# Movie titles I don't understand **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 17, 2006, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074 "2006-05-17T04:21:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/21 "2006-05-17T10:22:16Z")
> [@ianzin](#): > > **Vanilla Sky**. This is a double puzzle, because (a) I don’t know what the term ‘vanilla sky’ means, and (b) I don’t know why they decided on that for the title of the movie. It’s the name of a Monet painting which is a minor plot-point in the film. ---
**Author:** ![Katriona](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/katriona/32/113_2.png) [@Katriona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katriona)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/22 "2006-05-17T11:23:57Z")
> [@HubZilla](#): > > How about “Attack of the Clones”. After all, the clones helped the good guys, not attacked them. Yeah, “The Clone Wars” would have made more sense, since it was supposed to have come from a throw-away line in Ep. IV where Obi-Wan said something about, “During the Clone Wars…” ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/23 "2006-05-17T12:06:31Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > For North by Northwest, here is an explanation from [North by Northwest (1959)](http://www.filmsite.org/nort.html) > > > [@](#): > > > > The title of the film is an anomaly and a clue to the absurd, confused plot in which no one is what he/she appears to be - there is no sharply delineated N by NW on a compass - it is an improbable direction. And as a matter of fact “North by Northwest” is a nonsense, not merely an “improbable” direction. “Northwest by North” (11.5 degrees to the North of Northwest) exists as as compass point, and so does “North by West” (11.5 degrees to the West of North), but not “North by Northwest” - no need to call anything “North by Northwest” when “North by West” conveys the same information using only the cardinal points. I always knew there was a point (!) to having learned to box the compass as a boy. (But don’t ask for it in quarter points. Life is too short.) ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/24 "2006-05-17T13:40:00Z")
What, nobody said _Resevoir Dogs_ yet ? ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/25 "2006-05-17T14:00:26Z")
> [@ianzin](#): > > **Vanilla Sky**. This is a double puzzle, because (a) I don’t know what the term ‘vanilla sky’ means, and (b) I don’t know why they decided on that for the title of the movie. I didn’t see the American version, but in the Spanish original (called “Open your eyes”), the movie ends with a view of the sky that can very well be called “vanilla”: it certainly has that color. You get that often-ish in Madrid at dawn, during hot periods. Probably in LA as well. “Open your eyes” is the final line of the movie’s dialogue. A vanilla sky also happens to be something that sounds unreal but which is perfectly real. And, like I said, is (or should be) shown in the final shot of the movie. ---
**Author:** ![Wee\_Bairn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/90db22/32.png) [@Wee\_Bairn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wee_Bairn)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/26 "2006-05-17T14:00:28Z")
Speaking of that idiot Mamet, why does he seem to revel in having his crapfests released with titles that would have the average viewer think the films were about subjects that they were not really about? \*\*Spartan \*\* for example, I know, the title is explained a couple of times in the film, but why release a political/kidnapping/pursuit whatever type film with a title that would make you think it is a(n) historical epic? Same for **Glengarry Glen Ross** - would you think for a moment a film with this formal historical sounding title was actually about modern day potty-mouthed time-share salesmen? **American Buffalo** - coin stealing scam film, or drama based on the plight of the Native Americans? I think he really costs himself some box office by “misrepresenting” what these films are about. I know, he’s probably trying to be “clever” or “intelligent”- I find it pompous, but I guess I should not expect too much from the only director in the world to have recognized the genius acting of Rebecca Pidgeon. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/27 "2006-05-17T14:11:32Z")
Not to mention **The Spanish Prisoner** , which has neither a prisoner nor anyone from Spain… “\*Nobody[/i expects The Spanish Prisoner!” ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/28 "2006-05-17T14:23:34Z")
**Gone With the Wind** , anyone? > [@friedo](#): > > It’s an almost universally known story in the US, but I don’t suppose it’s well-known in Australia. I was travelling in Germany when _Any Given Sunday_ was released there. I saw the posters and thought nobody there was likely to understand the title. And in one of his books, doesn’t Douglas Hofstedter talk about the difficulty of translating just the title of _All the President’s Men_? ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/29 "2006-05-17T14:53:10Z")
> [@Robot Arm](#): > > **Gone With the Wind** , anyone? That one’s explained in the title cards at the beginning of the movie, and makes perfect sense: > [@](#): > > There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South… Here in this pretty world Gallantry took its last bow… Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave… Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered. A Civilization gone with the wind… In the book, it’s from a thought of Scarlett’s: “Was Tara still standing? Or was Tara also gone with the wind which had swept through Georgia?” ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/30 "2006-05-17T15:07:30Z")
