This year, the Independence Day weekend box office didn't prove as fruitful as expected for all the new movie releases: while Finding Dory continued its ascension with the biggest domestic third weekend of all time for an animated movie, The Legend of Tarzan and The BFG brought in meager results. Steven Spielberg's The BFG, the second movie adaptation of Roald Dahl's popular children's novel after an animated TV film in 1989, earned $24 million on a $140 million budget, which means it's now fully relying on its overseas performance. 
 
 While The BFG wasn't exactly expected to be a massive summer success, such a flop is surprising considering the movie had all the ingredients to convince audiences. Does that mean Roald Dahl's stories are too obscure for the new generation of moviegoers, or that Spielberg's visual storytelling is not what it once was? Not necessarily: Looking at why it could possibly have failed so terribly, it seems the case of The BFG shouldn't put too much weight on the perception of Spielberg's or Dahl's potential. 
 
 What Is The BFG Actually About? 
 
 Original illustration for 'The BFG' by Quentin Blake 
 
 For those who haven't had the pleasure of devouring Roald Dahl's tales when they were children, The BFG is a simple story of an orphan named Sophie, who spots a giant bringing dreams to the humans by blowing a magical concoction through bedroom windows. When he realizes he's been seen, he takes Sophie with him to Giant Country, where she discovers that he lives with a bunch of not-so-friendly giants who eat children for dinner. Because that's not a pleasant thought for a little girl, she devises a plan to capture them — with the help of the Queen of England. 
 
 
 
 The BFG Earned Some Good Critics 
 
 Critics were far from unanimous on the potential of The BFG, but on Rotten Tomatoes, it still earned a respectable critic score of 71% and an audience score of 66% — not really the kind of movie you'd expect to make less than a fifth of its budget on its opening weekend. 
 
 The most praised part of the film was Mark Rylance, the British stage actor who just won an Oscar for his role in Spielberg's Bridge of Spies, as the Big Friendly Giant himself. The challenge of bringing nuance to a performance mostly relying on motion capture might seem overwhelming, but even with his distorted features, Rylance does the Giant great justice. 
 
 'The BFG' / Walt Disney Pictures 
 
 The special effects are also grandiose, from the soft sparkle of the dream material to the wonder-inspiring Giant Country. You'd think that a great story on paper combined to the required technical achievement would translate to the ideal visuals, but that might just be the issue with The BFG: It doesn't go much further than a pretty picture. 
 
 Was There Any Space In The Summer Schedule For The BFG? 
 
 'Finding Dory' / 'The Legend of Tarzan' / 'The BFG' 
 
 Even without diving into a debate on the quality of the movie itself, it's safe to say that The BFG wasn't optimally prepared to take on the summer box office. Squished between the trailblazing Dory and The Legend of Tarzan, teenagers and families had plenty of options to enjoy Independence Day weekend. Add to that the mysterious title of The BFG, and it looks like a more explicit name could have served the movie better, especially for American audiences who aren't as familiar with Dahl's work as people are in England. 
 
 More importantly, The BFG appears like it has positioned itself at a confusing halfway point between a children's movie and an adults' one — not that a film has to be one or the other, as Pixar has proven time and again, but because it never seems to fully satisfy either generation. 
 
 The BFG Misses The Depth Of The Original Book 
 
 'The BFG' / Walt Disney Pictures 
 
 It doesn't give kids and teenagers the appeal of a big household name or a recognizable face and story, while it just seems too plain for grown-up moviegoers who might have been attracted by Spielberg or Rylance. As it revels in the beauty of Giant Country and takes plenty of time to deploy its stunning special effects, The BFG seems to forget the darker, grittier side of every Roald Dahl story that would have given the movie that extra depth. The child-eating giants bear names such as Bloodbottler and Fleshlumpeater, and still the movie doesn't ever get truly scary. Same goes for the loneliness of the Giant, which gives the movie a melancholic tone here and there but never really hits you. 
 
 Still, The BFG's Box Office Flop Isn't Necessarily Part Of A Trend 
 
 'The BFG' / Walt Disney Pictures 
 
 Considering we're all so used to Spielberg churning out the masterpieces, it's easy to start wondering if the director has "lost his touch," or if this is "the end of an era." Or we could turn to the genre of children's books adaptations, and start panicking that they've lost the appeal they've once had. 
 
 In the case of The BFG, however, the main issue of the movie is more about being unremarkable than disastrous. The adaptation didn't twist the original material beyond recognition, and this giant looks as big and friendly as he should. Spielberg is getting a similar recipe ready with Ready Player One — it's a book adaptation, and it stars Mark Rylance — and we still have plenty of reasons to be excited about it. So keep the book adaptations coming! 
 
