'Speed Racer' Crashes & Burns To Become First Summer Bomb: 'Iron Man' Still No. 1

51 Comments »

1. No surprise here, but the Lego sets look good.

   Comment by Jessy S. — May 10, 2008 @ 12:05 am

2. I never understood the appeal of the show. To quote Ebert:

   To us, this show was just filler between after-school reruns of “Gilligan’s Island” and “The Munsters.” We watched it because it was on, and it was in color.

   I watched it, on Saturday mornings rather than after school, because it was on between shows I liked: maybe Looney Tunes (which remains wonderful) and Super Friends (which would probably make me cringe today). As a kid, I wondered why they even showed it; as an adult I suspect it’s because licensing fees were cheap and competition was soft in the three-network era.

   I can’t understand why anyone would make a feature out of a series that never interested me in its original form. It seems I’m not the only one.

   Comment by Steve S — May 10, 2008 @ 4:45 am

3. The DVD for ‘Speed Racer’ will be epic though, this might simply be a release to promo the later retail opportunities…

   Comment by Big John — May 10, 2008 @ 4:59 am

4. When a huge film tanks it’s bad for the industry in general, not just the company that’s left holding the blivit. The larger problem with making movies based on old TV shows is that, if the old TV shows were worthy of being movies, they would have been movies in the first place. (Actually, they used to splice three half-hours together and get just that). But since today’s executives were raised on TV instead of books, naturally they regard “Speed Racer” and its ilk as literature. All icing and no cake. As for the “Matrix” trilogy being hits, the first one was successful on a number of influential levels, but numbers two and three did numbers based on their momentum from the first. They were incoherent messes. If Time/Warner’s corporate vision is to make “Speed Racer” while killing Picturehouse, New Line, Warner Independent, and other botique subcompanies that actually make good movies, let’s light a candle for them now.

   Comment by Santayana — May 10, 2008 @ 9:40 am

5. I actually liked the series, but it seems like the anime is just too much for my generation. It might appeal to younger kids, but that won’t recapture those of us who watched the show with Kimba the White Lion on Channel 52 in Los Angeles.

   It’s just too much. I don’t know if it’s a cartoon or a movie. I’d love a chance to relive my childhood with a Speed Racer film, especially now that I understand what it means if Trixie is hot, but the format will keep me out of the theater.

   Comment by speed fan — May 10, 2008 @ 10:40 am

6. I really wanted to like this movie but then I saw the previews I cringed. They ruined Speed Racer. There are a lot of thirty and forty somethings that are Speed Racer fans. Had they given it a more realistic feel instead of camp, it would have done well. Somebody didn’t do thier research and ignored the middle-age audience. Had they done that, it would be a different a movie.

   Comment by Jerry — May 10, 2008 @ 10:44 am

7. Why do you people think that a movie like this will “play better overseas”? I heard a clip from it on the radio this afternoon. If the rest of the film is like the dialogue (let alone the Brit actor playing the villain’s accent, and German pronounciation) Then (to put it no stronger) I’ll be giving it a miss.

   Comment by Hedgeblog14 — May 10, 2008 @ 10:58 am

8. As for Speed Racer, this is the fifth bomb for Joel Silver. The Reaping, The Invasion, The Brave One, Fred Claus and now Speed Racer. It seems that he might have drained enough money from Warner Bros. to have kept open WIP and Picturehouse for years. I would bet Robinov would think twice before green lighting anything from Silver Pictures. That is, of course, unless they want to lose another few hundred million on Wonder Woman, the movie Joel claims he will make.

   Comment by Filmshark — May 10, 2008 @ 11:11 am

9. I can’t wait to see this. Probably going to be Sunday.

   Comment by speedster — May 10, 2008 @ 11:17 am

10. Speed Racer is a very good movie. Nikki, you haven’t even seen it so why did you go to all that effort to say what you thought was wrong with it? The Wachowskis made a crazy, daring, and original movie and some people just don’t get it. Everyone I know that saw it yesterday was surprised by how much they loved it.

