←back to thread

Title drops in movies

(www.titledrops.net)
477 points gaws | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
adriand ◴[] No.42060577[source]
How sure are we that these so-called title drops are what this article purports them to be rather than the name of the film coming from the content and/or dialogue that is contained within it?

An analogy: when someone writes a song and then they need to name it, they will frequently choose a word or phrase that appears in the lyrics. When Leonard Cohen sings “hallelujah” in the song of the same name, is that a “title drop”? I assume not.

replies(2): >>42060841 #>>42069688 #
latexr ◴[] No.42060841[source]
> How sure are we that these so-called title drops are what this article purports them to be

What does the article purport them to be? Right at the top I see:

> A title drop is when a character in a movie says the title of the movie they're in.

That makes no distinction if the title or the script came first. The article does call out movies who do that in a cringe or obvious way (like Suicide Squad, which had prior art) but also includes movies where that is unavoidable, such as Barbie.

More importantly, it doesn’t matter which came first. As soon as you make a line and a title the same, the line becomes a title drop. The audience sees the final product, not the process.

> An analogy

That analogy doesn’t work. Songs are typically repetitive and a few minutes long. Everyone expects them to name the title. A movie, on the other hand, is an experience that asks suspension of disbelief from you, it tries to engross you in its world over the course of multiple hours. When a character title drops, in a second you’re suddenly and forcefully pulled back from the illusion and reminded you’re watching a movie.

replies(2): >>42060980 #>>42063964 #
nkozyra ◴[] No.42060980[source]
> What does the article purport them to be? Right at the top I see:

It seems to imply a concerted effort to mention the title of the movie in the script in a meta, fourth wall breaking sort of way.

In some cases that's obviously true - Hot Tub Time Machine, Suicide Squad from their examples - but other times an untitled script just needs a title and it's plucked from the script.

I think there's a distinction there, because the latter is less of an Easter Egg sort of thing and more "ok now we need a title."

replies(3): >>42061202 #>>42061377 #>>42061964 #
latexr ◴[] No.42061377[source]
> It seems to imply a concerted effort to mention the title of the movie in the script in a meta, fourth wall breaking sort of way.

It makes zero difference to the movie watching experience if the script line came from the script or the other way around. While you’re watching the movie, the effect is exactly the same. So even if you took a line of dialog to make your title, it becomes a title drop nonetheless because the audience doesn’t know (nor should they care) which came first.

replies(3): >>42061959 #>>42062017 #>>42067008 #
nkozyra ◴[] No.42062017[source]
> It makes zero difference to the movie watching experience if the script line came from the script or the other way around.

I disagree; if it's a quote that serves the narrative and isn't jammed in as a reference it doesn't have the same effect as the meta examples. Less of a fourth wall break.

replies(1): >>42062800 #
latexr ◴[] No.42062800[source]
That’s just called good writing. You could decide on a title first then skilfully add it as a quote that servers the narrative. Again, as an audience member you don’t know¹, except when it’s glaringly bad. It’s the toupée fallacy.

¹ I hope it’s obvious I’m excluding cases where someone deliberately seeks behind-the-scenes information. We’re talking about having only the result of the work as context.

replies(1): >>42065634 #
1. cgriswald ◴[] No.42065634[source]
It’s like anything in film. The viewer can speculate how it was constructed based on evidence in the work itself. The writing divide is certainly not the only source of evidence.

More generally we are not limited only to the film when trying to categorize based on this distinction. The distinction exists even if it is not always discernible.

That said, I think trying to construct separate lists based on this distinction would be nearly impossible.