Brad Bird on Hollywood’s lack of originality these days.
Sept 1, 2018 1:11:53 GMT
Rey Kahuka likes this
Post by mslo79 on Sept 1, 2018 1:11:53 GMT
Rey Kahuka
On a personal level... while a movies title can help it's definitely no where near a make or break thing for me as when I break movies down it largely boils down to the following for me (in no order)...
-Director (while this is not always a factor, it's nice when it is as when the director is a factor, like has a decent rep, chances are you got a good chance for a good movie, especially if paired with decent Subject Matter)
-Cast (while having name actors is not a requirement, it's generally better to have names in a movie than not)
-Trailer (this is especially important on movies you don't have as much to go on and are considering seeing or not seeing as it can help you get a feel for a movie)
-Subject Matter (this is always a important thing as some subjects simply are not as interesting to watch as others are)
but with that said... on your Road to Perdition example, sure a generic title would not help it, but I can't imagine too many decent movies having names that stand out in a negative way that would significantly effect a movies $.
or look at it this way... even if you assume people don't go out of their way for info on movies, you would think at a minimum they have seen some trailers on TV (or online) of a movie they are going to see and in this regard that's a far better way to judge whether you want to see a movie or not than strictly by a name of a movie. or put it this way... if someone was judging whether to see a movie or not largely based on the name of the movie, those people probably don't really care much about movies to begin with.
Hell, anyone who's seen plenty of movies would probably see 'Tom Cruise' and think it can't be too bad on that alone as he's pretty reliable in terms of landing in movies that don't suck (with rare exception).
as for my opinion of Edge of Tomorrow before seeing it... I just figured Tom Cruise rep nearly guarantees a minimum level of quality (i.e. it won't suck at the very least) and since it was time loop/travel themed, and that has potential to output a solid movie, I kind of figured it would be at least decent enough not to waste my time at the minimum and ended up with a solid movie that's among My Favorite Movies (i.e. Top 189 movies out of the 2,200+ total I have seen). so while I might have been a bit worried on the whole CGI thing etc, overall I had more of a positive than negative view of it I am sure otherwise I might have skipped it. but in general with Tom Cruise... if he's in a movie, chances are ill watch it as, at least for me, there is not a single actor who can challenge him in terms of landing in good movies over a long period of time as he's the most consistent in landing in good movies as all others are more hit-or-miss than he is. even my opinion aside and looking at the masses... I can't see many people thinking negatively of Tom Cruise movies in general as I would assume his movies would have more of a positive than negative opinion overall in general. so knowing that much, for the average person, they ain't taking much of a risk in seeing a Tom Cruise movie. like he's a safer bet than a random movie in the theaters on an average for most people I would imagine.
Maybe your right but it does not seem this way to me as it seems like just about anyone who watches movies from time-to-time will have more info to base whether they want to see it more than just name alone. like a trailer is a far better way to judge whether you want to see a movie or not than the name of the movie.
but even if your right... I can't imagine a movie title is much of a factor in general given I would assume most people, at a minimum, have seen a trailer etc. or look at it this way... I would imagine there can't be many people who just go to the theaters, knowing very little to nothing about the movies playing, and then just look at the names of movies playing and then base what to see solely (or largely) on that.
A title can be a huge factor in a film's performance. It defines the film in the mind of the audience, more than any other element. Take any of your favorite films and switch out the title for something nonsensical, then ask yourself if you'd have bothered seeing it. "I don't know, the trailer looks pretty good...but Dad Robs Banks?" And maybe you don't watch the gangster movie with Tom Hanks and Paul Newman. And that's assuming you even saw the trailer. Plenty of people read synopses online or just read the titles on the marquee when they get to the theater. This is a site for film fans, so it's easy to assume everyone consumes the media surrounding movies the way we do, but it isn't the case.
On a personal level... while a movies title can help it's definitely no where near a make or break thing for me as when I break movies down it largely boils down to the following for me (in no order)...
-Director (while this is not always a factor, it's nice when it is as when the director is a factor, like has a decent rep, chances are you got a good chance for a good movie, especially if paired with decent Subject Matter)
-Cast (while having name actors is not a requirement, it's generally better to have names in a movie than not)
-Trailer (this is especially important on movies you don't have as much to go on and are considering seeing or not seeing as it can help you get a feel for a movie)
-Subject Matter (this is always a important thing as some subjects simply are not as interesting to watch as others are)
but with that said... on your Road to Perdition example, sure a generic title would not help it, but I can't imagine too many decent movies having names that stand out in a negative way that would significantly effect a movies $.
or look at it this way... even if you assume people don't go out of their way for info on movies, you would think at a minimum they have seen some trailers on TV (or online) of a movie they are going to see and in this regard that's a far better way to judge whether you want to see a movie or not than strictly by a name of a movie. or put it this way... if someone was judging whether to see a movie or not largely based on the name of the movie, those people probably don't really care much about movies to begin with.
I've never been convinced it was the title that scared people away from Edge of Tomorrow, though. I remember not being interested because of the stupid mech suits featured heavily in the trailers. I ended up seeing it because there was nothing else playing that week, and I enjoyed it a great deal. They made the most of the concept and focused more on the (I hate to use the word) gimmick of the story rather than the dopey futuristic tech that was plastered all over the advertising. In their defense, it's a tough concept to sell. "Come watch this movie where you have to watch the same scenes play out over and over again. You won't get bored, we promise!"
Hell, anyone who's seen plenty of movies would probably see 'Tom Cruise' and think it can't be too bad on that alone as he's pretty reliable in terms of landing in movies that don't suck (with rare exception).
as for my opinion of Edge of Tomorrow before seeing it... I just figured Tom Cruise rep nearly guarantees a minimum level of quality (i.e. it won't suck at the very least) and since it was time loop/travel themed, and that has potential to output a solid movie, I kind of figured it would be at least decent enough not to waste my time at the minimum and ended up with a solid movie that's among My Favorite Movies (i.e. Top 189 movies out of the 2,200+ total I have seen). so while I might have been a bit worried on the whole CGI thing etc, overall I had more of a positive than negative view of it I am sure otherwise I might have skipped it. but in general with Tom Cruise... if he's in a movie, chances are ill watch it as, at least for me, there is not a single actor who can challenge him in terms of landing in good movies over a long period of time as he's the most consistent in landing in good movies as all others are more hit-or-miss than he is. even my opinion aside and looking at the masses... I can't see many people thinking negatively of Tom Cruise movies in general as I would assume his movies would have more of a positive than negative opinion overall in general. so knowing that much, for the average person, they ain't taking much of a risk in seeing a Tom Cruise movie. like he's a safer bet than a random movie in the theaters on an average for most people I would imagine.
So while I don't think the title sunk this particular movie, I absolutely believe the wrong title can ruin box office performance in some cases.
Maybe your right but it does not seem this way to me as it seems like just about anyone who watches movies from time-to-time will have more info to base whether they want to see it more than just name alone. like a trailer is a far better way to judge whether you want to see a movie or not than the name of the movie.
but even if your right... I can't imagine a movie title is much of a factor in general given I would assume most people, at a minimum, have seen a trailer etc. or look at it this way... I would imagine there can't be many people who just go to the theaters, knowing very little to nothing about the movies playing, and then just look at the names of movies playing and then base what to see solely (or largely) on that.