I'm proud to say that as August 18th grows closer, I've had snakes on the brain. Why's that? Well, unless you have been actually living in a cave for the past year, you know that Snakes on a Plane hits theaters nationwide in mid-August. Why the excitement? Is it because I'm excited to see movie camp at its finest? Hell yes! Is it because the movie stars Samuel L. Mutha-Effin' Jackson? Of course! But the real reason I'm excited for the movie (at least for the purpose of this blog) is because it firmly cements what critics have been observing and noting for the past year: Bloggers are one hell of a focus group.

Initially sounding like a movie pitch from hell, Snakes on a Plane is exactly what it sounds like: deadly and venomous snakes are released aboard a flight in order to kill someone who has witnessed a mob whacking, and it's up to Samuel L. Mutha-Effin' Jackson to save the day. Normally a movie of this caliber would experience the success and critical acclaim of, say, some God-awful Rob Schneider flick. During pre-preduction, however, something beautiful happened. Bloggers took note of this soon-to-be camp classic, and they got excited.

Thus, the Snakes on a Plane phenomenon began. Fake posters. Blogs. Snake fever had officially hit the Internet. Producers noticed quite quickly and took advantage of the free publicity, keeping the working title of the movie (it was initially going to be changed to Pacific Air Flight 121), adding cool lines for Samuel L. Mutha-Effin' Jackson, and changing the movie from a PG-13 to a boobs-and-gore-friendly R rating. The movie's official website features a "Fan Site of the Week" and "Snakes on MySpace." It seems as if the whole of the Internet has Snakes on a Plane-ia.

Obviously there are scores of criticism about the movie's evolution. An Esquire feature written by Chuck Klosterman maintains that

"Snakes on a Plane is an unabashed attempt at prefab populism, and (maybe) this gimmick will work once. But it won't keep working, and it will almost certainly make filmmaking worse....[it] is like the Wikipedia version of a movie."

I have issues with this argument. In my opinion, taking advantage of online buzz and adjusting the scope of a movie or television show according to bloggers' opinions are no different than showing test screenings in order to gauge the audience's reaction. Wait, it is different: it's not forced and it's cheaper. Producers are tapping into a reservoir of genuine demographics who don't feel as if they have to criticize the movie simply because they were invited to or expected to do so by some studio bigwig. It's the ultimate form of eavesdropping.

Another great example of the impact of the Internet as a test audience is Television Without Pity. The site offers up exhaustively thorough (yet consistently hilarious) recaps of several TV shows' latest episodes, and the writers feel no qualms about bashing a particular episode, character, or plotline, no matter how beloved or critically acclaimed the show may be. You better believe that the shows' writers paid attention. In an article titled "Revolt With a Remote", it was noted that show creaters Aaron Sorkin, Judd Apatow, and Ryan Murphy all admitted to peeking in on TWoP's message boards to see how their shows' fans are reacting. Another article, "No Pity", points out that:

"It is now standard Hollywood practice for executive producers (known in trade argot as ''show runners'') to scurry into Web groups moments after an episode is shown on the East Coast. Sure, a good review in the print media is important, but the boards, by definition, are populated by a program's core audience — many thousands of viewers who care deeply about what direction their show takes."

Like it or not, it looks like these Internet-born focus groups are here to stay. In the meantime, I'll see you in line for Snakes on a Plane.