Talk:Eragon (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Now, now

Dear User: Timberwolf101189,

The book is NOT too long, and it is a GREAT improvement. Why all the negativity? --Airplaneman (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Final Battle Between Eragon and Durza

Now, I don't think that Eragon the best film I have ever seen nor is as bad as most people think it is have. I actually see it as a sort of mild improvement over the first book (which was far too long to begin with, the second one took forever to finish with the horrible "Yoda" sub-plot). I thought the best part of the movie was the the arial battle between Eragon and Durza at the end of the film. It was more exciting than the battle in the book. What did you think about the battle? User: Timberwolf101189 8:41 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fan Reception

A section must be added to the page informing people on how fans took this movie. Persoanlly I found it as the worst movie ever, and so have several of my friends do to the lack of depth and ommitted characters necessary for the possibility of a sequel assuming it follows the plot of Eldest.

Nah, that's not important. What's important is that on Rotten Tomatoes this movie has a lower cumulative rating than Doom! Hahahaha!

Reception

The new list on reception doesn't make much sense. The grammar may need a shape-up --Toad 21:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I Love You?

Under "plot", someone wrote "I love you Jessica Haney". Whoever you are, Jessica, let it now be know that you are loved, but I'm pretty sure that that does not belong in the plot section. I will remove it. ...Oh, wait, someone just did. --Queenrani 23:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Messy

This article is as messy as all hell and all those credits are unnecassary.

Problem solved Tredanse 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


I love her

Production crew

It looks like someone's just copy/pasted the entire credits of the film, possibly from IMDb. Is all this necessary? I've never seen another Wikipedia article for a film with every crew member credited.

Problem solved Tredanse 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


Stills for Eragon

I recently found some new pictures for Eragon here:[1], such as a scene of Galbatorix and Durza, and the rest of the cast of Eragon in costumes (Eragon, Ajihad, Brom, Durza(!), Arya, and pretty much everyone else, save urgals, Garrow, and Roran) If someone could upload these pics, the article would be tons better. Thanx! By the way, on Chris Egan and Edward Speeler's articles, go to Google for pics. I'll be adding similar discussion topics on the Pirates of the Caribbean 2 article, and possibly other recent movie articles. (The reason I'm doing this is because my computer won't upload pics). It really would be great if you people would.

Good stills, the problem is with copyright issues though. Are those free to use anywhere? We need to be careful. - Tredanse 05:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
(oh, on closer inspection, none of those are new and actually are available in better quality on other websites, eg Shurtugal.com) - Tredanse 05:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, Put them on there, then. I don't care where u get them. If an unofficial website has it, I doubt there are any copyright issues. But, just to be sure, list ur sources.
Maybe. I think the only relevant one would be the picture of the cast, in costume. I have a good quality scan of that, I might upload it soon. - Tredanse 01:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
But its such a good shot of Durza and Galbatorix. But, as long as at least one is on the page, it doesn't matter to me.
The one of all the characters in costume will be useful for the Cast section, but general film stills aren't really that important in a Wikipedia article. - Tredanse 21:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Just upload the cast shot please!
I found a sort of trailer, should I put on the link? I don't know about the copyright of it:

Trailer

I saw that trailer also; I haven't been able to watch it, and I was wondering how they got it, if Fox says they're going to release a trailer in the future.


Speaking of the trailer, the second paragraph (explaining the delay) took me a while to parse. It could probably use a little bit a rewrite.

Quotes

Shouldn't the quotes be on WikiQuote, and not here? Lutherjw 00:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved them--Nimrod1234 03:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Roran and Garrow

Don't these two characters have portrayers? Why aren't their portrayers listed in their articles? Are the filmmakers planning to leave them out? They'd better as heck not!! 4.158.60.201 14:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Im So Freakin Excited. I was Afraid They Would Ruin It With Horrible Charecters. I Just Hope they get Saphira's charecter right

Sapphira's character is fine. But I also am worried about this lack of characters. I'm not sure what you mean by "Horrible Characters"; those are Very Important Characters. 4.158.210.11 11:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, Roran and Garrow did just fine. They were very true to their personalities.- Joshua

They are in the movie, acording to imdb.com

Dreyesbo 21:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they were the only characters not completely butchered by the film because they didn't have enough time to be. Roran's personality was fine, but the reason he left the village was changed so dramatically that I wonder how they're going to make the next movie. I pray they don't. Oh, not to mention Garrow's name was never said. Over all, this movie gets a .1/10. 24.86.59.67 18:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

