Leon Czolgosz ([info]anorgasmia) wrote,
@ 2006-08-19 15:30:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Many of you seemed kind of confused as to why I was so upset about the "message" from Samuel L. on my voicemail.  It's just a movie, right, calm the fuck down.  Truth be told, this whole phenomenon kinda pisses me off, and always has.  My dear friend Emily [info]septemberglows and I were talking about this last night, and she just wrote an entry about it that pretty much sums up my feelings on it.  Here are some right-on-the-nail
"i wouldn't go see it simply because THEY WANT YOU TO SEE IT. who are they? i'm imagine grey-suited corporate hollywood executives watching a focus group from behind a two-way mirror. i don't know. you all know that i'm paranoid, and you've probably learned by now not to take my unease and my ranting seriously, but this whole "snakes on a plane" phenomenon makes me nervous as fuck.

the new york times review mentions the "savvy publicity blitzkreig," which in and of itself troubles me. the only mainstream american paper that i even come close to trusting positively compares a movie's marketing technique to a war offensive? by now you are all shaking your heads, rolling your eyes, saying, "that damn hippie needs to lighten up," and you may have a point. beyond that, though, it really was a publicity blitzkreig, and it has been going on for months.

moreover, it frankly disturbs me that the bright, clever, and vaguely hip youth of america have devoted not only their hard earned dollarz but also months of their time and energy to thinking about, talking about, and anticipating what looks like a really fucking dumb if possibly amusing movie that has been promoted like crazy. don't we have other things to do?

we could do all sorts of things that are cheaper than watching snakes on a plane, and more rewarding, and less related to the fulfillment of the greedy dreams of the aforementioned grey-suit corporate hollywood men, who i now imagine rubbing their little hands together and laughing maniacally. 

i know most of you will in fact see snakes on a plane, and i don't really begrudge you it. if you think it's awesome, worth your money, if it changes your life or whatever, more power to you. i am just made cranky and confused by capitalism, consumerism, and the ways most americans prioritize their money, time, and energy. i think of all the money and time and energy spent making and promoting snakes on a plane, and then i think of all the money and time and energy spent by consumers going to see snakes on a plane, and because i think it is a basically pointless and valueless thing, that makes me very sad."
:
(Emily, I hope you don't mind me reposting this, I just thought it was right-on, and explains my feelings on SOAP pretty well.)

This is our postmodern world, folks.  The fact that people have been obsessed with this movie for MONTHS, and WHY?  Every time I'd ask someone why they're excited about the movie, the only response I get was "Come on, it's called 'Snakes on a Plane'!"  What an image-based consumerist world we live in.  Everyone thinks this movie is just another trashy action flick, right?  They're selling you a 8 dollar (or however much people spend on T-shirts, albums, or other things in addition to the movie ticket) IMAGE, and nothing more.

I've devoted a good chunk of my time thinking about, talking about and ripping on this movie, so to some degree the movie producers won over another consumer, even though I probably won't see it, (or who knows, maybe I'll download it, because I do admit, I am mildly curious) I have been become interested by the phenomenon.

Again, I'm not hatin' on y'all for seeing the movie, but I really feel like this is just a Hollywood inside job that's got us all (myself included) interested.

(18 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]animate
2006-08-19 08:05 pm UTC (link)
I didn't read your friends complaints (because of ill grammar and punctuation) but I can understand why you are angry at it. It does hold some of the officious pretentiousness that you seem to have problems with, but I also think it's going to deliver exactly what it states; seriously, I myself am tired of big name action movies that don't follow through on anything but the initial trailers and tv spots (which themselves give everything away).

Yes, marketing is one of the most evil concepts ever (Bill Hicks, duh), but the marketing here is so funny that anyone taking it seriously is obviously outing themselves as a lower form of biped. I think this will be a good bargain-theater movie...Or atleast a movie some of my friends pay for me to see. I complain about nearly everything that comes out anyways.

(Reply to this)


[info]alina_beana
2006-08-19 08:24 pm UTC (link)
What makes me laugh is that when you abbreviate it it says SOAP!
HAHAHAHA!!!!
I didn't even notice that before.

(Reply to this)


[info]captain_hayduke
2006-08-19 08:39 pm UTC (link)
i am with you nick. right after reading this entry i saw a copy of my brother's ESPN magazine that, along with some hunk-o-man on the cover, was featuring an article about SOAP. i really don't feel like seeing the movie myself. hey did you read derrick jensen's endgame, or see that star wars exerpt somewhere else? ~stuart

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]anorgasmia
2006-08-19 10:07 pm UTC (link)
derrick jensen has large portions of "endgame" posted on his website. i found it there. i'd love to read it, though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]fromenergy
2006-08-19 10:26 pm UTC (link)
what are you so mad at? the advertising for this movie is brilliant, there are no false promises (as there is with most promoting), no bullshit about it being "emotionally stirring" or some other stupid catch phrase. They are basically saying 'doesn't this sound and look rediculous? don't you want to look at it?' fuck yeah I want to look at it. Finally a movie that doesn't take itself so fucking seriously (you could learn from this). Id rather see stupidity portrayed as such than veiled as something more (ie: most movies). I bet if aranofsky directed it with frivalous split screens and grainy black and white film you'd be all about it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
i don't even know who aranofsky is
[info]anorgasmia
2006-08-19 10:44 pm UTC (link)
dude, don't make me out to be some film snob. i don't know shit about movies. i think you totally misinterpreted this. i'm not "mad" at the people who are into seeing this movie. i admit the way it was marketed is interesting. it just reeks of this movie that "everyone is supposed to be into" with no room for criticism. and it's just like they're marketing the title, nothing more. i'm no film snob. i love "stupid" comedies and fluff movies, etc. this movie was just promoted so vigilantely, that it's like there's no room to be suspicious of the studio's motives.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: i don't even know who aranofsky is
[info]jesuisdenfer
2006-08-20 02:54 am UTC (link)
i think that part of the reason that it was promoted so insanely is that the public made it so. the title got everyone so worked up that it sort of BECAME promoted like crazy. not to say that it wasn't also something that the marketers grabbed a hold of and went nuts with, but still. i don't think it's so much that everyone is supposed to be into it as that everyone is into it, and the people making it took that and went with it. yeah, it's true that the advertising and whatnot is all about the title. but who cares! it's a hysterical title!

