Remove ads

Artemis Fowl: The Movie

Would you watch this?

  • Total voters
    156
Bernkastel said:
Looking at it, I think the approach was likely "we have this property, how can we make a marketable movie out of it?". Having the title character being a villain protagonist and sharing the protagonist role with Holly are things I could see being viewed as obstacles, especially by someone who thinks the ideal would be a hero team movie, combined with " other world" type escapism. That's what this trailer comes off as to me, an attempt to smash little bits from Artemis Fowl into a more marketable mold.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Wasn't it in development hell for awhile? Plans were announced in *googles* oh lord. 2001. And then something resembling an actual plan for a movie in 2013. Yeah, that adds up.

Whatever original pitch existed actually wanted to use some element of Artemis Fowl, but it died like 6 years ago at best. This, then, is made from the starting position of 'we have rights to this, what can we do to get the investment back?' or 'we have this kids movie script lying around, what can we shell it in to make it more marketable?'
 
Lunatic350 said:
Wasn't it in development hell for awhile? Plans were announced in *googles* oh lord. 2001. And then something resembling an actual plan for a movie in 2013. Yeah, that adds up.

Whatever original pitch existed actually wanted to use some element of Artemis Fowl, but it died like 6 years ago at best. This, then, is made from the starting position of 'we have rights to this, what can we do to get the investment back?' or 'we have this kids movie script lying around, what can we shell it in to make it more marketable?'
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, it's basically a case of something done because of sunk costs. It's likely being made purely because, having spent whatever they did on rights and perhaps a script, they might as well carry on with this and try to make something out of it.

Artemis Fowl is something that I think would have needed someone involved who was willing and able to fight for the unique elements of the series, even if this project had been done when the series was popular. Even then, seeing so little of the series in this trailer is a bit depressing. I mean, some forced "how will they work together?" antagonism would have been more like Artemis Fowl than this.
 
My only hope now is not that it will be good; but that it will be bad enough to be funny instead of merely boring.
 
RoyalNoises said:
My only hope now is not that it will be good; but that it will be bad enough to be funny instead of merely boring.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My initial thought was this movie will definitely be dull. But the superhero/action hero stuff, combined with squishing in Artemis saying he's a mastermind, indicates this could be a hilarious mess of desperate efforts to be cool mixed in with desperate efforts to go '"look, a reference to something the source material had". Plus, it's already given us Mulch Diggums, giant dwarf.
 
I expected nothing and I'm still let down. How hard could it possibly be to just adapt the first book? It was good? And would probably require less CGI then it looks like they crammed into this movie, if my hazy memories of the plot are at all accurate.
 
Did you really think that Disney wasn't going to just make this an MCU movie, did you?

I mean, it could just be another case of bad trailer-itus. But in order for this trailer to be unrepresentative of how it handles the adaptation it would have to be actively lying in parts.
 
I think that Tony Stark in the first Avengers movie is closer to book Artemis than what we're probably going to get from this movie.
 
2.8K Dislikes to 2.6K Likes.

You fucked up Disney. You have to try real hard to get a Dislike bar that high on YouTube.
 
Well, we're never getting a Skulduggery Pleasant movie at this rate, and that's not totally a bad thing.
 
CornyBones said:
No one but the people piledriving the dislike bar have truly cared about what it has to say. Suits will probably look at it and immediately go "glad people feel strongly about the IP. We can use that hate"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I feel confident that the Disney suits already have written off this movie given it was supposed to have been released a whole year ago, and the anger just makes their decision feel justified and thus not giving the movie a chance to do well financially by releasing it admist several ensured box office succeses so they can point and go 'See, nobody was interested in Artemis Fowl so it's not our fault it flopped'.
 
I believe Butler is always described as "Eurasian." which to me, as an american, means that he comes from somewhere on that continent that houses something like two thirds of all the people on planet earth.

I'm sure Ireland thinks "Eurasian" is a synonym for "Turkish" or something but they're wrong. So sure, Butler could be black, because there are black people that live on the world's largest continent.
 
RoyalNoises said:
I believe Butler is always described as "Eurasian." which to me, as an american, means that he comes from somewhere on that continent that houses something like two thirds of all the people on planet earth.

I'm sure Ireland thinks "Eurasian" is a synonym for "Turkish" or something but they're wrong. So sure, Butler could be black, because there are black people that live on the world's largest continent.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think the idea is that it's hard to tell, which is definitely something a family of assassin bodyguards would cultivate.
 
RoyalNoises said:
I believe Butler is always described as "Eurasian." which to me, as an american, means that he comes from somewhere on that continent that houses something like two thirds of all the people on planet earth.

I'm sure Ireland thinks "Eurasian" is a synonym for "Turkish" or something but they're wrong. So sure, Butler could be black, because there are black people that live on the world's largest continent.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eurasian in my experience is usually a term for mixed people, like the Mestizos or Anglo-Indians.
 
RoyalNoises said:
I believe Butler is always described as "Eurasian." which to me, as an american, means that he comes from somewhere on that continent that houses something like two thirds of all the people on planet earth.

I'm sure Ireland thinks "Eurasian" is a synonym for "Turkish" or something but they're wrong. So sure, Butler could be black, because there are black people that live on the world's largest continent.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eurasian refers to mixed people with both European and Asian ancestry e.g. Dutch-Malay, Portuguese-Indian, Irish-Chinese etc. Features depend on the specific ancestry of the person. Since it is possible that Butler's Asian heritage includes South Asian people, it's possible for him to be 'black' (dark brown) but he probably wouldn't look anything like an African-American.
 
Last edited:
Brainarius said:
Eurasian refers to mixed people with both European and Asian ancestry e.g. Dutch-Malay, Portuguese-Indian, Irish-Chinese etc. Features depend on the specific ancestry of the person. Since it is possible that Butler's Asian heritage includes South Asian people, it's possible for him to be 'black' (dark brown) but he certainly wouldn't look anything like an African-American.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Or he's a black person from Eurasia. The continent of Eurasia.
 
Harry Leferts said:
... Considering that the first mention of the Butler family is a man who served their ancestor during the Norman Conquest, along with things like Juliet being described as "Blond haired and blue eyed" not to mention Butler's first name being Domovoi...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You're honestly making the idea of him being a black guy cooler for me.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top