Slashdot Mirror
Snakes on The Net Fail to Put Butts in the Seats
Lev13than writes "An article in The Globe & Mail discusses the disappointing performance of Snakes on a Plane. Despite extensive Internet hype and unprecedented audience involvement in the movie's development, it barely slithered into first place with a meager $13.8M weekend box office. 'The Internet stuff was just fun that people were having with it, but I don't think that necessarily meant that those people wanted to see the movie... those who had made that decision based their decision more on the traditional marketing than on all this Internet buzz.' Was all of the hype about blogger power just that — hype?"
There is one major possibility that everybody is forgetting.
That is, that this movie could have quite possibly ended dead last without the Internet hype. I think the only reason they made anything at all was because of the hype.
It only came first. What a disappointment. I'd much rather it had come zeroth, that would have been a much better indication of success.
all of those bloggers making SoaP jokes? They were laughing at, not with the marketroids and hollywood in general. It was derision, nothing else.
I know that I don't generally shell out cash for things I'm derisive of, that's for sure.
It was the highest grossing movie this weekend, right? First place? What were they hoping for? Zeroth place? I mean really. The 'buzz' was that it was basically a stupid movie with no plot. And it still made it to the top. And they complain? Man, talk about a sore winner.
This movie debut - 10 years ago = Complete and utter bust. The money it made was due to the Internet and very little else. If anything it was a wakeup call to Hollywood in how much money can be made by "marketing" to the appropriate audience (although of course with SoaP it was mostly accidental ;)
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
with all the bombs lately, maybe they are waiting for word of mouth to see if it is ANY GOOD?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
While I'm interested in seeing the film, my wife and I just can't swallow the wretched ticket prices when, for cost of two admissions, we can OWN THE DVD. Not rent, own. And that's not even factoring in gas or babysitting costs.
Add to that the cost of consessions and the sheer rudeness of humanity (talking to your neighbor, talking on your cellphone, text messaging, kicking the back of my chair) I'm just not interested in going to see a film on the big screen.
So, am I going to shell out big bucks to watch commercials, listen to other people's conversations, and then sit through a B-grade flick? Hell no.
Don't just game, Dungeoneer
when you saw a dancing baby, did you want a baby?
when some turkish dude said "i kiss you!" did you want to kiss him?
did watching the hamster dance make you want to buy a hamster?
when cats said all our base are belong to him, did you want to play zerowing?
when star wars kid valiantly fought with canadian air, did you want to buy a light sabre?
did watching jibjab's "this land is our land" change your vote?
no, to all of that
so why would laughing at snakes on a plane make you want to go to the movies?
dumb internet fads are, guess what, nothing but dumb internet fads
they don't translate into anything, excep time wasted at work and school
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Everyone know about this movie. The problem is, just because everyone knows about it and it's hyped, does not mean it's going to be a good movie. It's the mixed reviews it got from people who saw it. If you ask your friend "what did you think of this most hyped movie", and they say "well it was funny but not really scary". It's not going to be an impression like "hey thats the best movie I've seen all year!".
After 6 months of internet hype, "I'm TIRED of these MOTHERFUCKING SNAKES on this MOTHERFUCKING PLANE!", plain and simple. I'll wait for the DVD, thanks.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Its amazing how the internet makes you forget about the real, actual world around you... how things that seem amazingly omnipresent really don't exist anywhere else. Its sort of its own little fantasy world, run by hyperactive squirrels on crack.
meh
We geeks tend to forget that we are in the TINY MINORITY of the population. Joe Sixpack doesn't hang out on /. and internet fan boards.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Tracking said it would do roughly what it did - average for a mid-August-horror-release. It's simply that we all thought it would do well, because everyone we know knew about it. Watch the Daily Show's interview - everyone there probably went to see it. Guess what - they were the demographic anyhow. I think the name may have alienated some viewers, but it wouldn't have gotten people like me - I hate horror films, I went solely to participate. It was gorier than I would have liked, but a fun time was had by all 10 of us in the theater.
