Sequels With Really Long Titles

[Christopher]

You can't call it "Wolverine: X-Men Origins" because then the movie will no longer appear in alphabetical order next to the other movies when it's on a shelf at a store. This is why "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was changed to "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark".

That's a good point and an interesting take on the question. Although W is right next to X in the alphabet, so it doesn't make too great a difference in that case...

In the mid-1980s, when the tv show that ultimately became Star Trek: The Next Generation was being planned, someone at one stage suggested just calling it 'Star Trek' and again, letting the viewer figure out which version it was. Obviously, that idea was nixed, though the idea wasn't entirely without precedent.

Conversely, the makers of DS9 considered airing it without the Star Trek supertitle. And Enterprise didn't add Star Trek to its title until, what was it, the early 3rd season? They tried going without it, but it didn't work out.

And I'm still bugged that the new film is just called Star Trek without anything to differentiate it.

IIRC, the revived Mission Impossible tv series didn't have any 'Next Gen' or '1980' type tag to it.

That might be because it was originally meant as a remake rather than a sequel. It was commissioned during the '88 writers' strike and was going to be simply reshoots of original scripts. Initially, they were even going to use the same character names and simply recast all the roles. When they decided to bring Peter Graves back as Phelps, they changed the other characters' names and made it a continuation, and the strike was wrapped up soon enough that only the first four episodes were reshoots of old scripts.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I don't mind subtitles on novels or comics if they're used to describe the book as you referenced your own work Chris. I will agree that even using X2 was pushing it for me, X-Men 2 would have been just fine. I'm surprised that Warner Bros didn't use this title for Superman Returns...Superman Returns: The Return of Superman! I don't like the subtitles that already have obvious titles that everyone can identify with. Captain America as another poster reminded me is another example, most comic books fans know that Captain America is an Avenger, adding the First Avenger (which he isn't) is just a marketing tool to promote The Avengers. I'm wondering if they would alter the title so people don't think it's another reboot of the Avengers TV series....

 

[Christopher]

I don't like numerical sequel titles. I believe each story deserves a distinct and meaningful title of its own. (Heck, I don't even like the custom of naming series pilots just "Pilot.") I wish the second film had been called X-Men United, no "2" anywhere to be seen.

 

[Broccoli]

Even though it's not the official title, I thought it was silly how Lucas is now putting Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark on all the covers.

I think a good title for Indy 4 could've been Raiders of the Crystal Skull.

I actually prefer the title with the prefix. It gives the whole thing a more "pulp action-adventure" feel.

I do think that KotCS is a little too wordy. Either "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" or "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Skull" would have been nice.

I prefer David Koepp's suggested title of Indiana Jones and the Son of Indiana Jones.

Heck, it didn't even have the series title, which was somewhat unprecedented (unless you count Batman Forever and Superman Returns, whose actual onscreen titles were just "Forever" superimposed on the Batman logo and "Returns" superimposed on the Superman logo).

Erm...no. It was "Superman Returns" onscreen.

And I'm still bugged that the new film is just called Star Trek without anything to differentiate it.

But by not having a subtitle, it does differentiate itself. Unless you are suggesting that people are that stupid going into the movie thinking it's an actual episode of the original series.

I don't mind subtitles on novels or comics if they're used to describe the book as you referenced your own work Chris. I will agree that even using X2 was pushing it for me, X-Men 2 would have been just fine. I'm surprised that Warner Bros didn't use this title for Superman Returns...Superman Returns: The Return of Superman! I don't like the subtitles that already have obvious titles that everyone can identify with. Captain America as another poster reminded me is another example, most comic books fans know that Captain America is an Avenger, adding the First Avenger (which he isn't) is just a marketing tool to promote The Avengers. I'm wondering if they would alter the title so people don't think it's another reboot of the Avengers TV series....

Originally, Cap and Avengers were to be released the same summer, which I think was primarily the reason "First Avenger" was added on, to promote both films. Now that Avengers has been moved, I wouldn't be overly surprised if "First Avenger" is taken off or regulated as a tag line.

I also wouldn't be surprised if Avengers gets "Earth's Mightiest Heroes" attached as a tagline that looks like a subtitle along the lines of "Die Harder" and "The Future Begins".

