Tema: Artemis Fowl (Kenneth Branagh, 2019)

Iniciado por PrimeCallahan

Bueno, es que HUELE que Disney le privo a Branagh de libertad creativa.

No es nada sorprendente, Disney es muy bipolar, a veces hacen CASO a los directores y les dejan cierta base para trabajar y a veces, les sale del orto, el CORTARLE las alas en aras del beneficio verde.


Yo mantengo que desde John Carter (la ultima peli, que denoto que a Stanton le dieron cuartel y despues de la misma), el estudio ha estudiado el hacer peliculas a base de IPs, dentro de unos margenes, no vaya a ser que venga un director y se ponga creativo y nos joda el tinglado.

Yo lo veo aún más torcido.
Creo que Disney estudia hacer sus películas viendo algoritmos de internet sobre qué es lo que más le gusta y le divierte a la gente.
Incluso ni me creo "personalidad" de Tom Holland y Mark Ruffalo en redes sociales y pases de prensa. Para mi todo está guionizado por el ratón. Fijate como en 10 años, las IP y "estílo de vida" Disney son los reyes indiscutibles de las conversaciones de internet.

Iniciado por JuanGuijarro

Yo lo veo aún más torcido.
Creo que Disney estudia hacer sus películas viendo algoritmos de internet sobre qué es lo que más le gusta y le divierte a la gente.
Incluso ni me creo "personalidad" de Tom Holland y Mark Ruffalo en redes sociales y pases de prensa. Para mi todo está guionizado por el ratón. Fijate como en 10 años, las IP y "estílo de vida" Disney son los reyes indiscutibles de las conversaciones de internet.

simplemente Disney mete por la trituradora todo proyecto que tiene en sus manos para amoldarlo a lo que le funciona de verdad, y hay proyectos que no pueden hacerse a imagen y semejanza de los anteriores por su complejidad argumental ( vease esta pelicula como ejemplo claro), tiene miedo a arriesgar y luego pasan estas cosas.

De Reddit:


I am acquainted with several people who (while they did not directly work on the film's production) were a part of its scrapped original marketing efforts back when it was a 2019 release.

Now, as I obviously can't reveal who these people are because they might be fired and have no way of verifying their comments for myself, you are absolutely free to believe or disbelieve it as much as you want.

Back in mid-2018, after the movie wrapped production it was already in trouble. Disney executives were already very unhappy with a potential franchise starter that featured such an unlikeable protagonist and after seeing the movie they went into meltdown. This cut was (from what I was told) pretty close to the plot of the original novel apart from the obvious changes like Root being a woman.

The plot was about kidnapping Holly to ransom the gold with Artemis as the anti-hero from the books and there was no Josh Gad narration. Opal was not in the movie (or if she was, it was an incredibly small role) and Hong Chau was simply playing the Vietnamese fairy. There was no mention of Artemis' father apart from the fact he disappeared and Miranda Raison played his mentally unbalanced mother.

After this cut didn't test well, Disney decided that reshoots and re-edits were in order. First up, Artemis now needed a "reason" to kidnap Holly, as they certainly weren't prepared to cut all the expensive footage shot for the assault on Fowl Manor but also weren't prepared to let Artemis act like a greedy jerk.

Because Josh Gad was the only element the executives liked, it was decided to kill two birds with one stone by beefing his role up and making him the narrator for the film, thus allowing them to cut most of the exposition scenes from the beginning and rework the plot at their leisure since his narration could cover up any gaps.

While Artemis Fowl Sr. did not appear in this second cut, it was revealed that Opal Koboi had kidnapped him and was ransoming him for the fairy gold. Given that Hong Chau was already contracted to the film and the fact that they didn't initially want to cut the expensive Ho Chi Minh sequence, it was decided to rework her character into being Opal Koboi.
After this cut failed to test well, it was decided to push the movie back while more extreme reshoots/re-edits went on. These were to add Artemis Sr into the film, while also changing Opal's motivation to something considered a bit stronger, namely seeking an object of extreme power called the Aculos.

As Hong Chau was not available for these reshoots, Opal was instead kept totally in shadow with a distorted voice, just in case they decided to recast with a more famous actress should the sequel come around. This entirely new subplot had the knock-on effect of causing many major supporting characters to be cut from the film as their scenes now made no sense with the new story. These included Holly's father and Artemis' mother amongst others.

It was also decided to add in many more scenes of Artemis being "relatable" and kind and in turn delete most of the scenes where he acted maliciously, like the Vietnam sequence. Though of course in this process, countless other scenes were deleted as well; that's why despite being built up, both Butler and Briar Cudgeon are barely in the film.

Many, if not all of the deleted scenes on Disney+ are likely from the second cut of the film as they include both the Josh Gad narration and references to gold/stealing the fairy book.

Now again, I must stress that not only can I not confirm the veracity of these claims, but the people who made them did not actually work on the movie while it was in production. These are just their extrapolations based on the raw marketing materials and clips they worked on over 2018/2019 and the rumors they heard during that time.

Allegedly one of the reasons why Branagh felt compelled to go along with such massive reshoots/re-edits in the first place was because Disney essentially held his film Death on the Nile to ransom.

After the Fox Merger Disney now had the power to decide whether to cancel the film or not so I think Branagh understood that he had to play ball if he wanted the movie to go ahead.

Sí, bueno. El cheque.

Los malos de Disney y los buenos creativos poniendo la mano para cobrar.

La historia de siempre del autor oprimido por la corporación maligna de señores con sombrero de copa y puro.

Ya se ha llevado buenas pagas Kenneth Brannagh de Disney, como de Cenicienta. Así se puede pagar Belfast y tantas otras.

Yo vi la película cuando salió - y no la he vuelto a ver, no he visto la necesidad. Le vi algún que otro errorcillo y cosa que fue un poco meh, pero en general.. aunque no es una peli redonda, a mi me entretuvo, aunque tenga algunos paripés. Yo me lo creo, no por poner a Disney mala, si no porque es típico de productores de Hollywood en general cuando no entienden la fuente original y la quieren cambiar porque sí.

Iniciado por calita

Sí, bueno. El cheque.

Los malos de Disney y los buenos creativos poniendo la mano para cobrar.

La historia de siempre del autor oprimido por la corporación maligna de señores con sombrero de copa y puro.

Ya se ha llevado buenas pagas Kenneth Brannagh de Disney, como de Cenicienta. Así se puede pagar Belfast y tantas otras.

Claro, pero Cenicienta estuvo muy bien y se veía su personalidad tras las cámara, que sea un encargo puede justificar las cosas hasta cierto punto. También se paga sus producciones teatrales.

Lo lleva haciendo toda la vida. ¿Cual fue su segunda película después de Enrique V?. Dead Again, en USA, con guión de Scott Frank -que había pasado por las manos de chopocientos directores antes de llegar a Branagh- y producción de Sidney Pollack. Técnicamente, un encargo, aunque luego el resultado final fuese muy Branagh. Con esa y los amigos de peter financió rodar Mucho Ruido y Pocas Nueces en la Toscana durante 6 semanas.