« Stoners love ‘Weeds’ ad’s giant bag of pot | Main | TBS showcases very funny commercials »
The real reason ‘Snakes on a Plane’ failed
—Posted by Catharine P. Taylor |
|
August 21, 2006 | Permalink |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c51c053ef00d8345fe68f69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The real reason ‘Snakes on a Plane’ failed:
» Tomorrow's Spin from H E S P O S . C O M
Tomorrow, my column discusses what went wrong with Snakes on a Plane. That is, we explore how the most-hyped movie of the year opened with a mere $15 million for the weekend. Catharine Taylor at Adfreak says it bombed because... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 21, 2006 2:16:38 PM
» Snakes On A Plane Fail Mainly On Their Gains? from The Future of Media
As you may know, “Snakes On A Plane,” which delivers pretty much what it promises, opened this past weekend to some mixed fanfare and slithered its way to number one at the box office. The movie became an Internet phenomenon over the past several ... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 23, 2006 4:44:20 PM
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
People measure too much the success of a movie on opening weekend box office numbers and forget that word of mouth has created a few hits too (Brokeback Mountain and My Big Fat Greek Wedding comes to mind). I saw it and I think it'll get good word of mouth. Maybe more than half of the movie's online fans will have to wait a few years until they're old enough for the R rating, so the snakes have a future.
Posted by: Anon | Aug 21, 2006 12:50:57 PM
There was too long of a gap between buzz and the release date. the movie should have been released a month ago. The hype had worn itself out.
Posted by: Pulpy | Aug 21, 2006 1:28:24 PM
I fail to see how the #1 movie on opening weekend, especially when it's supposed to be terrible, can be seen as anything but a success.
Posted by: yikes | Aug 21, 2006 2:01:45 PM
A ridiculous concept.
A ridiculous title.
No real stars except Samuel L Jackson. And the new fat black comic from SNL.
A movie that, by all rights, should've gone straight to DVD.
#1 at the box office.
And viral marketing DOESN'T work?
Posted by: Dean | Aug 21, 2006 2:30:38 PM
Plus, alot of people wait for someone to say a movie is at least somewhat good before they see it.
Nothing kills a bad product faster than good advertising.
Posted by: Dean | Aug 21, 2006 2:33:10 PM
It's supposed to be terrible but it's actually quite good. Other movies I saw this summer (Pirates, Da Vinci and Superman) weren't even half as fun as this one. I agree with the commenter who said they should have premiered it sooner.
Posted by: Sssnake | Aug 21, 2006 2:50:47 PM
It was fun to talk about, and everyone at my agency was laughing about the clever marketing, but no one actually wanted to see it.
Posted by: CorruptedJournalist | Aug 21, 2006 2:51:48 PM
Maybe the bar was set too high. Instead of hoping for a 40 opening weekend, maybe $15 mill is ok . Especially as Dean noted, is for a movie that probably would’ve already gone straight to DVD, like Redeye basically did.
But, even Redeye got 16 mill its opening weekend.
Oh well, time to get ready for the Scary Movie version coming out for xmas: Snakes on a Sequel.
Posted by: makethelogobigger | Aug 21, 2006 4:01:04 PM
we can't say for sure if the viral marketing worked or not because we don't know how much that crappy movie would have made without it. i did NOT expect it to make $15 million.
Posted by: jwh | Aug 21, 2006 5:05:15 PM
Actually, it didn't make 15 million as first reported, as some of that came from Thursday night showings - so it actually ended up with $13.85 million, good for second. But let me say, it WAS a great film (and whoever said "it's supposed to be terrible", where are you hearing this? reviews have been very positive). Everyone should see it.
Posted by: Zach | Aug 21, 2006 6:01:37 PM
I'd never seen it if it wasn't because of the marketing. So I am proof it worked. All I can say is, if you liked the title you're going to love the movie.
Posted by: Me | Aug 21, 2006 6:02:47 PM
It's supposed to be b-movie terrible, aka great.
Posted by: yikes | Aug 21, 2006 6:34:25 PM
saw the movie last night and actually it's pretty hilarious and totally worth $10 (in new york city). by far the most fun movie i've seen all year. i agree that a decent opening for a movie with no critical screenings and no stars and a minimal promotional campaign seems pretty great to me. plus, it sounds like the production was extremely troubled in the first place, which usually spells box office death. opening weekend expectations are out of hand. how much did this cheap little horror flick even cost?
Posted by: redeye | Aug 21, 2006 7:26:22 PM
I'm with yikes and Dean: I'm not sure how a born-to-be-B movie opening at #1 qualifies as a monumental failure. Plus, this puppy's set for a years-long run in the brew-and-view circuit (seen the audience participation script suggestions?) I trust the SoaP folks are responding to all ye naysayers with a resounding "Bite me."
