Rains on a Mother@!$%#in' Parade

The child in the middle grew up to hate "Snakes on a Plane" and one of the two other children now thinks he's an elitist: Rifts in a mother@!$%#in' family.

Note: Article had been manually "bleeped" to give the Newsvine team time to fix a bug which did not "auto" bleep it on certain sections of the front page. I'm not sure if the bug is fixed, but this article is no longer featured anywhere so the title is back in all its mother@!$%#in' glory.

The time is now 12:00 PM on Saturday, August 19th, 2006. I have yet to see Snakes on a Plane. Not only have I not seen it -- I have absolutely no interest in doing so: I am a mother@!$%#in' party pooper.

In fact, I've been branded "elitist" by my own flesh and blood because of statements I made about the movie.

(In all fairness -- What I said to provoke such a rebuke certainly came out wrong. You can read the discussion here.)

With that in mind: I am no elitist. I have what most people would consider to be poor taste in music -- guilty pleasures plague my iTunes library. I often prefer young adult fiction to more "adult" fare when it comes to literature. (Though, both have their place in my library.) I enjoy reality television as much as the next guy -- if not more so. (So You Think You Can Dance: Not as good this year as last.)

I simply have a view about a movie that is contrary to most other views, even though I've never seen it. In my defense -- all of the positive hype also resulted from people who hadn't seen the movie. If it's possible to love a movie before it's released, it's also possible to hate it: Hype can go either way.

My flaw in our previous argument was in sounding as though people are "wrong" for enjoying the experience. As such, I take back any aspect of my argument that sounded like a condemnation of those who wish to see the movie. I will also withhold any view about the "goodness" or "badness" of the movie itself. While I certainly have a feeling that it's not that great -- I can't say one way or the other as I don't think I'll ever see it. I believe that people will have a hell of a time during Snakes on a Plane: I just don't know that said time will have anything to do with the movie itself.

Opinions are apparently divided. (The "fresh" tomatometer rating of 62% was a slightly higher 65% as of yesterday.)

So, what am I left with? Predictions.

Before I get into that: I'm disgruntled with the way this movie was marketed. It was most certainly brilliant on the part of the studio -- but I don't like the precedent it sets.

From Wikipedia:

Cult film is a colloquial term for a film that has accrued a small but devoted group of fans, having failed to achieve fame outside that group. Sometimes, the group is bound to the film by a shared sense of ridicule for it, rather than artistic merit. Characteristics of cult films are soundtracks that aren't temporary, a fake science created for the film, and particularly strange characters.

There is also a subsection for "So Bad It's Good" films:

Many films enjoy cult status because they are seen as ridiculously awful. The critic Michael Medved characterized examples of the "so bad it's good" class of low-budget cult film through books such as The Golden Turkey Awards. These films include such financially fruitless and critically scorned films as Mommie Dearest, Cool as Ice, Boxing Helena, and Showgirls, which have become inadvertent comedies to film buffs. Movies have even achieved cult status by successfully imitating the awfulnesses of so-bad-it's-good movies (The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra and Amazon Women on the Moon being just two examples.)

It is arguable that Snakes on a Plane fits into the above category. (It's certainly gained that reputation over the past few months.) The trouble is: The humor isn't really inadvertent humor, and it doesn't appear to be an attempt at satirizing or imitating the "so good it's bad" forumula.

The question: Can a cult-film be manufactured?

My view is that cult film status comes about through earning said reputation. Audiences go in expecting one thing (or nothing at all) and come out completely changed. The immediate goal is to get other people to see the wreck that you've just sat through. Over time, word-of-mouth (regarding poor quality and unintended watchability) means a movie builds an audience. In many cases, the movie will fail utterly at the box-office only to find it's way into our hearts on DVD. Drinking games are formulated and midnight screenings are planned. Best case scenario: MST3K finds the movie before we do and makes it even better.

You can call Snakes on a Plane a lot of things: "Cult Film" isn't one of them, in my view. The minute the studio embraced the awfulness of the movie it created -- I ruled it out. When I saw ads celebrating the type of badness that an audience is supposed to exploit -- I became even more suspicious.

If we can criticize the summer blockbuster for being a store-front for merchandising -- I feel we can justifiably question the decision to market a movie as a cult hit before it's been seen by anyone outside the studio.

Something just feels wrong about attempting to "create" something that has (in the past) been stumbled upon by luck. (And by "luck" I mean that if it weren't for cult status -- these movies would have nothing.) Writing a movie that is intentionally bad enough to be revered throughout time as a cult classic probably isn't an easy thing to do -- hence my suspicion that this movie isn't bad enough to be so bad it's good. (In other words: It's not bad in the right way.)

As for my mother@!$%#in' predictions:

• Snakes on a Plane will prove to be a massive draw on its opening weekend and will almost certainly take the top spot.
• I do not believe it will have the staying power of a typical cult film: After the first two weeks, audiences will dwindle and repeat attendees will not be a big factor in its overall earnings. The "slow-build" will be negated by the firecracker effect: An explosion that is over as quickly as it started.
• Lower than hoped for DVD sales: Snakes on a Plane is going to require the experience of a movie-theater for any success it will garner. The appeal of owning a cult-classic on DVD is that you can show it to someone who hasn't seen it -- which is usually quite a large audience. (American Movie is a perfect example: I own it so that I can show it to people who haven't seen it and thus far -- that's been most of the people I know.) Everyone who wants to see this movie will have seen it before it's out on DVD -- likely on opening weekend. No one will be left to "introduce" to Snakes on a Plane once it's out on DVD and thus there will be little point in owning it.
• This would mean that the marketing campaign was a masterstroke for opening weekend -- and a mistake concerning it's long-term earning prospects.

Of course, all of this is said with the assumption that the movie really is so bad that it's good. If you happen to love the movie and/or think it's quality entertainment that exists outside of "cult" status: We may have the first example in history of a reverse cult classic: A movie that strived to be bad but that managed to catch the quality boat.

I simply don't believe that such a film will be remembered for much of anything, in the long run: "Movie that's good enough to not be bad" just doesn't roll of the tongue like it would need to.

The Mother@!$%#in' Conclusion.

This much is certain: The hype can't be separated from the movie itself. The experience surrounding it may actually be more important than what is projected onto the screen. For some, the hype was a good thing, and for others (me, apparently) it had the opposite effect.

Defending or attacking Snakes on a Plane on the basis of merit is probably pointless for the moment: Those who expected to love it will love it, and those who expected to hate it will hate it -- minds are not likely to be changed.

Experiment: For those who feel the movie succeeds beyond the hype and the "experience" of watching with an audience full of like-minded SoaPies -- go see the movie again in a few weeks: Early in the day so that there isn't a crowd. I suspect that both are more important than you think.

My feeling is that the team behind Snakes on a Plane was unwilling to wait and see whether or not their movie would rise to cult status -- and decided to spike the punch in an effort to get the party started.

The gamble has paid off -- for now.

My last prediction: 5 years from now, Snakes on a Plane will struggle to sell from the $5 discount rack -- true cult classics will continue to make a splash on DVD.

For what it's worth, despite the "initial" brilliance of the marketing team behind Snakes on a Plane, they made a huge mistake: This movie is a perfect candidate for the "Non-existant DVD/Theatrical Release Window" model. Snakes on a Plane should have been available for purchase in the theater lobby. Anyone with a valid ticket stub should have been given the opportunity to leave the theater with "Snakes on a DVD" as well. (A mail-in-rebate for the movie would have also been a good idea -- "opening weekend only, only, only!")

If they're going to make their entrance with a bang -- they may as well have milked the mother@!$%#in' moment.

Back To Top

Samuel L. Jackson kicks asp in 'Snakes' Sorry, I just can't join the fang club for this slithering messssss

Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Sun Aug 20

6