MovieChat Forums > Dead Birds (2005) Discussion > The Explanation

The Explanation

posted 18 years ago by Vornoff-3
10 replies | jump to latest

A conversation that probably actually took place.

Producer #1: Boys, the reason we called this meeting is because we think we’ve got a distribution deal.

Writer: Really? That’s great!

Director: I knew you guys could do it.

Producer #2: The only thing is, in order to get it, we had to promise to change the name.

Writer & Director (simultaneously): What?!?!?

Producer #3: Sorry, fellas, but nobody’ll touch “Children of the Corn, Part VIII.”

Director: Well, what about “Children of the Corn, Genesis?”

Producer #1: No! Listen, at this point the Children of the Corn series is so unpopular, it’s impossible to distribute even as direct-to-video, and this film needs a theatrical release to make us back any money.

Director: But this will be the best Children of the Corn installment ever! We’ve got good actors, excellent effects, a scary storyline that explains how the whole Children of the Corn cult got started, and we avoided showing the monsters clearly, to add to the suspense. This movie could revitalize the whole series!

Producer #2: You’re not getting the point. No one will see it with that title. Even serious horror fans stay away from Children of the Corn movies. It’s like the Amityville Horror, only worse.

Writer: But what about fans like us, who’ve been waiting for a good Children of the Corn movie for decades? Couldn’t we at least call it “The Corn Children” or something? Or how about a foreign-sounding title “Les Enfants des Mais” or “Kinder der Mais” or something?

Producer #1: I’m sorry, boys, but we have to be definite about this. TriStar won’t take it if we don’t get all references to the Stephen King story out of the title. Aside from the popularity, there are legal issues here as well.

Director: But this is a serious creative compromise!

Writer: I’ve got it.

Producer #3: Got what?

Writer: Let’s call it “Dead Birds.”

Producer #1: What kind of a name is that? There isn’t a dead bird in the whole movie!

Director: “Dead Birds”…

Writer: Exactly! It’s artistic, it’s like a blank slate, allowing the audience to project the meaning onto the canvas themselves.

Producer #1: Well, it sounds pretty stupid to me, but I think they’d accept it. Are we agreed?

Director: You’re sure we can’t call it “Dead Birds, the Children of the Corn Genesis?”

Producer #2: Sorry Alex, there’s no way.

Director: OK then, “Dead Birds.”

[–] Slimson_7 18 years ago

You ´re spot on :D

Im gonna get medeivel on your ass

[–] magical_trumpy 17 years ago

There is too a dead bird in the movie. Sam steps on one before they go into the house.

[–] grrrdevin 18 years ago

Producer #1: What kind of a name is that? There isn’t a dead bird in the whole movie!

Sorry, but did you ever actually watch the film?

"I've been living off toxic waste for years, and I'm fine! Just ask my other heads!"

[–] tigrewulph 18 years ago

Although there was a dead bird in the film it was completely irrelevant to the story line and was definitely not important enough for it to be the basis of the films title.

[–] grrrdevin 18 years ago

That's true, but it's still a fact that there is a dead bird in the movie, contrary to the pseudo-clever original post.

"I've been living off toxic waste for years, and I'm fine! Just ask my other heads!"

[–] damian_sirbu 18 years ago

Just a small thing : using a title like "Dead Birds" in the current situation, it's logical that it should be a symbolic name.
Well, the movie has nothing to do with symbolism nor with any subtle association.

Letting aside the poor quality of the acting and the screenplay (in my oppinion of course), i really wonder why is this a considered a horror or thriller.

To be honest, it was one of the very few movies in my life during witch i fell asleep : / ... twice

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pjchowdhury 17 years ago

The title is perfectly apt to the entire crux of the movie, I dont see how you can suggest it's irrelevant when for one, it's the title and two, I thought it actually encaptures the 'warning' notion well.

Dead Birds have for a long time been a sign of danger. From warning of a predator (albeit often the next-door neighbour's cat these days), a site of disease (bad land, curses even) and the use of canaries to 'detect' gas pockets in early mines.

The warnings were present in the corn, in the barn and around the house, yet were ignored, so the danger occurred.

[–] gugrad94 17 years ago

Although the dead birds were a warning, they were already on the land and it was too late for them.

"GG."

[–] babybastian 17 years ago

You don't know that it was too late for them. It's possible that they would have been fine if they had turned around at that moment and walked back out to the road. Maybe the curse doesn't take full effect until you enter the house?

That may have been the final, most obvious warning - since they didn't heed the subtle warning of the man on the road trying to get them to turn back, or the dead father in the cornfield that obviously showed there was something not right, or the strange creature that they killed as they were first entering the cornfield.

The whole movie was full of warnings before they entered the house - and nothing actually started happening to them until they entered the house - so that dead bird was the final, most obvious warning.