Eragon

[green_queen]

Okay, so Eragon is really, really bad. (Check out the videos on that site, they really are impressively bad.) That's fine. There's been bad movies before, there will be bad movies again. I'll probably go see it anyway for kicks.

Here's my issue: if movies like Eragon get made, is it going to lose the respect Lord of the Rings managed to claw back for fantasy movies? The HP movies and Narnia weren't perfect, but they've kept the respect levels for fantasy up enough that Eragon was enormously over-hyped. If bad fantasy movies get made too often, the budget for fantasy movies will dry up and we will stop getting good ones, which would be completely unfair. People don't judge other entire genres (romantic comedy, ensemble drama, etc.) based on one or two bad eggs, but I have a feeling that they might with fantasy.

Also, that Ed Speleers kid is an absolute shit. I haven't read an interview of him that I liked. But boy is Garrett Hedlund pretty.

ETA: and I don't get the voting at icon lims contests. My favourite icon was voted out at lotr_lims this week while others which weren't nearly as interesting or inventive stayed in. Why?

Green Queen

Comments

[rosamundeb.livejournal.com]

Apparently, you're not alone; this user's review at imdb.com seems to sum it up perfectly:


82 out of 119 people found the following comment useful:-
"Eragon" Crowns Peter Jackson King, 13 December 2006

Author: prbach from United States

What? Peter Jackson wasn't involved with "Eragon." Precisely. "Eragon" is the latest in the early wake of films following "LOTR" to demonstrate Jackson's genius by so completely falling short of it. The folks at New Line just lost a few cool millions in their quixotic efforts to low ball Jackson into directing their planned two-film "The Hobbit" series. At this rate New Line will also have to throw down a fiver on a pair of kneepads to prevent bruises while groveling.

"Eragon" suffers from plenty of problems: stilted bland dialogue, characters cut out from Fantasy Film for Dummies, and a predictably rote plot. But its greatest flaw is assuming its target audience—which, from its facile storyline, is presumably children whose age is measured in single digits—won't understand the difference between fantasy and reality.

The hero, a teen boy aptly named Eragon, must discover his true nature as a dragon rider and the last hope of a poor, abused populace to defeat its evil king. Along his travails he meets the knowing mentor (as played by Jeremy Irons, the only character to avoid one-word characterizations), the mysterious alter-ego lost son, the princess who becomes his inspiration and love interest, and the big ethnic leadership figure (an unfortunately cast Djimon Hounsou) who knowingly lays down arms for our hero.

Archetypal figures can be great for a film, but they need a believable existence apart from their characterization. Even young kids can recognize the difference. "Neverending Story" and the "Shrek" films covered similar territory for the same audience with remarkably richer stories and themes.

"Eragon" is proof positive that it takes more than complicated CGI and monsters (both of which fall short of "LOTR" standards, by the way) to craft a good fantasy film. The poor young writer of the novel that forms the basis for "Eragon," Christopher Paolini, hopefully will prevent Fox from messing up his already successful follow up, "Eldest."

Somebody get Peter Jackson on the phone. Pronto.

[sassygirl.livejournal.com]

I'm just glad that the hype is allowing Dark Materials to be made... I just cross my fingers that it turns out well.

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

I think I have mentioned my dislike of His Dark Materials to you before, but this is the perfect opportunity to mention it again.

[sassygirl.livejournal.com]

Oops sorry yes, you have! I won't mention it again. I can't wait to start watching BSG! Hopefully I can get it in the new year!

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

LOL it's cool, you are excited about it. I wasn't angry about you bringing it up or anything, I just thought I'd mention that I don't like those books.

BSG is soooo good.

[mellafe.livejournal.com]

"Been to that galaxy, done that ring" Hahaha. Does that sums it up?

I haven't read the book but I have it. I was planning on reading it before watching the movie, which opens January 4th here.

[grrliz.livejournal.com]

I think it's important to note that the fantasy movies that are getting made all came from books in the first place, so I'm not sure that it's a case of fantasy films getting decent funding so much as studios capitalizing on popular book series that happen to be fantasy in an era where fantasy can actually be done in a feasible and realistic (irony!) way on the big screen. I don't really follow the fantasy genre so I don't actually know, but have there been any successful fantasy films recently that weren't based on a book?

