Disney "Artemis Fowl" (note the quote, :smallyuk:)

[t209]

Well, the "reviews" are in and here is my take on it via "Chad vs. Virgin".
https://i.ibb.co/ThysZNP/Chad-And-Virgin.png
Might not be a good comparison, but the point still stands.
I swear that no writer has read Lupin III, Carmen Sandiego, and Persona 5.
All thieves, but still enjoyable.

[The Glyphstone]

Did Butler at least fight a troll in a suit of medieval armor? That was my single criteria that I would accept as making this an 'adaptation' rather than an abominable travesty.

[Lord Raziere]

Did Butler at least fight a troll in a suit of medieval armor? That was my single criteria that I would accept as making this an 'adaptation' rather than an abominable travesty.

I just checked tvtropes.

It says "In Name Only" as a trope listing with an entire paragraph explaining why. with links to articles to go more in depth.

I don't think its likely. :smallsigh:

[The Glyphstone]

One review I found put it as such:

"Twelve minutes into the movie, Colin Farrell gets into a helicopter and flies away and, in retrospect, we can't blame him because it's really all downhill from there."

[Caledonian]

Why do people persist in making 'adaptations' that have no relationship to the original property? Do they really think fans are going like it, or that the masses are going to be drawn in by the name?

[druid91]

It was an utterly terrible adaptation. Some scenes were copied word for word, blow for blow from the books. Not many, but some.

Those scenes come across as super awkward and weird because all the characters are completely different.


Artemis Jr: No longer a genius mastermind.... mostly. There's still parts where he acts like one out of the blue because otherwise the plot would stall out and die completely. But these moments seem weird and random, because he spends the rest of the movie being an ignorant kid let into the secret of his fathers hidden legacy.

Artemis Sr: Well. He's still a criminal. So that's accurate I guess? He's some kind of ancient guardian of fairy treasures.

Butler: Now referred to as Dom, or Domovoi, throughout the whole movie.. Despite the reveal of his first name being a huge deal in the books and him still mostly going by Butler. Apparently now he hates being called Butler. I don't think he picks up a gun throughout the entire movie, and he also takes on more of an Obiwan esque mentor role, showing Artemis Jr into Sr's secret world of fairy conspiracy theories.

Holly Short: Mostly the same but now randomly the daughter of the ancient fairy hero who entrusted the Fowls with the ancient fairy treasure in the first place.

Mulch Diggums: Is inexplicably made a 'Giant Dwarf' rather than a normal dwarf for no apparent reason. Also never uses his fecal matter as a cannon.

Commander Root: Is.... now a woman? Does none of the Macho nonsense Root does in the books. No crazy cigars, no giant blaster gun. None of his stereotypical police chief behaviour. Totally different character.

Foaly: .... is honestly mostly irrelevant. He serves as a 'Oh no, our time field is failing!' reminder from time to time.

Opal Koboi: is now Kobra Commander. Wants to exterminate humanity for some reason.

[understatement]

Dammit, I had faith in Branagh.

[Cheesegear]

Do they really think fans are going like it

The problem is, fans don't have to like it. Fans just have to see it. Reviews don't mean anything if the media makes bank.
That's why seeing movies 'ironically' or 'just to get mad' is problematic. Because you're still seeing the movie.

Terminator: Dark Fate is bad.
"But I need to see it for myself."
No, don't. I'm telling you it's bad. Don't see it.
"But like, I want to see it to see how bad it is."
No, don't.
- *Pays money for something he knows he wont like and then gets mad about how bad it was.*
Studio: Thanks for the money, friend.


that the masses are going to be drawn in by the name?

Partly.
There are times when a book simply just doesn't translate to film, despite the premise just begging to be made into a movie (e.g; Mortal Engines, Eragon).

But, Hollywood loves adapting things because the framework is already there to be adapted. Even if the screenwriter and/or director have no intention of following the original script, they can say
"Here's all the main characters, their names, and their relationships to each other. Sweet. Half the work is already done!" Speeding up production time considerably, and making marketing the movie extremely easy. The movie does not have to be good. It just has to exist.


