DVDizzy Forum

In a film, book or any type of entertainment series, how do you prefer the title for each entry to be?

For example, which title would you pick from the following?

• Tinker Bell 4
• Tinker Bell IV
• Tinker Bell 4: Secret of the Wings
• Tinker Bell IV: Secret of the Wings
• Tinker Bell: Secret of the Wings
• Tinker Bell and the Secret of the Wings
• Secret of the Wings

Sotiris wrote: • Tinker Bell 4
• Tinker Bell: Secret of the Wings
• Tinker Bell and the Secret of the Wings

I don't really like Roman numerals for movie sequels. I hate the titles that have both a number and a subtitle; pick one or the other, jeez. I'm split between the above three.

It depends. Or rather, I don't have a preference, as long as it's kept consistent with the rest of the series or not changed mid-way. However, I do think having both a number and a subtitle is an overkill; just choose one. I voted for the "title: subtitle" option.

Generally, I think MCU, Star Wars and Pirates of the Caribbean maintain a good pattern with their titles, i.e. Captain America and PotC movies have had subtitles from the start, Iron Man movies used numerals. Similar with Star Wars, which uses "Episode xyz" and "A Star Wars Story" formats to differentiate between different focal points, story-wise.

Some other examples:
a)
- Aladdin
- Aladdin: The Return of Jafar
- Aladdin and the King of Thieves

Titles there went from kinda iffy to consistent when they added the "Aladdin" prefix to RotJ in 2005 (only on the home video covers though). Same with Beauty and the Beast and its sequels. I also liked when Raiders of the Lost Ark became Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark.

b) Tinker Bell titles were a mess. I don't understand why the last three movies changed the original title format. I guess they felt the titles were getting too long?

c) High School Musical 3: Senior Year, The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause, Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation added subtitles whereas previous entries didn't have them. A bit annoying. Again, consistency is the key.

d) Fast and Furious movies are the worst when it comes to this. I believe they used almost every known format of titling sequels and created this Frankenstein-like thing where, if one comes to watch them without prior knowledge, you wouldn't know where to start or if some movies are even part of the series.

e) X-Men is a bit messy too, but they generally kept the consistency after The Last Stand. The Wolverine movies should have been more uniform with titles. Wolverine: Origins -- Wolverine: Samurai -- Wolverine: Logan would have flown better.

(I tend to overthink stuff like this )

I really hate inconsistency and non-conformity too when it comes to this sort of thing. Creators or IP holders really need to choose a format and stick with it. I also disapprove of the practice of changing the original title years after its release to retroactively make it seem that a series was planned all along or make it fit better with later installments. They should have thought of that before they settled on a title in the first place.

I don't like the "and the" format but I don't hate it either. I find it somewhat restricting creatively-speaking because not everything can fit in this format and make sense. That and because it makes the title unnecessarily long.

I'm not fond of the Title Number format as I think it looks cheap but it can fit well with certain franchises such as Toy Story or Cars (which didn't have very elegant or epic-sounding titles to begin with).

Another format (I dislike) that I missed is the "Name in/as/of Title" like Peter Pan in Return to Never Land, Barbie as Rapunzel or Barbie of Swan Lake.

Mooky wrote:Tinker Bell titles were a mess. I don't understand why the last three movies changed the original title format. I guess they felt the titles were getting too long?

Oh, it's much worse than that because they reverted to the original title format for the last one. So the series looks like this:

Tinker Bell
Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure
Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue
Pixie Hollow Games (TV special)
Secret of the Wings
Pixie Hollow Bake Off (TV short)
The Pirate Fairy
Tinker Bell and the Legend of the NeverBeast


If I were to rank the title formats in order of preference it would go something like this:

01. Title: Subtitle
02. Subtitle Only
03. Title "and the" Subtitle
04. Title Numeral
05. Title Numeral: Subtitle
06. Title Number
07. Title Number: Subtitle
08. Title "of" Name
09. Title "in" Name
10. Title "as" Name
11. Title "Presents" Subtitle

I prefer "title: subtitle" or a new title that manages to include the main title in it like Frozen Fever/Olaf's Frozen Adventure. I don't like numbers, they make the film feel cheap, but I might feel that way because of the cheapquels.

farerb wrote:I prefer "title: subtitle" or a new title that manages to include the main title in it like Frozen Fever/Olaf's Frozen Adventure.

That's a good option too. It's not my fave but I like it. It's interesting Disney has only done that for Frozen and Tangled (Tangled Ever After, Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure).

Sotiris wrote:I also disapprove of the practice of changing the original title years after its release to retroactively make it seem that a series was planned all along or to make it fit better with later installments. They should have thought of that before they settled on a title in the first place.

But what if they make a film, and they never planned for a sequel, and then later they want to make it so that moviegoers can recognize, via the titles, what films are part of the series? What if they wanted to make a good way for audiences to know which films to watch?

I grew up with the Star Trek films, so I loved the differentiation they made between the original crew, the Next Generation crew, and the Kelvin timeline. Original crew uses Roman numerals and subtitles, Next Generation uses subtitles only, and Kelvin uses just straightforward titling.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)

Star Trek: Generations (1994)
Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

Star Trek (2009)
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
Star Trek Beyond (2016)

The most frustrating for me is when there is no rhyme or reason at all for each entry, as evident by the Rambo franchise:

First Blood (1982)
Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985)
Rambo III (1988)
Rambo (2008)
Rambo V: Last Blood (2019)

But I also like when a film series does nothing to indicate they're part of a series. Aside from the first film, none of the Monsieur Hulot sequels make mention of the character in their titles.

M. Hulot's Holiday (1953)
Mon Oncle (1958)
Playtime (1967)
Trafic (1971)

Albert

Also, I think having numerals and subtitles is still necessary because the numerals tell you where the film is in the series and which ones to watch in what order, but the subtitles give you a sense of what the movie is actually about. When they do it right, of course. What it really comes down to to me is what they want, what they feel gives you enough information with the title or just sounds good to them, whatever just feels right to them, I can't explain it.

I hate titles that replace words with the sequel number (e.g. 2 Fast 2 Furious, Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa, Pokémon 4Ever) or have "Presents" in them (e.g. Barbie Presents: Thumbelina, Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw).

I embrace the inconsistency and thus I am truly free.



okay. for me it goes on a case by case basis. it depends on the identity of the series or brand. generally I prefer “series title numeral: subtitle.” the numeral may be a digit or roman, again depending on identity of series or brand— but i will lean roman. again, even though it isn’t typically my first preference, ive come to appreciate series with unconventional or inconsistent title trends, like the rambo and fast and furious franchises mentioned above. unique and weird.

I like what UmbrellaFish said.