![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mara_dienne459 posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
antishurtugal_rebornThere are nine reasons why the 2006 film, Eragon, based on Christopher Paolini’s Inheritance Cycle, failed in such a spectacular fashion.
Eragon, the 2006 film based on Christopher Paolini’s novel of the same name, was a complete disaster for a multitude of reasons. Paolini’s Inheritance Cycle, of which Eragon is the first book, has been extremely successful worldwide, despite the failure of the movie. Luckily for the fans of the Inheritance Cycle, the series is being adapted once again, this time as a television series on Disney+. If Disney’s Eragon TV show is going to redeem the movie, it will be essential to understand what went wrong the first time.
I mean, yeah, the movie was all kinds of terrible, what with Saphira’s instant presto change from a baby to an adult, the Ra’zac being ineffective bug demons summoned by Durza, Galbatorix’s terrible one-liners about being in PAAAAAIIIIINN without his “stone", and tense scenes broken by repeated nonsense lines, but it wasn’t bad (at least in my opinion, but then I also like movies that all the critics say are complete dog tripe). I thought Baby Saphira was phenomenally cute, I liked how they handled the Roran subplot by simply removing him from the start, along with Katrina, and I really enjoyed Jeremy Irons. I’m not exactly sure how the TV series (which we haven’t heard much about lately, since that announcement article came out last... year?) is going to “redeem” the movie, as most people (including Paolini himself, apparently) pretend it never happened.
Audiences and critics were united in their disappointment when Eragon came out in 2006, but identifying the sources of their disappointment may not be as easy as Disney thinks. Eragon performed remarkably badly, and there were few positives to take away from the film. As such, Disney may have to rely on the books to find the right formula for its Eragon adaptation. Luckily, Christopher Paolini is expected to be heavily involved in the writing and production of the Eragon series, which should make it easier for the show to avoid critical mistakes from the Eragon movie.
As I said before, I really don’t pay attention to other people’s opinions of movies. What I think is totally awesome most people consider a box office flop. As far as identifying the sources of fan disappointment... I don’t think Disney gives a damn. I think they’ve got enough money to throw at it to do whatever they want. They’re going to have to use the books anyway in order to, you know, make a TV series. TV series as a platform to tell the stories for books are a little more forgiving than a movie, because each episode could be a chapter, whereas in a movie, you’re limited to (at most) 3 hours. Not everything that gets filmed for a movie makes it into the movie. Same for a TV series, honestly, but TV shows are somewhat more forgiving in that regard. The last part of that paragraph makes me roar with laughter, because this is CP we’re talking about. This is the guy who fought with his editors to keep scenes that made his already sociopathic self-insert zero look even more sociopathic. This is the guy who refuses to cut anything. This is the guy who goes off on multi-chapter filler spats. I can imagine it now - the whole writing team plus Chris trying to write the script for the first episode and nothing gets done because Chris won’t let them cut any of his “wonderful” ideas.
Anyway, let’s get on with the 9 Reasons here.
9) Eragon Drastically Changed the Book Ending
One huge issue with Eragon (2006) was that it drastically changed the book’s ending. In the film, Eragon (Ed Speelers) and his dragon, Saphira (Rachel Weisz), have a final duel with the shade Durza (Robert Carlyle) where they manage to kill the villain despite serious injury to Saphira. In the book, however, Eragon is tricked by Durza, who comes to the brink of victory before Saphira and Arya come to Eragon’s rescue. This ending is not only a better spectacle but also serves to set up the sequel with Eragon’s vision about Ellesméra. The film’s deviations hurt the plot severely and disappointed eager book fans.
So I’m copying this directly from the article itself, but italicizing titles (because titles are italicized, right?). But the one thing I didn’t change was the fact that the author of this article didn’t bother to capitalize the ’s’ in Shade. They left it lower case. I don’t know if it was a mistake or what, but it jumped out at me because of that, because the words “Shade” and “Urgal” are always capitalized in the books. Which always struck me as strange, because they’re the only names of the races that get capitalized, aside from Ra’zac and Lethrblaka. Human, elf, dwarf, dragon, those are all lower case whenever we see them. Anyway, in the grand scheme of the paragraph, it’s a minor nitpick. No, what really got me about this paragraph was the total and complete WRONG about the ending of the book this article’s author is describing.
THE BOOK DID NOT END LIKE THAT.
I would know. I sporked it.
