28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Sycophant]

Obviously heavily-produced, heavily-designed graphic title sequences have been with us for quite a long time. But there has certainly been an upsurge of post-film credits sequences with flashy visuals in the last decade or so.

For example, Pacific Rim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oYcfPAjSzE

Or this one from the Seth Rogen The Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQp3rRdPGOc

Or from the genre I most associate with this, Motherfucking Marvel Movies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui0AHvSzkH8

They often seem to showcase 3D models from effects sequences. Or, in the case of The Interview, a playful engagement with some feature of the movie's world or thematic concerns--here being North Korean propoganda--mixed with some things that are slightly relevant to particular scenes in the movie maybe.

[Sycophant]

I would assume as a trend it essentially started with the boom of the big superhero cinematic universe craze. And I would think it has something to do with the fact that audiences are pretty much expected to sit through the credits in such movies in order to get a tease for the next one, so all of those effects give them something interesting to admire in the meantime.

Yeah, this makes a lot of sense as to why it's become a thing. Studios at least giving the people a flashy light show to look at instead of just a boring text crawl.

[Sycophant]

You know how every Hollywood blockbuster has super-expensive-looking special effects credits now? With all the dramatic panning and rotating around 3-D rendered names against a backdrop of thematically relevant images. When did this become basically mandatory? They baffle me.

I just noticed that in my original post here I didn't specify end credits. I'm specifically talking end credits. No wonder some of you think I'm being terribly stupid.

[Irish]

I just noticed that in my original post here I didn't specify end credits. I'm specifically talking end credits. No wonder some of you think I'm being terribly stupid.

It seems like this is a variation on the cold open, which became popular sometime in the 80s, maybe? And then calcified in the 90s. You drop the audience directly into the movie and simply tack the title sequence to the end. Then roll the rest of the credits as normal.

Here's the opening to Mission: Impossible, 1996:



IIRC, the movie starts with a cold open and then jumps to this credit sequence (which was the same way the TV show began). Stylistically, it's comparable to the Iron Man sequence you posted.

[Irish]

Here's the opening of The Matrix, 1999. I remember this was striking and "controversial" because Warners and Village Roadshow allowed the Wachowskis to alter their logos, which was a big no-no in the 90s. (Today, it's commonplace and unexceptional).



It's a matter of increments. There's only a single title card announcing the name of the movie, with the rest of the credits are at the end of the film:



This may be the earliest example of what you're talking about, even though it lacks the hyper-animation of recent films.

PS: I don't think anyone thought you were stupid. I find this stuff interesting.

If you're interested in title sequences at all, check out http://www.artofthetitle.com/ and maybe https://typesetinthefuture.com/

[Irish]

PPS: Here's a bit from Wikipedia. I had forgotten that story about Lucas and the Director's Guild:

Many major American motion pictures have done away with opening credits, with many films, such as Van Helsing in 2004 and Batman Begins in 2005, not even displaying the film title until the closing credits begin. Similarly, Welles's Touch of Evil originally waited until the end to display the title as well as the credits; however, Universal Studios maintained rights to the film and did not implement this change until a 1998 re-release.

George Lucas is credited with popularizing this with his Star Wars films which display only the film's title at the start. His decision to omit opening credits in his films Star Wars (1977) and The Empire Strikes Back (1980) led him to resign from the Directors Guild of America after being fined $250,000 for not crediting the director during the opening title sequence. However, Hollywood had been releasing films without opening credits for many years before Lucas came along, most notably Citizen Kane, West Side Story, 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Godfather.

Nevertheless, "title-only" billing became an established form for summer blockbusters in 1989, with Ghostbusters II, Lethal Weapon 2 and The Abyss following the practice. Clint Eastwood has omitted opening credits (except for the title) in every film that he has directed since approximately 1982.

[Mysterious Dude]

I don't like it when movies don't even show the title in the beginning. How am I supposed to know the movie's started?!

[Ezee E]

Yeah, I remember Fincher saying they spent a lot of money to alter the WB logo (or whichever it was) for Fight Club. Now it seems like every single movie alters it in some form.

[Dukefrukem]

I don't like it when movies don't even show the title in the beginning. How am I supposed to know the movie's started?!

Thank Chris Nolan for starting that trend.

[Spinal]

I don't like it when movies don't even show the title in the beginning. How am I supposed to know the movie's started?!

Or, how about movies that seemingly skip the opening title only to surprise you by popping it in, like, 20 minutes into the movie?

[Watashi]

I remember Waterworld being the first movie that altered the studio logo.

[Dukefrukem]

I remember Waterworld being the first movie that altered the studio logo.

Burbs. 1989

[Skitch]

I like the way The Mummy did the opening logo.

I really like Panic Room's opening credits.

