my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » What's the real title of MIB3?

Author Topic: What's the real title of MIB3? Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 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".  |  IP: Logged Kurt Zupin Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 989 From: Maricopa, Arizona Registered: Oct 2004 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 05-23-2012 06:55 AM                        Your wife is right! (Yes, and the big guys CAN be that stoopid!) (intentionally misspelled) Louis  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-23-2012 08:01 AM                        Probably the same marketing folks who brought you KFC  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-23-2012 09:16 AM                     Why was "Independence Day" known as "ID4" ?  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 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?  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 05-23-2012 05:25 PM                    No, but Leonard Part 6 did.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-23-2012 08:56 PM                     Just ran it...it's 'Men In Black 3'.  |  IP: Logged Peter Howard Film Handler Posts: 44 From: Forster, NSW, Australia Registered: Dec 2005 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 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!  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 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. 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.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.