Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 4:34 AM   
 By:   Steve Vertlieb   (Member)


An analysis of the box office failure, and a look at a few of the reasons why it may have disappointed audiences.


gullcottageonline.com/WTFabouttheBFGreviewVertlie.html



Steve

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 4:35 AM   
 By:   Steve Vertlieb   (Member)

Don't know why the link is not working.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 4:51 AM   
 By:   Mikey   (Member)

Maybe this will work.

http://www.gullcottageonline.com/WTFabouttheBFGreviewVertlie.html

 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 5:09 AM   
 By:   Heath   (Member)

Now more than ever, Spielberg isn't making movies for the dough (as long as the investors get their money back anyway), but for posterity. Most if not all of his films will have a shelf life waaaay beyond the dumb superhero movies that earn a ton then vanish from the mind. He really cannot fail in that regard. smile

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 6:59 AM   
 By:   Kim Peterson   (Member)

This might be part of the problem"...and moving musical score by our greatest living film composer, John Willimas,...", they did not hire the right composer. Who is this Willimas person?

 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 7:01 AM   
 By:   Tom Maguire   (Member)

The title. I'd contribute 80% of the reason to the title.
From people that went they said it was good.
2016 is the Summer of Bombs.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 7:08 AM   
 By:   hollywoodvegas   (Member)

Overall Roald Dahl's novels have all fared rather poorly at the box office despite the quality of the films. The only success being Burton's unique, but flawed Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

I can say with confidence that the title was also a little confusing and the penetration of the marketing failed. My wife, who's an avid reader, was unaware of the film when we saw it 4 weeks into it's run. We both felt that it was a wonderful film.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 7:16 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

I saw the film and enjoyed it. I think that the title is not very effective. Beyond that it is like a British whimsy piece, like a Terry Gilliam work. That is not a bad thing for me. But domestic audiences seem to like their cinematic servings very predictable and usually some kind of reboot or sequel. I am disappointed that it did not do better, this just reinforced studio patterns of funding the comic book sequel reboot stuff they have been glutting on for the past 5 years or so.

Spielberg is a terrific filmmaker and he has some good things lined up, he will bounce back just fine.

 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 7:34 AM   
 By:   Gunnar   (Member)

I didn't warm to the film, although I wanted to. I blame this in part on my disinterest in animated films and films with too much CGI. And I found the core message (as I perceived it) not very inspired - appeal to authority and let the powerful sort out your problems. Yes, you could blame Roald Dahl for it, but then it was Spielberg who chose this as his project. Perhaps I'm just coming more from the Astrid Lindgren side of child literature.
I bought the score a month ago and am looking forward to listening to it, now that I have seen the film.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 7:51 AM   
 By:   pete   (Member)

Not surprisingly, it performed better in the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2016/jul/26/the-bfg-top-spot-uk-box-office-spielberg-star-trek-beyond

Another 11 million from Australia, so perhaps it'll at least break even one day.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/BFG-The/Australia#tab=international

And I plan to see it tomorrow in Korea, so add $10 to the above figures.

 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 8:12 AM   
 By:   Mike Esssss   (Member)

As much as anything I think it's simply that "A Film by Steven Spielberg" doesn't carry the marketing weight it used to. His last game changing hit was JURASSIC PARK, and that's well over twenty years ago now. He's made plenty of successful movies since then and in many ways has become a much more interesting filmmaker, but there's a new generation driving the box office now for whom the name doesn't mean anything. Nor does Roald Dahl, sadly, so you're left with an oddly (confusingly?) titled movie that looks a lot like every other fantasy movie out there.

 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 8:25 AM   
 By:   johnbijl   (Member)

There was literally promised nothing new, fresh or exciting in the marketing or trailers. It was all like we've seen before. It felt... dull.

The whole campaign was lazy, relying on names which also really did nothing new or exciting for decades. Even the nostalgia-card doesn't work here: it's not like we haven't seen a lively book adaptation, even for a Roald Dahl-story. It's all very 'been there, done that'.

On top of that, Spielberg hasn't been associated with young entertainment for a while. His audience is now people who go to see The Book Thief or The War Horse. I don't think an animated children's book is on their priority list.