 

[OmahaStar]

I don't like numerical sequel titles. I believe each story deserves a distinct and meaningful title of its own. (Heck, I don't even like the custom of naming series pilots just "Pilot.") I wish the second film had been called X-Men United, no "2" anywhere to be seen.

Fortunately, no one in power cares what you "believe".

 

[Christopher]

Erm...no. It was "Superman Returns" onscreen.

Ah. I must've been confusing it with something else. Probably the animated series; I'm pretty sure that neither the 1988 Ruby-Spears Superman series or the Warner Bros. S:TAS actually showed the word "Superman" onscreen in its main titles (though the Ruby-Spears series had it spoken in narration).

And I'm still bugged that the new film is just called Star Trek without anything to differentiate it.

But by not having a subtitle, it does differentiate itself. Unless you are suggesting that people are that stupid going into the movie thinking it's an actual episode of the original series.

Again, I see no reason to interpret this in a way that has anything to do with the presumed intelligence of the audience. It's simply a matter of convenience. How do we refer to Star Trek the 2009 film as opposed to Star Trek the franchise as a whole or Star Trek the 1966 television series? How do we refer to it in the context of the overall franchise and universe? Do we call it ST '09? ST XI? NuTrek? Abrams Trek?

Also, as I've said, I think stories deserve their own titles. Star Trek is the title of the series as a whole. This is one distinct story within that series, and I regret that it doesn't have an actual title of its own, a title that relates to that specific tale. I feel the same way about Star Trek: The Motion Picture -- that's not a title, just a description. I sometimes like to think of it by the title of the story outline it's based on, "In Thy Image." That's a title that fits the story well, that has meaning specific to that particular adventure, rather than just being generic. Again, nothing to do with "stupidity" -- I don't see the point in even introducing that concept to the discussion. It's a straw-man accusation that has no bearing on the actual considerations that go into titling stories and films.

 

[Daneel]

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that in my opinion, the emphasis of the title should be the Wolverine part. Since that's what most will call it anyways, why not put it first. Of course, like you said, if they are going for a series of X-Men Origin stories, it would make sense for the them to use that first, but I still would think a "Beast: X-Men Origins" sounds better than the other way around.

It's customary for a series title to precede an installment title.

Yeah, I find it somewhat unusual, and certainly very rare, when that happens. When it does occur, it's usually because of a focus on a particular character, like in Admiral Jarok's X-Men Origins examples -- or when a certain character becomes virtually synonymous with a series. Look at how the Rambo series progressed: It went from First Blood to Rambo: First Blood Part II, then to Rambo III, and finally to simply Rambo. To me, these titles seemed to get less creative as the series went on (not to mention the lack of uniformity in the titles might confuse people who are not overly familiar with the series... but I guess that's why they created DVD box sets ).

The Friday the 13th series eventually did the same thing: after nine numerically-titled (and mostly subtitled) films, the tenth outing was simply called Jason X. Heck, one could even argue that the Star Trek franchise tried to go this route, except with a ship instead of a character (Enterprise, a word that, in mainstream culture, is probably almost synonymous with Star Trek).

I guess I don't have anything really substantial to say with this post... just pointing it out. I presume sequels are sometimes done this way because the studio feels there might be more name-brand recognition with the character than the original title, or at least that would be my hunch. But yes, having the series title come after the installment title is definitely a rarity.

 

[Christopher]

But yes, having the series title come after the installment title is definitely a rarity.

It is. However, I could swear there was a movie sequel that came out within the past year or two that did exactly that: the sequel title followed by the title of the original film/overall franchise. I can't remember what it was, though.

 

[Broccoli]

And I'm still bugged that the new film is just called Star Trek without anything to differentiate it.

But by not having a subtitle, it does differentiate itself. Unless you are suggesting that people are that stupid going into the movie thinking it's an actual episode of the original series.

Again, I see no reason to interpret this in a way that has anything to do with the presumed intelligence of the audience. It's simply a matter of convenience. How do we refer to Star Trek the 2009 film as opposed to Star Trek the franchise as a whole or Star Trek the 1966 television series? How do we refer to it in the context of the overall franchise and universe? Do we call it ST '09? ST XI? NuTrek? Abrams Trek?

