The Hot Blog

I don't know if it's made stuff worse necessarily. I do like Apatow's tightening of 40YO Virgin with audience reaction, as it did, in my opinion, make for a more satisfying film than the unrated cut, which tends to ramble.

Then again, whenever I hear that endings have been reshot to please test audiences, even for (potential) shit like The Break-Up and Pulse, it somewhat bothers me that the filmmakers don't value their productions enough to tell the story as they originally intended.

On the other hand, it didn't take a test screening to up the ante on Snakes on a Plane...

Okay, so I didn't really touch on test reviews like you asked.

I really can't tell if it's had an impact on the moviemaking process. In this day and age, such feedback would probably find its way around, even if select sites didn't feature it so prominently. As for its impact, I really think it's hard for anyone to say whether it has made things better or worse, because I'm all out.

I, for one, am willing to hear any reasoning for one or the other.

"because I'm all out" is supposed to follow the last line. My bad.

Definitely worse... but I can't say more without getting myself in trouble. :)

I really don't know if the effect has been positive or negative, overall, to be honest.

I know that early reviews on "geek" sites saved me the trouble of spending full dough in theaters on movies like Pearl Harbor, Planet of the Apes, X Men 3, etc. They also built up awareness for smaller gems like Memento and The Blair Witch Project. BUT you could make a case that mainstream critics in publications have been doing that kind of thing for decades.

I will acknowledge that I think these sites and their influence have built up demand for "geek" franchise and films that cater to their tastes. I mean, look at the big franchises that the studios have poured billions into and have come to fruition, the past ten years - Spiderman, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, you name it. Am I giving sites like AICN sole credit for making it happen? No way, but they certainly helped.

And I cannot see big budget "geek" films like Sin City, Hellboy, and The Grudge being made, today, without the clamor from sites like AICN.

And at the same time, big budget dramas from studios have diminished a great deal. So I guess I would say that the influence from these sites has been pretty self-serving.

We don't run reviews of "test screenings" over at Film Threat...but I can't say there's much of a difference between reviewing a film festival film and a test screening. For instance, I saw HAPPY TEXAS at Sundance, loved it and reviewed it. When it got picked up, they changed all sorts of things and tacked on a new beginning. You, me and alot of lucky reviewers and critics get to go to festivals and see films that are rough cuts or ones that will get picked up and subsequently changed. Should we say nothing or review what we saw honestly?

Also- (And I'm not trying to stir shit Dave)
Is there a philosophical difference between reviewing a test screening and promoting/bad mouthing a project that's being filmed but you've had access to the crew, script or dailies? I'm talking about this site and V FOR VENDETTA and DREAMGIRLS.

In both cases people with access have seen something well before the rest of us and comment on it via their website. It all serves to help create a buzz as well as pinpoint specific issues with the film...but it seems like the same animal to me.

I think the sneak geek reviews probably help develop buzz for some films, but the effect is negligable to harmful on more serious films aimed at adults.

The reason of course, is that target audiences may not read at AICN and other geeky sites, but directors and producers do. So criticisms and any subsequent re-cuts may not prove beneficial or effective for the target audience, and may harm the films.

It's a conundrum. Buzz, pro or con, is generated by test screenings reported on by viewers. Yet it can harm as much as help. Making changes after the preview may be too late to help a flawed film, or may ruin a more nuanced one that should appeal to sophisticated audiences.

I agree that films have definitely gotten worse over the past decade but I do not lay blame solely at the foot of sites like AICN printing test screening reviews.

I think the reasons for film's decline (while TV quality has become much more diverse and increased) are more due to the people making the films than anything else. Pevere's column in the Star today is a good start.

Nevertheless, what I, someone who doesn't mind spoilers, gets out of test reviews is a feel for whether the film is worth looking forward to or not. For months I have known not to look forward to Superman and have pretty much had my views confirmed by the test reviews.

Like anything else though, the AICN era is a fad that will pass in time when the superhero/fantasy genre begins to get tired. I think it is in its final days (years) and has already peaked.

Now the climb down from the apex.

