Talk:Snakes on a Plane/Archive 4

Snakes In A movie Theatre

Should We add this[1] in here its pretty relavent i mean snakes in a movie theatre while snakes on a plane is playing?

Full quote?

Does anyone have the full quote for the most famous line in the movie? "Enough is enough! I've had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane! ..." I forget what comes after the most famous part of it. I remember it has something to do with making sure everybody holds on because they're about to open some windows...

The full quote is "Enough is enough! I have had it with these mtoherfuckin' snakes on this motherfuckin' plane! Everybody strap in! I'm about to open some fuckin' windows." Here's a video for proof. --Norar 09:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

I'm unprotecting this page to give it another chance, if it gets crazy, protection may come (from any admin). Also, we need to keep cool heads. Let's hope we all can work well together. Yanksox 03:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• I archived the page again. Let's have a fresh start. Lovelac7 05:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what they said about Germany after World War I? --Krusty Surfer Dude 02:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think this page should be protected again. Unless every instance of "Snakes on a Plane" in the article is SUPPOSED to be "Sharks in a Car". –Hitokui 22:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

internet [sic]

"most internet-hyped [sic]" is a grossly unnecessary use of [sic]. Let's try to keep this out of the article. Both lowercase and uppercase spellings for internet are now widely accepted. The entire "spellings" section of the OED entry for "Internet, n." is "Also with lower-case initial." A google search for other articles on Wikipedia using "internet [sic]" turns up just one example — you can guess whose quote it is — and it's not someone trying to push an Internet/internet spelling POV. —ptk✰fgs 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's needed for exactly the reason that some people will change it, unless the [sic] warns them that it is quoted correctly. It doesn't matter whether the original quote capitalized "Internet" or not, this is exactly the kind of circumstance where [sic] is appropriate. MFNickster 14:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It hardly mattters how the word was capitalised in the original text - that isn't the point of the quotation. I feel that [sic] is useless here. What does it matter to you if anyone corrects the capitalisation? AlexTiefling 15:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The presence of [sic] in the quote will not stop people from changing the capitalization of the word, it will only make them wonder why [sic] is there since both versions are commonly used and, for the average person, they won't notice the difference. --Bobblehead 15:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If they are confused, then they can click on the link to the Sic article and be enlightened! MFNickster 15:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[sic] is used to warn a reader that quote is verbatim, despite the presence of a spelling or usage that is not accepted. "internet" is an accepted spelling. —ptk✰fgs 15:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The fact that people have 'corrected' the spelling (and will continue to) is because it is a controversial capitalization and perceived by some to be incorrect, whether it's commonly accepted or not. I don't really mind people changing it, but it would be nice to avoid unnecessary edits and reverts. The quote should be maintained verbatim, with the lower-case 'i'. MFNickster 15:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the sic should be left out, as it is now, but I'm adding a comment in the page source to alert future editors that the original quote is with a lowercase 'i'. Schi 16:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Good solution! MFNickster 03:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The added footage

The article makes numerous references to the reshooting, but doesn't specify what scenes were added. I have not found out anywhere any information about this. Does anyone know and should it be added?

We'd have to find a reliable source that cited which scenes were reshot. The only 'scene' that I've seen clearly identified as a reshoot is the "I'm tired of these .... snakes on this .... plane". However, I've also heard that they added additional sex scenes and violence to the movie because pre-hype it was PG-13 and part of the hype was wondering why it wasn't R. Also I'd imagine there was some comments about which characters would be joining the "Mile High Club".--Bobblehead 16:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Internet content = strange

I removed/deleted the following

<block> The phrase "Snakes on a Plane" has been used as Internet slang to indicate that a given topic is nonsensical . With creative uses of capital letters, bold or italic text, and punctuation the title has been manipulated to reflect surprise, horror, or absurdity, among other things. The meme is often interspersed with images of Samuel L. Jackson reprising his role as Mace Windu and quoting lines recalling his roles from both the Star Wars series and Pulp Fiction. The slang form "SoaP" is used in place of "Shit happens" or "Oh well, what'cha gonna do?" </block>

