Talk:Snakes on a Plane/Archive 2

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.

See also:

Archive 1

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)

It certainly is. My concern, however, is that there may be differences between the book and the movie. It is impossible to know which events and what backstory has been included in the book that is not in the movie; Ms. Faust has acknowledged that such differences exist in the book and are common in novelizations. Until the movie actually comes out, I think it is inappropriate to include any plot information beyond sourced statements that refer to the movie directly. --Maxamegalon2000 03:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of times, the novelization writers take liberties with the story, and add, expand, change, or omit details from the movie's story. I should know, I grew up reading them! We should save details from the book for a seperate Wiki page or sub-page for the Snakes on a Plane novelization. --[[User:FreakmanJ|FreakmanJ] 12:14, 22 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.

I suppose it would be original research to say that I was there and that despite attempts by the people asking questions, he didn't actually answer with quotes from other movies. Regardless, the cited source, http://blogs.usatoday.com/popcandy/2006/07/cant_stop_the_s.html doesn't describe him as having done this, either. As such, I removed the line specifically mentioning that he answered with quotes. Realitycookie 10:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

What do you mean? It seems very clear to me. dposse 03:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

the creators i mean--87.196.168.188 23:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. The director, the screenwriter, the novel writer, and a couple of actors have posted at Snakes on a Blog, and the webmaster is interviewing Samuel L. Jackson at ComicCon. --Maxamegalon2000 00:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they do. It was the internet that caused the writers to shoot more scenes, and to add the famous "Motherfucking snakes" line. dposse 03:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the (rather lame) "All your snakes are belong to us" video linked to in the article isn't created by fans, but by marketroids at http://www.heavenspot.com/. 80.203.119.169 02:26, 25 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

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

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)

huh? dposse 21:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

He means since the information in this article is not stable, it can rapidly change. Or it's not about a Pokemon. :p Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • I'm a hot toe picker)} 04:48, 30 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

In interviews the group claims that they came up with the name first, and then heard about the movie. And it's pretty common for there to be a single associated with movies, especially this kind. --Maxamegalon2000 19:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess, it just seems a little weird that their first song to hit the mainstream would be one compiled for a movie, and so similar to their name at that. Maybe they simply took the gig because of that reason? Maybe not. Who knows? They do, of course, but not the point--yes, I'll shut up now... --Wikiwow 17:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The band was around as a side project before getting the gig for the movie, it's the former singer of midtown's band. He rewrote one of the songs on his demo to work with the movie more.

A B-horror movie, "Snakes on a Train", was released straight to DVD just a few days prior to this film's theatrical release. Despite the name, the film has no connection to this film, or its makers.

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've replaced the Snakes on a Train trivia as it now has an official website that at least confirms its existence. The wiki article has been fleshed out as well. Thatdog 06:36, 3 August 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

The Nathan Phillips (actor) link on the sidebar works. I'll fix the one in the body. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:07, 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)

I'm removing it. Until the movie is actually released, none of this is verifiable. Only cited plot points are verifiable before a movie's release. --Maxamegalon2000 13:31, 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)

Agreed. Of the three, I've removed Image:Snakes On A Plane the Tshirt.jpg because:

1. Of all three pictures, this one has the worst picture quality.

2. The picture seems to violate WP:VANITY since the uploaders has only two edits, both of which were on uploading and adding the image.

--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)

Hopefully this will cause the big companies to embrace their internet fandom. It worked here! Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • I'm a hot toe picker)} 20:06, 8 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.

These are good facts, but I'm worried about

WP:NOR - I think we have to have a reliable source say this, and then we can cite, otherwise it might get deleted. Hbdragon88

08:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if you do it's not notable. It's a fictional movie- does the article for Kangaroo Jack say it's not plausable because kangaroos lack the mental capacity to speak a complex human language, its vocal chords not physically able to create the sounds required for English and it's unlikely a kangaroo in the wild would be exposed to old school rap? --TheTruthiness 08:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

My friend has a SoaP-themed MySpace page that you can get from the official SoaP MySpace page, and one of the embedded sound clips is a conversation between Samuel L. Jackson and some sort of scientist on the ground, and the scientist points out that snakes don't usually attack people, but that they must be drugged or something. Jackson says something like "Great, snakes on crack." So it sounds like it's accounted for, but again, until someone else points out the unlikelihood, it's original research and we shouldn't touch it. --Maxamegalon2000 15:49, 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)

Just to confirm... The flower necklaces the passengers were wearing were drugged with a pheremone, as stated in the movie. This had the effect of making the snakes both highly energetic and highly aggressive... Hence, "Great, snakes on crack."