Petaluma -

Not sure what you are speaking of... went on a set visit for V for Vendetta, which was dissapointing aside from me going to some theater and enjoying London, and saw the movhe with no other contact or info... believe me, there was a lot less heat around what I thought of V than what I thought of Superman... did make a set visit to Dreamgirls, as did another 50 or so journos, but I saw the same material that hundreds saw in Cannes and I went to the same set event that hundred of other journos were at and responded to those events.

The difference between that and test screening reviews, in any case, is that those events are planned and intended for media. Test screenings are work product, just like any rough cut or the tons of material we never see or know about.

With due respect and no anger, I don't understand how an anonymous "review" from a test screening or even a limited media screening is the same as a public response to a press event.

Test screening reviews are a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself. The studio has chosen commerce over art when it subjects itself to scorecards.

The net result of this process is probably a poorer movie. But it doesn't happen that way because people talk about what they saw. It happens that way because the studios choose to listen.

Test screening reviews are the natural result of test screenings, which are the natural result of a choice to make money instead of making good film.

I'm not saying they're wrong to seek return on their investment. I do think it's a poor long-term strategy, though.

test screening reviews & the aftermath means the movie belongs to everyone before it's finished and it usually looks like it in the final product too.

and I meant to say this isn;t good (most movies seem to lack some coherent vision start to finish).

I think the jury is still out on this one. This phenom has led to good and bad films. Snakes on a Plane is exemplary of where this is headed and may usher in a new collaborative with test screeners/fanboys. While it's important to play to your base, it's certainly bad if they are doing so slavishly. I'd much prefer a film that was cohesive than one that reflected Zagat survey style what people democratically want.

"Sunlight is the ultimate disinfectant. And you HATE the sunlight."

David, how did you see the Cannes reel? You weren't in Cannes. In fact, how are you getting all of your DREAMGIRLS information?

Just curious. I'm sure you're being given it EXACTLY THE SAME WAY that every other journalist is being given it, and that there was nothing you did (like print your piece in an effort to be ahead of the Cannes crowd) that has ever made a studio go crazy. After all, you play by the rules... right?

Reviews of test screenings aren't the bad guy. Weak-willed producers and executives, who will cling to any rationale for approving bad scripts and pushing for watered-down movies, have always existed and will always find some way to cover their asses.

First off, seems some are confusing test screenings with test screening REVIEWS. Not to mention Dave asked about how it relates to the moviemaking process, not the audience's reaction to a film.

OT - test screenings:
Can be helpful if used intelligently, especially for aspects of a movie the filmmakers are already unsure about. The most obvious example of course is comedy. No comedy writer knows if a joke is going to work until it gets in front of the audience, especially if they had several ideas for the punchline.

To really understand this process, watch COMEDIAN as it takes Jerry Seinfeld something like 9 months to come up with just 20 minutes of material. But there non-comedy examples as well, the most famous probably is being FATAL ATTRACTION. Unfortunately, it's usually the studio that wants the testing and not the filmmakers.

As to the reviews of these screenings:
I'd say the jury is still out on it, good or bad. Which I guess probably confirms Dave's contention that AICN has done nothing for the process of filmmaking. No one is pointing to even a single movie that was helped by the fact the general public became aware of the results of a said film's screenings and it brought about changes for the better. Bad fan reaction certainly didn't stop Singer from casting Bosworth as Lois Lane or change the suit back (again, OT I know).

As Dave has observed, test screenings are pretty late in the game to make changes. To this day, there is really only one example of a film that was made from good to great in editing - ANNIE HALL (and if it needs repeating - no film will EVER be made from bad to great in the cutting room). Does anyone have an example of a film the director wanted to do re-shoots on that only happened after test screening reviews forced the studio to do so?

However, as a FILM-GOER, I think the reviews are very helpful in trying to determine if I want to spend the time, money and effort to catch a film in the theater versus waiting until I can spend $2 to rent it from Laser Blazer DVD (on Pico in wonderful West LA, visit often).

