>

half and half
I feel like there could be spoilers in some credits. Also I’d rather not sit and watch the names of every single person that has had any sort of influence on the movie, which is why I (and a lot of other people) leave when the credits start. 
I also disagree with them being anticlimactic. I feel like the credits can be powerful after a really good movie. You just sit there and take in the move you’ve just seen >

“Starring Christopher Walken as “‘The Janitor who was Secretly the Killer All Along’” >

Credits in the older movies were just the actors, directors and the music producer. At least with the current style everyone gets credit. >

I find the beginning of movies where they just list names for five minutes so boring. At least when they are shown afterwards, I can decide “do I want to know who did what, or do I want to leave?” >

Older movie credits used to be about 10 people.  There is literally no way you formed this opinion without noticing that. >

That doesn't change my point. My opinion has nothing to do with how long the credits are. >

Yeah but it's sort of a fatal flaw in it.  Nobody, not even you, wants to sit through 5+ minutes of credits before the movie starts. >

If people are willing to sit through 20 minutes of trailers, I can imagine they'd be willing to sit through 5 minutes of credits.
Regardless, if people are sitting through credits at the end anyway (which is the norm now in most comedies or comic book movies), it comes out to the same amount of time in your seat. Personally, I'd prefer that time spent at the beginning. >

As someone who has been in the credits of several movies and plays a vital role in the creation of them - this is a terrible idea. >

I strongly disagree because of potential spoilers!
Imagine you know that a famous actor will be in the movie because you read the name in the beginning and he didn't show up yet... It may be a cameo, but it could spoil the twist of the movie. >

I like them at the end because I can just leave. I wouldn't want to sit through seeing everyone and their mom's name and then watching the movie. I wouldn't be able to enjoy it because I'd be annoyed. >

Credits at the beginning can ruin the surprise.  I like seeing people that I didn't know were in the movie pop up an hour in. >

One of the things I love most a out Prime Video is I can pull up the cast at any time during the movie/show. My husband tends to do a lot of "who's that?" and "what have we seen them in?". It's nice just to be able to pull it up mid video. >

Depends on the film. Some are better with, some are better without.
Eg. I rewatched "Come And See" (1985) the other day. I don't think the ending would work if credits rolled afterwards.
Then again, silent credits can also maintain the feeling of dread that a film bestows upon its audience. For example, "Beneath The Planet Of The Apes" (1970) does this very well.
And Star Wars is Star Wars. >

Marvel fan detected >

Star Wars is one of the few movies that had no credits at the beginning, and I believe that’s what got George Lucas kicked out of the directors guild. As a result, he couldn’t use directors who were in that guild for Return of the Jedi, which is why he settled on Richard Marquand. >

One of the best things about end credits is the music they play over them. Sure, an overture at the beginning with credits is nice, but the music at the end can really help you decompress after a good movie. >

Just watched Tar with Blanchett. They did this. Terrible movie, terrible idea. Pissed me off just out of principle. I understand I’m over doing it. I don’t care. I don’t want 5 minutes of credits before the movie >

I saw that too. What bothered me is they ended up putting the same credits at the end anyway. What was the point? >

Putting the credits at the beginning of Tar is a thematic choice, to point out that art is often achieved by a team of many specialized players, rather than one "genius artist" like Lydia Tar.