Lankybugger

13:02, 18 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)

It means that there is not sexuality throughout the entire film, or in several scenes. It appears that there will only be one scene of sexuality and it is with the stewardess and passenger attempting to enter the mile-high club in the plane's bathroom. When they brought the film from a PG-13 to R, the producers said they increased the sexuality and nudity, so the scene will be more graphic than before. --Nehrams2020 17:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As Saumel L. Jackson said: "So you get actual snake hits, and if you got two people who are making love in an airplane bathroom, you just don't show a snake and show them kissing and hear them screaming. You know, girl's got her tit out, let the snake hit it! That's what people are there to see." In Time Magazine, no less. --Maxamegalon2000 17:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. Wow. Thanks. I can't wait to see Boobs on a Plane, haha. dposse 18:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I love Sammy J. for how totally blunt and out there he is. I actually wouldn't be surprised if this movie breaks some sort of box-office record the first day.

Morhange

19:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, I still remembered the quote from when I read it in May; it really sums up the movie's attitude. Now that I've gotten that in, I'd like to point out that I added the notaforum tag at the top of this page because of discussions like the one I think this one is ready to turn into. --Maxamegalon2000 19:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This movie is gonna bring in a hell of alot of cash. The creators helped things by not letting critics see it in advance. dposse 19:15, 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.

Yeah, I was misinformed, but really it didn't matter who was in there as long as there were people to die by snakes. Heads up for anyone who hasn't seen it, there is a slight glimpse of front male nudity as well, so watch out if you don't want to see it, he'll be going to the bathroom.--Nehrams2020 08:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Lol, maybe some day, but definately not the near future, bud :P Sonic3KMaster(鉄也)^(talk) 09:10, 21 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)

People brought snakes to mine.. lots and lots of fantastic snakes. I thought of RHPS too, but the dialog just doesn't have many hooks in it for funny lines (though perhaps I'll be proven wrong, and there are always possibilities for remixes). But yes, cheering in mine too... Esp with "I've had it with these motherfuckin snakes on this motherfuckin plane.". Has the press reported on this yet? Once they do, it should go into the article. --Gmaxwell 06:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a similar experience. People also applauded when Samuel L. made his first appearance. Zagalejo 06:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Listening to some amateur reviews on the radio (WKQX, fwiw), it seems like EVERYONE is reporting this sort of thing. I think the audience-participation phenomenon is definitely worth mentioning -- once some outside sources become available to cite in the article. Zagalejo 06:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

At the showing I was at, the audience took it a step further, not just cheering/booing wildly, but doing actual call/responses with the film, and randomly making up as many 'Snakes on a _____' as were possible. After waiting for the weekend to be over, if it's still happening with the same amount of regularity, it may deserve a decently large section in the article. --65.29.4.62 07:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, both the wild cheering and the plastic snakes being tossed around happened at the Toronto sneak preview last night. I have a picture on my cellphone of the theatre after the movie was over... and there were about seventy or eighty plastic dollar store snakes which hadn't been taken by the movie goers in plain sight. I don't even want to think about how many were in seats or in the aisles which I didn't capture in the camera shot.

Lankybugger

12:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Saw an advance screening last night in New York City. Quite possibly the wildest crowd EVER. people brought snake puppets, a girl wore a flapper-style dress made with rubber snakes and a toy airplane headpiece. lots of cheering, call and response. a countdown before the snakes were unleashed. chanting snakes during the previews (which included the upcoming samuel l jackson film "black snake moan" and some movie about planes), hissing, even a standing ovation at the end. i was waiting for that ONE PERSON who was serious about seeing the film to go and complain to an usher. it was hilarious. I think this may be the Rocky Horror for the new millenium.

I saw the film not five hours ago at a relatively small cinema here in England. I'm happy to report that despite the audience numbering only several dozen, we all made plenty of noise, and, when the line came on, how such a small audience made quite so much noise I'll never know! I'm in favour of dedicating a section of the article to this, it is quite something! `Zozart ^.chat 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Definately worth a mention, I was only in a small town theatre, and though there was a distinct lack of props, there was plenty of screaming, cheering and random quips ala snakeplay (Which is definately mentionable within the article) --Mattgcn 02:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I was quite happy to go to one of the initial 10 PM screenings on Thursday night (I even bought my tickets early that afternoon, as I thought the film was going to be big). Though the theater was only at about half capacity, it was the most enthusiastic movie crowd I've ever been in, aside from Rocky Horror. Everyone cheered at the title screen, everyone cheered when SLJ first appeared, everyone cheered for the first death, etc. Anyone who can find sources such as the CNN article below should absolutely add them, as it's obvious that this was not an isolated incident. -- Kicking222 20:47, 21 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

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)

So no one knows? Mad Jack 07:51, 19 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)

10PM Thursday night was the earliest Mad Jack 15:40, 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)

Hi, I'm a new user so forgive me if I stuff this up. I've just been on the IMDb and there's still only a few reviews at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417148/externalreviews and virtually nothing from UK newspapers yet.

