Talk:Snakes on a Plane/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Early comments

any editing help, advice or sheer fallacy is greatly appreciated -author

Why would this be deleted? It's one of two possible titles for the movie in question.

topatoco.com/snakes.htm

I'm still not convinced this is a real movie, any of the linked articles could have been faked, and Snakes on a Blog points out that SNL did a sketch called Attack of the Cobras, which had the same premise. Maybe Keenan Thompson wrote the sketch and now it's just a webjoke? Can we trust anything that's already on ytmnd.com? 216.43.27.22 00:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)HurdyGertie

It is a very real movie (and the IMDb listing certainly hasn't been faked). It's on ytmnd.com and other places because, like the article says, "Snakes on a Plane" has become an internet meme. Really, it's Snakes, on a motherfuckin' Plane. - DoubleCross 14:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ SNAKES ON A MOTHERFUCKING TALK PAGE!

This movie is going to be a blockbuster. Lapinmies 10:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Remake?

Since there have been american remakes of Japanese movies (The Ring,the Grudge,the upcoming Battle Royale),is it too much to expect a japanese film company to do a remake of Snakes on a Plane? Just a thought. - R.G. 14:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We can only hope. IMFromKathlene 01:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Um...

I don't think this movie got online publicity from its "fanstic title/premise" so much as its "COMPLETELY RIDICOLOUS title/premise"

Fantastic can also mean "so extreme as to challenge belief." - Tim - Jan 27, 2006 7:45 UTC

I don't think it's "ridicolus" at all, I think it is brillant literally a shining beacon not just a title but a .....dare I say a movement.

It should probably read "Fantastical" instead of "fantastic." A common error. 154.20.135.89 04:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually fantastic is correct too. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway......it was featured in Wired Magazine. So, it's real. I've added new stuff to the article. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT delete talk page comments. This is the second time I had to reinsert them. The third time I WILL report you for vandalism. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Snakes on a blog

I have added the site www.snakesonablog.com/ because it is the largest fansite devoted to the movie on the internet. The site itself is NOT a blog, it only has the word 'Blog' in its title. The site is full of various fan contributed artwork, music, and trailers. It also posts interviews with people involved from the film's production AND it is the ONLY site on the Internet that has a review of the actual script of the film. That alone seperates it from the rest of the links on the article page. Even if the original idea of the site was a blog, it has radically morphed into something much much larger.
TruthCrusader 10:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Snakes on a blog is definately a blog. It uses blog software, has a personal, and has blog-style format. Such sites are unencyclopediodic, hence why they're not allowed. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Also from the snakes on a blog website "Snakes on a Blog documents my quest to attend the Hollywood premiere of Snakes on a Plane. If I'm really lucky, this blog will do more than just document the quest, it will aid it. Read my first and second pleas.". So it's definately and admittedly a blog. No dice, violation of policy. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It would make sense to me that if NPR cites and interveiws the creator of snakesonablog.com, along with Sam Jackson, then it would be a link that would belong here.

You can refer to a Car as a boat, it still doesnt make it as such. And since no one admin can make such a profound statement as 'no dice' I will just put it up for comment. TruthCrusader 21:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, just another user. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

SWATJESTER: Just a quick question, why was the direct link to the parody/fan made video trailer removed when the direct link to the fan-made, parody audio trailer retained? Was the fact that the video trailer was hosted on SnakesOnABlog.com the deciding factor, even though the link pointed directly to the video and was otherwise unconnected to the blog important? This was the link that was removed www.snakesonablog.com/swp/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/snakes.wmv video and this link was retained: www.subatomicwarp.com/Snakes_On_A_Plane.mp3 audio. What's the difference?

There is none. It must have gotten lost in the shuffle of edits. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

# # # # # # # # # # #

Bold textI just cannot wait for this motherfucking movie! Snakes on a Plane...my new philosophy!

# # # # # # # # # # #

Pages on a Blog?

I recently discovered that there is a Wikipedia Policy for not linking to blogs.

However, my blogging software enables the use of "Pages" which are much more static than a blog post. The pages each come with a separate URL. That being said, can I not link to my "Page," which is much more like a "Fansite" (similar to Snakes on a Blog), and not to my blog itself? Honestly, I was merely trying to direct people to the special place I had set aside for this wonderful film, not trying to break any wiki rules.

Please advise.

