Brooks comedy gets a title change

Posted by · 10:43 am · June 9th, 2010

James L. Brooks says he “has a tough time” with titles and that they “make [him] nuts.”  So following the switcheroo of “Betty Anne Waters” to “Conviction,” today it looks like Brooks’s “How Do You Know” will now be known as “Everything You’ve Got.” The film stars Paul Rudd and Reese Witherspoon and may or may not be an awards caliber thing, depending on the “Spanglish”-ness of the finished product.


→ 11 Comments Tags: , , | Filed in: Daily

11 responses so far

  • 1 6-09-2010 at 3:22 pm

    Guy Lodge said...

    Brooks may want to wrestle with this one a while longer: ‘Everything You’ve Got’ is a TERRIBLE title.

  • 2 6-09-2010 at 3:48 pm

    Maxim said...

    Another example of Oscarcentric dummery. No, Spanglish, didn’t sweep Oscars. Yes, it was quality enough to have been nominated.

    I’m not necessarily saying it was a best Pic caliber film. All I’m saying is that worse movies get nominated all the time.

    I don’t hate “Everything You’ve Got” although to me it seems like a weaker (and semi-conscious) reminder of “As Good As it Gets”. Maybe it will grow on me just like “How Do You Know” did.

  • 3 6-09-2010 at 3:49 pm

    Maxim said...

    P.S. It just accord to me that “Everything You’ve Got” would sound a lot better if it was a title of a Western.

    Instant (oldfashioned) grittiness.

    Think about it.

  • 4 6-09-2010 at 3:53 pm

    Maxim said...

    And by accord I meant “occured”. Long day, I guess.

  • 5 6-09-2010 at 4:03 pm

    /3rtfu11 said...


  • 6 6-09-2010 at 4:12 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    Maxim: What the hell does “Oscarcentric” mean to you, anyway? You use it to consistently justify your marginalized taste. And after just two such comments, it’s boring.

  • 7 6-09-2010 at 5:59 pm

    MovieMan said...

    “Spanglish” wasn’t quality enough for the Oscars. That was just a rote sitcom in the skin of a more mature film than it actually was. Easily one of Brooks’s weakest movies.

    Hopefully “Everything You’ve Got” is better than that.

  • 8 6-10-2010 at 10:50 am

    Neel Mehta said...

    Changing movie titles, in my opinion, is a sign of human weakness. Look no further than the indecisiveness of the fourth SHREK film.

    I’d never say this in any other context, but Woody Allen gets it right, going from nondescript working titles (“Untitled Woody Allen Project,” or some variant) to whatever it ends up.

    All that said, changing OLD FRIENDS (a terrible and ill-fitting initial title) to AS GOOD AS IT GETS (a deceivingly pessimistic tidbit from the script) was a brilliant move on Mr. Brooks’ part, so I’ll cut him some slack.

  • 9 6-10-2010 at 9:03 pm

    Maxim said...

    Weak. Woody Allen gets it right when he makes great movies. He’s also responsible for some really creative titles.

    That’s said, almost every original project starts out as “Untitled [] Project”.

  • 10 6-10-2010 at 9:16 pm

    Maxim said...

    Kristopher, you really don’t have to pretend that you are dumber than you already are. You know exactly what I mean by Oscarcentric (a word I’ve used exactly twice prior to this post), especially since I already spelled its meaning for you (I did!). Besides, it’s not a word I’ve invented as you, of all people, would know.

    And another thing, I didn’t comment on your tastes, just your *perspective*. That hadrly puts you into position to comment on my tastes, which, rest assured, are superior to yours (hey, at least I can honestly say that I have a better idea of what your tastes actually are).

    Stop complaining. If you cannot address the actual content of the response head on than just skip it altogether.

  • 11 6-11-2010 at 12:53 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    Maxim: Why do you waste your time on a film site run by two writers you not only openly dislike, but think are beneath you? I’m curious. There’s a vast range of voices out there.