Memoirs of an Invisible Man : Does anyone know why…..

Does anyone know why…..

John Carpenter's name doesn't appear before the title, as in "John Carpenter's Memoirs of An Invisible Man"?

Before you reply, note that I prefer serious answers only. Please don't reply with responses such as "Because it sucked." or "Because he's stupid." If you want to be silly, please post elsewhere.

I enjoyed "Memoirs" and I'd really like to know why his name wasn't placed before the title. I've searched the internet and have found nothing to answer my question.

Thank you for your help. It's always great to chat with fellow movie fans! :)

If it's useless information, chances are I already know it!

Re: Does anyone know why…..

why would it be?

Re: Does anyone know why…..

Most of his films have the words "John Carpenter's" in front of the title. This one didn't. That's why I'm asking.

If it's useless information, chances are I already know it!

Re: Does anyone know why…..

oh, ok.

Re: Does anyone know why…..

As it's been mentioned, this movie was a departure from what had been Carpenter's fare, predominantly horror and thrilling sci-fi (or whatever). It seems fair to assume that he didn't necessarily intend for this to be considered part of his general oeuvre. Not that it's a bad movie, just that it should not be taken with Halloween and They Live when thinking of his style and legacy.

also, i know my username may seem like a reference to this movie. it's not. it's my name.

Re: Does anyone know why…..

That's basically what I was thinking too, David. In fact, I posted a thread where I wrote about this very thing.

It's not only a departure for John Carpenter, but Chevy Chase and Daryl Hannah as well, both of which have done mostly comedy.

Your comment is very intelligent and well written. Thank you for posting. It's always a pleasure to talk to a fellow movie fan! Have a wonderful day! :)

If it's useless information, chances are I already know it!

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Does anyone know why…..

I have no definite proof of this, and it's possible someone answered your question in this way already, but it seems to me John Carpenter is known, first and foremost, as a horror movie director, as Alfred Hitchcock was known primarily for horror movies (Psycho, the Birds, etc). And look at what happened with Hitch's last movie, "Alfred Hitchcock's Family Plot", a comedy with Bruce Dern and Karen Black, Alfred's only flop at the box office. People went, expecting "Psycho 2" and got crazyman Dern cracking jokes. The audience was confused, and so stayed away.

"Memoirs of an Invisible Man" is more an amalgam of a slew of preconceptions. People who went to see it when it was first released were expecting a "Fletch" like comedy, since Chevy Chase starred. Adding Carpenter's name to the title would have confused the movie-going public, thinking they were in for a gory terror flick, sorta like "Holloman" turned out.

Again, Im just surmising, but this makes the most sense to me. No director in the history of Hollywood has been more typecast than John Carpenter. Making "Halloween" for pennies and gaining back hundreds of millions, he doomed himself to make horror movies, by his own success at it. Because of it, people expect a certain product when they go see a Carpenter movie.

To some of the other questions in here, he was wearing his invisible suit (without jacket and tie) when the grocery delivery boy comes in and starts going through crap, in what I felt was a really contrived scene, put in just to give the audience a chance to sympathize with Nick and smile when he scares the kid into leaving. But to keep Nick looking sympathetic, the kid had to be a dickhead wannabe thief. Would the audience have found it as funny if Nick scared a Girl Scout delivering cookies?

Re: Does anyone know why…..

Carpenter was just a director-for-hire on this film last in a long line of directors who took a crack at this one after original director Ivan Reitman and writer William Goldman (Butch Cassidy; The Princess Bride) left the project in the late 1980s.

Star Chevy Chase wanted the script to deal more seriously with the psychological quandry of being invisible (read Goldman's book "Which Lie Did I Tell?" for the full story) while Reitman and Goldman saw it as a more madcap action comedy.

Carpenter's possessory credit usually appears on films he shepherded through the studio system or found himself attached to - though I don't know if that is entirely absolutely watertight statement (see "John Carpenter's Starman").

Re: Does anyone know why…..

That's a good point, britishdominion. I never knew that. After reading your comments, it makes more sense. Thanks! :)


If it's useless information, chances are I already know it!

Re: Does anyone know why…..

Perhaps because people associate his movies with horror/thriller? If I were going to theaters to see John Carpenter's The Invisible Man. I'd expect something on the likes of Hollow Man. Although better of course. Besides wasn't this movie based on a book?

Re: Does anyone know why…..

As previous poster stated, he was a director for hire on this movie and he only puts his name in front of movies that he had full control over.

Re: Does anyone know why…..

Got it. Thank you! :)


If it's useless information, chances are I already know it!

Re: Does anyone know why…..

from wikie


The director [John Carpenter] deviated from his usual practice of titling the film as "John Carpenter's" because he knew that Warner Brothers would not allow him full artistic control, saying that the studio "is in the business of making audience-friendly, non-challenging movies."


- 4004'56''N 8633'47''W
I shoot when I see the whites of the eyes.

Re: Does anyone know why…..

I first assumed it's because he didn't write the screenplay, but he didn't write VAMPIRES either and it's still John Carpenter's Vampires. So yeah, I guess the most plausible reason is that it's just not a "John Carpenter type film".
I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.

Re: Does anyone know why…..

it's because he thinks this light comedy film is beneath him, and he's right. this film truly sucked.
Top