questions...

aceofspades70

aceofspades70

was it customary in the 50's and 60's to "show as little as possible" about the monster in a film until it's release?

On IMDb, would it make sense to not list someone who plays a killer until the last minute? Or perhaps list them as a relating character (such as who they used to be) then change it to their main title? I don't see what difference it makes. If a person plays a character, why not just go ahead and list them as the actor who played the role, it doesn't show what the monster/killer looks like, just the person who plays it.

I'm just curious and thank you for any positive/relevant input.
 
It's often been good marketing not to show pictures of
the the monster, but not always.

From "Frankenstien", "The Wolfman" and "Dracula" in
the 1930's to "The Thing from Another World" to "Mr.
Sardonicus" the monster was often shown on the poster.

I really don't know about IMDb listings. Seem all monster
movies released since the introduction of IMDb in 1990
have listed the actors who played the monsters.
 
Thank you directorik, that does make sense to me. Others are saying they like the reveal at the last minute because it's a good "suspense builder". I can better understand now what is going on.
 
Some people like it one way - some like it the other way.

We filmmakers must do it our way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top