 Have you seen The BFG? Do you think it could have been more successful? ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. ||||| Box Office: Steven Spielberg's 'BFG' Equals Big Failed Gamble in U.S. 
 
 The family film bombed in its North American debut over the July 4th weekend. 
 
 Steven Spielberg and Disney's big-budget The BFG — short for the Big Friendly Giant — could go down as a Big Failed Gamble. 
 
 At least, that is the case in North America, where it debuted to a dismal $18.6 million over the three-day Fourth of July weekend, enough for only a fourth-place finish. For the four-day frame, The BFG earned $22.3 million, a paltry number considering the movie's $140 million budget and the high-profile holiday corridor. 
 
 The BFG's fate will rely heavily on the international box office, where it has opened in only two territories so far — Australia ($2 million) and Russia ($1.9 million). The film didn't place No. 1 in either country, however. If it doesn't work offshore, partners Disney, Amblin Entertainment and Walden Media are looking at a sizable loss. 
 
 The PG film, based on Roald Dahl's beloved book of the same name about a giant (Mark Rylance) who strikes up a friendship with a young orphan girl (Ruby Barnhill), is the first movie Spielberg has directed for powerhouse Disney — and the hope was it could strike a chord like his classic E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. (Disney previously had a distribution deal with Spielberg's DreamWorks, but this was a direct production and marketing partnership.) 
 
 Spielberg also is a big fan of the Fourth of July holiday, and counted on the pic being a major family play. But that coveted demo appeared to have little interest in seeing The BFG, at least on a wide-scale basis, even though it earned an A- CinemaScore from those moviegoers who did turn up, along with solid reviews. But as the holiday weekend played out, the film was overshadowed by Disney/Pixar's own Finding Dory, which in its third weekend took in $41.9 million. 
 
 Box-office analyst Jeff Bock said Spielberg hasn't made a family film that's resonated with younger audiences since Hook 25 years ago (that movie, however, was maligned by critics). 
 
 "These days, Pixar, Minions and Disney's fairy-tale adaptations rule the box-office roost in terms of kids' fare," said Bock. "The BFG has always been a recognizable children's book, but not a classic in the U.S." 
 
 Some box-office analysts believe The BFG will ultimately top out in the $60 million range domestically. That would make it Spielberg's lowest-grossing film since the dramatic, adult-oriented Munich in 2005, and one of his lowest ever when adjusting for inflation. 
 
 Munich, which earned $47.4 million domestically and $130.4 million globally, is among the filmmaker's few major box-office misses. Spielberg's biggest bomb was 1941, released in 1979. 
 
 The BFG is Spielberg's most ambitious film in terms of budget since The Adventures of Tintin in 2011. That film topped out at $77.6 million domestically, but ultimately earned $373.9 million globally thanks to the international box office. 
 
 Spielberg has enjoyed his greatest success in recent years with such adult-skewing fare as Bridge of Spies and Lincoln. 
 
 July 4, 8 a.m. Updated with revised three-day and four-day numbers. ||||| It turns out that the anything-goes murderfest The Purge: Election Year was not the grisliest bloodbath at the movies this past weekend. In accordance with the time-honored "the bigger they are, the harder they fall" principle, Steven Spielberg's The BFG took a giant-sized dive at the box office over the holiday break. Despite working with a $140 million budget, the hopeful Disney blockbuster could only muster up a meager $22.2 million from domestic audiences, with an additional $3.9 million from overseas markets. For scale, consider that alarm klaxons started sounding when Alice Through the Looking Glass put up $33.5 million at the end of May. 
 
 Related PHOTOS: Steven Spielberg's Movies, Ranked Worst to Best From 'Saving Private Ryan' to 'Raiders,' the King of Hollywood's work from completists-only to modern classics 
 
 Granted, this could turn out to be a slow-burner type of hit that builds up healthier grosses as it slowly gains traction, but for now, this marks the biggest flop for the usually-dependable director since his ill-fated war comedy 1941 way back in 1979. Disney must have felt like it had a slam dunk on deck by giving Spielberg the green light to adapt the beloved kids-lit author's work; the filmmaker made a name for himself with fantastical tales glimpsed through the eyes of children. And hey, if they played their cards right, there might have even been a shower of Oscar gold in the film's future. (It wasn't too long ago that Hugo, Martin Scorsese's foray into kids' entertainment, earned 11 Academy Award nominations and clinched five.) 
 
 So what happened? 
 
