I recall telling me (on page 5), that I didn't know anything about the movie because it was based on 1 line from DKR. I'd say its looking more like it'll be more then just 1 line this movie is based upon.
Marketed poorly by the non-marketing people, yes. Zack Snyder went on stage and gave a brief bit of insight as to what he/they are planning, essentially Batman vs. Superman, or vice versa, but that's not even the title. Again, we don't know the title. I don't think a marketing team has done any promotion yet. All we've gotten are that and a couple press releases about casting and again the general idea of the movie. Can we decide whether or not it's a sequel after we've seen it? Or maybe, at the earliest, after we've seen a trailer and know the title for sure?
I guess I posted the news of the title in the wrong thread... but it's where a lot more discussion has been lately. Please let me know if I should delete those posts (if I can).
Anyway, new (added to) title:
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice
So it turns out I was wrong a bit above. The title is one of those, plus the subtitle.
Maybe it is "V" instead of "vs." because they actually face each other in front of the Supreme Court?
I've seen rumblings that this hasn't officially been called a MoS2 direct sequel. It could just be a team up movie.
M
If that is the case, then it replaced Man of Steel 2 on the slate. In either case, WB went from announcing that they were fast tracking a MOS sequel (I think they said that the weekend that MOS opened, for the optics of success). . . and now we are getting a movie that starts with the word "Batman" and even gets the word "Justice" in there.
I think that says something about where the "Man of Steel" brand is at.
Or perhaps it just shows how silly the marketing people are at WB
I don't know that "add Batman" is silly when it comes to putting butts in the seats.
Except its unnecessary and also the whole title is weird. It's like a video game title. TDK and TDKR did just fine without the word Batman in it. MOS did pretty well without Superman in the title. Trailers, commercials, posters, that's what will put butts in seats. Not overly complicated and odd titles. Might as well be called "Modern Warfare: Batman vs Superman feat. The Justice League". WB hasn't used a subtitle for a movie, certainly not a super hero movie since the debacle of Quest for Peace.
Could have just been Man of Tomorrow. Or Men of Tomorrow. Or Worlds Finest. Or Dawn of Justice.
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice sounds like a sequal to a movie that doesn't exist. Where's the first Batman vs Superman? With titles like these, no one refers to them by the whole title. It always ends up being called Thor 2 by everyone or Days Of Future Past or what have you.
I mean c'mon. I know you hate MOS, but don't you think this title is silly?
Or perhaps it just shows how silly the marketing people are at WB
I don't know that "add Batman" is silly when it comes to putting butts in the seats.
Except its unnecessary and also the whole title is weird. It's like a video game title. TDK and TDKR did just fine without the word Batman in it. MOS did pretty well without Superman in the title. Trailers, commercials, posters, that's what will put butts in seats. Not overly complicated and odd titles. Might as well be called "Modern Warfare: Batman vs Superman feat. The Justice League". WB hasn't used a subtitle for a movie, certainly not a super hero movie since the debacle of Quest for Peace.
Could have just been Man of Tomorrow. Or Men of Tomorrow. Or Worlds Finest. Or Dawn of Justice.
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice sounds like a sequal to a movie that doesn't exist. Where's the first Batman vs Superman? With titles like these, no one refers to them by the whole title. It always ends up being called Thor 2 by everyone or Days Of Future Past or what have you.
I mean c'mon. I know you hate MOS, but don't you think this title is silly?
"The Dark Knight" was a gamble that paid off. If it wouldn't have been as successful, I'm betting the 3rd movie would've been "Batman Rises." The gamble didn't go so well for MoS. Maybe if it would've been a sequel it would've.
I'm so glad they didn't use "World's Finest" its so cliche at this point. Dawn of Justice would be meaningless as World's Finest would to the general public.
Think about the movie released before Avengers. It was Captain America. The movie was actually called Captain America: The First Avenger. It was a lead into Avengers.
This movie is the lead into Justice League. The Dawn of Justice (League) begins with Batman & Superman fighting.
Or perhaps it just shows how silly the marketing people are at WB
I don't know that "add Batman" is silly when it comes to putting butts in the seats.