Finding an existing property, and then jamming into the story you actually want to tell (e.g; Something mainstream), is much easier, and much more market-friendly, than coming up with something that nobody's ever heard of.

[t209]

Finding an existing property, and then jamming into the story you actually want to tell (e.g; Something mainstream), is much easier, and much more market-friendly, than coming up with something that nobody's ever heard of.
Well, there are many inspiration for Artemis Fowl that can attract mainstream.
Persona 5, Lupin III, Carmen Sandiego, and Robin Hood had appeal of gentleman thief anti-hero.

[The Glyphstone]

Didn't the recent Carmen Sandiego reboot on Netflix rewrite her into a vigilante heroine?

EDIT: And Robin Hood is technically a thief, but he's never been portrayed as anything but straight-up heroic in modern adaptations. Even in the original stories he was fighting an usurper, and thus just in his actions.

I can't speak for the other two, having not played or seen them.

[t209]

Didn't the recent Carmen Sandiego reboot on Netflix rewrite her into a vigilante heroine?
Well, she is still a thief and a feud with an international law enforcement agency.

[JadedDM]

The problem is, fans don't have to like it. Fans just have to see it. Reviews don't mean anything if the media makes bank.
That's why seeing movies 'ironically' or 'just to get mad' is problematic. Because you're still seeing the movie.

Terminator: Dark Fate is bad.
"But I need to see it for myself."
No, don't. I'm telling you it's bad. Don't see it.
"But like, I want to see it to see how bad it is."
No, don't.
- *Pays money for something he knows he wont like and then gets mad about how bad it was.*
Studio: Thanks for the money, friend.
Jay Sherman said it best (this was back in 1994, and its remarkable how relevant it remains to this day):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YigM-F4oSIE


Finding an existing property, and then jamming into the story you actually want to tell (e.g; Something mainstream), is much easier, and much more market-friendly, than coming up with something that nobody's ever heard of.
Which is exactly what happened with that 'I, Robot' film with Will Smith.

[Fyraltari]

Well, there are many inspiration for Artemis Fowl that can attract mainstream.
Persona 5, Lupin III, Carmen Sandiego, and Robin Hood had appeal of gentleman thief anti-hero.

Well, Netflix is making an Arsène Lupin modern day adaptation with Omar Sy as lead.

Edit:

Which is exactly what happened with that 'I, Robot' film with Will Smith.

Almost the reverse actually, it was an original screenplay that had nothing to do with Asimov’s works and then they changed some names to Asimov characters and tackled on some references.

[Cheesegear]

Almost the reverse actually, it was an original screenplay that had nothing to do with Asimov’s works and then they changed some names to Asimov characters and tackled on some references.

That's allegedly how Rambo: Last Blood was made. It was originally some random screenplay about a dude going after his daughter, a hybrid of Taken and Death Wish. Then, the main character's name was changed to John Rambo and the script rewrites wrote themselves.

[Durkoala]

Does anybody else think this looks like it wanted to be a Spy Kids knockoff? Anyone?

[t209]

Does anybody else think this looks like it wanted to be a Spy Kids knockoff? Anyone?
Definitely, consider that Disney wanted to make it wholesome instead of a “morally ambiguous criminal mastermind”.

[Anonymouswizard]

There is one for thing about this movie.

Hearing or was it made me begin a read of the book. And it is a great book, Artemis is a mostly believable child genius and the plot all fits together. Other than the English translation of the Book being in rhyme.

[Sapphire Guard]

Well... this doesn't seem promising.

[The Glyphstone]

Holding steady at 9% critical/21% audience on the Tomatometer.

Considering this movie is free to watch since it's on Disney+ with the trial subscription, could this technically be Disney's worst flop ever? Cost $125million/$0 profit = Divide By Zero Error. You can bet no one paid for Disney+ just to get this, at least.

[Cikomyr2]

Holding steady at 9% critical/21% audience on the Tomatometer.

Considering this movie is free to watch since it's on Disney+ with the trial subscription, could this technically be Disney's worst flop ever? Cost $125million/$0 profit = Divide By Zero Error. You can bet no one paid for Disney+ just to get this, at least.