Also, as I've said, I think stories deserve their own titles. Star Trek is the title of the series as a whole. This is one distinct story within that series, and I regret that it doesn't have an actual title of its own, a title that relates to that specific tale. I feel the same way about Star Trek: The Motion Picture -- that's not a title, just a description. I sometimes like to think of it by the title of the story outline it's based on, "In Thy Image." That's a title that fits the story well, that has meaning specific to that particular adventure, rather than just being generic. Again, nothing to do with "stupidity" -- I don't see the point in even introducing that concept to the discussion. It's a straw-man accusation that has no bearing on the actual considerations that go into titling stories and films.[/QUOTE]

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. No need to get so defensive.

The title "Star Trek" was purposely used to "announce" it's back to basics/square one approach. From a marketing standpoint, it was probably a smart movie. As for title abbreviations, only people on boards like this will really care enough for specific abbreviations for the different movies and many posters here have been using a couple interchangeably with no problems. It'll work itself out.

Also, just because you don't think it is worth discussion, doesn't make it so, especially since you initially brought up the "stupidity" concept first when pondering why studios use small titles:

On the contrary, I think that calling a movie "X2" instead of X-Men 2 is grossly insulting to our intelligence, as if assuming we're too stupid to wrap our heads around a word more than two characters long. And I don't understand why you'd think that providing more information is an insult to people's intelligence. I think it's just the opposite. Smarter people are able to process more information. They don't need their titles dumbed down and oversimplified.

And it wasn't an accusation; More of a statement of clarification. You make it sound like I am trying to gun down all your points in a vindictive manner.

 

[Broccoli]

Re: X2

I actually like the title of X2. First I thought it was kinda stupid, but went along with it. Then, one day, I was looking at the poster hanging in my dorm room and it suddenly hit me: the title is a plot-specific title, but a thematic title.

One of the movie's main themes is about duality in ideologies, abilities, desires, etc. much more than what was in the first or third. There was a lot of two sides of the same coin. Pyro/Ice Man (powers and loyalties; implied upbringing), Prof. X/Magneto, Logan/Kelly Hu's character (abilities; upbringing), Logan (his "loyalties", past/future), Nightcrawler (his actions v. reality). When I looked at the movie's title from that point of view, I started to appreciate what Singer might have been going for (in addition to it probably looking "cool". )

Just for reference, the poster had the various X-Men on it, with each one having their "opposite" on the other side (ie. Ice Man on the left, Pyro on the right).

 

[Daneel]

But yes, having the series title come after the installment title is definitely a rarity.

It is. However, I could swear there was a movie sequel that came out within the past year or two that did exactly that: the sequel title followed by the title of the original film/overall franchise. I can't remember what it was, though.

Hmm... I can't really think of one. The most recent one that comes to mind for me is Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2, but that was a number of years ago.

As for why the recent Star Trek didn't have a subtitle, I'm not entirely sure. Maybe they thought keeping the title simple would help sell it as a back-to-basics, Kirk/Spock/McCoy-centric film, and that a longer title might turn off general audiences. I agree it's unimaginative, and it will probably make things confusing in the future (when we won't really be able to call it "NuTrek" anymore), but from a business standpoint, perhaps they made the right call.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I think Star Trek didn't have a subtitle to it was because they couldn't find one to put there. They probably had some kind of discussions about this, I kind of like to believe that this was JJ's call not to put anything else with the title. After all the movie title speaks for it's self. They couldn't call it Star Trek Begins or Star Trek Origins because those monikers had already been used for major films. Star Trek The Motion Picture had already been used, etc. There wasn't any reason to have a subtitle.

X-Men United would have been alright...I don't like the use of numbers in title either btw. Geez, we're all a picky bunch aren't we? Having a discussion about the use of subtitles and numbers in movie titles lol.

 

[Vanyel]

You want a sequel with a really long title? Here you go...

Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D

Don't forget its sequel:
Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Hellbound, Flesh-Eating Subhumanoid Zombified Living Dead, Part 3

It has 37 words, 160 characters not including spaces and 196 character with spaces.

 

[od0_ital]

Third page, and still no one mentiones The Lost World: Jurassic Park?

 

[Admiral_Young]

Forgot about that...I think the book was called just Lost World right?

 

[captcalhoun]

i think X2's title was one of those stupid marketing things like iD4, MIB, MIIB and 4:Rise of the Silver Surfer.

the video box has 'X-Men 2' on the side...

oh, and ST4 was marketed as 'The Voyage Home: Star Trek IV' in the UK...

