I saw the poster for this in the theater today. This is the first I've heard of it anywhere, but it reminded me of Lord of the Rings, anyone have any details before I look it up online?
Um, no. There is no 'Parn' in Eragon. In fact, on the back of the book there is a note of praise from Anne McCaffrey (among other authors).
I just finished reading Eragon: Inheritance and I can't wait to get my hands on Eragon: Eldest. I'll most definitely check it out in theaters. In fact, we'll probably make a family outing of it on Christmas.
To Aphremen: If Eragon is a rip on any one character it is Garion of David Eddings's Belgariad (a series that Paolini has admitted to being a great fan of)... only worse because he's utterly and totally a Gary Stu. He's even got a sexy, older, anti-hero half-brother like most Gary Stu heroes do...
Not true. The lord of the rings the last 2. 2 towers and return of the king were good ones. Also most of the harry potter games were good ones. ( first and second and 3rd suck, but 4th was okay) King Arthur was a fantastic movie and the game matched that. The game was good too.
My friend Dicer-
Death has a thousand different Faces. Evil only has one.
Even some of the next gens can't beat the originals. (N64, snes, nintendo.)
I'll probably see this movie just to see what the big deal is. Honestly, it can't rape the fantasy genre more than Harry Potter did so I'm sure it'll be an improvement in that respect.
I'm still having trouble figuring out why dragons would want people to ride them. Dragon-rider plots are fairly common but I never understood why a huge, winged, fire-breathing reptile would allow itself to be dominated by humans.
Huh? Signature? What's going on with that signature?
I would really like to know how they portray dragons in this book. Dragons, as written Dungeons & Dragons as well as most other fantasy literatures, are extremely intelligent beings. Perhaps they form a friendship or a bond with these "dragon riders" that stems from a common blood line or an ancient lore that must be followed by the dragons. Not really sure.
If the dragons are portrayed as stupid, unintelligent and annoying as in the Harry Potter books then I won't ever see another Eragon movie.
I've never read the book but a lot of dragon-rider elements always have the humans owning dragons in...like stables and stuff. It's always bothered me. I agree with you, I think in a fantasy world they would be intelligent and there's no reason that they would be enslaved by humans.
I suppose it would make sense if they had a bond or something. But I find that unlikely =\
Huh? Signature? What's going on with that signature?
In the book, the dragons are more of a companion than a slave. The dragon and the hero snuggle together, they talk to eachother, and they are friends in every sense.
Its not who a person is in the inside, but what he does that defines him.
That movie pissed me off! The book was way better!! I was about to walk out of the theater XP They left out so many good parts! Brom didn't even die the right way!!
The movie was good, though I have not yet read the book. I think it moved a little too quickly, though I realize it's hard to cram a book into decent movie time. They did attempt to ease into things, but Arya I felt was just sort of shoved into it. Just my opinion, besides that, the movie was enjoyable.
People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest.
It completely left out anything that was significant to the plot or to what happens in the sequel.
- The Ra'Zac shouldn't have died - they're important in the second book.
- Where's the cat that tells the prophecy? this is extremely important later to come.
- Why didn't Eragon go with Ayra to Ellesmera?!
- Brom should have died earler.
- Eragon only knows that Brom's a rider just before he dies, he doesn't figure it out for himself beforehand.
- Saphira didn't magically grow in the air.
- The dreams about Ayra were WRONG.
- They did a bad job establishing Eragon's friendship with Murtagh, it's important in the second book.
- They rushed everything in the beginning to highlight the big battle at the end.
- Ayra seemed lessi mportant to the plot as she should have been, she was actually very important.
- Durza ... just no. It was wrong.
- Oromis was supposed to contact Eragon after his battle with Durza, it's important.
- DURZA WAS SUPPOSED TO PUT A BIG SLASH ACROSS ERAGON'S BACK! That plays a big role in teh second book.
The ending screams sequel, but I don't understand how they're going to do a sequel if they've ruined all the things that are important to the sequel.
Said By blackwidow47
I know Im an ideot but I just proved that some of you are ediots too