Monday Morning Poll: Dirty Rotten Snakes

Irony don't sell.

Reply

The simple answer is this:

The people who saw "Snakes on a Plane" on Aug. 18 were the exact same people who would have seen it on May 1 or on July 1. New Line never developed a marketing strategy that involved selling the film to people who weren't already sold on the film to begin with. From start to finish, New Line preached to the choir and actually probably alienated general moviegoing fans who weren't part of the online Snakes Cult.

Ooops.

-Dan

Reply

The audience for this movie, the very people who were busy devouring the hype, was far too complacent with just talking about the movie on MySpace and when it came time to pony up and actually buy a ticket, they all simulatenously said, "I'm not paying to go see that."

Even though they've been going crazy for it for months. People are lazy.

Reply

The simple answer is this:

The people who saw "Snakes on a Plane" on Aug. 18 were the exact same people who would have seen it on May 1 or on July 1. New Line never developed a marketing strategy that involved selling the film to people who weren't already sold on the film to begin with. From start to finish, New Line preached to the choir and actually probably alienated general moviegoing fans who weren't part of the online Snakes Cult.

Ooops.

-Dan

Reply

Oh and Peter... I'm not sure that you're right about that at all. I think the people who had been talking the movie up for months actually *did* see the movie. And most of them actually enjoyed it. I just don't think that a single person in America picked up a Friday newspaper, looked at the movie listings and said, "Hmmm... This 'Snakes on a Plane' thing looks interesting. Maybe I ought to go see it."

Either you were a fanatic already, or you just didn't see why you ought to go at all...

-Dan

Reply

Is it possible that for all the sound and fury of the internet pre-release buzz it doesn't get that many people in the queue to actually see the movie. I can think of very few successful movies where the internet has been the major factor in their success. Even if it is possible to use the internet in this way maybe they would have to be saying positive things about it. SOAP buzz was mostly just laughing along with the title.

A further consideration is that although there is of course a place for movies with this sort of title, Hollywood has a very poor recent record of making them. Films like Evolution, Eight Legged freaks and Slither have all been disappointing to some degree.

Reply

I think Peter and Dan's comments are both accurate- it's those two combined reasons that hurt Snakes On A Plane. This movie was never destined to be anything more than a memorable cult film... and I think there's a very good reason for that.

New Line can take all the credit it wants for the marketing of this movie, but as one of the people who helped create the hype machine, I can say for a fact that it was pretty much the internet's big joke. It was a game to go into a chatroom and 'yell' "SNAKES ON A PLANE!!!" To think this movie was going to make any legitimate money was stupid- it was a cult film all the way.

Reply

This is the exact same thing that happened with Serenity. There was a very vocal internet contingent that made it seem like the entire planet was lining up to see the movie but at the end of the day, nobody except that contingent gave a shit.

This isn't surprising. This is what was to be expected but when you're getting Snakes on a Plane thrown at you everytime you turn on the TV or look on the internet, it's kind of hard to see that.

I think Snakes made a few million dollars more than it would have otherwise and it's going to probably do well on DVD, like Serenity, with all the people who want to see the movie but don't want to spend the $10 for the theatres when they can just wait 4 months and netflix it (not to mention the 10 year old kids who want to see it but their parents won't let them).

Reply

I think the movie was hyped for too long. I got sick of hearing about SOAP in the last month before it finally showed. Hype and buzz are fine, but there is a line that can be crossed.

Reply

I think a lot of people saw & enjoyed the movie's hype (on the internet & elsewhere) beyond those who were actually "hyped up" for it. Most of the former probably felt they had already "seen" the movie. They "got" the plot, the characters, the (best) dialogue, etc. -- pretty much everything except how the plane's passengers finally escape their predicament. Why pay to go see the movie when you can experience it (or its simulacrum), for free, via the marketing campaign? I suspect there's a lot of people faking it this morning as the water cooler conversation turns to SoaP. It'll be easy to do.

Reply

Actually, Soap performed about what I expected, which is very well. Last year the average R-rate film generated only $12m per film at the box office. SoaP will probably go on to generate $25m domestically. When you consider foreign theatrical and DVD, the studio should generate $100m. And they didn't have to spend $20+ million in marketing to do it. There was very little off-line promo for the film. I think the studio used this as an opportunity to test Internet buzz -- and they are quite satisfied to open number one (well, actually number two if you drop the Thursday night numbers).

