‹ Movie Branding | A Jerry Bruckheimer Movie • Video Game Names | The Worst Ever ›
My favorite Australian paper, the Sydney Morning Herald, has a nice, long, opinionated article on what makes for a great movie title. According to columnist Garry Maddox,
… titles do matter. Why else would a romantic comedy called $3000, named after the sum a wealthy client pays a hooker, be changed to Pretty Woman? So that we all buy into the sweet fantasy of that classic Hollywood romance without being reminded that it’s a movie about a businessman with more money than friends hiring a prostitute off the street.
Garry like his titles short and snappy (Alien … Braveheart … Chinatown … Gladiator … Twister) or evocative and intriguing (Girl, Interrupted … My Big Fat Greek Wedding … The Good, The Bad and The Ugly … The Silence of the Lambs). He cites The Cinderella Man, starring fellow Aussie Russell Crowe, as a great movie whose title missed the mark.
I couldn’t agree more. Around here movie titles are some of our favorite projects, but it’s always a challenge. There are typically too many cooks in the studio kitchen and the cost of a mistake is enormous. Where else but in Hollywood does a brand fail or succeed in the first weekend?
My only problem with Garry’s piece? His own title. It sure seems like every naming article ever written is cleverly called What’s in a Name?! Give us a break! LINK (Reposted)
You must be logged in to post a comment.

No comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://www.brentscarcliff.com/blog/2007/01/movie-titles-the-view-from-oz/trackback/