It really doesn't bother me. I usually just call it Indy 4 or Pirates III or whatever the case is.
Sequels With Really Long Titles
- Thread starter Mr Light
- Start date
I have no problem with that, because it's a very distinctive title that applies specifically to the story it's telling. I never said I had a problem with descriptive titles; I think titles should describe the stories they're telling. Star Trek: The Motion Picture or Star Trek or RoboCop 2 or Rocky IV does not describe the specific tale depicted in the movie. Now, I quite like the subtitles of ST II through IV, because they all clearly describe the stories they're telling. The second film (first in the trilogy) depicts the wrath of Khan, the next depicts the search for Spock, and the next depicts the voyage home. Those are nice, straightforward titles for the episodes in a trilogy, almost sounding like chapter titles in a book.
I can see that logic. But as someone who routinely has to talk and write about the Star Trek franchise as a whole and keep its various parts straight, both professionally and recreationally, it would be more convenient for me if the film had a unique identifier.
I can live with the first film in a series having a simple, generic title. But there are better ways to title sequels than sticking numbers on them. For instance, Addams Family Values is a much better sequel title than Addams Family 2 would've been. Live Free or Die Hard is a much more clever title than Die Hard IV would've been.
Although there are some sequel titles that don't work well at all. Die Hard 2: Die Harder was stupid, and Die Hard with a Vengeance, while a nice try to avoid numerical titles, is rather incoherent. And then there's I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. Shouldn't it be the summer before last by that point?
Okay, I know what's officially the most needlessly long sequel title ever: Dominion: The Original Prequel to the Exorcist.
Actually, it was producer Tom DeSanto's idea. FOX added the "X-Men United" subtitle because they thought regular audiences wouldn't get that "X2" was the title of an X-Men film.
Too bad, they renamed it Die Hard 4.0 in Germany as if at some point a revised version would be released. urgh!
When you really think about it, naming something "[Title] II" or some other number is actually kinda stupid. Sure, it makes it easier to put the title on a poster or marquee, but it doesn't really make sense. "Spider-Man II" doesn't really make sense unless it's actually about a second Spider-Man who is different from the Spider-Man in the first movie. "Part 2" would make more sense, but sounds a little clunky and generic, so I think the best route to go is giving a sequel a completely different name.
That's why I think "The Dark Knight" is one of the most brilliant sequel titles ever and the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings movies should have just dropped "Star Wars" or "Lord of the Rings" from all titles after the first one. People can tell what series the movie belongs to just from the characters on the poster (or simply automatically since these series have such cult followings), so reminding them of the original by repeating those words is unnecessary. On the other hand I appreciate the continuity of Indiana Jones and Harry Potter movies having the title character's name, plus "and [something0", except unfortunately the first Indy flick is technically just called "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
I liked the idea that the second Spider-Man movie was going to be called "The Amazing Spider-Man" and think it would still make a good title for a future Spider-Man movie. I like that the Hulk sequel was called "The Incredible Hulk" instead of "Hulk II" as well, and I hope future superhero movies lean more towards that naming pattern than sticking a number after the name of the hero or even worse, coming up with some convoluted way to try to keep the name and a new title, so we end up with overdone titles like "4: Rise of the Silver Surfer".
I think the worst offender of that sort is "The Twilight Saga: New Moon". Pretentious much? As if people wouldn't know it's a Twilight movie without those first three words. That naming reeks of studio execs too cowardly to presume the more cryptic (and cooler sounding) "New Moon" would be enough for their rabid fanbase. Same with "X-Men Origins: Wolverine". It's almost insulting to the audience's intelligence spelling everything out with the first two words in that title. At least we didn't get the original Terminator 4 title - "Terminator: The Return of the Terminator".
That's why I think "The Dark Knight" is one of the most brilliant sequel titles ever and the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings movies should have just dropped "Star Wars" or "Lord of the Rings" from all titles after the first one. People can tell what series the movie belongs to just from the characters on the poster (or simply automatically since these series have such cult followings), so reminding them of the original by repeating those words is unnecessary. On the other hand I appreciate the continuity of Indiana Jones and Harry Potter movies having the title character's name, plus "and [something0", except unfortunately the first Indy flick is technically just called "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
I liked the idea that the second Spider-Man movie was going to be called "The Amazing Spider-Man" and think it would still make a good title for a future Spider-Man movie. I like that the Hulk sequel was called "The Incredible Hulk" instead of "Hulk II" as well, and I hope future superhero movies lean more towards that naming pattern than sticking a number after the name of the hero or even worse, coming up with some convoluted way to try to keep the name and a new title, so we end up with overdone titles like "4: Rise of the Silver Surfer".
