Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies

Inside the Art and Science of Crafting the Perfect Movie Title (variety.com) 51

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Variety has analyzed the often underappreciated process of selecting movie titles in Hollywood. As one of the most crucial aspects of a film's marketing strategy, the title serves as the first point of contact for potential audiences, shaping perceptions and driving intrigue. In a highly competitive industry, a captivating and effective title can be the difference between success and failure at the box office, the article argues.

The naming process typically involves collaboration between a diverse range of stakeholders, including studio executives, marketing teams, producers, directors, and screenwriters. The title must not only align with the film's story and themes, but also appeal to target demographics, meet legal requirements, and translate well into foreign languages. As a result, naming a film can be a complex and lengthy endeavor. Some movies adopt their titles from pre-existing source material, such as books or plays, while others rely on brainstorming sessions, market research, and even audience testing. High-profile examples of title changes include "Pretty Woman," originally named "3000," and "Scream," initially titled "Scary Movie."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Inside the Art and Science of Crafting the Perfect Movie Title More

Inside the Art and Science of Crafting the Perfect Movie Title

Comments Filter:

  • FTA:

    Erik Feig, a longtime film executive who worked on the “Twilight,” “The Hunger Games” [... ], finds the key is intriguing audiences without confusing them

    I think what he means is "just adapt movies from books so you can use their titles."

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @04:43PM (#63388639)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Isn't that what most movies are anyway?

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Most books too. There's a great underground developed for indie authors to try to suck you into the machine, where every editing decision and even most of what you write is determined by committee so that everything is nicely safe, sanitized, and removed from intelligent inquiry into "troublesome" subjects. Disregard write-by-committee mandates, and you can self-publish, or go away and be ignored. And there will be much teeth-gnashing if you dare question it.

          I'm not sure where we went wrong as a species. Li

  • ...and yet the best thing Hollywood can do these days is grunt out another shitty sequel or remake.

    Sorry Hollywood, but you're going to have to do better than pimping this year's shade of lipstick slapped on a movie pig to convince the real critics that you still know how to be creative.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Naah, not this time. You can blame many a thing on cancel culture, but Hollywood was dead long before that.

      • Hollywood knows how to be creative. What they don't know how to do is recreate the social indemnification of previous ages the allowed them to operate creatively without punitive ramifications from the public.

        You're right, but it's not the American public you're thinking of. Today's big budget flicks are expected to play to a world-wide audience, so the plots are intentionally tweaked for appeal on a global scale. So, when you're watching a movie and thinking it feels like it was made so most of it can get past Chinese censors, well, guess what - it was.

    • ...and yet the best thing Hollywood can do these days is grunt out another shitty sequel or remake.

      No. The best thing Hollywood can do is spend money on marketing to gullible idiots who think that all of the 320 movies Hollywood released last year are remakes and sequels.

      Do yourself a favour and actually go see what movies are released, don't just assume the only movie out is whatever Disney shoves down your throat.

      • ...and yet the best thing Hollywood can do these days is grunt out another shitty sequel or remake.

        No. The best thing Hollywood can do is spend money on marketing to gullible idiots who think that all of the 320 movies Hollywood released last year are remakes and sequels.

        Do yourself a favour and actually go see what movies are released, don't just assume the only movie out is whatever Disney shoves down your throat.

        I'm rather glad you highlighted the sheer volume of irrelevant shit that spews out of Hollywood. 320 is quite impressive, considering you could not find anyone else that could name more than a couple dozen remakes and sequels that made the most money, to (ironically) include those IN Hollywood.

        Yes. That IS how irrelevant your numbers game truly is. And it's hardly restricted to Hollywood. Tell me how many albums were released last year that didn't make it to the top 10. I dare you.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      ...and yet the best thing Hollywood can do these days is grunt out another shitty sequel or remake.

