makes me dislike Paolini even more. Star Wars is great. How could he EVER think he could top it?....And obviously he thought he could, if he pretty much took the exact plot and spun it for his own story, putting it in LotR world (or a world that looks (map-wise) exactly like Middle-Earth)....Pathetic. Sure, he was only 15 when he started writing it, but I don't think that's an excuse. I started writing when I was younger than that and my ideas are MUCH more original.
-
Hahahaha nice last line, Reaves. We should send this thread to him ;D.
-
Actually, no, we shouldn't sent it to him. He'd probably use it to create more bad stories 8).
-
lol at above ^ :)
First of all I don't want anyone to think I'm a total Paolini hater. Books 1 and 2 were, although a rip-off, pretty good and well-disguised enough that you have to at least take a second look to realize it was a rip off. Plus, as already stated he was 15. To be published at 15 and for anyone to actually care...is quite an accomplishment.
But basically, what was good wasn't original and what was original wasn't good (to paraphrase from something I heard). I think there was a lot of wasted potential in the entire series.
-
I've never read Paolini, but:
In all honesty, you can't fault him for ripping off Star Wars, because the SW plot was specifically modeled off of Campbell's research (in The Hero With a Thousand Faces and elsewhere), and was intentionally written off of the prototypical hero journey.
In other words, Lucas was (sort of, and he admits it) ripping off Campbell's research in writing Star Wars. Paolini could have just as easily been doing the same thing, though it is somewhat more likely that he was familiar with Star Wars, and not Campbell.
-
So they're both at fault 8).
-
You all know that "Middle-Earth" is based on the real Eaerth right?
Many authors use the real map to create their world, just modified slightly. If anything, you just cant say "he stole the middle earth map!" because Tolkien "stole" the real Earth map. LotR itself is intended to be the story of this world several hundred/thousand years into the future.
-
Tolkien wanted to do something about the absence of a real English "myth", discounting Arthur and the Knights. He wanted to create a world that could have existed in the far past, so long ago that nobody remembers it anymore.
That is why the ocean is on the left, why the Shire is placed where it is, and other geographical features. Harad is most likely supposed to represent Africa. (I believe Tolkien both confirmed and denied that, actually)
He even had his own Atlantis-type legend: Numenor, buried beneath the sea when the Numenoreans tried to overthrow the gods.
However saying Tolkien stole the Middle-Earth map seems slightly ridiculous. Despite the above evidence, Middle-Earth really doesn't look all that much like the Europe-Africa region, except for the glaring left coastline. And really, that was his purpose: to create a world that was similar to our own.
I personally don't care that Paolini used a map very similar to Tolkien's own; I do think it would not have been too much work to come up with something original, but hey, idk.
-
the map Tolkien used was not the Euro-African map, but a partial-pangea map, essentially, what scientists have long believed the ancient past super-continent to be, and also what they believe it will become again. The "old-world" lanterns in LotR are nothing more than flashlights. And there were other "throwbacks" to our "modern" times as well. The Simarillion showed more of these than the Hobbit and trilogy did. (If I remember it correctly, it has been 25 years or so since I read the books).
-
As a self-styled "minor Tolkien guru", I am somewhat skeptical. Certainly, of course, it is expected that certain "modernisms" will have entered into Tolkien's works, as he was not a professor of History, but I do not think there were an unduly large number of these.
-
LOL, you dont have to be a professor of history to know that there were no flashlights thousands of yeas ago lol
-
The thing is, Tolkien modified the map of the real world. If Paolini really wanted to use that map, he could've modified it so it wasn't so blatantly obvious where he got it.
-
I hate seeing Paolini's name in the same sentence as like King and Pierce and Pullman. I saw this link for an interview with Paolini Pierce and Pullman and it said 'Paolini, Pierce and Pullman talk fantasy' I hate that.
Sometimes I wonder if when Paolini started writing the books, did he expect to get them published? 'Cause if he didn't, then he probably wouldn't have bothered to make his own map in the first place….