I think the worst offender of that sort is "The Twilight Saga: New Moon". Pretentious much? As if people wouldn't know it's a Twilight movie without those first three words. That naming reeks of studio execs too cowardly to presume the more cryptic (and cooler sounding) "New Moon" would be enough for their rabid fanbase. Same with "X-Men Origins: Wolverine". It's almost insulting to the audience's intelligence spelling everything out with the first two words in that title. At least we didn't get the original Terminator 4 title - "Terminator: The Return of the Terminator".
Actually I have seen it called Rambo: First Blood in some contexts, such as on the soundtrack CD (which wasn't released until long after the movie came out). According to Wikipedia, it was sometimes called that or just Rambo in overseas markets.
And as silly as the progression of Rambo movie titles is, I guess we should count our blessings that the sequels weren't called Second Blood, Third Blood, etc.
One instance I don't have a problem with is Back to the Future Part 2 and Part 3. Because arguably the entire BTTF trilogy is one long story. Part 2 picks up immediately after Part 1 and is a direct continuation, and of course Parts 2 and 3 were originally written as a single film, split in two for length, and shot back-to-back. Sure, it's a bit of a conceit; the original film told a complete story, despite it ending, and is a somewhat separate piece from the other two in a variety of ways. But it's a conceit I'm willing to buy into, so I'm happier with the use of "Part 2" and "Part 3" than I would've been with just "2" and "3."
A bit too generic, but I would've liked it better than a numerical title. The second film should've been The Amazing Spider-Man, followed by The Spectacular Spider-Man, then maybe Web of Spider-Man, and so on.
Well, it wasn't a sequel anyway, it was a reboot in a separate continuity. The circumstances of the Hulk's creation in TIH, as shown in its title sequence and described in dialogue, are completely different from those shown in the Ang Lee movie; it's similar to the Ultimate origin, with the Hulk being the result of a failed military experiment with the super-soldier formula.
I wouldn't. But then, I'd never want to see those movies anyway.
I still don't understand the concept that simply being thorough has anything to do with an assessment of the audience's intelligence. Is it insulting for libraries to catalog all their books with precise numbers rather than expecting people to be able to "just know" what books are related to one another? Of course not! It's got nothing to do with intelligence or insult or anything like that. It's simply about giving an accurate description of what something is.
See, I've always looked at RoboCop 2's title as being referenced as the "RoboCop 2" in the movie, the film's villain.
Well, for one, while your point stands, "Die Harder" was never a subtitle. It was the film's tagline that is always confused for the subtitle.
Die Hard with a Vengeance, I think, is just as stupid as Live Free or Die Hard. What do either title have to actually do with the film. Little to nothing. LFoDH had a patriotic theme, but that seems to be such a weak connection. I personally kinda like the Die Hard 4.0 title as it hones into the technology/Internet attacks in the film.
DHwaV had the supposed vengeance angle with the villain being releated to the first movie's villain (the main reason that McClane was called upon). However, the vengeance angle is completely thrown out the window when the villain mentions that he hated the first movie's villain. Then again, DH3 is such a mess, that this is minor in comparison.
Hmm, good point. Still, that's sort of a case of the numerical-title convention driving the story. I don't know if the character would've been called "RoboCop 2" if the movie hadn't been called that. In-universe, it might've made more sense to call him "RoboCop Mark 2" or "RoboCop 2.0."
According to Wikipedia, some of the promotion did intentionally present it as a subtitle.
I see your point, but I find it a clever wordplay and a refreshing change of pace from the usual unimaginative approach to sequel titles. Heck, even aside from the "Live Free or Die" pun, it's just unusual to see a sequel title that incorporates the series title at the end, but not as a subtitle. Although it's been done before, with most of the Thin Man sequels, for instance.
Okay, but even if the concept of vengeance is involved in the film's story, my problem is simply with the syntax of the phrase "Die hard with a vengeance." Taken as a sentence, it just doesn't make any sense. And technically "die hard" isn't a verb phrase, it's an adjective meaning "stubborn, resisting to the last" (like a die-hard patriot) or a noun meaning someone who stubbornly clings to a lost cause. Though come to think of it, that invalidates Live Free or Die Hard too. But at least that sounds like a reasonably coherent sentence, unlike its predecessor.
Interesting. You are looking at the word "hard" as a adjective, where I think it means to be an adverb.
Q: How do you want to die?
A: I want to die hard, or to die "with great exertion; vigor or violence".
This makes sense given the amount of effort everyone in the series gives when trying to kill one another.
As for "With A Vengeance", I think it makes sense looking at "hard" this way.
Sentence example: "He will die with great effort with a vengeance."
