Need for Speed needed more speed, both in the movie itself – which fell prey to interminable dialogue sequences between all the kick-ass car chases – and at the box office, where the film opened to an estimated but still paltry $17.8 million. Despite all the buzz, the ubiquitous marketing and the hopes and prayers of video game fans everywhere, Need for Speed opened third behind Mr. Peabody & Sherman and 300: Rise of an Empire, movies that came out a whole week ago. More people chose to see movies they could have seen last week than see Need for Speed at their first opportunity. That’s a major disappointment for a film Dreamworks and EA hoped would be the first in a hit franchise.
Need for Speed isn’t a total wash yet – it’s made $45.6 million internationally, and seems likely to at least make its $66 million budget back – but it was not the blockbuster the marketing made it out to be. What the hell happened? What can we learn from Need for Speed’‘s failure to finish first? Is Aaron Paul’s movie career over before it began, did the marketing screw this up all on its own, and what’s to be done about director Scott Waugh, who made more or less the same artistic mistakes that he made on his first feature, Act of Valor? More importantly to the future of video game franchises, what does this mean for EA, the publisher that dared to retain control over the artistic direction of a movie based on one of their properties, and who failed to translate that level of control into box office mojo?
Let’s take a look in Need for Speed: 5 Things We Learned.
William Bibbiani is the editor of CraveOnline’s Film Channel and co-host of The B-Movies Podcast. Follow him on Twitter at @WilliamBibbiani.
Need for Speed: 5 Things We Learned
-
Aaron Paul Can't Open a Movie...
As of this writing, Need for Speed opened to an estimated $17.8 million domestically. That's quite a disappointment for the first installment of an intended franchise, and apparent proof that Aaron Paul - beloved though he may be for his role in "Breaking Bad" - doesn't attract audiences in droves. He may get there eventually, he's certainly a good actor and a likable star, but he's not the new Hollywood "It Guy" right out of the gate. Need for Speed couldn't bank on a popular name...
-
...So The Story Really Matters.
Need for Speed's ad campaign focused on the impressive stunts, a slick sense of style and a self-important monologue about honor. What the movie was actually "about" was a closely guarded secret, perhaps because the plot didn't make much sense. If you don't have a bankable star and a well known franchise, you need audiences to care about what happens before they even see the movie. They clearly weren't intrigued enough to buy a ticket to find out what happens next. The reason may be because...
-
Scott Waugh Isn't a 'Story' Guy
Scott Waugh's second film after Act of Valor (which he co-directed with Mike McCoy) is also his second film with impressive action sequences and a really dumb story. This would have been perfectly fine if Waugh seemed to recognize that he was working with a dumb story and actually had fun with it. Instead, Waugh prefers to elevate his dumb story with unwarranted portentousness, making the inherently goofy feel important to everyone... but the audience. Need for Speed was a cheesy b-movie wrapped up in a classy a-movie package, and the ruse fooled no one, except maybe Scott Waugh. He doesn't do story...
-
...But He Sure Knows His Stunts.
Scott Waugh comes from stuntperson royalty, having spent most of his career pulling off kick-ass action sequences in films like Last of the Mohicans and Mr. & Mrs. Smith. His love of action sequences shines through, and despite everything the critics said about the acting and the writing, everyone more-or-less agrees that Need for Speeds really outpaces the competition with its many spectacular car chases. Bonus: Waugh pulled them off without the aid of extraneous CGI. What you see is what they did, on the set, and that makes the film at least occasionally awesome.
-
EA Just Ain't Marvel
But worst of all, Need for Speed gets EA off to a disappointing start as a major force in Hollywood. EA entered the marketplace with the intention of managing their own properties - Marvel Studios-style - in order to prevent Hollywood from screwing up yet another video game adaptation. That EA screwed up, not just financially but critically - and from fans who were eager to give them film a fair shake, no less - bodes poorly for their upcoming adaptations of Assassin's Creed, Splinter Cell and Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon. Either EA doesn't know how to make a good movie, or they're still figuring it out but no longer have the high ground; if they tell Hollywood they know what to do with their own properties, Hollywood can now retort, "Oh, like you knew what to do with Need for Speed?" Marvel Studios came own swinging with Iron Man. EA came out flailing wildly, and who knows if they will be able to recover?
