Movie 7pt1: a new take on "credits"

[johnkclark]

Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Beatrice23" <beatrice23 at ...> wrote:

> "While I agree that credits are "as long as a phone book and as interesting."  I do think that those involved deserve to be acknowledged, even if most viewers don't view/enjoy the credits".  

Just the other day I was reading something about the 1978 movie "Superman", at the time it was one of the most expensive movies ever made, the credit sequence alone cost almost as much as it took to make an average big screen movie in 1978. That was nuts then and its even crazier now when anyone can get the full credits in seconds on their cell phone if they were interested; almost nobody is.  

> "In my view, it isn't the credits that are really an issue to the "run time" of the film.  The run time of the film actually includes the 20-30 minutes of previews at the beginning of the film.  So if we are looking to make more room for more HP screen time, why not delete three to four of the tedious previews for films that nobody really wants to see."  

Although not as dull as credits I admit there are far too many movie trailers, but at least I can see an economic justification for them, but there are only 2 reason inflated credit sequences exist, ego and inertia. As the name implies at one time movie trailers came after the END of the feature, the closing credits just took a few seconds so most people would stick around to watch the movie trailers. The practice ended when credits grew cancerously to gargantuous proportions and the movie makers knew the trailers would be playing to empty houses, so they moved the "trailers" to run BEFORE the start of the movie.