    Comment by not cynical — May 10, 2008 @ 11:35 am

11. Can’t say that i’m too sad. It’s time for these brothers to actually make a movie and not a computer game.

    Comment by Ben — May 10, 2008 @ 12:03 pm

12. Emile Hursh just killed all that he worked so hard for with Into the Wild. He is now a loser. Boo hoo.

    Comment by Cheri — May 10, 2008 @ 1:23 pm

13. Just saw the movie with my 5 yr old son. It was great. Exactly what I wanted to see. No complex plot lines, cool special effects, awesome casting and all the charaters were there.

    I really took me back to the 70’s when I use to watch it as a kid.

    Comment by John — May 10, 2008 @ 1:26 pm

14. I’m sure that creating a movie based on something that was at the height of its limited popularity 40 years ago has absolutely nothing to do with it.

    Speed Racer is not some timeless masterpiece. The cost of the original option to the full film rights was only $1 for Christ’s sake.

    Why not roll out live action versions of The Jetsons, Yogi the Bear, Pepe Le Pew, Speedy Gonzales, Tom & Jerry, etc.?

    Why not dust off the Smurfs and throw it up on 4,000 screens? At least it’s more recent.

    Oh, I forgot. The Smurfs are on their way.

    Scooby-Doo grossed $153 million with a distributor take of around 55%. I don’t wish to debate whether Scooby-Doo is better or worse in its original or adapted forms than Speed Racer. Facts that aren’t debatable are that Scooby-Doo first started airing around the same time as Speed Racer in the late 60’s and that it’s a hell of a lot better known than Speed Racer.

    So why would $185 million be spent on Speed Racer when a much more well known property did $153 million five or six years ago?

    Stupidity.

    Comment by Harold — May 10, 2008 @ 1:33 pm

15. That’ll show those lazy, greedy, unoriginal bastards that the world doesn’t want a shitty remake. Give us something NEW! Couldn’t happen to more deserving assholes.

    Comment by NTV/NAT Group, Ltd. — May 10, 2008 @ 2:04 pm

16. My question is this, who in the hell thought it was a good idea to make a live action version of the Speed Racer cartoon? Its not like other comic book properties like Batman or Iron Man that can be given a great amount of depth. My reaction when I saw the trailer was why?

    Comment by nonhollywood man — May 10, 2008 @ 2:38 pm

17. Funny that the SPY KIDS films got the exact same look for a budget of $30-40M. Too bad the Wachowskis aren’t as frugal as Robert Rodriguez. Warner Bros. could at least be crowing about a very modest hit right now.

    What the hell did they spend the $140M on? John Goodman?

    Comment by Chris Crosby — May 10, 2008 @ 2:40 pm

18. Having seen the movie, I can see why others may have a problem with it, and call attention to its faults, but looking past all this inane bashing, is a revolutionary movie. It really blurs the lines between a cartoon/movie/video game. It does have problems (the running time and odd pacing/tone). Taken on its own terms though, and it blows the mind. The audacity and imagination used is staggering. It really does push the cinematic envelope way beyond what is being done. Maybe in a few years other directors will look past the tried and true and attempt something more. Until then we will have to make do with the morsels of magic that the Wachowskis send out into the world. You just have to look past the politics of why this movie was even made (it does the Speed Racer name proud actually, better than any recent cartoon revisions), and enjoy the anarchy and joy that it brings to the cinema.

    Comment by J. — May 10, 2008 @ 3:07 pm

19. Speed Racer is over two hours - no way I’m taking a kid to a movie that long. 80-90 minutes, guys. That’s IT.

    I think this is further proof that the W brothers are the most self-indulgent film makers going.

    Comment by A dad — May 10, 2008 @ 3:35 pm

20. Comment by Chris Crosby — May 10, 2008 @ 2:40 pm:

    “Funny that the SPY KIDS films got the exact same look for a budget of $30-40M. Too bad the Wachowskis aren’t as frugal as Robert Rodriguez. Warner Bros. could at least be crowing about a very modest hit right now.

    What the hell did they spend the $140M on? John Goodman?”

    To be fair to the Wachowski’s (and everyone else, too), you usually cannot compare Robert Rodriguez movies to anyone else’s in terms of cost. The reason is that Rodriguez is incredibly talented - and a penny pincher production-wise.

    His talent allows him to compose, perform, and edit a film’s score (yes, the ENTIRE score). It allows him to write, direct, shoot, and edit every frame. It allows him to create the visual effects for a film.

