# Talk:Speed Racer (film)

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)

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)

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)

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).
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)

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

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)

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)

Wachowskis Go With Original ‘Speed Racer’ Theme
Susan Sarandon talks about the Wachowski Brothers SPEED RACER and confirms something revolutionary
New Speed Racer Technology Could Be a Radical Innovation
Speed Racer coming to Wii, DS and PS2
Game of Speed Racer flick sighted
Sony Flagship F23 Camera Proves Its Versatility With Leading Cinematographers
Emile Hirsch Talks Speed Racer
Exclusive: Emile Hirsch on Speed Racer
Emile Hirsch Interview
Susan Sarandon Gets Animated for Speed Racer
Emile Hirsch Talks About Singing Karaoke With Lindsay Lohan, Heading 'Into The Wild' With Sean Penn
Licensees Ready To 'Go' With Speed Racer
Speed Racer Deals Cross Finish Line
Joel Silver Explains Speed Racer Technology
Talkin' Trixie with Christina Ricci
Germans to H'w'd: Look past Berlin
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Christina Ricci Chimes in on Speed Racer
Exclusive: Go Speed Racer, Go!
Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

here are more to use:
Speed Racer's Breakthrough CGI Road Rally: Anatomy of a Scene
Exclusive: Joel Silver Talks Speed Racer
First look: Speed Racers' demon on wheels
Speed hits live-action high gear
Speed Racer: fast-moving world of the Wachowski brothers
The Wachowski brothers bring live action anime, color and movement to new levels in Speed Racer.
First Look: Speed Racer Zips in Candy-Colored World
First look: Speed Racer wheels into live action
The Speed Racer time warp
Wachowskis Are Good to Go Speed Racer
Joel Silver - Speed Racer Interview
John Goodman and Susan Sarandon - Speed Racer Interview
Kids 1, Chaos 0
-J.D. (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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) 

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

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) 

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)
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)
Okay, I like that explanaton. Thank you.Kazaan  —Preceding comment was added at 23:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem.  Thanks for addressing it in the article. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are there different actors playing Racer X and Rex Racer?  Corvus cornixtalk 23:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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)
!!!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) 

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

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) 

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)

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

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

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)
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) 

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) 

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)
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)
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)

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) 

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) 

Agreed, too many negative reviws listed in the section - needs to be fixed. --Mjrmtg (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps add the fact that the audiences love the film. Rotten Tomatoes Users were favorable.Duncandrake (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. --Ckatzchatspy 15:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.141.255.146 (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ckatz, the last discussion I initiated was never resolved. You are the only person that has a problem with it and you apparently REFUSE to respond to my last comment on the matter, so I left it until someone else could chime in. I saw that someone did and so I went ahead with the change again. We can't reach a consensus when the opposing editor refuses to discuss anything. Zybon (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

First off, I'm not the only one who disagreed with your removal of the text. Secondly, several of your reasons for dismissing the review include claiming that the New Yorker is not influential, and questioning "the credibility and journalistic integrity of Anthony Lane." Look, if you don't agree with him, that is certainly your prerogative. However, the fact is that an internationally recognized film critic (Lane was noted as one of five top international film critics by the Economist's lifestyle publication in 2008) wrote a scathing review of the film, and a noteworthy and influential publication printed said review. Does his standing make him perfect, unquestionable, a "god"? Certainly not - but agree or disagree, you can't just ignore what he says. --Ckatzchatspy 06:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The thing is that Wikipedia CAN ignore anything anyone says.  By your logic, we should include every one of Anthony Lane's movie reviews on their respective wiki pages.  By the way, Steve disagreed with my removal because I did so without any discussion or justification.  I have since acknowledged my error and tried to have a discussion on the matter. Zybon (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I attempted to add the Rotten Tomatoes user data, and had it deleted. It was cited that the information was "unreliable", and yet it's listed as a statistic on RT's own page. One would hardly imagine that RT would bother gathering the data were it not at least in some way statistically relevant. The same can be said for the Metacritic user data. This removal of valid information that might help to balance the segment is evidence of a strong bias against this film on the part of some users, as commented on by others. It almost seems that some have taken it on themselves to warn people away from the film just because some critics have. It'd be far more unbiased and fair to note the failed box office, and the critical displeasure, and also note that there is evidence for a better reception among some audiences and some positive word of mouth for the film that indicates the potential for a cult fanbase. Peter David's excellent review on his blog would be a good one to note.  (kitty_tc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.31.200 (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC) 
Wikipedia always gets Negative reviews in movies on Wikipedia......they always do that. It's annoying.  That's why I always ignore the Reception sections, because I never care what Film Critics think :)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.44.204 (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 

