Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
In my neck of the woods this film had more advertising and had more tv spots than SOaP ever had. The fact this film made this gross amount of money is a factor of the marketing ploy of Disney.
True, but people would go to POTC2 knowing the actual content would be hopefully on par with the first. Whereas SOAP is always going to be a B grade movie, regardless of earnings.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I don't need a medal. And your point A) it's utterly ignorant of the fact that this film made so much money out of a marketing ploy. In my neck of the woods this film had more advertising and had more tv spots than SOaP ever had.
Because Snakes on a Plane's specific marketing ploy didn't have much to do with THEM promoting it. They slyly suckered people into doing to promotion for them. It was an undeniable marketing ploy which the film relied on for its success. That one Samuel L. Jackson line etc.
For your information, I don't live in your neck of the woods. We do, however, share the internet regardless. Snakes on a Plane is internet famous and generated hype in a very sly, but undeniably specific way.
Pirates 2 had the usual movie marketing, more so maybe because the first became a mega smash AFTER it garnered massive critical acclaim. Snakes on a Plane didn't.
In closing, I'm not denying that both are marketed, of course. I'm simply saying that you are making a flawed argument. Snakes on a Plane has a much clearer, much more specific marketing ploy and appeal running through it and working for it than Pirates 2 does. It was a net-famous meme, and a lot more people pay attention to the net than they do TV and billboards.
People were making their own soundtracks, posters, imitation movies. Off the back of what? A title, a quote and an actor. Exactly as the makers planned.
Disney made Pirates, is caused a riot after people started going to see it, they mentioned a sequel and everyone was up for it. There's a massive difference between the two, and you're simply ignoring it because it's devestating to your debate. I post time and time again, and you ignore my points and retort with; "They were both marketed.". The issue isn't about movies being marketed, the issue is quite simply; Comparing the two, you can see that one is a sequel with an entire satisfied, established fanbase, whilst one is a random idea that garnered attention due to it becoming an internet meme.
If they made a movie about the "O RLY?" owls, those same Snakes fans would likely go see it.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
The fact this film made this gross amount of money is a factor of the marketing ploy of Disney. Something you're just ignoring on purpose. But rather than point out this gigantic fact you chose to pick on a B-movie and call it a marketing ploy. Which I haven't deny..but you yet chose to concetrate all your energy on the B-movie rather than the big movie studio.
What are you aiming to achieve here, WD? I know Pirates 2 was marketed, what's your point?
You are the one purposefully ignoring my points. You are saying that I should pick on Pirates 2 for being marketed just because I'm saying Snakes was a marketing ploy more than a movie? No, you're wrong.
Pirates 2 was a movie that took a massive amount of cash and had a fair share of marketing, I agree. Why? Because it had an entire fanbase from a movie that was considered a sleeper hit even by Johnny Depp. It was a script that they thought would be good, like The Matrix, and it worked out beyond their wildest hopes. It wasn't an instant classic with people salivating for it.
Snakes on a Plane didn't have this, and it has made most of it's money off it's marketing ploys, obvious ones at that. It has no previous fanbase, Pirates did. You're arguing the stupid point that they were both marketed so I should pick on them both. That's not what I'm saying.
Snakes on a Plane has a much clearer and specific marketing ploy that it relied on. That being; Create a huge hype, for better or worse, and cause people to go see it out of A) Genuinely thinking it was great, and B) "Irony" that isn't actually there.
Causing many up-their-own-anus internet fans to come back exaggerating how good the movie is, in some hope of "Look at me, I'm the man. I saw Snakes and thought it was mad even though you're not really supposed to think it's good.".
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
On a side note...what's with bringing the internet advertising point? Don't tell me SOaP was the only one promoting itself on the net. I saw far more banners and pop ups for POTC 2 than SOaP.
Let's not try to act like Snakes received less internet attention than Pirates 2.
That's...yeah, that's a bit out there even for you.
-AC
AC you wrote all that essay just to admit this:
"In closing, I'm not denying that both are marketed, of course."
Which we agreed back in the SOaP thread. The issue here is that you clearly label people who saw the flick as "suckers" and then even went as far as saying that the only reason people like this movie was because of the hype. Which is totally absurd! People were entertained by this movie just like you were entertained by POTC2. To prove your silly logic I used that same logic on you. You just didn't like it. That's why you still arguing.
