Is the car chase movie dead?

Despite more horsepower than forty Kentucky Derbies in almost every single scene, "Need for Speed" just couldn't entice movie audiences this past weekend.

Touted by director Scott Waugh (“Act of Valor”) as a throwback to the classic car chase movies of yesteryear, “Need for Speed” had a lot going for it -- namely actor Aaron Paul, fresh off of the popular TV series “Breaking Bad,” and, of course, enough vehicular mayhem to make a “Fast & Furious” movies blush. And, unlike the that certain Vin Diesel/Rock anchored series, “Need for Speed” makes a point of doing most, if not all, of the automobile action practically, with no computer graphics. Real cars, real drivers, real stunts. In an era where the movies are dominated by computer generated imagery, that old school, physical approach has got to be a draw, right?

But the high-octane chase movie failed to make much of a dent at the box office, coming in third place with $17.8 million, behind “Peabody and Sherman” and “300: Rise of an Empire.” Oddly enough, the $66-million film performed much better abroad, taking in a respectable $45 million internationally. “Need for Speed” will definitely earn back its budget, but it’s hardly the drive-away success that Disney had hoped for. Are moviegoers simply “over” the car chase movie?

So, why the lacklustre performance?

One needs only look at the huge success of the “Fast & Furious” franchise to see that there clearly is an appetite amongst the moviegoing public for speeding cars and big crashes. But what do those movies have that “Need for Speed” doesn’t? The answer is: Action outside of the car.

“Need for Speed” is one long competitive race -- a 132-minute, coast-to-coast crash course -- and not much else. Tobey (Paul) is literally racing from one side of the United States to the other in order to be in another race. It’s great fun, but that’s all there is to it.

The "Fast and Furious" movies, on the other hand, long ago abandoned the focus on street racing and replaced it with wildly implausible, CG-aided action that just so happens to involve souped up hot rods and supercars. The characters in the “Fast” franchise also happen to get out of their cars from time to time for some foot-based action scenes. Incorporating a variety of action and backdrop is what saved the series when it began to falter with 2006’s “Tokyo Drift.”

"Need for Speed" is a very different movie. In fact, there hasn’t really been a movie like it since the 2000 Nic Cage movie "Gone in Sixty Seconds," itself a remake of the 1974 car chase movie of the same name. Car chase films are a relic of a bygone era in Hollywood, a time when throwing enough steel, aluminum, rubber, and people at the screen passed for entertainment.

Movies like “Bullitt,” “The Driver,” “The French Connection,” "Vanishing Point,” and "Mad Max" don’t really get made anymore because the car chase became nothing more than a trope of action movies -- just a small part of a larger film. Basing an entire film around car chases simply doesn't have the appeal it once did, because audiences have changed and matured. The genre now gets used by arthouse filmmakers like Quentin Tarantino ("Death Proof") and Nicolas Winding Refn ("Drive") as a backdrop for stories that really have nothing to do with cars or chasing. Part of "Need for Speed's" real issue may have been that it treated its own genre tropes so earnestly and innocently.

Do audiences really want to see this sort of movie any more? Apparently not. Will we ever see another movie like "Need for Speed"? Well, probably. The car chase movie holds a special place in the hearts of filmmakers and cinephiles alike.

It might be a while before we see burning rubber and raw horsepower on display the way we did in "Need for Speed," but the allure of all that vehicular carnage and road rage will be hard for some to resist.