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) 

I think the Reception section of the article is too verbose.  A quick quip here and there is fine to demonstrate the variety of opinions, but the article shouldn't be a repository of writings that are available elsewhere. Lighthope (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this.  Phrases like "The critics were divided on the unique visual style" etc. would do well for this section.  Most movie articles use a few paragraphs; one for the review aggregate sites, one for the positives, and one for the negatives. Zybon (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I spotted two references to other films, one is the scene where one of the ninjas drips the drug into Taejo Togokhan's mouth- that's an exact copy of the scene in the 1967 James bond film You Only Live Twice. The other is a nod to "Star Wars" where Trixie, wearing Taejo Togokhan's driving suit and driving his car, twice says she can't see a thing in her helmet.
Anyone spot more references to other films?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC) 

The Synopsis article currently reads "Japanese racer Taejo Togokhan." This strikes me as quite wrong – not due to the nationality of the actor, but because neither Taejo nor Togokhan are Japanese names (if they are, they must a very rare as neither shows up on databases such as Kanjidict). It may be that they are not real names of any language or culture, but "Togokhan" cannot be a Japanese word because of "kh" sound – Japanese has only a few instances of where one consonant can come after another (other than "n") without a vowel in between, and "kh" is not one of them.
I have yet to experience the film myself, so I require the authority of someone who has. If it is explicitly stated within the film that the Togokhans are Japanese, then leave the text as it is and specify in a citation where their nationality is made explicit in the film (the presence of ninjas does not count). If it is not, then replace "Japanese" with "East Asian."
Turtleheart (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some references to Japan and rival companies (one headed by the Togokhans, the other by Mr. Musha, who is played by Hiroyuki Sanada).  However, we clearly see Korean text on a banner behind Taejo at one point.  The 'kh' could just be a strange choice of romanization, but I think it's clear that he's not supposed to be 100% Japanese.  I can't tell if he's just supposed to be Korean or if the movie world is conflating all of East Asia.  67.85.183.120 (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It's probably intended as a Korean name to tie in with the actor playing him and a bad production move to appease Japanese audience by giving an "Asian good guy" to cheer for. They even managed further mess up by making his sister name a completely nonsensical "Horuko". The only possible Japanese meaning for that would be "digger girl" unless it's supposed to be a Korean name (and that's highly unlikely, I believe). And rather needless to say, the reception of this was rather frigid and sarcastic, somewhere along the line of "We Japanese are so racist we can't cheer for a white hero. So they gave us a Korean guy. Yeah, thanks a lot.". I don't think the marketing department even realized this, but they managed to use the same venue (which is rarely used for a preview) for the Japan preview as Pearl Harbor which is known for its historical inaccuracies. I don't think I have to explain how "well" this did in Japan. --Revth (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible that the sister's name was meant to be "Haruko" and it got mistakenly devolved into "Horuko" instead?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.31.200 (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC) 

They had to build a new car for the second race. What happened to the first one? — DanielLC 16:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
It was destroyed in Speed's crash at the end of the Fuji race scene, it blew up.  Yes, they are really the same car, but because of the circumstances of the film's 'time period'  (cars going around 500 mph causing crashes to be completely devastating)  it would make sense that they would rebuild the same car for recognition, comfort for the driver etc.  They're basically just 'fixing' the car.  --Electrovir (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add, from the IMDB FAQ on Speed Racer, the following:
Why does Pops say "we don't have a car" for the Grand Prix when they have the Mach 5?
The Mach 5 is a street-registered car built for rallies and other road races. The Mach 4 and Mach 6 (both versions) are T-180 track cars that have several key differences from street cars. They are single-seaters with rocket engines capable of speeds in excess of 400 MPH. Additionally, all wheels are capable of turning independently, allowing the car to maintain forward motion no matter which way it faces, as well as to "drift" and spin while retaining a great deal of control. Speed races the Mach 5 in the Casa Cristo 5000 because that race is a cross-country rally. The Grand Prix, however, is a track race. Speed's track car, the Mach 6, was destroyed in the crash at the Fuji Helexicon. Due to the highly compressed time frame -- possibly as little as a week -- in which the Fuji track race, the Casa Cristo and the Grand Prix occur, the Racer Motors team has not had time to rebuild the Mach 6. The difference is further explained in the Speed Racer: Supercharged featurette that comes with every version of the Speed Racer DVD. In a nutshell, any car that enters a WRL track race must have a T-180 wheelbase. The Mach 5 does not, but the Mach 6 does.  Shastrix (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
IMDB is not a reliable source for this kind of thing (especially its FAQs & trivia which are user-contributed), although the DVD feature would be considered reliable. However I think the point is moot, as the plot section already distinguishes between the Mach 5 and the Mach 6, noting that the latter is a Formula One car. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Zybon is once again attempting to remove the comments from the New Yorker, arguing that the review is "ridiculousness" and the magazine is not influential. The same editor also tried to remove the review in mid-May, but there was no consensus to remove it at that time. Given that the magazine is clearly notable, I see no reason to remove its review. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 05:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll copy this response here since you seem to think I'm the only one that has qualms with this review:
"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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.141.255.146 (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)"
Regarding it not being influential, what I mean is that no one with even a passing interest in Speed Racer will really care about The New Yorker's status and look to it for a review.  Just because a source is notable does not mean that everything they put out is gold; I went into detail on several points (which were reflected with similar pretentiousness throughout the review) and those should be more than enough cause for exclusion.  Oh well, I don't expect any activity here until (possibly) the DVD is released. Zybon (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Zybon. The only reason to go into such detail in the Reception section is to deliberately disparage the film. It's more than sufficient, as mentioned above, to trim down to listing the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, mention the contrast in user ratings compared to the critical reception, and list a few of the more common praises and criticisms such as "critics were divided on the visual style, some calling it brilliant and others finding it virtually unwatchable" and similar such summaries. List the facts and let people make their own decisions about the film. Enough bandwagon bashing already. (kitty_tc)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.31.200 (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC) 

Is "pompestuous" even a word? I assume that he meant "tempestuous". Even if it is a direct quote, wouldn't it be preferable to have a less retarded reference for the Hitchens comparison? Tons of reviewers noted the resemblance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.155.96 (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 

Is that real?  Did they really claim the animal trainer spanked the monkey?
I mean, come on!  Aside from the obvious masturbation joke, Chimps are apes, not monkeys! 
Is this a true claim or a joke they sent just to get a spank the monkey joke in there? AndarielHalo (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It was vandalism in the article (corrected now), but the incident did happen. Read the reference. Bob98133 (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I've removed that section. I'm not saying it's not important information, but since so many other movies with similar (or worse) incidents lack such sections on their respective wikipedia pages (looking through the AHA review site that was cited in the article I found that Fast and Furious (2009) involved unmonitored possibly unsimulated cock fighting). I feel it paints a particularly hostile view towards the movie. If someone wants to go through and make a list of movies that feature possible or confirmed animal abuse on set and make edits to the relevant pages as well, then I have no problem with that section coming back. 24.211.241.127 (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Speed Racer (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Biggs Pliff (talk · contribs) 23:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm reviewing this article as part of my training at WP:GARC as such it may take longer than normal to complete (see here). I'll start by filling out a review template and after that do a prose and source review. Any queries or input is welcome. Biggs Pliff (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
The plot section contains a lot of mentions of the brother subplot a lot of which isn't necessary to understand the overall story. See  here.
Some minor grammatical and clarity issues, I'll go through them in detail in a prose review.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
I can't be certain because I haven't seen the film myself but it seems to me that the "Cast" list seems to contain some people/characters who may not be notable enough to deserve a mention. I'm thinking about the ones described as "yet another racer". The critera are  here.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 
I haven't looked at the sources yet, I will do a thorough check of sources tomorrow.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Seems to cover the topic pretty exhaustively.
B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No sudden major changes. No vandalism:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Prose review
Lead

The Lead Section is great, there are however a couple of small things I think should be changed. The sentence "The film received negative reviews" doesn't make sense to me as a stand-alone point since surely everything has a negative review somewhere, I would change it to run into the following sentence with the specific examples "The film received negative reviews, it was criticized for its storyline..."
The other sentence I would change is "Speed Racer also divided critics over its use of special effects; while some acclaimed its visuals, others disliked them". This is a tautology. I would either remove it or provide specific examples of critics in each camp for example "...while some acclaimed its visuals, like Mr. A who said..., others disliked them, citing issues like..."
Plot

The main issue with the plot section is that its  too long. It should be cut down by 100 words or so. One way I would cut it down is the level of detail about the brothers back story in the first paragraph. The plot is supposed to be about Speed yet the first paragraph says more about his brother. I would reduce the mention of the brother to something along the lines of "Speed embarks on a racing career following in the footsteps of his record-setting older brother who was killed while taking part in the Casa Cristo 5000..."
Another way to make it shorter would be instead of saying that Royalton "threatens Speed's career and family, making good on these threats by...", mentioning the threat would only be necessary if he didn't follow through, instead you could say "Royalton takes out his anger on Speed by..."
You could also reduce "Speed decides that he must do something to stop Royalton and save the Racer business, and an opportunity to do so arises in the form of Inspector Detector" to "Speed gets an opportunity to retaliate through Inspector Dectector..."
The sentence "Racer X, who is watching, reveals through a flashback montage that he is indeed Rex" should be rephrased, the character doesn't use a flashback montage, the film does. Perhaps something like "While Racer X watches it is revealed in a flashback montage that he really is Rex".
Cast

Again this section is too long, see WP:FILMCAST for those who should be included. I checked out one of them Milka Duno, she's an actual racing driver, perhaps you should mention this beside her name in the cast list to establish her notability for inclusion, are there any other real-life racers in the cast?
Production

One issue I have is that the section mentions the film title too much, the film should only be mentioned by name if there is any doubt about which film is being talked about one example is "In December 1997, the studio briefly hired director Alfonso Cuarón for Speed Racer". Mentioning the title of the project here reads a little strange to me, I would change it to "...the studio also briefly hired Alfonso Cuarón as director".
Development: One sentence comes across slightly odd to me, "However, due to a high budget, the same August, director Julien Temple, who was attached to direct Speed Racer, left the project." Leaving because of a high budget doesn't make sense in and of itself, to me at least, in my opinion changing to "an overly high budget" sounds better.
Pre-Production: Fine
Filming: The sentence "The Mach 5, the vehicle driven by the protagonist Speed, was a drivable vehicle" comes across as a bit of a strange statement without the added context of the car being hung from a crane that's mentioned in the illustrations caption. I would either remove it from the illustration caption and put it in the main body of the article or re-phrase the statement for the article and have it in both.
Music: Fine
Animal Cruelty: One thing I would change is the "American Human Animal (AHA) Safety Representitive" I'm not familiar with the AHA and the fact that the word "animal" also fits the acronym threw me a little at first, simply putting "animal" after (AHA) would sort this.
Release and Reception

Marketing:Fine
Box Office: Fine
Critical Reception:  "resembled "as a kindergartner's art class collage". He had praise it for the cinematography" should be "resembled "a kindergartner's art class collage". He had praise for the cinematography". This is a minor change so I did it myself. *The line "It was said to be one of "the most tiresome piece of CGI (Computer Generated Idiocy [sic])" of the "past couple of years" should either say "one of "the most tiresome piece[s]..." or "it was said to be "the most tiresome piece..."
The were also some places with words missing making them ungrammatical so I added those myself.
Awards and Nominations: Fine
Home Media: Fine
Possible Sequel

Some minor grammatical issues that I've corrected myself.
One bit I wasn't sure of is the sentence "The producer Joel Silver told the Wachowskis "have a great story idea for a sequel [...], we have a great idea for a sequel if it makes sense to make it." This sentence is ambiguous. Did he tell them that he had a great idea? or did he tell an interviewer that they had said to him they had the great idea?
Well that's that for the prose review, I'll try and do the source review tomorrow or the next day. Biggs Pliff (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I have corrected all issues you pointed. Thank you for the excellent review! I'm prepared for more corrections if necessary. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I've read over your edits and I'm happy with it. There's only the source review left to do. I have a college assignment to do over the next few days so I won't be able to do a full source review until Monday. In the meantime you could start fixing the sources over the weekend if you like, one thing is GA's require all sources to have "retrieved" dates within the last year so you could check that the sources still work and update the retrieval dates and I'll check it over on on Monday. Biggs Pliff (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


### Source Review
Ref 2 "the original" link leads to an error page, i don't think its necessary so I would just remove it
Ref 4 is  not working, "the original" link doesn't lead to anything "speed racer" related again i would remove it
Ref 11 again "the original" not working, just remove
Ref 23 "the original" again leads to error page
Ref 27 "the original" leads to 1 sentence long version of the same article, i don't think its necessary for it to be there
Ref 40 "the original" is same as other link, again I don't think its necessary
Ref 44 is not working
Ref 49 leads to an article completely unrelated to speed racer, needs to be fixed
Ref 58 "the original" not working, I would remove
Ref 61 "the original" again not working, remove
Ref 62 not working
Ref 63 not working
Ref 68 "the original" again doesn't lead to anything useful i would remove
Ref 75 Archive.is wikipage has been deleted, redlink can be removed
Besides these issues there is just the matter of updating the "Retrieved" dates on all the sources, once these are sorted out the article is ready to be passed. Biggs Pliff (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have corrected the wrong links or dead links but I can't remove "the original"s because the "archiveurl" parameter requires the "url" parameter. I also couldn't figure out what you are saying about updating the "Retrieved" dates. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
That's ok, forget about "the original" links then. For the "retrieved dates": If you look at the reference section, each one has a title/details followed by "Retrieved on...". This is the date that the link is verified as working. GA criteria require that all sources have "Retrieved on..." dates within the past year and some of these are much older than that. It's essentially a matter of checking all the links are working, which is done, and now updating those dates to today's date. The quickest way I have found to do it is to use "find" (Hold Ctrl and press F) and search the phrase "accessdate", then change these dates to today's. Does that explain it? Biggs Pliff (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this explains. I didn't know this criteria. I will do it immediately! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it ok now? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it seems to me that everything meets GA standard but since as I mentioned at the beginning I'm being trained in reviewing GAN's right now I feel that I should refer it to my trainer to be 100% sure before I pass it. Biggs Pliff (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok. No hurry, man. Thank you for your great review! Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I passed the article. Congratulations! Biggs Pliff (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Cosma Shiva Hagen as Gennie than not pleased. It is in the Wiki.4Sage Wiki (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The article says "Speed Racer premiered on May 3, 2008 as the closing film at the Tribeca Film Festival.". But the movie was already shown on 26 April 2008 according to among others this article.  I'm not sure if it counts as a premiere though. So which of the showings was the premiere? --Distelfinck (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Distelfinck. It was fixed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is bothering me for a long time. Since this edit there is a long edit war over the usage of "The Wachowskis" or "The Wachowski Brothers" ([1], [2], ). I would prefer "the Wachowskis" since its gender-neutral but gives the same information. However, Template:Infobox film#Credits say "A person should be credited by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made." (empashis mine) There have been other dicussions and the consensus seems to be this — to use "The Wachowski Brothers" (check: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 42#The Matrix - Larry to Lana (And other films) and The Matrix archives 4 and 3). Anyway, apparently, The Matrix uses "The Wachowski Brothers" only in the infobox but "The Wachowskis" in the rest of the article. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The Wachowski Brothers made those films, people need to stop placating a minority of PC Principals. It's fine to use the Wachowskis as a shorthand throughout the article, but not when giving credit. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Since now both are trans woman, it's been focus of several disputes on the name we should use ([3], [4], [5]). I understand both sides' reasoning so I want to propose a half term: may we keep "The Wachowski Brothers" and "Larry Wachowski" and "Andy Wachowski" in the infobox (per Template:Infobox film#Credits) and add a note to explain the situation? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that the link in the first paragraph that reads "The Wachowski Brothers" now links to a page that is titled "The Wachowskis". At the very least the link text should be modified to the new name of the article. Otherwise, it's misleading --Exshpos (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

