Somewhen around the 60’s, it seems that the “complete” set of credits gradually moved from the beginning of a movie to the end.
Does anybody know what prompted the switch? Is there anything beyond “People didn’t wanna sit through the credits before seeing the movie”?
I think you probably hit it on the head.
Because movie credits got longer and longer. Putting them at the end at least allowed moviegoers to exit as they pleased while the credits were rolling. Or, if you’re like me, to read through every last credit (what can I say, I find credits interesting).
Why did credit get longer? Better union contracts for the people in front of and behind the camera that guaranteed screen billing.
I would also guess that you need a shitload more people these days to make a major motion picture.
It might help with shaving a few minutes off the movie time. People start filing out of the movie while its technically still playing, and they can get a jump on cleaning before the next show starts. I think the OP is correct though.
The credits of Citizen Kane are at the end. Orson Welles introduces the players, since they were famous in radio but unknown to film. That’s 1941, credits at the end.
Perhaps an anomaly, but it does prove that the switch wasn’t abrupt.
Welles also “narrates” the credits of The Magnificent Ambersons at the end of the film.
It seems Welles was the innovator of end credits-just as he was many other things.
I kinda think Orson knew end-credits were the trend and wanted to have some fun. His end-credit over-dubbing is something I’ve not seen done besides. From IMDB:
…and from there I was inspired to pull out - not any Orson DVD’s - but Monty Python and the Holy Grail
It is also very possible that as the transition from Head titles to Tails titles got going, stars and so-called “Above The Line” personnel found a chance to negotiate for some extra attention. Typically now, the people whose names are listed on the One- Sheet are also given credits at the head of a film. Then, the entire production team is credited at the tail.
Such things are in fact finely detailed in the contracts of all players and personnel. When the movie "The Sting was made, Julia Phillips didn’t know to have her agent specify size AND thickness of the type font in the credits in the picture. Sure enough, there’s her husband’s credit in easy to read type, and then her name appears…wafer thin. It’s the HEIGHT specified in her contract of course, but since she never specified the thickness of the letters, her name is shall we say, barely there?
Negotiating and getting a credit “above the Title” is a big thing. So, although I doubt it read just like this, you might have seen the following:
** Robert Redford
Paul Newman
THE STING**
**THE STING**
Robert Redford
Paul Newman
Robert Shaw
.........and so on.
CartooniverseWasn’t The Sting also the movie that innovated double-billing of famously big-egoed co-stars? IIRC, Newman and Redford’s names appear on screen simultaneously, one above the other but further to the right, so that if you read top-down, one name comes first but if you read left-right, the other does.
Also, I remember reading that the Director’s Guild wanted to fine George Lucas for not listing any credits at the beginning of Star Wars.
Indeed yes, KtN. Lucas actually resigned from the DGA over the issue.
But to pick a nit, it wasn’t “not listing any credits at the beginning.” The agreements said there were two options: Give the studio and the title, and start the movie, and then at the end begin the credits with “directed by.” (Recently, Titanic does this.) Or put all the credits up front.
Star Wars, you will recall, begins with the studio, then says “Lucasfilm,” then goes to the title. That little “Lucasfilm” was the source of the dispute; it effectively cheats by putting Lucas’s credit all alone up front, and then pushes the rest to the end. If Lucas had been willing to dump the “Lucasfilm,” there would have been no problem.