Eragon was not tricked by Durza! He was set up by the Twins to be kidnapped! He and Durza had a one-on-one fight - surrounded by an ineffectual circle of Urgals, by the way, who did nothing but stand there and watch once they popped out of the hole Durza exploded in the floor - where Durza started winning because of course he did and he struck Eragon across the back, whereupon Eragon started whining about how not fair everything was. Then Arya and Saphira crashed through the ceiling to provide distraction so Eragon could have his shining moment of stabbing Durza through the heart before passing TF out. He also didn’t have a vision about Ellesméra. He never saw the place! His “vision” was him whining about how not fair everything was (again) and being pummeled by Durza’s “evil” as well as memories before Oromis came in to save him and kiss his little Sue ass before telling him to come see him.
Honestly, what the movie portrayed was a far better ending (again, in my opinion) than the book. There was actually Dragon Rider action! Saphira got to have agency in the battle, not be a set piece to make Eragon look good! Durza got to be far more badass than he was in the book. And it showed Eragon actually giving a damn about Saphira’s well-being to the point that he risked his own life to save hers, even after having been told earlier in the movie that it was far better to just let your dragon die to than die yourself, because if you died, your dragon died, but if your dragon died, then you could keep on living. In the book, Eragon barely gives her two thoughts except to snipe at her and treat her like a disco ball ride-share with wings. If the book had ended like the movie did, I might have been more concerned about Eragon surviving his encounter than I actually was.
8) Arya’s Characterization Was All Wrong
Another issue with the Eragon movie was that it failed utterly in its characterization of Arya (Sienna Guillory). Arya is one of the most important characters in the series, which makes Eragon’s misrepresentation of her a huge mistake. Arya’s character in the books is much richer and more complex than the movie’s version of her. In Eragon, Arya comes off as boring and somewhat one-dimensional. Misinterpreting a character as important is Arya is a critical mistake because it’s characters like Arya that make the Inheritance Cycle so entertaining.
Hah. Hahahahahahaha! Hahahaha! Are you serious? It’s been a long time since I watched the movie, but I distinctly remember that Sienna Guillory had far more agency in the movie than Arya did! She actually had a hand in her own escape from Gil’ead and she wasn’t unconscious for half the end of the movie! She actually had the wherewithal to taunt Durza in the movie, which was far more than Book!Arya ever did. Book!Arya being “richer and more complex”? Are you serious right now? Arya in the book was far more one-dimensional than Movie!Arya by yards! Arya in the book was a self-righteous arrogant bitch who led Eragon on in one breath and in the next was friend-zoning him before ghosting him outright! She temper tantrumed when things didn’t go her way! She was hypocritical and snotty! Could you imagine if they had had Sienna Guillory act like Book!Arya in the movie? She’d be unconscious for 90% of it, creepily manhandled by Eragon during their Gil’ead escape, and then play even less of a role in the final battle than she actually did.
7) Eragon’s Acting & Casting Was Largely Poor
Another issue with the 2006 film Eragon was that its casting and acting were largely poor. The acting in Eragon was a common point of criticism from audiences and critics alike. Many of the sequences came off as generic or corny, and the actors simply did not seem invested in the story. Some critics have even ventured so far as to claim the cast did not take the movie seriously or perhaps saw it as a joke. That might be overly harsh, but the acting was generally poor. Eragon also made some critical mistakes with characters like Galbatorix and Angela the Herbalist that exacerbated its acting problems.
I mean, the author isn’t wrong here. There were several big name actors in this movie, but out of the whole cast, only Jeremy Irons seemed to give a damn. As for the sequences, yeah, they came off as generic and corny. What were you expecting? Sweeping landscapes like in The Lord of the Rings? The one scene that always jumps out at me is the scene more or less lifted right from Star Wars: A New Hope where Eragon’s sitting on the roof of his house staring at the sunset like Luke Skywalker does on Tatooine before the Empire comes. Another scene that jumps out at me is the scene where Brom is telling Eragon the consequences of a Rider’s dragon dying or vice versa, and there’s a very nice, tense moment where Eragon looks up at Saphira, she looks back at him, and then she has to repeat what Brom says, ruining the impact of the realization that if the Rider dies, the dragon dies too. I don’t know if the cast didn’t take the movie seriously or thought it was a joke, but they certainly didn’t put any effort into it. I do want to know what these “critical mistakes” were, with Galbatorix and Angela. John Malkovich played Galbatorix, and he had some awful one-liners and didn’t really do much in the entire movie. Angela showed up in one filmed-in-the-dark scene, decked out in jingle-bells and piercings, and talked to Eragon about his fate before disappearing. Unless you’re calling including them “critical mistakes”, in which I do agree. Galby did better as the “off-screen” unseen villain in the books (which was to hype up his villainy but that fell flat as we weren’t shown any villainy) and Angela... well.
