I've always loved films and don't mind a good sequel, but there is something about them that has always bothered me...
Pixar is a perfect example of this. My friends know this about me as well. I think the Lamp makes some of the most emotionally satisfying films that come out of America, animated or live action. Their ability to grasp the human condition and connect people to a subject or story is second to no one. But...
One of the things I have never liked about their films (Pixar or any other films actually), is their titles to sequels. Toy Story 2? Toy Story 3? Cars 2? Really? I mean, you couldn't come up with something better than that? Thankfully, the new Monsters Inc. 2 film is titled: "Monsters University." Which is actually a first. Naturally it has nothing to do with story, but I've always liked an original name rather than a number. If only that it masks the fact that something is an out-and-out cash grab. Even the sequels to "The Matrix" had titles like "The Matrix Reloaded" and "The Matrix Revolutions." And if any film could logically have a number title it would be one that has to do with a story about being trapped and turned into nothing more than a bunch of numbers in a mechanically engineered world.
And it seems even DreamWorks Animation has gotten into the numbers game with "Kung Fu Panda 2," which used to be titled: "Kung Fu Panda-The Kaboom of Doom." While I know Marketing plays a part in this, I don't feel that audiences will be confused with seeing a title connected to a film. After all, most chapters in books tend to have names, like: "The Creeping Fear" or something similar. I tend to think of sequels to films the same way; just another chapter to the story.
One of the many bonuses I get with a great film like "The Dark Knight"is its great story along with a great title. They could have called it "Batman 6," but it wasn't. It was the opposite problem I had with the original Superman films. Why did they have to call "Superman 2" that? Why did they have to make 3 and 4? Well, the fourth one had a subtitle, but the problem with that film wasn't the title, but a bad story, script and the clear lack of understanding what or who Superman was. This is why I like the title of the new film: "Man of Steel." It clearly is a story about the last son of Krypton, but also a declaration of narrative simply by naming it that.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I'd love to have a great title and a really crappy film. I'm just asking why we can't have both? While I love John Lasseter's attention to detail focusing on the films his Emeryville studio makes, I just have to ask why they can't spend a day or two trying to come up with a title to give it other than a number.
Other than the box office numbers...
