Artemis Fowl Live Action Film

I've been roaming over twitter and apparently Disney made Arty Lighter and Softer by changing his motivation - he thinks the fae took his father in the film so I've heard - and getting rid of the family motto. It kinda makes my pissy that they neutered the villain protagonist aspect of the book, but that doesn't last long in the series anyway. And it's Disney, so we really shouldn't be surprised I guess :/

Also some dude's been complaining that making Root female would undermine Holly's 'speshulness' as the first female LEP officer in books. Sounds liek concern trolling to me, but maybe someone else has a different perspective?

Also, the trailer looks kinda cool actually. Also, I can now confirm that Kenneth Brannagh may love dutch angles a bit too much XD

That point about Holly actually never occurred to me. I don't know if they're going to play this up in the actual movie or not- they could have decided to change this aspect of the books too- but the fact that Holly Short is the first female LEP Recon officer ever is a pretty big deal. It's a huge part of her character, it informs her relationship with many different characters- including Root himself!- and is a significant running theme. It paints the Fairies as more complex than just a society of perfect magical people that live underground- fairy society is flawed in it's own realistic way, a believable counterpoint to all the times Eoin Colfer finger-wags about how environmentally destructive us stupid mud-people are. I'd hate it if they took that dynamic out of the movie.

To be honest...I kind of HATED this aspect of the book because it always bugs me when fantasy societies have exactly the same hang ups we have.

3xMy question is can Judi Dench pull off the angry all the time cigar smoking chief cop?

Man, middle to late high school em would have been all over this.

I don't mind. We lost part of Holly's characterization that I don't think was too relevant later on at the gain of Judy Dench. I think the casting trumps the adaptation loss. Sorry.

I don't mind them changing Artemis' motivation much either because, doesn't that become his motivation LATER? Its an adaptation steamline thing. Rather than shifting a character's motivation as the story progresses, keep the goal consistent for the series they're trying to start here.

Did anyone like the moment the title was shown? The runes rotating themselves to form each letter of the title blew me away. I had to repeat the multiple times to see how each letter was formed!

Yeah, I mean, I liked the "evil" Artemis Fowl from the first book, but, well, that charactarization didn't even stick around till book two. It's part of the reason why I didn't really like the books past book three, and eventually stopped reading, but if they want to adapt all of them, it is better to not include stuff which gets contradicted later on anyway.

I don't like having the stories spill into each other. They need to be able to stand on their own. If we're jumping to him looking for his dad, then what's the point of the first book?

It doesn't have to be the main thrust of the story if they intend to start a franchise.

the first movie would still be him after fairy Gold, but specifically to fund the search for his feather rather than more nefarious purposes

The first book is about healing his mother. It is heavily implied that this was the actual goal, not the gold.

...Wait, I just realized something. Holly is an Elf living underground...she's a Drow!

Okay I've just seen the casting call for Artemis, and now I'm questioning whether the filmmakers have understood the character at all.

May I ask why?

Because it kind of enforces the Status Quo. Why not think out of the box?

With Fairies I always did find it weird that they hadn't had female LEP officers before.

Having said that: With the hang-ups of modern society-and particularly sexism-it is worth noting those often exist for a reason. A lack of sexism in a medieval society is usually unrealistic, for example. However, the Fairies are an advanced civilization and have been for a while, so while there almost certainly would be some sexism it's unlikely there'd be as much as is shown.

Is it? Or do you think that it is unrealistic because we are trained to think so?

And once you get to mythical beings, that excuse goes straight out of the window. I mean, what's the point of having them, if they are basically humans with pointy ears?

Myths have always reflected the society they were created from. The fairies have issues with sexism isn't surprising because sexism is also an issue in out society. It also avoids turning them into a Mary Suetopia. They aren't perfect but still are not without their virtues like everyone else.

Besides, what other hang ups can you give them that isn't one found in our society?

@Swanpride: It is. Cultural values tend to be responses to environment and technology-and the specific mindset those environments incentivize.

With fantasy cultures I generally advise a mindset of "speculative anthropology".

@windleopard: Amusingly, one of my complaints about the novels when I was young (I read the books when I was 12 because a teacher told me I reminded them a lot of Artemis Fowl...which might have been a Stealth Insult...but the comparison was fair) was that The People came across as a Mary Sue Topia with a lot of Can't Argue with Elves. Though apparently I misunderstood the author's intentions-their smugness is meant to be seen as a negative trait.

...Or maybe the author wanted to discuss or acknowledge sexism even within his fantastic setting as a way of talking about it with kids.

Like, sure, I get that having fantastic settings conform to real world issues and "status quos" isn't as fantastic or creative as it could be, but it also means that they can talk about real world issues through a fantastic setting. Like, maybe a 6-year-old might not get the idea of sexism when its real-world framed as normal cops, but an 8-year-old might already put a fantastic fairy like Holly on a pedistal, revere her, and then "get it" when she faces such discrimination.

Also, again, kid's book. I liked the world building when I first read the series, but I was also like 11 or 12. I'm sure it doesn't hold up logistically from an adult perspective, and that's OK.

I'd also point out that, without more real-world issues regardless of the factors on that society, the world and its problems might become too alien for the readers to empathize with. "Sure, the Dwarven cities have No OSHA Compliance and people fall into magma streams all the time, but since there's no racism, sexism, homophobia, and other issues, their world seems pretty heavenly and their complaints feel unfounded".

That's probably not a great example under scrutiny, but I hope you get my point.

Didn't Opal also deal with sexism?

though granted she's a megalomaniac and the overall Big Bad so probably not the best to show her case in isolation if they excised Holly's deal of being the first female recon officer for the film and this turns into a series

See, with Opal, I didn't mind it, because it was actually a huge part of her story and they actually explored the topic. But in Holly's case it just seems to be there for five seconds and then the plot point pretty much got dropped. IF she were really the first, she should face Agent Carter level sexism, but it is barely a stumbling stone for her.

That's not at all true. Prejudice against Holly for being the first female Recon officer comes up at several points in the series, and informs how everything from regular civilians to her co-workers to even Internal Affairs sees her. It isn't something that's "there for five seconds," it's the exact opposite- a very consistent through-line that stretches across the entire series.

Not only is it a part of Holly's character, it also gives the Fairy society depicted in these books a degree of realism and verisimilitude they wouldn't otherwise have. Fairy civilization is vastly older than Human civilization, but fairies also live many hundreds of years, so if anything their social progress would lag behind ours.

Maybe I misremember, but I always felt that the aspect was very underplayed. After all, Holly always got a second chance (and a third. And a fourth). Females who try to break into all-male jobs usually don't even get a first chance.

If they leave the aspect of females in this job being rare in the movies, it actually makes more sense if there already is a female higher up who already paved some of the way for Holly instead of her being the first.

Edited by Swanpride on Dec 2nd 2018 at 11:25:35 AM