Causing many up-their-own-anus internet fans to come back exaggerating how good the movie is, in some hope of "Look at me, I'm the man. I saw Snakes and thought it was mad even though you're not really supposed to think it's good.".
That's the problem you just won't admit. The people enjoyed the film. You have this idea that they just saying that to make it look like a good film. No ONE said it was a good film. Instead they all said it was a very entertaining film. Marketing SOaP?....Hello how about marketing POTC2? The video games? T-shirts? Posters? All that stuff....You're talking about hype for a film. The amount of money made by POTC 2 proves that movie had an even HYPE than SOaP. This same hype even drove you to say the film was good. When in fact...it wasn't! See how ironic you've become?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Which we agreed back in the SOaP thread. The issue here is that you clearly label people who saw the flick as "suckers" and then even went as far as saying that the only reason people like this movie was because of the hype. Which is totally absurd! People were entertained by this movie just like you were entertained by POTC2. To prove your silly logic I used that same logic on you. You just didn't like it. That's why you still arguing.
Well...it's a fact that until the movie was released, everybody liked it because of the hype. There was no movie to go by, was there? No, good.
You're using logic against a point I'm not making.
I retracted my statement previous. These people probably AREN'T all suckers, some of them probably are going of their own accord and enjoy it simply because they enjoyed it, that's fair enough.
The FACT of the matter, the crux of my argument, the part you keep ignoring is this: Just because Pirates 2 was marketed, doesn't mean that Snakes on a Plane isn't primarily a marketing ploy OR has an obvious one that was specifically put out to generate pre-movie hysteria.
I don't know whether you generally can't grasp that specific point, or whether you're just ignoring it, but that was always my argument. Don't talk to me of ignorance when everybody else here has got it except you. I'm still arguing because you're ignoring my points, and this is obvious because every time you summerise what you believe my point is; you get it dreadfully wrong.
How? I have no idea. No human should be getting it wrong after this much explanation. It's simply willful ignorance.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
That's the problem you just won't admit. The people enjoyed the film. You have this idea that they just saying that to make it look like a good film. No ONE said it was a good film. Instead they all said it was a very entertaining film. Marketing SOaP?....Hello how about marketing POTC2? The video games? T-shirts? Posters? All that stuff....You're talking about hype for a film. The amount of money made by POTC 2 proves that movie had an even HYPE than SOaP. This same hype even drove you to say the film was good. When in fact...it wasn't! See how ironic you've become?
Why the hell are you still chiming on about the movie being marketed? You're not a stupid man, are you? No. So why are you attempting to look like one?
Forget marketing, the general idea, forget it. Ok? This is the umpteenth time I've said it now. They were both marketed, all movies are marketed, right? Right. Forget that.
My point was: Snakes on a Plane generated interest and generated hype by using specific, obvious marketing gimmicks and ploys that played to many different levels and thus encouraged certain people to see the movie regardless of it looking shit or not. For a single quote, in many cases. Pirates didn't have that. It had an entire fanbase built from it's previous installment (which had considerably less marketing).
Why are you now telling me that the hype drove me to say the movie was good? I saw The Matrix Revolutions among the midst of the hype, the final installment of what was my favourite movie series ever, and I came out hating it, still do. I'm not a victim of hype if a movie is shit.
You're being really hypocritical and extremely childish now. Resorting to the foolish tactic of ignoring my points and telling me why I thought a movie was good.
You saw Snakes on a Plane and enjoyed it regardless of hype, allegedly. I will never know if that's true, but I took your word for it. So don't go assuming the same about me. I've said it a thousand times, I saw Pirates 2 because I loved the first one, which I saw by chance. I made the decision to go and see the sequel long before there was even word of a sequel.
Nothing you've said adds up to countering my argument, and now you're the one who's continuing for the sake of it.
-AC
Yet, another essay post to make a simple response:
"These people probably AREN'T all suckers"
Thank you! Finally, you've come to your senses. Now, I can admit that people who went to see POTC 2 because they're fans and not "suckers". We can finally put the suckers factor to rest.
