Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes, We Bought a Zoo, Forrest Gump – let’s face it, these are not good movie titles, at least upon first glance. Where is this Gump forest they speak of and what’s with the double ‘r’?

Then there are titles that aren’t necessarily bad, but they inexplicably throw order out the window. Take Jon M. Chu’s Wicked: For Good, the recently released sequel to Wicked: Part One. It’s a solid name, nodding to one of the musical’s most impactful songs and containing just the right amount of irony, but there’s no “Part Two” in sight.

Shakespeare once famously asked: “What’s in a name?” He was, of course, referring to surnames and the loaded rivalry between the Montagues and Capulets in Romeo & Juliet. But the question remains for dubiously titled films. Could a bad title doom a quality movie?

The art of the title

Movie titles form a contract with the audience, says Dr Marty Murphy, Bachelor of Arts Screen: Production program convenor at the Australian Film Television and Radio School.

“It’s a promise of sorts – of horror or action and turmoil. The audience wants an answer to the problem that’s presented in the title,” he says. “I remember in 1976, my dad said there’s this new film coming out – it’s called Star Wars. As a six-year-old, that title immediately hooked me.”

The name Star Wars promises some kind of conflict in outer space, which the film then delivers. However, film titles can operate on various levels. Some that are more ambiguous or cerebral can pique the audience’s interest in the unknown.

“Birdeater – it’s a film about predatorial males … But I think the name comes from bird-eating spiders. No birds are harmed in that film,” Murphy says of the 2023 Australian thriller. “It works, but I really had to think about it.”

Indie vs blockbuster

Loading

For film titles, size does matter – the size of the budget, that is. According to a 2019 South Korean study in the Journal of Business Research, smaller independent films generally benefit more from clear, informative titles compared to big-budget blockbusters.

Take the 2014 indie horror Creep. Not only does the title indicate the film is about a creepy person, it also points to its found-footage style, which mimics the sense of someone surveilling the viewer.

Conversely, major blockbusters such as Wicked and franchises like Marvel generally need not worry as much. For instance, Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One is an awful name, but it immediately guarantees an audience by connecting it to the popular action franchise.

“The second Wicked could be called pretty much anything. As long as the word ‘wicked’ is in it, the title isn’t going to harm it,” says Dr Luke Devenish, senior lecturer in film, TV and screenwriting at The University of Melbourne. “They’re working with established IP – properties that already have high recognition in audience-land.”

The dos …

A quality film will usually overcome a poor title, Devenish says, but that of course requires time and word-of-mouth. A solid title could thus arguably fast-track a great film to box office success.

“A lot of thought is put into words that really capture attention, that hit you in the heart,” Devenish says. “Words like ‘love’, ‘secret’, ‘speed’, ‘murder’ – they’re used endlessly.”

Murphy says many quality titles also utilise Alfred Hitchcock’s theory of tension – creating suspense by giving the audience knowledge that the characters lack.

“White House Down is so explicit … You could see it as spoiling the movie, but giving away the ending is also the promise of spectacle. And spectacle is the huge attraction of cinema.”

There’s similar spectacle in lengthy titles, such as Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb and Birdman Or (The Unexpected Virtue Of Ignorance). Rather than turn an audience away with their convoluted mishmash of words, Murphy says they signal the satire or over-the-top plot awaiting them, offering a glimpse into the tone or dialogue ahead.

Today, Devenish says the new convention is to be unconventional, particularly when naming sequels.

“Originally, sequels had ‘two’ on the end of it, but those conventions started in the ’80s,” he says. “Now, people are playing with the convention so that we understand it’s a sequel, but also understand they’re having a laugh with it or adding a fresh take. A good example is The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear.”

Walter Bienz, founder and managing director at film marketing agency The Solid State, agrees, noting that numbers in film titles usually lack search optimisation.

Loading

“Every word in a film’s title is valuable real-estate and is better served telling you something about the film itself. It’s also not uncommon for investment in sequels to only appear after the success of the first film, and you can’t retrospectively name a film,” Bienz says.

And the don’ts

The weakest titles are those that tell you virtually nothing about the film, Devenish says. The worst culprits are arguably films named after a character, for example Todd Haynes’ Carol.

“Most people would think, ‘that’s not making me want to see that film. I know a few Carols, and they’re lovely, but is that interesting?’. That film relied upon not the title, but Cate Blanchett’s face.”

Alex Munt, associate professor in media arts and production at University of Technology Sydney, also notes a Hollywood superstition around the “curse of the question mark”. Many titles that pose questions – Who Framed Roger Rabbit!, What’s Eating Gilbert Grape’ – forgo the question mark, supposedly to avoid bombing at the box office.

Name change

Bienz says 95 per cent of films that come to his marketing agency (generally indie or auteur-led movies) already have a title in place, whether it’s concrete or ready to be workshopped with a distributor.

Films made via larger studios, contrarily, are often market-tested with focus groups to ensure the greatest response possible. This can sometimes trigger changes, such as for Edge of Tomorrow, which was originally named Live Die Repeat, and Pretty Woman, which nearly went by the title 3000 after the “price” of Julia Roberts’ character.

“There are many nervous Nellies in filmmaking, and particularly those who are linked to the money side of things,” Devenish says. “On these little contractual things – the name – they have a lot of clout, and they flex that clout by fiddling with the name.”

Culture and copyright are also major factors when finalising a title, says Michael Matrenza, the head of marketing at Madman Entertainment. Zootopia, for instance, was changed to Zootropolis in certain European regions to avoid trademark conflicts with a Danish zoo. Additionally, the latter (which plays on “metropolis”) proved more culturally relevant to European audiences than the initial title, which adapts the word “utopia”.

In Australia, the Madman-distributed 2016 film My Life as a Courgette was distributed locally as My Life as a Zucchini. Though many Australians would know what a courgette is, Matrenza says it could still create extra distance between the viewer and the film – the opposite of what a film title should do.

“We distribute plenty of foreign language films where the title is being translated from its native tongue, so there’s an element of change anyway. A minor difference in its exact title to one that suits better locally isn’t a stretch.”

Wicked: For Good is in cinemas now.

Must-see movies, interviews and all the latest from the world of film delivered to your inbox. Sign up for our Screening Room newsletter.