<![CDATA[needs a better title]]>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Seconds

polytourist97 — 12 years ago(May 26, 2013 04:09 PM)

I like the movie, and it may be a silly thing to get bothered by, but the title I think is severely lacking. It doesn't roll off the tongue very easily, and it has too many associations to give any sort of strong identifier to the movie. Compare with something like, say, Seven, or L.A. Confidential, or The Manchurian Candidate. Those all have an element of intrigue and implication to match up with their plots. "Seconds" can (mild spoiler alert?) be interpreted to be referencing the clients who are being given their "second life", but I feel the time-measurement association muscles out that association. I think it should have been titled something like "The Company", or "Rebirth", or "Mr. Wilson".

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/181846/needs-a-better-titleRSS for NodeTue, 12 May 2026 19:15:46 GMTTue, 28 Apr 2026 11:44:00 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to needs a better title on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:44:05 GMT]]>SamoanJoes — 10 years ago(April 01, 2016 11:56 PM)

I agree. I was thinking "Thirds" maybe.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1527088https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1527088Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:44:05 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to needs a better title on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:44:04 GMT]]>roncerabona — 12 years ago(September 17, 2013 04:27 AM)

I think the title is excellent BECAUSE it has multiple meanings and connotations - a second helping (for the greedy!), imperfections (as above, timeall apt.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1527087https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1527087Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:44:04 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to needs a better title on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:44:03 GMT]]>Surf_Nazi_No5 — 12 years ago(September 07, 2013 12:40 AM)

Seconds can also mean inferior as in imperfect or second hand goods. The Old Man refers to all the mistakes which is what the waiting room is full of.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1527086https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1527086Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:44:03 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to needs a better title on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:44:02 GMT]]>hammer4 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 08:07 AM)

Personally, I like the title but I think the original poster has a point. There may have been some arguments/disagreements among the filmmakers regarding this issue.
Filmmakers frequently change the title of the film adaptation from the novel upon which it's based, especially when the latter was not a "blockbuster" as was the case here.

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1527085https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1527085Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:44:02 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to needs a better title on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:44:01 GMT]]>EllisFowler — 12 years ago(September 02, 2013 05:54 AM)

The fact that it's the title of the novel on which it's based doesn't suffice?

]]>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1527084https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1527084Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:44:01 GMT