Changes due to the test screening (an opinion). by BlackoutNights

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Changes due to the test screening (an opinion).

POSTED BY: BLACKOUTNIGHTS
UPDATED: Saturday, January 29, 2005 14:24
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4401
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, January 28, 2005 6:58 AM

To me, any changes to the movie as a result of the test screening could make a good movie great, a great movie superb. Input's rarely a bad thing, and the producers thoughts sometimes make for a better movie.

I'll probably be in the minority on these, but here are a couple of changes that the producers of movies made that I like.

a)Army of Darkness. In the original ending, Sam Raimi had our leading hero Ash drink a potion and sleep too long, ending in an apocolyptic future. The producers made him change it, and Raimi wrote the S-Mart ending with the final battle with the demon witch woman and the classic line, "Hail to the king, baby." I prefer the S-Mart ending.

b)Bladerunner. Originally the movie didn't have the voice over. It was added in later. Most people seem to prefer the director's cut without the voice over, but I love the narrative and the insight from Harrison Ford's character. Particularly his reflections on why Rutger Hauer saved him at the end. You can't even buy the voice-over on DVD.

c)Firefly. Ok,I agree FOX's decision not to show the pilot as the first episode was irrational. But we got another episode, The Train Job, out of it. And, since that time has passed, I'll take 13 episodes instead of 12 on DVD anyday.

Serenity's going to be a good movie. Will it be accepted by mainstream America? Beats me. What's mainstream America? It took some 10-15 odd years for Star Trek to build up it's fan base. Based on the wad of people who attended the seminars at Dragon*Con, I'd say it's taken Firefly about 2-3 years. My only concern is that Universal may expect too much from the first film. I hope they set a reasonable goal for ticket sales. I plan to see the movie two or three times myself. Seeing our BDH's on the big screen's going to be incredible. It's a miracle we've even got one film coming. I think a lot of whether another will be made will also be based on DVD sales of Serenity.

Be Real—

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 7:31 AM

SIMONWHO

I suspect that any changes made to the film will be fairly minimal, maybe some changes regarding pacing perhaps or a few extra "scares" from the Reavers but otherwise this isn't going to be a re-run of the Exorcist: The Beginning.

Or it bloomin' well better not be.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 7:36 AM

MACBAKER

Usually, at this point (after shooting has finished), the only changes would be cuts suggested by some studio exec that has never made a movie of his own, or suggestions made by committee! Sometimes, changes include re-shoots, but that is rarely a good thing!

Neither idea appeals to me. Studio execs ruined the original Buffy movie, and Alien Resurrection (both scripts that Joss wrote). For once, they should leave Joss alone. He knows Firefly much better than they do. If they want a second opinion, bring in Tim Minear. Other than Joss, his is the only professional opinion I would trust.

Let's face it, blind screenings are a waste of time. If I went to one, and saw something like Legally Blonde, my comment card would be less than positive. I hate movies like that, but obviously there's a market for it.

Universal has a history of not knowing how to handle films. When George Lucas delivered American Graffiti, they did a test screening, and thought it was going to bomb! They even considered selling it to a network as a movie of the week. As it turned out, it was a box office hit, and because of it's low budget, was a big money maker for the studio. They hired Joss because he delivers. They should trust him, not focus groups!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 7:41 AM

KRAD

Quote:
Originally posted by BlackoutNights:
c)Firefly. Ok,I agree FOX's decision not to show the pilot as the first episode was irrational. But we got another episode, The Train Job, out of it. And, since that time has passed, I'll take 13 episodes instead of 12 on DVD anyday.

I'd rather have the show still be on the air, and I am fully convinced that, had the pilot been aired first instead of the deeply flawed and misleading "The Train Job," we wouldn't be talking about a September feature film, because we'd be in the midst of the show's third season right now.

And the voiceover on Blade Runner was just awful, IMO.

Keith R.A. DeCandido
keith@decandido.net
www.DeCandido.net | www.AlbeShiloh.com
www.livejournal.com/~kradical

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 8:21 AM

PURPLEBELLY

I just hope they don't cut out the horses.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 8:26 AM

SPIKEANDJEZEBEL

I know it's all subjective, but I much prefer the original Army of Darkness post-apocalyptic ending - it keeps much more in line with the tragic flaws of our hero, Ash. He's stupid and incompetant, yet somehow he manages to survive against the odds, although generally ending up in a worse situation than he's just escaped from! And I find the director's cut of Blade Runner to be far superior without the narration.

