comment #1

Nicol D says ...

I never understood the fanboy obsession with this. What they wanted was Jules from Pulp Fiction fighting fist to fist with snakes on a plane.

What they got was a standard B movie cheese-fest that was no better or worse than your average sci-fi channel, made for TV horror.

If anything, hopfully this will start to signify the end of the AICN-era of geek movies.

Personally, I'm tired of the "Holy Fuck I blew my creamy load, while jerking off to Mo-Fo Sam Jackson on the TV, as images of Jessica Alba's glorious ass danced on my computer screen!" crowd dictating the content of movies.

The Harry Knowles crowd has had their day in the sun, now perhaps they can go back to thier computers and be happy with B-movies. The sooner the Miramax-indie-AICN-geek-Sundance crowd stops influencing the culture of cinema the better off we will be.

All came of age in 90's and perhaps the failure or SOAP, along with the collosal non-impact of Clerks II, will be a great big stake in the heart of the generation with nothing to say.

As a member of that generation, it pains me that all we have to offer is warmed over comics, B-movies and movies based on VHS films we loved in the '80's.

comment #2

The Winchester says ...

I have to agree with a lot of points Jeff made here. The film should have opened in June, against Click or something else of that ilk. Hell, it could have taken on Superman. But the buzz of those who didn't want to see it killed it. Maybe they were intrigued back in the spring, but after the bombardment of flicks lobbed at them this summer, I think a lot of people were just burned out.

And the film should have been more "balls to the wall" out there. After the screening I saw (10PM thursday at Sherman Oaks Galleria, not packed, but reasonably full) pretty much everyone there who wasn't checking their myspace on their cell phones throughout the flick, were agreeing that the film could have been ridiculoulsy better had it been even crazier. Like Sam Jackson ripping a snake in half and fashioning a belt from it better. The original Ronny Yu vision would have made this film infinitely better. As it stands, it looks like one of those flicks that fought hard for the PG-13 rating, where it's awkwardly cut for the purposes of the rating, only to not make much sense. And this time, in reverse.

Although, I'm kind of happy that it didn't really succeed all that well. Now the cult status should kick in, as it's no longer affected by the restraints of popularity. Speaking as a disenfranchised Gen X.5er with not that much to say, knowing that movie can belong to the dorks again is kind of a relief.

comment #3

tholl-yung says ...

In order for SOAP to have caught the hype and come out in June, then New Line would of had to dispense with traditional finishing and streamed it over the internet with temp visual effects and unmixed sound. The amount of discounting that goes on around here of the fucking labor intensive, technological and lab processes that go into releasing a picture is mindboggling. It pisses me off because in the real world, compressed post and finishing schedules has ruined more lives than anything else I know of. Now I got to go to lunch from 1 to 2 like the lemmings I work with now -- much less interesting, boring actually, but steady and you can bullshit your way in and out of stuff a lot more.

comment #4

Dixon Steele says ...

I'm surprised no one(?) has mentioned one obvious possibiity for the soft attendance.

New Line's decision to move it from a PG-13 to an R...

Sure, maybe this helped get the horror crowd, but it also cut off the little kids that think killer snakes are kinda cool.

Just so the audience could hear Samuel J. say "motherfuckin'" a few times.

Think about it...

comment #5

The Winchester says ...

I don't see how rushing post on Snakes on a Plane could make it a worse film than it already is. If anything, it can only add to the great fromage taht is SoaP.

And the film was well on it's way to being complete before the hype truly began to peak. They were done shooting last September.

Rushing post didn't stop Superman from opening on time. And I worked across the lot from those guys the few weeks before opening. I saw a lot of tired people. Angry, tired people. And Superman kind of turned out to be an even bigger disappointment in some eyes.

At least n one expected SoaP to be good. That would be asking far too much.

(And that didn;t stop me from having a great theatrical experience with Snakes, light years more enjoyable then sitting through the almost 3 hour program with Supes)

comment #6

The Winchester says ...