Do others agree w/ my decision? I double checked the sources. The faux source is an internet page which allows the user to create their own definition. By that logic I could create a definition at the webpage www.urbandictionary.com, then return to wiki and cite myself as a source. Forums are not allowed as far as I know. Correct? I do not believe in the authencity of this contribution. Sounds made up. Jessicarowls 18:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Lovelac7 20:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That "Snakes on a Plane" is used as a phrase similar to "shit happens" has actually been documented in Esquire Magazine (though chances are, he pulled it from Wikipedia while doing research; nevertheless, it's documented AND used is such a context now). —Ragdoll 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thx for point this out. Read the article. Concur. Still troubled by poor wording of section. Wanna give it a shot? Concise rewording would be acceptable. Jessicarowls 23:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Enough is enough" image

I found that I had the August 15th episode of The Daily Show on my PVR. I captured, cropped, and retouched a new version of the image. It appears to be of the exact same frame. I had to paint out the TV14 and CC logos, but I think it's a definite improvement. —ptk✰fgs 19:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Looks good. Lovelac7 20:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

Wikipedia:Trivia and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles say that we should generally avoid Trivia sections. Though this isn't an official Wikipedia policy, I think it makes sense to incorporate the trivia into other sections of the article. This is more manageable than an indiscriminate list of information. So ask the other editors, if you see a piece of trivia that could be incorporated into another paragraph, do so. I'll try as well. Lovelac7 20:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Snakes

Should a list of the snakes in movie be included in the article? I jokingly suggested it as a section called "Snakes on the Plane" a while back, but it seems like something the article would benifit from, heck, would be required. I just have no idea how to go about it. JQF 21:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems a bit unneccessary; I doubt most people would care in the slightest. Additionally, I'm pretty sure the large snake with long pointy teeth that swallows people whole doesn't exist. —Ragdoll 22:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Every snake in the film is a real species of snake. The one you're talking about is a Burmese python (which it says in the synopsis). I don't think they would bother to make up a species of snake, especially if they wanted to treat the movie as a possible senario. If people don't think it belongs on the page, it could be put on its on page called something like List of Snakes in "Snakes on a Plane" or something. JQF 23:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree all snakes in film are real. However a bestiary seems unneeded for this B-movie. Already, article too cluttered. Suggestion: Wikilink snakes with hyperlinks to wikipages about actual snakes as the appear in the article to real-life snakes in wikipedia. Perhaps working the names of snakes into the article when needed and then using hyperlinks to wikipages about snakes will fix the problem. The article really doesn't require an entire section. Snakes in this movie are movie monsters. Not a documentary about snakes.Jessicarowls 00:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a published source that lists the snakes depicted in the movie? If not, there's nothing to discuss. —ptk✰fgs 00:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A few of them are mentioned here. I don't think this is all of them, though. Zagalejo 00:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a great article, and I think it covers the most notable snakes from the film. —ptk✰fgs 01:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind a list of snakes as long as we can include a list of the badgers and mushrooms as well. We must be fair, after all! --Krusty Surfer Dude 02:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There is actually a list of snakes in the "Snakes on a Plane" quotebook, although I have not yet obtained a copy. That being said, a list might not be necessary to the article.

I've added a bit on the snakes from the National Geographic article into the trivia section. This might be more appropriate in a section on production, but that doesn't exist yet. Schi 16:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

I thought people working on this article might enjoy this (or you may not) Maddocks: Homeland Security bans Samuel L. Jackson from all flights Mad Jack 06:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Rated R

Isn't that usually a major reason for box office "flops" (SoaP didn't flop, just underachieved) and something producers want to avoid?

From MPAA film rating system article:
On the other hand, the R rating also has a negative effect on the box office performance, due to common social and cultural controversies. In fact, most R rated films released in the 1990s generated a box office revenue of less than $100 million.

NPOV VS POV Issues

This article is shaping up nicely! Although, Concerned w/ POV material slithering (pun) its way into article.