9th poster

I've heard from a fansite that the 9th poster is a hoax, shouldn't it be removed?--Spyderchan 01:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Removed Images

I have removed most of the images in the article. This includes all the images of the variation of posters and individual character screenshots. Even though I agree that this images add visual attraction to the article, it looks like nothing more than that and therefore fails Fair use criteria #8, that copyrighted images must only be uploaded and used if "The material must contribute significantly to the article..." and they "must not serve a purely decorative purpose". Unfortunately I feel the images are used agains't this policy and I can do nothing more than follow it. Thank you for your understanding. - Tutmosis 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't upload the character images into this page; just onto the page of the character and in some cases the actor. I do understand why the poster images were removed, however, I also believe they have some relevance to the article. A poster is promotional material, just as a trailer. Should we not remove the trailer links also? I feel they show the progress made on advertising and the history of the film's production... Lutherjw 01:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont think they "significantly" add the the article, even if its to illustrate promotional work. I left one poster in the article because it does illustrate the subject and it makes sense to have it. Also if you wish to illustrate 'production' a much better image would be a photo of the film being filmed. It's an accepted guideline that copyrighted images have to be kept to the bare minimum and only be added if they really add to the article. Ofcourse you are welcome to seek a second opinion from an experience user if you still unsure if my edit was proper. I will accept full responsibility if I did something wrong. Anyway thanks for taking this calmly and professionally, since in a lot of cases people take such matters very personally. :) - Tutmosis 15:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Fansites

I'm removing the fansites and the C&A sites because they aren't helping the article. I'm cutting down the "external links" section should be cut down to official links, imdb link, and rotten tomatoes link, because that's what most movie articles have.--Spyderchan 03:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Okay, fine, but who the h*** took out the reception section? Isn't it important that most movie critics believed the movie blew chunks?

Taglines

They're jokes

Really? How astute of you to have noticed. Geohevy 03:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, shouldn't we do something about it? Removing the joke taglines, for example? I don't know which are jokes and which are real, they're all pretty cheesy. --KittyCollier 17:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The section about differences between book and film

That section is huge, and a pain to read. I would suggest that we consider doing what was done at The The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Fellowship_of_the_Ring_(film), and make a written summary of major changes, rather than the long list of nitpicks that is there now. Another alternative would be to follow the example of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film), where they have a daughter article to discuss the changes. Either way is better than the big clunky list that is here now, IMO. --DarthBinky 18:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to omit certain negative phrases and divide up the section, but I agree, it's far too long. Just a summary of the changes might be best. --KittyCollier 19:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a (very) rough draft of what the first paragraph could say:

The film varies in many respects from the novel, omitting characters and locations to meet time restrictions. The cities Therinsford, Teirm, Yazuac, and the Hadarac Desert were omitted, and the appearances of characters were altered, especially those of Brom, Arya, and the witch Angela. Angela’s prophecy was also shortened, omitting the predictions of betrayal within Eragon’s family and of his permanent departure from Alagaësia. Eragon’s dragon Saphira grows to maturity in a vastly shortened time than that of the novel. Many scenes with Murtagh were omitted, and Brom’s death sequence was altered for poetic effect.

That's the best I could think of for now.--KittyCollier 19:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Have made a couple of VERY minor spelling and grammar corrections. [[[User:Russtnail|Russtnail]] 21:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)]


if you were to list all the differences between book and movie just read the booka nd youll see that the film had about 5% of the book in it it Dappled Sage 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I made the list into a few paragraphs and only added big changes. I think it is good.
It's good you converted it to prose, but more importantly it still lacks sources. UnaLaguna 21:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

When I saw the movie I thought they might have heard all the story from a friend who didnt care to tell them every thing... insead of reading... Its allmost IMPOSSIBLE to make eldest as a movie now... they spoiled it all with so many mistakes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.16.48 (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

References

All references should be added using the {{cite web}} template. I've made it slightly easier for you by changing all the regualar links like this [2] to references which show up at the bottom of the page. Cbrown1023 18:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Medvid - official Wikipedia movie critic?

What's up with all the Michael Medvid reviews on Wikipedia? His reviews are singled out more than any other movie critic on the planet. I find it pretty annoying. What made him the official word on movies here? --72.202.150.92 02:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Rip off of Star Wars?