i just saw the movie and really enjoyed it, but i can definitely see why others would not want to see it. i just think it's sort of silly that people are making a big stink about this movie as opposed to ANY other movie that ever comes out. they are ALL advertised like crazy, there is hype about ALL of them...the only thing this one is doing differently is advertising based on what people ACTUALLY like as opposed to guessing and advertising off of that. the public essentially told everyone how they wanted it to be advertised(or really, what would work on them), and the people behind the movie did that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: i don't even know who aranofsky is
[info]jesuisdenfer
2006-08-20 03:13 am UTC (link)
also: why is it so bad that hollywood has us all interested? isn't that sort of the point?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]donnaisblue
2006-08-19 10:47 pm UTC (link)
i'm not sure how this movie differs from any other movie except that it's more popular (doesn't every producer want us to see his films? and because our interests may occasionally coincide, does it have to mean that we're giving into gimmicks?). i think MOST of that popularity stems from the disbelief of how someone could possibly make a movie with the theme being that there are just some snakes on a plane. i didn't think it was actually a movie for a long time, just something my friends made up, and then didn't believe that it was a SERIOUS action based movie, not a comedy. i'm not convinced that every conscious moment of my or anyone else's day needs to be spend in dense, meaningful, intellectual inquiry. lightness can be equally refreshing.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]donnaisblue
2006-08-19 10:53 pm UTC (link)
fuck, spent*

(and probably a bunch of other grammar/spelling errors...sigh)*

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]anorgasmia
2006-08-20 05:51 am UTC (link)
"i'm not convinced that every conscious moment of my or anyone else's day needs to be spend in dense, meaningful, intellectual inquiry. lightness can be equally refreshing."

you are completely missing my point. i'm not against fluff, i'm against aggressive marketing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]donnaisblue
2006-08-20 05:55 am UTC (link)
no, i don't think that i am. i was responding to this particular line, which is copy and pasted from the other entry you referenced:

i think of all the money and time and energy spent making and promoting snakes on a plane, and then i think of all the money and time and energy spent by consumers going to see snakes on a plane, and because i think it is a basically pointless and valueless thing, that makes me very sad.

i assumed that the "pointless and valueless thing" was the actual movie, however, it is actually a reference to aggressive marketing, then i would equally point out that aggressive marketing is only looked upon as a negative when people don't agree with the product. for instance, if you could wrap and market "world peace" (corny but i honestly don't feel like coming up with something elaborate), i don't think that anyone would really have a problem with it.


(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]anorgasmia
2006-08-20 06:02 am UTC (link)
well, look at this whole "fad" of sustainability and "organic" food these days. people are all into buying "organic" when usually it's just a label. "USDA Organic" does not mean the food is safer or better for you. it's just the image being sold!

as a fellow philosophy major, i recommend you read some Baudrillard

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]donnaisblue
2006-08-20 06:13 am UTC (link)
thank you for your recommendation, but i actually have read baudrillard and have formed my own opinions.

i don't really think that labels aren't evil. they can be misused, sure, but without them, we're not going to know what anything is. words, themselves, are labels. i'm not even sure how unfortunate it is that sometimes we are only buying images, because images have meaning to them, too. nor am i sure that this movie is "just an image" with no content. it's entertainment, however mindless.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]demidyke
2006-08-19 10:51 pm UTC (link)
i'm with you and emily on this one--the morning breakfast table erupted in a

"that's a really dumb movie, why would anyone see it?" versus "BECAUSE! it's called SNAKES ON A PLANE!!!"



i seriously feel like some movie exec jerkoffs were like "hey, i got $500 that says we could produce a mega blockbuster based on nothing but the fact it's got samuel l. jackson, and it's called 'snakes on a plane'". yeah, they're definitely laughing now.

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2006-08-20 03:34 am UTC (link)
HOLLYWOOD IS EVIL IT MUST BE STOPPED!

(Reply to this)


[info]artists_rifles
2006-08-20 04:20 am UTC (link)
remember the room? i'd ask why i should see it, and people would reply, "it's the ROOM!" and then tell me how it was such a terrible movie that i couldn't afford not to see it (i never did, more out of a lack of time than anything).

i guess i'm kind of confused. is it the mob mentality that bothers you or the fact that New Line Cinema is funding the movie? maybe just the $8 paid to see it? cos the similarities between the campus marketing for the room and what's going on now with snakes str fuckin uncanny. it's not like either Tommy Wiseau or New Line Cinema went out and told us to watch either movie--other people, students and/or friends, did. all those Snakes t-shirts and memorabilia that came out before the movie--fans made those, not NLC or Time Warner. you can say that they're all just tools of the powers that be, but they're still just people who found an interesting concept and wished to share it with others.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]artists_rifles
2006-08-20 04:21 am UTC (link)
str=are, in my new language

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(18 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…