After it’s second week, Snakes on a Plane has pulled in a disapointing $28 million worldwide. Some esitmates say it needs to make as much as $70 million to break even ($35 million production costs, $15 million marketing plus theater take). That’s not going to happen. So the question is… why? Why did this movie that so many thought would do well tank so baddly? If one of the options isn’t here, just mention it in the comments section.
Comment with Facebook
I thought the internet marketing was spot on but the tv marketing made it look like a serious film which probably put a lot of people off. Although how do you show its a take the piss fun film in a 30second ad?!
Considering all that’s been said, I don’t think word-of-mouth will be enough to save this movie.
Funny thing is, Sam Jackson can walk away from any bad movie still looking good.
I also think if you deliberately make a “so bad it’s good” movie it’s looses a lot of the “joke”. The reason “So bad it’s good” films work is that you can laugh at the fact the people involved where serious (to a degree at least) when they made it. What’s funny about something being bad if it was meant to be that way? A wider audience will see that as you basically saying “This film is meant to be shit” and that’s not really a great way of marketing a film.
… Sure it’s still a fun movie, but not funny in the way something Like Troll 2 etc. would be.
i really have to stop speed writing my posts..all the fucking errors I leave in!!!
sorry
totally right bullet…this was a forced cult phenomenon…..
cults have a natural life….they normally take off over a serious films which turns out so that certain people take the film to their bossom and find like minded individuals who feel the same way about that film and it grows from there. this was being forced down our throats as a cult before anyone had had a chance to see it and form a cult about it…..
it was always about the name and concept. never about the film being any good and its box office reflects that…
had the net not tkane to it the eay they had it probably would have gone straight to dvd but new line misread the internet buzz….the film was being laughed at not with….
Thanks for the clarification on the budget John. Still, I think the DVD release will allow the movie to profit, but certainly nothing like I’m sure they were hoping for.
I think marketing something as being “so bad it’s good” and a “cult Classic” is a really bad idea. Sure that might seem a good idea for the few internet geeks (I know it’s a lot more than a few but its nothing compared to the wider audience) that “get it”, but to your average viewer that’s not a reason to fork out theatre prices to see a movie. Also films that are “Cult Classics” and “so bad its good” usually where not meant to be that way it’s something the audience later formed as an opinion. The fact is most filmmakers where trying to make a good film or one that would appeal it just so happens they failed in some way and though rejected by a wider audience the films later gained a wider following. Many cult films do make their money back but it can takes years as the fanbase grows. I expect big trouble in little China for example may well now be in the black in terms of earnings, but when it was released it failed at the box office. John Carpenter and the studio where not trying to make a “cult classic”, they wanted to make money it just so happens for what ever reason it did not make money, but as time has gone by people have realized it a really fun movie. Snakes on a plane may well make its money back one day, but it will not be the instant earnings the studio wanted.
They should have shown it to critics because even if all the reviews where bad with a film of this nature they could have spun that into the marketing.
I also think they spent way too much money for a film of this nature; it should have been done for 5 to 10 million. Instead of throwing away money on CGI they should have used cheaper practical effects which fans of this stuff would have enjoyed more and just kept the CGI for the really difficult stuff.
I’m not entirely sure it has failed outright yet. Sure it’s dead in the cnema, but films such as The Transporter and Donnie Darko were saved by DVD sales and that’s where I think SoaP will and always was going to do well.
The concept is too weird or bizarre!
Also it sound like a film from the 50’s like
Phantom From Space (1953)or Attack of Giant Leeches(1959)
Well, maybe I’m in the minority here, but my opinion as to why this movie tanked is the following:
1) Sam Jackson – great actor, in an ensemble, and not necessarily as the leading man. Lawrence Fishburne would be a better pick.
2) The concept of the movie – Tell me, in the age of terrorism and fears of flying, WHY would anyone want to think about a snake being on a plane? Insanity!
3) The idea that snakes can be killers – WTF is that? Snakes can be dangerous, and many are poisonous, but to throw them on a plane, and somehow have them released (I know nothing of the film, and no idea how they get on or released into the cabin) and wreak havoc on a plane, doesn’t sound like an appealable movie/story. There’s no thrill factor. “Woo hoo! There’s snakes on this plane and they’re gonna kill everyone/everything! GREAAAAT! (SARCASM up the wazzoo).
4) Sam Jackson’s guarrantee! Dude comes on to some award show earlier this month (or something) and instead of just promoting the movie, goes on to say he’s going to guarrantee it kicks some box-office ass? I don’t know. To me, if someone is that cocky, many North Americans hate that attitude and want to see them fail. We love the underdog, and will support it, but most hate the EGO.
5) It doesn’t appeal to everyone. I have no idea what demographic it’s after, but most thriller/horror movies tend to go after the teen market, and wasn’t this movie rated R? There goes that market.
That’s it for now. Just an opinion.
Alfie is spot on.
it failed because it is a stupid b movie with a silly title.
I think people are forgetting that all the hype started around the fact that the film sounded so stupid.It wasn;t that the film sounded awesome – it was all based on how fucking dumb this film sounded.
All the joking and laughter wasn’t that this film as going to be any good it was about the fact that a studio was making a film which such a ridiculous name.
I knew this would fail to fire at the box office.
and if new line have spent 50+ mill on this they will need to make more than 70 mill to break even.
it didn’t apeal. I talk to my friends about they say that is the stupidest thing ever. My friends Sean and Ryan are basically the only people who thought it be cool
http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/2006_thb/060821_mon.html
Here is a good analysis.
i think it failed because it wasn’t released to the critics.
people immediately took that as a negative about it, and deemed it must be bad sicne there was no critical previews. And can you blame them? everything else has basically been crap when not released to critics, Zoom, Pulse etc. there are exceptions like Underworld: Evolution that was better then i thought it would be, and im one fo the few who enjoyed Silent Hill.