 

[od0_ital]

Forgot about that...I think the book was called just Lost World right?

Yep, but the book cover did have a similiar cover design of the dinosaur skull thing goin' on, to show it was a sequel to Jurassic Park.

 

[Mr Light]

Star Trek (2009) I can go with because they were trying to advertise to the unwashed masses that this is a ground zero Young Kirk and Spock reboot it's not the eleventh film it's a brand new thing to avoid the stigma of the TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT nerd factor (and I say this as a Star Trek nerd).

 

[Christopher]

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. No need to get so defensive.

I'm not getting defensive at all. I have nothing to defend. If anything, the defensiveness is on your end, by assuming that your intelligence is being deliberately insulted by a particular title format. All I'm saying is that I think that's a non sequitur.

The title "Star Trek" was purposely used to "announce" it's back to basics/square one approach. From a marketing standpoint, it was probably a smart movie.

Yes, I understand that. I'm just saying, as I've already explained repeatedly, that I believe each story should have a unique title of its own. I can understand the reasoning behind a decision and still believe that a different decision would've been preferable.

Also, just because you don't think it is worth discussion, doesn't make it so, especially since you initially brought up the "stupidity" concept first when pondering why studios use small titles:

On the contrary, I think that calling a movie "X2" instead of X-Men 2 is grossly insulting to our intelligence, as if assuming we're too stupid to wrap our heads around a word more than two characters long.

You're quoting out of context. That passage was a response to a post by Admiral_Young in which he said, "What annoys me the most about the addition of subtitles is that movie execs must think all of their target audience are complete idiots and are not aware of the movie that they are going to see." So I'm not the one who brought it up first.

And it wasn't an accusation; More of a statement of clarification. You make it sound like I am trying to gun down all your points in a vindictive manner.

I don't know why you'd think that. I'm responding to the ideas, not the poster. You're the one who seems to be making this about me all of a sudden, and I'm puzzled by that response. I'm just engaging in an intellectual conversation about the principles of movie titling. There's nothing personal, defensive, or vindictive about it to me, and I thought we were having a perfectly civil discussion.

Re: X2

I actually like the title of X2. First I thought it was kinda stupid, but went along with it. Then, one day, I was looking at the poster hanging in my dorm room and it suddenly hit me: the title is a plot-specific title, but a thematic title.

One of the movie's main themes is about duality in ideologies, abilities, desires, etc. much more than what was in the first or third. There was a lot of two sides of the same coin. Pyro/Ice Man (powers and loyalties; implied upbringing), Prof. X/Magneto, Logan/Kelly Hu's character (abilities; upbringing), Logan (his "loyalties", past/future), Nightcrawler (his actions v. reality). When I looked at the movie's title from that point of view, I started to appreciate what Singer might have been going for (in addition to it probably looking "cool". )

I doubt Singer was responsible for that title. More likely it was the studio's marketing department. And I doubt they put so much thought into it.

 

[Broccoli]

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. No need to get so defensive.

I'm not getting defensive at all. I have nothing to defend. If anything, the defensiveness is on your end, by assuming that your intelligence is being deliberately insulted by a particular title format.

Trust me. It's not.

And it wasn't an accusation; More of a statement of clarification. You make it sound like I am trying to gun down all your points in a vindictive manner.

I don't know why you'd think that. I'm responding to the ideas, not the poster. You're the one who seems to be making this about me all of a sudden, and I'm puzzled by that response. I'm just engaging in an intellectual conversation about the principles of movie titling. There's nothing personal, defensive, or vindictive about it to me, and I thought we were having a perfectly civil discussion.

It was the tone, mostly, on how you came off in your post. I apologize if that wasn't your intent.

In any event, I realize that you think that each story needs a specific title and you don't care for titles that are generic or are a description, like The Motion Picture (on an aside, how much do you like titles such as The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford?), but what is your take on movies based on TV shows, such as the Mission Impossible movies (which I realize is meant to be a loose continuation of the TV series) or like the recent Land of the Lost (which is a remake)?

Given the nature of the new Trek movie, I almost view it in this category, which is partly why, as a fan, slapping Star Trek as the title didn't personally bother me.

I doubt Singer was responsible for that title. More likely it was the studio's marketing department. And I doubt they put so much thought into it.

Perhaps, but that is how I interpret it, and I appreciate it on that level.