    Rodriguez can reduce a film’s cost substantially - and does. He has the mindset to look for cost-savings and the ability to basically do pro bono work on his own film in almost any capacity when he doesn’t want to pay someone else to do it.

    Just on Spy Kids, he was the director, the writer, the composer of the original music, the film editor, a sound re-recording mixer, a visual effects supervisor, and a camera operator.

    There are probably few IMDb pages more crowded with job titles than Rodriguez’s.

    A better (but still not perfect) comparison may be “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow” that I think is the model for failure for “Speed Racer.” Most of it was shot chroma too.

    “Sky Captain’s” prdouction cost was less than $50 million and grossed close to $40 million. $40 million may be in the neighborhood of “Speed Racer’s” gross.

    Even on “Sky Captain,” the director and writer were the same person and his brother and sister did the production design, art, and costumes. Who knows who else he had pitching in.

    Too much was spent on “Speed Racer,” but there should be caution in the comparisons to other films’ costs.

    Comment by Harold — May 10, 2008 @ 5:04 pm

21. It’s just way too long, too “young” and it was released at the wrong time. It’s as simple as that. If they had of aged it up ever-so-slightly, lopped at least half an hour off (the only reason it cost so much is the crazy length, effectively increasing the cost by a third) and released it on a different date this would have been huge. It’s a shame because they really seem to have been trying to do something unique. I still think it will do big business on DVD. These points seem so obvious, how is it I could figure it out and all the talent behind the movie couldn’t?

    Comment by Dean — May 10, 2008 @ 6:02 pm

22. Robert Rodriguez may be heavily involved in visual effects, but he doesn’t create them on his own. He has dozens of people in the visual effects department on his films.

    The many hats Rodriguez wears may save his productions money, but I don’t think that’s solely responsible for keeping the costs of his films to a reasonable level. Scoring, editing, and visual effects supervision generally don’t cost a film an additional $100 million. I think it’s common sense spending limits that are to thank, something the makers of SPEED RACER were in desperate need of.

    A family movie about unrealistic car racing shot almost entirely on a green screen shouldn’t cost $140 million, period. Rodriguez could’ve made four or five green screen movies for that cost.

    Comment by Chris Crosby — May 10, 2008 @ 6:11 pm

23. Just saw Speed Racer with my kids and it is GREAT !!!!!

    The critics who pan this movie don’t know good fun when they see it.

    This movie is more fun than a barrel of Chim Chims.

    Can’t wait for the BluRay disk.

    Comment by R. Racer — May 10, 2008 @ 6:29 pm

24. Yo Steve, Ebert didn’t review Speed Racer. Jim Emerson did. I’m willing to bet my life that Ebert would’ve liked it, maybe not love due to the running time.

    Comment by brack — May 10, 2008 @ 6:47 pm

25. From the look of the early, groaner trailer, the take was simply all wrong. The neighborhood kids, my brothers and I all loved SPEED around 1970. There were epic elements that could have made a strong, rollicking action film…if it were not turned into some weird, pink half live action cartoon. A long lost brother who races anonymously, a team of well-financed bad-guy racers, I recall a truck made completely of gold (but hidden by paint), crazy off road races…a haunted engine that was so powerful it was buried since it killed anyone who drove it…good, mythical stuff. It needed a RONIN treatment, not this thing.

    Comment by Crewguy — May 10, 2008 @ 7:22 pm

26. Okay, hold on a second. I did see it, and you could judge this thing several ways, but if you are going to label it a bomb, at least be HONEST and frame it correctly - it’s a bomb in the context of it being yet another bloated studio attempt to launch another bloated FRANCHISE. They loaded the deck, took a big swing, and missed big. Whatever. I have no sympathy for fat cats putting all their chips on a number and hoping it hits. It’s boring.

    But it is not a bomb creatively - the movie has much to offer. It is very unique, has a fun and enlightened spirit, and contains all the elements of great character and story. The storytelling runs astray here and there, and the CG race scenes seemed extraneous. But the core was pretty solid and it was an enjoyable ride.