 Emotion can be a tough sell 
 
 The main virtue of The BFG is its big friendly heart, apparent in the tender relationship between the Mark Rylance-voiced titan and the precocious-tot protagonist Sophie (Ruby Barnhill). But compared to the visual dynamism of a chomping shark, a flying saucer or a shriveled-up alien, the bond between a girl and her giant is not an easy thing to sell in a trailer. While that sentimental streak is a key part of Spielberg's directorial style, it's usually paired with something that can widen the eyes or drop the jaw on a first glance. There are awe-inspiring sequences in the film — notably a sequence in which the main pair journey to a gorgeous dreamscape filled with surreal forestry and reflective pools. But the closest that the commercials have come to an indelible image would probably be the film's mammoth best friend sprinting through the countryside with trees blowing in his wake, or slicing the oozing, gross-out fruit he subsists on. Impressive animation or not, that wasn't enough jaw-dropping wonder to sell the film to audiences, nor was it enough to communicate the emotional bond which was the film's bread and butter. 
 
 The mixed reviews 
 
 Kids couldn't give a damn about notices one way or the other, but the parents who ultimately buy the tickets may have been turned off by the film's lukewarm reception. Though it currently enjoys a 71-percent approval rating on review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes, Rolling Stone's own Peter Travers offered numerous caveats in his review, notably that "things get 'a bit grumbly' — to borrow a BFG phrase — when the worlds of Spielberg and Dahl collide." That comment reflected a solid faction of critics who felt that the fantasy couldn't conjure the same magic as the filmmaker's past triumphs. In a marketplace where an oddly-titled adaptation of a Dahl novel not featuring gigantic peaches or chocolate factories has to compete with Pixar's latest, such faint praise (or in several cases, outright flagellations) could not have helped things. 
 
 No stars, no spectacles 
 
 Bridge of Spies benefited from slapping Tom Hanks' beautiful, marketable mug onto its posters. Lincoln had the benefit of the world's greatest living actor sinking his incisors into an already-iconic role. Leonardo DiCaprio, Harrison Ford, Tom Cruise — the A-list of Spielberg's actors goes on. But not only does The BFG lack any immediately recognizable faces, there's not even a flashy-looking monster to show off in the advertisements. All it had was an Oscar-winner better known for his stage work and a family of giants — who are, when you get down to it, a bunch of slightly-weird-looking old guys. (Even the poster for his 2011 adaptation of The War Horse offered a beautiful thoroughbred as audiencebait.) This earthy, lower-key take on the summer blockbuster was short on recognizable faces and the brand-name bombast in vogue right now — a lose-lose situation marketing-wise. 
 
 Holiday weekend hobbled box-office across the board 
 
 It's not as if The BFG was edged out by a gigantic new release racking up accordingly huge grosses. This was a weak weekend for movies, period — enough that Finding Dory (in its third week of release) took the top spot once again with a robust $50 million take, leaving a considerable berth from the three new studio releases. With audiences taking trips or [gulp] spending quality time with their families, that left The Purge: Election Year with a $34.7 million gross and the steamy new Alexander Skarsgard/Margot Robbie Tarzan with $45.5 million, neither of which are anything to crow about. In what's already been a dismal summer for nationwide cineplexes, the start of July was another little valley, and that certainly didn't help boost The BFG's chances for finding an audience. 
 
 It's a generational thing 
 
 Consider this: Roald Dahl's book was published in 1982, meaning that many of the kids who grew up on it be slightly too young to have moviegoing-aged children of their own. Situated right where Gen X ends and the millennial territory begins, the novel's core fanbase is currently in their mid-to-late-twenties and early thirties. If Disney was gunning for the nostalgia dollar with this adaptation of a kiddie cult classic, holding off for another eight to 10 years could have made a world of difference. As it was, the film may have fallen into the middle of a generation gap. There's something cosmic about the way that this odd-bird film has met the same fate as its gawky, misfit hero — unappreciated for its odd charms, save for a select few. ||||| On the surface “The BFG” has more in its favor than most movies: An award-winning director with a time-tested box office track record; solid reviews; and the backing of the seemingly unstoppable Disney — by far the most successful studio of this year so far. 
 
 But this weekend’s grosses for the adaptation of the Roald Dahl book are extremely modest for a movie that cost an estimated $140 million to produce. 
 
 Directed by Steven Spielberg, “The BFG” has made only $12 million so far and is expected to end the long holiday weekend with less than $20 million domestically. 
 
 Also Read: 'Finding Dory' Leads Weekend by a Fin, 'The BFG' Continues to Bomb 
 
 The live action film stars Oscar winner Mark Rylance as the motion-captured CG “big friendly giant,” who is on a mission to save humans from other man-eating giants. It played well when it debuted at Cannes Film Festival and continued on with positive marks from critics into its opening, also with a CinemaScore of A-, which indicates enthusiasm among moviegoers. 
 
