Talk:Snakes on a Plane/Archive 4

message: 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)
thread_title:  Full quote? 

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

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: [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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good solution! MFNickster 03:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  internet [sic] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The added footage 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Internet content = strange 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Enough is enough" image 

message: 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)
thread_title: Trivia section

message: 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)
thread_title: Hmmm

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV VS POV Issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: That's not for us to know. Crimson-Radar 19:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  No, but it would at least keep the article somewhat cleaner in terms of language. Crimson-Radar 16:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For whose benefit? MFNickster 17:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do you want to "keep the article somewhat cleaner in terms of language."?BabuBhatt 17:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Image profanity

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Benjamin McKenzie 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Remake? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Infobox

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External links : too many 

message: 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. .  Robin Nalepa of The State (South Carolina) reported that fans brought rubber snakes with them and sporatically screamed "Snaaaakes!" throughout the screening .  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.   .  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" .
*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" .  Meanwhile, Mike Russell of The Oregonian suggested that the cheering fans were possibly "drunk" . 
Zagalejo 04:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call and Response/Audience Participation/Callbacks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Potential spoiler in the contents? (spoilers below) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Movie reviews 

message: Shouldn't these be in alphabetical order?--HamedogTalk|@ 02:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hamster on a plane!!! 

message: 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.  
* 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. 
* According to the sockpuppeteer, "I don't mind using the word famous as long as a proper context  is included for it".
* Hiding behind a dynamic IP address is easy. Hiding a static, censured    ,  and unsourced POV is not.
chocolateboy 23:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Talk:Snakes_on_a_Plane/Archive3#Famous_line|Famous Catch Phrase]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wan'na work this out? 

message: Seriously?! 4.89.247.164 19:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This article is a frequent source of heated debate." ???