This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It's being reported as number one across the board on most news channels, is it still even a debate where or not it's number one?
I would also like the weekend earnings to be updated, it was #1 opening weekend with 15.25 million: http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/20/box.office.ap/index.html
I read the book, and what I wrote in as the plot was 100% legit. It was deleted because it was uncited, but there really is no way to cite a book. Should we keep the "mini-plot" that we have now, or should we put back in my full plot? --208.115.202.219 00:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
It is very possible to cite a book. MajorB 03:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Samuel L. Jackson will be attending the Comic-Con convention in San Diego on July 21, 2006. He will be holding a panel alongside with the director, David R. Ellis, to discuss the movie. If anyone can go to this, more information could be contributed to the article. Here is the link to find out more information.www.comic-con.org/cci/ I wanted to go, but will unfortunately be out of town. If you go, have fun, maybe take a few pictures for this page and the Samuel L. Jackson page. --Nehrams2020 05:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The reference in the article to Sam responding to question at Comic-Con about the movie with qoutes from other movies, is inacurate. Several of the people asked questions about other movies in reference to Snakes on a Plain or tried to bait him into repeating lines from other movies, however it didn't occur as stated in the article.
The third paragraph in the internet phenomenon section makes absolutely no sense. It's all over the place. What's being conveyed here? Bmunden 17:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
the creators i mean--87.196.168.188 23:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Calling this pop-culture phenomenon a "subculture" is really reaching, IMHO. This movie has had a huge buzz building up to it, but I seriously doubt it will change anyone's lifestyle or endure much beyond the DVD release. A subculture has set of principles or standards that define who belongs to the ingroup and outgroup, and what sets members apart from the mainstream. This movie may have been blogged to death, but as far as I can see, it's about as mainstream as you can get! MFNickster 09:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
If you want to change the format of this article, fine. Just please do not remove large pieces of infomation without discussing it here. dposse 17:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I second that! Is there any reason why information Zebro's music video contest was taken off? The contest definately deserves to be featured here in my opinion as the videos will be featured in a montage on the official SoaP DVD and the contast may be talked about on the DVD as well. Lemme know what's up. Thanks! elishayaffe 18:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey everybody, we need some better open-source pictures for this article, especially of the merchandise. If you have any high quality GDFL/CC/PD-licensed photos, please upload them to Wikimedia Commons. — Lovelac7 21:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
All GA articles must be stable, and since the information in this article could rapidly change, then this can't be reviewed until the film has been released. Sorry, Highway Return to Oz... 12:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I heard a rumor that Samuel L. Jackson himself specifically demanded a song to be made in the glorious likeness of Snakes on a Plane (Snakes on a Song). As it turns out, Cobra Starship made such a song and I heard it a couple days ago on SIRIUS (Snakes on the Radio). Hey, and look at that, the band has Snakes on their Title. Coincidence? Conspiracy? I'm starting to think Cobra Starship was put together just for this song. Can anyone verify these rumors? (Snakes on a Rumor) --Snakes on a User
I removed this for now because I can't find anything confirming it (though I didn't search very hard). It also looks suspicious since it's in the past tense even though "a few days prior to this film's theatrical release" hasn't even arrived yet. - furrykef (Talk at me) 08:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I can verify the existence of it. I work at a movie store and we got about 5 copies of it in. Matrixfusion 05:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
When you click on the link for Nathan Phillips, it leads to some lawyer who died in 1976... I can't seem to find an actual Nathan Phillips page either, so should the link just be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.124.98 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
--awwww man, thats bad luck 68.57.1.83 03:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
What is the source for the 'Plot' section in the article? It seems to be wrongly place, poorly edited, unencyclopedic and lacking in attribution. It doesn't even appear to be talking about the plot of the film, but of a book of the film. AlexTiefling 12:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The article now has three pictures of SoaP t-shirts. Do we need that many, or is it possible that we can create a gallery within the article to show the shirts? The page is beginning to look like it is supporting the apparel of the film instead of the film itself. --Nehrams2020 23:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
--TBCTaLk?!? 08:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I added the information about the New Line / CafePress deal but I wanted to cite the source here. Information was taken from this page: www.cafepress.com/buy/snakes+on+a+plane There is a link to the rules there as well.
This move on New Line's part is another example of how they are embracing an internet/social networking/grassroots sort of campaign for the film. Allowing blanket licensing like this has never been done to my knowledge (I used to work in the industry). Fricka 01:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
i'm a new member of wikipedia and thus i'm better at adding things that i really know about, but i think someone knowledgeable on the topic should right something about the Blanks on a Blank film contest wherein films are made about random animals on a random mode of transportation. (yaks on a wheelchair)
(I don't mean to take away the fun if you elect to suspend disbelief, but wikipedia is supposed to be informative.)
Like most action movies, the premise of this movie is highly implausible. If 500 snakes were released in a plane's cargo hold, it is unlikely that a single one would encounter passengers. Snakes are poikilothermic, and in a low temperature like a cargo hold (typically 50–70°F, or 10–21°C[1]), will be slow or torpid and unwilling to travel. Snakes are even shyer than usual when in unfamiliar territory, such as a strange-smelling cargo hold. They would also find the constant vibration unnerving; although they lack external ears to hear sound, they have fully functioning internal ears and are very sensitive to conducted vibrations. With difficult-to-climb aluminum walls and a mostly solid ceiling underneath the passenger cabin further to discourage adventurism, the snakes would simply find small enclosed spaces to hide in until the situation got better. 192.35.100.1 00:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Damn! And people wonder why America is getting stupider. Well, I wonder why. Whoever decided to even produce this movie deserves to die.