 So what went wrong? 
 
 1. Spielberg isn’t as safe a bet as he used to be. 
 
 While he did serve as executive producer on one of last year’s biggest hits, Universal’s “Jurassic World,” Spielberg hasn’t had a “Jaws” or “E.T.”-level hit as a director in several years. His last attempt at a PG-rated family-friendly winner was the animated “Adventures of Tintin,” which only made $77 million domestically (earning most of its grosses abroad, with $296.4 million overseas). It opened about as weakly as “The BFG,” over the Christmas holiday in 2011, with a two-day weekend take of $17.7 million. As Spielberg has concentrated more on prestige films, like “Lincoln” — which did really well at the box office — and “Bridge of Spies” (for which Rylance won his Oscar), 2008’s “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is that last popcorn flick he directed that made serious bank at the box office: $786.6 million worldwide. He’s signed on to do another Indie movie, due out in the summer of 2019 — a smart move. 
 
 Also Read: Here's Why 'The Shallows' Caused a Feeding Frenzy at the Box Office 
 
 2. Roald Dahl is no J.K. Rowling. 
 
 The well-respected children’s author published “The BFG” in 1982. And while Dahl’s book won awards and was a favorite among teachers, he did not have anywhere close to the following of Rowling’s “Harry Potter” series, which was still being published when the movies were being released in the first decade of the 2000s. 
 
 3. What is a BFG? Is it NSFW? 
 
 Seeing as awareness about the book among modern families is relativly low, the acronym title is majorly confusing. 
 
 Also Read: 'Legend of Tarzan': Why Does Hollywood Keep Trying to Resurrect Dusty Old Brands? 
 
 4. There are no stars. 
 
 Imagine if Will Ferrell or Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson played the giant. Not to discredit Rylance’s award-winning acting chops, but the film would have likely received a boost from a big name. 
 
 5. The price tag was pretty steep. 
 
 Less a reason it didn’t do well at the box office, but given that Dahl’s books don’t guarantee the built-in movie audience that Rowling’s books did, coupled with the fact that Rylance is not a box office draw, $140 million budget is a risky proposition, even in spite of Spielberg’s involvement. 
 
 6. The giant looks more scary than friendly. 
 
 Those huge ears, beady eyes and a wrinkled face — the film’s main character had to overcome its appearance to win over family audiences. Clearly the “adoryble” baby Dory is more of a draw for modern audiences, which remains No. 1 at the box office in its third weekend in theaters. 
 
 Also Read: Scarlett Johansson Is Now the 10th Highest Grossing Movie Star of All Time 
 
 7. It suffered from bad timing. 
 
 Perhaps Disney thought Dory fever would have died down in time to clear some runway for “The BFG.” Or maybe the distributor wedged it into the slot because it was one of the bigger gambles in a year stuffed to the gills with pricey tentpoles, including “Zootopia,” “The Jungle Book,” “Captain America: Civil War,” “Alice Through the Looking Glass,” “Finding Dory,” “Pete’s Dragon,” “Doctor Strange,” and “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.” Say that five times quickly. ||||| Unless Walt Disney pulls off a miracle overseas, Steven Spielberg’s The BFG will be that rarest of things: a Steven Spielberg box office bomb. The $140 million fantasy film, based on a Roald Dahl book, will earn around $22 million over the July 4th holiday. Which means, with the caveat that July 4th rarely falls on a Monday and that most big Independence Day releases don’t open on a Friday, that the film is looking at a domestic total of around $55-$65m. Maybe it’ll leg it and do more, but it’s counting on overseas figures to save it. The reason this stings isn’t because “Spielberg has lost his touch” or any such thing. But rather because, not only is The BFG a rare Spielberg flop, it is the first such film in a long time (if ever) that was intended primarily as a commercial venture. 
 
 Most people will argue that the star-studded and critically-trashed 1941 was Steven Spielberg’s first box office disaster. And while the film did only make $31 million domestic on a $35m budget, it did make $92m worldwide, thus nearly tripling its budget. So for this argument, I would consider it a disappointment rather than an outright disaster. So looking over Spielberg’s thirty theatrical films from 1974 (The Sugarland Express) to 2016 (The BFG), there are only a few outright tanks in there. For the record, Hook made $300m worldwide on a $70m budget while even Always earned $74m on a $29m budget. So there are a few “shoulda/coulda done better” offerings (The Twilight Zone: The Movie, Warhorse, maybe The Adventures of Tintin due to its $135m budget), Steven Spielberg has made shockingly few outright “this film didn’t make enough to justify the expense” misses. 
 