Nobody likes Angela here.
6) The Eragon-Saphira Connection Didn’t Translate Well
Another issue with Eragon was that the mental connection between Eragon and Saphira did not translate well. Eragon and Saphira communicate telepathically, which was always going to be hard to translate into film. However, Eragon’s approach to this issue was somewhat lackluster. The movie fails to convey the depth of their connection, and because of that, fails to fully integrate Saphira’s personality. Despite being a dragon who can’t physically speak, Saphira is vivid and layered in the books, something the film completely failed to capture.
The mental connection between the two would have worked well, if Ed Speelers hadn’t looked like he was confused in ten different ways staring at a tennis ball at the end of a pole. Sure, telepathy is hard to translate into film, but it can be done well, especially if your actors act out the telepathy on their faces. Considering Saphira was CGI, it would’ve been easy with her. Speelers would’ve had the harder job there.
Now. Let’s laugh.
“The depth of their connection”? WHAT DEPTH. On the best of days, Eragon ignored Saphira unless he needed her to take him somewhere. On the best of days, Saphira treated Eragon like her child or acted like a jealous girlfriend. On the worst of days, the two sniped at each other and belittled each other and barely gave a shit about each other. In the freaking movie, Eragon is shown caring for Baby!Saphira. He’s shown being upset when she suddenly flies off before her stupid rapid aging scene. When they have their first flight together, Eragon is shown to be having fun, Saphira is shown to be having fun. They even have a cute little moment where Saphira talks about how Riders could fight from any part of their dragon’s body, even the tail, and when Eragon tries it and fails, they both have a laugh about it. When the discussion about dying happens, Eragon is shown to be terrified at the thought of losing Saphira. When Saphira is wounded in the final battle, Eragon is terrified for her, but she assures him she’s okay until she’s not, and it’s shown that Eragon starts panicking to the point he’s willing to sacrifice himself to save her.
Eragon in the book doesn’t do that.
Eragon in the book (in book 2 and 4 specifically) doesn’t bother to heal her in the Battle of the Burning Plains before he fights Murtagh because he’s too busy selecting the best battleground for himself, and he freaks out for .5 seconds when Saphira is stabbed through the chest with the Deus Ex Spear. He starts to take revenge for her, and then is stopped when Furry Rape Elf appears on scene. He shows slight concern for her before he gets distracted by the shiny Deus Ex Spear. He doesn’t try to help her himself. He doesn’t do anything for her himself. On the opposite, Saphira in the books doesn’t bother to really save or protect Eragon in any manner. Whenever Eragon is in danger, Saphira is either too far away or she just stands there like a lump. In fact, despite having poured over all four books, I don’t remember Saphira ever protecting Eragon from danger, unless you count cockblocking Trianna.
Now, let’s examine that last sentence. “Saphira is vivid and layered”. Are you joking? She’s about as vivid and layered as moldy cheese in the books! Did we read the same books, person who wrote this article? Saphira is a creepy, at times overbearingly motherly, at times co-dependent, snotty vain brat who is just as selfish as her Rider, and whose only goal in life is to have babies. She has no depth to her character! She has no layers! She’s barely featured in this story which only exists because of her! She’s an accessory! Even when we do get chapters from her point of view, she acts like everyone should worship the ground she walks on! Saphira in the movie wasn’t much better in terms of characterization because we hardly got to know her. She went from adorable baby to adult in mere seconds and then... then... well. She was just sort of there in the movie, too, honestly.
5) Eragon’s Lack of Loyalty to Its Source Material Alienated Readers
Eragon’s overall lack of loyalty to the source material was another huge issue for the movie because it alienated book readers who could have become the film’s core fan base. The movie stays loyal for the first handful of scenes, including Eragon finding Saphira’s egg, but it digresses further and further from the plot as it goes on. By the end, the Eragon movie is almost unrecognizable from the books, which obviously upsets devotees of the original source material. This make Paolini’s involvement one of the most exciting things about the Eragon TV show because it will presumably help the show avoid this mistake.
