Why didn't he give it to Peter Jackson

I know right?

What Avatar movie?

Well, there are some awesome movie adaptions aswell.. So I don't mind them trying.. Not every film can be awesome like LOTR or Harry Potter (and many others)

Harry potter was'nt really that well done IMO but i understand and respect other peoples opinions on the matter

Amen.

Did you hear about the new DBZ movie? It's looks badass!

I loved his comment so much I made a post about it on instagram, I just wish you had an account so I could give credit where credit is due

It was pretty similar, the reason most people didn't like it is because it told that story, but cut out a lot.

Change the names of stuff and that general idea of a story can be applied to lots of stories, Star Wars, LotR, Harry Potter, etc.

if you read the book, you will want to shit all over the movie, like the movie did to the book.

They cut out
Teirm
Yazuac
Most of the battle of Farthen Dur
The twins
Job
The Ra'Zac (those were fucking abortions that were sent out)
Saphira growing up
Most of the history of the series
Fucked up Gilead
Missed Dras leona

They kept like 10% of the book, and made it so they can't have any actual sequels.

Roran going to the Army instead of the Mill

APPARENTLY, I read somewhere ages ago, the Twins WERE in there. But I can't pick them out at all.

Did you not even watch the movie?
The twins were in it, Saphira grew up, Brom told the main portion of the history, and Gil'ead did get a bit torn up. As for the length of stuff they missed(battle of farthen dur) they can't do a 7 hour movie just to go by the entirety of the book.

1 - The twins were in it, but not as much as they should have been
2 - Saphira grew up in like 30 seconds instead of showing a growing relationship, i realize that if anything was cut, that needed to be
3 - All it said about the history is
- Big fight
- Galbatorix won it
- Galbatorix lost his dragon
It barely mentions anything about the elves and stuff
4 - They fucked up Gil'ead, there is no way around that. Eragon was supposed to be tortured, Murtagh was supposed to attack Durza and Brom was already dead by that point in the story, but no, they had Brom alive and killed there instead of by the Ra'Zac outside of dras-leona like he was in the book.

I realize that they couldn't make a 7 hour movie, but they shouldn't have cut it down to an hour and a half, they could have fit in almost everything if they had bumped it up to 2 and a half or even 3 hours
Look at the Lord of the Rings movies, they are each about 3 hours long, and most people love them because they actually tell a story rather than that abortion of an Eragon movie that is basically a bunch of fight scene and a love story slapped together to appeal to a bunch of kids.

I agree completely, they ruined what could've been an amazing movie. They made Galb look like a whinny little boy instead of the great antagonist he was in the books.

The movie. Sucked. ASS.

I'll just go with this and hope i get some green thumbs.

Now, now, the movie wasn't total shit...

Eragon's studded leather armor was pretty cool

Yeah... that's all I've got

And they made Saphira cute as hell when she was little.

Dude. She had feathers. Dragons are not birds.

Paolini had nothing to do with the movie. at least so i heard.

I'm not sure but I think if Jackson did what he had with the LOTR series it would have turned out magnificently. I've attended a few of Paolini's book signings and he has stated how much he abhors the movie which makes most people laugh

Maybe cause he wrote it when he was 15

Oddly enough I do have to agree, the story was still awesome in the first one but his writing did get better as it went on. Do bad the movie was one of the worst flogging of a dead horse to hit the silver screen

I don't even understand the logic behind the movie. Let's take this great story, and modify it to the point to where we literally could not make a sequel and still say it's based off the same book series. Then, we'll throw in some shitty acting, really confusing scene sequences, and make sure to completely ignore the author.

But seriously, why is it so hard to make film adaptations, to anything? It seems like it would be the simplest thing in the world. All you would have to do is say "script writers, copy the dialogue from the book, costume designers, work with the author and use the book for reference, casting directors, find actors that match the descriptions given by the book, and let's go." why is that so hard? M. Night Shyamolfalfjogal has even less of an excuse with Avatar. I mean he can already see what everything is supposed to look like. There is already a script. Just tell your staff to make everything look just like the cartoon. You don't even need a decent director to do that. "I" could do that.