~Greg Kendall-Ball

It's a grey area. Generally, the consensus is that personal pages and blogs are a no go. It all depends on how reliable and dependable the source is. Snakes on a Blog, whatever software they may use is quite definately a blog and as such does not qualify. The one major exception to this, (I believe, and I'm not 100% sure on this) is if the blog itself is hosting an interview or something, AND it's a majorly notable blog (i.e. the interview can be verified, so something like Daily Kos, or the like). If you'd like my opinion on whether a specific page is acceptable, put it up here on the talk page and the editors for this page will give our thoughts.

Cheers. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Snakesonablog WAS interviewed with regards to the film, that seems to count for something. And as far as personal pages go, where do you think the parody links on the article link to? Snakesonablog does not, at least in my opinion, fit the traditional mold of a 'blog' as it does NOT contain a sort of 'day to day' journal thing that most blogs do. I mean, it has links to advertising, it has the ONLY script review on the whole damn INTERNET of the film. It is more of a fan-site type of thing. And, so far, the people from the film company itself seem to be grateful for the publicity. TruthCrusader 18:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

non sequitur?

is Snakes on a Plane really a non sequitur? basically from seeing the words "Snakes on a Plane" you know exactly what the movie is about. it makes perfect sense. it is rediculous of course but it doesn't really fit the definition of non sequitur. Jedpressgrove 01:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The greatest movie ever?

I think we should just go ahead and give this whole movie the official wikipedia barnstar for "greatest movie of all time," because it clearly is going to be. Let's not kid ourselves: Snakes on a Plane will affect future generations of Americans and will help make this country great for all time.

Better than Kindergarten Cop? I think not! --ozzmosis 00:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This movie is going to end world hunger and cure all diseases. Jeff Silvers 04:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

guys, chuck norris isn't even going to be in it. so no, i'm sorry, that's not gonna happen. -Nathew 03:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely concur, this movie is going to redefine a generation. it will be the greatest movie of the decade and possibly ever made.

Let's face it, this movie has spawned a new trend in popular culture even before its release. Just think of all the quotes, movie references and puns that are gonna be brought up by this movie after 98% of the world's population watches it. This WILL be bigger than the "I'm Too Sexy For My [blank]" fad. I see big potential in this: Snakes on a Cracker, Snakes on an Animated TV series, I Can't Believe It's Not Snakes! --Wikiwow 18:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

S.O.A.P.

The title is S.O.A.P. and is staying S.O.A.P. "Confirmed by imdb" is a pretty funny idea in and of itself. This addition will have to be reverted pretty soon. - Tim - 2:13, March 3, 2006 .

How so? IMDB is considered to be a valid point of research for movie names, and they say it's S.O.A.P. What's going to have to be reverted? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I spoke with a few people who work on the film and they confirmed that the title will not be changed to S.O.A.P. or any such thing. They're sticking with Snakes on a Plane. Read my quick thoughts on the subject at the frowned upon Snakes on a Blog www.snakesonablog.com/2006/03/02/snakes-on-imdb/ here

Well we'll see for certain either way soon enough. Either way, I've got a t-shirt that says S.O.A.P. and one that says Snakes on a Plane (and about a half dozen others) so I'm good to go. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The IMDB page has been fixed. Snakes on a Plane it is. 21:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Julianna Margulies

As evidenced by the trailer, Julianna Margulies is still in the movie, and has not been cut as the article states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.250.6.106 (talk • contribs)

She's also listed at IMDB. I've excised the offending sentence. -- MisterHand 21:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to clairify

Is this a real movie or is it a parody or something? Johhny-turbo 04:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a real movie, check the IMDB link in the article. -- MisterHand 05:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- I mean is actualy ment to be a action-packed thriller or was went to make people laugh like Kung Fu Hustle or something? Johhny-turbo
  - It's a legitimate attempt at an action-thriller. Jeff Silvers 04:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As you'll see from the latest word (from legitimate sources like NPR and The Hollywood Reporter), the movie is actually being re-shot with some scenes to meet the growing fan expectations (fans, it should be added, who've never actually seen the script). They're adding lines, gore, nudity and other things people would expect from something that appears destined to be the Defining film of Our Generation (my idea, irony intended). §nakes on a Talk page, indeed... --- Bobak 17:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's an elaborate April Fool's Joke. Eleemosynary 08:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It would damage the goodwill people have towards the film to pander to the growing fanbase. By the time the film is released, that supposed “motherloving snakes” line is going to be very old. And there - you see - it can be done as a PG-13, which is the next point - almost all major studio films are PG-13 now. You can get away with almost anything apart from foul language in PG-13, and I don't think snake bites need a R rating. As for the reshoots, that's pretty standard for any film. And reshoots are not a sign of trouble - if a film sucks they simply bury it, not spend more money on it. Incidently, the script for SOAP has been in development for years - it was a hot concept in Hollywood but was postponed after 9/11 as I suspect it was not the type of film people wanted to see then.Scott197827 17:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the studios have a long way to go before “almost all” of their films are PG-13. Control 19:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