Editors claim Jackson dialogue is famous. Inconsistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Quoting WP:NPOV

• Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results...

Insert SOAP example for purposes of illustrating my concern

• So, rather that asserting, "Samuel Jackson reciting the already-famous line," we can say, "Samuel Jackson reciting a popular oneliner with audience-goers," which is a fact verifiable by film journalists attending film screenings,

Again Quoting WP:NPOV

• In the first instance we assert an opinion;

"Samuel Jackson reciting the already-famous line,"

• In the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone.

"FBI agent Neville Flynn (Samuel Jackson) reciting oneliner from film, an audience favorite."

• It's important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name.

Addresses my primary concern. No attempt made to quantify how "famous". Too nebulous. Why I oppose original wording.

• In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation. But it's not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

Bolded section that (for me) is most important part of this dispute. Want to come half-way point with competing editors.

My boundaries:

Support mentioning the oneliner's popularity.

Oppose claims that the film's oneliner is famous as a statement of fact.

Purpose of Wikipedia is to educate the reader in a way that is the clearest, most direct wording possible. Claiming dialogue is "already-famous" assumes that mostly everyone reading article already knows what Neville Flynn is saying. Huh? Our goal as editors should be to educate readers unfamiliar with movie. I imagine that's why readers are surfing Wikipedia, to learn about more about this film. Showed article to my spouse from India. He didn't know what the caption was refering to. Basically including link/citation not sufficient. We need to explain who considers this popular, requiring an "identifiable and objectively quantifiable population". WP:NPOV

Wanna take a crack at it? More willing to accept famousness of oneliner if someone can provide NPOV revision. My good faith effort to avoid edit war. Please work with me. mkthxbyeJessicarowls 17:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Support that the line is in fact famous. Fame doesn't imply that everyone is familiar with it, but there is plenty of evidence that the line was popularized in the media well before the release of the movie. Perhaps "notorious" would be a better description, though. MFNickster 21:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Jessicarowls (talk · contribs) is yet another Guerillafilm (talk · contribs) meat/sockpuppet. [2] And this has been discussed to bits. The four cited references don't say "popular". They say "already-famous". Change the wording when five reliable sources refute this.

1. "I don't mind using the word famous as long as a proper context is included for it" Guerillafilm (talk · contribs)
2. "describing it as a "famous" line is reasonable and supported by numerous sources." Ptkfgs
3. "Support that the line is in fact famous." MFNickster
4. "The caption's fine." chocolateboy
5. Finally getting to hear him utter the already-famous line... - MTV Movies
6. Jackson himself shows up to bellow his already-famous line... - Entertainment Weekly
7. And, of course, Jackson has the already famous line, "I want these motherfuckin' snakes off this motherfuckin' plane!" - The Hollywood Reporter
8. That already-famous line from the film... - Chicago Sun-Times

chocolateboy 12:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess finding five sources that don't mention the one liner should be enough as sources hardly ever refute a something that does not exist. For example, trying to find a review with the not yet famous one-liner or unknown one-liner will be nigh impossible. Regardless, I still think the one-liner in question is very significant - and famous (relatively speaking) - in regard to the film. - G3, 17:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Image profanity

I've already taken a look at Wikipedia's guidelines concerning censorship, but this article takes it to a whole new level. I don't understand why it's necessary to include profanity in the thumb for Image:Haditwiththesesnakes.JPG. While I don't really find it a problem with quotations discussing the development and/or production, is it necessary to use the same word multiple times to express a view? Perhaps it should be shortened to "FBI agent Neville Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson) reciting the film's 'already-famous' catchphrase". The quotation is already in the History section and readdressing the same point over and over is silly. Crimson-Radar 18:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that using just the quotation would be preferable to this "already famous" business. Thats how it's handled here, with an accompanying discussion in the article text. I'm not sure what you mean by this article taking something to a new level. It depends on your perspective. I'm sure a lot of folks would find this or this much more offensive. I think your claim that using the exact quote is "unneccessary" due to "profanity" is an extremely vague assertion. Where exactly is the line drawn? How are we to have an informative article about fuck without using it 50 or 60 times in the article? —ptk✰fgs 18:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Except that this isn't that article. If it's unnecessary to continue using the word to prove a point time and time again, it shouldn't be used. I think it looks fine the way it is now, after the change I made. Crimson-Radar 18:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't help wondering, if someone is interested enough in the movie to read this article, they are surely interested enough to see the movie. Don't you think viewers who are sensitive to this kind of language would avoid the movie and everything to do with it? MFNickster 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not for us to know. Crimson-Radar 19:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Then what's the fuss? Assuming people will object to the profanity is also not for us to know. MFNickster 19:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but it would at least keep the article somewhat cleaner in terms of language. Crimson-Radar 16:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

