HERE's YOUR CHANCE to TELL US-s-s-s-s:

DID s-s-s-s-SNAKES on a PLANE  s-s-s-s-SUCK in a WAY YOU FOUND IRRESIS-s-s-s-sTABLY DELICIOUS-s-s-s-s...

OR DID IT JUS-s-s-s-s-T PLAIN OLD s-s-s-s-SUCK??

Once you've VOTED, f-f-f-f-feel f-f-f-f-free to s-s-s-s-sink your f-f-f-f-fangs into our f-f-f-f-Forum and pos-s-s-s-t your thoughts-s-s-s-s, feedback, reactions-s-s-s-s, et s-s-s-s-cetera...

I am curious to see if any movie marketed as being "deliberately bad" can make a lot of money. I know 1970's "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" (a personal favorite) was highly profitable for Fox, but it cost next-to-nothing to make. "Snakes on a Plane" looks like the marketing alone must've been over $30 million, and the production budget at least that much (or more). 

I am also unclear on where this film stands as a Razzie contender: If its sucks big time, but did so on purpose, is it really a Razzie movie? And if it just plain sucks, but the film's makers can argue they meant for it to, do they get a free pass from us, or what?? 

I think I'll just go to bed now -- All this Bizarro World/Inverted Logic is starting to hurt my head!!

I watched both Jon Stewart and Colbert Report tonight, and noticed that neither of them had any TV spots for Snakes. There's also been almost no newspaper ads for the film here in LA where I live. Does New Line think they don't need to do any advertising -- Or are they saving money at the last minute 'cause they know the picture sux worse than they "intended" for it to?? 

My money's on...IT SUX!!

GET THE MOTHER F**KING SNAKES OFF THIS MOTHER F**KING PLANE

Best. Line. Ever 

Response from Head RAZZberry: Actually, I think the line is "I have had it with these Mother Effing snakes on this Mother Effing plane" -- A bit of dialogue reputedly suggested to the film's makers by an Internet blogger, and added to the movie in re-shoots...