Spielberg’s BFG - North American opening weekend flop

[Justus]

Spielberg’s BFG - opening weekend flop

 

 

 

Disney and Spielberg’s BFG, with a net budget of $140 million, is bombing in North America, where the family film earned $19.6 million for the three-day weekend from 3,357 locations. The movie’s four-day debut is projected to come in at $23.6 million.

 

Enough with digging up old fantasy works to "Spielberg-ize." The culture is not exactly flipping over that kind of material in the age of constant superhero successes. Perhaps public interest in other genres is the reason Spielberg tried to write off the superhero film last year. Like it or not, they are at the head of the new film myth, not BFG.

[ShadowDog]

Heh heh heh

[Darth Krawlie]

Okay

[Poe Dameron]

I'd say it's more unfortunate than it is something to crow about. There aren't enough solid pure family movies out there that aren't animated or a Disney live-action remake. It was already tough to get films in this genre made. When Spielberg + Disney (even though Disney didn't try very hard) isn't enough for a moderate success, then we're going to be stuck without it. Which would you prefer get made? A Spielberg family movie in the vein of E.T. or more cheap horror crap like The Purge or The Conjuring?

 

Actually, it beat expectations by a bit. Despite pretty good reviews, Disney wasn't trying that hard to generate buzz or push it into extra theaters. Instead they milked Finding Dory and wrote off The BFG. Also, they probably should have changed the title. I mean, I'm generally down with keeping the original even if it's a bit dated too, but you can't call something The BFG post-1993 and not get a snicker. Didn't help that a new Doom game just came out like yesterday. C'mon, just change the title to The Big Friendly Giant and avoid the headache.

 

I'm more scratching my head wondering how Tarzan found an audience. I had that penciled in as a bomb. Audience confusion?

 

Edit: Oh, just noticed that Tarzan's budget was $180 million. So they're still going to lose money on that one. Why are these huge budgets being green lit for movies without much upside?

[Driver]

More live action family films-- agreed!

 

But the BFG trailers invoked ZERO Speilberg feels. It was no ET. It wasn't even a Hook. It looked like another overly tired FX driven force-the-kids-to-like-it snoozer. My love for Speilberg has waned-- but I at least give him credit for trying. This just looked boring as hell. Old school Stephen relied on one of three things-- a very normal/relatable person/family in a crazy situation, a fantasy world that looks amazing and fun, and often times, BOTH.

 

The BFG may try for those, but I think it missed hard.

[Dark Wader]

Yeah that is so true...when I heard he was making it I was really looking forward to it, as I thought it would be something he is naturally suited too. But the first preview I saw last week just looked dull like you said.

[Poe Dameron]

Old school Stephen relied on one of three things-- a very normal/relatable person/family in a crazy situation, a fantasy world that looks amazing and fun, and often times, BOTH.

 

Personally, the thought that went through my head watching the trailer was "Harry Potter". Basically the Columbus directed ones when the kids were young and Dobby was the big special effect. I didn't think that was a bad thing.

 

Ah well, British children's novel adaptations are a tough sell (Harry Potter aside) even though they often turn out well. Dahl's had several that struggled at the box office, but found their audience after awhile (Willy Wonka, James and the Giant Peach, and The Fantastic Mr. Fox). Maybe this will be the same.

 

Or maybe there's just too much CGI fatigue today and this should have been made 15 years ago.

[ShadowDog]

I wonder, was there ever "rubber suit" fatigue from 1950s-1960s audiences?

 

Maybe there was "painted backdrop fatigue" in the 40s or "too many background extras" fatigue in the 30s.

[Poe Dameron]

I think it's an internet thing.

 

All I really know is that if The Two Towers came out today, the reaction to Gollum wouldn't be, "Andy Serkis should be nominated for an Oscar, let's use him for every mo-capped CGI character ever!"

[Driver]

I wonder, was there ever "rubber suit" fatigue from 1950s-1960s audiences?

 

Maybe there was "painted backdrop fatigue" in the 40s or "too many background extras" fatigue in the 30s.

I think there was actually.

 

SFX used to cause a sense of wonder, and could buy a lot of leeway. A mediocre movie with crazy cool effects used to have merit for something. But now, literally anything is possible and the shallowness of fx driven films stands out.

 

Compare Aliens to Avatar for example.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

 

I wonder, was there ever "rubber suit" fatigue from 1950s-1960s audiences?

 

Maybe there was "painted backdrop fatigue" in the 40s or "too many background extras" fatigue in the 30s.

I think there was actually.