[Irish]

Waterworld used the logo as a segue into the actual film (conceptually, this is similar to the way Spielberg used Paramount's logo in Raiders). The logo and the animation around it are unchanged. (Universal's animation in 1995 versus Waterworld's opening.)

The Burbs used a retro version of the Universal logo from the early to mid-1960s (and also used the logo as an entry point into the film's world).

Both sequences eschew the standard Universal music, which is interesting but also par for the course back then, IIRC.

This is silly, but Universal's animation is by far my favorite (outside the old RKO radio tower). Love the music. Love when they hit the timpani half way through (bum! bum!).

[Dukefrukem]

I always loved Fox's intro as a kid because it felt Epic to me. IT also was the start of most of my favorite movies. Die Hard, Star Wars, ....

[Irish]

20th Century Fox is great -- that music makes you feel like you will see a goddamn show.

Most interesting to me: The concept behind that logo hasn't changed much at all since the early 1930s. The music is exactly the same too.

[Winston*]

[Stay Puft]

It's not a movie, but my favorite studio logo variation was always Futurama ending with 30th Century Fox Television.

[Sycophant]

Here's the opening of The Matrix, 1999. I remember this was striking and "controversial" because Warners and Village Roadshow allowed the Wachowskis to alter their logos, which was a big no-no in the 90s. (Today, it's commonplace and unexceptional).

This reminds me of one of my favorite things that ever happened in a theater. It was for I think the 3rd Matrix movie. Possibly 2nd. One person in our packed theater gave a short burst of clapping and cheering when the green Warner Bros. logo appeared, as if it was a Lucasfilm logo at a Star Wars film (which is ridiculous, too, but other people do it). The rest of the theater was silent, totally iced him. It was great.

It's a matter of increments. There's only a single title card announcing the name of the movie, with the rest of the credits are at the end of the film:



This may be the earliest example of what you're talking about, even though it lacks the hyper-animation of recent films.

PS: I don't think anyone thought you were stupid. I find this stuff interesting.

If you're interested in title sequences at all, check out http://www.artofthetitle.com/ and maybe https://typesetinthefuture.com/

Thanks for the link recs.

You may be right. I haven't been able to come up with a clearer precedent for the trend. This might be what really led into it.

[Sycophant]

While we're on the subject of studio logos, I find the lushly rendered, sweeping intros for contemporary Disney movies, which riff on the old white-on-blue logo, pretty gaudy and stupid looking. Boringly lame CG that feels eternally stuck in the early 2000s, no matter how much they theme it to the particular movie or segue from it into the film's diegesis, as is basically requisite these days.

Also, the logo for Roadside Attractions is always going to make me feel like I'm about to watch a shitty DTV movie my family picked up from Blockbuster in the mid-90s, no matter how many great movies it introduces.

[Skitch]

I don't want to derail the subject of studio logos (because I love it, seriously) but this doesn't deserve a thread. I would love to hear some thought on Terminus, on Netflix. I really enjoyed it. Very well utilized slim budget, expertly shot, terrific score, well acted, all around very well enjoyed. The Explorers meets Knowing meets A.I. Check it out.

[Irish]

pssst dude is there a new episode of movie freaks this week or what

[Skitch]

I edit saturday mornings. Usually out by noonish. Im workin on it.

[dreamdead]

Man, so much of the design of Once Upon a Time in America is fascinating, but the film--for me--struggles to find a consistent tonal approach to DeNiro's Noodles. Whenever he's with James Woods and the other characters, he operates as the moral center in a group of gangsters who are otherwise amoral; when he's with Elizabeth McGovern's Deborah, though, he's so repugnant (especially in the rape sequence) that it's difficult to reconcile (beyond male screenwriters) why she'd still ever harbor any sympathy for Noodles.

There are flickers of a path not followed with Noodles and Deborah, but so little of the film is engaged with her except as a contrast to Woods's Max. She lacks any real personality or agency herself, and Leone--again, for me--never figures out how to recover from Noodles's rape of Deborah. Nothing changes in Noodles' character in terms of sympathy or distance, and while I'm not expecting the film to morally wag a finger at Noodles's actions, Deborah's later indifference to the rape feels less like traumatized comatose way of dealing and rather like an everyday shrug of an encounter.

There's some good cinematic moments throughout in Leone's film (largely the nostalgia in the image from the poster), but this one feels laborious in many spots and lacks the secondary focus on the women that films like The Godfather do better.

[Yxklyx]

Just seen this. One of the most tangibly despairing films I've ever seen. Some terrible child acting notwithstanding, this is certainly something. I'm not quite sure what though yet.

No, but I saw his next film "The Passion of Darkly Noon" and it was alright. Nothing I'd recommend.