Talk:Snakes on a Plane/Archive 2

message: I read the book, and what I wrote in as the plot was 100% legit. It was deleted because it was uncited, but there really is no way to cite a book. Should we keep the "mini-plot" that we have now, or should we put back in my full plot? --208.115.202.219 00:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly is.  My concern, however, is that there may be differences between the book and the movie.  It is impossible to know which events and what backstory has been included in the book that is not in the movie; Ms. Faust has acknowledged that such differences exist in the book and are common in novelizations.  Until the movie actually comes out, I think it is inappropriate to include any plot information beyond sourced statements that refer to the movie directly. --Maxamegalon2000 03:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of times, the novelization writers take liberties with the story, and add, expand, change, or omit details from the movie's story. I should know, I grew up reading them! We should save details from the book for a seperate Wiki page or sub-page for the Snakes on a Plane novelization. --[[User:FreakmanJ|FreakmanJ] 12:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerning the plot…

message: Samuel L. Jackson will be attending the Comic-Con convention in San Diego on July 21, 2006. He will be holding a panel alongside with the director, David R. Ellis, to discuss the movie. If anyone can go to this, more information could be contributed to the article. Here is the link to find out more information.www.comic-con.org/cci/ I wanted to go, but will unfortunately be out of town. If you go, have fun, maybe take a few pictures for this page and the Samuel L. Jackson page. --Nehrams2020 05:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it would be original research to say that I was there and that despite attempts by the people asking questions, he didn't actually answer with quotes from other movies. Regardless, the cited source, http://blogs.usatoday.com/popcandy/2006/07/cant_stop_the_s.html doesn't describe him as having done this, either. As such, I removed the line specifically mentioning that he answered with quotes. Realitycookie 10:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comic-Con

message: The third paragraph in the internet phenomenon section makes absolutely no sense.  It's all over the place.  What's being conveyed here?
Bmunden 17:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? It seems very clear to me. dposse 03:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguous Internet Paragraph

message: the creators i mean--87.196.168.188 23:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  The director, the screenwriter, the novel writer, and a couple of actors have posted at Snakes on a Blog, and the webmaster is interviewing Samuel L. Jackson at ComicCon. --Maxamegalon2000 00:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, they do. It was the internet that caused the writers to shoot more scenes, and to add the famous "Motherfucking snakes" line. dposse 03:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, the (rather lame) "All your snakes are belong to us" video linked to in the article isn't created by fans, but by marketroids at http://www.heavenspot.com/. 80.203.119.169 02:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wonder if they know about the internet subculture 

message: If you want to change the format of this article, fine. Just please do not remove large pieces of infomation without discussing it here. dposse 17:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  don't remove infomation without discussion. 

message: Hey everybody, we need some better open-source pictures for this article, especially of the merchandise. If you have any high quality GDFL/CC/PD-licensed photos, please upload them to Wikimedia Commons. — Lovelac7 21:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better pictures needed 

message: All GA articles must be stable, and since the information in this article could rapidly change, then this can't be reviewed until the film has been released. Sorry, Highway Return to Oz... 12:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: huh? dposse 21:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He means since the information in this article is not stable, it can rapidly change. Or it's not about a Pokemon. :p Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 04:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Failing 

message: :A B-horror movie, "Snakes on a Train", was released straight to DVD just a few days prior to this film's theatrical release. Despite the name, the film has no connection to this film, or its makers.
I removed this for now because I can't find anything confirming it (though I didn't search very hard). It also looks suspicious since it's in the past tense even though "a few days prior to this film's theatrical release" hasn't even arrived yet. - furrykef (Talk at me) 08:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snakes on a Train? 

message: When you click on the link for Nathan Phillips, it leads to some lawyer who died in 1976... I can't seem to find an actual Nathan Phillips page either, so should the link just be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.124.98 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 2 August 2006  (UTC)
:The Nathan Phillips (actor) link on the sidebar works. I'll fix the one in the body. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nathan Phillips? 

message: What is the source for the 'Plot' section in the article? It seems to be wrongly place, poorly edited, unencyclopedic and lacking in attribution. It doesn't even appear to be talking about the plot of the film, but of a book of the film. AlexTiefling 12:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing it.  Until the movie is actually released, none of this is verifiable.  Only cited plot points are verifiable before a movie's release. --Maxamegalon2000 13:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot section 

message: I added the information about the New Line / CafePress deal but I wanted to cite the source here. Information was taken from this page: 
www.cafepress.com/buy/snakes+on+a+plane There is a link to the rules there as well.
This move on New Line's part is another example of how they are embracing an internet/social networking/grassroots sort of campaign for the film. Allowing blanket licensing like this has never been done to my knowledge (I used to work in the industry).
Fricka 01:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully this will cause the big companies to embrace their internet fandom. It worked here! Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 20:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition to the Merchandising Section: Source citing