That's not how financial maths work, but I will let it slide because you seem so happy at your joke

[Sapphire Guard]

Sad part is,Hollywood will probably take the wrong lesson from this. They'll go 'okay, no more unique properties' instead of 'let's go to the effort to make adaptations good'.

[Manga Shoggoth]

I'm always a little cautious about the "adaptation must be a reasonable fit" thing.

The old Robin Hood and Jungle Book films were great films.

Robin Hood took a lot of inspiration from the Robin Hood legends, and all the characters were recognisable.

On the other hand the Jungle Book took very little except the names and species from the original stories (In the books, Kaa was one of the good guys, a mentor to Mowgli and one of the single most dangerous animals in the jungle; Hathi was a leader and shrewd tactician, Baloo was a wise teacher; Bagheera and Shere Kahn were about the only characters who got through the adaptation process reasonably intact.

That didn't stop me from enjoying them both, and I still like Jungle Book after having read (and preferred) the original stories.

Admittedly, my feeling is that if you are going to adapt a work, then adapt it, and if you are going to do something different, then don't pretend to adapt something; but sometimes you do get something good out the other end.

But no, this doesn't sound good.

[Dienekes]

I'm always a little cautious about the "adaptation must be a reasonable fit" thing.

The old Robin Hood and Jungle Book films were great films.

Robin Hood took a lot of inspiration from the Robin Hood legends, and all the characters were recognisable.

On the other hand the Jungle Book took very little except the names and species from the original stories (In the books, Kaa was one of the good guys, a mentor to Mowgli and one of the single most dangerous animals in the jungle; Hathi was a leader and shrewd tactician, Baloo was a wise teacher; Bagheera and Shere Kahn were about the only characters who got through the adaptation process reasonably intact.

That didn't stop me from enjoying them both, and I still like Jungle Book after having read (and preferred) the original stories.

Admittedly, my feeling is that if you are going to adapt a work, then adapt it, and if you are going to do something different, then don't pretend to adapt something; but sometimes you do get something good out the other end.

But no, this doesn't sound good.

Adaptation will always require changes, some that seem odd to those who aren't behind the closed doors that get to see all the pressures on the writing process. There are too many teachers for Mowgli that all run together without the narrative voice. We need comic relief. There's this whole section that doesn't really have an antagonist we can use to create conflict. Etc.

But I think the adaptations that work usually follow these two rules:

1) They directly interact with the themes of the original story in a deliberate manner. If the story is about a boy trying to survive being abandoned and finding a foster family among the wilderness. Then the adaptation should either hold true to that. Or directly criticize that original theme, the best example I can think of is Starship Trooper. The movie is drenched in the themes of the book, but it purposely attempts to knock down and warp it. But regardless the adaptation is still in dialogue with the same themes of the original.

2) The adaptation should stand on its own merits. Even if no one knew what it was adapted from or had any background at all. Going in should be an interesting, enjoyable experience.

[JNAProductions]

Is the movie worth seeing even to mock?

Or should I just stay away entirely?

Because the Artemis Fowl series is great, and I loved it growing up. So... Worth mocking? Or so bad that I should forget it exists?

[Lord Raziere]

Is the movie worth seeing even to mock?

Or should I just stay away entirely?

Because the Artemis Fowl series is great, and I loved it growing up. So... Worth mocking? Or so bad that I should forget it exists?

forget it exists. as someone said up thread, ironically seeing it is still seeing it. I have not seen it, but I've read what is changed and I do not want to see it and thus encourage them to make more. leave the mockery to the internet funnyman streamers.

Edit: TFS did a stream on it, and their take is "even Grant who can accept dramatic changes in an adaptation of a work and never seen Artemis Fowl sees this movie as completely horrible and not worth watching unless your a very specific kind of young child" while Lani who has read the first three books said "better than ATLA live action adaptation, worse than Dragon Ball Revolution." so yeah. its not even enjoyabad according to them and they're TFS, they're all about enjoyabad stuff.

[AvatarVecna]

Is the movie worth seeing even to mock?

Or should I just stay away entirely?