Except its unnecessary and also the whole title is weird. It's like a video game title. TDK and TDKR did just fine without the word Batman in it. MOS did pretty well without Superman in the title. Trailers, commercials, posters, that's what will put butts in seats. Not overly complicated and odd titles. Might as well be called "Modern Warfare: Batman vs Superman feat. The Justice League". WB hasn't used a subtitle for a movie, certainly not a super hero movie since the debacle of Quest for Peace.
Could have just been Man of Tomorrow. Or Men of Tomorrow. Or Worlds Finest. Or Dawn of Justice.
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice sounds like a sequal to a movie that doesn't exist. Where's the first Batman vs Superman? With titles like these, no one refers to them by the whole title. It always ends up being called Thor 2 by everyone or Days Of Future Past or what have you.
I mean c'mon. I know you hate MOS, but don't you think this title is silly?
"The Dark Knight" was a gamble that paid off. If it wouldn't have been as successful, I'm betting the 3rd movie would've been "Batman Rises." The gamble didn't go so well for MoS. Maybe if it would've been a sequel it would've.
I'm so glad they didn't use "World's Finest" its so cliche at this point. Dawn of Justice would be meaningless as World's Finest would to the general public.
Think about the movie released before Avengers. It was Captain America. The movie was actually called Captain America: The First Avenger. It was a lead into Avengers.
This movie is the lead into Justice League. The Dawn of Justice (League) begins with Batman & Superman fighting.
M
I think the "put a Batman on it" strategy and the "let everyone know this is leading to JL" are both at play. One one each side of the colon.
Matt's absolutely right about the Cap 1 title. Fearing it was too American for foriegn markets, which were experience a height of anti-American sentiment at the time, they wanted people to know this was leading into the biggest superhero movie of all time. In a lot of markets they even dropped the "Captain America" portion of the title and it soley went by "The First Avenger". It's questionable exactly how well this strategy worked because Cap 1 is still the lowest grossing Marvel movie to date, making 47% of is 370 million dollar gross in the US (as opposed to the 37% for the sequel, meaning it had a broader appeal worldwide). And that's was only 2x the listed budget (which is usually about 10-20% higher in reality). This day and age, once marketing is factored in a blockbuster movie needs to make at least 3x it's budget to be profitable.
Not exactly the same since this is a sequel, doesn't have socio-political ramifications and that MoS was pretty well received world wide, if not as much in the US, but the strategy is definitely the same in principle.
They did that with Captain America because they were worried about the "rah rah, America" thing overseas. They didn't do it with Thor, who was arguably less well known. The general audience isn't dumb. If they see previews, commercials, and posters with Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman, they're gonna know what it is.
The Dark Knight was not a gamble. Everyone knew exactly what it was. Does anyone ever go to the theater not knowing what they are seeing? Does anybody just walk up and go, huh, that "Tomorrow Never Dies" has an interesting title. The only time I can see this happening is if the movie you want to see is sold out.
The title for Man of steel wasn't a problem. Everyone knew exactly what it was. I know the consensus here is that it underperformed, but lets look at what it is. Its the 10th most successful comic adaptation (domestically). There are 3 non-sequels in that top 10. Iron Man, Spider-Man and Man of Steel.
It earned almost $100 million more than Batman Begins (worldwide)... a movie with Batman in the title. It earned more than Thor 2 (worldwide), which has the benefit of basically being a sequel to the most successful comic book movie ever. It's currently ahead (domestically) of Captain America 2, again which has the benefit of being a sequel to the most successful comic book movie ever (and is obviously going to be in theaters for a little bit more).
But, OK. So they want to work Batman into the title. Fine. I get it. On paper, the word Batman = $$$$$ To me this one is still silly and overly complicated. When they start running ads for it, they are gonna have to do that thing at the end of a commercial, like they do for medication side effects, where the voice over suddenly goes really fast to cram in a lot of words "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, in theaters NOW"
They did that with Captain America because they were worried about the "rah rah, America" thing overseas. They didn't do it with Thor, who was arguably less well known. The general audience isn't dumb. If they see previews, commercials, and posters with Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman, they're gonna know what it is.
The Dark Knight was not a gamble. Everyone knew exactly what it was. Does anyone ever go to the theater not knowing what they are seeing? Does anybody just walk up and go, huh, that "Tomorrow Never Dies" has an interesting title. The only time I can see this happening is if the movie you want to see is sold out.
