Talk:Snakes on a Plane

Too many spinoffs

At first the list of spinoffs was funny, but now there are just way too many, with many not even fitting into the "animal on a mode of transportation" build. It's gotten worse than all the AAA achievements. Megamanfanx7 14:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Very soon I hope to do something to end this business once and for all. Watch this space... -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 19:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, some of them are funny, but too many of them are either stupid or similar to one another. Jab 05:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Complete Rewrite

I've done a complete rewrite of the article. I think it makes it a lot funnier, personally, but I could be wrong. Feel free to wikify it with links and formatting. I think it's better than the crap it was before. Discuss. Methulah 09:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought the idea at Uncyclopedia was to be humorous? --66.194.121.226 11:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain what isn't funny about it? Sorry, I just don't find that being pointlessly random isn't funny. At least this is a bit different, which Snakes on a Plane deserves. I'll listen to arguments, though. I'm reverting it now. Cheers. Methulah 11:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm thinking of reworking this such that it is actually, you know, funny. After all, right now, the whole Civil War epic thing is just so far over the top that it's just not as funny as the real story, which would be summarized by what is said on the tin. --Thephotoman 03:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this article blows. Sadly, SoaP is so absurd on its own that I doubt we can come up with a truly funny method of satirizing it. It's just too funny as-is! --User:Nintendorulez 19:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, factualise.--Yhnmzw 12:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea. Create a parallel movie entitled "Snakes on a Plain". Here's a bit of material to give you guys an idea of where I'm headed with this:

Seriously, an actual plot summary of the movie would be much funnier than the current crap. 69.110.128.170 00:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Starring Samuel L. Jackson as Steve Irwin.

A crocodile hunter bent on killing his arch-nemesis, Steve Irwin, lets loose a bunch of fear snakes on the Serengeti Plain.

• insert hype here*

Coming March 2007.

Any thoughts? --Infobacker 02:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

OMG! This article is so funny! :D Mistress of the Clow ~ Cardcaptor Stacey [Talk] [Work] [Uncyclopedia Fanlisting] 14:24, 2 August 2006

Template:BannedVFH placed on article

I have placed the template on this article following this VFH removal by MoneySign.

(Removed Snakes On A Plane - Next nominator without a complete rewrite = 1 week ban)

This template is to let you know that nominating this article will result in a one week ban, and to let users know that this article needs a rewrite in order to be nominated for VFH again --NXWave 01:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nominated for 4 VFPs!

While SoaP may not get any Oscar nominations, I think it may break records for Uncyclopedia VFP nominations--four announced so far, including one just 35 minutes after the previous aborted failed vote. This movie has obviously touched the hearts and minds and naughty bits of many people. If only just one of those people could write a funnier article, it might actually win one day. Never say die--but please say you'll think twice before renaming it, OK? --Falcotron 05:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Piranhas on an Escalator

I laughed my ass off at that poster. --Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 15:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Yeah, that's my only comment, go figure... snakes on a plane!!!

STOP NOMINATING THIS FOR VFH.

If I were an admin, I probably would ban the next person to do so. Unfortunately I don't have that happy power. So I did what I could do, and added nominating this article onto HowTo:Get Banned. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 04:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Who Took Off My Mel Gibson Quote?!

Who did it and why? (unsigned comment by TaintedCell on 06:08, 20 August 2006)

Who: Gubby

When: 10:51, 18 August 2006

Why: just a guess, but presumably because there were way too many quotes

How to find out for yourself next time: try the History tab

In general, people don't find articles with 3000 quotes that have nothing to do with the topic itself, so many people delete all but the best of them. Your was a casualty along with many others. (Although it would have been better if Gubby had used an edit summary, like "killing extraneous quotes," I personally think it was the right thing to do, especially since he was trying to get the article VFH'd at the time, and you don't want to show any weaknesses in front of the sharks.)

Also, please sign talk page comments in the future. --Falcotron 13:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it was a funny true quote that Gibson made in jail. --TaintedCell 01:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If it has something to do with SoaP, try asking on Gubby's userpage. Usually if someone removes your work, they'll explain why, which is probably going to be more helpful than my guesses. If you don't get an explanation in a reasonable amount of time, feel free to put it back. If you get an explanation and don't agree, ask him to discuss it here or on his talk page. Hope this helps. --Falcotron 05:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Snakes on a Train

A crappy rip-off of Snakes on a Plane called Snakes on a Train was released direct to DVD three days before SoaP came out. This is so absurdly funny on its own that I don't think it needs any Uncyclopedization. 69.110.128.170 00:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Idea

maybe you can write something about that picture with solid snake on the plane? that one is funny - too_lazy_to_sign_in, 01/09/06, 4:17 pm

