snakes on a plane

[Perfect Stu]

Originally Posted by Spasmolytic

Sadly, the biggest realization was that, with the right motivation... almost any movie could be a Snakes on a Plane.

You make some good points...but I'm not so sure about this. I see what you mean, but I could very easily see a movie fail miserably at an attempt of replicating a snakes-type film.

But you're right in the sense that the concept is far more valuable than the integration in a movie like this...you don't need a genius behind the scenes to pull it off.

[Spasmolytic]

Originally Posted by Perfect Stu

...I could very easily see a movie fail miserably at an attempt of replicating a snakes-type film.

I suppose I agree. Intentional cheese is much more acceptable than genuine (accidental) cheese. A good example would be comparing Evil Dead 2 (or even Army of Darkness) to the first Evil Dead. The first one seemed genuinely bad, while the other two made fun of themselves and were, therefore, more enjoyable.

But, I think it has a large part to do with the viewer's mindset when watching the film. That is, if someone where to watch Evil Dead after hearing about every cheesy part of the film, thinking that the cheese was 100% intentional, I'm sure they'd fall in love with it.

Evil Dead is cool, as a horror film and a comedy... but it's one of those movies I'd much rather call a comedy, whether that was its intent or not.

If not for the internet hype, I would've called Snakes a terrible thriller akin to Anaconda. Instead, I viewed its cheese as tongue-in-cheek and enjoyed it.

[Professor S]

This movie failed for one reason, and it was because it was rated R. The studio, in fact, upped the rating to R after recieving online feedback, which is hilarious.

If the studio had kept it to PG-13, you would be seeing an incredible success. The idea that the studio would intentionally market this movie to a younger audience and then prohibit that audience from seeing it boggles the mind.

[Null]

gotta dissagree with ya on that one. i think lesser rating and it losses the very hype it was gathering. the movie was all about its hype..

if you take out all its pointless cussing, and thoes 'extra' scenes, and the movie has totally changed; the humor of it is out the window. i think it would have done worse with a pg13 rating.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Null

gotta dissagree with ya on that one. i think lesser rating and it losses the very hype it was gathering. the movie was all about its hype..

if you take out all its pointless cussing, and thoes 'extra' scenes, and the movie has totally changed; the humor of it is out the window. i think it would have done worse with a pg13 rating.

Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. The hype came from all the internet activity, which is dominated by a young audience. Older people never really heard of this movie regardless of alterative media hype and when they did hear about it they dismissed it on title alone. They didn't "get it".

So, what do you do? You change it so that your core audience can't see it. Brilliant. If this movie was PG-13 the high-school set would have been lined up around the block to see it. Instead, all you got was the older geek population, which is a vast minority of who this movie was marketed to.

PG13 movies dominate marketplace when it comes to profit, there is no doubting this, the numbers dont lie. Now compound this with a self-defeating marketing scheme by upping the rating to R, and you spell complete disaster.

[Null]

nope nope. sorry, on other movies i'd agree, but this one absolutly not. thier marketing of this movie (aside from being based around the name itself) was based around its R rating. thats where it gained most its steam. because of needless voilence, nudity, and cussing. you take that out and you get a movie that is trying to actually be a good movie. which this movie was not trying to be.

PG13 and it woulda done worse. prove me wrong. hehe (and since i cant prove you wrong either. here we sit. )

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Null

nope nope. sorry, on other movies i'd agree, but this one absolutly not. thier marketing of this movie (aside from being based around the name itself) was based around its R rating. thats where it gained most its steam. because of needless voilence, nudity, and cussing. you take that out and you get a movie that is trying to actually be a good movie. which this movie was not trying to be.

PG13 and it woulda done worse. prove me wrong. hehe (and since i cant prove you wrong either. here we sit. )

Actually I can:

With these qualifications in mind, the report maintains that the average rate of return for G-rated films is 66%; PG-rated films garnered 52%; PG-13 pictures returned 50%; R-rated films registered a 37% return; and NC-17 pictures had a 27% return.

The premise that the average G, PG or PG-13 film outperforms the average R-rated film is underscored by looking at the 25 top-grossing domestic theatrical releases. Three were rated G, 10 were PG, 10 were PG-13, and only two were rated R.

Buena Vista's G-rated The Lion King, the sixth-highest-grossing release, earned $329.7 million from North American theaters. The biggest-grossing PG-rated film is 20th Century Fox's Star Wars with $461 million (the second-highest domestic grosser), while Titanic, the No. 1 domestic grosser, is the best-performing PG-13 picture with $601 million.

In stark contrast, the highest-grossing R-rated film is ranked 17th -- Paramount's Beverly Hills Cop, with $234.8 million—and it was released 15 years ago.

http://www.teako170.com/dove.html

These numbers are a bit old (a study from 1988-1999), but they actually show better performance for R-ratings than would be if the study was done today. Add LoTR to the mix with a few others and only The Passion might make the top 20 for R-ratings and thats a severe exception to the rule because of its religious nature and marketing campaign.

R-ratings don't bring in as much profit as PG-13 because you severely diminish the viewing market-base, especially when your dealing with a sophomoric concept like SOAP. That just makes the R-rating even more of a failure. If you don;t want to believe me or the research done on this, just look at the box-office receipts. Do you really think it would have done WORSE if you let teenagers see the movie, which is a HUGE movie audience with nothing but disposable income?

Hint: When marketing a sophomoric movie, don't prohibit the sophomores from seeing it. Duh.