link spam

Ok, as we get more and more good links, we're having to remove the less valid ones to avoid linkcruft. Therefore, please refrain from adding parody sites and fansites to the external links. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! That section was rapidly spiraling out of control. -- MisterHand 20:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Links to Fan Sites, Blogs, and Parodies

Wikipedia recommends avoiding long lists of external links to fan sites, blogs, and parodies. The "Snakes on a Plane" internet phenomenon, however, largely relies on these sites, and even the official site features a "Fan Site of the Week." I would therefore propose that in a nice, orderly manner we construct a comprehensive list of links to all pertinent fan sites, blogs, and parodies here in the Talk section. Akieft1

www.snakesonablog.com/ Snakes on a Blog
www.planesonasnakemovie.com/ Snakes on a Plane 2: Planes on a Snake
snakesonablog.blogspot.com/ Snakes on a Blog at Blogspot.com
community.livejournal.com/snakesonablog/ Snakes on a Plane Community at LiveJournal.com
www.snakesonablog.com/swp/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/snakes.wmv Parody trailer
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnVO78iGmNs Parody teaser
www.snakesonanelevator.com Snakes on an Elevator parody film
www.myspace.com/snakesonaplanemp3 Prank calls to airlines
topatoco.com/snakes.htm Snakes Flying a Plane merchandise
themaneater.com/comicsjpg/2006-02-07/dud.jpg Snakes on a Plane comic in college newspaper
soapshowdown.ytmnd.com/ Snakes on a Plane Showdown at YTMND.com

That's fine if you want to keep them in the talk page. But they won't belong in the article itself. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What about creating a new wikipedia article detailing the parodies?

I added links to the Fan Sites of the Week in order that they appeared on the official webpage. This is such a big part of the phenomenom, it makes sense to include it on the page. 141.161.125.91 07:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

'Fan Sites of the Week' seems like a good starting point to create a short list of links, but granting full control of 'legitimacy' of fansites over to the studio producing the film is not very NPV, as the studio has a vested intrest in linking fansites which A) cast the film in a favorable light and B) don't violate any copyright law. So a listing of the 'official fansites' isn't the solution we are seeking here. Also, discusion of wikipolicy relating to not linking to blogs is somewhat misplaced given the concepts being discussed is largely memes which were developed, publisiced and maintained on blogs. (Which is not the type of content the no blog linking was designed to address) BigMacD24 65.49.176.158 09:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just had to say it ...

SNAKES! On a WIKIPEDIA! — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 20:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Lol! I want these MOTHA F**N snakes OFF MY MOTHAF**N WIKIPEDIA! ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That's IT! I have HAD IT with these mothafuckin' SNAKES on this mothafuckin' WIKI! --Nintendorulez talk 20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that that particular line is apperantly the reason the movies rating changed from pg-13 to R. The line was inserted according to internet suggestions--Zolty 21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to wikify it. ;-) — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 20:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As an interesting side note: I wasted 15 bucks at stupid Six Flags over Georgia this past weekend with my roomate winning a giant snake that I can try and hang from a model plane in my apartment.. This freaking plush snake is about 6 and a half feet long. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's all go see this movie together

Wikipedia movie party! Ya! S.O.A.P.! -58.105.128.146 23:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Snakes on a Starship

A movie poster for "Snakes on a Starship"

www.strangecandy.net/d/20060409.html

Nade-Nade Pictures presents a Emi-Chan and Xuanwu production, A Strange Candy film "Snakes on a Starship" Markaris Markario, Kayin Markario, Marissa Deckard, Hoshiko Yamano, Daisuke Dohmoto, Directed by Spike, Produced by V-Chan, Written by Evil Lord Kerisu, Stunts by Dom and Ed, Music not by Yoko Kanno

Not to piss on the fire but...

Wouldn't snakes curl up and hibernate if they were put on an airplane? I mean, airplanes are pretty cold, and snakes are cold blooded.