Farm boy raised by his uncle discovers dragon egg/droids. Boy's uncle is killed because of it. Boy meets up with Brom/Obi Wan who trains him in the way of the dragon rider/jedi. Brom/Obi Wan teaches boy in the way of magic/the force. Boy goes to save princess/princess being held by the enemy. Brom/Obi Wan sacrifices himself so boy and princess can escape. Boy and princess escape to secret varden base/secret rebel base. Enemy tracks them back to hidden base and launches attack. Enemy is defeated when boy hits small weak spot on enemy/small exhaust port on Death Star.

If the king turns out to be the boy's father the rip-off will be complete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.21.66.81 (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, actually...

SPOILER ALERT

The boy's father is the now-deceased former king's right-hand man, but I don't see how this comparison between fantasy series is a discussion of the current article. --KittyCollier 17:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

lol Yeah, the Emperor's righthand man...Darth Vader...fallen dragon rider (Jedi)...sound familiar?--Doncroft 12:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well... Yeah I'll admit the similarities do kind of scream rip off, but the second book seems to be original. I'll bet if I looked closely enough I could find similarities between Star Wars with any number of books. 24.86.59.67 18:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Luke goes into the wilderness and trains with Yoda, then flies off to help his friends. Eragon goes off in the wilderness and trains with Oromis, then flies off to help his friends. It's perhaps slightly less clear because there are other minor plots which end up ripping off other stories (Edoras is evacuated and the villagers flee to Helm's Deep, Carvahall is evacuated and the villagers flee to Surda, Farthen Dur is evacuated as the Varden move to Surda). About the only original thing in Eldest is the... ehm... fabric guild thing >_>... UnaLaguna 21:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Now you know why a lot of us aren't fans of these books because its basically the Star Wars plot with the LOTR setting.Wild ste 19:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol,if you look at some sites Christopher Paulini actually admits it is based of star wars so yer... not really new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.252.18 (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you know how many books follow the Star Wars plot? And anyway, Star Wars is basically a revived space opra. That basic plot (farm boy gets trained by someone, goes to rescue princess, trainer dies, princess and farm boy escape and all live happily ever after) has been around for hundreds and hundreds of years. Actually, there are ancient legends from the Fertile Crescent (written in clay) that follow those exact, same lines... and they're over four thousand years old! So really, you could argue that Chris based his books (and Fox based the movie) on those ancient Arabian legends. Personally, I don't think that sounds too bad. And seriously, when you were fifteen, could you write a book like that? In Eldest, the plot gets a whole lot more original. Sure, it took parts from LOTR, The Dragonriders of Pern and a whole load of other books, but this world only can contain a limited amount of ideas. Everthing gets repeated eventually. A lot of scenes can be traced to the Bible, for instance, but so can thousands of other books. Is it right to expect every book to be completely and totally original? I think, instead of over-critiquing this work of literature, we should be grateful that such amazing writers are alive and contributing to society. The world would be really boring without them. Zafira A71.38.23.125 (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

box office numbers

Someone keeps putting that the movie has grossed $160M worldwide. I can find no source that states this. The "boxofficemojo" link which is cited in the article clearly states that the worldwide total is almost $92M. An IP editor recently changed it back to $160M, and sort of gave a citation saying "boxofficeguru.com" gave that figure- except their box office numbers haven't been updated since May 2006 (from what I can tell), and it doesn't even list Eragon. I checked IMDB, and they don't say $160 either (the data I saw there was incomplete, only listing the US total and a few European totals).

My point is that I will treat the $160M figure as vandalism until someone can provide a source supporting the claim. Like I said, the only cited source I've seen says $91M (and change). Cheers --DarthBinky 20:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

All of the IP's that keep making this change are from the same ISP based in Queensland, Australia. So it's probably the same person (or small group of people) who keep changing it and not discussing it. It seems it'd be pointless to write to the IP's userpage as they use a different IP each time they make the edits. --DarthBinky 03:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sequel?

I haven't seen the movie yet (but I want to see how bad it is), but from what I gather making a sequel would be all but impossible given the changes that were made from the book to the movie (I believe someone above said something along the lines of "the film contains about 5% of the book", which judging from the differences article would appear to be true). But a friend of mine already saw it and said that the ending leads up to a sequel, and I'm wondering how they can pull that off.

Can someone write in somewhere the cases for and against the probability of a sequel, given the plot changes and such? Currently this section seems to be stub-worthy and offers very little information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.89.253.231 (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

FOR YOUR INFORMATION eragon is a great movie(Umm Idono what your on but the movie was crap). you can't say "you want to see how bad it is" because you have no idea what its like. i know this has nothing to do with the sequel but i just couldn't help noticing how stupid some people can be when they have no clue whatsoever about what they are talking about.

