Prick,up your ears
When you say it out loud, “ears” sounds a lot like “rears.” I’m guessing a porno?
Which opens up a whole new arena of accurate movie titles. Cum Guzzling Sluts pretty much sums up the movie, doesn’t it?
“Prick Up Your Ears” is a biopic of gay British playwright Joe Orton. The title was originally proposed by his lover, Kenneth Halliwell, as the title of a movie script Orton was writing for the Beatles (Orton decided that the title was too good to waste on the Beatles and titled the script Up Against it; it was rejected by the Beatles). Orton was going to use it as the title of a farce about the goings-on backstage at a coronation, but was murdered by Halliwell before he could write it. Orton biographer John Lahr used the title for the biography, which was adapted into the screenplay. It’s a good movie despite the presence of Wallace Shawn, and the biography is a good read and Orton’s plays are outstanding (not so much the novels). A number of his works have been filmed, mostly for TV from the looks of IMDB, and if there hasn’t been already there needs to be a DVD release.
Another unmined vein is the earliest silents, which often had very literally descriptive titles (“Mabel at the Beach” and so forth).
I always read it as a play on “Prick up your arse.” The homophony is weak, but it’s an anagram. But no, it doesn’t really describe the film, like “Jealous, dysfunctional relationship” would.
Sir!
Debbie Does Dallas.
Except she never got to Dallas.
Except she doesn’t do Dallas in the movie (just about everything else, though).
Alien vs. Predator must have been easy to pitch.
Gulliver’s Travels
Sullivan’s Travels
Around the World in Eighty Days
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
Driving Miss Daisy
A Long Day’s Journey Into Night
Barber Shop
[ol]
[li]Get sense of humor.[/li][li]It’s way more apt than most of the lame contributions to this lame thread; it’s certainly more syntactically apt than almost all of them.[/li][li]It’s “prick up your rears,” which states pretty clearly Orton’s life’s principles. So as a biopic, it’s a pretty apt title.[/li][li]Stalk someone else. We should all be so lucky as to have someone whose energies are dedicated to pointing out when we make a post that isn’t as wildly funny as we thought it was, or to ask if we’ve read the thread, or to generally make it clear that somebody out there somewhere is perennially ready to pounce and try to make us wish we had just kept our mouth shut. It’s good to have a life’s mission, Otto. It might also be good to get a hobby.[/li][/ol]
Young Doctors in Love
Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House
The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer
I think the point that can be taken away from this thread (sorry for being impolite and calling it lame) is that movies have always had pretty straightforward titles. Written on the Wind and Reflections in a Golden Eye are, if not the exception, certainly not the norm; *Night Nurse, Bunny Lake Is Missing, *and Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia are not unique in their literalness.
And a less, again, impolite side note to Otto: as I read down this thread, I came across many contributions that were nearly non sequiturs in their inaptness to the OP, but I didn’t attempt to hijack the thread by calling out someone who was simply enjoying themself with their participation by trying to make them feel like an idiot. Neither did you, until you came across the “lissener” tag. Give a rest, dude. I don’t know what your beef with me is, but it’s childish to keep dragging it from thread to thread like a chewed-up old sock. Ignore me if I piss you off; I mostly ignore you. If each of us argued with every contribution to one of these silly little game threads that we didn’t agree with, CS would be a very contentious place indeed.
SF movies titles can go to either extreme. E.g.,
“Crack in the Earth” involved a crack in the Earth.
“Day the Earth Stood Still” had nothing to do with the Earth standing still.
“Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace: Special Edition” has a lot of colons.
lissener, you are cordially invited.
It was a fucking joke, for chrissakes. “Get a sense of humor” doesn’t mean it *WAS *funny, it means it was SUPPOSED TO BE funny. I should have replied with a “whoosh” and left it at that. Thanks for pointing out that there were no literaly pricks up any literal rears; that was the JOKE part. Is being less funny than I think I am really worthy of an argumentative hijack in a CS thread, let alone a pitting?
The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada.
Killer Klowns from Outer Space
Mars Attack!
Interview with the Vampire
Probably any of the Harry Potter movies.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
Memoirs of a Geisha