-
Even if he wasn't going for publication when he started it, you'd think that when he aimed to get it published, he would've changed the map a bit from where-ever he extracted it.
-
True. He's probably just too lazy ;D. And I would have thought his editor(s) would have mentioned something about it, too….
-
Paolini was initially published by his parents. That ought to tell you something.
And there are no flashlights in the Lord of the Rings, mtlhddoc. Stop being so silly.
-
Good point about Paolini, Knight. (He saved a lot of money doing that, though.)
-
The funny thing about your response is that you're implying that the only other way he could have gotten published would have been through a vanity publisher. I love it!
-
Me? I am? What's a vanity publisher? A publisher who's vain??
-
A vanity publisher is a publisher that you have to pay to get your book published with. They are different from most publishers which pay you to publish your works.
-
Oh, yeah, that's what I was talking about. I just didn't know they were called vanity publishers. Thanks.
-
And there are no flashlights in the Lord of the Rings, mtlhddoc. Stop being so silly.
As I stated previously, he didnt call them "flashlights" - he called them "old world lanterns" - the Hobbit is chock full of them.
-
Do you know what a lantern is and does?
(Are you also aware that flashlights were highly uncommon when Tolkien was growing up, and he would not have likely taken them for granted?)
-
Yes, the "old world lantern" would come on when you clicked a button and eventually die out. what else could it be? bilbo used one extensively in the caves.
-
Mind providing a page reference mentioning "clicking a button"?
Any candle-based "Old World" lantern would involve lighting a candle inside of an enclosed structure (generally glass and metal, later on, but before that they were simply metal with openings, or of other various designs and constructions depending on time and place). Alternatively, at some point (I've been unable to discover when) oil lanterns became common—these were essentially the same as the candle ones, but using an oil lamp (technology thousands of years old) in a lantern encasing (another technology thousands of years old). In both cases, you light the lamp, it gives you light, and eventually dies out when the candle is used up or the oil runs out. These are things which were used hundreds of years ago.
What about a lantern strikes you as terribly anachronistic?
-
As I said, it has been 25 years since I read them. But there was no "lighting" going on there. And an oil/candle lamp would not have been considered old world since they used both.
-
Some lanterns had a built-in spark striker which could conceivably be activated using a button, plus a knob for adjusting the flame height.
I can find no google results for old-world-lantern tolkien.
-
Really though, you are going to have to support that with some kind of evidence or a quote.
-
Yeah; it's a pretty bold claim to make, and as far as I can tell, not terribly substantial.
BTW, Tolkien never mentions someone peeing once in his many, many writings, but you can guarantee it happened over the course of his stories and he's aware of it. Not mentioning something in a book doesn't imply that it doesn't occur.
-
Yeah; it's a pretty bold claim to make, and as far as I can tell, not terribly substantial.
BTW, Tolkien never mentions someone peeing once in his many, many writings, but you can guarantee it happened over the course of his stories and he's aware of it. Not mentioning something in a book doesn't imply that it doesn't occur.
I was reading something somewhere. (descriptive, I know.) I believe it was a post by Patrick Rothfuss. He was saying that Tolkien never really brought money or currency into his books. Characters are assumed to have bought what they need and that's the end of it. It just wasn't one of the things he focused on, while if you read The Name of the Wind by Rothfuss money is a major part of the character's struggles.
-
Really though, you are going to have to support that with some kind of evidence or a quote.
Well, I am not about to read the books again, and really could care less to "look for evidence" I was just going from memory, and my memory is pretty darn good. but whatever, since you seem rather adamant about evidence, you can read the book again and come back and tell me I was wrong, thats fine. but I am not really concerned about it either way. You people really need to lighten up.
-
Yeah, I wrote that right after I got out of my debate class so I was in "evidence" mode. I just don't really think that you will have been the first person to notice this if it is true. I would have been just as happy with a web site.
-
I don't think anyone's comin' down on you; it's a reasonable enough request to ask you to supply evidence for your claim. Pretty standard, actually.
-
The fact of the matter is that people in the world make all sorts of baseless claims right and left. Just think of all the irritating spam you get in your mailbox from people who clearly haven't bothered checking at snopes.com. I make it a habit to challenge unreasonable claims. Part of this comes from my training in History—it's very important to me to analyze claims about history (or literature, or science, etc.)
As someone deeply appreciative of Tolkien's work, I am particularly sensitive to baseless criticisms of him.
Now, if you meant to simply tell a joke, and weren't intending to make any sort of criticism, then indeed everyone else seems to have missed the punchline. Perhaps this is because we all need to lighten up?
-
Amazon's search inside feature reveals three mentions of the word "lantern" in The Hobbit, and no mentions of the phrase "old world." The word "button" appears nine times, but it always refers to buttons on clothing (often, falling off clothing).
I discovered no evidence supporting mtlhddoc2's claim. I suspect he may be thinking of an entirely different book. (Also, the Silmarillion has one lantern, no buttons, and no old worlds.)
However, I'm also not sure what you mean by "baseless criticism," Jade. He's just reporting what he remembers and doesn't seem to be passing judgment based on that.
-
I don't think anyone's comin' down on you; it's a reasonable enough request to ask you to supply evidence for your claim. Pretty standard, actually.
Standard in what? A college class? This is a discussion board. I discussed what I remembered and what I thought about the book. But you are right about one thing, this is standard across the "interweb" - rude and demanding people who are quick to trash someone because they do not agree.
PS: Thans Ookla - that is EXACTLY what i was doing. I come here for fuin and discussion. If i wanted to do research, I would continue to work instead of taking a break and surfing the net.
-
Anyway, Eragon sucks, right?
I have not read it due to the testimony of many who have whose judgment I trust.
-
Anyway, Eragon sucks, right?
I have not read it due to the testimony of many who have whose judgment I trust.
Well technically, we are supposed to be talking about the movie Eragon, but hey. They both sucked :P
I think I've probably said this before, but there was so much potential. Paolini could have done something with it, but instead he followed a Star Wars plot and his execution sucked.
The book was not horrible. I might even say both Eragon and Eldest were good, at times. But there is better stuff to read. A lot better.
-
mtl-whatever–Ummmm, pretty standard in life, actually. If you give an opinion or a theory, you are often expected to have something substantial to back up your claim. And the point of these boards, besides fun, meeting people and all that good stuff, is to have intelligent discussions, which cannot happen without the occasional challenge.
I actually enjoyed the beginning of Eragon and the middle of Eldest. But Brisingr sucked, and the movie did, too. I don't know which was worse, honestly.
-
Uh, Shaggy, theories yes. Opinions, not so much. And neither are "substantial." They would need a bit of evidence to support them, but nothing substantial. And as for the opinions, it would be nice to understand why a person has an opinion, but it's not necessary, and it's not like you can go up to whomever and say "Your opinion is wrong" simply because you don't understand it.
And as for this LotR discussion. At this point it doesn't matter. He was going off of memory. His memory is apparently good, so he thought he was right. Memory, even good memory, can be wrong. I know. I have a stalkerishly good memory (that's not saying I'm a stalker. That's only saying that sometimes I remember things that make it seem like I could be a stalker....like phone numbers. And addresses....), and I've been wrong more than a few times.
And yes, the movie Eragon sucked. Big time. The book, even though it was completely unoriginal, was good.
-
I actually thought that the movie was better than the book... but just because it didn't take as long to get through. Couldn't even finish Brisingr, and I am usually pretty religious about finishing any series I start. But he just gets a sword right? Can't be missing too much....
-
I'm not saying every theory/opinion/thought needs evidence to support it (and if I was, then I stand corrected). What I am saying, however, is that it is not unfair to question an unfounded thought.
-
I'm not saying every theory/opinion/thought needs evidence to support it (and if I was, then I stand corrected). What I am saying, however, is that it is not unfair to question an unfounded thought.
If I had just been questioned, then this discussion would not have happened.
But what actually happened was that people demanded evidence and were quite. Maybe in this new world you youngsters live in, rude is the new nice, but not in my world.
-
Well, not to get into an insult-fest or anything, but for someone who criticizes others as being rude, you're pretty knowledgeable in that area.
-
I actually thought that the movie was better than the book... but just because it didn't take as long to get through. Couldn't even finish Brisingr, and I am usually pretty religious about finishing any series I start. But he just gets a sword right? Can't be missing too much....
Yeah, Brisingr was by far the worst of the series thus far. I can't really think of a single thing that actually advanced the plot. Well, **SPOILER** Eragon's teacher died, **ENDSPOILER** and we got some info on how Galbatorix is getting his power, but really that was it.
-
Well, not to get into an insult-fest or anything, but for someone who criticizes others as being rude, you're pretty knowledgeable in that area.
Point me to ONE post of mine where I was rude. just ONE!
By far, you are the rudest person on these boards, but I, and I am sure others, have overlooked it because you are only 12. Honestly, if my 11 year old ever spoke to me in the manner you have made daily conversation here, he would be grounded for a week.
-
I actually thought that the movie was better than the book... but just because it didn't take as long to get through. Couldn't even finish Brisingr, and I am usually pretty religious about finishing any series I start. But he just gets a sword right? Can't be missing too much....
Yeah, Brisingr was by far the worst of the series thus far. I can't really think of a single thing that actually advanced the plot. Well, **SPOILER** Eragon's teacher died, **ENDSPOILER** and we got some info on how Galbatorix is getting his power, but really that was it.
Thanks Reaves. Now I am completely satisfied. :D
And guys, not to stick my neck too far in there since I really didn't read all the posts leading to this, but the discussion seems to be getting pretty heated for a book/movie thread. Maybe you could take it down a notch, or find somewhere else to settle it? Thank you :)
-
My apologies to Frog and everyone else who has been posting on this board–we shouldn't have taken over the thread like this. I'm sorry.
mtlhddoc2, I'm just going to say one more thing and then I am not continuing this discussion any farther. I feel as if you have been rather set against me from the beginning, and so have responded accordingly. My apologies.
-
In other news!
I think this story is epic. Really if you write eragon at that age its awesome.
The story is Good.
tis Blasphemy! to say it is Cliche or Unoriginal.
-
In other news!
I think this story is epic. Really if you write eragon at that age its awesome.
The story is Good.
tis Blasphemy! to say it is Cliche or Unoriginal.
The story is amazing, and I'm sure George Lucas would agree.
-
Muahuahuahua nice one, Reaves! I agree.
-
I bought Brisingr. Because I read Eragon and Eldest and they were decent. A nice beginners book to fantasy. Low reading level, typical plot line, decently enjoyable.
But I only read the first chapter before I put it down and haven't felt the inkling to pick it up since. I mean, HELLO! They were talking about their male parts. Like... are you kidding me? It's not that it offended me, more like it made me laugh. But not in a good way. I mean, I watch South Park, I'm used to that kind of humor but... Gosh, it wasn't even funny. It was just... immature.
Bad Paolini... bad bad Paolini.
-
Well, you didn't miss anything. :(
-
not to pile on, but casting my lot in with the rest of the "Eragon=bad" camp. The sad thing is, I actually read Eragon on the recommendation of an acquaintance before I had read any of WoT or any Brandon Sanderson, and I kind of liked it. Then my wife and I read Eldest together about the same time we started in on WoT, and there was no comparison. I was so bored with Eldest by the end of it, and some of the writing was literally eyeball-rolling-and-groan-inducing. Although we have a copy of Brisinger I haven't been able to bring myself around to reading it.
And the Eragon movie was patently awful.
-
Eragon (the book): was an okay book, but a bit unoriginal. (good writing, boring plot :( )
Eragon (the movie): was horrible. reminds me of those corny sci-fi series i have seen on tv from time to time >:(