This is unnecessary, as there is no information about it yet. It would be entirely speculative, and remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If a sequel does go into production, a separate article would be made to cover it. Cheers! --DarthBinky 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)This movie Rocks

I agree with the above... i have seen eragon. myself and my family have watched the film but not read the books, and we LOVE IT!! Eragon is an amazing film and the effects are amazing.. we would love for there to be a sequel!!.. like lord of the rings and harry potter if they include eveything from the book then the film will last for hours on end.. they need to change things and take things away to shorten it and then they have to change other areas for it to make sense!!... so what if they have changed loads of it, the film is only BASED upon the book!!! WE WANT AN ERAGON 2!!

The problem is they changed it so much that it's impossible to make a sequal. To many key characters were left out.--74.230.88.184 18:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
For the person above who didn't leave a name, I agree with the orginal poster. There are a lot of people who go to films who are fans of the books and see the film just so they can bad mouth it later on (myself included). We do this because no-one wants to make a film for the fans of the books. They want to make a film to make money, so therefore they do whatever they want to the storyline. Take The Golden Compass for example, you can tell straight away that it will be rubbish because they aren't even using the English title for countries outside of Europe (America being the only place its called the Golden Compass) and conisdering the main plot of the storyline, you just know the films will be rubbish. So you can't say that we don't know what we are talking about because we do. Wild ste 19:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Personnally it isn't only about the storyline (that has been ridiculously changed), but also about some points that I can't accept. Have you seen the dragon?? OMG, she's like a rat with a long neck and two wings! How should Eragon be able to say 'you're beautifull' to her?? She isn't even blue! I actually prefer the dragon of Harry Potter for her shape, even if Saphira has been made that good. And why did they have to make Saphira grow in a flash and give her such an arrogant character?? Everything has been changed even if it wasn't needed!

I almost cried after I had seen that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.152.114 (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism: Reception

Someone added into the reception section that:
"

Okay, seriously, is that really neccessary? I changed it, but I cannot tell if they vandalised the rest of the reception section. Geohevy 03:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, while we are at it :) I am a bit of a critic of Christapher Paolini myself, but the pages are being constantly vandalised. I suggest we do something to stop this. It is not hard to notice the pages are being vandalised, its written all over the Discussion page. Not to mention the constant crosses that keep showing up, perhaps we should pull in a professionals. Anker99 04:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Differences between the film and the book

Now that the article on the differences between the film and the book has been deleted, they are no longer mentioned at all. Someone should probably write a section on them in this article with proper sources. I'd do it myself but I haven't read the books and don't know enough about the topic.--Dycedarg ж 07:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, seeing that many do not understand how drastically different, and better, the book was from the movie. We do need this particular part of the article. Should we decide that the article would be better without it, then I won't complain, but I think it would be helpful to either reinstate the list, or to include a comment such as "the movie and the book have many differences," that is unbiased, yet shows that you won't be able to watch the movie and pass a test on the book. --Belgarion777 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statements in Trivia section

A few pieces of trivia have been floating around the article but have consistently remained unsourced. I think that casting Ian McKellen or Patrick Stewart as Brom sounds like a fan's wishful thinking rather than something which really happened. The other stuff I'm not sure about, but I've taken them off the page because as far as I know they're not true.

Of course, if anybody can find sources then they should be added back to the article. If so, then maybe we could put it and some other information (for example, about Edward Speelers' selection for the title role) in a "Casting" section or something.

If anybody feels the need to add them to the Trivia section again, here they are:

UnaLaguna 17:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)I'm borded

Well heres the source for the Tamsin bit, on Tamsins page on wikipedia no less.

http://vmagazine.com/feature_article.php?n=142 Wild ste 19:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The first two items seem to be copied from the trivia page at IMDB. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0449010/trivia
85.228.162.124 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Eragon's age

In the plot section, someone had written "At the age of fifteen, [Eragon] finds an egg." While Eragon is fifteen in the book, he is seventeen in the film. His age probably isn't that important to the plot, so I added the word "teenage" at the beginning and replaced "at the age of --" with "While hunting." --Danaidh 06:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Anne McCaffrey's books...