message: (I don't mean to take away the fun if you elect to suspend disbelief, but wikipedia is supposed to be informative.)
Like most action movies, the premise of this movie is highly implausible.  If 500 snakes were released in a plane's cargo hold, it is unlikely that a single one would encounter passengers.  Snakes are poikilothermic, and in a low temperature like a cargo hold (typically 50–70°F, or 10–21°C), will be slow or torpid and unwilling to travel.  Snakes are even shyer than usual when in unfamiliar territory, such as a strange-smelling cargo hold.  They would also find the constant vibration unnerving; although they lack external ears to hear sound, they have fully functioning internal ears and are very sensitive to conducted vibrations.  With difficult-to-climb aluminum walls and a mostly solid ceiling underneath the passenger cabin further to discourage adventurism, the snakes would simply find small enclosed spaces to hide in until the situation got better.  192.35.100.1 00:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are good facts, but I'm worried about WP:NOR - I think we have to have a reliable source say this, and then we can cite, otherwise it might get deleted. Hbdragon88 08:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if you do it's not notable. It's a fictional movie- does the article for Kangaroo Jack say it's not plausable because kangaroos lack the mental capacity to speak a complex human language, its vocal chords not physically able to create the sounds required for English and it's unlikely a kangaroo in the wild would be exposed to old school rap? --TheTruthiness 08:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My friend has a SoaP-themed MySpace page that you can get from the official SoaP MySpace page, and one of the embedded sound clips is a conversation between Samuel L. Jackson and some sort of scientist on the ground, and the scientist points out that snakes don't usually attack people, but that they must be drugged or something.  Jackson says something like "Great, snakes on crack."  So it sounds like it's accounted for, but again, until someone else points out the unlikelihood, it's original research and we shouldn't touch it. --Maxamegalon2000 15:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to confirm... The flower necklaces the passengers were wearing were drugged with a pheremone, as stated in the movie. This had the effect of making the snakes both highly energetic and highly aggressive... Hence, "Great, snakes on crack." Lankybugger 13:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Realism (submitted for possible addition)

message: what exactly does that mean? dposse 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that there is not sexuality throughout the entire film, or in several scenes. It appears that there will only be one scene of sexuality and it is with the stewardess and passenger attempting to enter the mile-high club in the plane's bathroom. When they brought the film from a PG-13 to R, the producers said they increased the sexuality and nudity, so the scene will be more graphic than before. --Nehrams2020 17:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As Saumel L. Jackson said: "So you get actual snake hits, and if you got two people who are making love in an airplane bathroom, you just don't show a snake and show them kissing and hear them screaming. You know, girl's got her tit out, let the snake hit it! That's what people are there to see." In Time Magazine, no less. --Maxamegalon2000 17:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahahahaha. Wow. Thanks. I can't wait to see Boobs on a Plane, haha. dposse 18:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I love Sammy J. for how totally blunt and out there he is. I actually wouldn't be surprised if this movie breaks some sort of box-office record the first day. Morhange 19:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I mean, I still remembered the quote from when I read it in May; it really sums up the movie's attitude.  Now that I've gotten that in, I'd like to point out that I added the notaforum tag at the top of this page because of discussions like the one I think this one is ready to turn into. --Maxamegalon2000 19:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This movie is gonna bring in a hell of alot of cash. The creators helped things by not letting critics see it in advance. dposse 19:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I was misinformed, but really it didn't matter who was in there as long as there were people to die by snakes. Heads up for anyone who hasn't seen it, there is a slight glimpse of front male nudity as well, so watch out if you don't want to see it, he'll be going to the bathroom.--Nehrams2020 08:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a scene of sexuality" 

message: C'mon, this article on the masterpiece that is Snakes on a Plane needs to be brought up to featured status. The Wookieepedian 04:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, maybe some day, but definately not the near future, bud :P Sonic3KMaster(鉄也)(talk) 09:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured? 