Still, having worked for a company that does the majority of the test screenings in Hollywood, I imagine the blind screening of Serenity has more to do with how to market the movie as opposed to any major changes to the edit. The studio will want to find out if it is worth the money to put in major advertising to females, for example, rather than just targeting the 14-30 year-old males that they usually gear sci-fi films towards. I wouldn't worry too much about changes.

"I like smackin' 'em!" - Jayne Cobb

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 8:33 AM

MELTINGMAN

I have seen the movie, i was at the first screening in Chatsworth. When the movie ended they went to a select few and asked if anyone wanted to stay after and be asked questions about the movie. I volunteered. I'm a big fan of the show and said i wasnt so they would take me. I knew they wanted people who were unfamiliar with the show. i really wanted to do this because there were a few things in the movie I was un-happy with.

i wont go into any specifics of course, but there were quite a few things i thought that if they changed the movie would be alot better. I was one of about 20 people and I was pretty out-spoken about how i felt. I'm hoping that Joss will make some changes. But this I can say, great action with alot of humnor. River is really cool and the story is good. You will get some cool answers you were looking for from the show, and somne you wont. I dont think this movie will gross more than $100 million...but I dont think it has too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 8:56 AM

FORRESTWOLF

Purplebelly, to your comment, I say "NEIGH!!!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 9:14 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

You know you're thinking too much about a movie when you literally have a dream that you're on the set of said movie. I had such a dream last night. OK, so it's not all that relevent to this particular thread, but what the heck. What made this dream so odd for me is that i've never particularly WANTED to be in a movie. Still don't. But I suppose the excitement and anticipation for getting to see our BDM is kinda gnawing at me. What can I say? It was a fun little dream, where I could just feel a sense of enthusiasm and pride at what was being made.

And no, there wasn't any peeking into Jewel's dressing room - dammit.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 9:23 AM

ZOID

KRAD:

Bingo! If you liked the voiced-over version of Bladerunner, it's only because you couldn't figure it out on your own. I thought it was perfectly lucid without the 'I'm explaining the movie for you, because you're not smart enough to understand this' treatment. It wasn't necessary unless you're a F*x exec, wondering when you could dispense with all this 'art' stuff and get some serious power-lunching done.

Like I said, Ridley was so pissed he almost had it turned into an 'Alan Smithee' film.

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me." The Ballad of Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 10:31 AM

SIMONWHO

Right, now that I've asked for a ticket to the London preview of Serenity, I have decided to clarify my remarks on test audiences.

If you interpreted my earlier post as saying that test audiences are a bunch of monkeys swept in off the street, I'm sorry, the question confused me. My new answer is No, test audiences are not a bunch of monkeys swept in off the street. They are discerning members of the public who may well be able to suggest bold new directions for the plot.

I hope for Joss's sake that he's already put a jive-talking horse in the film already. Otherwise it could be reshoot time..

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 3:35 PM

ARAMINA

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
My new answer is No, test audiences are not a bunch of monkeys swept in off the street.

Darn, maybe f*x is made up of monkeys instead. I'm sure a monkey features somewhere in their decision-making process.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2005 12:29 AM

BLACKOUTNIGHTS

Zoid, you are so off-base with your comment. I prefer the narrative Bladerunner not to "explain" the movie, but because it renders the view of a private investigator similar to some of the old Humphrey Bogart movies. Instead of justifying why someone differs from your opinion, maybe you should stick to "explaining" why you prefer the other "artsy" flick.

"You can fuck my body baby, but please don't fuck my mind."—Greg Dulli

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2005 5:11 AM

BIKISDAD

Quote:
Originally posted by Aramina:
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
My new answer is No, test audiences are not a bunch of monkeys swept in off the street.

Darn, maybe f*x is made up of monkeys instead. I'm sure a monkey features somewhere in their decision-making process.

This reply is demeaning to monkeys, in general. I've known some monkeys (used to work at an animal shelter) and none of them were as dumb as a F*x executive.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2005 5:49 AM

PURPLEBELLY

If we can't have horses, a unicorn would be nice

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2005 7:06 AM

ZOID

So, I reread my post to find the ‘off-base’ part(s). But I couldn't locate anything insulting except to the studio (WB) that perpetrated the 'voiceover' treatment. So, I'll not retract my sentiments. If you took it as a knock on you for preferring the 'Humphrey Bogart-esque' explanative version, then I apologize to you for perhaps being too general in aiming my derision at the studio. Sorry some got spilt on you…

As to the version I prefer -- in which the viewer is left to form their own conclusions about the significance (or non-significance) of the events in the movie -- I don't see it as 'artsy', I see it as an artful example of what sci-fi and action flicks could be, if studio bean-counters would only trust their creative artists in the first place, and then trust their customers to be able to decipher the vagaries of 'meaning'. On the other hand, I often think how much better "Alien" or "Gladiator" would have been with a voiceover to explain the intricacies of those R. Scott stories.