Why why why isn't there ANY indication that this film is very very much a possible rip-off of Anne McCaffrey's books series about Pern ?? I find this hard to believe no one noticed this... Draginriders, the impression, telepathy between riders and his dragon, the strong bond, dragon dies if rider dies, Jeremy Irons role much like Robinton's... Can anyone add to this article?24.226.163.38 00:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It can only be included in the article if you, or anyone else, can find a reliable, notable source to back the claims up, otherwise it is just considered original research. It may be very similar, but unless somebody a bit more notable than Bob Smith from some random blog says it is, it can't be included. Besides, everything you mentioned would be considered a similarity to the book, none of that is exclusive to the movie exept perhaps the dragon dying if the rider dies and Jeremy Irons, thugh, even then, he is playing a character lifted from the book so, even if you can find a source, it needs to go to the article about the book, and even more specifically, the article that talks about the criticisms of the book. --pIrish 01:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the new section recently included about the possibility of a sequel

I've already posted this on a user's talk page, but I thought I'd post it here as well so anyone watching this page or stumbling on it can read what I've got to say. It will give you an idea of why I felt it should not be included and why I reverted it. Anyone can chime in with reasons for or against it, but I'm just laying out my reasons right here for anyone to see and respond to if they'd like. However, please do not reinsert this section until discussion has ceased and a consensus for the section has been reached.

To be clear, the information is good. It's the sources that aren't. That's where my concern comes from. Please take a look at these pages to learn a bit more about reliability, verifiability, and notability when it comes to sources: WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:VERIFY. These are all policy pages which state what can and cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia.

  • In favor of a sequel, several press releases were issued mentioning that Eldest would be released in late 2008.[3]
This reference is not reliable and it can't be verified. Not only is it to a forum, which isn't even allowed in external links due to an abundance of original research and fancruft in them, as well as a requirement to join the forum to discuss this information, but they don't source it, unless I just keep missing a link to the source they got it from. They've got a quote and no link to the source they got it from. If a direct link to the actual press release is found, then it can be included.
Ah, I just saw the edit history state that the Samsung site it was taken from was taken down. I would really like to know why I should trust this source if the press release they got it from doesn't even think the information is worth keeping up and, besides, surely an announcement like this (it's pretty big if they actually announced a date) would have made it to several major newspapers, which would be considered reliable sources rather than just sit as a quote by some random member of a forum, which isn't considered reliable.
  • Aquafresh held a contest in which the winner would be granted a walk-on role in the sequel to Eragon, seemingly confirming the sequel. [4]
I'm back and forth on this one. On one hand, I would prefer to see a source from the actual company that held the competition or a news source that also announced it as that would be a bit more reliable. I'm also not a big fan of the site itself. It's a fan site and, to make it worse, the page I'm sent to has lavendar/light pink text on a white background (is this just my computer?), which makes me concerned that they don't necessarily want people to see it and that it's just an archive of sorts for their own future reference. Surely a better source can be found if this was such an important contest regarding whether or not there will be a sequel.
  • In the DVD commentary of Eragon, Stefen Fangmeier noted several issues which would need to be resolved in a sequel.
This doesn't say anything one way or the other as to whether there would or would not be a sequel. In fact, it doesn't even support the idea that there would necessarily be a sequel. This is common knowledge that if they made a sequel, they would have to fix the things they messed up the first time around. This is making too much out of too little (ie: original research). Any fan of the books could have said something like this after seeing the first movie when there weren't even plans for a second.
This source (listed twice) makes me gag. They have something from a "trustworthy source" that said this? You have got to be kidding me. Well, I have a friend who knows someone who knows Christopher Paolini who said that Paolini's not even writing a third book, he's just tricking all of us! How authoritative does that sound? Not very, right? This site is saying the exact same thing. This source is out. Please don't even argue for it. It's the most untrustworthy site listed in this new section, without a doubt, and it can not be included under any circumstance.

Well, there you go. There are my reasons why it should not be included. It's a little long-winded, but I hope I got my point across. Thank you. --pIrish 13:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Production Section

Could there be a section all about the production of the movie. This way, we could join the Filming locations section with it and give more information of how the movie was made. Plus, other film articles have Production sections. Why can't Eragon?