Plane level in Smash Bros Brawl! And don't show Snake, just a cardboard box. ^_^

I have the inkling of an idea for the "Rejected Ideas" section, but it has not materialized enough for me to start adding text to the article. So if someone else wants to pick it up and take it away, be my guest. The idea is to somehow involve the Garden of Eden story from the Bible. Jackson's character could have been called "Adam What'shisname", and a romantic interest played by Halle Berry would of course be "Eve Washington", renowned serpentologist. One of the snakes (the head-snake) has the ability to speak (through genetic manipulation in a secret military lab, from which it escaped) and tries to corrupt Eve. Adam however slaps some sense into the and in the end, good overcomes bad and the message is: if Adam and Eve had been black, mankind would not have been evicted from the Garden of Eden. This idea was considered too controversial for white middle-class Merkins by the studio bosses. Oh, and comical relief might be provided by having the "one-eyed trouser snake" doing all sorts of dumb things. --di Mario 17:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Propose page move to Motherfucking Snakes on a Motherfucking Plane

Anyone like this idea? --User:Nintendorulez 00:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Matt Spears 04:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Fuck you, motherfucker! --Captain Finding Nemo 17:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I support the move. I hate this article now though. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 05:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sequels

Should we split the ridiculously long yet amusing planned sequels list onto its own page? --70.24.167.163 22:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

From Pee Review

Hey, some of you may remember this article getting nominated for VFH every two minutes. I saw how crappy it was, felt Snakes on a Plane deserved better, then rewrote it. I tried to nominate it, but it got deleted from the list. I'd like a quick review of it to make sure it's worth staying with. Cheers. unsigned by Methulah

Oh good God, so many quotations... so much to be cut... so little will to keep reading... <runs off crying> Seriously, this needs to be shortened- the joke:filler ratio isn't high enough, and even if it's improved you might want to give up any prospect of it staying on VFH for more than a few minutes; unless you do something radically original and funny with it no-one's going to vote for it, if only because an antipathy to memes has built up recently around Uncyclopedia (which, basically, is a good thing, but it means long hours must be spent in search of originality). --Jamtrousers 14:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Originality is better than following memes anyway. If you're looking for a feature out of this, no matter how you change it: good luck. The only suggestion I can make would be to take it in a new direction; Historical costume drama: British accents, polo, chaste people looking longingly at one another, and mention SoaP only tangentially (as a non sequitur, or "Apropo of nothing, Madame Beauchest, I feel that it would behoove you to remove these snakes from this Concorde"). Dunno if that helps, but your fighting an uphill battle no matter what path you choose...--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with both Jamtrousers and Modusoperandi. Make it shorter. Also, yes, there are too many quotations at the top. Many readers will read the first two, notice that they have to page down just to get the actual article, and immediately click the "Random page" link. There are too many directions being gone in -- nice list of alternate titles, especially liked Pandas in Uganda but golly there are just...so many things...and they don't quite add up. Or subtract down. Tighter, leaner, faster, harder! OW! ----OEJ 00:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This page, AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS, is one of the best and well-written ones I've seen on Uncyclopedia. For starters, there is no random unfunny shit in it- it's good satire. What stands out the most are the quotes at the top: they're all actually relevant, and funny as hell, esp. because they're real (like the badger badger badger quote). Even the Oscar Wilde quote is funny and not just fucking random, which is excellent and unexpected. This article gets mad props. Don't change a thing.

Demetrious 05:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

harry potter?

come on now. Something has to be said....Man in the Ceiling 23:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

................................ Roman Dog Bird 17:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

SteamRoller Rewrite What?!

Exactly why is this worthy of a Steamroller Rewrite? This article has great potential (minus the spinoff section). The Plot Summary, Thematic Analysis, Sequel?, and to a lesser extent the Rejected Ideas sections are all top notch. What's so bad about this article? The fact that there is finally an article on Uncyclopedia actually has something to do with the topic in question for once? Oh somebody call the police!--Little Jimmy 12:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The main thing that this article needs is cohesion. Good Uncyclopedia articles are articles that do not look like they've been written by 276 people, even when they were. The steamroller was probably too harsh, but a soft to medium rewrite is in order. --Jab 02:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What? As a long time reader I've noticed Unclyclopedia has become too serious, articles need to look like they were written by at least 276 people! This article is fine, it could do with a trim but in the style of the old a.k.a funny Uncyclopedia this article if fine! Please don't Chuck Norris it!!!