- The Guardian's got a long diatribe on the death of film critics at http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1852475,00.html.

- Found a review at http://www.mansized.co.uk/reviews/review.phtml/238 although it's a bit short.

- Empire's review looks like it's going to be at http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=11010 --mrkaplan 16.54, 18 August 2006 (GMT)

I have to laugh at that Guardian article. I like how it presents itself as objective, yet cannot disguise how incredibly offended they are by bloggers calling them obsolete, or that they were withheld from reviewing certain films. Highly amusing stuff.

Yeah. You've got to be pretty damn sad to care what bloggers think.

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.

Well, it's not a problem of finding reviews. Rotten Tomatoes already has a bunch, and a Google News search gets even more. It's a problem of choosing which ones to use and how to present them. Should we wait a few days for the newspapers that are reviewing the movie this weekend? --Maxamegalon2000 16:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. I can get links to the Times, Telegraph, Guardian and a handful of UK websites. Should I just post them here and you guys edit them? --mrkaplan 17.59, 18 August 2006 (GMT)

I think this: http://weebls-stuff.com/toons/trailer/ should be mensioned in the trivia.

I can't imagine why. --Maxamegalon2000 22:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

You didn't find the deaths to be grusome? I couldn't watch some of them... dposse 21:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Horror" certainly isn't the first word I'd use to describe it. Action/comedy makes more sense, but still sort of misses the mark. Considering it does have gruesome deaths I don't think there's a problem calling it horror, though. —

fgs

21:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's totally a dark comedy.

on www.movietickets.com, the official genre given for the movie is horror.

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)

It wasn't sarcastic. He was explicitly descreibing the genre. Maybe this is your opinion of the film, which does

not belong here. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • Snakes on a Plane}

) 06:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If one looks at the article High concept, one will see that "Snakes on a Plane" is the very epitome of "high concept". It doesn't mean "high" as in "high art", if that's what you were thinking. - furrykef (Talk at me) 15:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Everyone website i've seen has described it as "Action/horror". Until that changes, "High Concept" is mearly POV and original research. It should be left out of this article. We have already said that it is believed to be a "comedy", that should be enough to tell how absurd the movie was thought to be. dposse 05:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The usage in the article is cited, your claim of orignal research couldn't be further from the truth. When I first saw it, my initial thought was to remove it as a joke... then I read the cite as was merely annoyed.. *then* I actually found out what high concept means, and was enlightened. The wikilink I added should help otherpeople avoid the same confusion. To achieve an ideal NPOV expression we should indicate that 'high concept' is what the director called it.. but I suspect that no one who understands the term would dispute the claim. --Gmaxwell 07:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Allmovie calls it "High Concept" too. -albrozdude 07:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it appears "Pacific Coast Highway" and "Gmaxwell" are correct, albeit in a limited way. Probably about 60 people in Hollywood use the term and they are followed by a couple hundred industry journalists. The coining of the term back in the `70s was almost certainly tongue-in-cheek... I like the way the article includes it now, "described by its director as "High Concept". JDG 01:02, 21 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)

It's been fixed now. Why don't you get an account? It's free. :) - furrykef (Talk at me) 15:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You get a free snake! Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • Snakes on a Plane)} 20:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What do we have to do for a free plane? :) --Maxamegalon2000 23:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for my "on a". --Nehrams2020 03:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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???

Is this notable? The Digg reference really only asserts that someone came up with the idea, not necessarily that it happened, though I don't doubt that it did. --Maxamegalon2000 19:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems notable enough to me. It's certainly interesting. For what it's worth, the LA Weekly review currently cited in the article seems to provide some indirect evidence that the Habbo stunt actually occurred (although the writer thought the people were dressing up like Jackson's Pulp Fiction character, which is also possible). Zagalejo 05:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is another reference. [3]. This is the site used by the 4channers to plan their invasion. You can find a lot of pictures of the end results in there too.

