what do you guys think about the 'a _______ ________ film' credit? also includes 'a ___________ picture' and all other variations. pretentious? deserving? discuss
I don't think it's that bad. They need to identify the director somehow. They usually say who's in the movie even though you can see them on the screen, you don't usually see the director on the screen, except when they do that "A Howie Mandell Film" thing.
The one that I don't really like is the "A Film by____________" as if no one else helped.
I know those are both pretty similar, but... you know
Totally deserving, IMO.
It's like saying something is "A _______________ CD".
It's who made it... Yeah, a lot of other people are a part of making it, but ultimately it falls in the lap of that person. Sink or float, I think it's deserving.
i dont think its pretentious at all.
PTA does the "A P.T. Anderson Picture" as do his idols Jonathan Demme and Martin Scorsese. I like that.
I'm not the biggest fan of title sequences. I think some can be cool, but I rather save the titles for the end and just get on w/ the movie. Plus, I like to see the director's name right at the end when it cuts to black. Like Magnolia, watching Claudia smile and then cut to "Written and Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson" is kind of chilling.
You know what I really don't like? Lars von Trier's opening credits thing.
Quote from: cbrad4d
I'm not the biggest fan of title sequences.
I like when a movie just starts. You are sitting in the theater, you see the corny CGI rollercoaster/THX ad for their theater and bam, the scene starts, no credits or nothing.
It depends on the movie with me... title sequences that is.
If it's an adventure or epic at all, I like the movie to start, get me sucked in, then go into a great title sequence.
I really liked PDL just starting like that, I've noticed no opening credits is becoming a trend again and that really works with some movies.
Quote from: RegularKarate
I really liked PDL just starting like that, I've noticed no opening credits is becoming a trend again and that really works with some movies.
i wonder if it was originally concieved that way. when i first saw the artwork, i thought, wow, cool way to start the movie and put the titles in. but then the opening titles never came up, which is cool, but one has to wonder if it had sometihng to do with adam sandler/emily watson getting the "name before title" credit, which would have forced all of the credits to be in the opening.
the opening title for 'trainspotting' comes to mind. it always seemed a little out of place. its much cooler when it pops up at the end. i wonder if the original european version has the title at the beginning as well.
Fuck opening title sequences to hell. No purpose put into a movie, should be at end. some title sequences have been good, Pulp Fiction the best and only one where I would keep it in. Catch Me If You Can had one so good i think it was competing with the quality of the film. But, in general, fuck opening title sequences.
But if it must be done, at least keep it to a minimum amount of time. Most Kubrick films were very good at it and Speilberg's Minority Report was very good, but when they start getting really in depth on crediting everyone, its not a good way to approach the movie and get me interested in watching it if I am being forced to daze off for 5 to 10 minutes.
~rougerum
The opening credit sequence for "Catch Me If You Can" was one of the best I've seen in a while. "Seven" is still one of the tops for me.
What was better then, the opening title sequence of Catch Me If You Can, or the movie itself?
I think when a title sequence is that good and creative and gets asked this question, then it is a bad sign because people are bringing back memories too much of something that shouldn't be really that important at all.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetFuck opening title sequences to hell.
~rougerum
:shock:
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetWhat was better then, the opening title sequence of Catch Me If You Can, or the movie itself?
Someone who would ask such a question didn't enjoy the movie. It's like being asked, "How'd you like the film." And you reply, "...Great credit sequence."
QuoteI think when a title sequence is that good and creative and gets asked this question, then it is a bad sign because people are bringing back memories too much of something that shouldn't be really that important at all.
You mean to tell me that you've never acknowledged a stand out part of a movie, whether cinematography, art direction, costumes, etc? Items that shouldn't draw your attention away from the story, but because something about them strikes you, you do? "Wow, what a cool shot," "nice piece of music," etc. Something that sticks in your mind long after. A title sequence is just another part of a film. Sure it's to credit the players, but when done artfully it should be acknowledged, just as any other "unimportant" aspect of a film. One can separate the different parts of a film and appreciate them individually, credit sequences are no different.
A credit sequence at the beginning of a film should set a tone (along with the score) to put you in the mood and frame of mind for what you are about to watch. Look up the master of credit sequences (Saul Bass) and watch it done the right way.
Quote from: LesterQuote from: RegularKarate
I really liked PDL just starting like that, I've noticed no opening credits is becoming a trend again and that really works with some movies.
i wonder if it was originally concieved that way.
From the script:
1.
LOGOPresentation cards with white, red, blue, blue-green backgrounds, then:
CUT TO:
2.
INT. WAREHOUSE - EARLY MORNINGCAMERA (STEADICAM) holds on a man in a suit, sitting behind a desk, on the phone: BARRY EGAN (Adam Sandler)
----------------------------------------------------
it all kind of goes on from there
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetFuck opening title sequences to hell.