For whose benefit? MFNickster 17:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want to "keep the article somewhat cleaner in terms of language."?BabuBhatt 17:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I've already made my point. But for the record, I don't find it wise to cosistently use inappropriate language, especially when it truly isn't needed. Improving the article and removing such content would be for everybody's benefit, because, again, if it isn't needed, then it doesn't belong here. You speak as though you want to include profanity. You don't include 1000 words of profanity in a school report. That's ridiculous. The idea is similar in this situation and even though it was a quotation, which is likely to help enhance the content of the topic, it doesn't require constant usage, profanity or not. Crimson-Radar 22:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If I were writing a school report on Snakes on a Plane, I most certainly use as much profanity if not more than is currently in the article, and the title of my report would absolutely use profanity. You refer to profanity as inappropriate as if you believe it to be inappropriate in all circumstances; I disagree, and consider this article, or any other article that deals with a subject such as this one, to be an excellent example of a circumstance where profanity is appropriate. So yes, I would argue that the editors of this artice want to include profanity, because it adds to the article. --Maxamegalon2000 04:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What is inappropriate about "motherfucking snakes" or "motherfucking plane"? That's exactly how it's used in the film. —ptk✰fgs 06:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing's wrong with it. We just don't need to see it one million times. And like I said, this isn't just concerning profanity, but also the fact that we don't need to repeat the same quotation over and over. We understand; it's there, we've seen it, what's the use of seeing it again? It would be irrelevant. Therefore, if it's not needed in some areas, it should be removed. That's what I'm getting at. If profanity is not required, then it doesn't need to be here. Of course the quotation is an exception; but repetition is silly. Crimson-Radar 21:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So now you're going to pretend that you really only want to limit redudancy, when you've already expressed a desire to "clean up" the article? MFNickster 20:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Quotes

User:Snakesonaskateboard has been removing a lot of quotes that have been with the article for a long time. I don't think they are vandalism, he just wants to remove them. I would revert them, but after watching the recent reverting war, I don't know how to mess with it. Should they be included back in the article? I just don't think he should be removing all of these quotes without discussing it first. --Nehrams2020 06:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless they are duplicates, or are of little value, I'd say put them back in. —ptk✰fgs 06:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not leave the quotes out and provide a link to wikiquote:Snakes on a Plane in the see also section. --Bobblehead 19:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin McKenzie

What was the deal with him supposedly being in this movie? Our theater hands out little pamplhets detailing who is in the movie, etc. and Benjamin McKenzie was listed. I remember him being on the cast list on IMDb and on here. Was that just a rumour that got out of control? I mean he obviously wasn't in the actual film, but I'm just curious. Morhange 17:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked about this above, twice, and got no answer. It's one of two things - 1. just a rumor or 2. he was actually offered/cast (maybe offered is more likely?) but bowed out/was replaced by Nathan Phillips. A person being listed on the IMDB is obviously not a reliable indication that they are actually in a movie, though. For all we know, if it was just a rumor, they were the ones who started it. Mad Jack 22:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Remake?