 

SFX used to cause a sense of wonder, and could buy a lot of leeway. A mediocre movie with crazy cool effects used to have merit for something. But now, literally anything is possible and the shallowness of fx driven films stands out.

 

Compare Aliens to Avatar for example.

 

When it comes to Godzilla, that mofo better be a dude in a rubber suit, not CGI.

[Poe Dameron]

 

SFX used to cause a sense of wonder, and could buy a lot of leeway. A mediocre movie with crazy cool effects used to have merit for something. But now, literally anything is possible and the shallowness of fx driven films stands out.

 

Compare Aliens to Avatar for example.

 

Unless I'm not understanding what you're trying to say, that seems like a bad example. Avatar and the other 3D movies that followed in its wake like Alice in Wonderland were sort of the last to get people to turn off their judgement in exchange for oohing and aahing over a "new" special effect.

 

In a lot of ways, Avatar is the last film to fall into the category of mediocre movies that have merit for its place in movie history because of its special effects. So far, it's been a lasting legacy too since 3D continues to draw extra people to the theaters willing to pay a premium instead of waiting to watch the movies at home.

[Driver]

That's my point, Avatar was the last spectacle fx driven film and it made bank, but in retrospect no one really likes it and it will be remembered for bring back 3D not for being a good movie.

 

Compare to Aliens, which had ground breaking fx that still hold up, and yet it's considered a modern classic for countless other reasons.

[D-Ray Kenobi]

Bad marketing and bad timing. Feel good, effects heavy, family fare is way better suited for a weekend on or near Thanksgiving or Christmas. Throwing it in the middle of Summer when there are so many other blockbusters and franchises was kind of a boneheaded move.

[Guest]

I didn't even know it was coming out until I read about the poor box office.

 

I admit that I don't watch a ton of TV or anything, but I'm still the core demographic for a family movie, so I would agree that the marketing didn't do much to reach people like me.

[Poe Dameron]

Bad marketing and bad timing. Feel good, effects heavy, family fare is way better suited for a weekend on or near Thanksgiving or Christmas.

 

Aye. This strikes me as a perfect Christmas movie. Looking at the schedule, December 9 would have been just right. It's a few weeks after the Thanksgiving rush including the similarly targeted Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them and would give Disney's own Moana some breathing space to find an audience.

 

Rogue One would easily eclipse it a week later, but The BFG would still soak in plenty of families over the Christmas season. There'd be some slight cannibalizing of their own audience, but not much. Plus it probably would have done better in the foreign markets if released then. Spielberg's Tintin was a bust over here, but got saved by a strong overseas run a few Christmases back.

 

I can only conclude that Disney just didn't have much faith in the movie and was content to bury it.

[Driver]

Marketing ate it here-- they had a great set-up with it being Speilberg's first Disney movie.

[Justus]

But the idea behind it all-- of Spielberg loving Disney, and eventually producing a film with the company--means nothing to this culture. He's still hung up on the old myths of Disney, but no one else is, so there would be no thrill to hear "Spielberg's finally doing a Disney film."

 

Maybe...just maybe it would have worked in the early 1980s (before he beat everyone over the head in 100,000 interviews about the influence), but that time and cultural interest has passed. Hell, when anyone says "Disney" today, they think of franchises of a very different nature created by non-Disney talents.

[Driver]

That's a very good point actually-- that approach would only be relevant to people who grew up on Speilberg's Amblin era, not the trainwrecks he makes now.

[Poe Dameron]

But the idea behind it all-- of Spielberg loving Disney, and eventually producing a film with the company--means nothing to this culture. He's still hung up on the old myths of Disney, but no one else is, so there would be no thrill to hear "Spielberg's finally doing a Disney film."

 

Maybe...just maybe it would have worked in the early 1980s (before he beat everyone over the head in 100,000 interviews about the influence), but that time and cultural interest has passed. Hell, when anyone says "Disney" today, they think of franchises of a very different nature created by non-Disney talents.

Disney as a cultural brand is in GREAT shape at the moment. The best they've been since at least the early-90s. The fairly pedestrian Zootopia and these live-action remakes wouldn't be box office gold if Disney weren't highly relevant, and for more than just the MCU and Star Wars.

 

The most baffling part of your statement is that the early-80s were the nadir of Disney as a brand. Even their run of modestly successful safe family movies like Freaky Friday, Escape to Witch Mountain, The Apple Dumpling Gang, and Herbie sequels that they put out through the 70s had completely dried up. Back then Disney was a cultural relic suffering diminishing returns on Walt's legacy after years of lousy management and awkward attempts to change with the times (The Black Hole and Tron). The company was almost totally dependent on its theme parks and just barely escaped a hostile takeover that would have broken up the company.