Because I think it's a counterbalance to the studio hype machine whose purpose is to steal your money when it comes to bad films. Because in my mind, that's what it boils down to when even the studio knows it has a turd like CATWOMAN on its hand - they need to commit FRAUD to get their investment back.

RoyBatty: Actually, I have always heard stories that both Tony Richardson's "Tom Jones" and (especially) Dennis Hopper's "Easy Rider" were somehow "saved" in the editing room.

Uh ... McWeeny is pitching a bitch fit because I suppose he feels like he has some integrity worth defending. Where the holy everliving fuck did that come from? Does anyone even need to bring up the myriad reasons AICN is a ridiculous self-parody, and that someone like McWeeny taking umbrage is nothing short of hilarious? Jesus Christ, someone get some fucking perspective.

High Noon and Rossen's All the King's Men were also 'saved' in editing, although they probably weren't doomed to begin with.

Nothing could save High Noon.

And yet, people love it.

People also love Flashdance.

Was Flashdance changed in post?

Here's another example: Andy Garcia was originally the romantic lead opposite Michelle Pfeiffer in Dangerous Minds, but was slowly whittled out until he wasn't in the movie at all.

Jimmy I just realized the actor who plays Phil Leotardo in The Sopranos is the "Get your shinebox!" guy in Goodfellas.

Damn, how could I miss that one?

I'd venture to say Kill Bill was as good as it was because of its editing. Of course it probably helped to have excellent dailies to work with. Still, they gave an interesting structure to a pretty simple story.

Billy Wilder put it best: "I got tired of having my movies rewritten, reshot and recut by 200 Valley teenagers who can't spell."

I second Filmbaker. Geez Louise, how that guy McWeeny can even show his e-face with any dignity is beyond me. You can fill a website with his transgressions. All you need to do is remember the time he chastised HULK downloaders out of one side of his big mouth, and crowed about downloading SPIRITED AWAY out of the outher side. He is and always will be 100% untrustworthy. Harry, at least, shows genuine joy. Drew is a careerist, and deeply bitter at that.

On topic, I don't think they have made much difference. The effect of geek sites has always been massively overrated. The people who make a film a big hit do not know Knowles, McWeeny or even our boy Poland from a hole in the ground. Mainstream America--the ticket buyers who seperate the HELLBOYs from the TITANICS--don't give half a golden fuck about the shade of blue in Superman's tights, which most of the geek sites convince themselves is make-it-or-break-it detail. Movies are crap lately for a lot of reasns, but internet sneak reviews are way way down at the bottom.

It reminds me that the pinnacle of AICN's influence was supposed to be the bad advance word they spread about Batman & Robin in 1997...a movie that still opened to a massive (at that time) $42m and would have flopped once the general public saw it anyway.

I wasn't aware of AICN until after Batman & Robin tanked, and US mag did a profile on Harry et al...I agree with Jeff that test screening reviews don't have a lot of say with the general public. Friends may ask me if I heard anything on Superman or Pirates, but my word of the buzz will barely factor into whether or not they'll see it - they've probably made up their minds long before, even if every test/pre screening review I talk about is a shitty one.
People, by and large, are swayed by clever trailers and most importantly, what their friends say...then again, I know a lot of people that didn't care for X3, but apparently their friends didn't listen!

re: saved by editing. "Star Wars" was most definitely saved by its editors. I've seen a earlier cut (well, a reproduced earlier cut, incorporating a variety of elements) and frankly it plays like the prequels -- too much exposition built into scenes, not to mention entire scrapped sequences that do nothing but slow the film down. It's quite impressive how elegant and graceful and efficient the final film is compared to the unwieldy bulk of the earlier cut... and I think Star Wars owes a lot to Marcia Lucas and Paul Hirsch (moreso, I think, than they're casually given).

I think the "geek love" factor has hurt and helped genre films. Obviously, geek directors tend to complete indulge in their material, out of sheer love. If the material warrants such indulgence (the original elements have enough depth, etc) then you end up with something like LOTR. If the source material is something shallower or simpler (not that there is anything wrong with that), you get KING KONG -- unwieldly because there's simply not that much there to support such detailed investigation. Geek love on the internet gives rise to such indulgences, and frankly one of my criticisms of fanboys in general (and I include myself in this category) is that we're too easy to accept crap, simply because we love the original material, or love the concept, or simply think it should be cool. Geeks love detail, but often lose sight of the forest because they're focused on how nicely the leaves are rendered.