Sure, I don't see why not. Just make sure it doesn't have original research in it and you're set. --pIrish 02:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What a mess

How this article got a B-status on the Film Wikiproject, I have no idea. It was, and partially still is, a total mess. References have just been shoved in with no formatting and the infobox looked like someone was trying to make their own adjustments. Just my opinion but there are far better articles in Wikipedia, more deserving of a B-status than this one. -- Britishagent 00:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


possible trivia

i was wondering if its woth mentionong on this article that Rifftrax.com will release a commentary for Eragon. paranoia2K 07:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary

For such a long article, and one that is probably rather notable, shouldn't the plot summary be longer than a single paragraph? I understand we don't need to go into terribly great detail, but compared to many other, less well-known movies, the plot is rather paltry. 74.38.83.231 20:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Be bold and do it yourself! ;-) A problem with adding in a more lengthy summary is that it gets too lengthy really quick because you want to have all these details about it. It also invites other users to add stuff they think is missing from the summary, which just makes it longer. If you think you can write a short summary that doesn't go into too much detail that follows the basic storyline and doesn't invite others to lengthen it, then I strongly encourage you to go for it! --pIrish talk, contribs 21:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It should be more full. But it shouldn't be too overwhelmingly long. Just touch the main parts. I'm thinking about doing it.

The following plot summary was added to the page last night:

The film begins by the character Brom telling about the Dragon Riders, an elite group of people who governed the land and rode on mighty dragons. They are soon destroyed by the corrupted Rider named Galbatorix, who claims himself as king and drives out all resistance. The story then switches to an elf named Arya who has stolen a stone from the king. Durza, a shade who works for the king, is sent to trap her, but she teleports the stone to a part of the forest where Eragon is hunting. Eragon takes it to his uncle’s farm and witnesses the stone hatch into a blue baby dragon. The dragon, after growing large, claims herself as Saphira and says that Eragon is her Rider. In the village, Eragon sees the Ra'zac, two evil henchmen of Durza, looking to kill him and he runs home. Eragon is furious and sad to find his uncle murdered at the farm. Brom, the village storyteller, takes Eragon and flees on horseback.
Brom, Saphira, and Eragon begin their journey to the Varden, a group of rebels against the Empire. While traveling, Eragon experiences sword fighting, romance, magic, and dragon-riding. After several close calls with the Ra'zac and Urgals, monsterous beings who work for the king, Brom is forced to admit that he was once a Dragon Rider whose dragon had been slain by the king’s follower Morzan. He goes on to say that he sought Morzan and killed him and his dragon.
Eragon has a vision of Arya begging to be rescued from Durza's lair at a city called Gil'ead. They journey to her call, but Brom is pierced by a spear thrown by Durza. They flee the lair with Arya. Brom soon dies and is buried. Along the way to the Varden, they meet a boy named Murtagh who claims he can help them reach the Varden. They reach the Varden, leading Galbatorix's forces to them. Murtagh is revealed to be the son of Morzan and is locked away by the Varden. A battle begins, during which Eragon kills Durza by stabbing him through the heart. Eragon, after trying to heal a wounded Saphira with magic, goes on unconscious. After awakening several days later, he finds the Varden have won the battle, Murtagh set free, Saphira alive, and Arya gone to Ellesmera.

I reverted it because the author disregarded the piece of text which said "DO NOT ADD A SUMMARY HERE WITHOUT GAINING CONSENSUS ON THE TALK PAGE FIRST! IT WILL BE REMOVED IF CONSENSUS IS NOT MET!" UnaLaguna 06:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


How, then, are we supposed to add a new and extended plot summary if the warning prohibits it?

Plot Summary Consensus

All who agree with the following plot summary say so:

The film begins with Brom describing the Dragon Riders, who governed Alagaësia before being destroyed by the corrupted Rider Galbatorix, who now rules the Empire as its king. The story then switches to Arya, an elf who has stolen a stone from the king. Durza, a shade working for the king, is sent to trap her, but whilst she is captured, Arya teleports the stone to The Spine, where Eragon - the protagonist - is hunting. He takes it to his uncle’s farm and witnesses the stone hatch into a blue baby dragon. The dragon, after growing, calls herself Saphira and names Eragon as her Rider. In the village, Eragon sees two Ra'zac, evil henchmen of Durza, looking to kill him. Eragon runs home to find his uncle murdered at the farm. Brom, the village storyteller, takes Eragon and flees on horseback with Saphira.
Brom, Saphira, and Eragon begin their journey to the Varden, a group of rebels fighting against the Empire. While travelling, Brom trains Eragon in sword fighting, magic, and dragon-riding. After several close calls with the Ra'zac and Urgals, monsterous beings affiliated the king, Brom is forced to admit that he was once a Dragon Rider whose dragon had been slain by the king’s follower Morzan. He goes on to say that he sought Morzan and killed him and his dragon.
Eragon has a vision of Arya begging to be rescued from Durza's lair at a city called Gil'ead. They journey to her call, but during the rescue Brom is pierced by a spear thrown by Durza. They flee the lair with Arya and Murtagh, a man who claims he can help the group reach the Varden. Brom dies soon after and is buried. They reach the Varden, but in the process lead Galbatorix's forces to them. Murtagh is revealed to be the son of Morzan and is locked away by the Varden. Shortly after Eragon's entry to the Varden hideout a battle begins, during which Eragon kills Durza by stabbing him through the heart. Eragon, after trying to heal a wounded Saphira with magic, goes unconscious. After awakening several days later, he finds the Varden have won the battle, Murtagh set free, Saphira alive, and Arya left for Ellesmera.