When you try to belittle my post with your claim of childish and hypocritical arguments won't get you nowhere AC. Sometimes you have to admit that you made a mistake by making that gross analyze of the people who went to see SOaP.
Now something else I've notice in your post:
"I saw The Matrix Revolutions among the midst of the hype, the final installment of what was my favourite movie series ever, and I came out hating it, still do. I'm not a victim of hype if a movie is shit."
Whether you hate it or not you still felt for the hype. Just because the film didn't meet your expectactions doesn't give you a free out jail "hype" card. But in reality there is nothing wrong with that. None at all. I'm not holding that agaisn't you. I had the same experience with Episode III...however, I never deny I was attracted by the film and the hype behind it.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Thank you! Finally, you've come to your senses. Now, I can admit that people who went to see POTC 2 because they're fans and not "suckers". We can finally put the suckers factor to rest.
I had to say it three times for you to read it, but fair enough. If you're going to pick and choose which parts you quote and reply to, I won't give you the respect of replying properly to yours.
So you were being willfully ignorant instead of accepting my very clear point?
Thought so.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
When you try to belittle my post with your claim of childish and hypocritical arguments won't get you nowhere AC. Sometimes you have to admit that you made a mistake by making that gross analyze of the people who went to see SOaP.
That first line makes no sense.
Second, I did twice, you caught on the third time I said it, whilst simultaneously ignoring my points and arguing for the sake.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Whether you hate it or not you still felt for the hype. Just because the film didn't meet your expectactions doesn't give you a free out jail "hype" card.
Cool yourself down there.
Who said it didn't meet my expectations? I didn't. I said I wasn't going mad for it, for the hype of it. I went to see it because a friend asked me to go, I had the cash, I wanted to see the movie regardless of the hype.
That's a stone cold fact. If it was because of hype, I'd not have made my decision before the film was even a concept.
You're pulling things out of thin air.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
But in reality there is nothing wrong with that. None at all. I'm not holding that agaisn't you. I had the same experience with Episode III...however, I never deny I was attracted by the film and the hype behind it.
So can you tell me why I must have experienced it the same way simply because you fail to avoid being affected by hype?
Oh, that's exactly why. I must be, because you were.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriSo you were being willfully ignorant instead of accepting my very clear point?
Not really, it was to apply your logic to the argument. No harm done.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Who said it didn't meet my expectations? I didn't. I said I wasn't going mad for it, for the hype of it. I went to see it because a friend asked me to go, I had the cash, I wanted to see the movie regardless of the hype.
It's always a friend asking you to go. Well, I not here to interrogate you so I'll take your word for it.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's a stone cold fact. If it was because of hype, I'd not have made my decision before the film was even a concept.You're pulling things out of thin air.
So can you tell me why I must have experienced it the same way simply because you fail to avoid being affected by hype?
Oh, that's exactly why. I must be, because you were.
-AC
Never recall saying certain hypes motivate me to go see a flick. There been some cases the hype got me interested. But nowadays with the wonders of DVD and Cable tv. I no longer get caught up on hypes anymore. Occasionally there is a film or a documentary that might catch me and I give in. As I mentioned with Episode III.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Not really, it was to apply your logic to the argument. No harm done.
You spent this whole time countering a point I never made, and every single time I highlight this, you simply reiterate the same false point.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
It's always a friend asking you to go. Well, I not here to interrogate you so I'll take your word for it.
I would have gone anyway because I wanted to see it, I made that decision when I saw the first one, but at that point, a friend was going and I went along.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Never recall saying certain hypes motivate me to go see a flick. There been some cases the hype got me interested. But nowadays with the wonders of DVD and Cable tv. I no longer get caught up on hypes anymore. Occasionally there is a film or a documentary that might catch me and I give in. As I mentioned with Episode III.
You no longer get caught up in hypes, yet somehow you saw Snakes on a Plane in opening weekend based off...? Somehow you are able to say "I no longer get caught up on hypes...", yet you are allowed to tell me why I see movies?
Odd.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriYou no longer get caught up in hypes, yet somehow you saw Snakes on a Plane in opening weekend based off...? Somehow you are able to say "I no longer get caught up on hypes...", yet you are allowed to tell me why I see movies?
Odd.
-AC
I try to avoid them. SOaP was more curiosity than hype for me.