MovieChat Forums > Klute (1971) Discussion > Why such short credits?

Why such short credits?


Don't they need to list the names of the gaffer and the best boy and all that like in other movies?

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

reply

[deleted]

So those people didn't get credited?

In this case I don't remember much in the way of credits at the beginning either, but maybe my memory is faulty.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

reply

Lengthy, all-inclusive end credits didn't start until "Star Wars". "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" has longer credits, but George Lucas, as I recall, was the first to credit technicians and others. Eventually, the rest of the filmmakers did the same.

I was working on a book for a very long time that would include complete credits, even stunt people. When I got on the Net, my pet project seemed to be unnecessary unless someone wanted to buy a book with lots of cross-references to cast members.

Universal was rather good at including most of the cast far back in the Thirties. The end credits were topped with "A good cast is worth repeating".

I do think it's George Lucas' influence, and I think it's a great one though I used to hate it when the projectionist stopped the credit crawl before it was over. I don't know if they do that anymore, as I haven't been in a theater for a very long time~at least 11 years. *sigh*



(W)hat are we without our dreams?
Making sure our fantasies
Do not overpower our realities. ~ RC

reply

Not a fan of long winded credit scenes, the shorter the better.

reply

The very brief, scrolling credits at the end are the only thing I don't like about the film. I would have preferred either a longer, slower end credits to give time for the film to sink in, or no credits and just the WB logo or whatever. But the quickly scrolling credits feel like a weird and jarring way to usher us out of the film, it's like, "that's all folks!"...

reply