Because the Artemis Fowl series is great, and I loved it growing up. So... Worth mocking? Or so bad that I should forget it exists?

A few weeks ago, cuz of quarantine stuff, my dad started watching AtLA, and I decided to join him to rewatch cuz the series is amazing. When we finished the first season a few days in, we took a short break to watch the live-action movie, and had an absolutely fantastic time MSTing it. The movie is like if somebody spent two hours giving you a barebones summary of the first season, and you made a movie out of that summary and nothing else. It's hilariously bad, particularly because they clearly did actually watch the show - there's a couple scenes that are shot-for-shot from the show, so that just makes the stuff they got wrong even funnier.

This was...a different experience to that. The AF movie is kinda like if you gave somebody the ingredient list for a beautiful wonderful 8-course meal, but no instructions on how to combine them, and that person did their best to make something appetizing for the first part of the meal, and bless their heart they're trying. But not only is their first dish very much not like the first course of the meal they're trying to pay homage to, but even without just being compared to the source material it's just bland and boring and tasteless. Everything that gave the original dish flair and flavor has been smooshed down into this family-friendly paste.

I turned it off a bit over 20 minutes in. Even if you're willing to put aside how good an adaption it is, it's not funny to make fun of, it's missing all of the edge that made the book series so refreshing to read, and it's a boring cookie-cutter plot trying to be a mix between Spy Kids and Harry Potter. And as an adaption...it's almost like they're trying to do everything in their power to get people raging about how it's different from the books. Every character in the original trailer seemed miscast to me, but it turns out they've even managed to screw up multiple characters who shouldn't even be in this movie in the first place. Probably the crowning achievement in this category was the voiceover narrator introducing us to Butler - that was the only time I audibly swore at the people responsible for making this while watching.

[Fiery Diamond]

A few weeks ago, cuz of quarantine stuff, my dad started watching AtLA, and I decided to join him to rewatch cuz the series is amazing. When we finished the first season a few days in, we took a short break to watch the live-action movie, and had an absolutely fantastic time MSTing it. The movie is like if somebody spent two hours giving you a barebones summary of the first season, and you made a movie out of that summary and nothing else. It's hilariously bad, particularly because they clearly did actually watch the show - there's a couple scenes that are shot-for-shot from the show, so that just makes the stuff they got wrong even funnier.

This was...a different experience to that. The AF movie is kinda like if you gave somebody the ingredient list for a beautiful wonderful 8-course meal, but no instructions on how to combine them, and that person did their best to make something appetizing for the first part of the meal, and bless their heart they're trying. But not only is their first dish very much not like the first course of the meal they're trying to pay homage to, but even without just being compared to the source material it's just bland and boring and tasteless. Everything that gave the original dish flair and flavor has been smooshed down into this family-friendly paste.

I turned it off a bit over 20 minutes in. Even if you're willing to put aside how good an adaption it is, it's not funny to make fun of, it's missing all of the edge that made the book series so refreshing to read, and it's a boring cookie-cutter plot trying to be a mix between Spy Kids and Harry Potter. And as an adaption...it's almost like they're trying to do everything in their power to get people raging about how it's different from the books. Every character in the original trailer seemed miscast to me, but it turns out they've even managed to screw up multiple characters who shouldn't even be in this movie in the first place. Probably the crowning achievement in this category was the voiceover narrator introducing us to Butler - that was the only time I audibly swore at the people responsible for making this while watching.

As someone who doesn't intend to watch this apparent atrocity, I'm now very curious for details.

[Yora]

Almost the reverse actually, it was an original screenplay that had nothing to do with Asimov’s works and then they changed some names to Asimov characters and tackled on some references.

I suspect it's actually what happens most of the time. Some people want to make a movie and have a good idea. Big studios like the idea, but it has no established brand recognition that can draw in existing fans.
Find something that is remotely similar, and done.

It did work out well for Starship Troopers, which is a fascinating movie, but still not really an adaptation. The movie is now somewhat famous for its own original qualities, but it didn't work out financially either.
And that was back in the mid 90s. And movie studios have learned nothing since then. And neither have customers, apparently.

