Spielberg Directing Roald Dahl Adaptation 'BFG'

[terry78]

Disney isn't crying, they still are in the lead this year regarding revenue. Every top grossing flick is theirs.

 

[Kyle]

Could care less about Disney. Disappointing to see a Spielberg film get this reception.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

I'd say the movie overall was good. Not great but good. Lots of heart, fun, levity, weirdness. The third act was a little weak but not too bad. The worst part to me was the cgi..it was just way too obvious and the compositing whenever the girl was being carried by the bfg was baaaddd. I couldn't help but think, they could've done this with actors and camera tricks like Darby o'gill and the little people or lotr. Combine it with some cgi and that could've been awesome. The girl's acting was really good though especially considering she must've been alone acting with nothing most of the time.

 

[Warhammer]

Could care less about Disney. Disappointing to see a Spielberg film get this reception.

He shouldn't have directing this then. Everyone and their mother knew this film wasn't going to be making money.

 

[Kyle]

He shouldn't have directing this then. Everyone and their mother knew this film wasn't going to be making money.

No. A lot of industry trades thought it was safe because of Spielberg. At worst people saw Tintin. Not how this is performing.

 

[Warhammer]

Well, they assumed wrong. For me, I was actually irritated like hell. We have Spielberg finally returning to the fantasy genre. We have Spielberg directing his first film for Disney. And it's about the damn BFG.

 

[Kyle]

It's about a beloved children's book by a beloved children's author? Yes. That's part of what's surprising about it. A year ago the film looked safe as hell. Month/s ago suspicion set in due to low twitter feedback on it. The results came this weekend.

Here's a variety article on it and what this could dishearteningly mean beyond BFG: http://variety.com/2016/film/box-office/steven-spielberg-bfg-box-office-flop-1201808161/

Warning - the article is very doom and gloom.

 

[Warhammer]

That article is an over-exaggeration. Spielberg hasn't directed tentpoles consistently in years and years. A large chunk of his later career has been dramas. Also, if the general audience doesn't see films anymore because of who stars in it, they definitely won't go see films because a certain director is behind the helm.

To be quite honest, this movie bombed for three reasons. One, it's a crowded summer. Two, it's the BFG. And last but most important, the trailers and other promotion just didn't look appealing.

 

[Kyle]

That would be best case scenario, it only being this. But, frightened what will happen if 'Ready Player One' even underperforms. Studios going bonkers if it does, from everything I've experienced, is right up there with how suits do think. Suits are the definition of over reactors.

Plus seriously hoping Pete's Dragon, Monster Calls, and now Middle School: The Worst Years Of My Life do well because if only Jungle Book does - studios are going to chicken out again over live action films with child protagonists (non high school age). This is the year that has seen the most in a long while, I'd hate for suits to largely retreat from making these kinds of films again.

 

[Rocketman]

The writing's been on the wall for a while now that original, risky material has gone bye-bye. And not even this was an original property - it's based on a book. If it's not a sequel, reboot, TV show, comic or cartoon, forget it.

What's really terrifying is that Ninja Turtles, Batman/Superman, Warcraft, Independence Day and freakin' Steven Spielberg all underperformed. They should've been no-brainers.

Really, the point I'm making here is: Hollywood is stuck. They've backed themselves into a corner and now they don't know what to do.

 

[DarkKnight88]

He shouldn't have directing this then. Everyone and their mother knew this film wasn't going to be making money.

I'm sure he doesn't pick projects just based on how much money they'll make. He wanted to make BFG and thank God he did cause it's a really good movie. In the end, kids will be watching it years from now while some of the other recent "blockbusters" won't go beyond the year they were released.

Box office is a crap shoot. There's no guarantees with any project. This had just as much a chance to succeed as anything else.

 

[dark_b]

i think they didnt promote it enough.

 

[psylockolussus]

I'm not surprised with the #4 placement at the box-office. I saw the trailer of this when I saw Civil War, Finding Dory and Jungle Book and I wasn't interested at all. So I just skipped this movie and saw The Legend of Tarzan instead. And I have no plans of checking it out when its out in home media.

 

[Jonwo]

That article is an over-exaggeration. Spielberg hasn't directed tentpoles consistently in years and years. A large chunk of his later career has been dramas. Also, if the general audience doesn't see films anymore because of who stars in it, they definitely won't go see films because a certain director is behind the helm.

To be quite honest, this movie bombed for three reasons. One, it's a crowded summer. Two, it's the BFG. And last but most important, the trailers and other promotion just didn't look appealing.

I've read that Spielberg's contract dictated it had to be released either on July 4th weekend or Christmas. Disney probably didn't want to eat into Rogue One and Moana hence why they picked July. I personally think it would fared better at Christmas.

Spielberg will be fine despite The BFG flopping, he's got two films coming in the next year and I suspect Ready Player One will be very successful. Look at Ridley Scott, he had two duds after Prometheus then bounced back with The Martian.

i think they didnt promote it enough.

Disney have a small stake in the film but are only distributing it in the US and a handful of countries, it's been handled by local distributors elsewhere and Reliance in India so they're not really losing out.