    Comment by Saw It — May 10, 2008 @ 7:58 pm

27. I took my wife and four kids to see this today. We went to the earliest showing. They had the Mach 5 outside and apparently the voice actor who played Speed and Racer X in the American version of Speed Racer was going to be there at some point.

    My wife never watched the cartoon, neither have my kids (14 and 16), but I grew up on a steady diet of afternoons filled with Kimba the White Lion, Speed Racer, Ultraman and the Three Stooges, thanks to our local UHF stations.

    I felt the movie dragged at times. And I’m not sentimental or nostalgic. I didn’t expect this recapture my childhood. But we had a good time, and we enjoyed the crazy races, the candy colored special effects, and the family soap opera that was the basis for both the cartoon series and the current movie.

    You’re only going to get out of a movie what you’re looking for. Is Speed Racer for everyone? No. Oscar material? Maybe for the effects. But if you just want a movie with wild action and fast cars that doesn’t drop the F-bomb every twenty seconds to give it street cred, then it’s a worthwhile movie, especially if it’s something you want to share with people you like–you know, your family, your friends.

    Isn’t that enough?

    Comment by Crow — May 10, 2008 @ 8:05 pm

28. Just saw Speed Racer in a latenight here in Germany (in English). Not many people in the theater. A pitty. Must say I was a bit nervous about this (was invited). Must also say: loved it! (and I am 43…). Seriously, a massivly creative endeveour, an extremely inventive and quite entertaining movie. Jokes worked, visuals stunning. Reminded me in a way of the experience I had when watching TRON so many years ago, just that SR is better on many levels, still as new in style as TRON was. Marketing was abyssmal. WB has itself much MORE to blame than the siblings. There was hardly any marketing here, not even the usual billboards. Wonder why… Should have been shorter although I seriously didn’t notice the time.

    Comment by Derek Frey — May 10, 2008 @ 8:15 pm

29. I just saw the movie in an movie theater filled with a lot of kids. Needless to say that the 2 hour 15 minute running time did not seem to bother them. And the audience even applauded at the end. They liked it that much.

    The pacing for SPEED RACER is a bit off in its last hour. But I must admit that it is a very original and entertaining film. It seems a shame that most critics and some moviegoers refuse to give it a chance.

    Comment by Rosie — May 10, 2008 @ 8:21 pm

30. Speed racer was an OK movie. A bit noisy and the camera work was too jerky for me. I agree with many of the comments above that there were some good Speed Racer story lines especially the GRX engine that made the drivers go mad if they weren’t taking a special drug. The film was interesting but went on a tangent of evil corporations vs. the independent guy which is so boring to watch for the ten thousandth time. EW gave it a C which is about right. Iron Man is clearly better.

    Comment by Brian — May 10, 2008 @ 9:16 pm

31. I find it interesting that Speed Racer bombed like it did. I’m courious if Silver ticked off the original fan base of the orginal cartoon? that often happens. I saw Invasion last year I was impressed with becouse of it’s take on Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Or did Warner Brothers just do bad marketing?

    Comment by chuck — May 10, 2008 @ 10:36 pm

32. I think this has more to do with the fact that movie ticket prices have simply gotten much too high. I would have gone to see this, but since tickets in my area are now $10 per person I just can’t justify that, especially since there aren’t any really large theaters any more- most of the new screens are not only small but are also common-width; since “Speed Racer” was shot in Scope it will actually look SMALLER on these screens! I’ll just wait until I can buy my own copy for about what it would have cost to go to the theater, and watch it under possibly better conditions.

    Comment by Alan Smithee — May 10, 2008 @ 11:27 pm

33. For the amount of money Warners is going to lose on this they could have paid the WGA every demand it wanted in the latest negotiations and not forced the town to have the terrible strike which cost the studios much more and put thousands out of work.

    Yeesh.

    Comment by Mr. Sad Reality — May 11, 2008 @ 1:24 am

34. Anyone who uses the excuse that SPEED RACER is “too long” as a reason why it failed at the box office is just being lazy. The HARRY POTTER flicks all clock in longer than that and no one seemed to mind. I saw it yesterday in IMAX and there were a load of little kids in the audience, none of whom seemed to be getting fussy at being in the theater for too long.

