stuff

[the_grynne]

House is in a minor mess because of the neglect of the last few days, but once that's sorted, tidied and vacuumed, laundry folded, the plants watered and so on, things to do today:

- Make caps Children of Men DVD for film_stills and cap_it
- Wrap presents
- Finish reading The Nikopol Trilogy by Enki Bilal
- Put in orders at Amazon and Abebooks- Catch up on sleep

Comments

[dorukai]

Oh no! Eragon's bad? :(

Don't go and see it bad? Hrm.

[the_grynne]

It was pretty bad... But then, I don't like any of the Star Wars films, so maybe you'll see something that I don't? *shrug*

[dorukai]

Doh.

Oh well, I still have Casino Royale to look forward to, right? :D

[the_grynne]

Yep, that was a lot of fun.

And if you haven't seen Children of Men, that's brilliant.

[orange_crushed]

My thoughts exactly on Eragon. Probably if it had been stacked up in the same decade with Dragonslayer.... no, even then, Dragonslayer would have been considered a far better movie.

Why is it that people can make decent fantasy in most cases, except when they include dragons ? I mean, dragons are sweet ! Totally freaking sweet ! My fondest wish for a movie, ever, would be to see The Hero and the Crown on the big screen- as long as they don't fuck it up and cast some nymphtard as Aerin. And as long as the dragon doesn't screw everything up.

I mean, dragon movies even ruined Jeremy Irons. The man was an establishment before CGI lizards took his talent and gas money and beat him up behind a 7-11. DRAGONS RUIN EVERYTHING. (This statement only applies to films made after 1993

[the_grynne]

I waited the whole first half of the movie hoping for a bit of shared screentime between Sienna Guillory and Jeremy and what did I get? Only about two minutes, and they were of HIM DYING? Such a bloody let down.

This statement only applies to films made after 1993.

We did both like the dragon in Harry Potter 4, but there it was used sparingly, and scarily. And I think you're definitely onto something with the dragon as metaphor. The whole "special bond" between the rider and dragon seems like such an archaic notion, and it makes me uncomfortable: the idea that a puny human could and should by dint of fate or "destiny" be able to control the powers - the very life even - of such a powerful, elemental creature. You can't have it both ways; can't make the dragons intelligent and magical, yet slavish devoted to their "riders". The whole systems smacks of unfairness. (Yes, that's the problem: I don't agree with the politics of this film. *g*) Dragons are metaphors for magic itself, for the impossibility of magic (strength yet also

[orange_crushed]

Yeah. The only movies I can think of where dragons were effective were films that showcased dragons as wild.

If you're going by myth and legend, dragons are untamed, free, bestial, awe-inspiring. Or, alternately, wise and eternal. Neither inspires belly-rubbing or being saddled by fourteen-year-old boys.

I actually like the idea of dragon riders, but only under certain conditions- such as the dragon rider giving up their soul to possess a dragon, or maybe a particularly wicked and mad person binding themself to a dragon for raiding and war. I'd rather see a rider like the Rohirrim, crying death ! death ! than a cuddly little kid (in clothes that remain entirely too clean for the historical setting.)

Honestly, how, in a fantasy of the middle ages, does one keep their whites so white ? Thank you again, Lord of the Rings, for actually getting your stars dirty. Sigh.

[the_grynne]

I heard a rumble in the ether a while back that Anna McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern series (which Paolini basically stole a lot of his ideas from) had been optioned by a film production company. I wonder how that would work. It's been years since I've read any, but McCaffrey, because she was writing principally in science fiction, and unlike the film, was aware of how morally questionable the existence of the dragons (genetically-engineered to help humans) was, and she made that a key part of the books.