Perhaps BFG is a good film, and even an exciting one, but the whole introduction of it screams 'old fashioned', 'too easy' and 'cash grab'.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 8:26 AM   
 By:   Bob Bryden   (Member)

Now more than ever, Spielberg isn't making movies for the dough (as long as the investors get their money back anyway), but for posterity. Most if not all of his films will have a shelf life waaaay beyond the dumb superhero movies that earn a ton then vanish from the mind. He really cannot fail in that regard. smile

Bravo, Heath. Well said. I saw 'BFG' and at first had to adjust thinking 'ok, it's a kiddie's flick' but by the end I was absolutely floored. Great Williams' score too.

 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 8:26 AM   
 By:   Gunnar   (Member)

You make a good point here, Mike. What's more - what message does "A film by Steven Spielberg" carry nowadays? To film buffs, it will be (at least) the promise of very gifted storytelling on many different levels with some of the best talent that's out there in Hollywood. But as he refuses to stay in one genre (and I applaud him for that), it's not really anything the average moviegoer could rely on to see a certain type of film he/she might like.

 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 8:38 AM   
 By:   SchiffyM   (Member)

For me personally, as someone who remains interested in the promise of "A Steven Spielberg Film," the title, poster art, and ad campaign (with its reference to "human beans") was just so off-puttingly twee. The tone of it recalled "Hook," for me the most excruciating film Spielberg ever made. The often positive reviews just couldn't get me past that.

 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 8:39 AM   
 By:   mstrox   (Member)

This might be part of the problem"...and moving musical score by our greatest living film composer, John Willimas,...", they did not hire the right composer. Who is this Willimas person?

I don't know why Spielberg didn't just stick with a proven, successful composer. Thomas Newman delivered an OSCAR-NOMINATED score for "Bridge of Spies." Doesn't get much better than that!

 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 8:44 AM   
 By:   mstrox   (Member)

The BFG was sandwiched between two hugely successful, "conventional" summer animated movies - "Finding Dory" and "The Secret Life of Pets." One had an established brand behind it, and the other had frenetic trailers full of jokes - and a huge marketing campaign on kids' TV channels. The trailers for BFG that I saw didn't really do a great job of selling the movie to kids (or to me either, and I'm a big Spielberg fan). The reviews were lukewarm to lukewarmly positive.

This shouldn't have been a July release. If this had opened up with no other children's movie competition, it would have done much better.

I do look forward to catching this on Blu-ray, though. Much more than the other two aforementioned movies.

 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 9:18 AM   
 By:   Mike Esssss   (Member)

This shouldn't have been a July release. If this had opened up with no other children's movie competition, it would have done much better.

TRUTH

This has been the most constipated summer in recent memory. All the mind numbing tentpoles are basically plugging each other up.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 10:05 AM   
 By:   Hurdy Gurdy   (Member)

I enjoyed it overall, but can see why it failed to click (it's never TERMINAL terrible though).
For me, it started well in old London town (even if the dialogue didn't fit the scenery..Victorian looking London with 80's clad drunks and the kid saying 'you're bladdered').
Once we got to Giant Country, I thought it was terrible for about 30 minutes.
Just horrible scenes that went on and on, neither funny or endearing.
I never really warmed to the kid either. She was too stagey and am-dram for me, like the Harry Potter kids in the early films (not that they improved that much, but that's another thread).
But it picked up and improved as it went along and the Queen/Buckingham Palace scenes were great and provided the best laughs I've had in the cinema all year.
For a kids/E.T style Spielberg film, it lacked heart. I never really cared. The FX were very good and Williams' score was predictably excellent, helping the film immeasurably at times. Rylance as the giant was impressive too. But it just lacked that...something to elevate it above the usual/norm.
I imagine Daily Mail readers would vote it their film of the decade!

 
 Posted:   Aug 9, 2016 - 10:34 AM   
 By:   Tom Maguire   (Member)

This shouldn't have been a July release. If this had opened up with no other children's movie competition, it would have done much better.

Yes. Easy to Monday Morning Quarterback but this very much should have been a prestige November or December release.
With a better title.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.
Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.