Just wondering.--Ollie Garkey 23:25(?), 19 April 2006 (UTC)

(I keep forgetting this signature.)--Ollie Garkey 23:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

- Template:Spoiler

These are snakes trained in assassination Pepeeg 18:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I imagine the snakes are somewhere on the plane that's heated. 141.161.125.91 14:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The pilot would need to know about the snakes so he could turn on the cargo's pressurization, this is what they do if there are dogs or cats in the belly of the plane. If there are no animals, the pressurization of the cargo hold is not turned on. Thus, the pilot would have to know there are 400 snakes in the belly of his plane, if not, the snakes would then be subject to the change in pressure at higher altitudes. I'm not sure how a snake would react to that, but I think they'd probably die. If the pilot does turn on the pressure, then they could escape and be able to run slither about. Though, I'm not sure how they'd get into the cabin. I also wouldn't know a person in the world who would allow 400 snakes to be carried in his plane without perparation beforehand (meaning, not last minute). Still, this is hollywood, nothing needs to make logical sense. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There are animals on the plane. There's a cat in the trailer, and one was mentioned in a script review I read recently. --Maxamegalon2000 02:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a movie. It doesn't have to make sense. For gods' sake, it's about MOTHERFUCKING SNAKES ON A MOTHERFUCKING PLANE! --Nintendorulez talk 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

POV

I changed "There is no doubt..." to "It is widely hoped that..." ("the movie will be horrible in every way.") The article documents a serious subject, involving both people and other non-oviparous animals in a state of being threatened by snakes on a m****rf*****g plane and the NPOV policy should be strictly adhered to. I believe that anyone who seriously contemplates the exigencies of such a subject will agree. Alan Canon 03:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the statement altogether. It has no place here. -- MisterHand 04:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Snakes on a blog (revisited)

I am re-adding the external link to Snakes on a Blog. The site is the largest, best-kept, most trustworthy source of SoaP information on the Internet. Just because it is powered by blog software and has blog in the title, it does not read like the kind of blog that the Wikipedia policy prohibits linking to. 95 percent (plus) of the updates have nothing to do personally with the site's owner, and 100 percent of the updates have to do with the movie.

If it doesn't look like a blog, and doesn't read like a blog, then it isn't a blog for the purposes of link banning on WP. I know it is linked in the FOTW section, but it deserves to be atop External Links as well.

69.142.21.24 08:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Snakes on a Blog is pretty much the source for everything else listed here; every so often you just have to bite the bullet and make an exception. This is one of those cases. Kimpire 22:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not the source for everything else listed here. Snakes on a blog may have references, but I've gathered some of the information here not from snakes on a blog. That's like saying CNN is the source for every news article, because they have articles on it. Snakes on a Blog is unacceptable as an external link per wikipedia policy. It's already linked in the fansite section anyway. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Per wikipedia policy" says absolutely nothing unless you cite said policy at least with a page, preferably with a quote. Care to do so?--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 04:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

A grand total of two seconds of searching came up with WP:EL. Links to avoid, section 10. A deeper 5 seconds of searching came up with WP:RS

"The policy page that governs the use of sources is Wikipedia:Verifiability. About self-published sources, which includes books published by vanity presses, and personal websites, it says: "Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications."

and "Personal websites as primary sources

A personal website (either operated by one individual or a group of individuals) or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source."

and Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information on another person or topic. .

An incredible 10 second search came up with WP:V stating "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources."

Because what is wikipedia not ?? It's not a publisher of original thought (section 4):

"# Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Wikipedia:No original research."

That good enough?⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Swatjester, that doesn't completely exclude all blogs. I coudl care less about this particular blog or not, but read the thing carefully.

The policy page that governs the use of sources is Wikipedia:Verifiability. About self-published sources, which includes books published by vanity presses, and personal websites, it says: "Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications."

Bolding mine, of course. What this actually states is that, once again sources of dubious reliability, which "largely" (read: usually, but not always) includes blogs and personal websites, are nto very acceptable sources. Now, the blog in question actually has some (I'm told) useful information, sometimes taken from credible, third-party publications. Basically, sources that check their sources are considered credible sources.

In short, whether or not the site is a blog is completely irrelevant. The only question regarding whether or not it should be cited as a source is does it cite its own sources and is it widely considered to be a credible source? If it meets those criteria and especially if it has unique information or material that isn't found in very many other places (but is verifiable nonetheless), then I would personally see no reason why it can't be one of what appears to be quite a few sources. Runa27 22:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh how did I miss the best one? "Personal websites as secondary sources

Personal websites and blogs should not be used as secondary sources.

