There Went Speed Racer
D’oh!
Anne Thompson does a spoiler-free, 10-point post mortem in this morning’s Variety on why Speed Racer was D.O.A. in theaters, pinching off a dismal $42.2 million at the domestic box office to date and another $36 million overseas. As unabashed fans of the film, this is a sensitive subject around the LiC head office – one of the monkeys is still hitting the bottle, expensive stuff too. Nevertheless, let’s take a look at what Ms. Thompson has to say and then agree or refute her points one at a time.
1. Speed was simply too costly to score a hit with its target audience. I sort of agree, but I’d word it differently. More accurately it was budgeted for the wrong target audience. Warner Bros. mistook a personal, experimental, niche film for a blockbuster and they aimed it at the Pirates of the Caribbean crowd. Of course, the Wachowskis let the studio believe it was doing the right thing, or it’s possible they were equally deluded. On the bright side, this benefits those of us who loved the movie. We got a $200 million art film (after P&A) and that’s not likely to happen again any time soon. Suckers!
2. Producer Joel Silver is on a three-year losing streak. This is an accurate statement, but it has nothing to do with the tanking of Speed Racer. The failure of The Brave One didn’t lead to the failure of what followed. It’s magical Hollywood thinking that certain people have some kind of Midas touch and can spin gold from cow manure. Nonsense. If anything, it was Silver’s earlier track record with films like Matrix and Lethal Weapon that helped convince Warner Bros. to make a $200 million art film in the first place.
3. With a blockbuster series in its sights, Warner Bros…was dazzled by a four-minute pre-visualization of candy-colored high-def racing cars. Yes. Again, they were thinking franchise and what they were getting was an art film. They turned over their wallets and creative control to the filmmakers. This like turning the car keys over to your daughter and telling her the ecstasy is in the glove compartment.
4. Brand confusion. “Audiences and critics identify both Silver and the Wachowskis with R-rated, violent, f/x epics like The Matrix and V for Vendetta.” That’s at least half crazy talk and probably more. The audiences Warner Bros. was counting on, and who stayed away in droves (again, the Pirates crowd), wouldn’t be able to pick a Silver or a Wachowski out of a police line-up let alone name which pictures they worked on and in what capacity. The real problem is that these audiences respond to stars and there weren’t any of high enough wattage in Speed Racer. Nor was it crowd pleasing enough to make stars on its own (as Pirates was). As for the critics, I like to think they’re smart enough not to pigeonhole producers and directors either, but when I look at the critical response, I have to admit Anne might have a point in this regard.
5. Marketing Misdirection. Agreed. Because Warner Bros. never properly understood Speed’s target audience, their campaign was confusing, scattered and indistinct. Is it for families? Is it for fanboys? Is it just a kid’s movie? No one seemed to know and they all stayed away. My opinion is that it was a kids movie for adults. A tough sell, though Pixar pulled it off with Ratatouille last year, mostly because of brand identification. That’s right. LiC’s pet theory is that Ratatouille was intended for adults but disguised as a kid’s movie because that’s the only way to sell animation to narrow minded Americans. Take that theory to the bank or suck on it, one or the other.
6. Pixel fatigue. The movie was too busy. Anne provides anecdotal evidence of this and it was certainly a common complaint among overwhelmed film critics, but I’m not buying it for a minute because I simply didn’t experience it. If you’re engaged in the movie, it’s a fantastic sensory experience and not an overload at all. It flows too well and follows it’s own crazy logic too effectively to be jarring. It’s a trip and a rush and a helluva lot of fun.
7. The pic’s soda-pop look might have worked better with older smarthouse audiences. Yes. It would’ve and it did. Unfortunately, as discussed above, this audience isn’t big enough for a $200 million dollar movie. Also, “pic” and “smarthouse” were Anne’s words, not mine. But then, you knew that already.