I don't see how rushing post on Snakes on a Plane could make it a worse film than it already is. If anything, it can only add to the great fromage taht is SoaP.

And the film was well on it's way to being complete before the hype truly began to peak. They were done shooting last September.

Rushing post didn't stop Superman from opening on time. And I worked across the lot from those guys the few weeks before opening. I saw a lot of tired people. Angry, tired people. And Superman kind of turned out to be an even bigger disappointment in some eyes.

At least n one expected SoaP to be good. That would be asking far too much.

(And that didn;t stop me from having a great theatrical experience with Snakes, light years more enjoyable then sitting through the almost 3 hour program with Supes)

comment #7

insidah says ...

This genre never works - the horror/comedy hybrid has proven time and again that it equals bad box office...look at what happened to Slither (which by all accounts was quite well done), Eight Legged Freaks...I could go on. I think Anaconda, which is a sort of exception, was a hit because it took itself seriously...came out of the box as a thriller (not a look-how-funny-and-ridiculous- we-are-thriller) My two cents.

comment #8

tholl-yung says ...

Hey, Winchester, I like your website and finally, someone gets it. Sure, sure, true enough about SOAP and SUPES sucking, I'm talking about getting the agry post-production people part.

Didn't they do additional shooting in responce to blogger requests, so they weren't done last September. I think it was Joe Leydon that said the pick up shooting looked obvious -- that shit NEVER matches right especially with a crap director.

I'm advocating a different distribution for SOAP. Given that they relyed on the net and didn't bother advertising, New Line should have streamed it in June "unfinished." Unfinished in post terms -- you can cut months off your schedule that way. It would have added, as you say, to the great fromage that is SoaP. And would everyone please drop the pretention and just type it out all in CAPS.

More circular reasoning from you to correct:
Rushing post is the reason Superman opened on time. Superman kind of turned out to be an even bigger disappointment in some eyes for ENTIRELY different reasons than rushing post.

comment #9

Dixon Steele says ...

T.H. Ung,

When you talk about New Line "streaming" SOAP in June, are you talking about bypassing theatrical altogether?

comment #10

tholl-yung says ...

Yes, only if A.), it had to come out in June in order to catch the "wave" and B.) there's a way to make millions of dollars streaming something over the net and bypass all the expensive, time consuming finishing. It's really a theoretical discussion to make a point. What's that called: making a illogical point to support another case. David Poland's got Snake Bit piece that's really hot (how's that for illogical, DP: hot. Now where's my nude yoga class?)

comment #11

The Winchester says ...

David Poland certainly is... I can't think of a way to end that sentence.

Kudos to whoever brought up the dead genre of the horror comedy. The irony is that those flicks are usually better than the "horror" films being put out these days. Give me Slither over Pulse any day of the week. (Of course, I'm biased being an AICN dork who claims Shaun of the Dead as his favorite movie, but I feel no need to defend my view yet)

TH Ung, thanks for the good words.

So, I wrote that post about Supes being rushed, and I think I may not have written what I was thinking. (then hit submit twice accidnetally to prove I'm an even bigger idiot)

But the point I was thinking I was making was, save for the 5 days of additional footage, there's a good chance that most of SoaP was completed, CGI snake rendering aside. (By the way, for all the real snakes they claimed to have in the flick, they all looked fake as hell to me). You gotta figure that most of the time was spent on FX work, and even if it wsas only at 70% done by May, they could have easily pushed, just like Superman, and gotten it done in time. The main difference is that people probably still wouldn't care.

And said reshoots were quite obvious (C'mon, the couple having sex NEEDS to be smoking a joint, so it's doubly horrible when they get whats coming to them). And did you notice that with the exception of the infamous Muthafuckin snakes on the muthafuckin plane line, every other time the word "fuck" was used, it was all ADR from a character offscreen? It's like they let Uwe Boll come and play.

Streaming it would have been a bold step, especially when people would look back on great moments in media, and find that Snakes on a Plane was the largest film ever made to be released solely on the internet.

