Things like this make me feel glad I have a blog and can air my comments (when of course, the site in question does not offer said option).
Over at ReelzChannel, a one Thomas Leupp discusses the The 10 Most Unfortunate Movie Titles Ever.
Now, I don't just want to rant about the fact that judging a movie by its title is at its best disrespectful and at its worst downright moronic but what I do want to point out is that 5 out of the 10 titles listed are lifted from their literary counterparts - something that obviously slips the mind of the writer who speaks of these titles as if they had been thought out for an implicit mainstream, uninformed American audience who decides which movies to watch based on their titles as they appear on the Friday paper. Titles, the article seems to suggest need to (and should) be advertising ploys over anything else - why else would Joss Whedon choose to name his movie Serenity if not to alienate his otherwise non-Browncoat audience?
Also where in the world do statements like "Movies named after countries rarely do well at the box office. On the other hand, movies named after cities, like Chicago, Fargo, Philadelphia, Nashville, Munich and Casablanca, are guaranteed moneymakers" hold? Last time I checked Munich hadn't even made two thirds of its budget, Fargo made $24 million (true out of a budget of $7 million), Nashville barely made $10 million (is this what "guaranteed moneymakers" are?) and I dare anyone to tell me that the box office hits from Chicago, Philadelphia and Casablanca come from the fact they were named after cities and not due to star-power + cinematic pedigree + great film-making.
Case in question: Love in the Time of Cholera. Regardless of the critical reception (which in every single case in the list gets downtrodden over 'box office sums') the movie has been garnering Leupp somehow doesn't even acknowledge that the title comes from a novel from a Nobel Prize Winner and instead goes directly to WebMD to check what the symptoms for cholera are.
RANT OVER.
Over at ReelzChannel, a one Thomas Leupp discusses the The 10 Most Unfortunate Movie Titles Ever.
Now, I don't just want to rant about the fact that judging a movie by its title is at its best disrespectful and at its worst downright moronic but what I do want to point out is that 5 out of the 10 titles listed are lifted from their literary counterparts - something that obviously slips the mind of the writer who speaks of these titles as if they had been thought out for an implicit mainstream, uninformed American audience who decides which movies to watch based on their titles as they appear on the Friday paper. Titles, the article seems to suggest need to (and should) be advertising ploys over anything else - why else would Joss Whedon choose to name his movie Serenity if not to alienate his otherwise non-Browncoat audience?
Also where in the world do statements like "Movies named after countries rarely do well at the box office. On the other hand, movies named after cities, like Chicago, Fargo, Philadelphia, Nashville, Munich and Casablanca, are guaranteed moneymakers" hold? Last time I checked Munich hadn't even made two thirds of its budget, Fargo made $24 million (true out of a budget of $7 million), Nashville barely made $10 million (is this what "guaranteed moneymakers" are?) and I dare anyone to tell me that the box office hits from Chicago, Philadelphia and Casablanca come from the fact they were named after cities and not due to star-power + cinematic pedigree + great film-making.
Case in question: Love in the Time of Cholera. Regardless of the critical reception (which in every single case in the list gets downtrodden over 'box office sums') the movie has been garnering Leupp somehow doesn't even acknowledge that the title comes from a novel from a Nobel Prize Winner and instead goes directly to WebMD to check what the symptoms for cholera are.
RANT OVER.