We don't know what the full version of this movie is gonna be like, although the basic plot is there though, this movie could be a big hit due to its premise and setting, so let's wait and see. This movie as Samuel L Jackson puts it, "might just be the best motion picture ever made"Volt M 05:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel that such a comment would be, if a source could be found, an interesting thing to stick in the trivia section. Perhaps one could discuss the realistic effect pheremone would have on snakes. tankgirl23
what exactly does that mean? dposse 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Having just seen the movie, the scene of sexuality is not a stewardess and a passenger, but two newlyweds. There is some considerable breast nudity but that is the only scene.
User:SquigglyChicken from Deviantart 10:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC):Blech. I saw that. ohh that was wrong. I dont think there's been anything that disgusting sinceThere's Something About Mary
C'mon, this article on the masterpiece that is Snakes on a Plane needs to be brought up to featured status. The Wookieepedian 04:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I went to an advance screening of Snakes on a Plane, and throughout the movie everyone was cheering loudly during the deaths, and especially after the "I've had it with these motherfuckin snakes on this motherfuckin plane." line. Did this happen at other advance screenings? If so, would it be worthy to mention this in the article? And/or to speculate in the article that this movie could follow in the vein of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, where some of the appeal is to make a lot of noise as a group during the movie? Koncur 05:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
�3⁄4s<�?a source to cite=== This review here http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/18/review.snakesonaplane.ap/index.html has a focus on how loud and rowdy the audience was, and how it was part of the fun. They even compare it to Rocky Horror! Even though I started this one, I'm not feeling well today, and am not up for writing an intelligent section. So if anyone wants the honor of writing about this phenomenon, please do. Koncur 20:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Here in Chicago, same kind of crowd reaction. Call and response, plastic snakes, hissing. Brilliant fun, and the audience particiation is unbelievable. We're a part of cultural history, folks.
Should be added. As it appears unanimously that everyone had an extremely enthusiatic crowd, to varying degrees. The above citation should be used for the addition, however, to prevent a case of Wikiality.
If you've got more than two people here who have seen something with their own eyes then do you need Media confirmation??? Anybody here read White Noise by Don DeLillo? Reminds me of the bit at the airport.
Does anyone know about his involvement in this? His name was originally linked to this film. It's clear he was supposed to be playing the character that was eventually played by Nathan Phillips, but what happened? Was he replaced? Mad Jack 06:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The review stinks. It isn't even a credible source. Someone should take it down immediately, its just fanboyism for this movie. 65.30.40.87 09:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It's deleted. Movie Articles should not contain amounts of reviews. This is not Rotten Tomatoes. The jazz musician 06:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
What is the release date for SoaP? If it was today, what was the earliest viewing yesterday? --myselfalso 14:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the one external link to a review because there's a bunch of reviews online from newspapers and websites now, and I think we should hold off on putting individual ones in until we have a section. Is there a traditional way of creating this section? How do we go about choosing which ones to mention? --Maxamegalon2000 15:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
First time I've ever felt obliged to ask permission before inserting a link to an article! Anyway it's a pretty good one and it's very fresh: Stevage 16:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC) SoaP opera - The Age, August 18 2006.
I think this: http://weebls-stuff.com/toons/trailer/ should be mensioned in the trivia.
It points out that the film is sufficiently noteable for use by other authors. I don't see a Nacho Libre trailer out there. --84.70.38.40 13:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I am posting here to ask for an explanation as to why any reference to the comedy group Zebro is being deleted? Their SoaP videos were seen at Comic-Con. When I posted about this (and cited my source) it was deleted. They are in almost every news story about the SoaP fan videos...just today they were featured on both CNN and MTV. References to Zebro's music video contest - an event that Automat Pictures, the producers of the offical DVD - are interested in covering in the DVD's extras. I understand that it may seem like spam at first glance because of the specific mention of the group, but I wanted to make sure you know that the research and facts are there to back it up. Hope to hear from you soon. And I appreciate the page besides that...it is really informative! Elishayaffe 23:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so I am now going to link the stuff to the wiki page and not the www.zebroshow.com page. Thanks for getting back to me! Elishayaffe 23:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
at the end of the film, when the plane has landed, did anyone notice the donnie-darkoesque marking on the plane's jet engine?
ugh, that wasn't a reference to anything. Clearly, you haven't looked at many planes lately. --Almighty WALKER 03:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
It didn't really seem like that much of a horror film, more of an action/comedy. Maybe we could change the genre in the beginning of the article? Stonesour025 05:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I found the deaths hillarious. The entire crowd was laughing, too.Stonesour025 22:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The film may be very entertaining, but it sure ain't "high concept"! The quoted party was using the phrase sarcastically. Please remove. JDG 05:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article has a grammar mistake in it! It says "Snakes on a Plane is AN high concept action/horror film", when it should be "is A high concept". Someone should fix it (i cant because i dont have an account).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.194.131 (talk • contribs)
Kudos to whoever put that line in the trivia section. It made my day. Two of my friends actually wore Afros and black suits to the Aug. 17. showing, and I assumed they were the only ones. I guess not. :)
This is the best outside source I can find to verify the phenomenon. [2] Does anyone have something better to cite in the article? Zagalejo 17:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Holy crap, an inside joke among habbo users??? 4Chan is wholly responsible for this, it's their joke, and since some Wiki policy somehow forbids mentioning the great habbo raids on the habbo hotel page, nobody is the wiser. Changing this. --Almighty WALKER 19:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it's off topic, and the "references" do not even come close to supporting this claim. A 4chan invasion of habbo hotel belongs in the 4chan article. It makes no sense here. Please try to zoom out a few steps before randomly inserting forum cruft in the article. —ptk✰fgs 16:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, the LA Weekly article doesn't say anything about a forum invasion, 4chan, or Habbo Hotel. It doesn't say anything about any forum, or any internet meme. It says some people dressed up in wigs. —ptk✰fgs 16:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
There's various references in the article which point directly at a URL, rather than being a pukka <ref>((cite web ..... I'm going to start fixing them, but as there's so many, would appreciate help. --Oscarthecat 11:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The movie was never going to be changed to Pacific Air Flight 121, as stated in the article. The working title of the movie was changed to that, but it was never intended to be that upon release. Sam Jackson said as much in an interview with Total Film magazine. The supposed furor over the title was more a marketing ploy than anything else. Draven Cage 13:02 20 August 2006.