> [@Wee Bairn](#): > > Speaking of that idiot Mamet, why does he seem to revel in having his crapfests released with titles that would have the average viewer think the films were about subjects that they were not really about? \*\*Spartan \*\* for example, I know, the title is explained a couple of times in the film, but why release a political/kidnapping/pursuit whatever type film with a title that would make you think it is a(n) historical epic? Same for **Glengarry Glen Ross** - would you think for a moment a film with this formal historical sounding title was actually about modern day potty-mouthed time-share salesmen? **American Buffalo** - coin stealing scam film, or drama based on the plight of the Native Americans? I think he really costs himself some box office by “misrepresenting” what these films are about. I know, he’s probably trying to be “clever” or “intelligent”- I find it pompous, but I guess I should not expect too much from the only director in the world to have recognized the genius acting of Rebecca Pidgeon. 🙂 Evidently, Mamet’s target audience consists of people smarter than you. Me, I always like a title that only becomes clear once you see the film. Something like **They Shoot Horses, Don’t They** or **Glengarry Glen Ross** is just plain brilliant. ---
**Author:** ![gonzoron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a6a055/32.png) [@gonzoron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzoron)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/31 "2006-05-17T15:25:11Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > I’m still trying to figure out WTF a “phantom menace” is. Time to earn my Star Wars fanboy card punch… The Phantom Menace is the Trade Federation, and their attack on Naboo. They appear to be “the bad guys” and they Menace the peaceful… Nabooians? Nabooese? Nabooish? (“funny, she doesn’t look Nabooish…”) But it’s all just smoke and mirrors, a “phantom” created by Palpatine to further his own polictical power-grab. As Darth Sidious, he’s the true menace through the whole trilogy (both trilogies, actually) but the visible one is only a phantom. And as for Attack of the Clones… They attack the seperatists. Who said they had to attack the good guys? It’s not Attack-on-the-good-guys of the Clones. (that comes in the next movie…) They couldn’t call it The Clone Wars, when it’s at best an opening skirmish of the wars. (as shown in the Clone Wars cartoon). ---
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/32 "2006-05-17T15:25:24Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > What, nobody said _Resevoir Dogs_ yet ? I came to this thread with just that in mind. ---
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/33 "2006-05-17T15:29:29Z")
The extreme opposite of thread titles that are not easily understood: **Coffee and Cigarettes** > **[Coffee and Cigarettes (2003) - IMDb](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379217/)** > > Coffee and Cigarettes: Directed by Jim Jarmusch. With Roberto Benigni, Steven Wright, Joie Lee, Cinqué Lee. A series of vignettes that all have coffee and cigarettes in common. ---
**Author:** ![Wee\_Bairn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/90db22/32.png) [@Wee\_Bairn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wee_Bairn)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/34 "2006-05-17T15:35:31Z")
**RealityChuck** , you are missing the point of my post, which is probably due to my unclear wording. I have no problem with titles that are thought provoking or understandable only after watching the film- your mention of **They Shoot Horses Don’t They?** is a great example. This title, though, like maybe **Silence of the Lambs** as well, make you unsure what the movie is about- I don’t think the average viewer, having never heard of these two films, would really think they are about horses or lambs. This is totally different than someone titling a movie to make you think it would about something it is not about at all. Mamet’s titles are like releasing \*\*Fun with Dick and Jane \*\* as “The Maiden and the Chivalrous Knight”- it misrepresents what the movie is about. This doesn’t offend me, I just find it pompous, like Mamet is trying to class up his little crapfests. I actually liked **Glengarry Glen Ross** , more for the acting then the atrociously faux-insightful dialogue (and the fact Mamet didn’t direct, so even though we get the dumb writing, we are sort of spared the cornball deliveries), and loved **Homicide** , where the hip dialogue does not call attention to itself. My point being, even though Glengarry Glen Ross is explained in the film, the wording itself is laughable- are we to expect time share salesman refer to good leads using such ridiculous names as the Glengarry leads? As for Mamet’s target audience being smarter than me, that may also be Mamet’s rationale, but it is again sort of pompous for him to sit around and think he makes movies for intellectuals, when all the intellectuals I know watch his films solely to laugh to at his pseudo-hip dialogue and the phony way he makes the actors say his stupid lines. I mean, in **Heist** the Danny Devito character refers to a woman as a “doxie” for Chrissakes. If that is “too smart” for me, then I am glad I’m not the taget audience. I have never even seen a 40’s noir use the tem “doxie”. Ebert and all those other genius critics enraptured by the “masterful way Mamet captures the speech of the average lowlife” or other bullshit have no idea how these people talk, and thus have no way of knowing that no one on earth talks the way his characters do. ---
**Author:** ![Winston\_Bongo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a9adbd/32.png) [@Winston\_Bongo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Winston_Bongo)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/35 "2006-05-17T15:44:36Z")
Although \*\*Blade Runner \*\* is definitely a cooler title for a movie than **Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep** , I’m still not sure what it means. Harrison Ford’s character is referred to as a “blade runner” once in the film, but his job of hunting androids involves no apparent blades and only brief running. As far as I remember, the term “blade runner” does not appear in the original novel either. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/36 "2006-05-17T15:45:20Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > I’m still trying to figure out WTF a “phantom menace” is. > > Man, those movies blew chunks. Umm…there was a “menace” that was a “phantom” - meaning an illusionary “menace” - like the Trade Federation. There’s also a “menace” - Darth Sidious - who is a “phantom” - meaning ghost-like. As for “Attack of the Clones”…umm…they attacked. And they were clones. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/37 "2006-05-17T15:55:47Z")