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. —

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. —

Fair enough, but we could at least mention that many people wore costumes to the initial screenings, and leave it at that. It's an interesting fact, it's verifiable, and it's harmless. Indeed, why was all of the information about audience participation deleted? Considering all of the hype leading up to this movie, the article seems incomplete if we don't mention how the fans reacted to the initial screenings. Zagalejo 18:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The reference for the claim about audience participation was just a list of suggested participation gags. In order to support a comparison to Rocky Horror, I think we'd need some documentation that the participation gags actually occurred. —

fgs

18:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This CNN article suggests a comparison to the Rocky Horror Picture Show. The LA Weekly article adds additional information about audience participation. Zagalejo 18:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nearly. I think that the CNN article supports a claim that audience participation has occurred, but I think a comparison to RHPS (which has a whole culture of elaborate rituals) is a bit misplaced. The only things we can get from the LA Weekly article are that people showed up in costume, and that they "roared" and were "thrilled to the gills". —

fgs

18:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I keep finding lots of other articles comparing the film to RHPS [4], [5], [6],[7], ... I could keep going. :) Zagalejo 18:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Great. I'm not saying the comparison is invalid. I'm just saying we need a reference. —

fgs

18:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There are better sources available if you just look through Google news. The above links just happen to be some of the first ones I found, and some are better than others. If you want, you can search for "Snakes on a Plane" + "audience participation," or "Snakes on a Plane" + "Rocky Horror" to find more detailed information of what people were actually doing at the screenings.

If I have some time later, I'll try to write a brief, referenced description of the audience participation and submit it here for everyone's approval. Or someone else can take a stab at it if they like. Zagalejo 21:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

See below. Zagalejo 02:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is ran by nazis who deny the truth because they don't like it.

No, they deny the truth because it's not verifiable. --Maxamegalon2000 04:00, 21 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)

You do realize that is a joke website, right? dposse 17:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No loss...Uncyclopedia sucks anyways. --Almighty WALKER 19:47, 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?

The internet. When people on the web heard about Samuel L. Jackson was going to be in this movie, they demanded that a line from Samuel L. Jacksons usual movie persona be put in the movie, to make it cheesier. dposse 21:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I sort of gathered that. "The internet" is about as useful a source as "The world". Where on the internet? It's not in the clip the article claims it originated from.

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?"

• Several reviewers noted a high degree of audience participation during the early screenings, which enhanced the viewing experience for some. AP writer Christy Lemire said, "This is a movie that is uniquely, ideally suited for the rowdy, crowded communal experience, the likes of which we haven’t seen since The Rocky Horror Picture Show [10]. Salon.com's Stephanie Zecharek advised readers to see the film "with the biggest, rowdiest audience you can find" [11].

• Different critics described different forms of fan participation.
  Seattle Times wrote, "The late-night audience I was in reacted like it was like the Beatles in Shea Stadium" [15]
  .

Let me know what you think. Zagalejo 02:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

good stuff.—

fgs

03:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I added some comments re: audience participation. I just snarfed the first two mentions I could find on Rotten Tomatoes. Just spotted your list. I think your refs are better. But bear in mind: some reviewers commented on that in a negative way, suggesting that they thought the audiences were drunk, easily pleased, annoying (&c.). So I think it makes sense to balance the pro ref(s) with the contras. They can (and do) both say the same thing.

chocolateboy 10:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, good point. I found a couple of nuggets to add to the end of what I wrote:

• However, some critics questioned the fans' sincerity. The Miami Herald's Rene Rodriguez wrote, "The enthusiasm seemed to be more out of obligation than anything else" [16]. Meanwhile, Mike Russell of The Oregonian suggested that the cheering fans were possibly "drunk" [17]. Zagalejo 19:39, 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]

None of the people who created the movie have said anything about this...it's completely speculation made up by a few bloggers, and I don't think it is notable at all.

It's reaching to find meaning. If any movie this year is made without a deeper meaning, it's this one.

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 moving the audience particpation stuff back into the critical reaction section since it is based upon THE CRITICS' REACTIONS. plus it doesn't make sense to include that sentence in a section about the box office's unremarkable performance. this isn't a debate about the democrats versus republicans. the movie's box office is unremarkable. if you want to create a counter point about the movie's financial business, the address this issue in a seperate sentence. audience participation doesn't make an unremarkable box office any less unremarkable, it's a REDHERRING which violate wiki standards.

Johan12121 12:14, 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 removed internet phenomena and included better wording "inflated expectations." the sentence originally was not backed by citations. confusing. one could argue now that the movie is not an internet phenomena because the of the films poor box office. but there was certainly alot of hype for this film on the internet. and there was certain alot of "inflated expectations" for this film. so I used the language of the citation that I provided. it makes more sense. as a counterpoint, "The Blair Witch" project was an internet phenomena because the buzz translated into wild success for that film. S.O.A.P. is doing average business for a horror film of it's kind. so whatever internet buzz this has should be kept in a seperate section. the internet is simply part of the "inflated expectations" which were not limited solely to the internet. these inflated expectations also include Sam jackson's tv spots, the critics, and other media. so unless you plan to include ALL of these things, which would make for a convoluted sentence, then stick with "inflated expectations."

