This is topic Speed Racer: Big or Bust? in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002030
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 04-19-2008, 09:18 AM:
 
I'm not sure what to make of this movie...the action looks neat, and it is definitely original, but what demographic will want to see it?

How do you think it will do at the box office? I predict 100 mil in the US.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-19-2008, 09:49 AM:
 
I think you're in the ballpark with the $100M prediction. It's going to get buried by Iron Man, Narnia and Indy.

They were crazy to put it in May which is WAY too crowded. July 25 would have been far better...the X Files movie on that day will draw an older crowd and the next major competition (Star Wars: Clone Wars) is three weeks away.
 
Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 04-19-2008, 11:22 AM:
 
I am with you about not seeing the targeted demographic. When I watch the trailers, I feel it is trying to reach an older audience, (from the makers of the Matrix Trilogy...), but the PG rating suggests family-appropriate content. Here is how I see it: With the early May opening and niche audience, I think the opening weekend under whelms and the total run is under $80 million.
 
Posted by Rene Ferron (Member # 4674) on 04-19-2008, 12:07 PM:
 
I really don't know what to think of this movie at all.

It looks ok but (big blank spot here) i just don't know. I was not a big fan of Speed Racer as a child. I don't know anything about the characters nor the plot, so it's hard to judge this one. I just see that they chose a wrong time to come out, Iron Man and Indiana Jones will take the spotlight that's for sure.

[Wink]
 
Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 04-19-2008, 12:41 PM:
 
The sub-run theatres will have it before school starts back up for fall, easily. Iron Man, too. Narnia, later.
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 04-19-2008, 01:20 PM:
 
I see this as somewhat of a flop. It might have a decent opening weekend but it looks kinda "pointless" for lack of a better word. I don't remember much of it but I think speed racer was kind of a campy cartoon. This looks too serious for the subject matter that it is based on. Also, doesn't look to have a real good target audience. I'm going to say $30 Million opening, $75 Million Total.
 
Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 04-19-2008, 02:07 PM:
 
I don't think it will do well.

This one could really become the meat in the sandwich, considering what is scheduled in front and behind it. As usual, the distribs are going with their same old formula, front loading the summer schedule. This time it could be a disaster for exhibitors, with the economy being what it is. Too few dollars chasing too many "big" releases, and I'm going to predict folks will be having to make diffucult decisions, because they can't afford to see everything.

Think as a movie goer would: If you only had money to see two movies in May, what would they be?

Mike- What the devil are you going to do? May has to be a booking nightmare for a single screen player.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-19-2008, 03:10 PM:
 
I am going to go see Speed Racer. I think it has a good shot of being a hit movie. The visuals look great. The Wachowski brothers are well tuned into cultural "Asian chic" and likely have a very good idea how this movie should be handled. At first I thought it seemed strange for the Wachowski brothers to choose this project to follow The Matrix saga, but it seems to make more sense the more I think about it.

Also, I was ape-shit over the Speed Racer cartoons when I was in elementary school. So it will be kind of a trip down memory lane.

Obviously this movie is going to appeal to kids. It may also appeal to a good number of Generation X aged grown-ups.
 
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 04-19-2008, 05:02 PM:
 
They were shooting for a "G" rating on this film and did not get it. When I saw the trailers - I was like "huh?" - that's not a "G" movie. Anyways..... They got the "PG" without the "13" Attached.

However, my four year old son is literally a "Speed Racer" himself - he has wanted to be a race car driver since he was born. So he wants to see this movie. For me, I think it reminds me of the Pod races in Episode 1. It doesn't thrill me at all.

AND YES - May is overloaded. What are they thinking? They are going to shoot their load in May and have nothing left for July or August.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-19-2008, 05:27 PM:
 
Here's a few of the movies coming up for June and July.

June 2, 2008
Hancock - Columbia Pictures

June 6, 2008
Kung Fu Panda - Dreamworks/PDI

June 13, 2008
The Happening - 20th Century Fox

June 20, 2008
Get Smart - Warner Bros.

June 27, 2008
Wall•E - Disney/Pixar
Wanted - Universal Pictures

July 11, 2008
Hellboy 2: The Golden Army - Universal Pictures

July 18, 2008
The Dark Knight - Warner Bros. (IMAX)
Mamma Mia! - Universal Pictures
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-19-2008, 05:35 PM:
 
quote: John T. Hendrickson, Jr
Mike- What the devil are you going to do? May has to be a booking nightmare for a single screen player.
Well, Indiana Jones is a given, and everything else will fall in around that. I hope we can play Narnia and Iron Man in order right after Indiana.

A big question for me is Speed Racer vs. What Happens in Vegas, on the 9th. We tend to do well both with kid movies and romantic comedies, so either one of those could be OK to lead into Indy. The one we skip will probably get lost in the shuffle. The question is which (if either) has two weeks of "legs".

I think this year's June is the weakest in years. Good thing we'll have a good supply of May leftovers to pick from.
 
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 04-19-2008, 06:07 PM:
 
What about showing The Lion Witch & the Wardrobe & Raiders of the Lost Ark in that little window?

Make a couple of little "events" out of them to re-introduce the franchises. And you'd get better terms than with a new release, right?

Just a thought,
Geoff

PS: Could care less about Speed Racer. It's all about Wall*E!
 
Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 04-19-2008, 08:00 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
June 2, 2008
Hancock - Columbia Pictures

June 6, 2008
Kung Fu Panda - Dreamworks/PDI

June 13, 2008
The Happening - 20th Century Fox

June 20, 2008
Get Smart - Warner Bros.

June 27, 2008
Wall•E - Disney/Pixar
Wanted - Universal Pictures
Don't forget about You Don't Mess With the Zohan on June 6, The Incredible Hulk on June 13, and The Love Guru on June 20.

I think it looks like a pretty good June, but some of these will undoubtedly flop.
 
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 04-19-2008, 08:27 PM:
 
quote: Lyle Romer
I don't remember much of it but I think speed racer was kind of a campy cartoon. This looks too serious for the subject matter that it is based on
I was a huge Speed Racer fan as a child and couldn't agree more. Nothing about the trailer feels like the cartoon to me.

Still, I'm seeing it. And predicting "bomb".
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-19-2008, 08:31 PM:
 
quote: Geoff Jones
What about showing The Lion Witch & the Wardrobe & Raiders of the Lost Ark in that little window?
Any of the new movies would walk all over those because they're on DVD.

Besides, Disney doesn't book anything that isn't in current release, so the original Narnia would be out. Raiders? We'd probably get a crappy print.
 
Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 04-19-2008, 09:02 PM:
 
Paramount has withdrawn both Raiders and Temple of Doom from release because of the pending release of Crystal Skull.
 
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 04-19-2008, 11:54 PM:
 
Why do they do that? I read that Fox did the same thing with Alien before AVP:R was released. It makes no sense to me - I would think that having the original film in theatres would increase excitement for the new one.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-20-2008, 12:37 AM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
A big question for me is Speed Racer vs. What Happens in Vegas, on the 9th.
That's not really any question at all. What Happens in Vegas looks like it will probably suck.

quote: Anslem Rayburn
Don't forget about You Don't Mess With the Zohan on June 6, The Incredible Hulk on June 13, and The Love Guru on June 20.
I agree, those titles make June look even more impressive. Although I don't think the "Zohan" movie is going to do squat. It looks pretty stupid. Blades of Glory already mined enough comedy from homophobia to last for a few years.

quote: Sam Graham
I was a huge Speed Racer fan as a child and couldn't agree more. Nothing about the trailer feels like the cartoon to me.
Speed Racer may be live action, but the Mach 5 looks like the Mach 5. It has those jump legs coming out from underneath it. The sound effect is even the same. The show looks like it has many of the trappings from the old animated TV series. They've even gone so far as to copy the strange way Japanese animated backgrounds scroll.

If Speed Racer doesn't hit big here in the 'States, I'm sure it will clean up in International markets. I'm seeing it. I'm there.

quote: Jonathan M. Crist
Paramount has withdrawn both Raiders and Temple of Doom from release because of the pending release of Crystal Skull.
I don't understand that. If anything, a very good quality revival of the first three Indy movies, or at least Raiders in 70mm in a few places, would help boost enthusiasm and public awareness of the new movie fixing to be released.

I hate to say it, but this new Indy movie has way too much time separating it from the previous Indy movies. It would have helped to have some sort of restored revival print campaign to pump up the new movie. I just hope the fourth installment is very good.

quote: Geoff Jones
Why do they do that? I read that Fox did the same thing with Alien before AVP:R was released. It makes no sense to me - I would think that having the original film in theatres would increase excitement for the new one.
I won't speak for everyone else, but to me the Alien franchise died with Alien³. I just watch the first two movies in the series and try to pretend the others that followed don't even exist.

Alien³ was one of the most poorly paced movies I've ever seen in my life. More over-produced than Batman. It just sucked. And really through no fault of director David Fincher either. He had to submit to the whims of big egos involved in the project -and be reminded that he was only a music video director.

Alien Ressurection was just plain embarrasing. The dude from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest saying, "Ripley, look at your new baby" just ranks as one of the most uncomfortable moments I've ever had in a movie theater. It only falls down next to watching the opening scene of Basic Instinct with my parents sitting next to me. Eww.

AVP? Wimpy. PG-13? Sell out. Blah.

Then they follow it by insisting on a red band trailer for AVP-R. The way it was pitched almost made the movie seem like it was a gore-as-porn movie. Unfortunately the movie was a pile of shit. Gore alone does not make a horror movie any good. I don't give a rat's ass what anyone else says. There is NOTHING scary about gore. But that's basically how AVP-R was sold. "Hey, we got the message you wanted a bloody R-rated movie, so here it is!" Trouble is Fox didn't realize most people wanted a movie that was at least halfway worth a damn.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-20-2008, 12:43 AM:
 
Speed Racer is of no interest to me. The graphics look far inferior to most racing videogames out there and even runs at less than 50% of the framerate of said games. I'll stick with F-Zero GX k thanx.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-20-2008, 01:18 AM:
 
quote: Joe Redifer
The graphics look far inferior to most racing videogames out there and even runs at less than 50% of the framerate of said games.
Well...yeah, most movies are filmed at a mere 24 frames per second -which would kinda suck for gaming purposes. But the graphics are inferior? Are you honestly looking at the difference?

Honestly, I have seen a LOT of video games. Even the very best video games ever created still come nowhere near finished movie CGI quality. It's as simple as that.

I'll throw out what I've said before. If a single gaming PC loaded with a video game software title could equal the graphics quality of a major motion picture then there would be no need at all for things like rendering farms. A 2 hour Pixar movie could be rendered in real time during one afternoon on a garden variety PC. Unfortunately that's not reality. And video games equaling movie CGI is not reality either.

But if you think Speed Racer looks like it will suck, I'll respect that opinion.
 
Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 04-20-2008, 02:02 AM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
June 2, 2008
Hancock - Columbia Pictures
Hancock is July 2nd. A return of "Big Willy Weekend"?
 
Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 04-20-2008, 07:06 AM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Alien³ was one of the most poorly paced movies I've ever seen in my life. More over-produced than Batman. It just sucked. And really through no fault of director David Fincher either. He had to submit to the whims of big egos involved in the project -and be reminded that he was only a music video director.
My understanding is that David Fincher officially disowned this movie. He is an excellent director, and the studio screwed his vision up so bad that he walked out and refused to finish the film.
 
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 04-20-2008, 10:47 AM:
 
The other summer movie question mark for me is The Happening. I think the preview looks cool, but M. Night has to regain the public trust after the Lady In the Water/Village fiascos.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-20-2008, 10:52 AM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
The Wachowski brothers are well tuned into cultural "Asian chic" and likely have a very good idea how this movie should be handled.
Isn't there a F-T Member from Florida who may be better tuned into that "Asian Chic" thing than the Wachowski Bros are????
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-20-2008, 12:38 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
That's not really any question at all. What Happens in Vegas looks like it will probably suck.
Well I don't want to get off on a rant here, but whether either movie (or both) will suck is beside the point. It's which will put more butts in the seats. "What Happens in Vegas" has a good trailer that's getting laffs...important in this day and age. We haven't had a crowd-pleasing comedy in a while, so it might do pretty well. "Speed Racer" looks like it'll pull the fanboys and maybe the action fans who don't think it's too "kiddie," but it isn't going to draw the general crowds. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-20-2008, 12:59 PM:
 
I don't know for sure, but it seems to me like a decent number of crowd pleasing comedies are already getting released. Leaving Sarah Marshall is getting pretty good reviews. Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay may draw some crowds next weekend.

It's not my call to make what gets booked to play in a theater May 9, but if I had my own venue I'd be more likely to book a big budget action movie directed by the Wachowski brothers (even if it is geared for kiddies) instead of what looks to me like a throwaway comedy starring Ashton Kutcher and Cameron Diaz.

Warner Bros. is emphasizing the point of Speed Racer being a project from the creators of the Matrix trilogy in all the advertising. I think that's going to have a positive effect. Given they're going to the expense of making IMAX DMR prints I expect the marketing push for Speed Racer to intensify in a few days to lead up to that May 9 weekend.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-20-2008, 04:04 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Honestly, I have seen a LOT of video games. Even the very best video games ever created still come nowhere near finished movie CGI quality. It's as simple as that.
Not for this movie. It looks inferior from what I've seen, unless they went out of their way to only show the worst looking parts during the previews.
 
Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 04-20-2008, 04:04 PM:
 
I forgot about Harold and Kumar. (Bangs head on desk).
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-20-2008, 08:48 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Warner Bros. is emphasizing the point of Speed Racer being a project from the creators of the Matrix trilogy in all the advertising. I think that's going to have a positive effect.
It might, if not for two things: The second and third Matrix movies.
 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-21-2008, 05:08 AM:
 
Yes, they were never the same without Switch (Belinda McClorey) [Wink]
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 04-21-2008, 08:01 AM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Leaving Sarah Marshall is getting pretty good reviews.
Not to be an ass or anything but it's Forgetting Sarah Marshall and from what I've seen of the movie it seems pretty funny.
 
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 04-21-2008, 09:43 AM:
 
I just read a review of "Speed Racer" over at aintitcoolnews.com.

Typically those geeks posting on there are dead on with their reviews. I think this is because I am somewhat of a geek and I tend to agree with them. ANYWAYS:

The word on the street is that this movie is AWESOME. MINDBLOWING was a word used. He also said that they should be called the WOW!-chowski Brothers after this movie comes out.

107 screens for the IMAX release.

Hmm. could be interesting. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 04-21-2008, 12:41 PM:
 
As usual,
I'll give the movie seats on Weekend One.
 
Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 04-21-2008, 01:39 PM:
 
Monkey= blockbuster

Go Chim Chim... [Smile]
 
Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 04-21-2008, 03:15 PM:
 
Speedracer=Looks like Tron meets Matrix. Dud.
No one either side of 12 yrs old will care.
$20mil opening.
 
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 04-21-2008, 06:48 PM:
 
quote: Todd McCracken
Monkey= blockbuster

Go Chim Chim...
[Big Grin] [Big Grin] [Big Grin] [Big Grin] EXACTLY!

Still looking forward to Lancelot Link: The Movie.
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-22-2008, 02:19 PM:
 
With 128 minutes of running time they could be shooting themselves in the foot. But, I wouldn't under estimate anything.
 
Posted by Raymond Christie (Member # 4080) on 05-05-2008, 12:52 PM:
 
It really doesn't appeal to me. I don't think it will do very well. I do have a few private shows booked and that is only because it will be the only movie that schools can bring their classes to.
 
Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 05-05-2008, 04:01 PM:
 
Industry observers are predicting Speed Racer will open in the number 2 slot behind Iron Man in it's second week.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-05-2008, 05:24 PM:
 
A handful of early reviews have been linked at Rotten Tomatoes. With 8 reviews posted so far the movie is currently running at 38%.

Hopefully that number will move upward in a positive direction significantly.
 
Posted by Mike Sellars (Member # 4042) on 05-05-2008, 07:03 PM:
 
Oh my god... I forgot about Lancelot Link: Secret Chimp! That was the coolest!!! [Smile]

I was big into Speed Racer as well when I was a kid, and then later on as an adult saw it again and realized that it was just crappy early anime... but it was awesome when I was little.

$65 million first weekend.

Mike
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-05-2008, 07:04 PM:
 
I just found out the running time. I think that will definitely hurt the movie.

Moviewise I predict strong suck potential...but regardless it's sure going to look pretty! [Cool]
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-05-2008, 09:32 PM:
 
quote: Darryl Spicer
With 128 minutes of running time they could be shooting themselves in the foot. But, I wouldn't under estimate anything.
The new information we got now has the run time at 135 minutes.
 
Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 05-05-2008, 10:12 PM:
 
After watching this on Saturday morning, I have to say this will make about 40-60 mil and will still come in second to Iron Man. It was just not that good and way to long. Kids can't sit for 2 and half hours.
 
Posted by Justin May (Member # 4755) on 05-05-2008, 11:46 PM:
 
Bust without question. It looks god awful. Narnia, however, will sadly do tons of money.
 
Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 05-06-2008, 12:45 PM:
 
Hard to say what this will do. I think it will be bigger than most of us anticipate. The raised-on-Nintendo generation will probably all jump on board. I hated the TV show...and Dark Shadows was on at the same time. Hmmm..."Dark Shadows: The IMAX Experience"!!!!
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-06-2008, 12:54 PM:
 
quote: Justin May
Bust without question. It looks god awful. Narnia, however, will sadly do tons of money.
Why do you say that Narnia will SADLY do tons of money? Is there something wrong with people seeing Narnia?

I agree with you on Speed Racer looking aweful (in fact as soon as I saw the first trailer I declared it the worst movie of the summer) but I don't understand your Narnia comment.

BTW, I have seen Narnia but I will not post my full opinion until it opens.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-06-2008, 01:29 PM:
 
Maybe he's one of those people who hates all sequels, even the good ones, or else he hated the first Narnia so he wants this one to flop. (I haven't seen Narnia yet but I HOPE it's good, because we're playing it!)
 
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 05-09-2008, 01:50 AM:
 
Well, some higher up in corporate decided we were doing a 12:01, and although it was poorly advertised, the just over a dozen customers very nearly paid off 10% of the additional operating costs of us staying open an extra 2.5 hours and running a show on our largest screen!
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-09-2008, 11:36 AM:
 
I don't know what audiences will do, but the critical response to Speed Racer isn't a good sign. With 91 reviews counted, Speed Racer is turning in a 36% "rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes' tomato meter.

On the subject of Narnia, the Blu-ray version of the first movie is getting released on Tuesday just ahead of the release of the Prince Caspian installment. Reviews of the Narnia BD are already coming in, with most critics saying the disc has outstanding "reference quality" video and audio. Blu-ray.com says it may be the best looking Blu-ray disc to date.
 
Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 05-10-2008, 02:11 AM:
 
I watched half of it last night and wasn't impressed with any of it. I could not finish the movie. There wasn't enough time devoted to the racing aspect of it. In addition: much of the CGI was pixelated and low-quality. It just seemed really cheesy.

The quality of the graphics and over-use of pastel colors reminded me of the type of crap that was feature in that crummy Edward Burns movie that came out a while ago. I think it was titled "The Sound of Thunder"

I have a feeling that this movie will not bring in the numbers that it hoped to.
 
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 05-10-2008, 10:49 AM:
 
Our local film critic for the "Richmond Times Dispatch", Dan Neman reviewed it for today and said it was possibly the worst movie ever made.
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-10-2008, 06:05 PM:
 
Looks like Speed Racer is officially a bust.

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

quote:
SATURDAY NOON UPDATE: I'm just receiving reports that Speed Racer also isn't doing well overseas where it opened day and date Friday in 30+ territories. Says a marketing and distribution source for another studio: "It is a disaster in the worst way. It was No. 6 in the UK and No. 9 in Germany and the numbers are horrific. Only Latin America showed signs of life -- but it was barely a pulse." I haven't seen any official international figures from Warner Bros yet. But the film was supposed to do better overseas where anime is a bigger draw than in the U.S.
hollywood.com

quote:
HOLLYWOOD - Just spoke to a studio numbers-cruncher who says that Speed Racer (Warner Bros) is a lock to finish No. 2 for the weekend, although its final three-day opening weekend will be a real disappointment.

The matinee business for the Wachowski Brothers live action anime adaptation is up 50 percent-60 percent day-over-day, which gives the film a reasonable shot at $9M for the day. Still for the weekend, Speed Racer appears headed for a just over $20M.

 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-10-2008, 07:55 PM:
 
WOW! I thought it would be below expectations but not that far below. I heard through the grapevine that Regal was forecasting it to be below $20 Million. I thought they were a little too low an that it would do $30 - $35 million and then drop from there. I guess they were pretty close!
 
Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 05-10-2008, 08:06 PM:
 
Just talked to our Managing Director, and he said it's not doing well at all. Ironman is holding up nicely and What Happens in Vegas is doing ok, but Speed Racer looks to be a bust.
 
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 05-10-2008, 08:12 PM:
 
Big flop in the UK.

In total for today (saturday) we did a little over 20 admissions. (that's for the whole day, running in two screens [Eek!] ). It did similar on Friday.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-10-2008, 08:22 PM:
 
quote: Brad Miller
I just found out the running time. I think that will definitely hurt the movie.

Moviewise I predict strong suck potential...but regardless it's sure going to look pretty!
Clearly the people who predicted it to tank saw the movie ahead of time.

Speed Racer review
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-10-2008, 09:06 PM:
 
Jeez, maybe "What Happens in Vegas" will beat this after all!

[scratching this movie off the 'do play' list (where it had been written lightly in pencil)]
 
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 05-10-2008, 09:37 PM:
 
We originally had What Happens in Vegas in a small theater, based on principle and hope for mankind and Speed Racer in a larger one, but after Friday night we had to switch them based on the numbers. Tonight proved it, although from what I've seen of Speed Racer, it has little moral right to hold a larger theater. They are both pretty terrible, although Speed does lack that extra oomph of bad that is Ashton Kutcher.
 
Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 05-10-2008, 11:19 PM:
 
Yep. Iron Man and Vegas are the beating the pants off this piece of [bs]
 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-11-2008, 12:39 AM:
 
It saddens me to live in a world where people would rather see WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS than SPEED RACER.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-11-2008, 01:23 AM:
 
You're likely one of very few people who liked the movie at all. If most others believe the show was a piece of shit, they are entitled to their opinions. It just sounds to me like the Wachowski brothers should have done a better job with the script on this one.

All sound and fury signifying nothing appears to sum up this show.

After the marginal failure/success of the two Matrix sequels and the resounding failure of Speed Racer I wonder if the Wachowskis will ever "eat lunch" in Hollywood again. If so, I suspect they'll be doing so on more of a Bound style budget.

I hope one positive thing comes from this, and that's the death of the bullshit style of action movies with stupidly implausible, absolutely unbelievable set pieces that would have normal viewers throwing popcorn at the screen and yelling "bullshit."

As Mike Dikta would say, "never forget the fundamentals." Make the story and its characters believable. A flashy picture with implausible action is NOT enough.
 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-11-2008, 10:53 AM:
 
I agree that the film's biggest flaw is the writing. But what you hope for is what I dread. SPEED RACER's style is on par with SIN CITY. It does not try to be realistic for one moment, and it totally works because of that. If plausibility was factored into the equation, the end result would have truly been unwatchable.

My fear is that if people look at the failure of SPEED RACER and come to your conclusions, we'll be stuck with standard boring movies like WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS for the rest of our lives.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-11-2008, 12:07 PM:
 
Absolutely wrong.

Suspension of disbelief is a critical factor for any movie to work.

When you have action movies just throwing in things that defy all laws of physics and logic -and without any sort of setup on why this is happening- it's going to take most audience members out of the movie. After a while they're going to get bored with what they're seeing because there is no suspense.

Oh, and a movie like What Happens in Vegas is not the alternative to the bullshit in implausible movies like Speed Racer. It is insulting to suggest that.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-11-2008, 02:03 PM:
 
I am in agreement with Bobby regarding suspension of disbelief. This is why I really liked Iron Man up until the last 2 reels, but it just got silly and impossible to believe at that point. I am all for turning my brain off and accepting the first 5 reels of the many things in Iron Man that just couldn't have happened in today's world for the sake of entertainment, but they pushed the line too far in the last 2 reels.

As far as Speed Racer goes, yes it was evident we were just watching a live action cartoon and on that premise I was able to watch the first few minutes and accept it. But that is no excuse for making such a painfully long and boring movie.
 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-11-2008, 04:01 PM:
 
Looks like it won't make $20million for the weekend...even if Warner/Village forgave the Warchowski brothers for the final 2 Matrix films...they won't be coming back to the dinner table again after this with a $100million-plus budget.

Ouch!
 
Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 05-11-2008, 04:44 PM:
 
Well, over the top dose not begin to describe the action sequences. It was entertaining once but i doubt Ill see it again any time soon. Hard to follow the driving scenes, more driving and less spinning would have been better imho.
 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-11-2008, 05:53 PM:
 
Bobby,

I agree with Brad in regards to SPEED RACER's ability to suspend disbelief. The opening sequence of the movie does a wonderful job of establishing the rules of the world, and it wasn't hard for me to suspend my disbelief from that point on. It seems like most people here agree. The problem with the movie is the writing.

That being said, some people have a harder time suspending disbelief than others. My Grandpa hates STAR WARS, because he thinks it's all make believe. I'm sure he'd have a hard time with SPEED RACER too. To each his own.

I agree that it's insulting to think that WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS is an alternative to SPEED RACER. But that's the comparison which people in this thread are making. And for the sake of this discussion, it's valid. You said:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I hope one positive thing comes from this, and that's the death of the bullshit style of action movies with stupidly implausible, absolutely unbelievable set pieces that would have normal viewers throwing popcorn at the screen and yelling "bullshit."
I interpret that as meaning that you hope studios stick with what "works" for the average movie-goer. That's exactly what WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS is. A time-tested, formulaic crowd-pleaser. That sounds like movie death to me. People like the Wachowskis need to keep doing new stuff that might not work in the hopes of finding something that does. They've done it once already with THE MATRIX, and hopefully they'll keep trying.

But as you suggested, SPEED RACER is all sound and fury with no content. I agree that that's generally not good. But it cuts both ways. To have all content and no sound or fury would be equally bad.

What I would hate to have happen would be for studios to look at SPEED RACER and say, "Hey, get rid of that sound and fury," when they should be saying "Hey, get a better script." But if movies like WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS, which are equally devoid content, are successful, that's exactly what's going to happen.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-11-2008, 06:17 PM:
 
quote: Mike Schindler
I interpret that as meaning that you hope studios stick with what "works" for the average movie-goer.
You interpreted wrong. So don't try to put any words in my mouth -especially any sort of stupidly assumed notion that I endorse half-assed romantic comedies like What Happens in Vegas.

Movie studios have been churning out one stupidly implausible action movie after another thanks to movies like The Matrix and Croching Tiger Hidden Dragon.

Movies like Crank, Torque, the Transporter series, Charlie's Angels and countless others have numerous scenes in them that aren't remotely realistic. Those kinds of movies are the current, corporate Hollywood status quo of action movies. It's a bunch of crap not remotely grounded in reality and very uninvolving, BORING and unsuspensful. The people who make those movies are only interested in putting stuff they think looks cool on the screen rather than present a believable, involving, entertaining story.

So many of these kinds of brainless action movies are being made that other movies like Shoot 'Em Up make fun of how ridiculously stupid those movies really are.

At the same time, audiences respond very favorably to action movies like Casino Royale or A History of Violence because at least some effort is being made to pay attention to story fundamentals and make the action believable.

Speed Racer seems to me like a movie that tried to cash in on a certain "100% style 0% substance" formula after that formula fell way out of fashion. It's kind of like a disco band trying to get work after disco died in 1979 or a "hair band metal" outfit trying get anywhere in 1993. I think audiences have finally gotten sick of this shit. Fundamentally, it's just not enough to have really pretty pictures thrown on the screen alone. The cake icing needs to have a cake underneath it in order to be complete.
 
Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 05-11-2008, 06:24 PM:
 
quote: Mike Schindler
I interpret that as meaning that you hope studios stick with what "works" for the average movie-goer. That's exactly what WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS is. A time-tested, formulaic crowd-pleaser. That sounds like movie death to me. People like the Wachowskis need to keep doing new stuff that might not work in the hopes of finding something that does. They've done it once already with THE MATRIX, and hopefully they'll keep trying.

The problem with your comparison is that these are two very different genre of movie. It is disingenuous to say that the failure of Speed Racer will result in more sub-par comedies like WHIV.

I also think the issues with this movie stretch far beyond the writing. As stated on the first page of this thread, the movie was marketed poorly, never really finding out how to reach it's target audience. Additionally, the marketing that was out there looked incredibly ridiculous. Factor in poor scheduling by dropping it in the wake of Iron Man and right before Narnia, (two movies that draw the same demo Speed Racer was targeted at - young males), and a disappointing $20 million opening doesn't look like that much of a surprise.

Batman Begins, Live Free or Die Hard, Casino Royale and IMO Iron Man have all done the action genre well over the last few years. I don't think the steaming pile of [bs] that is Speed Racer will have any affect on the genre at all.

Matrix 2 and 3 and know Speed Racer...maybe we all drank the cool-aid on those guys too soon eh?
 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-11-2008, 07:59 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
You interpreted wrong. So don't try to put any words in my mouth -especially any sort of stupidly assumed notion that I endorse half-assed romantic comedies like What Happens in Vegas.
Sorry about that. I very deliberately quoted you and stated that that was my interpretation so that you would know that I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth. I should have been more explicit about that. My bad.

Secondly, I never assumed that you endorsed movies like WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS. You implied that you didn't in your last post. I was trying to say that your way of thinking leads to the dark side. Your intentions are good. But in the end, the movies will not be better, but worse.

As for misinterpreting your words, here is where I'm confused. Let's use your cake analogy:

I interpreted your initial post as meaning that you hope that SPEED RACER's failure will show the studios that they shouldn't put icing on their cakes anymore, and that they should instead focus on making really good cakes.

My response was that the everyone really liked SPEED RACER's icing. The problem was actually with the cake. And my fear was that the studios would jump to the same conclusions that you seem to have, and be like, "No one liked SPEED RACER because it had so much icing," when the reality is that SPEED RACER's icing was awesome and it would've tasted great on a better cake.

You seem to think that if the studios stop making icing, they'll step up their cake-making game. In reality, I think it's more likely that we'll end up with the same crappy cakes, just without any icing. I'm all in favor of better cakes. But who wants a cake without icing?

So if the cakes were better, would you be okay with the icing?

I've been thinking about this, and here's what I see as being the difference between the two of us in general. Tell me if you agree.

You want every movie to be the best it can possibly be. Usually, that means sticking with what works, but at least you'll know that it works.

I, on the other hand, am willing to sacrifice individual movies for the greater good. I'd rather have a good movie suck a little bit in order to figure out a way to make the next movie great.

In other words, you're a power hitter who swings for the fences, and I'm a number two guy who'll lay down a bunt to advance the runner. One's not necessarily better than the other. They're just two different philosophies.

As for comparing WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS to SPEED RACER, I think you guys are missing my point. It doesn't matter what genre we're talking about. The two factors which matter in this discussion are style and substance. SPEED RACER is all style and no substance. WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS doesn't have style or substance. That's all that matters. But if you'd prefer, replace every reference I've made to WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS with, say, SPIDER-MAN 3. It's the same thing.
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-11-2008, 09:49 PM:
 
Sometimes it's enough for a movie to deliver something that I haven't seen before. Speed Racer kind of does that one thing pretty well. Maybe that's why I'm willing to forgive its other failings.
 
Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 05-11-2008, 10:22 PM:
 
quote: Mike Schindler
You seem to think that if the studios stop making icing, they'll step up their cake-making game. In reality, I think it's more likely that we'll end up with the same crappy cakes, just without any icing. I'm all in favor of better cakes. But who wants a cake without icing?

So if the cakes were better, would you be okay with the icing?
mmm...cake! [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-12-2008, 12:35 AM:
 
quote: Mike Schindler
You want every movie to be the best it can possibly be. Usually, that means sticking with what works, but at least you'll know that it works.
Mike, you're implying that some formula, style or fashion is involved. My opinion is all of that kind of crap is irrelevant.

Any movie should stand on its own as its own kind of movie, not part of some greater form of fashion or style. When movies follow trends they get into trouble. They end up being derivate, forgetable pieces of dreck.

The seemingly implausible action in The Matrix worked because the story set it up that way. The action taking place was within a massive computing network rather than physical reality. The characters figured out how to bend the rules of physics when jacked into the Matrix. Pretty easy to follow. Audiences bought it. The film was a big hit.

The problem is a litany of action movies trying to cash in on the popularity of The Matrix copied a lot of the same sorts of action without the story and simple logic being able to support it. It was just bullshit.

quote: Mike Schindler
You seem to think that if the studios stop making icing, they'll step up their cake-making game.
That statement makes me believe you don't understand my cake analogy at all.

I don't want Hollywood to stop making the "cake icing." What I want is for them to do their damned jobs, stop going through the motions and actually put a freaking cake underneath that icing. If they cannot give the movie a proper foundation they just end up with a pile of overly sweet goo, kind of like Speed Racer.

Why don't we take a good look at something else that often looks very pretty on movie screens: any given movie release from Pixar.

Pixar always has great visuals in all their movies. But those guys bust their asses on the story. If some fancy eye popping sequence they have in mind doesn't serve the story they shit-can it. They don't force some pretty image they're in love with into the story unless it works.

It amazes me how movie industry types and even critics seem to be mystified on why Pixar has such a decent winning streak with making movies. There's no special secret on why their movies are good. Sure, they redefine the state of the art in computer animation with each movie release. But they also pay attention to the fundamentals and make their movies with pretty much the same kind of work flow that Disney has used for several decades.

Any movie studio could do the same damned thing with their live action movies. But many don't. Few apply the same levels of effort in constant rewrites before anything gets put in front of a camera. Lots of movies go into production without the script even being remotely finished. Too many are just half-assed with the attitude, "if the show tanks in theaters we'll still come out ahead on DVD."
 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-12-2008, 02:10 AM:
 
I think I see where you're coming from.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Any movie should stand on its own as its own kind of movie, not part of some greater form of fashion or style.
This is basically what I was getting at in my last post. This is where you and I differ. While you look at each individual movie on its own merits, I'm more interested in viewing it as a small piece in a larger context. When a movie like SPEED RACER comes along which does something I haven't seen before, I get excited.

What I see now is that your initial criticism of SPEED RACER's style was actually limited to its implausible action. I assumed that that criticism extended to the overall aesthetic of the movie. If you watch the movie I think you'll see that the implausible action is not nearly as prevalent as you think. And even if it were, that wouldn't matter to me. There's a lot of weird stuff going on in the movie which is purely formal, acting more as storytelling devices than anything else. That's what makes the movie exciting. It wouldn't have made a difference if the movie had been something like BOUND, with absolutely no implausible action. The two are not related.

Essentially, we're talking about two different things. I couldn't care less how plausible the action is in SPEED RACER. I don't even really consider that to be a stylistic element. What I'm talking about is much more formal.
 
Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-12-2008, 06:46 AM:
 
The Weekend Estimates from Box Office Mojo show.

Iron Man at $50,500,000 on 4111 screens, average $12,284

Speed Racer at $20,210,000 on 3606 screens, average $5,604

What Happens in Vegas at $20,000,000 on 3215 screens, average $6,220

Final Studio Numbers [Big Grin] later today or tomorrow because it's SOOO chose. In Hollywood math formulas [Cool]

For those interested in International numbers, "Speed Racer" came in Third Place with around $12.8 Million in 30 countries. "Iron Man" did around $39 Million in it's second week International. "What Happened in Vegas" is estimated at $23 Million in 36 countries.

[ 05-12-2008, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Bill Gabel ]
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-12-2008, 07:19 AM:
 
quote: Brad Allen
$20mil opening.
Someone called it. Nice job! [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 05-12-2008, 06:55 PM:
 
Here are the revised numbers from Box Office Mojo:

1) Iron Man - $51,190,629 Average $12,452
2) What Happens In Vegas - $20,172,474 Average - $6,274
3) Speed Racer - $18,561,337 Average - $5,147

[bs] mmm...smell it!
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-12-2008, 07:19 PM:
 
The fate of Speed Racer will be even more telling with the returns from this next weekend.

It's one thing for Iron Man to see a 50% drop from an opening weekend gross of just over $100 million (not too bad a situation). IMHO, it would be worse for Speed Racer to give up the same 50% drop, going from $18.5 million to $9.25 million the next weekend. If the movie does that it may not be able to stay in theaters through the end of the month. And it may not anyway, depending on how many screens get gobbled up by Indy and Narnia.
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-12-2008, 07:30 PM:
 
I could be overly-optimistic though. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 05-12-2008, 08:20 PM:
 
I already dropped a screen at one of the theatres I book for Week 2.
 
Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 05-13-2008, 01:44 AM:
 
Predction: Speed Racer will go sub-run before July 4. Maybe before Father's Day.
 
Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 05-13-2008, 07:11 AM:
 
No Sub will want it though! what a piece of crap... and in Imax! think of all that wasted 70mm film
 
Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 05-13-2008, 08:45 AM:
 
WB has a national policy of holding all sub-run ($3.00 and under) theatres back on a particular title until WB sets a national sub-run release date for that title.

I have never seen a national sub-run release date for a WB picture set less than 6 to 8 weeks from initial date of release (and sometime later than that) regardless of how bad the picture does at the boxoffice.
 
Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-13-2008, 08:51 AM:
 
Any DVD/video release date yet. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Edwin Schwing (Member # 1270) on 05-14-2008, 02:06 AM:
 
WOW!

So much attention to Speed Racer.....'s low grosses.

Talking about sub-run already. DVD releases too!

I am asking, has there never been a movie that grossed under 20 million in its first week?

If every theatre expected every movie to gross 20+ million in the first week of May, maybe they are in the wrong business.

I don't see anyone pointing that out yet!

Speed Racer is a movie just like every other movie. So it didn't make 20 mil on the break. BFD!!!

E
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-14-2008, 03:08 AM:
 
Looks like the DVD release is set for July 8th.
 
Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 05-14-2008, 03:47 AM:
 
Edwin the big deal is this movie was supposed to be "BIG" it was supposed to do 50 mil opening weekend. For what it cost them to make it, this is a huge BOMB! Iron Man did 50 mil its second weekend and will most likley do 20-30 again this weekend. Speed Racer was just one GIANT disaster, no matter how you cut the cake!
 
Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 05-14-2008, 12:37 PM:
 
Speaking of Warner Brothers, I almost popped a blood vessel when I found the running time on Sex and The City is 142 minutes. WHAT could possibly be in THAT movie that dictates a long running time?
Do we watch them go SHOPPING all through the movie?
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-14-2008, 12:47 PM:
 
That's so the husbands and boy friends can take a long deserved nap during the movie. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-19-2008, 06:53 AM:
 
Well here's the studio estimate for the weekend for "Speed Racer".
It came in at fourth place at $7,645,000 on 3606 screens (no change in screens) for an average of $2120. So that makes for about a -58.8% drop since last weeks opening. For a total of $29,812,000. [Eek!]

"Iron Man" came in second place for a $31,200,000 on 4154 screens. (added 43 more screens this week) It had an average of $7510. The drop was -39.1% from last weeks total. For a total of $222,485,000 [thumbsup]
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-19-2008, 11:05 AM:
 
My prediction of a 60% drop was pretty close. Surprised it didn't lose any screens.
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-19-2008, 11:17 AM:
 
It'll lose screens this week. Probably didn't lose any last week because all screens were locked up on 2 week guarantees.
 
Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-19-2008, 03:41 PM:
 
I'm tempted to start a similar post called "The Incredible Hulk: Big or Bust?"

...because it looks like a disaster to me.
 
Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 05-19-2008, 06:00 PM:
 
I have said for the past several months now that since a good majority of this summer's fare was nothing more than regurgitated old TV shows (Speed Racer, Incredible Hulk, Get Smart, Sex & The City, X-Files)that we were in serious trouble. In today's economy no one can afford to spend money to view what they can get get for free.
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-19-2008, 07:15 PM:
 
quote: Jonathan M. Crist
In today's economy no one can afford to spend money to view what they can get get for free.
The lack of business for certain films has nothing to do with the economy. Going to the movies is a VERY cheap form of entertainment (compared to clubbing, drinking, sporting events, weekend vacations, etc). Statistics show that the movie business is normally strong in economic downturns because of this very reason.

If any of these titles don't perform well it won't be due to the fact that people don't want to spend money on something they can see for free. It will be due to the fact that they don't want to see it (pay or free). I didn't go see speed racer because it looked retarded not because I could find the cartoon on TV. You can't see any new "Sex and the City" or "X-files" on TV anymore.
 
Posted by Rene Ferron (Member # 4674) on 05-19-2008, 07:18 PM:
 
quote: Greg Anderson
I'm tempted to start a similar post called "The Incredible Hulk: Big or Bust?"

...because it looks like a disaster to me.

Are you nuts ?? This is the best Hulk CGI that I've seen so far, the other hulk was too cartoon to my taste. This one will do really good at the box office and will be close to Iron Man.
 
Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-19-2008, 08:31 PM:
 
I saw the trailer for Wall-E back-to-back with a trailer for The Incredible Hulk. Several shots from Wall-E looked like "real" photographs while the Hulk himself looked, quite simply, fake. In addition, there's no star power to draw audiences to The Incredible Hulk and Edward Norton is reportedly refusing to participate in promotion and the audience still remembers the disaster which was the previous Hulk movie... this thing is doomed.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-19-2008, 09:27 PM:
 
I'm with you on this one, Greg. The Hulk will do better than Speed Racer (hell, "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" will do better than Speed Racer!) But it will struggle to reach $150M.*

* I think $150 million should be the new benchmark whether a film is a blockbuster or not. $100 million is too low these days.
 
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 05-19-2008, 09:38 PM:
 
Personally, I think it should be 200 million.
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-20-2008, 07:25 AM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
* I think $150 million should be the new benchmark whether a film is a blockbuster or not. $100 million is too low these days.
I definitely agree on this. Movies like 21 and Jumper made $80 Million. $20 Million more does not make them blockbusters.
 
Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 05-20-2008, 06:57 PM:
 
quote: Lyle Romer
The lack of business for certain films has nothing to do with the economy. Going to the movies is a VERY cheap form of entertainment (compared to clubbing, drinking, sporting events, weekend vacations, etc). Statistics show that the movie business is normally strong in economic downturns because of this very reason.
The antiquated notion of movie going as recession proof is about to be turned on its head with the advent of $5.00 to $6.00 gas. (Yes with oil headed for $150 a barrel, pump prices will soon be there.) No longer is it simply a comparison of a ticket prices to the cost of other events; the cost of transportation must be factored in as well. People are going to think long and hard about travelling to a theatre to see some run-of-the-mill piece of blah. Especially when they can see a version of the same thing at home for free.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-20-2008, 09:20 PM:
 
A question to anybody whose business is down: Do you take credit cards? If not, there might be part of your answer. I have noticed a big increase in plastic usage here. We are down a couple of points for the year, but after Iron Man and Indy have been here, we expect to be somewhat ahead of last year.

[EDIT: Just to fix a grammatical typo.]

[ 05-20-2008, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Mike Blakesley ]
 
Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 05-20-2008, 09:53 PM:
 
I have listened to people on here talk about how people don't have the money to see multiple movies, and how they only have the money to see one blockbuster. Thats just not true, at least not in the market I'm in. I see the same people multiple times a week, and a lot of them are college kids. Even if and when gas reaches those prices you will still see people come to the movies.
Even when people don't have money to take a trip to Hawaii or go on a vacation, they can go to the movies and take a mini vacation for a couple hours. That is never going to change.
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-21-2008, 04:54 PM:
 
quote: Jonathan M. Crist
The antiquated notion of movie going as recession proof is about to be turned on its head with the advent of $5.00 to $6.00 gas. (Yes with oil headed for $150 a barrel, pump prices will soon be there.) No longer is it simply a comparison of a ticket prices to the cost of other events; the cost of transportation must be factored in as well. People are going to think long and hard about travelling to a theatre to see some run-of-the-mill piece of blah. Especially when they can see a version of the same thing at home for free.
Most people go to a theater that is maybe 10 miles from where they live (and for most areas it's probably more like 5 miles). So you are talking a 10 - 20 mile round trip to see a movie. A gas guzzling SUV (I picket the Expedition) gets 12 MPG city. So even with this worst case it would take 1.67 gallons to go to a movie (if you lived 20 miles away). Since most people live closer than that and most people drive vehicles that get better fuel economy than an expedition lets say that on average it takes 1 gallon of gas to go to a movie.

Since people were not deterred from going to a movie at $2.00 gas, if gas was $6 it would mean a $4 increase. Are you trying to say that people won't go to a movie where they are paying $7 - $10 per ticket and then $4 for a coke because it's costing them an extra $4 to get there??? Maybe they'll buy a small instead of a large popcorn but I don't think many people won't go because of it.

If this is a problem for movie theaters it's going to be a disaster for fast food places. Since fast food is cheap the gas cost to get there (and waste waiting in the drive through because it's too much trouble to park and walk in) is going to cost more than the meal.

Movies are like a mini vacation and a chance to get out of the house and do something. Compared to most activities that allow you to get out of the house and do something, going to a movie is very cheap.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2