> [@gonzoron](#): > > And as for Attack of the Clones… They attack the seperatists. Who said they had to attack the good guys? It’s not Attack-on-the-good-guys of the Clones. (that comes in the next movie…) They couldn’t call it The Clone Wars, when it’s at best an opening skirmish of the wars. (as shown in the Clone Wars cartoon). I reckon it all boils down to Lucas’s burning desire to subtitle the **Star Wars** movies as “BLANK of the BLANK”. He did it to three out of the six, which to me says OCD. And unimaginative OCD at that. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/38 "2006-05-17T16:11:22Z")
> [@Wee Bairn](#): > > This is totally different than someone titling a movie to make you think it would about something it is not about at all. Mamet’s titles are like releasing \*\*Fun with Dick and Jane \*\* as “The Maiden and the Chivalrous Knight”- it misrepresents what the movie is about. This doesn’t offend me, I just find it pompous, like Mamet is trying to class up his little crapfests. I actually liked **Glengarry Glen Ross** , more for the acting then the atrociously faux-insightful dialogue (and the fact Mamet didn’t direct, so even though we get the dumb writing, we are sort of spared the cornball deliveries), and loved **Homicide** , where the hip dialogue does not call attention to itself. My point being, even though Glengarry Glen Ross is explained in the film, the wording itself is laughable- are we to expect time share salesman refer to good leads using such ridiculous names as the Glengarry leads? Here’s where we disagree. A title is title. It is not a description. If people think otherwise, that’s not the fault of the author. So why is **They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?** good and **Glengarry Glen Ross** (which is a reference to the faux-classy names given to housing developments in the play/movie and in real life: Glengarry Acres, Glen Ross Farms, etc.), bad? Neither gives a description of the film. Both can confuse people (the general impression of **Horses** to the uninitiated is that it’s a western). It ultimately boils down to the fact you just don’t like Mamet, so just you look for more reasons to dislike him. > [@](#): > > As for Mamet’s target audience being smarter than me, that may also be Mamet’s rationale, but it is again sort of pompous for him to sit around and think he makes movies for intellectuals I made that comment, not David Mamet. I am not David Mamet, so why are you ascribing my comment to him? > [@](#): > > when all the intellectuals I know watch his films solely to laugh to at his pseudo-hip dialogue and the phony way he makes the actors say his stupid lines. OTOH, those I know tend to like his films. > [@](#): > > I mean, in **Heist** the Danny Devito character refers to a woman as a “doxie” for Chrissakes. If that is “too smart” for me, then I am glad I’m not the taget audience. I have never even seen a 40’s noir use the tem “doxie”. That what’s known as “style.” I haven’t seen the film, so I can’t comment on the specifics, but the point was not to be “accurate,” but, instead, to be truthful. The two are quite different, and the use of non-“accurate” language is merely a way of getting to the truth of the matter. People didn’t talk like they do in Damon Runyon books; do you object to the language in **Guys and Dolls**? There is no recorded instance of a person being shot in a Marathon dance contest, either. > [@](#): > > Ebert and all those other genius critics enraptured by the “masterful way Mamet captures the speech of the average lowlife” or other bullshit have no idea how these people talk, and thus have no way of knowing that no one on earth talks the way his characters do. Well, [g]Glengarry Glen Ross\*\* certainly portrays how the people involved talk. It’s exaggerating a bit, but that’s a concept known as “art” – which is not required to be “accurate.” ---
**Author:** ![Wee\_Bairn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/90db22/32.png) [@Wee\_Bairn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wee_Bairn)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/39 "2006-05-17T16:33:03Z")
“It ultimately boils down to the fact you just don’t like Mamet, so just you look for more reasons to dislike him.” touche 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2006, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074/40 "2006-05-17T16:48:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Although Blade Runner is definitely a cooler title for a movie than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, I’m still not sure what it means. Harrison Ford’s character is referred to as a “blade runner” once in the film, but his job of hunting androids involves no apparent blades and only brief running. As far as I remember, the term “blade runner” does not appear in the original novel either. It makes no sense at all. I think they just liked the title more than Dick’s, having seen Alan E. Nourse’s novel (or, more likely, the weird Burroughs screenplay “treatment” of it). In the Nourse novel, a “bladerunner” is a supplier of clandestine medical supplies, especially surgical supplies. Hence “Bladerunner”, which in that case makes sense (and evokes images of freedom fighters smuggling swords). They thank both Nourse and Burroughs in the closing credits of the film, for use of the title. You have to work really hard to make “Bladerunner” refer to an “android killer”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-titles-i-dont-understand/357074.md?page=3)