Still, the bulk of movies that skip the critics are almost always brutal and people are beginning to notice. Between that, and most people just dont like snakes or weren’t interested in the concept.
I was all hyped to see this movie back in the winter/spring whenever the hype machine first started kicking in and then back like a month ago i just kind of got sick of hearing about it. For me it was just too much advertising i saw the commercials on the tv everytime i turned it on and the trailers before every movie i saw and i just kind of got sick of it and i wound up not even seeing it. Had the movie come out in the spring or earlier in the summer i definetly would of went to see it.
I think people just didn’t like it because of the title. Nothing more. I had some friends I told about the movie that were actually surprised that it had a plot. They thought the movie would simply be snakes on a plane, and nothing else. I guess like a documentary or something, I don’t know. People are dumb. Personally I LOVED the movie, I thought it was awesome. I will be buying the DVD as soon as I can. I’m trying to get everyone I know to see it in theaters. Hey, well at least now I can watch it again for 50 cents at the cheap theater, where it will probably be next week. Good. Then I will watch it 82381381208938129 times there.
I really think that they hit the right key with the marketing. The marketed it as a sort of joke. The trick they missed is they started the campaign to early. Aside from the internet I didn’t see any interviews etc on tv, this is fatal. They did the right thing by selling there movie as a kind of joke, but what they should of done is gone. ok its a movie about snakes on a plane…… but its a movie you have to go watch it. When i first heard the title I laughed, then the joke wore away, quickly.
Brian :)
Hey Xen, that’s a totally fair question… I should have been more specific:
$35 million production… $15 million ads… and the theaters will probably keep about $15-$20 million. So the studios need the film to box office about $70 million for them to break even. Did that make more sense?
Sorry for any confusion. My bad.
~John
“Some esitmates say it needs to make as much as $70 million to break even ($35 million production costs, $15 million marketing plus theater take). ”
Um… What’s with the math here? According to those numbers, it would take just $50 million to break even. It’ll probably end in theatres with between $40 and $45 million. It’s a disapointment considering the hype, but I don’t think it’ll be a failure in the long run. By the time the DVD has run it’s course, the movie will have made money.
Still, the question at hand still applies–why the dissapointment? I’m placing my bet on a lack of non-internet advertising. Many of my friends had never heard of the movie before when I commented on it. Then they refused to go see it simply because of the title. Excellent internet advertising, but that’s not what really matters.
Well if you put the real buzz before it was released. The way I remember it anyway. Was that the movie had to to be laughbly BAD. there’s rarely a time when you can look at any film that can overcome that stigma. What surprizes me is the thought that SOMEHOW this was going to be a good movie. No one is ever fooled into these kinds of things. Give the Domestic Audience credit for once here. THEY didn’t fall for the LAME ASS HYPE of this movie. It maybe a fun film to some. But by in large, this movie really can’t appeal to more then those fans that love the concept enough to lay down there 9 bucks.. And there’s another one. Who wants to risk 9 bucks to see ANYTING called Snakes on a Plane. small kids and very few adults MAYBE. there was nothing close to a target audience LOGICLY. They took a risk. They know they took a risk as movie makers. and now they are paying for it. but something tells me that the DVD release will cover there asses. My 3 cents.
I guess it’s a mix of more than one of the reasons given here. It didn’t seem to interest people outside of the circle making up the Web frenzy following. Be it for a lack of non-Web marketing or plainly because the general population has a different segmentation than the one made up by people who would participate on the frenzy being built on the Web for this. Oh, and looking like a bad movie (without entering in the subject whether it is good or not) may have turned a few people off, or at least made them wait for the DVD release.
Ha Ha Ha- Neil is The Man.
if you advertise to the internet movie person. sad but true but there probably gonna just download it. unlike the people who visit here ofcourse.
It was probably a combination of several things. At base level, it didn’t appeal to people. The general movie-going audience is somewhere in between being dumb enough to like Snakes on a Plane because it’s a good movie, or loose enough to like Snakes on a Plane because it’s a bad movie. They’re the guys who think Snakes on a Plane sucks because it’s called Snakes on a Plane and is about snakes on a plane. They’re not in on the joke, and I don’t blame them.
This is where the problem becomes marketing. This movie was marketed for people already in on the joke, not to bring more people in on it. Not releasing it to critics was, in hindsight, probably a bad decision because a good few of the reviews that were produced by critics independantly actually gives SoaP the benefit of the doub and give out positive reviews, thereby alerting more people to the joke.
I feel it is a combination of both not screening for critics and not enough marketing outside of the internet. But I tend to lean toward the critics ‘choice’ because I feel that if they were willing to adhere to a small section of the Internet, then they should have been open to test screenings and/or film festivals.
I look at films like ‘Blair Witch Project’, “Open Water’, and other films that got internet buzz around them. Those films also built audiences while playing film festivals. While I’m not the biggest advocate of test screenings…Snakes On A Plane is one film, hands down, that should have had one.
Yeah, I’d say interest in this movie peaked about a couple of months before it was released. All the web-parodies and such just got really tired after a while…
Hey Miles…
Yeah.. I tend to agree with you.
they had to much internet marketing to soon and not enough non-internet marketing…i think the real trick is that the buildup was to long though.