[Cheesegear]

Is the movie worth seeing even to mock?

If you're not being paid to see it, then why bother?

It's **** like this that says:
'Adam Sandler's The Ridiculous Six is the most watched movie Netflix's entire library.'
Even if the average watch time is <20 minutes, that's not the point. Fact is people pressed 'Play', some of them might even pressed Play ironically. Netflix doesn't care, and neither does Adam Sandler. As long as you pressed Play, that's all that matters.


Or should I just stay away entirely?

A bunch of people on YouTube have already seen it. Watch a review.
Since it's available on Stream, and not a new movie in the cinema, there will be clips for context.


Because the Artemis Fowl series is great, and I loved it growing up.

In that case, stay away from the movie.


So... Worth mocking?

As I said, the only reason to see it, is if you have to see it, because somehow, you might get revenue from it.
You know it's bad.
You know you're going to get mad.
Why give them money/revenue/clicks when it's for a product you know you know you already don't want?

[GrayDeath]

There is one for thing about this movie.

Hearing or was it made me begin a read of the book. And it is a great book, Artemis is a mostly believable child genius and the plot all fits together. Other than the English translation of the Book being in rhyme.

I dont really get what you are saying.

Unless your grammar is intentionally strange and your post doesnt actually say something concise (in which case I didnt get the reference/Joke^^): Could you elaborate?

As for me: I reads the books when a friend and myself heard there would be an adaption, and said friend didnt stop trying to make me read them.
Read the first 3, and was ...kinda disasappointed.
I mean theire not bad, but nowhere near the Hype I got exposed to.

And then we watched the Adaption on Disney.

my Friend threw something at the wall somewhere around 25 minutes in and didnt talk for the rest of the eveniung, and I had to watch a Meh Series being so totally butchered itt had only the name of most main characters in common.


SDo yeah, Ugh. Dont. Pelase.

[Anonymouswizard]

I dont really get what you are saying.

Unless your grammar is intentionally strange and your post doesnt actually say something concise (in which case I didnt get the reference/Joke^^): Could you elaborate?

Eh, there was a mistake ('hearing it was a thing made me...' is how the second paragraph should begin), and one thing that's not clear (the Book in the last sentence is the fairy book of rules, not the Artemis Fowl book). I can see how that made it harder to understand.


The thing about the series is that it's a children's to Young Adult series (remember when those weren't all about teenage girls in dystopias trying to decide which hot boy to kiss?), beginning with books that were aimed at roughly the same age range as the Harry Potter books, but had somewhat better writing and plotting (the worldbuilding is a bit meh, although there's some good bits). Taking that into account they're relatively good, I've read both better and worse, and back when I was the target age range I don't remember there being much competition.

But either the second or third book (I think the third, it's been a long time) was so boring when I was the target age that I just skipped most of it. Read all the way up to Lost Colony though before I began focusing my reading on other stuff. So it's not the absolute best series in the world, but I'd argue that it's stood the test of time slightly better than Harry Potter has (if only because it can get me to actually care about the Artemis/Holly relationship in a way that I didn't about any of the HP ones).

[druid91]

As someone who doesn't intend to watch this apparent atrocity, I'm now very curious for details.

So remember that big surprise reveal partway through the series? Where he finally tells his first name?

Now he goes by that first name, or shortenings of it exclusively, and actively hates being called Butler.

[Fiery Diamond]

So remember that big surprise reveal partway through the series? Where he finally tells his first name?

Now he goes by that first name, or shortenings of it exclusively, and actively hates being called Butler.

What the what. :smallannoyed:

[deltamire]

So remember that big surprise reveal partway through the series? Where he finally tells his first name?

Now he goes by that first name, or shortenings of it exclusively, and actively hates being called Butler.
It might have been a studio move, because you probably don't want your white child protagonist referring to the black man acting as his servant (that changed further on in the series, becoming more of a bodyguard) consistently as 'butler' only.

Of course, why Butler was black in the first place instead of 'Eurasian' like he and his family are described as being in the books is a wholly different question, seeing as his place of being raised has a certain importance to his upbringing. I don't claim to fully understand how studio executives go about casting characters, though.

