> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
>
> And they bill you extra for the coffee... it's not part of the meal. Occasionally, a restaurant will thank a customer for their patience and understanding by giving them a little something extra, like a free desert or drinks.
>
> You want the extra scene, the price is sitting through the credits (or waiting to see it online or on video.)
>
|
I shouldn't have to pay that price. I paid for a ticket. I'm entitled for the whole movie experience and some director or producer being cute shouldn't deny me that.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Well, that assumes that they can only care about either giving people credit or the desires of an impatient audience. If they truly care about both, then the only answer is some form of compromise.
>
|
Nope. I paid for a ticket, I'm giving them my time. I shouldn't have to slog through credits to see everything they felt was worth showing on the big screen.
>
> > > 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.
>
> You honestly can't conceive of two scenes that shouldn't be back to back, especially as the end point of a film? Five minutes later, the punch of the ending has had a chance to fade. As I've said from the beginning, the scene doesn't fit into the movie proper... It's the very definition of tacked on. Putting it at the end of the credits is harmless, while making it the last scene of the movie would have been artless.
|
Having seen the movie and read spoilers of what happens at the end, I can say it would have been quite easy for them to put them together so people wouldn't have to sit through the credits.
I would say the majority of the people in the theater left when I did, and I bet a lot of them didn't even know there was a bonus scene. So by being cute the creators cheated their customers out of seeing the entire product. That's wrong, and the "artists" should be called on it.
EDIT: Also, how can you say its not relevant to the movie? Is Stark in it? Yup. Is a previous plot point mentioned? Yup. Can it possibly set the stage for what will happen in the sequels? Or even set up an entire other movie franchsie? Double yup.