 

Disney was a slowly rotting corpse that Spielberg was running circles around back then. It wasn't until Touchstone was founded and started modernizing the company, starting with Splash and then setting the table for reinvigorating the animation department with Who Framed Roger Rabbit that things got back on track by the end of the 80s.

[D-Ray Kenobi]

Personally, I haven't been that big of a fan of Disney Animation in the past decade or so. I wish they'd carve their own niche with classical hand drawn animation than continue to ride on Pixar's coattails. I don't think the Disney that Spielberg may have wanted to contribute to really exists anymore.

But yeah, as an umbrella studio and brand, they pretty much own the medium right now.

[Poe Dameron]

 

 

I wish they'd carve their own niche with classical hand drawn animation than continue to ride on Pixar's coattails.

 

Aye, that would have been nice. They tried with The Princess and the Frog, but they didn't try all that hard. What I'd give for Disney to go all-in on fully realizing what they started in merging the two mediums like they started with Tangled and then Paperman.

 

Those two are the jewels of Disney's animation efforts post-Tarzan. I personally put Tangled as the 2nd best CGI animated film ever made, behind only Inside Out. Sadly, that experiment appears to have been mostly abandoned outside of Feast, which was a bit of a failure in my opinion.

[Justus]

 

But the idea behind it all-- of Spielberg loving Disney, and eventually producing a film with the company--means nothing to this culture. He's still hung up on the old myths of Disney, but no one else is, so there would be no thrill to hear "Spielberg's finally doing a Disney film."

 

Maybe...just maybe it would have worked in the early 1980s (before he beat everyone over the head in 100,000 interviews about the influence), but that time and cultural interest has passed. Hell, when anyone says "Disney" today, they think of franchises of a very different nature created by non-Disney talents.

Disney as a cultural brand is in GREAT shape at the moment. The best they've been since at least the early-90s. The fairly pedestrian Zootopia and these live-action remakes wouldn't be box office gold if Disney weren't highly relevant, and for more than just the MCU and Star Wars.

 

The most baffling part of your statement is that the early-80s were the nadir of Disney as a brand. Even their run of modestly successful safe family movies like Freaky Friday, Escape to Witch Mountain, The Apple Dumpling Gang, and Herbie sequels that they put out through the 70s had completely dried up. Back then Disney was a cultural relic suffering diminishing returns on Walt's legacy after years of lousy management and awkward attempts to change with the times (The Black Hole and Tron). The company was almost totally dependent on its theme parks and just barely escaped a hostile takeover that would have broken up the company.

 

Disney was a slowly rotting corpse that Spielberg was running circles around back then. It wasn't until Touchstone was founded and started modernizing the company, starting with Splash and then setting the table for reinvigorating the animation department with Who Framed Roger Rabbit that things got back on track by the end of the 80s.

 

Its not about the state of Disney in the early 80s--its about Spielberg's neverending praise and personal stories about its influence at the time. It did not matter that the studio was suffering, he was the biggest professional cheerleader of his generation, leaving Lucas and the rest of the "New Hollywood" filmmakers in the dust in that regard. That's why his early 80's career (not counting Raiders, for obvious, GL reasons) was his directing or producing a wealth of saccharine-drunk, cutesy fantasies.

 

About your modern day Disney observation, remove Marvel and Star Wars, and what is the shape of the studio? Its not like Disney is the cultural vanguard it was in the WW2 years. Spielberg's love for the studio is based on his being in a state of wonderment over old memories of that (manufactured) clean, suburban, sparkles and sprite imagery, not anything modern. Considering his trying to predict the death of superhero films (2015), you can bet when he says or thinks of "Disney," he's not thinking of the current output which replaced his own films as modern myth.

[Poe Dameron]

About your modern day Disney observation, remove Marvel and Star Wars, and what is the shape of the studio?

 

They would still be the top grossing studio this year by over $200 million (that's just domestic). Oh, and their nearest competitor Fox? They're only that close because of Deadpool and X-Men.

 

They would claim 3 of the top 5 movies released this year instead of 4 of the top 5.

 

Disney's having just about the best year any studio has ever had at the box office and it's far from only because of Marvel and Star Wars. Heck, they've only released one Marvel movie so far this year.

 

 

 

That's why his early 80's career (not counting Raiders, for obvious, GL reasons) was his directing or producing a wealth of saccharine-drunk, cutesy fantasies.

