Movies killed by their titles

Cafe Society
21

[QUOTE=spoke-]
Primal Fear

Excellent movie with an oscar-nominated performance by Edward Norton, ill-served by an insipid Hollywood-marketing-department title that tells potential viewers nothing about the movie.
[/QUOTE]
Well, that was the title of the William Diehl novel the screenplay was adapted from, so I don’t think you can blame a Hollywood marketing department.

Freddy Got Fingered. The weird title put people off, preventing them from enjoying this epic drama’s Oscar-level star turn by Tom Green. Especially odd title, given that (NOTE: Do NOT read this if you haven’t yet had the chance to savor this cinematic feast):Freddy, technically, did not in fact get fingered.

22

[QUOTE=bouv]
On the opposite end of the spectrum, has any movie ever done better than Snakes on a Plane based only on it’s name?
[/QUOTE]

That’s the movie about tarantulas on a hydrofoil, right?

23

We just did a pretty similar thread recently.

(Worst movie title)

24

Midnight Cowboy

Granted, its initial X rating stymied it some, but even after it was changed to R, this critically acclaimed film did squat at the box office. Its all time domestic ranking is a paltry 1,107. The title was confusing. A lot of people thought they were going to see a Western. Not many people knew that a midnight cowboy was a male prostitute.

25

[QUOTE=Baldwin]
The weird title put people off, preventing them from enjoying this epic drama’s Oscar-level star turn by Tom Green.
[/QUOTE]

Yep, they should have called it An Elephant Ejaculates All Over the Place.

26

Pushing Tin was a really bad title. What on earth does that even mean?* It was also a crap movie, which I’m sure contributed to it’s lack of success at the box office, but still. Pushing Tin?

  • It’s about air traffic controllers. And no, not the funny ones like in “Airplane.”
27

One I’ve mentioned in other threads: Two if by sea. The title made no sense to Australians.

28

[QUOTE=Equipoise]
Archive Guy already addressed this one, that Michael Clayton has been very successful, but now I’m curious. What made you think it was unsuccessful?
[/QUOTE]
Well, this wasn’t addressed to me, but how is $38 million domestic in two months considered “very successful” in Hollywood-George Clooney standards? Granted, I don’t know how much the movie cost to make (although a little digging suggests at least $22 million) or market (no guesses here - anyone?), but I have a very, very hard time believing that’s anywhere near a target number for a Clooney film. Hell, **Lions for Lambs ** has made back its production budget (if you count foreign), but nobody is saying it’s a hit.

Anyway, here’s a blurb from Slate describing how the take was a disappointment. There are a number of similar articles in late October, early November saying the same thing.

Ok, not to say it wasn’t a good movie, but I think calling it a “very successful” movie isn’t appropriate.

29

Scent of a Woman.

My ex (at the time my wife) refused to see this because of the title. I do not recall how it came to pass but eventually we saw it and enjoyed it a lot but it was the title that threw us (her mostly) off.

30

I agree that Serenity was hurt by it’s title. Freddy Got Fingered and Shoot Em Up, though, pretty aptly give you a feel for what kind of movie they are.

31

The title The Conversation makes it sound like one of those talky Ingmar Bergman films instead of the fine suspense movie it really was.

32

[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
Well, this wasn’t addressed to me, but how is $38 million domestic in two months considered “very successful”
[/QUOTE]
Why just count domestic? The movie made almost $66 million worldwide, on a $25 million budget. It’s critically acclaimed (90% at Rotten Tomatoes), is a contender during the awards season. By every measure I count, it’s a very successful movie. If you want to quibble, take off the “very” but by every measure, it’s a successful movie.

[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
in Hollywood-George Clooney standards?
[/QUOTE]
See, that’s one of the problems. What is a “George Clooney” standard?

[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
I have a very, very hard time believing that’s anywhere near a target number for a Clooney film.
[/QUOTE]
What’s “a Clooney film” to you? To me, Clooney films are films that George Clooney likes to make, and most of those are smaller films that are more interesting and deeper than the Batman & Robin and Peacemakers of old. He gave up that crap long ago, but people still put him into that same “movie star = blockbuster” box. It’s not his problem. He’s doing exactly what he wants to do, and making some damn fine movies in the process. If the movies, other than the Oceans films, don’t make a lot of money, he’ll still be able to sleep at night knowing that he’s leaving behind a pretty good legacy of films, starting with Out of Sight. The Oceans films are allowing him to make these smaller films, but making a blockbuster with Steven Soderbergh has got to feel a lot better than making a blockbuster strictly for the money with anyone else.

[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach Hell, **Lions for Lambs ** has made back its production budget (if you count foreign), but nobody is saying it’s a hit. [/QUOTE]
Why cound foreign for LFL but not for MC? In any case, no one’s saying Clayton is a “hit” either.

[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
Anyway, here’s a blurb from Slate describing how the take was a disappointment.
[/QUOTE]
That particular article was only talking about the opening weekend. It makes the same mistake of only wanting Clooney to be a “movie star” with blockbusters and not an actor/artist with a great resume.

And anyway, as you know, box office does not equal good or bad and is in no way a measure of quality. Clooney’s The Good German made less than $2 million last year, but it was one of the best movies of the year, IMO.

[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
Ok, not to say it wasn’t a good movie, but I think calling it a “very successful” movie isn’t appropriate.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, it was successful.

33

[QUOTE=Little Plastic Ninja]
Serenity, or so some of my friends believe.

Really doesn’t sound like a kick-arse science fiction adventure with tiny Asian girls kicking people to death.
[/QUOTE]

Summer Glau is not Asian. But having said that, a somewhat-relevant xkcd comic (Damn, I’ve been posting a lot of those lately).

34

[QUOTE=asterion]
That’s the movie about tarantulas on a hydrofoil, right?
[/QUOTE]

I thought it was about a Hovercraft full of Eels.

35

[QUOTE=Baldwin]
Well, [Primal Fear] was the title of the William Diehl novel the screenplay was adapted from, so I don’t think you can blame a Hollywood marketing department.
[/QUOTE]

Ah, so it was some publisher’s Department of Insipid Marketing that affixed the title.