Chuck Klosterman writes in Esquire on the "tragedy" of Snakes on a Plane. He seems to fear that the film will encourage awful copycat attempts by studios to make blog-inspired movies, and that the movie will be too self-conscious to be "so bad it's good." He's wrong for several reasons:

1. Hollywood's copycat obsession is a symptom that has dominated modern cinema for years, and Snakes on a Plane can be hardly blamed for it. You can't pinpoint what's wrong with the horror/action genre on one film, especially when the genre is already in dire straits. (Incidentally, I saw Jaws yesterday for the first time. It was good.)
2. Over 95% of the movie was written and filmed before the Internet phenomenon became fully defined, meaning that the studio was never fully enslaved to the whims of the blogosphere. They did 5 mere days of reshooting -- hardly a choose-your-own adventure, or a wiki for that matter.
3. "[P]eople now say 'Snakes on a plane' in place of 'It is what it is.'" The only people that use the phrase that way are stodgy NPR cultural analysts and people outside the phenomenon looking in.
4. Whether or not the movie is bad enough to be good is somewhat irrelevant. Everyone in the audience (at least when I see the movie) will be there with a shared connection, familiar with the Internet phenomenon, and not just the Keith Olbermann or New York Times coverage. We'll be there to see Snakes on a Plane, and not to witness the harbinger of a new "wikifilm" genre.

His cultural commentary here seems to be much ado about nothing, or more accurately, much ado about the wrong thing. (via soab)