1. Quite simply, they made a cheesy movie. Of course, it can be said that the original Speed Racer was cheesy as well, but look at the time period. The original Batman was also cheesy, but that doesn't mean Batman films ALWAYS have to be cheesy. I've seen a few Speed Racer fans say that this movie is great and it sticks to the original feel. So what? That doesn't mean it's any good. I would never even rent something that looked to ridiculous, colorful, and over the top hammy. The Wachowski brothers messed up the Matrix trilogy as well, with an absurd finale that, if approached differently, could have left that trilogy as a classic (though the second one was already wearing thin with the cave dance scene and turning Morpheous into some low man on the totem pole compared to the first). Anyway, Speed Racer literally only appeals to a very, very narrow audience, and Warners was silly to ever expect anyone over 12 to go see it (unless they were bringing their 8 year old with them).

Posted at 1:45PM on May 11th 2008 by Jim

2. It failed because you wanted it too. The popular agenda has been to stifle this movie before it even entered theaters. Congratulations, you succeeded.

Posted at 2:04PM on May 11th 2008 by MCW

3. Even the worst of press attacks cannot keep a good product from killing when people see it, sorry, you should be angry at the Wachowsky brothers instead. Of all the great ideas out there, they had to do a plastic version of an old cartoon that means little to the collective memory.

Posted at 2:48PM on May 11th 2008 by Mr.R

4. I agree that most of the comments before it came out have been negative, and that influences people a bit I assume...

but at the same time...what do you expect a movie blog to do? Not discuss new movies coming out? Not to give opinions on the trailers? I mean no one has an incentive for a movie to fail, especially blogs.

Posted at 4:16PM on May 11th 2008 by Oneiroi

5. Funny that you say that, as I was telling people that this movie's failure was being cheered by people everywhere; that it was a movie people willed to fail.


Chalk me up as one of those people. The movie looked terrible, the reviews picked out flaws I felt would be bothersome, and I have an active dislike for the Wachowski Brothers. Blame it on the Matrix 2. Blame it on the Matrix videogames. Blame it on all the bravado they released both of those with despite how awful they were.
Strong distaste in my mouth for them. Maybe it was the media coverage and not actually them, but it seemed as if they felt they were bigger and more important than they actually were, and as spiteful and arguably irrational as it is, it's nice to see a failure hopefully ground them in reality.

People do better when feeling they have something to prove, anyway.

Posted at 7:15PM on May 11th 2008 by MosquitoControl

6. Actually it failed because it was obviously terrible (as it's opening weekend's receipts prove) and because it was based on an equally terrible show that *somehow* garners warm fuzzy memories from people. I was born in 77 so I didn't really 'grow up' with Speed Racer but I did view it when it was on TV - and I turned the channel EVERY TIME. It was a HORRIBLE show.

If the Wachowski's were aiming for a true-to-the-source movie - they must have succeeded and that's why it failed.

Posted at 7:58PM on May 11th 2008 by indecks

7. That's funny.. I remember a movie called Transformers last year and everyone was panning it. Fanboys hated the new "bayformers" critics and film snobs were bemoaning that Michael Bay was making yet another movie... and I remember it bombing... wait.. what was that? It was one of the most successful movies of 2007?

Hmmm, I guess you're "if you think it, it will bomb" theory works not at all.

Posted at 9:18PM on May 11th 2008 by eugene

8. Yes, it was my fault. Just like Passion of the Christ was a box office disaster because I have a strong dislike for Mel Gibson. Just like Spider Man 3 was a disaster because I thought they totally screwed up that movie after a nearly perfect Spider Man 2. Just like Transformers did horribly because I can't stand Michael Bay or Shia Labeouwooafof. Just like War of the Worlds flopped at the box office because I think Tom Cruise is an ass clown.

Yeah.....I think you get how silly your conclusion is now.

Posted at 7:27AM on May 12th 2008 by Jim

9. I was a huge "speed" fan when I was young and years ago when there was talk of a Depp Speed Racer movie, I was very excited. I had thoughts of a dark obscure adventure movie (without a fricking monkey). Like a lot of other people I was dissipointed in hearing about the Wachowski brothers involvment and this is the result. Honestly after seeing the first stills a few months ago did anyone really expect this thing to make any money?.. What the Hell, ya' don't fool around with the Mach 5, that's really the main character. The sad part is we'll now will never see a Speed Racer movie made the way it should have been. Mabe Toby Maguire will learn somthing befor bringing his Robotech Opus to the big screen.

Posted at 2:18PM on May 11th 2008 by Dave Lister

10. Well said Jim

Posted at 2:27PM on May 11th 2008 by Jason

11. I think it failed because of its running time. Kids don't want to see though a 2 hour film unless it's Harry Potter, and I'm sure this film would have done much better if it ran 1 hour 30 minutes. I doubt it had to do with the fact that kids didn't know the cartoon, it's not like kids know what Underdog and Alvin and the Chipmunks are, but those seem to do alright at the boxoffice. Even if this movie is total crap, kids don't pay attention to reviews, so that probably has little to do with it. I, personally, can't wait to see it. Cheesy fun with loads of explosions and cars! Can't wait!

Posted at 3:06PM on May 11th 2008 by Naf

12. poor marketing. the marketing seemed to promote it to the 18-35 market, while the rating and the critics called it a children's movie. i was looking forward to it after seeing the trailers, but once i heard it was PG, i was out.

Posted at 3:40PM on May 11th 2008 by uforeader

13. The look of the film is worse than 'the flinstones', yet similar.

Their first mistake was having kids as a target audience. Everyone would love to see this world come alive if they only made it more of a mature film. Kids aren't dumb either, don't insult them by making a kitty film for kids.

The other problem is that nothing is believable. I know the director is taking us into a whole new world with all it's cornucopia of flash and color, but none of the a basic realism elements such as the cars' motion is realistic. I immediately can't relate to it; I don't buy it. Video games are more believable.

And thirdly, anytime you have a movie with a monkey, it's bad.

Posted at 4:31PM on May 11th 2008 by hunterart_2000

14. "And thirdly, anytime you have a movie with a monkey, it's bad."

Pirates did pretty well for having a monkey in the movie. ;-)

Posted at 5:12PM on May 11th 2008 by Ryan

15. undead > monkey.

Posted at 9:20PM on May 11th 2008 by eugene

16. I don't know how it qualifies as a "kid" movie..unless bloody beatings and giving the finger, and enough swear words to keep it interesting is what it takes to qualify as a childs movie. Why you would bring anyone under 12 to see it, I don't know.

Posted at 5:27PM on May 11th 2008 by Mark-SEA

17. Speed Racer was AWESOME!!!! The cinemetography was unbelievable and the story was just like the original cartoon. I highly recommend it. I agree the PG rating probably scared off parents with younger kids. We took our little league t-ball team and they all thoroughly enjoyed it. The parents were glad they took their kids to see the movie. The length of time was not a factor for either the kids or the parents, it was very entertaining. We will definitely see it again and can't wait for the DVD to come out.

Posted at 5:42PM on May 11th 2008 by Ed Payan

18. This movie is nothing like the cartoon! And anyone who claims otherwise does not know what they're talking about. In the cartoon, Speed raced to find his older brother Rex who ran away from home over a dispute with the father, Pops. The meta theme of the cartoon was about reuniting family. This movie is garbage, more evidence that the Wachowski brothers are not good film makers.

Posted at 6:11PM on May 11th 2008 by Ponce

19. i tried to get people to be into seeing this, but as soon as you say the letters 'PG', and you don't follow it with 13, people basically laugh at you (and not everybody cares about reviews, since that awful other movie made $20mil on a weekend when Iron Man was in theaters).

Posted at 5:59PM on May 11th 2008 by fred

20. To me it comes down to four basic reasons:

1) it came out the week after Iron Man. Come on, could they pick a worse time? I have three friends who had a convesation in front of me that went something like this:

P1: "Hey, you wanna go to the movies this weekend?"
ME: "I cann't I have to write my report."
P2: "Sure what's playing?"
P3: "I don't know, but I could go for Iron Man again."
P2: "Sounds good!"
P1: "Iron Man!"

So they saw Iron Man again... one of whome saw it for the fourth time.

2) Length of movie. See other comments for reasoning.

3) The actual fans of the Speed Racer show are now in college or work. In regards to the ones in college, this week is Finals' Week at many across the nation, so many were spending it preparing; I know that's why I didn't go.

Timing is what it comes down to in the end, and they dropped the ball on this one.

Posted at 6:01PM on May 11th 2008 by James