The title for Man of steel wasn't a problem. Everyone knew exactly what it was. I know the consensus here is that it underperformed, but lets look at what it is. Its the 10th most successful comic adaptation (domestically). There are 3 non-sequels in that top 10. Iron Man, Spider-Man and Man of Steel.
It earned almost $100 million more than Batman Begins (worldwide)... a movie with Batman in the title. It earned more than Thor 2 (worldwide), which has the benefit of basically being a sequel to the most successful comic book movie ever. It's currently ahead (domestically) of Captain America 2, again which has the benefit of being a sequel to the most successful comic book movie ever (and is obviously going to be in theaters for a little bit more).
But, OK. So they want to work Batman into the title. Fine. I get it. On paper, the word Batman = $$$$$ To me this one is still silly and overly complicated. When they start running ads for it, they are gonna have to do that thing at the end of a commercial, like they do for medication side effects, where the voice over suddenly goes really fast to cram in a lot of words "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, in theaters NOW"
Like they did with Thor: The Dark World, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, like they will with Avengers 2: Age of Ultron?
So, it's just convenient that Marvel would incorporate the word 'avenger' just before the Avengers movie would be released? Boy, they lucked out. Imagine if they would've used something really weird, like: Captain America: The Super Soldier.
So, if I ask my wife about watching "A New Hope", "Skyfall" or "Into Darkness" she should know about the franchises, right? The fact "Raiders of the Lost Ark" has been rebranded as "Indiana Jones & the Raiders of the Lost Ark" is redundant, right? The average movie goer 'just knows' because they've seen commercials, posters, merchandise, etc. even after all these years...right?
So, just finished Now You See Me. Despite being somewhat predictable, it was a good movie. Still not 100% convinced Eisenberg can play the interpretation of Lex I enjoy, but whose to say they'll go the full corporate raider approach.
They did that with Captain America because they were worried about the "rah rah, America" thing overseas. They didn't do it with Thor, who was arguably less well known. The general audience isn't dumb. If they see previews, commercials, and posters with Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman, they're gonna know what it is.
The Dark Knight was not a gamble. Everyone knew exactly what it was. Does anyone ever go to the theater not knowing what they are seeing? Does anybody just walk up and go, huh, that "Tomorrow Never Dies" has an interesting title. The only time I can see this happening is if the movie you want to see is sold out.
The title for Man of steel wasn't a problem. Everyone knew exactly what it was. I know the consensus here is that it underperformed, but lets look at what it is. Its the 10th most successful comic adaptation (domestically). There are 3 non-sequels in that top 10. Iron Man, Spider-Man and Man of Steel.
It earned almost $100 million more than Batman Begins (worldwide)... a movie with Batman in the title. It earned more than Thor 2 (worldwide), which has the benefit of basically being a sequel to the most successful comic book movie ever. It's currently ahead (domestically) of Captain America 2, again which has the benefit of being a sequel to the most successful comic book movie ever (and is obviously going to be in theaters for a little bit more).
But, OK. So they want to work Batman into the title. Fine. I get it. On paper, the word Batman = $$$$$ To me this one is still silly and overly complicated. When they start running ads for it, they are gonna have to do that thing at the end of a commercial, like they do for medication side effects, where the voice over suddenly goes really fast to cram in a lot of words "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, in theaters NOW"
Like they did with Thor: The Dark World, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, like they will with Avengers 2: Age of Ultron?
So, it's just convenient that Marvel would incorporate the word 'avenger' just before the Avengers movie would be released? Boy, they lucked out. Imagine if they would've used something really weird, like: Captain America: The Super Soldier.
So, if I ask my wife about watching "A New Hope", "Skyfall" or "Into Darkness" she should know about the franchises, right? The fact "Raiders of the Lost Ark" has been rebranded as "Indiana Jones & the Raiders of the Lost Ark" is redundant, right? The average movie goer 'just knows' because they've seen commercials, posters, merchandise, etc. even after all these years...right?
M
Yes, rebranding Raiders of the Lost Ark was redundant. I don't know if your wife should know or not, but mine would. Everyone called Thor: The dark world, Thor 2. Everyone called Captain America: The Winter Soldier Captain America 2. Everyone will call Avengers: Age of Ultron, Avengers 2.
