Finally saw RISE OF THE GUARDIANS amd thoroughly enjoyed it. One reason it took me awhile was the title. First,it sounds like sequel to the awful LEGENDS OF THE GUARDIANS. It also sounds like some kind of AVENGERS/Marvel knock off. And, it sounds like RISE of the Planet of the APES, TOO!
hOW 'BOUT "The Dream Defenders" or some kinda title that gives you some idea what the film is about, frevvinsakes!@
and what about RUSH? terrible title - is it a bio about Rush Limbaugh? the rock band Rush? Plus there was a drug culture movie with the same title many years ago.
Both films were not commercial success and the titles may be one reason.
On the other hand.......... GRAVITY is another lame title but it seems not to have hurt the flic brm
Because familiarish and generic movie titles are safe. Clever or interesting titles are more likely to alienate people who don't like them or don't get them, or to work for some but others. Case in point: "The Dream Defenders" calls to mind a Nightmare on Elm Street sequel to me, and even without that association doesn't sound like a movie I'd want to watch. Rise of the Guardians isn't exactly a thrilling title, but it's not off-putting, either.
"Rise of the Guardians" sounds kinda cool IMHO, though I didn't think it fit well with fairy tale characters. I guess most films have lame titles because they are easy to remember. The studio's believe in dumbing things down as much as possible. (Frozen, Tangled, etc.) Then again there's the odd ball like "Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs", truly one of the worst titles in film history!
I dislike generic titles. "Hitchcock" sounds like it should be a full-life biopic, but it's only about the making of "Psycho." It was adapted from a book called "Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho," and so they just lazily lopped off the rest of the admittedly unwieldy title. But why not something more imaginative and/or provocative like "Behind the Shower Curtain"? LOL. OK, maybe not that but you know what I mean.
Similarly I think the title "Lincoln" misled people into thinking this was a big biopic of the first Republican president. It's rather a (very good) telling of the ratification of the 13th amendment. What's wrong with "Team of Rivals," the name of the adapted book? Too literary for the dum-dums?
I also hate the reuse of already established movie titles. I don't mean remakes like "The Flight of the Phoenix" (although I generally dislike remakes as well), but a completely unrelated movie using the title of an older film as if the earlier film is too obscure for people to care about anymore. Sample example: "Bad Company" (1972) which has been reused more than once since then.
It pissed me off that the book The Invention Of Hugo Cabret was condensed into Hugo for Martin Scorsese's film version, a great movie saddled with a grindingly generic title. There was an entry in Roger Ebert's Little Movie Glossary titled "BLANC: The Bureau Of Lame and Anemic Name Changes", which talked about how movie studios take movie titled which are catchy and unique and change them into ones that are banal and commercial, i.e. Cop Tips Waitress $2 Million became It Could Happen To You, Cloak & Diapers became Undercover Blues, ect.
