Eragon: Absconded or Adapted?

Recommended Videos

ChocoCake

New member
Nov 23, 2008
382
0
0
Eragon: Absconded or Adapted?
Differentiating accuracy

This piece of writing is mainly an article discussing the flaws in the movie, from the perspective of a fan of the Inheritance Cycle. It is more of a list of problems with the movie than a review, but due to its structure and topic, it could also be read as a review. If you do not want to know all the details of the movie's flaws, read the first paragraphs and Final Conclsion . This is an excerpt from an anthology that I wrote for a past project of mine, refitted with images and proper code to suit this site's readability. Any grammatical mistakes found are there because this was put together quite quickly, if you notice any, just let my know and I will try to edit them out.

To return to the actual dragon, Saphira is the name I believe, there is some things wrong with her and dragons in general. Her physical appearance, structure you could say, is flawed compared to the book. The main things about her that are wrong are her wings. I am not sure whether the director thought it necessary to add his own knowledge of dragon anatomy, but Saphira's wings have feathers. In the book, the wings of a dragon are described as being like a bat's, meaning they are leathery membranes spread over the various bones in the actual wing. These are also what could be one of the weaker parts to a dragon, but thanks to Fangmeier, dragons are just that much stronger.

Now with the damned dragon hatched, the shade sends other creatures of his creation to kill the new rider. These creatures happen to be the Ra-Zac, which from the audience's perspective, are maggots, flies, bees, and other hideous insects (no butterflies) bound together with some kind of dark magic. Funnily enough though, this is where the director's own imagination comes short, as all that the shade says to create his minions is "Ra-Zac! Ra-Zac!" over and over. Anyway, these minions happen to be a complete race of their own, mysterious to the highest degree, but the creatures are just ugly human-like beasts. The book describes them as having eyes the size of a human fist, a long, sharp beak, and a bald head, as black as their souls. Curiously enough, these Ra-Zac do not seem to be the same maggoty ones of Fangmeier's creation.

Characters

Early on in the movie, after Eragon finds his stone, some soldiers come and take some boys for the army. Those boys were the sons of a man named Horst, the village smith, and his sons don't ever join the army. One would guess that the director could just have been trying to paint an image of a corrupt army, or on a crueller, bigger picture, how corrupt Galbatorix is. These particular sons are important, however, as they remain with their father throughout the rest of the series, and are somewhat important minor characters. Well, Horst is one of the important fixtures in Brom and Eragon's surroundings in this scene. He is here whining about his poor sons that are, in fact, just back in his house. Wait, no they aren't, because the director killed them off practically! Anyways, this problem smacked me in the face at multiple occasions, but in different circumstances each. For example, Eragon's cousin, Roran, leaves for nowhere apparently because of the soldier's recruitment drive, while in the book he just leaves for a week or two to pick up some materials for his boss, Horst. There is also no mention of Katrina, Roran's love, who is also the daughter of Sloan, the butcher Eragon tries to trade with. The butcher and daughter are probably the most important villagers, besides Eragon and Roran, of course. They have very pivotal roles in the plot-line of the whole series, not just the first book.

Other characters left out throughout the course of the movie that could have held minor roles in the book are the traders that visit the village. They do not hold a strong role in the book, besides the fact that is when Eragon finds out that the stone is a actually hollow, so their omission was not missed as much as others.

More importantly then the traders in Carvahall (Eragon's village), are citizens from cities that Eragon and Brom visit during their travels. Besides many of these cities being left out in the first place, the main characters met in the more important of these cities, should not have been. The two characters that come from Eragon and Brom's visit to Teirm include Angela the Herbalist, and Jeod. They both happen to be neighbours as well. Angela the Herbalist was briefly used in the movie, simply using the name Angela only, and read Eragon's fortune. This is true to the book, but the location and placement of the event are incorrect. Angela has a were-cat as a companion, named Solembaum, who is just as intelligent as Saphira. Solembaum provides Eragon with a prophecy that is very, very important in the latter novels. The fortune Angela reads to Eragon in the movie is accurate enough to the book, and can be passed gracefully. Angela is also apparently a resident of the town Daret, which is the only village that Eragon and Brom visit on their travels in the movie, besides Gil'ead. In the book, she lives in Teirm beside Jeod. Jeod holds a very important role in all of the novels as well. He is a past friend of Brom's, who helped Brom steal Saphira's egg from the king, in the book that is. The movie chooses to omit that part of the story. He also helps Brom and Eragon find the Ra-Zac's hidden hideout, by providing them with information that could lead them to the Ra-Zac.

Final Conclusion

The movie Eragon is a very controversial movie. Some people may claim that is a fairly well-made movie, and if it wasn't based off of a book it would be deemed more successful. In my opinion, however, I thought it made way too many mistakes, and was too poorly put together to be deemed a good movie. It changed way too many things that were vital to the story. The story, in itself, was jumbled and much too short to leave the audience with any sense of immersion at all. The story is too much like the cream-of-the-crop to be intuitive or conceptual at all. Anyone can compare the plot with others of the same design, such as Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.

Recommendation: I wouldn't even recommend watching this movie illegally, if you are a die-hard fantasy fan, you may want to watch it. If you are a die-hard fan, I suggest you read the body of this review first.

EDIT: If you read all of this, you are deserving of a slice of my New Year's chocolate cake.
 

moshuh nanren

New member
Apr 17, 2009
1
0
0
I am glad you brought that up I have been reading about and studying the subject of dragons for many years and I must admit, I was little confused, when I saw that Saphira had feathers on her wings. I had understood that dragons had leathery wings
 

OtherAlex

New member
Feb 21, 2009
261
0
0
Slice of cake for me!

Well written, great style, will definately keep an eye out for your stuff!
 

SamuelT

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2009
3,324
0
41
Country
Nederland
Yep, bring on the cake.

I thought this very well written. I didn't like the movie, but I loathed the book. Still do.
 

Fightgarr

Concept Artist
Dec 3, 2008
2,913
0
0
I've always thought that Eragon was insulting to dragons everywhere. I shun it.
Also, does anyone else think that Eragon was just dragon misspelled and the author just ran with it? I mean its a one letter difference and 'e' is just above 'd' on the keyboard.
 
Mar 17, 2009
4,094
0
0
I like your review and your writing stile, very well done.

I personally despise Eragon though (both the film and book), it's like the retarded bastard child of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.
 

Manic Overkill

New member
Apr 16, 2009
85
0
0
I thought the book was good but the movie let it down a bit.
Umm... and about that new years chocolate cake?
 

TsunamiWombat

New member
Sep 6, 2008
5,870
0
0
Eragon is a solid, totally cliche fantasy story with good concepts but no maturity or oomph behind it. It seems like something I would write, and i'm horribly critical of everything I write.
 

short_name111

New member
Apr 5, 2009
36
0
0
The eragon series by christopher poalini was an ok read, although i had seen the content before, and it was blatantly clear where the story moves from point to point. (meet "insert name" from small town "insert name" who gains the ability/finds mystical item "insert item/ability" suddenly one day. meet father figure/guide "insert name" etc...)
i have never bothered to see the movie. thanks for the review.
 

AbsoluteVirtue18

New member
Jan 14, 2009
3,616
0
0
It was so.....meh. It pisses me off more because the actress who played Arya played Jill in Resident Evil and couldn't return for RE 3 because she was working on Eragon.

Also, gimme cake, please!
 

Clashero

New member
Aug 15, 2008
2,143
0
0
MaxTheReaper said:
No offense, but the book was pretty blatantly ripped off from several sources, and while that alone is barely forgivable, it was so thick with purple prose and one-dimensional characters, I know many people who couldn't finish it.

The movie, though...
Oh god, the movie.
I had to turn my brain off during it. There's an Agony Booth review of the movie that goes through its' many flaws, and I recommend it to you, since you're a fan of the book and you hate the movie.


TL;DR:
Samuel_of_Saruan said:
I thought this very well written. I didn't like the movie, but I loathed the book. Still do.
True about the movie. I loathed it. I had the same problem with Eragon as I did with Twilight. They take well-known mythical creatures and transform them into something unacceptable. Feathery dragons, sparkling vampires, that kind of thing.
My mum loved Eragon for its story, but I didn't care for any of the characters, nor the setting, nor the overall story. The Eragon world has relatively little depth. Even Discworld, which is a parody of common fantasy tropes, isn't quite as clichéd as Eragon.

Oh, how I love to gush about Discworld ^^. It's an amazing read for any fantasy fan.
 

Cortheya

Elite Member
Jan 10, 2009
1,200
0
41
MaxTheReaper said:
No offense, but the book was pretty blatantly ripped off from several sources, and while that alone is barely forgivable, it was so thick with purple prose and one-dimensional characters, I know many people who couldn't finish it.

The movie, though...
Oh god, the movie.
I had to turn my brain off during it. There's an Agony Booth review of the movie that goes through its' many flaws, and I recommend it to you, since you're a fan of the book and you hate the movie.

TL;DR:
Samuel_of_Saruan said:
I thought this very well written. I didn't like the movie, but I loathed the book. Still do.
several sources? STAR WARS

Similarities: Guy lives with his uncle, finds something important to killing empire, family gets deadified, leaves town with old man, goes to other random town, learns magical superpowers, rescue love interest (at least in the first star wars she was love interest) who had escorted said empire killing artifact, go to rebel stronghold, rebels get attacked, rebels kill something important to the empire. Part 2: leaves rebel stronghold after it was attacked, goes and finds really old guy who everyone thought was dead but is teacher who teaches him, he senses love interest gets attacked, goes to help, gets ass handed to him, finds out he is the son of the second in command to big bad guy, loses sword/saber, end part 2
keep in mind that I haven't read part 3
 

RRilef

Dangerfield Newby
Jan 5, 2009
319
0
0
Very well written criticism, I don't think a sane person can claim to like that movie. I really enjoy the series so far, even though it is cliched.
 

PedroSteckecilo

Mexican Fugitive
Feb 7, 2008
6,732
0
0
Cortheya said:
MaxTheReaper said:
No offense, but the book was pretty blatantly ripped off from several sources, and while that alone is barely forgivable, it was so thick with purple prose and one-dimensional characters, I know many people who couldn't finish it.

The movie, though...
Oh god, the movie.
I had to turn my brain off during it. There's an Agony Booth review of the movie that goes through its' many flaws, and I recommend it to you, since you're a fan of the book and you hate the movie.

TL;DR:
Samuel_of_Saruan said:
I thought this very well written. I didn't like the movie, but I loathed the book. Still do.
several sources? STAR WARS

Similarities: Guy lives with his uncle, finds something important to killing empire, family gets deadified, leaves town with old man, goes to other random town, learns magical superpowers, rescue love interest (at least in the first star wars she was love interest) who had escorted said empire killing artifact, go to rebel stronghold, rebels get attacked, rebels kill something important to the empire. Part 2: leaves rebel stronghold after it was attacked, goes and finds really old guy who everyone thought was dead but is teacher who teaches him, he senses love interest gets attacked, goes to help, gets ass handed to him, finds out he is the son of the second in command to big bad guy, loses sword/saber, end part 2
keep in mind that I haven't read part 3
A lot of that is basic "hero with a thousand faces" which was the basis for Star Wars... not exactly "stolen" plot elements, but rather a basic "plot" which resonates across humankind, it's the oldest story and hence the easiest to tell over and over again, whether you're Luke, Frodo, Eragon, Harry Potter, Gilgamesh, Perseus etc.

However there were some scenes in Eragon that were basically stolen from Star Wars outright...

Like a certain scene with a setting sun that should be set in a desert with two setting suns...

The lighting and angles for these are identical.
 

Gmano

New member
Apr 3, 2009
358
0
0
the movie skipped about 300 pages from the book, in fact, the whole main body is gone, as the OP said he is supposed to go to the port town in search of the ra'zak, instead he flies straight to the layer and then straight to the varden.

Also, all main stories follow the same 16 or 17 chapters, call to adventure (finds egg), refusal of call(tries to sell egg), supernatural aid(attacked by razak), belly of the whale (depressed by loss of family) and so on and so forth

anyways, the movie cut out the bulk of the book and all the good characters (especially those who are important later in the series). if you use the 16-17 chapters it skips chapters 5-14 and 17, making one really crappy story.

The movie should have been much longer (it was really short) and actually have paid attention to the book's story.

I actually liked the book, it paid attention to many of the aspects of more traditional and good dragon stories, the movie however was as to dragons as twilight is to vampires, a crappy, sappy bastardization.
 

Avatar Roku

New member
Jul 9, 2008
6,169
0
0
RRilef said:
Very well written criticism, I don't think a sane person can claim to like that movie. I really enjoy the series so far, even though it is cliched.
Same here. Flawed and cliche as it is, the Eragon books are entertaining. The movie though...oh god.

I remember that I went to see that for my birthday (I was pretty young, and it came out a few days before my birthday) with three friends, one of whom had read the book (as had I). We left the theater with the two who hadn't read the book ranting about how horrible it was, with me and the other who read it having to explain how bastardized it was.
 

PedroSteckecilo

Mexican Fugitive
Feb 7, 2008
6,732
0
0
Gmano said:
Also, all main stories follow the same 16 or 17 chapters, call to adventure (finds egg), refusal of call(tries to sell egg), supernatural aid(attacked by razak), belly of the whale (depressed by loss of family) and so on and so forth
Not ALL stories, but a specific type of story... The Hero Story.

If you want to cover all stories you need to look into the Seven Basic Plots.