The Uncyclopedia entry has been nominated for inclusion on the front page four times, and all four times mods there have removed it. I wonder if they hate black people or something? --Bub Barnett 16:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering about the origins of the 'I've had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane" audio clip. The article states that Nathanial Perry and Chris Rohan recorded the line in their spoof audio trailer, but that's simply not the case, as you can hear for yourself here: [[8]]. They mention motherfucking snakes, but the line "I've had it with these.." isn't in it at all.
I have heard the line by the Sam Jackson impersonator in other forms of media, though, before the actual clip from the movie was released. For instance, in this flash animation (before it gets cut off by the atomic blast): [[9]]. So where -did- the exact line originate?
Seeing how nobody has a valueable source for the clip where the infamous line originated, or even a link to the clip, could reference be removed from the article? It's just plain incorrect the way it is now.
Could this be added to the "reaction section?"
Let me know what you think. Zagalejo 02:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Some people have even examined Snakes on a Plane for hidden political meanings. Richard Kim of The Nation compared the way the movie "inspires laughs and thrills" with how the Bush Administration uses the threat of terrorist attacks to instill "fear and acquiescence".[24] Other anti-war bloggers have even analyzed Snakes on a Plane as a serious political satire that comments on the irrational fear driving the War on Terror.[25] Still others have speculated that the true operative metaphor behind the need to laugh at this fear is rooted in the September 11, 2001 attacks—the animal trainer who supplied the snakes for the film shows this in his comment, "But it's that fact they sneak up and can kill you. It's one of those things, it's like a nasty little terrorist without arms[...]"[26]
I just moved the "Critical reaction" and "Box office" sections back down to the bottom of the article. See every other movie article on Wikipedia for the rationale. Box office and reviews constitute the aftermath of the movie, obviously postdating its history, plot, context &c. Moving it to the top as though it's the most important thing about the movie is (in this case) POV, IMO. Most movie articles consign that detail to the infobox or don't mention it at all. We don't end with origins and we don't start with epilogues.
I moved the Sam L Jackson picture down for obvious reasons. Why logjam the intro (big article; lots of room) with a surfeit of pictures, and why lead with a picture whose caption makes absolutely no sense until you've read half the article?
As for moving the audience participation stuff into the "Critical reaction" section: maybe. But it reads better and makes more sense as a counterbalancing counterpoint to the one-person-wide conclusion of the Entertainment Weekly article. Not all critics/reviewers think that audiences are to blame for the "unremarkable" box office.
chocolateboy 11:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not gonna revert, but...
One critic's interpretation of the unremarkable box office is disputed by many critics (both pro and con). The "unremarkable" (another word used is [merely] "OK") is not in dispute. The interpretation of the box office results (not the results themselves) are one critic's reaction. Are you going to move that to the "Reactions" section as well?
chocolateboy 12:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll see your 38 and raise you 17,000.
"Inflated expectations" is a partisan (not necessarily unrealistic or inaccurate) summary. "Internet phenomenon" isn't. I've reinstated the more neutral wording, with a reference.
By the way: your "style" (sentences that begin with lowercase letters, using caps for emphasis) is very similar to Johan12121's, as is your POV... [18]
chocolateboy 13:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
"LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- The Internet buzz over "Snakes on a Plane" turned out to be nothing to hiss about.
The high-flying thriller preceded by months of unprecedented Web buildup technically debuted as the No. 1 movie, but with a modest $15.25 million opening weekend, according to studio estimates Sunday.
Distributor New Line Cinema included $1.4 million that "Snakes on a Plane" raked in during 10 p.m. screenings Thursday to get a head start on the weekend. Without those revenues, the movie's weekend total would be $13.85 million, putting it just behind "Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby," which took in $14.1 million in its third weekend.
David Tuckerman, New Line's head of distribution, said it was customary for studios to include late-night previews in a movie's opening-weekend total." [19]
Please, actually read the citation i gave in the article. The movie made, according to the studio, $15.25 million. This put it at number one at the box office as of Sunday. Yes, this is below the studio estimates and it's considered to be disappointing. But please, let's keep this factual and NPOV. dposse 14:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
BBC news had an article online which reported both versions, saying that including the thursday night previews would make the difference between first and second place for weekend figures. AlexTiefling 15:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense. Frankly, I reckon whoever wrote that beeb article has been closely monitoring this article and discussion page :-)
chocolateboy 15:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't. sounds like cheap corporate spinning.
okay, I'm still not buying that SOAP opened at number one. Just because the studio THAT MADE THE FILM wants us to believe that SOAP is number one doesn't mean it is correct. Clearly they are biased toward the outcome. "Entertainment Weekly" is one of the most reputable news outlets out there. They currently are listing this movie at number #2. [22] In fact, they even point out WHY it is wrong to list this movie at #2. [23], EW excerpt, "According to Sunday's estimates, Snakes on a Plane has earned $15.3 million and it opened at No. 1 by the skin of its teeth, er, scales of its fangs... Oh, but wait, did it? No! Because $1.4 mil of that total came from Thursday-night screenings. Therefore, the movie's Friday-to-Sunday number is a mere $13.9 mil, and that puts it at No. 2 for the weekend, behind Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, which earned $14.1 mil. Shocker! Okay, now I've had it with these mother@#*!$ing snakes! I'm breathless. I haven't felt this woozy since the last time I was attacked by a Burmese python."