That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly." from WP:RS

I wonder if it makes a difference that the owner of Snakes on a Blog is generally accepted as an expert on the movie, having appeared on CNN and MSNBC to talk about the movie. I get the feeling the WP guidelines were written with the ever-popular personal diaries and sounding boards written by random people who think their opinions are respected in mind, not a site held in such regard that its owner appears on national television as an expert in its field. This guy's opinions on SoaP are respected, so much that his site has a higher Alexa ranking than the movie's official site. But that's just me. --Maxamegalon2000 14:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

-- quote: "Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information on another person or topic" -- Where do you draw the line at self-published? Is the Wizard of Odds self-published because he updates the site himself? Face it, if Snakes on a Blog was called "Snakes on a Plane HQ," you would have no objection to linking to it. Just because it has the word blog in the title, doesn't mean it's the same kind of blog as emo teens livejournaling about their lunches. Learn to see past the name. I am readding the link. Maybe you should hold a vote if you still disagree. 69.142.21.24 03:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

From the San Francisco Chronicle, June 12: "Could it get better? It could not, reasoned SoaP fanatic Brian Finklestein, a law student at Georgetown University who started SnakesonaBlog.com last year as part of his quest to be invited to the movie's world premiere. His blog has since morphed into SoaP central, gathering news, rumors and the latest spasms of SoaP-inspired creativity." (emphasis mine)

In case there are any further questions about linking to the "blog." I rest my case. 69.142.21.24 07:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

S.O.A.P. Userbox

I created a Snakes on a Plane userbox, but for some reason it kept getting deleted. You can copy and paste this format into the page from here if you want it for your user page. If someone knows how to make it have its own page without being deleted, please do so. Or if you can make any new ones, that would be awesome as well. Please let me know if you create any new Snakes on a Plane userboxes, or any ones about Samuel L. Jackson. Thanks. --Nehrams2020 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

S.O.A.P.

This user can't wait to watch Samuel L. Jackson in Snakes on a Plane.

Could it be because it is not completely neutral, and (no offense) somewhat pointless and asinine? Userboxes are getting flooded with way too much pointless stuff, and its defeating wikipedia's image as an encyclopedia. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 23:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Does that matter? NPOV is an article content creation guideline, not a userbox guideline. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I created it in template space, without the Samuel L. Jackson reference: {{User S.O.A.P}} --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 22:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Gee, I dont know. Maybe because Jimbo himself has expressed concern over userbox neutrality in the past, and there is a wave of conflict over this very issue right now. Template space is not userspace, and while I disagree with much of the purging that is going on, I do think that actually pushing templates on mainspace articles and their talk pages is not only not the prudent thing to do, but also wreckless.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 04:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fan Sites of the Week

In a nod to the film's strong support online, the official webpage linked to one "Fan Site of the Week" for eight weeks. It has since stopped posting new links. The following sites were featured (in order from oldest to newest):

tagworld.com/snakesonaplane Tagworld song contest -- winning song will be played over the film's ending credits
www.snakesonablog.com/ Snakes on a Blog
www.myspace.com/snakesonaplanemp3 Snakes on an MP3
youtube.com/results?search=snakes+on+a+plane&search_type=search_videos&search Snakes on YouTube
mcsweeneys.net/2006/4/10keinathnuske.html McSweeney's "Surprise Endings"
www.venomousreptiles.org/ VenomousReptiles.org
thedoomedplanet.com/tdp/index.cfm Snakes at The Doomed Planet
beautifulcandy.blogspot.com/2006/05/snakes-on-mania.html Charm School: Snakes on a Mania

MisterHand's Comments: This section was moved here for the following two reasons:

Wikipedia is not a web directory
Impossible to verify, as the official site only lists one fan site at a time and no archive is kept.

