What's in a Name? More Than You Think. ...
Filed under: Drama, Thrillers, Newsstand, Movie Marketing, Remakes and Sequels
Most people prefer sequels with names instead of numbers. So, a sequel with a title like Die Hard 2: Die Harder is more interesting to a potential moviegoer than plain old Die Hard 2. This is according to a couple of scientific studies published in the October Journal of Consumer Research and highlighted by a recent New York Times article. According to one of the studies, subjects preferred to hear about titles of movies that gave away a little of the plot for the film. When a subject was shown a made-up movie title like Daredevil 2 or Daredevil 2: Taking it to the Streets, they showed much more interest in the latter than the former. Also, according to the study, people who were reading the plot summary for Daredevil 2: Taking it to the Streets were more likely to read it all the way through and remember it better, than those who were reading the summary for Daredevil:2.
The Times article also highlighted another study along similar lines which indicated that audiences demand more of a divergent plot from sequels with numbers than they do with names. Researchers hypothesized that this was a result of fear by movie audiences that numbered sequels would just be "clones" of the original and not offer anything new. "People are looking for some kind of clue that the movie is dissimilar, and you can do that either through the title or through the plot," said Professor Sanjay Good, one of the study's authors, in the article.
His co-author, Professor Xavier Dreze, also noted in the article that "few successful long-running series use numbering. If James Bond was called 'James Bond 22' or whatever they are up to (instead of Casino Royale) people would probably be less interested." So, what's in a name? Quite a lot, apparently. At least according to these studies. Interesting stuff, huh? Although, I gotta say, I'm not interested in a sequel to Daredevil no matter what it's called, so this research might be a little lost on me.
What do you think? Does the name really matter?
_thumbnail.jpg)
Fan Made: Steampunk 'Return of the Jedi' Figures_thumbnail.jpg)
Exclusive: 'A Christmas Tale' Poster Premiere_thumbnail.jpg)
Cinematical's Fourth Annual Halloween Costume Contest is Coming!
Netflix Unleashes Another Batch of "Forgotten" Flicks
Geek Daily: Wolverine, 'Batman 3', 'Punisher' and 'Kick-Ass'
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-24-2006 @ 12:41PM
Film Cynic said...
Chris, I think the point is that the latter Daredevil title didn't feature a number (not Daredevil 2: Taking it to the Streets; just "Daredevil: Taking it to the Streets"), so people were more curious about the synopsis. Obviously there are plenty of films with the colon-subtitle thing going on, and that title could just as well refer to a new film about some kind of daredevil motorcyclist or something. The inclusion of a number, whether without added title or with, is more likely to turn off people not interested in sequels.
Reply
10-24-2006 @ 1:26PM
chris ullrich said...
i agree but my point is that i'm not interested in a "daredevil" sequel no matter what the title is. that movie blew and should go the way of ang lee's hulk -- forgotten forever.
Reply
10-24-2006 @ 3:09PM
Jonathan said...
Obviously there is something to this theory as the sequel to Batman Begins is simply titled 'The Dark Knight' with no reference to Batman in the title at all - much like the James Bond series (ie it's not James Bond: Casino Royale)
Reply
10-24-2006 @ 4:55PM
gottacook said...
A few historical examples are in order. The first Star Trek sequel was doing perfectly well as "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" in pre-release advertising and on the theatrical prints, but some doofus at Paramount decided to add the "II" to post-release ads, the home video, etc. And the Ghostbusters sequel was known as "The Last Ghostbuster" during production, only later acquiring the uninspired "Ghostbusters II" title. There was also the redundant "Gremlins 2: The New Batch." I wish that no studio used the numbers and that audiences were given a little credit for figuring out that a sequel was part of a series from internal clues.
Reply
10-24-2006 @ 5:38PM
Lou Nunez said...
what about Spiderman 2 or Back to the Future II? Any other names for those would be retarded.
Reply
10-24-2006 @ 6:35PM
gottacook said...
Well, now that you mention it, Back to the Future Part II was known during production as "Paradox" (title written on clapper in outtakes). This would have been great: Paradox = Pair o' Docs (i.e., two Doc Browns). [Actually this pun goes back to Allan Sherman's song "One Hippopotami" (from My Son the Nut, 1963): "And when Ben Casey meets Kildare, that's called a pair o'docs/paradox" - as indeed it would be.]
Reply
10-25-2006 @ 1:00AM
Bill said...
If "Rambo III" was properly titled "Rambo II: First Blood Part III" I may have gone to see it.
Reply