[Durkoala]

I found a fanfic that posits an explanation for the movie. I haven't seen the movie, but this is still a lot of fun anyway.

https://archiveofourown.org/works/24708697

[JNAProductions]

It might have been a studio move, because you probably don't want your white child protagonist referring to the black man acting as his servant (that changed further on in the series, becoming more of a bodyguard) consistently as 'butler' only.

Of course, why Butler was black in the first place instead of 'Eurasian' like he and his family are described as being in the books is a wholly different question, seeing as his place of being raised has a certain importance to his upbringing. I don't claim to fully understand how studio executives go about casting characters, though.

Eh. I'm not that bothered by Butler being black. No, it's not what he was in the books, but that detail? That's unimportant. Changing Butler to a black guy does not affect the story in any significant way.

Now, changing him to use his name, among all the other stuff... That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

[Anonymouswizard]

It might have been a studio move, because you probably don't want your white child protagonist referring to the black man acting as his servant (that changed further on in the series, becoming more of a bodyguard) consistently as 'butler' only.

To be fair, the book makes it clear that Butlers are bodyguards first and servants second.


Of course, why Butler was black in the first place instead of 'Eurasian' like he and his family are described as being in the books is a wholly different question, seeing as his place of being raised has a certain importance to his upbringing. I don't claim to fully understand how studio executives go about casting characters, though.

I believe he's supposed to be Eastern European/West Asian, judging by where he's stated to come from and his name. While I'm not saying he can't be black and has to be white it's possibly the most problematic casting choice seeing as him being exclusively referred to as Butler is big enough for a book to make a plot point depending on it (book 4, you know the bit I mean).

Honestly, I'm less annoyed at Butler being black and more at Holly being white. We could have had a great role for a South Asian actress and stayed closer to the book without sacrificing on acting ability, but no apparently fairies have to have pale skin.

[Radar]

That's allegedly how Rambo: Last Blood was made. It was originally some random screenplay about a dude going after his daughter, a hybrid of Taken and Death Wish. Then, the main character's name was changed to John Rambo and the script rewrites wrote themselves.
This kind of scenario and brand swaping happens a lot in movie industry to the point, where Die Hard 4 was the first part in the series to have a script originally written for Die Hard. I do not remember, what the first one was supposed to be, but the second was originally an independent script that got rebranded as Die Hard and the third part was - as far as I remember - supposed to be a part of the Lethal Weapon series.

[Tvtyrant]

Eh. I'm not that bothered by Butler being black. No, it's not what he was in the books, but that detail? That's unimportant. Changing Butler to a black guy does not affect the story in any significant way.

Now, changing him to use his name, among all the other stuff... That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

I would argue that adding a black butler to an aristocratic white family is exactly a detail that's important. It changes the overtones of their relationship significantly.

[Anonymouswizard]

I would argue that adding a black butler to an aristocratic white family is exactly a detail that's important. It changes the overtones of their relationship significantly.

Thought, would the film have worked with Artemis as Black Irish and Butler as a white servant? I think it would have done, you'd have got some complaints because book Artemis might have been described as white (I honestly don't pay that much attention), but less so than with Butler and the implications he brings to the table.

Especially when you remember that the Butler family's purpose to to provide the Fowl family (and other wealthy individuals) with bodyguards/servants. It's a problematic but workable arrangement with book butler, such a detail is much worse with the film version.

I'll note that Butler's original ethnicity has similar, but not as extreme, connotations, which I think is why the book makes a big deal about the position being named after the family.

[Forum Explorer]

Thought, would the film have worked with Artemis as Black Irish and Butler as a white servant? I think it would have done, you'd have got some complaints because book Artemis might have been described as white (I honestly don't pay that much attention), but less so than with Butler and the implications he brings to the table.

Especially when you remember that the Butler family's purpose to to provide the Fowl family (and other wealthy individuals) with bodyguards/servants. It's a problematic but workable arrangement with book butler, such a detail is much worse with the film version.

I'll note that Butler's original ethnicity has similar, but not as extreme, connotations, which I think is why the book makes a big deal about the position being named after the family.

