Coolness: The Evolution Of Movie Credits

Didn't LOTR fans get to put their names on the credits? Isn't that cheating?

They were only on the DVD, and if they were actually represented here, that thing would be ten times as long.

Actually, the LotR fans were registered members of the official club, so that's why names were in there. It wasn't that they themselves "put" their own names in it.
Just a clarification. ;o)

Aren't we supoosed to be able to read them?

The image is showing how many people are involved in the movie making process nowadays compared to years ago.

If you want to read them go to their IMDB page :)

this is stupid. star wars had big f/x, hence tons of people to credit for it. same goes for lotr, and plus the fan list. whats the point of this again ??

Credit lists and movies themselves have both evolved. With effects-laden epics such as Lord of the Rings, there are more people involved in the movie making process nowadays. But credits before 1977 were often not an entirely accurate representation of the full crew (positions e.g. production assistant or standby painter were hardly ever mentioned, though these have existed since almost the beginning of Hollywood).

And if you think its a bad thing to have such lengthy credit lists, consider how each of these people feel to have their name recognized for their work. Verifiable credits are the equivalent to a resume in the film biz.

So if the long list of credits annoys you, you'll just walk out of the theater or turn off the DVD anyway. Just be grateful they don't put that long roll at the beginning of the movie.

I can appreciate this as a curiosity, in a "huh, look at that" way, but if the individual who put this together was trying to make any kind of coherent point, they're way off. As mentioned above, Return of the King included at least hundreds, probably thousands of names of members of the LOTR fan club. Additionally, since Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times, additional rules have been made about who needs to be credited in a film, whereas in the '30s it was much less stringent. If someone were to re-shoot Modern Times today, with the exact same crew, you'd be looking at way longer credits. Finally, it's pretty nonsensical to compare the credits of an 87 minute movie (Modern Times) and the 201 (or 251 extended edition) minute Return of the King.

So I guess while this is sort of interesting to look at, isn't it really pointless in the end, reinforcing what we already know without having to be told? It'd be like creating a photo montage of violent scenes in cinema history; it wouldn't tell us anything beyond the fact that movies have gotten more violent, which is sorta a no-brainer.

also things like stuntmen were not mentioned. i think 'rollerball' with james caan was the first film to ever list stuntmen in the credits, and that was in the 70's (somewhat recent when you talk about the history of film). also thought i'd add... putting fans in the credits is really weaksauce.

I find the idea very interesting but it does seem to be missing information when they don't show the opening credits/introductions to the movies (I apologize if I am not using the correct terminology). I don't know if it is true for these movies or not but back in the day the intros had most if not all of the credits. While most intros these days don't really have that many people listed.

But I did really like seeing the above comparisons.

I think the images include all the on-screen credits, opening or closing. I'm pretty sure that, like most films of the era, Modern Times and Casablanca at least didn't have any closing credits; everything was at the beginning.

An interesting comparison would be to look at Psycho compared to the 98 shot-for-shot remake. Both covered the same cast & crew positions in the opening sequence, but due to changes in who gets credit the remake has a long credit scroll at the end, while the original has no closing credits.

Completely off the mark: Until the late '60s, most people involved in making a film did not get on-screen credit. As the trade and craft unions gained more power, they were able to insist that their members receive credit for their work.

Casablanca, On the Waterfront, Gone with the Wind and many more films - not to mention Cleopatra - had huge casts and crews and would have rivaled the end credits of today's blockbusters - if they had end credits, which the did not. Remember 'The End' and fade to black at the end of films? /M

"Completely off the mark: Until the late '60s, most people involved in making a film did not get on-screen credit."

How is it off the mark? The comparison is what was shown in the credits. Period. Not how many people ACTUALLY worked on a film. Or how many people were NEEDED to work on a film because of the massive (pun intended) amounts of special effects. Just what was shown on screen.

Taken from the introduction to these images:

"This image is showing how many people are involved in the movie making process nowadays compared to years ago."

I kind of thought this would be an article on how the format of credits have changed as cinema has evolved... Not just a few goddam pictures.

Lame.