Don’t worry: An Eragon movie reboot isn’t a bad idea

dont-worry-e-movie-headerHaven’t signed the petition yet? Over 40,000 other fans have, and now it’s time for you to add your voice to the conversation! Sign the petition here.

Just under a month ago, we released a petition asking Fox, the Inheritance Cycle’s film rights holder, to reboot Eragon on the big screen. The community responded in droves, with over 40,000 fans adding their signatures and sending one unified message: we want an Eragon movie reboot. Our petition continues to expand by hundreds of signatures per day.

We’ve released a series of articles exploring whether or not we’ll see another reboot, what Fox needs to do in order for a rebooted Eragon movie to succeed, and answer the question, “Is there a place in Hollywood for the Eragon movie?” Most importantly, we continue to back the petition and look forward to sending it to Fox alongside the incredible statistics behind our community’s response.

We’ve noticed some confusion as to what a “reboot” would entail, and concern from fans who worry that another Eragon movie isn’t a good idea after how the first movie turned out. We want to help ease those fears by explaining why we believe that isn’t something to worry about.

What is a reboot? A reboot means restarting the series from the ground up. A new team of producers, screenplay writers, director, and a cast. The studio would be starting fresh, given a clean slate and a second opportunity to get things right. In the end, the Eragon movie failed to meet expectations or catch on with audiences, and those at Fox who call the shots will have taken notice, understood where they went wrong, and if they were to try again, they would be sure to avoid making the same or similar mistakes.

Why is it a good idea? This one is a bit more difficult to answer. Our previous article answering the question “When will we see the next Eragon movie?” set out to answer this question:

Much has changed over the past nine years. Movie studios (Lionsgate, Sony, Fox) have made a key observation: staying true to the formula that made books successful will often lead to box office success. Moving away from what fans loved in the books—such as seen in Percy Jackson, Beautiful Creatures, and Mortal Instruments—saw results similar to Eragon. These movies underline the importance of taking the adaptation’s source material seriously.

The book-to-movie franchises that have nailed it over the past decade, such as the Maze Runner (James Dashner, produced by Fox), The Hunger Games (Susanne Collins, Lionsgate), and The Fault in Our Stars (John Green, Fox), all had key things in common: the authors were regularly consulted (in John Green’s case, the author was allowed to live on set); they remained in touch with the film’s fan base, working to keep them passionate, excited, and happy with the results; and lastly, the studios gave the films proper treatment, respecting their universes and avoiding the cheesiness that often plagues fantasy and sci-fi adaptations.

With ten years between the initial Eragon movie and a potential reboot, it’s guaranteed that an entirely new team would be assembled to tackle the new project. Fox would want Christopher heavily involved in the process, as constant involvement from authors in bringing their books to the big screen has resulted in successful adaptations (Hunger Games, Harry Potter, etc.).

If Fox is going to spend another $100 million+ on Eragon 2.0, you can bet that they’ll think long and hard on their first mistakes and how to avoid them in the future. Those at the helm of Fox are (usually) good at what they do and never set out to intentionally create a disaster film. They’ll study successful adaptations, successful epic fantasy movies, and even television shows such as Game of Thrones, which demonstrate a market for medieval fantasy.

In the end, these companies are entirely profit driven, and because of that, Fox would try twice as hard to succeed, realizing that they cannot afford another underwhelming box office return and the loss of a potential mega-franchise.

How can they get it right this time around? We’re glad you asked! We have released two articles filled with advice on ensuring the success of a hypothetical Eragon 2.0. These articles included recommendations such as: rebooting the series, getting Christopher involved, assembling a passionate team, hiring a writer and director with experience, not aiming for a PG rating, not straying far from the books, and more. We highly recommend reading both articles in the series.

It’s okay to be worried. We just hope you don’t put too much concern into the studio screwing a second movie up just because they got it wrong the first time. Instead, consider our points above and focus on the idea that movie studios are profit driven, and because of this, there is major incentive for them to actually get it right this time.

Looking for more reading on potential Inheritance Cycle movies? Check out our other articles:

  • Felipe Amoedo

    Has anyone thought about making a tv series? (I’m thinking something like what HBO has with Game of Thrones)

  • Usman

    Eragon is such an epic novel .Please bring the same taste in movie again

  • Edmond Boyce

    i want a second Eragon movie because of the way the first one ended.

  • Steveo

    Reboot but not under Fox Helm the did the same thing to Fantastic Four

  • punkdinosaur

    I’m not sure I want the Inheritance Cycle in movie form… no matter how hard you try, movie adaptations are NEVER nearly as good as the book, and I love the cycle too much to see that happen. Plus, we long-time fans will have to deal with annoying “n00b” fangirls.

  • Paddy Crinnigan

    Definitely a series. Definitely. The more I think about trying to do these books justice the more I realise you’d need a Peter Jackson esc timeframe and budget to do so. Since we don’t have that get HBO or Netflix to pick it up. Half decent CGI nowadays does not require a big budget – and the series shouldn’t be centred around CGI anyway. As it drew in more viewers you could put more money in to the look of it – get the characters, pace an storyline right first.

