I felt the same way about The Shawshank Redemption.
Actually, I’m a sucker for theories.
[QUOTE=KneadToKnow]
I felt the same way about The Shawshank Redemption.
[/QUOTE]
My point was that in the 70s there were some good movies/books that used that title formula, and since then it has been aped in a knee-jerk fashion, in the hope that something enigmatic will automatically infuse importance into the story.
I usually ignore those titles–for better or worse–because they’re just so transparent.
I avoid books because of their titles all the time! Recently I read I Am Not a Serial Killer, and enjoyed it, but I didn’t pick it up right away because the title made me roll my eyes.
Another recent one, which I have not read: Eat Pray Love. Why don’t publishers just get a big rubber stamp that says “Chick Book”? (In this case, I also have issues with Pray).
Ah, yes, all those ladies’ club titles. The Florabama Ladies’ Auxiliary and Sewing Circle. The Beach Street Knitting Society and Yarn Club. The Persian Pickle Club. The Friday Night Knitting Club. Even *The No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency. *
They could be literary masterpieces and I’d never think to read them because I can’t stand this trend.
“Precious: Based on the novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
The TV show The Mentalist just makes me think of Alan Partridge, which makes it absolutely impossible to take the premise of the show seriously. Maybe if there were loads of people recommending the show I’d give it a go, but all I know of it is from the trailers, which I don’t really see the content of because I’m giggling so much.
I was reading through this thread thinking “How silly to dismiss something based on title alone” but then (before seeing the mention of it a few posts above this one) I remembered Eat, Pray, Love, which just sounds like the absolute worst movie OF ALL TIME with that title.
Then I saw the poster: oh my god. It looks stupid as fuck. I don’t even dislike Julia Roberts but that awful poster makes me want to never watch one of her movies again. I can’t even explain it. HATE.
I now know what the film is about and it doesn’t sound quite as bad as the title would suggest, but I’m still not going to see it.
+1000
I’m surprised I’m the first one to mention “Fight Club”. I just assumed it was a stupid action movie about a bunch of guys beating the crap out of each other. A good friend of mine told me “No, you really need to see this movie!”
I forget who said it, but there was an interesting take on this (moronic) title:
Because the movie became so popular, the paperback book was re-titled (from simply ‘Push’) to "Precious: Based on the novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire, based on the film “Precious: Based on the novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”.
No lie.
Regarding ‘Eat Drink Man Woman’, there was a joke told at the Oscars that year that that is how Arnold Schwarzenegger asked out Maria Shriver on their first date.
mmm
Sexy Beast
Snatch
Except that it is. Well, you’re mistaken anyway.
The novel was rereleased as Precious with a very prominent subtitle/title note: “Based on the Novel Push.” This is actually pretty common when a book is retitled for the movie release. It only seems doubly ridiculous here because the movie was released as Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire.
The No.1 Ladies Detective Agency isn’t a club. It’s a nice lady who has a private detective agency. They’re actually pretty good, and a rather original concept. (In America, that is. For all I know all Botswanan detective mysteries are like that).
Cougar Town also puts me off.
I never watched Queer Eye for the Straight Guy because I don’t like to use the word queer that way.
I had the same reaction as **Shoeless **to Fight Club. I thought it was the dumbest title ever for a book/movie. Then I listened to it on an audiobook (because at the time I was commuting a lot and getting anything that sounded even remotely good from the library to listen to) and man, was I wrong. Love the book, love the movie.
And yeah, “Precious”, etc. is just stupid. I can’t get past that title even if it’s supposed to be a good book.
It would really make me very happy if (IIRC, which of course I won’t) Prince, formerly that symbol, formerly the artist, formerly the artist formerly known as Prince, formerly Prince, had at some point commented on that.