Seems to me that Passion of the Christ is a religious title and that movie did pretty well. Patton, Apocolypse Now, Blackhawk Down and Full Metal Jacket are all military titles and they all did pretty well.

A title alone will not help a lame movie. Religious and military movies are genre films even if they pretend not to be. If you break outside of what is expected of that genre you take a serious risk of the audience turning on your film (Pearl Harbor being a love story more than a war movie is an example).

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

OK so what if you have a movie that's title is something religious or military, but the film isnt really about the title? Like for instance the movie "The Crying Game" was originally going to be titles "The Soldier's Wife" but they changed it at the last moment.

If the title doesn't tell the audience what to expect you take a serious risk. For one if you see it on a marque and can't figure out what its about you may buy a ticket for another movie. If your friends come back from Soldiers Wife and are mad that it was about IRA cross-dressers they might be extra pissed because they felt misled.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

Yeah, but the movie wound up being titled "The Crying Game." If your standing in line at the theater and see that, whats going to run through your mind as to what that film is about? Sounds like a Childrens game to me.

Crying Game only made money because the big deal made over the secret ending. Its a bad title. For that matter Die Hard is a bad title as are most action movie titles because they tell you zero about the movie. In that case you better have a star on the movie poster.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

Ok then what about a movie like Reservoir Dogs? When it came out the director was totally uknown, pretty much every cast member wasn't a star--with the exception of Harvey Kietel (who was well know, but certainally not as big as Schwarzenegger, Willis, Stallone or Cruise--
and lastly when you look at the title what does that tell you? Resevoir=place where you store water
Dogs=A house pet
then you have gangsters in black suits walking on the poster...

Resevoir Dogs did not do very well in the theaters. The name is frequently sited as a reason why because even people that know what the movie is about don't know what the hell the title really means. It got $2,832,029 domestic gross which probably isn't bad for a release of 62 something theaters but its not an example I'd be using.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=reservoirdogs.htm

It was the buzz at the film festivals that got Tarentino the money for Pulp Fiction, not the success of Resevoir Dogs.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

an example of a name really harming a movie in the boxoffice would be 'shawshank redemption'. it was only saved on DVD through word of mouth and cable viewings.

www.maketradefair.com
www.thehungersite.com
www.oxfam.ca

So basically what you're saying is that the title really is important, and needs to be clear on what your film is about. AND that a religious and/or military title have no real affect of the movie.

I think a title should be whatever you want it to be...

The rule I try to stick with is that the title should, at least in some way, have a meaning in regards to the subject of the film. For example, "Die Hard." John McClain did not die easy... he was a hard man to kill despite Hans Gruber's repeated attempts.

Another example, "A Few Good Men." The two Marines who killed Pvt. Santiago were not necessarily a "few good men," but rather the opposite. Not to mention the phrase "a few good men" is used as a recruiting slogan by the U.S. Marines, members of which are protrayed in the film.

Hope this helps.

Jerad W. Alexander
indepedent writer-director