I didn't say it was convenient they called it "The first Avenger", i'm saying their reasoning was partly to appease overseas audiences who might not want a "rah rah America" movie. Even wikipedia says "Paramount opted against altering the American-centric title when distributing to foreign territories, instead offering international markets a choice between the official title and the alternative The First Avenger"
All I'm saying is, I understand what they are doing. I just think its a silly title. Batman vs. Superman would have been fine as well. That's what everyone has been calling it, and that's what everyone will call it.
If you don't agree its a silly title, good. I do think its silly, and I think for marketing purposes its not going to make a difference and instead could be a hinderance. But whatever. Its not a big deal. The title will not determine whether I see or not, or whether I like it or not. But regardless of everything else, if I end up loving it, I'll still think the title is silly.
They did that with Captain America because they were worried about the "rah rah, America" thing overseas. They didn't do it with Thor, who was arguably less well known. The general audience isn't dumb. If they see previews, commercials, and posters with Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman, they're gonna know what it is.
The Dark Knight was not a gamble. Everyone knew exactly what it was. Does anyone ever go to the theater not knowing what they are seeing? Does anybody just walk up and go, huh, that "Tomorrow Never Dies" has an interesting title. The only time I can see this happening is if the movie you want to see is sold out.
The title for Man of steel wasn't a problem. Everyone knew exactly what it was. I know the consensus here is that it underperformed, but lets look at what it is. Its the 10th most successful comic adaptation (domestically). There are 3 non-sequels in that top 10. Iron Man, Spider-Man and Man of Steel.
It earned almost $100 million more than Batman Begins (worldwide)... a movie with Batman in the title. It earned more than Thor 2 (worldwide), which has the benefit of basically being a sequel to the most successful comic book movie ever. It's currently ahead (domestically) of Captain America 2, again which has the benefit of being a sequel to the most successful comic book movie ever (and is obviously going to be in theaters for a little bit more).
But, OK. So they want to work Batman into the title. Fine. I get it. On paper, the word Batman = $$$$$ To me this one is still silly and overly complicated. When they start running ads for it, they are gonna have to do that thing at the end of a commercial, like they do for medication side effects, where the voice over suddenly goes really fast to cram in a lot of words "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, in theaters NOW"
Like they did with Thor: The Dark World, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, like they will with Avengers 2: Age of Ultron?
So, it's just convenient that Marvel would incorporate the word 'avenger' just before the Avengers movie would be released? Boy, they lucked out. Imagine if they would've used something really weird, like: Captain America: The Super Soldier.
So, if I ask my wife about watching "A New Hope", "Skyfall" or "Into Darkness" she should know about the franchises, right? The fact "Raiders of the Lost Ark" has been rebranded as "Indiana Jones & the Raiders of the Lost Ark" is redundant, right? The average movie goer 'just knows' because they've seen commercials, posters, merchandise, etc. even after all these years...right?
M
Yes, rebranding Raiders of the Lost Ark was redundant. I don't know if your wife should know or not, but mine would. Everyone called Thor: The dark world, Thor 2. Everyone called Captain America: The Winter Soldier Captain America 2. Everyone will call Avengers: Age of Ultron, Avengers 2.
I didn't say it was convenient they called it "The first Avenger", i'm saying their reasoning was partly to appease overseas audiences who might not want a "rah rah America" movie. Even wikipedia says "Paramount opted against altering the American-centric title when distributing to foreign territories, instead offering international markets a choice between the official title and the alternative The First Avenger"
All I'm saying is, I understand what they are doing. I just think its a silly title. Batman vs. Superman would have been fine as well. That's what everyone has been calling it, and that's what everyone will call it.
If you don't agree its a silly title, good. I do think its silly, and I think for marketing purposes its not going to make a difference and instead could be a hinderance. But whatever. Its not a big deal. The title will not determine whether I see or not, or whether I like it or not. But regardless of everything else, if I end up loving it, I'll still think the title is silly.
Maybe most people have said "Thor 2", "Captain America 2" & "Batman vs. Superman", but not EVERYONE.
I've discussed all 3 movies with various people & have called them "Thor: Thr Dark World", "The Winter Soldier", & "Man of Steel 2" or "MoS sequel."
My wife is 6yrs younger then I am & not overly interested in the movies I listed above; which was kind of my point. Ten years from now, "Dawn of Justice" could mean nothing to the average new gen of moviegoers. "Batman v. Superman" could easily be followed by the question "is that after Batman & Robin?" As opposed to "that's the one right before Justice League, right?" Ten years from now, those commercials, trailers, & merchandise are stuff archived.