Again, you can't get any clearer than, Therefore, the movie's Friday-to-Sunday number is a mere $13.9 mil, and that puts it at No. 2 for the weekend
Let's keep this in the realm of fact. It is absurd to say that the movie opened at #2 because the company that made this movie said so.
There is another way to look at it... New LIne's logic is flawed. They claim that the final weekend total for the film is around 15 million, right? That's if you include Thursday's total. But why it is okay to include the Thursday total for SNAKES ON A PLANE and not include the thursday's totals for the other films? Talledga Nights made $2 million on Thursday,[24] more than SOAP. So if you include the Thursday total for Talladega night, then SOAP is still number 2 even if you include the thursday total for that film.
Wiki is not the official SNAKES ON A PLANE fan site. Hey, I like SOAP too... but I like the facts more. The fact is that some people are engaging in corporate spin on this website simply because they are unhappy that this fun movie didn't do as well at the box office as they had hoped. So stop with the spinning, folks. Just because you don't like the reality, doesn't mean you should edit this page to make SOAP look like a hit when it is a disappointment. Guerillafilm 16:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
we came to an agreement? LOL. last I checked this wasn't a mediation according to Wiki standards. Since I'm part of this WE, then please stop destroying my contributions. clearly you are a fan of this movie engaging in corporate spin. I'm a fan of this movie too. but I won't use wiki to spin lies into PR for this movie.
I'm reverting back. I backed up everything I said with sources and I still included your contributions. my statement is more neutral sounding. work with some of my contributions OR I will report you to the moderator and place this page into mediation. Guerillafilm 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
for starters, that isn't from boxofficemojo.com. That is from EW weekly. And EW backed up their analysis with sources/reasoning. if you disagree, then please back up YOUR assertions with citations. And using the NEWLINE CINEMA president of distribution is clearly biased. he is simply stating his opinion. so either back up your analysis with sources other than NEWLINE or stop changing my edits.
it's not compromise if you don't include EVERYONE in this discussion. Guerillafilm 16:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
If there's dispute over how the #1/#2 was calculated, perhaps it would be best to say something indicating that its opening weekend ranking was not clear, and that it was either 1 or 2, made $15.x million, and leave it at that. —ptk✰fgs 17:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
okay, I like the statement better. but I want to include the word disappointing if you are going to use the word modest since, according to the Tuckerman person you are using as a citation, he is calling the weekend total disappointing. the statement still reeks of 'spin.' there is nothing modest about a film making less than half of what it is projected. and your own sources acknowledge the disappointment of this boxoffice total thus far.
and, for the record, there is NO dispute. some news sources are reporting that the company that made this movie IS SAYING that it is number one. while, independent sources like EW and boxofficemojo.com are saying that his movie 'technically' is number 2. Guerillafilm 17:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
look, in the "spirit" of compromise I am keeping your revision. All I want to do is add the word "disappointing" and remove the word modest since your own source doesn't think the weekend box office is modest. So i am compromising here. modest is misleading since your own source Tuckerman contradicts himself. check my revision. I think you will like it. I barely changed anything. :) Guerillafilm 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
"The high-flying thriller preceded by months of unprecedented Web buildup technically debuted as the No. 1 movie, but with a modest $15.25 million opening weekend, according to studio estimates Sunday."
Anyway, thanks for compromising. I removed "disappointing" because it's just not needed. But overall, i think this was really good. Thank you. dposse 17:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
no, prob.;) Guerillafilm 17:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
dear DropDeadGorgias,
I don't like your changes. sounds like cheap corporate spinning.
Guerillafilm 17:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
well, you can't get more authorative than EW.
again, there isn't a conflict here. the movie CAN NOT possibly be number 1. New LIne's logic is flawed. They claim that the final weekend total for the film is around 15 million, right? That's if you include Thursday's total. But why it is okay to include the Thursday total for SNAKES ON A PLANE and not include the thursday's totals for the other films? Talledga Nights made $2 million on Thursday,[27] more than SOAP. So if you include the Thursday total for Talladega night, then SOAP is still number 2 even if you include the thursday total for that film.
look, CNN and MTV and IMDB are saying that "according to NEWLINE" this movie is number one while EW and BOXOFFICEMOJO.COM are saying that 'officially' this movie is number one if you leave out Thursday's numbers.
why is it okay to leave out the thursday numbers for every other movie but include them ONLY for SOAP? This isn't rocket science.
the original statement is more neutral sounding and addresses your issues without muddling them. you should wait to revise it until others have weighed in Guerillafilm 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Look, sir, or is it Dposse? ;) I get the feeling that you want me to keep that other convoluted statement for personal reasons. Hey, I like this film too... but that doesn't mean that we should try to spin this.
I am fighting to keep your original statement since it is neutral and backed up with sources. that other statement is convoluted, untrue, and doesn't have citations accurately backing this up.