      Sorry Hollywood, but you're going to have to do better than pimping this year's shade of lipstick slapped on a movie pig to convince the real critics that you still know how to be creative.

      Here's a question. You have two scripts in front of you. One is a shitty sequel to a popular franchise and guaranteed to make a billion dollars. The second script is an experimental script - it has a lot of innovation in it

  • Cannibal Women In the Avocado Jungle of Death already exists. After that there's hardly any point trying. It was Bill Maher's finest moment. His career's been downhill ever since.
    • "Snakes on a Plane" , offered without comment.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fermion ( 181285 )
        The Woman in the House Across the Street from the Girl in the Window

        I ask you, has there been a less relevant or more boring story on /. More intelligent or confusing, yes.

      • "Cocaine Bear"

        I've heard the movie sucks so that's disappointing, but it's a perfect title for a campy b-movie.

        • "Cocaine Bear"

          I've heard the movie sucks so that's disappointing, but it's a perfect title for a campy b-movie.

          I've heard it's pretty hysterical from people who aren't into sniffing their own farts. I know, we shouldn't trust the common man to have an opinion until it's been filtered through the twitterverse, but I tend to believe my friends before I believe the paid-for critics whose main interest seems to be to make sure the biggest studios always make the most money, and the smallest always get shit-canned until they become darlings of some superstar.

  • License ... um ... Revoked (Score:3)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @04:58PM (#63388679)

    From License to Kill [wikipedia.org]

    Licence to Kill was the first Bond film to not use the title of an Ian Fleming story. Originally titled Licence Revoked, the name was changed during post-production due to American test audiences associating the term with driver's license.

    I had heard it was because a lot people in the American test audiences didn't know what "revoked" meant. Even as an American myself, this seems plausible ... :-)

    Another article about proposed Bond movie titles: From ‘Licence Revoked’ to ‘Pressure Point’, here’s what Bond films were almost called [thegentlemansjournal.com]

    • I had heard it was because a lot people in the American test audiences didn't know what "revoked" meant. Even as an American myself, this seems plausible ... :-)

      From the LA Times [latimes.com]:

      However, there is a delicious story circulating here--an example of a “those-dumb-Yanks” story that some British people love to tell. It seems the film’s title was changed from “The Madness of George III” because American audiences would think it was a sequel and not go to see it, assuming they had missed “I” and “II.”

      “That’s not totally untrue,” said Hytner, laughing. “But there was also the factor that it was felt necessary to get the word King into the title.”

      If we're discussing weird titles for movies or plays, then The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds deserves a shout-out.

  • Case in point: Plane (2023). Shitty movie title, pretty good action movie, throwback from the 80s.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by odigon ( 1457023 )
      Another one is Terry Gilliam's Brazil. Despite the accolades, apparently the film suffered because people did not want to see a film about Brazil.

      • IDK, Brazilian women are pretty hot. Probably worth seeing as long as they had enough actual Brazilians in it.

  • Perfect movie title, and absolutely perfect beginning scenes in an empty City of London.

  • In general, all movies that contain a person's name in the title, especially when it says little or nothing about the plot, are an instant turnoff for me - I don't know why. Maybe that's why I enjoyed John Carter: I was expecting for it to suck to high heaven, but it wasn't that bad. I also think that its title is one of the reasons why The Shawshank Redemption ( a very good movie, albeit not the masterpiece that many are claiming that it is these days) did not do so well when originally released.

    • How about Dr. Strangelove?
      You have to admit, it has quite a ring to it, at least compared to his original name, Merkwürdigliebe.

  • if it has time in between doing high school kids's homework and bringing World Peace, I bet it can come up with the perfect movie title.
    Like the sequal StarWars movie would be something like "StarWars XMCII : Emperor Megalodon's clone revenge wars gone in 50 seconds".
    Enough movie titles to learn from.

  • This process is also known as "luck"

  • The art of putting lipstick on a pig.

Slashdot Top Deals

New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman

Close