Boxofficemojo 13:30, 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)

One source says Thursday doesn't count [20] (two references, but the same site), and that the movie was number two. One source (New Line's head of distribution) disagrees. [21] The CNN article doesn't actually endorse or refute his position. It just reports what he and the studio ("according to studio estimates") say. So it looks like it was neither and both unless/until someone can conjure up another ref or demonstrate that either of the referenced sites is an unreliable source.

chocolateboy 15:05, 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)

Why don't we put both as well? We could say that it made $13.85 million, but that the studio puts the figure at $15.25 million because "it was customary for studios to include late-night previews in a movie's opening-weekend total." Wouldn't that work? It would make everyone happy. dposse 15:17, 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)

Ok, i added all that. How do you like it? dposse 15:42, 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)

You don't get the meaning of a compromise, do you? That's what i just did up there. The BoxOfficeMojo and EW thing sounds like a whole lotta opinion to me. Corporate spinning? Pah-lease. Not to be mean here, but that's bullsh*t. I added verifiably correct infomation that if NPOV and it even sounds freaking logical to me and to chocolateboy. dposse 16:49, 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)

(kindly read my edited statement, k?) dposse 16:49, 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. —

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)

I don't understand how you can have a statement from David Tuckerman at the beginning of the article, but another statment from him that proves my case is "corporate spin". Is it only corporate spin if it's good news? dposse 17:09, 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)

Actually, it does say modest.

"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)

I had to reword this section as it was getting quite confusing, and repeated several points and sources multiple times. The main problem I had is the use of the word "official". Unless there is actually an authoritative source for this, then the only way to present this topic is to account for the reports given by all major news sources. As the sources mentioned in the section are all credible, reputable news sources, we will have to list both numbers with the details of the controversy unless there is a supremely authoritative source for this box office information. --DDG 17:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

How does my edit "Reek of corporate spin"? I am just trying to account for the fact that major reputable news organizations report this movie as #1. See also [25] [26]. You can't just pick the news sources that you like. --DDG 17:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

dear DropDeadGorgias,

I don't like your changes. sounds like cheap corporate spinning.

Guerillafilm 17:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me qualify this by saying that I am not at all an expert in the movie industry or box office numbers, but as it stood, our article was out of sync with major news sources. Consider the first line of the New York Times article that I linked which states "“Snakes on a Plane,” the wildly hyped high-concept movie, turned out to be a Web-only phenomenon this weekend, as that horror-comedy starring Samuel L. Jackson took in just $15.2 million at the box office in its opening days... The film was still the No. 1 draw at the box office over the weekend when including $1.4 million from the Thursday-night screenings." This is not just the movie studio reporting this number, but major news sources are reporting both standings, so we should too. I am trying to be as open as possible, while still keeping our encyclopedia in line with what is being reported by major news organizations like CNN and MTV. Guerilla, I think we can come to a compromise here, but I don't understand why you're removing and disregarding links to various news sources such as MTV. Also, I dispute your use of the term "official"- if you can come up with the authoritative source you are using for the definition of box office receipts, then I will be satisfied. --DDG 17:35, 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)

Guerillafilm, please stop. Look at your own talk page, please. dposse 17:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Look I personally don't have any more time or energy to look into this right now, so I'll leave you guys to your own devices. But guerillafilm, I totally understand that you don't want our article to reflect any corporate spin, but please look at the quote that I've posted from New York Times. They give the same figure and list it as #1 without qualifying that that's the number that the studio gives. It is not JUST the movie studio giving this figure and position; I really hope that we can all come to an agreement to the proper wording here. --DDG 17:52, 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)

since you seem to be too lazy to go to your own personal talk page, i'm gonna bring it to you.

"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)

Exactly. THEY MADE THE FILM. There is no one better to tell us about how much the movie made, because they are the ones getting the money. How about i edit it to suggest that it is unclear about the official amount of money that the film made? dposse 18:29, 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)

That's what i want to do. It is very easy to find sources for statements, and i will make sure that everything is sourced. However, what Guerillafilm is suggesting is just wrong. dposse 18:44, 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)

I think you've reverted enough for one day,

don't you

?

