#also i won't despise you or whatever should you enjoy the movie IN FACT the movie actually made me read the books because i loved it!

[enypneon]

just in case there's ever someone writing with murtagh based on their knowledge of the movie 'eragon', here's a disclaimer:

both have different versions of murtagh. here, murtagh is nothing like the one you know. he descends from aristocracy, he grew up at court, stood at the heart of intrigues and snobby people pleasers, etc. hygiene is written BIG in his schedule. dirt-covered face? no thank you. i get that some of the things were impossible to know for the movie creators but there's also a lot of material they ignored/left out/altered. on purpose? i sure hope so or the situation would be even more grotesque.

under the cut, you can find some details, which might as well be interesting for those wishing to write with him in the future.

murtagh ...

... is not first seen by eragon in duret (where angela is). angela does mention eragon's future meeting with murtagh, though (i believe).

... did in fact see a dragon before. he might not remember morzan's but i am almost 100% convinced that he must have seen shruikan at some point. he technically lived with a dragon. and while he was surprised to see saphira take off, it might be simply for the reason that he had just never seen a dragon take flight so close before. shruikan is massive in size, bigger than the movie showed. hard to miss, you know? however, hardly seen flying around.

... wouldn't have held zar'roc with amusement and gawk at it (in case you've seen the deleted scene where he takes the sword while eragon is sleeping). trust me.

... did not shrug it off and was like 'alright gang, let's go to the vardens.' in the first instance it was mentioned. murtagh initially wanted to leave eragon once they were close to the vardens. well aware that the whole depth of his true identity is likely to be revealed there and he'll risk being dragged back to galbatorix which unfortunately does happen in the end.

... doesn't know the location of the vardens, he's not one of alagaësia's tour guides ready at your service. not long ago he pretty much spent every of his living seconds behind the walls of galbatorix' estate, not allowed to leave. how is he supposed to know about the varden's exact location? an alliance opposing the king.

... was there when brom died (who did not get wounded by the shade in gil'ead btw, which is also a city, and not the fantasy version of alcatraz). murtagh came to the camp while brom was still there at the brim of death ─ and assisted in tending to brom's wounds.

... helped saphira rescue arya AND ERAGON (after brom's passing), who were both held captive in gil'ead. arya stays in a self-induced coma from the moment they escape until they reach the vardens and neither eragon nor murtagh know she's an elven princess. she first mentions this in the second book!

... shot that arrow into durza's head, he hit the shade's shoulder then landed an arrow between his eyes. eragon didn't do that. brom can't tell them they need to pierce his heart, since he's already dead by the time.

... carries a physical scar. a reminder of his father striking him with zar'roc, it stretches along the ENTIRETY of his back, and it's not just a small curve over his hip bone (as is shown in the movie). the few people who get to see it are usually taken aback by how gruesome it looks.

extra info dump:

despite of what the movie suggests thorn will not die by default if murtagh were to die before him. yes, most of the dragons die shortly after but it's due to the emotional and mental repercussions their rider's death causes. losing their rider can drive them into madness and they may act in a haphazard manner, meaning their own actions would lead to their death. like achilles being so blinded by the thought and urge for revenge that it eventually kills him because he's defeated as a consequence of his recklessness. there are records and sightings of riderless dragons. galbatorix current dragon is such an example. shruikan is not the one that hatched for galbatorix.

dragon and rider are equal. the way eragon speaks to saphira in the movie commanding her to do this and that does not work! murtagh can't tell thorn what to do, and neither can thorn force actions on murtagh. the rider is not above the dragon. so don't go complaining to murtagh when thorn's being mean to you.