    Many critrics complain, rightly so, about the sameness of so many movies these days. But when a film comes along with a rather different look and style, they can’t handle it. Sad really. This movie was fun with a nice message buried in it about the importance of family. Too bad that there are those out there who felt the need to be dismissive just because of the film’s esthetic. I pity them for letting their inner child die.

    And crewguy- many of the elemets you mentioned are in the movie- Racer X, crazy off road races and a crew of evil car drivers sponsored by an evil corperation. It’s even got Inspector Detector!

    Comment by Rich D — May 11, 2008 @ 7:16 am

35. Hey Steve S., you’re not really quoting Ebert, you’re quoting the Chicago Sun Times editor, Jim Emerson.

    Comment by Richard R. — May 11, 2008 @ 8:28 am

36. Zero-to-zero in $20 million…

    Comment by wnaegele — May 11, 2008 @ 10:02 am

37. I watched it. Now I have a headache. Revolutionary filmmaking? No. The W bros have successfully filled your head with multicolored Cool Whip.

    Seriously…

    Filming racing sequences that give you no sense of what the hell is going on in the race? A hero who is perfect with no flaws? Wasting the audience’s time by putting in a nearly twenty minute racing arc that puts the main characters back to square one without any progress whatsoever? So many roadbocks…sorry…flashbacks that make you just want to yell at the screen and tell them to please stop annoying you? Professional car racers who throw beehives (i’m not joking) at the other cars? I could go on but I just don’t want to.

    Do yourself and your kids a favor by renting Cars instead.

    Comment by Doug — May 11, 2008 @ 10:22 am

38. The brothers expected this. I see this as a cult movie in the making with various DVD releases for years to come. Years from now, this is going to be a midnight showing favorite.

    Comment by Steve — May 11, 2008 @ 10:26 am

39. I saw speed with my 6 mos old son. Thats rights, 6 mos old and he lioved it. He was kicking and jumping during the racing sequences and glued to the screen. Of corse he became fussy at the 2 extended slow moments…speed and trixie talking in the car, and speed negoating a contract. My wife who had just a passing intrest in the flim enjoyed it and I… I wish I had taken some LSD before walking into the theater because the film is absolutely gorgeous.

    Comment by Rob — May 11, 2008 @ 10:28 am

40. What I really liked about “Speed Racer” the cartoon was the opening theme song and the end credits where all the characters were driving around in cars that represented different stages of automobile development. It was just a bad ideal to make a movie out this cartoon. If it didn’t work for Bugs Bunny, how could Speed Racer even have a chance?

    Comment by Tonyman — May 11, 2008 @ 10:40 am

41. Speed Racer will be great. I think it can be a word-of-mouth movie and will have a huge DVD release. My 5 year old and I plan to see it next weekend, despite all of these haters!

    Comment by RacerX — May 11, 2008 @ 10:59 am

42. This was a fantastic movie! I simply do not understand the comments made thusfar!
    I loved Speed as a 5-6 year old girl watching early morning before school and late afternoons before dinner before video, atari, etc…
    This movie had everything! Speed, Racer X, Trixie, a perfect humanoid Spritle, cutesy moments, more speed, excellent graphics.

    The problem perhaps with most people is that they do not let themselves go and live in the moment. I was so tense at moments that I actually felt my arms muscles twitching at times. I think the acting was spot on and the only critique I have is that Susan Sarandon playing the mom was unbelievable in every way. Great actress, wrong role.

    I am looking forward to the sequels and will be taking my 7 year old to see it again before we buy the DVD.

    By the way, we saw it in an IMAX theatre and there, you are behind the wheel.

    Comment by Parentchild — May 11, 2008 @ 11:30 am

43. This movie got what it deserved. It was neither a cartoon, nor a REAL live action movie. It didnt continue the beloved stories/plot lines that kids like me who watched it as kids, wanted. We dont want to see 1) if trixie ever had a feel good relationship with speed 2) if mom and pops can have a good marriage knowning speed gets into trouble all the time 3) a Mach 6 or any of these other bizare 2008 ideas. We would have been happy with another plot similar to the early anime series (ie the GRX, Mamoth Car, Car Hater ect). Are chim chim and spriegel still in the boot? Did Racer X ever come clean about who he really was? What’s Inspector Detector’s real realtionship with Speed’s Family?

