Broadway Legend Joined: 6/30/05
It was announced today (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/12438) that reshoots of Spike Jonze's WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE...which wrapped filming apparently TWO years ago(!!!!)...will commence this Friday. They're not going into much detail, but there are casting calls up.
That, coupled with the fact that the test screenings did not go well (http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/13720/1/WHERE-THE-WILD-THINGS-ARE-BEING-COMPLETELY-RESHOT/Page1.html), does not bode well because I really really really wanted to see this film and Spike's take on it sounded really interesting and dark and unique. I do not wish for them to do to this what they did to the CAT IN THE HAT movie...taking a relatively dark book for kids and making it gratingly awful.
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/30/05
Test audiences are not koo.
Why is it the audience's fault when an ill-conceived film of a book that should never be made into a full length film fails?
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/30/05
Basically, the test audience process is the studio's way of forcing you to make "their cut" of the film.
They determine the commercial potential of your film by getting audience members who are very clearly NOT the audience for your movie. They usually recruit at malls and multiplex theater chains. People always go because they want to see a free movie. After watching the film, you fill out a sheet: Five things you liked, five things you didn't like, which characters you identified with, etc. If it's a comedy, what did you laugh at the most? What did you want to see more of?
Test audiences have been responsible for changing downer endings to films, even when they fit perfectly. E.T., for example, would have died if the test audience did not have their say. Frank Oz's LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS remake once ended with the stage ending: Everyone dying and the plants taking over the world in a sequence that cost $5 million to film.
So, overall, it's not usually a pleasant thing to have to go through.
If you haven't seen it cruel, you really shouldn't opine. I didn't see it either, but based on the 20 or so minutes of it that was leaked online, it was in need of help.
The acting was oddly stilted and the tone was erratic. Worst of all, it was completley unengaging.
I love Spike Jonze, but he seemed confused about what he was making.
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/30/05
That wasn't twenty minutes. That was just test animation footage according to Spike Jonze. The kid playing Max in that clip was just some kid they asked to do it for a weekend or so and isn't in the actual film.
I saw that clip too. That was in addition to the other 20 minutes that was leaked.
Cruel, you need to study film history.
MGM (the biggest and best Hollywood studio in the Golden Age of cinema) had the interdepartmental motto of "We don't MAKE movies here, we RE-MAKE them." (And no, they weren't referring to the endless parade of "remakes" of old movies back then. That disgusting trend didn't even occur to them.)
During the Thalberg era of the 1930s, they would test films, and based on audience reaction they would cut, re-shoot, re-write, change the ending, and even scrap entire films that didn't test well. It was ALL about the test audience's cumulative reaction. They weren't making movies for themselves. They were making them for the public to see and enjoy. And if they didn't enjoy it, they would FIX it.
Today, too many filmmakers just hurl crap at audiences and say take it or leave it. Nice attitude. Why don't you just show it to yourself, in that case?
By all accounts Where the Wild Things Are SUCKS. That's why they're trying to fix it. I'm glad they're actually doing it.
Today, studios "test" movies and most often don't make any changes from the feedback. They're missing the point. That was the ENTIRE purpose of a test screening, back in the day. Not just to show the film, but to (hopefully) improve it.
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/2/05
"E.T., for example, would have died"
That would NOT have sat well with me!
Where do you get your E.T. information? I have never heard this.
Test audiences, however, DID ruin many a movie: FATAL ATTRACTION and WHITE CASTLE come to mind.
White Castle was ruined way before the test audiences.
Is there anything more cliched than an artsy director wanting to find the 'dark' take on a children's story?
Bored already.
WHITE CASTLE was a great movie ruined by a horrible ending.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/03
Ick. Spike Jonze. Talented director of videos, grossly overrated director of over-clever nonsense feature films.
"Is there anything more cliched than an artsy director wanting to find the 'dark' take on a children's story?"
No, there isn't. Amen, JohnPopa.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/03
"Is there anything more cliched than an artsy director wanting to find the 'dark' take on a children's story?"
Only a British director wanting to find the dark take on an American musical, like Trevor Nunn's atrocious OKLAHOMA.
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/30/05
I must humbly yet respectfully disagree, b12b. More often than not, test audiences are usually the types of people that are completely wrong for the movie you try to make. They usually want the film to be as inoffensive as possible, which is bull**** because films should challenge people. Imagine if Bunuel had to deal with test audiences.
And while it is clear that filmmaking, more than any other artform, is a business, I am still a film believer and defender of it as an artform. I do believe in auteur theory and that the film is the overall vision of the director with the collective vision of every other crew and castmember woven throughout. I don't believe that test audiences should really come into the equation.
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/30/05
Plus, WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE is a dark book to begin with.
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/30/05
What if BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN ended with Jack being miraculously saved from death and he and Ennis live happily ever after?
"Imagine if Bunuel had to deal with test audiences."
Seriously, you are comparing Jonze to Bunuel? No, I mean, SERIOUSLY?
Test audiences aren't (or at least weren't) used to make everything "happy."
They were used to make everything "better." If you ever get the chance, watch "MGM: When the Lion Roars" with the actual people who were involved in the golden age of that movie studio. Listen to incredible talents like the legendary film editor Margaret Booth talk about test screenings and what they meant to the creative team. She said she couldn't wait for an advance screening, so they could decide how to make the picture better.
They actually wanted to improve their work as much as possible, not just chuck it out there and say "this is my art."
Margaret Booth's film resume
The question I have for this is the same question I had for "Polar Express", "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", "Jumanji", etc.:
WHY take a twenty page children's book that has little or no actual story and try to make it a feature length film?
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/30/05
WTWTA could probably hack it as a film, especially with Jonze directing.
Cruel, you finance the movie, and then you can have complete say and ignore test audience reactions.
Videos