Wesley’s Week – April 30-May 6, 2007

by Wesley

Recently in the office there has been a trend with us to come up with catchy titles for new books, residential communities, company divisions and other areas that we at MMI cover for the needs of our clients. This made me think a little bit about what titles really work, and which ones flop miserably. And since I am the resident TV historian here, naturally my thoughts turn to the ones that have succeeded and bombed on the home screen.

First, the best:

Get Smart! – What a clever play on words this one was. The lead character’s name is Maxwell Smart, so the title employs it to imply the battle cry of his foes. Yet Smart was often dumb, so it could refer to what he should do to improve his lot in life. Best of all, it is simple and easy to remember and pronounce.

The Beverly Hillbillies – Another canny effort, even if the show’s scripts were never as witty. They live in Beverly Hills, yet they are hillbillies – merge them, and you have a memorable title. There are many others close to matching this in pithiness, such as Bewitched (Elizabeth Montgomery played a witch who possessed looks that were alluring, or bewitching), but I stand by this one as the top choice.

Mission: Impossible – For a serious spy program (as opposed to the spoof offered by Get Smart!), this phrase cannot be beat. It tells you that you are watching something that has a goal that cannot be reached – now does that intrigue you or what? It certainly beats the show’s prosaic original title of The Briggs Squad.

Now among the worst, I nominate the following:

Notes from the Underbelly – This sitcom on ABC may be off the air by the time you read this, as it airs opposite American Idol (a solid title, by the way), but it did itself no favors by coming up with what may be the most unappealing TV title ever. “Underbelly” has a connotation of being unsavory – think of the phrase “the underbelly of crime” – so it is a poor association to make especially in connection with the show’s plot of examining a young couple’s pregnancy. And why “notes,” for that matter either? Is the womb dictating something to a reporter? Just a dreadful choice of words.

Unsub – This was an adventure drama on NBC in the late 1980s starring David Soul. What do you think it means – a vessel that looks like a submarine but is not one, or a sandwich that resembles a hoagie but is not one, or a person who is supposed to be decoy but is not one, or maybe just the last name of Soul’s character? You are wrong if you guessed any of those. It refers to a law enforcement term about an “unknown subject of an investigation.” Funny, in all my years watching crime shows from Hawaii Five-O to Law & Order, I cannot recall any TV crimefighter using that term. Whenever you have a title that is vague at best to most people, it at least should be distinctive so they are not confused into thinking it is something else. Unsub fails miserably on both counts.

Loving – A generic title does not give anyone an incentive to learn more about something, and when a title like this is put on an ABC daytime soap opera in the 1980s, it did little to prompt much viewer interest. Really, what soap opera does not have loving as part of its storylines? And what kind of loving are we talking about anyway? When the show changed its format in the 1990s in a last-ditch effort to woo viewers, it renamed itself The City – some improvement. With titles like those, it is hard to believe it still is not on the air now.

I am sure you have your own likes and dislikes regarding TV titles, so feel free to comment on them anytime. Just make sure to explain why you think it worked (or did not work). Who knows, maybe I will follow it up in a later column if I hear a good deal of responses.

Permalink |  Save on del.ico.us

Commenting is closed for this article.