I'll check your NYtimes.com article.
but let me be clear here....
it is REALLY simple. if there really is a controversy over the ranking of this film, then U need to back it up with sources.
otherwise, you need to understand THAT this film is being accurately reported on. Some news outlets are reporting the numbers on behalf of Newline (CNN, IMDB, Rottentomatoes.com) while other news sources like boxofficemojo.com and EW are trying to be fair and report this in an objective way. I don't mind including both. but it is a lie to suggest that there is confusing about whether this movie is number one.
again, there isn't a conflict here. the movie CAN NOT possibly be number 1. New LIne's logic is flawed. They claim that the final weekend total for the film is around 15 million, right? That's if you include Thursday's total. But why it is okay to include the Thursday total for SNAKES ON A PLANE and not include the thursday's totals for the other films? Talledga Nights made $2 million on Thursday,[28] more than SOAP. So if you include the Thursday total for Talladega night, then SOAP is still number 2 even if you include the thursday total for that film.
look, CNN and MTV and IMDB are saying that "according to NEWLINE" this movie is number one while EW and BOXOFFICEMOJO.COM are saying that 'officially' this movie is number one if you leave out Thursday's numbers.
why is it okay to leave out the thursday numbers for every other movie but include them ONLY for SOAP? This isn't rocket science.
I'm still not buying that SOAP opened at number one. Just because the studio THAT MADE THE FILM wants us to believe that SOAP is number one doesn't mean it is correct. Clearly they are biased toward the outcome. "Entertainment Weekly" is one of the most reputable news outlets out there. They currently are listing this movie at number #2. [29] In fact, they even point out WHY it is wrong to list this movie at #2. [30], EW excerpt, "According to Sunday's estimates, Snakes on a Plane has earned $15.3 million and it opened at No. 1 by the skin of its teeth, er, scales of its fangs... Oh, but wait, did it? No! Because $1.4 mil of that total came from Thursday-night screenings. Therefore, the movie's Friday-to-Sunday number is a mere $13.9 mil, and that puts it at No. 2 for the weekend, behind Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, which earned $14.1 mil. Shocker! Okay, now I've had it with these mother@#*!$ing snakes! I'm breathless. I haven't felt this woozy since the last time I was attacked by a Burmese python."
Again, you can't get any clearer than, Therefore, the movie's Friday-to-Sunday number is a mere $13.9 mil, and that puts it at No. 2 for the weekend
Let's keep this in the realm of fact. It is absurd to say that the movie opened at #2 because the company that made this movie said so.
Guerillafilm 17:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
"Could you pretty please with sugar on top leave DropDeadGorgias's edits alone? It's a great compromise that makes everyone happy. I'm willing to live with it if you are. Ok? dposse 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, would you please stop attacking people with the whole "corporate spin" thing? It sounds alot like something Lou Dobbs would say, and it just isn't nice. Ok? dposse 17:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC) "
Guerillafilm, you have to stop this. Your arguements sound like they come from the uber-conspiracy "corporations are liars and are destroying america" Lou Dobbs. This isn't political, man. It has nothing to do with Enron or outsourcing. DropDeadGorgias edits are about as NPOV as they come. Please, for the love of snakes, leave it alone. dposse 18:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
didn't we ALREADY compromise? so why are you gunning for this new revision?
there is nothing paranoid or conspiratorial about what I'm saying. I backed up my saying with sources, I used analysis for my revisions. It seems like the only reason WHY you want to keep your changes is because you suddenly don't like the compromise we agreed upon.
it is REALLY simple. if there really is a controversy over the ranking of this film, then U need to back it up with sources.
otherwise, you need to understand THAT this film is being accurately reported on. Some news outlets are reporting the numbers on behalf of Newline (CNN, IMDB, Rottentomatoes.com) while other news sources like boxofficemojo.com and EW are trying to be fair and report this in an objective way. I don't mind including both. but it is a lie to suggest that there is confusing about whether this movie is number one.
again, there isn't a conflict here. the movie CAN NOT possibly be number 1. New LIne's logic is flawed. They claim that the final weekend total for the film is around 15 million, right? That's if you include Thursday's total. But why it is okay to include the Thursday total for SNAKES ON A PLANE and not include the thursday's totals for the other films? Talledga Nights made $2 million on Thursday,[31] more than SOAP. So if you include the Thursday total for Talladega night, then SOAP is still number 2 even if you include the thursday total for that film.
look, CNN and MTV and IMDB are saying that "according to NEWLINE" this movie is number one while EW and BOXOFFICEMOJO.COM are saying that 'officially' this movie is number one if you leave out Thursday's numbers.
why is it okay to leave out the thursday numbers for every other movie but include them ONLY for SOAP? This isn't rocket science.
I'm still not buying that SOAP opened at number one. Just because the studio THAT MADE THE FILM wants us to believe that SOAP is number one doesn't mean it is correct. Clearly they are biased toward the outcome. "Entertainment Weekly" is one of the most reputable news outlets out there. They currently are listing this movie at number #2. [32] In fact, they even point out WHY it is wrong to list this movie at #2. [33], EW excerpt, "According to Sunday's estimates, Snakes on a Plane has earned $15.3 million and it opened at No. 1 by the skin of its teeth, er, scales of its fangs... Oh, but wait, did it? No! Because $1.4 mil of that total came from Thursday-night screenings. Therefore, the movie's Friday-to-Sunday number is a mere $13.9 mil, and that puts it at No. 2 for the weekend, behind Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, which earned $14.1 mil. Shocker! Okay, now I've had it with these mother@#*!$ing snakes! I'm breathless. I haven't felt this woozy since the last time I was attacked by a Burmese python."
