To be completely honest, I don't always stay for the entire run of end credits, unlike I;m suggesting here. Call me a hypocrite if you must. It's one of the perks working in a movie theater to know when stingers are attached and when they're not. And even if I know there's post-credits scenes available, chances are good I saw them prior to watching the actual movie itself. Of course, it's not all about stingers, though they're the most attractive part of end credit sequences. The creativity invested in the end credits, though not mentioned in this column (it was running overly long, as usual) is also of note in this regard. I can't imagine many people leaving during the wonderfully designed, stunning credits of Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events. If a credit sequence looks that good, you obviously stay. Paying respect to those who got the film to where it is now, in theaters for my enjoyment or amazement, should not be ignored as a factor. If a film is good enough I stay; if it's bad, mediocre or passable it depends on my mood and the time at my disposal. Since I tend to go to the movies after work predominantly, and I do not work so close to home as I would like, I'm usually eager to fetch my train and get home. Another element prohibiting me from staying or leaving is the score or soundtrack that accompanies the credits. If it concerns a good, solid, orchestral score I'm usually entranced to keep listening, and therefore, watching, accordingly. If however the producing powers-that-be attached some awfully loud and unattractive (for me, that is) song, as part of their synergy driven promotional campaign, the decision to hurry home is all too quickly made (unless it's a good song, which is not often the case). Nevertheless, that hilarious scene and poignant quote from Return of the Killer Tomatoes always springs to mind when the end credits advance. I bet most mothers of directors (and other production departments too) wouldn't take kindly to people so easily ignoring all the names of people who worked hard to deliver them their dose of entertainment. Or the dirctors themselves for that matter.
Good going, Fox and Sony... As if the situation with the various Marvel properties isn't complicated enough for non-fans to grasp, you two just had to go and muddy the waters some more. This is bound to be getting people's hopes up needlessly. The X-Men and Spider-Man are never gonna team up in a movie. Period. Like Marvel big-shot producer Avi Arad said only last week, interstudio team-ups are a last resort for when the studios have run out of ideas with their franchises. And considering the amount of work currently being done to ensure smooth internal crossovering, there's simply no room yet for adding characters of other franchises to the mix for at least two decades or so. Fox is too busy making sense of the larger X-universe and looking for ways to also incorporate the Fantastic Four in there somehow, while Sony is reworking the Spider-Man legacy to explore ways of producing spin-off movies without the webhead himself, like Sinister Six and Venom. At this point, the whole notion of Spider-Man joining the X-Men in a mutually shared adventure just makes no sense, and putting a scene for an upcoming X-flick in the end credits of the latest Spider-flick ought to be considered false advertising. Better to introduce an exclusive clip from Days of Future Past in advance of screening the actual Spider-film, so lay people understand it's not connected at all, as it isn't. Sony's cause would be better served including a teaser for The Amazing Spider-Man 3 in their latest blockbuster, as the studio did in the case of its predecessor (even though in hindsight, judging from the second film that particular scene now raises more questions than it answers, which might point at Sony's long term strategy not being so clearly envisioned as the studio would have us believe). So far, indications seem the X-clip in question is not part of the Dutch release of The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Good thing too, since I don't feel like snapping all those clueless cinemagoers going in to see Spidey and coming out hoping for his showdown with them mutants out of their big Marvel dreams. That would be cruel, even though I'm not to blame for this poor marketing move on the studios' part.
Coherency seems better handled in the How to Train Your Dragon franchise, judging from the first few minutes of the new film which are now widely found online, two months prior to the film's actual release. A common strategy as we've seen of late, as other big budget movies took the same route in the hopes of convincing people to go and check out the rest of the film soon. This opening of the sequel bears more than a minor similarity to the start of the first film, which is of course the idea. It parallels the former status quo wherein dragons were a threat to the inhabitants of Berk to the new situation in which both parties have formed a mutually beneficial alliance. A symbiosis which of course comes under threat from the movie's new antagonist, who's out of the picture here just yet so as to not spoil what the movie is actually about, other than providing us with some more adventures of Hiccup and Toothless to get us interested. How to Train Your Dragon 2 seems a typical sequel to its original, which is not a bad thing at all as that was a fun, high spirited family film with a heartfelt message of looking past differences and promoting universal understanding of others. At least this movie won't claim random ties to computer animated films from rival companies where non exist.
Speaking of companies, Steve Jobs co-founded a notable one (bad segue, I know). Now he's dead and apparently Hollywood isn't done just yet telling the story of the man who created Apple. One biopic isn't enough, especially as jOBS apparently didn't do justice to the great man. Now Sony attempts to draw in the bigger names in order to produce a more prestigious film about Mr. Jobs. Danny Boyle is in the spotlight as director after David Fincher left the project, while Leonardo DiCaprio is sought to replace Christian Bale portraying the main character. Strong names all, but is there a real need for another Jobs film in so short a time span? Or is Hollywood still trying to cash in on the demise of the man? Granted, jOBS was a fairly low budget film and did bring in thrice its budget at the box office, but it still didn't draw huge crowds, despite the continuing popularity of Apple products. It seems those big shot names are more suited for enticing the audience to come see the film. In DiCaprio's case, if it worked on a sleazy fraud like Jordan Belfort, who's to say it won't do the same for a revolutionary inventor/entrepreneur like Steve? Guess DiCaprio needs to show off he can run a company in a responsible manner as well.
