Lack of creativity in modern film titles? (script, action, Johnny Depp)

[OzzyRules]

Does anyone else think that today's movies have lost a certain creativity of input from filmmakers? I am talking about how, in the past a movie would usually have a more "theatrical" title, even if based on a book. The title of a novel might have a more esoteric meaning.

One example would be "Willie Wonka" while the original book was "Charlie and...". And of course, today the remake done with Johnny Depp used the original book title.

Of course, most original titles are usually self descriptive. Something clear like the Time Machine, or the Invisible Man. Those don't need modification.

I think this trend probably started in the early 90's. "Silence of the Lambs" came out in 1991, and you would have no idea what it was about from the title alone. But the prior novel "Red Dragon" came out about 5 years earlier, and it had been retitled as "Manhunter."

And so nowadays, if you hear the title of a movie, you often have no idea what it is about.

[nightlysparrow]

Not to mention just adding a number to sequels instead of coming up with a new title. "Starship Troopers 3" anyone?

[Cida]

I think it started around the time of Fatal Attraction vs. Fatal Beauty.

[averysgore]

I agree. I would give examples, but the titles were so unmemorable that I can't remember them, LOL. OK, "The Spectacular Now"? "The Way Way Back?" "Just Go With It?" I know there were worse ones, but...see above.

Glengarry Glen Ross is an odd name, but at least it sticks with you, and you have no trouble remembering which of the many movies you've seen is that one. I guess all the best titles like Scarface are already taken.

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

Does anyone else think that today's movies have lost a certain creativity of input from filmmakers?

Not just the titles. Movies themselves have lost all creativity. They're all just 90-120 minute commercials. Any creative filmmaking today is all happening on cable TV.