I was told that this movie is a remake of an earlier film (probably not by the same title) but I don't really believe it- and I can't find anything on it. Can anyone confirm/deny? 72.49.248.114 20:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)dethtoll

There is a really bad movie called Tail Sting where a crate of scorpions gets loose on an airliner that went straight to video a few years ago. SciFi channel showed it the week SoaP came out. From what I heard it was really bad and not worth watching. Cyberia23 20:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am relatively new to Wikipedia so I have chosen to not delete these two entries. However, there was a warning at the top of the page that this discussion forum is only to be used to discuss the article itself, not the content of the film. Although discussing the topic of a remake is not necessarily content, I believe it is still a violation of the spirit of the above warning. Perhaps this discussion would be better suited for another site. Like I said, I am new to this site, so for now I will leave it to the judgement of someone more experienced. Phantasos 09:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the original poster was only looking for confirmation of a rumor - not asking for information (besides the name of) or a review of either film. The warning was created to stop users from discussing favorite scenes and so forth on this page. As the original poster, if asking at all for a description of content, wasn't asking for a description of Snakes on a Plane, but merely for information about the existence of a similar film, I don't believe it applies. A warning that stated not to use the page except to specifically discuss the article may have constituted deleting these entries. -- Viewdrix 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox for this film is very long, mostly due to every single producer being listed. I think only the main producers should be in the infobox, and the executives and associates (unless very notable, eg. it was also the star of the film) should be left for the IMDb links. There are only three producers for this film, and well over ten associate and executives..I just dont see it practical to list them all...Soapyrules 10:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Is four items of Trivia really too much? WilyD 13:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• No. Yanksox 00:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Mo' and Muthafuckin'

Are these deviations from "more" and "motherfucking" really necessary as they appear in the quotes in this article? Wikipedia articles don't make a point of writing quotes phonetically unless it is important to the topic at hand, as the cause of a misunderstanding for example. Here it just seems pointless, how is it any different than the old habit of spelling "going" as "g'wan" when black people said it?

• I feel that regarding the Samuel L. Jackson quotes, it should be phonetic, as the addition of the line to the movie was intentionally parodying his usual "crude hard ass" hero characters. In both the film and the MTV awards, he could have pronounced it properly, but the way he spoke was an intentional part of his character and his act (at the awards). I'm reverting to "Mo'" and "Muthafuckin'" as that was the status quo before an IP addressed user changed it. Discuss. -Mike Tigas 06:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, note that this has already been reverted once before myself. [3] -Mike Tigas 06:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

How could Samuel L. Jackson have pronounced it "properly"? It is totally proper pronounciation in his idiolect, and it's probably proper pronunciation for a lot of people who don't speak Standard American English. I think it should be changed back to "more" and "motherfucking", unless people want to start littering Wikipedia with their "phonetic" interpretations of anything in a non-standard dialect. Unless someone wants to make a phonological point (that's not original research) in which case using the IPA seems more appropriate. Schi 16:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that Samuel L. Jackson is unable to normally pronounce words in Standard American English? He is an actor, you realize. --Bobak 16:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying he's unable to pronounce words in Standard American English. I object to the implication that Standard American English pronunciation is "proper" pronunication. Schi 17:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, everyone should be using the Queen's English! 80.176.4.125 12:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what phonemes he actually uttered or what phonemes he can utter. The point is that most of quotes on Wikipedia don't reflect the phonetic spelling of what was quoted, so why should this one? Now if someone could produce a copy of the screenplay and show where they specifically wrote "mo'" and "muthafuckin'" then I'll be satisfied, but otherwise I think this should be "more" and "motherfucking."

The words should be more and motherfucking, as that is the actual words that he said; quotations do not bring dialect into account except in the case of artistic interpretation, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. —Ragdoll 15:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What’s wrong with mothafuckin’? —Wiki Wikardo 02:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Product placement

Do we really need a section on what products were placed in this movie? Do we? Metros232 15:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As the article grows, I anticipate this section will be the first casualty, as it's largely irrelevant to the film itself. There's far more interesting and worthy information on the film than this, in my opinion. --Oscarthecat 21:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

YES. I came here earlier to create such a section myself. Product placement is a huge part of the movie and hugely relevant. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see how it is at all relevant. My vote is to remove this section. —Ragdoll 15:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the blatancy of the product placement was a deliberate element of humor in the movie. Wouldn't that make it relevant?