 

Spielberg's filmography as director (1980-1984):

 

-Raiders of the Lost Ark

-E.T.

-The Twilight Zone (one segment)

-Temple of Doom

 

Plus its an open secret that he pretty much directed a lot of Poltergeist.

 

That hardly strikes me as a set of movies I would refer to as saccharine-drunk cutesy fantasies. We've got the two most violent and least sentimental Indy movies, a horror movie, one segment of The Twilight Zone, and E.T.. Seems to me his most saccharine bit of direction outside of E.T. was the segment of The Twilight zone.

 

How about his producer credits?

 

-Blues Brothers (R-rated comedy)

-Used Cars (R-rated satirical comedy)

-Continental Divide (Belushi trying to be Spencer Tracy)

-Gremlins (dark comedy)

-Room 666 (documentary about filmmaking)

 

Nothing there really that helps your case.

[Justus]

 

 

Spielberg's filmography as director (1980-1984):

 

-Raiders of the Lost Ark

-E.T.

-The Twilight Zone (one segment)

-Temple of Doom

 

Plus its an open secret that he pretty much directed a lot of Poltergeist.

 

That hardly strikes me as a set of movies I would refer to as saccharine-drunk cutesy fantasies. We've got the two most violent and least sentimental Indy movies, a horror movie, one segment of The Twilight Zone, and E.T.. Seems to me his most saccharine bit of direction outside of E.T. was the segment of The Twilight zone.

 

How about his producer credits?

 

-Blues Brothers (R-rated comedy)

-Used Cars (R-rated satirical comedy)

-Continental Divide (Belushi trying to be Spencer Tracy)

-Gremlins (dark comedy)

-Room 666 (documentary about filmmaking)

 

Nothing there really that helps your case.

 

I will quickly pick apart your attempt to defend Spielberg from the saccharine charge:

 

• Raiders: GL's creation, and it owed more to the Kaufman influence (centering the story on Nazi's pursuit of religious artifacts) than any of Spielberg's contributions. Spielberg has said he was bored shooting some of the film, which indicated a certain detachment from the full creative process.
• Temple of Doom: Spielberg has whined about this film since 1984, accusing Lucas of trying to mirror the Star Wars trilogy by having a dark middle act. So, any of the darkness of TOD lands in the lap of one George Lucas.
• Poltergeist: Rumors need not apply. Only facts, and when we look at Hooper's 1970s credits, directing The Texas Chainsaw Massacre--without question, one of the most horrifying films in cinema history. If that was not enough, Hooper ended the decade by directing the first adaptation of Salem's Lot, a miniseries almost universally praised for its numerous terrifying scenes, performances, and smothering sense of growing dread. With those credits, by the dawn of the 1980s, Hooper was arguably as much a king of modern horror as Romero or Carpenter, so when it comes to Poltergeist, I find it suspect for some to still sell the "ghost director" idea, when Spielberg corrected the myth himself.

Now, for a guy (Spielberg) who--up to that time--was as far removed from creative frights as one could be...but just so happened to have one of modern horror's greats as director, a rational mind is not going to drape credit on Spielberg for selecting a few camera set ups, or participating in some of the storyboarding.

 

IF the director was anyone else, the "ghost director" charge would have more weight, but one cannot be an honest observer yet pretend a man with Hooper's sensibilities did not shape the final version.

 

• E.T.: "Healthy Teeth & Diabetics Be Warned!" should have been the tag for this film, one Columbia passed on (after the rewrites) during the Night Skies phase because in their view, it was, "A wimpy, Walt Disney movie." That is a direct quote, and they were not kidding.
• Gremilins: Oh, come on. "dark comedy?" The end result of that fructose-filled affair was Christmas 1984 retail shelves overflowing with plastic and plush Gizmo figures, certainly more than Stripe. After E.T. the cutesy virus escaped, with infested filmmakers wanting more cute puppets in fantasy films.
• Twilight Zone: the Movie: Let's see...if anyone thought about adapting any of the 156 episodes of the Serling classic, picks "Kick the Can," but it concludes on a pure, Disney-esque note, then I can argue that Spielberg was so single minded in his sugary world view, that he dared to alter one of best moments of the original TTZ series. As a result, he upended, then wrecked the dual message of the original episode.

That you even reference Used Cars--a film taking most of its lower-end comedic cues from iJohn Milius, seems reaching, as it was Milius who created the story. We both know what period of Spielberg's career we are talking about, and the projects typifying his Disney-minded world view.