"Cult film fans bitten by Snakes on a Plane via internet"

By    John Garner on  Monday, March 27, 2006
Summary: I just read this sentence in the MediaGuardian Week-end briefing (via email). Several times actually, thinking now what does that mean and then and how did that happen over the Internet. Obviously my brain was not quite switched on but hey still pretty weird thing to read ! "Cult film fans bitten by Snakes on […]

I just read this sentence in the MediaGuardian Week-end briefing (via email). Several times actually, thinking now what does that mean and then and how did that happen over the Internet. Obviously my brain was not quite switched on but hey still pretty weird thing to read !
"Cult film fans bitten by Snakes on a Plane via internet" was referring to an article on page 11 of 'The Daily Telegraph' about some wacky film that was expected to tank and Internet fans plus buzz about it got the whole thing flying on back (excuse the pun).
The lead actor is Samuel L Jackson an 'FBI agent' that has to save 'the witness' from 'the assassin' who decides that 500 snakes on a plane should do his job nicely. Jackson is quoted to have said "I didn't even read the script. It just saw it and it said Snakes on a Plane and I said, 'OK, good. I'm there'." :
Read the article (on The Daily Telegraph)

Along with reading that on page 20 of the 'Sunday Express' that there is an article explaining how : "Fans rally for statue of Benny Hill", we're not in April yet are we ?

Oh and have a nice day !

Article written by  John Garner

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 comments on “"Cult film fans bitten by Snakes on a Plane via internet"”

  1. [...] Others Read the Whole Article and Comments You're here : The Mag   Entertainment   Film       Snakes on a Plane hype slipping  new Hype can be a slippery slope ! Back in March I wrote about this film on my blog and how it was unlikely to be released but then Internet fans, buzz, hype etc. got it all coming back. When you read about it like that you think, wow, now how is a film that is supposed to be so bad, come back with minor changes and suddenly be so good. Many journalists describe it as a 'good-bad film' ! The overall opinion varies a lot : the Washington post writes 'Snakes' Is Defanged at Box Office, MSNBC writes 'Snakes' slithers to modest weekend at No. 1, RollingStone writes it's "Not even worth a hissss", Nowplayingmag writes "Snakes on a Plane delivers exactly what it promises. Nothing more, nothing less." And finally it gets itself a 6 out of 10 average at Rotten Tomatoes. However, for a very interesting read, on the title nearly getting axed by the studio, which is part of the 'how' and 'why' the buzz got so big with 'Snakes on a Plane', I recommend you read the Forbes article : And within days, “snakes on a plane” became a Net buzz word, even taking on a meaning of its own, akin to “What're ya gonna do?” or “That's life.” “Sorry I'm late, there was killer traffic.” “Snakes on a plane, man.” And in "March the studio spent five days reshooting scenes to cater to the fortuitously erupting fan base." The studio is quoted to have secretly added content to YouTube, pretending that it was content from fans, in order to fuel the whole hype around the film, which is crossing the line and a pretty risky move. This was probably an attempt to replicate the success of the viral marketing campaign in 1999 for the "The Blair Witch Project". But unlike the smart marketing from Artisan on the Blair Witch Project, Snakes on a Plane buzz came mainly from anonymous fans and bloggers. The sentence Snakes on a plane has even grown to take on a life of it's own meaning something along the lines of "Whaddya gonna do?" or "Shit Happens" as you can read here at UrbanDictionray. The release of the film was also just as unusual in that it was not shown to any journalists. It's usually films that are pretty bad that get this treatment but in view of all the hype around the film it wasn't something you would have expected. Many journalists have criticized this and some believe the film may have done better with journalists backing it. But would they have backed it after seeing it ?   [...]

  2. Hi Anne,

    I read over on IMDB that the script was modified after all the Internet hype : "The initial script for the film was 122 pages long when director David R. Ellis signed on to direct the film. After reworking the script along with his producing director and Samuel L. Jackson for more than four months, the script was narrowed down to 103 pages." but as for finding a copy of the script you may want to Google it or post your question over at defamer.com ?

Latest Posts

crossmenuarrow-down