I mean, the World of Warcraft movie had a complete lack of loyalty to its source material but I still enjoyed it. The Fullmetal Alchemist movies deviated from their source material, but I still liked them. Just because the Eragon movie deviated incredibly far from its source material doesn’t necessarily mean it’s terrible and it alienated people who read the books. I mean, sure, people who read the books were expecting to see the books on screen. It didn’t happen. They were upset. I wouldn’t necessarily say the movie is loyal for the opening scenes, considering it opens with Arya already running in burning woods before being accosted by Durza, but sure, that’s nitpicking at that point, I guess. But the movie then goes on to show that Galbatorix’s influence on Alagaësia is evil by having two of his guards go after Brom for hunting. It then gets rid of the Roran subplot by removing him and Katrina entirely. There are many other examples (like the Ra’zac!) of deviations, but the problem came in the fact that they weren’t utilized properly. By the end of the movie, yeah, it’s completely different from the books. Because it’s a movie and there are time constraints and the ending has to be exciting. And it was exciting! The book... was not.
Also it is to laugh about Paolini’s involvement in the TV show somehow preventing the script writers from deviating from the source material. The whole point of the show is to make it exciting, to get the audience invested in the characters, to tell a story in a given amount of time. Changes are going to be inevitable for storytelling smoothness and for aesthetic purposes and for a variety of other reasons. Things are going to have to be cut. Things might get added. With his previous behavior about editing his books, I’m not sure he’ll be able to deal with those things. But hey, maybe he’s matured a bit? Maybe he can take criticism now?
4) Eragon’s Budget Was Too Low To Do The Fictional World Justice
Eragon’s budget was another reason for the film’s poor performance. It had a seemingly healthy-sized budget of $100 million, but with such a grand fictional world to adapt, Eragon’s budget still fell well short of what it needed to be. The budget was likely the reason for a lot of the book cuts and changes, especially Eragon’s duel with Durza, which would have been extremely expensive to do properly. Luckily for the Eragon TV show, CGI has come a long way since 2006, and Disney should be able to provide it with the necessary budget to do Paolini’s world justice.
I mean... $100 million is not a small budget. Exactly how much money do you think that this “grand fictional world” needs to be portrayed on screen? Saphira was going to be expensive to do because she’s a CGI creation, and CGI isn’t cheap. It certainly isn’t any cheaper now, especially since, as this article says that it “has come a long way since 2006”. That’s true. It has come a long, long way in the last 17 years. But you have to pay the 100+ people that now work on the CGI, pay for the computers and programmers and artists, and that’s not an inexpensive bill. This is also not including the cost of voice effects. So I’d say most of the movie’s budget went into making Saphira, Durza’s shadow monster that he got to ride around on, Shruikan, and probably the Ra’zac too. The rest of the budget was spent on the cast and crew, vehicles, locations, costumes, weapons.
Just because Disney has a lot of money doesn’t mean they’re going to write a blank check for this TV series, you know.
3) Fox Was Trying to Jump On the 2000s Fantasy Movie Bandwagon
Eragon was a victim of Fox’s attempts to jump on the 2000s fantasy bandwagon. The genre was doing extremely well at the time, and Fox seemingly expected to throw a little bit of money at a fantasy series and make a quick bucket of cash without properly thinking the story through. Unfortunately, Fox spent too little money and chose the wrong creative minds to produce Eragon. The movie came off as rushed and poorly planned as a consequence of Fox’s impatience to get into the fantasy market, and killed the franchise before it truly began.
Thanks for repeating yourself in the first line of the paragraph. Anyway...
I mean, sure, I can agree with this, but that’s also why entertainment companies watch for the most popular flavor of the month. They want to make money on it. I’m sure Fox thought that they could throw some money toward the series and make a serious return because the diehard fans would go see it, they would get their friends to see it, and so on.
They got what they wanted, in a way.
The reviews and critics started to roll in, and then Fox also released another of their movies, Night at the Museum, alongside Eragon, so everyone went to see that because it was new. If nobody had a choice in movies, I’m fairly sure Eragon probably would’ve had more viewers. As far as the movie being rushed and poorly planned... I mean... I think it felt like the “creative minds” were fans of Star Wars and they were getting their digs in at the sameness. Just replace Eragon with Luke and Saphira with a lightsaber, and you pretty much have the same exact story, just less exciting. That being said, the source material itself was hardly exciting. Most of the book was Eragon and Brom traveling, then it was Eragon and Murtagh traveling, and then there was a final battle.
