Snakes on a Plane: Opening Weekend
O snake haterz, how quickly you forsake the ones you love. SoaP was #1 at the box office this weekend, just as I predicted more than a year ago. Yet everywhere I see nothing but cries of defeat.
Excuse me? If you told me back in March 2005 that Pacific Air Flight 151 Snakes on a Plane was really actually going to be the #1 movie in America rather than just *deserving* to be I'd have told you that you were out of your mind. SoaP's budget was either $3M, $33M, or $36M million depending on who you talk to. Assuming that Fox News is full of shit as usual that still means SoaP made back 40% of its production budget, which is not bad but at least in the ballpark compared to the most successful blockbusters of all time:
Blair Witch Project486%29.2/0.06
Jurassic Park74%47/63
Phantom Menace55%64/115
Spider Man 244%88.1/200
Snakes on a Plane40%13.8/34.5
Battlefield Earth15.7%11.5/73
Titanic14.3%28.6/200
Gigli6.8%3.7/54
The real criticism goes to New Line, who spent $60 million marketing the movie. WHY? You either want to see this movie or you don't. Would you spend $60 million marketing water to a market where 20% are dying of thirst? No, you wouldn't. You'd spend ZERO on marketing beyond the barest minimum of ads telling people where to buy your water, because people either have water or they don't.
So was it a good movie? The movie's surrealistically honest marketing makes that point entirely moot. Were you promised snakes on a plane? Yes you were. Were there snakes on that plane? Yes there were. If you ask for snakes on a plane and you complain about getting a plane with snakes on it the Romans had a phrase for people like you.
Excuse me? If you told me back in March 2005 that Pacific Air Flight 151 Snakes on a Plane was really actually going to be the #1 movie in America rather than just *deserving* to be I'd have told you that you were out of your mind. SoaP's budget was either $3M, $33M, or $36M million depending on who you talk to. Assuming that Fox News is full of shit as usual that still means SoaP made back 40% of its production budget, which is not bad but at least in the ballpark compared to the most successful blockbusters of all time:
Blair Witch Project486%29.2/0.06
Jurassic Park74%47/63
Phantom Menace55%64/115
Spider Man 244%88.1/200
Snakes on a Plane40%13.8/34.5
Battlefield Earth15.7%11.5/73
Titanic14.3%28.6/200
Gigli6.8%3.7/54
The real criticism goes to New Line, who spent $60 million marketing the movie. WHY? You either want to see this movie or you don't. Would you spend $60 million marketing water to a market where 20% are dying of thirst? No, you wouldn't. You'd spend ZERO on marketing beyond the barest minimum of ads telling people where to buy your water, because people either have water or they don't.
So was it a good movie? The movie's surrealistically honest marketing makes that point entirely moot. Were you promised snakes on a plane? Yes you were. Were there snakes on that plane? Yes there were. If you ask for snakes on a plane and you complain about getting a plane with snakes on it the Romans had a phrase for people like you.