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

[t209]

Well, the "reviews" are in and here is my take on it via "Chad vs. Virgin".

Spoiler: Spoilered for large size

Show

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.

[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.

Spoiler: Character Breakdowns

Show

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):

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.