Artemis is described as white in the books, but it's not a super important detail. It's usually used as a description when he's being overly mature and creeping out adults.

Having Butler being black makes calling him Butler awkward, but calling him Butler is a very important part of his personality and personal arc. So if you are just going for diversity, you shouldn't make him black. Find a different character to take that role.

[AvatarVecna]

Artemis is described as white in the books, but it's not a super important detail. It's usually used as a description when he's being overly mature and creeping out adults.

Having Butler being black makes calling him Butler awkward, but calling him Butler is a very important part of his personality and personal arc. So if you are just going for diversity, you shouldn't make him black. Find a different character to take that role.

Should've been Holly, with the caveat that it would require the story skew much closer to the first book. The dynamic between Holly and Artemis in later books stems from there.

Artemis is, at heart, a criminal, and clearly thinks of the Laws that bind the fairy folk as ridiculous restrictions to be exploited. The fact that fairies have magic and superior technology, and yet still got driven underground, cemented this fact in his mind. Holly being an officer of the law just makes her doubly-representative of everything he doesn't like about that kind of mindset, and it shows in how he treats her, locking her down, talking down to her, even when the tables are starting to turn he's holding the letter of the law against her as best he can. He doesn't really think of her as lesser, necessarily, but as restricted in ways he isn't, and he's willing and able to exploit that for his own gain.

Holly rejecting that framework by breaking out despite the rules placed on her, regaining her magic, and healing butler for all their sakes, ends up earning Artemis' respect in a roundabout way, and in turn he earns her respect despite his treatment of her by trading away a significant portion of the ransom for his mother's mental health. This is the seed from which their relationship in the coming books grows, and that whole dynamic would be aided by making it more explicitly a race thing. Portraying Artemis as a racist criminal 12 year old who gradually grows into a better person explicitly because he interacts with the people he thinks less of (everyone, sure, but primarily the fairy folk and in particular a fairy cop) is a very solid character arc and would maybe be something actually worth using as modern political commentary if handled properly.

But this is Disney, so of course it's gonna be completely family friendly and not actually have anything to say about it, it's just using casting and tiny insignificant moments to make noises as if they care. It's blatant virtue-signalling.

[A.A.King]

Should've been Holly, with the caveat that it would require the story skew much closer to the first book. The dynamic between Holly and Artemis in later books stems from there.

Artemis is, at heart, a criminal, and clearly thinks of the Laws that bind the fairy folk as ridiculous restrictions to be exploited. The fact that fairies have magic and superior technology, and yet still got driven underground, cemented this fact in his mind. Holly being an officer of the law just makes her doubly-representative of everything he doesn't like about that kind of mindset, and it shows in how he treats her, locking her down, talking down to her, even when the tables are starting to turn he's holding the letter of the law against her as best he can. He doesn't really think of her as lesser, necessarily, but as restricted in ways he isn't, and he's willing and able to exploit that for his own gain.

Holly rejecting that framework by breaking out despite the rules placed on her, regaining her magic, and healing butler for all their sakes, ends up earning Artemis' respect in a roundabout way, and in turn he earns her respect despite his treatment of her by trading away a significant portion of the ransom for his mother's mental health. This is the seed from which their relationship in the coming books grows, and that whole dynamic would be aided by making it more explicitly a race thing. Portraying Artemis as a racist criminal 12 year old who gradually grows into a better person explicitly because he interacts with the people he thinks less of (everyone, sure, but primarily the fairy folk and in particular a fairy cop) is a very solid character arc and would maybe be something actually worth using as modern political commentary if handled properly.

I don't think you can really translate the way Artemis looks down on fairy folk and considers them being lesser into something that applies to the real world. His initial motivations for this position aren't baseless, it is simple fact of reality that they lose their magic if they break their laws. The way people look down on real world groups in our world is not based on their literal inability to do certain things.

It is a similar problem to trying to interpret Zootopia as a story about actual racism. Sure, in-universe there are creatures fighting other creatures based on how they are born, but given that that particular fighting is based on an a past prey-predator relationship that does not exist among real word humans you really shouldn't try to read in-movie groups as specific real world groups.