Reply

I think we're confusing the hype with the marketing. The hype started many months ago, when all anyone had to go on was the title and Samuel L. Jackson's possible involvement. ("Snakes on a Plane? They're actually making a movie called Snakes on a Plane?") It became a big internet in-joke, this season's Flying Spaghetti Monster, but it was a joke largely at the movie's expense at first. Nobody was thinking, "oh yes! Finally the great serpent-aviation movie Hollywood has been promising us for decades!" People were dumbfounded and amused by the title, by the simple and stupid idea of the movie, and the hype continued to grow.

The marketing was almost non-existent, beyond that which targeted the people already talking about the movie. It had a presence at Comic-Con, and there were some cute gimmicky ideas, like Jackson calling your cell phone. But there was almost nothing for the people who hadn't heard of it already, who hadn't been laughing along for months at the in-joke. In fact, the movie was almost an *after-thought* to all the months of in-joking. It looks like the studio pretty much dumped the film in August and only did any marketing because of the internet buzz.

Reply

the online buzz made this movie annoying to the average moviegoer. i didn't even consider seeing SOAP this weekend, to the point that when my girlfriend and i were running late for the film we wanted to see, we declined seeing SOAP even though it was starting in just a few minutes.

if this move hadn't been so overexposed on the net, and with such a one-note title and marketing campaign, maybe i would have retained interest. but as it is, i feel like i already know everything i need to about the movie.

we went and saw the descent instead, a movie i knew little about, and we were pleasantly suprised. (well, i was, my girlfriend was pretty scared)

Reply

Because it looked silly. Not in a good way but in a bad movie way. At my software company everyone mentioned SoaP - to mock it.

Reply

Meanwhile, as critics around the globe are patting themselves on the back for being too cool for Snakes on a Plane and everyone is gushing over how poorly it performed at the box office, the producers are laughing all the way to the bank. Personally, I think this was one of the most genuine and honest marketing campaigns for a film in a long time. Everyone compares this to Anaconda, but you have to remember that movie was marketed as a serious thriller, not the pile of trash it truly was.

Reply

Why did it tank? Because it's Snakes on a Plane. Women like being scared by all sorts of things; Sharks, Aliens etc NOT snakes and spiders ( why Ar rack na phobia tanked, no attempt to spell it or see it) The point of scary movies is for your date to jump out of her seat and into your arms.

Reply

Tony -- Yes, "Anaconda" was marketed as a serious thriller. And it made more money than "Snakes." A lot more money. So what's the point of that comparison? And yes, the producers are going to make a little money off this movie. Good for them. They could have made more money.

And, actually, if "Snakes" falls off by 65% next weekend and doesn't even make it to $35 or $40 million domestically, it'll be a long time before the producers see a penny thanks to studio accounting.

The issue isn't about "Snakes on a Plane" being a bomb or a disaster or a failure. It's not. Nor do I think it really tanked.

The issue is about the ratio between media coverage and actual box office returns, which has to be the worst for any film this side of... I dunno what.

-Dan

Reply

Why is this even a question??

Why didn't it make mega-bucks? Because it looks stupid as hell. The first thought that came to mind after hearing the title was, "Huh, they must have something really clever planned to pull off a hit with a movie title that blantantly silly". They didn't.

Reply

I think it's possible that the recent foiled terrorist attack might have had some impact on the box office. After all the security tightenings, fear-mongering and crazy carry-on bans, maybe the average moviegoer(i.e. people not sucked into the hype) just didn't want to see a plane disaster film no matter how campy it was supposed to be.

Reply

Snakes on a Plane is making a lot more money than any movie called Snakes on a Plane should ever make. It's a silly little B horror movie dumped near the end of summer, one that without all the internet buzz would probably have died a quick death on direct-to-DVD. (If they'd gone ahead and called it "Pacific Flight 121" from the start, I doubt even Jackson's involvement could have saved it from that fate.)

The movie now has all these unreal box-office expectations attached to it because of the internet buzz.

Oh, and I don't think any critics are patting themselves on back and not reviewing the film, Tony. It wasn't screened for critics, but quite a few have been playing catch up and writing about it. (Manohla Dargis of the NY Times, for instance, liked it.)

And I still say it's not marketing. It's an in-joke that grew into a monster, that the filmmakers were lucky enough to latch on to. *They've* done some cute or clever things recently, but this isn't what I'd call a brilliant (or even big) marketing campaign.

Reply