Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2006 > August > 21 > Entry
Why ‘Snakes on a Plane’ flew low
Ssssssssssssssssssssssss.
No, that’s not a mother- (shut yo mouth) snake. That’s the sound of the Snakes on a Plane juggernaut deflating after the heavily hyped flick came in somewhat lower than expected at the box office this weekend.
Granted, it came in first (depending on whom you talk to), but after months and months of buzz, it has to be a tad embarrassing that the flick ran neck and neck with Talladega Nights, which is in its third week. Oof.
Truthfully, though, I wasn’t that surprised. Yeah, I expected SoaP to come in a little higher than it did, but I think two things worked against it.
Geeks always create inflated expectations: SoaP was powered predominantly by Internet buzz, and ‘net-based geeks have a way of thinking that the world revolves around them. This reminds me of when Firefly fans made a lot of noise about how Serenity, the theatrical film of their beloved cult TV hit, was gonna be HUGE and spark a new sci-fi movie series.
Problem was, nobody except the fans cared, so the movie only made $25 million total. Same thing here, basically. SoaP devotees turned out, but most everyone else said, “Ew! Forget it!”
The snake ate its own tail: With all the blogs, parody titles, theme songs and other such hoo-hah, the movie itself became an anticlimax. It was more fun to talk about the movie than it was to actually see it. Oh sure, you’ll find folks that’ll tell you it’s the greatest movie ever, but I’d give ‘em a breathalyzer test first.
It would be unfair — and wrong — to call the movie a failure. Artistically, it’s kinda fun, as I said Friday, and commercially, it’s going to make money. SoaP only cost $33 million. Thing is, the movie isn’t good enough — or bad enough — to gross much more than that. I think those Slithering Inferno and Snakes in Space sequels will be going direct to video.
At least one good thing came out of all this: The audience at the screening Thursday ate up the trailer for Black Snake Moan, also starring Samuel L. Jackson. I don’t think any real snakes are in this movie, but it’s a film by Craig Brewer, who also made the very entertaining Hustle & Flow. If SoaP can draw people to what will probably be a bona-fide quality film, I say, go snakes!
Permalink | Comments (5) | Categories: In Area Theaters
Comments
By Allie D.
August 29, 2006 1:34 PM | Link to this
Oh man, after reading the comments, that just sends SoaP from depressing to suicidal! LOL And yeah, Eric, WB has had a horrible year… man… Well the next Batman will revive them yet again.By SRCputt
August 23, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
Are you pondering what I’m pondering? Narf!By Sir Critic
August 21, 2006 5:11 PM | Link to this
Not to mention that New Line is an arm of Warner Bros., which has had a LOUSY summer, with “Poseidon” sinking, “Superman” flying low, and “The Ant Bully” getting squashed. You have had a bad time when, relatively speaking “The Lake House” was your biggest hit. Must be something in the water at the WB. Like the “Lady in the Water.”By SRCputt
August 21, 2006 2:49 PM | Link to this
Here’s another stat to underscore the disappointment: Three years ago Freddy vs. Jason opened at $36 million dollars. Same time of year (August 15-17), same studio, and that figure is not adjusted for inflation. Ouch.By SRCputt
August 21, 2006 2:10 PM | Link to this
There have been 62 movies to open on over 3500 screens in the country. Only Herbie: Fully Loaded had a worse opening than Snakes. While that doesn’t mean the movie is a bomb, it does show New Line had over-estimated the demand, and that this number is a disappointment.