Dan Rudolph
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,042
The Truman Show didn't even have a title, IIRC.
I can't believe what I'm reading!Nor can I. I wholly agree with you, Jeff. It's sad to have to read that so many people dismiss credit sequences as unnecessary. To me they are some of the most important parts of the film. I see a lot of movies that come out in theaters and even if I don't like them (Cradle 2 the Grave), I still recall their interesting credit sequences. These things are an art, people. Look at Panic Room, the credit sequence there is just beautiful. And I can make countless similar examples.
P.S.: Someone stated earlier in the thread that Gladiator had no title, which is wrong. The opening of that film is actually quite impressive and Ridley talks about it in his commentary.
Titles are crucial! It's a shame that people don't see the value in them. You can accomplish a lot in a title sequence - there's a lot going on if you sit back and watch.well, i think there is, or at least can be, a pretty big difference between being "crucial" and being "fun to watch", or "interesting".
it seems to me that to whatever extent a credit sequence might actually be crucial to the movie - i.e. to the narrative - it's got nothing to do with the actual credits, but rather to the images that go with the credits.
i mean, how could it possibly be crucial to a(ny) movie that the viewer know the identity of, say, the executive poducer?
however, if what you're saying is that (good) credit sequences are crucial to, the pacing of a movie, for instance, or to the development of an initial emotional engagement with the audience, then that's an entirely personal matter - as i said before, for me, credit sequences (i.e. the display of the actual credits themselves) invariably detract from the experience of a movie.
for me.
Once the logo appears on screen, the film then goes right into the story, and all the usual main title credits are saved until the end of the film.What about "Walt Disney Pictures Presents" and "A Pixar Animation Studios Film"? THEN the title. To me that's still a sequence, albeit short.
John, I do think what he meant is of course not the content of the credits (the names, etc.), but how they're done, what they convey, what music plays, etc. etc.right. and that's my point - what you like about the credits isn't actually the credits.
as for the rest of title sequences, if they're not actually furthering the plot of the movie (and thus actually part of the movie itself), then they're as distracting to me as if a movie were to open with a music video or something.
the opening credits for se7en are a perfect example of this: a radically innovative title sequence that is fun to watch in and of itself, but which really adds nothing of substance to the movie (if the credits were ommitted, my understanding and appreciation of the movie would be totally unaffected).
basically, when i watch a movie, i'm interested in the movie, not the credits.