Eragon

[Lilmizflashythang]

I've read the first two Inheretance books, though the second knocked me out of the series. I can honestly say that I read the last page in Brsinger to see the evil king vanquished, and it was a rip off. He ended the trilogy without ending the books.

He used too much magic (I mean, why have a dragon if you can say a word and fly?), and didn't kill the king. He should have stopped after the first book if that was his intention. At least then we had a good combination of magical and draconic abilities. After reading the end of Brsinger, I now hope they don't make Eldest into a movie. I'm not sure how they could anyway, Murtough had two different personalities in the books and the movie.

[devilsgrin]

the "trilogy" has become a Saga... so there are more books on the horizon... alas...
From what i understand, there have never been intentions to make Eldest into a movie. considering the woeful job done on Eragon... and its extreme flopping at the box office... no Eldest film. YAY!!!

[AE35Unit]

Tell you what. Wish I could have written a book when I was 15! Fair play to him!

[ghost8772]

Originally Posted by AE35Unit

Tell you what. Wish I could have written a book when I was 15! Fair play to him!

likely you'd have turned out a fanfic book just like Paolini did.

White dragon was early half dozen. depending on when written. don't have them convenient to check copyright dates.

Bunny, I know EXACTLY how you feel. have people regaling how awesome Eragon is. But they have never heard of Anne McCaffrey. really just wanna throw the book at them. Paolini's preferrably, don't want to damage my pern copies.

[devilsgrin]

Tell you what. Wish I could have written a book when I was 15! Fair play to him!

the only admirable thing paolini has done, was to be able to plod through writing his derivitive piece of drivel. 15 or not... it would be hard with a book that bad. Please don't forget that it was only published because his family owned the production company... not through any literary merit or talent.

[bunnypeaches]

Originally Posted by ghost8772

Bunny, I know EXACTLY how you feel. have people regaling how awesome Eragon is. But they have never heard of Anne McCaffrey. really just wanna throw the book at them. Paolini's preferrably, don't want to damage my pern copies.

I have that problem with so many books though! Or worse yet, films of books. When people come up to me and say things like "Hey, have you seen The Golden Compass? It's awesome!" I just want to slice them open and stuff their mouths shut with their own innards. Or something to that effect... It just frustrates me why people have to take perfectly good stories and turn them into something horrible just to cater to people too lazy to read.
Kids these days!

[ghost8772]

Originally Posted by bunnypeaches

I have that problem with so many books though! Or worse yet, films of books. When people come up to me and say things like "Hey, have you seen The Golden Compass? It's awesome!" I just want to slice them open and stuff their mouths shut with their own innards. Or something to that effect... It just frustrates me why people have to take perfectly good stories and turn them into something horrible just to cater to people too lazy to read.
Kids these days!

Age old issue... at least since the movies started grabbing books as material... come to think of it thats been always. Anyways, yeah, get a number of people who think they are "better" than the person who read the book because they were CLEVER and watched the movie instead. I'll admit there were a few movies that I enjoyed more than reading the book that preceded it, but those are rare instances. Usually those movies took a title from a famous work, kept some of the names, and not much else. Two movie-novel comparisons that still have me grinding teeth are Dracula, and Starship troopers.

the 90's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" had all the events the book had, but spun it into a love story. Changing the gist of the story was bad enough, but a few years later I ran across a novel "Bram Stoker's Dracula, based on the movie by Francis Ford Coppola" and my jaw dropped. 90% of the novelty of the book was the way it was written. building a story from journal entires, newspaper clippings and the like. that thing felt like an insult.
Starship troopers the movie, kept the worlds, the names, and one or two events, but otherwise left out great big chunks of the plot that made the novel great in my opinion. but as far as action movies went, it wasn't bad... like I, Robot though, it only really had the name there to draw in an audience. nothing of the story was the unique bits FROM the story.

but yes, usually I let people feel they are better, and MUCH more clever than I because they skipped reading to watch a movie. if they get too full of themselves, I deflate 'em with a peeves, a 30 second bomb, or otherwise bit from the story that was relevant that hollywood decided to leave out.

[AE35Unit]

Originally Posted by devilsgrin

the only admirable thing paolini has done, was to be able to plod through writing his derivitive piece of drivel. 15 or not... it would be hard with a book that bad. Please don't forget that it was only published because his family owned the production company... not through any literary merit or talent.

I thought the movie was entertaining tho. And its pointless rearing up and saying Yes but its nothing like the book because we're talking two different mediums here. The Tarzan movies entertained countless hordes years ago even tho they probably never realised he was based loosely on a series of books by Edgar Rice Burroughs. I certainly wasn't aware of that when I was watching Tarzan every sunday with my brother,and later when I learned the truth it made no difference. TV/film is entertainment primarily. Books are different,more personal I think.

[ghost8772]

Originally Posted by AE35Unit

I thought the movie was entertaining tho. And its pointless rearing up and saying Yes but its nothing like the book because we're talking two different mediums here. The Tarzan movies entertained countless hordes years ago even tho they probably never realised he was based loosely on a series of books by Edgar Rice Burroughs. I certainly wasn't aware of that when I was watching Tarzan every sunday with my brother,and later when I learned the truth it made no difference. TV/film is entertainment primarily. Books are different,more personal I think.

yes, but when you found out that the 30's movies of Tarzan were kinda based off the books, did you check the books out, or did you try to pass yourself off as "better than" someone who had read the Tarzan novels? that is my main pet peeve. I try to enjoy a movie based on a movie's merits, not that it was based off a book, some of them as said above left such a foul taste in my mouth on abusing a good name like that....

