NateZilla10000 wrote:Well there you go. He implies in the interview that it was more of a decision of the studio (as it's more of a trend of the modern era to have flashy end titles than flashy main titles) and that he himself said he felt it was more fitting to not end on such a hard cut cliff hanger and have a small epilogue. I'm doubling down too: what's the loss? You still hear McCreary's rendition of the Ifukube theme throughout the entire movie, march and theme and all, and the blot out credits still exist; they're just at the end instead of the beginning. That's not a huge change at all and hardly "breaks a formula."
The two films before this have opening titles. It is a change, although it's importance is subjective. It's silly reasoning to get rid of something so simple and effective, in my opinion. Both previous films end on a high note without needing a repurposed credits sequence. A title track is nice with an actual title, but okay, let's agree to disagree here. I prefer opening credits and titles. It's what I grew up with. You don't care for them, evidently. Let's move on, because we're going in circles here over something relatively trivial.
NateZilla10000 wrote:That first sentence contradicts itself again. If the MonsterVerse hasn't, in your opinion, established a truly solid foundation as of yet, how can it break its own formula? It would need to have an established formula in order to break it. And again, the blot out credits are still there. Placing them at the end instead of the beginning isn't a dramatic change at all.
No, it really doesn't. I didn't think I needed to go completely in depth about this, but okay. One thing that strings "Godzilla" and "Kong: Skull Island" together, besides Monarch, giant monsters, and a few hints at the former from the latter, is the simplest thing: The opening title. As simple as it is, the two have that in common, and go for a similar presentation within that shared aspect. They present the Monarch logo, the time period, and the world in which the story takes place, effectively stringing them together. The two films are completely different though, tonally and aesthetically (no solid formula as stated). There are some strange contradictions within the canon between the two as well. With Godzilla: King of the Monsters, the general audience still doesn’t seem to see a connection between these films as a series like most would with, for example, the Avengers or MCU films (which accomplish this with returning characters, decently connected plots, title cards, familiar scores). This movie thrusts the contents upon the viewer before fully establishing the connection to the previous two. Sure, for a fan, it would be easy to see a connection in the beginning scene of San Francisco, and fans have followed this series. For a first time viewer of this series, or someone who needs a refresher (or having only seen Kong), no, it's not as apparent. So yes, it may seem small, but it goes a long way. Why do "main on ends" and a title card at the end when you should tell viewers what they're going to see? If I popped the Bluray in without telling anyone anything, all they'd know is that it's a Godzilla movie, not a sequel film. Some people thought it was a reboot, and even if that seems strange considering the San Francisco bit, the movie does nothing in the opening to say otherwise.