When we achieve enough positive opinions, we will change the present summary. If anybody sees need for a change in the above summary, please say so.

Note: The summary is meant to be a short, basic overview. Do not add every detail of the movie.

Most plot summaries are a little long, but I think this summary is pretty much spot-on in terms of length. Otherwise it's also pretty good. I fixed a few spelling and grammatical errors, and corrected a few of the plot details (although since I haven't seen the film for about four months my memory might be a little rusty). I've also started adding some wikilinks, since the summary was missing them, but I've not finished. UnaLaguna 17:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Did the director read the book?

DUDE/DUDETTE (possible typo), did the director read the book before he did this. I've never seen a movie that alters so diffrent from the book. Did he just read a summary about it somewhere because he changes about 98.999999999999999999 percent of the book. I'm honestly quite surprised the author wasn't angry with this. If you read the book, it's the best ever (Yes, I've read Lord of the Rings and Eragon is better)! All my friends that read it this said it's second only to Eldest. This has to be the, overall, the saddest attempt of an adaption EVER!!!!!!!!!!!! Son of Jadoja 21:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree. Terrible film. Did the book not just no justice, but shame. ~User:Sophiakorichi

yea i mean me and me friend says the ONLY THING they got rite was names. magik lessons were " control the word and u control the thing" and magik lessons in the book were HOURS LONG and Eragon did WAY MORE THINGS as far as magik goes. FVCK THE MOVIE!!! and the director!!! --User:Jesusfreek2 19:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAHH! We all hate the film!! Have you actually seen the dragon?? OMG she's like a big rat with a long neck and wings! Vanuatu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.152.114 (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-Removed speculation about sequel

Even if the quotes are sourced, it is still speculation and not appropriate material for an encyclopedia article. Go add it to you fan site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.43 (talk • contribs)

Have you even read WP:CBALL? Here's an excerpt if you don't want to follow that link:
Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced.
  1. It only says Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. This is verifiable.
  2. A sequel is of sufficiently wide enough interest to have a section discussing it. There isn't enough information to merit its own page (plus it hasn't been confirmed), but if the sequel did exist it would have its own page. Therefore, it's notable enough for inclusion.
  3. It says it is appropriate to include such speculation, contrasting completely with what you just said.
Don't remove the information until you can come up with a good enough reason for reverting it. And don't you dare dismiss me as a fanboy for reverting your edits and retaining the information. UnaLaguna 07:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Well. I would never pay for an encyclopedia that condones speculation, but since it is aparently allowed under wikipedia policy, speculate away!
No don't this is trivial and shouldn't go in. "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments" This is not discussion and arguments, this is idle speculation from film critics. I agree with the removal of the section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresa knott (talk • contribs)
I think you need to reconsider your definitions of "discussion" and "argument". From Wiktionary:
Argument: A fact or statement used to support a proposition; a reason. Example: a reason why a sequel wouldn't be made.
Discussion: Text giving further detail on a subject. Example: a piece of text discussing the possibility of a sequel.
Therefore, these statements made by critics are arguments and discussions, and they are hence appropriate in an encyclopedia. The "why should it be here at all?" argument doesn't apply on Wikipedia, as there is no real limit on the amount of content it can hold. UnaLaguna 14:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be a case of "there is no there there". The quotes are not saying 'we intend to have a sequel' or 'finances are not likely there will be a sequel' they are completely vague and indeterminant and add nothing to any discussion. Perhaps finding substantive quotes about a potential sequel would satisfy both camps.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.115.165 (talk • contribs)
Aah, I see. The problem isn't so much with the topic but the content itself. I agree that a couple of movie critics pondering of the idea isn't actually that helpful, as they're not giving an official statement on behalf of Fox, or the like. There is a quote from the director of Eragon concerning the possibility of a sequel which would probably serve a use. It's currently sat on the Eldest page under "Movie Adaptation".
I noticed that this piece of prose appears in an almost identical format on other articles. Eldest has exactly what this page has, plus the aforementioned quote from the director. I noticed you removed virtually the same piece of prose as was on this page minus the sources a couple of hours ago. Perhaps we could move the section from Eldest and stick it here, in a more relevant space? UnaLaguna 18:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I would consider the following worthy of mention in an encyclopedia: a quote from Paolini, a studio, a director or a writer saying that 'yes, they were working on the project/ had put a green light on the project" or a quote from Paolini or the studio saying "we are not working on the project" or a quote from the director of the previous movie stating either that "he would not be working on the project" or that "he had asked the studio and been told No." Something more tangible than Paolini saying 'we'll see' or a newspaper critic spouting off on his thoughts of whether or not a sequel would make money.