Thanks. -- MisterHand 14:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

- the official site never stopped posting new links... I dont know where you got that info from---but they still post new links; thus your list here is incomplete

Linking Dates

Do not link dates. It's really really stupid. Links should have some bearing on the article, or every word would be linked, which is pointless. Linking "May 18th" has nothing to do with Snakes, Planes, or Snakes on Planes. Don't do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.105.228.241 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 26 May 2006

No, do link dates, since linking makes the date show in the reader's prefered style as set in their preferences. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day. -- AJR | Talk 18:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Preview shown before X-Men Movie

The article states that the 'Official' trailer would be shown with the new X-Men movie. I saw the movie on Friday, and there was no trailer. I thought it might have been a US-Canada thing... but I still have yet to see someone place the trailer on the internet. Therefore, I must assume that the trailer was not shown anywhere. Unless anyone can truthfully say that they did see the trailer, then I suggest we remove that point. It doesn't even reference where it came from. T ConX 04:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

My friend who saw the movie (and lives in the US) confirmed the existence of the trailer.--Aleron235 20:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw X-3 last night and can indeed confirm that there was a 30-40 second long trailer for Snakes on a Plane. It essentially began by referencing the content that this summer's movies shall have (Impossible Missions = Mission Impossible 3, Animated Feature = Cars, Swashbuckling Pirates = Pirates of the Caribbean 2, etc.) and then stated that they won't contain one thing... this message was followed by hissing and several short clips. Samuel L. Jackson was also introduced to the audience as starring in the film.

JaysCyYoung 23:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Um... ok... Is there any place online where I can see this trailer? T ConX 02:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

After doing a lot of digging around last night trying to find a non-parodic trailer to show my friend, who still doesn't believe it’s a real movie (“I’ll believe it when I see it [in theatres or on TV]”), and waiting forever for TagWorld’s to load (it never did, even after clicking Click here if trailer doesn't load) I finally dug up this www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2710880 iFilm page, which is the same trailer I saw a few months ago; I can’t remember on what site (possibly YouTube or Salon). The same trailer is www.primotechnology.com/hosted/alex/snakes.htm here. According to the infamous “Snakes on a Blog,” “this trailer is not the official teaser trailer for the film, it was put online merely for the songwriting contest at Tagworld. The CG is not representative of how the snakes will look in the final cut. The OFFICIAL official teaser trailer will apparently be coming out in about a month [from March 17]” so it’s probably not the same as the one they’re showing before “X-Men.”

—Wiki Wikardo 00:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have thought the trailer from X-Men would be online by now. Have you shown your friend the clips from Paula Zahn and Keith Olberman? I know I saw them online somewhere. --Maxamegalon2000 00:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Here it isL youtube.com/watch?v=IzrE5PHOltM&search=snakes%20on%20a%20plane Trailer. --Micro506 06:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was the "official" trailer as it was less than a minute long, however it was a coming attraction on the Xmen reel . So there have been TWO official pieces of footage released by SOAP, none of which are the official trailer. You have to footage released to inspire the Tagworld contest, and now you have this preview on the Xmen reel. I still think an official 2-3 min trailer is coming. 69.142.21.24 18:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

- It was the "official" teaser trailer. Official in that it was made by the studio. There is likely a longer trailer coming, but this was a real trailer and it was made by the studio. I think that calling it official is fine. 141.161.127.75 22:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  - Along with T ConX, I also did not see the S.O.A.P. trailer before X-Men 3. I live in Canada, along with him, so it might be that reason why it wasn't shown. Rats... Doran 02:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

From a post at Snakes on a Blog: "I work at a movie theater and we have the trailer on one of our X-Men 3 prints. ... I should note that this will not appear on EVERY X-Men 3 print (from what i can tell). For example, our theater got 4 prints of X-Men 3 and the SoaP trailer only appears on one of them." So, maybe you just picked the wrong screen. --Maxamegalon2000 02:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

Do we really need the warning there? A brief synopsis of the plot does not a spoiler make.

—Wiki Wikardo, a few minutes later (UTC)

I agree. The title is as much a spoiler as the brief synopsis in the article is. I'm going to be bold. --Maxamegalon2000 03:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Also at this point any speculations as to the finer points of the plot are just that, speculation. The movie isn't set to be released until August. When the movie is release I do think a spoiler warning may be warranted

Snakes on a REAL plane

What a coincidence - www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197976,00.html Fox News: Pilot Fights Black Snake Stowaway on Plane (normally I wouldn't claim anything on Fox News was "real" but this doesn't seem - www.defamer.com/hollywood/snakes-on-a-plane/ I could be wrong - like the sort of thing they'd make up)

I saw that on my MSN news banner just a few minutes ago and was going to come here to see if anyone else had heard about it. That snake's just getting the world ready for his brothers to take over cinema records come August. Morhange 22:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OH MY GOD. I must have missed that when I went out of town....HAH. I LIVE in Charleston! Maybe it's a publicity stunt.

