Repetitive sequel titles give me a pain in the colon.

Christopher Nolan is my current Hollywood hero. And that’s not just because he has a growing and impressive filmography, but also because, in the creation of next year’s The Dark Knight, he seems to have figured out several important lessons of compelling filmmaking that have somehow eluded the vast majority of creative thinkers in Hollywood:

1. He’s working on a franchise sequel that will build from his last installment instead of simply repeating its strengths.
2. With the exception of the inclusion of the Joker in TDK, we know very little about the plot so far.
3. Nolan seems to be able to keep a tight lid on the usual publicity leaks, stunts and tactics that plague regular Hollywood movies – especially those of high expectations – and bludgeon us all into a weary, seen-it-all stupor by the time opening weekend has arrived.
4. He’s making a very, VERY high profile, studio-blockbuster sequel without a colon in the title.

Supposedly moviegoers have been polled in the past and have responded better to movie sequel titles that didn’t have numbers in them, but rather a compelling title. And truthfully, I do support the idea of writers and directors crafting something a little more original, something that tells us about the movie and the plot and makes a suggestion of what the film will be about instead of merely “this is a continuation, part IV of our lucrative franchise”.

But can it really be true that if sequels don’t include numbers in their titles, the only alternative is the inclusion of the All-Powerful Colon, Savior of The Franchise? Observe the awfulness of some upcoming movie sequel titles:

• Superman: Man of Steel
• The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
• The Untouchables: Capone Rising
• Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem
• Mad Max 4: Fury Road

Really, what would be so wrong with simply “The Man of Steel“? Or “Tomb of the Dragon Emperor“? Wouldn’t these titles still evoke a familiarity, a sense of understanding and a compulsion to see the movies that they name? Can’t the film’s marketing get a bit more creative and pick up the slack in building a brand awareness without shoehorning two titles together? We’re getting to the point where seeing this identical naming convention over and over again is reducing all of Hollywood’s output to weepy Lifetime movies along the lines of Clipping the Hedges: A Story of Divorce, Depression and Landscape Maintenance, starring Yasmine Bleeth and Tom Wopat.

And oh sweet flames of Rosebud, who in the hell thought up these malignancies:

• Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins
• X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Quite simply, it’s because Hollywood thinks that we’re stupid. If the movie title doesn’t at least begin with the same general title as its predecessor, then 1) dumb-o moviegoers like you and me won’t recognize the property and 2) the DVD won’t get to sit next to its family members on the shelf and dumb-o movie fans buying and renting movies simply won’t be able to find it.

There are plenty of examples of movie sequels that use and don’t use the numbering convention, with various degrees of success. I’d be willing to bet that, over time, it simply can’t be predicted whether a movie will be good and/or successful if the title has a number in it or not.

But little succeeds in Hollywood quite like a trend, so I’m guessing we’ll be seeing that irritable colon in sequel titles for several more years to come.