Why do you thing that the product placement was meant to be humorous? The movie's not a comedy. --Maxamegalon2000 22:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Pretty sure" is not a fact. Find the source that says the advertising is a joke. —Ragdoll 23:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not it was intended to be a joke. The product placement might be notable, regardless of the humor factor. I just did a quick Google News search and I think there are some mentions: [4] Schi 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It might be notable enough to mention, but I still don't agree that every single occurance of product placement needs to be in an encyclopedia. The product placement might be notable. The products themselves are definitely not. —Ragdoll 16:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

External links : too many

From WP:EL adding a small number of relevant external links can be a valuable service to our readers. The page now has about 16 in the external links section alone. I believe their is some scope for consolidating this into a core set of a few links. Perhaps the section should just point at a SOAP dmoz directory? --Oscarthecat 18:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that's a good idea. Sixteen is an overwhelming number, and most could be used as references for the article's material anyway. Crimson-Radar 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Call and Response/Audience Participation/Callbacks

The link to Call and response leads to something primarily about African tribal music which is totally irrelevant to the concept of theatre audience participation.

I was going to fix this, except that 'Audience participation' just redirects to 'Audience' which is a stub.

Worse, while 'Audience' briefly touches on the idea of Audience Participation, it refers to the Rocky Horror Picture Show and references Callback (comedy) which described somehting other than what is referred to by RHPS callbacks.

This means that this whole section of information is pretty mangled and I don't have the time to fix it, but if someone else does they should probably look at this and provide some sort of informational article dealing specifically with Audience Participation, Callbacks, and the like so that this, RHPS, and so on can actually properly point at something relevant.

Right now it's just a mothafuckin' mess on a mothafuckin' wiki.

I suggested this earlier, but it kinda got lost in the shuffle. Do people think this might be usable?

• Different critics described different forms of fan participation. MTV's Kurt Loder said he overheard "scattered effusions of 'Sssss...'" when he saw the film in New York. [5]. Robin Nalepa of The State (South Carolina) reported that fans brought rubber snakes with them and sporatically screamed "Snaaaakes!" throughout the screening [6]. And LA Weekly's Scott Foundas mentioned that several viewers wore fake afros and black suits, which he surmised to be a homage to Jackson's Pulp Fiction character Jules Winfield. [7]. Many reviews also mentioned the enthusiastic response to Jackson's much-anticipated "muthafuckin' snakes" line; Mark Rahner of the Seattle Times wrote, "The late-night audience I was in reacted like it was like the Beatles in Shea Stadium" [8].
• 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" [9]. Meanwhile, Mike Russell of The Oregonian suggested that the cheering fans were possibly "drunk" [10].

Zagalejo 04:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Potential spoiler in the contents? (spoilers below)

One of the sections in the contents is called "Survivors of Flight 121". Isn't this a spoiler because it pretty much says that there are characters that survive? I would shift the spoiler warning before the Contents, but I thought it'd be better to get the opinion of others before I do. --Norar 10:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. The implications are pretty obvious. Anakalypsis 02:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Does there even really need to be a section about the survivors in the first place? --Norar 09:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Movie reviews

I replaced the three movie review links with a link to MRQE, the IMDB of movie reviews. I'm not sure why this is not used more often on Wikipedia it is a fantastic source. The only possible complaint is that it puts all the eggs in one basket if MRQE ever went away there would be no review (unlikely, it's been around a long time, at least as long as IMDB). There also may be a couple reviews that stand apart as being exemplary in writing style or length and are often cited that need to be highlighted. -- Stbalbach 00:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ratings

Shouldn't these be in alphabetical order?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 02:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hamster on a plane!!!