Again, you can't get any clearer than, Therefore, the movie's Friday-to-Sunday number is a mere $13.9 mil, and that puts it at No. 2 for the weekend
Let's keep this in the realm of fact. It is absurd to say that the movie opened at #2 because the company that made this movie said so. Guerillafilm 18:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
How about we leave it as it is now, seeing as it's (almost) neutral (the word "controversy" is a reflection of the fact that one Wikipedian has kicked up a fuss: no-one else is describing it that way)? Alternatively, we can RfC it.
chocolateboy 18:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
"There is no one better to tell us about how much the movie made"
LOL. this is absurd. this is also no one MORE BIASED than the people who made the film. gee, corporations never spin, right? that's why we have the press. and boxofficemojo.com and EW don't have any reason to lie about this. they backed up there reasoning with fact and analysis. NEWLINE is simply stating its mind.
no, I won't let this stand. sorry, but corporate spin is corporate spin. I'm reverting. Guerillafilm 18:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
then explain EW and Boxofficemojo.com
look at this: [34]
and this: [35]
like I said, SOAP didn't open at number one. Just because the studio THAT MADE THE FILM wants us to believe that SOAP is number one doesn't mean it is correct. Clearly they are biased toward the outcome. "Entertainment Weekly" is one of the most reputable news outlets out there. They currently are listing this movie at number #2. [36] In fact, they even point out WHY it is wrong to list this movie at #2. [37], EW excerpt, "According to Sunday's estimates, Snakes on a Plane has earned $15.3 million and it opened at No. 1 by the skin of its teeth, er, scales of its fangs... Oh, but wait, did it? No! Because $1.4 mil of that total came from Thursday-night screenings. Therefore, the movie's Friday-to-Sunday number is a mere $13.9 mil, and that puts it at No. 2 for the weekend, behind Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, which earned $14.1 mil. Shocker! Okay, now I've had it with these mother@#*!$ing snakes! I'm breathless. I haven't felt this woozy since the last time I was attacked by a Burmese python."
Again, you can't get any clearer than, Therefore, the movie's Friday-to-Sunday number is a mere $13.9 mil, and that puts it at No. 2 for the weekend
Let's keep this in the realm of fact. It is absurd to say that the movie opened at #2 because the company that made this movie said so.
There is another way to look at it... New LIne's logic is flawed. They claim that the final weekend total for the film is around 15 million, right? That's if you include Thursday's total. But why it is okay to include the Thursday total for SNAKES ON A PLANE and not include the thursday's totals for the other films? Talledga Nights made $2 million on Thursday,[38] more than SOAP. So if you include the Thursday total for Talladega night, then SOAP is still number 2 even if you include the thursday total for that film.
Wiki is not the official SNAKES ON A PLANE fan site. Hey, I like SOAP too... but I like the facts more. The fact is that some people are engaging in corporate spin on this website simply because they are unhappy that this fun movie didn't do as well at the box office as they had hoped. So stop with the spinning, folks. Just because you don't like the reality, doesn't mean you should edit this page to make SOAP look like a hit when it is a disappointment.
please include me in this compromise. if you check the history. I already compromised with Dposse and then after he agreed with the compromise, he turned around and changed it again. talk about dishonest. in fact, the statement that I keep reverted to is essentially his statement with a quote and citations added to it.
clearly you two are fans of this movie bent on spinning the financial disappointment of SOAP.
Look, I loved SOAP too. PErsonally, my favorite action film in years. I love it when Sam Jackson says, "These snakes are on crack." But as much as I love SOAP, that doesn't mean I will use WIKI to do PR for a box office dud. I also happen to love WIKI. and WIKI is a facts forum, not a debate form... not a film theory forum... not a SOAP fan page. I used proper citations. I used neutral wordings with my compromises. and, yet, you still keeep destroying my contributions which, originally was a compromise before Dposse backstabbed me and then changed his mind again.
so include me in this process, or expect that I will stick close to my ground.
if necessary, then I will involve an admin in this dispute, lock the page, and set the grounds for mediation. it's your call if you keep refusing to include me meaningfully in this process.
good day, sirs. Guerillafilm 19:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
you 3 people, as you call it, aren't the supreme court.
it is YOU that went back on your word, not I. I compromised with you. you agreed with me, and then you went back on your word and changed the edit... again. so, no, you didn't try to include me meaningfully. and it is telling that you keep avoiding this point. because you KNOW what you did was dishonest.
clearly you are just a SOAP fan trying to turn WIKI into a SOAP fan page.
so, yes, set up a mediation if you like. or report me. you are also in violation of the 3 revert rule. So you will be banned as well.
sorry we couldn't work this out. *sigh* I tried... Guerillafilm 19:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
well, I'm a wiki fan first, and a SOAP fan second.
it is YOU that went back on your word, not I. I compromised with you. you agreed with me, and then you went back on your word and changed the edit... again. so, no, you didn't try to include me meaningfully. and it is telling that you keep avoiding this point. because you KNOW what you did was dishonest.
and until you provide citations about this phony controversy, then you purely speculating and violating WP:OR.
and the admins will also see your sarcastic statements, your violation of the 3 revert rule... so, no... they don't take lightly to people taking matters into their own hands.
and the only vandal here is you. you bait people with phony compromises and then change it back when you think I was gone.
I agreed to your original compromise, so your original compromise stands. if you don't like it, then go to mediation.
your problem is that you have decided that it is up to you to decide what a compromise is. I already gave in once... and you tricked me. sorry, but you are not an admin on this board.
Guerillafilm 19:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
hey alex....
sorry. I will refrain from messing up this page.
and Dposse.
do you want to work this out or not? it's simple. try to work with some of my contributions in that statement. if you can build from there, then we will be fine.
