Comments on: Coolness: The Evolution Of Movie Credits

By: maryinfla

maryinfla — Tue, 19 May 2009 02:43:44 +0000

that's fantastic! more stuff like this, please!

By: AGF

AGF — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:07:31 +0000

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.”

By: John Acrob

John Acrob — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 12:02:33 +0000

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.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:44:40 +0000

“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.

By: MC

MC — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:37:23 +0000

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

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:16:28 +0000

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

By: filmbuff

filmbuff — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:44:14 +0000

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.

By: Mandy

Mandy — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:25:57 +0000

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.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:13:08 +0000

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.

By: StarvinMarvin

StarvinMarvin — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:37:27 +0000

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.