Take a look at these 368 articles collected by Google News. Revert when your anti-corporate spin is the status quo.

chocolateboy 19:00, 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)

I tried to include you. I sent you three messages on your talk page. Did you listen to me? No. You didn't. You just decided to go off the deep end on your paranoid rant about corporate spin. If you continue to vandalise this page, after three people have come to an agreement, you will be reported. dposse 19:09, 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)

I am indeed a SoaP fan, which is the reason why i want to keep this article as accurate as possible. I did try to include you, but you just didn't take a time out for three seconds and just listen to what i had to say. I believe the admins will understand that chocolateboy, DDG, and i were only to stop a vandal from screwing up this article. EW and OfficeBoxMojo are not gods. I mean, where do you think they get their infomation from? dposse 19:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What sarcasm? At any rate: sarcasm isn't a bannable offence; I haven't violated the 3RR (reverting vandalism doesn't count); and I've only reverted your

sockpuppetry

by the way.

chocolateboy 19:30, 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)

• Guerillafilm, while I'm probably sympathetic to your position here, I'm finding it quite hard to follow the debate because of some of the edits to this talk page. You've removed comments as 'slanderous' when in legal terms they were not, and it's making it hard to know who said what to whom when. If there's a dispute to be resolved, can it be done without messing up the existing content of this talk page? Thanks. AlexTiefling 19:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I did agree with you, and that infomation never changed. It just evolved. Second, the controversy is in that many news sources, both the national media and the internet, have reported on two different sets of infomation, which we agreed should be repersented here. dposse 19:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• The pair of you are burning sympathy pretty fast here. Your revert wars are making a right mess of the main article, and the talk page is even worse. Dposse, I'm not particularly in your camp on this - all I did was to provide a mainstream news source for the competing box office figures. I don't give a damn whose version stays up, as long as something stays up that's properly sourced and reasonably NPOV. AlexTiefling 19:44, 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)

Mon ami, that is what i'm trying to do. This guy is reverting everything so freaking fast that it's impossible to do any research and do any cleanup because i'm, spending all my time trying to discuss this here on the talk page while he goes into the article and starts reverting everything! dposse 19:48, 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)

• Count me out of any 'majority' or 'consensus' on this issue. I'm not voting. Please refrain, any of you, from citing me as a supporter of any particular position in this debate. Thanks. AlexTiefling 19:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That is why i was trying to do before you started this edit war. If you would just shut up for a few hours, you'd see that we can work wonders on this article. Would you please be patient have have some fucking

Faith in me? PLEASE I'm asking for just a few moments of cooperation. dposse

19:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

please refrain from vulgarity on this page. thanx. Guerillafilm 19:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Guerillafilm, you just edited the talk page to remove your statements referring to majority, consensus, etc. Can't you see why this retrospective alteration is wrong? It leaves my request hanging, without its original context. When I ask not to be counted in anybody's side or party, it does not mean I want 1984-style editing to remove all previous allusions. I meant that I should not be expected to take sides in future debate here or in any mediation. AlexTiefling 19:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

fine, whatever. Would you please cooperate with me? No more reverting the page, ok? Let's move FOWARD, not backwards. I will do more research and cleanup the Box Office section. All i need for you is to back down. and for the love of god, i really hate edit conflicts.dposse 19:58, 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

Dude, look up. I'm trying to solve this without the need for moderation or admin-ation.. dposse 20:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• But as the pair of you keep breaching
  WP:3RR, it'll happen anyway. First rule of holes: When you are in one, stop digging. AlexTiefling
  20:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

How can i fix the arugued about section if i'm spending all my time trying to stop the page from going back to what it was hours ago? Damnit, I need time! this edit war isn't giving me it. dposse 20:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This comment (of mine) was removed with the following edit summary: "removed slander":

By the way: your "style" (sentences that begin with lowercase letters, using caps for emphasis) is very similar to Johan12121's and Boxofficemojo's, as are your links, manners, subject matter, obsessions and POV... [39][40][41][42][43]

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)

Damnit, stop. Everyone needs to take some deep breaths here. No personal attacks. Goddamnit, i'm trying my best to solve this peacefully and this is not helping. dposse 20:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What personal attack? Calling a sockpuppet a sockpuppet is not a personal attack. Read the

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)

It is when they write in exactly the same style as you and obsess over (and disrupt) exactly the same articles. But getting the revert count wrong and removing your own edit as "slander" are the real giveaways.

chocolateboy 20:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, i understand your complaints about the section as it is now. However, i will be working with what we have now. If you would just please back down from reverting this article, you will see how the wikipedians here can make the section fine for everyone involved here. Please, just go read a book for a few hours. I'm begging you here. Have some faith in us, and we will get the job done. dposse 20:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose i'll take this silence to mean that you went away for a little bit. When you return, you'll see how we can change this article for the better. dposse 20:26, 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)

Dude, do you realize what i'm trying to do here? I'm trying to fix this so this conflict can end. You are just starting this edit war back up again. dposse 20:39, 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)

Don't insult me by ever suggesting I'm one of these pathetic trolls.

