Classic-Castle.com

In any event. . . I'm looking forward to Eragon. I've never read the books, myself -- but I always enjoy a good fantasy/medieval flick. And I don't even mind if it's cheesy. I mean, Conan the Barbarian was cheesy. BeastMaster was cheesy. Cheesy can be good. We'll see. At the very least, it should -look- pretty impressive, as it seems fantasy and historical movies are getting better budgets ever since LotR.

I read Eragon and am just about finished with Eldest. Considering the age of the author, it is amazing, but it is very Toliken derivative (though thankfully not plagiaristic such as the Sword of Sha Na Na). Or perhaps Tolkien meets Anne McCaffery. Anyway, it's reasonable entertaining.

Cheesy can go to far: Conan the Destroyer (the movie) was way too cheesy for me. No John Milius to save the movie from Dino De Laurentis. Beastmaster was too cheesy for me (and I think I'm the one who introduced the director of that to the Conan stories). The Conan books were cheesy, but not (in general) laughably cheesy. Loved those Frazetta covers.

I can't baleive that the guy who did 'Saving Private Rian' is doing this movie. I just watched the movie trailer posted, and I think that from what I saw, it is turning out to be a pretty good movie so far. Hope they don't ruin the rest(as has been stated).

Depends on what genre you're talking about. If you're generally referring to medievalesque fantasy, you'd be wrong. Tolkien has predecessors. Robert Howard, for instance, was publishing Conan stories before Lord of the Rings was written.

perhaps i should have said popularized. i did not mean to imply fantasy did not exist before him; only that modern fantasy might not largely exist if not for him.

as to the rest, we're going to have to agree to disagree. my main complaint with tolkien is that he fails to portray enough moral complexity within his world or among his characters. i mean, is there ever any question as to whether or not frodo and his pals should destroy the ring? is it ever suggested that sauron is anything other than just plain evil? the motivations of his pawns and lackies are almost unimportant; sauron is a baddie, plain and simple, one who the reader never even meets or hears from. sort of the ultimate disembodied evil without motive or purpose except to be destroyed.

i feel the same in regards to beowulf. moral stances are not the point, even if they exist (which i got very little sense of, although i will admit i could not be remembering well, since i haven't read it in two or three years). the story is twice as much about the fact that beowulf slew these monsters (i don't think you can argue the dragon has any motivation beyond just being evil) and that was great.

that's the beauty thing about this, though. two people can read something and come away feeling completely different.

[/i]

it may be topical that the movie beowulf and grendel was released yesterday in manhattan (no idea when or if it's getting a wider release). should be of interest to dark ages buffs. also, coincidentally enough, according to the times review by manohla dargis (one of my fav film critics), the filmmakers chose to give grendel more of a backstory and flesh out his motivation, which is just what i've been talking about. might be of interest (my html skills leave a good deal to be desired, so just go to the times website, if you would)

Oooh. Nice.

This looks cool. I loved the books. And if the films turn out good, we all will love them, but if they turn out horribly stupid and dumb, I will still love them. And if they turn out like mediom good, I will still love them. Because they are fantasy.

So, there is no way I am not going to love these films.

Erik

After months of waiting for the official trailer...

It's finally posted!!!

The movie looks like its going to be pretty cool.
I think they are staying mostly faithful to book's script from what I can see.

Though I already see a few deviations from the book though like...

-Saphira breathing fire before Eragon's last duel with the Shade.

-Them showing Galbatrox even though they have not described him in Eragon or Eldest yet.

Still I am very happy about this movie...
First movie I've had to look forward to in a long time!

This looks awesome! Great special effects, and it looks like a big-bugit production. Now I can't wait for december.

Kelderic

My wife is upset that they have cast mostly English actors for this movie, dispite the author being American. However, after some research, she found an interview that brought up that very topic. Paolini said, when I hear my characters in my head, they have English accents, not american.

Chalk another one up to Tolkien DEFINING an entire book genre.

aaronsneary wrote:My wife is upset that they have cast mostly English actors for this movie, dispite the author being American. However, after some research, she found an interview that brought up that very topic. Paolini said, when I hear my characters in my head, they have English accents, not american.

Chalk another one up to Tolkien DEFINING an entire book genre.

Your point is indeed cogent sir. Tolkien has cast an undeniable shadow over the genre. It's as if fantasy fiction didn't exist until he showed up on the scene. Dwarves aren't dwarfs anymore (though I do prefer Tolkien's term), Elves aren't little "elfs" or "elfin folk" or woodland sprites, they have to be gravely serious, maudline magical/spiritual/supernatural people skulking around, which is in itself a stereotype/over simplification of Tolkien. Was his vision that titanical powerful, or are we seeing a dearth of talent?

When I made Helm's Deep some people at NWBC (public) told me, "that's not it looks like," as if the movie version was the definitive version (mine was literature inspired--not to be a book snob, but because everyone else's versions are movie based, and it was more challenging).

I realize that "period based" fantasy fiction (that is, set in our past or a "secondary" world, as opposed to fantasy that occurs in modern times) breaking new ground, or doing something different is difficult, I've often wondered just what it could be. Does that means that these new stories shouldn't be written? No I say. This author is very young and promising, who knows what new and interesting places he will take us in the future?

My daughter read and liked the first book. I see a pretty good cast here with Jeremy Irons, and John Malkovich! I certainly hope it is good.

(mine was literature inspired--not to be a book snob, but because everyone else's versions are movie based, and it was more challenging).

Yay! Finally. No one ever seems to MOC according to the book anymore.

I completely agree with your post, it was excellent.

One day I'll write a book with happy little elves...

I've never read Eragon before. Before I do, can anyone tell me one little thing about it?

I heard that the storyline is 40% Lord of the Rings and 40% Starwars. Is there any truth in that?

In short, yes.

TheOrk wrote:I heard that the storyline is 40% Lord of the Rings and 40% Starwars. Is there any truth in that?

Well, kinda yeah. It's really good though (IMO).

Anyway, I don't really want to see this, because just about every book I like that I've seen a movie of has been disappointing.

~smcginnis

I cant wait. The boy who wrote that is CLEANIN UP!

The Dwarves look horrible in the trailer. And the soldiers all look like Africans (no offence to any Africans). The Urgals don't look like they do in thebook as well, among other things.