Not Every Film Should be a Platform

I'm a big Star Wars fan. Anyone who knows me even moderately knows that about me. Star Wars Episode IV had a material impact on my life at a very young age. Seeing Princess Leia running the Rebellion when I was seven years old taught me women could be strong and could be leaders. I also wanted to be Han Solo. I was really grossed out when he and Leia kissed.
     One thing I always appreciated about the Lucas-driven Star Wars franchise was that it was SAFE. Safe for parents looking to escape the stresses of every day life. Safe for kids seeking new ways to expand their imaginations and dream of worlds far, far away. Safe from all the pressures modern society puts upon us. Safe from all the sex that invades almost every other form of entertainment.
     So when I saw ScreenCrushes' article about Star Wars Celebration Europe, well, I was crushed. When did our world become so agenda-driven that even JJ Abrams has succumbed to the pressure to use our precious, safe Star Wars as a platform? You see, ScreenCrushes' writer pressured Abrams about including a gay character in the next episode and he said "Of course!"
     Wait! What??? Star Wars has NEVER been about sex. It's never been about the agenda du jour. It rises above our petty differences by NOT talking about things that would make a seven-year-old go "Blech!" Let's face it, when Anakin and Amidala got all mushy in Episode II, the target audience got the heebie jeebies. I mean, there was KISSING! How the heck is any character's sexual preference and/or gender identity supposed to fit into the Star Wars universe without alienating the biggest part of its dedicated audience? (Hint to Disney: you didn't buy it because the target audience was Starbuck's swilling 20-30 somethings with identity issues. You bought it because it appeals to the PG-aged set who also happen to buy tons of tie-in merchandise. Let's face it, if you're selling tie-ins at Toys R Us or the Disney Store, you're marketing it to kids despite MPAA ratings saying it's for 13+. You bought a franchise long marketed to 7+.)
     Here's another tip: 7-12 is NOT the appropriate age group to target gender identity or sexual preference messaging. At that age, kids are barely conscious of the fact that boys and girls have different equipment, and they're still convinced the other sex has cooties.
     Dear Hollywood, please don't destroy childhood innocence with your need to conform to every agenda out there. Star Wars and other child-friendly fare just isn't the place to talk about sex, and sexual preference is too mature a topic for kids under the age of 12. It is an excellent place to continue to show diversity by placing characters of varying race and species in close proximity. But let's not up the gross factor by making sexual preference a big deal where a simple kiss between opposite gender adults is barely more than kids can stomach. By forcing this into family-targeted films, you may be "including" 2% of the U.S. population, but you'll be excluding 80% of your current audience by forcing conscientious parents of elementary school cootie-believers to skip the next film. (Not because of the gay aspect, but because of the forced focus on topics too mature for younger brains.)
     Yes, there is a right place for including LGBT. Star Wars, which has long been marketed to kids regardless of rating, or anything rated G or PG is simply not that place. Disney, families trusted when you bought the property from Lucas you'd keep it kid-friendly. Don't break that trust, please.
     Filmmakers, I've said it before and I'll say it over and over again: KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE. That includes understanding who's going to see your film based on how you're going to market it BEFORE you decide to toss in your agenda messaging. I don't care if you're talking about racism, sexuality, violence or whatever - any film that attracts kids is simply not the place. Change your marketing or create a new franchise, but don't "message" kids. Ever.

"The BFG" - Big Failure?

Yeah, yeah - the headlines have already declared Stephen Spielberg's "The BFG" a box office bomb. It's taken in over $26M this holiday weekend in US gross alone, which is not too shabby for a fairy-tale film. So why declare it a failure right out the gate? Sadly, the current pace shows this kid-friendly summer fare will fail to earn back the $140M Disney sank into it.

The real question is, why the dismal returns given the big names involved? Has Spielberg lost his mojo? Are current generations just unfamiliar or apathetic toward the works of Dahl? Did marketing fail to get the word out?

     More than likely, it's the film itself. Here's a few of the problems I see up front:

• For a big budget summer release - this feature lacks any recognizable faces. The Disney audience (think 5-12 year-olds) is used to seeing their favorite stars lead Disney pictures when live action is involved. This one boasts a newcomer (the adorable Ruby Barnhill) and no familiar characters like its oceanic competition.
• It's dated, but not appealingly so. For some inexplicable reason, this one seems to be set in the 1980's, but only referentially via a "Nancy & Ron" reference. Today's kids are, well, self-centered. If you're going to set a film in the past, it has to hit them on the heads with it or focus on a timeline they recognize.
• The pacing is slow. Painfully slow at times. The film is, as expected, beautifully shot and filled with gorgeous FX, but someone must've fallen asleep in the editing room. The timing is just...off.
• There's little to no humor. This film is bittersweet and somewhat sad. There's very little funny involved, with the exception of a couple of scenes. Kids today aren't attracted to bittersweet.
• The story itself doesn't speak to modern audiences. In a world where people are fighting for acceptance for all kinds, this story misses the opportunity to highlight common struggles, glossing over the conflict sure to arise when the BFG first reveals himself to the "human beans." Even the anti-bullying message is lost in all the FX gloss.
• It's too long for it's target audience. This film is rated PG, (which explains all the missed opportunities within the story), automatically targeting the 5 to 12 age group. At 1:57 running time, no sane adult is going to bring a young child to see it in the theaters. Let's face it, anything over 85 minutes is straying into meltdown territory for younger kids, and guarantees you're going to miss at least 5 minutes running to the bathroom mid-show.
• Timing - Disney is splitting it's own audiences by opening during the "Finding Dory" run. With most kid-oriented films enjoying 6-8 week theater runs lately, it hardly makes sense to launch "The BFG" two weeks after the much-anticipated "Finding Dory," which targets the EXACT SAME AUDIENCE. I think this film would have fared much better around the winter holiday season or early fall, when fewer family films are available and the story of an orphan finding a home feels more significant than the mid-summer popcorn and explosions season.

All that being said, I enjoyed the film. Mostly because the CGI "BFG" looked and acted an awful lot like my long-since-passed beloved grandfather. Okay, and the story is sweet and Ruby Barnhill was adorable. Plus, I'm a Roald Dahl fan and could watch "James and the Giant Peach" over and over again. My 12-year-old indie fan of a daughter also enjoyed the film, but it merited only slightly above the "Meh" rating for her.

What can aspiring filmmakers do to avoid similar financial quagmires like "The BFG?" It's simple:

1. Know your target audience. If you're targeting kids, keep it short and funny.
2. Remember even classical adaptations need to "speak" to modern movie-goers.
3. Edit, edit, edit. Even big budget films could use a good trim before release.
4. Watch your release dates! Especially when the competition is your own studio.