Words have power. It's an overused quote but a true one. And when you have only a few words to describe the multi-million dollar licensed film production you've put together they have to be chosen well. Take for instance an article on CBM.com recently talking about a rumored subtitle for the Amazing Spider-Man sequel. You look at the comments underneath you get a universal reaction. And believe it- that company that's invested millions into making this future blockbuster is looking at sites like this to get reactions because everything is still in development stages and everything can still be changed. They want to please fans, but they understand they have to appeal to mainstream audiences. The first film in franchise is the easiest: the name/description of the hero/team/protagonist. Fans see they are getting a movie adaptation and mainstream audiences can recognize from the trailer "Ok so there's a super-hero named ______." And based on the trailer both fans and mainstream audiences can determine if they want to see the movie. Easy as pie. Movie is a big time blockbuster. Endless storylines and rogue's gallery means endless sequels. Oh boy oh boy. But here comes the difficulty to those guys determining the name of this hopefully as successful sequel. What do we call it?
They have 3 options.
1. Plaster simple sequel numbers to their hearts content (2, 3,4,16 etc.).
2. Come up with a subtitle.
3. Combine options 1 and 2.
Now look at this link below, specifically the top 20.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=comicbookadaptation.htm
Notice anything? The sequels (save for X2 X-men United and X-men: The Last Stand) are numerated or generalized subtitles (i.e. 'Returns'). Is there a reason for that? In my opinion, there is.
Language changes year by year and our words and how we use them reflect that. But in English there is an underlying set of rules you aren't entirely aware of unless you've done several deep college level courses. And these rules are governed by the term known as 'aesthetic'.
Aesthetic (pronounced es-thet-ik) is a word that is becoming popular with book and movie critics. There are several definitions of it in a Merriam-Webster dictionary, but all of them come close to what most people think it means- an appreciation of beauty; or more commonly used by the critics- an appreciation of style. Aesthetic also means being able to recognize something negative instinctually, a reversal of recognizing positives. Aesthetic is a gut thing. Most of us use it without realizing it.
So when we read the two titles to the same piece "Frankenstein" and "The Modern Prometheus" (which is actually the two titles of the famous book, also use 'Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb' as an example) you recognize Frankenstein when you hear it and can visualize it but when you hear "The Modern Prometheus" you have to stop and think. Which in modern times is not something you want to do if you are into marketing.
So often the short sweet and to the point title is the obvious choice. Many times in quickie trailers they skip the sequel title or number entirely and just say "[name of hero] this Friday!" You market the obvious to the masses and they respond in kind. Sad, but true. So when an audience sees '2' or 'Returns' this means they can expect to a degree more of the same, which is hopefully what they want, which means more turn out for the sequel.
So whenever I see a CBM slated for future release with a colon 'Rise of', 'Revenge of', 'the Last', 'the Final', '*vague description of plot or villain or conflict*', I cringe, both as a serious comic fan, and as a writer who appreciates some of the more intricate things of English. Aesthetic matters. I just want these movies to be as successful as possible.
I use the example of the most recent CBM 'Thor: the Dark World'. Great movie, absolutely loved it.
The title made me want to kill myself.
The title panders to the current trend of 'grim real' (Star Trek Into Darkness, the Dark Knight trilogy, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, I could go on) and I think it’s incredibly unnecessary. It’s a sequel and you want the audience to think there is depth and more character development because the tone is theoretically 'darker'? I feel that most audiences are catching onto this and while still turning out to see the sequels of the characters they love are not appealed by the subtitle. Chances are years later when we are talking about this movie we are just going to say in conversation 'Thor 2' without even thinking about it.
'Thor: the Dark World' should have gone the route of Iron Man, Spider-Man and Batman. Slap a '2' or 'Returns' at the end of that bad boy and FOCUS ON MAKING THE MOVIE BETTER THAN THE FIRST.
We who liked the first will rush to see it. But putting an unnecessary subtitle that follows some current trend at the end isn't going to get that one guy who didn't see the first one to say "Hey that sounds mysterious and interesting. I think I will see this sequel because of that fact." IT’S STUPID.
You want your movie to have a timeless quality and giving it a name with trendy words will not help. If in 2005 Christopher Nolan went with 'Batman Extreme' or 'Batman Maximum' (everything was extreme, max or to the max that year, even toothbrushes) as the title do you think in 20 years people watching that movie could take the title seriously?
Are there exceptions to this rule? Yes.
1. Man of Steel/The Dark Knight proves that if the character is well known enough they can make a title based on well-known aliases/descriptions.
2. Captain America: the First Avenger. Not everybody likes America. It’s a fact. The subtitle is necessary to make the title more palatable to certain markets. Why the subtitle stuck stateside, I don't know.
In conclusion, am I over analyzing this? Probably.
This is an editorial, I get to espouse my opinion and I hope it’s something you hadn't considered that you now can think about and discuss. And if endless 'Top CBM of 2013 lists' fill my and your CBM editorial column on a daily basis I at least hope I could give you something a little different to dwell on.