Dude, you're smoking crack if you think that the "Fight Club" or "Se7en" title sequences didn't totally set up the movie - even moreso after you've seen it multiple times.
It can either be a throw-away, or an integral part of the film. I think it depends on the director and the subject matter.
yeah, imagine a cold opening of fight club---the first shot just being the gun in norton's mouth. it really wouldn't have the power that the opening sequence set up. the opening sequence of catch me if you can was more like a visual and auditory overture, in my opinion.
On the Minority Report DVD Spielberg talked about the title sequence for Seven.
I think the opening sequence for Mulholland Dr. is spectacular- esp. the dancing in the beginning. Its a cool track, have the soundtrack and listen to it lots.
Yeah, Title sequences can really set you up for the movie, get you in the right frame of mind.
The opening of Rocky, with just the title scrolling playing the theme, who didn't feel pumped?
And fucking Superman! Those rocketing, flaming words with the John Williams score?!!! When you watched that, you knew that movie was gonna be something big.
Titles are always necessary, but sometimes they really help the viewer get set.
Worst title sequence ever - The Sixth Sense.
OK OK, so the naming of some good movies with good title sequences off the top of my head wasn't justifiable for all the movies with good ones. I admit that, but I still dislike most. Doesn't mean I dislike them in general, but I think they need to serve a very good purpose to be included.
I also want to watch Fight Club again to see if I can come up with a new opinion when originally not liking the movie.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetOK OK, so the naming of some good movies with good title sequences off the top of my head wasn't justifiable for all the movies with good ones. I admit that, but I still dislike most. Doesn't mean I dislike them in general, but I think they need to serve a very good purpose to be included.
I also want to watch Fight Club again to see if I can come up with a new opinion when originally not liking the movie.
~rougerum
No offense, but I have a feeling that you are trying too hard to make these profound statements and critiques of movies. I like your posts but often I read your reviews of a movie and it seems your thoughts are muddled. Why not just watch it and let it wash over you? You can't really make yourself come up with a new opinion, can you? If you didn't like it the first time I wouldn't imagine your opinion would change that much, and if it does, something is wrong.
I don't know if it is me trying too hard to make an opinion or critique, but it very much could be. I think though my influence through movies has been not through just watching movies, but actually reading reviews and learning more to think like a critic and analyst than anything else. And being able to say my opinion through writing only makes it worse because when I write, I can give off the illusion I prolly sound smarter than I really am. When I am talking to someone, I;m not very good at professional speaking so I sound like myself. Maybe I pride myself too much in knowing movies or what I am interested, who knows.
I do think opinions can change, and very much so change after a few years or so has gone by in seeing a movie. It did so for Woody Allen in watching 2001: A Space Odyssey so much so that it went from being a "terrible film" to a film where he admitted that [Kubrick] was beyond what he even was as an artist. I think though that looking at a movie made some years ago actually does let you see it in a better perspective because you've seen all the other movies of the time and can better identify which ones holds up the best. For Fight Club, my opinion has changed. When i rewatched the film, I was very focused on how technical the film was and how focused it was on its subject. The movie "Go" is very much like this movie in its dark humor, but really done there for style only that brings nothing to the movie. For Fight Club, I thought it was bringing a lot to the movie because focused on all the main themes running through the movie so much so that it lifted the themes above the topic and made it to where it will prolly seem more revelant and refreshing as time goes on. Another movie of that same year that it is similiar to is American Pyscho, but I didn't like that movie at all. I thought it was a one idea bird that had no wings beyond a good 20 minutes and its voice overs of the characters went nowhere, where Fight Club was closely focused and always inventive to the very end. My main reasons for disliking the movie at the beginning was the bad taste it gave my mouth with its acceptance of violence, but with watching it again with new eyes, I think that review was looking at the subject matter more at a point where it didn't serve a good purpose, but it does. I'm not calling the movie a masterpiece now, because there are things at the end that seem to go a little too far in belief and I didn't think the revelation of Norton being Pitt's character really added that much weight to the storyline, but I do think it is a very good film now.
I think one difference between me and a lot of people here is that I am not serving this place as anything social at all. Its where I come to speak of movies only, I socialize in my own world. I like everyone here but I may have been one of the very few people here not to have half flirt with Budgie ever.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI don't know if it is me trying too hard to make an opinion or critique, but it very much could be. I think though my influence through movies has been not through just watching movies, but actually reading reviews and learning more to think like a critic and analyst than anything else. And being able to say my opinion through writing only makes it worse because when I write, I can give off the illusion I prolly sound smarter than I really am. When I am talking to someone, I;m not very good at professional speaking so I sound like myself. Maybe I pride myself too much in knowing movies or what I am interested, who knows.