Don't forget that in the first book Artemis his winning strategy is entirely based on fairies having to absolutely follow the rules. He exploits what he sees as their racial failing and gets rewarded for it. Perfectly fine in a story about a human fighting imagined creatures, but may have some unfortunate implications if you try to paint Artemis his view on fairy folk as something akin to what's happening in the real world. Artemis is the protagonist after all, I doubt many readers sided with the fairies against him or judged him based on his believes given that those believes were essential for his victory. So probably best to no make it too much about judging groups and just about not judging individuals. It takes a few books (and so by extension, a few movies) before Artemis decides he was wrong, and people might not get to those,

Then again, I am willing to bet that pretty much anything that requires the story to skew much closer to the first book than this abomination did would be better than what we got.

[Ibrinar]

I'm always a little cautious about the "adaptation must be a reasonable fit" thing.

The old Robin Hood and Jungle Book films were great films.

Robin Hood took a lot of inspiration from the Robin Hood legends, and all the characters were recognisable.

On the other hand the Jungle Book took very little except the names and species from the original stories (In the books, Kaa was one of the good guys, a mentor to Mowgli and one of the single most dangerous animals in the jungle; Hathi was a leader and shrewd tactician, Baloo was a wise teacher; Bagheera and Shere Kahn were about the only characters who got through the adaptation process reasonably intact.

That didn't stop me from enjoying them both, and I still like Jungle Book after having read (and preferred) the original stories.

Admittedly, my feeling is that if you are going to adapt a work, then adapt it, and if you are going to do something different, then don't pretend to adapt something; but sometimes you do get something good out the other end.

But no, this doesn't sound good.

I view stuff like that essentially as fan fiction (though the worst stuff where they only take some names probably doesn't deserve to be called fan fiction.) And fan fiction is fine as long as you don't try to sell it to me as the original story. I wish you had to clearly declare that yours is a spin on the original (yes hard to draw a precise line but the wish isn't realistic anyway.)

[Friv]

It is a similar problem to trying to interpret Zootopia as a story about actual racism. Sure, in-universe there are creatures fighting other creatures based on how they are born, but given that that particular fighting is based on an a past prey-predator relationship that does not exist among real word humans you really shouldn't try to read in-movie groups as specific real world groups.

Yep, Zootopia is an extremely good story about intersectionality, but if you start trying to map it 1 to 1 you're going to have all sorts of problems.

As for Artemis Fowl and Butler, I would agree that Butler is probably the only person in the whole damned series that absolutely should not be black unless Artemis is, too. It's actual tokenism writ large; they want their key leads to be white, they want one person on screen to be black so that they aren't called out for racism, grab the most prominent person who isn't a main character, call it a day. There's a whole discussion about fantasy settings that exclusively have a single black person and it's always a middle-aged man who is in a role of martial subservience to the actual main character.

It's the same sort of thing that led to "the black dude always dies first" being an action/horror trope; they didn't die first because they were black, they died first because they were the least developed characters. But they were the least developed characters because the most-developed characters were always white, so...

[Fiery Diamond]

Yep, Zootopia is an extremely good story about intersectionality, but if you start trying to map it 1 to 1 you're going to have all sorts of problems.

As for Artemis Fowl and Butler, I would agree that Butler is probably the only person in the whole damned series that absolutely should not be black unless Artemis is, too. It's actual tokenism writ large; they want their key leads to be white, they want one person on screen to be black so that they aren't called out for racism, grab the most prominent person who isn't a main character, call it a day. There's a whole discussion about fantasy settings that exclusively have a single black person and it's always a middle-aged man who is in a role of martial subservience to the actual main character.

It's the same sort of thing that led to "the black dude always dies first" being an action/horror trope; they didn't die first because they were black, they died first because they were the least developed characters. But they were the least developed characters because the most-developed characters were always white, so...

Off topic, but that's actually why Zootopia works so well. If it DID map 1 to 1, it would come across as being preachy and high-handed if it was accurate and offensive if it was inaccurate. The fact that it doesn't means that the movie can make its points without having to be compared to the exact real-world circumstances of specific real-world races.