8. The running time was simply too long for a family film. True, but it’s not just families. Speed Racer was too long period. The subject and the style begged for a leaner movie. Unfortunately the Wachowskis had final cut and they wouldn’t budge. If one mistake was made in the creation of this movie (not the marketing) it was that the Wachowskis were too close to their baby and they couldn’t bear to cut off one of it’s gangrenous limbs to save its life.
9. The movie didn’t work anywhere in the world. Well of course. That’s the definition of ‘tanking’, but it doesn’t speak to cause, does it? I think Anne had only 9 points, but she really wanted 10 because we’re a decimal society. Speaking of the international set though, I have to say I’m surprised and disappointed that even the French didn’t dig Speed Racer. Alas, qu’allez-vous faire? Nevertheless, I’ll be curious to see how the Japanese respond. I would predict that Speed will be huge, but I’ve already swung and missed with the French so instead I’m just going to sit here quietly on the bench and hope it kills on Blu-ray.
10. The movie was ahead of its time. In a sense, I agree. However, it’s not so much that the film was revolutionary (it was), I’d argue instead that it simply wasn’t the movie most people wanted it to be at this moment in time. I predict expectations will adjust and more people will come to accept it and love it for what it is – some day in a happier, more rational and artistically enlightened future. I’m, not betting any money on it though.
Finally, I’d add “Bad word of mouth” to Thompson’s list. Though it doesn’t explain the poor opening weekend, the truth is a lot of people who did see the movie disliked it and told their friends to stay away. The result is that Speed never had any legs to lift it over a dismal opening.
An interesting side note before we wrap this up: in a June 10 report from the annual toy licensing expo in New York, Variety’s Sam Thielman says Warners exec Brad Globe expressed surprise at how well Speed Racer toys were doing despite the box office underperformance. Said Globe: “In fact, [the sales are] comparable to the last Batman.” What that means in terms of actual numbers I have no idea, but maybe the financial picture for Speed isn’t so bad after all. Ironic though that a film with an anti-capitalist message would get a leg up on toy sales, isn’t it?
Filed under: Analysis
I think the root cause starts and ends at #5. Incidentally, #6 is a joke.
How about #11, bad release date? It probably should have been released in, say, March, or something some other offbeat but not too offbeat time of the year. Or at least some better, less competitive time of summer. Being sandwiched in-between the monstrously huge Iron Man and Narnia and Indy didn’t help this movie at all. Many families balked the second weekend and saw Iron Man again. Disney made a similar mistake with Prince Caspian, which should have been a Christmas release all the way, and in each case the marketing just wasn’t particularly persuasive.
And reason #12 is that it’s based on a cartoon show that’s pretty old now. And it’s not like it’s Indiana Jones, an iconic staple of movie land.
It had an uphill climb all the way.
I included an addendum on the 74th re-edit of this post: Bad word of mouth. It’s hard to argue the fact that lots of people really didn’t like the movie and they told their friends.
I agree that #5 had a lot to do with the bad opening weekend, but I also think better marketing wouldn’t have helped this movie find a much bigger audience.
As for the release date, since they were treating it as a blockbuster, they had no real choice. March isn’t blockbuster weather as far as Hollywood is concerned.
Your #12 also speaks to the niche audience idea. There just wasn’t a vast pool of people that felt they needed to see this movie.
How about the G-rating? Once I heard that, I started slowly tuning out. I know Pixar movies are typically G-rated and I don’t hold that against them, but when I think of a live-action G-rated movie my mind immediately goes to Benji, The Love Bug, and Don Knotts/Tim Conway.
OK, I’m was a kid in the 70’s. The G-rating really changed my entire perception of the film.
Plus, some of the stills and the first trailer I saw looked really silly. I just couldn’t get behind it. I feel like a jerk saying that, but the film’s imagery (not the marketing) totally turned me off.
I thought it was going to be G rated, but it was PG.
I think there’s a real chance if you had seen it you would have hated it. I really believe the audience for this one was limited from the start.
I think when it absolutely comes down to it, the film didn’t perform because it’s a children’s film for adults and most adults didn’t know that.
Point number 5, all the way. Although in retrospect, I’m not sure it could have been marketed successfully. As Craig says, it was a kid’s movie for adults. But how do you market that successfully? How do you tell legions of grown-up men that it will make them feel like they did when they were 5 and played with matchbox cars? Speed Racer is like The Princess Bride in that it doesn’t fit into any definable niche, and that is strychnine to marketing.
It will become a cult classic, hands down, and people will be watching it 10 years from now and loving every second of it. And just like with The Princess Bride, no one will even remember that it tanked at the box office. They’ll just know that they love it.
And I will bet money on that, if there are any takers.
I agree with Chuck. And I think the reason adults didn’t know that was because of the dreadful work by the marketing department. I think the first teaser killed it. Right there. Done. Warner’s should’ve realized how careful you have to be with something so against the norm. The first trailer was horrid and turned people off instantly.
Interestingly enough, I feel like the marketing department at Warner’s was also partly responsible for the enormous hype and subsequent failure of Matrix Reloaded by showing TOO MUCH of the film in the trailers. Here you have a highly anticipated sequel to one of the most influential and successful films of the 90s, and they blow it out of proportion by showing basically every major set-piece in the trailer. I’m not saying the film is perfect all on its own, but it’s not awful either. Far from it.
I just think they really seem to be cluess as to how to market the Wachowski’s films. I really wish studios allowed more directors to cut their own trailers. Paul Thomas Anderson did his own trailer for Magnolia and it’s great. Also….Speed Racer hasn’t opened in Japan yet. I still expect it to be huge there.
I agree Ari, though like Evan and I both asked, how exactly DO you market such a picture? Having said that, the first trailer for it almost killed the movie for me. I was expecting it to be campy and I didn’t get what they were doing…which wasn’t camp. Then something clicked afterwards and I slowly started to fall in love with it before I even saw it. And then it delivered exactly what I wanted.
So yeah, even if it was doomed to smallish audience to begin with, the marketing department still dropped the ball.
As for Matrix, the organic hype over those may have been enough to kill them, let alone what marketing did.
Evan, I will not bet you, but I will hope you’re right.
There’s even a “my year of flops” piece about it already:
http://www.avclub.com/content/feature/my_year_of_flops_case_file_111
It’s a good read though. He might not be a supporter like you, Craig, but I think you might enjoy it.
Sorry Hedwig, comments with links are getting spammed a lot lately, but I’ve unburied you.
Interesting point about The Princess Bride, Evan. At the time that movie was released in the theater there wasn’t nearly as much focus on box office as there is today. It became one of the most quoted movies of all time of course – I had no idea it had tanked when it was released.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
This one only opens in SA next week Friday…
That’s right, I don’t think of Princess Bride being an early failure. I guess I just wasn’t focused on those things back then (I still try not to be). Loved the book and thought the movie was terrific.
Wait Nick, I thought you already saw Speed and you kinda didn’t like it.
“This like turning the car keys over to your daughter and telling her the ecstasy is in the glove compartment.”
With a recommendation like that, I’ll be sure to catch this film ASAP.
Ahahahahahah
Yip, I did see it and sort of liked it but sort of did not like it much, but I just meant that “Speed Racer” bashings have not started in SA, and that it has not had its chance to disappoint here. Yet.
Ohhhhh….gotcha. Don’t mind me, I’m easily confused.
Saw it again while in California on vacation. It held up.
I was deeply, deeply, deeply disappointed when I noticed this had left theaters in my area. I meant to catch it on the big screen and just flat missed it.
Meanwhile, “What Happens In Vegas” still shows.
I actually have an itch for a third go-round.
It’s too bad you missed it Harvey. Even if you end up not caring for it, it deserves to be seen on the big screen.
On the other hand, if you have swell home entertainment system or know someone who does, Speed will kill on Blu-ray.