message: Does anyone know about his involvement in this? His name was originally linked to this film. It's clear he was supposed to be playing the character that was eventually played by Nathan Phillips, but what happened? Was he replaced? Mad Jack 06:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So no one knows? Mad Jack 07:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ben McKenzie]]

message: The review stinks. It isn't even a credible source. Someone should take it down immediately, its just fanboyism for this movie. 65.30.40.87 09:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: What is the release date for SoaP?  If it was today, what was the earliest viewing yesterday?  --myselfalso 14:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 10PM Thursday night was the earliest Mad Jack 15:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snakes Release 

message: I think this: http://weebls-stuff.com/toons/trailer/ should be mensioned in the trivia.
:I can't imagine why. --Maxamegalon2000 22:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weebl's Stuff Trailer 

message: I am posting here to ask for an explanation as to why any reference to the comedy group Zebro is being deleted? Their SoaP videos were seen at Comic-Con. When I posted about this (and cited my source) it was deleted. They are in almost every news story about the SoaP fan videos...just today they were featured on both CNN and MTV. References to Zebro's music video contest - an event that Automat Pictures, the producers of the offical DVD - are interested in covering in the DVD's extras. I understand that it may seem like spam at first glance because of the specific mention of the group, but I wanted to make sure you know that the research and facts are there to back it up. Hope to hear from you soon. And I appreciate the page besides that...it is really informative! Elishayaffe 23:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zebro's SoaP Videos 

message: at the end of the film, when the plane has landed, did anyone notice the donnie-darkoesque marking on the plane's jet engine?
ugh, that wasn't a reference to anything. Clearly, you haven't looked at many planes lately. --Almighty WALKER 03:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donnie Darko Reference??? 

message: The film may be very entertaining, but it sure ain't "high concept"! The quoted party was using the phrase sarcastically. Please remove. JDG 05:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't sarcastic. He was explicitly descreibing the genre. Maybe this is your opinion of the film, which does not belong here. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • Snakes on a Plane) 06:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. If one looks at the article High concept, one will see that "Snakes on a Plane" is the very epitome of "high concept". It doesn't mean "high" as in "high art", if that's what you were thinking. - furrykef (Talk at me) 15:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone website i've seen has described it as "Action/horror". Until that changes, "High Concept" is mearly POV and original research. It should be left out of this article. We have already said that it is believed to be a "comedy", that should be enough to tell how absurd the movie was thought to be.  dposse 05:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The usage in the article is cited, your claim of orignal research couldn't be further from the truth.  When I first saw it, my initial thought was to remove it as a joke... then I read the cite as was merely annoyed.. *then* I actually found out what high concept means, and was enlightened. The wikilink I added should help otherpeople avoid the same confusion. To achieve an ideal NPOV expression we should indicate that 'high concept' is what the director called it.. but I suspect that no one who understands the term would dispute the claim. --Gmaxwell 07:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Allmovie calls it "High Concept" too. -albrozdude 07:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well it appears "Pacific Coast Highway" and "Gmaxwell" are correct, albeit in a limited way. Probably about 60 people in Hollywood use the term and they are followed by a couple hundred industry journalists. The coining of the term back in the `70s  was almost certainly tongue-in-cheek... I like the way the article includes it now, "described by its director as "High Concept". JDG 01:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "High Concept"? No. 

message: The first sentence of the article has a grammar mistake in it! It says "Snakes on a Plane is AN high concept action/horror film", when it should be "is A high concept". Someone should fix it (i cant because i dont have an account).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.194.131 (talk • contribs) 
:It's been fixed now. Why don't you get an account? It's free. :) - furrykef (Talk at me) 15:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You get a free snake! Pacific Coast Highway (blah • Snakes on a Plane) 20:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do we have to do for a free plane? :) --Maxamegalon2000 23:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still waiting for my "on a". --Nehrams2020 03:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar mistake 

message: There's various references in the article which point directly at a URL, rather than being a pukka <ref>{{cite web .....  I'm going to start fixing them, but as there's so many, would appreciate help. --Oscarthecat 11:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The Uncyclopedia entry has been nominated for inclusion on the front page four times, and all four times mods there have removed it. I wonder if they hate black people or something? --Bub Barnett 16:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize that is a joke website, right? dposse 17:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No loss...Uncyclopedia sucks anyways. --Almighty WALKER 19:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncyclopedia hates this movie 

message: Can y'all please stop? This is quite clearly a content dispute and not a case of vandalism. I've filed a request at WP:RFPP. If this keeps up I'm probably going to have to put you both up at WP:AN3. Please try to work it out here. —ptk✰fgs 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, look up. I'm trying to solve this without the need for moderation or admin-ation.. dposse 20:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can i fix the arugued about section if i'm spending all my time trying to stop the page from going back to what it was hours ago? Damnit, I need time! this edit war isn't giving me it.  dposse 20:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War 

message: Three revert rule violation on . : 
* Previous version reverted to:  17:40, 21 August 2006
* 1st revert: 17:40, 21 August 2006
* 2nd revert: 17:51, 21 August 2006 
* 3rd revert: 18:03, 21 August 2006
* 4th revert:  20:40, 21 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* 20:18, 21 August 2006
Time report made: 20:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And edit summaries like "For the love of snakes, please look at your own fucking talk page Guerillafilm!" aren't helping Dposse's case very much. Metros232 20:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh, well at least this page is protected now. We can settle this peacefully. dposse 21:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Dposse]] reported by User:MrDarcy

