SNAKES ON A PLANE personalized message:

Samuel Jackson “personalized” message. Amusing, and quite possibly one of the most awesome ways I’ve seen a movie publicized in a long time.

While this is pretty cool, I refuse to believe he can’t say ‘mothafucka’. I mean, it’s Samuel L. Jackson. That’s like to him what getting punched out is to Danzig and lying is to Johnny Rotten.

Yeah. “I kicked whats-his-name’s ass.” :smiley:

My friend called me with that message.

I bet this movie’s gonna suck after all the hype :stuck_out_tongue:

The movie is called Snakes on a plane. We already know it’s gonna suck, but it’ll suck so much that it’ll become a cult classic.

I haven’t a clue why I even quoted, I’m the next post down…oh well.

They talked about this on the news last night. They also interviewed Jackson, who was talking about the “refilming” of the movie to accomodate the internet fanbase; he was apparantly pretty happy about it, because he said he didn’t feel right saying “gosh golly gee whiz” about there being snakes on a plane. Thus, the introduction of the “I’ve had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane” line.

They posted that interview online <A HREF=“”>here</A>. It’s the Aug 17 “Hissy Fit” video. It’s not Firefox friendly, though.

I’m probably gonna see it today haha. And yeah, I got one of these messages. I thought it was awesome incarnate.

Oh god it was so amazing.

I don’t get it, it’s retarded. The movie’s a retarded concept, & I don’t get why, if it sucks so badly, why people are all so “OMFG” about it.

Well, let’s look at it this way. You have very poor usage of the English language, given your above post. You use the word ‘why’ twice when it was only needed once, used a double negative in ‘sucks so badly’, couldn’t even type out of the word ‘and’, and seem to only have one word to describe something you dislike, a word which does not even actually apply in this concept, since retarded means ‘slowed or delayed,’ of which the plot is neither. I believe you were looking for the word ‘stupid’, or perhaps ‘inane’.
Now, after all that, why do you think I enjoyed your post, brief though it was? Some things, you see, are so bad they are actually amusing or funny. I got a fair amount of amusement out of your post, which is nowhere near as poorly constructed as snakes on a plane. The old concept of ‘So bad it’s good’ is being developed to new highs/lows with this film, and that is the reason for all of the ‘omgf’ (as you put it) about Snakes on a Plane.

Truth be said, I enjoyed the structure of the last post. :stuck_out_tongue:

Zoolander was another movie of the variety.

Sucks so badly technically isn’t a double negative.

I can see how it would be, because sucks is usually a negative term; however, you could say something like a vacuum cleaner sucks badly meaning it isn’t even doing it’s own purpose correctly. Meaning that the movie was supposed to be bad, but it’s so bad that it isn’t even doing that correctly.

Sucks has a negative definition, but neither it nor badly are negations. Double negatives should be more aptly called double negations. The problem here is that while sucks and badly are both negative terms, they are a different kind of negative term than don’t or nothing. The latter are negations; the former definitely are not negating anything.

If something sucks poorly, then it could be argued that the thing in question does not, in fact, suck, thereby creating a double-negative effect. Since badly means whatever is being done is not being done to an effective degree, then it could be argued combining badly with a negative term means something is, in fact, being done well. Hence, the movie was badly made poorly, thereby ending up with a well made film.
Perhaps ‘double negative’ wasn’t precisely correct, but his meaning is still incorrect. ‘Sucked so greatly,’ or ‘so immensely’ was the idea the poster was trying to achieve, I presume.