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

Not that I can think of. But then almost all successful films seem to be based on some other source material.

[frozenwithin.livejournal.com]

LOL, I don't care if it's bad. I just wanna see it for Garrett *pats him*

[virginhuntress.livejournal.com]

Hahaha....I'm hearing nothing but bad things about Eragon... *giggles*

Oh well, I didn't have high hopes for it anyway.

[virginhuntress.livejournal.com]

Also, forgot to add in my two cents, as it were.


I don't believe that this will stop good fantasy films from being made. LOTR had a HUGE fanbase, and people were going to see it anyway... luck just had it that Peter Jackson is a genius and had amazing vision. Plenty other poor fantasy films had been made before this, and plenty others have been made since. However, New Line Cinemas still decided to fund it a ridiculous amount of money. Why? Because Peter Jackson sold them a vision... not a fantasy movie.

It's so hard to explain in LJ... but I hope you get the point. Producers will still fund films of any genre... as long as they believe that movie will bring in money. Oftentimes, they base it on the individual, not the genre.

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

That can happen sometimes, but until Lord of the Rings was made fantasy was generally considered a joke as a genre - or just kids' films.

[roadtriphome.livejournal.com]

Awww, and I wanted to see it on the big expensive screen. Guess I'll be seeing it at the local dollar theatre.

[supertrink.livejournal.com]

hmm... i seem to be outnumbered in actually liking it. that's okay, a lot of movies i like get horrible reviews, i'm used to it! i didn't think that kid who played eragon was very good though i have to admit.

[misslucyjane]

(Now with posting in the right place.)

Popularity in movie trends goes in cycles. If LOTR had bombed there probably wouldn't be as many fantasy movies in production now, but LOTR proved there is a broad audience for fantasy and so we'll be seeing a lot more of it.

[padabee.livejournal.com]

I actually thought that LotR just made me forget why I usually didn't like Fantasy movies. Fantasy movies before LotR were like Eragon and it looks like we're back to that level.
Where on earth did the 100 million go? (well, the dragon, of course, but the rest?)

Also, that Ed Speleers kid is an absolute shit. I haven't read an interview of him that I liked. But boy is Garrett Hedlund pretty.
Cheers!

[virtuistic.livejournal.com]

I don't even remember seeing any hype for it. I only knew about it because my roommate liked the books.

But Eragon isn't even remotely on a par with LotR, Narnia, or even HP. I don't think it's going to have any effect. It's a crappy novel that was adapted poorly into a super crappy movie.

I don't know if you read my review on it... but I'm pretty sure it won't do anything to the fantasy genre. I think it's just going to ... be really difficult for them to make the other 2 into movies after the reaction this one is getting.

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

The movie magazine I read is uber-geeky, so it's featured Eragon a lot. I did read your review. It makes no difference whether or not the movie was good, unfortunately, only how much money it makes - I have a feeling Eragon, no matter how bad it is, will make enough to get a sequel. And yet no Serenity sequel. The universe is entirely unfair.

[virtuistic.livejournal.com]

You really think so? I don't know. On opening night our theater wasn't even half full... and it was a 7:30 showing. =/

[ack-attack.livejournal.com]

Awwwww yeah I really didn't think I'd be voted off this week considering that one icon's text was all blurry, but whatevs. I love that icon I made, so I'd rather go out for something I like instead of something I feel like I could have made better somehow. Ho hum.

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

Yours was my favourite and I didn't even KNOW it was yours. Some of the icons were not up to scratch IMHO and to vote yours off when it was pretty and different was unfair.

[melissajane14.livejournal.com]

that Ed Speleers kid is an absolute shit

Correction: That Ed Speelers kid is absolute jailbait (although still a shit)

Why waste your money if you are so certain it will be bad?

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

Um. Garrett Hedlund and dragons?

[lilotelasserie.livejournal.com]

The problem with the movie of Eragon is that the writers cut out nearly three-quarters of the book to simplify and dumb it down to the basic storyline of "newly discovered hero who has no clue what he's doing and who has to kill an evil king to save the world". The plot was more involved in the book, which is what made it interesting. It had sub-plots, which I suppose the movie people thought would confuse the dear little children. Because god forbid that older, intelligent people go to see a fantasy movie. (Peter Jackson, though, respected his audience more than that.)