A brief article by Sharon Waxman appears today in the NYT , describing how the film Snakes on a Plane failed to translate the hype created through a meticulously executed internet publicity machine into actual human posteriors seated in a theater.
New Line Cinema executives are quoted as being puzzled over how the fizz went flat. Could it be that internet interest in the kitschiness of the film should never have been judged the equivalent of desiring to endure a screening? Sure. But, as someone who has thought a little bit about why monsters fascinate audiences, could I just suggest that snakes on a plane seem stupidly irrelevant in a world where Heathrow is shut down because terrorists might be making bombs from the contents of bottled water, infant formula, and shampoo containers? When your neighbor's plastic receptacle of Evian is declared lethal, cobras in the overhead baggage bins just don't have that much bite in their fangs.
On a related note, Chaucer is back: check out Serpentes on a Shippe!.
3 comments:
As for lethal Evian, count me among the dubious (from here).
I didn't say I wasn't dubious, just that a monster more anxiety provoking than a snake had already been invented and placed on a plane.
(More than) fair enough.
Post a Comment