That and I've worked primarily in marketing since graduating in 2000, so I know a little about this area.

[Null]

lol. you dont get it, your missing the entire point of what im saying. i know full well about the numbers and what kinds of movies do better.

as i said, i'd agree on other movies because i know where your coming from with what your saying. but for THIS movie, your wrong. the ratings and numbers dont take into account what the movie is actually trying to be. sometimes a movie needs the rating reguardless of what rating brings in the widest audience. its like marketing a horror film as the most scarriest and gruesome film of all time, then giving it a G rating because g ratings do better. (im not saying g movies do better then anything, just making a point)

no i dont think it woulda done worse by letting more people see it.. i think it woulda done worse by what they woulda had to cut out by making it allow more people to see it. it would entirely destory what the movie is trying to accomplish. the hype would go down, people wouldnt care, less people would see it. it would get know as just a crappy movie. instead of being known as a rediculous movie that knows its rediculous and crappy.

and unless you can go back in time, change the ratings and see the results. then no you cant prove me wrong.

[Dylflon]

For some reason, in BC it was only rated PG 14.

Seriously, BC has to have the most lax movie rating system in all of North America.

[Professor S]

I want to apologize if I came off as snippy in this thread. I just realized how my tone has been and I don't know why I did that. I guess there is a lot on my mind right now, with an upcoming engagement to my longtime gf, my computer giving me fits and work getting nuts.

Sorry if I came off to willfull, I'm trying to tone that part of my personality down.

And Null, I do get what you're saying, but I disagree with your association of art with profit. It may have destroyed what the movie was trying to accomplish, but that and profiting off of it are two separate things. To make a profit, first you have to get asses in seats, and the studio directly marketed their film to those asses who would not be allowed to sit in the seats. Plus, according to the research I posted the PG-13 crowd are the lionshare of the repeat viewing audience, which is why movies like Titanic, LoTR and Pirates of the Carribbean do so well. Its the PG-13 audience that have the expendible money and more importantly TIME to see those movies multiple times. When you have a niche movie like SOAP, you NEED multiple viewings to make lots of money.

I understand what you're saying, I just think you're incorrect in this case, and the empirical research backs me up on this as well as my years in marketing. Maybe I can't 100% prove you wrong, which is pretty much impossible in anything you could say, but I'll accept 90% any day.

[Null]

you dont need to apoligize for anything man, i like a good discussion, thats why i keep coming back to argue it further, this place would be deader then it already is if everyone agreed on everything.

i guess what it comes down to to me, is if you were to keep the EXACT same movie and make it pg13, i could agree with it further because of the rep it got after being out.

but being R to me was just part of its whole image. and to change that, your not only changing its image, your changing the very movie, and as far as profits go, you can never tell what kinda profits a different movie would bring. to me, without its 'bad-ass, rediculously stupid R rated' image, im not sure if it woulda been interested in seeing it.

Theres no disputing the fact as you mentioned tho that PG-13 is the biggest money making crowd. im not trying to say different on any of the facts you mentioned.




Dylflon, im curious about canada, does each providence do ratings different or how do you tell? because i take a trip up to canada (ontario) a few times every year. and whenever i see a commercial for any movie, they have Never said what its rated. Here, after every movie they say, RATED R, or RATED PG-13 or so on.

[Spasmolytic]

A: Yeah, you should put that in the movie, that would be hilarious! I'd be just like that R rated movie I rented the other day.

B: Fair enough... now, come watch the movie.

Days pass and the movie is released

C: Woah there kid, where are you going? Got some ID? This movie's rated R.

A: What? An ID? But this movie is going to be great.

C: Sure. Wait till it's out on video so that you can rent it with your mommy. Move along.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Null

Dylflon, im curious about canada, does each providence do ratings different or how do you tell? because i take a trip up to canada (ontario) a few times every year. and whenever i see a commercial for any movie, they have Never said what its rated. Here, after every movie they say, RATED R, or RATED PG-13 or so on.

I'll be the acting-Dylflon.
Each Province has enough power to make it's own laws, which is why the driving ages, and drinking ages arent the same across all of Canada.
As for the movie thing, I dont know about Ontario, obviously, but in BC the rating on movies are always at the end of the credits of the commercial. No flashy voice says what it's rated, and the rating doesnt encompass the whole screen, but if you squint hard enough you can usually see it.

[Null]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I'll be the acting-Dylflon.
Each Province has enough power to make it's own laws, which is why the driving ages, and drinking ages arent the same across all of Canada.
As for the movie thing, I dont know about Ontario, obviously, but in BC the rating on movies are always at the end of the credits of the commercial. No flashy voice says what it's rated, and the rating doesnt encompass the whole screen, but if you squint hard enough you can usually see it.

well yea... driving and drinking ages and such arent the same for each state in the US either. but theres more of a standard for things like movie ratings it seems.. i was just curious tho, someone once told me theres no ratings at all in canada. which i knew was not correct. just never looked it up.

[Perfect Stu]

Originally Posted by Null

well yea... driving and drinking ages and such arent the same for each state in the US either. but theres more of a standard for things like movie ratings it seems.. i was just curious tho, someone once told me theres no ratings at all in canada. which i knew was not correct. just never looked it up.

there are ratings...but i think people do pay less attention to them up here. snakes was rated 14A here in Ontario too...which it should be. to say you need to be 18 (that's R right?) to see this movie is ridiculous...14 is more than fine.


and did you just say "most scarriest" up there a few posts? Null...