Plot

So...what is this movie about anyway? --D -Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 17:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the title and take a wild, uneducated guess. --Agent Aquamarine 23:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I did, and I still have no clue. The title is just too vague.

And if anyone took me seriously, all I have to say is wow, just WOW. --D -Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 21:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the movie involves some sort of snakes on an aircraft of some sort--Zolty 21:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

War in an airplane, thanks to the dangerous snakes. 24.188.203.181 03:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I did an interview with Nathan Philips and i asked him about his character, he said that he is a whitness, being flown to LA. IMDB has him listed as an FBI agent. What's going on? IMDB are usually on the money. --PeteSoot 11:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The current revision contains an inconsistency with regard to Samuel L. Jackson's new line.

Early publicity:

Among the reported additions is a line that originated as an Internet parody of Samuel L. Jackson's traditional movie persona: "That's IT! I've had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane!".

Trivia:

Among these additions is the Jackson character's line, "I want these motherfucking snakes off this motherfucking plane," a line that originated in an anticipatory internet parody of the movie.

Which line is correct?

In the recent trailer clips, I've been hearing the first one, meaning the line from the first one seems to be the correct one, since if you listen to recent trailers, the line from the first choice seems to be heard more, like the new and permanent choice. So I would say that the first choice seems to be more accurate, since if you look around hard or well enough for recent clips from the movie trailer or the trailer itself, the first choice can be heard when that happens. 24.188.203.181 05:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There was originally a line in one of the first trailors 'I've had it with these snakes', which was widely seen as more or less what /would/ be the appropriate place for '(get/I want) these motherfucking snakes off (my/this) motherfucking plane)'. While it is widely belived (and openly hinted at by the production team), i've never seen any report of where/how this line has made it into the final production.

I think the second one is correct. However, no one will know until we see the movie. dposse 22:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The music video for "Snakes on a Plane (Bring It)" by Cobra Starship opens by sampling Samuel L. Jackson saying, "That's it! I have had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane!" It stands to reason that this is the correct quote. --Maxamegalon2000 23:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because some fan made song said it? You are going to need something better than that. dposse 00:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is the official music video for the official song that's in the movie and on the official soundtrack, and Samuel L. Jackson appears in the video. I don't understand how the video could include anything but the correct quote. --Maxamegalon2000 00:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Except for the fact that it's not the movie? dposse 16:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that, short of actually seeing the movie, the quote's use in the music video is the most conclusive evidence possible that this is the genuine phrasing. Seeing as how you believe can't really know for the purposes of this article which is correct until the movie's release, why don't we simply say that "Jackson's character curses both the snakes and the plane as "motherfucking", a word Jackson is known to use liberally in his movies." But I think it should be mentioned in the article which is used in the music video. --Maxamegalon2000 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That seems perfectly reasonable until August 18th. dposse 17:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

SNL skit

When I first heard about SoaP,I recalled a skit on Saturday Night Live about a cobra loose on a plane.Sure enough,this is mentioned in the main article. - R.G. 05:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

species

"As a non-native species, snakes are illegal to import or to possess in Hawaii, with fines starting at $5,000 and jail time." This should be fixed. Snakes are not "a species," in Hawaii or anywhere else. 148.87.1.172 18:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So fix it. Be bold! —Ragdoll 21:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

other mentions

I think it was on Robot Chicken where they mention "Frogs on a plane"... any other places other than that and SNL?

I can confirm with my own eyes/ears that The Daily Show and Colbert Report (which are related) have made the occasional SoaP-related joke, including the prior's Frogs on a Plane (complete with image). The latter mustly threw in those Sam Jackson lines. --Bobak 17:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up excessive 'refferences'

Most of this article revolves around jokes people have made involving the film. While some are notable for the publicity they generated for the film, and some are notable for the wide audience they reach (Daily Show/Colbert Report), do we A) Need to know every step in the way and B) Need to know the actual content of the refferences. An example would be the reporting of Colbert's three references, where the detail is explicitly spelt out. I'm going to trim some hedges (shorten Colbert/Daily Show sections) and pull out some weeds (remove the irrellevent 'popular podcast' ask-a-ninja). If anyone else feels some links are excessive, let's talk about it here. --Bigmacd24

there was a dateline special on online preditors where the police used the IM name "snakesonagirl" that might be a good trivia thingy

Snakes on a girl