This past weekend, the film "Hot Tub Time Machine" was released. Reviews were mixed, and the cast wasn't particularly marketable. Yet everyone we knew had heard of the movie. The reason: the title. It was so obvious, yet so ridiculous. Like a song by Ke$ha, we loved to hate on it for its superficiality, but we couldn't seem to get it out of our heads.
We've been told that we should never judge a book by its cover, but it's hard not to at least make cursory assessments of things. We're talking to you, nameless blonde girl who wouldn't dance with either of us, despite our glowing personalities and ripe senses of humor.
There are plenty of ways for a movie title to stand out. It can be simple, like the playfully straightforward "Up" (2009), or hilariously convoluted, like "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" (2006). Similarly, a very forthright title can easily sum up a movie and attract viewers by taking the mystery out of things. For example, we love the directness of the title of the 2004 film "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle." (Spoiler alert! Harold and Kumar purchase sliders from a fast food establishment with a cream−colored fortress as its logo.)
On the other end of the spectrum, there are movies that have esoteric titles that leave people wanting more. The best example we can think of is "Cloverfield" (2008). And as if that wasn't enough, studio execs didn't release the name of the movie for months, which only added to the movie's mystique. The untitled trailer left people scratching their heads. By not titling the film, producer J.J. Abrams created a knowledge vacuum that drove up interest and hype.
Sometimes a controversial movie title can raise enough eyebrows to catch viewers' attention. Just think of next month's "Kick−Ass" or "Inglourious Basterds" (2009). Both are notable for the use of colloquialisms, but the latter also displays brazen spelling. While bad spelling usually makes us "sic" to our stomachs (we totally belong at Tufts), it seems only fitting for someone as idiosyncratic as Quentin Tarantino to title his movie as such. The misspelling — intended for Tarantino to separate his film from its similarly titled 1978 inspiration — is never explained in the movie, but it certainly got people talking.
Another movie title with colorful language is "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" (2008), which was the subject of a lot of controversy when people began making a fuss over the word "porno." Parents and negative Nancys all over the country complained about the posters and ads. The Weinstein Company tried to leverage this PR storm into hype by releasing print ads declaring, "Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks made a movie so outrageous that we can't even tell you the title." Unfortunately, the film's lukewarm critical response led to a pretty flaccid performance at the box office.
If "Zack and Miri" is any indication, movie titles aren't going to make or break a film's financial outlook. A memorable title will catch the eye of a viewer and can score a film some free press, but at the end of the day, word of mouth will prevail. For the most part, attractive movie titles can only work to get otherwise lackluster films some easy opening weekend bucks. Take "Snakes on a Plane" (2006): Samuel L. Jackson only agreed to star in that film because of the title. He picked up the script, read the first line and signed the contract. That's why the film got $15 million in its first weekend — proof that SLJ is the only person in Hollywood who can pull off the backwards Kangol ivy cap.
--