Was this recent news story a hoax, based on the popularity of the film? A Google search gives tonnes of results... Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 19:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Famous Catch Phrase

User:Guerillafilm continues to wage POV wars in this article despite being banned for sockpuppetry:

• The consensus on this page is that referring to the film's catch phrase as "famous" or "already famous" is NPOV given the four references from reliable sources.
• Removing either of these terms renders the references meaningless, a manifest violation of the supposed "clean up" under which these POV crusades are waged. [11] [12]
• An unadorned quotation is not a caption. According to Wikipedia:Captions, a caption is meant to add context and depth to a picture, and should be written in clear discursive sentences. A quote with a bunch of orphaned references tagged on to the end serves to obfuscate rather than elucidate the picture.
• The dismembered caption appears before the phrase is referenced in the article, which sheds even more dark on the matter.
• Guerillafilm's sockpuppets continue to ignore one of the central tenets of Wikipedia: Cite sources. No sources have been cited to counter the four references.
• In the course of these "clean ups", Guerillafilm continues to insinuate other strident POVs: e.g. "Internet phenomenon" becomes "Internet hype"; "Taking advantage of the Internet buzz" becomes "Exploiting the Internet buzz" &c. [13]
• According to the sockpuppeteer, "I don't mind using the word famous as long as a proper context [14][15][16][17] is included for it".
• Hiding behind a dynamic IP address is easy. Hiding a static, censured [18] [19] [20] [21], and unsourced POV is not.

chocolateboy 23:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OMG Mate, none of these instances of sockpuppetry ever engaged in the deletion or modification of he "already famous" dialogue within this article. Listing a thousand sockpuppets, unrelated as they are to our dispute, still doesn't make me one 'mate'. LOL Nice try though & I will give you points for 'effort.':P71.208.89.57 01:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Enough is Enough. I've had it with your personal attacks against moi on this article. ;)

Enough of this rubbish mate. I'm no'one's sockpuppet & unaware of your dispute with editor Guerilafilms. We have never met mister & I prefer "civility" in these exchanges, inviting you to work with me to better the SoaP article. Knee-jerks attacks on my person are no brainer violations against long-established wikipedia guidelines of good faith and civility. WP:FAITH WP:CIV

Perhaps a reminder is in order:

WP:CIV Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:

   * Rudeness (Your incendiary & persistent sarcasm).
   * Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("Calling me a sockpuppet")
   * Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice (Assuming anyone who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet)
   * Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (Calling me a sockpuppet based  upon one or two edits from my IP)
   * Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..." ("If you have an objection to being called out on your sockpuppetry" Chocolateboy)
   * Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.(Mister you're making it clear with your behavior that you haven't the slighest desire to resolve this dispute peacefully).

More serious examples include:

   * Defacing user pages (Your knee-jerk use of banners. Why not 'ask me' first before vandalizing my userpage?)
   * Giving users derogatory names via Pagemove trolling (Unfairly labeling moi a "sockpuppet")
   * Calling for bans or blocks (Threatening to ban me by pointing to other users who have been banned, tsk, tsk.)

Wan'na work this out?

Maybe there're sockpuppets you've dealt with previously, however, that is not my concern here 'bloke'.

Indeed you speak the truth that a caption is no place to explain a bold opinionated assertion about a polarizing cinematic experience. Hence forth, the source of my dispute. Your assertion doesn't belongs inside a caption. Why not move it to somewhere 'else' in the article so you can quote the proper publications correctly? Cramming your opinionated assertion into a caption is a deceptive way to pass an opinion off as fact & I could not find any sources currently or recently claiming the noteriety of this bit of dialogue, hence my use of the words 'hype.' A "famous" movie would be discussed repeatedly in past, 'present' and future, don'cha think mate? This is not the case which is why I don't personally any of this. However, I agree the noteriety of the dialogue should be discussed in some form & you indeed listed some valid sources. Why not move the contribution to the history section in order to properly cite "famous" because the caption is no place for it.

Let's get along bloke & be good mates. Life's good mister so smile. :) Let us be friends. 71.208.89.57 01:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Rumour about Jackson's acceptance of the role

I heard a rumour that Jackson took the role in the movie thinking that "Snakes on a Plane" was a metaphor for something else, not the literal content of the film. Has anyone else heard this and are there any sources to back it up?

"This article is a frequent source of heated debate." ???

Seriously?! 4.89.247.164 19:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)