I do think opinions can change, and very much so change after a few years or so has gone by in seeing a movie. It did so for Woody Allen in watching 2001: A Space Odyssey so much so that it went from being a "terrible film" to a film where he admitted that [Kubrick] was beyond what he even was as an artist. I think though that looking at a movie made some years ago actually does let you see it in a better perspective because you've seen all the other movies of the time and can better identify which ones holds up the best. For Fight Club, my opinion has changed. When i rewatched the film, I was very focused on how technical the film was and how focused it was on its subject. The movie "Go" is very much like this movie in its dark humor, but really done there for style only that brings nothing to the movie. For Fight Club, I thought it was bringing a lot to the movie because focused on all the main themes running through the movie so much so that it lifted the themes above the topic and made it to where it will prolly seem more revelant and refreshing as time goes on. Another movie of that same year that it is similiar to is American Pyscho, but I didn't like that movie at all. I thought it was a one idea bird that had no wings beyond a good 20 minutes and its voice overs of the characters went nowhere, where Fight Club was closely focused and always inventive to the very end. My main reasons for disliking the movie at the beginning was the bad taste it gave my mouth with its acceptance of violence, but with watching it again with new eyes, I think that review was looking at the subject matter more at a point where it didn't serve a good purpose, but it does. I'm not calling the movie a masterpiece now, because there are things at the end that seem to go a little too far in belief and I didn't think the revelation of Norton being Pitt's character really added that much weight to the storyline, but I do think it is a very good film now.
I think one difference between me and a lot of people here is that I am not serving this place as anything social at all. Its where I come to speak of movies only, I socialize in my own world. I like everyone here but I may have been one of the very few people here not to have half flirt with Budgie ever.
~rougerum
rock on, I think you're right.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI like everyone here but I may have been one of the very few people here not to have half flirt with Budgie ever.
For that sladerous remark, especially in the abscense of her highness, you shall be reprimanded with a sudden, nerve-pinching slap on the wrist, nay, you shall be executed.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI like everyone here but I may have been one of the very few people here not to have half flirt with Budgie ever.
~rougerum
Now that I'm in England I have a better chance of flirting w/ her IRL.
Quote from: cbrad4dLike Magnolia, watching Claudia smile and then cut to "Written and Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson" is kind of chilling.
its not kind of chilling, its VERY chilling. i love it! damn MAGNOLIA is a great film!!!!
*rudie*
Quote from: MacGuffinThe opening credit sequence for "Catch Me If You Can" was one of the best I've seen in a while. "Seven" is still one of the tops for me.
the opening sequence for BAND OF OUSTIDERS was pretty fuckin' great!
Speaking of title sequences...
Is it against guild rules to now put multiple credits on screen at once at the beginning of a film. On old black and white films the credits are over in like 30 seconds. One title card has like 20 names on it. Now, the executive line producer's name is on screen by itself for like half an hour. My suspisions were aroused when I saw "Far From Heaven". I know Todd Haynes was trying to recreate an old film feel and the fact that each credit went individually sticked out like a sore thumb.
And about the original topic. I think the ______ ______ film is fine. Especially if the director is a real autuer. "A David Lynch Film" makes sense, "A Michael Bay Film" does not.
I'm pretty sure it's not against the rules to list multiple names. Case in point: every Woody Allen movie.
I think it's deserving personally. I think it's really cool, I may or may not do it when I become a filmmaker. I think it sounds so stupid with my name...
An Eric Beaman Picture
An Eric Beaman Film
An Eric Beaman Production
It sounds so terrible. Anyways, the one thing that pisses me off concerning pretentious titling is the shit that Wes Craven does. The Wes Craven presents stuff. I think that's pretentious personally. Whatever, I don't even like Wes Craven.
Quote from: ebeaman69
An Eric Beaman Picture
An Eric Beaman Film
An Eric Beaman Production
.
Just call yourself "Be A Man"
.
Maybe if you dont like being called Eric Semen, you shouldnt have mentioned it. Eric Semen.
.
both of you get out of my thread right now
thinking about this, when reading some of the posts i realized that PDL just started, very alarming, and two minutes into the picture i knew this was gonna be a movie so artsy, and so over the head of 90 percent of the people who viewed it, and that i was going to love it. that made a statement and almost served as a warning....the opening credit sequence was very powerful and meaningful in Punch Drunk Love, but maybe not so in a lot of movies
Quote from: moonshiner1620the opening credit sequence was very powerful and meaningful in Punch Drunk Love,
nonexistant, but sure
Quote from: sphinxboth of you get out of my thread right now
Cmon, something new.
I hated hated hated the title sequence for Spiderman. I also hate the one for Daredevil, which is a blatant rip off of Spiderman's lame 'spinning round the city' thing.
When you think about it, most movies integrate opening titles into the actual film pretty well. Actual title sequences, when done well (Fincher movies, obviously), can be extraordinary precursors to the story. Still, if my cast and crew waive that part of the contract, I don't think I'll ever use any on my movies.
