Talk:Artemis Fowl (film)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Science Fiction Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

Could not repair

• Artemis Fowl.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "Casting criticism" section as seen here as inappropriate because this commentary was before this film's release and was commenting on the trailers. Therefore it is

I removed the section again. I was incorrect to say that all of the commentary was from before its release. One of the references, which did not have the date parameter filled out, is Firstpost. This reference specifically mentions the whitewashing of Captain Holly Short. From what I can tell, there is no other reliable source that mentions whitewashing in the film. The pre-release commentary should still be disregarded as undue weight, and if we are left with one source and one sentence, an entire subsection is not justified at this time. There is no rush to do this. Wikipedia must follow the weight of sources that cover the film in a particular way, it cannot lead. Coverage can evolve in the next few days (since I know right now the film is just being beat up), so we need to see if this particular point of criticism emerges in full, or if it never does. Pinging involved editors for their feedback too: TropicAces, Cardei012597, Bovineboy2008, TheMovieGuy, Draco9904. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upon doing a quick Google search of “Artemis Fowl whitewashing” the only thing that came up was the trailer reaction, so I agree that a single source is not worth an entire section. Especially in today’s climate where outrage=clicks you’ll always get one or two articles about topics, but this doesn’t seem to be an actual issue worth noting on here. TropicAces (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)tropicAces[reply]

• Two post-release sources so far, Funspot and Stay Nerd, and I doubt those will be the last. Pre-release sources are also worth noting, as they were for Ghost in the Shell, given it too was recognised as whitewashing upon casting announcement in 2015, and still after release in 2017. 2001:BB6:52F1:AB00:785F:401D:98D9:3C62 (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm with TropicAced. I don't thinks it's worth a section just because one or two people had problems. Now, if it was a whole movement that's a different story but in this case it wasn't. TheMovieGuy (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well, it is not extensive enough for its own section. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since this film adaptation combines elements from several of the books along with original content, as opposed to just adapting the first book, I think the line "based on the 2001 novel of the same name" should be changed to "based on the book series of the same name" or something like that. If not, I would recommend it at least be changed to "loosely based on the 2001 novel of the same name". Thoughts? Metalla515 (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Metalla515:, I could be in favor of "based on the first two novels in the book series of the same name", but it is not up to me to make this change. Similar to the 1985 Disney film The Black Cauldron (with The Book of Three and The Black Cauldron), Artemis Fowl loosely adapts the first two books (with the kidnapping the fairy plot of book one and rescuing the father plot of book two). I think I would be comfortable with saying that it is based on the first two books, but that is just my opinion. Cardei012597 (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know people were annoyed by how badly this film messed up the books and it is fun to say a film was panned but such claims need to be properly supported by reliable sources

The film clearly received negative reviews, Metacritic clearly says "generally unfavorable reviews", but it was not so badly reviewed as to received the rating of "overwhelming dislike" from Metacritic. To claim the film was panned requires actively ignoring Metacritic.

Again, if you want to say this film was panned then you need reliable sources to say it first. -- 109.79.81.162 (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also any claims of "audience response" needs additional reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Audience_response. -- 109.79.81.162 (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I like to do is break down what Metacritic actually has, so readers know the distribution of a sample. In this case, out of 33 reviews, the film has 18 negative reviews, 13 mixed, and 2 positive. In some articles, I provide that kind of breakdown. Sharing as an idea of what could be done here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed claims that the article was panned, but editors added them back[1] with more hyperbole. The Cinemablend summary of reviews does say the reviews were "pretty brutal" but it doesn't go so far as to say the film was panned.

Expanding the Critical response section with more reviews and different perspective would be great, but I don't it would help to have a more a verbose breakdown of Metacritic because for me it works best as a brief overview.

If people want to argue the film was panned that's fine, but they do need to show sources. I will even point out that The Times did say the film was panned[2](paywalled but you should be able to see the image caption) but it seems surprising to me that there don't seem to be more sources saying this film was panned, I searched[3]. If editors are willing to discuss and there is a local consensus to ignore Metacritic, maybe we could say it was panned because it only scored 9% on Rotten Tomatoes, but I think editors should be following what the sources are saying, not interpreting and making their own generalizations. As the article currently stands I don't think it has the necessary sources to support the claim that it was panned. -- 109.79.81.162 (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor changed the article to say the film was panned by critics[4], but no explanation was given and no new sources to support the claim were added. I have reverted the article to say "generally negative reviews", the review were bad but it hyperbole to say it was panned. -- 109.77.196.143 (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have a weird ideas about summarizing reviews. An editor thought the generic neutral wording summary of "generally negative reviews" wasn't good enough, and decided that it was preferable to instead to rely on the interpretation from Cinemablend that summarized the reviews as "pretty brutal".[5] A generic approach might be bland but consistency is a good thing, and less subjective than selecting a quote based on a handful of reviews chosen by Cinemablend. Far better than the limited view of Cinemablend is an objective generic summary base on the much larger overview based on the quantization of many reviews by Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. -- 109.77.216.14 (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Some editors"? That would be me. "Weird ideas"? That would be

