| Rant : Wait, Whose Stone Was It Again? Quite often, a name can make or break a movie. Movies are huge investments for production companies. They pour in millions of dollars, in the hope that people will flock to their cineplexes to see the completed product. They advertise for movies in the papers, on the radio, on buses, on billboards all over the city, and on TV. Hollywood is huge. So when it comes to giving your movie a name, we�re not talking about naming, say, a baby or something like that. A movie�s name is far more important. Lots of movies go under working titles during production. So, for instance, �Star Wars : Episode I � The Phantom Menace� went under the working title of �Star Wars : Episode I� during production. Because you cannot reasonably expect the secretary who takes minutes during production meetings to be typing out the full title in the printed minutes. And also, if I were a studio executive, going �So, boys, what I was thinking for this �Star Wars : Episode I � The Phantom Menace� is-�, I would probably have lost my train of thought completely, given the mouthful that the actual title is. See, that�s the thing. So why can�t studio executives just bloody accept it and give us short, simple titles instead? Do they really think that this summer there will be people going around asking their friends, �Hey! Let�s go queue for tickets to �Star Wars : Episode II � The Attack of The Clones�? EVERYONE is going on about �Episode II� or �Attack Of The Clones�. Why use nine words when two words will suffice? We are all lazy people, yes? Recently, two massive movies opened to big box office gold, so I�m going to focus on these two wordy, wordy titles. First up, we have �Harry Potter and The Philosopher�s Stone�. Heard of that? Well, probably not. Because in the US, it was known as �Harry Potter and The Sorcerer�s Stone�, following the title of the book. The reason for this name switch was that the studio executives decided that the people in the UK might not know what a sorcerer is. This is about the lamest thing I�ve heard the past year, right up until George W. Bush decided to faint after eating a pretzel. Because, in all likelihood, such massive �confusion� will lead to this scenario in the UK : Dude : Hi, could I have two tickets to �Harry Potter and the Sorcerer�s Stone� please? Cinema Labour Unit : Hang on. Sorry, there's no such show. Dude : You�re kidding. The poster�s outside and all. You know, that show about Hogwarts? CLU : Oh, you mean �Harry Potter and the Philosopher�s Stone�. Dude : That�s what I said! CLU : You said �Harry Potter and the Sorcerer�s Stone�, young man. Dude : Did I? Oh gee, I�m sorry. To be honest, I don�t even know what a sorcerer is. CLU : That�s okay. But you know what a philosopher is, right? Dude : Of course I do. That�s someone who philosopherises. Yeah, I know, you�re confused too. Sorcerer or philosopher, who, what? Whose stone? But, trust me, every one of my friends who has come up to me to ask if I�ve watched the movie (I haven�t and I won't) has asked whether I�ve watched �Harry Potter�. I could give a damn whose stone it is. Sure, we�ve got about 27 sequels coming our way over the next 27 years or whatever, but NO ONE is going to be saying �Could I have two tickets to �Harry Potter and the Flying Chimpanzee - uh, I mean - Orangutan� please?� in the year 2020. Because we�ll all still be using �Harry Potter� for whichever instalment is screening at the cinema. No studio is going to release two sequels at the same time. It really irks me, however, that they would think people might not be able to check a freaking dictionary if they didn�t know what a sorcerer was. I mean, will anyone be any less inclined to watch the movie if there was an ambiguous-looking word in its title? Most people haven�t ever seen a dragon, but I doubt it stopped them from going to watch �Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon�. Perhaps because the dragon was hidden, so they really didn�t need to know what kind of animal it was. Whatever. And I wouldn�t imagine anyone walked out of �Traffic� because they thought it was a movie about cars moving along a motorway. Next, the brouhaha over the titling of �The Lord Of The Rings : The Two Towers�, which is the second in the trilogy, to be released December 2002. Director Peter Jackson said he had contemplated changing the title after Sep 11, but was afraid die-hard fans might vehemently oppose. Not being a die-hard fan who might vehemently oppose, I really don�t care. But I imagine people might. Using a title like that, or not using it, isn�t going to vanquish people�s memory of Sep 11. I am sceptical that people will actually boycott the film if it sticks to the original title. To move on from one of mankind�s darkest hours does not entail extinguishing it from our collective conscience and making no mention of it for all of eternity. It should not be seen as a mark of disrespect because I am sure JRR Tolkien never meant it that way. And as with �Harry Potter�, I�m sure no one will be going into a cinema and asking for �Lord Of The Rings� tickets in December 2002 to be asked �oh, which one?�. If that indeed happens to you, the appropriate response will be either �The Return Of The King� or �The Sorcerer�s Stone�. |