Eh...what do I know. We are probably over thinking it. Besides, it could have been worse: if memory serves, the running title for the movie was Die Hardest (which, if they used that title, what would 4th one be called? Die Even More Hard
).
As an interesting side note, a buddy and I were talking what they would call a 5th Die Hard. We mused that, logically, each movie McClaine ends up saving something bigger and bigger. We suspected that he'll eventually have to go into space, at which the title of that movie would have be In Space, No One Can Here You Die Hard.
Q: How do you want to die?
A: I want to die hard, or to die "with great exertion; vigor or violence".
This makes sense given the amount of effort everyone in the series gives when trying to kill one another.
As for "With A Vengeance", I think it makes sense looking at "hard" this way.
Sentence example: "He will die with great effort with a vengeance."
Eh...what do I know. We are probably over thinking it. Besides, it could have been worse: if memory serves, the running title for the movie was Die Hardest (which, if they used that title, what would 4th one be called? Die Even More Hard
).As an interesting side note, a buddy and I were talking what they would call a 5th Die Hard. We mused that, logically, each movie McClaine ends up saving something bigger and bigger. We suspected that he'll eventually have to go into space, at which the title of that movie would have be In Space, No One Can Here You Die Hard.
I guess I can see where you're coming from here, but I still stand by my assertion that "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" is an unnecessarily long-winded title that was chosen not to provide a more accurate description to the movie, but to dumb the title down in an attempt to reach a wider audience.
Maybe it's too harsh to say it's insulting the audience's intelligence, but it's clearly screaming "look! this movie is related to the X-Men movies, so if you liked those, you'll like this!", rather than simply trusting the audience to know from the simple (and more evocative/natural-sounding) title of "Wolverine" (plus the fact that Hugh Jackman or at least some part of him would clearly be displayed on all posters in Wolverine attire) that this is about the character from X-Men and not just some wild animal.
I'm still surprised "The Dark Knight" was released with its title, instead of as "Batman: The Dark Knight"...it shows a studio trusting the audience the way the people who titled the Wolverine movie should have.
No, I am looking in the dictionary. It's not my opinion, it's the formal definition of the word "diehard" or "die-hard," the way it's been used for over a century and a half.
It was originally a verb phrase when first coined, but it soon took on the form of a noun, specifically an epithet for people who refused to back down or change their minds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_hard_(phrase)
By extension, it became an adjective as well, and it was that usage that led to the Sears DieHard car batteries introduced in the 1960s. (In fact, right now there's a thread in the Original Series forum of this BBS titled, "What do you diehard TOS fans think of the new movie?")
The title of the movie was reverting the phrase somewhat to its original use, reversing nearly two centuries of standardization.
And that is a really, really badly constructed sentence, which is my point. You don't put two prepositional phrases together like that without a conjuction. You'd need an "and" in there at the very least.
Maybe it's too harsh to say it's insulting the audience's intelligence, but it's clearly screaming "look! this movie is related to the X-Men movies, so if you liked those, you'll like this!", rather than simply trusting the audience to know from the simple (and more evocative/natural-sounding) title of "Wolverine" (plus the fact that Hugh Jackman or at least some part of him would clearly be displayed on all posters in Wolverine attire) that this is about the character from X-Men and not just some wild animal.
It's just branding. As someone mentioned above, part of it might be to ensure they're shelved together in stores. Granted, it's not the greatest title ever, but I just don't think it's a particularly bad title. It sounds like a comic-book title to me, which is appropriate. I could imagine Marvel publishing a group of comics or graphic novels with the blanket title X-Men Origins, with each story having the name of its featured character following that title. I doubt such a thing would've raised any objections in the comic-book format, so it puzzles me that it arouses such passionate disdain as a movie title. It's just not that bad.
I suppose, but I really hate "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark".
Yes, I know what "die-hard" means, but that doesn't necessarily negate anything that I proposed. It might have been the intention behind the first movie, but clearly that was jettisoned by the time of Die Hard 2.
However, I still disagree that was the intention. I look at the title "Die Hard" with the same eye like we were to look at that old Apple computer tagline: "Think Different".
In the end, who cares? Are you right? Maybe. Am I right? Maybe. We won't know until we track down the director, writer, whomever and ask them, to which, I suspect, their response will be, "Uh...we just thought it sounded cool."
Well, obviously. That's my whole point -- that the movie titles treated it as a verb phrase when it is actually supposed to be a noun or adjective in standard usage. I think you've completely misunderstood what I'm saying.
I'm not saying that was the filmmakers' intention. I'm saying just the opposite -- that the filmmakers obviously were using it as a verb phrase, but that's not the way the phrase is supposed to be used.
