> > >
> > > Personally, I have no problem with movies offering a little something as enticement for people to watch the trailers and give the cast and crew a little recognition.
> > >
> >
> > If they truly cared about giving the cast and crew recognition they'd put the credits at the beginning of the film. To me the whole thing strikes me as coy and silly.
>
>
> Honestly, I really see no problem with the studio saying "we worked hard on this film... if you stay and let us take our bow, we'll throw a little something in there for you as thanks."
|
I do. When I go to a restaurant and order coffee at the end of my meal, I don't have to sit through a long presentation from the waiter where he tells me the name of the chef, the person who put together my salad, the grocer they bought the lettuce from, the brand of stove used to bake my potato, the company that installed the stove that baked my potato, and the songs the house band played during dinner. They just go off to get my coffee. Same situation, different consumable.
> It seems a much better solution than forcing everyone to wait through the credits for the movie to start, which may also hurt the pacing and the build up of the start of the film.
I agree. My point was if the studio
truly cared about giving those people recognition, that's what they would do.
>
>
> >
> > > The scene here, while much meatier than most post-credits bits, wouldn't have worked well within the flow of the movie itself.
> >
> > So show it at the end of the movie after a brief fade out. I paid to see the film: I shouldn't have to sit through the credits to get the full experience.
>
> In truth, the way this movie ends, the fade-out idea honestly wouldn't work... the two scenes would be horrible back to back.
>
|
So a five second lag between scenes wouldn't work, but a five minute one does? Yeah, I don't believe that.
