>

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 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.