A recent thread on the movie “Pacific Rim” includes commentary that the movie is not stirring up as much buzz as they might like.
It seems obvious to me what that is; bad title. “Pacific Rim” tells you absolutely nothing about the movie, which is about giant robots fighting monsters. There’s nothing appealing about “Pacific Rim.” A lot of people don’t even know what the Pacific Rim is, and those that do would not connect that term with super fun times.
Another example would be “John Carter,” a movie that lost approximately fifty trillion dollars in part (not entirely, but in part) because the title did not in any way suggest it was a big budget Mars-based sci-fi epic.
It seems to be a good movie title should be one of three things:
PERFECTLY DESCRIPTIVE:
Aliens
Star Wars
Bonnie & Clyde
PUNCHY, SOUNDS GOOD, AND/OR INTRIGUING:
Die Hard
World War Z
Back to the Future
NAMED AFTER A KNOWN FRANCHISE, SOURCE MATERIAL, HISTORICAL THING:
Lincoln
Star Trek
Gone with the Wind
The Godfather
Batman, Iron Man, and all superhero/comic book flicks
Or a combination of all three. “The Wizard of Oz” was based on a popular book, but it’s also descriptive (but in a clever, deceptive way, too) and a punchy, intriguing title.
What are the best movie titles?
What are the worst?
What do you think the most popular movie is with the worst title?
K-Pax is one of the worst movie titles I can remember - and yet it was named after the original book. It’s a film starring Kevin Spacey about an alien who stays at a mental asylum (or a crazy guy at a mental asylum who’s very good at pretending to be an alien). “K-Pax” is the planet where this guy supposedly comes from, but it makes for a really crappy title.
I have trouble picking particularly good movie titles, as I think that’s highly subjective. But some I like include:
Johnny got his Gun (makes you wonder WHO Johnny is and WHY he got his gun)
Memento
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (it tells you what’s going to happen in the film, which means that you can sit back and enjoy the how, by far the most important aspect of the film)
-Buried (yep, the main character is buried for the entirety of the film. The same way you’ll feel if you watch it)
I just hate titles that contain a characters name with a twist. . . but, dang I can’t think of a good example. . . Like the movie will be called “Take it to Hart” and it’s about a guy named Jimmy Hart that’s searching for love. Stuff like that.
Great movie with a terrible title. When it came out I thought it was a sappy love story. Instead it’s one of the most violent movies of all time. I’m sure the contradiction was intentional, but I think it may have cost some money at the box office.
I think The Heat is awfully generic. I saw it on a marquee and thought, bleah, cop movie. Which it is, but later on I saw a commercial for it and said, Oh yeah! That one that looked like it might be funny!
I haven’t actually seen it, and probably won’t until it comes on TV some lazy Sunday afternoon, so I can’t suggest a better title yet.
Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever is just about as bad as a title can get - opaque, meaningless, awkward, ugly and confusing.
There is a reason to use an understated title. It may work against marketing efforts, but I’d rather think of Witness as, well, Witness rather than Hiding Out Among the Amish or A Bad-Ass Cop Finds Religion or The Boy Who Was Almost Corrupted.
Disney’s putting more thought to this than they used to: they released Tangled, not Rapunzel, and, coming this winter, Frozen, not The Snow Queen. In both cases the idea is supposedly to attract boys who might not be interested in a “Disney princess” movie.
Sorcerer was one of my favourite movies but unless you knew that “Sorcerer” was a nickname for a truck, you’d likely get a pretty inaccurate picture from the title.
*Epic *is such a bad title. There’s also another animated movie coming out this summer called Turbo. I’m wondering how often the two are confused. Or ignored, since the titles ar so generic.