In closing, in my estimation, "Bladerunner" was an excellent film, damned near ruined by meddlesome front-office suits. Luckily for us, I suppose, there are two versions to choose from. One version was formulated to maximize its earning potential by artificially inserting instructions for comprehending the director's vision (and that's the factual case); or there is the other version, which is the director's work of art, without the false artifice, as Scott originally intended it. Folks can make their own choice, based on their own sensibilities (although it is interesting to note you can't purchase the voiced-over version anymore, n'est-ce pas?).

I, personally, insist on Art in my entertainments, whether it's film, television, literature or music. Anything else is just filler, trying to take up the space where my life would normally go.

Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
I generally don't go in for 'director's cuts', because they tend not to add anything to the experience. They're typically just longer versions, or versions with deleterious 'digital enhancements' ("Mr. Lucas? Call for you on line 23..."). But, the "Bladerunner" director's cut is the exception that proves the rule.

P.P.S.
Purplebelly: Would an origami unicorn do? Y'see, it means...
_________________________________________________

"Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me." The Ballad of Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2005 7:38 AM

PURPLEBELLY

OT: Just back from a nostalgic re-view of Blade Runner. To my shame, I'd forgotten the casting of Edward James Olmos as the folder - he's worn better than me

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2005 8:55 AM

ZOID

P'Belly wrote:

Quote:
OT: Just back from a nostalgic re-view of Blade Runner. To my shame, I'd forgotten the casting of Edward James Olmos as the folder - he's worn better than me.

Yer kiddin'! You forgot Gaff?! I'd have figured him to be your favorite character: Doesn't say much, and when he does, it's just trolling for introspection.

v/r,
-zed

P.S.
See? No scrolling... Even on your 640x480 13" CRT.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2005 12:32 PM

ARAMINA

I would like to offer a sincere apology to all monkeys and their friends.

Are there any friends of Hyenas in here? No? Good. Then there are hyenas involved in the Fox decision making process. Or perhaps rats. Not nice pet rats, evil sewer rats.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2005 12:46 PM

BIKISDAD

Thanks for your apology. I accept on behalf of monkeys everywhere. However, when gauging the intelligence of F*x executives, your comparisons are still too high on the evolutionary ladder. When I think F*x executive, I think "dung beetle". Maybe that's still giving them too much credit...

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2005 1:04 PM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
Usually, at this point (after shooting has finished), the only changes would be cuts suggested by some studio exec that has never made a movie of his own, or suggestions made by committee! Sometimes, changes include re-shoots, but that is rarely a good thing!

Not always, but you're right mostly.

There are occassions when they give the director more money to improve the film because either the tests go well, or they get a response that the audience would like more action at a point, and an action sequence was cut for budget. Or even, they may say they want to know more about a character and they can insert another scene or two.

LOTR got a number of inserts added to Fellowship (remember, at this point the studio had a $200 million investment that could have buried them) to put things in that they didn't think they could afford to spend time on at first.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2005 1:11 PM

ARAMINA

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
Thanks for your apology. I accept on behalf of monkeys everywhere. However, when gauging the intelligence of F*x executives, your comparisons are still too high on the evolutionary ladder. When I think F*x executive, I think "dung beetle". Maybe that's still giving them too much credit...

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

See dung beetles are actually quite clever. But then they are persistent and that could be a similarity with Fox. It's so hard. How smart are amoebas?

BTW, I'm glad someone else noticed that newspaper headline in Buffy :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2005 2:15 PM

BIKISDAD

Hmmm... You have a good point about dung beetles still being more clever than F*x executives. I was thinking maybe we could compare F*x executives to rocks which, as inanimate objects, have no intelligence at all. However, I realized that, since F*x executives bad decisions far outnumber the good ones, that they must have negative IQs (yes, I do know that that's not how IQ is measured, but hey, funny) - so even rocks, with no intelligence whatsoever, are smarter.

That's a Jane Espenson line, from the paper - one of my favorites. Glad you noticed it, too.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2005 2:24 PM

ARAMINA

Well I've decided that there aren't really that many things out there that aren't smarter than Fox executives... maybe they let the interns make the decisions?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE