ERAGON

[Sylar2]

Posted: 12/17/06 at 12:08pm

Any fans seen the flick?

I enjoyed it but it's like a clift notes of the book. They cut out SOOOOOOOOO much of what is in the novel. Hopefully, the movie is enjoyable enough to people that have not read the book that they'll at least pick it up and give it a read. The film was only 90 mins. The last Potter flick clocked in at almost 3 hrs and the LOTR series are all over 3 hours. So, people can obviously handle sitting for longer than 90 mins so I don't really get why they axed so much of the story.

I think die hard fans will HATE this flick as they'll see it as a bastardization of an amazing novel.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 12/17/06 at 12:35pm

That's what it's called? This whole time I've been saying it "dragon." I feel so stupid! You gotta admit, the E does look like a D.

Kinda.

[SuzyQzy]

Posted: 12/17/06 at 12:42pm

yes, but isn't it pronounced like "Aragon" from Lord of the Rings?

[o.0]

Posted: 12/17/06 at 12:46pm

This is pronounced "Air-a-gon", the name from Lord of the Rings is pronounced "Air-a-gorn"

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 12/17/06 at 1:05pm

The r-colored diphthongs "ar" and "er" are not pronounced "air." "Eragon" is pronounced "EH-(as in penny)-ra-gon," and "Aragorn" is pronounced "AH-(as in apple)-ra-gorn."

I realize many people pronounce these diphthongs this way but it is ultimately incorrect. Updated On: 12/17/06 at 01:05 PM

[Sylar2]

Posted: 12/17/06 at 2:27pm

Hooked on phonics worked for me........

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 12/17/06 at 2:39pm

I read the book (and liked it okay), and I really want to see the movie. I don't mind that they cut a lot out, because I felt that a lot that was in the book was just there to take up pages. I am probably going to go see it tomorrow or Tuesday.

[mattnyc2]

Posted: 12/17/06 at 3:01pm

After seeing this movie I turned to my partner and said "that was ok, but it was a watered down cliff notes version of the book." Glad to hear that I wasn't the only one to feel that way. I think they cut so much out of the film to accomodate a young audience and market it as a family film. Not a bad movie at all, but the film was not at all on the same level as the Harry Potter or LOTR films.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 12/17/06 at 3:12pm

That's funny, because the battle scene in the trailer looks more drawn out than in the book (which is only 2 pages in the book)

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 12/17/06 at 3:18pm

I saw a newspaper ad for this and was surprised to see Joss Stone listed in the cast.

How is she as an actress?

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 12/17/06 at 3:20pm

I didn't know she was in the movie

[StageManager2]

Posted: 12/17/06 at 3:25pm

I guess that answers your question, Rath. Non-descript is the word, I think.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 12/17/06 at 3:26pm

Thanks.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 12/17/06 at 3:28pm

Well, I haven't seen the movie yet.

[mattnyc2]

Posted: 12/17/06 at 7:26pm

Joss Stone plays Angela, a young witch, in the film. She's in it for a whopping thirty seconds, so she doesn't get to really show off any of her acting chops. I was upset that Angela was cut out from most of the film, because in the book I found her to be one of the more interesting characters.

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 12/17/06 at 7:41pm

it's only 14% fresh at Rotten Tomatoes.

NOT a good sign!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/18/06 at 10:48am

Isn't pretty much every book-to-screen adaptation a watered-down Cliff notes version of the book? What did people expect?

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 12/18/06 at 11:30am

Didn't someone here say it was a, "Sixteen year old's wet dream, made better because his parents liked it"??

Or something.. How can that be a good description of a book?

I haven't read it. I have no need or want to see the movie. Fantasy's never been my thing (except the Chronicles of Narnia).

[Sylar2]

Posted: 12/18/06 at 7:52pm

The Potter & LOTR films have definitely not been watered down book-to-film translations. They have been/were extremely faithful to the source material.

Eragon is an enjoyable flick but it definitely plays the PG whereas it could have pushed more into the PG-13 category to make it darker.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 12/18/06 at 10:39pm

Okay . . . I just got back from seeing the movie and I am SO upset. I am all for taking liberties when transferring a book to film, because a lot of things in books just do not translate well to the big screen. But, when you completely change story plots and situations, then we have a SERIOUS problem. I mean, characters were in places they should not have been and some MAJOR characters were cut down to almost nothing or weren't even in the film. And I would like to add that whoever edited that movie needs to be fired and never work in Hollywood again. That had to be the most choppy editing I have ever seen in a movie.

On the plus side, Saphira looked beautiful. She was the best thing about the movie (well, her body that is). The dialogue for her was atrocious.

I am not THAT big of a fan of the book and I am furious with it, so I can only imagine what true fans are feeling about it.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 12/18/06 at 10:42pm

Oh, and my wife, who never read the book, said it was boring and she didn't understand a lot of what was going on (certain characters and situations). She did not like it at all.

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 12/18/06 at 11:11pm

I really think that the novel is a shodilly revamped mix of all the major fantasy works...not very good.