And I never said I didn't think the Name was silly. It's just like "The Phantom Menace", "A New Hope", or the countless suggested titles for this movie.
Or perhaps it just shows how silly the marketing people are at WB
I don't know that "add Batman" is silly when it comes to putting butts in the seats.
Except its unnecessary and also the whole title is weird. It's like a video game title. TDK and TDKR did just fine without the word Batman in it. MOS did pretty well without Superman in the title. Trailers, commercials, posters, that's what will put butts in seats. Not overly complicated and odd titles. Might as well be called "Modern Warfare: Batman vs Superman feat. The Justice League". WB hasn't used a subtitle for a movie, certainly not a super hero movie since the debacle of Quest for Peace.
Could have just been Man of Tomorrow. Or Men of Tomorrow. Or Worlds Finest. Or Dawn of Justice.
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice sounds like a sequal to a movie that doesn't exist. Where's the first Batman vs Superman? With titles like these, no one refers to them by the whole title. It always ends up being called Thor 2 by everyone or Days Of Future Past or what have you.
I mean c'mon. I know you hate MOS, but don't you think this title is silly?
Returning to the conversation late, and it has all been pretty well talked out. But to answer the question-- I do think the title is unwieldy and long, but I don't know that means marketing doesn't know what they are doing, given recent trends. It seems like, in the age of franchises, titles are getting longer. I mean, "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 2" is a pretty long title, and I think that movie performed okay. As did some of the long superhero movie titles that have been mentioned.
And I agree that it is a mouthful, but that doesn't matter anymore. These days advertising and trailers usually crash to a logo rather than saying the name out loud. The age of the "movie trailer guy" promo voiceover is over, especially when it comes to big action movies. It is all music, sound effects (including that f**king WUUUUUUUAWWWWWWWW sound from Transformers everyone seems to use now) and bits of dialogue. Or sometimes there will be a speech from the film used as narration for the trailer (like the Jor-El speech in the MOS trailer). But I can pretty well promise you there will be no point in a movie trailer where a promo VO guy says the name of the movie, because that is now reserved for tongue-in-cheek and parody. (And, occasionally, art house films that are advertising to an older audience, and therefore cuts an old style trailer and uses VO).
And, yes, I agree that people will just shorten the name when they refer to it, the way they always do. I worked a movie box office in college and, hell, people would even shorten the names of short titles. (Or say "One for John Travolta" because they can't be bothered to try to say "Phenomenon" out loud. Working box office can be a terrible way to find out how most people go to the movies, but I digress.)
But I think that the marketing- now visual- is to pepper those words out there as future hooks. To lead off with "Batman", and to also start getting the word "Justice" out there, as they brand-build towards the Justice League movie that they hope will be their Avengers.
Does it sound silly to say the whole thing out loud? Sure. But what would have been silly would be if the marketing people left out the "Batman" and "Superman" and went with a title like "Worlds Finest". Because only we know what that means. And if marketing are doing their jobs, they are not selling to us. We are taken for granted, and rightly so. I mean, here we are talking about a movie that isn't out for another year. Maybe not everyone in this conversation will see it in the theater, but we are all aware of it and know what it is supposed to be. To the general audience, who they are making this movie for and selling it to, THEY need to be grabbed with a title that says 'Batman is going to fight Superman'. If they went ahead with Man of Steel 2, they would be leaving money on the table.
I worked a movie box office in college and, hell, people would even shorten the names of short titles. (Or say "One for John Travolta" because they can't be bothered to try to say "Phenomenon" out loud.
Jesus.
I would have gone insane.
Whenever I hear someone say "phenomenon", I compulsively reply "doo doo doo-doo-doo".
Am I the only one that thinks being able to see Batman's veins in this costume seems absolutely ridiculous? How much protection is this costume supposed to offer to a mere mortal if it's thin enough to allow you to see how shredded Bruce Wayne is?
I'm leaning towards the realism indicative of Nolan's interpretation, my fondness for the Frank Miller story notwithstanding. I hope I'm just jumping to a conclusion that isn't going to be made manifest.
In regards to the title, does anyone go see a film based solely on its title? I would think that most people, if not everyone, watch a trailer before deciding whether to see a film or not.
