"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.

The Real Reasons "Pixels" Underperformed

It seems like every 30 minutes Variety or some other "V" named media outlet is publishing another editorial about how "Pixels" $24 million opening weekend proves Adam Sandler is no longer relevant. Most of these opinions run the range from accusations of dated, sexist humor to his failure to create variety in his film plotlines.

Frankly, most of these editorials are just some individual writer's attempts to push their own agenda onto a film that failed to earn back it's production budget on the first weekend. Most of the opinions are, frankly, ill-conceived and bordering on ridiculous.

The truth is, the movie is the kind of funny that causes audience members to blow soda out of their noses on several occasions. Sure, it's primary subject is a washed up 80's gaming star, (played by an almost washed up 90's movie star), finding love and fame when an alien invader brings back 80's gaming technology - greatly enhanced - to kick our butts in a "to the death" real-life video game match. A bit of a stretch, yes, but then so is a superhero with a suit that makes him ant-sized.

So why would such a funny movie go largely unnoticed by a culture that worships video games and summer-time explosions?

The primary reasons I see are timing and audience. First of all, Adam Sandler as a leading man is mainly going to appeal to the same people who loved him and his man-child, SNL-born sense of humor in "Happy Gilmore." That means the bulk of his fans today are adults in their forties, maybe early fifties. Most of this audience has matured, as have their tastes. Matured, but not died. We still love Adam and a good laugh. But now we're dragging kids behind us like magnetic mines most weekends. Our kids are typically pre-teens to young twenty-somethings at this point. (Mostly pre-teens since us early GenX'ers had a tendency to wait until we hit 30 to procreate.)

Which leads us to a conflict between audience and content. Sure, we loved his politically incorrect, disgusting sexual referencing jokes when we were in our twenties and it was still okay to make a joke that involved a junior high view of sex or the opposite gender. Unfortunately for "Pixels", we sure as hell don't want our sixth grade kids asking us what a Martha-Serena sandwich means. However, the presence of Pac Man and Qbert in the trailer is highly attractive to our 8 to 12 year-old kids who have grown to love the modern versions of these classic games thanks to their mobile apps. For older kids, these same apps are too childish and too easy to play to draw their attention, automatically alienating the 13 to 18 crowd who would never admit to their zombie-killing friends that they love Pac Man. Nope, better go see "Ant Man" again instead because, let's face it, you're not a cool teen if you don't catch the latest Marvel flick. You're even more uncool if you admit you like those "baby" games based on 80's titles.

Which again brings us to timing. "Pixels" would've done much better in the fall, when younger fare is scarce as Oscars season leads to a rush of more adult-focused fare. (Not to be confused with "adult films.") Why on earth they timed the release against guaranteed blockbusters like the latest Marvel superhero release is beyond me. No one else was dumb enough to take on the Disney juggernaut - not even Illumination Entertainment and their guaranteed-success "Minions." (Note they released the week before.)

If only Adam Sandler had cut most of the unnecessary and stomach-turning Fire Blaster sex jokes and released it around late August/early September, he would've drawn in a much larger pre-teen/tween audience with parental blessing. That would've likely turned this mediocre disappointment into an unexpected hit. Sigh.