Guerillafilm 19:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
no, actually you are not. so are you going to work with me here or not? all that I'm asking is to work with SOME of my contributions. reverting back to your original statement is NOT a compromise. the statement I reverted to was the original compromise we both agreed upon. so work with that.
are you going to work this out with me or not?
I'll wait for an answer. Guerillafilm 19:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
please refrain from vulgarity on this page. thanx. Guerillafilm 19:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Can y'all please stop? This is quite clearly a content dispute and not a case of vandalism. I've filed a request at WP:RFPP. If this keeps up I'm probably going to have to put you both up at WP:AN3. Please try to work it out here. —ptk✰fgs 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This comment (of mine) was removed with the following edit summary: "removed slander":
Guerillafilm has at least two sockpuppets (Sensorium, who has raised this RfM against Guerillafilm, believes that he or she has at least one more), and has confessed as much by accusing me of violating the 3RR. I have reverted Guerillafilm just once. However, I have reverted his or her sockpuppets (see the evidence above) once or twice apiece.
Guerillafilm also deleted his or her own incriminating reponse with the curious edit summary "deleted slander". That's his or her prerogative, but it's my prerogative to draw attention to it.
And to this: Wikipedia:No legal threats.
chocolateboy 20:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What personal attack? Calling a sockpuppet a sockpuppet is not a personal attack. Read the article. And at the moment, you seem to be the only person with steam coming out of their ears.
Please stop trying to traffic-conduct this discussion. I don't think it's helping.
chocolateboy 20:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
hey, Alex.
I'm confused here. I thought you wanted me to remove references to you. I'm still new here and learning the rules and all.
how do I change it back to return this page to the original context?
Sorry for the mess up Guerillafilm 20:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
hey, dposse,
what do you propose?
It is best that we work with a statement that we both were originally okay with. so unless you were being dishonest about your original intention to compromise, then it makes sense to use the original statement.
so, are you willing to work with that original statement that we were both in agreement on? Because, no, I don't approve at all of the new statement which you are using as an excuse to break your original promise with me.
I'll work with you if you create a different neutral statement. I'm not working with that new statement which is tantamount to corporate spin. Guerillafilm 20:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
chocolate boy,
stop. get a life. sheeesh. i you want, then submit for an IP check. I have nothing to hide. I have a couple of friends online that like to come to WIKI. last I checked, that is not a sock puppet. Guerillafilm 20:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
this stops now.
I will revert this article back to the original content before this idiotic dispute began. guerillafilm and dposse, you are both violating long-standing wikipedia policy. after my reversion, if I see either of you reverting the content, then I will report you in a heartbeat. do not test me on this. you both are manipulate wikipedia policy and you both are being completely insincere.
Don't say that you haven't been warned.
12.135.79.172 20:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
12.135.79.172: your "style" (sentences that begin with lowercase letters) is very similar to Johan12121's and Boxofficemojo's and User:Guerillafilm's, as are your manners, subject matter, obsessions and POV... [44][45][46][47][48][49]
chocolateboy 20:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
12.135.79.172 20:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
hey, like I said you can check my IP all you like. I can guarantee you that it ain't 12.135.79.172. LOL>
but, look, I'm no saint here. I'm willing to admit that. I'm still new to WIKI... so I'll do my best to learn to play nicely. I've already given up on trying to work with dposse since it is clear that he is guilty of "PAGE OWNERSHIP" behavior.
and, apparently, the gig is up. Sorry dposse, but there are consequences for your behavior.
Guerillafilm 21:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Snakes on a Plane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dposse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 20:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
and for my part, I'm sorry for adding to this silly squabble. If I get banned to, then I'll accept the consequences. anyhow, thanks for the lively debate. I'll do my best to play by the rules and be a valuable member of this forum
ciao Guerillafilm 21:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you wanna see why i was fighting with you? Well, here it is:
Do not remove that picture. It's there because YankSox told me to put it here, and it proves my point. Second, Metros, i typed those edit summaries things because Guerillafilm COMPLETELY ignored his talkpage. I don't get why its a bad thing for me to try to talk to him privately. dposse 21:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Looking at this talk page and other actions, I have fully protected this page. Sort it out here in a civil manner. Yanksox 21:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but IMDB has a reputation for getting it wrong.
That's why I trust boxofficemojo.com.
[[50]]
and, then of course, there is "Entertainment Weekly".
[[51]]
So my two more reputable sources trump your sketchy one.
and guess what?
that picture doesn't give you a license to attack people on this forum AND disregard wiki policy AND hijack the "Snakes On A Plane" wiki page.
for my part, I take responsiblity for my actions and I will respect the outcome if there is any disciplinary action toward me.
but you are still trying to justify your rude, trolling, imperialistic behavior.
no picture justifies your behavior as a bully on this site. how old are you? 12?
it doesn't matter anyways. you are acting like a cyberbully and an imperialist. you have decided that only your contributions matter. you are deleting everyone else's contributions arbritarily. it is clear you are not trying to compromise. and now you have been reported to the admins. clearly, you feel justified in being a bully. and hopefully that is WHY you will be banned.
have a nice day, bully
dposse 21:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
hi everyone!
the weekend actuals are in! [52] ANd in a photo finish, it turns out that SNAKES ON A PLANE actually IS #1 at the box office. it barely eeked out TALLEDEGA NIGHTS by $100,000. So that hopefully resolves that dispute on this website.
however dposse still needs to be held accountable for his actions.
the problem is this: nobody can make changes on the SOAP page without going through him. and he has indicated that he will make no effort to compromise. I've been reading up on the rules here on WIKI since I'm still a new user. So I will do my best to follow the rules from this point forward if I am still allowed to post here.