#disclaimer:murtagh. #i'm giving you this small list because i'd rather write in a verse made up between me and my writing partner #than dive into the world of this insult of a movie #i know comparing books to their movies never is right BUT this one was a violation OKAY?? #and yes this is a 'small' list there's much much more and i'm happy to share it all with you if needed although it pains to think about it #also i won't despise you or whatever should you enjoy the movie IN FACT the movie actually made me read the books because i loved it! #the movie has a lot of inconsistencies about certain events that were in the book for a reason #so that the story progression of the next books makes sense and because murtagh is based on the books i can't portray him as he is shown #in the movie... otherwise he'd appear “out of character” in the canon storyline that is portrayed on this blog... #° › OOC ‹ 𝐑𝐄𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐋𝐈𝐕𝐄 * out of character ╲ MUN .

[motsimages]

Whenever someone famous dies I am always surprised by the reaction of some people, who feel it as if someone close to them had died. Sometimes maybe they met and they have an anecdote, but often they just know them from the art they created. "His books were with me during my teenage years", "I listen to her music everyday". I understand the company they gave but you can still read the books and play the music, that didn't die. It always confuses me because I only had this feeling of closeness with certain famous people for a couple of years in my adolescence. As of now, I cannot think of any famous person that I like that would produce grief in me. I only know if I like what they do or not and I may have a very superficial idea about whether or not they're nice or their political ideas.

People speak of separating the author from the art and I find that relatively easy because I know almost nothing about the authors and artists I like. If at all, I read the wikipedia page but I don't look for interviews, follow them on social media or seek interaction with them in anyway. What do I care about how they are as people or about their opinions about certain things? If it is important for them, it will show up in their work easily enough for me to notice, I won't need to dig.

Not once in my entire life have I thought of following an artist on social media. What for? Social media for an celebrity is part of their job. They will only show things related to it. If they are giving their opinion on political matters, it is also job-related. And even if it isn't, I also believe people are complicated and whatever I might find about famous people are just glimpses of a life I cannot understand or follow because I will only have access to whatever they want to show about themselves publicly. I may read all their interviews, con panels and follow their instagram and still it is very partial information. And it should be. They don't owe more to people they don't know.

When I discovered Taika Waititi, he wasn't famous. I did have to periodically check if he had made a new movie or something. This was before social media was everywhere and I just checked online every once in a while. Sometimes I found something else that was silly made by him. Now I don't even have to do that because you guys will let me know before I even have time to miss him. As a teenager I was a huge fan of Elijah Wood. I am very happy to see him in movies now but do I keep track? No. It is always a nice surprise.

So with all this in mind, the fact that some people get angry, deceived or distressed by some art they think should be otherwise, and they believe they are entitled to speak to the artist about it, who the fuck do they think they are? You are nobody. The writer writes for themself. The actor plays what they think is interesting for them. And if you like it, that's fine and if you don't, that's also fine. They are not your friends just because you follow them on twitter, they know nothing about you and they shouldn't know anything about you or care about your opinion at all. "Oh but if fans don't buy their books, they won't make a living so actually" Fuck off. They might work as a waiter and write in their time off if needed. Fans are not and should not be the center of an artist's universe. Also, other fans that enjoy the same things you despise exist, so the artist is safe from bankrupt, don't worry.

I get the feeling of closeness because I have it too. I get wanting to be part of it, wanting to maybe chat with them or whatever but that, for me, is only daydreaming. One day I may meet someone I like and we can have drinks or something and it is superfun. We could even become mates and play boardgames together! And thinking about this is fun but it's as possible as me winning an Oscar. But I already have many things to keep track of in my life, many people to keep an eye on. Artists and entertainers are there to make it easier for me, not to add onto that.

[spicy-yikes]

Blue… Is The Warmest… Color..?Oh! You mean Spaghetti & Porn! Yes I remember…there was spaghetti…and a whole mess of frick frack. We French DESPISE fake prudes and hypocrites so we put a LOT of sex in our movies, French cinema is also about real life so we show how people eat in real life so do us a favor and DON'T watch our movies. We won't change French cinema to please folks like you so stick to boring predictable lame crap like Imagine Me and You or I Can't Think Straight lmao

I never criticized French films as a whole and I never asked for trends in French media to change to accommodate my tastes. It’s also presumptuous of you to assume that I am a fake prude or a hypocrite and for you to imply that I can’t appreciate French films. I jokingly criticized a singular movie and you have taken that and interpreted it as an act of prejudice.

