You probably have an afternoon or two free in the coming days. Maybe a houseful of guests in need of an entertainment. Go to the movies!

Apparently this is a message mostly for older audiences, because according to the movie exhibition trade association Cinema United, this past year, moviegoing by Gen Z grew by 25% — the highest increase of any demographic. And that’s from the first generation to come of age during the great disruption caused by streaming. Turns out, people want what they’ve always wanted: A reason to leave the house for a couple of hours and be entertained.

Speaking of which, there was an exchange on social media recently that caught my eye:

I never want to wait for a post-credit scene again for the rest of my life. If you want me to think it's part of the movie, put it in the movie.

If you thought it was an important part of the narrative, put it in the movie, with the rest of the narrative.

Agreed!

We know why these post-credit scenes exist. I’m just saying, they mess with the rhythm of things. A movie should tell a complete story, even if it’s part of a franchise and studio executives want to tease to next installment.

Comedies used to occasionally break the fourth wall and show bloopers and outtakes during the end credits.

But the idea of a post-credit scene is doing something else, and I would argue it's taking away a function of the credits themselves.

The primary purpose is to credit the work of the cast and crew involved.

But more aesthetically, end credits also become a kind of punctuation — especially in a theater setting — that allows you to sit with a film’s final moment for a few beats, allowing you to gradually extricate yourself from that larger-than-life, almost hypnotic spell of a movie and prepare to re-enter the real world. 

Whereas a post-credit scene tramples that rhythm and that process entirely.

My first memory of a post-credit scene was watching “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” when Matthew Broderick wanders into the frame and makes direct eye-contact with the camera, aka you, the audience, who are apparently still sitting there in the theater for no good reason. “It’s over. Go home.” Then he waves his hand dismissively. “Go!”

The back-and-forth generated by that initial post I mentioned up top became even more interesting thanks to some of the replies; apparently there’s a population of people who ascribe a moral component to the decision to stay or not through the credits.

Here’s how one person put it:

I have no patience with the 99% of the people who refuse to sit through the part that tells you all the hard working people who sweat and bled to make that movie.

So, some thoughts.

Moviemaking is a job and I’ve no doubt most people work extraordinarily hard at that job. 

Blood may not be literally shed, but these jobs can come with actual risks. A big one that most audiences are unaware of is the issue of sleep deprivation due to long hours plus long commutes, coupled with short turnarounds from one day to the next. That can make the drive home after a day on set extremely perilous. 

Those dangers are spelled out in “Who Needs Sleep?,” the 2006 documentary from the late filmmaker and Oscar-winning cinematographer Haskell Wexler. It’s available for free on YouTube. I wrote about it for the Tribune a few years back when IATSE — the union to which most crew members belong — was considering an industry-wide strike if the studios didn’t agree to better working conditions.

But movie credits as we know them — the (fairly) modern version, which come after the film ends rather than before it begins, which was the norm prior to the 1960s — are not for audiences. Nor are they a cinematic hug to every unsung grip and gaffer on set.

Credits serve a professional function. In older films, the credits that run at the beginning are noticeably shorter than what’s standard today, and that’s because the work of fewer people were being acknowledged. That sounds obvious, but under the old system, crew were company employees of the studio, whereas today everyone who works on a movie is an independent contractor. Unions negotiate for on-screen credit with these realities in mind, because it’s a way to ensure there’s a record of that employment. 

Now, is it lovely — or even just polite — to sit through the credits? Sure.

But I’m willing to bet diehard credit-watchers aren’t interested in a similar list when dining out at a restaurant, or participating in any other activity (or utilizing a municipal service) in which countless unnamed, unacknowledged people are working behind the scenes to make the thing possible. I say this only to point out: It’s great that cast and crew are credited, but if you think it’s a moral good to watch credits all the way through, why don’t you feel that way about the labor of folks in other professions?

I’m also curious how many people who stay for the credits are reading every single name and retaining those names. Because if not, I’m not sure what’s to be gained.

But do what makes you happy. I’m assuming there are cast and crew who don’t care much either way, but there are probably others who appreciate the gesture.

But maybe buying tickets in the first place is the most meaningful act of all; in a moment when Hollywood’s theatrical output (and confidence in its ability to attract ticket buyers) is shrinking, audiences can show that releasing movies the old fashioned way is still a viable business.

Who — and what — we lost

To close things out, each year the Tribune’s culture writers look back on who and what we lost in the preceding 12 months.

I have three contributions. Here’s one:

A lack of coherent media branding

HBO’s streaming platform began as HBO Max, was changed to simply Max for reasons that defy good sense, and then was changed back again to HBO Max earlier this year as part of the ongoing death of coherent media company branding. Who wants to bet a bunch of consultants made bank somewhere in this process?

Joining the pack is Apple, which launched its streaming platform as Apple TV+ and then recently announced, with no fanfare, that the app would simply be known as Apple TV going forward. Sure. Whatever.

At least cable channel MSNBC had a reason to rebrand as MS NOW; that’s because parent company (and NBC owner) Comcast is spinning off its cable channels formerly under the NBCUniversal umbrella into a new company and needed to create a distinction between (the old) MSNBC and NBC News. So “NBC” needed to be stripped out of its identity.

No doubt, there will be more rebrands in the year to come. Like that old saw about the weather, if you don’t like it, just wait a few minutes.

You can read all of them here.

Thanks so much for reading and subscribing to this newsletter, I’m so appreciative. 2025 has been a rough one, so here’s hoping for more high points than low for each and every one of you in the coming year.