synthesis

.

"Generally negative reviews" is not a summary of what independent reliable sources say. It is a rewording of what an algorithm applied to a score at Metacritic. What the algorithm applied to the score is not subject to editorial oversight, so it is not a reliable source. MOS says we can directly quote it, with in-line attribution with a brief explanation of Metacritic's methodology. Ignoring all of that and rewording it is not a good start. Yes, RT also converts scores to numbers. The two taken together handle data from overlapping data sets in two different manors, often coming up with different results. Why? Because they're using differing sets of data and looking at them differently. Why? Because "movie good"/"movie bad" is a false dichotomy based on vague criteria that most reviews don't spell out.

Various editors are "summarizing" this differently: "generally negagtive", "overwhelmingly negative", "incredibly negative", "panned", "one of the worst films ever made", "unfavorable", "mostly unfavorable", "terrible", etc. Edit summaries make it clear there is a difference of opinion over what the sources are saying, arguing it wasn't panned, no one said it's the worst ever, etc.

When editors disagree as to what a source says, MOS recommends a direct quote. I quoted the only reliable source I saw summarizing critical reception. Apparently, that's "strange". - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The review aggregators look at many reviews, and generally negative reviews fairly summarizes both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Your rejection of this approach taken by so many other film articles is a strange interpretation of the rules out of keeping with so many existing articles. You keep rejecting reasonable summary as synth. What's worse is your alternative, to use a summary of reviews from another source (in this case Cinemablend) which only looks at a small a handful of reviews and they synthesize their own subjective interpretation, and then your personal subjective selection of a harsh* quote from that article (* maybe you are trying to be objective but to rely on the approach you are taking I just asking for selective quoting from less objective editors). That's not an improvement, it is strange that you even think it is. You've only replace one slightly contested wording with another wording that is still going to have people inconsistently rewording it.[6]

-- 109.76.205.197 (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have other articles. Some are perfect. Others are horrible. All of them are different.

Yes, reliable sources come up with interpretations. The interpretations of reliable sources are

verifiable. Your interpretations to create a new statement that no reliable source say is the very definition of synthesis. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Synonyms are not synthesis. -- 109.76.154.21 (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms from an unreliable source are unsourced. This has been repeatedly disputed by several editors. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Worst ever

Now an anonymous ipv6 editor is trying to claim that the films is one of the worst ever,[7] and include links to the

The anon ipv6 tried again but actually made an attempt to provide sources this time.[8] The sources were Forbes, The Mary Sue, and Fortress of Solitude. Scott Mendelson at Forbes did go so far as to call it one of the worst YA adaptations ever. Princess at The Mary Sue only called it "terrible", and said the cast was fine but the script was 100% the problem, which is not convincing statement from a

The general consensus is pretty straight forward. If a film meets the criteria for the "List of..." article, add it there. That does not "prove" it's one of the worst ever. It demonstrates that we can verifiably say it "has been considered" one of the worst ever, which is the wording we use, along with a link to the article. Whatever the film's other reviews, RT scores, awards, box office, etc. are is immaterial. The criteria are outlined on the talk page of that article.

Currently, this film is not listed there, so a link to that article is inappropriate. Quoting a source that says it's the worst is another matter entirely. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have reverted the "worst ever" claim entirely, because despite providing some references the editor marked his own edit as citation needed. But some people clearly feel strongly about this film and I took the edit on good faith, moved it into the Critical response section, waited for the other editor to discuss it, but got no response.