I’m not sure if Fox was impatient to get it out, considering they already had the rights to make the book a movie. They could hold on to the rights as long as they wanted and made the movie whenever they wanted. Who knows what Fox executives were thinking at the time? But the fact remains that the movie was a flop (wasn’t the first and won’t be the last) and Fox decided to scrap the sequels. Yet they retained the rights, and now Disney has them. So I guess we’ll see what comes of that.
2) Eragon’s Poor Script Made Story Changes Even Worse
Whenever a book is adapted for movies or television, there are always going to be some necessary changes to the source material. However, Eragon’s changes look even worse than they might have because of how poor the script is. For the most part, audiences are ok with changes to the source material if they are well-written. However, when an adaptation makes wholesale changes that significantly lower the quality of the narrative, it’s bound to fail. Eragon’s script not only changes events from the novel, it’s also full of generic, uninspired dialogue. The result is a movie so terrible it makes people angry.
Yeah, there’s always going to be some necessary changes to the source material. Books have the luxury of being long (well, depending on who you are, I guess) and the author can take the time to lay out the groundwork of their story, build their characters and world, and more or less do what they want until their editors rein them in. TV and movies don’t have that freedom. As far as Eragon’s changes... some I can agree with, like removing Roran early by having him skip town lest he be conscripted. I also enjoyed that we got to see more of Baby!Saphira, considering in the books most of her early life is skipped over. I like that they got rid of Yazuac and Teirm because nothing related to the plot happened there, but tossing in Daret just to have Angela was silly. I’m not sure the changes the movie made really lowered the quality of the narrative considering the source material’s quality is questionable at best, but hey, what do I know? As far as the dialogue in the movie... I mean... the book is full of generic, uninspired dialogue if you really think about it. Poor uneducated peasants suddenly start talking like educated nobles out of nowhere, there are stupid poems, stupid rhymes, and every main character sounds pretentious and eerily the same when they talk.
1) Why Eragon’s Upcoming TV Show Can Do Better Than the Movie
Eragon’s upcoming TV show in Disney+ can outperform the movie for several reasons, but chief among them is the involvement of Christopher Paolini. Paolini is expected to be a co-writer for the series and to have a significant hand in production. His involvement can ensure that the TV show makes an adaptation much closer to the original novels and that any changes made stay true to the spirit of his work. The Eragon TV show also has the advantage of having more time to tell the story, and it should receive an adequate budget this time, which can help substantially.
Here, let me fix that first sentence for you. “Eragon’s upcoming TV show in Disney+ can outperform the movie for several reasons, but chief among them is that the writers can take more time to adapt the script and decide what needs to be included and what needs to be deleted in order to make the show cohesive and entertaining”. I really don’t think having Chris participate on any level is going to get this show out of development hell, and if his past history and behavior suggests anything, he isn’t going to bend and compromise. The last thing that bothers me about this paragraph is the fact that the author of the article seems to think that the budget is the only thing that matters. Like throwing more money at this project is what is going to make it The Mandalorian style of popular. Money isn’t the only thing. You need good writers who can adapt the source material, good actors to portray the characters, good directors, and a whole slew of other things. Yeah, money pays for that, but money can also pay for a monkey to sit in a chair and hit a button to get a banana.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-21 06:30 pm (UTC)My brother and I used to play the Eragon PS2 game based on that movie, which had a number of interesting concepts in terms of co-op gameplay. Most interestingly was that the players shared control during dragon rider levels, with one player doing the flying and firebreathing as Saphira and the other player firing arrows and using magic as Eragon. It's one of the few truly positive, uncomplicated memories I have with my brother.
Adaptation to different kinds of media will always come with changes. In the process of becoming a video game, a whole lot of battles were added that aren't present in either the source books or the movie. The movie aggressively cut anything that didn't serve the coming showdown between Eragon & Durza and was frankly better for it.