I can dislike a movie that happens to be a French film without hating, misunderstanding, or being undeserving of French films as a whole. I never, at any point in time, said that I didn’t like Blue Is The Warmest Color because it was French and I want to make that abundantly clear.

If you really want to know my thoughts on media and sex; I have difficulty enjoying sex scenes in films because I am used to seeing them shoehorned into works simply for the sake of being gratuitous. It’s no longer a justifiable reason I can accept as an audience member because I’ve seen it a thousand times and I find it unoriginal and cheap. There are a lot of film trends and tropes that I find unoriginal and cheap if I’m honest and the vast of majority of them don’t include sex. I can give credit to Blue is the Warmest Color in that some of the sex scenes in the film do have a purpose outside of simply being sex on a screen but at the end of the day I personally feel that it was outweighed by inane voyeurism. That’s just my taste as an individual due to my experience of media as being saturated with empty sexuality more meant to entice than to tell a story.

That, however, does not mean I’m a prude or a fake prude or hypocritical in my sexuality. I think everyone should embrace a healthy sexuality. That we should talk more about sex. I wish that Americans would take the stick out of their collective asses when it comes to the subject. My difficulty in appreciating sex scenes in movies doesn’t stem from some closeted hate for sex or normalizing sex, it actually comes from the fact that until films stop using sex just as a meaningless vehicle to excite and fill in run time I’m going to be more critical of its usage. To clarify, I would never ban sex scenes from a film or tell someone that a movie is bad because it has sex in it, but I will stand by my opinion that films should tell a story and if a film is adding in something that doesn’t serve the film in a meaningful way then it has a fundamental issue in supporting its narrative. This opinion applies to a large spectrum of concepts, tropes, and tactics used in movies and is not isolated to sex.

I also want to clarify that I don’t hate realistically portrayed characters or films that approach their story with a more slice of life perspective. The gross spaghetti eating aspect is really my only major criticism of character writing through action because I feel that it was used so excessively that it became comical in a way that I don’t think was intended which is why I approached my original post with hyperbolic humor. I know her character is not just gross spaghetti eating. In fact she is a fully fledged character that goes on a very meaningful, bittersweet journey. However, I don’t like her which is why in the tags of that original post I go on to joke about her bad table manners and poor life choices. I dislike her greatly but I don’t have to like her character in order to realize that she is a character who’s adequately presented and molded as a character. It’s very similar to people. I don’t have to like everyone to realize that we’re all human beings.

I would like to add that I’ve never seen the other two movies you mentioned so I don’t have an opinion on them. Again, you’re assuming things about me that there’s no evidence for but I think it comes from a place where maybe you needed to vent some larger feelings. I know you feel that I attacked French cinema but I didn’t. I wasn’t and I’m still not disrespecting French cinema by disliking Blue is the Warmest Color. It’s a singular film. It’s not the representative film for all of France and though certain themes in this singular movie may be generally present in French cinema, they’re not all executed in the same fashion so my opinion of Blue is the Warmest Color is not representative of my opinion of all French films.

I hope that venting your feelings through anon made you at least feel better about whatever made you interpret my post as an attack on French cinema. I also sincerely hope that I’ve explained my stance a little clearer so that you don’t confuse my dislike of a movie as a hatred for entire culture’s history and contributions to the art of film. 

As a final point to make; I’m not mad or offended at what you sent me. I’m actually concerned. You have a lot of anger in one anonymous message toward something that didn’t warrant it. I don’t know what that means for you or what may have happened to you but I hope you’re okay.  I’m not an enemy of you or your people or your culture or your cinema.