  • D9c

    Fox may have more luck getting this right by turning Eragon into a Television series. With the success that the Game of Thrones franchise has been experiencing, Many authors are considering this route over Films and Miniseries productions. Another option would be to try the route the DUNE franchise is experimenting with, referred to as VideoBooks. Using slightly abridged narration, it’s basically like listening to an audiobook with voice acting while watching it all being animated before your eyes. Even Orson Scott Card has expressed an interest in this concept.

  • Sona

    But do we REALLY need a movie though?

  • Sona

    I feel like WarnerBros would be better suited for doing a reboot… I just hope they do it right.
    (I feel “eh” on this, though. It could go either way, but I guess another chance wouldn’t hurt… books are still usually better than the movies, imo.)

  • Eric Gigliotti

    I think its a bad idea. Unlike LotR which has a lot of background information that could be cut from the movies, Inheritance does not. Too much will have to be cut to fit a movie. However, Paolini could follow Game of Thrones and authorize a tv show – one season per book. This would be the best way to appease the fans.

    • nemo

      tv show would not be possible becouse it would have Saphira on screen alot expecialy if they want quality of CGI akin to first movie and cost of that kind of cgi is 5000 dollars per second

      • Eric Gigliotti

        Saphira won’t have too many big scenes until later in the series. Once the CGI models are created, the only time spent is that for animation and rendering – high upfront costs, low long-term costs. If subscription-based HBO can afford to produce Game of Thrones (where every scene utilizes CGI) along with several other tv shows and movies, then Fox can support it no problem – especially if they decide to go with HBO or Starz as the viewing platform.

        • Nemo

          i would partially disagree yes cost may go down but not much becouse somebody still needs to do the lightning,shadows,movements and wounds even if it cost twice less they will need 1mil+ just for Saphira 20min screen time

          • Maaarcus

            Game of Thrones has dragons in it … if one show can afford it then the rest surely can.

          • Nemo

            yes but diffrence is that Saphira is main character and she will have much more screen time.

          • Guest

            Dude, the dragons in each season have less than five minutes of total screen time. If the books were miraculously picked up by Starz or HBO (highly doubtful considering the quality of the IC as a whole), it would be unfathomably expensive to produce due to Saphira being a main character who’d have a whole lot of screen time per episode. CGI is bloody expensive.

  • Antonio

    The first film was so bad I can’t see how they could screw things up more than they already did. I’m not worried, honestly!

  • Corey Keyes

    Let’s hope Sapphira doesn’t look like a fucking chicken/goose/lizard hybrid this time.

  • lana zakharkin

    can’t wait to see roran!..
    and eragon absolutely.
    and arya..
    GOD! who will be the actors??

  • Marco

    I still think that a few things should happen before such a endeavor come to fruition:

    i) More time is needed in order to people forget that first (awful) movie.
    ii) Alagaësia needs more history, more depth. I think rebooting the series should wait until Book V. It would avoid future incongruences between the series also.
    iii) Paolini has to make contractual agreements with FOX so that the reboot is loyal to the Books content.

    I think in about 10 years we’ll have fullfilled the first 2 points and then will be up to Paolini/FOX to decide about it.

    • Jeremy Veryl Keim

      The books are done Inheritance was the last book

      • Guest

        Not the point at all. There’s not enough depth to the world currently to make it truly successful. The IC has what, one guide which is twenty pages long at best? Since everyone likes talking about LotR and AsoIaF, let’s use them as examples of depth. They both have HUNDREDS of pages of worldbuilding behind them, and man, has that contributed to their success. Whilst CP’s worldbuilding may sound impressive, what with floating crystals and mysterious pools, it’s surface worldbuilding, the depth of it achieved through smoke and mirrors, and there only for CP to puff his chest out and sound like he’s done much more than he really has. Both Westeros and Middle-Earth have thousands of years of timeline and worldbuilding, and, as far as we know, the IC has a two-page spread of history, half of which is the events of the books.

        Success isn’t just chalked up to books being finished, it’s also about how much time one really cares to put into the depth.

        • Chris

          An argument many authors disagree on. C.S. Lewis is an excellent example of the opposite and argues that you actually don’t have to extensively create worlds such as Tolkein’s LOTR.

  • Ian

    Worried it will be a bad idea? I mean…it literally could not be any worse than the first go-around.

  • Kathryn

    The Inheritance Cycle was my favorite story as a teenager and to this day I still love it more than any other book I’ve read (yes! Even Harry Potter!). I was hugely disappointed in the movie when it came out because the only part of the movie that was like the book were the first 20 seconds. Such a heartbreak. I walked into the theater with my heart soaring and walked out in disgust. I love Paolini’s style and imagination. His magnificent story deserves justice…since it is a struggle to find books as good as his. And most assuredly, if they remake the movie I will rush to get a ticket.