You don't need James Bond in the title of a James Bond film. All you need is the signature music and/or the trademark “Bond. James Bond” in a trailer, and people know what’s what. Would calling the movie James Bond: Skyfall have made any difference in ticket sales? I doubt it.
All you need is the Bat symbol and the S shield in a trailer and people will be interested.
Comments
M
Anyway, new (added to) title:
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice
So it turns out I was wrong a bit above. The title is one of those, plus the subtitle.
"Justice League: Because I Am Batman"
M
Link to Variety article here.
Maybe it is "V" instead of "vs." because they actually face each other in front of the Supreme Court?
M
I think that says something about where the "Man of Steel" brand is at.
Could have just been Man of Tomorrow. Or Men of Tomorrow. Or Worlds Finest. Or Dawn of Justice.
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice sounds like a sequal to a movie that doesn't exist. Where's the first Batman vs Superman? With titles like these, no one refers to them by the whole title. It always ends up being called Thor 2 by everyone or Days Of Future Past or what have you.
I mean c'mon. I know you hate MOS, but don't you think this title is silly?
I'm so glad they didn't use "World's Finest" its so cliche at this point. Dawn of Justice would be meaningless as World's Finest would to the general public.
Think about the movie released before Avengers. It was Captain America. The movie was actually called Captain America: The First Avenger. It was a lead into Avengers.
This movie is the lead into Justice League. The Dawn of Justice (League) begins with Batman & Superman fighting.
M
Matt's absolutely right about the Cap 1 title. Fearing it was too American for foriegn markets, which were experience a height of anti-American sentiment at the time, they wanted people to know this was leading into the biggest superhero movie of all time. In a lot of markets they even dropped the "Captain America" portion of the title and it soley went by "The First Avenger". It's questionable exactly how well this strategy worked because Cap 1 is still the lowest grossing Marvel movie to date, making 47% of is 370 million dollar gross in the US (as opposed to the 37% for the sequel, meaning it had a broader appeal worldwide). And that's was only 2x the listed budget (which is usually about 10-20% higher in reality). This day and age, once marketing is factored in a blockbuster movie needs to make at least 3x it's budget to be profitable.
Not exactly the same since this is a sequel, doesn't have socio-political ramifications and that MoS was pretty well received world wide, if not as much in the US, but the strategy is definitely the same in principle.
They did that with Captain America because they were worried about the "rah rah, America" thing overseas. They didn't do it with Thor, who was arguably less well known. The general audience isn't dumb. If they see previews, commercials, and posters with Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman, they're gonna know what it is.
The Dark Knight was not a gamble. Everyone knew exactly what it was. Does anyone ever go to the theater not knowing what they are seeing? Does anybody just walk up and go, huh, that "Tomorrow Never Dies" has an interesting title. The only time I can see this happening is if the movie you want to see is sold out.
The title for Man of steel wasn't a problem. Everyone knew exactly what it was. I know the consensus here is that it underperformed, but lets look at what it is. Its the 10th most successful comic adaptation (domestically). There are 3 non-sequels in that top 10. Iron Man, Spider-Man and Man of Steel.
It earned almost $100 million more than Batman Begins (worldwide)... a movie with Batman in the title. It earned more than Thor 2 (worldwide), which has the benefit of basically being a sequel to the most successful comic book movie ever. It's currently ahead (domestically) of Captain America 2, again which has the benefit of being a sequel to the most successful comic book movie ever (and is obviously going to be in theaters for a little bit more).
But, OK. So they want to work Batman into the title. Fine. I get it. On paper, the word Batman = $$$$$ To me this one is still silly and overly complicated. When they start running ads for it, they are gonna have to do that thing at the end of a commercial, like they do for medication side effects, where the voice over suddenly goes really fast to cram in a lot of words "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, in theaters NOW"
So, it's just convenient that Marvel would incorporate the word 'avenger' just before the Avengers movie would be released? Boy, they lucked out. Imagine if they would've used something really weird, like: Captain America: The Super Soldier.
So, if I ask my wife about watching "A New Hope", "Skyfall" or "Into Darkness" she should know about the franchises, right? The fact "Raiders of the Lost Ark" has been rebranded as "Indiana Jones & the Raiders of the Lost Ark" is redundant, right? The average movie goer 'just knows' because they've seen commercials, posters, merchandise, etc. even after all these years...right?