As it stands, at least companies will think differently again about the use of the internet. It's funny because they were all reshuffling ideas after Snakes became ridiculously huge, and now that it "failed", it's back to the drawing board again. Remember, though, just because it's all the rage doesn't exactly mean the myspace kids are always right.

(However, to contradict my point, I direct you to Step Up, a film nobody had heard about that focused it's advertising with it's myspace page. That film will likely outgross SoaP many times over)

comment #12

tholl-yung says ...

Woah, woah, locked in May and ready for exhibition in June, and you were a post PA?

comment #13

tholl-yung says ...

Yes, locked in May and ready for the internet in June, absolutely. Render the effects, don't mix on a stage, don't print master, don't master anything for that matter, don't Dolby it or do anything and stream it.

Step Up = my space + ABC Family advertising (see High School Musical cable hit phenom and basically the same audience).

comment #14

The Winchester says ...

Unfortunately, I hate and avoid myspace at all costs. And don't really watch all taht ABC family, but it's defintiely the right targets for their flick.

I'm not saying that locked in May, ready for June release wouldn't be unpleasant, but as a post PA on a show that's trying to do a very similar thing, it is something that has been known to be done before.

It's not like it hasn't happened before, and yes, I agree, it will make dozens (if not more) Post folk unbelievably upset. (As the low end of said post totum pole, I would bear the brunt of it). But it's something New Line should have considered, given that the final product felt just as sloppily put together. (Except those snake scenes, those made the film much more tolerable then it had any right to be)

(Tangential thought process: They just cast Hostel 2, which is aiming for an end of January release date. Meaning 4 months to make the damn thing in time.)

comment #15

tholl-yung says ...

I'm questioning your grasp of post because "sloppily put together" is a production issue, not a post issue. It's as big a misconception as: editors cut out the bad stuff. Rush post is not only impractical at a certain threshold, it's impossible at a certain tipping point, let alone exponentionally more expensive at very high speed.

comment #16

The Winchester says ...

I fully agree with you that rushed post is a large, expensive, impractical process. But I'm not saying it isn't done. I'm working on a show right now that's pretty much learning the hard way that rushing through this process is not exactly the best way to get quality work done.

And I disagree with your assessment that "sloppily put together" is merely a production issue. Granted, it can be used in any realm of the production process (scripts are usually the biggest offender in this case) but a film can be decently crafted, but after a ringer full of producers who all think they know what's right, any film can be mediocre and pieced together with a lazy man's eye.

Again, I'm not saying that this is a good way to conduct business and make films, even if they are called Snakes On a Plane. But I'm saying that this happens. And working on a show that is going through something similar, I can tell you that it's not the greatest environment to work in.

(I will however, give you questioning of my grasp of post, as I'm not very good at my job. Primarily because anytime I do something the way I learned you're supposed to do things turns out to be wrong when compared with the slap dash approach these producers are using).

comment #17

Dixon Steele says ...

Just so you know, T.H., New Line guarantees their foreign buyers a US theatrical release. They're paying most of the cost of the movie. So streaming isn't gonna cut it.

And who's going to stream a $33 million dollar movie? The big DVD numbers that are still driving the movie biz come about only after a wide theatrical release.

In a way, that's why the movie biz is broken.

comment #18

L.B. says ...

Saying that post can and is rushed is not the same as saying it "should" be rushed. In a perfect world nothing would get rushed and everything would be done just right. That's not the world we live in. Most of the time release dates are picked before start of production and whatever it takes to get the film to the theater by then is what has to happen. That's why the phrase "delivering a wet print" to the theater was invented. It gets down to the wire. The sad part in general is that post tends to take it in the ass because it's the last step. But the choice between rushing post and not rushing it has rarely altered the behavior of a powerful producer dead set on releasing his film on a certain date. I mean, you can't say, "Hey, we got it shot, let's release it next week", but within the realm of possibility post can be rushed to suit the desires of the people in power.

comment #19

tholl-yung says ...

