I read it after the hype, and I enjoyed it too, but for the page-long digressions in the middle of action sequences.
'Objects In Space'
Buffista Movies 5: Development Hell
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
I had read Angels and Demons, an earlier book, first and I actually thought it was the better book. A lot of it seemed to be retreaded in the second book. Depending on the casting, the rumored movie could be pretty awesome.
I had read Angels and Demons, an earlier book, first and I actually thought it was the better book. A lot of it seemed to be retreaded in the second book.
I can see that. I read it after TDC, and I agree that it's the better book. If Brown had focused the second book as much on Paris as he did with Rome/Vatican City, I think it would have been much improved.
Definitely. And I thought the ending was more exciting.
Everyone who's read both has said Angels and Demons is the better book. Heh. I sorta kinda want to read it.
It's also fun to play the "identify the movie this shot was lifted from" game. Peter Jackson and George Lucas should be getting their royalty checks in the mail any day now...
Don't forget Disney, based on accounts of Jeremy Irons' dialogue.
but his age alone has made me question whether it's worth even trying to read the book.
I'm sure his age was a significant part of WHY it made it off the pile. Come on, what better marketing is there than "Young adult fantasy novel written by an actual young adult!" People read it for the novelty as much as the book itself.
I think it's mostly out of spite that the studio made sure to schedule all the press screenings too last minute for anyone to actually attend.
I think it's more that they really didn't want any word of mouth or reviews to interfere with early box office. Eragon opened here simultaneously with the US, which usually indicates the studio doesn't have a high degree of confidence in the product.
I think it's more that they really didn't want any word of mouth or reviews to interfere with early box office.
Oh, I meant that we were going to see it out of spite, not that the studio scheduled the screenings that way. (Their goal was pretty clearly to avoid having any press about the film while also avoiding being tagged as a movie that didn't screen for the press at all.)
I'm sure his age was a significant part of WHY it made it off the pile.
It was never in a slush pile. It was self-published, and then Knopf contacted him.
I repeat: Eragon got good reviews. Not "good for a kid" reviews, but "good for a first novel" reviews. This is from the NY Times:
''Eragon,'' for all its flaws, is an authentic work of great talent. The story is gripping; it may move awkwardly, but it moves with force. The power of ''Eragon'' lies in its overall effects -- in the sweep of the story and the conviction of its storyteller. Here, Paolini is leagues ahead of most writers, and it is exactly here that his youth is on his side.
I have no interest in the books because I don't like that kind of fantasy. But I don't think any old 15 year old SF fan could get a review like that.