Posted by: catsav | Aug 21, 2006 9:13:45 PM
if they were going for camp, they should have stayed clear of CGI snakes. i would've paid to see floors covered in rubber snakes, flying snakes on clearly visible wires, marionette snakes, claymation snakes, and worms pretending to be snakes. hollywood needs me. these things are intuitive for me, and i don't use capital letters, which makes me an artist.
Posted by: chad | Aug 21, 2006 10:17:33 PM
What is this movie of which you speak? Is it screening in Europe yet? Is the $15mil global box office or just that North America place? Does it cover Jackson's fee? What did it cost to make the film? Where are the TV adverts for the toys? Where is the fast-food franchise? More or less snakes than Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark?
Posted by: Sexton Lovecraft | Aug 22, 2006 3:21:55 AM
the person who reminded us that the 1st weekend is not the only one, you are absolutely right. no one was sure if it would suck or be awesome. now that some of us have seen it & told all our friends it was good (as i did), i think lots of people will go within the next month. i happen to really like snakes, but i think catharine makes a good point - a lot of people are freaked out by them, & spending 1.5 hours in a theatre with lethal, lightning-fast ones is not everyone's idea of a good time.
Posted by: Renaissance Diva | Aug 22, 2006 8:56:21 AM
I'm with Anon & Yikes on this one - the movie would have been the next Jersey Girl had the viral marketing not worked or existed. What are they comparing this to? Titanic? Of course the movie was going to suck! Everyone knew it was bad [and those that didn't probably also thought Blair Witch was a real documentary] and the fact that they went to see it anyway [evidence by #1 slot] shows it's success marketing wise.
But I do agree with Pulpy that it should have been released a month ago. Then they could have profited on the internet buzz stragglers who just realized this was going on too and perhaps it would have better longevity as a profit maker.
Posted by: Deanna | Aug 22, 2006 10:11:24 AM
I think it should be re-released in 3D at IMAX theatres. I'd plop down a good 20 bucks for that!
Posted by: Elle | Aug 22, 2006 10:48:47 AM
Let me get this straight. This movie was a cult hit before it was released and now it's a failure before it has actually failed. Is the failure at the box office necessary for it to develop into a true cult hit? This meta crap turns my brain to ravioli.
Posted by: bee cue | Aug 22, 2006 3:08:22 PM
Good point! Didn't it take years for Rocky Horror to become a box office hit? Many cult films weren't that succesful at the box office. Anyways, I think the studio did a horrible mistake by not screening the movie. People know this type of movies aren't critic's darlings, but they still read what they have to say. And surprisingly, critics weren't as tough on this movie as people expected.
Posted by: Cobra Pilot | Aug 22, 2006 3:47:14 PM
I had it with the #@$%& naysayers on the #@$%& first weekend box office gross.
Posted by: Sam the Man | Aug 22, 2006 3:54:04 PM
It's not that it's failed... it's been successful, just with a very narrow audience. This is a film for the 18-30 set, the tech-savy types who would have heard its limited marketing message. You're not gonna bring in housewives or high school students, and they may not have really reached young adults who don't frequent the internet (trust me, they're out there).
Does this make it a failure? Considering it was fairly inexpensive to shoot (few locations, some CGI) and the marketing was primarily viral, the returns are still good. Look at it instead as an exercise in Viral Marketing by which the studios can learn what works... and what doesn't. Long-term, that can be worth more than any set dollar amount.
Posted by: Shaun | Aug 22, 2006 4:25:12 PM
How did the viral hype even start for this movie? If it was hyped before it was released, who hyped it? was it synthetic buzz? I found a company at www.fmnmedia.com that does this stuff. I'm not sure if you can tell, but whatever, doing $15 mm for the first weekend is gangbusters if you ask me. The movie only cost $33 mm, and without the buzz, would have only done like $4 mm (if that) in the permiere weekend.
I gotta think that if the hype was staged, well done.
Posted by: quiz | Aug 23, 2006 12:41:40 AM
Hype wasn't staged, from what I've read. People found the name of the movie to be so ridiculous they just went off on it. Studio supposedly not that happy because they hadn't planned for the movie to be a camp classic.
Posted by: Alex Cross | Aug 23, 2006 11:50:53 PM
Why are people shocked that the movie is doing poorly in sales? Its viral popularity was spawned by a generation that was MAKING FUN of it. The whole online craziness is made up of people who think this movie is a horrible idea and is worth lampooning. It's not a generation of people excited to see a crappy movie. It's a generation that's bored and in need of something to make fun of with silly t-shirts and websites. I have a friend who made Snakes on a Plane t-shirts because he thought it was just ridiculous...but he's not going to pay to see the movie. Here's how I see it: Let's say NASA announced tickets for flights to the sun tomorrow and Sam Jackson was going - lots of people would be talking about that! But would you buy a ticket for that flight? No.
Posted by: Silly Snakes | Aug 25, 2006 2:29:57 AM
