hey guys! do any of you think eragon can be remade like LOTR if peter jackson worked on it?
let me know what u think.

First, I dont think they would. Dont get me wrong, but the first movie they made was ok, it was fine. I dont think anyone would put their time and money into making some movie better. Especially a movie that really didnt work out.

It might be done. But at this point, it would take a huge fan base. And I mean a real into fan base, kind like what Tolkien enjoys.
At about ten years or so and then they just might do it. A remake now would never work. It needs time to be forgotten and overlooked.
Another complaint would be that a book should be a book for a considerable time before it is converted to a film. There is a stonger feel of understanding for the story before filming starts. And, in my opinion, they should NEVER make a film of book that is part of an as yet unfinished series. Take a look at Harry Potter. The movies started much too soon, and are all the worse for it.

Well the first 3 were pretty good, #4 was weak (great dragon though), 5 was well done but still couldn't get enough of the subplots in, and so far 6 looks brilliant. And with David Yates on the job he has managed to pull Potter out of its doldrums.

The biggest problem with the Potter series is that the larger books would take 10 or 12 hours of film each to do them justice. Think about it. LotR is a 1000 page book broken into 3 parts and that took 12 hours of film to make it work. The longer Harry Potter books are 800-900 page books. There is no way that can be condensed without sacrificing huge chunks of story. Only the last book is going to get something approaching the sort of treatment necessary to pull it off properly.

But to get back to eragon: I personally have not seen the movie or read the book. But I know about the book, and I've had friends tell me about the movie. As I've heard it, the book is pretty good, and the movie was a flop. Personally, I am not surprised. The book was written by a 15-year-old. It isn't genius. Any kid can write fantasy. Plus, as Show said, a book needs to age for a while before it is even considered for a movie. It is so disgusting when a book comes out, then 4 (or less) years later it is a movie. Take for example "The Visitation" and "House." The Visitation was a phenomenal book, but they made it into a movie too soon and it was a flop. I read House but have not seen the movie. But it is an example of a book being made into a movie too soon. And House wasn't even a very good book.

I think a book should age for at least 10 years, preferably more than 20, though.

Yeah, the movie was...pretty bad. At least I think so.

The book was pretty bad. Whatever I read of it was anyhow,

Odo

After the flop that was the original movie I doubt anyone will be able to scrounge up the funds.

You know, Beren made a point waaaaaay back in July and several posts back that books have to age a long time before they can be successful films. I'm not sure that in and of itself is true. I don't think that's what killed Eragon.

The fact is, the movie just Blew!!! I mean Jaws wasn't sitting around for decades on the bookstore shelf when Spielberg made his mark on the film landscape with it. The Harry Potter movies may not be perfect films (some are better than others), but they are a HUGE success, based on a series begun in the late 90s. Likewise with Twilight (I'm not a fan of the books, and haven't seen the films), again, a very recent book series, remarkable success.

If it's a good concept that grabs people, it doesn't matter if it was written 3,000 years ago or yesterday. It can still be made into a movie, for better or for worse.

I'm not sure that Peter Jackson's upcoming film The Lovely Bones is going to be as successful as LotR or King Kong, though it may give him more literary cred. I don't doubt it'll be well done. And it's based on a best seller from a year or two ago. But I have my doubts that a movie based on a book about a murdered little girl up in Heaven looking down upon the world is going to be successful.

The concept just sounds too depressing for me. But you never know. If it Flops, it won't be Jackson's fault, nor the fact that the book is only a couple of years old, nor that the book was poorly written (it was a critical success); rather it will be because the subject matter is just not a "grabber".

GB

You raise interesting points GB. At the end of the day, I guess, a good movie is a good movie and a good book is a good book. I presume it's quite reasonable to think a bad book can be made into a great movie, and a great book can be made into a crap movie. It is, of course, also possible that a great book can be made into a great movie. Am I stating the obvious? I think I am! Does this have anything really to do with the discussions on this thread? Um.. I don't know.... darn nightshift....

Odo