I think this counts as the "Howard Dean effect". Prior to one of the primaries, everyone thought he'd come in first, because he had this huge internet buzz. Turns out it didn't matter. Even if it's all of us techno-geeks, we're still a small percentage of the populace.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
I think this is how the marketers think:
We need to advertise this movie. What is our target audience? Young males 16-29... What are they doing? They're blogging! Quick, let's put up a bunch of fake blog sites, seed existing blogs with references, and our target demographic will flock to see this movie.
I dunno about everyone else, but the blog postings touting the movie always seemed like those TV commercials that started using "hip hop" and "street" phrases to sell toothpaste ("It's the bomb! Bling bling! Off the chain!") long after the phrases have become old (and by old I mean that I, the least hip, most geriatric bastard on the face of the earth, finally understands what they mean because I Googled for the phrases and found a Wiki). It's like FoxTV saying "The arrest *went down* on Main St and Lincoln"...
Not nearly as many as New Line Cinema was guessing, I bet. Even so, SoaP was all the rage for a few months, so it's easy to get into the notion that it was going to be a smashing hit.
But one needs to realize that what you generally see/hear on the Internet isn't necessarily representative of the populace in general. Back in 2004, I was sure that Kerry was going to take the Presidential slot by quite a bit, despite being a Bush supporter (yes, I've realized my mistakes since then). Then Bush barely beat out Kerry, instead.
So what happened, both then and now? A few things.
First, the Internet is a great thing that covers the entire globe. This means that you're going to get opinions from a lot of places whose opinion, frankly, doesn't really matter overall. (Not that they shouldn't state their opinion, but someone from Russia talking about who they would vote for in the American primaries doesn't make a lick of difference.) This residual noise is going to confound the actual outcome to a point.
Second, turn out. While a lot of people say they'll go out and vote for Kerry, or go out and see the movie, that doesn't mean they'll actually do it. In this instance, people on Fark set up SoaP "Parties" for people to get together, drink a bit, then go laugh at the movie. Many of these requested RSVPs, and a lot of the people who hosted such parties said that a good portion of the RSVPs didn't show up.
Third, anonymity and 'fitting in'. People can claim on the internet to do things or to have done things that they will never or have never done. A Bush supporter that is an active member of a website that's predominantly anti-Bush is more likely to make anti-Bush comments so s/he won't be ridiculed. Similarly, someone might say that they are interested in SoaP so they can be part of the online group, but really don't give a damn.
It's the very reason that Slashdot has their little blurb above all polls:
The internet is wildly inaccurate except under the most precise of circumstances and settings, and even then the numbers can be flubbed.
At least this means that we (hopefully) won't see a lot of studios trying to build internet hype, when all the internet hype was created entirely by fans.
The Internet + Lower than expected profits = Piracy. Everyone knows that.
-MPAA
SoaP cost $30 million to make. They'll make all their money back in the US box office (or close to it). Then there's the foreign box office (where this may not be remotely hot, but could bring in some cash). Then second-run movies, like college campuses, etc. I work at a college theater (head of ushering), and I'm expecting big crowds to Snakes when we get it (mid-October). That's a lot more money. Lastly, DVDs and DVD rentals. It'll make it's backers a lot of money. It'll have a better return on investment than a lot of other BIG MOVIE blockbusters.
What if the initial movie doesn't beome popular but the DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-ray release ends up having a massive cult following? Surely they cannot expect the measure the value of the Internet SoaP phenomenon until it's released on an alternative medium. How many geeks without girlfriends are really confident enough to go to a movie on thier own?
After all of the jokes, stupid references, and whatnot about this movie... I'd really like to see it just to see exactly how ridiculous the movie is. I expect to see a cheesy plot, snakes on a plane, and Samuel L. Jackson dropping one-liners with the F-word in it.
The problem is that the theater is charging $9 a pop, making a night out at the movies for two an $18 affair, not counting the consession stand. Do I really want to pay for a campy movie that I'll be able to rent for $2 when it hits DVD in a few months?