    Comment by sam g — May 11, 2008 @ 11:38 am

44. Brian nailed it on the head.

    Special effects were hard to follow for these old eyes, but the most painful part was the storyline and as Brian mentioned, there were many original Speed Racer stories to choose from and unfortunately, the “big bad Corp vs. the little guys” story was chosen.

    Too bad, it could have been a good movie.

    Comment by Gabriel — May 11, 2008 @ 11:38 am

45. I wonder how many people who are panning it has actually seen it? I thoroughly enjoyed it as a 40+ year old. No, it’s not because it brought back my childhood memories (and I loved the old cartoon), it’s just a fun movie in its own right, without having to rely on nostalgia. Please, before commenting on how stupid it was to make it because some critics panned it, go and see it for yourself. It’s not perfect, but It’s certainly better than the beating it’s taking here, and puts MANY so called kiddie block busters (Ice Age, Madagascar and the like) to shame.

    Jeff

    Comment by Jeff — May 11, 2008 @ 1:29 pm

46. Just saw this movie. IT WAS AWESOME. ‘Nuff said.

    Comment by Dan — May 11, 2008 @ 9:24 pm

47. It doesn’t make much sense to spend $160 million on a property with limited appeal like Speed Racer. Spider Man, Scooby Doo, Batman are far more universal - I’m in my late 20’s and I think only a few people my age liked that show, let alone kids today, ex-post Pokemon and everything. Plus, over 2 hours, my god - you shouldn’t make a regular 2+ hour movie unless you have a good reason, for a children’s movie you’d better have a really damn good reason. Out of recent movies, I think only Pirates qualifies for the exception.

    Comment by asdf — May 12, 2008 @ 12:34 am

48. Speed Racer - made in the 60’s was one of the greatest cartoons of all time. Speed let his fists do the talking, and if someone tried to cheat - Speed just ran them off the road and presumably killed them. Sure it WAS violent (I live in Baltimore City which is far more violent). The point is - no one sugar-coated reality. Speed didn’t care about the “environment” or “green fuel”. He cared about “winning” and “being the best” - good lessons for little kids of the 70’s. Oh Yeah - no matter how violent - the “good guys” always won. Thanks Speed for teaching tough life lessons to a little kid.

    Comment by Jim B — May 12, 2008 @ 7:43 am

49. I hope WB wasn’t expecting the racing crowd to embrace this garbage. Not only did we motorsports fans hate the Speed Racer cartoons as kids, over the years we’ve maliciously attached the “Speed Racer” name to all sorts of racings aberration’s. Such as:
    “He thinks he’s Speed Racer” - About the guy who shows up with all the expensive equipment and new paint but doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing.
    “Who does he think I am Speed Racer?” - About the sponsor who wants to pimp out your race car for visual effects.
    “He wants’ a Speed Racer episode” - About the race promoter that injects artificial drama and gimmicks to generate interest.
    “He’s been watching too much Speed Racer” - About the driver trying to pull off an insane pass that takes out half the field.
    “Yea, there just Speed Racer fans” - About the few fans in the stands that are cheering for more after you just hit the wall at 150mph.
    “What’s with the mullets?” - About some NASCAR fans who will like Speed Racer.

    Comment by Motor Sport Fan — May 12, 2008 @ 9:03 am

50. I am surprised that the overseas markets have recognized Speed Racer to be a dog. That means the foreign audiences that made stars out of Dolph Lundgren and Jean Claude Van Damm think the Speed sux. The entire Speed Racer premise seems to anti-audience. The effects are sickening to look at, the lead is bland looking and the camp presentation is off-putting. No parent would pay to sit through this, and no child should have to watch two hours of this dreck. Making a faithful Sin City or a 300 is clever. Making a faithful Speed down to the chimp sidekick is just insane. I don’t know what those brothers are smoking but they’ve lost it, big time.

    Comment by Sunny — May 24, 2008 @ 8:20 pm

51. speed racer was awesome.i hope they make a 2 nd movie of speedracer.it was really awesome.i hope that in the 2nd movie racer x reveals his secret that hes speeds brother. GO SPEED GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by jasmine g — May 28, 2008 @ 12:19 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment