Talk:Speed Racer (film): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:26, 15 May 2008

Film Unassessed

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Speed Racer (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Reception

There should be a section on the main page questioning the reception for this film. It is based on Japanese characters, yet I am not sure that would translate into box office success. People don't go to movies just to see actors, they go because they are interested in the movie's plot and so on.96.3.72.93 (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Production history

The citations on the article reflect the involvement of directors Julien Temple, Alfonso Cuarón, and Gus Van Sant with the project, as well as actor Johnny Depp and writers Marc Levin, Jennifer Flackett, J. J. Abrams, and Patrick Read Johnson. I think that the history of Speed Racer can be more accurately shaped by providing chronological detail of the project prior to September 2000. This may need to be done by accessing news databases and the like. If anyone finds anything potentially useful, please share here on the talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've filled in the gaps for the directors, though there could be more citations about the initial writers (who were not mentioned in the articles that I cited about the previous directors). Also, Warner Bros. Pictures might've attempted to develop the project earlier than May 1993, so there may be something more out there to add. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation

Jung Ji-Hoon is going to be in the film as well.

Possibility: 1 and confirmation: 2 As the news is still "fresh" the articles that confirm are either in Korean, Chinese, Japanese, or Thai. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.219.77.168 (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for the heads-up. I saw something about this a couple of days ago. I'm sure if this is true, there will be an English-language website available for the confirmation soon, if there isn't one now somewhere out there. I'll see what I can find. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Premise expansion

~~"Speed Racer Details Released". Sci Fi Wire. 2007-06-05. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)~~

Can be used to rewrite/expand the Premise section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has been implemented now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fernandez

IMDb lists Peter Fernandez in the film as a local announcer. He was responsible for voicing characters in the original series (and the upcoming series as well). If anyone can provide an attributable source for Fernandez's involvement, please do that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything on the web about Fernandez's role as a local announcer (which would be a wonderful homage to the people behind the original series), except the mention at imdb. So for the time being, there appears to be no reliable citation for his appearance. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for use

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid information

New York Daily News reports via "a source close to the writer/directors" that Rose McGowan and Zac Efron were originally considered for Speed Racer. The source of information seems dubious since NY Daily News is a tabloid and its sources wouldn't be reliable, but I thought I'd place it here just in case. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mach 5

I wonder if the live action version is going to have the "chyock chyock" sound effect if the Mach 5 uses the jump/jacks feature. --Mikecraig 04:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't come across anything that would indicate the use of this sound effect. We'll find out soon enough. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's in the preview. It's in a shot of Speed being caught between two other cars, then using the jacks (with apropo SFX) to flip the Mach 5 over backwards. Supracool. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

photos, production stills

Now that the [first production stills] are out, I need to know if there is any way to include them in this article? They are promotional stills of course, but are we allowed to use them? They would be deeply valuable to this article. JayKeaton (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking! The way to implement non-free images is to follow WP:NFC: "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." This means that when a non-free image is included, it needs to be relevant to content in the article. Take a look at Fight Club (film) as an example to see how screen shots are tied into the content. For Speed Racer, I think the second picture at USA Today, which has the caption "Emile Hirsch plays Speed, pictured here behind the wheel of his Mach 5. Nearly all of the film was shot in front of a green screen, with effects added later." I would say that kind of content could be included in the article. For the other images, it's usually a good idea to utilize all citations then look after the update to see where images could fit. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Racer Trailer

Now that the Speed Racer Trailer is out, I wanted to know how to add it to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slewy (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask if the trailer is legally distributed online? The fact that the trailer is coming from an unofficial site does not seem to make this the case. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the trailer was released yesterday online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slewy (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racer X

Should we put that Racer X is Speed's older brother Rex? Many people who have only heard of Speed Racer still know about Rex/X. Please tell me your answers and give me an explanation. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazaan (talk • contribs) 02:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should let people who don't know find out when they see the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't it so obvious?Kazaan

Considering this is a family film, there may be a younger audience that could be surprised. I don't think the connection has to be made explicit until we have a full Plot section, which people can avoid reading if they want. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I like that explanaton. Thank you.Kazaan —Preceding comment was added at 23:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for addressing it in the article. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there different actors playing Racer X and Rex Racer? Corvus cornix_talk 23:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One is for a younger virson who has a different racer name and the other is 4 the one whom they thought died.--Lbrun12415 23:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

!!!SPOILER!!! In only the horrible way Hollywood can, Racer X underwent cosmetic surgery so he would look like a totally different person. This was added to create depth to the character and to possibly confuse the two people in the audience who didn't know that X was supposed to Speed's brother. It was my main problem with the plot. Reminded me of 'magical knowledgable butler' in Spider-Man 3. If they would've only used the same actor, this film would've gone up several notches in my book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.254.250 (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Racer: The Video Game

should this have its own page??--Lbrun12415 23:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition

The Production section repeats some of the things stated in the beginning section. There are even some of the same sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.8.2 (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That's because the lead section (the bit before the contents) is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. Read WP:LEAD for a fuller explanation. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 07:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poster

Where is the new poster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.148.8 (talk • contribs) 09:19, April 19, 2008 (UTC)

New poster has been added. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Elsewhere Racer?

In the trailer I watched I saw the first few scenes were shot in the 'real' world and seemed to focus on an autistic boy.

Are the events of the film taking place in his head?! 65.185.29.175 (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I saw the movie and believe it or not that classroom scene was all CGI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.231.105 (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Variety

Get more than one critic's review or remove Variety's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.148.8 (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I included that because it was the first review I saw for the film, and in order to get the ball rolling on the critical reception section in the hope it would spur others into adding more reviews. If the section hasn't been expanded by the time I check back in on this tomorrow, I'll see about adding a couple more myself. Steve ^{T • C} 20:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be a bit long on reviews now. Seems like they are longer then the rest of the article.Hellbuny (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. But I'd say that's more because the rest of the article could use some embiggening. Another option would be to restructure the critical reception section to talk about specific aspects of the film in turn, e.g. "X, Y, and Z praised the special effects [...] Y and Z criticised the anti-capitalist theme running through the film..." etc. The same information is presented, but using a lot less space. I've been abominably busy these last few weeks, but if I get a chance, I'll perhaps have a look at that. Steve ^{T • C} 13:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary

I've seen the film and i can add the plot summary if they change the the article so i can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncandrake (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reception bias

I think the reception part of the article is way too biased. I've seen many positive reviews of the film on several websites. The article only gives examples of negatives ones, making it look like a crappy movie when in reality it is subjective and many people think it is a good movie as well. We should equal it out a bit instead of only incorporating negative reviews and quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.72.47.41 (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, too many negative reviws listed in the section - needs to be fixed. --Mjrmtg (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps add the fact that the audiences love the film. Rotten Tomatoes Users were favorable.Duncandrake (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The weighting of positive to negative reviews featured is roughly in line with the 30-40% rating the film has been fluctuating between at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. This is standard practise on film articles here. However, you will find that, with the exception of Anthony Lane of The New Yorker, each of the reviews featured has positive things to say about the film. Steve ^{T • C} 20:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the current reviews listed start off extremely negative, and they were likely classified as negative reviews by RT. Most people won't read past the first few lines of the reviews so what matters most is the tone they start with. If 35% of the reviews were positive then there should be a representative sampling of them. Also, more people liked it than just fans of the show. Zybon (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that several websites, including Wikipedia, led me to believe that the film was much worse than it was. I saw it today, and I found it quite cute. That surprised me, since I generally do agree with what critics say; for some reason, this film seems to have been built up to be a failure. Is that all in my head? Or does it feel like sites just want to jump to the negative?75.140.254.250 (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, in terms of the negative press, and there does appear to be a small amount of gleeful bandwagon-jumping in terms of people labelling this film a disaster (poor box office notwithstanding). However, that's just my personal opinion. The Wikipedia article itself must only reflect what these reports are saying, no matter how much one disagrees with them. So if everyone's saying it's a piece of crap, we have to too. Verifiability, not truth is the watchphrase here. Steve ^{T • C} 08:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews that have been posted on here have been given a decidedly negative spin by whomever is editing them by shifting lines out of context and cherry-picking quotes. I have been trying to fix them, I will do the one from Premiere tomorrow. Zybon (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews detailed in the article skew to the negative because the consensus of critics does. When writing the section, there were two options open to me: 1) pick roughly 2/3 fully negative reviews to 1/3 fully positive, or 2) do something which acknowledged that there are always grey areas in this kind of thing. So I went for the latter and picked one negative and several which can be described as "mixed" (to varying degrees, skewing from good-mixed to bad-mixed). That way, I felt, a better picture of the film's faults and successes would be formed than simply quoting spiky comments from those who hated it, and gushes from those who loved it. If you rewrite the Premiere paragraph to skew more towards the positive, I predict that it'll either be reverted, or (worse still) removed entirely due to the section's not reflecting the critical consensus. It's quite a fine line to walk. If you can find something from a reliable source which confirms audiences liked it more, by all means use it (though simple imdb or fansite polls would not cut the mustard). Steve ^{T • C} 10:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a small sampling of one of the many shifted-context quotes consider this line: "Glenn Kenny of Premiere said the storyline was one of the most "blatantly anti-capitalist" and "most genuinely confounding" of recent years." The STORY was not said to be confounding, the FILM was, and using it in this context would give insight into the visual style (and music and editing etc.) of the film. I'll give another example of a change I have already made: "He said that story and character were 'tossed aside' to 'focus obsessively' on the action sequences, and he compared the race scenes to video games in which 'each race happens in a completely different environment.'" By including the comment on the environments in the same sentence as a negative while using a neutral conjunctive, you give that statement negative connotations as well. I fixed this by simply keeping the comments on the character and story to its own sentence.

At first I was a bit angered by many critics not appreciating the artistic style for what it is (and this is addressed by one of the quotes currently in this article,) but it is a travesty when even in the negative reviews people can find ways to take things out of context to make them EVEN MORE negative.

When including comments from the critics they should be representative of what their peers think. When someone claims the movie is "Pop fascism" when NO ONE ELSE (out of 90+ other negative reviews) mentions it, they are obviously looking far too deeply into it and over-dramatizing how "evil" the movie is. For that reason, I feel that the New Yorker review should be removed entirely.

The Chicago Sun Times snippet is awfully short and should include more material from the full review or be removed.Zybon (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the point about including neutral comments in the same sentence as negative ones giving the wrong impression about the reviewers' intentions. I'll take a look at those to see if there are any more instances of that. As for the New Yorker review, I included that because it was one of the most negative reviews out there (and you can't deny that there have been some bad ones), but in addition to the usual criticisms I've seen of the film (script, etc.), it had some interesting things to say about the underlying themes (intended or otherwise). Steve ^{T • C} 11:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zybon, you've removed some of the largest and most influential media outlets, such as the New Yorker, the Chicago Sun Times and the Hollywood Reporter. We can't cherry-pick reviews; if publications on that level are panning the film, we can't just decide to ignore it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 15:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make clear that I removed them for reasons that I later found were due to the way the review was paraphrased, not because I don't want negative reviews from major sources to be available. I did overreact a bit. However, I want to say that it is not the Sun Times that is influential, but rather Roger Ebert who works for them, and this review wasn't written by him. Also, the quote given does not address the merits of the movie, instead it just identifies the plot and the marketing it spawned.Zybon (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to reading the full New Yorker review and his "criticisms" are simply points of how a cartoon universe isn't realistic. Remarking about Speed Racer's name being an attempt by his "evil" parent's to pigeon-hole him into a specific career? Complaining that the cars are not actually there? What he interprets as fascism is attributed to the Wachowskis when, in fact, these "themes" were a part of the original cartoon, which the Wachowskis are merely adapting. If anything, this review should be given as an example of just how badly someone could not "get" a movie. The sheer absurdity of these claims makes me question the credibility and journalistic integrity of Anthony Lane. Zybon (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic and rottentomatoes also has very high ratings compared to critics in the user categories. RT community gave the movie a 78%, as compared to the T-meter giving it a 35%. Metacritic have a 37/100 for critics, and a 8/10 for users. This seems to point demonstrate that the reception from the general public (or at-least speed racer fans,) is considerably higher then those of critics. To help with neutrality i think some comment about that should be given. 132.178.202.69 (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New Yorker review is a joke, and the perfect example of absurd yellow journalism. If you want to put a negative review up, please remove that one and add a review that may actually make a few valid points and isn't incessantly negative beyond imagination. Permission to remove it, please?

Theme Song

Thought it should be noted that the updated version of "Go, Speed Racer, Go" theme song that plays over the end credits was produced by Ali Dee and Jason Gleed at Deetown Entertainment in NYC, and performed by Ali Dee and the Deekompressors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterTheEater (talk • contribs) 22:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 146: / Line 146: @@
 Metacritic and rottentomatoes also has very high ratings compared to critics in the user categories. RT community gave the movie a 78%, as compared to the T-meter giving it a 35%. Metacritic have a 37/100 for critics, and a 8/10 for users. This seems to point demonstrate that the reception from the general public (or at-least speed racer fans,) is considerably higher then those of critics. To help with neutrality i think some comment about that should be given. [[Special:Contributions/132.178.202.69|132.178.202.69]] ([[User talk:132.178.202.69|talk]]) 20:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
+:The New Yorker review is a joke, and the perfect example of absurd yellow journalism. If you want to put a negative review up, please remove that one and add a review that may actually make a few valid points and isn't incessantly negative beyond imagination. Permission to remove it, please?
 ==Theme Song==