 

[TheVileOne]

The writing's been on the wall for a while now that original, risky material has gone bye-bye. And not even this was an original property - it's based on a book. If it's not a sequel, reboot, TV show, comic or cartoon, forget it.

What's really terrifying is that Ninja Turtles, Batman/Superman, Warcraft, Independence Day and freakin' Steven Spielberg all underperformed. They should've been no-brainers.

That's actually not so terrifying at all. I mean Warcraft, IMHO, they made a bad and inaccessible movie. Also, Warcraft hasn't been that popular in the US in a long time. Independence Day was awful and doesn't compare at all to the original. OK, now maybe it's terrifying for the studio executives who are worried about their jobs. That their choices aren't working. They are following the money and not thinking about making solid high quality projects.

Ninja Turtles, I mean I thought it was good compared to the original. But the first movie they hurt a lot of good will with fans by making a really awful film. So people didn't really show up for the sequel.

It's not terrifying. I think it just shows that Hollywood is so desperate to only make big budget features based on existing properties is not a surefire, locked down strategy. And if they go about it the wrong way, audiences will reject them.

Studios have moved away from releasing more original stories and also more middle of the road mid-budget pictures. It's either micro-budget horror fare or its big budget sequels or adaptations. There's very rarely more mid-level mid-budget stories getting decent releases.

 

[Drizzle]

I've read that Spielberg's contract dictated it had to be released either on July 4th weekend or Christmas. Disney probably didn't want to eat into Rogue One and Moana hence why they picked July. I personally think it would fared better at Christmas.

Rogue One and Moana would have taken even more away from BFG, just like Finding Dory did now. I agree, this did seem like it would have fared better as a Christmas release.

 

[Kyle]

What's shocking to me is that Disney doesn't spread it's releases out. I mean, where's the sense in basically canabalizing your own product? Basically why release in July, a couple of weeks after you know you have a PIXAR movie that's looking to make bank rather than say - BFG in August, Pete's Dragon in October, etc. Wouldn't spreading it out potentially allow them to earn more money from their products and allow them time to properly market each one without competing against itself?

 

[terry78]

They probably have time slots they need to release these things.

 

[Kyle]

Thought studios decided when to place it, production companies had to release it in the possible slots the studio wanted...

Basically not laying it on the production companies which don't have a choice and have to meet a quota, rather why a studio would do it unless they have to block it out with theaters or something way in advance? Production companies basically act like the employees, with studios as the manager.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

According to some of the chatter on the bot boards, it was Spielberg who insisted on a July 4 or Xmas release. Also Disney is only in this for about 1/3 the production cost so they basically didn't care how it did.

 

[Kyle]

Well, you can see it elsewhere as well.

Dr. Strange - November 4
Moana - November 23
Rogue One - December 16

It's basically all compacted into one month and 11 days rather than spread out more. Unless there's a big Disney movie I don't know about Sept, Oct, Jan.

I would have placed Strange in early October, using Halloween to aid the marketing of it - that's when people are all into spirits, magic, and etc.. I would have put Noana closer to early to mid November. At least. Spreads it out further so they can spend more time focusing on the marketing and distribution of each rather than compacting it into a small window.

... that is if this is up to Disney rather than someone above them or having to meet theater requirements? As said, tightly compacted like that - they're competing against themselves.

 

[terry78]

The conspiracy theory is that Disney demands particular slots and showtimes for their films over anyone else. AMC has to comply or whatever. Who knows.

 

[Kyle]

Pretty sure that's how it is with all studios (choosing release dates, unsure how they can choose showtimes though since that largely depends around amount of time each theater has to clean, prep, have trailers attached, and etc...). The thing with Disney is forgot the exacts but "it needs to be in your largest screening room for this and that amount of weeks."

 

[Wheels]

Well, they assumed wrong. For me, I was actually irritated like hell. We have Spielberg finally returning to the fantasy genre. We have Spielberg directing his first film for Disney. And it's about the damn BFG.

Is the book a flaming bag of turds or something? What's wrong with the idea of making The BFG into a film?

 

[Drizzle]

Well, you can see it elsewhere as well.

Dr. Strange - November 4
Moana - November 23
Rogue One - December 16

It's basically all compacted into one month and 11 days rather than spread out more. Unless there's a big Disney movie I don't know about Sept, Oct, Jan.

I would have placed Strange in early October, using Halloween to aid the marketing of it - that's when people are all into spirits, magic, and etc.. I would have put Noana closer to early to mid November. At least. Spreads it out further so they can spend more time focusing on the marketing and distribution of each rather than compacting it into a small window.

... that is if this is up to Disney rather than someone above them or having to meet theater requirements? As said, tightly compacted like that - they're competing against themselves.

The placement for their fall releases isn't so bad when you think about it. Moana doesn't have the same target audience as Doctor Strange and Rogue One. All may be family friendly, but Moana definitely skews more toward the younger kiddie crowd. Plus, Doctor Strange has three weeks of breathing room before Moana is released. As does Moana before Rogue One. It's not like Finding Dory and BFG where they're both family films that are primarily aimed at younger kids, so the competition there is a lot closer. Of course people were going to take their kids to see a Pixar sequel to one of the highest grossing and popular animated movies of the past 20 years over an adaptation of a lesser known Roald Dahl book with no big name actors.