  • Ali Alba

    A TV show like Game of thrones would be better as 2.5 hours is not enough to tell a 800+ pages story.

  • nemo

    Well if it follows the book IT WILL be worse than first one, becouse lets face it its a teenage book writen by teenager.
    What you do not understand that first one did not fail at all it was success, but it had very bad source material(books) and inexperienced director.

    • Noah M

      If you don’t like the books then why are you here again?

      • Nemo

        becouse i like movie and like to read Massage boards.

        • Noah M

          In case you didn’t notice, constructive criticism is a main part of this website. So instead of simply hating on it perhaps offer some suggestions as to what would make a reboot better, what would you do to change it if a reboot was approved?

          • Nemo

            Just for first book(Eragon)

            1.)they need to fix mary sue characters(Eragon,Arya,…), in books were at first likable, but later they were annoying example: Eragon was too good at mastering magic and sword play and Arya was pretty and good at everything also
            2.)need better reason for people of Carvahall to hate empire in movie very ggod reason was given, but in books just hating empire for taxes and for being left alone is kinda weak and for taxes they should hate the Varden.While in movie kids were forcefuly drafted into army.

          • TheFencer

            You skipped the fact that Galbatorix also took away the protection offered by the dragon riders by killing them (in the book).

          • Nemo

            Protection are you serious biggest threat to people were dragon riders of old order and you know it.
            they hoarded inventions and they banned it from public so basicly they keeped human development incheck.

          • TheFencer

            They also weren’t left alone. They were kept on a tight leash. Remember when Garrow said that Brom would not live another month if the empire knew he had recited the story of the dragon riders’ demise. Remember when he sent the razac after Eragon when he found the egg.

          • Guest

            Yet the Empire didn’t find out that Brom had told the story, because they’re not there and oppressing the people. In fact, the Empire themselves, bar the Ra’zac, only poke their heads in during Eldest when things when bum up, because why would Galby waste resources patrolling and providing precious supplies for a village in the middle of nowhere that offers zero strategic or economic advantage? So no, it’s a pretty slack leash.

          • Zachary Nemecek

            Arya was over 100 years old, had been well trained in magic, and had spent the last 70 or so years fighting on and off battles against Urgals and who knows what else transporting the egg between the elves and the Varden. So it is to be expected that she is “good at everything”.

          • Guest

            Oh Jesus…. Age doesn’t automatically make a character good at everything. If you think that the age of a character is an excuse to make them good at everything, then you need to learn a lot about what good characterisation is. Arya is a Sue, Eragon’s a Sue, Roran is a Sue, everyone in the series is a Sue. Except maybe that one dude in Brisingr who was singing that song about the goat.

            Good characterisation means that characters have room to grow into better people, but Arya started at the top, and the only way she got better was through gaining titles (Shadeslayer, Dragon Rider, Queen, blah blah blah). Other than the titles, she was pretty much exactly the same throughout the series, which is boring.

          • Zachary Nemecek

            You missed the “well trained in magic” and the “70 years of on and off battles” bits. Arya has been trained for magic and combat before becoming the only Elven ambassador to the Varden; perhaps even some of the training was overseen by Oromis, who Arya was familiar with based on her reaction when she learned he had died.

          • Guest

            I really don’t think that’s the point. If you look at other long-lived characters in other series where they’ve been breathing in the blood of the battlefield for centuries, they can still change and grow over the story, whereas Arya doesn’t. You define Arya’s worth as a character by her ass-kicking skills, not her worth as a living and breathing person. Characters that can only define their worth through one facet of themselves (fighting and magic) but can’t do so through other means (gaining compassion and empathy from the reader/audience and being essentially able to get into their heads), then you, my friend, have a flat character. Hell, when I was writing my huge IC fic back in 2010-11, I had to INVENT new aspects of Arya’s character to make her more sympathetic to the audience so she could have the chance to grow into a rounded character instead of the mighty-on-high presence she is in the books. When people have to create new parts of a character’s personality to make them more likeable to the audience, then you have a problem.

          • Chris

            The problem with that lies in the timeline each book covers. The story needed to progress to follow the plot without dragging on. I understand the need for readers to want to grow with major characters in a series, but simply calling every major character a Sue means you are simply looking in the wrong places as there were plenty of instances of development for characters throughout the series (perhaps CP didn’t focus on the ones you wanted?) I will agree that Arya’s character was definitely weak and could have been improved upon, but ultimately it would have been a contradiction to what CP was trying to achieve with the growth of Eragon as a character.

      • patrick

        i agree with nemo

        • TheFencer

          Why do you agree?

    • TheFencer

      These books were great and the movie was barely based off of them. If you can’t see that then you have bad taste. In short, the movie needs a do over. I was extremely disappointed when it came out.

    • TheFencer

      You need to understand that this is an amazing book and it deserves an amazing movie, not this collage of disconnected scenes with fighting just for the point of fighting. The way that Brom dies in the book is sad but the way he dies in the movie is disrespectful to his true power.