"pieced together with a lazy man's eye" happens up until locking the picture. The rest of the steps all take x amount of time for each step and each step can be rushed. Heck you can open a lab on a Sunday, but it's very expensive, not that many productions can afford it.

"Most of the time release dates are picked before start of production and whatever it takes to get the film to the theater by then is what has to happen." That's why a post schedule is created using the date you need to be in theatres and calculating where you need to be at each stage prior to that by what day, then you pad it, because you know things are going to get pushed, and then you prey and then you pay overtime if you have to and bleed extensively. You are right Winchester that rushing hardly effects the quality because either way, you are going to execute each stage. The quality of a picture is determined primarily by what happens up until you lock picture. And yes, it is a tragedy what happens when a bunch of no nothing producers piss on a director's work -- I've seen it happen before my very eyes -- I've seen directors tossed out of rooms after their guild time is up, and their pictures commandeered by witless idiots who tinker until the lock picture date and waltz out thinking I can't destroy their picture with a bad key stroke at 5am.

comment #20

tholl-yung says ...

A lot of time it's the vis fx people who get screwed the hardest because they are not unionized. Some of the quality of their work is determined by how rushed they are, but storywise no, temps have been worked out for story, pace and rythm. If they suck as temp, they're gonna suck finalized and depending on why they suck, it may not matter if you rush or not.

comment #21

tholl-yung says ...

So, Winchester, do you think SoaP (I'm giving in with the small o and a) would have been a better movie PG-13? That's the question posed here:

http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2006/08/the_snakes_rati.html

P.S. bozo producers destroy pictures, good ones can work beauty on a director's cut. It can be as simple as the producer saying to the editor show me version 1 or 2, the one the director made you undo, or as complicated as anything you can imagine.

comment #22

Jay T. says ...

I still can't believe they waited so long to release this movie. A June release would have led to at least a 20M opening when the buzz was hot - by the time August came around everyone was already sick of hearing about it and didn't bother (myself included). As a result, internet buzz will be downplayed by dozens of journalists who just don't get it.

comment #23

D.Z. says ...

It's kind of sad that Snakes is taking a beating, since it's one of the few films which delivers. It's just that United 93 stole all the hype.

Winchester: You might consider seeing the Japanese version of Pulse. Also, Step Up wasn't R.

comment #24

tholl-yung says ...

Naw, they should have ignored the internet chatter and kept it PG-13 and released what they had when they had it and when the could have, instead of reshooting and throwing in off camera "fuck"s.

comment #25

The Winchester says ...

Honestly, I enjoyed the movie for the R rating, for the sole reason of the snake attack scenes. If those scenes didn't work, the whole movie would have been angering on an Attack of the Clones level. Snakes feels like it's holding back 70% of the time, because of the initial PG-13 rating.

So maybe they could have released it PG-13 in June, then have the re-shoots for the inevitable "Unrated Director's Cut DVD", which would sell like proverbial hotcakes. But they did something else entirely, and the end result is freakish beast of a film that should have been pure madness, and wound up being funny because of how awful it is.

I think the movie would have been better if it was whatever Ronny Yu had in mind. Say what you will about Formula 51, it has a ridiculous style. Freddy vs. Jason really shifts into B movie genre overdrive and kicks some ass in the last section, which contains the title bout. Not high art, I'm quite aware, but fun movies. And what made those trashy movies fun is exactly what SoaP (I am quite fond of writing that) needed to be.

Speaking as a proud film dork, I had unreasonably high expectations, I'll admit it. If you're gonna go for the R rating, go for the fuckin R rating. Do it with pride. But if you're gonna make the PG 13 movie, make that one. Don't try to turn one into the other.

I wanted SoaP to be insane, on par with something like Peter Jackson's Dead Alive. A movie that's equal parts laughs and disgust. Slither achieved this earlier this year. Not financially I realize, but as far as entertainment value, it blew away most of the blockbusters from this summer. SoaP needed to go to 11, and it didn't.