Any chapter or selection of chapters selected to become an episode of a TV show will need to be reworked, cut somewhat, and expanded - each episode needs an individual arc that also serves the arc of the season. This means the episode(s) dealing with Saphira's raising will by necessity expand the roles of Horst, Elaine, Katrina, Garrow, and Sloan at a minimum. And if you're already doing the work of expanding these roles, you're going to look for opportunities to bring these characters back in future episodes to reward the audience for becoming invested - any showrunner is going to want to introduce characters who become really important like Murtagh and Nasuada earlier than in the books as well. And it's gonna be that way through the entire series. There truly is potential for this to be good but that depends on Paolini's ability to get out of his own way and accept the inevitability of change and the truth that there is no canon.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-22 01:09 pm (UTC)I played the PC game, which was fucking terrible. Basically it was just a massive God of War ripoff except way more clunky and boring to play. I couldn't even get past the first dragon riding sublevel because Saphira handles like a paper airplane.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-23 01:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-07-23 02:35 am (UTC)The Gameboy Advance tie-in game was actually quite good, partly because they added some proper RPG elements instead of just making it a beat-'em-up.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-23 02:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-07-24 02:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-07-22 03:36 pm (UTC)I tried the GBA version of the Eragon Movie Game a while back with Anya. Didn't get too far into it, but they made some interesting decisions. Casting spells uses HP instead of a mana pool and Katrina and Roran are starting party members who help Eragon pay back Horst by doing generic quests. It's interesting because it's like it was made by a fan who is making it based on a version of the book they remember VS the version of the book that actually exists.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-22 04:53 pm (UTC)Funnily enough, it's one of the things I remember from it. Player 1 had control of Ergs, and Player 2 of either Brom or Murtagh, who were functionally the same save for a distinct lack of magic. The magic itself was... basic. I just recall grabbing designated things in the environment and flinging them, which says a lot, I think.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-23 01:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-07-23 01:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-07-23 08:19 am (UTC)I would argue that having a stamina bar rather than using HP or MP for magic would work: make it like Soulslikes, and have normal attacks use SP for attacks, and magic reduce max SP to 50%. once it hits that, use HP for spells (until the next bonfire, because this is Eragon, and we need to crib from everything).
But that's just my two cents, on something I'm more qualified on than sporking books.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-23 02:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-07-23 06:47 pm (UTC)Alternatively, just go the same route as some games and have the player create their own Rider, either at the height of the Rider's power, or after Book 4 as one of the "New Order".
Gemstones could easily be consumables for SP. They'll regenerate energy, although early on in Book 3 Ergs complains that energy doesn't fill your stomach. Easy Max SP restore, not so much HP gain.
'course, I could go on with potential RPG mechanics on how Erg/Pao magic could work. There'd be a nice bit of crunch for the magic though ought to feel like it fits. And it should.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-23 05:29 pm (UTC)Using HP to cast has an inherit degree of putting yourself in danger every time you cast, which is a pretty neat balancing factor over the usual Glass Cannon approach. Cast higher spells, have a higher chance of getting one shot after. An SP system makes both attacks and magic a tactical decisions, and in Souls-like terms trades off speed and ability to dodge for power.
I love punishing magic systems. Makes the magic more magic.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-23 06:52 pm (UTC)To be honest, this is just from my understanding of how Pao's magic should work translated into RPG form: use it, and you're tired. Use it more, and you'll need to sleep after a snack or two. Keep going, and you'll drain your life force.
The fact that Ergs doesn't do this or needs to by my recollection (save the start of Book 3, after he rescues Sloan) is a persistent problem.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-22 01:04 pm (UTC)Eragon in the movie was a stupid brat and an obnoxious jerk, but he was still way better than his book counterpart.
Then why did she completely disappear for most of Brisingr?
LOL. Random personality transplants is not how you do a complex and layered character, my dude. Arya might as well have been split up into three or four different characters who take her role at different times in the "story" while eliminating Arya herself. She's a completely useless character in the sense that she only exists at all to be the "love interest" and has no important defining role outside of that.
I mean think about it. We start out with some elves carrying Saphira's egg and they get ambushed. Two die and the third teleports her egg away before being captured. Now imagine the following: having done so, the nameless elf is also killed (or kills herself to avoid being made to betray her allies to Durza, which would open up some interesting questions in the reader's mind - what was so important that she chose death over being captured? Or is Durza just THAT evil and cruel?).
The plot proper then kicks off with Eragon finding the egg, and from that point forward what actually changes? No plot side-track of rescuing Arya and no subsequently carrying her floppy carcass around. Eragon doesn't know the way to the Varden? But Saphira does! She remembers it from all her time being shuffled back and forth from the place in her egg.
Book two happens with no Arya. What changes?
Absolutely fuck all, other than now there's no creepy forced attempt at a love subplot, so therefore we don't see Eragon acting like a stalker.