I also think that whichever way the director wants to credit himself is fine...but he should really only do it once. M Night Shyamalan always gives himself a directing credit twice (once at the beginning, once at the end) and its regoddamndiculous.
P.S. I like Von Trier's titles, actually. Nice and distinctive and quick. I also loved the lengthy overture that opened Dancer In The Dark (similar to the one in 2001).
Quote from: moonshiner1620thinking about this, when reading some of the posts i realized that PDL just started, very alarming, and two minutes into the picture i knew this was gonna be a movie so artsy, and so over the head of 90 percent of the people who viewed it, and that i was going to love it. that made a statement and almost served as a warning....the opening credit sequence was very powerful and meaningful in Punch Drunk Love, but maybe not so in a lot of movies
Are you talking about the first color swipe? When Barry is backing out of the office, somebody says good morning to him and he finally answers Lance's question (where did this piano come from?) with his usual "I don't know." That was really fucking powerful. That was the point where I knew PTA had done it again. I knew I was going to love the movie.
Quote from: GhostboyI also think that whichever way the director wants to credit himself is fine...but he should really only do it once. M Night Shyamalan always gives himself a directing credit twice (once at the beginning, once at the end) and its regoddamndiculous.
Spike Lee does it too. He always recalls his his cast and crew with: The Players and The Filmmakers.
Hmmm. I guess I have a double standard! I think what bugged me about Shyamalan is that at the end of the opening credits, he puts Directed by M Night Shyamalan, and then the first thing you see when its over is An M Night Shyamaln Film. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with him getting two credits if he didn't bookend the movie that way.
Upon further thought, most directors will put their name twice in the opening credits...starting off with so-and-so presents a ________ film, and then at the end of the opening credits they'll have Directed By__________. Then, at the closing credits, it usually starts with the cast and Unit Production Manager, and I realize suddenly that I am thinking about this WAY too much and that I probably just have a problem with Shyamalan (I love his films, but I feel that he's a bit of an egotist).
Quote from: GhostboyHmmm. I guess I have a double standard! I think what bugged me about Shyamalan is that at the end of the opening credits, he puts Directed by M Night Shyamalan, and then the first thing you see when its over is An M Night Shyamaln Film. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with him getting two credits if he didn't bookend the movie that way.
Upon further thought, most directors will put their name twice in the opening credits...starting off with so-and-so presents a ________ film, and then at the end of the opening credits they'll have Directed By__________. Then, at the closing credits, it usually starts with the cast and Unit Production Manager, and I realize suddenly that I am thinking about this WAY too much and that I probably just have a problem with Shyamalan (I love his films, but I feel that he's a bit of an egotist).
I think you're right. That M. Night Shymalan at the beginning and the end pissed me off too- Directed by M. Night Shymalan- okay we heard you the first time asshole, it's bad enough we have to watch your ass in one of the worst director cameo appearances in history. I remember bitching about it at the old message board when Signs first came out.
The Coen Bros. are more modest, and bless them for that. They edit under a pseudonym.
Quote from: cbrad4d...Directed by M. Night Shymalan- okay we heard you the first time asshole, it's bad enough we have to watch your ass in one of the worst director cameo appearances in history...
I cracked up when that happened too. Did anyone else think a young Indian guy seemed out of place in cornbread-fed, rural Americana?
I like the opening titles to The Royal Tenenbaums. Starts out with somebody checking out a copy of the book, then we see the background is a bunch of copies pushed together.
They do the company credits, move in closer, and then there's the title of the movie. Then it starts with the Prologue. Of course, a little later in, we do see the main actors names, along with each character.
I like that. It's a real creative presentation, and this isn't the type of movie that needs a long credit sequence period.
There isn't even a "A Wes Anderson Film" type credit there, so I imagine he doesn't much care for that.
Quote from: MacGuffin"Seven" is still one of the tops for me.
eeesh. i might have said that one was cool if it wasn't for adding that little "YOU GOT ME CLOSER TO GOD!!111" sound-bite at the end. that just ruined it.
i love credits that are done artistically, or just flat-out cool. and yes, saul bass was the shit. i especially loved his work in
goodfellas, how the ending credits were in synch with the music.
boogie nights did that a little bit too, but not as well as
goodfellas.
speaking of scorcese,
casino had a great opening sequence.
kubrick ending credits were usually pretty cool.
2001 probably had his best. maybe
clockwork.
no,
2001.
wait, i have a question for you guys...
what's better for ending credits?
scrolling, cards, or the hybrid [primary cast & crew on cards, then the rest scrolling]?
I like the hybrid stuff. I just like seeing the director's name right away after a film cuts to black or whatever it does. Both Boogie nights and Magnolia have great cuts to credits, esp. Magnolia.