Talk:Snakes on a Plane

This article is part of WikiProject Internet pop culture, which is a WikiProject founded to work on pages and categories related to Internet memes and other fads of the world wide web. If you are interested in joining, or have any other questions, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet pop culture.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 - Failed GA Archive 3 Archive 4

I just did a fix-up of the ending.

I added a lot of information that was left out of the previous version, although I did leave parts of it intact. I have an audio recording of the ending on my MP3 player (don't ask >_>) so it should be pretty accurate. If you feel like the whole thing should be more of a quick summary then just change it back. The only thing I'm really unsure of is the last paragraph - I felt the "first words" thing needed to be mentioned somehow, but I don't think I put it in too well... just change it to how you think it would work best. Norar 04:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Epic Movie

The film Epic Movie, to be released in 2007, will parody Snakes on a Plane in a portion of its movie. I believe that this should be included somewhere, especially since it appears that it will be one of the better parodies and also since it's included in a feature film. However, I don't know what section to put it in, so please feel free to add info about it where appropriate. View the article to see the trailer on MySpace to see the parody.--Nehrams2020 05:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think it's going to be one of the "better" parodies as you said (I thought the parody in the trailer looked bad), but it does deserve a mention. I'm going to put it in the Trivia section for now. - Norar 05:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I did it, but I think it needs more information on the parody itself. I would re-watch the scene in the trailer and put more information in now but I'm a bit tired to be bothered. Maybe later. - Norar 05:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, that movie could not look worse. I have no doubt that it will be terrible. With that said, it deserves a mention in the article, just as any other "notable" parody would. -- Kicking222 03:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

WOOPS!!!

I have no idea how I did that. I'll try and change it back. Sorry!!! Norar 01:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Maxamegalon2000. I was adding some sources to the DVD section as well as stuff on the Australian release date and my computer screwed up and then the page was like that. I feel really bad right now. Norar 01:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't feel bad. Everyone makes mistakes. Plus, it can be fixed really easily like it just was. :) -- RattleMan 01:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right on that one, it was just at the time I was shocked when I accidentally reduced a huge article on a loved movie of mine down to a couple of paragraphs and a list! Anyway, I just went back and re-added the sources and Aussie release date without a hassle. :D Norar 08:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"<gives thumbs up>" --Maxamegalon2000 15:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Renominate for GA status?

I personally think this is an excellent article (aside from frequent vandalism, but that's unrelated to GA status). Does anyone else think that it should be placed back at the Good Article candidates page? It is well-sourced and well-written; my only major issue would be eliminating the "Trivia" section and integrating any notable trivia bits into prose elsewhere in the article. -- Kicking222 19:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to look into starting the process of getting it GA status this week, so it's good to see someone else does also. I added fair use rationale on the pictures already, which prevents a quick-fail. However there are several bits of information within the article that do not have sources. Once these have sources, I think we can submit it and see how it goes. --Nehrams2020 22:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Should the too statements that are unsourced be removed and listed on the talk page until a source is found for them? If we take them off, then it is likely we could pursue GA. We can still attempt to find the sources for them, but pull them off of the article for right now. The two statements lacking sources are:

• The videos are in discussion to be put on the official DVD produced by Automat Pictures. (from the Internet section)
• The winner was Max Goldberg, owner of YTMND. (I remember hearing that he won, but we need confirmation. If you return to the official website, it doesn't list a winner, it just says that the contest is over and no more votes will be accepted. --Nehrams2020 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just checked the criteria for a GA, and it says that articles over 25kb should be nominated for FA, not GA, and this article is currently 49kb long. --Nehrams2020 06:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not that articles over 25kb must be nominated for FA instead of GA, it's that said nomination is "often more appropriate". However, since the article has never had a peer review, and because it had a failed GA nomination (which, of course, was before the film came out), I think nominating for GA and then getting feedback from that process is the best option. -- Kicking222 22:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with going through that process first, since there hasn't been any other feedback I am going to remove the two statements and then submit for GA to see what needs to be changed, if anything. If anyone can find sources for the two below statements, please add them back to the article.

• The winner was Max Goldberg, owner of YTMND.[1]
• The videos are in discussion to be put on the official DVD produced by Automat Pictures.

