Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What's the real title of MIB3?

This is topic What's the real title of MIB3? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006685

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-22-2012, 01:51 PM:

So we're going to play Men In Black 3, but every single bit of publicity has the title as MIB3, with the words "Men in Black" never appearing anywhere except (maybe?) the web address. So is the movie really just titled "MIB3" or is it really called "Men In Black 3?"

I think putting "MIB3" on the marquee would look ridiculous so I'm going to spell the stupid thing out. I'm just glad they didn't title it MIB3D.

I hate abbreviated movie titles. Rant over.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-22-2012, 03:23 PM:

Just chiming in to agree with the rant. It's to make the movie seem hip and edgy. In the future when people look back at stuff like this, they'll just laugh at our primitive ways. At least I hope.

Anyway, according to the IMDB, it's called "Men in Black III".

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 05-23-2012, 02:43 AM:

Correct, it's title is just Men in Black 3. Just like before it was Men in Black 2 and Men in Black. MIB isn't anything new for this series. Not sure why this one would put you over into a rant. This is the one series where an abbreviated title works, hell 15 years ago when the first one came out it was called MIB.

What pisses me off is when people start calling movies with huge titles that clearly shouldn't have an abbreviated title have one like The Amazing Spider-Man and people are calling it TASM. WTF!!! is that. That is annoying, but Men In Black...not so much.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-23-2012, 03:05 AM:

On the last movie, they wrote "MIIB," which was also stupid but at least they still put the words "Men In Black 2" underneath (or on top of) that.

I just get irritated with movies that don't emphasize their real title. They spend a quarter-BILLION dollars to make a movie but then they can't be bothered to put the title on the posters. At least this one has the title on there sort-of...but there are so many others where the title isn't there AT ALL. The very brand they are spending millions to create, and they leave it OFF the one thing that everyone will see.

Like Joe said, it IS meant to make the movie seem hip and edgy, but it's really meant to make the "uber-fans" feel good. For example, if I don't know what they hell "MIB" is supposed to mean, and I say to my friend, "What the hell does "MIB" mean?" and he tells me it's Men In Black, it makes him feel all cool and hip because he knew it and I didn't. But it's not gonna sell any more tickets....whereby if they put the name of the freaking movie on the poster, people not in-the-know might actually get what they're advertising, rather than just dismissing it.

Ahh, what do I know? I'm not in marketing...but my wife IS in marketing (for a bank) and she agrees with me, so I have that going for me.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-23-2012, 06:55 AM:

Your wife is right! (Yes, and the big guys CAN be that stoopid!) (intentionally misspelled) Louis

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-23-2012, 08:01 AM:

Probably the same marketing folks who brought you KFC [Wink]

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-23-2012, 09:16 AM:

Why was "Independence Day" known as "ID4" ?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-23-2012, 10:16 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I just get irritated with movies that don't emphasize their real title. They spend a quarter-BILLION dollars to make a movie but then they can't be bothered to put the title on the posters.

They're trying to do something that only really works with very few brands.

McDonald's can get away with using the golden arches by itself on a sign without including the "McDonald's" lettering. The golden arches has enough brand equity to get away with the minimalist approach. We know what it is. And the approach makes the McDonald's brand seem even more powerful.

Target can do the same thing with its "bullseye" logo. Starbucks dropped the lettering from its mermaid logo; the coffee chain is common enough that we know what it is. The Dolby "double D" is the most recognizable movie-related icon.

I think the minimalist approach on movie posters goes back to one of the teaser posters for the 1978 release of Superman: The Movie. For anyone not familiar the poster had an aerial view of clouds high in the sky with a colored streak of light shooting through them. A polished chrome "S" logo was centered on the streak of light. It had the tagline "you'll believe a man can fly." The poster was successful because just about all of us were already familiar with the Superman "S" logo. It had enough brand equity to use this approach. To be on the safe side, Warner Bros. also had another version of this poster with the title spelled for folks who didn't get it.

Batman (1989) deserves some considerable blame for the over-use of minimalist posters. I remember its black teaser poster featuring the Batman logo and "summer 1989" being plastered all over New York City.

While the minimalist teaser poster marketing ploy has gotten a bit old, I guess I can complain too much about it. The standard one sheet posters for so many movies are typically so bland the minimalist posters seem like a breath of fresh air by comparison.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-23-2012, 11:44 AM:

I agree with everything you said, Bobby. I just don't get...WHY they can't put the title on the posters. Are they worried about messing up their great artwork?

Well yes, I guess that's it.

I also thought "ID4" was dumb. I'm still surprised there were no sequels to that one...ID42 anyone?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-23-2012, 03:55 PM:

It's because they want you to believe their brand already has the required equity and you're dumb if you don't realize how great this brand is. "ID4" was ridiculous. Nobody ever called it that and ID5 never came out.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-23-2012, 05:25 PM:

No, but Leonard Part 6 did.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-23-2012, 08:56 PM:

Just ran it...it's 'Men In Black 3'.

Posted by Peter Howard (Member # 3491) on 05-25-2012, 02:01 AM:

Interesting call Mike, I agree with you and I brought this up wth my booker at Sony only the other day. We werent getting a lot of interest on Men In Black 3 in the leadup to release yesterday (and it opened poorly last night) and I asked the Sony rep how tracking was reading for the film. Her response was 'amazing, numbers are though the roof' which doesn't correspond with interest locally. I asked her why the hell it says 'MIB3' on the poster instead of 'Men In Black 3' and her response was 'probably for a cleaner poster design' which i thought was a stupid reason.

It's been 10 years since the last one. A large part of the primary audience for films like this are kids. My kids, who are 10, dont know what the hell 'MIB3' stands for and their dad owns the f**king cinema so what chance do other kids out there have?

I think Sony dropped the ball here. They are relying on name/brand recognition for a title that hasnt been in the public conscience for a decade. I guess the worldwide box-office will be the ultimate proof but in our little towns I dont think 'MIB3' cuts it.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-25-2012, 02:49 AM:

"ID4" = Independence Day, 4th of July when the battle was won.

Released July 2nd of 1996

From IMDB:

quote:
On July 2, 1996, the aliens came. On July 3, 1996, the aliens saw and struck. On Independence Day 1996, the human race will CONQUER!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-25-2012, 10:41 AM:

I think Fox' marketing dept. ran with the "ID4" thing because they thought the alpha-numeric acronym looked cool. Logically, it doesn't make sense. If it's supposed to signify July 4 where is the "7" to delineate the month of July? "ID74" or "ID•7•4" might make more sense, but it's still stupid looking.
[Razz]

At 65% on Rotten Tomatoes' "tomato meter" MIB3 is doing quite a bit better than the disappointing 39% score of MIB2. Still, with a 10 year gap between sequels I kind of wonder why Sony bothered. Well, actually I do know. The audiences are stupid enough to keep buying all these sequels, remakes, reboots, etc. Just like Sony re-booting Spiderman after the last "franchise" began only 10 years ago.

Most of the problems our country has, both big and small, with the glut of movie sequels & remakes being one of the smaller problems, it's the general public who is at fault. It's kind of fun to hear someone gripe about a particular issue like this or some hot button social issue and then ask the person a rhetorical question, "do you know who is to blame for this problem? You." The general public sure as hell doesn't want to hear any of that. But it is a fact.