Fortressofsolitude.com is not a good source, and I would now recommend removing it entirely. The edit was misrepresenting the Forbes article which only called it one of the worst YA adaptions, but as the wording has been change to what the source actually says, it is probably worth keeping it in the Critical response section. -- 109.76.205.197 (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has removed the Fortressofsolitude reference.[9] The editor who was trying to claim this film was "worst ever" appears to have given up (this film may be disappointing but there are a lot worse out there). -- 109.78.202.253 (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of reviews

Thank you User:Earle_Bartibus_Huxley for directing me to the talk page, I'm new at this... The previous edit, which summarizes that critics criticized the screenplay and visual effects, is not accurate - none of the sources cited (including the source at the end of the summary section) support the statement that the primary criticisms included the screenplay and the visual effects. I've done my best to accurately summarize the sources given in the criticism section, particularly the review blurbs on Metacritic, but most importantly, the previous version is not verified by any sources cited. - EstrellaPlus (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP: FILMLEAD is supposed to summarize what is actually in the critical response section but often editors forget that, or over-enthusiastically add one more thing to the list. Your summary is good but my personal preference would be for a more concise summary -- 109.79.179.206 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@EstrellaPlus: Hi, Estrella, I decided to change the wording of how summarised the reviews, especially in regards to " dull and uninspired" and "incoherent plot." Whilst this may be accurate to what reviews say of the film, it's a bit informal for an encyclopedia entry. For instance, instead of writing "Critics characterized the film as having an incoherent plot," a better summation would be "Critics criticized the film's plot." It's more formal, and readers will still understand that critics had problems with the movie's plot. As you're new editor to Wikipedia, I thought I might explain my reason for changing your edit, and some improvements which could help you in future. -- Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Judy Hofflund. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 29#Judy Hofflund until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. JesseRafe (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor called User:Dangerous_User has been evading blocks and creating multiple sock puppets accounts. This user has been blocked again.

Before being blocked the sock puppet added an award.[10] I reverted the change, because I did not think the award is notable (and the edits looked a lot like others I had seen from user previously banned for sock puppetry). User:Slykos disagreed and restored the award, but that may have been before it became clear that the edit was from sock puppet. The reference provided was only enough to

Even if editors think that being shortlisted for this award is notable enough to be worth keeping, it still does not make sense to have a table with only a single item and it should be converted from {{table to prose}}. -- 109.76.211.124 (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of any sockpuppets, so I apologize for that, I was just restoring an award that was previously removed for a now known reason. I don't see why this should be in an article's talk page, considering it's about a user, so it should be at either

WP:ANI. Slykos (talk • contribs • rights) 16:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The award was added by a sockpuppet and it wasn't notable anyway to begin with, which is the more important detail. Since it had been reverted once already it seemed necessary to start a discussion instead of attempting to explain in edit summaries and risk being accused of being disruptive. Now that I've explained it, I'm going to again remove the non-notable award again. -- 109.78.196.134 (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither TriBeCa Productions nor Marzano Films are listed in the credits for the film. I could not find any sources linking TriBeCa to the finished film; as far as I can tell their relationship with the film ended at some earlier point in development. The Marzano Films website says that they provided aerial/drone coordination on the film. John Marzano appears in the film credits as the aerial director of photography. - EstrellaPlus (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that. If anyone tries to add production companies I will direct them here and ask them to show sources first. -- 109.79.179.206 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can find, there is no direct evidence that Hong Chau provides the voice for Opal Koboi. All I can find is online guesswork that has simply been repeated by the sources cited in this article. This Screen Rant article notes that "It's been speculated that Chau might have provided Opal's voice - or even may have been intended to play the character outright - but there's nothing official to support this." I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts about whether these statements should remain in this article. EstrellaPlus (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be removed. Its statement as fact on this page has caused confusion online. It's never been stated officially by anyone at all. Glad to see someone else notice this. Idk why any media article ever speculated it in the first place... JasonBall34 (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anachronist, I didn't want to start an edit war so I added this section on the talk page and waited a few weeks before I made my revision. I'm wondering if I can get your thoughts here before I try revising again. Given the source I've cited above, is there a way you think information on Hong Chau should be reflected in the article? EstrellaPlus (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EstrellaPlus: My revert of your edit was done without knowing about this talk page section. I saw that you removed a bunch of sources, leaving a paragraph that did not cite any sources. I reverted you on that basis alone, without regard to the accuracy of the content. If the sources wouldn't be considered reliable, then you would be correct in removing them. Is that the general assessment here? The sources are unreliable? ~Anachronist (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct, the sources are unreliable. Thank you for your reply! EstrellaPlus (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you guys figured this out. Looks good now. JasonBall34 (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]