That citation will work, I'll put it in right now. --Nehrams2020 03:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

Covers the topic exhaustively and I see no significant POV problems. Minor issues stand in the way of GA status. The lead and Internet sections could use some cleanup and the overall tone of the Internet section could be improved. The list of viral videos and the Trivia section should definitely be removed, with only the most notable information being incorporated into the article. Noclip 04:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Should all of the viral videos be removed, or can some of the most notable ones go in the external links? Does anyone know of a website that has a link to all of these videos? I'm starting to work on removing the trivia section by converting most of it over into a "references and parodies in popular culture" section. Also to describe some of the snake facts within the trivia section, should that be in the cast section with something like "of the 450 snakes used in the film, a xx snake, xx snake was used (although its nonpoisonous replacement called the xx snake was used), and xx snakes were used." Or instead of the cast section should there be a section devoted fully to the snakes, especially since they were a large part of the movie. Please leave some feedback so we can get this moving forward. --Nehrams2020 19:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that all the viral videos should be left out. A short blurb about the viral videos in general seems like it would be more appropriate. The inclusion of snake facts should be limited to those that are both notable and genuinely interesting to a reader who hasn't seen the film. To clarify my comment about the lead, it should serve to summarize the article's main points. The comment about re-shooting may be more appropriate in the History section. - Noclip 22:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In my sandbox I reworked the article, moving most of the trivia section into a "parodies and references in popular culture section", leaving only three points in trivia. I moved the snake information up under the cast, and somewhat reworked the intro. I also removed the viral videos as well. Look this over and see if there are any other improvements that need to be made, and once that's done, I'll transfer it over to here. --Nehrams2020 00:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the reworked version, the main issues have been resolved. While it would pass in this form, my personal recommendation is to get rid of the first two trivia facts completely and to work the third one into the History section. Noclip 02:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

When the DVD comes out next week (me being Australian) I'll try and tidy up the Synopsis section. --Norar 13:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I transfered over the cleaned-up section to the article. You're really lucky to get the early release date, do you know why they went with releasing in Australia first? --Nehrams2020 19:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

New Line gets different companies to distribute their films overseas. I think Village Roadshow does it for us. I'm not sure whether it's New Line's choice or Village's choice to release it earlier here, though, but I think the fact that the distributor is different plays a part in it. --Norar 04:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, the DVD is mine now. I'll probably start cleaning up the Synopsis section in the next few days. --Norar 08:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I did make a start on it ages ago but I've been putting it off since then. I'll have to get around to it some time. Sorry. --Norar 05:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

Improvements have brought it up to GA standard, for which all criteria have been met. I suggest bringing it to peer review some time later to get suggestions and help with improving it further. Noclip 19:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Great job on getting it thus far. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 23:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

When was the name changed?

It's confusing following the name "Snakes on a Plane". The article states that "Jackson told an interviewer, "We're totally changing that back. That's the only reason I took the job: I read the title."" but it doesn't mention before that line how the name first became Snakes on a Plane then changed (so that Jackson required it set back to Snakes..) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.140.143.174 (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC). -I agree. --anon

What is unreasonable about "moderate success"

"only moderate and considered to be" was reverted. What is unreasonable about this addition? Just "disappointing" implies that the film was a commercial failure, which it absolutely was not. The articles linked have a quote from one of the producers to the effect of "we'll make money on this just not as much as we expected". M.C. Brown Shoes 09:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The producer of the film is a clearly biased source since no businessman will ever admit to a film doing bad business. What matters here is that the unbiased sources have said "Snakes on A Plane" has "tanked", is a "disappointment", or "failed".If you can find sources that contest them, then please include it. However, the consensus on this talkpage (and in the press) is that SoaP was considered to be a "financial disappointment." Your POV vandalism won't change that fact. --Anon

