Movie Titles

I missed The Boston Globe round-up of the best movie titles ever.  If you did too, they chose:

• Snakes on a Plane (2006)
• The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!? (1964)
• Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo (1984)
• Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song (1971)
• Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (1964)
• The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)
• Surf Nazis Must Die (1987)
• To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar (1995)
• Rat Pfink a Boo Boo (1966)
• Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
• Invasion U.S.A. (1985)

I think by and large they’re confusing Most Unusual with Best, but I admire the effort! LINK

While we’re on the subject of movie titles, Variety has a short piece (subtitled Unoriginal Sins) on the striking similarities among the names of many of this year’s Oscar contenders. Citing such sets as The Good Shepherd, The Good German, and A Good Year, the author concludes:

This won’t come as a big shock to most here, but it seems like the titles of theatrical releases have been focus-grouped to the point of insanity — and the only variety in the room is the publication you’re reading right now.

He exaggerates, but there’s still nothing like an original, evocative title to draw an audience in. I especially like his suggested name for the sequel to Denzel Washington’s Deja Vu — Deja  Vu 2: Deja Vu! LINK

The Los Angeles Times has a fun little article putting forward some early contenders for the imaginary honor of the The Most Awesome Movie Title of 2007. Their picks:

• Live Free or Die Hard
• Disturbia
• Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters
• Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium
• There Will Be Blood

My own picks?

• Ratatouille
• Grindhouse
• The King of California
• Friends (With Benefits)
• Totilla Heaven

It’s too bad there can’t be an actual award for best title; we’d have a lot more good stuff to choose from! LINK

According to a recent article in the Journal of Consumer Research, movie audiences will pick a sequel with its own title (e.g. the hypothetical Daredevil: Taking It To The Streets) over one with simply a number appended (Daredevil 2).  The UCLA | Wharton research team concluded that moviegoers are seeking some sort of clue that the follow-on isn’t just a retread.  In other words, they want more than a familiar premise and engaging characters; they want a new story. LINK

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)