Such blind acceptance -- and its opposite, blind hatred -- is the core of all geek sites, and unfortunately it's a formula for either easy deification or condemnation.

^^^^I agree with above. Mr. Poland said pretty plainly in the other thread...Drew can't even be bothered to deny the charges.

It's classic Sherlock Holmes. When someone is accused of a crime, their first reaction (if they didn't commit it) is to deny the allegations. Instead, Drew asks for proof, as in please tell me how you found my hand stuck in the cookie jar. Does not sound like an innocent man to me.

whoops...i think this belonged on the other thread.

Crow,

The actor's name is Frank Vincent. You gotta love him.

I read somewhere that the test screening for Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a complete disaster. Zemeckis had final cut. He told the studio he wasn't going to change a thing. He didn't. A smart move.

Test screenings seem to the one of the worst thing to happen in the industry. I think they can only be useful with comedies. The 40-Year-Old Virgin is a classic example. So is Meet the Parents. But I think there's a BIG difference between tightening the movie and re-cutting it. You can find examples to anything. Does that mean it's a good thing?

Fatal Attraction was a bad movie with or without the ending.

you know, this is just classic old school/new school bullshit.

the industry changed. there is no blame or fault to be had. there are those who have been credited for changing it, and those who are angry about the social relevance of those few attributed with the impact of it.

What does that mean? The internet film revolution is attributed to Aint it Cool news. Historically, they're the ones who will be remembered. harry, followed by drew. Everyone else now points fingers and screams THEYRE TO BLAME, the kind of torch weilding mobs youd see in a good Frankenstein flick.

Test Screenings changed the way movies are made. Posting the reviews of these test screenings had a significantly smaller impact. If you think differently, you've bought into the hype.

Aint it Cool bridged the gap between fan and film (along with some other sites who have kind of faded into the corporate web background). It's impact cannot be argued, but it can't be quantified either. That's what a phenomenon is. Something all encompassing, but determining the metrics is something history will do for us.

On the whole I think the test- or rough cut- screening review phenomenon hasn't hurt the industry or the filmmaking process. On the one hand a filmmaker, whether he or she wants it, has a concrete and justified reason for an opinion on a movie, and a smart filmmaker will put aside their ego and use this early opinion to their advantage. On the other hand, the problem is that there is the same small group of people who get their hands on a rough-cut screening (and are willing to post/publish a review), so what seems to be happening is that studios, producers and the whole lot are placing too much emphasis on what AICN and similar places thinks of their early product.

We all know that early drafts of a movie usually look like a disaster, but it's unlikely that the general public, upon hearing an opinion on an early form of a movie, will understand this. That's why I think that sites like AICN that choose to review scripts and early cuts of movies have a responsibility to make it clear what, exactly, it is that they are reviewing.

Test screenings and the web have made things better. Now studios can't hide a turkey and spin a bad movie. It's either good or it stinks. Now people really know what's up.

Obviously it's not good for the studios but for the general public? It's a good tool to use. The less stinkers we get, the better.

Studios can't hide a turkey? Then why do so many bad movies make such huge opening-week grosses? You're insane.

Hold on, folks... who is deluding themselves into thinking that test screening is a new phenomenon?

Corporations buying studios changed the subtext of these screenings, but they have been around for many decades.

Test screening reviews have been around for about a decade.

David is right. You want to know how long test screenings have been going on? Consider this: According to historical accounts on the DVD edition, when "All Quiet on the Western Front" (1930) was test screened, audiences laughed at serious scenes in which the hero's mom was played by Zasu Pitts (a popular comic actress of the time). The very next day after the preview, studio bosses had the scenes re-shot with another actress (Beryl Mercer) in the part.

Harold Lloyd was reportedly the first to preview his films--so he could fine-tune the laughs.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: