I wrote an article on 'The Queen's Gambit' and why chess movies don't perform well commercially

Please take the time to check this article out and offer some tips/advice/constructive criticism. I don't make any money from people reading it. Trust me, it's worth ~5 minutes of your time.

The article:

cutt.ly/thequeensgambit

Regular link:

https://thecinesthete.medium.com/the-queens-gambit-and-the-history-of-chess-in-entertainment-46a1c23c0c50

I don't think your speculation on the marketing effort by Netflix as the main reason for the success of "The Queen's Gambit" compared to other chess movies is correct.

I think the original book written by Walter Tevis, who was the author of three previously successful books turned into movies- "The Hustler", "The Color of Money" and "The Man Who Fell to Earth" was important. A big enough budget from Netflix and good direction that paid attention to things like chess details probably helped.

Having a sexy main character probably didn't hurt.

I'm certainly not denying the role of the series' budget, direction, or casting in making it easier to market. Maybe you're right that those things were the main draw, but I think you underestimate the level to which Netflix advertised this series to their ~200 million subscribers as compared to how films like Pawn Sacrifice and Queen of Katwe were marketed. Pawn Sacrifice was based on perhaps the best-known chess player of all time, had a decent level of chess accuracy, and starred Tobey Maguire. Barely anybody saw it.

You might be right with the Walter Tevis connection; but while he has a lot of fans (including me), adaptations of books by authors like John Grisham that don't have any real "pull" besides being adaptations tend not to do well. And as for paying attention to chess details, that seemed more to be the director's personal effort to get things right for the chess fans watching. Chess fans are a pretty small demographic; they alone aren't going to get a show to the Netflix trending page.

Anyways, thank you for your criticism and I will factor it into the way I write future articles. I certainly hoped I answered it in a way that -- even if you still don't agree with my position -- allows you to at least recognize where I'm coming from.

I'm not going to disagree with your review of the series -- in fact, it seems that you agree with me on several aspects. But as I said in the previous reply, hardcore chess fans are too small a demographic for "pandering" to really mean anything. And the series currently has overwhelmingly positive reviews from critics -- I'd assume most of those critics aren't chess players themselves.

Also, I know I said in the lede that chess has a massive fanbase, but the whole point of the article was that films that pander towards that fanbase (regardless of their aesthetic or storytelling qualities) don't do well unless they're sufficiently marketed.

Uh... not sure what you mean by that. I mean, I get the reference, but there's a difference between directing a movie and critiquing it. The director of The Queen's Gambit, Scott Frank, is an experienced chess player. Walter Tevis, the writer of the book it's based on, was a class-C player. Also, the critics that praised TQG are doing so based on its cinematography, performances, and direction -- all things that are more important to entertainment fans than chess accuracy.

The original novel did have a lot of that sort of thing and, sadly, I think the adaptation bypassed most of it in an effort to keep the story fictional (which is completely unnecessary). I do remember a couple of good references to actual chess history in the series, however. No doubt films like Searching for Bobby Fischer did a much better job of it.

I meant SfBF was better in terms of giving an "accurate depiction" of the chess scene. The Queen's Gambit, conversely, shows a commercialized (and somewhat idealized) version of chess. Personally, I don't have too much vitriol for it, but there's definitely a lot of stuff it could have done much better -- I think we can both agree on that.

It's too bad Netflix doesn't release viewership ratings.   There's really no way to compare it with previous theatrical releases.

I think the main reason chess movies don't do well commercially is because such a low % of the masses understand it at a high enough level to care about watching a movie about it. It's not just knowing the moves either. Movies about various physical sports can be followed and understood even if those watching don't play them. But chess is different. 

I just came back to this thread for the first time in a couple of days, and I'm glad to see so much discussion around the topic! Thanks for your criticism, opinions, and comments. To @long_quach -- I understand why you would think I didn't really "say" anything in my article. I have a lot of opinions and ideas but sometimes it's hard to put them into words in a way that allows people to take something from it, and that's entirely on me. About the use of "chess movies": I don't use that term for every movie that involves chess (such as Fresh, The Seventh Seal, etc.), but if the movie revolves around chess players and the chess "scene", so to speak, then I consider it a "chess movie". The involvement of chess is important to the film's structure, whether or not the game is used as a metaphor for life. So even if you're watching a movie that involves football for its life lessons, it's still going to feature, you know, the game of football. And if your friend doesn't like watching football games (or chess games, or boxing matches), they aren't necessarily going to want to watch a movie about one of those things -- again, regardless of the "deeper meaning". Using "chess movie" is no different then "Christmas movie" -- it doesn't describe the film's genre, but rather its environment.

Anyway, your opinions are perfectly valid and I'm glad you took the time to read and consider my little article. It means a lot that people are actually interested and willing to discuss something I've written, even if their consensus is negative. It allows me to improve myself as a writer and think about how I want to present my ideas in the future.

Agree, but adding: people can follow boxing matches when they're shown on film because of the talent of the production team -- if they're actually making an attempt they can show what's going on through visual cues without the audience having to necessarily understand the complicated techniques being utilized. Movies about chess haven't been able to capture this for a while, but I would say both Searching for Bobby Fischer and The Queen's Gambit had enough talent behind the lens to kind of get it (and yes, I get the book being named Searching for Bobby Fischer, but the title should have been changed when it was made into a movie). 

I certainly agree that the excellent job that Netflix did promoting "The Queens Gambit," got a lot of people to give episode 1 a chance. But it was the quality of the story telling that got non-chessplayers to binge-watch the remaining 6 episodes. This show did an amazing job of retaining almost all its audience from episode 1 right through to the end. I have had several of my non-chessplaying friends thank me for recommending the series.

Yes, 100%! But I think if a lot of other movies/shows about chess had been promoted in the same way, people who watched out of curiosity would be hooked immediately as well.