 So what are the actual box office bombs? Well, here’s the rub: Up until this week, they were entirely composed of “good for you” historical dramas that weren’t necessarily intended to be box office blockbusters. You’ve got the terrific 1987 World War II drama Empire of the Sun ($66 million worldwide on a $38m budget), the not-so-terrific 1997 slave rebellion drama Amistad ($58m on a $36m budget and the “It’s his best film, darn it!” 2005 political thriller Munich ($130m worldwide on a $70m budget). And, that’s basically it. Everything else was either an unqualified smash hit or made awfully close to 3x the production budget, during respective times when films didn’t spend quite so much on marketing. So yeah, that’s a pretty spectacular batting average, especially when you notice that quite a few of his “serious” movies (Lincoln, The Color Purple, Schindler’s List, etc.) were huge financial successes. 
 
 But, if The BFG doesn’t recover, and I’ll be the first to (happily) eat crow if it does, it will be the first unmitigated Steven Spielberg box office bomb that was intended as an overtly commercial crowd-pleaser. The BFG is a fantasy adventure film filled with special effects and moments of earned whimsy. It is not a grim or ponderous historical character study or somber thriller wrapped in historical hindsight. It’s a popcorn movie, a would-be summer blockbuster helmed by the man who basically invented the summer blockbuster. I don’t want to make too much out of one movie. But I will say that this film was sold specifically on the idea that Steven Spielberg making a fantasy film qualified as an event and that its apparent rejection implies that such a thing does not have the pull that it once did. 
 
 As a filmmaker, Mr. Spielberg will be fine. Warner Bros./ Time Warner Inc.'s Ready Player One is based on a very popular novel and will probably play to audiences young enough to devour the book and old enough to cling to its 80s-era nostalgia. Walt Disney will be fine too, since they are still having a hell of a run. Besides, if The BFG loses buckets of money, he can make it up to Disney by helming another Indiana Jones mo… oh wait, never mind. He has been on a run of late making the kinds of movies that Hollywood doesn’t make anymore (Warhorse, Lincoln, Bridge of Spies) and turning them into profitable and Oscar-friendly hits. There’s irony in that, the creator of the modern blockbuster now fighting to keep the adult-skewing, star-driven drama relevant. Perhaps Steven Spielberg has become defined by today’s audiences not by popcorn entertainment but by said esteemed dramas. 
 
 We’ll see how The BFG plays out over the next month. If there was a “mistake,” it was in the fact that The BFG is actually his second-most expensive film ever (behind the $185m-costing Indiana Jones 4) despite being not remotely his surest-of-sure things in this concept/property-driven era. And yes, there is some news value in the fact that it will probably be the first Steven Spielberg box office bomb for a film that was meant as a commercial crowd-pleaser, or the first since 1979 if you count 1941. But if the doomsayers are right and Steven Spielberg is no longer the marquee name that he was for generations, that’s not inherently a tragedy. Nobody stays on top forever, and nobody should have to. The only reason to mourn is that he will likely be replaced by those raised to mimic the popcorn spectaculars that made Spielberg a living legend in the first place.
– With a $140 million budget and an opening weekend take of only $24 million, The BFG is poised to be Steven Spielberg's biggest flop in 37 years, Rolling Stone reports. That's left people wondering if the man who essentially invented the summer blockbuster with Jaws has lost his summertime feeling. Here's what some of the experts are saying: Slash Film argues you can't blame Spielberg for the failure, as he's far from the first director to flop when adapting a story by Roald Dahl. In fact, only one film based on a Dahl book—Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory—has made more than $34 million in US theaters. The Wrap has a list of seven reasons The BFG bombed, from "Roald Dahl is no JK Rowling" to a lack of stars and a confusing title. The BFG might be proof it's time for Spielberg to step away from family films, according to the Hollywood Reporter, which points out the director hasn't had a hit family film since Hook a quarter of a century ago. He's had better luck with recent grown-up fare like Lincoln and Bridge of Spies. The Wall Street Journal details Spielberg's history of being able to "bounce back" after cinematic disappointments, something he should have a good chance of doing with his next three films currently including a historical drama, a science-fiction movie based on a popular book, and an Indiana Jones sequel. But the "reason this stings" is because every other time Spielberg disappointed at the box office, it was with a "good for you" film, according to Forbes. Whereas The BFG was intended as a money-maker for the studio. Finally, Movie Pilot argues that the failure of The BFG shouldn't count against any future Spielberg or Dahl movies. "The main issue of the movie is more about being unremarkable than disastrous.”