I AM NOT TOLERATING THIS CRAP ANY FURTHER.

I will now report dposse at

WP:AN3

. Keep it up fellas. You are not long for this world.

12.135.79.172 20:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Any further"?

First rule of sockpuppetry: don't. Second rule: don't do it embarrassingly badly.

So long, and thanks for all the caps.

chocolateboy 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• First rule of sockpuppetry: make sure your evidence is strong.

Second rule: using it as a personal attack = you're pathetic.

I can understand why you think that I may be jonah or other users. they are my friends, after all. we speak in similar styles. we agreed to work on these pages together. But I'm NOT this anon user 12.135.79.172. Again, check my IP address if you'd like with the help of an admin. That should clear it up. I've read the rules about sockpuppetry. Accusing me of being this anonymous user doesn't meet with the strict standards of wiki on the subject. that anon user made exactly 2 posts. that's far from rock solid evidence that he and I are the same. but then again, you know that. apparently you have decided to promote yourself to the status of a wiki moderator. and apparently you have psychic powers. last I checked, lowercase letters doesn't mean that two users are the same. and how are his obsessions that same as mine? he just reverted the article in gesture of fairness to all parties. that hardly constitutes a similarity. So unless you can see our IPs, then let the admins do their jobs.

I also find it "telling" that dposse has been breaking the rules for sometime on this article and never ONCE did you call him on it. apparently, breaking the rules only bothers you when it goes against your contributions in this article. but dposse's 100 or so reverts in a single day doesn't seem to bother you one bit. gee, could it be because you two are just SOAP fans turning WIKI into your own personal SOAP fan page?

First rule of tattletailing: be sure you holding everyone accountable for the rules, not just people you don't like.

Second rule of tattletailing: don't do it embarrassingly badly.

So long, and thanks for all the hypocricy.

Guerillafilm 15:44, 22 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)

User:Dposse reported by User:MrDarcy

• Previous version reverted to: 17:40, 21 August 2006
• 1st revert: 17:40, 21 August 2006
• 2nd revert: 17:51, 21 August 2006
• 3rd revert: 18:03, 21 August 2006
• 4th revert: 20:40, 21 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

• 20:18, 21 August 2006

Time report made: 20:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• User:Dposse and User:Guerillafilm have been engaging in an edit war all day. Guerillafilm may also be guilty of a 3RR violation.
• Dposse probably has five or six reverts to the page in the last 24 hours.
• Dposse has been using foul language in edit summaries towards Guerillafilm, and has been exhibiting
  page ownership
  behavior.
• I'm reporting this because an anon user just edited the section to make it more concise and more neutral and dposse reverted again.

And edit summaries like "For the love of snakes, please look at your own fucking talk page Guerillafilm!" aren't helping Dposse's case very much. Metros232 20:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Heh, well at least this page is protected now. We can settle this peacefully. dposse 21:35, 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)

Finally. Thank you. dposse 21:33, 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

I'm the rude one and the bully, yet you are the one who just

personally attacked

me.

dposse 21:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys, let's just sort this one out in a contest of kind words, eh? Name calling just makes people get defensive and is a step backwards. Yanksox 21:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to go foward with this article for hours. Writing a wikipedia article is like molding a block of clay. You add stuff, and take some away, but in the end you get a near perfect product. That is what i was trying to do. dposse 21:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, "Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect." (from

WP:NOT). Writing a good Wikipedia article is like a room full of people molding a block of clay. You change something, and then they change something, and then someone else changes something, and sometimes you get in each other's way and have to resolve your disputes. To get a good wikipedia article, the group of people have to work together on the block of clay. --Daniel Olsen

05:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

And you hold no accountability for your actions? I tried multiple times to work with you. I explained my position on your talkpage and on here and i explained how your reverting was unneccasary. You ignored all my attempts and just kept on reverting. dposse 22:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• oh, I see. so it is up to you to decide when something gets reverted or not. and according to you, because I didn't agree with you, that gave you the right to be a cyber bully and violate the rules on this forum, right? Whatever... You are a narcissitic sociopath. and if you read my post above carefully, I DID take responsibility for my actions. If I get banned for my behavior, then I will accept the consequences like a man. plus, after I was warned to stop reverting (since I exceeded my limits) I stopped reverted. you were warned on your page by the user Mr. Darcy and you still reverted anyways. just because someone on this forum doesn't follow the rules, doesn't give you the right to break the rules. that's what you are saying. and then you brag about how happy you are that the page is locked. so, apparently, you think that when a synop locks a page, that means he is approving of the page. well, think again. Don't pretend that you didn't break the rules. my bad behavior doesn't justify YOUR bad behavior. I apologized for my bad behavior. but you are still trying to justify your page ownership and your attempts to turn the wiki SOAP page into your own personal fanpage. and your fate (and maybe my fate) is in the hands of the administrators. and this is the last time I discuss this matter with an 'insecure, control-freak, lying, sociopathic cyber-bully' like yourself. good day, sir

