Paul Cunningham's Lounge Discussions

Thanks for all of your comments! Now I'm more confused than before!!! Just kidding! You all have been very helpful!

Titles are the last thing I think about. Start writing your script. Finish the rough. Set the script aside for several months. Re-write. Polish. Let others have a read. Then start all over again. If you have spent the time creating a marketable, quality story with great characters and awesome arcs on paper, clever plot, sub plot with consistent plot points in a valid three act form, with solid dialogue; you will come up with plenty of titles. Logline becomes easy. Synopsis is like poetry off thy tongue. TITLES ARE THE LAST THING ONE SHOULD THINK ABOUT. If the script is good, and bought, those that buy will do what they do. All about money and marketing at that point. Just use 'working titles'.

Thanks Don. I'm actually shooting it myself. I was just seeing what others do for titles.

Title name in the beginning of film making is concentrated about the theme of a story, and before the completion of the films probably do an accurate story of the name of the combination.

It almost seems like the title falls out of the story,or a song,By the pictures you see in your head,But then you have to twist it a little to make it catchy and marketable for what ever crowed your targeting,One word can mean many different things,To many People..It will come to you Ray !!

@ Tim Rogers- absolutely agree. I'm a long time Sly fan. Stallone's magic is that he knows his audience and caters directly to them.,not to the critics. There are number of examples I could use here, but let's focus on a recent one: The Expendables. While people trashed The Expendables, Stallone was able to laugh all the way to the bank. Personally , I thought The Expendables was something of an arcane work of genius, because it knew exactly what it was trying to be - an old school, ultra-violent, testosterone- fueled, he -man action movie throwback- and it had a lot of fun doing it. The very 80's genre it borrowed it's stars and storyline from was itself replete with films that weren't exactly paragons of terrific plotting or top flight dialogue. They were excuses to have powerful bad asses firing heavy artillery at one another and blowing buildings/ people up while tossing off quick one liners. The Expendables deliberately did the same exact thing, only it did it bigger and better. It's the type of film specifically designed to allow the audience to just sit back in the theater seat , put their brain in neutral and enjoy the thrill ride. With that sequel on the way soon (which will be rated R after all, so I hear) , that makes this his third successful franchise. For a guy a lot of people have taken potshots at over the years, Stallone has demonstrated remarkable staying power. If you check out my desert island films here on Stage 32, you'll see that Rocky Balboa is on my list.

Somewhere between Hitchcock, Capra, Kubrick, Ridley Scott and Woody Allen. I might say some of the European directors from the 50s and 60s but I really don't watch their stuff much anymore though they are dear to my heart. Kurosawa also is a big contender. Lynch, too. Gee, I'm not sure I can pick just one. :) I'm probably missing someone. Tarkovsky is another.

@Casey, if you take the time to watch the behind the scenes for "The Expendables" or "Rambo"(2008), you will see that he is in fact a great director. As D.S. already explained, he caters to the audience, not the critics. "The Expendables" made $266,159,621 and still counting. IF he isn't that good of a director, I wouldn't mind be as "not good" as him!

I have to say that I liked The Expendables. But I have to say, among many of my friends, I was the only one, most of them thought it was a waste of their time. I had the feeling that I was appreciating it for what it was, perhaps and my bar just wasn't as high as theirs for that type of film.

My two cents: I think he's a good director, not a great one, and he's definitely not a good writer. He gets Rocky's story, because if you know Sly's history, you'll know that Rocky, for him, is a "there but for the Grace of God go I" character for Stallone. Even then, a lot of his scripts aren't very good, like Rocky II (which is Rocky I except Rocky wins) and Rocky IV. Half his directed films are Rocky films. They're competently shot and he pulls good performances from himself and his cast in Rocky III and Rocky Balboa, but brilliant? Hardly, certainly not up to Spielberg, Scorsese, The Coen Brothers, Clint Eastwood, there are a number of contemporary directors I could name who are better behind the director's chair.