Book three happens with no Arya. What changes?
Again, absolutely fuck all. Have Saphira be the one who goes back to look for him, under an invisibility spell cast by the elves. No boring dawdling around the countryside, and hopefully no Eragon murdering an unarmed prisoner in cold blood bullshit.
Book four happens with no Arya. What changes?
More absolutely fuck-all. She does nothing important in this book, and becoming Queen/a Rider doesn't count because it has no relevance to the plot and doesn't happen until the last minute.
My vote: reassign most of the few things Arya actually does to Saphira. It would certainly do a lot to combat the OTHER elephant in the room.
...which is of course that Saphira barely gets any meaningful screentime. As you pointed out, she never actually protects Eragon (and most of the time he does nothing to protect her in return other than casting a few FUCKING WARDS on her, which comes at no personal risk). They don't act like friends, and Saphira is ultimately rendered just as pointless a character as Arya is, if not more so.
It's supposed to be a "boy and his dragon" story, so the focus should have been placed on them as the two most important characters and their relationship with each other. But it's not. Instead the focus is placed on Eragon and how amazing and special and important he is while he whines his way between various shiny power-ups and then whines the villain to death while Saphira is relegated to the background.
Or there's the other option, which the Nostalgia Critic very intelligently put forward: make Saphira a non-speaking character. Or even make her non-sapient for that matter. Let her be a mute if intelligent creature who only communicates through feelings and urges and such. That way you'd have at least some justification in reducing her to Eragon's pet/warhorse.
There's no way in hell those shots lifted right out of Star Wars and LoTR weren't 100% intentional, and I'm calling spite too. It just made the blatant ripoffs even more painfully obvious, and boy did critics pick up on it. I laughed so hard. Book reviewers and fans had for the most part insisted upon turning a blind eye, but the movie critics were having none of it.
Both decisions I very much agreed with. The people in Carp Hat are actually made to look poor and miserable with soldiers bullying them and appropriating food while dragging their sons away to be conscripted and never seen again. And Roran leaving to avoid the same fate is a MUCH better way to begin his book two subplot as a fugitive from the Empire.
Mind you, the bit where Brom starts spouting anti Galby propaganda and the soldiers threaten him only to instantly back down just because Eragon yelled at them is still completely stupid. They should have kicked the crap out of the pair of them.
This is true... but only up to a point. A clever and creative film crew know how to cut corners without it showing on the screen. For example, Citizen Kane was made on a budget which did not allow for depicting the mansion of a fabulously wealthy man. So Orson Welles and his crew compensated by using all sorts of tricks to make rooms look way bigger than they actually were, and so on (look it up; it's a fascinating story).
Bad filmmakers, on the other hand, when handed a lot of money, usually end up squandering it by making stupid decisions (see: the making of Cleopatra)
So no - merely having a lot of money at their disposal won't automatically change anything.
Fuck yes followed by fuck no. Back before the movie came out I thought it might actually be good because if someone who actually knows what the hell they're doing redeveloped it they could so easily turn it into a fun pulpy adventure story about a boy and his dragon friend fighting monsters and joining a rebellion against Darth Galby. They could have toned down the stolen elements and the lame attempts at being "grand" and "profound" and leaned into the popcorn entertainment aspect. But they didn't, and if you ask me that's what really killed the movie.
Nor will attempt number two work if they give Paolini any serious creative control. The guy's a pompous ass who thinks he knows better than his editors and cannot tell the difference between "plot" and "random irrelevant crap that doesn't go anywhere". Or the difference between an objectively admirable and heroic character and a pathetic, nasty little asshole either, for that matter.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-24 12:16 pm (UTC)I think if Paolini is in charge of the TV show script, there will be plenty of 'number two' to go around.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-24 12:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-07-24 12:13 pm (UTC)I WISH the movie had "killed [the] franchise". Instead, Paolini just keeps getting publishing contracts handed to him.
no subject
Date: 2023-07-24 12:43 pm (UTC)It's been 232 years since Mozart died, and we still love and honour him and his musical legacy. Does that mean every composer working in the 1700s was just as brilliant?
Fuck no! Only the most dedicated of musical historians even knows their names, unless you count Salieri, and that's mostly because of the (very historically inaccurate) movie.
Every generation produces both truly exceptional artists and mediocre to poor artists who are merely popular. The former are remembered with respect, and the latter are almost always forgotten except as "silly crap I like ironically because my grandparents thought it was cool".