Snakes on a Plane, one of the most hyped movies of the year, opened this weekend to very mediocre results. Chances are you've heard about SoaP if you’ve either a) left your house since last winter, or b) allowed anything to come in, especially the Internet and perhaps a phone line. (I even suspect, but have no proof, an effort was made to somehow introduce SoaP to the water supply by terrorists.) And it seems after all that talk the movie did only slightly better than a campy horror title is expected.
So what’s so special about an over-hyped August movie going bust? The over-hyping of this particular one wasn’t so much the studio’s fault as it was the film geek audience that championed it almost purely on the merits (or drawbacks) of its name. Famously Sam Jackson and the community of bloggers following the film’s development reacted so violently to New Line’s proposed title change (Pacific Air 121) that execs returned to the original. Josh Friedman, the screenwriter who started the online sensation, even turned it into a Zen koan. (His talks with New Line about doctoring the script went sour due to the name change. Also he’s a little profane.) and then there's Snakes on a Blog founder, Brian Finkelstein, who is completely obsessed.
Amid all this hoopla, critics started seriously discussing what SoaP’s expected success would mean to the industry. Esquire’s critic-at-large Chuck Klosterman saw doom and gloom, while Foxnews.com claimed it “might change the way movies are marketed forever.”
But that was assuming it was a success. Instead the film took in only $15.3 million – take out the $1.4 million from Thursday night and it slips under Talladega Nights’ third weekend in the box office standings. Call off the revolution. But like the koan goes, “Snakes on a plane.”
Related Stories: | Topics:, Sam Jackson, Josh Friedman, Brian Finkelstein, Chuck Klosterman, FOX News Network LLC |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 5 Total
August 22, 2006 at 9:52am by Chris
Thanks for the reality check!
All the hype didn't amount to much. In fact it may have hurt. I'm hearing the movie is a decent thriller, but many folks won't consider it b/c it's a "cult classic".
August 22, 2006 at 10:17am by Rob
If the premise of the movie sounds ridiculously stupid no amount of hype will save it. I'm 25 and have talked to my friends about this and honestly dont know a single person who saw it. I mean, the line "theres a contingency we hadn't planned for -- There's snakes on this plane!" just made me laugh out loud. I think that the type of hype they did could easily work if it were paired up with something that people actually wanted to see!
August 22, 2006 at 6:48pm by roger fulton
the problem with all this marketing nonsense begins with the conception of the idea, the writing of the scipt, the banking of the movie, right on through the marketing department.
There is just too many drugs involved.
Imagine too many blotto Hollywood types sitting around saying "PICTURE THIS" fingering the air, as the pipe smoke thickens. The marketing department eye balls are wide, cold and hard like Chevy lights during noon. "Sure,"they say, "I can sell this."
Crap like this happens. That's why receipts are down.
August 22, 2006 at 7:29pm by Vance Dubberly
Um that anybody went to see it at all is a testament to the power of internet marketing. I mean seriously does anything about this movie look even remotely interesting? Maybe for people who dig stuff like "Surf Nazi's Must Die!" but that's hardly a box office draw. This isn't a marketing failure it's a stupid movie failure.
August 22, 2006 at 8:03pm by Pamela
I saw this movie yesterday and had a great time. Pure entertainment! With the title, Snakes on a Plane, what do you expect - Merchant Ivory? BTW, I am 50 years old and obviously very easily amused.