however, dposse needs to held accountable for his actions. it's no fun editing on Wiki if he have to ask permission from another user who is simply being a bully. dposse has made it clear that we need to go through him just to make changes on this page. and when confronted, he'll resort to the excuse that he "just needs more time to finish what he's doing here." what dposse doesn't see is that it is not up to him to decide what edits stay and what edits go.
again, I will take responsiblity for my actions on this board even if that means being banned for my past behavior. but dposse has made it clear that he will not work with others toward a compromise. and he has made it clear that he will use deception and the guise of "art" as an excuse to bully other people into accepting his poorly worded, and badly cited contributions to the SOAP page. if you examine the history page, the only contributions that are intact are his. m ost everyone else's contributions have been deleted or changed by this cyber bully.
wiki is not a place for corporate spin. SNAKES might have placed number one. As a fan of the film, that makes me happy. But it is clear that this film is a big financial disappointment. virtually everybody in the press, even the film's producers, have acknowledged that this film was a disappointment. yet, dposse is deceptively and sneakingly trying to manipulate WIKI into his own personal fan page to spin the bad outcome of SOAP into a positive outcome for his own bruised ego on the subject.
I don't care if this film did well or not. I liked SOAP alot. it was the best action film in years. But that's my opinion. the facts are that this movie wasn't received well at the box office or by audiences.
[53] "The fact that SOAP came in below even the most ridiculously cynical predictions is an Anaconda-size surprise. Clearly, estimates that the movie was going to earn upwards of $20 million or $30 million were hugely inflated because of all that mother@#*!$ing Internet hoopla. Amid the noise, a few key facts were ignored: (1) The schlock-horror movie was aimed toward young men, who, we've seen time and time again, are the least reliable moviegoers around; (2) SOAP had an audience-limiting R rating, which probably prevented a lot of those young men from seeing it anyway; (3) competitors like Accepted and Material Girls stole even more of that under-25 crowd; and (4) if its B- CinemaScore rating is any indication, SOAP simply is not a very good film, and audiences didn't like it enough to tell their friends to go see it. To be fair, SOAP didn't cost New Line very much (about $30 mil), and if you forget about all the pre-release hyperventilating, it did okay (not great, but okay). Still, Samuel L. Jackson has had stronger openings with many other pretty forgettable features: Coach Carter, Changing Lanes, Rules of Engagement, Deep Blue Sea, even Sphere. And among R-rated horror flicks this year, SOAP's bow ranks behind those of The Omen, Hostel, The Hills Have Eyes, Silent Hill, and, ahem, Final Destination 3. In other words, pretty much everything. So, yeah, this is bad, bad, bad."
And we shouldn't have to ask dposse for permission to include these facts in the article. even if dposse pretends to compromise, then simply examine his history over at SOAP. you'll find that he pretty much disregards anyone's contributions that doesn't meet up with his own. and now I'm starting to wonder if some of those other contributions aren't simply from phony accounts that he made so he can deceptively sneak in his more of his own ego into this article.
at any rate, dposse needs to be held accountable for his imperialistic behavior (and that include ME and/or other for our own negative behavior on this website).
good day everyone.
Guerillafilm 23:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, dposse has lost his marbles like so many snakes on a plane. Tell it like it is Guerillafilm. I've got your back. Triumph's Hour 01:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
dposse has run amok. Just because something didn't turn out the way you hoped it would (Snakes on a Plane release) doesn't give you the authority to start a one-man war on wikipedia. Rein yourself in. The movie clearly did not measure up to financial expectations. It wasn't even able to beat that stupid NASCAR film.
Triumph's Hour 00:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I may be a semi-new member, however, I believe that this has escalated a little too far. It's fairly obvious now that you people are clearly gang up on dposse.
There is no need for this edit war. Wanna duke it out? Do it in privately on your freaking user pages!
In the meanwhile, Guerilla, it's apparant that anonymous IP was yours. Seems a bibt random for you disappear for while and then come back right after Nazo-IP vanishes.
Just come to a mutual agreement. Trust me, its not that hard.
I don't know what this edit war is about, and frankly I don't care. I'd just like to know if it is possible to semi-protect the page from only the users involved in it. I don't think it's good policy to have this page fully-protected just days after the movie came out. Lovelac7 05:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The theatre I went to in Tennessee had really tight security on opening night for SoaP. If this was happening everywhere, could this be mentioned in the article? It's odd for a movie to have cops wandering around and having everyone carded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.4.225.11 (talk • contribs)
It seems like Audience Participation in this movie is at a level not seen anywhere outside of a Rocky Horror Picture showing. People yell, interact, make jokes, and there seems to be some consistent patterns emerging. Examples (that have happened when I went to see it, and I have heard of happening at other showings around the continent as well): - The audience hissing during "snake-vision" scenes - The audience slow-clapping, and yelling "Oscar!" when Juliana Margulies weeps over a dying co-worker - The audience concurrently exclaiming "YOU PEOPLE?!" at the same time as Samuel L. Jackson says that line - Someone in the audience exclaiming "Quiet back there" early in the movie, and someone else following along with "Yeah, I'm trying to follow the motherfucking plot!" - etc.
It is my opinion that a list of the snakes seen in the film would be a fine contribution to this article. One would probably have to be a snake expert in their own right to determine most of the species, but perhaps there is someone out there who could do that. - tankgirl23
I thought I understood how the Canadian film ratings system works so I am surprised to see that the CHVRS has already rated the film. As far as I understood, it is first rated by provincial film boards then "averaged" by the CHVRS. Now, if every provincial film board has rated the film 14A just by co-incidence, I can understand why there is already a CHVRS rating but otherwise it's too soon. NorthernThunder 00:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)