"Disappointing" is POV in itself. Disappointing to who? The producers! But the producers are biased when they say "we'll make money on this, just not as much as we expected"? Paint me confused. And correct me if I'm wrong but while these aren't too great, they don't look like box office stats for a movie that "tanked". M.C. Brown Shoes 05:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. I hate to break it to ya, but this is how Wiki works. It's "disappointing" according to the reporters of the New York Times, EW, Rolling Stones, and many, many other publications. The producer of this film ain't a journalist and the producer is not certainly a publication. The producer is quoted to say he thinks the movie will make its money back. But then the article itself accuses the producer of spinning the facts. And keep in mind, several variables are considered when detirmining when a flop is a flop. King Kong made over $200 million. But it cost $250 million to make. Clerks only made $25 million but it only cost $5 million to make. What makes SoaP a disappointment is that everyone, including the press, thought this film was going to be a huge hit. However, the internet hype was just that... hype. SoaP made the mistake of dumping alot of money in the marketing costs of this film, to the tune of $35-40 million. And that doesn't include the $33 million dollars it cost to make the film. That means the film had to make $65-70 million just to be considered profitable. Last I checked, this has happened. And this is why the press said the film is a disappointment, and I simply reported on this fact for this article in accordance to wiki standards of citation, period. Yes, when a film is expected to be the biggest hit of the summer and then doesn't make it's money back, confounded everyone's expectations, then it is fair to say it is a disappointment. And that isn't according to me, that's according to the press consensus.

Hope this helps. -- Anon

This has been discussed before; see archive 3. schi ^talk 19:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So any # how it´s doing in DVD sales? Some films like "Three Kings" where a complete failure as cinema film, but raised to #1 here in Sweden as DVD rental. RGDS Alexmcfire

Guest Performers on Cobra Starship Track

Just lending a hand with names

Travis McCoy from Gym Class Hereos William Beckett from The Academy Is Maja Ivarsson from The Sounds

(LadySatine 20:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

About "Dell Girl"...

Just so you know, Agam Darshi was credited as "Dell Girl" in the theatrical release, so it's not exclusive to the DVD version. I might as well take out the whole part about "iPod Girl". --Norar 05:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Score CD release.

Trevor Rabin's score for the film is getting a release on CD on March 13 this year (shifted from February 27). I don't know where this should go, so I'll just put sources here and someone can put the information in where they think it should go.

Source for release date.

Source for track listing (if needed).

--Norar 09:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mention marketing failure or blaxploitation?

Grindhouse is being marketed as campy exploitation on purpose, and has generated good buzz. On the other hand, Snakes on a Plane was marketed as a serious action-adventure, and turned out to match the basic requirements of a blaxploitation flick: badass black dude fighting snakes on an out-of-control airplane. --205.201.141.146 16:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can find information from a reliable source stating the above, then we can include it in the article. But if it's only what we think, no matter how well we think we know it, we have to avoid Wikipedia:OR. Any book, newspaper or magazine article, or credible website can be used for a source. --Nehrams2020 17:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it was blaxploitation, for the simple fact that it was Samuel L. Jackson. And most people that caught onto the whole fad when the movie was just being announced were white anyway. But I still think there should be a wiki project for it. I can hear it now: Snakes on a Wiki. Zchris87v 04:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And what do you know? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Alert: Image nominated for deletion

Please be aware that the image of the secondary poster, [2], has been nominated for deletion from Wikipedia here: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_24#Image:SOAPnew.jpg. All are encouraged to (a) particpate in the discussion there, (b) improve the image's fair use rationale, and (c) improve the article so the value of the image to it is clearer.—DCGeist 01:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Box office bomb?

The introduction states that the movie was a box office bomb, but the chart seems to show otherwise. The revenue is significantly greater than the budget, so does it really qualify as a bomb? 64.91.147.198 23:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I remember it did poorly at the box office but was much more successful on DVD... so both could be true. Mark Grant 01:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The $59 million figure is given in the text as just from worldwide theatrical release which doesn't include DVD sales AFAIK. The estimates given for the expected opening weekend was $20-30 million and it got $15, so it doesn't seem massively off. I think it was more to do with lots of hype, but in a relatively small arena that a large part of the movie going public wouldn't have seen, led to lots of expectation, particularly among the media who were reporting on all the 'buzz', which was then not really fulfilled. --81.150.229.68 (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The synopsis section

In the synopsis section it talks about the first victims being those two people having sex in the bathroom. Right after that it goes on to state that the second victim is a man using a different restroom. This may be the second scene with a victim but he is the third victim. also, other parts of that paragraph are poorly worded and should maybe be redone.