Teaser Poster ???

In the moviebox, the poster is captioned 'Teaser Poster'. Is that the official name of the poster cause it does not seem at all like a 'teaser' - it shows the dragon, it shows all the characters - in what way is it a 'teaser'?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.115.165 (talk • contribs)

I have no idea. I'll remove the caption as it doesn't really add much to the article. Thanks for the heads-up. UnaLaguna 07:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of original research

I removed two pieces of text in a recent edit: a paragraph in the "Reception" section and the entire "Differences from the book" section which were completely unsourced. If sourced, the former could probably have stayed, but the latter seemed rather trivial and unencyclopedic. If the removed paragraph in "Reception" were sourced it would communicate the same point without all the unnecessary detail. UnaLaguna 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Extremely negatively recieved

'Extremely' may seem a bit 'harsh', but it is accurate. I consider a "16% favorable" rating and the "10th lowest rating of the year" to be 'extremely negative'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.10 (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo Nonsense

Box Office Mojo's top grossing SWORD AND SORCERY list leaves off LORD OF THE RINGS films? What were those, historical fiction? I saw swords and I sure saw sorcery. Come on! With the LOTR present, Eragon drops a few notches. Box Office Mojo's list is a dubious "fact". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.239.78 (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

High fantasy and sword and sorcery are distinct subgenres. [6] The main difference is scope. High fantasy involves epic, world-endangering battles, while sword and sorcery is applied to personal fights against evil forces. Lord of the Rings doesn't belong in the sword and sorcery genre. But does Eragon belong there? In the movie, Galbatorix wants to kill Eragon, not destroy the world. It's a specific and personal goal. Sure, there's the army vs. army bit at the end, but it was never established that the outcome of that battle would save or destroy the entire world. In addition, the books deal with Eragon's personal quest to avenge his uncle's death, his personal quest to save Arya, Roran's personal quest to save his village and his girlfriend etc. I think Eragon sits comfortably in the smaller-stakes sword and sorcery genre. If you want to compare its box office to Lord of the Rings, Boxofficemojo has another genre ranking which may be of use: Fantasy - Live Action [7] This list puts Eragon in 13th place, or 21st adjusted for inflation. Iscaria 22:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed "Differences between book and movie" section

Here's why:

  1. No reliable sources are used in this section at all, meaning this looks very much like original research. I doubt any reliable sources discuss the deviations in as much depth as this section did.
  2. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a guidebook. I fail to see how this information is not indiscriminate.

A note in the Production section stating that Paolini had no influence over the film and that critics noted serious deviations from the book would probably suffice. Additionally, you could actually source these claims properly.

Any good arguments for why this section should be re-inserted? Una LagunaTalk 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone attempted to re-insert the section. I will be reverting such edits until a good reason for re-adding the section is given here. Una LagunaTalk 08:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eragon Teaser Poster 10.jpg

Image:Eragon Teaser Poster 10.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Whose voice is Saphira's?

This article said Rachel Weisz did the voice of Saphira. But this web site attributes that role to Nena, as do this one and this one and this one and lots and lots of others. So I changed it. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment request

Per a request on Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment, I've had a look at the article again, and I must downgrade it to Start, unfortunately. Mainly, the plot needs to be more fully fleshed out and must include a complete summary of the events from start to finish. Additionally, there appear to be some sourcing issues, and what references do appear require a fair bit of cleanup. I hope that can help guide further edits. Sorry, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Other Media: FOX Sports

I remember there was a game (forgot who) late in the 2006 NFL season where FOX had just returned from a commercial and they mentioned the film as a sponsor, followed by the dragon showing up and frying the dancing robot FOX traditionally has when they come back from a commercial break? Should that be added to the "In Other Media" section? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eragon_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1155027504"