Recent movie titles have often pared out any mystery and cut straight to the point. Perhaps this is an additional sign of our shortening attention spans brought on by using too much Google or dismissal of lengthy articles and passages in favor of sound bites and tidbits. Regardless of the reasons why films like Fighting, Taken, Unknown, or Step Up have infiltrated our theaters and subjected us to exactly what the titles suggests, choosing a proper, catchy title is one of the important processes that go into making a movie.
Take Fighting (2009) for example, wherein a young man is introduced to the underground world of street fighting. No surprises here. When an unplanned Friday night presents itself and your are drawn by the yellow block lettered bat-signal of your local Blockbuster, Fighting explains exactly what you’re in for: visual stimulation with just enough storyline – plausible or implausible – to kill about ninety-three minutes. However, some titles initially sound good but offer a harbinger of what’s to come. Take for example Cillian Murphy’s The Wind that Shakes the Barley (2006), a look at the separation of two brothers during a Britain / Ireland conflict in the early 20th century. Murphy is often solid in his work, and the film sounds interesting, but the title convolutes the intent of the film. First off, it almost sounds made up and in doesn’t portend “struggle,” “rebellion,” or “fraternity.” It doesn’t necessarily have to, but the title’s cadence comes closer to suggesting “love story” than what its content presents, which is one reason why the primary demographic for cinema – men – avoided going to the theaters: the title speaks very little of its content, so the film is relegated to a rental.
A current example of titles that should be chosen carefully would be the recently released I am Number 4, a film that coincidentally finished behind the one-worded Unknown. (People just love Liam Neeson; he also scored a hit with last year’s Taken.) Coincidence aside, I am Number 4 “was expected to top the box office this weekend but came in with a soft $22.6 million in ticket sales,”1 and while a quarter of a million sounds like a nice rake, it pales in comparison to the $59 million it cost Dreamworks to produce. The expectations for this film to do well are illustrated in the trailer as it is marketed as being from “The Director of Disturbia” and “From Producer Michael Bay,” which is rather telling on two counts: first, the director of Disturbia’s name isn’t warrented in the trailer, so Number 4 is being initially aimed at the demographic for Disturbia, namely 14-25 year old boys / men, but the target here seems a bit off inasmuch as Disturbia is a teen-take on the noir genre, more specifically on Hitchcock’s Rear Window, which seems a bit antithetical to the premise established by the trailer for Number 4: a mysterious boy who is “waiting for [his] life to start,” but is always forced to go on the lam because he is one of a group being hunted “down one by one,” and he’s “next.” Here, 4 veers away from the genre connected to D.J. Caruso (the director of Disturbia) and moves closer to a superhuman / preternatural-based genre. Secondly, Michael Bay’s presence as a producer often suggests a wealth of money thrown behind the film to provide visually stimulating special effects – even if the content of the film isn’t any good, like Transformers 2. And, even if the plots of his films are assembled from the cutting room floor of a fortune cookie factory, they still turn a profit – huge profits.
So why the lackluster return on a film aimed at a general demographic and advertised through Bay’s name?
I blame the title. For starters, it tries to be a bit too cryptic in the sense that it makes the audience wonder what list has been compiled, but this mystery is unraveled during the preview when the main character John (Alex Pettyfer) demonstrates a blend of telekinesis and laser beam-hand destruction. So, now the only potential mystery left is why he’s number 4, but to be honest, does it matter? Regardless of the back story, John poses a threat to outsiders – as do the other eight – so what epic mythology could it be wrapped up in? Perhaps he’s trying to bring down the Illuminati, and when the remaining members of the nine assemble, they have the power to summon Captain Planet, who will then… See where this is going?
Let’s also take a look at John’s number, which also may have a bit of a sway over the audience. Why 4? For that matter, the same question could be posed for numbers 2 through 8. If the preview exposits “there were nine of us hiding all over the world […] The first three are dead […] I’m next,” then the viewer is told that their protagonist is a rather mediocre threat. No, really. There are two base schools of thought on war: one, you attack your strongest threat first to establish power and then pick off the minions straggling to recover – the chop off the head to chop off the legs approach. The second agenda would be to pick off the underlings and drive their superior out into the open and away from any potential protection.
Regardless of the plan of attack, our protagonist is in the middle. He’s not the best; he’s not the worst. Really, he’s a bit player. So assigning him number 4 is like making a movie about Mr. Fantastic. Sure, he’s elastic and has super intelligence, but what will that really do for you in the long run? He’s not necessarily a threat. The human torch: threat. Thing: threat just because of his massive strength and near indestructibility, but ranking your hero in the title seems rather ill-advised.
What’s more, the trailer also suggests that there will be at least one sequel to this film, particularly since Henri (Timothy Olyphant) informs John that he needs “to find the others. Together, you’ll be more powerful.” So, this could go one of two ways. Either John finds all four remaining members of the nine and they defeat the Raeleans in this single movie, or they listen to Michael Bay and stretch this already silly premise another three installments and drip a numeral or two in about every second act. I’m betting on the latter, and I’m betting others are as well. In other words, this film – solely from the title – turns a $13 investment into a $39 investment, and it seems certain no one’s ready for that type of commitment.
