What’s with the weird name "Guy Ritchie’s The Covenant"? Never saw a director putting his name in the title like that - The Covenant (2023) Discussion

[–] Filmtenk2 (4053) 2 years ago

John Carpenter's Vampires

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Great movie

reply

[–] emori (3661) 2 years ago

On IMDB and other movie sites they refer to it just as "Vampires"

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120877/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampires_(1998_film)

Rotten Tomatoes still has John Carpenter's Vampires
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/john_carpenters_vampires

I assume over the years they just drop director and leave it shorter.

I assume there were too many vampire movies and he wanted to know this one is different.

But there was no reason for Ritchie to put his name over there. Its just embarrassing that he thought his name has power for general public. Movie flopped anyway.

And they really should not have confuse people with the Covenant word when there is a well known Alien movie out there.

reply

[–] Filmtenk2 (4053) 2 years ago

I guess it is a bit conceded to put your name before a title, even QT never did that as far as I know. It's probably a marketing decision. Guy Ritchie's last few movies have been his best work in a long time, at least in the crime genre since Lock Stock & Snatch.
The Gentleman, Wrath of Man, Operation Fortune were good (Wrath was the weakest of the 3 imo). Haven't seen The Covenant but it has strong reviews. I like the direction Ritchie's headed, it's like a return to form and I'm definitely interested in seeing his most recent flick and knowing what he has going on after that. Can't say I've given a damn about him as a director for years before recently.

reply

[–] ehewitt (45) 2 years ago

There is a well known Alien movie, and it's not Covenant.
Most people have more than likely forgotten the existence of the Alien: Covenant movie, so why would there be confusion?

It's more likely it was done to avoid confusion with another movie that is also simply called The Covenant, a movie that was released in 2006 starring a young Taylor Kitsch.

reply

[–] maximmm (3343) 2 years ago

Yep - Emori seldom does research, and it shows.

reply

[–] Porsche911 (3603) 2 years ago

The marketing was done by MGM. GR have no influence on that aspect of the film. His name on the poster or title card - up to MGM. JG was also controversial linked to marked the movie on his Instagram.

I have not seen it but I’m surprised that it’s tanking this hard. I’m guessing people are tiered of seeing fake war movies that only benefit the weapon industrial complex!! The money spent on war and weapons are at a global all time high. Money that is better spent elsewhere.

reply

[–] emori (3661) 2 years ago

Hollywood doesnt understand that people are simply tired from all those war movies. Been tired for years.
But they keep and keep releasing them. Its been 80 years since WW2. There are hundreds of movies about it. People saw all variations of it. Every story has been told. They cant create anything new and interesting. Yet they keep making them. Then see them flop.

Iraq and Afghanistan was is even more boring. Yet received hundreds of movies too. And they all looks the same - faceless villains no one cares about. They have no motive, noting. They are just there because hero must overcome someone. Those movies are lifeless and depressing. No one wants to see them, thats why they flop.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15697) 2 years ago

The "war movie" element is not why they flop .
people like war movies
Its self destructive violent ugly human nature . its built in .
sad but true

reply

[–] liscarkat (18489) 2 years ago

People aren't tired of war movies, they just want to see good ones. "Saving Private Ryan" was a megahit twenty-five years ago (not really very long in movie history), and there have been several other hits in the genre since then. It's just that you don't care for them, so you see them as a boring and dead category. That's the way I feel about superhero movies, but I have to acknowledge that, for some reason, zillions of people still crave them.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15697) 2 years ago

Thankyou for expanding my point re war movies

And for reassuring me I'm not the only person baffled by superhero movie popularity.

reply

[–] ccr1633 (1523) a year ago

And for reassuring me I'm not the only person baffled by superhero movie popularity.

You can add me to the list, although the deluge of dull superhero films doesn't baffle me so much as depress me. I can't remember the last time I was excited to see a big budget Hollywood action film.

reply

[–] ehewitt (45) 2 years ago

@emori
What would you tell someone who doesn't think these movies are boring?
How would you make a convincing case, when what you've said boils down to nothing but an opinion that only you think, that others don't share?

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6245) 2 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possessory_credit

after GR made a billion dollar movie in Aladdin, he probably likes negotiating for this above-title credit

reply

[–] brux (14724) 2 years ago

They do that because "The Covenant" is probably the name of another movie and that particular line of text for the title of a movie is copyrighted, so they prepend or append something to the title to make it legal.

Also, to be able to distinguish this movie from other movies of the same name when there are quite a few movies with the same name.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3319) 2 years ago

That’s exactly what I read somewhere about the movie. They were worried about infringing on the horror film with the same name from 2006.

reply

[–] TheMouseShadow (418) 2 years ago

It’s pretty dumb. They could’ve just marketed it with gyllenhall instead.

reply

[–] BourbonKing (5777) 2 years ago

He has a fan base, and war movies are kinda passe these days. You market the most recognizable assets to pique moviegoer interest.

reply

[–] DeadMac1 (207) 2 years ago

It looks cheap.

reply

[–] Porsche911 (3603) 2 years ago

It’s was cheap!

reply

[–] MrMovie (898) 2 years ago

I’ve seen several movies have a title like that you troll

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15697) 2 years ago

That makes him a troll?
Its very unusual to have directors name in the title.
which are these several movies you're aware of that have that?

reply

[–] MrMovie (898) 2 years ago

Lee Daniel’s The Butler, Guillermo Del Toro’s Pinocchio literally came out last year, Wes Craven’s New Nightmare, Tyler Perry’s A Madea Homecomimg, John Carpenter’s Vampires, Tim Burton’s A Nightmare Before Christmas, etc.

You must not watch a lot of movies you clown

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15697) 2 years ago

ok you win
you score 3 out of 6 on your examples
C-

The Butler https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1327773/ (Original title: Lee Daniels' the Butler) 1/2 mark
Guillermo Del Toro’s Pinocchio https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1488589 ok thats one
New Nightmare https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111686 (Original title: Wes Craven's New Nightmare) 1/2 mark
homecomein .. ok thats 2
Vampires https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120877/
The Nightmare Before Christmas https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107688

reply

[–] asom (6847) 2 years ago

If we use imbd and the main title on the page ... well, this one is called "The covenant" as well ...

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11376) a year ago

I don't think it's unusual at all. I see it often enough. George Romero does it too. Wes Craven does it a lot. Stephen Spielberg did it on Amistad. Its not every movie, but it isn't rare.

reply

[–] Poozer91 (610) 2 years ago

It’s a right’s issue. Also it separates is from the cringe inducing movie of the same name that was released in 2006. Lee Daniels had to legally put his name in front of The Butler due to the Charlie Chaplin estates holding the title right to the film (based on the title of a Charlie Chaplin film that had no relation).

reply