Wtf?!

[PaoliniFanGurl]

I really don't understand what was up with the movie Eragon. I have asked everyone who saw it that I know what they thought. Answer: Awesome!:confused: :eek: I have asked them if they reasd the book, no. Surprise, surprise. I remember first reading Eragon and thinking that I couldn't wait until the movie. Now that it is out, I think to myself, what were the producers smoking? DId they evenread[U] the book? I wrote a list of over [U]30 things wrong witht he movie. What is your take on the movie?

[alexgi]

For the movie to work, it needed to have been over 3 hours long. There is way too much in the book to fit neatly into a film. As a result, the characters ended up underdeveloped, the story was jumping around, and all problems were resolved in that 2 minute fight sequence. The movie could have been the next Harry Potter, but unfortunately the director decided to go for great effects rather than tell a great story. The movie was boring and poorly made. That is my opinion.

[GrannyEsme]

The guy who fixed my furnace read the book and saw the movie and he enjoyed both. I have to admit it surprised me that he had read the book--he doesn't look like the reader type. Bad of me to judge on appearances, I know. Anyway, he recommended the movie, but I still haven't seen it. Or read the book.

[MLBurke]

I read the book and saw the movie, although I wish I'd have saved the money on the movie. :o My son, who's 9, read the book and begged his daddy to take us all to the movie for Mama's birthday. Needless to say, HE thought it was great! There's just no accounting for taste in one so young. :rolleyes:

[Hootowl]

I was a little disappointed in the movie, as well. I think some of the stuff they included could have been left out in favor of more character development. And, that's not how Brom died! Where'd they come up with the script writers and did THEY read the book?!

[MLBurke]

I've heard in other movies based on books, the Lord of the Rings series for example, that the actors and directors actually carried a copy of the book the movie was based on around with them, to make sure that it was as accurate as possible.

That doesn't mean that there weren't things wrong with LOTR, just that they tried harder to not deviate from the book too much.

[Hootowl]

I'm wondering how much input Paolini had in the movie. Surely HE wasn't thrilled with the outcome. Has anyone heard how what REALLY thought of it? Will you go see the second one, if they make it?

[giovanni]

The movie is an interpretation of the book and they can change to movie to make it seem better in the film as some things that are in the book can't be done in the film...

[neol]

But it lack the pace of a potter film. Though the effort was good but still I would prefer Harry Potter more. There are more twist and turns in that one.

[fairykisses]

My seven-year-old son and his friend watched this film on DVD and really enjoyed it. It held their interest most of the way through the movie. I only saw bits and pieces - it reminded me of the genre of "Lord of the Rings."

[monkey4]

I never knew there was a book. :( I watched the movie, it entertained me for the time needed, but if I knew there was a book, I would have read that first.

[trickofthehand]

For the movie to work, it needed to have been over 3 hours long. There is way too much in the book to fit neatly into a film. As a result, the characters ended up underdeveloped, the story was jumping around, and all problems were resolved in that 2 minute fight sequence. The movie could have been the next Harry Potter, but unfortunately the director decided to go for great effects rather than tell a great story. The movie was boring and poorly made. That is my opinion.

i'm not the only one who thought the movie was played on fast forward it seems.