And there you have one dork's take anyway.

comment #26

Nate West says ...

"As a member of that generation, it pains me that all we have to offer is warmed over comics, B-movies and movies based on VHS films we loved in the '80's."

This comment is so spot-on. Please. Is this the best your generation can do?

comment #27

andy r says ...

I think that the disappointing box office for Snakes on a Plane have to do with a couple of factors.

1: The internet audience is smarter than the TV driven audience (duh) and they are more resourceful and obviously wired (duh again). Sure there was lots of buzz online but then when New Line didn't screen for press the "It sucks" rumors really started flying. What started as awareness turned to interest and then intense interest and then for some, but certainly not all, to "It's bad REALLY BAD, oh well, I guess I'll wait for it on dvd." There is no telling exactly how much of the interested audience got turned off during the last few weeks or so leading up to the release due to immediate bad buzz at the news of no press screenings - a misfire given that the reviews are more positive than not actually. 67% on Rotten tomatoes at last look.

The TV audience isn't as savvy. They usually follow the pattern of going from awareness to interest to intent to see. The web audience is also harder to peel away from their computers. Just because they might be aware of a film with a unique and weird concept doesn't mean they actually want to go see it. Why should they? The stuff they're gobbling up their time with online is endlessly fascinating and it is by and large free. "All your snakes are belong to us" is at least as good as the film is, which I thought was incredibly entertaining actually despite the numerous flaws. I think they are harder to poll as well and don't appear on tracking as much as the "old media" auds. People who spend a lot of time online are less likely to have home phones and therefore are harder to reach for researchers. I don't know what the tracking was but if New Liners were expecting a mid 20's bow, then either tracking indicated as much or they overcompensated for the fact that it didn't and figured that the elusive web crowd was bound to be good for such a gross. Either way, it indicated that predicting such a crowd is difficult and unreliable - hardly news this summer.

2: New Line's exit surveys may say otherwise, but it sure looked like the film missed with the urban demo. I saw the film sat night at a theater in downtown brooklyn. A theater that is usually 80% to 90% african-american. Sat night at the 9:40 show the audience was 90% white and I'd say mostly between 18 and 35. The half full theater laughed and cheered as they interpreted it as b-movie camp. If you look at the marketing - especially the print campaign, where's Samuel Jackson? He's not there. Why not?
Instead you have some graphic of 2 snakes wrapped around a plane. The other poster in the theater was a spoof of illustrated inflight safety and evacuation cards which at first glance read as cautionary and warning materials - not the kind of engaging entertainment the audience going to that theater is looking for. While it appeals to me, the urban audience just misses it. Extrapolating out from this, it seemed clear that the film failed to click with the african american audience. Perhaps if there had been more of a hardcore urban campaign, it would have done better. But as it is, it seemed clear from the box office results and from attendance in downtown brooklyn, that the urban audience was nowhere in sight. I'm just guessing but if the film had really clicked with the urban audience, it could have done another 10 to 15 million more. It certainly was on enough screens. Look at Kill Bill. It also was an odd story rooted in b movie camp with a high camp factor at its core but the difference was that it drew savvy internet geeks and the TV motivated urban audience - bigtime.

What it shows is that even with rumors of badness, a film with major web promotion and the embrace of the core bloggers and site publishers that the so called internet crowd is good for a $15 million weekend, which is nothing to shake a snake at. As far as the horror/comedy genre, I think a lot of it has to do with the marketing. If marketed right, auds will go. If looks like a snake and smells like a snake then snake lovers will take action and go. If there's confusion over what the heck it is that is slithering around under the seats and whether laughter or screaming is the right response, then there is inaction.

comment #28

Dixon Steele says ...

Finally saw SOAP. An enjoyable yet cheesy genre film. More funny than scary though. Some really good set pieces. And Samuel J's famous declaration wasn't all that. Liked it, didn't love it.

And a major goof from New Line ending the film with that awful music video. Uggghhh. What were they thinking? Bob Shaye, Tony Emmerich...wake up!