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
I don't remember seeing any of this 'hype' stuff. I remember seeing a couple of mentions on the web, and then a few days before release I saw some news stories claiming that there was lots of hype - probably fewer than I'd expect for a major summer movie release. So someone, please tell me before I miss the next lot of hype. Where do I see this 'hype' stuff? Is there a 'hype' web site? Is there a mailing list I need to subscribe to? Without it I just feel like I'm not connecting with therest of society.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
That was the single worst part of the movie. Just the way the line was placed in the movie (with him saying it to all the survivors left on the plane) was way too jarring. I think it'd have been much better if he said it to himself while hunting around to fix the ventilation system. That would have made those "motherfuckin'"s fit a lot better. ("I am so (*kill snake*) GODDAMN SICK (*kill snake*) of these MOTHERFUCKIN SNAKES (*kill snake*).. on this STUPID-ASS MOTHERFUCKIN PLANE! (*beat a dead snake*)" - something like that.
The rest of the movie was basically a campy variation of the old "aircraft disaster" genre (yes, lest we forget, it used to be an entire genre - which is why Airplane could lampoon it...) mixed with some thriller movie standards (like the amusing kills, the victims you're meant to hate, the various clumsy attempts to create tension with close-calls before the all-out assault begins, etc...)
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
Years ago there was the viral marketing about The Blair Witch Project. I wondered what all the buzz was about and saw it. To me it was money down the drain. I didn't care for it and became a bit cynical about film pushed this way. Now if someone I knew who had similar tastes and saw a film and liked it, which I used to do, I'd give it a try.
Well I actually liked Blair Witch a lot, it being one of the only horror movies to ever instill real emotions of fear in me (having been lost in the woods before helped me get into the movie though). Yet I'm still cynical of any attempts to do "viral" marketing or anything of the sort. The reason is because a movie is marketed that way, or any other way, and some other exec says "Huh, they used this marketing technique, and their movie was a success. We should use this technique for our movie, and we will also be successfull." Note the lack of any consideration for the quality of the movies. To them, "grassroots" is just a phenomenon to be exploited for their own benefit. So I never trust them.
Now like you say sometimes I do find people whose opinions I trust. In this sense, I think they made a big mistake by not having pre-screenings for the press. If I had heard the reviews before hand -- which basically say that given B-movie expectations, the film exceeds them -- I may have been more likely to see the movie on opening weekend. "Snakes on a Plane" with Samuel Jackson sounds awesome, but am I going to trust those hollywood fuckers with my $8 based on a name and a star? If pre-release internet buzz had been matched with critical acclaim, then maybe that buzz would have turned into ticket sales like they hoped.
But really this article should be titled "Movie producers shocked to discover that Internet still isn't replacement for real world".
The enemies of Democracy are
Half of the Slashdot crowd will just download the flick and wonder why the producers are so disappointed in the film's performance at the box office.
Then they will post about the virtues of free software... knowing full well that they really mean beer.
These people argue that copying from people who give nothing away, refuse to allow derivatives and generally try to lock up art with DRM and copyright extensions to avoid it entering the commons is in no way equal to going against the wishes of people who do give things away for you to do with as you please, as long as the rights are retained for everyone who gets a copy.
I may not agree with them, but I don't see much hypocracy there.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
The problem with the SOAP fan community was that it was unlike any other fan community that has ever existed and that is the inherent irreverence for the source material. Even cult movies like Rocky Horror or Plan 9 from Outer Space hinge on the fact that the source material is sacrosanct. Sure, people dress up and people show canned responses to well-known sequences... but the sequences never change, the films never change, the experience never changes. Sure, folks might come up with more elaborate costumes or better cynical jokes but the material is involatile. And you can say the same about the very film prints of SOAP except-
all of its community was built before a single frame was seen.
SOAP was an insipid idea encapsulated in a four word title. Other than that? It was an open canvas.
And the online community ran with it. It made jokes, it made photoshop, comic strips, stupid video, fake trailers, Photoshop Phridays, crap songs. And the convergence of social software just helped fuel it. Blogger, Youtube, Photobucket. In the end 99% of all original content related to Snakes on a Plane was generated outside the official film itself.
Not only that, but SOAP was something you could participate in. 15 minutes in photoshop and a couple of clicks and your picture of Mace Windu sitting on a Dune sandworm with "Yes, they deserved to die and I hope they burn in hell!" written poorly in Pbrush.exe could end up on a dozen blogs. SOAP was whatever you contributed to it. Even academics and culture critics are getting into it. There are going to be papers, books, theories, conjecture. Someone is going to approach it from a Baudrillardian philosophical perspective and say SOAP was the first movie to truly capture the post-9/11 zeitgeist.
