Brad Bird on Hollywood’s lack of originality these days.

Tom Cruise has been making some great and fairly original films (by the standards of today) that seem to be overlooked. Another one is Oblivion. The Mummy was a mild disappointment but otherwise he's been solid.

Wes Anderson
John Wick
MCU variety

I'm fine at the moment.

I wonder how much a title could really effect a movie? ; it don't seem like it would be much of a factor. if he's right, it's a bit WTF like if that actually effects things.

but I do think audiences are somewhat partially to blame because they keep on eating up super hero types of movies and not too much beyond this, especially in terms of movies that make stacks of $ in the theaters. or even the other non-super hero movies that do well in the theaters are usually tied to some franchise from the past off the top of my head.

but I guess even if what I said is somewhat true... it makes me wonder that those who tend to go to the theaters the most in general are that super hero type of crowd as those who want the originality etc etc generally go to the theaters less often?

o well, things are going to play out however they do and ain't much we can do about it.

I find it ironic that a guy who just released a sequel this year is complaining about Hollywood's lack of originality.  He does have a point, though.  I don't have a problem with sequels in general, as long as you have a story to tell.  There have been too many bad sequels to 40 year old franchises in the last several years which are pure cash grabs, and you can feel it when you watch them.  There wasn't much of a story there, the studio just decided there was more money to squeeze out of the original film/franchise.

Bird's Incredibles 2 is the rare sequel that comes out over ten years after the original and still captures the same magic.  And honestly it doesn't hurt that it's animated.  A live action movie would not have felt as fresh the second time around, 14 years later.        

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.