                          -j.student at 2:54 pm 12/04/07

Realism

is there any criticisms of the realism of snakes attacking people on a plane? Many snakes(such as cobras), eat other snakes, and certainly these snakes are mixed with other snakes. Also, snakes are ambush predators, while in the movie the stalk humans. Is there a pheromone that would make them attack people, who are too large to be seen as prey for most snakes? also I read the best way to combat snakes on a plane would be to turn down the temperature, since they are cold blooded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rds865 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont think many people were bothered about that. It's a film, it can defy realism/logic. 77.99.186.110 (talk)

Box Office

From the page

"industry analysts estimated the movie's opening box office to be between US$20 million and US$30 million........grossed only US$15.25 million in its opening days"

These two figures do not add up - the full opening days is LESS than the opening box office?--Dumarest (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

comedy?

can someone please give me a source,coause i really dont know if its supposed to be a comedy or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke12345abcd (talk • contribs) 12:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it has elements of comedy in it, unless you dont have a sense of humour that is... 77.99.186.110 (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

it is a comedy, there is nothing serious about this movie unless u don't understand sarcasm. Markthemac (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that they would have put the line " I am tired of these mother f***ing snakes of this mother f***ing plane!" in there if it had realy meant to be funny, as the line would have different, making it even(if it possible) more funny.--Mamaluigisover9000 (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "NYT-letdown" :
  • {{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/movies/21box.html?ref=arts | title=After Hype Online, "Snakes on a Plane" Is A Letdown at The Box Office | work=New York Times | date=[[August 21]] [[2006]] | author=Sharon Waxman}}
  • {{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/movies/21box.html?ref=arts | title=After Hype Online, "Snakes on a Plane" Is Letdown at Box Office | work=New York Times | date=[[August 21]] [[2006]] | author=Sharon Waxman}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

RPG

Source: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=253565

I'm not sure this deserves mention, on one side it's just a few paragraphs of a practical joke, but on the other, at least one person ([3]) seems to have played and enjoyed it. Not to mention it being a good example of... fan response? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.56.141 (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Monkey Fighting Snakes

Shouldn't there be a mention of the FX (TV channel) version that edits the infamous line to "I'm tired of these monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday to Friday plane".[4] Showtime2009 (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Cast List

Could somebody add a Cast list to the page? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.62.231 (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Snakes on a Plane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force, all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAFA. While this article is much, much better than it was when it passed GA back in 2006, I have determined that there are still a few issues that need to be addressed to ensure compliance.

• The plot could be condensed down further, mostly by just abbreviating the subplot into one paragraph.

  The plot is now below six hundred words. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• The "Media Coverage" seems more like a blow-by-blow detailing of the PR campaign than it should be and smacks of some undue weight, especially considering it's twice as large as the development section (which has some elements, such as the short two lines about preview footage, that should be moved to this section anyhow.) Why is there a Music section and then a soundtrack section? Do mentions in two television programs known for their satirical broadcasts really merit a full subsection? The "Internet" subsection could be condensed further, especially since the the Zebro comedy group video and Coyne parody are either poorly referenced or mostly cited to the primary source. If these were really all that important, they can be summarized and cited to secondary sources.

  I cut down on this section and removed a lot of the unnotable appearances. I kept the Colbert/Stewart shows as it seems significant for the shows to be focusing on the film considerably several months before the film's release (usually it's just a few days before, if that). The music section focuses on the fan-based music and for promoting the film, while the soundtrack is separate as it actually features the film's music (and is sold separately). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Prose problems: some clauses still read as if the movie has not come out, or sound as if the promotions are still running (ex. "In August 2006, Varitalk launched an advertising campaign in which fans can send a semi-personalized message in Jackson's voice to telephone numbers of their choosing.")

  I believe I've fixed all occurrences, let me know if you spot anymore.

• An "In popular culture" section with two sentences? Cut it.

  This used to feature other popular culture references, but was trimmed considerably recently. I moved the existing information elsewhere. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• File:SnakesOnAPlaneTheAlbum.jpg really doesn't meet NFCC.

  Deleted. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Some citations are unformatted; according to the linkchecker, some links are dead.

  Removed/fixed dead links. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm placing the article on hold for a week pending improvements, longer if significant progress is made. Please appraise me of developments and updates in this space. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As all my issues have been addressed to a reasonable level of satisfaction or have been defended, I am passing the article as swept. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.