Technology and society met at a point where this was inevitable. It just took four little words and an idea that everyone could appreciate the straight-faced stupidity of.
Because of this, the actual frames of the movie are sort of irrelevant. After six months of run up, it was just another signal against the whole span of content out there. And to be honest, it wasn't even as creative or funny as a lot of that anonymous posters came up with.
The movie is what it is: a generic B horror/suspense film. And anyone looking at just the screen will see that. But those who where out there last Thursday at 10:00 in a theater full of high schoolers and college kids hearing the last ticks of summer? That was the real Snakes on a Plane. People hissing, screaming, yelling. It was a truly shared communal experience. The content on the screen was mere pretext. It was a nation-wide community that hadn't been forced down from some marketing firm that went from flash to bang in six months. MTV, Nike, Universal-Vevendi didn't tell anyone to do this. I have to agree with the guys at RuthlessReviews.com, that's pretty heartening.
What is music when you despise all sound?
A lot of people have already mentioned that they can buy the DVD, which they can watch forever, for the price of two movie tickets, which they can use once. Owning (or renting at a fraction of the cost, or acquiring it by more... surreptitious means) has almost everything in its favour.
The biggest thing that cinemas still have going for them is that "opening day" buzz for people who want to see the movie as soon as they possibly can, preferably before anyone else they know has seen it. There is some logical sense in this, because it means you don't run the risk of hearing a spoiler; but it's mainly just psychological. It's fun to be one of the first people in the world to see a movie. It's annoying to know that lots of other people have seen it and you haven't.
But this doesn't apply anywhere near as much to Snakes on a Plane, because everyone who would concievably have been interested in it already knew everything about it. Also, the plot doesn't leave much room for suspense and twists - the title is a spoiler, for Cthulhu's sake. There was no reason to see it on opening night, so there was no reason to see it at the big screen at all.
I predict they'll make a killing on DVDs.
However, the real point here is that yes, "Snakes on a Plane" did get plenty of publicity on the Net. From people making fun of an "terrorism" concept that was even stupid for Hollywood; a concept so stupid that even the Transportation Safety Administration won't search travelers for snakes at airports. (as of right now, but I haven't checked the news today)
In other words, "Snakes" got plenty of free publicity and damned near all of it was bad. Though I'm not at all sure if its dismal box office showing was due to free online publicity or people seeing the conventional marketing and coming to the same conclusion as bloggers. . . so stupid that it isn't worth spending $20 to go see.
As an "Airplane" style comedy, it might have worked. Was the studio not paying any attention to focus groups or did they recruit the intellectually challenged on purpose? If they'd figured it out in time, they probably could have edited it into a comedy with minimal reshooting.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Like someone else said, this movie was labelled with "cult" status before it hit theaters, which is different from most other cult films. I did see an "audience participation guide" published before the film came out, but for the most part it was lame.
However, now that the movie is out, things have changed. People were clapping and cheering during certain scenes both times that I've seen it (Friday and Monday), and I've been noticing parts of the film that are perfect for audience participation lines. Likewise, this IMDB thread has a few gems that audience members came up with while viewing the movie for the first time! After this movie has been out another week or so, I expect to see the last show of the evening populated by people who go there not for the deep and moving piece of cinema, but rather for a new, fun, audience-participation laden experience.
For those of you considering downloading it or getting the DVD, you are missing out. See it at the last showing on a Friday night, preferably at a theater known for a large, loud, youthful crowd. This film is nothing to appreciate in the traditional way, but it is something fabulous and rare... it's a fun movie to see in a theater.
Now maybe your average person doesn't know all these facts, but they probably saw the film as mostly pointless and stayed away in droves because the advertising let them know how bad the movie is.
Any one care to take bets on how long before the MPAA tries to claim lackluster ticket sales / DVD rentals/sales is the result of rampant filesharing as opposed to people simply not seeing a really lousy film? :)
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.