The OP mentions in his piece that another Spielberg film with initials as its title, "E.T.", did very well, and he concludes that the title is not the problem. But the actual title was "E.T. - The Extra-Terrestrial." It was only after audiences became sufficiently aware of the meaning of the initials that the film's title was shortened to "E.T." in popular parlance. I think that "BFG: The Big Friendly Giant" would have gone a long way to eliminating any confusion.
Perhaps a better example would be Artificial Intelligence, a film being developed across 20 years under the title AI until focus groups looked at it and thought it was about steak sauce. (A1) So the studio made it AI: Artifical Intelligence.
I think that says more about the stupidity of people than anything else though.
Two words: Licence Revoked.
That said, the ambivalent name of the film is just part of the story. The overestimation of Spielberg's name is a second.
As a whole I thought the whole thing lacked passion in it's advertising. I thoroughly miss Spielberg's passion in moviemaking al together! When you look at successful films, you see moviemakers who dearly wanted to make something. A passion that will be well advertised in the marketing campaign and the interviews, tweets, reports and what more before hand. This can even be said about something as Suicide Squad (despite it's flaws).
With BFG, I have no idea why the film is there, other than it's here. Same for earlier films he made in the last years. When I hear Spielberg talking about movies, I *really* can't tell why he is making movies, other that that he does. It has become a craft, not art.
I am a bit shocked by some of the replies in this thread. In a year where we have kids films based on a mobile phone game (Angry Birds), an annoying toy (Trolls) and a boat load of lazy sequels. We have a film based on a classic (in some countries) book by one of the greatest popular filmmakers, adapted by the screenwriter of ET, starring a lauded theatre and film actor, and a score by John Williams, and people seem to be dismissing it because of the title! Tough crowd.
That being said, I do have some issues with the film itself. I just think the areas of criticism in this thread (mostly related to the source material, not the film) are weird and a reminder that for all the things we have in common as western countries, there are still some massive differences between our cultures.
...people seem to be dismissing it because of the title! Tough crowd.
First of all, I think were analyzing why the film wasn't the succes it should be, considering the material and the filmmakers, not dismissing it.
Second, as I just wrote, I think the title, the bankability of the makers' names and the lifeless marketing all were a explanation for the relative failure, not just the title.
[ First of all, I think were analyzing why the film wasn't the succes it should be, considering the material and the filmmakers, not dismissing it.
Second, as I just wrote, I think the title, the bankability of the makers' names and the lifeless marketing all were a explanation for the relative failure, not just the title.
That is a fair point. I do think the marketing worked well in the UK where it is a known title, but from what you are all saying the marketing campaign and title should have been altered to suit the States where it is far less famous. I was more surprised by the people here on a film related message board, rather than the general public not giving those particular filmmakers more credit to make an interesting film beyond the marketing. But as you've said, maybe the reputation of Spielberg and others isn't what it used to be.
Very funny. I concur. Those initials must have put everyone off.
Or, as Holden Caulfield would say: "Very big deal."
Though I still plan to see it.
Speaking of Holden Caulfield, the comments I've witnessed from Americans in this thread regarding the book's title would be akin to us Europeans lambasting how poor the title CATCHER IN THE RYE is. What's that about, anyway? Rye bread? What a terrible title! It doesn't sell the book very well. It should be called ANGRY, YOUNG MAN instead. Who is this J.D. Salinger?
Since this is the troublesome link that instigated such a provocative and most fascinating thread, perhaps some answers or final clarification may be found within its context.
I think they (Disney et al) probably did take issue with the title. As we know from this very board, nothing can be taken for granted. If you represented the Dahl estate, however, what would you do? And, if you wanted to make the film one way or the other . . .
Just a few years ago he directed a film that was surely not intended (or expected) to appeal to the masses : LINCOLN Yet, iir it grossed over 150 million in the USA
There is nothing 'diminished' by Spielberg's stature. He's not only the biggest and most famous director today, but probably also the biggest directors of all time in terms of sheer exposure.
I tried to get tickets for THE BFG when I was in Cannes, but despite having market accredition, I didn't get in -- neither the regular screening nor the gala screening. I stood in the 'unclaimed ticket' queue for the latter (in full smoking!), but hundreds of people WITH tickets had to be turned away. The hooplah surrounding him and his film outshined anything else in the festival -- and that for something "minor" as this film.
Speaking of Holden Caulfield, the comments I've witnessed from Americans in this thread regarding the book's title would be akin to us Europeans lambasting how poor the title CATCHER IN THE RYE is. What's that about, anyway? Rye bread? What a terrible title! It doesn't sell the book very well. It should be called ANGRY, YOUNG MAN instead. Who is this J.D. Salinger?
If THE CATCHER IN THE RYE was not as well known in the U.S. as it is (Am I dating myself? Is it still well-known in the U.S.?), it would also seem to be a nondescript title here.
When I think of lackluster titles, the film that comes to mind is a British film that I saw on television about 50 years ago: THE PUMPKIN EATER. The Penelope Mortimer novel that was the basis for this Anne Bancroft-Albert Finney domestic drama may have been a BFD in 1964 Britain, but it meant nothing to me, either then or now. And I can't imagine that it did much for the film's U.S. boxoffice, even though Anne Bancroft won the award for Best Actress at the 1964 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for an Academy Award. If you know nothing of the source material, that title is not going to draw you inexorably into the theater.
Re: "Pumpkin Eater": From an English nursery rhyme -
Peter, Peter pumpkin eater, Had a wife but couldn't keep her; He put her in a pumpkin shell And there he kept her very well. Peter, Peter pumpkin eater, Had another and didn't love her; Peter learned to read and spell, And then he loved her very well.
From Wikipedia: According to Time magazine, "The Pumpkin Eater of the nursery rhyme put his wife in a pumpkin shell, and there he kept her very well. Giving a wry contemporary twist to Mother Goose, Penelope Mortimer's vivid first-person novel suggests that the poor creature then swiftly developed shell shock. In this slow, strong, incisive film version of the book, the ironing out of a well-kept wife's unkempt psyche is portrayed with harrowing perception by Anne Bancroft."
Didn't Disney's very recent remake of The Jungle Book make a big hit? Did it do better than The BFG, and if so, who's talking about it now? Media noise buries everything fast.
