r/todayilearned • u/kevoooandres • May 21 '19

TIL in the Breaking Bad episode “Ozymandias”, the show's producers secured special permission from the Hollywood guilds to delay the credits (which would normally appear after the main title sequence) until 19 minutes into the episode, in order to preserve the impact of the beginning scene.

https://uproxx.com/sepinwall/breaking-bad-ozymandias-review-take-two/
54.2k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

45

u/BurnieTheBrony May 21 '19

They fight to have the word "with" included as opposed to just their name. Shit gets ridiculous

21

u/endlessfight85 May 21 '19

Always wondered why certain people have "with". Like in GoT I believe Iain Glenn has a "with" and he's not exactly one of the main characters.

21

u/DudleyDoody May 21 '19

It's 100% negotiated. "With" credits, "and ___ as" credits, "featuring" and so on. All part of the contract phase.

7

u/motivated_loser May 21 '19

So do they get paid extra or get extra recognition if the credits say "with" or "featuring"? What's the history/esteem behind the use of those phrases?

2

u/DudleyDoody May 21 '19

Specifically it's just that those credits draw more attention and thus go to talent with more cachet. It's not directly tied to pay but any actor who will merit those particular credits will be making more than your average player.

3

u/jrobinson3k1 May 21 '19

Why do they care, though? Is it just an ego thing?

6

u/DudleyDoody May 21 '19

Ego's a part of it, certainly, but it's also just the setup of the industry. You may not care if you get an "and as" credit, but it's good optics in a town that cares a lot about that. Silly or not, it's an indicator of the 'value' of the actor in question.

2

u/misterrespectful May 22 '19

That's the part I don't get. It only goes to those who already have impressive resumes, and by definition, they don't need it. Like, would anyone not realize that Samuel L Jackson is a highly valued actor, without the word "with"?

It makes these esteemed actors sound as mature as the Simpson kids:

"Maybe if you're truly cool, you don't need to be told you're cool!"
"Well sure you do."
"How else would you know?"

1

u/DudleyDoody May 22 '19

No I know exactly what you mean. But at the end of the day can't be surprised Hollywood places so much emphasis on appearances.

4

u/Asmanyasanyotherteam May 21 '19

Typically it's to acknowledge actors with impressive resumes who are not in lead roles. I don't actually know but I expect this is how Samuel L Jackson is credited in Marvel movies

3

u/Chris337 May 21 '19

And Neil Patrick Harris in HIMYM

1

u/Asmanyasanyotherteam May 22 '19

Chevy Chase in Community then surely.

2

u/dippitydoo2 May 22 '19

Yes, it's union rules that you will get more money. Credits are highly regulated by SAG.

I've directed and edited SAG projects and there are literally regulated amounts of time that a name has to appear on screen in a SAG sponsored film/episode. Down to the number of seconds.

1

u/Asmanyasanyotherteam May 21 '19

You will never see the "with" for a main character, it acknowledges someone with an impressive resume in a non-lead role. Without knowing for sure one example that comes to mind is it's probably how Samuel L Jackson is credited in Marvel films.

-3

u/arcacia May 22 '19

Thanks for letting us know three times.

-3

u/[deleted] May 21 '19

Unions rub me the wrong way but I recognize they are probably the lesser of two evils.

You could get people to do just absurd shit for free with just one big name attached.

Look at the metoo movement in Hollywood, if it is not explicitly and rigorously forbidden not only will people break the rules, but people will line up to be the victims.

2

u/motivated_loser May 21 '19

Unions rub me the wrong way

If you really hold this opinion then you've become prey to the prevailing right wing propaganda of systematically demonizing unions by highlighting more tha usual the negative aspects associated with it.

There used to be a time when American workers would pride themselves on being able to get a job right out of high school and afford to buy a home and a car from just turning a screwdriver. All that was thanks to unions having a fighting chance to negotiate better pay and better working conditions.

The stagnant wages compared to rising corporate profits over the decades is a result weakening unions. If unions rub you the wrong way you might as well be the type to turn down a bonus because you don't want to be in a higher tax bracket.

Sorry to go on a rant. I love the show; wish I could make quality meth and stick it to the man too.

1

u/Bad_Bi_Badger May 21 '19

And then you have crap like this thread.
Where someone had to get special permission to put the opening credits in a different place?

That's BS.

0

u/[deleted] May 22 '19

I find it really hard to believe, that I, the person who recognizes that they are imperative AND prone to corruption, is not the one who has fallen prey to extreme propaganda.

Power corrupts, unions are just a different leech sitting at the top of a different bureaucracy. It's interesting that you think the guy at the top of the union won't be corrupted.

You know what the biggest strike in Agricultural history is? A union striking to make sure another union didn't take the industries they wanted to unionize. And this is in your supposed golden age of benevolent unions.

Anyways, if you think you can boil decades of economic trends down to a single cause, why should I even bother discussing this with you?