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)

Enough is enough. I've had it with these motherfucking edit wars on this motherfucking encyclopedia. --24.98.105.197 00:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to be reminded about

WP:CIV. Please watch the profanity, there could be virgin eyes looking at this page!!! Triumph's Hour

01:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this entry has the word motherfucking/fucker in it at least twice. As

Morhange

03:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT censored. Civility is still important. While objectionable words are used in an encyclopedic manner, they should not be used when trying to resolve a dispute. --Daniel Olsen

05:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• no one is ganging up on dposse. dposse has become a board fascist and he has claimed ownership of the SOAP page. if anyone tries to edit the page, then he will revert their contributions mercilessly without regard to their contributions. in other words, it dposse doesn't like your contribution, then you won't be able to contribute to the soap page. that is a clear violation of wiki police.Guerillafilm 12:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

• bulls... look, I said it once, so I will say it again. if you don't believe me, then perform an IP check. you'll see that it is not me. and I did not disappear. I was warned by other users to stop editing otherwise I would be in violation of the 3 revert rule. according to you, the only way to maintain my innocence is to keep breaking the rules? whatever.... I took a breather so other people could edit. but, per usual, dposse bullied them off that page. dposse even started posting illegal copywritten pictures and when synops tried to remove those picts, then dposse reverted them despite the fact that the rules of wiki are clear regarding the use of copywritten material.Guerillafilm 12:13, 22 August 2006(UTC)

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)

I see what you mean, but even if such a thing were possible (which I don't think it is) it would simply encourage the use of anonymous IPs and sockpuppets in edit wars. As it is, we have people who don't sign their edits, alter other people's edits, misrepresent each other, and will not use their own talk pages to thrash it out. I don't really know if there's a good answer to be had. AlexTiefling 08:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure more unambiguous data will become available about the opening weekend gross pretty soon. Hopefully very soon. I think that's the only real issue at stake in the edit dispute. —

fgs

09:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with you but it won't stop dposse from bullying other people, regardless of who they are, into accepting his edits. he clearly feels justified in breaking the rules. and if he doesn't like your contribution, then he will insincerely argue that his "artistic expression on wiki is being surpressed." and then he reverts and says, "but just give me some time." so, clearly, he needs to be dealt with otherwise no one else other than dposse will be able to edit the SOAP page unless they are willing to break the rules (like I mistakingly did) just to defend their contributions. dposse makes it clear he won't work with others. dposse also made it clear that he's just a SOAP fan trying to engage in corporate spin. he wants to turn wiki into his own personal SNAKES ON A PLANE fan page. wiki is not meant for that.Guerillafilm 12:13, 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)

If you can find media coverage for the security and cite it appropriately, then it might be worth mentioning in the article. However, I don't think this was a nationwide thing (my theater took no special measures, and this is the first I heard of such a thing). -- MisterHand 14:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, nothing of the sort happened here. —Ragdoll 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That just happens every once in a while, I don't think it's a big trend or anything notable. --Daniel Olsen 20:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

If you can find media coverage then this would be a great addition to the article. Man I need to see this movie. --Daniel Olsen 20:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally think this "audience participation" thing is a bunch of hype, at least at most movie theaters. Nowhere near Rocky Horror Picture levels. It should be placed in a campy movie category (if that existed), but that's about it. Calwatch 06:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Hmmm, I don't see how we could write a full section on that, but I think we could put it in trivia. We'd need a snake expert to publish something on it to include it in the article however. --Daniel Olsen 20:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, you'd need a reliable source on which snakes were used in the film, no? The opinion of a "snake expert" is probably

original research. | Mr. Darcy talk

00:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• The only problem I can see with that is we'll need to ask dposse permission to make these changes. He might not allow it, seriously. He made it clear that all contributions need to go through him otherwise, according to him, we are "not giving him enough time to do his magic" and, according to him, "we will be suppressing his artistic expression." I don't know how any of us can meaningfully and enjoyably contribute to the SOAP wiki page as long as dposse plans to hijack the page for his own personal use.Guerillafilm 20:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a

personal attack, and it is inappropriate. | Mr. Darcy talk

00:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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)