M
M
Yes, rebranding Raiders of the Lost Ark was redundant. I don't know if your wife should know or not, but mine would. Everyone called Thor: The dark world, Thor 2. Everyone called Captain America: The Winter Soldier Captain America 2. Everyone will call Avengers: Age of Ultron, Avengers 2.
I didn't say it was convenient they called it "The first Avenger", i'm saying their reasoning was partly to appease overseas audiences who might not want a "rah rah America" movie. Even wikipedia says "Paramount opted against altering the American-centric title when distributing to foreign territories, instead offering international markets a choice between the official title and the alternative The First Avenger"
All I'm saying is, I understand what they are doing. I just think its a silly title. Batman vs. Superman would have been fine as well. That's what everyone has been calling it, and that's what everyone will call it.
If you don't agree its a silly title, good. I do think its silly, and I think for marketing purposes its not going to make a difference and instead could be a hinderance. But whatever. Its not a big deal. The title will not determine whether I see or not, or whether I like it or not. But regardless of everything else, if I end up loving it, I'll still think the title is silly.
I've discussed all 3 movies with various people & have called them "Thor: Thr Dark World", "The Winter Soldier", & "Man of Steel 2" or "MoS sequel."
My wife is 6yrs younger then I am & not overly interested in the movies I listed above; which was kind of my point. Ten years from now, "Dawn of Justice" could mean nothing to the average new gen of moviegoers. "Batman v. Superman" could easily be followed by the question "is that after Batman & Robin?" As opposed to "that's the one right before Justice League, right?"
Ten years from now, those commercials, trailers, & merchandise are stuff archived.
And I never said I didn't think the Name was silly. It's just like "The Phantom Menace", "A New Hope", or the countless suggested titles for this movie.
M
And I agree that it is a mouthful, but that doesn't matter anymore. These days advertising and trailers usually crash to a logo rather than saying the name out loud. The age of the "movie trailer guy" promo voiceover is over, especially when it comes to big action movies. It is all music, sound effects (including that f**king WUUUUUUUAWWWWWWWW sound from Transformers everyone seems to use now) and bits of dialogue. Or sometimes there will be a speech from the film used as narration for the trailer (like the Jor-El speech in the MOS trailer). But I can pretty well promise you there will be no point in a movie trailer where a promo VO guy says the name of the movie, because that is now reserved for tongue-in-cheek and parody. (And, occasionally, art house films that are advertising to an older audience, and therefore cuts an old style trailer and uses VO).
And, yes, I agree that people will just shorten the name when they refer to it, the way they always do. I worked a movie box office in college and, hell, people would even shorten the names of short titles. (Or say "One for John Travolta" because they can't be bothered to try to say "Phenomenon" out loud. Working box office can be a terrible way to find out how most people go to the movies, but I digress.)
But I think that the marketing- now visual- is to pepper those words out there as future hooks. To lead off with "Batman", and to also start getting the word "Justice" out there, as they brand-build towards the Justice League movie that they hope will be their Avengers.
Does it sound silly to say the whole thing out loud? Sure. But what would have been silly would be if the marketing people left out the "Batman" and "Superman" and went with a title like "Worlds Finest". Because only we know what that means. And if marketing are doing their jobs, they are not selling to us. We are taken for granted, and rightly so. I mean, here we are talking about a movie that isn't out for another year. Maybe not everyone in this conversation will see it in the theater, but we are all aware of it and know what it is supposed to be. To the general audience, who they are making this movie for and selling it to, THEY need to be grabbed with a title that says 'Batman is going to fight Superman'. If they went ahead with Man of Steel 2, they would be leaving money on the table.
I would have gone insane.
Whenever I hear someone say "phenomenon", I compulsively reply "doo doo doo-doo-doo".
I'm leaning towards the realism indicative of Nolan's interpretation, my fondness for the Frank Miller story notwithstanding. I hope I'm just jumping to a conclusion that isn't going to be made manifest.
You don't need James Bond in the title of a James Bond film. All you need is the signature music and/or the trademark “Bond. James Bond” in a trailer, and people know what’s what. Would calling the movie James Bond: Skyfall have made any difference in ticket sales? I doubt it.
All you need is the Bat symbol and the S shield in a trailer and people will be interested.