/rant

I'm disappointined by the fact it wasn't even an honest attempt at recreating the story. Peter Jackson didn't completely follow LOTR, he took the story and created his own image but kept true to the core details. That's what a successful book to movie adaptation is supposed to be, the producers take on a work while maintaining true to it but making it their own

Well there are many problems with a book to movie idea:

The first problem is length: The book is too long for the movie. So, the director cuts it down a bit, removes a few scenes.

But it's still too long, yet if you cut it down anymore, it wont make any sense. So, what the director does, is edit some of the lesser scenes, makes them shorter, crams all the story and action of 100 pages into a 10 minute block.

But then the director realizes his budget is too small for such a blockbuster, and people are refusing to fund him unless he makes cuts. So, what he does is edit some of the costumes, say; instead of making people bird-like creatures he makes them a buzzing swarm. He can do buzzing swarms.

But then, when he thinks its all well and done, there comes another problem. Casting. His casting staff can not find the perfect person to match the story, or the character, so mr director has to compensate. The old guy isn't as old as he's meant to be, the blond guys a bit douche looking.

Finally, when the movie comes out of the editing room, past the test viewers, past the heads of the production companies who fuck with the movie a bit more in an effort to make more money, it looks nothing like the book.
It looks horrible.
It looks dead. It should be dead

yet everybody blames Mr director, who was merely doing what was necessary. Some books don't work as movies.

If you look at the LOTR series (wich i'm sure has been referred to on this page a lot of times), they didn't have to leave any scenes out (exluding Bombadil's). The LOTR series was originally 3 parts, divided into 7 books.

If they would manage to bring out a good first movie, i'm sure they'll have plenty of funding for a second or third one aswell. Look at The Hobbit, if you've seen it. The ending of it is a cliffhanger.

Casting can be done well if they took the time for it and actually knew what Eragon was all about. I didn't think of Eragon to look like the actor he is played by. Brom was done fairly well compared to the rest and Saphira's voice actually sounds like it would fit her.

There's a lot of things a director can do to make his movie atleast somewhat good.
I still have the idea that if they turned it into a multi-parter like LOTR the movie could have actually been done well.

And I love panning the camera across the scene! Even if its the same scene. Multiple. Times. In a row.

hahaha, I was pleased too but I had always imagined him as a Prince of Persia looking character, I can't even remember how he looks in the movie know but I remember that was one of the things I wasn't really disappointed by

The english covers were art done by his grandmother or something, right? Been a while since I've read these

Eh, as cool as it is the colours are too bland.

Before I go on wondering who all those guys are, might I ask what's the book you're talking about ? I'm having problems understanding from the post itself.

I think he's talking about the book Eragon. As in the one that's pictured in the content? All the characters he named in this comment come from that book.

Yep, googled it now, 'tis indeed the name of the book.

they killed the ra'zac right away, they never shattered the star sapphire, they never even met the dwarves.

Worst part about it was Galbatorix says "I am very sad without my stone." WHAT THE FAK

i know DX its a fucking egg not a stone...tho adam malkovich was an excellent choice for the role

No, they got Galbatorix wrong. OH! They didn't bury Brom right.

actually they did bury him and then sapphira did her magic and turned his tomb into diamond thats the one part they got right but what do you mean the got galby wrong?

Galby had black hair and tan skin in the book. Plus, they did bury Brom wrong, It was a pit (that Eragon used magic to make), but Saphira did turn it into diamond. Also, they didn't put the twins in, neither do I think Murtagh was in it. Can't remember.

murtagh was in there and if you watched the deleted scenes the twins are in there but arya never explains about true names and stuff like that

I rented it one day and I pointed out something that was wrong in the first 3 seconds.