While I personally disagree with having to keep "The Wachowski Brothers" as I think it's retrograde, if it's a convention we have to follow it. So in order to follow it but to avoid the lasting fight over this, I've added a note then both sides are contemplated(?). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The cited convention only says that the original credit should be kept in the infobox. I would suggest we do the same as The Matrix,  keep the original credit in the box, but change the text in the first paragraph (and maybe move the footnote to the name in the infobox). Vilhelm.s (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

In view of the ongoing debate in relation to this issue and the inconsistency in regards to how the Wachowskis are referred to among related articles I have started a discussion at Talk:The Matrix Reloaded#The Wachowski credit in the lead in attempt to resolve the issue across all affected articles. Betty Logan (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed "The Wachowski Brothers" to "The Wachowskis" in the first paragraph. To me, it makes sense to use the same terminology that the linked article uses, and the linked article is titled The Wachowskis. Also, in the article of their most well-known film, The Matrix, they are referred to as "The Wachowskis" in the opening paragraph. I think that is a good model to follow. We can refer to them as "The Wachowski Brothers" in the infobox since that is what the template for film infoboxes suggests, but to apply the guidelines of the infobox template to the first paragraph of this article makes no sense to me. What do people think of my reasoning here? Rebecca Weaver (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

There was wider agreement that we use the name that a work credited at the time of its release. The Wachowskis have not said that they want the name "The Wachowski Brothers" retroactively changed on their earlier films, and in fact that name remains on all of them. You should not go and make edits like this, removing hidden notes that tell you to get consensus first. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
There are numerous media on this site that use names not credited. Whether your infobox template policy is intentionally an excuse to misgender, misname, and overall denigrate marginalized people or whether it only comes off that way because Roseanne Barr (formerly Roseanne Arnold) is listed as Roseanne Barr on the page for Roseanne (as one of **many** examples of changed names being updated in the infobox for a work after the work already credits the prior name), the effect is the same. The inconsistency is because of cis comfort. A note about the directors' transitions can be placed on the pages for the directors as it is part of their personal lives, not related to the movie. The Wachowskis have not said that they do not want the credited name changed, it simply has not been changed, and the rule should be to have the information correct rather than the preconceived notions of the information be presented as such. 
Put a footnote on every credited name that has changed since its original crediting, for example, changing Roseanne Barr back to Roseanne Arnold for the Roseanne article, or agree that the current name is in common use on every single other piece of work and you're only singling out the Wachowskis because they're transgender. Be consistent. 2600:8801:1C00:3AB0:E84E:383B:7F77:CAE8 (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

This is an article on a work, not an individual. We use the name as credited in the work. As pointed out before, The Wachowskis have not said that they want the name "The Wachowski Brothers" retroactively changed on their earlier films, and in fact that name remains on all of them. You should not go and make edits like this, removing hidden notes that tell you to get consensus first. I've restored it, per WP:STATUSQUO. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi! This poll could affect how the Wachowskis are credited on Wikipedia for years. Please give us your input How should we credit the Wachowskis? WanderingWanda (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a few days left on this RfC and opinions remain sharply divided. Have any insight into this issue or good conflict resolution skills? Your input could be very valuable.  WanderingWanda (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Do awkward, unflattering, out-of-character snapshots of the actors really add anything to the article? I wish, instead, the article had some screenshots showcasing the film's phantasmagoric visual style. I know copyright makes that tricky, but I've noticed the 2001 article has several shots from the film (and even video) with a fair use rationale. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 19:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you but some editors have no sense and think more images are always better, and would add as many images as possible to an article. That we are (mostly) limited to Creative Commons images that aren't very relevant is only part of a larger problem. Also quote boxes frequently interrupt the reading flow and most of the time we'd be better without them. What I think you're saying is the article would be improved by deleting the whole Roger Allam image box and if that is the case I totally agree. -- 109.76.153.134 (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

How the footnote should appear in relevant Wachowski film articles is being discussed at Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 3#Footnote implementation. Please join the discussion and weigh in with your thoughts and suggestions. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)