message: Looking at this talk page and other actions, I have fully protected this page. Sort it out here in a civil manner. Yanksox 21:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally. Thank you. dposse 21:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm the rude one and the bully, yet you are the one who just personally attacked me.
dposse 21:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, let's just sort this one out in a contest of kind words, eh? Name calling just makes people get defensive and is a step backwards. Yanksox 21:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been trying to go foward with this article for hours. Writing a wikipedia article is like molding a block of clay. You add stuff, and take some away, but in the end you get a near perfect product. That is what i was trying to do. dposse 21:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, "Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect." (from WP:NOT). Writing a good Wikipedia article is like a room full of people molding a block of clay. You change something, and then they change something, and then someone else changes something, and sometimes you get in each other's way and have to resolve your disputes. To get a good wikipedia article, the group of people have to work together on the block of clay. --Daniel Olsen 05:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And you hold no accountability for your actions? I tried multiple times to work with you. I explained my position on your talkpage and on here and i explained how your reverting was unneccasary. You ignored all my attempts and just kept on reverting. dposse 22:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fully Protected 

message: I don't know what this edit war is about, and frankly I don't care. I'd just like to know if it is possible to semi-protect the page from only the users involved in it. I don't think it's good policy to have this page fully-protected just days after the movie came out. Lovelac7 05:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean, but even if such a thing were possible (which I don't think it is) it would simply encourage the use of anonymous IPs and sockpuppets in edit wars. As it is, we have people who don't sign their edits, alter other people's edits, misrepresent each other, and will not use their own talk pages to thrash it out. I don't really know if there's a good answer to be had. AlexTiefling 08:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure more unambiguous data will become available about the opening weekend gross pretty soon. Hopefully very soon. I think that's the only real issue at stake in the edit dispute. —ptk✰fgs 09:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection?

message: The theatre I went to in Tennessee had really tight security on opening night for SoaP. If this was happening everywhere, could this be mentioned in the article? It's odd for a movie to have cops wandering around and having everyone carded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.4.225.11 (talk • contribs) 
: If you can find media coverage for the security and cite it appropriately, then it might be worth mentioning in the article. However, I don't think this was a nationwide thing (my theater took no special measures, and this is the first I heard of such a thing). -- MisterHand 14:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, nothing of the sort happened here. —Ragdoll 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That just happens every once in a while, I don't think it's a big trend or anything notable. --Daniel Olsen 20:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tight Security?

message: It seems like Audience Participation in this movie is at a level not seen anywhere outside of a Rocky Horror Picture showing.  People yell, interact, make jokes, and there seems to be some consistent patterns emerging.  Examples (that have happened when I went to see it, and I have heard of happening at other showings around the continent as well): 
- The audience hissing during "snake-vision" scenes
- The audience slow-clapping, and yelling "Oscar!" when Juliana Margulies weeps over a dying co-worker
- The audience concurrently exclaiming "YOU PEOPLE?!" at the same time as Samuel L. Jackson says that line
- Someone in the audience exclaiming "Quiet back there" early in the movie, and someone else following along with "Yeah, I'm trying to follow the motherfucking plot!"
- etc.
:If you can find media coverage then this would be a great addition to the article. Man I need to see this movie. --Daniel Olsen 20:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think this "audience participation" thing is a bunch of hype, at least at most movie theaters. Nowhere near Rocky Horror Picture levels. It should be placed in a campy movie category (if that existed), but that's about it. Calwatch 06:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Audience Participation?

message: It is my opinion that a list of the snakes seen in the film would be a fine contribution to this article. One would probably have to be a snake expert in their own right to determine most of the species, but perhaps there is someone out there who could do that. - tankgirl23
:Hmmm, I don't see how we could write a full section on that, but I think we could put it in trivia. We'd need a snake expert to publish something on it to include it in the article however. --Daniel Olsen 20:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I'm mistaken, you'd need a reliable source on which snakes were used in the film, no? The opinion of a "snake expert" is probably original research. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That is a personal attack, and it is inappropriate. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bestiary (or a list of snakes)

message: I thought I understood how the Canadian film ratings system works so I am surprised to see that the CHVRS has already rated the film. As far as I understood, it is first rated by provincial film boards then "averaged" by the CHVRS. Now, if every provincial film board has rated the film 14A just by co-incidence, I can understand why there is already a CHVRS rating but otherwise it's too soon. NorthernThunder 00:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CHVRS rating?