Honestly I made it through 4 Tarzan novels, but couldn't get into Jewels of Opar, Burroughs may have had an interesting viewpoint, but his use of stellar coincidence as a plot mechanism drove me away. both Tarzan and John Carter books. Didn't even make it through the 3rd book of those. coincidences piled too high to plow through anymore.

[AE35Unit]

No i didn't pass myself off as better than someone who read the books,not sure what you mean there but I'd never say I was better than anyone else.
And I've no desire to read the Tarzan books but maybe one day I will-i have read his first Barsoom book tho,A Princess of Mars which is an ok adventure,not bad, a bit dated,but a bit of fun.

[bunnypeaches]

Originally Posted by ghost8772

I try to enjoy a movie based on a movie's merits, not that it was based off a book, some of them as said above left such a foul taste in my mouth on abusing a good name like that....

I try to do that too, and I have no objections to them leaving out certain bits or summing things up, to make the movie flow better and to actually fit it all into a film (eg Lord of the Rings, they left a lot of stuff out, but I think they had to, and they didn't mess about too much with what was left). What I hate most of all is stupid changes like a character in the book having black hair, and being played by Nicole Kidman in the film. It shouldn't really matter, I know, but it just makes me think the director or casting person hasn't even bothered to read the book! Silly things like that, that they had no reason to change, but just felt like it. Maybe that's just me though, I get very clear pictures of characters in my head.

And for example in the fourth Harry Potter film (which by the way are some of the most awful book-to-film adapatations I've ever seen) they give away right at the very start who the secret bad guy is all along. You're not MEANT to know that until the very end. That's the whole point of building suspense till the end. It'd be like somebody coming up to Poirot with a lead pipe covered in blood and the corpse's head down his shirt. And my little sister thinks she knows all about Harry Potter cause she's seen the films, and she can't even be arsed to read the books when I point out how ignorant she actually is. She tries to correct me when I'm talking about it!

This is a pet peeve of mine, and one of the main things I rant about, so I do apologise for somewhat rambling, angry spinster-with-too-many-cats type posts!

[ghost8772]

Originally Posted by AE35Unit

No i didn't pass myself off as better than someone who read the books,not sure what you mean there but I'd never say I was better than anyone else.
And I've no desire to read the Tarzan books but maybe one day I will-i have read his first Barsoom book tho,A Princess of Mars which is an ok adventure,not bad, a bit dated,but a bit of fun.

I figured you hadn't done the "better than someone else" mindset. you read books. The people who avoid reading like its torture and feel smug about it are the ones who feel they one-upped the people who read a book, enjoyed the story and have regaled their visit to another place, time, viewpoint.

Originally Posted by bunnypeaches

I try to do that too, and I have no objections to them leaving out certain bits or summing things up, to make the movie flow better and to actually fit it all into a film (eg Lord of the Rings, they left a lot of stuff out, but I think they had to, and they didn't mess about too much with what was left). What I hate most of all is stupid changes like a character in the book having black hair, and being played by Nicole Kidman in the film. It shouldn't really matter, I know, but it just makes me think the director or casting person hasn't even bothered to read the book! Silly things like that, that they had no reason to change, but just felt like it. Maybe that's just me though, I get very clear pictures of characters in my head.

And for example in the fourth Harry Potter film (which by the way are some of the most awful book-to-film adapatations I've ever seen) they give away right at the very start who the secret bad guy is all along. You're not MEANT to know that until the very end. That's the whole point of building suspense till the end. It'd be like somebody coming up to Poirot with a lead pipe covered in blood and the corpse's head down his shirt. And my little sister thinks she knows all about Harry Potter cause she's seen the films, and she can't even be arsed to read the books when I point out how ignorant she actually is. She tries to correct me when I'm talking about it!

This is a pet peeve of mine, and one of the main things I rant about, so I do apologise for somewhat rambling, angry spinster-with-too-many-cats type posts!

So your sister believes that Potter and Malfoy met at hogwarts, instead of getting robes fitted on Harry's 11th birthday?

Yes, some books are nearly religiously followed in screenplay, with some changes/additions or subtractions to help the visuals flow more smoothly. While others nabbed the name to get a devoted fanbase clamoring for the movie to be finished, while the name of the story and some character names are all that were taken from the book. I can understand about the potter translations, actually I think the first potter book was about the closest book-to-video of them all.

[AE35Unit]

Oh sometimes,if the film is good i get in the mindset that says Oh I've seen the film,no need to read the book now(lord of the rings is a good example. Jackson did such a good job that I feel i dont need to wade thru the books-tho i do have a desire to read them,out of curiosity)

[ghost8772]

Actually Lord of the rings was fairly closely adapted to the books, some events changed timing, and a couple things were left completely out. the only real gripe I had was they left out the part about Sharkey. though I'd guess they would have had to add about 45 minutes to an already hugely long movie. most off the Hobbits adventures getting to Rivendell were skipped completely. but under the heading of "kept close enough to the book for it to be believed it CAME from the book" about a 9.

Yes I first compare a movie to how it followed the book it was named after, then will check it for its own merits. Guess being a reader first makes me want to see if the person running the movie felt the same way I did about the book.

[AE35Unit]

And next up is The Hobbit which will hopefully be released as two films spanning 2011/12
Thats the only Tolkien book I've read and it was a long time ago.
Oh getting back on topic I don't understand why this has been posted in Anne McCaffrey!