Christopher Paolini

[The Man]

Me either.

[ChaosRomatic]

Originally Posted by Dionysus_PSI

Right now I am reading Eldest (part II of inheritance, part I is called Eragon) and it is amazing. I also loved Eragon (but I dispise the movie, it was TERRIBLE... but that is for later discussion).

tell me about it. right now im reading the book (after watching the movie with friends and found out im the only one who never read the book) where Brom died... the book is totally better than movie..

[Beeble]

So far i've only seen the movie, and it wasn't that great. But from what i've heard, the book is a lot better. Will read it someday.

[Pollensalta]

Christopher Paolini is a pretentious, giant bag of douche who pretty much just ripped off Star Trek, LOTR and FF: Mystic Quest and slapped them all together and called it a masterpiece.

[EdgarAnTerraFigaro]

The liked the first and second the best. The third was pretty bad!
The movie was short an rushed like Bilbo baggins (the book)
It would of been a better movie if they got the producer from LOTR to
direct it.

[Vermilion Thanatos]

I find Paolini to be just another writer who's contributing to the largely unimaginative tradition of overusing Tolkien's classic paradigm to the point of annoyance. I have read all three books, and while I can appreciate that Paolini has a few moments of literary brilliance, the books as a whole are uninspiring. The entire plot and premise is too predictable, the characters are almost too archetypal, and none of the events are memorable. I can't even remember anything important that happened in Eldest besides "Roran pillaged the world" and "Eragon learned stuff with Elves." The third book was even less interesting. Paolini is just a stupid rich kid who had the resources to write a book and the obsessive and blindly supportive parents to publish it, and neither of those should affect his ability to write, which I find tolerable at best.

Peter Jackson did will with Lord of the Rings because he took many liberties with the plot and characters and was willing to make it into a cinematic masterpiece and not just a "book-to-movie" like so many others. Think Harry Potter 3 versus 1/2. They just don't compare. I find the comment about the Hobbit insulting considering that the Hobbit book was infinitely more concise and entertaining than the Lord of the Rings series, which spent pages describing the color green of the woods or recounting some meaningless song a character sang. I'm sure it contributed to the overall setting, but Tolkein went overboard with that and ended up boring his readers to death. Which is why a movie interpretation that cuts out all the boring crap and adds stuff where Tolkein was lacking appeals so much to the audiences. They tried to do that with Eragon, but miserably failed because quite frankly I don't think they had the brightest minds in the movie industry working on it. The actors were terrible unknowns (very different from good unknowns or terrible knowns), the CG effects were lackluster, the editing was choppy, the script sucked, the directing was iffy, and there was too much ommitted and not enough consistent with the book that it could hardly be considered a decent adaptation. I agree the movie was rushed, but that is nothing like The Hobbit book, which went at about exactly the same pace as Eragon and any other traditional Fantasy hero tale and in many respects was better than Eragon. For one, it was original.

I like Pollensata. :P